>>> d_squared_2002 at yahoo.co.uk 03/19/01 03:15AM >>>
>>CB: I didn't make these claims.
>take it up with dd. he seemed to suggest you had.
that piece of blatant flamebait was All My Own Work; I thought that Charles' "black are less racist" comment was missing Kelley's point a bit, and came up with the "rhythm" thing as an example of a characteristic of black people which white people use to patronise, in the same way that men patronise women. The basketball thing was a bit more of a stretch, but I am pretty sure that Charles has said things about black music on this list which are as close to the "natural rhythm" trope as makes no difference.
((((((((((
CB: Not I. I'm a little bit too aware of the old "natural rhythm trope" to say that ( I'm Black :>)
Maybe you are thinking about me talking about jazz, I don't know. But I didn't say Black people had natural rhythm ( duh ). I said jazz is best understood as Black party/high life music and in conjunction with dancing. And all that is cultural , not natural.
(((((((((
However, in the interests of clarity, I withdraw with apologies all things which I might have been considered to attribute to Charles.
I do, on the other hand, think that CB is wrong on the desirability of "valorising characteristics of the underprivileged". By extolling the characteristics of the underprivileged, one raises the question of, if they're so wonderful, why are they underprivileged?
(((((((((((
CB: It is not exactly extolling all characteistics, rather those real strengths that the underprivileged group has.This demonstrates a main difference between liberal patronizing and radical empowerment. This is illustrated in the difference in attitude to the working class. Liberals emphasize the empoverishment and victimization of the working class. Radicals/communists emphasize that the working class is the world historic revolutionary subject of our times, the leading revolutionary potential force, and the source of all ( exchange) value.
Seems to me you have the concept of "patronising" backward. The original historical trope for liberal patronomy is "The White Man's Burden" , in which the white man is helping the colored people with all their problems. That's patronizing, not praising colored people for their strengths but "helping them with their problems and weaknesses, like "The War on Poverty", or other "sympathy with y' all's plight , you poor things " tropes.
Similarly, radical anti-racists emphasize the fact that Black people as a potentially leading and most militant sector of the working class.
So, the analogy with women is to see them for their strengths.
There is a progessive historical school now that reinvestigates history for hidden and overlooked contributions and strengths of oppressed groups.
))))))))))
Which in turn invites the explanation that privileged people have *other* wonderful qualities, and the implied value judgement that these qualities are more important. So you get explanations like the 1970s soccer manager cliche, that black players have wonderful flair, and talent, but, sadly, can't cope with cold winters and don't have the strength of character to play an important part in the English league. It's a pretty obvious strategy for marginalising an underprivileged group while not appearing like a bastard, by praising them for their prowess in an unimportant area.
dd
===== "Imagine the Duchess's feelings You could have pierced her with swords To find her youngest son liked Lenin And sold the Daily Worker near the House of Lords" -- Noel Coward
____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie