rc-am wrote:
>
> >a similar approach would apply to poor whites. and here, I would
> >think the aim might be to refuse a nominally anti-racist politics
> >which actually makes anti-racist discourse into another occasion for
> >elitist complaints about the vulgarity of the masses, converting
> >anti-racist sentiment into a technique of the state, a call for
> better
Who? How many? Where? What are their names? How did they do it? Who did they do it to? What continent? What state? How poor were these hypothetical poor whites. Did the elitists write books or soap the poor whites' windows or make jokes about them in their seminars or in the executive offices of the Wall Street Journal? What in the hell are you talking about?
Who are the poor whites they are dissing? What did those poor whites do? Innocently though wrongly get excited about property values or lynch someone? What did these nominal anti-racists do: sneer down their noses or call the cops or what? Why nominally anti-racist when even if these mysterious unnamed persons exist (and until you name and identify them, I think you are fantasizing them), they would merely be wrong, not "nominally" something or other.
How many poor whites are racist anyhow? 10%? 35%? 75%? The 3 poor whites (all on welfare) I was chatting with today at a local drop-in place for the mentally ill were less racist than most buffy fans seem to be. Let's get some empirical grit in our wandering sneers.
I had not remembered the context of this, but now that I see it it is every bit as idiotic and ethically offensive as I remember it as being.
Carrol