On Monday, February 26, 2007 at 11:40:12 (-0500) ravi writes: >Michael Perelman wrote: >> You are out of line. You can disagree with a penner, but don't make >> it personal. >> > >In the spirit of open and friendly debate, I want to present a few >points that Bill might find interesting, if he chooses to indulge in it: > >a) In the sense in which Yoshie used it (at least as I read it) >"whiteness" is not a _skin condition_ but an attitude and a form of >identification (which can and should be altered, unlike one's skin). > >b) Racism is a form of discrimination (and admittedly also attitude) >which has real consequences for those who are at the receiving end. > >c) The advantages that white people enjoy and the racism they perpetuate >(if and when they do) is a result of their "whiteness" and (generally >speaking) nothing more than that. > >d) Such labelling as "whiteness" is no more racist than a claim that >gender activism/analysis that critiques the "patriarchy" is "reverse >misogyny[?]", or that the general use of the term "Brahmin" (to denote >an elite class) is reverse discrimination against Brahmins. > >To tie this into my earlier thoughts on Indian American "upwardly mobile >petit-borgeois" (as Hari has helpfully pointed out in response to my >earlier post), I will provide an example: the original Brahmins (and >their modern equivalents) now transplanted to the USA are, in my >criticism, often seeking exactly that identity: "whiteness".
Fine. And you agree that the statement "blackness makes people stupid and morally degenerate" is not the DUMBEST way in the world to communicate such a set of ideas to people? How in the world can the left hope to change anything with such a litter of language? What utter contempt this shows! Bill
