Trackbacks & Pings

1. Ruminations on a Song : The Curvature on 29 Apr 2009 at 12:38 pm

   [...] fact that it erases black women entirely.  You should read it. Further, all of these issues were addressed a few months ago in a thread on Racialicious with regards to a video that shows John on the Dick Cavett show, quite literally defending his use [...]

2. “MOST OF THE PEOPLE IN AMERICA ARE N——” » Sociological Images on 13 Aug 2009 at 1:01 am

   [...] Below is a truly fascinating interview with John Lennon about a song he wrote with Yoko Ono called “Woman is the N—– of the World” (found at Racialicious). [...]

Comments

1. Sean wrote:

   “Lennon goes on to say ‘I think the word nigger has changed, and it does not have the same meaning that it used to.’”

   Hmmmmm…. definetely a slippery slope there. Who knew that Lennon foresaw the future where the ‘er’ would be replaced with ‘a’?

   …and I LOVE The Beatles, fwiw.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 10:11 am ¶

2. StarInaPaperCup wrote:

   “He mentions that most of the people who have an issue with the title are white and male.”

   I find his claims here hard to believe, and I also wonder to how many black women (the one group of people who deal with both of those oppressions that he never experienced) he posed the question. Did he even consider it, or was he one of those people for whom the default “black” is male and the default “woman” is white. One wonders. The title of the song and the lyrics certainly suggest as much.

   At any rate, I don’t think it’s useful to make these very essentialist comparisons of oppressions (to me, the song title basically sounds like a flowery paraphrasing of the silly “gender trumps race” arguments I hear so often), anyway, particularly not when the person making the comparison (John Lennon – a white dude) experiences neither of the oppressions in question.

   Words mean what the majority of people take them to mean. Claiming that ‘nigger’ carries a racially-neutral meaning that can be applied to any old person makes no more sense than claiming that the word “slut” has a gender-neutral meaning that can refer to everyone, simply because I want to write a ditty about the idea. Clearly, neither of these make sense.

   You can’t erase history, not even in the service of some artistic goal.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 10:38 am ¶

3. EH wrote:

   I’ve never been a Beatle fan or a John Lennon fan. Actually most of the stuff I’ve read about him basically portrays him as a paranoid, self-absorbed, selfish, calculating asshole but I realize there are two sides to every story.

   As for this?? Sounds like the kind of nonsense you’d expect to hear from yuppy clueless liberals today. Backwards logic justifying usage of the word followed by “You just don’t get it” followed by “Well my black friends say it’s okay”.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 10:42 am ¶

4. Asada wrote:

   Actually, its women are the mules of the world.

   Oh well, Women blacks mules, same thing anyway.

   __________________________________
   See, this stuff would not be so bad if we had the fundamentals down.

   High drop out rates, high incarceratoin rates, poverty and women struggling to raise children alone is what is TRUELY racist, not some word. Education is fairly good for the middle class, but atrocious for everyone else who cant afford good schooling.

   Carlos Mencia but it well,
   “If you pay me 40 million a year I dont care what you wanna call me!”

   I think we have to care how we are referred to because, we dont have the fundamentals together.

   Any other thoughts?
   I still dont understand, why is it that someone else feels the burning need to use racial slurs thinks it’s okay because others do it? Do they really have NO regard for those who STILL see the word as offensive? There just seems to be no justice to this.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 10:53 am ¶

5. Persia wrote:

   Did you put this on top of the “Post-racial” post intentionally? Because that seems to be John Lennon’s message, and he was as wrong then as the post-racial types are now.

   Starinapapercup, I think he was probably actutely aware, from what I remember of his interviews, that the default of ‘woman’ was not always white– remember he was married to Yoko Ono at that point, and they faced a host of issues, from racism about her to Ono’s fight to get custody of her daughter. This doesn’t mean he was right, but it’s something to think about.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 10:55 am ¶

6. StarInaPaperCup wrote:

   “Starinapapercup, I think he was probably actutely aware, from what I remember of his interviews, that the default of ‘woman’ was not always white– remember he was married to Yoko Ono at that point…”

   That is true, but Yoko Ono isn’t a “nigger”, to put it very bluntly. The “woman = white”, “black = man” assumption is a pretty prevalent one; I wouldn’t necessarily expect a white guy to be free of it simply because he married an Asian woman.

   In a nutshell – the song makes a comparison between black oppression and gender oppression, but there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment of those black women who live at the intersection. I doubt he even considered it.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 11:07 am ¶

7. Big Man wrote:

   If the word “nigger” didn’t mean what it had traditionally meant, then Lennon wouldn’t have used it to point out that women were being oppressed.

