Watts article

[jbor]

> "... the young, active disciple of Malcolm X who
> dismisses it all [E.Y.O.A.] with a contemptuous
> shrug," -- and is never heard from again.

Of course, the "young, active disciple of Malcolm X" is "[t]his particular
kid" who confronts the "white lady volunteer" at the E.Y.O.A. in the
dialogue quoted immediately after he is introduced:

    The Negro attitude toward E.Y.O.A. is one of clear mistrust,
    though degrees of suspicion vary, form the housewife wanting
    only to be left in peace and quiet, who hoped that maybe The
    Man is lying less than usual this time, to the young, active
    disciple of Malcolm X who dismisses it all with a contemptuous
    shrug.
      "But why?" asked one white lady volunteer. "There are so
    many agencies now that you can go to, that can help you, if
    you'll only file your complaint."
      "They don't help you." This particular kid had been put down
    trying to get a job with one of the larger defense contractors.
      "Maybe not before. But it's different now."
      "Now," the kid sighed, "now. See people been hearing that
    'now' for a long time, and I'm just tired of The Man telling
    you, 'Now it's OK, now we mean what we say.'"

To sum up, criticism of the quotes has been based on the assumption that
they're made up, even though ample evidence has been provided from within
the text to show that they're not made up. MalignD wants Pynchon to describe
the blacks wearing colourful Negro clothes and having colourful Negro names,
doing colourful Negro things in colourful Negro places, and to show them
speaking in a more lively and colourful and idiosyncratically Negro manner
in the article. That they speak in plain terms, and express common sense
viewpoints in a matter-of-fact way -- on the street, in the pool halls and
bars, listening to a baseball game, at the counter of the E.Y.O.A. -- runs
counter to his stereotypical expectations. On the other hand, that they use
words like "man" (for emphasis) and "baby" and "cats" when they do speak
makes them, to his ear, sound like a parody of themselves.

Complaints about the absence of specific detail have been refuted with
multiple examples of specific description, statistical data and relevant
social and political information and commentary, all of it relating directly
to Watts in the summer of 1966 -- the memory of the riots of 1965, the
physical state and emotional mood of the community, the Deadwyler affair,
the white store owner who has put his money up and is trying to rebuild a
lone market in the suburb, and the prevailing political regime and welfare
mentality in L.A. Complaints that the article doesn't have wider implication
for black-white relations in other places in the U.S. are contradicted by
the previous complaint, and by the context of publication and the
positioning and repositioning of the reader by the text.

That the article doesn't offer "new or radical or different" insights or
solutions is regarded as a fault, when the primary purpose is to amplify the
point that everybody in Watts (and reading the article) already knows what
the problems and issues are. The stumbling block for these kids in 1966, of
course, is "the little man" who prejudges them as intellectually inferior
and inherently criminal or worthless, who discriminates against them when
they apply for a job or tenancy or a loan, who is quick to blame the victim
for the fact that they are being racially targeted and oppressed by the
police and the "city fathers", and who strives hard to dismiss the Watts
point of view and the legitimacy of their grievances on any trivial or
invented pretext. 

best