No. In this instance I was accussing you of of "complicity" with Koppel
and Berger. And again I'll thank you to excuse me from the culture club.
But you did give me a good laugh. CP

Carrol Cox wrote:
>
> "R. Gancie/C.Parcelli" wrote:
>
> > No, Mr. Cox. I am not "integral of the culture." "Integral" implies a
> > complicity which I reject. It was no more than a clumsy attempt on Wei's
> > part to get me to entrap myself in the exchange. The kind of agitprop
> > you get from ted Koppel or Sandy Berger. And I'll invite you to refrain
> > from telling me what I am and am not part of. CP
>
> I think you can reject the complicity without claiming what I would call
> a Miltonic separation of the individual from his/her world (culture). I too
> have for many decades rejected the complicity: e.g., at forums, rallies,
> in small discussions I always screamed bloody murder when someone
> spoke of what "we" were doing in Vietnam (El Salvador, Nicaragua,
> Kosovo, etc.), refusing to consider myself part of any such "we."
> "Who is 'we'?" is always a good question, and I would not dream of
> including you with a Koppel in that sense. But "cultures" (as opposed
> to the 'we' implicit in such questions as "Which side are you on?")
> are unitary and composed of complex internal relations. It is only
> because 'we' and Koppel are both integral to the same culture that it
> is both necessary and coherent to reject complicity with Koppel.
>
> There is a lot more to say on this obviously on both (or all) sides,
> but I wished immediately to dissociate myself from accusing you
> of any complicity with Koppel (or Westmoreland or Clinton or ...).
>
> One may even deny complicity after the fact. I feel no complicity
> whatever with the criminal U.S. invasion of Korea, even though
> at the time I wholly approved and even enjoyed a top secret
> clearance (Air Force, attached to NSA).
>
> Carrol