The intellectual gymnastics involved in demonstrating that Howard was "not a racist" are clever, and mildly amusing to those of us who have not been victims of racism, though I'm sure those who have been victims of it would not find this all so humorous. I think a very large point is getting missed, though. There really would be no point in arguing whether someone in the benighted, pre-Civil Rights past was or was not "racist" if that person's work, thought, etc., was no longer available except in libraries. Those who have gone into the tongueless dust matter not. What matters to me about Howard's "racism" is not whether he was or was not one by the standards of his day, but how his work will be perceived by modern audiences, since that is who I hope to get to read his work. Therefore, the current definition of "racism" is the relevant one.
Scotty, Mark, I would love to see you argue your notions that a person is not a "racist" who does not commit overt acts of discrimination, and especially this charming notion that a person's "private" thoughts as expressed in letters, journals, etc., do not count against them, only their "public" utterances, against some African-American scholars who I think could be relied upon to see things quite otherwise. There was a big flap a few years back about H.L. Mencken's anti-Semitism, which tarnished his reputation considerably, and that was entirely over the revelation of his "private" expressions of bigotry. It seems to me that insisting upon the "not a racist" position involves greater risk than the "yes, he was a racist, but for the time a fairly mild one" position, because when the quotes start flying, as you know they will, the adamantly "not" position loses all credibility. Rusty
