> What precisely is offensive about saying an anti-racist enjoys being
> an anti-racist? Is one supposed to struggle only out of duty or
> self-denial?
Nothing. What is offensive is judging the political worth of one person's commitment as more meritorious than another's based on a putative evaluation of their respective motives. The post to which I replied was even worse than that, because throughout this thread KM has elevated academic sophistry to a place of greater importance than ongoing anti-racist struggle, and then challenged the latter by questioning the motives of the anti-racists.
And Ken Mack wrote:
> As for solidarity, you have absolutely no idea what I'm doing. We're just
> talking here, tossing around ideas and strategies, comparing notes.
Yes, and among those notes KM posted here was not only a refusal to support the Austrians who had mobilized against Haider in a mass confrontation with the authorities comparable to Seattle, but worse, he argued that their actions are harmful. If KM can't bring himself to utter a word of solidarity with those who fought for immigrants' rights on the streets of Vienna, why should I care what else he might be doing that he hasn't shared here?
Finally, Doug wrote,
> I find it amusing to watch [Carrol] & Ken Lawrence take obvious enjoyment
> in denouncing people who claim enjoyment has a role in politics.
No, I have not done that, and to assert it means Doug hasn't bothered to consider any argument I've presented after excerpting a phrase out of context. I wrote that the actions of people who enjoy involvement, or who hate it but feel compelled to be involved, or who are guilt-tripped into involvement, or who are involved in the hope of finding personal salvation, or for any other reason, are no less worthy than those who may be involved for reasons that Ken Mack would find agreeable.
Ken Lawrence