I know I just updated but I felt like posting some more. This post started off as an edit but grew fairly long. As a warning it is about racism and that jazz. I wrote all this because I was irked by some stuff I saw on the interwebs this morning and felt as though I needed to react. If you like reading about racism this might be up your alley. I would like any comments anyone has on this. Do you agree with me on these issues? What did you think of The Post's supposedly racist cartoon?
This article from one of the NYtimes blogs is pretty lollers. Basically, the Attorney General made a comment that the US is still lacking in its dealing of racial issues, going so far as to call us a "nation of cowards" because we refuse to tackle the issues like we should. This, of course, gets a lot of people on the defensive and many opinion people across the country claim that he's patently wrong and we've made oodles of progress and hey our new President doesn't seem to want to talk about race issues so if one black guy says it then we shouldn't talk about it and everything must be a-OK. They tout out the fact that we
have a black history month as progress, that throughout K-12 we constantly talk about race. The comments are amazing, though. One poster says, "Young people don’t care and intermingle without thought [about race] — even in the South." This is pretty false from the studies that I've seen on this topic.
That's not the best commenter though. Hartsell Phillips, a 62-year-old "white professional," knows the score:
"Affirmative action has hurt my career and destroyed the hopes and dreams of many others who don’t happen to be black."
Lemme lay this out: I do not agree with affirmitive action as it is enacted currently. I think it is a mostly broken system that needs a lot of re-vamping if it is going to do effectively what it intends to do. However, I can cay that studies have been done to show that the chance of a white guy getting a job is not affected significantly by affirmative action, good or bad. White guys are very likely to blame affirmative action when they don't get a job, however, due to various psychological defense mechanisms that I could go on about, but no one wants to hear me go on about that.
"And most importantly what is there to discuss? Are we to discuss the huge advantage blacks in the US have over every white when it comes to almost all walks of life?"
Yes, because them blacks sure are at an advantage. This is evident when you look at the black quality of life and how it's much higher than the white quality of life in the U.S. Oh wait.
"No, the dicussion is always about how we need to allow Blacks more and more of everything that they have not earned, nor deserve, and be happy to do it, not about the lack of eqaulity that exists between Blacks and whites that has placed myself and others of my color in a position that cannot be debated."
Yea fuck those black guys they don't deserve shit! Us whites, however, deserve everything but get nothing! We have literally no priveleges!
This commenter proves the point of the Attorney General. His point was that we do not talk about the issues in a useful way. We talk, yes, but it never gets serious. The racial issues that still exist in America (And they do still exist. Electing Obama did not end racism, contrary to popular opinion) will not go away by simply talking about how we feel. Action needs to be taken. The Attorney General can help this. The criminal system is itself biased against people of color in a big way. The educational system...hell, most all institutions are set up biased against one group or another, be it racial or SES groups. Bias is everywhere, and we need to not only be conscious about it, but willing to act on it.
In contrast to what I have said let me discuss that
now infamous political cartoon depicting a shot chimpanzee. Personally I rarely find political cartoons to ever be entertaining. I think political cartoons are where cartoonists go when they are un-funny and where political commentators go when they can't write. Peronal opinions aside, I saw this cartoon and instantly connected it to the recent story of a woman who was mauled by a chimpanzee. I also connected it to the often used analogy of inept things being written by chimps. Yes, you can construe this as a racist cartoon if you wish, and yes, the author's intention often has nothing to do with the analysis (Tolkien can deny it all he wants but LOTR = WWI) but this is not always useful. Let me discuss with you my Gay English Teacher.
My Gay English Teacher had a mohawk and an agenda. I disliked him overall but he did teach me one thing that I have found to be very useful. The class he taught me in was English 200 and we had to analyze various fantasy books. Many people would analyze books one way or another, and we would discuss the analyses. One thing he often asked was, "but what does that
get us?" You can analyze a book to say pretty much whatever you want, he taught us, but you should look not only at what you can make a book say but also how useful it is to make it say that. I have found this to be a very useful in my everyday life and apply it to many domains. So let us apply it to this cartoon.
Let us analyze it as I saw it, and how it was originally meant to be interprited. As that, it tells us that the stimulus plan is so ireverent it might as well have been written by a chimpanzee. It won't do very much good. In fact it was written by the very chimp who tore off that woman's face in Conneticut. Let us not forget, the monkey story that the cartoon was based off of was pretty large news in the North East, and given more coverage than it was given here.
Now let us analyze it as Rev. Sharpton saw it. As that, it tells us that the stimulus bill is so dumb that Obama should be shot, and that we find the bill to be so offensive that we must compare Obama to a chimpanzee, a very old and offensive comparison.
Now, which is more useful? Honestly they both say the same thing; that the stimulus bill is not well-written. Sharpton's version has violent, racial hatred towards Obama and basically disregards the chimpanzee story. If this cartoon were to be have been released as-is in a world where a chimpanzee did not rip off a woman's face, then okay, yes, racist. But I think that Sharpton is discounting the most likely explanation so he can feel offended. Yes, he was offended and that is unfortunate, but I think he is getting worked up over nothing. It seems very likely that the intent was not there for it to be racist, and that it is accidently racist at most. Sharpton, for the record, has cried out that the artist is obviously racist because he could not possilby forget that black people were once compared to chimpanzees. For the record, it is not implausable for a white guy to forget the various ways black people were put down back in the day.
So my point is this: While we can look at this cartoon in a racist viewpoint it gets us nothing but anger and spite. If we look at it in a political viewpoint, it gets us commentary on the stimulus bill. Which is more useful?
I guess the summary of my post here is, we have a lot of work to do regarding race issues in our country, and the work requires us to actually do something about racism. At the same time, however, we need to be careful not to be oversensitive to racism because that can densensitize people to the issues and make them no longer care, thus defeating the chance you have at deterring racism. We need to choose our battles; choose our words carefully so we do not put off those who do not particularly want to discuss the issues. It is a delicate balance.
There is also that whole issue about Resident Evil 5 being racist, but that's another discussion for another day.