I am stunned that this t-shirt could be proudly displayed anywhere anymore.
Now get this: the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is running an online poll that is asking, "What do you think of the Obama t-shirt?", with two choices: "It's racist" and "it's fine". You might be wondering why the newspaper would even have to ask…but here's the kicker.
"It's fine" is winning.
Do you think maybe we can shift the balance there? Or should we just let this indictment of Georgia's racism stand?
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Some conservative nimrod by the name of Mike Norman in Marietta, Georgia is selling these t-shirts and what is more is claiming that he’s "not a racist". Quoth the nimrod: "Look at [Obama] . . . the hairline, the ears, he looks just like Curious George". There’s a poll over at the Atlanta Journal-…
I find this really funny. Ralph Reed is blaming John McCain for his loss in the primaries in the race to be Lt. Governor of Georgia, according to National Review:
Here's the view of what happened from the Reed camp: Once the Abramoff stuff exploded, it was going to be a very tough road for Reed.…
No More Mister Nice Blog
The paranoia of George Zimmerman had a large, race-specific fear component, but I'd say it also had elements of pleasure. I see this in what gun fans say all the time -- they like thinking of themselves as besieged, and as people who have the means to defend themselves if…
Eating your enemies is a time honored method for winning. It is rarely used by American politicians or their supporters.
Here is how you eat your enemy. I'll use a generalized example based on several events during the GOP debates.
Moderator: Mr. Trump, you've said 'bla bla bla bla'. Alternate…
Wow. Almost 500 comments on something that is crystal clear. It's a racist shirt.
If you didn't know that there is a historically racist component to equating dark-skinned people with other primates, you do now, so the proper response is not "I didn't know that, therefore it's not racist", the proper response is "Now that I know the history, of course it's racist".
Honestly. If I wore a shirt with a yellow cross inside of a red circle/slash "not" symbol, is there any way to defend that the logo is not a statement against Christianity? Oh, but I didn't know the cross was a Christian symbol! And I didn't know that the cirle/slash meant "not"! My misunderstanding of the logo does not mean that the logo doesn't mean that anymore. It just means that I was ignorant.
"Thing is, one of the main arguments used (by me as well) when religious people object to certain depictions of their faith is that " you do not have the right not to be offended". Why does this not apply here?"
Religion is a choice, at least for most people. Certainly being vocal in your identification with a religion is a choice, although I do accept that for some people in some parts of the world openly rejecting the religion dominant in your community could be difficult or even dangerous. Choosing to identify with a religion that is known to be hostile to certain groups can fairly lay thay person open to criticism. It is not unreasonable to point out that the Catholic church holds a position on homosexuality that many regard as bigoted. If a person objects to such criticism they face a choice. They can cease being a catholic, or they can remain a catholic but speak out against their church's position on homosexuality. Should they choose to remain silent and a catholic then they must accept the criticism.
Do you begin to see the difference ? One is a matter of choice over which the individual has control, the other is one over which they have no control.
Skin colour is not a choice, it is simply a matter of genetics and in no way reflects on the nature of person, anymore than eye colour does.
Also, for all I know, it was created as a pro-Obama, let's laugh at old racism to show we are over being being personally limited by being offended by images T-shirt.
Read the article. Is that too much to ask? You'll see that your "for all I know" is simply an admission of ignorance and laziness, as if you'd paid the slightest bit of attention you would have known that the sentiment you expressed was quite obviously not what was intended.
At least try to keep up.
The use of "cracker" to describe rural southern whites is said to derive from an older use of that word for someone who escapes from jail - apparently a frequent item in the biographies of the first few generations of Georgia/Florida white settlers.
If there were a similar term for those who escaped slavery, that word might well be a common descriptor for rural southern blacks.
None of the etymologies I've seen for "honky" has been convincing.
Just to note for those who are saying they are not aware of the historical association of black people with other primates, I am British and (as far as I know) cracker does not seem to be used as a racist term of abuse for whites. However I was still aware of its use as racial slut in the US.
If I, as a Brit, can be aware of racial sluts used in the US, why cannot Americans be aware of racial sluts used in their own country ?
I'm not culturally British (although British probably nowadays has a dominant share), despite my nationality. I was raised in lots of different countries and mostly in international schools until I was in my teens.
In just one year the class I was in consisted of Israeli's, Palestinians, black American's, white Americans, white South African (pre-end of apartheid), Indian, Pakistani, Dutch, British, German, Swiss and Australian kids (in a class of less than 20). I got on with most of them (those I didn't was personality clashes, not anything else) and it wasn't until much older that I realised why certain kids avoided certain others. Most of my early life was like that, different schools, different countries, different kids, and while I wasn't always happy about it (I kept losing friends) I'm mostly glad of it now.
It was both an extremely cosmopolitan and open upbringing, cultural and religious education was basically impossible with that many different and divergent cultures, it had to be secular by default, yet I admit that it was also a relatively sheltered one. Racism just didn't happen at school because racist parents would never send their kids to a school like that. "Racism" didn't happen to me until I went to a British school and was "the nazi" to a number of the kids; courtesy of my dual nationality.
My cultural reference points will always be different; I'm a lot more likely to spot white-on-white racism (nationalism) than any other kind.
Am I proud that I'm not susceptible to the silly racist memes you are indoctrinated in? Yep. Every time I learn about one and have to change my behaviour to accommodate a bigoted society is a sad day.
Yes, it is an interesting life. I could have just left this thread alone once I'd finally figured out what the issue was; but I thought I'd share another perspective.
I've come to accept that people that don't understand my perspective, or don't want to understand my perspective, insult me. Shame on them.
Ignorance (willful or not), naivety, the ostrich syndrome, possible seclusion from exposure to it (which I find odd but that doesn't mean it hasn't happened) or lying.
me@500 said
ha. fucking. ha.!
I live north of Atlanta is a supposedly affluent enclave. The vast majority of kids at my son's middle school are the children of affluent (and presumably educated) parents.
My son gets straight A's without trying - he'[s smart but not that smart!
My wife & I 'quiz' him on his schoolwork, on tests, and observe his research habits and progress during projects. We're generally appalled! -- right now, if he were in Scotland, he'd be in 2nd year of high school. We don't think his work would compare well to the last year of primary school (and at best, would be in the middle of the pack) - and he's a straight A student!
If this is at all representative - I'd hate to think about what it means for the future of the US.
FYI -- I recall an incident back when I was new to the states... Some colleages and I (I'm a management consultant, FWIW) were talking about our kids and school and 'helping with homework'. One of the guys mentioned the series 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,.. as being something his kid got assigned for homework - he didn't understand why. I mentioned it was called the fiboncci series, and was represented in many growth models (branching ferns, branching trees, bodily dimensions, etc) as well as in many other places. My colleagues looked at me like I'd used a foreign language.
In a group of english majors I might have been unsurprised at their 'ignorance'. But these guys all had Masters in either Engineering or Computer Science -- math heavy subjects.
And they were ignorant, and challenges, by a simple (but elegant) series.
I sure hope the population becomes more 'educated'. but I won't hold my breath.
Tony.
"If I, as a Brit, can be aware of racial sluts used in the US,"
I did of course mean sluts, not sluts.
I don't want anyone to go accusing me being a misogynist!
And just how selfish can MartinSGill be ? His whole argument seems to be that he is not affected by the racism involved by associating black people with monkeys, indeed does not even seem to be aware that is has been a common slur, and thus seems to think therefore it cannot be a racist slur. He also seems to take pride in the fact he does not know.
He may not be racist himself but he seems to be happy to stand back and let racists go unchallenged. He may not be as morally culpable as the racists but he is not far of. The "Does not affect me, so it is not happening, and even it is I don't care" attitude allows a lot of evil to happen in the world.
out of curisity, what white thing have white people been compared to that was really bad? what's the worst that black people have been compared with? if cracker and monkey are the worst that anyone can come up with, i'm gonna be disappointed. crackers and monkeys are nice things: one is great with toppings, the other is downright adorable (read curious george). every kid loves both. why equate either to hate when cracker is increasingly used as a friendly poke and monkey (as seen here) is comparing a cartoon/story everyone loves to a big-eared, likeable guy? i understand the "racist shirt" comments but really, isn't it just propogating the dicotomy that supports the continued race debate? race is a social construction. so he's got big ears and he's dark skinned. some here might think that's not cute. so what? no one can argue that curious george isn't cute enough to make up for it.
"Religion is a choice, at least for most people." - Matt Penfold
The difference between religion and race in terms of criticism is interesting. I don't think it's simply a matter of choice, but that's certainly an important ingredient.
I think it's important to make a distinction between a group of people who have grouped together for the express purpose of acting together (I think that's what you're saying), as opposed to a group of people who are lumped together according to arbitrary features.
This gets strange when you consider atheists. Are atheists a group of choice and express purpose?
I don't think so (in my case I'm not). I didn't chose to be an atheist, I just never chose to be a theist. So, I'm lumped into atheism whether I like it or not.
However, and I think was a concern expressed by Sam Harris not too long ago, at what point does atheism become a group of choice rather than a feature of birth?
"In a group of english majors I might have been unsurprised at their 'ignorance'. But these guys all had Masters in either Engineering or Computer Science -- math heavy subjects."
I did computer science at university. Unless things have changed hugely since I was there the Fibonacci series was something we all grew to be thoroughly fed up with. An important concept in computing is that of recursion (where a routine call itself) and the Fibonacci series is a classic example used when getting students to program recursive routines. I can recall writing such program in Pascal, Fortran, Cobol, C, Assembly and probably some I have forgotten.
I understand it is used in maths as a simple example of a self-referencing function.
Here is the CNN video- check it out if you haven't already. Enjoy!
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/05/14/bojorquez.obama.ts…
Matt: My problem with these guys sounds the the same as your's - it's a fundamental part of most CS classes (and even when you've done learning the basics, there are still the 1st year noobs to help in their 'labs')
I am sometimes proud to say I'm a CS grad... then I meet people who can barely parse a sentence, never mind code!
tony
@Pierce R. Butler... you rock! thank you! i love when i can actually learn something from these sites. i imagine that the cracker term might then refer to whites being able to buy their way out (socially or financially) as they continue to do today, while blacks end up and stay in jail more than they.
((@tony, you might be taken more seriously (and as being as educated as you claim) if you didn't talk about yourself (or put others down) so much. my appologies if the way i've put it hurts your feelings at all, but i stand by my meaning.))
Jams,
Atheism can be used to mean more than one thing.
The simplest definition is simply a lack of belief in god. If you believe in a god you cannot be an atheist, plain and simple.
However the term can be, and is, used to describe those who have actively rejected theism. Many atheists would come into this category, especially those exposed to religion in the home as children, although clearly not all.