   It was an easy connection for most listeners to make at the time because the word “nigger” meant the same thing it always meant and had the same connotations and power.
   This was a classic example of someone trying to use the suffering of black people to make a larger point all while denying that their efforts were offensive because black people aren’t suffering as much as they used to. The whole exercise is stupid.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 11:39 am ¶

8. Big Man wrote:

   I mean, why use the word “nigger” when you’re talking about the suffering of all women? There are plenty of slurs that relate to women, or just plain descriptive words to describe people suffering.
   The fact that Lennon, and others after him, use the word nigger when they want to convey oppression is direct proof that it is stupid to try to argue that the traditional meaning of the word is no longer valid. If it wasn’t valid, these people wouldn’t be using it. They use the word “nigger” because it’s a lazy way to convey oppression. And it is able to do that because black people are still being treated like niggers.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 11:43 am ¶

9. F wrote:

   I may be biased because I am a huge Beatles and Lennon fan, but I think that all I can say is that his motivation was a decent one. As he said, he was, as he was younger, a huge chauvinist. That he had this awakening says a lot. He might have expressed it in a flawed way, but he had a genuine point underneath.

   Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 11:50 am ¶

10. drispe wrote:

    His logic was flawed because it assumes that niggers are an American concept that only affects people of African descent here. Therefore an analogy can be made that women are global niggers. In reality it’s the worldwide diaspora of Blacks that get nigger treatment, now, then and probably in the future. His argument runs the risk of pitting racism against the ills of sexism, which women will win out with because of their numbers. I don’t call slavery the black holocaust, because it’s just slavery, and the holocaust is a different thing entirely. They aren’t in a competition of who suffered more.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 12:05 pm ¶

11. drispe wrote:

    And this business of how a word supposedly changes bugs the hell out of me. I only seem to hear that from the people trying to change it. Dennis Leary just got into trouble for using a homophobic epithet in his routine. He claimed his upbringing and culture facilitated it, and that he’s been racy about ethnicity too. That’s funny, because I’m sure we would have heard whether he uttered the ‘b’ and ‘n’ words by now. But ours is a society in which calling others a fag results in little outrage – unless you’re Isaiah Washington. So Leary spoke a word he knew he could get away with. What’s the difference between this and Lennon appropriating one struggle to supposedly illuminate another? There’s always somebody waiting to say “it’s a benign thing where I come from” or “the word has changed”. Changed for who? Somebody that never felt the sting of it?

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶

12. RMJ wrote:

    Love the Beatles, but this has always been kind of the pinnacle of John Lennon’s expression of his own privileged, arrogant ignorance.

    I am sure that his intentions were pure, but it’s like he thinks that he’s above being judged for using a racist word in a sexist way. He is one of the ultimate insiders, and he just doesn’t acknowledge it. At the time of this recording one of the most privileged people in the world, and he had an ego to match.

    Obviously he has a right to discuss his progressive views on women and race, but I find this attempt to be ill-considered, insensitive, arrogant, and ignorant.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 12:31 pm ¶

13. Cara wrote:

    I think that I love John Lennon and the Beatles more than words could possibly express, but while I tend to agree with the vast majority of John’s political messages, sometimes he just makes me cringe. Honestly, I read the post but I didn’t watch the video. How could I not watch a Lennon/Ono video? Usually I’d jump at the opportunity. It’s because reading the post made me cringe enough. (”All my black friends”????)

    That being said, I do very much agree with F that his intentions were good and that it took him some time to find the right wording for all of his progressive ideas after coming from a very misogynistic/racist/homophobic background/existence. And that being said, I think that intentions are definitely not the most important thing and should not be used as an excuse. I’ve never liked this song, even knowing that this is his major feminist pronouncement, and loving feminist John. and yeah, it’s because of the word and because I don’t think it’s right for a white man and an Asian woman to co-opt it (as much as I love them). I would be really interested in hearing what his Black Panther friends thought of the song, though.

    Actually most of the stuff I’ve read about him basically portrays him as a paranoid, self-absorbed, selfish, calculating asshole but I realize there are two sides to every story.

    Well, I’m honestly not sure where calculating comes from, with a couple of small exceptions. But the rest . . . not that far off. At least, not that far off until, oh, 1970-ish? Then it was mainly just paranoid and self-absorbed, with some selfish and assholeish relapses. But nah, while John was always a genius, for most of his life he wasn’t the nicest guy.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 12:33 pm ¶

14. Cara wrote:

    I don’t think it’s right for a white man and an Asian woman to co-opt it

    Allow me to clarify that, for those who don’t know — the song is Lennon’s, the title/line from which John drew the inspiration for the song is Ono’s.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 12:38 pm ¶

15. A.D. Nix wrote:

    “I mean, why use the word “nigger” when you’re talking about the suffering of all women? There are plenty of slurs that relate to women, or just plain descriptive words to describe people suffering.”

