Unspinning Biden — narratives, not epithets
by guest contributor Kai Chang, originally published at Zuky
Every time we go through one of these high-profile “racial gaffes”, the corporate media ridiculously blathers and clunks its way through the same hollow-suited charade, probingly asking for an up-or-down yea-or-nay one-dimensional vote on whether or not a particular word or phrase is “a slur”, presumably to definitively determine, yea-or-nay, whether the person who uttered that word or phrase is “a racist”. Once fuzzy mass media judgment has been rendered, the unpleasant matter is thankfully resolved, white folks try to remember not to use certain words around people of color, and the subject of race (not to mention a broadly anti-racist agenda) can return to the back of the national-political-priorities bus until the next blow-up. [ Artwork courtesy of The Unapologetic Mexican]
Impatient dismissals from Tim Dickinson at Rolling Stone (”hyper-PC hyperventilation … is what’s wrong with American politics”) and Bob Felton at BlogCritics (”Biden got it right”) are, I think, pretty representative. But here’s what escapes the grasp of the sagacious corporate-media deciders-of-racism: most people of color don’t necessarily have a problem with any isolated word (well okay, “articulate” is getting a little old, but anyway) that Biden used in his little riff on the shining virtues of Barack Obama (cue tooth-sparkle, ding!). Here’s the thing: it’s not about epithets, it’s about narratives.
The problem with what Biden said lies not in any one of the words that oozed out of him, but in the narratives about African Americans that the whole combination of words invokes.
I have no desire to talk about Joe Biden and his doomed presidential run; but I wouldn’t mind taking Biden’s words and using them to explore and explode some of the false narratives that dominate the national discourse on race. I wouldn’t mind talking about how certain stylized ideas and images — not mere slurs or epithets — rather, entire psychic complexes of associative ideas and images, conspire to inform a normative racist worldview, which perpetuates itself through the repetitive mass-hypnotic invocation and reinforcement of those very ideas and images.
So here’s what Biden said: “I mean, you’ve got the first sort of mainstream African American, who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a story-book, man.”
As far as I could tell, here’s the subtext he was invoking:
Blacks aren’t mainstream like you and me, man. I mean, most Blacks have trouble speaking proper English and seem kind of yucky and not very bright, and you just can’t trust a lot of those inner city types. But I mean, this Obama guy seems So Safe To White America that he possibly even has a shot at winning, though I doubt it, man.
It’s not any one word, but taken as a whole, the overall effect of Biden’s words is to indirectly trigger a set of widespread racist narrative frames, to which the speaker in fact appears to be responding in his train of thought. And if you don’t believe in the power of narrative suggestion, go talk to the folks on Madison Avenue. This isn’t about Biden or DC politics; for me, it’s about examining how various facets of racism work and what can be done to undermine those workings.
Carmen Van Kerckhove is co-founder and president of
Colin wrote:
You know, the phrase I thought of when I heard about it was: “Yay! The pig can talk!” But looking at your take on the issue really attacks it on a much higher plane; this isn’t just about the so-called “A-word”, (got that from Clarence Page, who I don’t usually trust for any info anyway) but about the entire message behind it.
That said, to me, one word, “storybook” really hit me hard. To me, it’s the ultimate proof that he’s talking with genuine shock at Obama’s personal characteristics juxtaposed with Obama’s race, and really undercuts his excuses. I wish this statement was used to discuss racist thoughts and viewpoints and systems responsibly instead of the mini-circus that ensued, *sigh*…
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 9:27 am ¶
kim wrote:
The problem with what Biden said lies not in any one of the words that oozed out of him, but in the narratives about African Americans that the whole combination of words invokes.
Kai, Kai, Kai.
Yes, yes, yes.
Wish I had read this as I was formulating a post in another thread on the bombardment of the image, i’d have used it, but all that came to mind was ‘bombastic,’ and I couldn’t get the cobwebs out!
It’s about narratives, not epithets.
This one will have to be massively disseminated. You may get face time on a news outlet behind it.
Thanks for that.
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 9:50 am ¶
Rob Schmidt wrote:
Great posting, Kai. Your analysis also applies whenever a sports mascot or other Native American stereotype (http://www.bluecorncomics.com/stertype.htm) crops up. In fact, we could generalize it to any questionable comment about a minority. Even if the comment resembles a compliment or a joke, the effect is to diminish the person.