Another use of the term is to mean someone who rejects superstition and myth in favour of rationality and evidence.
Atheist can also be used to describe someone who subscribes to a humanist philosophy. This use is inaccurate. Some those at the liberal end of Christianity could fairly be said to subscribe to similar values, and not all atheists (using the simplest sense of the word) subscribe to those values.
Some have tried to coin new words to describe those atheists who belong in the second and third meanings. One such term was "Bright". I understand the thinking behind it, but am not taken with the word myself.
Atheist who just reject the idea there is a god do not share much in common but those in the other groups do share increasingly more in common.
"i imagine that the cracker term might then refer to whites being able to buy their way out (socially or financially) as they continue to do today, while blacks end up and stay in jail more than they." - me
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracker_(pejorative)
It's modern usage in America is primarily as a pejorative directed at white people, primarily poor white American southerners.
me@515
My feelings aren't hurt -- but if you fell at all insulted, that's fine by me. I was simply commenting on the statements made, with illustrations.
If you think I was talking about me too much -- was any of it relevant? I was, after all, only 'sharing', and using personal anecdote to illustrate the point (latterly - education ain't up to much in these parts, is it?).
I suppose you would prefer a discussion at one, or two, or three removes? I can do that. I'm perfectly capable of lofty intellectualism. I am, after all, a consultant ( ;) )
I could share research findings that show the US as falling behind in almost every intellectual measure (math, language, sciences, engineering, ...) -- but we've all seen those before. I gave you something new - a personal commentary.
That aside - what is your beef?
What 'meaning' do you intend to stand behind?
tony
@509
You are either not reading what I write or unable to comprehend my view or just simply ignoring what I say.
I think it's horrible that it's a racist slur, I also think that as such it should be opposed. Yet I also think that it shouldn't be a racist slur in the first place.
It's the difference between ought and is. It is a racist slur, it ought not to be. Only in a truly non-racist society (a unrealistic utopia I fear) will ought and is be the same.
People that didn't grow up with that racist meme would not consider it racist, since it ought not to be. When they become aware of it, they can no longer use it. The racists have hijacked a symbol that is in and of itself harmless and twisted it to their sick beliefs.
The truly sad thing is that the racists have won a major victory because so many people on here fail to even realise that the image ought not to be racist.
from the link, it says it started out as a term for "braggarts" and "boasters", i'm guessing people who actually had less than they might have claimed, but i didn't read that they were necessarily poor. in fact, in the mid 19th century it says that "Frederick Law Olmsted, a prominent landscape architect from Connecticut, visited the South as a journalist in the 1850s and wrote that some crackers 'owned a good many Negroes, and were by no means so poor as their appearance indicated.'" as always tho, i appreciate the scholarly links and info. keep up the good works.
jenni @ 447
I'm sure you're right; that at least part of his intention was to get attention. (I think there's also a large dollop of desire for recognition by like-minded bigots, but I could be wrong.) The problem with just quietly disagreeing and ignoring the undesirable behavior is that this could (and frequently is) taken as tacit agreement with the sentiment, or at least with the idea that this behavior is acceptable, serving as a negative example (and incidentally demonstrating to the young that this is acceptable behavior). Next, we run into a feedback situation; if the intention is to get attention, and the action doesn't get attention, then, like a small child, the person will probably escalate to another, more outrageous behavior, to see if that gets a rise. The idea here is to find the limits of what will be accepted, and push beyond it. If a shirt implying that a black man is a monkey is acceptable, then how about finding a black man and painting "monkey" in white shoe polish on his forehead? Still no reaction? Hmm....okay, what about collecting a group of black people, stripping them naked, and locking them in a cage with a zoo-exhibit-style sign? And I'm sure that anyone with any kind of imagination can think of more extreme methods of "acting out" (yes, just like a bratty kid), extending along this line.
It's not enough just to each of us raise our own kids not to behave this way; we also need to make it clear to the kids of bigots that this is not acceptable behavior.
"The truly sad thing is that the racists have won a major victory because so many people on here fail to even realise that the image ought not to be racist."
Where did you get that crazy notion from ?
Can you offer any evidence that people here have said that ?
MartinSGill: Ought -v- is
I agree that it ount NOT be a racial slur. but the fact remains that it IS a racial slur.
You continue to paint some idealised picture of a world without racial memes - that would be wonderful. but to get there you'd need to brainwipe almost every man woman and child in the world.
Your's is not a realistic worldview.
Bad. Things. Happen.
Bad. People. Exists.
Wishing it were otherwise led to the rise of the third reich. led to the rise of the KKK. led to ... (name your particular poisonous group...)
The *only* way (IMHO) to get past this is to continue to challenge and marginalise these fucking racist idiots.
my 2c
tony
@tony,
from what i can make out in your last post, i guess i must clarify... i wasn't offended at all. but the reason for my statement was simply that i read your comment as rather over-generalizing of the population. the fact is simply that it is very rare in america that anyone actually has to study to get good grades in school. that's why we goof off so much. our educational system sucks; teachers think they need to make tests and homework easier because we're slackers. they get funded according to our grades tho, so it just makes things that much more crap-tastic. it's a sucky system, but my point was that the population (not specifically american, but i can accept the interpretation) is becoming more educated (especially with the spread of technology and the internet... but again, that's debateable as well). but as an educated adult, i just thought you'd be interested in developing your consideration of the "good manners" of not putting others down so much. i apologized because i wasn't sure my message would quite miss offending you. that's all. (btw, there are many people who are aware of the fibonacci sequence but might not remember the name of it, as i failed to... and matt's comment could be interpreted to mean that its actually quite commonly known at some point around here, but almost desirable to forget by most people's standards. it is a bit over-rated and not a good indicator of one's educational attainment. i tend to think good manners are rate higher on the real-life usefulness scale.)
I'd never heard it until the Allen thing broke. I haven't heard it since, either, outside of the context of the Allen affair. If I'd heard it out of context, I would have thought it to be a tropical bird, a monkey, or an unflattering reference to Paul McCartney's music. :-)
Wait a second, likening George Bush to a monkey is fine, but likening Obama to a monkey is not? Where I'm from we don't have a lot of racism, so it took me a while to understand where the racist part of this was. I'd be willing to bet accusations of racism are doing more to perpetuate racism than to eliminate racism.
Of course it ought not to be racist. So should a burning cross. Men wearing white pointy hoods, and the swastika.
But that world doesn't exist.
Just because the "blacks are monkeys" slur (they're less than human) goes over some people heads, and some of us, who are more familiar with those who have used the remark, recognize it instantly, doesn't mean they've (the racists) won, or that we only see everything through race.
We just refuse to let the racism go unchallenged.
me@524
Thanks for the clarification. I think we are both in total agreement that the american education system is failing.
On the fibonacci sequence - it is such a classic that I was totally dumbfounded by the abrupt cognitive dissonance: my colleages were educated - but none of them even recognized the sequence and thought me 'intellectual' because I did. WTF?
I am very much in favor of 'good manners' but that does not mean I abide by a PC interpretation of what is meant by that short phrase.
My intent was not to 'put others down' in any general sense - at least not unnecessarily. I did thoroughly intend to 'put down' those past colleagues, for the reason stated (educated -- not very!).
regards
Tony
Adam.
That's stupid.
@Matt
It's the impression I'm getting, certainly from your posts. Every time I say the image is not in and of itself racist, you contradict me and/or insult me. It's only racist because it's been hijacked by the racists. That doesn't make it intrinsically or even automatically racist.
Certainly in America, in this time and that culture and from that person it is; but I've never rejected to that.
@tony
Yes it is an idealised world view. The problem is that people on here have a very monochromatic view of my position, when things are never that simple. Maybe I'm just not expressing myself clearly enough. I'd not make these points on most other blogs, I'd just hoped my fellow readers might be a bit more perceptive and less reactionary.
I strongly oppose racism, discrimination of any kind, I strongly support human and civil rights and liberal, secular values and social democracy.
"Man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven for". Apologies for the religious quote, but it's apt. My world view is the world I want to have, and the world I reach towards; while realising that I can probably never grasp it. There's no point campaigning for something if you don't have ideals and goals to aim for.
The unfortunate truth is that to fight for my ideals I often have to concede some ground to the enemy.
To be able to fight the racists you need to highlight the fact that they are making a harmless image a racist symbol, basically giving them credence when really they ought to be ignored. The problem with just ignoring them though is that someone might believe them. Therefore we are stuck conceding the use of an otherwise innocent image to the racists so that we can highlight the problem. Very much a case of one step backwards one and a half steps forward in my view.
That rankles.
Yes the t-shirt is racist, and yes it should not be on sale. By highlighting it though we are both highlighting this man's bigotry while providing him with the fame, the platform and the exposure he craves.
One can only hope that highlighting his bigotry is more effective than the fame/success/satisfaction and encouragement him and his ilk get from their exposure and fame/infamy.
@526,
"Wait a second, likening George Bush to a monkey is fine, but likening Obama to a monkey is not?"
That's been talked to death on this page. Please read through it if you actually still have a question in that regard.
"I'd be willing to bet accusations of racism are doing more to perpetuate racism than to eliminate racism."
Name your wager.
This is so obviously racist, I don't even understand why there is a discussion.
But I also wonder how many people here go along with wingnut chickenhawk Jonah Goldberg calling the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". I have heard so-called "progressive" people make such jokes.
@adam,
i agree. race (and therefore racism) is a social construction. the only way to combat it then is to deconstruct it. anything less (like promoting anti-racism) will only lead to struggle without hope of meeting the true goal. would we prefer a constant struggle for balance between racism and its oposite or would we prefer to eliminate the problem altogether? the question then is, "how do we deconstruct a social phenomenon as racism"? likely its the similar to the answer feminists are seeking for their particular problem of patriarchy. is the answer man-hating and the rejection of femininity or is it trying to get more men and femininity-embracing individuals to join in the movement (since patriarchy has certain negative affects on them as well, whether they want to admit to such oppression or not)? what might you suggest in such cases?
I love to piss people off, but even I would not wear this shirt. Man.
Skipping lots and lots (and lots) of comments to say this, but I had to. For those saying things like:
So, if most of those "it's fine" people are voting from a stance of ignorance (like I would have until a couple minutes ago), I think that's a good sign. Maybe it means people have never heard those things said before and are horribly lost and confused as to why people are upset.
It means this: you're white.
part of the whole problem with racism (and discrimination in general, come to that) is that it slants the playing field; it makes what's "normal" and "fair" to one group be quite different, and usually inferior, than what's "normal" and "fair" to the discriminators.
so, yes, likening George Bush to a monkey is fair criticism, because he is white, which means that in the racist context of modern america that simile is (at worst) merely a slur on him personally. likening Barack Obama to a monkey is a slur on everybody with skin darker than cardboard, however, and that only at best. context is everything.
