Posted on 05/31/2009 5:53:14 AM PDT by sevinufnine
“Why does Barack Obama have Polish roots? Because his grandfather ate a Polish missionary.” This is the joke that Sikorski supposedly distributed in his ministry.
(Excerpt) Read more at funreports.com ...
Uhm... you do realize that this picture is of an actor “in costume” in an “Our Gang” film, don’t you?
I responded to Trickyricky’s “Our Gang” reference, and he responded by posting a still of the character from one of the movies whose line was “Yum-yum, eat ‘em up!” Get the picture?
Uhm, you do realize that there are many examples of things in "Our Gang" films that have long been edited out because they are considered racist. If you look at the "Our Gang" filmography here, you'll find nearly 30 titles that have been edited or banned entirely "for perceived racism towards African-Americans". Here is the montage from the end of Spike Lee's movie "Bamboozled" showing various depictions of blacks (and whites in blackface) from various movies that gives a pretty good idea that what was once mainstream (plenty of famous faces) now clearly looks mighty racist.
I responded to Trickyricky’s “Our Gang” reference, and he responded by posting a still of the character from one of the movies whose line was “Yum-yum, eat ‘em up!” Get the picture?
And your explanation addresses my point how, exactly?
>>> Uhm, you do realize that there are many examples of things in “Our Gang” films that have long been edited out because they are considered racist. <<<
Uhm, you do you realise that many schoolboards over the years have banned books like Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn” because of perceived racism? (A bunch of chickensh*ts and jack*sses, in my opinion). Sorry, I don’t see how I have to take Spike Lee or anonymous film censors as unquestioned and inerrant arbiters of what is racist or what is not. If you have a case to make against this particular character in this particular film as being racist, please do so. Otherwise, I’ll take your peevishness as just your waving your “little red book” of PC censorship, Comrade.
“And your explanation addresses my point how, exactly?”
Because it points out that Trickyricky posted the image specifically in response to my noting his reference to this character in the “Our Gang” film (specifically, the catchphrase “Yum-yum eat ‘em up”), not because he was trying to score some racist point against President Jughead.
Oh my goodness! I said “President Jughead”! What a RACIST thing for me to say! I hope you don’t get a case of the vapors!
And are you seriously claiming that the depiction of blacks on the Our Gang films has the same merit as the depiction of blacks in Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”? Aren't you playing the same game of moral equivalency that the left normally plays? Hustler and Venus de Milo are basically the same thing, too, right? One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, after all, right?
Sorry, I don’t see how I have to take Spike Lee or anonymous film censors as unquestioned and inerrant arbiters of what is racist or what is not. If you have a case to make against this particular character in this particular film as being racist, please do so. Otherwise, I’ll take your peevishness as just your waving your “little red book” of PC censorship, Comrade.
So since nobody can be an unquestioned and inerrant arbiters of what is racist or what is not, there is no such thing as racism, right? Your post-modernist deconstruction of racism is flawless and you'd make a wonderful Marxist, Comrade.
As for that particular character in that particular film being racist, how much more evidence do you want than that entire episode (The Kid from Borneo) being banned from television for racist content?
Because it points out that Trickyricky posted the image specifically in response to my noting his reference to this character in the “Our Gang” film (specifically, the catchphrase “Yum-yum eat ‘em up”), not because he was trying to score some racist point against President Jughead.
Yes, a character from an "Our Gang" film that's been long banned because of concerns about racism and labeled "Obama's Uncle George" in response to a joke by a Polish politician about Obama's ancestry also widely seen as racist about. The foundation of the discussion is racist and the discussion itself is being built with timbers widely considered racist, yet it shouldn't be perceived as racist, right?
Oh my goodness! I said “President Jughead”! What a RACIST thing for me to say! I hope you don’t get a case of the vapors!
Out of curiosity, do you think this is racist?
>>> And are you seriously claiming that the depiction of blacks on the Our Gang films has the same merit as the depiction of blacks in Twain’s “Huckleberry Finn”? Aren’t you playing the same game of moral equivalency that the left normally plays? Hustler and Venus de Milo are basically the same thing, too, right? One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, after all, right? <<<
Are you suggesting that YOU should be taken seriously as an arbiter of what possesses artistic or literary merit? What are your credentials (aside from arrogance and a willingness to impugn the motives of others)? Your comparison of this Roach short to a pornographic magazine is both groundless and absurd. It’s obvious to me that you have not seen this movie, and are basing your judgements upon your personal ignorance and prejudice. How ironic.
