MDDM Gershom's Intervention (was ...

[barbara100 at jps.net]

> If Washington isn't racist why does he keep black people as property?  I
> don't think treating the term "racist" as an anachronism works either,
> Washington is a key player in a social, political, economic structure that
> values Africans as property not as humans (and Native Americans as vermin
> to be eradicated so the settlers can occupy their land) -- his actions and
> beliefs are racist to the core.

Who needs to be a prick about it when you have Institutionalization.  Sorry,
Gersh old buddy, that's just "the way things are."  You understand...
I could see a certain congeniality in that sort of a relationship, even
though it is "racist to the core."  It goes easier when you can elevate
repression it to something beyond one's control.  It's a comfort strategy
for tops and bottoms alike. If it's the case with Pynchon's GW, though, it
would be pretty ironic that The founding father would use it for excuse.  I
could see Pynchon doing that though.
Interesting to read you two arguing.  You've wetted my appetite for Mason &
Dixon.

Barbara




----- Original Message -----
From: "Doug Millison" <millison at online-journalist.com>
To: <pynchon-l at waste.org>
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2002 4:32 PM
Subject: Re: MDDM Gershom's Intervention (was ...


> jbor
>  <Gershom following GW to Raleigh's Billiard-Room in
> >Ch. 58, and intervening there on George's behalf,
>
> How does Gershom "intervene on George's behalf"?  What does Gershom do
that
> could be considered an "intervention"?  Pynchon doesn't depict anything in
> this scene in Raleigh's Billiard-room (Ch. 58) that suggests Washington is
> in any danger.  You seem to be reading an awful lot into this scene. After
> Washington's comment, which seems to suggest that he recognizes Gershom's
> voice, Pynchon doesn't show Washinton doing or saying anything, nobody is
> pursuing him or addressing him in any way, Gershom continues to tell
jokes.
> Washinton literally fades from the scene.
>
>
> >jbor
> >But in his texts there are also white Americans and
> >Europeans, such as GW, who aren't racist,
>
> If Washington isn't racist why does he keep black people as property?  I
> don't think treating the term "racist" as an anachronism works either,
> Washington is a key player in a social, political, economic structure that
> values Africans as property not as humans (and Native Americans as vermin
> to be eradicated so the settlers can occupy their land) -- his actions and
> beliefs are racist to the core.
>