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 10:10 am ¶
LM wrote:
Kai, very well-put. You’re absolutely right to break down Biden’s comments as a whole, and I’m with you thoroughly on the that last (semi-)imagined parenthetical: “though I doubt it, man.”
To Rob’s comment — agreed, the effect is to diminish the person, but I think it’s important to spell out that Biden is sincere (I believe) in his compliments of Obama… and just as sincere in his dismissiveness of black people in general. To me, this is why Biden’s apology to Obama was pointless… instead, he needed to say simply that he said something stupid.
Two other thoughts crossed my mind when I first read about Biden’s comments:
1. Power tends to accrue to the powerful
and
2. Politicians tend not to shower praise on opponents who they see as truly viable
Unconsciously or not, Biden I think showed with his comments that he thinks Obama’s blackness is a hindrance and that he thinks Obama’s rise is somewhat illusory.
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 11:15 am ¶
kim wrote:
LM–
I will be damned if you are not channeling me, or presaging (that is a word, right?) me….got cursed out for saying just this at another blog. Thanks!
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 12:46 pm ¶
Jeremy Pierce wrote:
I have no real interest in defending Biden’s statement, but I don’t think his use of the word ‘mainstream’ has anything to do with the mainstream of American society. I took him to be talking about the mainstream of politics, not the mainstream of society. In other words, he was saying that Obama is the first black presidential candidate who is front and center in the minds of most Americans. I don’t think that’s really about the racial narratives that Biden is clearly buying into and perpetuating with the rest of his comment.
If I’m right, then Biden wouldn’t consider himself or you and me mainstream either. In this election, the mainstream would be (so far) Rudy Giuliani, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Barack Obama, John McCain, and maybe Mitt Romney. Newt Gingrich might be in it also if he admitted that he’s running. There are a number of candidates for both major parties who aren’t in it, and that includes Biden, who is less mainstream in this election than Jesse Jackson was in 1984.
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 2:09 pm ¶
Chris wrote:
Speaking of narratives, what do you guys think of gay icons…
I guess you guys aren’t a fan of gay fave Margaret Cho.
Come to think of it, a lot of comedians and singers popular with gay white men seem to reinforce a lot of stereotypes.
They seem to love large sassy black women who “SANG” like Jennifer Hudson and Jennifery Holliday.
Drag queens have been called the female version of blackface minstrelsy.
Margaret Cho always imitates her immigrant Korean mother.
Sandra Bernhardt regularly draws inspiration from black music and her background growing up in the black part of Detroit, which she feels vindicates her use of “nigger”, calling Star Jones a “big lipped nigger” at an engagement at UCBT this past October.
Liza and Judy sort of embody your stereotypical hysterical crazy overly-emotional women, as does also Faye Dunaway’s portrayal of Joan Crawford in Mommie Dearest. Drag queens love the vamp or bitch stereotypes.
Apparently many gay clubs have absolutely NO PROBLEM with blackface as seen in the popularity of Shirley Q Liquor. She’s STILL performing in none other than New Orleans this upcoming summer, as she did for the gay party Southern Decadance 2006 the year following Katrina.
Is it that gay white men feel their manhood threatened by their heterosexual counterparts so much that the only way to reclaim it is to impose their place in the social hierarchy by reinforcing stereotypes?
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 2:46 pm ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Biden’s statments were idiotic to say the least, what he was saying that Obama unlike other Afro- American politicans (and by extension black folks) trust white americans that they beleive in racial reconcilation and takes them at their word. Many native Afro- Americans deal with White America from an adversary position and many whites know this, since Obama is mixed and was raised in Hawaii, he doesn’t have what Biden and others are calling ‘racial baggage’ or in other words “I DON’T TRUST WHITES AS FAR AS I CAN THROW THEM”.
It is really about innocence, Obama allows White America their racial innocence and judges them as fair, tolerant and won’t challenge them when issues of race comes up and when they do he is fair minded and won’t attack them with the brush of racist. Many blacks like myself, who do not trust whites because of personal expericences and what they percieve is racism will challenge white morality on this and every other issue.
