The question of how to approach discussions of race/class is not a simple one and ridiculing Jon will do nothing to improve discussion.
You argue that the telling fact is identifying a person's place in the social structure, but you know as well as I do that plenty of working class people identify completely with their masters -- often along racial lines. So, this is why it gets complicated and this is why Jon's question is neither simple minded, nor wilfully obtuse, nor anything except a spur to discussion and thoughtful response.
Joanna
Carrol Cox wrote:
>Jon Johanning wrote:
>
>
>>So to raise that hoary, ever-popular issue: is class more important
>>than race in the U.S. I'm beginning to think so, but I don't know how
>>to separate them clearly, and how to find a dependable answer if they
>>can be separated.
>>
>>
>
>Imagine two mathematicians vigorously arguing that hoary, ever-popular
>issue, is the denominator more important than the numerator?
>
>As R unintentionally showed, you say nothing about an individual's
>"place" in the u.s. social structure by identifying him as "African
>American" (Powell)or her as female (Rice). And while identifying a
>person as "working class" says nothing about him/her as a person, it
>_does_ indicate something about his/her place in the u.s. social
>structure.
>
>The question is not just popular and hoary. It is incoherent non-sense.
>Any attempt to "amswer" it leads to incoherent non-sense.
>
>Carrol
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>.
>
>
>