    I have long hated this song and the defense of it.

    And yes, where does that leave black women? I guess we’re the nigger niggers of the world?

    “In a nutshell – the song makes a comparison between black oppression and gender oppression, but there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment of those black women who live at the intersection. I doubt he even considered it.”

    Yeah – that. It also seems to insist that the oppression of women is unrecognized while the oppression of black people (men and the invisible, forgotten women) is universally recognized and understood. Not so then. Not so now.

    “His logic was flawed because it assumes that niggers are an American concept that only affects people of African descent here. ”

    Exactly. That shit is STILL dangerously global.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 12:40 pm ¶

16. Lleeo wrote:

    You can’t just change the meaning of a word or even make up a new word and expect everyone to understand what you’re trying to say. Our society and our language doesn’t work that way. Society structures language, language structures society and, yes, words DO carry heavy meaning and symbolism within a culture.

    To completely dismiss the shared cultural and historical meaning of words and language is pure arrogance and ignorance.

    People ignore this fact, though, for convenience or to justify their own bigotry.

    Just my two cents. This makes me really angry because I never quite got this until I took a criticism course.

    And to clarify: I think a group can change the meaning of words or can reclaim them gradually, but not instantly.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 2:11 pm ¶

17. Ron wrote:

    Dehumanization affects black men and to a small extent so does objectification. However, black women have the double whammy of both objectification and dehumanization. So if he had gotten this perspective from black women I would have given his position more credibility.

    I think people do not understand the emotional baggage that the word nigger has for the person delivering it.

    The question is why is the word always the ultimate insult. I think the deliverer wants to convey to the recipient that no matter their own shortcomings that they are still better or more human.

    Thus, the meaning has not changed for the deliverer but only for the recipient.

    The recipient may not get the deliverer’s meaning or emotional baggage behind the word. That is why people call it the “N” word because people do not want to fully analyze the utility of the word.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 3:54 pm ¶

18. Black Canseco wrote:

    I’d never heard this song before now. And working after working with/going to school with people who thought The Beatles/Lennon were the end all be all of everything, i’m shocked this song never came up in the discussions.

    But lemme just say this:

    More White Liberal BS… set to music.

    Are Blacks the “Micks” of America?

    Most folks who engage in this kind of appropriation often do so because they don’t give a crap about the relationship of what they’re appropriating to the people/communities the word/act/idea/expression was originally tied to.

    For a band that spent much of its early years appropriating black music and mannerisms with little attention to the communities it came from to go for the easy N-word as some sort of protest slang for non blacks is pretty pathetic.

    This alone puts John Lennon in my top 10 list of all-time annoying hipsters.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 4:16 pm ¶

19. Black Canseco wrote:

    Come to think of it, I’d now put Lennon ahead of Lenny Bruce, because Bruce as at least trying to be funny with his n-word rants. Lennon (like Norman Mailer) was trying to be all noble.

    And as many others have pointed out where to Black women and those in the African Diaspora fit into this oh-so-insightful and earnest battle cry.

    Hey i just had a thought:

    Shouldn’t this song be the soundtrack for modern Feminism? Doesn’t this whole song’s idea embody feminism’s biggest, least address address flaws–the notion of women/womanhood being so separate from ethnic women ethnic womanhood that even in discussing oppression/struggle ethnicity+ethnic slurs have no value beyond the victimhooding of western/non-black+non-brown women?

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 4:24 pm ¶

20. Paz wrote:

    Personally I feel that he is not comparing the two struggles (black v female) but using a known, loaded racial slur and using it to describe the female condition.
    I think it is a bit racist to assume that he is only thinking of white women because he is a White man.
    I am wondering what people’s reaction would be if he were a Black man, singing this song. Would this be then acceptable? (This is an honest question, I’m not trying to be a smart ass).