I have a question for all the posters on this board even the moderator or Carmen, which type of black would you deal with if you were white or a person of color? Obama or someone like Shiela Jackson Lee?
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 2:49 pm ¶
LM wrote:
Kim… I s’pose presaging you wouldn’t be bad, right? I promise I haven’t been trying
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 2:55 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Kai:
I think it is presumptuous of you to claim to know what Biden really meant by his words.
In so doing, you are falling back on your own preconceived ideas of what a rich, white, liberal Northeasterner might REALLY be thinking about black people.
Be honest — you don’t know Joe Biden, probably have never even met him. You are filtering your opinion through your own set of biases and experiences.
Tell me then … what is the difference between the subtext that you claim Biden invokes and the subtext you use to parse his words?
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 4:03 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Eric:
Would you expect black voters to turn out in droves for a white candidate with obvious issues toward black people … someone who makes it clear that he/she will vote from a racially biased position?
Of course not.
So why would you expect expect white voters to support someone who is obviously going to view every issue from a “black” perspective, someone like a Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?
Obama’s point of differentiation is that he is a candidate who happens to be black, not a black candidate. There is a difference … to white and black voters alike (hence the lukewarm support for Obama from many black political leaders).
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶
LM wrote:
@ Jeremy: nice point about the mainstreamedness (new word?) of Obama and Biden himself as figures in the presidential race.
@ Eric Daniels: I agree with your observation on whites’ (and others’) perception of “racial baggage.” That said, Obama’s response to “White America” might be different than yours, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he “won’t challenge them when issues of race come up.” He might not raise his voice as often as you do, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t make the same initial assessment you do. (To be clear, Obama remains to me and many others a bit mysterious on precisely what he does stand for, but I don’t think he’s a rube on issues of race/ethnicity/etc.)
To your use of the word “fair-minded,” isn’t that for what you aim too? I can infer that you mean a “white” definition of “fair-minded,” but if so then what’s the point, to identify you as unpalatable to whites? If I’m nitpicking pardon me, but I think that sort of verbiage is easily siezed on by people less friendly than I to your overall outlook.
Which leads me to your question about Obama vs. “someone like” Lee: my answer is “both.” I know the answer is only mine and maybe not widely representative. But that answer is especially hard to come by when the question is framed as either/or. Sure, in an election that’s what it comes to, but “deal with” encompasses a far broader range of discourse.
Posted 07 Feb 2007 at 4:38 pm ¶
Corbin wrote:
Just Wondering-
I don’t think Kai is jumping to wild conclusions in his interpretation of Biden’s comments.
Biden’s comment, by making a novelty of an African-American being articulate and clean, implies that he believes that the rest of Black people aren’t so.
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 12:14 pm ¶
kim wrote:
Just Wondering…
Is that all you do?
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 12:35 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Just Wondering,
Actually I never mention or deal with Biden’s “intent” in this post (I discuss the “widespread” racist narratives that his words invoke, not inside a white dude’s mind — I know, the center of the world according to some — but in our shared reality). Generally I don’t write about what people “intended” to say, I write about what they did say. I don’t need to (or want to) be personally intimate with Biden (or any other presidential candidate) in order to legitimately respond to his words and interpret how they affect my world.
Sure, those words just might mean something different and entirely non-racist in the murky bowels of the speaker’s psyche (though your central claim appears to be that this is unknowable), but once words have slipped out into our shared reality, the umbilical cord between the words and the intent of their originator gets cut, and the words become animated instead by the collective consciousness of their audience (as ebogjonson has wisely warned, racist stereotypes are “wild and crafty memes”). This is how spoken language works: It’s not incumbent on listeners to delve endlessly through a speaker’s psyche to interpret her words; rather, it’s incumbent upon the speaker to craft words that will impact the collective consciousness as she intends. Or at the very least, speaker and audience must meet halfway. Especially when the speaker is a presidential candidate attempting to win our vote.
So I’ll say it again: Calling someone who says or does bigoted things “a bigot” isn’t censorious or speculative, it’s descriptively accurate, like calling a bad movie “a bad movie”, even if the bigot didn’t intend to come off as bigoted and the movie didn’t intend to come off as bad.