MartinSGill,
"It's the impression I'm getting, certainly from your posts."
Then I have found the problem. It lies with your reading comprehension, not with what I have said. I do not know why you are having such trouble understanding what I have written, especially given that you would seem to the only person who is having those problem. It is unfortunate of course, but I do find your blaming me for your failure to be rather sad.
I really do have to question your integrity. Until now I had thought you simply rather unthinking and having a simplistic view of world. I now question your motives and wonder just what games you playing to push an agenda that is not yet clear but would seem to be neither an honest or decent one.
@#469 MartinSGill --
Looking at things this way, there are 3 possible reactions to a mention of racism:
1) Racism exists and is a valid way of judging people. - You're a racist.
2) Racism? What's that? - You're not a racist.
3) Racism exists, but it's not a valid way of judging people. - You're culturally a racist, but have rejected that culture.
By this argument, you're a cultural racist for even knowing that racism exists!
@537
It seems we are talking past each other then, because I fail to see anything other than dogmatic stubbornness and a failure to comprehend any world view other than your narrow own in your posts.
Ugh, I hate being from this state sometimes. It seems that "It's Racist" is winning now, though whether that is due to this blog or not is hard to say
lol@Matt Penfold... "Then I have found the problem. It lies with your reading comprehension, not with what I have said." (can i steal that? it'd be my favorite response i think... so handy in my circle.)
Looks like the poll, unlike Megatron, no longer functions.
Etha Williams @538
Yes, you are absolutely correct, that is my argument.
By not knowing of the monkey/black association I was either exposed to less racism in my culture or to racism that took a different form or was directed at different people/races etc.
"But I also wonder how many people here go along with wingnut chickenhawk Jonah Goldberg calling the French "cheese-eating surrender monkeys". I have heard so-called "progressive" people make such jokes."
I have always consider that comment to be offensive as well. And since it seems to be commonly used by Americans, also indicative of an ignorance of history. France may well have lost the Battle of France but it at least had the courage to stand up to German tyranny. Given the state of the US armed forces at the time it is difficult to see how they would have done any better. In reality they would probably have faired even worse, given they were even more unprepared for Blitzkrieg than the French and British were.
I would add I have sometimes been know to say "The bloody French", most often when French farmers having been burning British sheep.
Where are all the right-wingers? The one's who claim that racism is long-dead, that they're not responsible, that we're all on an even playing field now, and all this affirmative action stuff is just, dear god, reverse racism? That they're lily-white asses have gained no undue advantage in life? That they're the one's under threat from the overwhelmingly powerful fill in the blank with a random dark group?
Where are you???
to any who may be wondering, this used to be a thread about a t-shirt...
Ichthyic
Actually, the Irish were in fact portrayed as apes. Given McCains heritage maybe you would like to revise and extend your remarks. I mean if the bar really is how ethnic groups were portrayed historically ...
it died at 5pm i assume because everyone was preparing to drive home from their places of work...
well, i guess it's just me (a student without a real job to be at) and SomeGuy (maybe he has a very short commute)... ah, well...
Just on the NPR station here in Boston:
The Copywrite holders are unhappy over the unauthorized use of Curious George on a T shirt.
They are investigating their options.
then again, SomeGuy might be a decent guy and actually WORK at his place of work and wiat til he gets home to get online and play.
unless... maybe everyone here works the evening shift...?
Man, this thread is depressing. I mean, it's really made me feel sad. I don't even feel like baiting Kenny any more.
(p.s. For the record, although I may have done the faux-Kenny thing on another thread--or two--that wasn't me up in # 155. No way the real Kenny would ever say anytthing like "race is a social construct with no biological basis")
seriously, what kind of jobs do people get that allow them to play all day and what do i have to major in to get one?
sweet.
Actually, the Irish were in fact portrayed as apes.
They were?
really, I did not know that.
thanks for pointing it out.
Now I will understand what it means when someone makes a McCain as Magilla Gorilla tshirt.
see how it works:
we fill in each other's ignorance, and then react accordingly.
There is no reason to pretend that because one is ignorant of a specific usage, that the racism doesn't exist.
That said, you are of course being very liberal with your definition of "race" (not that it really has that much meaning anyway) if you want to claim the Irish as a race.
MartinSGill,
You're making your arguments clearly. They just don't hold water. It happens.
Recognizing the meaning of a symbol in a given cultural context does not mean you endorse what it stands for or, alternatively, that you want it banned. It means you recognize it. That's it. I recognize what a cross symbolizes. Doesn't mean I'm a Christian. Doesn't mean I want to ban the display of crosses everywhere or the practice of Christianity. Same with a Star of David, or an American flag, or a swastika, or a hammer and sickle.
(I hope this won't confuse the issue unnecessarily: In the Jena 6 case recently, some black kids wanted to hang out under a tree at their school which was typically the province of the white kids. One day, they saw that some of the white kids had hung a noose from the tree. The mother of one of the black kids, interviewed not long afterwards, said that when her son first saw the noose he didn't really know what it meant, and probably some of the others didn't, either. The white kids who put it up clearly did, or at least knew it was an image of terror. Should the school administration have just left the noose up, hoping that all of the kids would eventually come to ignore its common meaning and use it as a fun swing? Was he right to give the white kids just a slap on the wrist, as he did, because some other kids didn't get it? What if those white kids started showing up at school with noose t-shirts on? Should everyone just ignore it?)
Also, there's ignorance and there's ignorance. I'll give people the benefit of the doubt, but some of the claims to ignorance I see here seem to have as their basis this sense of "what I don't see, including the suffering of others, isn't entirely real, and therefore not a problem." This blindness is typical of people who have never been in a subordinated social group, and it's something people should put an effort into acknowledging and overcoming.
It is a racist slur, it ought not to be.
And neither ignoring what it is nor wishing things were different will make it so. You can't substitute your ought for what is by fiat. (Major changes in meaning can and do happen, as with the Star of David; but this hasn't happened through individuals simply pretending existing meanings are not real because they shouldn't be. People, especially artists, can do creative things with images to get people to think about them differently and possibly to move towards new meanings, but this is not what you're suggesting.)
Also, you seem, strangely, more concerned with defending the symbol from misuse than people from the slur. Swastikas can't generally be used these days because of the symbol's historical associations. Is this any great loss? Even if, in the hypothetical worst case scenario, we could never again use a picture of a monkey on a t-shirt because it had become too tainted by these connotations, so freakin' what?
Well I live in the UK, so I would have long been home from work were I not free-lance and working from home today. Well I say working, but today was such a nice day and not having much on at the moment I spent a fair bit of it sat outside looking across the valley drinking coffee, and later beer. Sadly not much chance of doing that tomorrow, meeting with a client.
Still some serious delusion around here from MartinSGill...
MartinSGill @ 543: You still don't (or refuse to) get it... you are a cultural racist by your own definition - but still you cling to some idealised state where racism does not exist and cannot therefore impinge upon you.
Also: MAtt@544/545: The French, in common with almost all cultures, have many wonderful qualities -- love of food & wine, a very relaxed approach to life, and to relationships (laissez faire would need to be invented for them, if not already so). But for every sterotype, there is the counter-stereotype (great lovers && bloody minded narcissists, etc) - so Bloody French can even be heard from my lips on occasion (despite the 'Auld Alliance')
me@547/549: All life is a t-shirt (I think I saw that on a t-shirt, once)
tony
Tony... is that YOU? The Scots-American Tony who used to frequent this joint?
PA:
Thank you, thank you. This is why I'm "glad" that some readers didn't get the racist implications of the shirt. It's evidence that the meme is dying out. What could possibly be wrong with that?
I'm struggling with coming to terms with what appears to me to be a very... for lack of a better term... a very black-and-white debate here. The false dichotomies are flying thick and fast. I recognize the importance of understanding the meaning of symbols and the ways in which they can be used, but I do not understand the vehemence expressed towards those whose life experience thus far had not included exposure to the racist monkey-meme, and were neither ashamed nor appalled by the fact. That natural emotional response - a lack of chagrin - does not itself equate to a denial of racism or of the revealed racist symbolism of the shirt.
Those who continue to dismiss the import of the symbol even after being educated about it, however, represent another class entirely.
The way I see it it, there are at least two very obvious goals: 1) to combat racism when and where it occurs, and 2) to rob certain symbols of their power.
This issue is broad, layered, and deep, but my question is itself very simple: How do we get from here to there? I posed this question some 20 hours ago, and so far I haven't seen (or, perhaps, noticed) anyone even attempting to address it. Why? Instead, I see both those who recognize the symbols, and those who do not, being attacked as racists. Among other things. It's ludicrous. Nobody has any obligation to address my questions, of course, and I'm used to being ignored in all kinds of circumstances (which I won't go into here, LOL) but I am curious about what people think.
How do we get from here to there? How to we get to the point where the color of a person's skin is of no more import than the color of his eyes, where a person of recent African descent can be compared to Curious George for all the right reasons because no other reasons exist in our collective minds and memories? How can we get to that place without prematurely forgetting the dark power of the very symbols we're trying to cleanse and reclaim?
Even if, in the hypothetical worst case scenario, we could never again use a picture of a monkey on a t-shirt because it had become too tainted by these connotations, so freakin' what?
Indeed, I would argue that it actually is a good thing. The non-usage constitutes a bit of cultural history that both at once recognizes the tainted usage, and serves as a standing lesson when someone asks why it can't be used. Moreover, it should be stressed that the people responsible for the removal of the symbol from popular culture aren't the people who actually moved that it be removed, but the people who misused it in the first place.
Think about how you would answer a 4 year old who asks you why he can't call his friend a "nigger". It was the racists that are responsible for the regrettable fact that you have to explain what racism is to a 4 year old. You aren't playing the bad guy here by informing them of an unfortunate bit of history (that really is also a current issue, but for the sake of argument, let's say it isn't).
Humans don't really live that long, and we tend to have short memories anyway. Sometimes it's a good thing to codify errors for future reference.
@sc, the swastica used to be a good symbol before the nazis trashed it. monkey used to be adorable before... wait... they still are. nevermind... what i mean is, maybe if we bare a bit of agency we can influence the systems that restrain us. why not consider that individuals and society are forever propelled by these forces, that individuals can influence society even as society influences individuals. this would allow for at least limited success of those who would bring about change in how we think and interpret and respond and create these symbols and comparisons. Don't dash their hopes of helping just because you don't think they'll be able to do it super-hero style (everything all at once). why not cut them a bit of slack if their intentions are good?
