>> 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
> > Yes, I understand now. Blacks and Mexicans were happy > go lucky denizens of the US from 1906 - 1936 with nary > any organized resistance. ALL Southern whites, be > they lynchers, passive-bystanders, or members of the > Southern Women for the Prevention of Lynching were all > unaware of any alternate viewpoints to the prevailing > paradigm. > You left out every other class, type, gender, race, social level, geographically-defined, and otherwise describable human being in the Continental U.S. in the last century, who may or may not have slandered (even once), resented (even once), been the victim of, or otherwise oppresed or been oppressed by another human being of any given description. Even in the North, the West, and yes, in Florida. Lots of writers, actors, poets, singers, artists, cops, bakers, plumbers, etc. where around during this last century. By your theorem, they are ALL somehow, to greater or lesser degree, responsible for any inequities that existed during that expanse of time. This means of course, that we are all responsible as well, yourself included. This is a crock of very stercoraceous hogwash, in my opinion. Idealistic, Utopian, and warm-and-fuzzy, yes, but ultimately not based in human reality. > Yes, it all looks so simply through these crap-colored > non-PC glasses... > That's the problem, it *does* "look simple." Things are not always that simple, which is where the proper historical context comes in--not to mention not singling out someone you never met or knew and somehow lumping him in with "oppressors" of his time--in a form of "guilt by association" based on his having been part of the same nation and society! Do you not see the absurdity of this? >> someone who was >> largely isolated, home-bound, and dedicated to >> writing, not seem just a >> little bit absurd or even arrogant to you? > > I thought the prevailing view of Howard was that he > was well-read, well-versed in history, knowledgeable > in both local and world politics... > He was these things you mention, but due to his choice to stay home and care for his invalid mother, he was largely as I described him. I was describing physical isolation, not intellectual isolation. There is a tremendous difference. He had a lot of personal responsibility, and was trying to making a living in a manner which would allow him to fulfill that responsibility. Seems to me that his "duty" cup was pretty damned full.... --Mike
