Re: denny's

[kelley <kcwalker@xxxxxxx>]

> What I was criticizing was what I perceived to be the
>reification of bourgeois social scientific categories by your drawing
>analytical boundaries too distinctly, or, more to the point,
>undialectically.
>


ahhh the beauty and fun of being able to nitpick w/o any cognizance of the
limitations inherent in the context of particular modes of communication.
or, perhaps linguistically and theoretically correct i should say, ahh the
fun of language in relation to its many identity practices.  if'n yer
impressed by that sort of thing anyway.   i quite clearly noted right from
the get-go that they worked together.  i was making analytical distinctions
for the purposes of analysis which then make quite clear why political
practices also need to focus on hidden forms of racism.  this point seems
to allude you although my arguments certainly lend very firm support to
your call for affirmative action.   finally, spelling out an historical
materialist anlyses of how they are related hardly seems necessary on this
list, of all places, particularly since i assume you know and hardly need a
lecture from me.  but if you'd like more info, shorthand will have to do.
see, "the dialectical uses of ideal types"  frank hearn, in a 1974 issue of
_social theory_.

audi5000 kids and thanks for all the fish,
kelley