I recently surprised the hell out of a male friend who considers himself fairly feminist by mentioning that I got catcalled an average of at least once a day. Like Ezra, he'd basically never seen it happen, and had assumed it wasn't really much of a problem.
It doesn't bother me as much as it bothers Catherine (and I was recently told by a middle aged woman that it will bother me even more when it stops.) But it's weird that this fairly common feature of my life is invisible to the men I know. And for the record--thank you gents, but I do not actually enjoy having random strangers remarking on the length of my legs, or what they would like to do with them. And there is a special place in hell reserved for men who grope women in crowded bars.
In a similar vein, I had no idea that black people get followed around retail establishments--even though I worked retail on the (then) very racially integrated Upper West Side. Then a friend mentioned, offhand, that it happened to her at least once on most shopping trips. I was shocked. She's the most uptight, upright person I know, and a skilled professional. I never thought of following anyone around, but if I had, I would never have imagined following someone like her around a store. But once she said it, I saw clerks do it to other minority women.
That's why I'm willing to cut Reverend Jeremiah Wright really quite a lot of slack: because my perception of the level of racism in America is considerably affected by the fact that it mostly doesn't happen around me. When my friend and I went into a store, she was protected by my halo of whiteness--she's with a white woman, so she's probably not a thief. In the company of white people, blacks aren't treated like they don't belong somewhere.
I don't mean to imply that I think we're still living under Jim Crow. And it's not necessarily even a function of dominance. A white friend mentioned going into a black gay bar where he was the only white man, and suddenly feeling . . . invisible. No one was rude, but no one looked at him either--it was as if he was a slightly out-of-place chair. "Imagine," said this fairly conservative gay man, "what it must be like to feel like that all the time."
I can't. But I'm guessing I'd be kind of resentful about it.
Watching the Obama/Wright fooforaw unfold, I was reminded of two things: a bad television show, and a good C.S. Lewis piece. The bad television show was something called Black. White. on FX. The show took two families, one black and one white, and made them up to look like members of the other race, then put them in various situations. The makeup jobs were not very convincing, since there's a lot more to ethnicity than skin tone. But I guess since you're not really expecting someone to dress up in blackface--or whiteface--it was good enough to pass.
There was one scene where the black father, Brian, took the white father, Bruno, to buy a car. Bruno was the lone holdout saying that racism just wasn't a problem, which made Brian pretty mad. So they went to buy a car so that Bruno could see what it was like to be treated like a black man in that situation.
Surprisingly, even Brian had to admit that it didn't go as badly as he expected; Bruno was treated better than Brian had ever been. The show didn't really explore this insight, but it seems really important: racism isn't a fact, it's a process. If people follow you around stores sometimes, you're tense and expecting bad treatment when you go in. People react to that by being tense and hostile themselves, and it escalates. The very fact that Bruno was wrong about racism probably got him better treatment: he wasn't expecting to be slighted, and that undoubtedly changed the way he dealt with the salesman. Or you can say that still having internalized the dominant paradigm, he treated the salesman as an "us" rather than a "then".
That's why I thought, too, of C. S. Lewis, and what he wrote about the commandment to "Love thy neighbor":
. . . we might try to understand exactly what loving your neighbour as yourself means. I have to love him as I love myself. Well, how exactly do I love myself?
Now that I come to think of it, I have not exactly got a feeling of fondness or affection for myself, and I do not even always enjoy my own society. So apparently "Love your neighbour" does not mean "feel fond of him" or "find him attractive". I ought to have seen that before, because, of course, you cannot feel fond of a person by trying. Do I think well of myself, think myself a nice chap? Well I am afraid I sometimes do (and those are, no doubt, my worst moments) but that is not why I love myself. In fact it is the other way round: my self-love makes me think myself nice, but thinking myself nice is not why I love myself. So loving my enemies does not apparently mean thinking them nice either. That is an enormous relief. For a good many people imagine that forgiving your enemies means making out that they are really not such bad fellows after all, when it is quite plain that they are. Go a step further. In my most clear-sighted moments not only do I not think myself a nice man, but I know that I am a very nasty ones. I can look at some of the things I have done with horror and loathing. So apparently I am allowed to loathe and hate some of the things my enemies do. Now that I come to think of it, I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man's actions, but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner.For a long time I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all of my life--namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things. Consequently, Christianity does not want us to reduce by one atom the hatred we feel for cruelty and treachery. We ought to hate them. Not one word of what we have said about them needs to be unsaid. But it does want us to hate them in the same way in which we hate things in ourselves: being sorry that the man should have done such things, and hoping, if it is anyway possible, that somehow, sometime, somewhere he can be cured and made human again.
Things have gotten better, and continue to do so. But even though most blacks and whites do not consider themselves enemies, the two communities often do not consider each other as being part of the same "self". If a white clerk is rude to you, maybe it's racism; if a black clerk does it, she's just having a bad day. If a black kid sells drugs, he's a dangerous felon; if a middle class white kid does it, he's a good kid going through a phase.
I see the two communities looking suspiciously at each other and saying "Once you have perfected yourself, then I will love you as myself." But this will not work. The very act of watching the other, at a distance, for signs of change creates the problem we want to solve.
And I saw Obama's speech as trying to bridge that divide--to say, as someone who had one foot in each community, "This is why the way they do things you don't like--not because they're different, but because they're very much like you." To be sure, he did it in a hamfisted way. But the grandmother example was, I thought, less an attempt to throw Grandma under the bus then to say that "racism is not the same thing as being an evil person". I'd venture to say that most white people know at least one older person who is both an extremely good, moral and virtuous person, and a racist. When it is a grandmother, a beloved teacher, a longtime employer, or a friend's parent, we discount their unacceptable beliefs, because we have personal proof of their general goodness. Thus we come to understand that good people can have very bad ideas. I think it was perfectly fair of Obama to extend that same charity to Reverend Wright.
Part of the problem is that both communities were outraged, and neither seems to have very well understood that his speech had offended the other as deeply as it had offended them. Criticizing Wright, an elder in a community that deeply values respect and deference to your elders, was as big a deal as admitting that, yes, many of us have friends and relatives who say appalling things sometimes. The other problem is that Obama comes out of a very specific white community, the academic/professional elite. It's a community that prides itself on being less racist than the more benighted classes, and that couldn't help but come through. And the rest of the white community is profoundly sick of being lectured by us on morality, so being told that Obama thought they were all secret racists didn't go down very well.
The truth, which is hardly original to me, is that we are all racist, in that we still think of race as an important difference. Which of course, it is, if only by virtue of the fact that we all think so. But I don't think that Obama meant to be insulting, and I don't even think he is elitist in the way that his critics believed. The fact is that Obama does know more about race than most of us, because he actually knows what it's like to be inside, and outside, of both communities. That's worth listening to even if it doesn't always come out quite right.
Men don't catcall women who are accompanied by other men, as a general rule. I suppose the same applies to store surveillance and blacks shopping with whites, though it is something I have never noted personally.
All in all, Megan, this was a very good essay. I doubt it will get you into trouble with anyone of true significance.
Damn, Megan...That is one sexy essay you wrote there.
That's interesting. I've never seen a woman get catcalled, ever. And, actually, though I know some very attractive women, I've only ever heard one of them remark about being catcalled and she was bringing it up to a group of other women because it had never happened to her before and they all felt the same way.
I should add that these people all live in NYC, not some Mormon outpost where catcalling may not be very prevalent.
I'm not doubting you, it just seems odd that it could be a daily occurence for you and so rare for my friends, although perhaps it's not and I'm as clueless as your male friend.
In another respect, I find it somewhat hilarious that you can have regular occassions to both be a) catcalled for being an attractive female and b) mistaken for a man. Perhaps someday we could get those two groups together, I feel they may have much to share with each other.
And what of those of us who are neither black nor white, have experienced racism from both blacks and whites, and are not willing to cut him any slack because we don't condone racism from any source?
The fact is that Obama does know more about race than most of us
That's undoubtedly true, but the problem is that he's running for office, which makes pretty much everything out of his mouth a part of the calculation aimed at getting votes. Which means I have no choice but to discount it steeply when considering its probable truth.