“So since nobody can be an unquestioned and inerrant arbiters of what is racist or what is not, there is no such thing as racism, right? Your post-modernist deconstruction of racism is flawless and you’d make a wonderful Marxist, Comrade.”
Nonsense; since commissar-wannabes like you don’t bother to establish the credentials and bona fides of the authorities they use, I don’t see why I should take their apparent support of an argument seriously.
Viz. why should I care how Spike Lee defines “racist” in regards to film (especially since he idiotically claimed, years ago, that whether or not one could be defined as racist depends upon ones skin color)? What are his credentials? Why should I care about the judgements of nameless, anonymous corporate censors when they decide to take a particular film out of syndication? Why should I think their decision had merit? Do you have any idea what criteria they used when they made their decision?
Racism exists, but is this particular film promoting racism? Do you seriously expect me to take your word on that, especially since it is obvious to me you’ve not seen the film in question?
BTW, if you had any idea what the Marxist reaction to post-modernism has been in Europe and elsewhere, you would realize how silly your remarks about the two are.
“As for that particular character in that particular film being racist, how much more evidence do you want than that entire episode (The Kid from Borneo) being banned from television for racist content?”
Once again, you try to establish your position by relying upon nameless authorities who provide no basis for the making of their decision. One could just as easily say “Schoolboard Y banned ‘Huckleberry Finn’ for being racist, how much more evidence do you want?” Well, it could easily be that Schoolboard A is made up of fools and cowards, and should not be taken seriously as an arbiter of what is racist and what is not. It may just as easily be the case that the corporate censors are nitwits and spineless avoiders of controvery who caved in to some PC version of Mrs. Grundy. How could I know? You have provided no evidence either way.
“Yes, a character from an “Our Gang” film that’s been long banned because of concerns about racism and labeled “Obama’s Uncle George” in response to a joke by a Polish politician about Obama’s ancestry also widely seen as racist about. The foundation of the discussion is racist and the discussion itself is being built with timbers widely considered racist, yet it shouldn’t be perceived as racist, right?”
You really do live in your own world, don’t you? I responded to trickyricky’s post about “Uncle George” by writing “Ah, the Little Rascals/Our Gang. Good times!” (I know — how horrible of me to have fond memories of that perverted, racist film!). He responded to me by posting a still of “Uncle George” from the movie with the legend “Obama’s Uncle George.” I don’t pretend to know what he meant by that, and could really care less; for you to claim that it expresses some underlying racism either means that you possess some kind of long-distance telepathic ability or that you have some kind of ideological axe to grind. I think that the latter is more likely than the former. I also note that trickyricky didn’t start posting racist slurs until after you started badgering him for posting racist pictures. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was trying to get your gander. Looks like it worked.
“Out of curiosity, do you think this is racist?”
Let’s see: juxtaposition of the countenance of President Jughead with images of BBQd ribs, watermelon, and a bucket of fried chicken. In my unexpert opinion I’d say YES, a highly charged racist message is being conveyed here; the “ladies” at the Inland Republican women’s group should hang their heads in shame. No irony on my part: that’s a pretty vile mailing.
Let’s play tit for tat: out of curiousity, do you think this is racist?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48572749
Watching “The Kid from Borneo” would take about 19 minutes of your time. Hardly a masterpiece of comedy, but it seemed quite funny when I saw it as a teenager. I hope watching it won’t make you faint. If you did watch it, at least you’d know who “Uncle George” was. As for me, the film doesn’t seem expressive of racism (except perhaps for someone’s comment that “Uncle George” “looks like a gorilla”). If I must take exception to anything in the film, it is that most of the slapstick humor toward the end of it is being made at the expense of an obvious simpleton (”Uncle George”). I didn’t find the fact that he was being abused very funny; his gluttony and the misunderstanding between him and the childen was amusing, though.
“Go, meat!...”
“Go, meat!...”
“I said a Beef Hot Links—”
“I said a Beef Hot Links—”
“I said a Beef Hot Links—”
“I said a Beef Hot Links—”
“I said a Brat, Beef Kielbasa, Hot Smoked Sausage, Cheddarwurst—”
“I said a Brat, Beef Kielbasa, Hot Smoked Sausage, Cheddarwurst—”
“When I say Hillshire, you say Farms! Hillshire!”
