>It is always easy to say -- I do it a lot -- that "X has a history." It is
not
>always, however, true. Sometimes what has a history are the social
>relations that give rise to the insistence that "X has a history."
well i was afraid that i should have sketched out everything. but of course this is what i meant, particularly when i say 'process' but yes, completely agreed. i don't mean history in the bourgeois sense of the word or in the great chain of being or history as some hegelian force, etc. i mean precisely that it is about human beings in their real lives and it is about social institutions--which really ought to be fleshed out but not lots of time right now.
thanks for the rest of the discussion, though. i can't say that i disagree. i'm just still puzzled by the specificity of the date. but ultimately these things don't matter that much to me; rather, i think it's important to understand how racial and capitalism class oppressiona nd exploitation are thoroughly intertwined and dependent on one another so i'm uncomfortable with claims that "race" opposes "class" but i guess i don't think you mean that entirely as you typed it. so i'm wondering. it's a difficult set of relationships to characterize. clearly.
kelley