Incidentally, I concur with Yancy; your treatment of issues like this (and abortion, gay marriage, and the like) are what keep me coming back.
Yancey, I agree that men don't catcall women accompanied by men. I think that would be a pretty direct invitation to a confrontation and I say that as a very non-confrontational man.
Oh yeah, I have heard horror stories about the gropers at bars, Megan, and I agree about reserving a place in hell for them.
On the lighter side, a friend was telling me last night about accidentally bumping into someone at a bar who was tall with a punk haircut and, assuming it was another man, casually slapping him on the chest and apologizing for having banged into him. It was at that moment that he realized it was a woman. He tried to apologize by saying "I'm so sorry! I thought you were a man! Oh! That came out wrong!" and then fled the bar in humiliation.
Great post. Here comes the 1000-comment thread!
"racism is not the same thing as being an evil person"
Unfortunately, there are lots and lots of people who can't accept this as potentially true.
When my friend and I went into a store, she was protected by my halo of whiteness--she's with a white woman, so she's probably not a thief.
Just really like that sentence.
Originality is overrated. Clarity, especially for those of us who have trouble achieving it, is also appreciated.
I'll join the crowd saying how much they enjoyed the post. I have no idea if it is right, but it is thoughtful and clearly written - both good signs.
Is this reverse trolling?
This is a very minor point to an excellent post, but here in NYC, where I sometimes shop in ethnic stores in places like Jackson Heights, I will sometimes get closely followed around the store by an employee who thinks I'm there to shoplift. Whenever that happens I always treat the employee as my personal assistant, make her give me the prices for things, explain whether they have this in different colors, pull things off the top shelf, make her check the storeroom, etc.
Turns an otherwise annoying situation into a fun one.
But as for catcalls, there's nothing you can do to turn those around, however.
Miss McArdle, I suspect you are catcalled because you are (in certain respects) exceptional, and that it is invisible to the men around you in part for reasons already referred to and in part because even quite close friends usually spend only a small fraction of the week with one.
As for the store clerks issue, I would not want to be dismissive of it. However, we all carry with us a paradigm of the world in which we live, which includes a certain understanding of social signals and assumptions about what interests and motivates people. If yours are off-kilter, you will be given to connecting dots which are (in truth) just dots. (If you have ever been proximate to someone suffering a bout of clinical paranoia, you get a particularly florid demonstration of the problem of epistemology in every day life).
As for the car dealerships, is not that called 'third-degree price discrimination', or actuarial calculations about what different segments of the market will bear?
The entire Rev. Wright brouhaha bored me, in that tolerating loons in the pulpit has a long history in American politics. I thought Obama's relationship to Bill Ayers, while not that big a deal, was more odd, in that by the time Obama started associating with him, however tangentally, Obama clearly had huge political ambition, and hanging around unrepentent terrorist bombers when one has huge political ambitions is pretty reckless.
As to catcalling, being well mannered is not a common attribute, so it's prevalence does not surprise me. Groping people in bars is a form of battery, and if a woman were to respond by driving her spiked heel through the offender's foot, it would be understandable.
I think it is true that when we make a belief categorically "bad" it is possible that we make it more difficult to combat. If being even a little bit racist makes one a social pariah then people engage in denial that makes it hard to directly address this issue and actually figure out how silly these views actually are.
I like to consider the Irish example to see how silly historical racism looks to modern eyes. There was a time in American and British history when signs like "no Irish need" apply were actually posted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism has a sample from a print ad.
I challenge the average North American to identify a person of Irish descent today. It's pretty challenging and we are not trained to spot "trademark hints" of this pedigree.
This really makes me think that racism is a social construct and the sooner it is gone the better. One of the first ways is to accept that honest discourse means that some people will have to admit to these views and honestly discuss them.
So I think Megan is doing us a service by posting a frank discussion on this point.
Might the fact that black people are more likely to be followed around the store be due to the fact that thieves are disproportionately black? I used to get followed around stores as a teenager, and presumably for much the same reason -- teenagers do more shoplifting than adults.
If you have two customers, one white and one black, it makes sense to devote your attention to the black one. That's just playing the odds.
But as for catcalls, there's nothing you can do to turn those around, however.
I think replying in a voice deep enough to convince the caller that you're a drag queen would do the trick.
Eh, my voice is pretty deep . . .
Think Doctor Girlfriend deep...
Let's see.
When I was in my twenties and often working in areas with many hispanics, I catcalled often and loudly. I enjoyed it and I never saw a woman who was offended by it. Seriously. What about American women who travel to Europe, return and then remark about differences between American and European men?
Why are there differences? Because you jump down our throats when we try to appreciate you. I still remember the last time I held a door for a woman only to be yelled at for being a "sexist bastard!". Now I don't even bother any more. You got two arms, you open it.
IMO all the rules got changed and now it's hard to determine what they are. Honestly I think the day prostitution is legalized it'll be the death of dating.
Huzzah for the Venture Bros shoutout! Season 3 starts soon.
I'll chime in with congrats on the essay, and share a personal story. Driving back from San Benito, TX with a fellow military member and friend of mine, we were coming up on a checkpoint. My friend remarked to me, "Watch, I ALWAYS get stopped and my car searched when I go through here, but I won't because you're driving."
Sure enough, we passed without incident. This is why the backlash based on the Rev Wright thing was so surprising to me. Being in the military, and dealing with all sorts of races, I've heard/seen some of these theories before. I forget others can be more insular/isolated.
Exactly. It's not race, but demeanor, that probably makes the biggest difference. I've had grad students from Africa (i.e., no-foolin' Africans, right off the plane) and they (by their own accounts, at least, and we had pretty frank discussions) did not encounter problems (I was worried that they might).
But then, they didn't expect problems, nor did they act as if they did. In some indefinable way they seemed just like deeply tanned people, who didn't especially stand out. Call it the "Sidney Poitier effect," but they seemed to fit in easily. naturally, and unself-consciously. Very eye-opening.
Also eye-opening: their views on American black culture, which one of them characterized (unbidden) as "clownish." (!)
I want to thank you for a truly exceptional thoughtful essay; it was very well written and very personal. You bring up a lot of great points and a lot of very important issues we should all be thinking about. But I can't say I fully agree with your conclusion.
First off, we need to be clear about the fact that Obama is a politician running for a political office. That was his decision and we need to receive all of his statements as such, as a politician stumping for votes.
Secondly, none of us is responsible for setting him up as the Great Hope of Change; he did that himself. He was the one who declared himself as the great inheritor of Martin Luther King, Jr's legacy. That puts an entirely different spin on everything that comes out of his mouth, and as such, we have every right to percieve his statements more harshly than a beloved relative who may be slightly misinformed or even abhorishly bigoted.
My whole problem with this issue is that everyone seems so hellbent on bending over backwards to excuse, explain, or cast aside Obama's various statements and his extended relationship with Reverend Wright. No matter what you have to say about the topic, no matter how eloquent or well-thought out, it doesn't change the fact that we shouldn't be the ones excusing or apologizing for his statements.
Obama set himself up as the Great Hope; it should be his responsibility to clarify his own statements and issue any necessary apologies. That's not our job. We can discuss the issues, certainly, but we don't need to excuse Obama when he hasn't even attempted to properly excuse himself.
If, after his 'typical white woman' fauxpas, Obama had written the words I just read in this essay, I would have been moved. I would have been appreciative of his attempt at true candor, honesty, vulnerability, and personal clarity. I would have been impressed by his willingness to discuss these important issues in a way that went beyond mere soundbytes. But the thing is, he hasn't. We're writing these apologies for him.
Why? That's what I want to know. Why do we have to write his excuses and apologies?
He should be writing them himself. He set himself up as the Great Hope, and when he makes mistakes, he needs to be the one bending over backwards to clarify and apologize. Not us.
"Racism isn't a fact, it's a process": a "proicess" is not a "fact"? Meagan, you have much to learn. Stop worrying about those occasional catcalls and attempt some fundamental cognition. Don't worry, it's fun.
