Re: writ large, another sip

Ah, ok. No, I think you're making connections from my statements that I
didn't intend. I didn't do anything to stop you from making those
connections, though.

Let me spell it out a bit more:

Members of the KKK ascribe specific negative personality traits to
blacks as a group.
You ascribe specific negative personality traits to intellectuals as a
group.

It's irrelevant that blacks are "born" blacks but intellectuals are
"educated" to be intellectuals. Both you and my Klan co-workers were
equally ascribing "specific negative personality traits" to a large and
diverse group of people.

You could extend this to the specific types of statements made:

KKK: Blacks like fried chicken and watermelon and are lazy and dishonest.
YOU: Intellectuals are arrogant and disconnected from reality.

No one is "born" dishonest or liking fried chicked, just as no one is
"born" arrogant and disconnected from reality. In both cases the
specific examples are the product of acculturation of some sort.

Here's one point of difference:

KKK: Blacks are racially -- genetically -- inferior.
YOU: Race or genetics has nothing to do with being an intellectual.

Ok, the comparison breaks down at that point. You still need to account
for the ways it still holds up.

Jim

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>Because skin color is inborn, your KKK example. Ok, you're linguistically
>calling me a bigot, whatever that means.
>Daniel
>
>
>
>
>

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Wed Apr 30 11:59:11 2003