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 4:36 pm ¶

21. Rob Schmidt wrote:

    Well, Lennon did claim the Beatles were bigger than Jesus. I guess that meant he could say or do whatever he wanted.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 4:38 pm ¶

22. fathima wrote:

    besides the problematic racial politics, i’d just like to also point out that it’s great that for all his concern for “the woman’s problem,” Lennon does all the talking. that Yoko Ono might have something worthwhile to say during that interview appears never to have crossed anyone’s minds. his speaking for her (and by association all women) parallels the way he decides he can appropriate the word “nigger” — apparently, he knows what’s best.

    maybe i’d be a little less critical if i thought the song, musically-speaking, was any good.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 4:43 pm ¶

23. Pheagan wrote:

    I think that where a lot of problems come from is the comparison of a woman’s situation to the situation of a black person. First, I think it tends to conflate a lot of issues– there’s the implication that the n-word means black male– it’s problematic if you view it as applying to all black people, since black men and black women face different problems. And it’s a bit redundant to say black women are the n-bombs of the world.

    But if you take it on the first reading, lots of people have a lot of problems with comparing the situation of (white) women to black (men)– I remember reading a rant by Ishmael Reed on the subject in Shrevetide in Ne Orleans. And usually the opposition to comparing the two situations launches into an oppression olympics type of a thing, saying the one or the other group has it worse.

    I personally think it is valuable to try to find common ground between people who are persecuted on the basis of race/religion/gender/sexual preference. But some people seem to be really opposed to that, and I usually see reasoning along the lines of– well, black men are incarcerated at higher rates (obvs not a problem for white women), painted badly in the media, misrepresented, and since these are not problems white women face, white women don’t have it as bad.

    Well, the first problem is the reduction of the problem to a black man/ white woman thing. Women are a lot of colors, black people have different genders and may face additional persecution based on religion, sexual preference, economic status, etc. And even among a specific group, people experience different levels of persecution. Some white women are born into poverty and experience much higher levels of sexual aggression than other white women; some Asian women are born into high-class families and have high education levels; some are sold into sex slavery– but so are white Russian girls. And so are BOYS. Some black men enjoy such a priveleged economic and social status that they believe racism is a problem of the past; some Asian men are born into poverty and seek a way out through crime.

    But in society we have a narrative about these specific types, and we use that narrative to prioritize one person’s struggle above the other, regardless of individual experience. So i we are to seek common ground, we have to let go of these narratives, stop applying them to every person in the group, and realize that generalizations have their worth in pointing out social attitudes and trends, but can’t be applied to every member of the group.

    So I don’t really think that lyric, however well-intentioned, establishes the common ground it hopes to, because it buys into false narratives and generalizations. I haven’t even gotten into the negativity of the word itself– I know at the time it wasn’t as incendiary when a white person spoke it, and I would hazard that Lennon and Yoko were intending not to be incendiary but to take back the word in a way, not realizing that they might not be the best person to do it. What if a black man or woman had invented this song? Actually, I don’t think it’s possible, just because I think when they’re saying woman they’re entirely forgetting about black women, because, hello redundancy otherwise. Sorry if that was long.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 5:47 pm ¶

24. jvansteppes wrote:

    1. I love how John Lennon is such a feminist he doesn’t even let Yoko get a word in to introduce the song.

    2. If all women are ‘niggers of the world’ where does that leave black women?

    3. Fun fact: Certain Quebec nationalists called themselves the ‘white niggers of America’ around this time. Yeah, I know. Apparently they were kidnapped from France and had no part in colonizing the country.

    4. Is anyone else reminded of Tina Fey’s statement ‘bitch is the new black’? She might do a good Sarah Palin but I’m sketched out by her for good after that statement.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 6:36 pm ¶

25. MelMel wrote:

    “My black friends say I can say N—-”
    *spew*

    He could have easily made his point for women’s equality without using such foul language.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 7:37 pm ¶

26. jen* wrote:

    Having watched as much of the video as I could stand, I”m pretty offended. The opening interview really did it for me – the defensive-ness, the belittling of those who might be offended, the privileged claim based on his black friends…it all made me throw up in my mouth a little.

    Then, the song. Really bad song. It struck me as though they both just really wanted to say the n-word, so they contrived this whole thing so they could keep saying it over and over. Because the song doesn’t really flow, the music isn’t bad, but the lyrics are awkward in context and rhythm. Not to mention Yoko playing her drum to her own cadence…which I suppose is fine, since we can’t really hear it. What a terrible piece.

    The idea seems to not have been thought out very well, and ends up being the most high-profile piece of oppression competition I’ve seen.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 8:30 pm ¶

27. Black Canseco wrote:

    Yoko stepped on my foot once in NYC. And she didn’t apologize either. I still don’t like her no-talent butt for that.

    Posted 28 Oct 2008 at 10:42 pm ¶

28. Anne wrote:

    “In a nutshell – the song makes a comparison between black oppression and gender oppression, but there doesn’t seem to be any acknowledgment of those black women who live at the intersection. I doubt he even considered it.”