"That's why I'm willing to cut Reverend Jeremiah Wright really quite a lot of slack: because my perception of the level of racism in America is considerably affected by the fact that it mostly doesn't happen around me."-MM
I'm not in a mood to be very critical of Megan today, but I don't really understand the reasoning in that statement. Doesn't it amount to making excuses for hatred because the person full of it happens to be black?
Isn't the idea to get away from having one standard for blacks (like Reverend Wright) and another for whites (like David Duke)? Isn't bigotry wrong no matter the skin color of the bigot? Isn't this an example of what the great Senator Moynihan called "Defining Deviancy Down"?
Regardless, I agree with others above that the post as a whole is an interesting sort of stream of consciouness meditation on race.
"... I was recently told by a middle aged woman that it will bother me even more when it stops...."
I think your middle-aged woman friend probably knows whereof she speaks. Speaking as an average guy, I can't even imagine what a thrill it would be to have members of the opposite sex routinely complimenting me on my sexual desirability. Some folks just don't know when they are well-off.
A Korean-American columnist for my college newspaper held an open distaste for white students, who oppressed Asian students by assuming them to be polite and good at math. This vexed me, because I would gladly have upgraded to the Asian stereotype from my presumptive status as an incorrigible racist.
Really good post.
This was a great essay, and some pretty decent comments to boot.
I think Africans have a lot more self confidence and come from a whole different mental framework, so they navigate situations better in many respects. Then too, whites react to Africans differently than to some native born blacks.
In many cases there is always a battle between perceiving racism and real racism, and depending on the black person the radar might be off.
I remember being about 11 years old and with a group of friends after school, guys and girls, and talk turned to spin the bottle. Up until that point nobody in our neighborhood had ventured into girl/boy stuff so this was a new frontier.
I decided to opt out of the game, unsure if my white friends would allow the game to proceed in normal fashion with my participation. I imagined spinning the bottle and the girl responding, "I will NOT kiss him".
Before the game got started and not wanting to be alone, I convinced a chubby friend of mine, a nice Italian kid, to also not play, saying, "This is so stupid and we will only be the font of rumors around the school."
Then to my utter amazement, the whole group of kids started begging me to play, convinced that I would use my non-participatory status to actually be the rumor spreader.
So all my fears about racial rejection, in that instance, were in fact ridiculous, and that night I lay there in bed thinking of all the lips I could have kissed if I had not been so afraid.
I think a lot of American born blacks deal with situations like that. Sometimes the racism is real, sometimes it's perceived, and often, it just makes you act weird.
I can sort of see why MM would understand why Rev Wright would see things that way, and maybe like her I would cut him some slack as one of those incorigible oldsters (we all have them). I DO NOT understand why BOH, who has had a pretty priveleged life, would voluntarily associate himself with those views, as he did for 20 years. It exposes him and all his post-racial pablum as total BS, and I think that most "average white people" understand this. I might even be offended by his implicit rejection of his white heritage (you know, the folks who raised him), and take is as a racial insult.
Of course, I think he's just a cynical panderer who used Wright and his church for political advantage when convenient. I also think that Wright figured that out, hence his broadside against Obama - give Wright credit for consistency, unlike his former parishner.
Dear Edward Royce-- just because the women didn't look offended doesn't mean they aren't. Whenever I get a catcall, I try to ignore it, or smile vaguely (if they're in my face). I'm scared of being called an "uppity bitch" and starting a confrontation if I show, much less speak, my discomfort. I'm afraid of doing anything to make myself stick out more or prolonging the interaction. When I was younger, I toldf the men to fuck off, or shot them the bird; they'd take this as encouragement. Now I don't bother. I just scurry away and hope that was the end of it.
Dear anonymous male reader-- It's less thrilling for random members of the opposite sex to compliment your sexual desirability when that sex is bigger and stronger than you and some members have been known to act on their desire against your sex's wishes. Imagine walking down a city street and a big, tough-looking guy saying that you had a nice wallet. Hey, he's just complimenting your taste in accessories!
Dear Edward Royce-- just because the women didn't look offended doesn't mean they aren't. Whenever I get a catcall, I try to ignore it, or smile vaguely (if they're in my face). I'm scared of being called an "uppity bitch" and starting a confrontation if I show, much less speak, my discomfort. I'm afraid of doing anything to make myself stick out more or prolonging the interaction. When I was younger, I told the men to fuck off, or shot them the bird; they'd take this as encouragement. Now I don't bother. I just scurry away and hope that was the end of it.
Dear anonymous male reader-- It's less thrilling for random members of the opposite sex to compliment your sexual desirability when that sex is bigger and stronger than you and some members have been known to act on their desire against your sex's wishes. Imagine walking down a city street and a big, tough-looking guy saying that you had a nice wallet. Hey, he's just complimenting your taste in accessories!
I can't even imagine what a thrill it would be to have members of the opposite sex routinely complimenting me on my sexual desirability.
And undoubtedly many women would consider it a thrill to be automatically taken seriously in, say, the boardroom, rather than always being judged on the basis of their relative screwability.
We all want what we don't have.
Imagine walking down a city street and a big, tough-looking guy saying that you had a nice wallet.
I think it's more vivid to have him saying you have a nice ass.
Megan,
I don't always read your blog daily and I think I've only commented once or twice here, but as a black man, I found this post very honest and refreshing. Well done.
And to those Occam's Beard's comment...that strikes me as a decent distillation of the difference between Africans and African-American. It's in the mindset but also has some strong ties to the African-American experience of slavery (at least in my opinion).
Mike,
Thanks. The difference in mindset probably derives in large measure from experiencing slavery as slaves, as opposed to experiencing, if it all, as the slavers (as Africans in coastal tribes, especially in West Africa, did).
The good news is that the racial disharmony in the U.S. is remediable, in principle, since it's not race per se, but race convolved with culture and historical perspectives, wherein the problem lies.
I agree this is an excellent post.
Another point about the invisibility of catcalling to men is that men tend to fail to understand the problem with it. If couldn't walk around in public without women expressing the lurid sexual desires we inspire in them, we would be quite happy.
Similarly, though of a clearly different degree, it is likely that white people will miss the psychological significance of being followed around in a store or not given service due to the color of one's skin. Our reaction may be to the effect of "Well, it's not like I'm going to steal anything, so the fact that someone is watching me really doesn't matter." Obviously, it feels quite different if this happens to one all the time.
On the other hand, ignoring or adapting to the problem, if possible, may well make it go away. While there is something wrong in employees following blacks in stores, the poster who uses them as personal shopping assistants has very much the right outlook on how to solve the problem.
African-Americans often exhibit an attitude in their social interactions with white people that leads to miscommunication or conflict ... almost as if they are actively seeking proof that racism exists.
Whether or not that proverbial "chip on the shoulder" is warranted is another topic altogether. I think most blacks would say it is; most whites would say it isn't.
Either way, the constant claim of racism puts whites in a no-win situation.
Great post.
My insights into racism came nearly 50 years ago (1960) in DC while studying government at AU in a program for seniors. I had grown up in a town with few African Americans (less than 3%) and went to a college with fewer yet.
The Army assigned me to take my senior ROTC classes at Howard University. For four months, four mornings a week at 8:00 am, I trekked to Howard for mil science classes, and from 1-4 every Thursday, I drilled Howard's freshman and sophomore cadets. I was the only white cadet in the classes and the drill, and as such experienced many of the reactions described by Megan and some commenters. Some of the guys ignored me, some were excessively friendly, and some treated me like just another cadet. The third category was the only one that left me comfortable. That was my first lesson.
My second lesson was in the barber shop in the US Senate. After visiting a Senator, three of us went their to get a haircut. The barber there refused to cut the hair of our buddy, Ron Gault (later the husband of Charlayne Hunter Gault of PBS fame) because, he said, he didn't know how to cut, "negro hair". I had never encountered blatant racism before, and it was an intensely negative emotional experience -- made worse by the fact it was in the US Senate Office Building.
