>>> <DANIEL.DAVIES at flemings.com> 10/12/99 05:52AM >>>
This tentative contribution from a mere observer, following the rule of thumb that when you don't understand the issues, you should take the side that appears to have the nicest people on it. Shame really, because I had always hoped my first repsonse to one of Charles' posts would be on some blindingly brilliant point of Marxist theory, but there you go -- a consequence of only having a little brain. I blame the drugs myself.
dd
>Charles: My recall is that I criticize people for racist arguments or
>supporting racist positions in real world events. I don't think I have
ever >said "you are condescending to ME in a racist way." I respond to
>"condescencions" with condescensions ( whatever exactly that is; my
>terminlogy would be " I respond to disrespect with disrepect." The Aretha
>Franklin rule, r-e-s-p-e-c-t).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
harrummph, he harrumphed.
(((((((((((((
Charles: Speak for yourself. The harrumph is in your head, not mine.
I laugh at a lot of posters all the time.
(((((((((((((
I can't believe that somebody whose hobby seems to be minute analysis of everything is happy to bring in an utterly unanalysed concept of "r-e-s-p-e-c-t".
(((((((((((((
Charles: Actually, this is a not so nice but is a backhanded compliment. Glad to see you think I am a detail person , but I am nice too, well liked.
((((((((
Daniel: Well, we can all agree that respect is a good thing, and most of us can hum a few bars of the "Respect" song. But does it really help to conflate {patronising, racist, rude, sexist, pompous} in this way? To me, the use of the word "respect" looks like a way of packing up the "ouch" of a hurtful remark, giving it a name and assuming that the name stands for something. Thus avoiding having to think about what was bad about the remark and whether or not it was justified -- it had to be bad, because it wasn't "respect". It disappoints me to see a sharp theorist descned to the level of a self-help book.
(((((((((((((
Charles: What's your take on "condescending" ? I had to keep my comment somewhat in the same vicinity as "condescending" , the name given to the tort here.
Aretha Franklin is a bit deeper than you know.
And I notice below you launch a rather mundane, judgemental stream of consciousness. What makes you think you are not being judged too ?
(((((((((((
I think Kelley's point was that you were being patronising to her, as a woman. I think everyone can agree that unintentionally sneering is a very present danger in email, and it's my perception that you are more prone to it than many. And if you're being patronising to a woman, you take the risk that she will very understandably assume that you're doing it to her *because* she is a woman. And when that happens, it frankly doesn't make it in my book to say "but I act that way to men too".
((((((((((((
Charles: Well, I would have dealt with "patronising" if that was the word. But wouldn't it be a bit condescending if I said, "you really mean patronising ?"
Also, I don't take your point that I am more prone to unintentionally sneering than others. I intentionally contradict.
On the woman/man aspect, you , like Kelley, fail to take into account that she is White and I am Black. I am obligated to speak disrespectfully to a White person who speaks disrepectfully to me. Get it. The male/female aspect ,unfortunately, has to fall in favor of that. Gotta keep you White people straight. I don't start out speaking disrespectfully , but , I won't take any stuff.
(((((((((
Daniel: (And the name "Chaz" is in no way racist, but that winds you up too.) (((((((((
Charles: No, it doesn't bother me in itself. It depends on who says it and the context. Let me say you are wrong about no relation to race. It is well settled among Black Americans that there is an old pattern of Whites on their own nicknaming Black people in ways that they have not nicknamed themselves. But , as I say, I don't mind it in general. Angela started it, but , she hasn't pulled anything like Kelley. But, hey, if you are going to accuse me, then I don't want you calling me nicknames.
In other words, it's relative, it depends.
(((((((((((((((((
>So, on the below, my recall is any disrepect of Kelley is in response to
>some disrespect she has shown me, without trying to figure out whether it
>can be characterized as racist.
Daniel: Somewhat self-serving?
((((((((((((
Charles: And accurate. Nothing wrong with being self-serving and self-defensive when one is under attack. The notion that self-defense is somekind of frequent error in discourse is a nonsense from pop psychology.
((((((((((((
>
>The stuff about my agreeing with Kelley more than Angela or "slutty humor"
>is off the wall.
Daniel: I thought it was quite funny, although I doubt it would actually kill kelley to put in a capital letter or two from time to time.
Charles: It's not funny in this context. But anyway, once you accuse me of being condescending, it won't do for me to start laughing at what you say, will it now ? Fun goes out the window once that becomes the game.
If you don't think I'm fun, then you don't really know much about partying.
(((((((((((((
Charles:>I didn't "ignore" the claim of sexism. I denied it.
Daniel: Yes, but just denied it flat, without explanation or apology for having given unintentional offence.
Charles: Wrong, Denied it with loads of facts and argumentation. I am not the one who needs to apologise. Some of the offense I give is not unintentional. Why would I apologize for it ? If we start requiring apologies for unintentional offense, I will be low on the list of apologizers and Henry Liu would be brought back as co-moderator ( with an apology from Doug). For example, your post is offensive to me. Must you apologize ? These lists are highly rude, if you haven't noticed. SnittgrrRL makes a thing out of her being rude. To apologise to her for being rude would be like apologising to a bird for flying.
((((((((((((
Daniel:
When in the history of the world has anyone been allowed to get away with that?
Charles: I don't know. but I haven't been "allowed" a goddamned thing. I am not the one who needs to apologise.
((((((((((((
Daniel: Call me Miss Manners and everything, but there you are.
Charles: I'd call you an officious and presumptuous intermeddler.
((((((((((((
Charles:
>I am not "condescending" to a lot of people. What I do is give respect if
>I get it. I don't give it if I don't get it.
Daniel: Hmmm ... your give-it-out/take it ratio is pretty high(low?), though.
Charles: Nope. My count is one for one. I don't give it out unless somebody else gives it first. I know its a simple concept, but one respect for one respect; one disrespect for one disrespect. I don't start shit, but I do finish it.
((((((((((((
I always try to read your discussions because it fascinates me how much Marx wrote that wasn't in "History of Economic Thought". But the one thing that is clear from them is that you're as thin-skinned as it's possible to be without actually applying for Australian citizenship.
Charles: Not thinskinned, just long experienced with the arrogance of intellectuals (particularly emailers)and having concluded that the best method is to nip it in the bud, keep things mutually respectful from the start.
((((((((((((((((
Charles:
>Finally, I challenge white males as much as white females. Ask the white
>males if they think I'm easy on them.
This is actually true.
(((((((((((((((
Charles:>>> The rest of what I said is true, too. What is actually true ? That I am not easier on white males or that I am ?
An important point in what I said was
Charles: My recall is that I criticize people for racist arguments or
>supporting racist positions in real world events.
You don't address it.
CB
___________________________________________________________________________ _____
---------------------------------------------------------
This email is confidential to the ordinary user of the
e-mail address to which it was addressed. If you are not
the intended recipient, please notify the sender
IMMEDIATELY on (44) 171 638 5858 and delete the message
from all locations in your computer. You should not copy
this email or use it for any purpose, or disclose its
contents to any person : to do so may be unlawful.
Email is an informal method of communication and is
subject to possible data corruption, either accidentally
or on purpose. Flemings is unable to exercise control
over the content of information contained in
transmissions made via the Internet. For these reasons
it will normally be inappropriate to rely on information
contained on email without obtaining written confirmation
of it.
----------------------------------------------------------