<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN"> <HTML> <HEAD> <META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type> <META content='"MSHTML 4.71.1712.3"' name=GENERATOR> </HEAD> <BODY> <DIV><BR>Matthew wrote:<BR>>At the same time, as one who has appreciated the<BR>insights of both charles and<BR>>snitgrrl in the past, I have to admit that the ratio<BR>of useful communication to<BR>>sarcastic remarks and posturing is very small in<BR>their recent exchange. you<BR>>have to really dig through a lot of unfortunate crap<BR>to get at the gems in this<BR>>one.  not either one at their best.  why is it so<BR>uncool to be nice or give<BR>>someone the benefit of the doubt on this list? mat<BR><BR>Like Charles, I'm not exactly sure that I've been terribly unfair.  I wonder how much of this has to do with everyone's assumptions about who Charles and I and Frances are.  A Black man and presumably two women, though I don't know what assumptions have been made about  race/ethnicity w/ regard to Frances & I. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>In any event, I obviously have a high level of tolerance for flammage, especially of the jabbing light hearted variety.  But I really engaged in very little of that.  I do believe that I was being quite nice.  I don't have the first post to Charles.  I know that I spoke indirectly saying that what he'd typed "sounded" like multiculturalism and identity politics.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff">Charles response was that surely I couldn't be a marxist if I thought this about his post.  A typical tactic on this List.  He also said that I must be a right winger if I thought he was dangerous.  </FONT></DIV> <DIV><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"></FONT> </DIV> <DIV> But here are parts of the second post to him, an attempt to clarify and concede his points.  Original in quotes, commentary added with asterisks:<BR><BR>"BTW, Charles, solidarity in mourning over Stokely<BR>Carmichael.  I used to love the passion in his<BR>writing."<BR><BR>**Now, tell me was this snitty, mean-spirited?<BR><BR>"By focusing solely on identity issues, it seems to me<BR>all a bit of cultural or identity politics.  While<BR>surely cultural./identity politics have their place at<BR>times, it is also quite clear that in academic<BR>settings any attempt to understand the structural<BR>sources of oppression and, yes, the evolution of Black<BR>culture.  <STRONG>I don't think you mean to do this, no.  </STRONG>But<BR>in the hands of some of my colleagues ...."<BR><BR>***As soon as Charles clarified things, I immediately<BR>spoke of the ways in which identity politics is taken<BR>up elsewhere, especially in academia where I think it<BR>is dangerous.  I did not speak of Charles' as having<BR>this view.  I did not speak of Charles as being dangerous.<BR><BR>"Exoticizing the Other--I'm thinking of bell hooks here<BR>(among others)<BR>As for the rest, really, see me as a right winger if<BR>you'd like.  It is surely very likely that whatever I<BR>am or say I am won't matter one wit.  In any event,<BR>thank you very much, but I do have a quite healthy,<BR>rich, lively understanding of Black Culture and<BR>History as that's what I studied as an undergrad.<BR>Why?  Because it spoke to me in a way that nothing<BR>else did.  I could relate to it, you see.  Oh, of<BR>course, I could know much much more and I try.  But,<BR>as I said in another post, I also want upper middle<BR>class whites to, as they say, unpack their knapsacks<BR>of privilege and see exactly how they inscribe and<BR>reinscribe their class/race privilege<BR>everydamnminuteoftheday."<BR><BR>***I don't know Matthew but I really don't see<BR>anything in there that was meanspirited, hurtful, or even<BR>snitty.  I got snitty when Charles immediately assumed<BR>I was a rightwinger because I thought identity<BR>politics was dangerous.  But I think I should get<BR>snitty when I'm immediately considered a right winger. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>In any event, I indicated pretty early on that I<BR>studied African American Culture and History, was<BR>familiar at least with bell hooks.  And what happens<BR>in the next post?  Mr. Brown is challenging my<BR>credentials.  Charles writes: </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"As a matter of fact,<BR>all of the Black women I know (and<BR>I have talked with a LOTTTA Black<BR>women about Black feminism) think<BR>it is important that I emphasize the<BR>Black liberation struggle if I am going<BR>to be a feminist. Do you know about<BR>this, or have you talked with a lot<BR>of Black women about feminism ?" </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>***Now forgive me Matthew, but I have a hard time understanding how it is that Charles feels it warranted to authorize his claims by appeals to either Angela Davis or to his conversations with Black women about feminism.  