Newly minted AG Eric Holder, in a speech that must have had his boss banging his head against a wall in the White House residence, declared:
“Though this nation has proudly thought of itself as an ethnic melting pot, in things racial we have always been and continue to be, in too many ways, essentially a nation of cowards.” He went on to say, “Though race-related issues continue to occupy a significant portion of our political discussion, and though there remain many unresolved racial issues in this nation, we, average Americans, simply do not talk enough with each other about race.”
Oh, don’t “we?”
I was always under the impression that talk was cheap. Having a black president and a black attorney general, I would have thought, counts a good deal more than talking. To quote another cliche: Actions speak louder than words.
I would concede the notion that there is a certain, shall we say, tentativeness when it comes to discussing deeper issues of prejudice. However, I am moved to ask:
Whose fault is that?
I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs? The word “ņìggárdlÿ,” the utterance of which in a private staff meeting resulted in a mayoral aide in Washington, D.C. being forced to resign? What about off-hand jokes by radio personalities that wind up getting them fired from their gig no matter how much they endeavor to apologize for it? How about rioters in LA who express their dissatisfaction with what they see as racism by smashing into local electronics stores and stealing televisions and air conditioners? How about everyone from the ubiquitous Al Sharpton–as big a racist as there ever was–to the National Association of Black Journalists (were there an Association of White Journalists, such an entity would be declared racist by its very existence) declaring that the only possible interpretation of a NY Post cartoon was one that had racist overtones?
The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order. Under the current atmosphere, who would WANT to discuss racism? Well…Barack Obama did, back when he gave that superb speech about Rev. Wright. I don’t recall whites rioting over it. I don’t recall whites going on TV in droves and screaming for censure. My recollection is that it was a major turning point for white voters to assess Eric Holder’s future boss and deciding that they liked what they saw.
If you touch a hot stove, get burned, and say, “Whoa, I’m not touching that stove again,” is that an act of cowardice? Or is that just a reasoned response to an atmosphere created by many members of the very audience that Holder would presumably claim as his constituency? And by the way, not for nothing, but when did an attorney general become an “average American?”
PAD
• 
Posted by: Jerry Chandler at February 27, 2009 05:54 PM
Anyone here better at French than I am?
Nina is.. ahh.. unimpressed with M. Sarkozy and his bunch of clowns…
A timely reminder surely, that years from now, when we have all achieved enlightment on matters of colour, it will still be OK for everyone to slag off the French!
Meanwhile, back (vaguely) on topic, anyone care to put this piece of news under the racial microscope:
“No ‘blacking up’ in new Al Jolson musical.
The producers of a new musical about the Broadway star Al Jolson have been criticised for deciding that the actor who plays him will not wear his trademark “black face” during the show.
The American singer and actor, who became the star of the first “talking picture” was famous for performing in black make-up in the 1920s – a style later copied in the Black and White Minstrel Show.
But the producers of Jolson & Co, which opens in Edinburgh next week ahead of a UK tour, have dropped the scene in which the lead traditionally sings My Mammy while wearing make up in order to avoid “causing offence”.
Michael Harrison, the producer, said blacking up was “historically correct” but added: “In this day and age we are not out to offend anyone. There is reference to blacking up in the script but we didn’t feel it was necessary to include it in the show.”
The decision was taken despite the fact that Equity, the actors’ union, said that a Jolson show was one of the very few occasions on which it “might not actively object because it was about a white artist who blacked up”.
Laura Midgley of the Campaign Against Political Correctness said the decision made “absolutely no sense” and was a clumsy case of “political correctness taking the place of authenticity”.
She added that when a councillor in London was criticised for blacking up for a fancy dress party, it was Nelson Mandela who came to his aid saying, “We should not read racism intent action that are clearly innocent”.
Allan Stewart, who takes on the lead role, appeared in a different London musical about Jolson 12 years ago that did include a “blackface” number and did not cause an outcry.
He said he believed the blacked-up number should be in the snow, but added that “even the slightest sign of negativity” could be bad news for the production.
Richard Holloway, the former Episcopal Bishop of Edinburgh, said it was a difficult call, adding: “In a sense to be authentic about Jolson, that’s what he did.
“On the other hand, it always was offensive, but I don’t know how you would get round that. I remember as a kid I used to enjoy them, I went to all the movies. One thought nothing of it, but it is terribly demeaning.”
Jay Berkow, the American co-writer of the original play, said that its original production in New York included a short blackface sequence.
He added: “It occurs directly after his marriage to Ruby Keeler (the film actress) falls apart and he hides his pain behind the ‘mask’ as he sings the signature song Mammy.”
Jolson, who died in 1950, was the first recording artist to sell over one million records and was the star of a string of New York shows and in 1927 featured in The Jazz Singer, the first “talking picture”.
The Black and White Minstrel Show later featured songs popularised by Jolson and other vaudeville stars and ran on British television until 1978. The singer is also credited with fighting racism on Broadway at the height of his career. “
Cheers.
Maybe by “cowardice” what Eric Holder means is “Every time a person of color tries to open a conversation about things that are hurtful, some white guy will then make such a big noise about how touchy those people are, and ‘waaaaaahhhh! you’re allowed to use the N-word and I’m not and it’s NOT FAAAAAIIIIIRRRRR!'” that the conversation is drowned out.
Maybe not, but that’s how I’m starting to define “cowardice.” (By the way, Caucasian here.)
Maybe by “cowardice” what Eric Holder means is “Every time a person of color tries to open a conversation about things that are hurtful, some white guy will then make such a big noise about how touchy those people are, and ‘waaaaaahhhh! you’re allowed to use the N-word and I’m not and it’s NOT FAAAAAIIIIIRRRRR!'” that the conversation is drowned out.
Maybe not, but that’s how I’m starting to define “cowardice.” (By the way, Caucasian here.)
Posted by heplet at February 28, 2009 03:19 PM
Maybe by “cowardice” what Eric Holder means…
Nope. Not even close.
Cheers.
heplet, you’re an idiot. Drive safely.
~8?)`
I mean, what should we discuss? Racial epithets that whites can only refer to as “the N word” whereas blacks use the term routinely in rap songs? The word “ņìggárdlÿ,” the utterance of which in a private staff meeting resulted in a mayoral aide in Washington, D.C. being forced to resign? What about off-hand jokes by radio personalities that wind up getting them fired from their gig no matter how much they endeavor to apologize for it? How about rioters in LA who express their dissatisfaction with what they see as racism by smashing into local electronics stores and stealing televisions and air conditioners? How about everyone from the ubiquitous Al Sharpton–as big a racist as there ever was–to the National Association of Black Journalists (were there an Association of White Journalists, such an entity would be declared racist by its very existence) declaring that the only possible interpretation of a NY Post cartoon was one that had racist overtones?
The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order. Under the current atmosphere, who would WANT to discuss racism? Well…Barack Obama did, back when he gave that superb speech about Rev. Wright. I don’t recall whites rioting over it. I don’t recall whites going on TV in droves and screaming for censure. My recollection is that it was a major turning point for white voters to assess Eric Holder’s future boss and deciding that they liked what they saw.
That’s like saying “Why is there no White history month?” (and, in case you’re wondering, it’s probably because the remaining 11 months out of the year are white history months. I swear to God I have never had a teacher mention Martin Luther King Jr, Freddrick Douglass or Harriet Tubman outside of the month of Februrary) Or, to bring the point closer, that’s like me saying “What do you need an anti-defimation legaue for?”
Most black/hispanic/asian interest groups exist because, at the time of their founding, they were necessary. And they still are. But if you’re one of too many people are dumb enough think that racism is officially over because of President Obama, then, hey, I’d loooove to live in your world. Sadly, I’m stuck in the real one.
Jerry, thanks for the important point. In other words, any attempt to engage is met with not just whining but with name-calling and asshattery.
Noted.
heplet, I engaged a number of posters in this thread with respect to their point of view and a respectful tone. I then responded to your post’s stupidity and asshattery with what it deserved.
Have a nice day.