“Farms!...”
“GO MEAT!!!”
Why don’t you question your obsession with the so-called “racism”, a communist invention if there ever was one!
What if the story in the joke were actually true?
FYI: That's what the allegedly former Communists call themselves over there.
My point is that simply because there is no official arbiter or objective standard for artistic or literary merit does not mean that such merits do not exist, just as simply because there is no official arbiter or objective standard for racism does not mean that works cannot be racist. The defense being offered ("Who are you to judge?") is exactly the same defense offered by liberal moral relativists. If you had a stronger argument (and you apparently do), you should have used it from the beginning.
Nonsense; since commissar-wannabes like you don’t bother to establish the credentials and bona fides of the authorities they use, I don’t see why I should take their apparent support of an argument seriously.
And exactly what "credentials and bona fides" would you find acceptable? By current television and movie standards, whether you or I like them or not (and I'll discuss the short in question below), such portrayals are considered racist.
Viz. why should I care how Spike Lee defines “racist” in regards to film (especially since he idiotically claimed, years ago, that whether or not one could be defined as racist depends upon ones skin color)? What are his credentials? Why should I care about the judgements of nameless, anonymous corporate censors when they decide to take a particular film out of syndication? Why should I think their decision had merit? Do you have any idea what criteria they used when they made their decision?
I wasn't using Spike Lee as an authority and I, too, disagree with some of his opinions (and probably do not interpret the movie Bamboozled as he intended). I offered a montage from the end of that movie as context and it's in that context that even essentially harmless depictions of black people (and I consider several of the examples given in that montage as essentially harmless slapstick rather than any real racism) are now seen as racist. It's the same reason why many Freepers roll their eyes at yet another white racist villain in an action movie. On their own, white racists do make excellent villains for action movies but when every action movie villain turns out to be a white racist or we see the villains in book adaptations being transformed from Arabs into white racists, then the pattern makes the practice look, well, racist.
This has nothing to do with whether I personally find a particular picture or practice racist but that plenty of other people do and that it feeds into a prevailing stereotype that conservatives are racist. The left has carefully crafted a trump card that says, "You're racist!" that they use to effectively bash conservatives with such that it silences legitimate conservative arguments on a whole host of issues including affirmative action and supreme court nominees. Playing in to that stereotype is not helpful.
Having watched the film at your request (more on that below), if I had to guess I would say that the criteria by which that short was considered racist was that the wild man was essentially a stock stereotype of a dark skinned savage that followed a long line of similar portrayals in the movies of the period (and continues on in the joke told about Obama's ancestors). That was the point about the montage of clips from the Spike Lee movie. It provides context. In fact, that movie which depicts a modern-day minstrel show (with black actors in blackface playing the stereotypes) has scenes with a black person dressed not all that differently than "Uncle George" for a reason.
Racism exists, but is this particular film promoting racism? Do you seriously expect me to take your word on that, especially since it is obvious to me you’ve not seen the film in question?
My claim was not that the film promotes racism but that the depictions in the film are now widely considered racist (regardless not only of intent but sometimes even regardless of whether they match the initial perception).
BTW, if you had any idea what the Marxist reaction to post-modernism has been in Europe and elsewhere, you would realize how silly your remarks about the two are.
And it's not hard to find people on the left asking what the conflict is, too, and the Marxist doesn't have to believe in a tool to use it. What I'm referring to is specifically what Evan Sayet was talking about in his speeches to the Heritage Foundation.
Once again, you try to establish your position by relying upon nameless authorities who provide no basis for the making of their decision. One could just as easily say “Schoolboard Y banned ‘Huckleberry Finn’ for being racist, how much more evidence do you want?” Well, it could easily be that Schoolboard A is made up of fools and cowards, and should not be taken seriously as an arbiter of what is racist and what is not. It may just as easily be the case that the corporate censors are nitwits and spineless avoiders of controvery who caved in to some PC version of Mrs. Grundy. How could I know? You have provided no evidence either way.
