>>> dhenwood at panix.com 08/07/01 02:30PM >>>
Charles Brown wrote:
> >>> dhenwood at panix.com 08/06/01 05:59PM >>>
>Charles Brown wrote:
>
>>CB: I agree with Max on this and that some seem to use "socially
>>constituted" as if it means "easily disconstituted"
>
>I don't know anyone who does. Do you?
>
>((((((((((
>
>CB: Yes, many posts I have read have this implication.
No, I think you provided that interpretation. It means possible to de- or re-constitute, but there's nothing easy about it. Kind of like capitalism.
((((((((
CB: No, it is a clear implication in the posts themselves. That's why Max got the same impression that I did, and says what he says below.
>CB: I agree with Max on this and that some seem to use "socially
>constituted" as if it means "easily disconstituted"
some who? kelley
mbs:
The guy behind that tree. Note we agree race is socially constituted, and evidently we agree it is not easily disconstituted.
In which case it is not realistic to airily call for an end to racial self-identification.
-clip-