what's wrong with being pc?

[davemarc]

At 05:35 PM 10/31/96 +0000, Andrew wrote:
>davemarc replies to Bonnie:
>
>> >So where do we draw the line?  [. . .] for myself, as for others (say, 
>> >the founders of Amnesty INt'l) there is a space wherein cultures can 
>> >converge--simply, on the matter of torture and pain.  Am I wrong?
>
>> No, not at all.  It's a fallacy to think that a "culture" is an
>> unchanging phenomenon with a clearly defined "inside" and "outside."
>> Humans interact and exchange ideas all the time.  Protesting any
>> human practice, whether "individual" (they all are, in the long run)
>> or "cultural" (they all are, in the long run), is just as much a
>> part of the culture as the practice itself.
>
>If you give Jules this much room to manoeuvre then your criticism is
>redundant. For, if a culture is truly the catholic and impartial
>compendium of human practices you suggest then there ought to be no
>danger of Jules' views being accounted representative of those of
>other members of the culture - at least not `in the long run'.
>Dissociating yourself from Jules' posting is merely a minor
>articulation of your own particular stance within that amorphous and
>unregulated mess known as White Male EuroAmerican culture, 

I never claimed my "minor articulation..." was anything other than that.  I
just wouldn't choose a term like "White Male EuroAmerican culture."  I think
I'd say something specific, like "the Pynchon list on which Andrew Dinn
plays such an important role." 

>an
>articulation in a vacuum which requires no response from anyone who
>recognises the real nature of the beast, Kultur. For, doubtless, the
>invisible hand which regulates the cultural market place will sort
>things out equitably `in the long run' without the need for your
>protest.

Andrew's conclusions here are fallacious.  Protests are part of culture;
they make as much of a difference as everything else.  They are, in fact,
part of what comprises that mysterious quality called "the invisible hand."
In this case, Jules wrote that the point was well taken.  He then reiterated
his remarks in a way that more clearly expressed his point of view.  I point
out that my exchanges with Jules have been entirely civil (at least as far
as I'm concerned).  So here's a case where a minor communication between two
minor participants (hope that's okay with you, Jules), made a minor
difference in a minor culture.

If memory serves, Andrew pointed out to Jules that it was a breach of
Netiquette for him to post private email.  I guess that was an attempt by
Andrew to make a minor difference, etc., etc.  I've pointed out to
Jules--who is, after all, a newcomer to the P-list--that his use of the
first person plural is not always advisable on a list of this nature.
That's a similar attempt to make a minor difference, etc., etc.  
>
>In which case your comments can only be addressed to the short run.
>So, to paraphrase the Iron Queen of the free market, are you not just
>trying (to no avail, of course) to buck the system to satisfy your own
>cultural agenda? 

To which system is Andrew referring?  The system of Jules's grammar in one
particular paragraph of his many posts?  Mea culpa.

>And if, as I believe, cultures actually serve to
>regularise and consolidate a system of power relations (they are a
>manifestation of that urge to empire which tarnishes so many human
>endeavours) then your worry is indeed well-founded and your response
>appropriate to the nature of the juggernaut. But in that case your
>response is also a self-contradictory ploy which will work, if it
>works at all, by force of rhetoric alone.
>
>So which horn will you be gored on? The choice is yours (even if the
>selection on offer is all my own work).
>
I addressed Jules's rhetoric in a civil and direct manner that I would
hardly term "a self-contradictory ploy."

To refresh the memory of anyone who still cares, this is my original
exchange with Jules:

VVVVVV

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.

VVVVV

And here's the follow-up:

VVVVV

At 01:50 PM 10/29/96 -0800, Jules wrote:
[deleted quotation of above exchange}
>
>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

VVVVV

Amazing.  No mentions of "political correctness."  No namecalling.  Etc.  

Sticking to the text,

davemarc