That "Huckleberry Finn" has generated racial controversy suggests that there is something in there that sets off racism alarms and there clearly are. In the case of "Huckleberry Finn", the problem is that while the depiction has overt resemblances to racist depictions, the underlying characterizations are not intentionally racist and can actually be interpreted as being against racism. To this I would compare the 3/5ths compromise in the Constitution which, to people who don't know any better, looks like the Constitution was calling black people 3/5ths of a person when in reality it was designed to weaken the representation of the slave states and was thus anti-slavery. The way things are initially perceived does matter, even if it's startlingly ignorant and wrong.
You really do live in your own world, don’t you? I responded to trickyricky’s post about “Uncle George” by writing “Ah, the Little Rascals/Our Gang. Good times!” (I know — how horrible of me to have fond memories of that perverted, racist film!). He responded to me by posting a still of “Uncle George” from the movie with the legend “Obama’s Uncle George.” I don’t pretend to know what he meant by that, and could really care less; for you to claim that it expresses some underlying racism either means that you possess some kind of long-distance telepathic ability or that you have some kind of ideological axe to grind. I think that the latter is more likely than the former. I also note that trickyricky didn’t start posting racist slurs until after you started badgering him for posting racist pictures. I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he was trying to get your gander. Looks like it worked.
I've been willing to give people here the benefit of the doubt and haven's said that I think for certain that anyone was motivated by actual racism. However, that is not the assumption that our opponents will make, nor is it necessarily the assumption that fence sitters will make if they've been barraged with the message that the right is racist. If you've got reason to believe the right is racist, then the assumption is going to be that stereotype, not the good will assumption that the intent was not actually racist. Thus the actual intent is irrelevant. The issue is what a person would think if this thread were linked, say, to a New York Times article making the argument that conservatives were racist against Obama. Would it support or refute that stereotype and argument? How about the threads full of Jeffersons, Good Times, and Sanford and Son stills? Anything that attacks Obama on race and relies on crude stereotypes is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it's true or not.
And, by the way, I didn't start posting into this thread until after that picture had been posted, so if it was posted for me, it must have been some of that "long-distance telepathic ability".
Let’s see: juxtaposition of the countenance of President Jughead with images of BBQd ribs, watermelon, and a bucket of fried chicken. In my unexpert opinion I’d say YES, a highly charged racist message is being conveyed here; the “ladies” at the Inland Republican women’s group should hang their heads in shame. No irony on my part: that’s a pretty vile mailing.
Let’s play tit for tat: out of curiousity, do you think this is racist?
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=48572749
Watching “The Kid from Borneo” would take about 19 minutes of your time. Hardly a masterpiece of comedy, but it seemed quite funny when I saw it as a teenager. I hope watching it won’t make you faint. If you did watch it, at least you’d know who “Uncle George” was. As for me, the film doesn’t seem expressive of racism (except perhaps for someone’s comment that “Uncle George” “looks like a gorilla”). If I must take exception to anything in the film, it is that most of the slapstick humor toward the end of it is being made at the expense of an obvious simpleton (”Uncle George”). I didn’t find the fact that he was being abused very funny; his gluttony and the misunderstanding between him and the childen was amusing, though.
OK, I watched it. My personal assessment? Not racist. In fact, I'd argue that it was, in many ways, anti-racist (as are other Our Gang shorts) in that the innocent children are perfectly willing to accept that the black wild man is their Uncle and relative. I don't even consider the "gorilla" comment to be racist in the context it was given. But I also understand why it's considered racist on that page I mentioned. It's because the depiction of George is the typical "black savage" as depicted in other less benign works. And the fact that the gorilla comment gave you any pause suggests that you know what I'm talking about. In the context of that one short, there is nothing racist about that comment but in the broader and more malicious context of black people being called names like that, it doesn't seem as harmless as maybe it should.
And that ultimately brings me back to my point which is that the pictures and stereotypes people are playing with in this thread (and others like it) are playing with stereotypes and depictions that have been (for better or worse, legitimately or not) associated with racism. And whether the people here really are racist or are just trying to be funny (or maybe they are simply trying to purposely to get someone's gander) is irrelevant to me. That it plays into a stereotype is the problem.
Again, I think you should understand what I'm saying because after telling me that I shouldn't try to divine the motives of others for what they post and joke about the idea of "long-distance telepathic ability", you then proceed to do exactly the same thing to me, considering a couple of possible motivations that I might have for complaining and then settling for the belief that I must have "some kind of ideological axe to grind". Why? Because that fits the stereotype of people who complain about racism from the perspective of the right. People tend to believe the stereotype and make assumptions based on the stereotype. That's my point. Right now, the stereotype held by all too many people, and carefully crafted and maintained by the left, is that conservatives are racist. And the more we do that feeds that stereotype, the worse it gets.