Jerry, okay, I led with snark. But if I lose interest in a point of view that includes “You guys can say it, why can’t I?”, then think how someone with a lot more at stake is likely to react. It displays such a deep tone-deafness on the matter at hand that further discussion seems completely unproductive.
heplet, I think it’s a lot less that “because you day why can’t I say it” than the sense that there is a lot of double talk double standard at work here. I am very happy to support those who think that using a word like that is proof of ignorance, hate=red, stupidity…but when the person agreeing with me on that then uses the word, well, it tends to make me doubt their sincerity. It’s the same repugnance I would feel if a feminist asks for help in getting a University to allow their point of view to be represented and heard and then goes and tries to suppress the ability of others to, I don’t know, watch pørņ or something. It isn’t because I want the same right to suppress the free speech of others or because I want to complete my collection of Ron Jeremy films.
Hypocrisy does not automatically invalidate the position of the hypocrite but it certainly lessens the likelihood that anyone is going to rally to the cause.
That should be “anti-Defamation league”, in my previous post (you need to add a spellcheck on this blog, man)
I think what’s really bugging me is this sentence:
The fact is that black leaders, black activists, black organizations, have made it clear that any slight, real or imagined, is cause for condemnation, retaliation, and media pillorying of the highest order.
You seem to be saying that acts of racism, even real ones, should not be condemned, pilloried, and people shouldn’t take action against it. Which is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
How should people react to racist images, actions, and remarks? Just say “Oh, well…” and leave it alone?
All acts of racism should be comdemed and pilloried in the worst way. Period.
More to the point, I do think that white people are afraid to discuss racism because there are a lot of little things that white people do that are racist, though mostly unintentional on their parts. That’s what “white privilege”/”instutionalized racism” is, the racism that you don’t see, didn’t intend, and aren’t aware of… and your post is a prime example of that. So was that cartoon.
To give you another example, the use of the term “articulate” to describe how a black person speaks. Now, I know it’s meant as a compliment, and there is nothing wrong or bad about being articulate. However, I once had a conversation with a woman over the phone, when I met her in person she said to me “Wow, I never expected you to be black. I mean, you were just so articulate over the phone!”
She wasn’t the first person to say that, or the last. Apparently people seem astonished that a black man can string together five coherent sentences and use proper grammar. That astonishment is insulting, frankly, because it implies that they expected far less of me solely because I’m black.
I had a white friend that people used to loved to say was “blacker” than me because he used poor grammar. He also smoked weed, was unemployed, and had 3 kids by two different “baby mommas” and wasn’t paying child support to either of them. That is apparently closer to the standard for being “black” in this country than being educated, holding down a job, and speaking proper english.
I have to put up with that kind of šhìŧ every second of every day. Its a 24 hour onslaught on my dignity. And you’re dámņ right that if any slight happens I won’t quietly bend over and take it up the ášš so white people like you won’t feel bad for being white.
Yes, you’re I know you’re jewish (and I’m sure you get your own share of šhìŧ for that), but frankly, you’re white, you don’t have to deal with that all of that 24/7, and your kids will never have to deal with that. Has anyone ever asked you “did you get that tatoo in jail?”
But god forbid black people get upset about something that they find something offenseive. If only they didn’t, we could actually have an honest discussion about race, right? It’s not like white people ever say or do anything offensive…
Okay, heplet, we both got snarky needlessly.
Part of what made me respond that way though wasn’t just the snark. Peter wrote two paragraphs about “what should we discuss” up there and you focused on only the first line and the most superficial of those things listed. It wasn’t like Peter said that the be-all-end-all of the matter was that blacks can use a racial epitaph that whites can’t and left it at that, but that was the be-all-end-all of your post.
I don’t know how familiar you are with the site, but race, racial issues and racism have been discussed here before. No one here, including Peter, thinks that that’s a major issue or the biggest issue. It, the idea that we have a set of double standards and two sets of rules, is simply one problem that is discussed and the word that gets used as a part of that double standard is the fastest shorthand point to describe that problem in many cases.
It wasn’t the discussion. It was the opener to the discussion.
And it’s a valid point when it’s a part of the discussion of the over all point that we’ve hit a point where what is offensive enough to start boycotts or get people fired from their jobs comes down to the point of one person or a group of people saying that something is racially offensive here, here and here while not there, there and there and that they’re the final word on it.
That stupid monkey cartoon is a perfect example. Beyond the fact that it’s open to multiple interpretations that make more sense than the monkey being Obama is the fact that many of the critics of that cartoon admitted that many editorial cartoonists have used monkeys to portray various politicians over the years. But we can’t do that now. See, since some racist áššhølëš have portrayed blacks as apes and monkeys that means that anybody who does that is being racially insensitive. What’s the next flap going to be about? Are we going to get Sharpton or some other charlatan like him going after someone he has a grudge against because they portrayed Obama as a clown and racists have depicted blacks in black face and clown outfits before?
But, again, it was once a racially charged image used by a few so no white guy can use it without it automatically being racist and putting the guys job at risk while dragging his name through the gutter. Well, unless that white guy is targeting the Right side of the political spectrum.
Ted Rall is the President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists. He’s white. He drew cartoons that depicted Condi Rice as a stereotypical mammy character straight out of the parodies of the old, racist South. He drew her and scripted her in ways that could only be offensive and did so using things that were unarguably negative stereotypes of blacks in general and black women in particular. Despite the fact that his work was nationally published, collected in books and circulated around the web he was never attacked as a racist who needed to be removed from his job or boycotted by Sharpton, the NAACP or any of the people in the monkey cartoon flap or the Imus flap from a while ago.
Hëll, his last cartoon (that I’m aware of) with her in it was his cartoon about what to do with the “deposed” Bushists. His punishment for Condi was that she gets sent to a “Inner-City Racial Re-Education Camp” (because, see, since she’s conservative she’s not really black) and told to hand over her hair straightener. And the scene has her protesting that, “I was Bush’s beard. His house ņìggá. His-” to a black person wearing a t-shirt with the words “You’re Not White, Stupid” written on it.
See, it’s not just who says what to whom, it’s also about who is where in the political spectrum. You can bet your ášš that had the election been Hillary VS JC Watts and JC won that Sharpton would have never opened his mouth about that monkey cartoon. You can bet your ášš that Rall and others could have depicted Watts as a Republican “House Negro” in print and Sharpton would simply agree with the basic description just as he did when someone asked him, on record and with a camera rolling, how he felt about Condi being described as a house negro by cartoonists and blacks in the media.
On our level it’s just double standards and multiple sets of rules that, more often than not, will ultimately boil down to just one person declaring that they were offended and racial harmed even if what was said/done wouldn’t be seen as racial by anyone with any common sense. (See several of PAD’s comments above.)
On the higher food chain levels it’s all that and the power play.Sharpton laughs and plays up the idea of a Condi Rice clearly being drawn by white Ted Rall as a mammy and labeled by him as a “house ņìggá” in print, but it’s unquestionably racism if a publication that took Sharpton to task last year for shaking down businesses prints a cartoon that is very questionably a racist depiction of Obama.
The NAACP has, to my knowledge, never demanded that Ted Rall be removed from his position as the President of the Association of American Editorial Cartoonists, but the dámņëd sure went after the Post and the NAACP president even went so far as to go on TV and state that the cartoon was unarguably a depiction of and advocating for the murdering of Obama.
But, as a white guy, if I were to say that on TV I would be told by the Sharpons and NAACPs of the world that I didn’t understand the history of such things, I couldn’t know what it was like, I’m not in a position to authoritatively speak on such things, etc. And if I really pushed the issue? I’m a racist or I’m sheltering/excusing/protecting racism and allowing it/encouraging it to flourish.
And do you want an example of how insane it’s been for a while now? You wnat to know what really struck me as just plain nutty once? One name, one event and one example.
Geraldo Rivera: Remember years ago when he was still on MSNBC and had one of their higher rated programs? Remember how he was all over the OJ case and was on the “OJ did it” side of the argument?
He was doing his show like usual and the whole thing of whether or not some of the officers ever uttered certain racial epitaphs in their lives came up in the case. That started a lot of talk about race and racism in America. Strangely, there was only one word that everyone tripped over themselves to not say on TV in even clinical discussions.
You had Rivera and various guests of all races and colors discussing race and racism and the words used to hurt each other for hours on end. And they’d list them all. Well, they’d almost list them all. They’d talk about, and cite fully as examples by using the words, epitaphs for every race under the sun… Except for that word.
“Well, you’ve had terms like that used for years. You’ve got cracker, kike, spic, chink, gook, ni.. uh.. uhm.. the n-word and others.”