Of course, I do see the status-quo delay-tactic rationale behind the constant pleas to scrutinize inscrutable intent: it appears to be an attempt to tangle up discussions about social progress in post-modern webs of relavistic nihilism: Let’s talk for 5 years about the unknowable intent behind meanings of words, while the machines of the establishment grind away.
Actually, let’s not and say we did.
Cheers.
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 1:15 pm ¶
LM wrote:
Kai — I aspire to the level of your lucidity. You’re raising the plane of dialogue. Thanks.
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 2:06 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Sewere once again bows at Kai’s precision and eloquence.
Is there any way I can get you to come help teach a few Ethnic Studies classes at Berkeley?
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 2:24 pm ¶
al wrote:
right on.
people who feel their racist (or other ist) ideas are being attacked, often resort to dismissing some microcosmic issue, instead of addressing what the real problem is. white media is overly obsessed with ‘pc’ as a word issue, and they can’t seem to understand that words aren’t the problem, the whole attitude is.
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 3:08 pm ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Just Wondering, your assumptions on why Afro- Americans do not trust Obama is as faulty as a leaky faucet. Afro- Americans are not monolithic and I do not trust Obama because I don’t know where he stands on the issues, and when I see White Amerikkkans like yourself and others embrace him it is not because he will make a good president but he gives whites their racial innocence.
Obama is one of two types of blacks that whites know about and can deal with in my opinion. And to them it is “challengers and negoitators” Obama is a negoiator across racial lines, like Bill Cosby, Micheal Jordan and Tiger Woods, he promises he will not tar the majority society with the brush of racist in exchange for entrance into mainstream society with hopes they would treat them fairly. A challenger does not trust the majority to treat them fairly in regards to race and whites understandly will deal with that person warily.
When Afro- Americans go between the two points it confuses the white majority when someone like Jesse Jackson says in one minute “keep hope alive” he gives whites and America hope for racial reconcilation but when Jackson and Sharpton takes on the role of racial challenger it violates whites like “Just Wondering’s” morality on racial issues.
What this society values is a black person who will not challenge their racial innocence and believes it from his or her heart, there can be no faking it like when they see Sharpton and Jackson playing both ends. Obama reassures the majority and certian blacks that he wants racial peace and will not play games (particularly whites) their sense of racial morality.
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 4:08 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Kim wrote:
Just Wondering…
Is that all you do?
Ha!
Yes, much of what I read here just makes me go hmmmm …
Posted 08 Feb 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Eric:
You personify the blatant hypocrisy of many commenters here when you use phrases like “White Amerikkkans.”
And the fact that you used that term to describe me is both hateful and wrong.
I believe you owe me an apology.
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 11:53 am ¶
Carmen Van Kerckhove wrote:
Eric, please chill with the kkk references, thanks. Let’s not go down that road again.
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 12:07 pm ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Sorry Carmen I won’t use kkk in regards to a ethnic group again. Just wondering, what apoglogy do I owe you? nothing your white angst is begining to bore me, what would Limbaugh think?
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 1:28 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Eric, you basically called me a Klansman, which I find offensive.
But you are saying I should just get over it? That I’m being too sensitive? You didn’t intend to harm me?
I thought those were phrases only white people used in response to claims of racism???
The hypocrisy continues!
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 5:21 pm ¶
merq wrote:
Eric Daniels:
Gotta tell you, man… I’m black, and I can’t take anyone who says “Amerikkka” seriously. It’s just… not cool (or particularly clever).
Just Wondering:
Is there any white-racist nonsense you won’t try to defend? You sicken me even more than virulent, frothy-mouthed racists. At least, they have the courage of their convictions. You just bore with your ceaseless attempts to explain away e-ve-ry damn fuck-up by a white speaker.
Apologies, Carmen, but I’ve never been good at diplomacy.
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 6:31 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Just Wondering,
Um, do you have a point to make, or are you just like poking a dude in the shoulder trying to pick a fight?
Because, well, if you think it’s offensive being called a Klansman, imagine how offensive it is to be actually attacked by Klansmen. In fact I’d say it’s quite a bit worse. So please, no more Fallacious Flips (TM The Unapologetic Mexican). No more Colorblind Racism (via Rachel’s Tavern) lines of argumentation. No more whining about Political Correctness. None of those tired Limbaughesque parlor games work here. Those puzzles are solved, amigo. We’re movin on.