With that I cannot disagree.
“The defense being offered (”Who are you to judge?”) is exactly the same defense offered by liberal moral relativists. If you had a stronger argument (and you apparently do), you should have used it from the beginning.”
No, my question was (and remains) who are YOU to judge as racist this movie or the movie still posted by trickyricky? This question does not disqualify the existence of others who could be a competent judge of whether or not the movie possesses “racist” content.
Since you say later in your response that you have actually seen _the Kid from Borneo_, I’d say now that you are better qualified to judge the content of the movie. Aside from actually having seen the movie, other qualifications would include perhaps a degree in American history and the history of American cinema, or at least a willingness to “define your terms.”
The relativist’s defense could only be taken for what I wrote if I claimed that there can be in principle NO arbiter (and no objective criteria) of what is racist (or of literary merit, etc.). And I think it apparent that that is not what I’ve been arguing.
“And exactly what “credentials and bona fides” would you find acceptable? By current television and movie standards, whether you or I like them or not (and I’ll discuss the short in question below), such portrayals are considered racist.”
As for credentials and bona fides, see above. Obviously, I was not impressed with your use of Spike Lee: definitely a film background, but I have no trust in either his bona fides or his ability to come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes racist content. Current TV and movie standards may be based upon irrational or partisan motives (or both); I don’t see why I should take them seriously outside of a political context. And the context that concerns me is what is the truth of the matter — “What is really racist? Is this movie racist?” That doesn’t appear to be your major concern, which perhaps explains why we disagree so strongly.
“I wasn’t using Spike Lee as an authority and I, too, disagree with some of his opinions (and probably do not interpret the movie Bamboozled as he intended). I offered a montage from the end of that movie as context and it’s in that context that even essentially harmless depictions of black people (and I consider several of the examples given in that montage as essentially harmless slapstick rather than any real racism) are now seen as racist. It’s the same reason why many Freepers roll their eyes at yet another white racist villain in an action movie. On their own, white racists do make excellent villains for action movies but when every action movie villain turns out to be a white racist or we see the villains in book adaptations being transformed from Arabs into white racists, then the pattern makes the practice look, well, racist.”
I don’t understand how using extreme or foolish and inexact notions of what constitutes racism helps in defining what racism really is. Which is to say that using Lee’s montage to provide a context for defining “racist image” is a pretty risky thing to do. For Lee, I don’t think that there IS such a thing as a harmless gesture or image... at least not if he can help it!
“This has nothing to do with whether I personally find a particular picture or practice racist but that plenty of other people do and that it feeds into a prevailing stereotype that conservatives are racist. The left has carefully crafted a trump card that says, “You’re racist!” that they use to effectively bash conservatives with such that it silences legitimate conservative arguments on a whole host of issues including affirmative action and supreme court nominees. Playing in to that stereotype is not helpful.”
To quote Feynmann, “what do you care what other people think”? Perhaps the strategy you outline is *too* reactive.
I find racist expressions to be vile — like that GOP women’s group mailing you brought to my attention — but on the other hand, I’d argue that you could perform the Herculean task of cleansing the GOP (and _Free Republic_, too) of all remaining traces of racist discourse and racist goobers, and the DNC activists and their media lapdogs would just change the definition of “racist” to smear us all over again. The big problem is not that we have goobers on FR who post racist comments or images; the problem is that the conservative movement has been encompassed by the liberal’s Myth of the Racist Conservative. It’s a myth; facts have only a marginal relevance. It’s like the case of the Myth of the Rich Conservative Fat Cats: it doesn’t matter how often you show someone the numbers that prove that their exist a huge number of hyper-wealthy Democrats, the response will always be that the GOP is the rich man’s party.
“In fact, that movie which depicts a modern-day minstrel show (with black actors in blackface playing the stereotypes) has scenes with a black person dressed not all that differently than “Uncle George” for a reason.”
Once again, you use Lee’s and other activists’ definitions of what constitutes racism at your own peril. I don’t think they have your best interests (as a conservative) at heart.
“And it’s not hard to find people on the left asking what the conflict is, too, and the Marxist doesn’t have to believe in a tool to use it. What I’m referring to is specifically what Evan Sayet was talking about in his speeches to the Heritage Foundation.”
