I tried reading this entire thread, but it just wasn't happening (I'm in pre-Rocketball mode at the moment). Just wanted to pop in and say that inter-racial relationships are a great thing in my opinion. I actually say "good for you" in my head whenever I see an inter-racial couple. I believe that you are a human first, and then whatever nationality you may be second. I don't think a person starving to death in Africa's life is worth any less than someone killed in a car crash in the states. One thing I do have a problem with though is pc terms like "African-American". You'll never catch me saying that. I don't consider myself a European-American, so I'd never call someone else an African-American. He/she's no more from Africa than I am from Europe. I do always use the terms "Hispanic" and "Asian" though--hope that makes you feel better about me. Launch Pad--I love Vietnamese food. It's probably my favorite food right now (most notably "Pho", or beef noodle soup). Just great stuff. I enjoyed your post, and thought it interesting that you found race relations to be good right now. As someone who's in the majority and whom race relations don't affect on a daily basis, I'm always a little surprised when a minority says things are good. To me, no one else's opinions are as relevant. I myself think they're much better than they were, but we're a long way from seeing each other as humans first, race second. As Bulworth said, "You want to eliminate racism, eliminate race. Everybody just f### everybody."
I am not going to comment about my particular experience with other so-called races and I also can't broaden the scope of this discussion to other groups but just white and black. Ralph Ellison said that when he taught white students in college that he would asked them "how black they were?" If you really want to understand the race issue, it is important to read THE SOULS OF BLACK FOLK by W.E.B Du bois and UP FROM SLAVERY by Booker T. Washington and It would hurt to read the essays of Ralph Ellison. ------------------ I am an invisible man.
I've since realized that me liking Vietnamese food really has little to do with race. Please forgive me! Just felt like telling someone how much I loved that stuff.
Freak, I wasn't directing my remarks toward your post. It was just a general statement for the whole thread! ------------------ I am an invisible man.
W.E.B is about a brilliant as they come, and little representation in history to match it. Good reading. I'd add, Malcom's speeches, "Malcom Speaks". For fiction, "The Autobiography of an ex-Colored Man", James Weldon Johnson, and "The Invisible Man" by kbm's man Ralph Ellison. AND THERE ARE A LOT MORE. kbm, just noticed your signature. Did you add that for the thread, or have you had it for awhile? [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited February 26, 2001).]
Heypartner, been there from the beginning. Ralph Ellison is my hero! Long live INVISIBE MAN! ------------------ I am an invisible man.
Also Heypartner, I read your post and it sounds like you read some Kenneth Burke, is that true? If not, you should, your ideas about the meaning of words to the speaker are Burkian all the way. ------------------ I am an invisible man.
Sorry, I have been out for a while as well. You are definitely coming from the post-structuralist side of thought. That is, looking at the map maker instead of just the map (as promoted in earlier Enlightenment thought). Roland Barthes would be proud. Ever read Death of the Author? I must admit, I have never really heard a semiotic approach to race issues. Lookin to signs instead of language is an interesting procedure, especially since we subconsciously process almost all of those signs we see. Deconstruction can be good, however it also has its limits. As I mentioned a little earlier. For example, you want to defer to the more passionate approach, but is that necessarily the stronger one? As you can never truy know motive/justification behind a conversation or presentation style, might someone be equally empassioned, sincere, "right" in a monotone and monoemotional way. Perhaps that is the only natural delivery this person has. I am not sure I really understand why yu have trouble discussing any of your thoughts with others. Is it taboo or simply limited knowledge of others post-structuralist theory? In other words, is it race or is it academic? ------------------ Take an object. Do something to it. Do something else to it. " " " " "
It is race. And the race penetrates academics. The original masters of Cultural Anthropology are about as racist as they come. I have a lot of theory behind me; but by the same token, I think much of it is crap. That is why I loved Cultural Anthropology over all these other choices. At least they did ethnographies. I mean, at least the theory eventually takes a back seat to the writing. Deconstruction took care of that. You are not going to ever find me discussing post-structuralism or any objectivity arguments. Deconstruction killed all that in Anthropology, as well it should. My approach is more the approach of a fiction writer than a philosopher. imo, Ethnographic writings are the only academic works that can bridge fiction and philosophy.
