> The kernel of my viewpoint is this: If white supremacy in the
>United States
>does not offend you sufficiently to bring forth intemperate words (at
>minimum), who could ever rely on you as a comrade in struggle?
I don't think anyone here thinks that white supremacy is anything but odious. I resent the implication, though, that anyone who is critical of Malcolm X or black nationalism is soft on racism.
The virtues of civility are exaggerated, I'll concede. The last thing I'd like is for us all to turn into Jean Bethke Elshtain. But what I want to see, both here and in the "left" such as it is, is an ability to disagree with people without branding them as agents of Satan.
> Aside from the hypocrisy of selective distress mentioned earlier,
>there is
>another. Most participants on the LBO list take a favorable view of intramural
>insult on the left as sport, alternately praising Christopher Hitchens or
>Alexander Cockburn as the most skillful player in that league. You can't have
>it both ways, folks.
No you can't, and I've gotten very tired of that game. I used to enjoy it a lot more, but no longer. Maybe I'm getting old and excessively mellow, but it's just too destructive at a time when the left is too weak.
And for that reason, I have to object loudly to this:
>Is Rakesh a Nazi?
No Rakesh is not a Nazi (and Malcolm X wasn't a Nazi either). Up until now, Ken, I thought you managed to stay on the good side of the border between polemic and personal abuse, and whether I agree with them or not, your contributions have been important and valuable. With that line though, you put one foot over the border, and only the question mark kept you from having both over.
Doug