>>> <digloria at mindspring.com> 04/26/99 03:47PM >>>
charles:
>The problem with Jim H. and the others who argue like him on this thread
is he thinks there is some problem of complaining about racism too much in
this society or a problem of labelling non-racist events as racist. It
seems to be part of his theme of fighting against "panics".
Kelley: oh don't lump me or anyone else who's disagreed with you in with Jim here. have the decency to name names or respond to us individually because we've all made specific arguments that are different. you've got a problem with Jim, then have it out with him.
Charles: If the shoe fits wear it. There have been similarities in a number of the arguments, and the important thing is to point out the errors they have in common, not delve into the unimportant differences between them.
((((((((((((((((
Kelley: your problem right now, as far as i can tell, is that you need to backpaddle and figure out how to shift attention from the fact that you felt that race was so damn important here, that it explained a great deal, that it explained much more than the media allowed for and indeed that there was nothing wrong with overemphasizing race. you took those positions.
Charles: I am going forward continuing to refute your arguments , so any backpeddling you imagine in me is a dillusion and wishful thinking on your part. Race is still real damn important here , and nothing you have said has been evidence to change that.
My position now is the same as at first. The media framing of the issue tends to understate the racist elements. I didn't approach it as if it was a sociology class multiple choice problem as to what is the "most important cause" or whatever. That is the reinterpretation of the hiders of racism.
(((((((((((((((((
Kelley: when confronted with new evidence--like the website--you had the audacity to suggest that those kids constructed some elaborate plan to mislead, to lie, to deflect attention from what you've assumed is an inevitable race hatred (not just ordinary racism which i've never denied) based on absolutely NO evidence save the use of a racial epithets, the wearing of Nazi symbols.
Chas.: This is a real cracked comment. Your evidence from the website didn't prove anything. Just because somebody who wears Nazis regalia and commits a crime on Hitler's birthday also says other things doesn't mean there is lacking evidence of the Nazi connection. As with the rest of your argument , you are in a logical fallacy. For someone to be a Nazi it is not required that everything they write is nazism.
The question is why do you spend so much energy trying to show that they weren't racist ?
((((((((((((((((
go ahead charles, call me a racist. how simple. what a tactic.
Charles: To be precise, you are making a racist argument. Your effort to play it off as if YOU are a victim is typical of the tactic of denial of racism these days. It is a general Reaganite tactic that has succeeded in silencing the widespread protests against racism that were typical of the 60's and 70's. These protests were succeeding in rolling back racism, as many white people took them to heart, and anti-racism was spreading among white people. The ruling class set out to stop this by popularizing the tactic of claiming that many claims of racism were false, and that many white people are victims of false claims racism; that the real problem is overemphasis on racism. The media style I am criticizing on this thread is a result of that Reaganite counter-revolution.
((((((((((((((((((
Kelley: it appears that you need to shift attention away from those earlier claims because these diaries reveal that these kids wanted to kill hundreds and they didn't care what their skin color or religion was. this latest info makes your one sided explanations that racism was a primary motive and your justifications for overemphasizing race at the expense of other variables look extremely foolish. what looks more foolish: your refusal to examine evidence, to be cautious and thoughtful, and to spend time providing complex nuanced analyses of the situation rather than reaching for altogether too easy, thread bare explanations.
Chas.: You went off half cocked from the beginning attributing to me the socalled racism is the primary motive argument. The one who looks foolish is you.
My original point was not that racism must be the primary motive, only that it was an important motive in their mixed up minds. It is not even clear that Hitler would pass the "primary motive" test. He didn't only hate Jews. And his "primary motive" might have been "world conquest" or something. So what ? That doesn't mean that Hitler's racism was not an important motive in his screwed up thinking. In general, racism is rooted in capitalism. My overall point is always to connect racism to capitalism, the opposite of trying to make racism the only "reason" for something.
The telling thing is you are so anxious to downplay racism as a factor, that you misinterpreted what I said, framing it as the ridiculous strawperson that "racism is the ONLY factor". When I say something is racist, it doesn't at all mean that it is ONLY racist. Nor is that the conventional grammatical meaning of such a usage. If I say someone's nose is red, that doesn't imply it is only red. It might also be sniffling. The condition of the person's nose may have several characteristics in diagnosing its problem.
Kelley: you think I contribute to racism in this country? what a laff riot.
you grind yours, i'll grind mine
Chas.: Your position on this thread is typical of contributions to racism in this country today: a vigorous effort to see no racism or prove that the racism which seems evident is actually superficial or illusory. I assume you are not a racist, but it is the mild accomodation of racism by the vast majority who are not racists that is the bulwark of racism today.
Charles Brown