@537 MyaR:
THANK YOU. Thank you!! I have been trying for 100 comments or so to figure out what long ass paragraph I was going to have to write in order to get across what you have done so elegently and succinctly.
To all the people out there saying "We'll I'VE certainly never seen any racism at all!" or "Well I sure didn't know that it was racist!", the reason is most likely because that racism was never directed at you.
YOU HAD THE PRIVILEGE TO IGNORE IT, IF YOU EVEN RECOGNIZED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.
That's the thing about being white (or whatever the default group is in whatever sort of activism we are talking about), ESPECIALLY in this day and age where bigotry has had to become more insidious and sneaky. Because you are not the target of the -ism, you are not going to be exposed to it as much.
Which is fine--well, I mean it's not fine, but it's not your fault. The problem happens when you take your priveleged, narrow, and often young worldview, and say that because YOU have not seen it, therefore NOBODY sees it (or that it doesn't even exist). And then proudly proclaim that that MUST mean that racism is dead.
It becomes even worse when you say that the solution is obviously to -ignore it-. If you're wondering why that suggestion is getting such a befuddled reaction, it's because anyone ever even remotely involved in any sort of activism knows that ignoring the problem does not only make it go away, it lets it fester.
Just imagine: a group of unknowing, starry-eyed college students see the cute Curious George shirt, and buy it, and all wear it proudly. Someone alerts them to the racist intentions of the shirt. The kids say, "Awesome! We didn't know about that, so obviously racism is on the way out!" They stride around happily, showing their shirt to everyone they meet. Meanwhile, an old black woman who REMEMBERS, vividly, the dehumanization of being called a monkey, over and over again receives what is equivalent to her of a mental smack in the face. Over and over again.
And then these kids have the audacity to tell her that SHE is the one who should "get over it," because racism is dead. Didn't she know?
And the guy who sold the shirts smiles and counts his money.
And those kids might not mean to be racists. And they might not even consider themselves racist. But they have just become racists.
the swastica used to be a good symbol before the nazis trashed it.
and utilized in different cultures, and in different context, it's hardly racist (it's a symbol on pottery and artwork from SW American Indian pieces from long before Hitler was a gleam in his parents eyes).
should it then not be a matter of concern in any culture that WAS directly influenced by its misusage?
of course not.
that individuals can influence society even as society influences individuals
there is no way to know really where you're going without knowing where you've been.
Etha #538,
are you also buying into this ?
This is completely confused. Read my post #488.
What is this thing "cultural racist" ? Means nothing.
You know, maybe we ought to be asking the monkeys if they want their image used for the purposes of a political campaign. ;-)
@#561 Kseniya --
I think we first have to get to the point where a person's skin color is considered irrelevant to one's judgment of that person before we can use historically racist symbols in a clearly non-racist way. Even those of us who were, at first, unaware of the shirt's racist connotations are aware of the wide-spread existence of racist ideologies in this country; and as long as those ideologies exist, the use of these racially charged symbols will be problematic.
I don't think that we can destroy an ideology by consciously robbing its symbols of their meanings (as some people on this thread seem to be suggesting); rather, we have to destroy the roots of the ideology (us/them thinking, false senses of entitlement/superiority, etc) and then, perhaps, the old symbols will become meaningless.
@#566 negentropyeater --
No, that was my ((apparently futile)) attempt to parody/demonstrate the absurdity of this concept -- to point out that by his own definition, MartinSGill (and everyone capable of talking about the concept of racism) is a "cultural racist."
PZ? Are you there? Can you wrap this up, somehow? This has become a huge stupidfest--a veritable Woodstock of stupid. PZ? PZ?
In the hypothetical worst case, it's not about the monkey.
The problem happens when you take your priveleged, narrow, and often young worldview, and say that because YOU have not seen it, therefore NOBODY sees it (or that it doesn't even exist). And then proudly proclaim that that MUST mean that racism is dead.
sound familiar?
it's called projection, and it's part-and-parcel of how creationism maintains itself, too.
"because I have not seen [speciation], therefore NOBODY sees it (or that it doesn't even exist). And then proudly proclaim that that MUST mean that [Darwinism] is dead."
see?
not much modification needed.
we are all subject to our own history (what we've learned, what we've experienced, etc.), but that doesn't mean that when something is pointed out to us as essentially being little more than projection from ignorance, we get to excuse ourselves of our own ignorance and refuse to learn what the reality is.
If I'd heard it out of context, I would have thought it to be a tropical bird, a monkey, or an unflattering reference to Paul McCartney's music. :-)
*snerk* I take it you're not a McCartney fan? :-)
@412
but to say that you've never encountered it is highly suspect.
Suspect all you want. It's quite apparent that you're only going to believe the worst about people. And, frankly, this is just want you want to believe. I can repeat it until I'm blue in the face, but there is nothing I can say that will change your mind.
The fact remains that I have never run into it. The worst racism against blacks that I have personally encountered involved a co-worker who had to explain to me that she and her neighbors didn't like it when black people moved into her neighborhood. Shortly after that, I heard my black supervisor make a slur against a Latino coworker. That was horrifying enough for me to quit that job because I didn't want to be caught in between my boss and this coworker.
@426
Do you keep up with the news or is it something you're not interested in (which is fine too)?
I read the news when I have time, but I try to avoid it as much as I can because I spend most of my time shaking my head wondering why people are motivated to behave in such strange and counter-productive ways. If it helps, I have an NT personality, so I have a low tolerance from people who are, say, bigots. (Low tolerance = I can't listen to it, but I can't fight about it, either.) I just dissociate myself from it rather than argue with them. I used to argue, but I found it had no impact. The only time I ever saw someone with prejudiced views change their mind was after going back to college and spending time in an ethnically diverse environment. (That person, BTW, was my dad.)
Okay, in re: the swastika thing:
According to the article, "Norman acknowledged the imagery's Jim Crow roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a prominent African-American as a monkey."
If there were an article about a church displaying a black swastika on a red background and it said, "The priest acknowledged the imagery's Nazi roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a swastika outside a Christian house of prayer," what would you think? Would you be rushing to defend its spiritually significant cultural roots?
Glad you appreciated it, EntoAggie.
The comments by what's-his-name, the "I'm sad (or mad, or inconvenienced or whatever) because I can't use something anymore because it's racist to some others" strikes me as odd, not in that reaction, but that nothing follows it. Yeah, it sucks when assholes appropriate something (like Curious George, or the swastika, or whatever symbol) and taint it such that it can't be used (at least within certain contexts) innocently anymore. But you seem to be blaming the people who are challenging to the racism for this, rather than the racist assholes who tainted the symbol you'd like to use innocently.
It's also unfortunate that historically innocent usages can become tainted as well ("calling a spade a spade" is not etymologically racist, but is often interpreted that way). Yeah, a turn of phrase that's useful, but if I'm going to offend someone by using it, because they interpret it as racist (see here), why should I use it? There are other ways of expressing the same thought.
seems to me that we can at least start to turn things around in society if we so decide as individuals. of course there are limitations that cannot be ignored, but perhaps we can weaken those limitations for future generations. there are some parents who would tell their 4yr olds that black people used to be slaves while others would say blacks are no different than whites. how is a 4yr old going to respond in either case? i imagine that if we tell and show our kids that people are equal then the kids will consider them equal and if we tell kids that at one time they were not considered equal, even though we may follow that with an explanation that they always were equal and are considered as much today, those kids will have ammunition available for when they don't know how to otherwise deal with "playground politics". sure, when kids mature an ddevelop and prove capable of handling the information wisely they should be educated, but i don't think parents are resisting racism in these attempts to create young anti-racist kids - their efforts seem to backfire according to the child's level of immaturity. maybe we should allow for some differences in approach here. kids do not necessarily have to be aware of racism in order to help put an end to it. maybe we need a generation where many kids are raised to be unaware but avoiding of discrimination and only when they become teens capable of abstrat analysis do we educate them on these matters. god knows what we have going on in elementary schools isn't exactly ideal, so why limit our perspectives and approaches on the matter? we need all the help we can get.
didn't have time to read through all the comments, but:
Monkey
plus
Bananaphallus
equals
Obama?
Such a cute way to say that Obama is a gay monkey.
Yeah. Not racist. Not offensive. Because it's cute. Right.
Ichthyic:
Good points, good points. Question: Wouldn't the removal you describe be a compromise, a period of abstinence en route to a cleansing of the symbol? Or is the acceptable resolution one in which the monkey tee can never be used with reference to anyone? The real goal is to make the african-american exemption irrelevant, and therefore unnecessary - isn't it?
For those of you who are wondering where the racist slurs "cracker" and "honky" originated, I can tell you that "cracker" came from the white plantation owners and foremen who would crack their whips, hence the name "cracker." As far as "honky" I've no clue about that one. Anybody???
Well said, EntoAggie @ #564 (although I think more that those kids have become insensitive boors complicit with racism than racists themselves).
me @ #563:
@sc, the swastica used to be a good symbol before the nazis trashed it. monkey used to be adorable before... wait... they still are. nevermind... what i mean is, maybe if we bare a bit of agency we can influence the systems that restrain us. why not consider that individuals and society are forever propelled by these forces, that individuals can influence society even as society influences individuals. this would allow for at least limited success of those who would bring about change in how we think and interpret and respond and create these symbols and comparisons. Don't dash their hopes of helping just because you don't think they'll be able to do it super-hero style (everything all at once). why not cut them a bit of slack if their intentions are good?
I'm a social scientist who has spent the past decade studying social movements; I'm also personally involved in many. I wouldn't deny for a second that people can create cultural change - it's central to my worldview. In fact, I mentioned it in my comment. Kseniya definitely seems to be thinking in these terms (and you, too!).
However, I don't think this is what MartinSGill was suggesting at all. He appears to me to be complaining that he's annoyed at having to acknowledge racism (see his post at #506), and really just wants to ignore it, as long as it doesn't affect him, and hope it goes away. That's how I read his posts, although there's some room for doubt, I admit.
With regard to the swastika, I'm with ichthyic. I think it should remain with its connotations intact for all time, so that people can learn from it. Monkeys I would love to see "rehabilitated," as I love monkeys (and animals in general), but I won't lose sleep over it. And I would never want the historical memory, as difficult as it is to face, to be erased from our cultural memory.
Etymology offerers: google your word + etymology before offering and look for a reputable site to confirm before posting. You will look less silly and be less likely to offer folk etymology. "Cracker" was used by the British for Scots-Irish (the original Southern crackers, who were too poor, generally, to be slave-owners) in the 1700's, and was an Elizabethan term before then, and was associated with bragging. See here for a better, more reliable etymology.
