Date: Sat, 30 Jan 1999 04:01:58 +0000
Subject: Re: race...


In message <4b76cd37.36b22cf1-AT-aol.com>, Redlip-AT-aol.com writes
>Jim;
>interesting comments and actually I agree with a lot of them.
Actually, you do NOT agree with them! You are chasing
Woozles!!!!!!!
> I do however
>think there is a question here, and maybe I can use the example of "mix" that
>was cited. I see nothing in the word that would lead directly to assuming
>something perjorative and implying "pure race" . Is it simply in your mind
don't speak such quasi-psychological, Cartesian RHUBBISH -- in my
mind????????
>impossible and not acceptable to discuss "race"?
Let us discuss Woozles, then!
> If I say that I'm part German
>and Polish, what am I saying?
I do NOT know! That is my point!! What are you saying -- what is it to
be PART German and PART Polish???? What are you saying? You
have Plum cake on every other Sunday, and not every Sunday? What is
IT, of which you are a PART, such PART as is designated German?
Polish?  You clearly do NOT mean that the syntax of your native
language is a 'hybrid' of the syntax of these two languages, do you? SO,
what do you mean, since you ar not referring to a linguistic patch????
> Only that my parents were from those countries.
So, to this degree, you postulate that German and Polish are LEGAL
deisgnations of certain populations -- no probelm, as a purely
legal/political designation of persons from a certain specified chunk of
Earth. 
>Now if one of them was of Indian descent
At this point, I would interject: what do you mean 'Indian descent'?
> and I said Polish, but of ethnic
>Indian origins...what then?
Yes, indeed, what then? At precisely this point, YOU have the option
to choose: to make clear to your listener that you mean a person reared
in a certain geographical chunk of Earth, or whose parents habitate in
such, buts is a native speaker of the language spoken among persons
historically identified with a different chunk, or conversely, or , etc.....
> I see how ludicrous
NO, not ludicrous!!!!! Quite the contrary; the contrary is quite
ludicrous!!!!!!!!  
> the discussion of race can
>become, and usually how meaningless, but if I wanted to communicate my 
>parents
>ethnic and cultural background...how should i do it? Is it wrong
Wrong?????? Well, do you buy the myth -- Is it a part of your being?
Why not expend the extra Care, and explain that one person was a
native Polish speaker and one was a native German speaker, ETC,
ETC, ETC -- you don't want to say they were a mix of the two
languages, do you?? Then, a mix of what??? Races? Pure Races? --
Not as mix of Syntax............!    
> to say Im a
>mix of Polish and German, those were two languages 
LANGUAGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>spoken in my house as a
>child, along with English.
Polish and German are languages, then --  you certainly do not mean to
suggest that you are a 'mix' of two languages!!!!!!!!!!
> Where is the problem?
Well, ask yourself? Are you, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, a mix of two
languages?????? In your mouth, when you say that one of your parents
was German, do you mean that one of your parents was a native
German speaker? You do NOT mean that -- what would a mix of
languages mean? So, what do you mean??? A mix of what?   
> I would argue that "mixed
>race' does not mean "mix of pure race"...not at all. If I say my Mom was
>Polish...that only means she was born in Poland, spoke Polish, and grew up
>with Polish cultural conditioning...
And you are a PART of THAT?????
So, a purely legal/political designation of a population -- precisely the
the reason I asked about the meaning of being Canadian!!!!!!!!!!
>NOT that she belonged to some imagined
>pure race of Poles (the last people by the way who would sugges anything like
>that). It does not grant legitimacy on regressive notions of "purity".
No, indeed, it does not -- as a linguistic or legal designation. But, as I
have argued, in YOUR MOUTH, that is not what the expression
means!
> If one
>cannot make the distinction in one's language and vocabulary (and hence in
>thinking) between pure race hate mongering and scapegoating, and the use of
>useful terms like "mix' in the discourse of everyday life (as Marcuse put it)
>then that person has a seriously impaired speech condition.
I would say that such a person suffers the same lack of self-
consciousness as motivates a pursuit of the Woozle! Perhaps, Marcuse,
entering the stage with his boxer shorts and pretty tie was looking for
the Woozle. An 'A' for histrionics, but a naive fool -- he should have
tried to change a clutch on a Toyota!
> I think I know
>what you wnat to say with this, and I think i was guilty in my remarks of
>sounding offhand and cavalier, which is a wrong tone to take about a topic
>this serious.
At NO time, did I construe your words as offhand or cavalier. Perhaps,
that is why I find your expression mortally frightful -- we do not have a
Christopher Robin to watch over us!!!!!!! Not a god1

> So I apologize for that, but I think you must not create these
>hard line positions where people who probably share your (at least to some
>degree) positions
They are NOT positions: they are ways of being toward Others and the
World!!!!!!!!
> on matters of rascism and intolerance are going to be
>attacked for using words like 'mix"...and I guess I still find nothing
>offensive in that word.
RECOMMENDED READING: Naomi Zacks: Race & Mixed Race. 
That you "find nothing offensive in that word" is symptomatic of a
tragedy of no less import than Oedipus.
Beware the Woozle, ....
Kindest Regards,
jim


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