> > 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. >
Gary, The gist of the problem is this: Not only do you seek to force your own view of contemporary PC reality on REH, totally out of historical and social context, but you also sit in judgement. Your judgement-seat, however, teeters on a highly-questionable revisionist view of reality--a pigeon-holed reality which has been painstakingly hammered into place by would-be social engineers and ad hominem theorists who find examples of fault which support their pet theories, everywhere they look--even if distortion is required. This latter modus operandi has been the prevalent one in academia in general, for the last forty years or so, and is why I am personally highly critical and suspicious of anything which is "politically correct," or which smacks of historical revisionism. Both of these are the opposite of true self-determination and freedom of thought, as well as "rugged individualism," in fact the very type of individualism that Howard embraced. REH, ultimately, seemed very open-minded and socially-conscious. He was always, or almost always, on the side of the underdog. He was as far from an elitist as one can be, actually. He identified with the pariah, having been one himself. I don't think it would have been "nice" if he had "been like" anyone else, from any other period of American History. Seems to me that, aside from needing some help with depression, he was just fine the way he was. --Mike