Seriously, it was that silly. Any word under the sun could be discussed in a clinical way by any non-black speaker except for the forbidden one.
And other news agencies seem to have sent out a memo about it because I saw speakers stuttering over themselves to not say “it” on camera. The double standard was so huge and the threat of action against the use of that word so great that people having a legitimate discussion on race and racism could use any and every racist name they could think of except one.
And it’s still like that to a very large degree. The pendulum has swung from one stupid extreme to an equally stupid one. But people, even if there isn’t the slightest bit of racist intent, can get in trouble, suspended or fired because of a double standard that’s grown to stupid levels.
And in the meantime blacks can get on TV and say just about anything they want about specific white people or whites in general and it’s okay because they’re just expressing their frustration in a country that’s abused and subjugated them for generations.
And the double standard even extends to legal matters. I hate the concept of “Hate Crime” legislation. Partly I think it’s just stupid. If two guys living in a state that has the death penalty for murder want to kill a black man just because he’s black; I don’t see them suddenly stopping themselves because, you know, it’s hate crime penalties that could come into play and not just death in the electric chair that they’re facing. No, I hate them because they’re a joke.
I’ve seen legal cases where hate crime status was pushed for based only on the fact that the victim was black and that the perp was white. That’s it. On the flip side I’ve seen a case where a black man went on a shooting spree, only shot at whites and even had witnesses, black witnesses, testify that he actually stopped and told some scared blacks not to worry because he was only after whites where the legal system fought against and refused to allow hate crime status to be attached. The reasons articulated where that blacks can’t be guilty of hate crimes because that implies power. This man wasn’t acting on hate. He was acting on frustration from being part of a put upon minority in this country.
You can’t do crap like that and not have it create problems every bit as bad as the ones you’re trying to prevent. The double standards range from words to legal actions. How does this not create worse problems with racial tensions?
You seem to be saying that acts of racism, even real ones, should not be condemned, pilloried, and people shouldn’t take action against it. Which is the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard in my life.
But in the very passage you quoted he said “slight”. Not the same thing. At all. For that matter, saying that something should not be “condemned” or create “retaliation” and “media pillorying of the highest order” is not at all the same as saying that “people shouldn’t take action against it.”
I’m no PAD suck up. Politically we disagree far more than we agree. But at least I try to disagree with his actual opinions!
I also note that “All acts of racism should be comdemed and pilloried in the worst way. Period.” and “I do think that white people are afraid to discuss racism because there are a lot of little things that white people do that are racist, though mostly unintentional on their parts.” would, if taken together, mean you reserve the right to condemn and pilloried in the worst way all white people. Which I don’t really think is your intention, but the logic follows.
To give you another example, the use of the term “articulate” to describe how a black person speaks. Now, I know it’s meant as a compliment, and there is nothing wrong or bad about being articulate. However, I once had a conversation with a woman over the phone, when I met her in person she said to me “Wow, I never expected you to be black. I mean, you were just so articulate over the phone!”
Yeah, that Joe Biden…! Seriously, yeah I don;t really get why anyone would compliment someone on being articulate. It seems like that should be a minimum requirement. Unless you are talking about someone really above the rest of us, a William F. Buckley or Harlan Ellison. And certainly, anyone who would specifically say they didn’t expect you to be black because you spoke well is simply a racist. Hardly typical of most White people I know. Then again, most of the friends and coworkers I have had have been in the education and medical fields, where most people, black, white and other, have to be somewhat articulate. Still, it seems to me that anyone who is surprised by a member of some group being articulate must not get out much. Or watch TV. Or just has a problem.
I had a white friend that people used to loved to say was “blacker” than me because he used poor grammar. He also smoked weed, was unemployed, and had 3 kids by two different “baby mommas” and wasn’t paying child support to either of them. That is apparently closer to the standard for being “black” in this country than being educated, holding down a job, and speaking proper english.
Hey, I’m totally on your side here. When I hear some kid say that Bill Clinton was the first black president and I ask them why they think that, the answer is inevitably some variation of “he cheated on his wife and got away with it.” And this is black kids saying this. How the hëll did THIS meme get out there?
And not to divert blame form the many White bigots out there but if a Black kid gets any grief for being articulate in my school it is almost always from other Black kids–he’s “acting white”. To the point where you have to be careful as a teacher not to embarrass a kid for doing well on a test he might look “bad” in front of his friends. the ones who, in contrast, are “keeping it real”. yeah. Real stupid.
(Interestingly, this is NOT a problem with Black girls. They can actually be very competitive for good grades. If they get an A everybody knows it! And it’s no surprise to me, given this, that Black women are doing better than Black men. We have got to figure out a way to fix this, the KKK could not have come up with something more destructive.)
But god forbid black people get upset about something that they find something offenseive. If only they didn’t, we could actually have an honest discussion about race, right? It’s not like white people ever say or do anything offensive…
Slick, he didn’t say that. Nobody here said that. The only reason to make a straw man is if you don’t think you can knock down the real thing.
(BTW–use firefox. You can get a spellcheck for it. You can always tell when I have to post from a computer that won’t let me use firefox–I have the spelling skills of of someone for whom Hooked On Phonics did NOT work for.)
Secondly, so whites can’t use the N-word. Tough luck. So you aren’t “allowed” to use certain words around people those words offend and injure. You know what? Get used to it. Blacks sure got used to it in a hurry back in the day when a whistle in the wrong direction got us hanged.
Actually, whites can and do use the n-word, so I’m not sure what this claim is about. You don’t get thrown in jail for using it, it just *means* something different when a white person uses it for obvious historical reasons. It seems like this is more like asking “How come I can’t use the N-word without feeling uncomfortable or without fear that somebody might react to it badly?” and the answer is because you have a clue of its history. It’s not the word police or non-white people that makes it a hard word to say. It’s not a problem of inequality when a minority group can use a derogatory term for themselves in a different way others can. That’s just the way language works.
Bill:
But in the very passage you quoted he said “slight”. Not the same thing. At all. For that matter, saying that something should not be “condemned” or create “retaliation” and “media pillorying of the highest order” is not at all the same as saying that “people shouldn’t take action against it.”
Ok, is there some guide that has a sliding scale that determines how people are supposed to react to racist behavior that I should be aware of?
“Oh, that wasn’t that racist, you’re not supposed to get that mad about it!”
Should I not be pìššëd øff because something was “only a little racist”?
As for the articulate thing, I get that All. The. Ðámņ. Time. And I think Whoopi explains how dámņëd annoying it is better than I can (since apparently I’m not as articulate as people like to say) in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=popFC_8HXrc
“I had a white friend that people used to loved to say was “blacker” than me because he used poor grammar. He also smoked weed, was unemployed, and had 3 kids by two different “baby mommas” and wasn’t paying child support to either of them. That is apparently closer to the standard for being “black” in this country than being educated, holding down a job, and speaking proper english.”
You’re friends with Michael Hayes?!?
Sorry, wrestling in-joke.
Yeah, that’s a crappy thing to say about anyone, but I’m curious exactly how many of the people who said that were black. I ask because I’ve seen that on the local level and on the celebrity level. I knew kids, black kids, in high school who were brighter than I was who flushed their own grades and education because doing well in school and getting an education somehow meant that you were selling out to the man and losing your blackness.
At about the same time I saw Ice-T on Arsenio Hall taking potshots at Bryant Gumbel. His gripes with Gumbel were that Gumbel had “sold out” and decided that he could only be a success by giving up his “blackness” and talking like/sounding like a white man. I found that statement weird as hëll since Gumbel never sounded like a “white” man to me. He just sounded like an “educated” man to me. But a lot of the black males in my school seemed to equate education and proper grammar skills with “giving up your blackness” to act white and selling out.
If you and your friends are even still close to high school aged… No wonder the country is so f****d up over race these days. We’ve not grown at all in the last 20 years.
“Ok, is there some guide that has a sliding scale that determines how people are supposed to react to racist behavior that I should be aware of?
“Oh, that wasn’t that racist, you’re not supposed to get that mad about it!”
Should I not be pìššëd øff because something was “only a little racist”?”
Slick, the key words are bolded here.