Fortunately, the problems encountered in my second lesson have been pretty much resolved, although those who experienced them are rightly resentful. The problems identified in my first lesson, sadly, have not been resolved as they are the product of human nature.
So, as long as David Duke had a bad experience with black people when he was young, perhaps being beaten up because of his race, then we should tolerate his current beliefs. Maybe have our kids baptized by him and listen to his lectures every Sunday?
Sorry. No sale.
This essay shouldn't get you in trouble at all. It's a thoughtful read, although I had trouble following a few of its arguments.
As for getting catcalls, yeah, appreciate them now - unlike racist epithets and stares, they're unlikely to be anything but appreciative toward you :)
And undoubtedly many women would consider it a thrill to be automatically taken seriously in, say, the boardroom, rather than always being judged on the basis of their relative screwability.
Automatically taken seriously? Obviously you've never been short, fat, or bald. You're also assuming that there aren't any other women in the boardroom, which is a pretty outdated attitude for these days.
Your essay was not just thoughtful, but generous. Thanks.
It's funny what people can be offended by. I work with someone who's married to a woman from another race, and he was complaining one day that people who learn that often compliment him on how good-looking his children must be. "I'm tired of it; it's such a stereotype!"
I've met his children. They're gorgeous.
vnjagvet:
The barber there refused to cut the hair of our buddy...because, he said, he didn't know how to cut, "negro hair". I had never encountered blatant racism before, and it was an intensely negative emotional experience..."
Maybe you're just telling the story wrong, but as you tell it there's no reason to reject the barber's explanation as insincere. Blacks do have a unique hair texture, and it's certainly plausible, at least to a non-barber like me, that cutting it might require a different technique than cutting a white person's hair.
vnjagvet:
The barber there refused to cut the hair of our buddy...because, he said, he didn't know how to cut, "negro hair". I had never encountered blatant racism before, and it was an intensely negative emotional experience..."
Maybe you're just telling the story wrong, but as you tell it there's no reason to reject the barber's explanation as insincere. Blacks do have a unique hair texture, and it's certainly plausible, at least to a non-barber like me, that cutting it might require a different technique than cutting a white person's hair.
I do think it's funny that, for all the fuming about Wright, there are still folks out there who want to paint Barry as a Muslim.
I also find the Wright stuff amusing, given that the Right has been apologizing and carrying water for the likes of Dobson, Falwell, Hagee, et al. for years. As someone who skews Libertarian and typically votes GOP, I've held my nose and put up with it. Now I'm told nutty preachers are a bad thing? Seems the same as being told 'States' Rights' are now a bad thing, when they meant everything to my GOP friends during the Clinton Administration. They also objected to being the world's cop in places like Bosnia and Somalia, as I recall...
So, I have to agree with vnjagvet: it's all just human nature. Tribalism is alive and well, whether it's race-based or political-party based. And, to Megan's original point, we can probably learn more about it from the outside looking in. And we'll definitely learn more about it by discussing it (with surprisingly few trolls chiming in so far).
Crap... I was distracted by the comments, so I forgot to make my original point: this post definitely isn't going to net Megan an Instalanche. The Glibertarian isn't going anywhere near this thread!
This is one of the best normative essays on race I've ever read. I think it's especially relevant to your post: http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freeman/article.asp?aid=4010
That was an outstandingly good post - not just perceptive, but as several commenters have already said, generous-spirited. It's a quality sadly lacking in most political discussions these days.
And are you "willing to cut Reverend Wright a lot of slack" for his antisemitism, too?
I wonder if you're also willing to cut Wright's buddy Louis Farrakhan a lot of slack.
I think this post suffers from some of the same problems as Matthew Yglesias's recent post noting that he was one of the few people who liked the Doug Liman flick "Go". Namely, WTF? Obama's speech on race was almost universally hailed as one of the greatest political speeches of recent decades. The exceptions were exclusively conservative. And the conservative critiques were not, for the most part, in good faith. So this:
And I saw Obama's speech as trying to bridge that divide--to say, as someone who had one foot in each community, "This is why the way they do things you don't like--not because they're different, but because they're very much like you." To be sure, he did it in a hamfisted way.
...is profoundly grating to me. Obama's speech was about as hamfisted as the "I Have a Dream" speech. A few hardened anti-Democratic conservatives managed to find tendentious ways to misconstrue what he said in a sneering fashion that was politically useful. I can't imagine why you would choose to play along with them.
The barber there refused to cut the hair of our buddy...because, he said, he didn't know how to cut, "negro hair".
I kind of agree this isn't necessarily racist -- this is a fraught interaction and maybe the barber made racist attitudes clear in the subtext, but when I was living in Africa there were plenty of barbers who didn't know how to cut straight hair, and I didn't take offense at that.
Maybe you're just telling the story wrong, but as you tell it there's no reason to reject the barber's explanation as insincere. Blacks do have a unique hair texture, and it's certainly plausible, at least to a non-barber like me, that cutting it might require a different technique than cutting a white person's hair.
Brandon:
I did not add the detail that all of us had pretty close crew cuts. Ron had a close cropped "military" cut. Barbers need little skill to execute such a haircut.
Where to start? In essence, you're saying that everyone thought the speech was wonderful, except those who didn't.
And those who didn't, whose minds you of course are able to read, reached their conclusions through bad faith.
Sheesh.
No. I am saying 1. all critiques of Obama's speech were by conservatives, so Megan's point here:
Part of the problem is that both communities were outraged, and neither seems to have very well understood that his speech had offended the other as deeply as it had offended them.]
is wildly off. "Both" communities were not outraged; there was no "outrage" on the left or in the black community at Obama's speech. The only person in the black community who seems to have been "outraged" by it was Rev. Wright. There was, however, "outrage" by some conservative commentators who make their career out of being serially "outraged" at various non-outrageous things. Some conservatives were no doubt genuinely offended by Obama's speech, for reasons which are badly misplaced but not dishonest. But (2.) the "he threw his grandmother under the bus" crap emanated from on-air conservative partisans looking for ways to turn Obama's speech to their advantage. Megan's take on that section of the speech is correct. Anyone who thinks that noting that your grandmother has said some offensive stuff in her time constitutes a betrayal of said grandmother is just an asshole looking for ammunition; that is not a good-faith response.
In essence, you're saying that everyone thought the speech was wonderful, except those who didn't.
Yeah, sort of like I might say "everyone thinks Tom Brady is a good quarterback, except for those who don't." The signifying turn being that the former group is about ten thousand times bigger than the latter. You may be part of the latter group, but when you start out by writing "There is great controversy over whether or not Tom Brady is a good quarterback," well, that's not really true.
Megan,
Great post.
It's interesting to see that a few commenters above have alluded to the fact that African Americans are descended from slaves makes their attitudes different from that of African immigrants.
No doubt that's part of the story. However, we must remember that immigrants from Africa are generally a self-select group (like most voluntary immigrants usually are). They are more likely to be optimistic, better educated and self-confident, so maybe it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison here. While I don't have any hard numbers for the U.S., studies show that african immigrants (and their children) in the U.K. have higher levels of educational achievement than native-born British citizens, and are indistinguishable from any other high-achieving voluntary immigrant group. (see for example http://www.econ.ucl.ac.uk/cream/pages/CDP/CDP_10_06.pdf). So immigrants will be immigrants.
However, what is even more intriguing is this. Anecdotal evidence at least suggests that black immigrants from the Caribbeans, who did experience slavery and who are generally less educated than African immigrants, have different attitudes and are perceived differently from African-Americans. However, while West Indian immigrants are black and are descended from slaves, they do have the the benefit of living in majority black contries for generations.
IMHO, the attitudes and the adversarial posture of many African-Americans has arisen not only becuase they were slaves and minorities, but that even after slavery ended, they were the targets of explicit discriminatory social, cultural and political policies. These things will take some generations to unwind although the unwinding is going on as we speak.
Graeme
"I do think it's funny that, for all the fuming about Wright, there are still folks out there who want to paint Barry as a Muslim."
Actually the NYT pointed out that Obama was born a muslim.
NYT
Also it's common knowledge that Obama's stepfather was also a muslim. And that Obama was registered at his school as a muslim. And that Obama learned enough Arabic that he can do the Islamic call to prayer.
I did not add the detail that all of us had pretty close crew cuts.
Ah. Fair 'nuff.
On the ROTC at Howard stuff, that's pretty fascinating. I've just been reading a forthcoming book that describes the draft and basic training of a black guy in DC in 1942-3. The institutional and personal racism in the Armed Forces at that point is really incredible. Which, depending on how you want to look at it, could be seen as encouraging -- at least by 1960 there were black cadets who viewed the Armed Forces as a promising career, just 13 years after they were desegregated.
However, we must remember that immigrants from Africa are generally a self-select group (like most voluntary immigrants usually are). They are more likely to be optimistic, better educated and self-confident, so maybe it's not exactly an apples-to-apples comparison here.
This is true. But it's also true that race relations in most of Africa are, weirdly, free of a lot of the weird emotional and political fraughtness of race relations in the US. There is a refreshing bluntness and lack of taboo on most kinds of discussion. You don't realize how anxiety-wracked you are in the US in biracial social interactions until you go somewhere where that anxiety drops away. It gets down to the level of body language.
Anthony Appiah writes about this in "In My Father's House" -- the weird assumption on the part of white people that black people in Africa must also have all kinds of inferiority complexes and issues with white people and vice versa. Growing up in Ghana, he says, he basically didn't see many white people, and when he did it didn't occur to him that he should be on anything but an equal and sociable footing with them.
This obviously doesn't apply in South Africa, Zimbabwe and to some extent Kenya.
Begs the question. A classic example of the Pauline Kael syndrome.
On summer afternoons one of the more exciting things I did with my friends (all white), when we were in the 10 to 12 age bracket, was to go into department stores where inevitably, because of our age, the store detective would start to follow us. We would then split into different directions so that he couldn't follow all of us at the same time.
Of late, I am developing a prejudice against Afrians in America. On two separate occasions on a recent trip to New York City, they simply lied to me. In one case I was asking for directions to the rest room in a building, the African doorman told me, with a long convoluted story, that there wasn't one. I found it. On another occasion I wasn't sure if the entrance to Grand Central from the 44th(?) St side openned a 6:00 or 6:30, when I asked the African doorman he lied and told me 8:00.
I knew an American black giirl who told me she was recruited by a Nigerian to steal credit card numbers at a hotel (She worked at check in at a Renissance). His recruting pitch was something like: "You can't possibly like white people."
Given that Nigerian's are notorious for running different email and identity scams (I will cite 60 Minutes here as reference), I find it particualrly curious that more and more Africans are running the doorman and security functions in NYC buildings. Maybe 95% of them are honest, which means 5% are not, which means night time access to an awful lot of buldings and information.
"This obviously doesn't apply in South Africa, Zimbabwe and to some extent Kenya."
Why Zimbabwe?
Because it used to be Rhodesia? Seriously hasn't Robert Mugabe done more, and worse, citizens of Zimbabwe than the previous white government?
Of late, I am developing a prejudice against Afrians in America. - Sidney
Everybody needs a hobby.
"IMHO, the attitudes and the adversarial posture of many African-Americans has arisen not only becuase they were slaves and minorities, but that even after slavery ended, they were the targets of explicit discriminatory social, cultural and political policies. These things will take some generations to unwind although the unwinding is going on as we speak."
Then why is it different with Asians?
Quite a few Asians were enslaved during the same time frame when African-Americans were slaves. The various laws in California, as an example, where "Chinese" couldn't bear witness against a white in any court is just one aspect of this. Many Asians died from murder, robbery, enslavement, forced prostitution, etc etc etc. Many whites during the California Gold Rush simply attacked Asians working their claims because it was easier and very unlikely to be punished.
Then there's the Chinese Exclusion Act which forbid Asians from becoming citizens until it was repealed in *1943*. And even then the quota was 103 per year. This last wasn't changed until 1965!
Is there anybody who would argue that Asians haven't been discriminated against? Consider Berkeley College where a specific policy of holding Asian student to a specific percentage of the student body was in place for many years. An Asian student needed at minimum an SAT above 1400 to even be considered, and likely wouldn't make th cut. This is during a period where African-American students were being admitted to this same school with a 700 SAT.
...
The list goes on and on. There has been very long history of overt and covert racism against Asians. Whether it's pejoratives such as "chink", "gook" or "jap". Whether it was barely concealed anger by WWII, Korean War or Vietnam War veterans. Even children emulating their elders on every December 7th. Asians have undergone just as much discrimination and racism in America as African-Americans. And in many cases now have to contend with racism *from* African-Americans.
So. Why is the outcome different?
Honestly my opinion is: less whining.
That's worth listening to even if it doesn't always come out quite right.
OK. What if it has come out more right than anything else he has said?
"Honestly my opinion is: less whining."
Let me clarify.
I say that because I'm Asian and grew up in the USA. And every time my ethnicity became an "issue" and I complained about it to my mother, also Asian, I'd get smacked and told basically to deal with it. And the same with my, also Asian, aunts. And complaining about how unfair it all was resulted in tougher treatment.
brooksfoe
"But (2.) the "he threw his grandmother under the bus" crap emanated from on-air conservative partisans looking for ways to turn Obama's speech to their advantage. Megan's take on that section of the speech is correct. Anyone who thinks that noting that your grandmother has said some offensive stuff in her time constitutes a betrayal of said grandmother is just an asshole looking for ammunition; that is not a good-faith response."
Sorry but that's wrong. Obama *did* throw his grandmother under the bus and whitewashing, or trying to, doesn't cut it.
As stated by Obama his white grandmother was the sole breadwinner for the family. Neither Obama, still a child, nor the grandfather worked. Only the grandmother worked.
As stated by Obama his grandmother encountered an aggressive panhandler who frightened her because she was afraid the panhandler would attack her. This is not unknown and is a regular concern in cities like San Fransisco where panhandler, and bums, are encouraged.
Now Obama's grandfather evidently can't be bothered to drive his wife into work the next day and then runs through several excuses in order to avoid having to actually do something. The excuse he finally rests upon is that his wife, Obama's grandmother, is a racist and a bigot.
A. this is precisely the same argument used by liberals and Obama when they want to try and shut down a debate. They cry "racist" and/or "bigot".
B. Obama casts away every single act of love by his grandmother and condemns her entirely on the word of his worthless grandfather.
IMO Obama stands condemned by his own words. And yes he did throw his grandmother, "a typical white person", under the bus.
"Obama's speech on race was almost universally hailed as one of the greatest political speeches of recent decades. The exceptions were exclusively conservative. And the conservative critiques were not, for the most part, in good faith."-brooksfoe
I guess I'm in bad faith, with Occam. Anyway I would agree that the speech was very cleverly crafted and beautifully delivered, so if those are the criteria then it was indeed a very good speech. From the standpoint of logic it was not quite so good. The chief purpose of the speech was to address the Wright problem that was damaging Obama's campaign so the central passage was this:
That struck me as strange reasoning as soon as I had heard it. You don't choose your race. You don't choose your grandmother. You do choose your church and your pastor, so there just isn't any analogy there. More importantly, though, not long after that speech--whose central argument was that Obama could not disown Reverend Wright--Obama essentially disowned Reverend Wright:
So, from a Socratic, rational standpoint, the original speech doesn't measure up. I much prefer the statement he made at his press conference. It lacked the "nuance" that many would-be intellectuals find alluring, but all too often nuance is just a cover for vacillation and illogic.
rwe, I think the difference between Obama's response to the initial attacks on Wright's speeches in his own church, and his response to Wright's self-promotional blitz in April, has an immense amount to do with who Wright was addressing on those different occasions. If you want to take what I'm saying as so much whining and special pleading, then you can do so, but to me it seems simply common sense that the way one speaks to different audiences is affected by the audiences; you don't talk to your boss the same way you talk to your sister, and so on. Things it's acceptable to say to your sister are unacceptable to say to your boss.