I enjoy Sayet’s speeches, too, but he is not involved in academic discourse on these issues and he uses a very loose definition of what constitutes “liberal” or “Marxism.”
“That “Huckleberry Finn” has generated racial controversy suggests that there is something in there that sets off racism alarms and there clearly are. In the case of “Huckleberry Finn”, the problem is that while the depiction has overt resemblances to racist depictions, the underlying characterizations are not intentionally racist and can actually be interpreted as being against racism.”
My understanding is that HF is thought objecionable because of the liberal use of the “N-word.” The “N-word” is thought to be intrinsically racist, and so its mere presence damns the book. Or so the argument goes.
“Anything that attacks Obama on race and relies on crude stereotypes is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it’s true or not.”
I would say that you are being way too optimistic. Cf. my notion of myth. I would rephrase what you wrote as “Anything...is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it’s true or not.” Anything will do, and if the DNC activists can’t find the dirt they will simply make it up. Look at Sara Palin — it doesn’t matter if you respect her or not — and see how they can make up slander out of whole cloth and half truths.
“And, by the way, I didn’t start posting into this thread until after that picture had been posted, so if it was posted for me, it must have been some of that ‘long-distance telepathic ability.’”
No, trickyricky posted the picture of “Uncle George” to me in response to my Our Gang-good times post. Not to you.
“OK, I watched it. My personal assessment? Not racist.”
I rest my case! But, what would the DNC activists think if they saw you post this?
“Again, I think you should understand what I’m saying because after telling me that I shouldn’t try to divine the motives of others for what they post and joke about the idea of “long-distance telepathic ability”, you then proceed to do exactly the same thing to me, considering a couple of possible motivations that I might have for complaining and then settling for the belief that I must have “some kind of ideological axe to grind”. Why?”
No, I wasn’t trying to divine your motives — I was just trying to assert what they were so as to insult you and present you in an unflattering light. That is how I usually respond to someone who I assume is calling me a racist — I get angry and lash out! However, I see now that you were not just slinging mud but are a man with a mission. Apologies for all my nastiness. Best of luck with the goobers, but unless you can find a way to not just expunge any racist residue from conservatism but create a counter-myth that confronts the myth of the racist conservative, I don’t see how you’ll have much luck. At the very least, you need to come up with a better and more convincing definition of what racism is.
When one doesn't specify who or what they'd consider the authority, the general flow of the conversation is that it leaves the person making the "Who are you to judge?" complaint free to dismiss any claim the other person makes as not being good enough. As such, it's a game I don't play. In my experience, the answer is never good enough because what the other person is often really saying is that the only experts they'll except are experts that agree with them.
Since you say later in your response that you have actually seen _the Kid from Borneo_, I’d say now that you are better qualified to judge the content of the movie. Aside from actually having seen the movie, other qualifications would include perhaps a degree in American history and the history of American cinema, or at least a willingness to “define your terms.”
And if I told you I had a degree in American History and a minor in American Cinema, you could tell me that I was brainwashed by university liberals. It really shouldn't be that hard to find an academic with those sorts of credentials who considers such depictions racist. Ultimately, this is why appeals to authority are considered logical fallacies. Just because someone has certain academic credentials or a certain background doesn't mean that they are going to think a certain way, especially when dealing with soft subjective subjects like film, history, and racism.
The relativist’s defense could only be taken for what I wrote if I claimed that there can be in principle NO arbiter (and no objective criteria) of what is racist (or of literary merit, etc.). And I think it apparent that that is not what I’ve been arguing.
In my experience, that's where questions such as yours generally lead. If I go through the effort to find an expert to support my point, then there is something wrong with the expert or the argument shifts to the claims that nobody is qualified to make the claim. You make assumptions based on the past discussions you've been in and I make assumptions based on past discussions I've been in, and that's the general pattern that I've seen.
As for credentials and bona fides, see above. Obviously, I was not impressed with your use of Spike Lee: definitely a film background, but I have no trust in either his bona fides or his ability to come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes racist content. Current TV and movie standards may be based upon irrational or partisan motives (or both); I don’t see why I should take them seriously outside of a political context. And the context that concerns me is what is the truth of the matter — “What is really racist? Is this movie racist?” That doesn’t appear to be your major concern, which perhaps explains why we disagree so strongly.
