Dear friends and lynchmates...
a few thoughts this morning...

I tried dealing with this "issue" with humor, and again discovered that
some
simply don't carry a gene for it. This does not surprise me. It is much
like
finding strawberry jam in a peanut butter jar; just enjoy the flavor. I do
not profess to be a "humorist"--though have been accurately tagged many
times
as  a "smartass," and in another galaxy far away was voted the funniest boy
in
my  high school class, but I've always suspected they meant "funniest
looking." So,  seriously:

I find it interesting how those who articulate the pain that words can
bring, how language can hurt, are often the first to holler RACIST! at
someone
when they see language they find disagreeable. Perhaps they mean "the words
YOU
use are hurtful, but not the words I use!" Similarly we often hear the term
"homophobe" freely thrown about for those against same-sex marriage. Or, try
to
 have an intelligent discussion about illegal immigration without the R word
being played. Yes, words can wound; they can also preclude intelligent
discussion. One would think that those in academia would best know this;
would  not
only champion free speech but fight against exclusion of terminology they
find distasteful, for academia cannot survive with controlled speech and
thought
 control. The First Amendment is for unpopular speech, not that which we all
agree may be "nice."  I simply don't believe in wearing sackcloth and ashes
and defense for silly euphemisms that I might use. Person-to-person, I can
be
surprisingly sensitive to needs and reactions. Like Sam I don't suffer fools
well, nor do I unthinkingly accept "rules" of "proper protocol" for the
spoken  or written word.

I doubt that these matters of the heart (racism) will ever be solved. I
don't believe in the perfectibility of man, nor do I think Samuel Clemens
believed in it. For each of us, how we treat our fellow man--what we do, not
alone
what we speak--is the key to whether or not we carry true brotherhood in
our
heart. I do believe in Sam's dictum that we are all at least 50th cousins.

This is not a political forum. While I would be glad to take part in a
civil
discussion about whether liberal changes in American society over the past
50 years are "progress" as one poster claims, or whether to some extent such
changes are reflective of a "mental disorder" as others claim, I will not do
so
 here. This is a Mark Twain forum, so I will try to limit my future remarks
to  issues bearing directly on MT scholarship. If you wish to discuss
politics,
 including a supposed right-wing conspiracy to co-opt civil rights, you may
email  me, though I cannot promise timely answers or thoughts due to my
volume
of work,  self-imposed.

This episode reinforces to me how irrational Americans can be on the
subject
of race. But things go in cycles, and at some point we will tire of  this.
In
Sam's day the bogeyman was being a "warmonger." That's one term I  haven't
been called here.

My original post thanked Robert Monroe for taking the time to review Sam's
1856-1883 cash book at the NYPL Berg Collection. My intent was simply
that--to
thank him, and to discuss the contents of Sam's little known cash book he
transcribed (2 pages worth). I still would like any input on the 1868/9
page,
which lists rent to Charles E. Cate (there is a Charles Cate listed in the
1864
 SF City Directory), and on what the meaning of listings for "board
schooling
 &c Della for 15 weeks from Apr 11 to July 23 @250pr an in gold @138" for
99.36 (1868) might mean. Also listed on this page is a Russel Cate and
telegraphs to and from Mrs. Cate at a time when Sam was in Hartford.

Thank you for your patience, and for the saner voices heard here.

David H Fears

PS apologies to Tracy, who is male. I made this mistake once with Lin
Salamo, but quickly turned around on her longevity and gender.