Regrettably, I just got time to read this commentary. I think your point deserves serious attention, although I'm not entirely certain you may give it more weight than it deserves. But my purpose in writing is not to argue the fine points, but to express my objection to your use of the racial epithet at the end. It was gratuitous, insulting, and demeans an otherwise valuable contribution. I would have liked to share your comments with some colleagues but would not do so as it would offend them and make me complicitous in the insult. I hope you will think about what it means to others when you are tempted to include patently offensive racial epithets in your political speech. Please accept this as both comradely and constructive criticism, offered because I otherwise have great respect for your contributions to the list.
In solidarity, Michael E.
At 12:38 AM 7/9/98 +0100, Jim heartfield wrote:
>N-words Ruined Again is the story of the New Deal, just as the white
>patriotism of the New Deal cohort of second generation immigrants is.
>Racial divisions should not be seen as a constant, but rather they are
>reinvented in each new generation, taking on different forms and
>characteristics. The New Deal is remembered by some as the moment when
>they were welcomed into the American polity, but for many others it is
>the point at which their exclusion was consolidated.
>--
>Jim heartfield
>
>