    I agree with some of the other commenters in thinking that Lennon’s hamfisted introduction on the Dick Cavett show reflects (a) his place in a generally less sophisticated era of white antiracist consciousness and language (not to say there wasn’t an eloquent white antiracist movement at the time, but I’m guessing it might not have been nearly as widespread, or its most valuable insights and language widely known); (b) his entitlement as a white, heterosexual man who had moved very quickly from a working-class background into the far reaches of upper-class megacelebrity; and also (c) where he was at in his own personal struggle to try and move away from the worst trappings of his own chauvinist/privileged/ignorant perspective.

    I guess I’ve always heard this song as his and Yoko Ono’s attempt, however flawed, to encourage people to do something to improve the global status of all women, not just white/privileged ones, with a(n admittedly not highly subtle) awareness of the way gender intersects with circumstances like race and class, reflected in the repeated line “woman is the slave of the slaves”–which I took to mean that all of us in the world, even those people who face the worst and most horrific of the world’s oppressions, still generally don’t afford women the same rights and respect that we afford men. Just my reading of the song, though.

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 1:50 am ¶

29. NancyP wrote:

    I am glad that I am not famous and have my most dimwitted moments on film for all to see.

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 2:37 am ¶

30. Lisa J wrote:

    Ok, so maybe I am on the wrong side of this one b/c though I’m not pleased with his choice of words but given the time period(before the wide-spread attempt to “domesticate” the use of the word to change it’s meaning or make it a term of endearmen within the comminity) the word had a little more shock impact (his was one of the few songs by a mainstream artist using the word) and was an attempt to slap people upside the head about gender issues. He probably couldn’t think of a word with more impact to use for his purpose, not that it makes it a good thing but it acheived it’s impact.

    Also, as a Beatles lover a few points, this was Lennon’s song not the Beatles so it is unfair to George, Paul and Ringo to blame them on this. As for Yoko speaking, the woman is no shrinking violet, she is a smart tough business woman and artist and I think if she wanted to say something, she’d have opened her mouth. A few years later she went back to work and John was the house husband, so for its time they had a very progressive relationship. Also, since it was John’s song and interview it makes sense for him to talk about it, he often took her with him when her presence wasn’t required (or wanted) probably b/c he really needed her there and respected her (didn’t do that with his poor first wife who he really treated in a sexist stereo-typical of the time manner). Also, though it was on the Cavet show, I don’t thonk it got much airplay (wasn’t alive yet so I can’t say for sure). But as a long time Beatles fan who listened to the many Beatle hours and the like that pop on lassic rock stations, you aren’t going to hear it much if at all and with a warning or the word bleeped out. So Black Canseco if your fan friends are younger like me they wouldn’t have heard the song unless they dug for it and generally Paul has the best most commercially viable post Beatles music and lots of John’s stuff was a hard listen (hate to say crap but… ). Finally for all the people who are calling hima racist asshole, let’s remember Jay Smooth, you can say something racist without bieing racist and for his time, country and region (hard scrabble working class racist area) he was pretty enlightened. Finally, the man had a hard life and childhood before fame, he could be harsh but from all I’ve read he was a good person underneath and had a good heart despite being abrasive at times. I once saw a documentary that was being filmed at his home and a very disturbed young man was outside he was dirty, confused and out of it. John invited him in, fed him and very kindly told hin that the Beatles and music were not the answer to life’s problems or his and he needed to get himself together and gave him some money. I truly don’t think that was for the cameras and he easily could have sicced th dogs on him. I’m not saying he was a saint he was a man with lots of faults (as we all have) but I don’t think he deserves all of the name calling.

    Oh and as for the Jesus thing,based on what I’ve read about it, he was making a point that kids were making a bigger deal about his group than their religion and he was making the point in a negative way, that it wasn’t a good thing. He also apologized.

    Sorry for the long apologia and maybe if it was someone else, as a black woman, I’d be more offended but I have much love for John and the Beatles and it still makes me sad to think about how he died. I have tears I my eyes just writing about this and thinking one of my heroes meant this in a vicious way, I don’t like it but I have to give him a pass

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 7:23 am ¶

31. Cara wrote:

    Oh and as for the Jesus thing,based on what I’ve read about it, he was making a point that kids were making a bigger deal about his group than their religion and he was making the point in a negative way, that it wasn’t a good thing. He also apologized.