So if you honestly believe that white racism and its hyper-abundantly documented corporeality is a figment of the imagination of people of color, and that if we all just stopped complaining about social injustice then racism would just go away, then frankly there are probably way better places in the blogosphere for you to hang out than here. Not that you can’t lurk here; I’m just sayin, there might not be much to say.
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 7:50 pm ¶
eric daniels wrote:
Just wondering you bore me with your white angst/racial apolgist ‘black guilt’ rhetoric with no reasonable defense for your arguments and it’s tiring. And Merq that’s why I do the anti- P.C. rhetoric “white amerikkkan” because I have dealt with whites like Just Wondering and they insult me with their racial excuses on racial issues as it pertians to Afro-Americans.
Posted 09 Feb 2007 at 10:04 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
I swear, this intent argument has taken on a tone of gargantuan denial….
It’s like apologists believe that everything is invidualized such that anti-racists have to prove the intent of an individual to prove that she or he is racist…. which completely misses the point. I mean, who gives a rats hairy arse if he is racist nor not? The issue at hand is that these narratives are a manifestation of a social structure that others people of color as non-mainstream and not fully American.. That at its core racism is about the structural system that is evident in the narratives that are reproduced in everyday interaction…. Which is what most anti-racists have been saying and struggling against for all along.
But no, apologists are more worried about intent and would much rather set up their own version of Law & Order: Racial Intent were intent will be hard to prove but most importantly, never quite meet their skewed burden of proof.
Posted 10 Feb 2007 at 4:08 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Oh yeah, just to blow this intent argument out of the water… Did anyone forget that Biden used the Republican’s “Southern Strategy” tactic when he stated that he could get Southern votes because of Delaware’s status as a former slave state?
Posted 10 Feb 2007 at 4:29 pm ¶
FEB wrote:
Kai,
You make a very good point. Colorblind racism is well documented and researched by sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva. He describes colorblind racism as “semantic moves,” that’s to say that individuals deploy certain words or statements that act as “shock absorbers.” This “rhetorical maneuver” allows individuals to safely voice their views on race and deflect charges of racism. Here are some examples:
1. I’m not a racist but…(generalized negative statement about a minority group)
2. I’m not a racist; some of my best friends are (name a certain minority group).
3. How can I be a racist if a dated a (name a certain minority group)
4. I’m not a (name a certain minority group) so how would I know?
5. It wasn’t me!!!
6. Well, if two people are in love…
7. It’s not about race, it’s about culture.
Posted 10 Feb 2007 at 6:26 pm ¶
gatamala wrote:
Kai - you have knocked this out of the park. 1) you clearly broke down the real problem with Joe’s comments and 2) [hopefully] yanked the issue back from the obfuscation of “intent” AND stomped Just Wondering’s incessant trollery.
Sewere-thanks for bringing that up!!! There goes your intent right there.
Posted 11 Feb 2007 at 1:32 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
I’m not a troll. I just don’t always agree with the crowd, and I sometimes feel there is another side to an issue that isn’t being considered in all the piling on.
But most often, I find it amazing that so many people so focused on ending racism and so against stereotyping would feel so comfortable being racist and promoting stereotypes!
Not only that, but others either defend or refuse to stand up against those who engage in such stereotyping, which basically makes those people no different than the white folks they constantly bash.
For example, only one person called out Eric for using the term “white Amerikkkan.” As the moderator of this site, Carmen even approved his comment!
Believe me, that silly slur doesn’t bother me but it’s very telling that it didn’t generate much of a reaction from others here. And when I complained, what do Kai and others tell me to do — just get over it!
That is hilariously hypocritical.
Every time I participate in a thread, you all prove my point for me — white folks have no monopoly when it comes to racist behavior.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 9:48 am ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Kai wrote:
” …if you honestly believe that white racism and its hyper-abundantly documented corporeality is a figment of the imagination of people of color, and that if we all just stopped complaining about social injustice then racism would just go away …”
Kai, I don’t believe either of those things, nor have I ever said I do.
To be clear … I believe there is a good deal of white racism alive in our country today — as well as institutionalized racism, of course.
Yet what good does it do to point out white racism by promoting your own stereotypes or bigoted assumptions?
