Manifestations of Venus

[davemarc]

At 02:55 PM 10/29/96 -0500, Joe wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Oct 1996, 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.
>
>I most definitely do not want to fan the above two embers into a flame
>war, but I think that a comment is called for here.
>
>First of all, I think that Mr. Siegel does rather explicitly say who are
>the "our" and "us" to which he refers, i.e. "the modern Anglo-European
>eye".
>
>It seems pretty clear to me whom he's referring to and it also seems
>pretty clear to me that he is expressing his own opinion.  I don't see
>why anyone would fear being "passively associated" with his opinion.
>
>If the need to publicly disavow oneself from Mr. Siegel's comment is so
>strong, then perhaps one ought to publicly disavow oneself from Pynchon
>for his comments regarding "Negroes" in GR, such as the toilet scene
>wherein it is suggested that they're sodomites.
>
>I don't know if this is a case of someone being miffed about Mr. Siegel
>posting his comments about the list's "raison d'etre" or a case of
>political correctness gone beserk.
>
I'm glad Joe began his note by stating that he didn't want to fan any
embers.  Otherwise I'd have gotten the wrong impression from the rest of his
message.  I don't understand what he means about "someone being miffed about
Mr. Siegel posting his comments about the list's 'raison d'etre'"--I've been
pretty supportive of Jules overall--and I think the reference to "political
correctness gone berserk" is hyperbolic to the point of meaninglessness.  

I deal with most of Joe's other points in my response to Jules.

davemarc