“… any slight, real or imagined…”
I’ve known people who got jammed up in their work place for “racist” things that weren’t the least bit racist. All that had to happen was for one person to declare that they were offended and found the whatever to be racially insensitive and suddenly the ship hits the sands. And in two cases that I know of, every other black person in the workplace said that the complaining party was being stupid, but threats of lawsuits based on racially offensive actions being allowed workplace create enough fear in some employers to just go along with it.
You’ve also got to realize that what you may see as racially insensitive may not be at all. You may find something offensive that 100 other black males might not find racially offensive at all. If you cry for a public boycott of something and 100 other black men say you’re full of it; should we all decide that you being pìššëd øff outweighs the 100 guys who aren’t?
If a guy like Sharpton, a guy who has been involved with faked “race based” assaults and crimes before, decides to attack a newspaper that has torn him a new one more than once for his shenanigans by using claiming that something is racist when those claims are questionable and arguable at best; we should all just agree with him and say it’s okay for him to destroy other people over their “racism” as declared by Sharpton?
Dude, I’ve seen things that I thought would be offensive to people who, when they saw it, saw no offense whatsoever in it. Should my belief in that slight, real or imagined, outweigh their lack of feeling slighted? Should actions be taken because I think they should be offended or not taken since they don’t find offense?
And, as with that stupid monkey cartoon, should action to the level that the charlatans… I mean Sharptons of the world want done be done when there are more chances that what was done wasn’t intended to be racist than there are that it was?
That’s sorta the general area where that line was you found so horrible was going.
Black people don’t operate with some kind of hive mind. When Sharpton says jump, we don’t all go “how high?” He also doesn’t speack for every dámņ black person in America.
(Seriously, he doesn’t.)
But he has to right to react as he chooses. Anyone who shows up to support him? Guess what? They’re there by choice, not because of some kind of Black People Mandate. They’re genuinely pìššëd øff.
But to turn your own argument back at you, just because you aren’t offended by something, doesn’t mean that everyone else does or should feel the same way.
You can say “real or imagined”, but for the people who feel slighted, it isn’t part of their imagination. That feeling is very real, and they have a right to express that feeling (in a legal manner, of course). It can be unintentional on the part of the offender, but that doesn’t make it any less a slight to person who was offended. They aren’t mad just to be mad. You or PAD may not understand why they’re upset (or you may understand entirely but not agree), but that doesn’t diminish the fact that they are genuinely and honestly upset at something.
That’s the point I’m trying to get across. They have a right to speak for themselves, think for themselves, and react to something as they see fit, so long as they do so within the limits of the law. I’m not trying to suggest whether someone should or shouldn’t be offended by some cartoon of a monkey, which is where your entire argument falls apart. I’m pointing out that some people are offended by the cartoon, and they have the right to express that they’ve been offended, and they shouldn’t tone it down just because you or PAD don’t think it’s a big deal. If you disagree, and that’s fine, but the dismissiveness of your argument (and PAD’s original post) is something I find to be way out of line.
Black people don’t operate with some kind of hive mind. When Sharpton says jump, we don’t all go “how high?” He also doesn’t speack for every dámņ black person in America.
(Seriously, he doesn’t.)
Which would be a great reply to someone who said he did. Trouble is, I don;t think anyone did.
But he has to right to react as he chooses.
No, he doesn’t. Illegally destroying the lives and reputations of innocent people is against the law. As Sharpton ofund out in the Tawana Brawley fiasco. For that matter, if some white bigot decided they didn’t like you and “reacted” as they choose to in a way that included burning a cross in front of your house or any other act of intimidation and/or overt violence, you sure wouldn’t find me defending this as some mythical “right”. Nor, I’ll guess, would you.
Anyone who shows up to support him? Guess what? They’re there by choice, not because of some kind of Black People Mandate. They’re genuinely pìššëd øff.
Um…we know. How do we know? Well…the numbers aren’t all that great–Sharpton never gets more than a fraction of a fraction of the total Black population. So there’s that. Plus there’s the whole we aren’t incredibly stupid thing, which I’m beginning to suspect you think we are. Seriously. You imagine that we think people show up at a Sharpton rally over some kind Psychic Black Thing? With so many good points to make why are you coming up with imaginary ones?
No, I get that people are genuinely upset. But if I think they are wrong in their reasons I am under no obligation to do anything about it. There are those who get upset still when two kids of different races date, marry, have children, etc. I don’t care, except when their bigotry crosses the line into making those kids miserable. Even then, I have little time to waste listening to their feeble “reasons” for their prejudices, unless I think that they are salvageable enough to see the light.
That probably qualifies as being “dismissive”. Well, when you make an argument you have to be prepared to be dismissed. It comes with the territory and if you can’t take it, do stamp collecting instead. If your argument is sound and your cause is just, this should not worry you. If people are upset that others don’t take their outrage seriously it could be because they know in their hearts that the “outrage” is just for show. But I may be wrong, in which case they will have the opportunity to make me see the truth (though if the response were to be picketing my house, writing letters to the editor about what a bad guy I am, and petitioning the school board to get me fired it would only prove my point that there is no argument, just intimidation.)
At any rate, I don’t accept the premise that it’s ok to try to get someone fired but dismissing them? THAT’S out of line!
At any rate, I don’t accept the premise that it’s ok to try to get someone fired but dismissing them? THAT’S out of line!
Well, I think it’s perfectly ok for someone to be fired for saying/doing something offensive to someone else. If a waiter is rude to you in a restaurant, you wouldn’t complain to a manager at all? Riiiight….
Also PAD:
If you touch a hot stove, get burned, and say, “Whoa, I’m not touching that stove again,” is that an act of cowardice? Or is that just a reasoned response to an atmosphere created by many members of the very audience that Holder would presumably claim as his constituency?
Peter, in a honest discussion about race, it’s more about asking “Why is the stove so hot? Who left the stove on to begin with? And how do we turn it off without getting burned?” That was the thrust of Obama’s speech on race, which is largely why it went over so well. But simply walking away from the stove and doing nothing about it? I can see how that be cowardly.
Uh Slick, you’ve got something, it’s that a huge wad of Dandruff?
No wait, that’s just a HUG CHIP ON YOUR SHOULDER.
Grow up, just because you don’t like something doesn’t warrant a crusade to destrpy the speaker’s life/career.
If it did, then you wouldn’t like the results when this horribly racist country gets tired of all the whining from the likes of you and Rev. Sharpton…
“When Sharpton says jump, we don’t all go “how high?” He also doesn’t speack for every dámņ black person in America. “
I never said he did. I simply used his as an example. He was in no way made out to be the 100% rule or the be-all-end-all example. Why is it that you wish to take one sentence from Peter’s post to paint the entire thing with it (while ignoring the other things of greater substance) and then create straw dogs out of examples that others use in order to argue a point?
“You can say “real or imagined”, but for the people who feel slighted, it isn’t part of their imagination. That feeling is very real, and they have a right to express that feeling (in a legal manner, of course).”
Here’s the thing, Slick. Having “the right” to do something doesn’t always mean it’s right to do something. I’ll get more into that in a minute.
“They aren’t mad just to be mad. You or PAD may not understand why they’re upset (or you may understand entirely but not agree), but that doesn’t diminish the fact that they are genuinely and honestly upset at something.”
No, I get that some people may be mad and gentlemanly feel that they have a reason to be mad. However, there’s such a thing as giving the benefit of the doubt. Again, I’ve seen tings that I took as offensive that many more people around me didn’t. I’ve seen things that I thought were meant to be A, which I saw as offensive, and then I learned that the person who did it meant it to be B which wasn’t at all offensive.
But when I see something like that where there’s doubt that the only thing something is is offensive, especially racially offensive, then I don’t go after people and try to destroy them. I may not support that persons business or may decide that he’s an @$$hole, but I can’t show 100% that they meant to be racist and that this was the only interpretation so I don’t try to destroy their lives and reputations.
The “get to it in a minute” story now. True story that just happened in my workplace.
We have a very prominent black fellow that we were doing VIP protection for who I’ll just call (not his real initials) JH. Now, there are only a few of us that are fully VIP protection/transport trained so only five of us could actually do the job and had been doing the job for the past three years. Good gig that was one of the few overtime gigs that we still had in this wonderful budget crunch economy.
Out of nowhere, we’re being investigated. It seems that JH flipped his lid at a racist slur directed at him by one of us. He went into his car (the one used by us for trips and not his day to day car) to look something up on his GPS and discovered that someone had set the language on his GPS to Afrikaans.