I offered a clip from a Spike Lee movie that, in a fairly condensed and concise way, illustrates why depictions such as those are considered racist. Did you watch it?
As for not taking current TV and movie standards seriously outside of a political context, isn't Free Republic and all of the content on it automatically in a political context? Isn't this a political web site? Stepping back and looking at these pictures and comments "outside of a political context" misses the point that you can't do that. They are in a political context. That's like saying we should analyze Obama's economic plans outside of an economic context. What's the point? Further, it entirely misses the point. The whole point is that everything said here is political and can be used by our political enemies to paint us as racists. It's already happened. Jerome Corsci had his credibility undermined by flippant comments he made here.
I don’t understand how using extreme or foolish and inexact notions of what constitutes racism helps in defining what racism really is. Which is to say that using Lee’s montage to provide a context for defining “racist image” is a pretty risky thing to do. For Lee, I don’t think that there IS such a thing as a harmless gesture or image... at least not if he can help it!
To be honest, I don't think you are giving Spike Lee enough credit and I do recommend taking a look at Bamboozled, which has a little more depth to it than one might expect. Lee's montage is what it is, a montage of depictions of blacks and whites in blackface and I think it does successfully provide a context that looking at any one film or series of films, alone, can provide. And I think trying to lift a film or other work out of that context misses the forest for the trees.
The context is why white people don't see racism in the same places where black people see it. White people miss real racism because it doesn't affect them personally. Black people see racism where it isn't because it does affect them personally. And the disconnect between those two views only reinforce each. Black people see white people flippantly ignoring real racism and not taking racism seriously and see it as evidence that white people are racist. White people see black people complaining about racism that doesn't exist or isn't intentional see it as evidence that black people are making most racism up. Each side feeds the other side's stereotypes.
To quote Feynmann, “what do you care what other people think”? Perhaps the strategy you outline is *too* reactive.
They, collectively, have more votes than I do. In a democracy (or republic or whatever you want to technically call our form of government), it's incredibly foolish to not care what other people thing. Sure, being right can give you the warm satisfaction that you are correct and your opponents are wrong but that's irrelevant if your opponents gain political power and use that power to force their ideology and policies on everyone. This is where the right keeps dropping the ball. And, no, caring about what other people think of you don't mean compromising your principles.
I find racist expressions to be vile — like that GOP women’s group mailing you brought to my attention — but on the other hand, I’d argue that you could perform the Herculean task of cleansing the GOP (and _Free Republic_, too) of all remaining traces of racist discourse and racist goobers, and the DNC activists and their media lapdogs would just change the definition of “racist” to smear us all over again.
But even less racism would be harder to smear us and it would be less convincing to those who do care about the truth. Why make it easy for them? Is it really that hard to find something else to attack Obama on other than race?
The big problem is not that we have goobers on FR who post racist comments or images; the problem is that the conservative movement has been encompassed by the liberal’s Myth of the Racist Conservative. It’s a myth; facts have only a marginal relevance. It’s like the case of the Myth of the Rich Conservative Fat Cats: it doesn’t matter how often you show someone the numbers that prove that their exist a huge number of hyper-wealthy Democrats, the response will always be that the GOP is the rich man’s party.
I would agree that the problem is that conservatives are currently weighed down by the Myth of the Racist Conservative and the Myth of the Rich Conservative Fat Cats and that both of those myths are a handicap and make it much harder to get people to listen to conservative ideas. As such, it's in everyone's best interest to kill those myths and detrimental to give them credibility. You are arguing that it doesn't matter what conservatives do. I don't think that's true. I think it does matter and that the strength and effectiveness of stereotypes depends on how true they seem to people. Not caring has been and will be a losing proposition.
Once again, you use Lee’s and other activists’ definitions of what constitutes racism at your own peril. I don’t think they have your best interests (as a conservative) at heart.
I don't think that movie was made for white people, which is why it's interesting. It's actually quite critical of blacks for feeding the stereotypes. In other words, I don't think that movie was made to convince you or me about a certain definition of racism. It was meant to show blacks how blacks have been stereotypically portrayed in movies and TV shows and how they still are portrayed. My mention of that stereotype is that Lee chose the stereotypes he chose for a reason, and supports most of them in that montage, which could certainly be a lot longer.
