Wonder what Newt would say about this classic Eddie Murphy SNL skit “White Like Me”?
Leave a reply
Tag Archives: say what
“No, Newt, You’re the Racist” Thank goodness someone more elequont wrote this rebuttal…
to the charge by some Republicans against the Supreme Court Nominee, Sonia Sotomayor, as being a racist against the white people, and specifically, white male people.
I first saw this charge when I was waiting to board the plane. (You know the CNN scrolling texts on the bottom that drive everybody crazy but, I have to admit it, was pretty useful when there was NO sound on!) I could NOT believe my eyes. But I was not surprised either.
In my head I was formulating all these rebuttals, clever comebacks, theories, arguments against charges of any type of Reverse Racism. The best I could come up with was: It is like the Royal Families complain about being prejudiced against because people are jealous of the privileges they enjoy.
Seriously? Give me a break!
Thank goodness for Vanity Fair. Here is again another article that I LOVE so much that I want to print it out and eat it whole. I really should be working since I am buried by projects that are all due YESTERDAY. But I need to get this off my chest before I explode into a pile of, YES, non-white, mess…
No, Newt, You’re the Racist by Michael Hogan (May 27, 2009)
Mr. Hogan, I assume who is white and male (NOT that there is anything wrong with that…), managed to deliver a rebuttal against this utter nonsense in an even-handed, non-didactic, non-preachy way.
Digression: I also appreciate much the fact his article does not invoke White Guilt either, for nothing is more annoying to me than condescension and patronization born out of White Guilt. No, thank you very much, we have managed along quite well. We do not need to be rescued by a knight in shiny armor. Give me outright Racism any day ( Disclaimer: obviously, I understand VIOLENCE committed on the basis of racism is no joke. Here I am referring to TALKS. DISCOURSES.) When it is veiled in White Guilt, I am at a loss as to how to react to it.
Anyway, the best quote from the article is as follows, although I do hope you read the entire thing if you have stayed with my rant so far…
The reason so few sensible people take [any charge of reverse racism] seriously is that there is no effective anti-white discrimination in America or, for that matter, the world. Being white is almost universally easier than being any other color, just as being male is almost universally easier than being female. (If you’re white, male, and still angry, the problem is you.)
Nicely done. Thank you.
If you happen to be white (in appearances) and you cannot see the implied privileges that come with your skin color, here is a great article/exercise that may resonate with you:
“White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack” by Peggy McIntosh in 1990. Yes, it is decades old. But hey, some things never change… or at least, not much.
p.s. Once again, the comments steal the show and become the proof for the importance of writing the article being commented on in the first place.
Michael Hogan, poor guy, he’s being pummeled and maligned in the comment section. It is rather scary and disturbing what was said in those comments. I wish I hadn’t read them because now I am officially pissed. And scared at the same time. And disturbed. And dispirited.
My first picture taken inside the Forbidden City is a sign that warns against vandalism
Mind you, the grammar is correct. But nobody speaks this way. And this sign is everywhere inside the Forbidden City.
It always amazes me that folks cannot seem to find other folks that can properly translate a language into another language. I believe even if you go on Yahoo! Answers and ask your language translation questions, lots of native speakers (or people who have mastered the said foreign language) will help you out, for free!
Utah Senator Butt-Arse calls Gays immoral. And polygamy is? Where is the Big Love?
No flaming please. I didn’t mean to compare Gays to Polygamists. But if Utah Senator Chris Butt-Ars (A-ha!) has his right to speak what is on his mind, to spout garbage based on stereotypes and gross generalization and nothing else, despite being an elected public official, then I have the right to generalize the State of Utah as still the hotbed of polygamy, and then to generalize polygamy as the Pantheon of immorality.
Hey, it is a free country, right? Butt-Ars’s Republican colleagues in the Senate seem to believe so.
Here is the gist:
In an interview for a documentary film, “Butt-Ars called gays ‘the greatest threat to America’ and likened them to Muslim radicals. He said homosexuals lack any morals and want special rights. ‘It’s the beginning of the end,’ Buttars said. ‘Oh, it’s worse than that. Sure. Sodom and Gomorrah was localized. This is worldwide.'”
Butt-ars has been stripped of his chairmanships by Senate Republicans after a closed-door meeting brought about by the outcry, and his Republican colleagues were outraged and they are standing behind him. (I wish I had loyal friends like these…) Butt-ars likewise refused to apologize, but rather relished the pride of taking a stand for his own beliefs. (Imagine: what if we all had showed respect for the slave owners who took the stand for their own beliefs? Hmmm…)
Below is the lengthy quote from The Salt Lake Tribune because you simply cannot make this stuff up!
“I want the citizens of Utah to know that the Utah Senate stands behind Senator Buttars right to speak, we stand behind him as one of our colleagues and his right to serve this state,” said Senate President Michael Waddoups, R-Taylorsville. “He is a senator who represents the point of view of many of his constituents and many of ours. We agree with many of the things he said. . . . We stand four square behind his right [to say what he wants].”
Buttars, R-West Jordan, said he “totally” disagrees with his removal from the panel. In a statement he plans to post on the Senate’s Web page, he said the action was an attempt to “shy away from controversy.” And, he said, he would not apologize for his comments.
“I don’t have anything to apologize for,” he said.
Wow. Are you kidding me? Is this for real? In this day and age? I must be incredibly naive to be astounded by these news lately so easily.