For me this has a lot to do with the Bakhtinian concept of "dialog", but you can take that or leave it.
What we are asking here is: how much leeway should we give to Obama to give to Wright? How should we judge Obama's level of harshness in judging Wright? It seems clear to me that Obama felt, and I would agree, that ways of speaking which were forgivable eccentricities in the context of a sermon to an all-black church became simply egotistical provocation when delivered to the National Press Club. For Wright to talk nonsense in his church about the CIA-HIV connection was the kind of thing that deserves to be sharply rebutted, but given that the guy has been a very powerful positive anti-poverty community crusader in Chicago for decades, it doesn't mean you ought to cut him off. It would be, as Obama said, like rejecting the whole black community, since Wright's views on questions like these, however misguided, are widely shared there. But for him to deliberately say the same thing, after months of media brouhaha, at a national mainstream mass-media event to a white audience as well -- that was just deliberate, self-absorbed, self-defeating egotism with very damaging consequences for black-white relations as a whole. At that point, the guy should be rebuked; and the black community as a whole, which embraced Obama's speech on this, largely rebuked Wright for his grandstanding.
The black-white divide in the US is a situation where different discursive communities have very different experiences and very different ways of talking about things. It is extremely hard to speak to both of those two audiences in the same voice, and to mean what you say. Barack Obama manages to do this. It is the skill of a great community organizer and a great politician. His initial speech on race in mid-March was a description of why it's so hard to speak at the same time to two divided communities without having one or both either attack you or accuse you of dishonesty. It angers me to see people attack Obama for having made that speech because it seems to me to reject the possibility of that risky opening gambit in honest racial discussion; it is like kneecapping the guy who tries to build a bridge between the two warring camps, it sends a message that no such dialog will be tolerated.
Honestly my opinion is: less whining. - Royce
Judging by your posts, I see no particular shortage of whining.
Let's say I were to ask why it is that Asian-Americans are such miserable failures in American culture, compared to African-Americans: there are, after all, no significant Asian-American contributions to the American musical tradition, no great Asian-American writers on a level with James Baldwin, and no Asian-American actors who come even close to the artistry and stardom of probably 50 African-American celebrities. This, despite the fact that (as you point out) Asian-Americans have experienced the same kinds of oppression and group solidarity in their history as African-Americans, the experiences that are often seen as the wellspring of black or Jewish creativity.
And then let's say I were to hypothesize that part of the reason why Asian-Americans are so third-rate in cultural achievement, compared to African-Americans, is their highly conformist and shame-based culture, in which investigating the experience of suffering, even for artistic or humorous purposes, is seen as an admission of inadequacy. (In sharp contrast to black or Jewish culture, which celebrate the exploration of suffering and have thus produced a disproportionate share of great American culture.) This leads to a certain superficiality and lack of innovation in Asian-American culture. It's particularly striking given the great creative energy and dynamism of Chinese and Japanese culture -- especially literature and art -- in the past 20 years that Asian-American culture is so hidebound and third-rate.
Now, is what I just wrote racist? Does it feel racist to you? It feels racist to me. It also feels like pretty much exactly the same kind of offensive speculation you engaged in above regarding the black community.
Nobody has commented on that lovely quote from C.S. Lewis. It's lovely, I would say, because he is his own friend, warts and all; he cuts himself some slack about the regrettable things he does, on that basis-- as most of us do for our friends. One of the extremely sad things about our society is that so few of us have friends of another race, so our ideas about race are based on encounters with total strangers. Friendship takes time, and care, and persistence, and loyalty, and humility. Maybe those are not really American values. But they could be.
Sidney, I'll call bullshit.
There are some 140 million Nigerians. 5% of them are dishonest means there are 7 million odd who are likely to commit an email and identity scam.
1. I doubt that the number of such scams is in the millions.
2. Because of multiple scams by individuals, the number of scammers is much lower than the number of scams.
Your choice of 95% honesty is way too low. The US has less than 1% of it's population in jail, btw.
Not nearly all Africans or even Nigerians who end up in the US work as doormen. Most come here for college. New York's buildings are safe; pick a new hobby.
Life is hard enough with people joking about this. It's unfortunate you're serious.
"It seems clear to me that Obama felt, and I would agree, that ways of speaking which were forgivable eccentricities in the context of a sermon to an all-black church became simply egotistical provocation when delivered to the National Press Club."-brooksfoe
Brooksfoe, it seems to me as though you're saying: 'It's okay to spew poison in a black church, just not at the National Press Club.' I don't consider stuff like "God damn America" the "USKKKofA", the AIDS stuff, etc... merely eccentric. I think that stuff is toxic.
Yes, I admit that Wright had a lot of good programs running at his church, but that doesn't excuse him. He was not just like Obama's grandmother, expressing somewhat bigoted views in private. He was in a position of authority in which he could influence a lot of young people and fill their heads with the same garbage that was in his (like his bizarre theories about how black kids were made for hip hop and not for math). That stuff is quite destructive for society generally, and especially for the young blacks who grow up believing it.
Obama should at the very least have spoken to Wright and objected to the man's most outrageous views a long time ago. But, regardless, he dissociated himself unequivocally at his press conference (after a false start in what you call a masterpiece of oratory). That's what I wanted him to do, so I'm willing to let the matter drop. I have lots of objections to Obama, but his past association with Wright is not high on the list--not any more.
Again, though, as a philosophical matter, the speech was not a good one precisely because it shirked the fundamental responsibility to stop making excuses for Wright and condemn his appalling views unequivocally. This was much better:
Eh. If your parents sent you to the regular local P.S. and you went to an all-black and Latino school, you wouldn't be so gullible for Obama's pabulum on race.
RE: Dan's comments: "Might the fact that black people are more likely to be followed around the store be due to the fact that thieves are disproportionately black? I used to get followed around stores as a teenager, and presumably for much the same reason -- teenagers do more shoplifting than adults.
If you have two customers, one white and one black, it makes sense to devote your attention to the black one. That's just playing the odds.
Posted by Dan | May 15, 2008 5:54 PM "
Really, Dan? And what do you base all this on?
In fact, arrest records, in-store videos, in-store incident reports, etc, show that the most prevalent shoplifter is .... wait for it .... a WHITE FEMALE.
That's right, Dan. The thieves, in-store, are NOT "disproportionately black" as you wrote but "disproportionately" WHITE and FEMALE.
Security guards know it. Police know it. Shop Managers know it. But they keep following Black folks around the store while the lovely white girls/women rob them blind.
"That's just playing the odds." Huh???
LO
Even though it shouldn't, it is always a little surprising when female friends say they have been catcalled, and even that they dress differently depending on what parts of the city they are going. That does give me pause when considering racism.
brooksfoe, even though I understand your statement is hypothetical, I'll take a stab at it anyways. The reason Asian-American culture is not represented in mainstream American culture is because Asian-American cultural talent is actively scouted by Asian countries. Many of the top artists in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, HK, Singapore, and China have lived in the US. They don't work in the US, because they can make more money elsewhere. Not racism, just economics.
Additionally, there isn't a market for Asian-American culture. Asian immigration is more recent, and the culture is still more foreign. Also, even Asian-Americans themselves are turning towards mainstream Asian cultures. It always amazes me when some random Asian-American kid can sing a recent Chinese pop song, verbatim, without any knowledge of the meaning of the lyrics.
In fact, arrest records, in-store videos, in-store incident reports, etc, show that the most prevalent shoplifter is .... wait for it .... a WHITE FEMALE.
Even if this is true (cite?), you have to keep Bayes' Law in mind. If 50% of shoplifters are white, 25% are black, and 25% are Latino, then this means that a black or latino person is 3 times as likely as a white person to shoplift (given that the US population is roughly 3/4 white, 1/8 black, and 1/8 Latino).
altoids, you're probably right; I would never actually write the things I mock-wrote there.
rwe, yeah, I think it makes sense to let the matter drop.
