>Basically she accuses me of "shystering" about Malcolm X's later life
>without pointing to what of importance has been passed over. I provided a
>reply to one of Malcolm X's last speeches, though no one responded.
>Wahneema does not discuss the well known problems to which I pointed
>(the use of the same colonial model to understand Afro American
>oppression and the assissination of Lumumba; the limits of post
>colonial regimes and Nkrumahism discussed by Robt
>Fitch), but still she calls me a shyster. That doesn't seem like a shy
>person to me. The only thing shy here is the refusal to name me while
>heaping insult on me.
Because I was responding generally about a long set of exchanges in answer to Doug's request that others address what was happening in the discussions about race, I chose to respond very generally and had much more in mind than one person's post. Because I was responding generally to the dynamics of the exchanges, I did not go to specific questions--many of which I find both interesting and productive. There are many questions and arguments raised in this discussion that I find interesting, but coming to scores of such exchanges after being in and out of town for awhile and trying to find a way to say to Doug that I thought having the discussion was worthwhile, was a way for me at least to enter the conversation. For example, considering the limits AND possibilities of thinking about the colonial model as a way to approach the specifics of African-Americans is something I think is well worth talking about. My decision not to address everything I found interesting in my first substantive post about the thread has nothing to do with what I think of the value of many questions/arguments. I do plan to respond as soon as I can to many of the issues being raised.
By the way: being shy doesn't mean not having evaluative responses--regardless of what your understanding of shyness is. Someone's difficulty in entering an email exchange can produce a certain kind of insufficiently thoughtful rhetoric; that's why I agonize about it. I hope both to toughen up and to learn to be clearer and more civil.
>Wahneema also makes a passionate case for why such language as below
>against me is to be tolerated. To remind her what she is justifying
I did not write to Doug to justify or to side with everything that gone on or been said. But I'm interested in having people criticize what has been said below without halting the exchange. Doug's question seemed to me to ask lurkers and others to think about how such discussions might continue. When I'm reading posts I see alot of shit that I hate, much that angers me, much that I find insulting, much that seems to be deliberate provocation, and bullying. And I don't imagine myself to be exempt from any of those behaviors. But given the way that Doug has been moderating *this* list, I didn't think it was a good idea, so far, to throw people off the list easily. He hasn't, as far as I can tell, said "anything goes"; he has instead been pointedly critical, issued warnings, suggested some things, and corresponded with people about the terms of their contributions. Each time I've thought he was right. (Call me kiss ass if you like.)
I would not have said myself any of the things reproduced below. I think they are lazy and offensive:
"I have not read Clayborne Carson, but I don't need to read him in
>order to
>characterize this as a bullshit lie."
>"ignorant garbage."
>"idiotic bullshit"
>"More ignorant bullshit."
>" not much of a Marxist,"
>" lunatic characterization ... Your hysteria ... clueless"
>"Poor Rakesh, the perpetual graduate student,"
>"you idiot."
>" stupid phrase-mongering"
>" incorrect. ... bullshit. You
>were the one who went beserk, not me."
In my response to Doug, I did suggest that we had more leeway on *this * list both because of its make-up and because we weren't shooting each other. There was nothing in my post to "justify" such language, and when I refer to the "ugliest" of exchanges as being part of a discussion that has productive ends, much of what I consider productive is the response to such exchanges by the list membership. Again, it isn't an absolute position (as I said in my post to Doug); it is a response to what I've read on this list across many months and from many posters as well as an indication of the way I think that list has been run so far.
[And I don't expect my use of "shystering" to describe whomever to be exempt from criticism.]
>So this is "chaff" or the desperate effort by some white boys to prove
>how down they are with black folk by their all out defense of Malcolm X. I
>think Angela has raised some important questions of the iconisation of
>black radicals by the white left.
I think it is "chaff" and I think that raising questions about the iconisation of anyone by anyone is a good idea. I also think that iconisation goes on within a complex set of social and historical relations; raising questions about it is a good beginning.
Wahneema
****************************************************************** Wahneema Lubiano Duke University, Program in Literature PHONE: (919) 681-2843 FAX: (919) 684-3598 [Note new e-mail address: wah at acpub.duke.edu]