On 11 June 2011 02:14, Bob Blick wrote: > Russell, Gus, > > It's always disappointing to me when I see people casually come up with > some "logical" reason for racism, and think they aren't being racist. > > But for you to post it to two thousand people, most of whom you don't > know, really distresses me. > > Racist talk is not welcome on the Piclist. I shouldn't have to tell you > that. > > Bob OK then. On list if you must. 10 hours ago Bob sent two emails via the PICList Admin channel addressed to me and accusing me of supporting racist talk (by Gus) and challenging me to do my best to defend my actions. It was clear that he was not a happy chappy. I was suitably surprised as, to 'defend' racism in the sense suggested one would tend to need to be racist (as the term is usually understood) or of a somewhat more and, given our various past interchanges, I can't see how Bob would think that of me. 1 replied about an hour later with what I hoped would be suitable explanation and rather hoped that Bob would see fit to apologise - not because I felt hurt by what he said but because I hoped he might see that he had significantly understood me. Alas, an hour ago Bob wrote another missive via the admin channel (and I *DO* think that that's a good way to do it), suggesting that he was interested to watch me backpedal and then suggested what my motivations may have been. He suggested, as previously, that was not attuned to US realities (my words) - and that's true, but I am well enough aware of the various undercurrents, and we are not so different in NZ (alas) that the subject matter does not translate well enough. So far almost so good. But 2 hours ago (the last thing the list sees) Bob posted his shorter missive to list. What Bob thinks of me or of what I say or how he interprets it when its all in private is of no great import. But when it sills one sided into the list as a mini-lecture which ignores what I have said offlist, reinterprets my words in a way which I have explained I did not mean and which also gives Gus the doubt of the benefit, then some sort of public comment seems appropriate. I've chosen to repeat below in public what I said in private. Should anyone care they can compare my response and Bob's view of it. I don't see any great value in trampling too and fro in public on such affairs BUT leaving it one sided sets and excessively undesirable precedent. I'm not going to copy any of what Bob said in his several off list emails to list as he may feel that they constituted private communications and/or that they were in some way privileged. But, I will post here what I said in private to Bob and, hopefully, let it speak for itself. --- To: PICList owner: 19:41 NZT. 8 hours ago. -------------------------------------------------------------- [[[ A very few typos and spelling or punctuation errors corrected. NO change to sense or any words used. ]]] I'm rather 'taken aback'. I don't usually get taken aback :-) I'll be pleased if I find that you are in fact asking for a reasonable and rational response. I wasn't aware that I was "defending" anything. For me to be seen to be "defending racism" I'd have thought you'd need to see me as being racist by some normal meaning of that term. That you could possibly think that I was, based on what you know of me through past contact and interaction, surprises me on the one hand and saddens me on the other. FWIW. If anything I thought that you had offered a degree of defence of Gus's statement, albeit perhaps somewhat tongue in cheek, with what you had already written on the subject. I was in fact surprised by what you had written. Maybe your sarcasm setting is turned down too low or my sarcasm detector filter is set too high :-)? . I THOUGHT I was musing on the subject generally. Apparently not, from some perspectives at least. I didn't do a lexical parsing of the fine details of what Gus said - just went with the general gist, which I heard was something like "Positive comment, Positive comment, Positive comment. Positive comment, Positive comment, Positive comment. Positive comment, Positive comment, Positive comment. The list is marvellous and I've benefited greatly from it. One thing I've learned is to not take severe but useful criticism personally. Some people haven't yet learned to do that. Some minorities seem to do = this "POSITIVE COMMENT, POSITIVE COMMENT, POSITIVE COMMENT*." * His capitals :-). And, yes, as I acknowledged , that 6 word statement could be taken as a racist comment. >From what Gus subsequently said, as well as it being a general comment, he had in mind a specific personal situation where he was accused of racism, and then apparently tried and found wanting, because of a complaint by a 