I appreciate the read, but I am not sure I understand either of your responses given to the questions posed in the article. Or what I understand are contradictions, at worse, falsehoods. I will list but a few here.

a) You write that poodles don’t segregate against bulldogs for two reasons:

1. they cannot “extract organized labor-power from one another”, then turn around and say, “There is, in short, no slave-master dialectic with animals in relation to labor or prestige.”. This is contradictory since there is no organized labor or labor-power in the feudal economy of the Master either. The service economy of the Master is based on gift exchange that pre-dates a market place of labor and capitalism. To think there is labor-power of the Master-slave economy is a common category mistake critiqued by Marx a long time ago. I have cited Marx in reference to this in a critique of Kendi’’s book in refutation #4.
2. You write in a second response, ‘ “Why don’t poodles segregate and attack bull-dogs,” is that animals cannot be racist because they cannot assume perverse structures in their being.”’ Well, this is false. In fact, domestic animals by the very definition of the dom-estic (domination of being) must “assume perverse structures in their being”. Not only animals but cereals are some of the very first plants to be domesticated into races — wheat, barley, rye, and oats — since the Neolithic age. Domestication is a perverse structure in the sense it is a turning away from Nature by a process of cultivation. (You cite Lacan in your post and refer to this definition of perversion, evidently bypassing its signification)

b) You seem to think that a perverse structure is intrinsically violent and obscene, I quote, “segregation whose consequences on the bodies of those signified as “raced” destroy the bodies in question while extracting a surplus that is reinvested in its very perpetuation. This is perversion at the level of signifying racial bodies that become targeted through real violence. However, it is not the real violence that is the cause, but the signifying structure of perversion.” This is an ideological view of perversion since a perverse structure — or neurotic for that matter — is no more violent than the domestication of different races of cereals. Since the Neolithic age, not to mention the work of Freud, it is very well possible to define and work with a perverse structure in a non-obscene and banal way, without being perverse or having a mad use of perversion.

Needless to say, you may find here an indication of why the seemingly simple questions posed by my article require a different entry point to race and racism than that of a perversion commonly defined in ideological and political terms, i.e., in a viewpoint based on violence, obscenity, and power-relations.

Good luck,

$