[lbo-talk] black class gap

John Thornton jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net
Sat Nov 17 13:59:15 PST 2007


Andy F wrote:
> On Nov 16, 2007 10:56 PM, John Thornton <jthorn65 at sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>> None of the above that Terkel does is tantamount to telling people you
>> are one thing when in reality you are another.
>>
>
> She also in effect lied to her bosses. Is that bad? Do you suppose
> no coworker would have ratted her out?
>
> And believe me, you don't have to be doing an expose on minimum wage
> working conditions to be blackballed at a job like that. After my
> unemployment insurance ran out I tried getting something just to pay
> the rent. My first attempt was at a place that delivered carpets.
> After some coaching from my girlfriend with the near-poverty
> background ("No, take off those corporate health insurance glasses")
> and leaving off that MS on the application (but leaving on the physics
> BA and experience as radiopharmaceutical technician, oops) the guy
> starts out with "We don't get a lot of nuclear physicists here." It
> went downhill from there, which was funny for a couple minutes.

Deceiving people with power and authority to demonstrate either individual abuse of that power/authority or expose the systemic problems created by the nature of the power/authority relationship is sometimes necessary. This has NOTHING to do with the concern I posted. Incidentally, I don't have a large problem with EB's dishonesty. I have a minor problem with it. My response was a reply to the question "whatever could anyone object to concerning EB?" rather than a post about my personal feelings about EB but the difference between those ideas seems to have escaped some people.

I'll repost my question. Is it acceptable to pretend to be wheelchair bound to gain the confidence of others with disabilities in order to write a book about disabilities that is in the same vein as N&D? Is it acceptable to pretend to be a veteran of the Iraq war to gain the confidence of Iraq veterans in order to write a similar book? Does everyone who feels EB's deception is a non-issue feel the above examples are also non-issues and why or why not?

It isn't as if I rake EB over the coals for her deception, I merely stated that it makes some people uncomfortable and I am among them. Apparently even being made uncomfortable by such deceptive practices is simply too much for some list members who feel the need to label anyone who questions such practices a moral purist. Some to the point of deliberately misrepresenting what I have written to make me appear to hold untenable positions I do hold. Kind of sad in a way.

John Thornton



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list