Excellent article. I only disagree with your suggestion (if it was) that the Philadelphia speech was badly phrased. It had to offend people in both communities--that is the point of making a political speech on race that treats people as grown-ups. So when you say "doesn't come out quite right" I think this is a diplomatic way of saying "doesn't get taken in quite right".
The reason Asian-American culture is not represented in mainstream American culture is because Asian-American cultural talent is actively scouted by Asian countries. Many of the top artists in Japan, Korea, Taiwan, HK, Singapore, and China have lived in the US. They don't work in the US, because they can make more money elsewhere.
Examples? I'm a white American who's lived in Asia for the past 5 years (Korea and Japan). 99% of the cultural icons in these countries are native born, not surprising since 99% of the general population are native born as well.
I think a far more likely explanation is that, the exceptions of Chinese railroad workers in California and Filipino and Japanese pineapple farmers in Hawaii aside, Asians are for the most part recent arrivals to the U.S. and have had fewer generations in which to produce contributions to the culture. There are also far fewer of them relative to the general population (~4% compared to ~13% for blacks). In addition, they tend to have a much stronger link to their cultures of origin, which are quite diffuse (Japanese and Koreans for one don't like to see any similarities to the other culture in their own, even though to an outsider the two are quite obviously closely related). Despite that, they still seem to be doing okay in contributing figures to the national cultural gallery to me. Amy Tan, Lucy Liu, Pat Morita, Ang Lee, etc. etc. etc.
I'd add that as a whitey in Asia, I have encountered some of the sort of racism blacks in America sometimes observe - being refused service at a restaurant full of empty tables in Seoul, yelled at and accused of "stealing women" for speaking English to a female Asian friend (who was not my girlfriend) on a train in Japan, etc. These incidents have been few and far between, and most people here are great - I've been able to write off the idiocy of a few isolated racists pretty easily. If it happened constantly, though, it would bother me a great deal, and I definitely A.)find what blacks in America say about racism a lot more credible than I used to, and B.)empathize with them a lot more.
Sorry Megan, I don't buy the catcall rate; I think you're exaggerating for polemical effect. Or maybe it's all a misunderstanding: there's lots of low scaffolding in Manhattan, so perhaps they're just yelling "duck" or, like Obama, "duck, sweetie." But you are right about unseen racism: As I think back to when I got my flu shot, the syringes used for the black people all seemed to come from a carton that appeared to have the word "AID" or maybe "AIDS" written on it. For sure the box had a big red cross on it, so I'm guessing some evangelical plot to exterminate the blacks was afoot. Yup, that's what's been missing from the grand dialog on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, and sexual orientation: hyper-sensitivity and paranoia. Thanks for the contribution.
Between quoting Psalm 73 (actually saying that the news from Burma brought it to mind) and C.S. Lewis, you are one fascinating agnotheist. Just an observation.
I thought this was a thoughtful post and a lot less likely to get you in trouble than other posts.. then again.. I'm an old-school liberal, tho.. so perhaps you're preaching to the choir with me..
Megan, I thoroughly enjoyed this post. Thougtful and interesting. I have been catcalled in my youth and have reached the stage when it stopped (it is a ying/yang). I thought Obama's speech on race was not hamfisted really. The hamfistedness might come from a person trying to reach such a vast group of differing types. People talk about his elitism or his being a politican. If you are trying to reach a broad spectrum of individuals and trying not to alienate them in order for them to listen and get something out of your message, you have to craft your message in a way that does that. You will never get everyone happy but I believe that in the case of that speech, Obama made a valiant attempt to make us all think. The process that you went through to come to your conclusions is a very hard one. I commend you on this post and if you get in trouble from anyone, ignore it.
I'm not saying I'm anything special; I just live on U Street where every evening there are many A) drunk men and b) men hanging out on streetcorners in groups.
Brooksfoe, I'm taking my assertion from bloggingheads interviews with Glenn Loury, John McWhoter and Ta-Nehisi Coates, where all said that in ways that whites didn't understand, it was very controversial in the black community for Obama to have said what he did. Maybe I'm exaggerating.
And I think you're wrong about the reaction in the white community. I know a fair number of Democrats in my own "white ethnic" community who were genuinely appalled by what Obama said about his grandmother, not ginning up faux outrage. My opinion is that the existence of otherwise lovely racist old people is an open secret that ought to be outed, but luckily my grandmother is admirably forward thinking on that sort of thing; she reserves her prejudice for people who don't keep their lawns up.
I think a particularly interesting topic is the dichotomy between Northern and Southern racism. I’m southern, and very used to overt vocal racial exchanges. I had this perception that the North was this enlightened land. This was until I went to places like Massachusetts, Ohio, and New York where the quite bigotry was much more disturbing to me personally. I’m used to N@$%R being thrown out freely in public, but the underlying, behind the back prejudice in both rural and urban areas of the North was extremely prevalent. It is as though they don’t even know it exists.
So now it turns out the catcallers are drunks from the local bar; yeah, that seems like a suitably representative sample of typical males upon which to base a generalization about the state of sexism in the US today. Your feminist male friends probably had in mind the lunch crowd on the Mall or something. How clueless! Thanks for the clarification.
A fine post, Megan.
Megan, you obviously have vastly more access than I do to white Democrats outside of large American cities, or for that matter inside of large American cities, but I still find it very hard to believe that anyone's negative reactions on the grandmother comments were not primed by tendentious commentary which served that line up as "he compared his grandmother to that crazy preacher". I can't believe anyone just listening to the speech would have taken it that way; it's a response to the sound bite as prepped for controversy. Though it's true that's not the same thing as critique only coming from the right.
Any controversy over the speech in the black community certainly never percolated up to the mainstream press, though that's hardly surprising.
I'm surprised catcalling would still be common. I live in a small-town though so it's pretty much "no reaction", "mild flirting", and lastly "alcohol-infused molestation or rape."
I'm also surprised you could be your age and unaware blacks get treated suspiciously at stores. I thought this was almost one of those things that's just common knowledge.
Now I met a man once who laughed about his father sicking a dog on a black Jehovah's Witness. (Which could be anti-JW, and was to some extent, but in context it was clearly racist as well) And one student I knew in college said his father beat him for just talking to a black girl. Those two surprised me a bit.
brooksfoe>> thanks for your kind comments.
Xeynon>>
A shortlist of East Asian entertainers who have lived in the US.
Utada Hikaru - born and raised in US. The number of awards she has received are too numerous to count. 35 million records sold. (Mostly sold in Japan). Twelve #1 debuts.
Wang Lee-Hom - born and raised in US. Acts, sings. 10 million records sold in Taiwan alone. Most albums debut #1
Vanness Wu - born and raised in US. Part of a singing group, also TV actor. 10+ million records sold in Asia. Has had #1 debuts, but is on the decline.
All are fluent in English, and started music careers in the US, before moving to Asian markets.
With regards to your experiences - yes, most of the world is racist. The US is really the only place people are making a go at eliminating racism.
Racism against whites (in Asia) is highly segregated by class. If you work in high-powered corporate positions, you won't experience much racism. If you're yet another single-white-male English teacher, then expect a lot more racism. So in some sense, it's not primarily racism, although the insults might be racist. It's resentment at their country being used as a post-college playground for otherwise-unemployable slackers, regardless of race. The Mormon missionaries are treated very well.
brooksfoe:
It reveals a considerable degree of close-mindedness on your part to be unable to comprehend how someone could in good faith have had a negative reaction about the comparison of Sen. Obama's grandmother to Rev. Wright. If you found Rev. Wright's comments inexcusable, comparing the woman who raised you to him isn't a favorable analogy. Now, since Sen. Obama didn't (at the time) find Rev. Wright's comments inexecusable - he was in fact trying to excuse them - I agree that the comparison wasn't intended to be nasty. But if you didn't buy the excuse, then the comparison just served to throw is grandmother into the mud with Rev. Wright.
I find it continually depressing that so many people across the political spectrum can't believe that others can in good faith hold different opinions....
"A) drunk men and b) men hanging out on streetcorners in groups."
TR: Oh I'd miss that clarification. There's not much reason to hang out on a street-corner here. Drunk guys, yeah I could see that.