@Etha Williams,
[...If there were an article about a church displaying a black swastika on a red background and it said, "The priest acknowledged the imagery's Nazi roots but said he sees nothing wrong with depicting a swastika outside a Christian house of prayer," what would you think? Would you be rushing to defend its spiritually significant cultural roots?...]
actually, i would say there remains the opportunity for reclaiming the positive orgins of the symbol in such a scenario. "if you don't like it, change it"... not entirely unsound advice. one must be cautious in how they go about their attemps, but nonetheless it can be done in most cases given the proper opportunity. why should we not allow for that opportunity? why should we bury our heads and say it can only be a negative symbol now that it has been twisted from its original meaning... maybe i'm being optimistic, but without optimists, this world would be an even more depressing and restrictive place.
Question: Wouldn't the removal you describe be a compromise, a period of abstinence en route to a cleansing of the symbol?
I see where you're going, but even if such a symbol is finally given the "OK" because there is no more racism, period, there is still the matter that its misusage IS a part of history that shouldn't be forgotten.
Personally, I don't believe in a utopian society where all ills are forgotten because they no longer exist.
...because as soon as ills are forgotten, history tells us they tend to repeat.
maybe history will eventually be proven wrong on this, but I'm absolutely sure it won't be in my lifetime, or the next generations, or the next.
maybe in a couple of hundred years, it would be worth seriously revisiting the issue.
[QUOTE]But then, I'm Generation Y, whadda I know?[/QUOTE]
Fuck-all, apparently.
Kseniya,
I meant monkeys associated with people. I'm not too sharp after so many comments.
"if you don't like it, change it".
the exact rationale used by every historical revisionist.
that route is a dangerous one to tread.
maybe if we hadn't forgotten the positive stuff, we'd not have such a build up of negative stuff today... if we remembered more and relived more of the positive we might be able to cut down on the negative. maybe we just need more optimistic activists to turn the tables.
I see where you're going, but even if such a symbol is finally given the "OK" because there is no more racism, period, there is still the matter that its misusage IS a part of history that shouldn't be forgotten.
This is a good point.
The text I like to close my Race and Ethnicity classes with is Paul Gilroy's Against Race. Much of it flies over their heads, but I do work through one of the central questions he raises at the beginning. Acknowledging that he's making a utopian argument, he says that an anti-racist politics would itself look to undermine the system that produces racism--race itself. Part of the problem, though, is how do you do that?
First, the sort of "We're all equal and nothing that ever happened matters....NOW" approach isn't going to work.
Additionally, there's the problem of what kinds of organization arise in its place, and we're not guaranteed that any of those won't also involve systemic domination and violence.
Acknowledging these issues and problems, one of his other arguments is that there is a moral necessity of remembering what Race has wrought (I'm approaching "Race" as a system of social organization, not an individual characteristic). Race, the system, has produced Auschwitz, American slavery, more than a few other genocides. It's a nasty system. Even if we get rid of it, and of its residue, there's a need for remembering what humans have done so that we can attempt to not do it any more.
The swastika should probably always retain that association because of the moral necessity of memory.
I'd hate to say this, but this is a typical American 'apartheid' issue. An image is what you see in it. The racism is not in the image, it is in you - if you're going to teach the young ones that t-shirts like these are not okay, you'll be explaining the concept next (which on it's own isn't a bad thing, but the t-shirt would then validate the idea).
I'm not saying denial is a good option, but t-shirts are not racistic, people are (or rather, can be).
In these here parts it never was much of an issue, and I for one never quite understood the concept (I understand the concept, but I don't get it - so to speak).
But then again, wishful thinking perhaps.
In either case, as someone completely outside the debate: you'll just be adding fuel to the American apartheid fire.
Hence: it's fine. (Of course, the creator of this t-shirt might have had harmful ideas behind it, but there's no checking for these things, and it'd still be fine; it's all about the soil you provide it with)
maybe we just need more optimistic activists to turn the tables.
maybe you've spent too much time watching Oprah?
tell me, did you enjoy reading "The Secret"?
the moral necessity of memory
An excellent phrase.
me @ #587,
Kumbaya.
But then again, wishful thinking perhaps.
indeed, so why espouse it as a constructive platform?
hey, we'd all like to forget that millions of people died because of the exponential amplification of racism in WWII, that wouldn't change the fact that they did, and would entirely dishonor the suffering they and their families went through to pretend otherwise.
same with racism in this country:
many have died because of it.
many families have suffered.
wishful thinking won't change that, and dishonors those who suffered because of it, aside from being little more than an attempt to bury ones head in the sand.
enough.
those that want to fucking bury their heads in the sand can do so, just don't even try and convince those who know better that it's a useful thing to do.
Cherish:
No, it's not that. McCartney is one of the greats - in his way. I can understand why Lennon grew impatient with him. I believe that Lennon felt that Paul set the bar too low for himself, and that Lennon's opinion was not entirely unjustified. It could be argued that McCartney, to some extent, squandered his tremendous gifts on musical trivialitities. When he was on his game, though - as he often was, especially in Beatles' heyday - he was great. And I do mean great. Capital "G".
Etha:
Yes... That is what I'm getting at. I'm torn between Ichthyic's point of view, in which we preserve the memories of man's inhumanity for the protection of our future society, and a somewhat more utopian ideal which includes the possibility of the complete eradication of those hateful memes, and of redemption for symbols long abused by the perpetuation of those memes.
More to the point - as long as we can compare Curious George to the Dubyas of the world, but not to the Baraks, something is amiss. I'm looking way into the future here... I don't want anyone to assume that I'm thinking all this could occur in my lifetime, or in my (unborn) childrens' lifetimes. I expect we'll all be dust, and forgotten, before that happens.
This is something the poor Kennys may not understand: Many of us who don't believe in Christian theology are heavily invested not only in the here and now, but in the future we create for our descendants. I am more concerned about them than I am about my "soul", if that even exists. For that, I get called selfish and immoral. Pffft.
But I digress.
(The Poor Kennys - band name?)
Not futile. I understood right away. (But I think I grok you a little better than Neg might... anyway, he's French, snark snark!)
:-)
"So I guess it's only okay to portray Republican presidents with the initials GWB as monkeys..."
Do any of you brain surgeons who keep asking this think that GWB would ever have been compared to a monkey if he had demonstrated himself early on to be articulate, knowledgeable, and highly intelligent, instead of the ignorant, smug, sentence-mangling frat boy he's always been?
GWB is compared to a monkey primarily because he's an idiot AND he has an unfortunate resemblance to a chimp. Without the former, the latter wouldn't have any traction. It's personal, it's not *racist*, you fucking morons.
Kseniya #561,
Ok, let's cut the crap.
The main root cause of racism, is the absolutely blatant injustice of the society in which we live in. "Equality of chances at birth" Give me a break ! Who still believes in this ?
In America, on average, the net worth (that is all possesions minus debts) of african americans is, per capita one eigtth (1/8 !) of that of caucasians. And this ratio has not improved at all over the last 20 years despite all the stories that are being told, affirmative action and the lot.
America has refused any form of real social democracy in order to reverse this. As long as there was high growth of the population and of consumption per capita, the free market economy and ultra-capitalism managed to distribute wealth in a manner which at first seemed equitable. Gradually, as growth reduced, it started showing its limits, and now, one has to be completely blindfolded not to recognize the obvious fact that it is has failed in building a just society, one where all are equal in their rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but where some are much more advantaged at birth than others, and those aren't the african americans.
Now is glooming the worst recession this country will have known since 1929, and who is going to get hit the hardest ? African americans.
The Bush admin. is trying hard to postpone the reality of the recession until this election is over by tricking the data (they released +0.6% last quarter, but +0.8% is growth of inventories, which shows that the economy is already in recession -0.2%, but still accumulating additional inventories, which is just going to make things worse when the next admin. takes over !). Add to this the housing and mortgage crisis, a weakening dollar, hyper-inflation, oil prices sky rocketting, a war costing 20 million $ a day. So yes, the free market economy is wonderful indeed.
For whom ? For african americans ?
Kseniya@561: Yes - i'm back! Never actually left - just been incredibly busy building a practice and had no time to chat (sorry).
As it happens I had some time today! and used it all up!
At least we don't seem to have any creo's on this thread - just a few CTs & some others with enough divergence of opinion to make it interesting.
Ichthyic:
*nod* ... I hear ya. Our long (long, long) term view may be a bit different - and I admit mine may be unrealistically optimistic - but it looks like we're pretty much on the same page for at least the next three-to-five generations. ;-)
*nod* also to MAJeff for adding to Ichthy's point. (Every time you post a comment, these days, I'm sharply reminded of why I miss you.)
My tuppence here for the people who "didn't get it at first" and are pleased about that:
It took me a moment to get it. Then I thought, "really?" and read the article about the racist (mysoginist redneck etc) salesman, and thought, "blech."
I am white.
This means that I am not attuned to racist overtones/undertones. I tend not to associate with people who are (overtly) racist because I am not friends with those people.
I am also not in daily close contact with many African-Americans, which means that my race-dar is turned down pretty low most of the time.
I am in close daily contact with a lot of immigrants, though (hell, I married one!) so the Plight of the Immigrant and anti-immigration sentiments pop out at me like little red flags. I reckon people who do not know many immigrants (legal and illegal) just don't notice these red flags which I take for granted, in the way that a lot of racist stuff surely passes over my head; or a lot of mysogynist stuff passes over the heads of men, who are simply not sensitized to notice it; or how straight people don't wince whenever a kid calls something stupid "gay" but anyone who is non-heteronormative or has a gay best friend or whatever does; etc.
If you didn't get it, and are a little bit proud of how you didn't get it, because you think that means you're sooooooooooooooo not racist - get over yourself. It just means you haven't thought about it enough to notice. You probably have no reason to. I'm not blaming. I'm just saying.
But now you know. Reality is a bitch. Now you know how people who are not you perceive the world. Lots of people think things that are offended and go around offending people who are not you, who you don't really care about - not in a mean way, but just because you haven't really thought about it before.
And you know what? Noticing all this shit disturbs your peace of mind. It bursts the happy pink cloud bubble you live in, where folks are decent, just like you, and racism (sexism, homophobia, bigotry) are things of the past.
Noticing it doesn't make you racist. It makes you a person who is sensitive to the situation of people who are not you, and who are not like you.
So fucking deal with that, okay? GenYers, you have no excuse to be making disingenuous comments like this anymore. Yes, yes, you're all very post-modern. And Larry Summers was "just proposing the possibilty that women are less inherently inclines toward the hard sciences". Mmm-hmmm. Now scroll up and read everything Matt Penfold and Icthy et al wrote if this was not clear enough for you.
