Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 18:06:12 -0400
From: shawn wilbur <swilbur-AT-wcnet.org>
Subject: Re: moorish temple




Maldoror wrote:

> > "the better
> > half who is arab"? I'm guessing this *isn't* a
> > colloquial reference to
> > inter-ethnic marriage, but that's about as far as i
> > can parse things.
>
> i was referring to my wife.

Well, well. It *was* a colloquial reference to inter-ethnic marriage. Some
punctuation might have helped, i guess. Anyway...

> but then she's a moor so i
> guess it doesn't really matter what she has to say
> about the term because after all she's moor and she
> should just accept her second class status as a moor,
> as defined by the ameri-eurocentric labellers/masters.
> and if arabs wish a say then they'd better recognize
> themselves for what they are which is moors and not
> question the term, and therefore refer to themselves
> as moors.

Don't act like an idiot, gr3g. Stick to the facts. You and your wife, and
some of your acquaintances dislike the work "moor." You find it offensive.
Fine. Everyone involved in this discussion has agreed with you that the term
*can* be considered offensive - as can a variety of other terms, all of which
can *also* be used in ways apart from racist connotation or in direct
opposition to them. To return to the particular case of "Moorish Science," it
appears fairly clear that neither Noble Drew Ali nor Hakim Bey intend any
racial slur when they use the term.

Do you disagree? Does there appear to be a racist agenda in the naming of the
Moorish Science Temple? If so, can you make a case for your opinion on the
matter?

On the other hand, do you understand that labels like "arab" are very
problematic as well - as are terms like "turk," which you have claimed are in
no way offensive, despite the testimony of very uncontroversial, mainstream
sources like, say, the Webster's II dictionary?

> 'the way it's always been' argument holds about as
> much water as a smashed glass.

That's nice, gr3g. It's also a non-sequitor, since *nobody* here has made the
"'the way it's always been' argument." (Roger, will you take two the's as a
down payment on four thats?)

Here's the argument you conveniently snipped:
-----------
> american is not a derogatory term. moor/moorish is.
> turkish is not a derogatory term, moor/moorish is.

Actually, even standard-white american dictionaries acknowledge that "turk"
*can* be both a potentially inappropriate generalizing term - referring to
all muslims - and a slur - referring to brutality and authoritarianism. And,
certainly, "america" and "american" are regularly used in ways which are
derogatory, both within the boundaries of the US and outside them. Certainly,

"moor" *can* be a derogatory term, but (even if your defense above was more
coherent), the self-identification as "moors" and "moorish" by folks like the

Moorish Science Temple adherents seem to torpedo any simple statement about
what a word "is."

People are the source of meaning, and they seldom arrive at uniform meanings
of *any* word. If you want to talk about "anti-progressive" moves - and
apparently you do - you might think about how "anarchistic" a tendency to
reduce individual's meanings down to some forced consensus is.
--------------

> gr3g
>
> (i suppose that was mildly childish, but then fuck it
> i don't allow for other interpretations do i?
> it's interesting how when i raise an interpretation on
> this list i'm attacked for not seeing the other
> versions. no one ever stops to think that i may have
> already seen them, had problems with them, and have a
> right to question them.

gr3g, if you advance interpretations here with the attitude you have so far -
backing up your rather insistent claims primarily with vague protests against
the "uniformed" and "uncritical," while you ask us for info any google search
would get for you in no time - you may find folks are a bit skeptical about
how informed or critical *you* really are. When you respond to concrete
criticism with a tantrum, some of us may figure we're got our answer.

To clarify, you haven't been "attacked for not seeing the other versions."
You've been challenged on your claim that there are no other versions. And
the appropriateness of the theoretical support you seem to want to bring to
bear has been questioned. Your "right to question" is intact and unassailed.
You have no right - nor does anyone else - to be dogmatic in public and not
face argument.

> oh but then i'm young right
> and young ppl should be seen and not heard.)

You seem youngest when you whine like this.

If you care to actually talk about "Moorish Science" or "Foucault, Chomsky,
Said, etc," there are folks who will probably take you up on that. If you
only want to feel persecuted, and rant about what bad, "anti-progressive"
people we are, i figure your days as a figure of even minimal interest here
are about up.

Your call.

-shawn