(Just meant to bf Stonecutter...the first para.)

You are not the only one.

You are more well spoken and polite than myself.

I do not think that Joan is so naive or unaware.

Here is my initial reaction when I read this dribble...

"You've got to be fucking kidding me..."

I didn't print that because I was trying not to offend but the fact is Joan Walsh & Erin don't seem to have a problem offending me. I have 3 sisters, a young niece and a number of African American female cousins. Their value & contributions to the world far surpass the circumferences' of their butts Ms. Walsh. You owe your readers and apology!

Chinese women, not Japanese women, underwent foot binding. (If we're in here arguing about the treatment of black women, it's only fair that we do right by our Asian sisters as well by not conflating their cultures.)

You write: Is there a reason you feel the need to attack me?

Assez writes: No, but perhaps, you should have considered how provocative your "mischief-making," "did you actually read the article" and "you are spouting off" comments were intially perceived by me. As far as I am concerned, I didn't attack you. I gave you another perspective. As I've said before, how you interpret opposing arguments, Cecilbeanie, says a lot more about you than it could ever say about the opponent who voices them.

You write: I have known about, read about and been interested in the sotry of Sarah Baartman for a while. When I said I googled the "Hottentot Venus" it was not because I had never heard of her (in fact, how I could google someone I'd never heard of is beyond me) it is because before I posted something on here I wanted to double check dates, facts, etc. My point is that it would be great if everyone did that before publishing. It is easy on my screen the google search tool is up there waiting to be used. And, since I usually only devote 3-4 minutes to each letter and look at some of the googled material of course I can't claim any intellectual or scholarly rigor for my letter. I know I've barely scratched the surface.

I am sorry if I gave you the impression that I put myself out there as some sort of expert. (I doubt there are many realy experts writing letters on Salon - I don't mean this to be snarky but because they are busy working in their areas of expertise.) I do not think that I did and clearly I am not. But do I have to be an expert to analyze and comment on a subject? Do I know everything about this issue? No - I maybe know .001% of what there is to know. But I have a reading list that I am going to take on my weekly library trip and read more. I never intend any of my letters to be PhD thesis proposals. Although it would make interesting reading for someone to look at the story of Sarah Baartman with post November 5, 2008 eyes - add another chapter or more to this story.

Assez writes: Interesting considering your rather passionnate defense to any letter-writer who chose to offend your delicate sensibilities on the subject. (As you should remember, you have made it your mission to verbally reprimand practically everyone with an opposing viewpoint and I never would have written you at all but for your initial letter to me on the subject.) Sweetheart, I actually have several advanced degrees, yet even with that solid academic background, I still know how to foster intelligent discourse with individuals who may not agree with me on issues I may or may not know much about. The problem, Cecilbeanie, is you assumed that everyone else on this site with an opposing viewpoint was obviously missing some larger schema only you and a few others could understand. That was hubris, and while I can understand hubris when one is discussing something one understands thoroughly, I cannot understand it when one admittedly does not understand the intricacies of a subject outside of one's cultural purview.

You write: One final thought:

I recently had the insight that the four most important words are:

"I do not know."

Followed by: "But I am open to learning."

I am making an effort to always remember that "I do not know" and to try to find out before I act or speak. It isn't easy because we've all been taught that the quick response is the correct response.

Assez writes: Pretty words, but it takes an open mind to be openminded. Your initial responses to me does not demonstrate that you are capable of that, but rather you employ a slightly condescending attitude with those who may disagree with you. That's fine, but you (and Joan Walsh) should remember a few things in future: 1) All black individuals are not a cultural monolithic community. The fact that Erin Aubry Kaplan feels it is appropriate to write an article about Michelle Obama's "booty" does not, in fact, mean that all black women will feel equally empowered by that. 2) you don't know to whom you are speaking on a message board. Not all blacks are ill-educated, ebonic-speaking illiterates who are equally recognizable on a message board. It is entirely possible that the next letter-writer you choose to harangue over some racial disagreement is black him or herself and may have a greater understanding of said topic than you ever could have. In future, if you truly want to have an open dialogue on racial matters and truly want to embody the pretty words you addressed to me, perhaps, you should add a little humility along with your admission of "I don't know" and "I'm open to learning." While it is wonderful that the larger community is happy to have discovered there are normal, well-adjusted, intelligent black and black biracial individuals in the world, Michelle and Barack Obama are hardly as rare as most of you would like to believe. Perhaps, if the larger white community would stop distracting themselves from the stereotypical drivel produced by the Erin Aubry Kaplans and pay closer attention to their colleagues and fellow citizens on the street, discussions of this nature would no longer be necessary. God speed, Cecilbeanie.