Harumph.
Cause or symptom? I have to go with symptom.
No issue with everything else you wrote.
*clipped off that extraneous "in" for you
SC:
Sure you are. I knew exactly what you meant. I was trying to say something like this: "In the worse case, the loss of the monkey-tee pales in comparison to the reason why we can't use it - if the racist connotations still exist, then so does racism."
However, in light of recent comments by Ichthyic, MAJeff and others, my thinking on this point is changing a bit.
The swastika-substitution thought exercise is useful in this case.
:-)
Also: to ignore this and not call it out, or point it out, does not make it go away or not mean what it means. It just lets it be gotten away with (sorry, tortured grammer) by the racist dumbfucks who do know what it means and think it's funny. By closing your eyes to the meaning (the cultural context which still exists even if it never permeated your consciousness, sorry kids) you ARE complicit in the racism, because you haven't taken the time to interrogate the meaning and find out if it is racist or not.
Yeah, and sometimes knowing unpleasant stuff totally harshes your mellow.
Too bad.
Kseniya,
I hear you. In terms of education, I think one small part of the solution is to teach the history of oppression as a global history, both in the geographic sense and in the sense that kids come to understand oppression along the lines of race, class, gender, ethnicity, religious belief, and all of the other bases on which it has played out. And to emphasize how things have changed over time, including the changing definitions of these identities. That way, we also move them away from the view that any one basis or set of identities is natural or inevitable, and it all seems as arbitrary and nuts as it is.
It is complicated. I'm cheerful by nature, but I often have students tell me that a lot of the topics we cover are depressing. I remind them that knowledge is (potentially) power, and that not knowing about the problems doesn't make them go away, but I understand what they're saying. It's a tough balance.
Harumph.
*cheers for grumpy Joolya*
(Not that many others of y'all didn't make many of the same points, but that was well said.)
Joolya @ 598:
Lots of points & I agree with most.
the use of charged "epithets" like "Gay" is one that I see in my son & his friends -- however as teens they don;t yet acknowledge the cognitive dissonance implicit in the use of that word.... My son does truly see a difference between 'you're gay!' and 'you're homosexual' and has no issue at all with the latter - the former is indicative of a non-normative behavior in the person so addressed (to be all formal for a minute!) We've spoken about this at length - and he does use it less and less (but it is still normal verbiage at his school, unfortunately)
GenYers in their bubble - so true. I encounter (and work closely with) lots of new college grads as interns and juniors on my projects... We can talk about xbox -v- PS3, rock band -v- guitar hero, pc -v- mac, even obama -v- clinton... but none of them seem to have developed any deep 'social' sense. They all come across as very 'privileged' - totally different from the rampaging trotskyites of my own college days in Scotland! They all (with very few exceptions) seem to have a difficult time empathising with other people's different viewpoints (despite a higher than normal acceptance of woo!)
Hopefully this is all just a manisfestation of delayed childhood, and as they take on more responsibilities personally - they'll 'grow' societally too.
tony
to clarify - my son has no issue with homosexuality and thinks it perfectly normal. I was *less than clear* above. sorry
What do you care, PZ? If God doesn't exist, what right do you have to impose your values on the makers of this T-shirt?
Yeah, and sometimes knowing unpleasant stuff totally harshes your mellow.
LOL
I'd like to take advantage of this lull to announce that earlier today, I took the last final exam of my undergraduate career.
I definitely don't think we should forget the world's history of racism, but at the same time, I don't know that we need to artificially preserve the meanings of all symbols ever used in the name of such ideologies. (Which is not to say that we should ignore the still existing meanings of those symbols either -- clearly, without needing any help from historians, the African-American "monkey" slur brand of racism is still very much alive and well.)
Out of curiosity...can anyone think of a symbol used to represent a racist/oppressive ideology 2k years ago? I'm sure they existed, and maybe this is just a result of my somewhat haphazard education in history, but for the life of me I can't think of one.
I can imagine it now -- "We give you the Poor Kennys, opening with their new hit single: Burn Fuckers!"
Kseniya,
I hate when discussions get confused and adding more comments tends to make them even more so, but I think what you're saying was my point in my original comment @ #558[the worst case scenario being (my understanding of) MartinSGill's worst case scenario]:
Also, you seem, strangely, more concerned with defending the symbol from misuse than people from the slur. Swastikas can't generally be used these days because of the symbol's historical associations. Is this any great loss? Even if, in the hypothetical worst case scenario, we could never again use a picture of a monkey on a t-shirt because it had become too tainted by these connotations, so freakin' what?
Am I misunderstanding your response?
Kseniya: *CONGRATULATIONS*
Just lots of post-graduate 'exams' to go ;)
The shirt's racist, tasteless and gauche. Seems to me that creationism, while not the exclusive cause of racism, really brings out the worst."Optimized for a different climate" just won't motivate contempt the way "A lesser creation", or "Children of Cain" will. Time to cue up Neil Young's "Southern man".
Burn Fuckers! LOL!
(Let's be fair, though - as a reminder for the newcomers and lurkers who may have missed it, the real Kenny didn't post the "BURN FUCKERS!" comment.)
yeah.
The Fish.
/pointlessSnark
I'd like to take advantage of this lull to announce that earlier today, I took the last final exam of my undergraduate career.
Congratulations!
I took the last final exam of my undergraduate career.
feels good, don't it?
well, at least it does until you work in the "real world" for a few years...
Then you might start to miss the exams.
;)
Kseniya,
Oh, and CONGRATULATIONS! wOOt! Enjoy!
The Fish.
think again...
http://altreligion.about.com/library/glossary/symbols/bldefsvesica.htm
;)
@#613 Kseniya --
True, Kenny didn't write that post, but let's be fair...it's not as though most musicians these days write their own songs ;).
...damn, almost forgot:
All hail Dagon.
Mazel tov! As Jed Bartlet would no doubt ask, "what's next?"
Thanks, and yes.
Well, I've worked in the real world for about half of the past four years... originally I was supposed to graduate in '06, but life had other plans for me.
Sometimes the grass is greener, yeah.
SC: "Am I misunderstanding your response?"
I think I misunderstood your comment, and didn't take it in the larger context, for I thought the "hypothetical worst-case" was your hypothetical, not his. Either way, it seems to me that we agree on the key points anyways...
All Hail Dagon, and hello, Bill D.! :-)
Ok, I'm off for a bit...
I hope you're off for a good bout of bar hopping!
enjoy!
Fascinating.
Now what would it take to reclaim the vesica from the Christians...?
"Honky" is supposed to be a corruption of "bohunk", itself a derogatory term for Czech (i.e. Bohemian), Hungarian and other Eastern European immigrants in the earlier part of the 20th century. The frequently reliable Cecil Adams has a writeup here. I've heard the word pronounced "hunky" by older black guys, if that helps convince any of ya.
The more you know!
related to the issue of symbols of racism,another discussion of a fairly recent event:
http://media.www.bcheights.com/media/storage/paper144/news/2006/09/21/N…
that was at Boston College a couple years back.
racism never even crossed my mind until you brought it up
"Out of curiosity...can anyone think of a symbol used to represent a racist/oppressive ideology 2k years ago?" - Etha Williams
Most ideologies of 2k years ago were oppressive and split along racial lines. The Egyptians were lighter skinned than the Nubians, but darker than the Europeans, and it not only mattered a whole lot to all involved, but each sought to subjugate the others. The ancient world was very concerned with physical features. Pick a symbol at random, chances are, you've found one.
that was at Boston College a couple years back.
Oh, it's not just BC (where I'm doing my PhD) it's also Tufts (where I teach).
Pick a symbol at random, chances are, you've found one.
OTOH, she is correct that such symbols of racism are rarely part of any general history course, and are quite hard to locate specifically with a general search.
lots of examples of ancient symbols being appropriate by more modern cultures, but very few regarding the original racist symbols themselves.
maybe it's as you say: so pervasive there is little reason to pick one out as being a specific example?
.......
Now what would it take to reclaim the vesica from the Christians...?
HA.
that would be as hard as trying to tear the Dagon-priest mitre off the head of a Catholic Bishop.
Yay!
It's racist 66.26% 20277
It's fine 33.74% 10327
May, 14 @ 8:25 PM
Sven #599,
At first, it was a symptom. Now it's become the main cause of racial prejudices.
When one compares salaries the disparity between blacks and whites is not as striking as when one compares net worth. Still today, 45 years after "I have a dream", the reality is that african americans are worth on average one eitgh of caucasians. And that translates in a dramatic situation where poverty and misery reinforce such racist ideas as blacks = crime + drugs + less capable ...
One must implement a socio economic model that redistributes wealth in a more equitable manner. Only then will racism dissappear.
The rest is just so so stories that we've been hearing for too many years.
RE: ancient racist symbols and history lessons
"so pervasive there is little reason to pick one out as being a specific example?" - Ichthyic
Maybe it's a trick question in a way. Not too unlike the problems we've seen here differentiating between the author's intent, and the viewers interpretation.
Take the Swastika again. It wasn't a symbol of racial oppression to the Nazis. It was the rest of the world that gave it that meaning. I'm sure to the Ghauls, the symbol of the Roman legion was a symbol of racial oppression. To Koreans, the symbol of Imperial China was a symbol of racial oppression.
One might be able to say that any symbol that exalts blood line is a racist symbol. But is every family crest a racist statement?
Ah, now I catch your drift--a positive feedback loop. Racism leads to economic disparity, which is interpreted to justify racism, etc. Makes sense to me.
BuG, I thought it wasn't possible to plumb the depths of ignorance any deeper on this thread, but you did it. Congratulations.
i just feel that this man made this t-shirt to get attention, and he has succeeded. i prefer not to reward bigots and racists with the attention they're seeking.
Um, racists don't engage in racist behavior because they are seeking attention. In fact, they often take great pains to avoid attention.
You really have led a sheltered life, haven't you?
This wretched t-shirt and the copyright infringers behind it are as pustulent as its detractors have all been saying, but the kidnapping and abuse of Curious George is at most a pimple of the Obama hatred in our flag-waving body politic.
A relative of a friend relayed an example of Obamaphobia more comparable to gangrene, from a crew somehow allied to the wingnut Media Research Center (I will not pollute this thread with links to any of this infection).
Combine heavy-handed video barrages with sound tracks much less subtle, a narrator who makes Paul Harvey seem like a geisha, and a Gish Gallop through a Dickian hallucination of villainy spiced with choice mispronunciations ... no, that sounds like I'm trying to encourage people to experience this for a comic effect. It ain't funny, folks. And it gets steadily worse as it goes along.