That is what am I questioning. Your worldview tells you that the white man is inherently racist and inferior to you in terms of racial understanding. You consistently see behaviors and events that support your positioning.
You report on issues such as Biden’s language about Obama with an almost tangible glee, because it supports your point of view and enables you to again share your message of white cluelessness.
Yet in doing so, do you not walk the same path as the white racist? He also has a singular point of view about another race, and he too culls bits and pieces from personal experiences and the media to buttress his own belief system. When he sees yet another media story about black underachievement or black crime, he says much the same thing as you do in your posts about white people — “there they go again.”
In that regard, I believe some of the commentary on this blog simply replaces one form of bigotry for another.
I’m sure you disagree.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 10:35 am ¶
Lyonside wrote:
Ok, Wondering:
>For example, only one person called out Eric for using the term “white Amerikkkan.”
I’ve actually been personally instructed to avoid the OBVIOUSLY provocative comments that get thrown around here .. so I chose to ignore the first uses of the frankly-obnoxious “kkkan”. But I did bitch at Eric when the “white people” thing got out of control - and Eric agreed to tone it down - so, stop beating Barbarro already.
>As the moderator of this site, Carmen even approved his comment!
Wait, since WHEN does allowing a comment through mean that Carmen APPROVES said comment? There are TONS that she doesn’t agree with, I’m sure (the adolescent “OMG I love you forevers” on the Disney threads, for starters).
Remember that up until recently comments were NOT moderated, and that Carmen listed explicit rationales for the comments that have been deleted: i.e. extreme curse-laden diatribes, threats of violence, or crazy wacked-out theories that do nothing but cause trouble (the infamous “whites are albinos” one for starters).
SO… how about getting this back on topic instead of taking potshots?
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 12:11 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Folks,
Please refer to your guide on “How to Suppress Discussions of Racism” … When deflection from the actual topic fails, use the tried and tested argument “You guys are racist for calling those people racist.”
Please be sure to review the guide as we will be having year-round discussions. Also, random tests will be given as more apologist comments appear…
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 2:07 pm ¶
FEB wrote:
JustWondering wrote:
“Your [Kai] worldviews tells you that the white man is inherently racist and inferior to you in terms of racial understanding.”
It’s no secrete that when public discourse on racism extends beyond blatant language or acts, a significant number of whites need to be dragged kicking and screaming to face it.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 2:09 pm ¶
kim wrote:
…because if the belittling, demeaning remarks and sentiments are not seen to be secreted through the skin, and lie, therefore, visible to the naked eye as dandruff or lint under one of those high-spectrum light thingies, then it can not (reasonably) be said to be there.
Wondering: I think the biggest issue in this part of this particular thread is that of you not wanting to see others take a stand, as it seems you won’t take one. For most people here at Racialicious, the discussions are not dispassionate, intellectual ideas bandied about for sport. Nor are they knee-jerk, emotional diatribes that come from a place where fingerpointing is still considered the only way to convey a thought.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 3:07 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Just Wondering,
I don’t write about racism because there’s any “glee” in doing so (and you surely have no idea just how ignorant you sound by saying such a thing, to actually think that people of color find “glee” in white racism is quite the statement). I write about racism because, like so many people of color and white folks of conscience (here’s to all our white allies, your anti-racism is appreciated…at this moment!), I live it and see it every time I walk out the door or turn on the news or read a history book, and I write about reality as I see and understand it. As far as I can see, there’s no way to write about American society without writing about racism, though believe me, I wish it weren’t so.
Honestly I don’t know where you’re trying to take this discussion. Honestly I don’t think you do either:
1. I wrote a post explaining how Biden’s words invoke widespread racist narratives about African Americans; my post explicitly is not about Biden but about examining some subtler, seldom-discussed aspects of how racism works.
2. You posted a comment calling me “presumptuous” for trying to interpret Biden’s words without being personally intimate with him.
3. I replied to your comment, explaining that I do not wish to address Biden’s “intent” because I see the whole “intent” debate as a false issue, a post-modern ploy which renders words meaningless because their intent is unknowable.
