Gary wrote:
>
> Some of your examples support my view. Especially
> number 6. If there were so many mixed race marriages
> that congress got involved in upholding a ban it shows
> that a lot of common people didn't buy into racism.
First, Congress didn't uphold the laws as far as I can tell. And I
didn't say that.
State legislatures passed the laws. As far as the number of mixed
marriages go, I think you would have to dig into the Census records and
then go from there. Gerstle in AMERICAN CRUCIBLE paints a very
different picture on that matter though.
>
> Most of your other examples also show that a debate
> and struggle was going on in society at that time.
But read Goldschmidt's memoir and then read Boas' papers and letters.
It isn't so much a debate as a very small group making an attack on the
dominant paradigm.
Boas' essays are in RACE, LANGUAGE AND CULTURE, and Stocking has edited
his a large collection of his letters. The dominant paradigm of the day
would be one stressing ethnic purity, a decidedly anti-white bias, and
as I have noted before, "white" has a very specific meaning that until
the 1920s excluded Celts, Jewish people until thepost WW2, Italians and
East Europeans until almost the 1940s.
> Blacks, mexicans, and sympathethic whites were on one
> side and Howard and the (admittedly dominant) racist
> paradigm were on the other.
>
> But there were two sides, even then. I'm glad the
> lop-sidedness shifted. It would have been nice if REH
> had been more like Ernest Caldwell, and been on the
> helping it shift side.
While not necessarily an apologist for REH, I argue before you start
sticking labels like "racist" and "genocide" on people and events in the
past, you need to fully understand the context and historical
circumstances of the past. You also need to define your terms
(something other than you saying racial discrimination I have yet to
see). I also feel you need to judge those events and people by the
values of their time and day, and use the labels of their time and day.
But hey, I 'm an academic, my concerns are far different than most of
the REHupa guys, and my writing is judged by an entirely different
crowd.
(I guess while we are dredging up sludge, when can revive the
apa/fanzine debate and whether it can really be considered scholarship,
advance the cause of REH, etc.)
And if you really think we live in a "golden age" I would suggest you
read P. H. Collins, "Like One of the Family: Race, Ethnicity, and the
Paradox of US National Identity," Ethnic and Racial Studies, Vol. 24,
2001, pp. 3-28. Remember the old adage of, "He who is without sin..."
I don't necessarily agree with all of Collins arguments, question some
of her data, but IMO is an extremely thought provoking article.
Later, MEH
PS--I also have to ask if you have read L. Ditommaso, "Robert E.
Howard's Hyborian Tales and The Question of Race in Fantastic
Literature," EXTRAPOLATION, 1996, v. 37, pp. 150-170. Opinions???
