Bill Bartlett wrote:
>
> jkonopak wrote:
>
> >Bill wrote:
> >> >
> >> >         RACISM, n, the belief that human races have distinctive
> >> >         characteristics which determine their respective cultures
> >> >         - Macquarie
> >
> >In this as perhaps in other things, Macquarie is mistaken; his
> >formulation makes racism (1) individual--which it is not, primarily, but
> >social, (2) neutral and non-disposative --which it is neither, being
> >first a manifestation of the exercise of power and intentionality, and
> >second evaluative, and judgemental, and (3) reductionist in the way that
> >psuedo-elegance in the social sciences often achieves as if by mandate.
> >I don't happen to have my well-thumbed volume of raymond Williams'
>
> I can't disagree with that, but only because I have not the faintest idea
> what you're talking about. Is it possible to paraphrase without resort to
> words such as "non-disposative"?

For me, it is a problem in the myth of (scientific) elegance. There
appears to be a sense that something said simply about a fiercely
consequential social issue somehow makes the issue more understandable
because the language is somehow more transparent. Imo, the core of this
debate is about how, not whether, social and cultural formations derived
from particular appropriations of advantage amid particular,historically
situated material conditions are relations of power.

>
> Macquarie is my pocket dictionary by the way.

Williams is mine, and American socialist Michael Harrington. Read also
Michael Parenti.

Cheery-bye
konopak