Manifestations of Venus

[davemarc]

At 01:50 PM 10/29/96 -0800, Jules wrote:
>davemarc wrote:
>> 
>> Jules writes:
>> 
>> "The Heroro women
>> were not beautiful by our standards. They had huge buttocks --
>> grotesque, really, to the modern Anglo-European eye -- and were probably
>> the inspiration for the fabled Callipygians, which meant the people with
>> beautiful buttocks. This is a problem that many modern black women have
>> just had to live with. Their inherited physical beauty is of another
>> time and another culture. Ashanti women (and men) had bodies like Roman
>> statues -- think of Muhammad Eli, only black as coal. The Masai were
>> tall and thin, our basketball stars. I think it is difficult for us to
>> realize how physically different the various African peoples were from
>> each other."
>> 
>> On an international list such as this one, it's often unclear what is meant
>> when a participant uses words like "our" and "us."  I, for one, do not wish
>> to be passively associated as agreeing with the remarks Jules makes in the
>> material quoted above.
>> 
>> davemarc
>
>Why? I meant people of our time and culture. I didn't say it was
>impossible. I said it was difficult. How many people on the list are
>aware of the differing physical characteristics of African regional
>groups -- or world regional groups. Is male (and female, to a great
>extent) Anglo-European hung up in the Venus de Milo-to-Playboy body
>style image or not? The very fact that Pynchon does not include physical
>descriptions of his protagonists in the African sequences, although he
>does elsewhere frequently in V, is revealing. Did he not know? Or did he
>airbrush it? Is he an occult racist? I know that given the same material
>I could have made it clear what these physical differences meant to the
>lovers and I would have done it in a way that revealed the beauty that
>they saw in each other, especially because it was different from our
>(see above) own culturally installed prejudices. He hid from it.
>
>At the same time, the point is well-taken. Cross-cultural references
>have to be absolutized or generalized where necessary, just like links.
>I'll keep that in mind and I appreciate the insight.
> 
Thanks.  Since you seem to understand my point, I'm not sure if it's
necessary to answer your question, "Why?"  But just in case it is, I'll go
over a couple of reasons quickly.  
When you write "The Heroro women were not beautiful by our standards" I take
issue with your rhetorical presumption that there is a shared concept of
human beauty among the participants of the list.  Even if we were all
Anglo-European (I don't think we are), I strongly doubt that we would share
the same concept of beauty.  More importantly, I would never want to be in a
position of judging any ethnic group of people (let alone individuals...) as
not being beautiful.  Aesthetic judgments are best made on an individual
basis--particularly when those individuals are humans. 

I also take issue with the following:  "This is a problem that many modern
black women have just had to live with. Their inherited physical beauty is
of another time and another culture."  The truth is that their inherited
physical beauty is of this time.  I could add more about where the real
"problem" lies, but, as a writer with "Playboy" connections, I'm sure you're
at least as aware of bigotry, chauvinism, marketing, etc., as I am.

I'm not saying that I don't get a sense of the points you're probably trying
to make.  I just have enough of a problem with your wording--the combination
of the first person plural and the vagueness associated with your
generalizing--that I felt obliged to pipe up.

Berserkly,

davemarc