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