I enjoy Sayet’s speeches, too, but he is not involved in academic discourse on these issues and he uses a very loose definition of what constitutes “liberal” or “Marxism.”
That's true of most normal people, who are not academics. I was under the impression that this wasn't a journal of academic discourse and was not looking for a precise definition of various factions of the left, which is yet another one of those areas where they like to use fine distinctions to claim that there are only trees and no such things as a forest.
My understanding is that HF is thought objecionable because of the liberal use of the “N-word.” The “N-word” is thought to be intrinsically racist, and so its mere presence damns the book. Or so the argument goes.
It's also considered racist for the overall use of dialect English and in the portrayal of Jim as second fiddle to Huck. But, yes, it illustrates that certain things are considered guilty until proven innocent and they became considered guilty because of the context of how they are normally used.
I would say that you are being way too optimistic. Cf. my notion of myth. I would rephrase what you wrote as “Anything...is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it’s true or not.” Anything will do, and if the DNC activists can’t find the dirt they will simply make it up. Look at Sara Palin — it doesn’t matter if you respect her or not — and see how they can make up slander out of whole cloth and half truths.
It's easy to forget that there is a persuadable middle but there is. And while that middle can be fooled, there are limits to how much they can be fooled. The more credible the claim, the more convincing it's going to be and the less credible the claim, the less convincing it's going to be. In other words, the further the left has to stretch the truth and the more they have to spin, the few people they are going to convince. With respect to Sarah Palin, she was badly handled and I would argue that they never really tried to counter the most damning charge which is that she's an uneducated mental lightweight. That's partly her own fault because she's not a detail person and now that the stereotype of ignorance has been set, she's going to have to learn how to master the details to counter it.
I rest my case! But, what would the DNC activists think if they saw you post this?
But my argument wasn't that I personally found it racist. My argument was that it could be used by others to support the argument that conservatives are racist. That means I don't care what the DNC activists think, either. What I care about is what the people in the middle who aren't going to spend 18 minutes watching the short or even longer understanding the context might think. First impressions matter. That's what killed Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign let the media and Democrats create a first impression that she now has to struggle to erase. And the only way she's going to erase it is showing a mastery of details and facts, whether she wants to or not.
No, I wasn’t trying to divine your motives — I was just trying to assert what they were so as to insult you and present you in an unflattering light. That is how I usually respond to someone who I assume is calling me a racist — I get angry and lash out!
You saw a familiar pattern in my response and reacted accordingly. That's what people do. And most people aren't up to spending a few hours watching original sources and debating the fine points to get to an understanding like this. They leave it at the first impressions. That's why I think the first impressions are important.
However, I see now that you were not just slinging mud but are a man with a mission. Apologies for all my nastiness. Best of luck with the goobers, but unless you can find a way to not just expunge any racist residue from conservatism but create a counter-myth that confronts the myth of the racist conservative, I don’t see how you’ll have much luck. At the very least, you need to come up with a better and more convincing definition of what racism is.
To a degree, part of my motivation is to challenge people on these things because the real racist goobers tend to either crawl under a rock or reveal their true colors when challenged. Hopefully, that will result in less of it but at the very least, it will make it impossible for people on the left to claim that racist things are posted on Free Republic and nobody challenges them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the more racist-sounding things posted here are plants from the left trying to make Free Republic look bad and the reason why they disappear when challenged is that the challenge spoils their stereotypes and the propaganda value of their postings. Again, I think we have a strong interest in not playing into the left's stereotypes, even if it's an uphill battle and never fully succeeds.
Wait! It's a cook book!
Apparently benign alien emissaries show mankind how to end the misery of war, plague and famine. The Kanamits, nine-foot tall aliens, arrive on Earth with one lofty goal: To Serve Man. They end war, they end famine. They make the military wonder: what's the catch?
________________________________________________________
I was going to post In Before the Racism Obsessed, but I see I’m late. Sorry about that.
You might look up the history of your religion of “racism”, and find that it was invented less than 100 years ago by none other than that right wing radical Leon Trotsky!
Or else show us an entry for “racism” in a 100 year old English dictionary.
Jeez, this is an old thread that oughta be dead, ignore my last reply.
Yeah, how the hell did we end up here in 2012? I don't even remember. I feel like I'm in an episode of the Twilight Zone!
I hate it when that happens.
Of course he probably ate the missionary’s dog.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.