Eminem (was: Influenced by GR?)

[jbor]

----------
>From: jporter <jp4321 at IDT.NET>
>To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
>Subject: Re: Eminem (was: Influenced by GR?)
>Date: Wed, Jul 26, 2000, 10:36 PM
>

> Little bit of a non sequitur (for lack of the correct rhetorical term)
> there, rj. Addressing race relations in America is not synonymous with
> trying to imply that slavery and racial discrimination are somehow mythical,
> let alone, deny the Holocaust. What's your purpose?

Some excerpts from Terrance's spiel that you loudly applauded and described
as "Beautiful" (this spiel was made after Terrance's rather odd claim that
"black men make up only 5% of the American population", and some oblique
jabs at "white ivory tower liberals" which you also took up, and which I
found offensive as well as being totally inaccurate):

>
> Yeah, The Negro to the white intellectual is what is he has
> always been, not a man, but a Myth. The Old Negro is a myth,
> a creature of moral debate and historical controversy.

> the Negro, he contributes to it too with his protective
> social mimicry forced upon him, you know, by the adverse
> circumstances of dependence.

> the thinking negro

> The Negro is become a "Vogue" again

> the result of the glamour and
> notoriety brought to the new Harlem Renaissance by the same
> old wealthy dilettantes who have taken it up as a sort of
> amusing hobby.

Now, a few days later Terrance made a disclaimer that his post on "the Old
Negro" was his "take" (whatever that might mean) on an article or book
somewhere, and so he might well have been assuming a persona in making these
implicitly racist remarks (and, they are racist). However, you were
applauding the remarks at face value, or so I understood it. This is why I
was both flabbergasted and disappointed. So, I guess my "purpose" might be
to challenge racial prejudice and stereotyping when it rears its ugly head.

> So? I referred you to Freedom House, not the G-8. Is this an example of
> "free association?"

Actually, you tied Freedom House in with the paternalistic
government/democracy thread:

> (Go to _On the Line_ and check the archives for the segment: Phoney
> Democracy)

> Democracy, like any of the better examples of western culture. is obviously
> not perfect, but it's the best chance poor disadvantaged people in the third
> world have of gaining control over the institutions used by the people in
> power- often of the same race- to keep them poor and disadvantaged.

You had previously linked G-8 with the Mandela government in South Africa:

> sometimes, G-8 and all,
> paternalism is appropriate. Mandela is paternalistic, after all, and
> occasionally provides some good leadership.

If by "free association" you mean following your lead, then yes, certainly.

>              ???.?????????.......

An attempt at humour, lively repartee, proof that I read what you write etc.
All failed, obvio. Meant in the same spirit as your previous jab:

> Fine. You wonder about statistics. And then open your eyes ...

>
> Again, what does that have to do with Freedom House?

I addressed Freedom House in one phrase (the "more power" to them line -- I
haven't looked up the link, but might. I assume that the motives and
activities of this organisation are noble and my commendation was sincere).
The conjunction "but" which followed the phrase indicated that I was moving
on to the other agenda in your reference (viz. the merit in paternalistic
regulation of non-Western societies by Western govts and agencies).

> My "parting sally" was the same as my opening: There is no chance that
> Pynchon is going to be widely read and appreciated by the masses of any
> color, or even economic status. But at least in democratic societies (or
> relatively so) there is access and the hope of being read, by anyone.

Then I've misread you. But I will quote that final paragraph again and
wonder at how that last sentence fits your description of it now:

> There is, however, no chance that Pynchon, in his current form, will ever be
> name dropped, let alone read, to any significant extent by "the people," no
> matter how poor the genteel dormer. And maybe that's for the best given the
> nature of things.

Sorry for offence caused,

best