This and the Cartoon from the New York Post yesterday are reminders that we should not be complacent about “How far we have come along” despite the victory of having elected the first African American POTUS. Baby, we’ve still got a long way to go…
“When it comes right down to it,” Buttars said in his statement, “I would rather be censured for doing what I think is right, than be honored by my colleagues for bowing to the pressure of a special-interest group that has been allowed to act with impunity.”
The New York Post chimp cartoon – Not at all funny no matter how you look at it…
New controversy alert! February is not over yet, and as many of us have held our breath fearfully awaited, the FIRST racist cartoon about our FIRST Black Prez is out! My fellow Americans, once again, you do not disappoint…
So the unfortunate New York Post published this cartoon today and also on its website.
Take a deep breath, and be honest with yourself: what is your first reaction?
Perhaps only a kid who is not yet aware of racial stereotypes, historical racial relationships, and cultural symbols embedded in the American Psyche would not see it, but most of us do:
OMG! Are they kidding me? Is it what I think it is? Is the cartoonist referring to President Obama as a chimp shot dead? In this day and age? Is there irony in this? A sarcasm attacking racism or something but I simply cannot decipher it somehow?
Because:
1. Our Prez is Black. There is no any other way of saying it. He is.
2. The stimulus bill is his first legislative effort (and I thank him for it!!) and there are a lot of rumblings and grumblings about it
3. The cops as pictured are White. There is no any other way of saying it. They are.
Please tell me there is more to this cartoon. It has got to be. It is the 21st century, people, and we just elected our first Black President. Many are even thinking of abolishing the African American History Month because it does not seem like we need it any more.
Ha ha. Not funny. I want to cry.
The trusted Rev. Al Sharpton came out immediately and protested loudly:
“The cartoon in today’s New York Post is troubling at best given the historic racist attacks of African-Americans as being synonymous with monkeys. One has to question whether the cartoonist is making a less than casual reference to this when in the cartoon they have police saying after shooting a chimpanzee that “Now they will have to find someone else to write the stimulus bill.”
“Being that the stimulus bill has been the first legislative victory of President Barack Obama (the first African American president) and has become synonymous with him it is not a reach to wonder are they inferring that a monkey wrote the last bill?”
One can argue that you are being a racist yourself if any time a monkey is depicted, you immediately think of the signal = signified : monkey = African Americans
Isn’t that a racist way of perceiving the world? Aren’t you walking around with some colored glasses?
Well, let’s be honest with ourselves. We all are aware of each other’s external appearances. There is no escaping it. And we are all aware of the deep-seated stereotypes about each other permeated throughout our collective cultural references. There is no escaping that either. (I was not born in this country, and I have been taught to be aware of these in the years I have been in the U.S. mostly just by watching TV shows and movies, and trying to understand what the significance is in a lot of the cultural and social references…)
Because of this, the statement by New York Post’s Editor-in-Chief defending the cartoon seems rather weak:
“The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington’s efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist.”
Is Col Allan from Mars? Born two centuries ago? There is simply no excuse.
Yes, I get his argument: the cartoon allegedly refers to the “breaking story” about the Chimp shot dead in Stamford, CT, which happens to be the headline story in NY Post.
(Is there any wonder nobody really reads it? Asking a question such as “Why did the chimp go berzerk?” is just plain stupid. Why? I’ll tell you why: he was a chimp. If you are going to keep a chimp as a pet in the city and take him on walks in busy streets, yeah, you bet your ass he’s going to go berzerk. If not today, some day!)
But this requires the readers to:
1. Know about the chimp story (which I had no inkling of since it has not been twittered about…)
2. Immediately infers the caption “They’ll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill” as a comment on the stimulus being so dumb that “even a monkey can write it.”
IF I have to jump two steps ahead in order to laugh at a cartoon, then the cartoon is NOT funny to begin with. Rule of thumb for telling a joke: If you have to explain it, it is NOT good. So DON’T TELL IT!
I cannot help but have this gnawing feeling that perhaps this is exactly what they wanted: getting us pissed. Perhaps, New York Post has won since I am sure their website is getting the record high number of hits, ever.
Gawker.com collected 10 cartoons by Sean Delonas. Make your own judgement.
The good old “Good Samaritan Law” about to be overturned…
I love California, in general. I love the people there. Liberals. Warm-hearted. Open-minded. Willing to listen to different opinions and considering uncommon alternatives. Thus go the stereotypes. But this is taking the liberal spirit a bit too far.
The California Supreme Court has ruled that good Samaritans can be sued for not being careful when they try to help a victim in an emergency. The case centers on a woman who is suing her co-worker who “dragged” her out of the crashed vehicle like a “rag doll”, causing permanent damage to her spinal cord. I feel for the victim, I do. But there will be huge ramification to the society as a whole if we ever allow a rescuer with honest good intentions to ever be sued for trying to save someone else’s life.
The Good Samaritan laws, or “The Good Samaritan Doctrine” as it is legally known, is a legal principle that prevents a rescuer who has voluntarily helped a victim in distress from being successfully sued for “wrongdoing”. Its purpose is to keep people from being so reluctant to help a stranger in need for fear of legal repercussions if they made some mistake in treatment.
This is insane. So now we have to tell our kids: Yes, of course, if you see someone in danger, you are going to try and help them out. BUT, NOT before you obtain their permission for saving their life first. Actually, that’s not good enough, because it could become a “You said, s/he said scenario.” You should have them write down their permission and sign before you save their life…
How ridiculous does this sound? The scene from the movie Hancock comes to mind: