From: mtaranto@shearson.com (Mark Taranto)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books
Subject: Re: The White Man's Burden of Proof. Was: The Literary Canon
Date: 30 Aug 92 18:47:26 GMT


I'm adopting Francis' subject line, to spare those who really want to
read about the literary canon.

cramer@optilink.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) muses on a number of topics,
many of which end with the complaint that if he says X, then people
assume that he believes Y, and that is just not true.

In a way, I find this very amusing, because this is exactly what
Clayton does all the time.  If someone states an opinion held by
proponents of PC or by liberals, he makes the assumption that they
must therefore hold all of the tenets of those movements.  This
is just as wrong as what Clayton complains about.

To bring the discussion back to books for a moment, I would like to
suggest that Clayton read E. M. Forster's HOWARDS END.  There is
a wonderful passage that applies to this discussion:

        "Not any more of this!" she cried.  "You shall see the connection
        if it kills you, Henry!  You have had a mistress -- I forgave you.
        My sister has a lover -- you drive her from the house.  Do you
        see the connection? . . .  Only say to yourself: 'What Helen
        has done, I've done'."

Let's look at one of Clayton's complaints:

> If I point out that racism is a bad thing, and that it doesn't
> matter whether the victims are white or black, I get told, "You're
> a racist."

I happen to agree that racism is a bad thing.  I also happen to agree
that it is bad whether the victim is black or white.  So, why do people
assume that Clayton is a racist when he says things like this.  Part of
it has to do with the kind of racism we are talking about.  For years,
racism towards blacks has been systematic.  Society as a whole was
racist.  I would like to believe that this is changing.  But there
are still incidents of racism.  Racism towards whites (and just to be
clear, I mean caucasions here), is not systematic.  Using Clayton's own
example, a white man who is qualified for a job and does not get it
because he is white will probably still find a decent job elsewhere.
The same is not (or was not) true for blacks.  At any rate, in the minds
of many people, racism against blacks and racism against whites mean
two different things.  If Clayton is operating with a different idea
of what racism means, it is possible that the wrong message gets across.

But there is another reason that people might assume that Clayton is
racist if he complains about racism against whites.  That has to do with
who goes around complaining about it.  The ONLY people I have ever heard
complain about racism towards whites (other than Clayton) are white
supremicists.  Just the other day I was watching a news show where the
Grand Dragon of some chapter of the KKK was talking about it.  Now,
Clayton may well find the beliefs and practices of the KKK abhorrent,
but the fact remains that if he keeps using their little catch phrases,
people will assume that he accepts their beliefs.

This might not be right, but it happens.  And as I have pointed out,
Clayton makes the same types of leaps about beliefs of others that
they make about him.

To Ron Nadel -- What's the score?

Mark