> As to Angela's posting in the same thread criticizing my position - I would
> like to clarify that I am not really into text exegesis or conspicuous
> consumption of intellectual products. In fact, I've been consuming very
> little of such products since I left grad school - most of my readings
> consist of internet postings - unlike books and articles, they are actual
> contributions to a dialogoue, rather than intellectual commodity packaged
> for consumption. That is to say, sorry but I have no time to read and
> analyze (i.e. consume) what the scribbling class is producing.
this is quite incredible. all you had to read was a an article posted here that began this thread, which I suspect you did. muttering about the 'scribbling classes' and 'conspicuous consumption' might be comforting, but it's irrelevant.
and this comment, "The only thing I may add is that blaming external forces for the misfortunes of a particular social group is an old religious practice aka scapegoating ", suggests to me at least that you really want to find an acceptable (for you) formula for 'blaming the victim'.
a) the 'misfortunes' of those who are impoverished is not a result of their identities or cultures but a result of a system in which impoverishment is both necessary and inescapable; b) all that is being held responsible in (a) is that system, ie., capitalism. btw, no one is external to capitalism; but certain ideologies present (and arrange) particular groups as external by way of identifying them as 'pre-modern', 'pre-capitalist', etc in order to make capitalism appear as a straight line between good and better, interrupted only by those who are unwilling or unable to travel that path. poverty, then, is seen as the result of those groups' identities, biological or cultural. -- the mark of a pro-capitalist and racist perspective, no matter how much it's glossed over.
Angela --- rcollins at netlink.com.au