    Okay, I’ve got to say something about this because it reminded me a lot of Paul McCartney’s own well-intentioned but (I think) misguided defense of John’s statement. Actually, he wasn’t saying it in a negative way. Prior to saying that the Beatles were bigger than Jesus, he was saying that Christianity was going to “shrivel up and die.” And he refused to apologize initially until Brian forced him to put out a statement, and then only did the public “apology” thing when the public started burning records and sending death threats. Even then, the “apology” is a rather hilarious display of back-and-forth between him and reporters, ending with him saying (paraphrasing, but very close) “is that what you want me to say? Will that make you happy? Well fine then, I’m sorry.”

    Now, as a fellow Lennon-lover, I’m actually very sympathetic to Lisa’s argument as a whole, and it kind of hurts me too to see people bashing on John — especially his relationship with Yoko because I agree with Lisa that if she wanted to say something she would have, and other interviews prove that John would have shut up long enough to let her say it which is more courtesy than he gave to his fellow Beatles — but also understand how those not as familiar with him could come to their conclusions. It makes me sad, but I get it.

    But I couldn’t let that go both because I’m pedantic and because the “bigger than Jesus” moment is actually one of my favorite things about John. He didn’t say anything that I feel was worth being persecuted for, I’m an atheist who agrees with his views on religion (though he was agnostic) and really love his refusal to apologize when he shouldn’t have had to, when in fact people were threatening to shoot him in the name of religion. He said what he thought and he stood by it. And while he was wrong sometimes (like in the video above) I still think that it’s an admirable trait (as is knowing how to apologize when you are wrong . . . something he did eventually develop in the last five years of his life).

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:26 am ¶

32. Cara wrote:

    I once saw a documentary that was being filmed at his home and a very disturbed young man was outside he was dirty, confused and out of it. John invited him in, fed him and very kindly told hin that the Beatles and music were not the answer to life’s problems or his and he needed to get himself together and gave him some money.

    And okay, I swear that I’m done with the derailing after this, but I haven’t seen this one . . . do you know what it’s called, Lisa?

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:28 am ¶

33. Lisa J wrote:

    @Cara, it was the film “Imagine” it came out in the late 80’s.

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 9:59 am ¶

34. Yolanda C. wrote:

    I’ve struggled with your question since yesterday Latoya, and I’d have to say that I’m of two minds about this problem.

    While I reject John’s defense of his using the n-word unequivocally (and I don’t care what Black congressman or so-called Black friend told him he could say that shit), I have to remind myself that every antiracist person has to start at Point-A in their consciousness, John Lennon included. And not to generalize, but white hetero men are usually gonna make more mistakes along the way than the rest of us, especially if they’re rich celebrities.

    Also, keep in mind that this is a man who died nearly thirty years ago, before he had a chance to see his Asian son grow up, before he had a chance to grow in his analysis of gender, race, and class, and before he had a chance to deal with crazy radical youngsters like us . I’d like to think that if old man Lennon were here, he’d have fierce women of color feminists and allies kicking his ass all over the place on this issue. I know I’d be right up there with y’all taking him on.

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 12:48 pm ¶

35. StarInaPaperCup wrote:

    @Paz

    “Personally I feel that he is not comparing the two struggles (black v female) but using a known, loaded racial slur and using it to describe the female condition.”

    The two are the same here. If he meant to draw no comparison whatsoever between the two oppressions, why do you think he chose that particular word?

    “I think it is a bit racist to assume that he is only thinking of white women because he is a White man.”

    I’m not “assuming” it simply “because he’s a white man”. I’m deducing it based on the lyrics and the defense he gave of them. The fact that he’s a white guy who experiences neither sexism nor racism is quite relevant, though, and if you’d call me “racist” for pointing that out, I have to wonder what your definition of “racist” is.

    “I am wondering what people’s reaction would be if he were a Black man, singing this song.”

    Quite honestly, I think making these essentialist comparisons between black oppression and sexism is usually pointless. The only people who’d have any business doing so would be black women. We experience both sexism and black oppression. So, our opinions on how the two compare should be taken most seriously.

    Black men experience racism, not sexism; thus, their opinions would be less valid.
    White women experience sexism, not racism; thus, their opinions would also be less valid.

    White men experience neither; thus, they should sit down and shut up about the matter.