He flipped out. He told a number of his co-workers, very powerful and prominent people themselves, that one of us had done this to his GPS as a racial slur/insult. His co-workers, given his version of the story, agreed that it was racially motivated. He and they then said something to our Chief.
Investigation took a while and during that time we all got looked at by people we had to work around as if we were guilty of being racists with no benefit of the doubt being given. People that would at least be polite enough to say hello or good morning to us wouldn’t say a word to us.
Guess what the investigation found?
The car was parked where there was a 24/7 security camera. JH was the only one who got in the car or touched the GPS during the time period in between his last trip with us and his seeing the Afrikaans being programmed into it as the default language. Seems that JH went into his own car to look at something on his GPS. Turns out that JH didn’t know how to work his own GPS.
No surprise there, he only got it because he’s a keeping up with the Jones type of person. If so and so has a new toy then he has to have it as well.
They asked him what he was doing the time he went into the car. He told them what he was looking up and why. They asked him to show them what he did. He was a little reluctant (because he was embarrassed by not knowing how to work the thing) but finally did it. It took him five or six tries to do it and he hit about a million wrong control functions in the process of doing it.
One of the guys assigned to investigate our “racist” action was familiar with that model of GPS and opened up the language options menu. He asked JH to exit the menu. JH looked at it, hit a couple of control options, hit a couple more options and then finally exited the menu. Oh, and he reset the language when he did it. The way the set up on his GPS was; the choice bar highlighted the first language on the list. Guess what language was alphabetically first on the list.
Afrikaans.
He was the only one in the time period in question to touch his transport car. He was the only one in that period to touch his GPS. When asked to do a simple thing with the GPS he couldn’t do it and made a mistake that duplicated what he claimed one of us had done. Turns out that he reset the thing the first time.
But it didn’t matter in the end. He certainly didn’t talk about his mistake around his coworkers as much as he talked about the “racial slur” directed at him by one of us. He also wasn’t man enough to face us again on a regular bases. He contacted another agency to take over escorts and VIP protection gigs shortly after that.
So to recap. A prominent black man decided that he was the target of a racist insult without any real proof and when there were other possibilities outside of that. He told others about it. They reacted to his version of events and treated us accordingly. He was found to be wrong. He reacted by running away and hiding. We lost a high profile gig and, more importantly, one of the few reliable overtime gigs we have left these days. Oh, and he didn’t tell nearly as many people that he was the person that accidentally set the language on the thing as he did that one of us acted in a racist manner.
He dragged our reputations through the mud, he acted like a coward afterward and he cost us paychecks because of his over reactionary stupidity and cowardice.
He may very well have had “the right” to do what he did, but it was far from right of him to do it. Now multiply the impact of something like that to the corporate level. Multiply it to the level of something like this dûmbášš monkey cartoon business. You get a small group of people who are dámņëd and determined to be offended and outraged without reason just because they want to and they attack people because they have “the right” to. What’s the results?
They destroy lives for no f’n good reason. They drag other people’s names through the mud.
Again, just because you have the right to do something doesn’t mean that you should do it. That’s especially true if there are other possibilities available other than racist motivations. You give people the benefit of the doubt because even if you’re 100% sure that you’re genuinely offended and right to be so you may in fact be completely off base. And, quite frankly, if you can’t do that and you just want to play the race card and destroy other people’s lives or reputations; you’re an áššhølë.
At any rate, I don’t accept the premise that it’s ok to try to get someone fired but dismissing them? THAT’S out of line!
Well, I think it’s perfectly ok for someone to be fired for saying/doing something offensive to someone else. If a waiter is rude to you in a restaurant, you wouldn’t complain to a manager at all? Riiiight….
You missed my point. I didn’t say one should do nothing. I didn’t say one should not complain. I said, and I really don’t know how to make this any plainer than I already did, that “dismissing” someone’s opinions is somehow “out of line” but actually trying to get them fired is ok. That makes no sense at all and I can only ask that, please, if anything I have said offends you, please please just dismiss it. I’d MUCH rather you did that than do anything else. I think most people would agree.
I think you would agree too, which is why you instead argue against points NOT made.
Jerry, great story. I don’t particularly blame the guy for filing the report, though given his lack of familiarity with the equipment the possibility would have hopefully occurred to me that it was my fault, were I in his position. But not manning up and apologizing for his error to the same degree he threw the accusations? Well, that’s gutless.
(BTW, I hate GPS systems. Great idea but you need the manual right in front of you to make it work. On our recent trip to Tennessee it would have led us all the way to Lower Volta if we’d followed its advise. And I swear, the voice gets really petulant when you ignore it.)
Posted by: Slick at February 28, 2009 06:57 PM
“All acts of racism should be comdemed and pilloried in the worst way. Period.”
Personally I’d say all acts should be – considered? evaluated? judged? – in context and with a sense of what is appropriate and proportionate.
Because some acts are worse than others.
Or are you seriously equating someone being an insensitive idiot who said something tactless with someone beating the living bejasus out of another human being with a baseball bat?
Treating “trivial” (for want of a better word) as serious also means you’re opening the door to treating serious as trivial. (Note, I’m not saying ignore trivial. I am saying, know that somethings are relatively trivial)
Cheers.
Jerry, great story. I don’t particularly blame the guy for filing the report, though given his lack of familiarity with the equipment the possibility would have hopefully occurred to me that it was my fault, were I in his position. But not manning up and apologizing for his error to the same degree he threw the accusations? Well, that’s gutless.
I agree, gutless–and something I’ve seen with many people regardless of race. And what exactly does the fact that this guy who mistakenly thought he’d been insulted had too fragile an ego to admit he’d been wrong say about what are the biggest problems in the current racial climate are? I’m not really clear.
Just voicing my support for Slick, here. Gotta love it when a bunch of white people start telling black people what is and isn’t racist, what they should and shouldn’t react to, and how they should express that reaction to get the best response from white people.
For god’s sake, people, if we’re ever going to ACTUALLY do away with racism, we’ve got to start by actually LISTENING TO NON-WHITE PEOPLE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT RACISM, not just dismissing them as having chips on their shoulders or saying they’re too hostile to even discuss race with. Just as the feminist movement is led by women, the anti-racism movement is led by POC, and no progress is ever going to be made if us overprivileged white people keep dismissing their voices like this. Just deal with it already.
Posted by Laura at March 1, 2009 04:17 PM
Gotta love it when a bunch of white people start telling black people what is and isn’t racist, what they should and shouldn’t react to, and how they should express that reaction to get the best response from white people.
For god’s sake, people, if we’re ever going to ACTUALLY do away with racism, we’ve got to start by actually LISTENING TO NON-WHITE PEOPLE WHEN THEY TALK ABOUT RACISM, not just dismissing them
.
.
.
—————
Laura, I’ll happily start listening to just about anyone… But if I think they’re talking through their áršëš I will lose interest pretty dámņ fast, regardless of colour, gender, politics, faith or sexual preference, and there’s also a pretty good chance that I’ll raise my head and say something if I think they’re really wrong.
FWIW, I fully expect others to treat me the same way, because sometimes I do talk through my áršë! (It’s a strange party piece, but I never could get the hang of juggling…)
Just listening to “Group A” is only part of the process. There needs to be dialogue, part of which involves “I hear what you’re saying, if I understand you correctly, I disagree because a/b/c/d/etc. Please correct me if I misunderstood or reason with me if you think I’m wrong”
My personal opinion, that dialogue is how everybody gets to get past their differences, and anyone who isn’t willing to indulge in honest dialogue is not likely to be part of the solution.
Cheers.
Laura: “Gotta love it when a bunch of white people start telling black people what is and isn’t racist, what they should and shouldn’t react to, and how they should express that reaction to get the best response from white people.”
Since that’s not really what’s be said; gotta love it when someone comes in and talks out of the backside about others.
By the By… What the hëll happened to the site? Not a fan of the new format at all. Pain in the neck to look catch up on thread comments in as well.
Wow. Never knew you viewed blacks as whiners, Peter David. Been a fan of your work, for a long time. But as someone with relatives who ahve been on the recieving end of police brutality and still endures the legacy of things such as Jim Crow and Slavery…these are not issues to make light of. You have just lost me as a fan. I’ve canceled my subscription to X-Factor. You probably won’t miss a hip-hop fan like myself anyway.
