Genovese

[JKSCHW at aol.com]

I am no doubt wet behind the ears. I have never practiced law and I have only 
been out of law school for two years. Although I am constrained to draft 
opinions that follow the Supreme Court's precedent, you could read recent 
opinions by Judge Bucklo and decide whether they are racist. "Racist" is a 
slur, even when true; sometimes slurs are appropriate, but not here, talking 
about Genovese. It is not racist in any sense to say that slaves, like most 
members of all subordinate groups in any society, tend to accomnmodate 
themnselves to their situation rather than to go to the wall over their 
oppression. This may be false, although it is not false, but since it applies 
to all groups without regard to race--to workers, for example--it is not 
racist even if it were false. It is not even in any way derogatory. I don't 
see why the success or failure of "Gramscianism" as a  program has anything 
to do with the truth of the theory of hegemony, the name for the idea that in 
stable societies, theruling group rules more b
y consent than coercion. --jks

In a message dated Fri, 13 Oct 2000 11:42:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
"Charles Brown" <CharlesB at CNCL.ci.detroit.mi.us> writes:

<< 


>>> JKSCHW at aol.com 10/13/00 11:08AM >>>
I cannot censor the use of any term, but if you think "racist" is a 
scientific term, you are deceiving yourself--it is a slur, even when it is 
true.

((((((((((((

CB: The use of "racist" is a slur even when it is true. Is this the way you 
"reason" when you write opinions for the court ?  Well, I guess it is very 
much in the racist Rehnquist court mode of thinking, so you probably do.

(((((((((((

 If you were to read Gevonese or understand Gramsci, or even to read 
what I said about them, you would understand that to say that slaves 
"consented" in a Gramscian sense, as a general rule, is not to say they were 
happy under slavery. Moreover the fact that not all racism takes the form of 
explicit avowals of racial inferiority does not mean that someone who denies 
racial inferiority, like Genovese, is racist. Finally, Gramsci does not limit 
his notions of capitalsim--for one, he applies them expressly to the ancient 
world and theRenaissance, and even if he did, Genovese's genius was in 
extending them to capitalism. 

(((((((((((

CB: If you were to read or understand what I said, or Aptheker says,  you 
would realize that it doesn't matter if Genovese claims to be using Gramsci's 
logic , he is still putting forth a racist and false thesis regarding U.S. 
slavery. I like Gramsci, but where exactly has Gramsciism led a revolutionary 
struggle ?  Why is it that self-proclaimed rightwingers are "using" his 
thinking ?  

Claiming Genovese has "genius" is an example of your "not great" thinking.

______________

Do you write your briefs to the court this way, Charles?

((((((((((

CB: Why do you constantly tell people on these lists that you are a lawyer ? 
To reassure yourself that you are one of us ? You seem kind of wet behind the 
ears to me.

 >>