OFFLIST

Craven, Jim jcraven at clark.edu
Wed Jul 23 18:27:30 MDT 2003





cde. Craven,

I am writing this offlist because I do not think it should be pursued in
public.

I am well aware of the impact, import, and consequences of using that term.
It is not a term I have ever used before, nor a term I ever want to use
again.  It is a throw down term, and I was throwing down for whatever ML  or
the moderator wanted to do next.

I also believe that  ML engaged in deliberate distortion of my comments.  He
has done this in the past, avoiding concrete issues, to distort, factually
what I have said.

I believe accusing me of heaping abuse on Stan Goff, when my comments were
confined strictly to the slogan, I believe that accusing me of describing
everyone in disagreement as arrogant and ignorant when I had clearly written
no such thing, was also throw down.

I apologize to you and anybody else offended by such language.  However it
was not without its specific context. If LP wishes to unsub me, that is his
prerogative.

If ML wishes to lie about me, it is not.

best,
dms

Dear dms,

Please look at your statement in the second paragraph: "It is not a term I
have ever used before, nor a term I ever want to use again." Now what if I
called you a "motherfucking liar" because, by your own account, you have
used that term at least once before with that guy from the railroad? Of
course I do not believe you are a liar, you simply misspoke--at most; and I
may "believe" you have indeed used that term more than once before (I have
in extreme anger) but I do not "know" that for a fact; nor do I "know" your
state of mind in terms of "knowing" that you knowingly told an untruth that
you knew well to be an untruth. In the case of the railroad guy, I assume he
actually "knew" he was telling a lie and that you were indeed somewhere else
than where he claimed you were in which case that would be a clear case of a
liar.

When it comes to some opinions, about whether or not you supposedly attacked
Stan Goff, well that it more dicey in that one person's opinion of what
constitutes an "attack" may be different in which case Lause may well have
written something you know to be untrue, and even many might agree that what
he wrote was untrue, but that is still a different matter and level from
showing he intentionally lied--actually wrote a lie he knew to be a lie--as
opposed to a difference in opinion and definition as to what constitutes an
"attack."

I am a Blackfoot Indian and a Marxist. I see enough eurocentric and ignorant
shit about Indians on some progressive lists to make my blood boil (that is
when someone gets around to discussing genocide against Indigenous Peoples
and critical issues of Indigenous Peoples about which most white academics
and white activists know little or nothing). But I am careful not to call
someone a racist even if they are advancing a view I know or believe to be
objectively racist because calling them a racist (as opposed to ill-informed
or just plain ignorant) is a statement about and a claim to "knowing" what
is in their heart and mind and what they actually intended.

That is my point only. Yet you "hazarded to speculate", not knowing anything
about me, that I was answering your claims and vitriol about Mark Lause
because your comments about his alleged "dissembling" were correct. So now
you "know" what was in my mind and what I intended with my response?

You see the point?

Last comment.

Jim C.




More information about the Marxism mailing list