Between not calling blacks whiners and not shutting down websites it’s hard to imagine what Peter could not do next to annoy as many fans of X-Factor as possible and get them to cancel their subscriptions. When, oh when will the man take some responsibility for the things he does not do?
j-sin, Jim Crow and Slavery? I’m old but I’m not that old – what do you suggest I should do/feel about those topics?. Police brutality? I’m against that whoever is on the wrong end of the nightstick.
Some blacks do whine. Some whites are bigots. Some people say “all blacks are xxx” or “all whites are zzz”, and those people are racists and/or idiots.
BTW, given that POTUS is a POC and the number of highly educated and well to do non-whites in the USA, if the overprivileged whites are trying to keep the black man down, they’re doing a pretty piss-poor job of it…
Cheers.
“But if you’re one of too many people are dumb enough think that racism is officially over because of President Obama, then, hey, I’d loooove to live in your world.”
Racism will NEVER be “over”. There will ever and always be people trying to prove that their group is better than another, be it by brain pan capacity, skin color or whether or not their bellies have stars.
Obama’s election is, however irrefutable proof that MASSIVE progress has been made. It is a crippling blow to the argument that America is a racist nation. And it pressty throws the chestnut “A black man can’t get a break in this country” RIGHT out the window. You may have to work, and go to school and yes, maybe be dámņ lucky, but it is no longer impossible. Period. Ðámņ hard, maybe. “Can’t”? Nope.
As a rule, a group that is fighting for a cause, whether that cause be race relation, pollution or other, must act as if in the history of man, NO progress has been made. The mindset is, if you acknowledge the progress, some people will think, “Ph, good, we did something about it” and stop worrying about it. So they must “Keep the pressure on” and speak as if nothing has happened. And when examples of progress are presented, like the improvement of Lake Erie, or, I dunno, President Barack Obama, they are shouted down as distractions, and that we must keep our eyes on the proverbial prize.
Any manager or any parent will tell you that if all you do is harp on a person’s negatives and failings, you will not inspire them much at all. You will likely cause a backlash that will reduce you to being called a nag or a shrew. Which is why when we hear environmentalists on TV, the vast majority of people roll their eyes and sigh “not these guys again”. You get much farther by talking about how much progress has been made, and look how much LESS we have to do to get the job finished, surely we can get this little bit done now, can’t we?
Case in point – “We’ve not grown at all in the last 20 years.” Well, yes, we have, to the point that this country can elect a black man with a significant margin. If this were a “racist nation”, he’d have gotten 12-17 percent of the vote (depending on how you define “black”). Indeed he probably wouldn’t have gotten past the first primary. He got more votes than could have been explained by the Black Vote (cause they all vote the same, you know) and the white people who were afraid of being called racist, or the ones who were afraid of what “they” would do if “their” guy didn’t get in.
No, the man got elected not for the color of his skin, but for the content of his character. And ironically, that is the LAST thing the haterade manufacturers want. If racism becomes a thing of the past, they’ll have to go get straight jobs.
“When Sharpton says jump, we don’t all go “how high?” He also doesn’t speak for every dámņ black person in America.”
He is the go-to person for the Media. He’s a polarizing, flamboyant and easy to find person to get a sound bite from. The media has educated the American public, calling him a “black leader” and making sure his opinion is known in any even remotely race-related issue. He has been around long enough that he has gained the air of legitimacy. His words are to be Respected and Paid Attention To, or god knows what “they” will do. He is, in his own way, spreading or perpetuating more racism than a lot of the small-minded white people.
Heck, even Jesse Jackson has shied away from the “Black Leader” role, trying to find a less controversial foothold in history. Sharpton has no such need. He knows which side of the bread the butter is on. And where the money is.
“Wow. Never knew you viewed blacks as whiners, Peter David. Been a fan of your work, for a long time. But as someone with relatives who ahve been on the recieving end of police brutality and still endures the legacy of things such as Jim Crow and Slavery…these are not issues to make light of. You have just lost me as a fan. I’ve canceled my subscription to X-Factor. You probably won’t miss a hip-hop fan like myself anyway.”
Ya see, I think you just made his point right there. He’d have been far smarter to just shut the hëll up and talk about why there was too much cadmium yellow in the last issue of She-Hulk or something. Instead he chose to pipe up on a touchy subject, and despite all the conversation that took place in the thread, still gets responses like this.
And all it takes is one example like this for the folks who come in with a pre-determined mindset to point to and say, “you see?”
Dear Mr. David,
I am terribly sorry that I’m not going to be able to read Sir Apropos of Nothing again; it’s been wonderful comfort reading, and after having read this essay of yours I could use some. But I’ve found in my life that when a creator publicly states that they don’t think much of a demographic group I belong to, that it poisons their work for me.
I’m not telling you this because I expect you to care that one African-American woman has now been made uncomfortably aware of what you think of her race. I don’t expect that you will be daunted by my dismay on seeing a writer set his considerable professional skills to promoting the destructive idea that President Obama’s election, landmark that it is, means that racism is over in the USA and that African-Americans who complain of it are just whining, lying, or deluded. I don’t expect my opinion to matter to you at all; you have made it quite clear that by my race I’ve disqualified myself from consideration.
I’m stating this because it is important to me that at least one person disagree with you on this, as my duty to the truths I’ve witnessed and lived.
Goodbye, Mr. David. I am certain you’ll have a wonderful career without the likes of fans like me.
Peter David has long been one of my favorite writers (I remember picking up Young Justice after hearing a PAD interview on local college radio show “Hogwild.” It was one of the first comics I collected regularly). And I appreciate the attempt at a dialogue and I wouldn’t dream of no longer picking up a PAD book over this because as with any serious topic that comes up here it was brought up with the utmost sincerity by a writer who has an opinion I generally respect.
But I am rather disappointed in anecdotal evidence used to support many of the positions espoused here. Even the title of the post would seem to suggest being in somewhat of a hurry to dismiss claims of prejudice. I believe that race-based organizations still have a place in a systemically racist country. I believe Al Sharpton and his ilk are often loony, but I also see them as an often powerful force that draws attention to inequities in our society. I do believe that white privilege plays a part in some of the posters’ oblivious responses. It is not “cowardly” to address feelings on the subject, but there does seem to be a blame game going on. My parents desegregated their schools just 50 years ago. Their classmates treated them horribly. These people are now the people in charge of governments and corporations, and though many have probably outgrown their earlier ignorance I would imagine just as many haven’t and many of them passed that ignorance on down to my generation.
In the end I have to say that many of the people in this country ARE cowards when it comes to discussing racism if only because the so many refuse to educate themselves on the realities that minorities in general face daily and don’t attempt to see how those realities are part of the country’s very fabric. Whether that be accepting white privilege blindly, not internalizing criticisms made against this country, self-segregation in personal lives, physically attacking immigrant populations while treating them as underclass citizens, not acknowledging or blaming the victim for the tremendous gaps in educational attainment, poverty and incarceration, excitedly noting how far along our national “firsts” are bringing “us,” or generally considering Al Sharpton the default leader of black people in America without giving thought to who runs the media that shows him in that light and the way in which he is often portrayed . Electing the first black president won’t inform the underinformed.
These aren’t specific accusations against posters, just symptoms of a country in denial of its history and its flaws.
Nancy Wilkinson: “But I’ve found in my life that when a creator publicly states that they don’t think much of a demographic group I belong to, that it poisons their work for me.”
Wow. Way to read what you want to see rather than what’s actually there.
Peter, Slick (and I, and everyone who’s disagreeing with you here) IS having a dialogue. You’re just not listening. Where exactly are YOU engaging in a dialogue when you summarily just shoot down everything anyone disagreeing with you says?
Accept that other peoples’ experiences and opinions on this are valid, that POC’s experiences and opinions on this are inherently more valid than yours because POC are the ones whose lives are affected by racism on a daily basis, and THEN maybe you can start lecturing me on what a dialogue entails.
(And don’t even get me started on the ridiculousness of “reverse racism”. Next you’ll be complaining that gay people are oppressing straight people by demanding the same marriage rights, and that it’s “reverse homophobia” on their parts.)
Oh, and Jerry Chandler – nobody WANTS to see racism where there is none. Especially not people who are regularly oppressed by racism. That’s just fûçkìņg stupid.
