Rusty Burke wrote:
Scotty, Mark, I would love to see you argue your notions that a person isWell Rusty, I think in the end, one has to look at the sum total of the person's life and actions. Given all that Boas and Benedict did to "deconstruct" the racism of their time (ranging from scholarly articles, letters to politicians, books, etc.), I would argue the few omissions are minor in their cases.
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.
I will also say, I have yet to really decide whether REH was racist or not. I am actually working on an article of that, though it is probably more of social history than literary studies.
My argument is against the post-modern/pomo stance which judges everything by the standards of today. I am willing to admit my intellectual biases---being a Boasian anthropologist and also stressing cultural relativism and the historical context. Hey, never was a popular stance in literary studies, but hey, I ain't a literary studies kinda guy. Culture/social history, yes.
While you are worried about REH and today's racism, I point you to Ellis' LITERATURE LOST for why you shouldn't worry about today's definition. In essence, today's definition will probably not be tomorrow's...
Best, MEH
PS--and on being acquainted with "racism",
I will remind you I am the "gaijin" who has being living as a minority
for 4 years now (and no, for the curious, I don't have a Japanese wife).