'caucasian' complainant. In his specific example there is no suggestion that anyone other than a "Caucasian" had any complaint against him or laid any complaint against him or that he held any hard feelings to anyone other than Caucasians. In that context his "minority groups" would refer probably to people who make it an ongoing choice to look for non-PC behaviour in others. There are many other examples of small groups who take it on themselves to act negatively if at all possible to presumed slights or bad actions. My favo[u]rite example is the Muppets Bald Eagle (I think it is) who wants everything so so proper and goes around seeing wrong in everything that others do. He's a minority group of one (as a metaphor) - I don't imagine that he represents any one group in the script writers mind but rather is a generic example of looking for negatives. Re racism & me. Am I racist? Of course. I do make judgements based on race - good ones and bad ones, correct ones and incorrect ones, relevant ones and irrelevant ones. A very very very important point that I as making, which seems to have been lost in the melee, is that CULTURE is often seen as a proxy for race when it shouldn't be. And, as I said, so is religion. Now is the usual place to trot out the "some of my best friends are xxx", where xxx =3D racial group of choice. I won't do that because, 1.) They are 2.) I don't KNOW the racial grouping ethnicity etc of some of my friends. I do know that in many cases a variable percentage of their ancestors were not all from the UK any time in the recent past. So what? For the last 10 years the church that I attend has had a predominantly Samoan group of people attending. The percentage has risen over the decade as more "Caucasians" leave than arrive and as more "Samoans" come. The "Samoans" often have strong German ancestry due to Samoa's past history. We also have Chinese, Filipinos, ... ?. And "?" it is. I don't know. Also Cook Island (a number) and a smattering of other pacific island groups. And so? One young lady who I greatly like (yes, my wife gets to read this :-) ) is notionally 50:50 Samoan and African-American, but her Samoan is mixed with ethnic German a few generations back. Apart from making her extremely interesting to look at I don't see her ethnicity - I do note in passing her PhD, 1 x Masters, 3 x Bachelors degrees and the Doctorate she is presently doing. So? I am strictly non-racist and anti-racism as the world knows the terms. I stand before God aware of my shortcomings and very happy to see his creation as he sees it. I don't "defend racism" in any normal sense. If anyone thinks I do they may need to look closer. Good enough? PS: You need to give Gus a bit more rope than that. We are not all created equal (praise God :-) ) and we all have different perspectives and ways of seeing life. Lighten up on him somewhat. Please. Russell _________________________________________________________ ________________ end of quoted email ______________________ Now, I DO appreciate brother Bob. I genuinely appreciate his contribution to list management. Just as I greatly appreciate Olin despite our differences I've gone as far as telling Bob within the past year that I love him. And that holds. [[It's OK. I'm in NZ :-) ]] (cf the Bard: "Love is not love which alters when it alteration finds, ..." BUT it gets a bit rough sometimes. Sure, Gus could have used better terminology. And yes (not backpedalling as I said it from the start) there is potential for racist comment in those 6 words. BUT also comment on how some groups of people do or may behave - in some case the grouping may be by culture, sometimes by religion and, yes, sometimes principally by race. And even then it may or MAY NOT be fair comment in this context and in many others. If we are going to come so suddenly and violently "to blows" we are in for a very rough ride indeed. If we see, in what someone else writes, something that may (or may not) need attention then we should be able to do it in a way that doesn't involve all of us standing on the rooftops and yelling at each other (figuratively.) Yes. An Aside: And as for Gus and racism. Sure. I'm sure he can manage it in various ways, as can we all. But if you read his comments about the event that got him into trouble, you find an undercurrent that would not be there if he was racist in the normal sense. Put yourself in his shoes (and mind). What does a man think about people who are 'black" when he asks them "Are you black?". His base motives are unknowable, but he is seeking to win favour. Not the action of your average redneck racist bigot. Whatever. What's the chances of trying that again. Yes? Russell -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .