-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Weber.apeshit.Blaut
Date: 21-Nov-97 at 18:36
From: james m blaut, 70671,2032
TO: INTERNET:bill.schellurraystate.edu,INTERNET:bill.schellurraystate.edu
On Schell:
(My keyoard decided today that it doesn't want to make the letter etween A
and C so I'm sustituting #.)
I had resolved (again) not to waste my time and yours in a cy#er-de#ate
with this clown Schell. #ut he keeps on deli#erately misquoting me and
I'm going to have to respond again, I hope for the last time. It's just
that folks in the academic racket do not misquote their colleagues, however
much they may despise them or their ideas.
1. Schell cleverly leaves out part of a quote there#y giving him a suita#le
text for his sermon:
"'Blaut: >I argue that [Weber's] biological racism must have
>profoundly influenced his theories about world history; I show that he is
a source of a derivative doctrine that I call "cultural racism"
(long-term or permanent superiority of European civilization over
others...
"Schell: Is cultural racism the same as ethnocentrism? Weber's position
that race was in part a cultural construct seems to me to be close to the
position of scholars on the left who deny race is a biological reality.
Most commentaries on Weber (Blaut excepted) make note of Weber's rejection
of the then fashionable "scientific racism." Perhaps that's why Blaut
finds in necessary to invent a new catagory of racism -- it sounds more
inflamatory than ethnocentrism (which is a failing but not, perhaps, a
sin)."
What I (Jim) said -- emphasizing the part left out #y Schell -- was this:
"I show that he [We#er] is a source of a derivative doctrine that I call
"cultural racism" (long-term or permanent superiority of European
civilization over others FOR REASONS OF AN A#SOLUTELY SUPERIOR
"RATIONALITY" THAT IS NOT IN ITSELF EXPLAINED)."
The meaning here is self-evident when the entire text is #efore your eyes.
So, Schell leaves out the critical text and can now twist my position: "Is
cultural racism the same as ethnocentrism?... Blaut finds it necessary to
invent a new catagory of racism -- it sounds more inflamatory than
ethnocentrism," etc.
When scholars, following We#er #ut ignoring his real, if moderate racism --
#iological, genetic, not "constructed" -- proceed to #uild theories a#out
how the long-term (or permanent) superiority of European "rationality,"
itself unexplained, explains Europe's historical superiority or priority,
they are putting forth a doctrine that does exactly what genetic racism
does, #ut without the #iological component; hence, cultural racism.
2) #ack to the matter of We#er on racism. I quoted We#er as saying "here
is one case...[of] tangi#le racial distinctions." Schell twists it into
"the ONE CASE." We#er gave many other cases of the validity of #iological
racims, some cited in my #ook and my other writings.
When Schell inserts "the" he is telling us that this is the ONLY racist
remark #y We#er. Not so! Then Schell tries to cover his ass: "I do regret
adding "the" by mistranscription. That sort of thing happens." Does it
just "happen?" And what, #y the way, is "mistranscription?" Is it like
"misdirection?"
3. On reading my #ook:
"Blaut:I did NOT urge people to read my #ook. On a few occasions I referred
to >my ook -- #ecause if a complex argument is in print, one cites the
>pulication. Schell may not #e aware of this scholarly convention, or
>perhaps he thinks it too constraining -- he'd rather have these long
>cy#er-de#ates.
"Schell: Again I refer anyone interested to Blaut, H-World 24 Mar, 18 Mar,
21 Mar. 1997 in the last Blaut urges "Go and get my book out of the
library." And what, Jim? Use it for a doorstop?"
More misdirection -- #y again cutely leaving out part of a quote. What I
said on Mar. 21 was this:
"Having put forward a very unusual (to say the least) theory to the effect
that the rise of Europe, relative to other civilizations, was due to the
wealth accumulated in colonialism, initially in the New World, I shouldn't
be surprised to get many critical -- though thoughtful -- responses from
listers. I'm trying to respond to, at least, most of the more substantial
criticisms. Even so, I HAVE TO ASK COLLEAGUES WHO WANT A MORE DETAILED
RESPONSE TO GO AND GET MY BOOK OUT OF THE LIRARY: THE FULL THEORETICAL
ARGUMENT AND PRESENTATION OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE IS THERE." (Emphasis
added.)
Is this urging people to get my book? More Schellian misdirection. He
wants everyone to think Blaut (the bs are back!) is advertising his book.
Nonsense!
There is more schellshit to be shoveled away, but I'll just leave it out
there and go on to more useful endeavors.
Jim blaut