> But you also know that Yoshie puts a great deal of emphasis on race
>& gender but you still asked her why she didn't or something like that.
I know she does, and so I'd never claim to the contrary. "Something like that" won't cut it in this context - what exactly did I say? I do wonder why she doesn't want to invoke the word "exploitation," when it seems to me that something very like exploitation occurs along racial and gender lines. And it does seem to me that she's interested only in macro - verging on the abstract - racism and sexism, without saying how racism and sexism operate on the level of psyches and actual human interactions.
>You also know that the presence of non-whites in the cabinet was
>entirely irrelevant to the linkage between racism and imperialism, but a
>question you threw out presupposed otherwise.
It's not irrelevant. Racism and imperialism were intimately linked for a long time, but I think things are more complicated now. It's not irrelevant that two of the top officers of the American imperium are black. It doesn't mean that racism is behind us - but it does mean things are messier than they were in the day when blacks only entered the White House by the service entrance.
Doug