Charles Moyer wrote:

>
>Almost everything Mr. Wei said about political correctness in his last
>posting was wrong;  . . .

Since ALMOST everything was wrong, I would be curious to know what might
have been right  . . . .


>and, as a result, he put the wrong hats on the wrong
>participants. Here is a list of apposite books for him or anyone else to
>examine to correct his misconceptions;

Rather than give a list of books ---with which you might guess that I may be
familiar--- it might be useful to address my specific points.

Let me at least say something about:


>"The Closing of the American Mind" by Allen Bloom

I rather enjoyed reading this book, but it seems that Bloom is worried about
the fact that the "American Mind"  is closed to ideas that interest HIM
personally.  For example, I do not think we should be terribly concerned
that  large numbers of Americans  are not interested in or attracted to
Nietszche.

On the general subject of

>"Tenured Radicals"

I would like to observe that the word "radical" is easily misused.
Furthermore, if one looks at what is happening to tenure itself in society
at large, clearly the right has sufficient control over the institutions it
funds.  The issue of tenure is merely one issue which should be viewed in
light of the overall trend of the corporatization of the university, which
is proceeding apace.   As regards the topic of

>"Literature Lost: Social Agenda and the Corruption of the Humanities"

Well, what are we to do??  In a genuinely democratic society, containing
democratically-run universities, students and professors would decide what
should be read in particular contexts, based on individual needs, interests,
and backgrounds.  In some cases Malcolm X might be preferable to Plato (I
say this in spite of the fact that I personally prefer the latter---but
context is everything).

As for those who are

>"Against Deconstruction"

let them be against it, or for it.  Deconstruction can be a tool of
reactionaries or of social reformers; of deep thinkers or of hatchet
artists.

When I hear people talk about

>"The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are
>Murdering Our Past,"

I wonder which people think is worse:  killing millions of indigenous
Americans or "killing our history", and what does the word "our" mean?

I recently read excerpts from an interesting book entitled, "Lies Our
History Teacher Taught Us."  One of the most interesting lies was the
distortion taught about the first "successful" settlers in North America.
Spanish archives reveal that the first successful (non-indigenous) settlers
were not European, but African slaves who were abandoned by their European
masters, who gave up on the settlement, and didn't bother to care whether
the slaves would survive.  When the Spanish ships returned, several years
later, to the same spot, the Africans had --- to the astonishment of the
Spaniards--- not only survived, but built a village which was now
flourishing.  Needless to say, the Spaniards re-enslaved them.

As regards,


>"The Future of the European Past"

I dare say the history of that past NEEDS considerable re-writing, don't you
agree?  Should it be written the same way, over and over, by each
generation?   In respect of the issue of "killin' history,"  I suppose that
Pound's China Cantos and Rock-Drill do as good a job as any text of
distorting historical facts for a personal purpose as any other.  Both the
left and the right do "rewrite history" on a continuous basis.  If by the
right we mean the corporate controlled superstructure (TV stations,
newspapers, publishing houses, and radio stations owned by conglomerates),
then the lies of the right are far ahead of leftist "attempts at
deconstruction".

"Politically correct" should refer to any prevailing attempt at political
orthodoxy, and not be a mere buzz word designed to castigate one faction.
For instance it might be more "politically correct" to speak of Ezra Pound
in solely reverential tones in certain offices at a particular university in
Maine.  It might be less "politically correct" to speak of Pound
reverentially in certain offices at a university in Tel Aviv.

So I humbly suggest that in Charles Moyer's last post, there was a distinct
possibility that virtually everything he  said was almost entirely, but not
quite, very near to being wrong.


Friendly Regards,

Wei
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com