From: aam9n@hagar1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai)
Subject: Re: Sunil does not read the headers anyway : -)
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 19:53:02 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.105751.17812@ecst.csuchico.edu> jawad@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jawad Ali) writes:
>
>In article <1992Jul27.163939.21825@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> aam9n@hagar1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Ali Ahmad Minai) writes:
>>
>>I partly agree with you. The duplicity is definitely the more fundamental
>>issue, though there is some complaint against umpiring too. I do think,
>>however, that the source of this duplicity is not racism but remants of
>>the colonialist attitude. It is the same arrogance that manifests itself
>>in things like the "New World Order". I feel that the term "racism" is
>>used too indiscriminately to describe any kind of cultural, ethnic or
>>group bigotry, even when race per se plays little or no role. In this.
>>"racism" joins other devalued terms of our age, such as "terrorism" or
>>"anti-Semitism". I do not believe in absolute meaning, but words have a
>>life, and some violence is done when they are used without discrimination.
>>Subversion of accepted usage is a function of art, but I sense a world
>>of difference between creative redefinition and blind generalization.
>>Of course, that is just my opinion.
>
>Apparently we agree upon just about everything.  The few disagreements that
>we do have are, however, far from trivial.  

Since we *do* agree on most points, I'll just answer two of your objections
that seem most imortant to me.
>
>You yourself are wading in some very murky water with this notion of
>"subversion of accepted usage", which implies that there actully is some
>agreed upon accepted usage of words such as "racism" and "terrorism".

Ah, well said, but not well enough. Accepted usage can be subverted without
there being any objective, absolute or otherwise concrete accepted usage.
It depends on whether you see subversion as an action applied to an object,
or as a convenient label for an experience (which, curiously enough, is
also just a convenient label for what one might call ---- experience!).
Simplistically, if I use words in a way that produces a sense of unfamilarity
or a sense of profound familiarity in the listener or reader, I have, to me,
subverted acepted usage. If my words elicited a pause before comprehension,
or no comprehension at all, I have subverted accepted usage. Note that the
subversion need not be universal. Since meaning "is" subjective, so is the
response of people to words. I shall not say that it "depends" upon their
knowledge or experience, for I mean more than that. It is the form that
words produce within us that is familiar or unfamiliar, and that is all the
meaning there is. Usually, the forms arise and dissolve without our notice
for we are immersed in the banal discourse of unextended existence. Art
removes us from the banality by creating extension in the interval that precedes
comprehension. Art is mostly the arresting of experience. And art is nothing
at all. I hope I make myself clear, though I know not why.

This is not the place for such an argument, and I doubt if either of us
wants to get into it anyway (for me, I've had it too often with others on
the net).

>>A sense of superiority is certainly most of it. I'm just not sure 
>>it is "racist". Also, all of us --- you and I included --- have a sense
>>of superiority in some way. Of course, we do not think it "misplaced",
>>but others might. The way to counter the TCCB is not by raising slogans
>>of "racism" but by thwarting it strategically.
>
>Ali, neither you nor I have a seat at the ICC.  One way that I can 
>make a miniscule contribution to thwarting them stratigically is to
>to use this public forum to point out any inconsistencies in their
>position (although, mostly I just mock them :-)). You, on the other
>hand, are either working on a higher strategy or are planning to let
>others do this thwarting for you.

Well, there goes my strategy! Now you've told everyone. Secrecy, dear
chap, is of the essence --- or was, in this case. Now it's back to the
chalkboard. But seriously, if you think you are doing any more by
claiming "racism" than I am by seeing it as arrogance, I think you are
mistaken. Also, I think there is a difference of perspective. I am
simply analyzing the situation (albeit simplistically). You think you
are actually trying to make a difference. Perhaps you are. If so, may
your pinkie have the strength of a thousand arms, and may you run into
Colin Cowdrey in a dark alley. Be kind.


Best Regards,

Ali