Yellow Tape
If you're not a student or connoisseur of extreme wingnut propaganda, with professional-grade vileness hazmat gear, you are advised not to browse ...dubya.x.3 dawt eye blast daht tv slash Public slashagain Video dut aspx ?rsrcI D=2036. Assemble those pieces at your own risk and sole liability, with the same conditions applying to any and all potential relays of the resultant string. Do not attempt to operate motor vehicles, power tools, weapons or sensitive relationship issues for at least two hours after exposure.
/Yellow Tape
For the rest of you now crawling out from under the furniture and resuming your tea party, please keep in mind that Mike Norman et al represent a comparatively mild case of Obama rabies.
@me:
I see your point, I think, but I don't think the world works that way. Your logic is too akin to "if we never talk about sex, teenagers will never have it: giving out the HPV vaccine will only put nasty ideas into their little heads!"
Better to explain to your 4 year old about slavery and how horrible it was, have him or her imagine he or she was a slave maybe, to fully empathize with the condition, and make him or her aware of the state of the world - because sooner or later they're going to find out, and it won't be you who told them. Better they should be primed to recognize these things and respond with appropriate levels of disgust and dissaproval. After all, this is how racists train their kids to be racist. Ignorance is never safety. Never.
teddy....
*We* didn't bring it up. The *newspaper*, read by hundreds of thousands, put out an online poll about it, because it is based on (or, at its most innocent, reminiscent of) well-known and deeply ingrained racist imagery. We are simply responding to that poll.
We did not make it up. It is real. If racism didn't cross your mind until someone brought it up to you, that doesn't mean the racism isn't there. It just means you didn't have the knowledge or experience to see it.
BuG:
I'm fascinated. Please explain your logic.
Ok, this makes me officially OLD but I blame coming of age during the Bush II era for the state of "kids today". (Sorry!) My formative years coincided with the Clinton Adminstration (high school through college, including Glasgow Uni) which I think were a happier time. Though that might just be rosy haze of nostalgia.
Of course, I also remember being so happy that racism was not a problem anymore one MLK Day when I was in fourth grade. Whew! I remember thinking, I'm so lucky to live at this time now, when half my friends are black and half are white (and a couple of Asians) and everything is good.
By the time I was in eighth grade, though, we kids had sorted out along socio-economic lines, which were largely racial. Certain exceptions proved the rules. No one told me what the rules were, but I "knew" somehow after seventh grade that I was going to have to make an awkward move from the lunch table nearest the door (where I sat between my elementary school friends Rashauna, Lingaire, Saharah, and Tionna) to the middle table (where I would sit with Jamie, Meaghan, Sarah, and Lisa, who rode the same school bus as me).
I wish I had been more cognizant of what was happening then so I could have prevented my complicity with it. So I guess I take off my rose-colored glasses.
It's still a bloody racist t-shirt.
...have him or her imagine he or she was a slave maybe, to fully empathize with the condition...
Fortunately, Bible Park USA will offer Bronze-Age Slave Experience (TM), where kids can briefly live and appreciate the joys and rigors of biblical slavery. Their fellow slaves, providing the attraction even greater verisimilitude, will be "volunteers" from the nearby ICE detention center. Register your church group now!
I am not addressing any one post in particular...just some thoughts.
While I somewhat agree with the idea that ignoring hateful speech or spinning it into a positive (like, as someone suggested, Obama turning the monkey comparison around and agreeing with it) can sometimes help take the wind out of a bigot's sails, I have to say that this can usually only work on an individual level. It is only up to an individual whether or not they choose to be offended. However, they can still work to help eradicate hateful speech because they recognize that others are offended and that, if left unchecked, the speech and the sentiments behind it will proliferate. Speaking out against this man most likely won't change his mind and might even give him some sort of mini-martyrdom status among the dipshits who patronize his bar, but it will also send a message that the rest of us won't tolerate such hateful, degrading speech and perhaps make other people less likely to engage in such behavior. Speaking out (for those of us who are not the targets) also shows support for and solidarity with the targeted group which, as history shows, is extremely important in combating hate.
For the past 40+ years, America has been slowly moving forward with regards to race relations (some areas are better than others), but we must be careful not to assume that this will always be the case and just sit back and congratulate ourselves on how well we've done because that is when the trend can reverse itself. The fact that some asshole is printing (and selling, let's not forget that people are actually buying this tripe) this t-shirt today is evidence that the struggle is not over. And he is not alone. We cannot afford to be lazy and just assume that because we do not see the hate right in front of our eyes every day, it is not there.
And for those of you who did not recognize the sickening racism in this t-shirt, that is OK. I am sure there are many people who have never come across this particular racial slur, but I have to doubt your critical thinking skills if you were able to just look at the t-shirt and shrug and say "oh, that's cute!" Did you not even have the slightest bit of hesitation, especially considering the political climate in this country? If I were you, my first step would have been to ask myself, "why does PZ consider this to be racist?" and maybe google "Obama" and "monkey" or even "Obama" and "Curious George" (BTW, the first hit on that is an article about Rush Limbaugh laughing at a comment about the resemblance between them and the fallout that ensued which would have given you a hint). Then I would, now knowing that it is considered to be a racist comparison, research some more and learn about the history of the usage which might help me to understand the passion with which so many people in this thread are decrying the t-shirt I originally thought was "cute."
Even if I just saw this on without the context provided for me, I would still look it up because it is enough of a "Huh? What does one have to do with the other" thing to pique any thinking person's interest.
Count me as another one who didn't get it initially. Curious George - he's a good guy, he's cute and charming. Is it connected to George Bush? *puzzle*
But it did sink in after those first few WTF? moments. History, you know. Ignorance is not bliss.
And I hope the Curious George copyright owners sue the pants off this moron for abusing their cute little guy.
spencer, the man made a t-shirt which he is proudly displaying in a restaurant. don't be obtuse. in no way could you say he was *avoiding* attention. jesus, at least think a little before you start belittling someone.
Thank you Joolya. I think this very nicely sums up what so many people have been trying to say in this thread.
This is how you combat racism and any other form of prejudice. By recognizing that it exists and speaking out against it. By trying to see through the eyes of those affected most by it. Don't just shrugging your shoulders and saying "well it doesn't affect me so I don't see the big deal."
It's very easy to tell someone to "just ignore it" when you have never been chilled to the bone in fear for your safety or even your life in the face of the hatred that these symbols and words represent. It will never go away by ignoring it and it especially won't go away if you pretend that it doesn't even exist. You can't fight against something if you don't see the problem in the first place.
"Don't just shrugging your shoulders and saying "
Oops! Make that "Don't just shrug you shoulders and say."
I haven't got time to catch up on the whole thread right now, I'm only down to #300 and I have to go soon so I'm going to risk commenting out of context.
First, my comment way up at #181 was also posted without reading the thread (a habit I'm trying to kick); it was meant to be a joke about (1) being oblivious to the common historical racism of comparing a black man to a monkey and (2) a joke about the tired and incorrect argument that acknowledging racism shows racism in the mind of the reader. I expected both points to be parodying comments that nobody would make. I almost didn't put a joke disclaimer at the bottom of the comment. This is terrible!
Josh in Philly (#210) said:
I don't think any of those commenters declared their nationality (but I'm not going to check right now); I assumed they were all Americans. Scary stuff either way, but as I'm about to explain below I think non-Americans should be even more likely to see the racism.
I'm from New Zealand and to me the racism in the t-shirt is inescapably obvious. As far as I know the Maori (indigenous New Zealanders) have not been often compared to monkeys, possibly because there aren't any monkeys closer than South-East Asia and it doesn't make much sense to make an unfavourable comparison to something nobody in the conversation has ever seen. Anyway, I'm well aware of black=monkey racism from the sordid history of European colonialism, and I assume any moderately educated person from a commonwealth or other post-colonial country would be too. For instance, see Marcus Ranum's comment about racism in Tintin way up above.
The black=monkey comparison also ties in with the 'Ascent of Man' (mildly humorous version) image sequence - which I would expect to be familiar to many readers here - where man is shown 'evlolving' from a chimpanzee(?) to a modern European, becoming taller and whiter at each step. This is the standard example for demonstrating the incorrect view that evolution is teleological and some beings are 'more evolved' than others.
So briefly, the racism should be obvious if you've ever heard of European colonialism or the misguided view that evolution is a progression toward a goal regardless of any experience with American history. It should be a slam-dunk on this blog. To be fair, I think it is with all the regulars. I'm not sure if the others are lurkers or interlopers from the darker corners of the intertubes. I think from their relativley late appearance in the comment strata that the second is more likely.
The thing which worries me the most is the number of people who claim that either the t-shirt is not racist or that the racism is buried in distant history and so is irrelevant. It smacks of revisionist history where the sins of our parents are hidden away to never even be used as a cautionary tale.
There you go. Sorry if I'm repeating someone, I thought my comment here would have been fit as a summary of the entire thread; I'm slightly alarmed that it's not.
P.S. ACLU #283
Somebody parodying Kenny parodying a black person? The indicators are all there, but if this gets any more convoluted I'm not going to be able to tell when the real Kenny shows up again... or maybe I will, because it won't be funny.
the Maori (indigenous New Zealanders).
hmm, I recall having read somewhere that the Maori themselves displaced the Moriori, and there was this film:
http://www.filmarchive.org.nz/feature-project/pages/Feathers.php
so what's the current status on their being a people before the Maori?
fact or fiction?
...or is it more like who arrived on which specific islands first?
I've been posting occasionally on the main Georgia politics blog, that some Georgia politicians post on, and most of them read. These t-shirts have come up as several blog posts lately, here's two representative threads:
http://www.peachpundit.com/2008/05/13/pure-trashy-ugliness/
http://www.peachpundit.com/2008/05/14/well-that-clears-it-up/
@Joolya:
Better to explain to your 4 year old about slavery and how horrible it was, have him or her imagine he or she was a slave maybe, to fully empathize with the condition, and make him or her aware of the state of the world - because sooner or later they're going to find out, and it won't be you who told them.
... and you really don't want it to be the guy who made this T-shirt.
This thread seems to be winding down a bit. My impression of MartinSGill is that, all excited at the prospect of scoring a philosophical point, he took my original point about intent and context being important, ran with it clear out into underpants-on-head territory, realised everybody was shouting at him, started to turn back towards sanity, then thought better(?) of it and dug in his heels.
Come off it, I'm a middle-class white Englishman. Public school, Oxbridge, the lot. I live my comfortable little existence, work, eat and drink with other middle-class white Englishmen. Things like this make me feel uncomfortable. They don't make me feel like I've been punched in the stomach. I have at least sufficient awareness to know that makes me fortunate. And if you need me to tell you when a thing is racist, you've got a problem.
