Re: SCS controversy, etc.

I like this blast from Dan-el PP (note the references to the Wu-Tang Clan and Dan Tompkins): https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fclassics.stanford.edu%2Fdan-el-padilla-peralta-why-why-classics&data=02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40LSV.UKY.EDU%7C80f8a6262c194309a6d308d69f717019%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C1%7C636871706924746694&sdata=AyZQT5hq5ezSMBYMxho0uVGMMzRqtUrxaZDGI8JusEg%3D&reserved=0. Better than what he said to Mary Frances Williams.
OC

-----Original Message-----
From: Classical Greek and Latin Discussion Group <[email protected]> On Behalf Of DANIEL P. Tompkins
Sent: Saturday, March 2, 2019 12:29 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: SCS controversy, etc.

This email originated outside Colorado College. Do not click links or attachments unless you know the content is safe.


Sorry we disagree!   But I look forward to seeing more from you.

Dan

On Sat, Mar 2, 2019 at 1:16 PM Mark Davidson <[email protected]>
wrote:

> I have no sympathy with Mary Frances Williams or her views whatsoever, 
> but that doesn't mean I have to agree with Dan-el Padilla Peralta either.
>
> Padilla Peralta wrote in his Medium article:
>
> "While also well intentioned, compliments for 'grace' and 'composure' 
> under fire only serve to underscore the domestication of brown bodies..."
>
> So he's complaining because he was complimented for grace and 
> composure and maintaining his dignity.
>
> But what if people had said the opposite? What if they had said that 
> he should rather have showed anger and started shouting? Then he would 
> be complaining that he was being urged to fit a stereotype because he's black.
>
> What if everyone had studiously avoided saying anything to him? Then 
> he would be complaining that his decent behaviour was ignored because 
> of his race.
>
> In fact, is there anything whatsoever that people could have said or 
> refrained from saying that he wouldn't somehow twist into victimhood? 
> Just wondering.
>
> Later in his article he says something that made me do a double-take 
> and then a face palm. He says:
>
> "I *should* have been hired because I was black: because my 
> Afro-Latinity is the rock-solid foundation upon which the edifice of 
> what I have accomplished and everything I hope to accomplish rests; 
> because my black body’s vulnerability challenges and chastizes the 
> universalizing pretensions of color-blind classics; ... That scholarly 
> merit can, even in the minds and hearts of supporters and 
> well-wishers, be decoupled from the fact of my Afro-Latinity is why the rage will continue to burn brightly."
>
> Um... so he's angry because he *wasn't* hired because he's black? He 
> says he was hired on merit, but he's angry because of this - he 
> *should* have been hired merely because he's black.
>
> I have to wonder why, in that case, he found Mary Frances Williams'
> suggestion that he was hired because he was black insulting?
>
> There seems to be an utter lack of logic to what he is saying. But 
> perhaps we should all just smile and nod, and give him a pass... 
> because he's black...
>
>
> I also wasted my time reading the introduction to the book that Dan 
> Tompkins recommended, The Rule of Moderation by Ethan H. Shagan.
>
> Far from being ground-breaking, it seems to me that the author's 
> arguments are trivially true.
>
> He says that a certain degree of variation in religion, culture, etc. 
> was tolerated, but the state came down hard on anything outside those limits.
>
> So what? Moderation doesn't mean anarchy. All states have laws and 
> limits and repress people who act outside those limits.
>
> The moderation of 16th and 17th century England lay in the wide range 
> that was tolerated - far wider than practically any other country at the time.
> Any number of examples of the state harshly repressing things outside 
> that range go to prove nothing new.
>
> Mark D
>