Eminem (was: Influenced by GR?)

[jporter]

> From: "jbor" <jbor at bigpond.com>


> Some excerpts from Terrance's spiel that you loudly applauded and described
> as "Beautiful" 

Terrence:
>> 
>> 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.

It's still beautiful, and courageous, given the current atmosphere. Odd, I'm
not usually a fan of Tom Wolfe- just an old fashioned pushbutton lefty here-
but the current discussion allows me some appreciation of his insights.
 
> Now, a few days later Terrance made a disclaimer...

Yes, and I suppose an afadavit of it will be read into the record at his
Show Trial.

> 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).

 And unless he can satisfy The Tribunal concerning the basis of his remarks-
it's the gulag, or worse.

>However, you were
> applauding the remarks at face value, or so I understood it.

 Perhaps you misunderstood both the face and the value?

> 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.

 Sorry to re-disappoint you... and while I've been called "pleasantly ugly"
in the past, it was not racial stereotyping or prejudice, except in your
mind, that I was about. I appreciate your good intentions in challenging the
evils of racism, but you are mistaking my challenging of your posturing for
racism. Even if you're black that would be an indefensible ploy.

> 
>> 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:

>> 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.

Yes, and I stand by my preference for paternalism, in it's benign forms,
over social chaos and anarchy. It's a risk worth taking. There is no going
back to some ideal past. The G-8 are worthy of criticism, but I'm always
suspect of blanket condemnations.


>> 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.
> 

Because Pynchon's effect depends to a large extent on all those hierarchical
binaries- the echelons- that he incorporates into his work, it could,
paradoxically, lead to the conclusion that society would be better if the
effect of the work itself became superfluous and irrelevant. Likewise, there
is always the possibility that the majority who don't read Pynchon have
better taste than us. No one is forcing the majority NOT to read him. Also,
notice the conditional aspect of my sentence: "maybe that's for the best..."
Maybe not. I'm wondering, too.

jody