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 1:12 pm ¶

36. livininphilly wrote:

    Wow, this is a tough one Latoya. Initially I said to myself “wtf this is a side of Lennon that never gets talked about.” I will admit that I do not know that much about him or the Beatles. I see that several commentators have pointed out that he was “actually a good guy.” Whatever, honestly good guys make mistakes too. In this case he made a giant mistake.
    I get very upset when ppl say this particular word and the title of his song is particularly insulting to my ancestors and me. Making a claim that women are the “niggers of the world” is all sorts of problematic especially when it comes from two ppl who probably never in their lives were referred to in such a way. But at the same time they bring up an interesting point b/c in a weird twisted kind of way it’s true. That’s why we’re still talking about it in 2008. I think that the reason why ppl are getting up in arms is that identity politics, b/c that’s what this truly boils down too, are just that about an individual’s identity, which is very personal. Why else does it hurt me to hear this as a black woman? A person’s identity is shaped by many different factors, some can be controlled others cannot. As a woman, it’s true, I am often forced to carry a burden passed down from my foremothers and if black person=nigger=mule/chattel and women are also treated as chattel then he is right. But as a black person this word carries a lot of other connotations that cannot be cast aside b/c his point (while misguided) was correct. That’s why it became such a rallying cry for early feminism.
    On the other hand we have a clear case of appropriation. Feminism is based on the understanding that in a world that is patriarchal, women are relegated to the bottom. This is true, but w/in this patriarchal society a woman is defined by what she is not while at the same time possibly benefiting from her association with the creators of this dichotomy. I’m not explaining it very well and I can’t find the quote from Simone de Beauvoir right now but it said something like “woman cannot define herself without man, she is always other and while different groups also experience this othering, women are unique. Women are unique b/c they cannot come together like some people based on the commonality of skin color or religion. No two women have experienced the exact same oppression based on their gender b/c a women who is a rich white woman is oppressed differently than a poor black woman but still oppressed.” Please tell me if this is too confusing, it’s all understood in my brain but I’ve had a rough day and it’s just not coming out clearly. The point is that the word “nigger” has a very distinct connotation that cannot be removed from its historical context. It’s not the same type of oppression (please note I’m not putting a hierarchy on it, just pointing out the difference). That’s why I can’t ever fully understand the scope of any other experience but my own. I can empathize and be an ally. Hell, I’ll even stand next to you in the march, but it’s not my experience and I can’t own it and that’s ok!
    @ starinapapercup
    I wouldn’t go so far as to say that any one’s opinions are any less valid just b/c they can’t fully experience oppression. This is the type of thinking that causes the divisions and why the whole fight against oppression is so fragmented right now. Just b/c I am not an immigrant doesn’t mean that my opinions on the matter don’t count and that I should “shut up and sit down” b/c in actuality all oppression whether I’m experiencing it directly or not impact my life. What matters is respect and I respect those voices. John Lennon, while attempting to show some sort of respectfulness didn’t and managed to alienate a whole group of people. B/c in the end, though a white man may not experience sexism or racism the way a black woman does, those things do affect his life. I’m interested to hear your take on white anti-racist groups who work to dismantle their own privilege.

    This is a great discussion!

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 4:03 pm ¶

37. Pheagan wrote:

    @starinapapercup: I agree with you that Lennon (and Yoko) are thinking of white women in making the comparison. I think it’s implicit in the statement itself: Woman is the n— of the world. It’s just redundant to say Black women are the n— of the world.

    And I do agree that black women have the most insight in making comparisons between racism that black people face and sexism. The only thing is, by the same token, would you agree that black women face a different kind of racism than black men? Do they face a different kind of racism than Asian American men, Asian men, from Asian or Asian-American women, from Native American men, Native American women, from Native Latino men and women, Latin and Latino… My point is, I think racism works in different ways for different ethnicities, and skews differently for different genders as well. Even within an ethnicity, different people have different experiences. So I don’t think any one person can speak to the whole experience.

    By the same token I think there’s a difference between an essentialist comparison, which is I think what this Lennon/Ono song is, and people trying to find common ground. Sure, maybe it’s invalid for a white woman to say that her experience is the same experience as a black man’s, but I think than anyone who’s experienced any kind of discrimination can use it to have an insight on what the experience is for other individuals who’ve faced (often different) forms of oppression.

    As for the white men– what about gay white men? They don’t face oppression? What about some poor white man who works in a coal mine? He doesn’t understand economic subjugation? I understand it’s frustrating to hear white men say there’s no such thing as racism anymore, but not all white men are coming from that position, and they’re definitely a part of our society, like it or not, and opening up the dialogue to everybody is what’s going to lead to progress in understanding all forms of oppression. At least, that’s what I think.

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 5:53 pm ¶

38. StarInaPaperCup wrote:

    @livininphilly

    Maybe I sounded more abrasive than I meant to, because I think we’re misunderstanding each other. I apologize.

    “I wouldn’t go so far as to say that any one’s opinions are any less valid just b/c they can’t fully experience oppression.”

    You think that white opinions on the ways racism functions are just as valid as black opinions, and that male opinions on the ways sexism functions are just as important as female ones?

