Date: Fri, 29 Jan 1999 13:10:33 +0000
Subject: Re: Heidegger in Germany


In message <1a58d911.36b0f92e-AT-aol.com>, JSteppling-AT-aol.com
writes
>just a thought on Jim's comments

>to indict Andrew for using a less than perfect vocabulary and suggesting
>that words like "mix" imply a way of thought is to lose track of what is
>really significant about race and prejudice.
The basis for what you are calling an 'indictment' is not a matter of
vocabulary. There is, I would argue, a logical/semantical relationship
between such concepts as "mix," "race," "pure race," "mixed race," etc.
(miscegenation is a concept rooted in the concept of race, pure race,
etc. -- look at a history of anti-miscegenation laws).When one employs,
actually uses, one of these concepts as properly descriptive of, as
genuinely designating some aspect of the person, as for example,
Andrew's claim that he is a mix, then I submit that the user's thinking not
only implicitly invokes the other concepts, but also implicitly accords
them a coherence or legitimacy. It is for that reason that I suggested that
Andrew's denouncement of 'race' seemed comparable to Pooh's pursuit
of the Woozle (the animal whose tracks in the snow were pursued by
Pooh, unbeknownst to him that the tracks he was pursuing were his
very own). 
> I doubt that Andrew, or myself,
>using words like "mix" will do anything toward furthering regressive attitude.
Quite the contrary. What do you mean by "mix," if not "mixed race"?
Isn't this short for "a mix of  'pure' races"? To use such concepts in
conversation with others, to acquiesce in the usage of such concepts,
does, I think, sustain the thinking that gives these concepts life -- the
cunning of Das Man, Rede.

Your quoted comment suggests to me that you don't take the problem
seriously; that your attitude could be summarized thus: the problem
exists, yes; but I'm just making light conversation; I don't mean anything
serious when I use the concept 'mix', etc; we needn't make heavy
weather of it.
Quite the contrary, I would say. Because the racial myth is such a
cunning and insidious element of everyday life, everyday conversation,
heavy weather must be made of it. Someone (of reputed distinction)
once said to me that Koreans smell like garlic. When I blew up at him,
he became angry with me, because he was just making light
conversation. That comment made me more furious; I exploded (ending
one friendship, losing many connections). Not only was it the thinking
that I objected to, it was the thinking apropos of that very thinking --
not unlike your thinking about your usage of 'mix'!!!!!! 

Not only do we carry with us an understanding/way of thinking that
needs to be erradicated and needs to be broken down, we also carry
with us an understanding of that very understanding/way of thinking.
That should compel us to do the right thing, however inconvenient,
however disruptive of our light conversations.  
>Sometimes I find in po-mo America
I'm not familiar with the expression "po-mo America."
>Context matters
>and if Rev, Farrakhan uses "mix" in a speech it may well foster thinking that
>encouages exclusion and intolerance.
Granted. Context can alter the meaning of an utterance. However, in
this case, does the use of "mix" in F's mouth invoke a different concept
from that used in Andrew's utterance? 
> On the other hand, " hi to a fellow
>Canadian" isnt likely to encourage any such thing.
It is for that reason I asked whether being Canadian was different in
nature from being Irish or Scottish.
> And to fixate on it may
>mean missing other more pertinent ideas.
Sadly and obviously, to not fixate on it does mean missing pertinent
ideas.
Kindest Regards,
jim

PS. Beware the Woozle


     --- from list heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---