FYI, I didn't write a lot of those posts.
I think the tshirt is racist and this is the 21st century. That should not be a problem anymore in America, but yet it still is.
The tshirt is obviously wrong. People are people and honestly it's been like this for thousands of years and humankind has not been able to get past it. It is sad but I don't see it changing no matter what.
I like Obama I really do. I wish the democrats would stop fighting with each other and end it. It is begining to drag on too much and this gives John McCain the edge.
Obama doesn't deserve this.
Many thanks to Joolya for this clearly spoken wisdom, and to everyone here who is explaining (over and over to disingenuous people who pretend not to understand) that combating racism requires not ignoring racism.
jenni #644:
No, jenni, once again you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. I didn't actually say that this specific person was trying to avoid attention, did I? Go back and read my comment again. What I said was that racists often seek to avoid attention - but my larger point was that racists are not motivated to commit racist acts simply because they want to say "hey world! look at meeeeee! I'm being sooooooo naughty!" They're not four-year-olds saying a swear word to shock Mommy.
I recommend reading the work of David Neiwert (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com) if you are at all interested in understanding questions of race and racism in the US. Of course, you probably don't want to sully your beautiful mind with actual information if it is at all unpleasant. If that's the case, your loss.
And in any case, I strongly recommend you lose the persecution complex. It's really embarrassing.
Okey dokey. I think I've missed all the action on this thread, but I've got a couple more comments in case anyone's still here.
The use-mention distinction
There's a lot of conversation up above about how not being aware of racism is a good sign and some weird position that sounds like equating knowing of racism with practicing it.
In one of my philosophy classes way back I was taught of the use-mention distinction. To mention the word 'milk' is not the same as to ask for milk in your coffee. To mention 'racism' is not the same as to be racist. Racism should be frequently mentioned (to say that it's bad) and never used. From this point of view knowledge and teaching of historical racism is vitally important so that it can be avoided in future.
Ignoring racism
This is an utterly wrongheaded idea, I don't know where it could have come from. Would anyone say that sexism in the workplace should be ignored and it will go away? Racism and sexism flourish where they are tacitly accepted. As a third party remaining silent puts you with the oppressor. This sentiment has already been expressed, but I want to restate it for emphasis.
Re Kseniya #561, getting from here to there
I don't have any easy answers on that. Time. It might be instructive to think of racist symbols as trademarks whose meaning can be diluted by use in other contexts. The black=monkey meme for instance may one day be rescued by other comparisons using monkeys such that a racist slur is not the first thing that comes to mind. The comparisons between GWB and various apes are helping this; at some point in the future we will be so used to seeing politicians making funny faces compared to animals that nobody will notice that this animal happens to be a monkey and that president happens to be black. One of the biggest problems with the t-shirt is that there is no sensible alternate message - it's incoherent as anything except a use of racism.
Also, congratulations on finishing your course Kseniya!
negentropyeater,
"In America, on average, the net worth (that is all possesions minus debts) of african americans is, per capita one eigtth (1/8 !) of that of caucasians. And this ratio has not improved at all over the last 20 years despite all the stories that are being told, affirmative action and the lot.
..."
You really need to pick up a book by Thomas Sowell. Join the reality club.
Kenny@ #653:
For once you've posted something on Pharyngula that most of the readers will agree with.
;)
Kenny@653:
I agree -- cogent and to the point. Yes the shirt is racist.
I would prefer that you were less defeatist
I think we have a HUGE opportunity in the homogenization of cultures made possible by teh interwebs to change the hold of outliers such as Newell.
Anyone who's lived around Amish communities can see that the wider world is encroaching more and more on their isolationist stance: as kids learn about the wider world they generally *want to know more*. Although some will always feel happier remaining, many won't (and the Amish are fairly innocuous, so far as lifestyles go).
Wider exposure to more 'nuanced' normative behaviors will provide better examples to the children of these outlier groups - but only if we make the noise that this shit is just wrong!
tony
For what it's worth, the AJC has another story today about this incident - this time, the guy's daughter, hilariously trying to claim that her daddy is "not a dumb redneck".
URL:
http://www.ajc.com/services/content/metro/cobb/stories/2008/05/15/norma…
re: Vic @ 659:
No he's a dumb racist redneck.
There. Fixed it for ya.
Kenny, Tony - good on yas. :-)
I've chucked in a quick post on my blog about racism and how to fix it, meant to serve as a hook to hang some discussion on rather than a scholarly statement. This thread is getting stale, but if anyone would like to adjourn off-board I would be honoured to host. I suspect Kseniya has some ideas up her (that's right isn't it?) sleeve.
Re Maori (Ichthyic #649):
I'm merely a New Zealander rather than any type of anthropologist, but my understanding is that the 'Maori replaced Moriori' thing was our own little piece of wishful thinking history to justify the conquest of the Maori by Europeans (fair's fair, they did it to the Moriori first etc.). It was repeated in schools well into the 80's, but I think was only sourced from a single book of the Washington Irving variety.
As I understand the current thinking, the Maori arrived in a couple of waves from Polynesia but there wasn't much organised conquest or cultural oppression going on. Moriori correctly refers to the inhabitants of the Chatham Islands who were of the same stock as the Maori but were out of contact for several hundred years.
*hugs*
Sorry Ichthyic, after looking at your link I should clarify a little. There was a long-running misbelief that New Zealand was originally settled by a group known as the Moriori who were then conquered and replaced by the Maori; the Moriori on the Chatham Islands are a different matter, although theye were conquored and enslaved by a particular group of Maori with European aid.
So, briefly, the Moriori on mainland New Zealand who were displaced by Maori are fictional. The Moriori on the Chatham Islands who were enslaved by Maori are completely real, and still there as far as I know.
Yep. That's right. I'm a grrrl.
I'm not feeling too sharp yet today, though. I'd like to visit your blog, but I can't promise any insights more profound than Kumbaya... lol
Kseniya, re #666 (which I love as a number), at your worst you, along with Etta and Ichthyic and a few others are always worth reading. Belated congrats, btw.
Ciao, Jeffrey
#668 - neighbour of the beast!
I second Jeffrey, there are certain posters here that I know are always good value and you are one of them. Congrats again on finishing your course. What was it, and do you intend to go on?
I live in Georgia. I do not like being included in the sweeping generalization Georgians are racist because of a poll which has been answered (at the time of this comment) by a sample size of 0.4% of the population of Georgia. On top of that, a good number of people who answered the poll -- because of the likes of this blog entry -- probably aren't even IN Georgia. Then again, I'm no statistician, so 0.4% might be a perfectly acceptable sample size for a population of over eight million.
The shirt is racist and disgusting. More people should stand up and say so.
ббб? :-)
Well, thank you. There are many commenters worth reading here; some are more prolific than others. I manage to express myself reasonably well most of the time, I guess, and I'm not completely witless, but I'll be the first to admit that I'm still towards the low-end of the education and IQ scales here.
I'm at a small liberal-arts college. Psych major, music minor, interest in computing, sciences, athletics. I do plan to go to grad school, probably for counseling/clinical psych, but I confess I'm a bit conflicted about what to do next. I should be basking in the glow, here, but I feel like crashing. But right now, I desperately want to shut off my mind and do nothing. I haven't had an honest-to-god do-nothing, carefree vacation in almost five years. I'm struggling with the confluence of this end-of-school feeling, Mother's Day, and the anniversary of my mother's death, especially now that I'm graduating, because I know what it would have meant to her.
Yeah, TMI, and I don't mean to complain. Nobody's setting off car-bombs in my neighborhood. No tsunami or earthquake is going to destroy my home or community. I have two good eyes eyes and four strong limbs, no mental or physical health issues, friends and family who love me, and a future that beckons. Life is pretty good.
spencer, you are clearly completely unfamiliar with racism in the southeast, so let me sum it up for you. racists down here are PROUD of being racist. they aren't like northerners, who just move out of the neighborhood when non-whites move in (and yes, i have had several friends from PA and NY whose parents did just that). people down here slap a confederate flag sticker on their truck and call it a day. they're NOT, i repeat NOT avoiding attention. they're solicitng it.
now, did you notice how i was able to respond to you without insulting you? learn some fucking manners. seriously.
I haven't read the whole thread yet (working on it) but I would like to add my voice to the "didn't realize that 'monkey' was a racial slur" crowd. I have on occasion referred to various people as 'fucking monkeys' as a generic evocative insult but they've almost all been white. (not by intent, it just happens that I live in Oregon and 90% of my friends are pale fuckers)
It deeply saddens me that we aren't at a point where the melanin content of a persons skin matters beyond their resistance to sunburns.
So, briefly, the Moriori on mainland New Zealand who were displaced by Maori are fictional. The Moriori on the Chatham Islands who were enslaved by Maori are completely real, and still there as far as I know.
ah!
thanks much, that indeed clarifies it.
Very Nice!
Brian,
oh but I agree with Sowell in his objective analysis of the situation surrounding race.
The problem is I disagree with his conclusions, he still belongs to this generation of economists who believes in the perfection of capital markets and doesn't realise that in a world with constrained and very limited growth, which is the world of the 21st century, free-markets loose their efficiency in a growing number of domains.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Vivamus rhoncus. Vivamus ornare dui ac erat. Maecenas quis arcu sed leo feugiat eleifend. Curabitur tincidunt molestie urna. Aenean cursus. Fusce tincidunt eros in lorem. Quisque et urna ac diam dictum congue. Maecenas pretium fermentum tortor. Nulla neque velit, euismod a, lobortis eget, dignissim eu, mauris. Curabitur in libero. Proin nulla nulla, tincidunt vitae, rhoncus eu, elementum non, orci.
Class aptent taciti sociosqu ad litora torquent per conubia nostra, per inceptos himenaeos. Nulla commodo vehicula arcu. Pellentesque gravida viverra lorem. Proin at purus a massa rutrum lacinia. Quisque volutpat leo. Maecenas egestas ligula sed mi. Duis enim augue, elementum et, ultrices hendrerit, sollicitudin non, diam. Donec at mi nec orci tincidunt eleifend. Phasellus pulvinar gravida turpis. Suspendisse molestie, eros ac ultrices feugiat, leo odio congue massa, eget venenatis dui pede varius augue. Etiam vestibulum euismod lectus. Integer tincidunt imperdiet nulla. Donec ornare ullamcorper nisl. Etiam luctus dolor ac arcu. Morbi id est. Donec blandit arcu a nulla. Aenean eget mauris in dui dictum consectetuer. Nulla eu odio.
When I first saw this article, I didn't get what people were so outraged about. I thought the shirt was insinuating that Obama is too naive to lead the country!
I guess they're so far behind the times that I have to struggle to think that lowbrow.