4. You posted another comment, in which you once again deploy the fallacious flip, questioning whether anti-racists are “walking the same path as white racists”. To which I can simply answer: no. Okay one more time: White racists throughout American history have constructed and continue to maintain an immense societal edifice to support an unjust undemocratic system of privilege and oppression. Anti-racists wish to analyze that edifice (despite protests from folks like you) in order to deconstruct and destroy it. Those are two very different projects, don’t ya think? Anti-racists analyze and attack the edifice of white supremacy, which is amply documented, measured, quantified, qualified and categorized. It’s not personal and it’s not racist. Race-consciousness, mind you, is not racism; though colorblindness most often is.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 5:28 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Sewere wrote:
When deflection from the actual topic fails, use the tried and tested argument “You guys are racist for calling those people racist.”
Never said that. If someone is racist and you call them on the carpet for it, so be it.
My point was a simple one that shouldn’t be too difficult for anyone to understand: It doesn’t do any good to traffic in stereotypes and racism if you are trying to combat stereotypes and racism.
Too many people here are quick to paint all white people with a broad racist brush, or generalize about what they think someone’s motives are based upon their own preconceived ideas of white people.
To me, that is no different than white people generalizing about minorities.
Let’s cut to the chase here.
Sewere, do you believe it’s okay for minorities to stereotype white people, or to use bigoted language to describe white people? Do you think white racism is so bad — not historically, but today in the year 2007 — that it justifies bigotry and racism in return, even if it means generalizing against all whites?
If you do, just say so and we can stop all the dancing.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 7:42 pm ¶
fgs_sfdg wrote:
“Too many people here are quick to paint all white people with a broad racist brush, or generalize about what they think someone’s motives are based upon their own preconceived ideas of white people.”
Just Wondering,
You’re looking too hard for people who fit such a description. And it’s apparent.
Let’s see, you first claimed that Kai was being “presumptuous” because he/she was trying to determine what Biden’s actual “motives” behind his comments were. Supposedly, Kai had stereotypical notions of how whites think and act, and you were going to “expose” that.
However, Kai rebutted with a clear explanation, on which you haven’t commented yet.
But thank god, you did manage to rouse Eric. And now, you can take his demeaner to represent the general outlook of this entire site. And moreover, you can construe everyone else’s lack of a response to Eric’s comment as racist.
Plenty of worse things have been said to non-whites on this site, and they’ve resulted in a similar lack of responses.
You may not think you’re a troll, because you wholeheartedly believe in your cause. lol…”cause.”
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 9:23 pm ¶
fgs_sfdg wrote:
“Sewere, do you believe it’s okay for minorities to stereotype white people, or to use bigoted language to describe white people? Do you think white racism is so bad — not historically, but today in the year 2007 — that it justifies bigotry and racism in return, even if it means generalizing against all whites?
If you do, just say so and we can stop all the dancing.”
I think I can answer for Sewere…
No!
Will you stop posting now? Or are you going to ask everyone else the same question, hoping to get a “yes”, so you can continue your crusade.
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 9:27 pm ¶
Sewere wrote:
Thanks fgs_sfdg, but my answer had a few caveats to it…
Just Wondering, I’ll be happy to answer your question just as soon as you answer the ones that have been put to you here… Instead of trying to square off picking fights with Kai, I mean, Eric, I mean Carmen, I mean me, I mean everyone… you get my drift?
Posted 12 Feb 2007 at 11:50 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Kai, I understand what you were trying to do with this post.
I don’t necessarily agree with the approach you took, but that’s just a matter of opinion.
To everyone else: Message received. You don’t want any dissenting viewpoints here.
I can understand that. This is your community. You want to be around people who share the same beliefs and opinions.
Truth is, we aren’t so far apart on a lot of issues. But the gap — while narrow — appears to run very deep.
Posted 13 Feb 2007 at 11:12 am ¶
kim wrote:
Just Wondering: it feels less like dissent than an insistence on sayiing, “you can’t think that way, it’s hurtful and unfair to do so.”
No one has a crystal ball into anyone else’s head, but there is … all that Kai said… to offer reasons for understanding the validity of the types of arguments that go up here at Racialicious, and the tangible fruit of dissonance and oppression (of body and mind) of the sort of careless, seemingly benign-yet-entirely-harmful paternalistic, condescending language of the powerful (one must tie it to race, here at R…)
Your calls to stop and reconsider the language used in the examination of others’ language is also heard, received, and taken in measure. I don’t think everyone openly disregards your leanings toward a careful stepping; no one here seeks to plod, to be seen as cloddish and lumbersome in expression or idea; no one seeks to gapingly err, or, necessarily, be inflammatory.