Nancy Wilkinson Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
“I’m stating this because it is important to me that at least one person disagree with you on this, as my duty to the truths I’ve witnessed and lived.”
Nancy, I think the “at least one person disagree” threshold got passed a good few miles back…
Sorry, that sounds flippant – hëll it probably was flippant – but your post is disconcerting at best, and the other options on my menu are “ignore” or “berate”, and you post was polite enough to deserve neither of those.
“I’ve found in my life that when a creator publicly states that they don’t think much of a demographic group I belong to, that it poisons their work for me.”
OK, please do me a favour. Point me to the bit where PAD actually says that.
Not hearsay, not interpretation, not reading between the lines and – please – not “it’s obvious that”. Show me the quote, please.
Because, honestly, respectfully, I don’t think the guy would say that, because I don’t think the guy thinks that, and I would not want you to go away feeling that a writer you like does think and say that.
Cheers.
I think I’ve seen a similar argument (done better I might add) in an old Supergirl comic.
Laura Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:15 pm
“Peter, Slick (and I, and everyone who’s disagreeing with you here) IS having a dialogue. You’re just not listening. Where exactly are YOU engaging in a dialogue when you summarily just shoot down everything anyone disagreeing with you says?”
Personally, I tend to think that starting with “Laura, I’ll happily start listening to just about anyone…” pretty much invites dialogue. I’d say the same about pretty much every line I end with a question mark, especially the one I asked of Slick, which he chose not to reply to (or didn’t stick around long enough to see), which was:
“Or are you seriously equating someone being an insensitive idiot who said something tactless with someone beating the living bejasus out of another human being with a baseball bat? ”
I’m also fairly certain that no one else has picked up specifically on anything I’ve said, so “Slick (and I, and everyone who’s disagreeing with you here)” is actually pretty much just you… (Though young Mulligan did agree with me a few pages back, which is deeply disturbing in it’s own special way)
“Accept that other peoples’ experiences and opinions on this are valid, that POC’s experiences and opinions on this are inherently more valid than yours because POC are the ones whose lives are affected by racism on a daily basis, and THEN maybe you can start lecturing me on what a dialogue entails.”
OK. Big, huge, enormous stumbling block, because I don’t accept that “POC’s experiences and opinions on this are inherently more valid than yours”.
It’s not just that I don’t, it’s that I can’t, and that I never will, and that I find that idea just plain flat out crazy stoopid enough that it kills stone dead any further conversation that’s not the equivalent of winding you up or generally baiting you to see how far off the map you’ll actually go.
Which, strangely, is not my idea of a nice thing to do to anyone.
So..
Cheers.
Accept that other peoples’ experiences and opinions on this are valid, that POC’s experiences and opinions on this are inherently more valid than yours because POC are the ones whose lives are affected by racism on a daily basis, and THEN maybe you can start lecturing me on what a dialogue entails.
No.
I do not believe that being born with a particular amount of melanin in your skin gives you an inherent anything, other than, well, a certain amount of melanin.
By setting the ground rules for this “dialogue” that your experiences and opinions are to be given greater validity than my own based on nothing more than the color of your skin, the whole thing is poisoned as far as I’m concerned. The only reason a person should demand such a privilege is if they think it’s the only way to “win” the argument. And there are plenty of people of color who don’t think they need that advantage so I’ll probably find the whole experience more fulfilling if I talk to them.
But you have every right to demand what ever you want as a prerequisite for engagement, just as it is anyone else’s right to politely decline the offer.
(As a lesser aside, I would also disagree that other people’s opinions are valid. Some are. Some aren’t. You’ve never come across someone who had an opinion that you thought was based on faulty logic, poorly reasoned or just totally nucking futs?)
Laura: “Accept that other peoples’ experiences and opinions on this are valid, that POC’s experiences and opinions on this are inherently more valid than yours because POC are the ones whose lives are affected by racism on a daily basis, and THEN maybe you can start lecturing me on what a dialogue entails.”
There, right there combined with Nancy Wilkinson’s stupidity, is the reason that we can’t gave a true discussion about race in this country. All too often you run into people who, when they can’t come up with a reasonable or intelligent argument simply fall back on telling others some variation of “You’re not black, you couldn’t understand.” or that facts be dámņëd because a POC’s experiences and opinions trump all else. The conversation usually ceases progressing at that point.
But I’ll keep the conversation going and tell you why your statement is full of šhìŧ. Come visit me some time and I’ll show you scars that I still have from twenty-plus years ago that I got from acts of racism by blacks aimed at me and based on nothing more than the color of my skin.
See, I went through a few years of my school days where I was one of the few white kids in my school and the only white kid on my bus. Do you know how the fights that I got into during that period of my life, particularly the ones at the bus stop, got started? A group of bored black kids would look at each other and say, often in these exact words, “let’s fûçk with whitey.” I’d then get jumped by three or four black kids.
So, yeah, I know what racism feels like, thank you very much. Funny thing is that I was able to put that crap behind me even back then. I made some good friends in that school who I still keep in touch with to this day. Even then, even as a dumb school kid, I was bright enough to realize that the racist actions of a few didn’t reflect the many and I never saw, even then, every action through that lense.
“Oh, and Jerry Chandler – nobody WANTS to see racism where there is none. Especially not people who are regularly oppressed by racism. That’s just fûçkìņg stupid.”
Bûllšhìŧ. There are people out there that want to be offended and that look for reasons to be offended. And their are people that want to see racism where it’s not so they can have an excuse for not trying or for not doing.
And don’t you even dare say that I don’t know what I’m talking about with that last line or that I’m wrong just because I’m white. I’ve known a lot of blacks over the years who didn’t even bother to try to go for a job, a promotion or a position that they wanted because, in their words, they wouldn’t get it anyhow since they were black and the people in charge of hiring/promoting/whatever wouldn’t select a black man. They failed to achieve because they failed to try and they excused the failure to even try on the racism of the whites in charge of hiring, promoting or whatever.
I knew a guy in a place I worked in back in the late 90’s who, along with a number of us, put in for a nice promotional opportunity that opened up in our company. Neither he nor I got it. Our bosses called both he and I in along with about five other people who interviewed for the position and told each person individually that we didn’t get it but that we would be on the short list for some positions opening up in the coming year’s expansion. His response? He told his buddies, his buddies at work, that he didn’t get the promotion because, obviously, he was black. Then the funny šhìŧ started.
The promotion got announced later that day. The guy that got it was black. So there was nothing at all racist about him not getting promoted, but you can bet your ášš that the stupid SOB would have been banging that drum to this day had the guy that got hired not been black as well.
He didn’t get a promotion that he wanted when he thought he deserved to get it. He then decided that he wouldn’t see that as maybe there being people more qualified than he was putting in for it at that time. No, he chose to see racism in that because he wanted to see racism in that.
Want an example on a larger scale? Kanye West and Katrina. Here’s a natural disaster destroying lives, black, white, red, yellow, purple, green, and here’s a government that’s bungling things so badly that it’s making matter worse (or at least no better) for everyone of every color down there. So along comes Kanye West who decides to be an idiot on a fund raising program (and causing many people to turn the thing off) declaring that George bush hates black people and that “they’ve” given them permission to shoot “us” in the streets down there. Oh, and America is set up to help black people as slowly as possible and George Bush doesn’t care about black people.
There’s a thread in the archives of this site (if the new format and website change imported it) where we were all discussing that horrible event before Kanye opened his mouth. What was being discussed and condemned there, even by the hardcore conservatives on the site, was the fact that the government’s response was an example of incompetence of the worst order on just about every level. And it was. It was incompetence of the highest degree and it was hurting everyone in NO no matter what their skin color.
But along comes Kanye to declare that, no, it’s not an example or incompetence , but rather racism. You could turn on the TV and see an entire city being destroyed by nature and relief efforts being carried out so badly as to be useless to everyone, but it’s all about skin color.
Oh, and there was no order given or permission granted to just go down there and start shooting black people. When a return fire permission was finally given it was because looters were shooting at rescue workers and the only way that some of the rescue workers could get into some areas was to have an armed soldier with them. They didn’t care about the color of the looter shooting at them and they did it while trying to help and rescue, amongst others, black people trapped by the flood waters.
But it was all about race and racism according to Kanye. He wanted to see racism and he did.
