>From:  Richard Edwards <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject:      Re: Racial or cultural? (with correction)
 
>I'm going to leap to Jonathan Morse's defence here. What Morse detects -
>correctly I think - in the letter which you quote is an example of what
>often happens when a bigoted person learns something which appears to cast
>doubt on the validity of his prejudices; he pretends to have known it all
>along and then finds some more or less intellectually dishonest method of
>explaining it away. Pound's reaction to the news that Del Mar was Jewish is
>to pretend to have already "deduced" it for himself (without saying how or
>from what). But if he had already "deduced" it why did he need Kasper to
>"ascertain" it for him? He either knew it or he didn't. (If "deduced" in
>this context means no more than "suspected", it is a mis-use of language and
>quite a revealing one at that; one of the bigot's habits of mind is to
>pretend that his prejudicial conclusions about people's racial origins have
>a logical basis).
 
By means of mind reading, you may be able to deduce that this is what
Jonathan Morse intended.  But it is not what he *said*.
 
My point is that he gave a paraphrase of Pound's comment which was
completely inaccurate, and which was in fact the diametric opposite of
what Pound actually *said*.  Morse did not claim to be talking about the
hidden unconscious meanings underneath Pound's words.
 
I agree that when Pound says "deduced," he undoubtedly actually meant
that he had noticed certain things that caused him to *suspect*, with
growing certainty but without positive confirmation, that Del Mar was
Jewish.  Maybe you are never this sloppy in your language, but I know
that when I'm writing letters to people not intended for publication, I
very often am.
 
I do agree that Pound's letter is typical of the process of
rationalization people often use when confronted with cognitive
dissonance.  If Morse had said this, I would not have an issue with him.
My issue that Morse in this case is completely inaccurate in paraphrasing
Pound, and in many other cases is, in my opinion, is quite inaccurate
in the way he interprets Pound's words.
 
Of course if you want to say, "Well, what the hell difference does it
make; Pound was in fact anti-semitic, so who cares about his actual
words?" then I might suggest that we would be better off writing fiction,
as William Stoneking has done.
 
>Pound's next sentence, with its thin pretence of "impartiality", is a piece
>of contemptible double-speak. If Pound was really interested in being
>impartial, he would have asked himself to what extent his prejudices about
>the Jewish "tribe" were consistent with Del Mar's being a member of it.
>Instead he takes the easy route out of the quandary: Del Mar is just the
>exception that proves the rule.
 
I pretty much agree with this.
 
However I believe that if we want to discuss Pound in a useful way, even
while vehemently condemning many of his beliefs, we ought to base our
condemnation on things he actually said and not attribute to him things
that he never in fact said at all.
 
--Lee Lady <Http://www2.Hawaii.Edu/~lady/>