>>> Michael Pollak
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Charles Brown wrote:
> I've got some names for the disorder that persists in attributing
> "disorders'" to people like Dyson for supporting O. It's starting
to
> seem like crypto-_____, for one.
Whoa, Charles. Whoa. Adolph is brilliant. And also black.
^^^^^ CB: Most Black people are, so he's not unusual in that regard. But why is this brilliant fellow putting out this not so brilliant stuff ? Seriously, Michael. I've been writing on this issue here for several months. Reed hasn't been persuading me, as you can tell from what I've been saying all this time. Others and I have amassed quite a large argument on this on this list alone, let alone some other lists. Reed needs to read LBO-talk or something.
^^^^^^^
And Doug is a man whose fundamental good heart I would defend with my fists. Racism is the ultimate insult. You don't want to be throwing it at either of
them, even a little, even under erasure. That's crossing the electric
fence of civilized discourse.
^^^^ CB: Well, yea, we have this term "whict chauvinism" to deal twith that. But , Michael, surely you don't think I'm going to bite my tongue on raising concerns about racism, incldugin objective and unintentional. This "Obasmamania" stuff just isn't going to get it anymore in the face of constant demonstrations that it's doesn't fit the O supprters - Dyson, Ehrenreich, Max, Julio, Joauin, Alice Walker, Michael Moore. At some point , one has got to stip and think, the facts don't fit that maniac kids theme anymore. And then the Clintons have gone real funky on the race angle. The media attacks on O are riddled with racist undertones and overtones. A conscious anti-racist just must separate themelf from all that gunk. Did you read Michael Moore's endorsement of O ? Is it really surprising that the political attacks on a Black candidate for President in the Us would turn racist ? Most racism is pasive racism, inaction in the face of racism. We know all this, right ?
^^^^^^^^^
Obamanians and anti-Obamanians both exaggerate. ^^^^ CB: This is an over-generalization. Some do. Not all, Speak for yourself.
The people I've liste above are by and large accurate in their discussion of O.
^^^^^^^
A lot. But I don't think either of them are powered by their dark side.
^^^^^ CB: Well, I'm referring to passively giving in to their light side, bing out of touch with their dark side as to the anti-O comments.
( by dark I mean correct in this context; )
^^^^^^^
On the contrary, I think both sides, both the enthusiasm and its denunciation, is anchored in some of these people's most laudable qualities: depth of desire on the one side; and a fealty to critical reason on the other.
^^^^ CB: I don't think the anti-O's have more critical reason in this debate.
^^^^^^^^
Boy I can't wait 'til there's only standing. This narcissism of small
differences is really beginning to turn poison.
Michael
^^^^^ CB: Yes, it's uncomfortable, but frankly I have to say the lengthened race is causing the "test" to get much more profound . Many people are being tested, forced to go more deeply into this. The longer campaign overall , year longer than usual, may play into this too.
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com