Although I enjoyed the course tremendously, I was not equal at that time to the task of comprehending much of what Genovese had to say. I seem to have absorbed a great deal, nevertheless, for as I began seriously to study the Old South on my own in later years, I continually found that my understanding of what I read was shaped by the foundation that Genovese had laid. I was past thirty before I could read Genovese’s own, often-dense writing with anything close to understanding, but when that day came, I was astonished to realize how much of my thinking about the South and its slavery system was actually Genovese’s thinking, imparted to me in that half-remembered course so many years before.

Even later, as I came tardily to study Marx, I found that my reading of Genovese’s work had prepared me, without my noticing it, for a happy appreciation of that great and humane mind. I have never been a “Marxist”, and even Genovese in his most ardent Marxist phase could not have made me one; but in terms of intellectual method I am–rather, I aspire someday to be–thoroughly Marxian. It is Eugene Genovese, more than anybody else besides Marx himself, whom I have to thank for that, and I thank him very much.

Like many others, I was perplexed by Genovese’s “conversion” to what he has characterized as conservative traditionalism; yet, like Prof. Gottfried (if I read him right), I’m not persuaded that, apart from its religious dimension, the change in Genovese’s thinking was all that great. Prof. Gottfried wondered in the seventies just how much of a Marxist Genovese really could be. I wonder just how much of a conservative he can really be now. Reading his work from the early days, I find him to be that rarest of rara aves, a Marxist after Marx’s own heart: intelligent, critical, rigorous but undogmatic, ready to follow the evidence and the dialectic wherever they might take him. Reading his more recent work, I find him little changed.

The popular, two-dimensional dichotomy between “Left” and “Right” has never made much sense to me, and Genovese crystallizes for me the near-uselessness of those terms. However anybody (including himself) may choose to characterize his politics, past or present, Genovese remains, for me, the clearest and most balanced thinker on Southern history that his, or my, or perhaps any generation has seen.

Please forgive the excessive length of these comments. They have been trying to get out for a long time, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to put them here.

What I find most interesting here is that the thrust of Dr. Gottfried’s essay involves odd-bedfellows and the changing definitions of political ideology and factionalism. He respectfully attempts to look beyond the label to the humanity of each of his associates and even in disagreement , find wisdom and avenues for constructive discourse, leaving the more sordid aspects of factionalism behind. Meanwhile, the commentary descends, and I take partial responsibility for it and offer my apologies to Professor Gottfried…. to a discussion of the old bugaboo of racism.

I am a racist, a vehement one in fact. I am happy with my whiteness and hope anyone of a different color richly enjoys their own. In my opinion, wisdom knows no race and idiocy is a multi-cultural pursuit. Don’t give me your poor, tired and beleaguered masses yearning to be free, let the French have them. I would rather have those of any creed and color who know they are free and have the wisdom to hold onto their freedom and live compassionate , productive lives that respect their own personal heritage while understanding that there are certain truths that transcend cultural relativism. Apologists need not apply and those who might want to self-loath can do it on their own time. Ditto those who get their exercise by jumping to conclusions.

I couldn’t agree more.

I took “These are human qualities possessed by all who are not simply mentally impaired,” as implicit in my remarks, and essential to my point. Anybody who is held back by a system must, by definition, have *something* of worth in them — the potential to be a responsible homeowner, citizen, community leader, small farmer, business owner, what-have-you….

Why should anybody (except the nasty-minded) assert that Dr. Bradford believed only high-falutin’ college professors and elite intellectuals make “a social contribution”?

If somebody does not possess talent, initiative, intelligence, etc. then it is meaningless to talk about a system keeping them down, because they would be down regardless.

You may want to re-phrase that. These are human qualities possessed by all who are not simply mentally impaired. While it is true that all humans possess these virtues in different degrees and combinations; treating them as rare possessions of the few creates the cults of the artiste, of the intelligesia, of the entrepreneur, etc., all of which leads to less art, less intelligence, less creativity, etc.

Human personality develops in social systems, and a system that keeps some down on the grounds that they don’t possess the requisite talents diminishes all talent, all virtue. I think you were offering this comment as a defense of Mel’s statement, but I think you are in danger of a defense that is worse than the accusation.

Nonetheless, here too he made exceptions when he spoke about those blacks who might have made “social contributions” but who were excluded from white society.

Having tried to clarify Bradford’s statements that my respondent found so offensive, allow me to note that said respondent is either hopelessly naive or dissembling when he expresses outrage over the fact that Bradford did not believe in some hypothetical society of equals.