    You’ve the right to that opinion, but it’s an uncommon one, in my experience. My stance is basically this – the people who are most qualified to talk about a particular oppression are the oppressed people in question.

    In discussions of homophobia, the opinions of queers matter most.
    In discussions of transphobia, the opinions of trans people matter most.
    In discussions of racism, the opinions of people of color matter most.
    …and so on.

    “Just b/c I am not an immigrant doesn’t mean that my opinions on the matter don’t count”

    Of course not; I never claimed that. I don’t think our (i.e. you and I as non-immigrants) opinions are as important as those of immigrants, though. Of course, immigrants aren’t a monolith and there is a wide array of opinions among them. But I’d never claim that what non-immigrants have to say about the issue matters just as much as what immigrants themselves have to say. The same is true of racism, sexism, or what have you.

    “and that I should “shut up and sit down” ”

    I didn’t mean that people should be apathetic about oppressions they don’t experience. I would never make that argument.

    I meant that people who don’t experience these oppressions have no business making essentialist comparisons between them.

    To cite an imaginary, more mundane example: Someone who’s never eaten blueberries or cranberries has no business comparing their tastes, because the comparison implies that he’s eaten both before, and he hasn’t. Similarly, someone who’s never experienced sexism nor racism has no business making comparisons between the two experiences, because the very comparison implies a firsthand knowledge of female or black experience that the white guy doesn’t have.

    White anti-racist people are cool, and male feminists are great. I think it’s important not to lose sight of the fact that only women can personally describe a female experience, only blacks can personally describe a black experience, and only black women can personally describe the ways the two compare or intersect.
    Do you see what I mean?

    Posted 29 Oct 2008 at 6:51 pm ¶

39. Nina wrote:

    I am a woman and an nigger and I have no problem with the title. Its something many black people I know say. When someone is being mistreated they are the “niggers” of whatever group they are part of. It isn’t a self hating comment, it is one that recognizes the role of black people in the us and wryly uses that as a comparison.

    Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 9:22 am ¶

40. Ron wrote:

    I think some people want to unrealistic regarding the fact that sexism and racism are territorial in nature.

    For example, Mr. Wise does a great job explaining white privilege because he sits in a position to speak directly about it.

    Women of color should be the go to people regarding the intersection of racism and sexism.

    While all men need to sit back and listen to women to become more informed about sexism.

    White men and women need to listen to women of color regarding the intersection of racism and sexism.

    There are whole industries and economies based upon racism and sexism. So some people will naturally feel threatened when there is this cross-pollination between sex and race. More importantly, talk radio, academia, criminal justice system, non-profits, governemental have all based there existence on racism and sexism in one way or the other.

    So we have all these competing interests and naturally everything gets muddled. Thus,we have a lack of coherency in addressing sexism or racism.

    We need more people of color addressing all sides of these issues because right now those in the worst position to give opinions dominate these industries.

    Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 10:08 am ¶

41. Matt wrote:

    Regarding those who complained that Yoko didn’t say a word – she did. The interview was longer than the clip. You can her speaking here and singing here. Looks like John had some difficulty not being the center of attention -a personal issue that surely made his chauvinism harder to deal with- but Yoko most certainly did speak up.

    (Never did like the song in the post, though.)

    Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 11:16 am ¶

42. Persia wrote:

    Heh, yes, John Lennon was hard to shut up. See pretty much every interview with him ever made.

    And yeah, I think he was wrong here, but I think it was an interesting wrong. Which is probably a stupid thing to say, but I learn best by talking and listening, so.

    I often wonder how much of his political posturing was just taken on to please Yoko, who was clearly more of an activist than he was, IMO. I remember reading, in a great book about the Beatles, that John, who had fought so hard against being exploited as a Beatle, was almost eager to sign up for anything ridiculous as an ex-Beatle.

    And language does change– go ask someone from a hundred years ago what the word ‘faggot’ means– but usually it changes very slowly, and often toward the negative, rather than a positive. Can’t think of a single word that lost a ‘bad’ association.

    Posted 30 Oct 2008 at 5:33 pm ¶

43. Osiris wrote:

    As John might say, I dig it.

    Posted 12 Nov 2008 at 9:46 pm ¶

44. Harry Allen wrote:

    The chief weapon of a racist is deceit, and the chief tool of deceit are words.

    It’s racist confusion. The CBC’s innacurate definition of the word is worthless, assuming that they actually wrote it, and that Lennon wasn’t playing fast and loose with the facts for the sake of his hook. It, by the way also doesn’t make sense either…except as a racist statement.

    HA

    Posted 14 Nov 2008 at 12:19 pm ¶