If dissent is always all you give (and in the last couple of threads I’ve dropped in on where people were nipping at your heels, I got the feeling it was), it is a mystery that you ever hold a view, except to say, “I don’t think it fair of you to say that about…”
Posted 13 Feb 2007 at 12:01 pm ¶
Colin wrote:
J-Dub:
I, in all honesty, do not think there is reason to so paint the entirety of this board with such a brush as to say that we want no dissenting opinions.
Also, for the idea that people on this board are racist towards white people as a community, that we think we KNOW what whites are thinking, this is a premise without logic and I think that’s partially what has gotten more people upset.
Simply put, how would you know that we think we know what whites are thinking? It’s a vicious undeterminable cycle and it’s one YOU started, not Kai, not myself, not Carmen, maybe eric. (Sorry dude, but you’re a firebrand to be honest)
That, to me, is so hypocritical (you can determine what we think we know about others’ thoughts, but we can’t think we know something about others’ thoughts? Odd…) as to invalidate the argument you continually give to us in response to our personal analysis of racism in American society and beyond, and that that argument, that hypocritical argument is used over and over and over again insults at least MY intelligence, I don’t know how others feel.
I’m not mad at you, just a bit miffed that you’re acting so self-righteous because people on this blog aren’t taking kindly to a self-defeating argument which often has the effect of deflecting criticism of offense whites inflict upon non-whites.
Lastly, if you truly feel that we’re being racist towards whites and you are an anti-racist, then this is the WORST time to give up. If you think you’re right, say why instead of throwing up your hands and saying, “You’re being unfair, I’m taking my ball and going home!” Am I wrong?
Posted 13 Feb 2007 at 1:16 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
Colin:
Thanks for your note. I appreciate your thoughts.
I’m not necessarily throwing up my hands but at the same time, it’s difficult to communicate my point of view without inflaming some of the more aggressive commenters here.
I guess my main point would be that a good deal of the messages here are powerful.
But some are hampered by an approach and tone that is clearly biased against whites (bear with me here …).
Perhaps a better way of putting it is that they are written with an “us versus them” mentality that seems the very antithesis of what a blog about race should be.
Now, some might argue “who cares if white readers are offended? We don’t want them here anyway.”
But absent white readers, contributors and commenters are simply preaching to the choir. The audience that needs to read and learn from this blog is only going to have its preconceived notions verified by reading some of what is posted here.
When these insensitivities are brought up, most commenters simply jump in to defend the content, and use the same tired excuses that white people use when confronted with racial issues!
Shouldn’t a blog that is focused on exposing stereotypes and racial generalizations strive for higher ground? Yes, many white people do things that are racially insensitive but the people here should have better sense than to stoop to that level.
For Pete’s sake, if readers of this blog can’t have a rational discussion on race — featuring participants from all sides — without getting defensive and attacking one another, who they hell can?
There. I’ve said my piece.
Posted 13 Feb 2007 at 5:30 pm ¶
Just Wondering wrote:
One other point … I don’t think there is anything wrong with exploring the reasons why some stereotypes persist today (as in the case with this post, the idea that an articulate black man is a rarity).
It’s not a matter of assigning or removing blame to or from any particular group, but of gaining a deeper understanding of the prejudices or preconceived notions that groups may hold.
For example, in the case of the college parties, I was quick to condemn those kids for their actions, but I was also interested in why they felt comfortable doing what they did when it was so clearly over the top.
Yet it was impossible to discuss that issue rationally without many people here taking offense and accusing me of defending the students (though I said frequently I was not).
I don’t see that same level of defensiveness on some other blogs that cover the same issues.
Posted 13 Feb 2007 at 5:49 pm ¶
Kai wrote:
Just Wondering,
If you have serious, debatable problems to present against what I’ve said, or the overall tone of this site, one would think that by now you would have laid out your case in a serious way.
Instead we get these constant vague accusations not backed by serious argumentation or consistent philosophical foundations. Do you not see the non-racist reason why your arguments are not taken seriously?
Peace.
Posted 14 Feb 2007 at 6:29 pm ¶