The issue of race prejudice is an enigma in Pound as it is elsewhere. Wei, you seem convinced that the evidence is conclusive that Pound was a racist. I do not share this opinion for several reasons. For one, the statement he made concerning race prejudice in GK ; "Race prejudice is red herring. The tool of the man defeated intellectually" indicates the opposite. At least he must have considered himself not a racist or else he would have had to admit that he was "defeated intellectually" by his own definition. Regardless it shows he thought this thing through, and one must wonder if the cry "racist" isn't actually being used as red herring to lead attention away from valid criticism which may or may not have racist overtones. Have you ever noticed how much more abusive any ethnic group can be toward its own members without raising this issue? In our hypersensitized times how many innocent or angry remarks are suddenly blown up into potential pogroms? See Philip Roth's new novel "Human Stain". But times change slowly, and Irish today "can apply", Jews can own land, African-Americans whose ancestors fought in the Revolutionary War can now vote, etc. etc. I don't think Pound would have objected to any of these changes; do you? Another reason I feel Pound was not a racist, despite the remarks of his caustic tongue which would lend to the belief that he was, concerns an incident during the war when Pound was in charge of scheduling performers for a series of concerts in, I believe, Rapallo. One of those performers he scheduled was Jewish. How can one explain this if he was a rabid antisemite? I think it was usury he saw as the enemy, and he made the association of it with some Jews and Jewish history, rightfully or wrongfully. But he did not exonerate the Anglo-Saxon (as in gentile) for taking part in this system. "It is nonsense for the anglo-saxon to revile the jew for beating him at his own game." GK Is he saying here that jealousy is the source of antisemitism? Would that be a tendency in Pound? Perhaps, but not in this instnce. The real question lies with Pound's definition of usury. It is not the one found in the dictionary which defines Usury as excessive interest beyond legal limits. You either believe it or not; but Pound, I believe, was sincere in his conviction that a system of interest should work more within the real parameters of the limited capabilities of the earth to increase and produce. How could this be a crime to think so? Perhaps in time under the present system everyone on the face of the earth will have everything they need and want, and the heroes will be those who got fat and rich trading paper while providing all this for us all. CM