And then the funny stuff happened in the thread that parallels your comments now. Kanye sparked a discussion about race and the racial implications of what was going on then. You when the discussion hit a brick wall and became too stupid to continue? It basically became useless when Kanye’s defenders flat said that Kanye was factually wrong about the relief efforts, Kanye had no clue what he was talking about with his “shoot us” remarks and that George Bush’s problem was that it was more likely that he simply didn’t care about people as a whole that weren’t him or his buddies and not so much that he didn’t care about/didn’t like blacks specifically.
And then, right after saying all of that, they said that Kanye was right.
They flat out said that it wasn’t about facts, truth or reality, but rather it was about what Kanye West felt in his heart and that was all that mattered. Kanye felt that it was about race and racism and because he, a black man, felt that way we white folks couldn’t really say that he was wrong. Even where he made statements that were presented as a facts but weren’t he was right because that’s how he felt and that’s what was important.
And that, 9 times out of 10, is why it’s impossible to have an honest discussion about race. Your POV is that your feelings or opinions are inherently more valid than any of ours based just on skin color. Others will, when their facts get disproven, retreat to claiming that facts don’t matter and the feelings of POC trump all in the debate. Or, the really fun one, you get called a racist and, if you’re a public figure, you risk the loss of your job or boycotts. Hëll, just look at comment 184 in this very thread. A woman, a black woman, declaring that she won’t read any more of Peter David’s work, even the works she already owns, because he didn’t have the “correct” POV on the matter and she twisted it into something he never said. She wanted to see racism where there was none and she twisted what was their to make reality conform to her feelings.
Well, if some of the people involved in this thread don’t even recognize the IMHO rather obvious truth that “POC’s experiences and opinions on this are inherently more valid than yours because POC are the ones whose lives are affected by racism on a daily basis,” it’s no wonder this conversation isn’t going all that well.
(Look at it this way, Bill – would you consider my, or even PAD’s, opinion on being a high school science teacher, no matter how well thought out, to be equally as valid as yours?)
Luke, a good idea is a good idea no matter where it comes from or who has it. There have been lots of examples in history where someone saw how something was being done in occupation or business A and said, “You know, we found that doing it this way…”
And sometimes that outsider POV was accepted by the insiders and it did work better. And then sometimes it blew up…
Besides, we’re not talking about professions here; we’re talking about feelings. Feelings are pretty much universal. I know what it feels like to be irrationally hated because of who I am or what I am. I know what it’s like to be targeted by others because of who I am or what I am. Everybody does really. We can start from there.
But then there’s also the little matter of facts to be dealt with. If you can point to facts that show that something that someone is claiming is based on race or is racism was not done based on race and was not racism; that should be the end of it. Luke, if I accused you of theft and you presented facts that proved you in fact stole nothing; shouldn’t that be the end of the matter?
Even if it’s not cut and dry there’s an imbalance. Let’s say you said something that I took offense to and I really get ticked at you. You point out that you meant it in a way completely different than I took it and point out that whatever phrase you used was a reference to some TV show that I’ve never seen. I stay ticked. Bill and other chime in and say that, yeah, they read it as you intended and that, yeah, they recognized the reference and got it immediately. Bill and others explain it to me and you keep insisting that you really meant no offense. I have two options here. I can (1) realize that you didn’t mean to offend me, that I took it the wrong way and move on or I can (2) declare that the facts don’t matter, that I was offended, I feel like you meant to offend me and that my feelings and perspective on the matter trump all else.
If I went with option (1) you and others would likely be saying that I did the adult or reasonable thing. If I went with option (2) you and others here would likely be saying that I was being an unintelligent ášš. And you’d be right. When race is the subject though; we’re told that option (2) is more often than not acceptable and understandable and that, well, facts aren’t important as feelings sometimes.
We will never, as a country as a whole, have anything like an honest debate on race in this country when the ground rules themselves are laid out in such a manner where the game is rigged from sentence one of the discussion. Very sad, but very true.
You know, I was all set to up an’ forgive you for the Scans Daily kerfluffle. Never mind I get all my info on new comics online; never mind that outside of friends, S_D was the main sourse; never mind the fact that when I like a series I dámņëd well buy it (to the tune of hundreds of US dollars if need be). Fair use is one thing, but I respect clamping down on piracy.
But… wow. Just… wow. You’re a fûçkìņg racist. And sexist. “Scary nappy-headed hos” is an off-hand joke now? I like how being called a whørë on top doesn’t even make it into your version. And we all know “jiggaboo” is a totally acceptable word for an athlete.
What the FÙÇK is wrong with you? Is this a Yankee thing?
No Luke. If PAD made a statement about being a high school teacher I would, well, I’d probably ask if he’d been taken new medication. because he isn’t a high school teacher.
And if I were to claim that my opinions on education were more valid than PADs because I am a high school teacher, well, I think I’d get my ášš handed to me for the sheer arrogance of that presumption. Being a teacher may give me some interesting insights into the education system but it in no way shape or form gives my opinions any greater validity (are we all on the same boat here on what validity means? I’m taking it to mean factual truth). Maybe by virtue of my experience I have a greater chance of finding the truth about the education system but I’d be a fool to think it must be so. The mere fact that another teacher with the exact same level of experience could have a 180 degree different point of view makes that point obvious.
Opinions are not facts. Opinions are not facts. Please explain to me what a “valid” opinion is as compared to an “invalid” opinion and maybe we can salvage something from this. (Another question–if two PoC have opposing opinions how are we to tell which one is more valid? And if there is a way that this can be done, what happens if we then postulate a second circumstance, where the PoC has the less valid opinion and a white person has the one just judged more valid? Does it now become the lesser argument by virtue of the “inherently more valid” test based on melanin or does the original judgment stand).
(Another question–if two PoC have opposing opinions how are we to tell which one is more valid? And if there is a way that this can be done, what happens if we then postulate a second circumstance, where the PoC has the less valid opinion and a white person has the one just judged more valid? Does it now become the lesser argument by virtue of the “inherently more valid” test based on melanin or does the original judgment stand).
God I wish I’d been the one to think of that in this discussion. Probably clearer than anything I’ve said so far this thread.
Well, even a blind squirrel finds a nut now and again. 🙂
Again with the squirrels? (Warning, PAD’s Blog, may contain nuts!) But I digress…
Thinking about Laura’s post overnight (UK here, we’re more advanced than you) part of me wondered if there’s not some cunning intelligence playing Devil’s advocate here, since the posts are such classic examples of what we’re talking about.
I’m also wondering about my reaction to walk away from it like that. Was it cowardice? Or just reluctance to get into a timewaster where I probably would have ended up ranting instead of discussing, with a person who is very obviously singing from a very different hymnbook…
Part of it I think is personal/cultural/generational. I’m English, and in my 50’s. Stereotype or not, lot’s of guys like me would rather chew our own arms off than ‘make a scene’ or cause a fuss. I was taught to respect others, and their beliefs,and I was particularly taught to be respectful of women. I’m a classic door-opening seat-giving-upper sexist dinosaur. (That’s sexist, not – sadly – sexiest). So my response to Laura is to walk away, rather than end up telling her that I think she’s crazier than a shithouse rat.
Which may be a disservice to the Greater Good, but it is true to my own self…
It does lead me to an answer to PAD’s original question though:
“If you touch a hot stove, get burned, and say, “Whoa, I’m not touching that stove again,” is that an act of cowardice?”
It depends on context. If there’s no good reason to touch the stove again, it’s common sense. If the stove is about to explode and set fire to a houseful of people, then it’s cowardice not to grab the dámņ thing and throw it out the door. And I think a lot of people just don’t have that sense of urgency about the need to discuss racism with people who are not instantly seen as being open to rational discussion. Which may or may not be a good thing.
Moving on…
I don’t think Nancy’s post instantly ranks as ‘stupidity’. I do think there’s a large degree of misunderstanding, and I’d love to address that if you’re still with us.
And on…
Carlos Says:
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
“But I am rather disappointed in anecdotal evidence used to support many of the positions espoused here.”
Why disappointed? I’d say falling back on the anecdotal is the very human thing to do – what we’ve seen, and heard, and done is what shapes us to be who we are.
Nancy actually used a beautiful phrase for it; “as my duty to the truths I’ve witnessed and lived.”
I think that trying to share the truths we’ve lived, as a way of communicating an opinion or belief, is not something to be disappointed about.
Cheers.