How does it resolve anything.  Suppose that I'm quite familiar w/ A Davis and I've spoken w/ plenty of Black women about feminism.  Why suppose even that I'm a Black woman.  Is it not perfectly reasonable to think that I might differ from Charles' in the way I understand Black Liberation Politics or the way I understand Davis' work and Black Feminist Thought.  BFT is extraordinarily varied, and indeed I don't even call it feminist, as I see it as sometimes hostile to white middle class feminism.  There is a great deal of debate about whether the moniker feminism is appropriate (see for ex, Pat Collins, Alice Walker).  There is also an extensive and bitter history between BFT and Black Liberation Politics, especially Black Power which Charles referred to early on.  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Charles went on to suggest, again, that I can't possibly be a marxist with "Charles: As if petit bourgeois scholars are better feminists than Marxists. Ha !"   And in response to my complaint that he was playing the game of I'm a marxist and you're not, he went on to say that:  </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Charles: The annointed ones in capitalist<BR>America are the anti-Marxists. If you<BR>are with the non-Marxists, you are with<BR>the annointed group,the power group.<BR>As for your characterization that I annoint<BR>people, this is inaccurate. It is typical of<BR>the liberal branch of the truly elite<BR>and powerful intellectual sector to try to<BR>make it seem that the tiny fraction of<BR>intellectuals who are Marxists , the<BR>main vicitms of McCarthyism and<BR>thought control in U.S. Big Brother<BR>, that these victimized Marxists<BR>are commanding and annointing <BR>elites. This is extremely twisted<BR>and the very opposite of the truth.<BR>The small size of the number of<BR>Marxists is horrible to me. Marxism<BR>demands huge majorities, masses<BR>to be viable. <BR><BR>Anyway the main point is contrary to<BR>what you say, your anti-Marxism is much<BR>more in line with the elite , elect and dominant<BR>ideology of this world and country.<BR>So, your characterization<BR>that I am annointing people is<BR>the complete reverse of reality. Marxists<BR>are in the very anti-thesis of the "elect".<BR>For you to be anti-Marxist is to move<BR>closer to the elect, as you call it.<BR>So what are you talking about ?<BR>For example, if you became a Marxist,<BR>you would have to worry much more<BR>about keeping your job. That means<BR>your ideology is more in line with<BR>that of the powers that be , the true<BR>annointers . It is your anti-Marxism<BR>that annoints you and you posture<BR>as if you are ghettoized by me<BR>when I am powerless and in<BR>groups that have the least power." </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Again, it really isn't warranted here to accuse one's interlocutor of being a non-marxist from the get-go.  It is unproductive and  the height of foolishness to do so, though it happens altogether too often on this and other Marxist lists, as I'm sure you know.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>And to Charles:  I really don't see why I need to authenticate what I say be recourse to either my marxist street cred or by recounting war stories about my employment history.  But if it will make you happy, then as to the latter: Yes, I have encountered times when my job was in jeopardy.  Long ago when I tried to organize a union in a branch of the food service industry and more recently when the mostly white feminist at a campus where I used to teach called me and a colleague on the carpet for talking about class and race too much in our classrooms.  Apparently it offended them and made them feel bad (the students)  that we taught about racism and class oppression.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>As to the latter, my marxist credentials, I'll use shorthand and say that I share much of Doug's thinking on a number of issues, and I've interacted w/ Doug for a couple of years now so I think it is safe to say this.  I'm probably less of a feminist than Doug, though that's because I haven't been keen on the mainstream versions of white, middle class feminism.  And, I'm quite a bit less sympathetic to the pomos and poststrucs than is Doug.  And, like Lou P, my profession means that I must keep an open mind about what you label as petit bourg academic scholarship for I find that it can be quite useful at times.</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SnitgrrRl</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>SnitgrrRl</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV><BR>SnitgrrRl<BR><BR><BR> </DIV></BODY></HTML>