Reply to comment

You said: "...I see slavery as something that I have a hard time trying to understand... It makes me think that it changed because people redefine d what a human was here in the US. So Derrida is right, in the sense that there is nothing there since it’s changing ...constantly. What people believe to be meaningful is not... So emergence of genre is not only literary, b but also social."

I wonder: are you saying that the definition or outline of what was considered 'human' changed? That the genre of 'human' is always changing? And that because of this consistency in change, there is no set definition? And that when we set a definition in time, it is not a true definition, but a definition that is socially determined?

I think: this is really interesting and it reminds me of a basic mathematical concept. When there is a moving object, you cannot define its velocity and its position at the same time. This is because velocity is the average speed between points. If the are only looking at one point (one position in time), you cannot calculate its true velocity.

If I got the first part right, then this relates to this concept of constant movement, perpetual change. And because meaning is hugely extracted based on any previous meanings, any meaning that we extract from what we see as a 'present' definition is, by definition, based on a certain number of previous definitions.

Let me know if this makes no sense or if I interpreted what you said incorrectly.