I for one have never encountered such a society, and certainly not in Obama’s America. Indeed as my autobiography makes clear, the major perception of my lifetime has been that freedom and tolerance have diminished in direct proportion to the triumph of those revolutionary forces that my respondent wishes me to celebrate. What I have seen is the circulation of elites, in which an elite calling for collective atonement for our sins of racism, sexism, and homophobia have seized power from an older bourgeois and predominantly WASP establishment.

My respondent who wishes to preen himself as a socially sensitive creature seems to be contemptuous of earlier generations of Americans who presumably were not as enlightened as he.

It might surprise him someday to discover that some of these politically incorrect or imperfectly socialized beings said wise things, albeit things that we don’t hear any longer from the American media, our public educational system, or our two national parties.

Come to think of it, my bad. I mean, there’s only this casual, carefree remark that “Say, Dr. X sure does sound like a racist to me” floating around the entire planet now. Eh. I can’t imagine why anybody would make such a big to-do about such piddling minutiae.

Of course next time, you could be even more gracious — by guarding your yap prior to sounding off about people of whom you know nothing about.

If somebody does not possess talent, initiative, intelligence, etc. then it is meaningless to talk about a system keeping them down, because they would be down regardless.

As near as I can tell, you are safely and carelessly condemning Dr. Bradford because he was not foresightful enough to emphasize over and over again that, well, why, the lazy & dumb among white folks shouldn’t get preferential treatment over the lazy & dumb among black folks.

How many people fit into the various categories, in Dr. Bradford’s opinion?

Assuming we aren’t patrolling around with secret anti-racist decoder rings, how the hell are we supposed to know?

To draw “tweaked” from “basic flaw” is utter sophistry. How does one know that a basic flaw of a particular system CAN be eliminated?

I.e. — some flaws are inherent to certain systems. Hence the only way to get rid of the flaw would be to utterly do away with the system.

Indeed, some of us — those more careful than others about peddling gossip and slander on the Internet — might interpret the word “basic” to mean just that.

monboddo, last I checked this was Front Porch Republic, not Urban Elitist PC Grandstanding Republic. You might feel more at home if you take your self-loathing, self-flagellating PC thought policing to the NetRoots Convention.

Because the best in the South were locked in indifference, the best (or worst, depending on your point of view) of the North re-arranged their society for them.

I am not sure I understand PB’s point, but I confess I don’t see a great deal of difference in whether a belief in racial superiority/inferiority originates in the will or intellect.

Salyer’s comment is odd (well, except you’re right about the ‘unrepentant’ part–I don’t know if Bradford was repentant or not). Had Bradford evaluated social practices on the basis of whether they held down people of talent, irrespective of race, then his comment would not have been racist. I might not have agreed with it, but it wouldn’t have been racist. But that’s not what Bradford said. He said either slavery or segregation (both vicious dehumanizing systems) were objectionable because they kept down some people, implying they were fine for the rest. So if only slavery/segregation had been tweaked a bit, they would be OK.

I agree that no-one should be identified as a racist “lightly and casually.” But the quoted comment by Bradford was racist.

Person A declares that the essential wrong of a racist practice is that it held down talented and capable blacks, and prevented them from high achievement.

On the basis of this, Person B declares that Person A is an “unrepentant racist”. (Not just a “racist”, mind you, but an “unrepentant racist”.)

Why? Because Person A is ONLY worried about those talented and capable blacks who had the potential for high achievement but never got to fulfill it, as a result of racial discrimination.

[EVIL! UNREPENTANT! RACIST!]

See, Person A should have been worried about … those who DIDN’T have the potential for high achievement.

Or maybe we’re saying that the statement, “Not all blacks have a potential for high achievement,” is a racist doctrine?

What about the statement, “Not all whites have a potential for high achievement”? What is that?

Oh, right, I forgot, you are allowed to say that. That doesn’t flag anything on the PC radar.

I’m stuck in the obsolete realm of definitions, common decency, basic human intelligence, etc…

You know, that realm where insinuating that someone is a “racist” is not something one does lightly and casually, and where the term itself has clearly defineable content.

See, in my annoyingly constraining universe ruled by definitions, the term “racism” refers to the erroneous belief that a person of a “chosen” race is mentally and morally superior to someone not of the “chosen” race.

But hey, what the hell do I know? I’m so dim, I even fail to see the sinister and cryptic dimensions of expressions like “social contribution”.

(Whatever THAT means… bwah-ha-ha-ha…)

In defense of the “racist” interpretation: equal treatment is for those who are equals in the same way. I think of racism as an error of the will, not of the intellect, though the error of the intellect may be caused by the error of the will.