Curses on me for not seeing this post earlier!
Alright, Megan_McArdle, I'll play along. I want you to list ALL of the things that men ABSOLUTELY 100% are not supposed to do when pursuing sex with women. Also list the things that men ABSOLUTELY MUST DO (buy her something, be "respectful", only approach when XYZ...) when pursuing sex with women.
THEN, I'm going to find a random sample of men that adhere to your rules, and men that don't, and see how much (voluntary) tail each group gets.
Yes, I'm dead serious about this.
Your protestations about teh EVILLLLLL men would be a LOT more convincing if their deviation from your standards didn't actually, you know, work.
Advocating that men do what only what *you* think is acceptable, is asking the ethical ones to unilaterally disarm. That, I find highly objectionable on your part. Please apologize.
Re: White "shopkeepers" following around black customers ...
It sounds like you folks are talking about the 1950s. Please tell me where in the year 2008 you can find a store that:
1) Employs an all-white staff.
2) Has employees who actually care whether they are being ripped off or not.
3) Only has one black customer at a time (or enough employees actually working to follow multiple African-American shoppers).
Yo Yo Ma. 'Nuff said.
Oh, and a question for all the ladies and guys about cat-calling...
It seems to me that what bothers women about being cat-called is *not* that they are worried about being raped by the catcallers, NOR that they dislike being told they're hot, but rather that they don't like knowing that *those specific males* find them hot.
The catcallers are, of course, non-dominant males, which is unnattractive.
So, I think the analagous test for males to see what it's like, would be to ask them how they would feel about a fat woman (not fat as in "gosh, I'm so ugly, I gotta lose these five pounds or I'll never ever get approached", but fat as in, mega-tubby) in a group of other fat women, saying "hey, nice ass" the male goes by. One test of my theory would be to see how men react to that.
The *female* counterpart, then, of males getting *good* catcalling (i.e. complimented by hot women), would be a catcall from some dominant male (head of business or group, multimillionaire, famous, etc.). Another test of my theory would be to see how women react to that. Now, the thing is, that's an impossible test, because dominant men *don't* catcall for the simple reason that women come to *them*. But this fact also supports my theory: women dislike catcalling because all of it is concentrated in non-dominant males, the female counterpart of "fat chicks". You could even say the very act of catcalling reduces your perceived dominance and thus hotness.
Thoughts?
"Actually the NYT pointed out that Obama was born a muslim.
NYT
Also it's common knowledge that Obama's stepfather was also a muslim. And that Obama was registered at his school as a muslim. And that Obama learned enough Arabic that he can do the Islamic call to prayer."
just to correct the record for anyone who didn't bother to look at the NYT link, it was an opinion piece, not a regular NYT article. Here is the key quote from that opinion piece,
"As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant."
So essentially, if you are muslim you would consider Obama a muslim, even if he was raised by a christian mother and his father renounced the muslim faith.
For crying out loud. Yelling out things like "looking good," "nice rack," "hey there, mama" is not pursuing sex. It's trying to make her aware of your existence and that you think she's a nice piece of ass. Bonus if she speeds up to get away. Who's the big swinging dick now? And I don't not like it because the men are not my type. I usually don't look at them carefully enough to know. But as for their behavior? Yeah -- there would be no sex offered to a guy who did this sort of thing. Kind of a deal breaker for me.
Megan not calling men evil. She's just commenting that it happens and that it makes her and some other women uncomfortable. Me for instance. Hollering at a woman from a distance is not really a good way to get in her pants, okay? I also don't like it when men ask me to smile -- "smile honey!" -- it's bossy and annoying. Try eye contact and a "hello, how are you?" If she is interested, she will respond and slow down. So my advice to men -- don't be lewd or bossy in your very first interaction with a strange woman.
I grew up in a pretty much all-white liberal town. My only interaction with African-Americans was with the students bused out from the city. I had good experiences and bad. Sort of like with the white and asian kids. My first experience with open racism was when I worked at a retail store in high school and my manager told me to keep an eye on the black customers because they were more likely to steal. I remember being shocked and ignoring her instructions. She said it so casually -- like it was a given.
M: I accept that catcalls are an obviously ineffective, stupid way to hook up. Sorry if I didn't place enough emphasis on that.
What I object to is this claim that there's some easily understood list that men can follow, about what will get a good reaction from men (assuming they have a chance to begin with).
And your post, M, is a great place to start. "Don't be bossy", you say? Give me a break!!!! If I went through the last n men you slept with, how many of them NEVER did anything bossy? (tell you to do something or stop, make you switch tables, push you into doing something you initially didn't want to, act like he's in charge [falsely or otherwise])
"Don't be lewd", you say? B/S. How many of those n got you excited at *some* point with "dirty" talk/actions. Hell, isn't going for a kiss pretty lewd? If he went for it when you happened to not want it, well, that would be some pretty damn inappropriate, LEWD touching, wouldn't it?
Can you even think of one guy, other than a husband, whom you slept with after he went out of his way to be accomodating for you?
Now, go back to saying what you want while going for the opposite.
[It's OK to talk like Wright in a black church because] Wright's views on [AIDS, 9/11], however misguided, are widely shared [in the black community]. But for him to deliberately say the same thing, after months of media brouhaha, at a national mainstream mass-media event to a white audience as well -- that was just deliberate, self-absorbed, self-defeating egotism
This is a highly illuminating passage which gets at the heart of Obama's problem.
I'd say Wright has the courage of his convictions; he believes he's a truth-teller, and he doesn't care who he offends. I have a certain amount of respect for that, even if I think he's a loon.
What brooksfoe endorses here is the standard two-facedness that politicians are (rightly) mocked for daily. Say one thing to the first audience, say another to a second: it's not shameless pandering, it's nuanced anti-egotism! Stand your ground in the face of criticism: it's not principle, it's self-absorbtion! I suppose the next time somebody talks up ethanol in Iowa and slams it at C-PAC, brooksfoe will be here to tell us about the different discursive communities that corn farmers inhabit.
Obama claims to be a different kind of politician. So when he 1) listens to a kooky preacher for 20 years because it's to his political advantage to do so, then 2) half-heartedly rebukes him when the kooky stuff comes out, and then 3) slams him hard when the preacher has the temerity to a) actually stick to his beliefs instead of shifting with the political winds like Obama and b) publicly comment that Obama is shifting with the political winds, well, call me cynical, but Obama is lower in my eyes now than if he had chosen almost any other possible combination of these elements.
Of course, this has had zero effect the probability that I'll vote for him, so I'm not the target audience. On the other hand, I like brooksfoe, so I don't understand why he's endorsing finger-in-the-windedness among politicians.
brooksfoe
"For Wright to talk nonsense in his church about the CIA-HIV connection was the kind of thing that deserves to be sharply rebutted, but given that the guy has been a very powerful positive anti-poverty community crusader in Chicago for decades, it doesn't mean you ought to cut him off."
Except that Obama *didn't* rebut Wright for 17+ years. And even now Wright's replacement seems just as bad as he is.
What I find curious is that liberals are complaining about Obama being tied to a religious nut, when liberals have hammered at Republicans for decades when they get support from religious conservatives.
C.F. McCain and Hagee.
brooksfoe
"Judging by your posts, I see no particular shortage of whining."
Not at all. I was showing all the myriad, though incomplete, ways that Asians have endured racism and discrimination in America and worked through it without the excessive posturing that you see in the black community.
"This, despite the fact that (as you point out) Asian-Americans have experienced the same kinds of oppression and group solidarity in their history as African-Americans, the experiences that are often seen as the wellspring of black or Jewish creativity."
This is because Asians have concentrated into the *sciences* not the arts. Asian families generally are supportive of pursuing science oriented careers. Rap artist? Not so much.
As for actors and actresses the answer is so simple I'm surprised you hadn't thought of it yourself. There is something of a cultural bias against Asians in acting because of karate flicks.
*shrug* a lot of people automatically seem to think "karate flick" when they see Asians in a movie. With that in play I'd say it's rather hard to counter.
"And then let's say I were to hypothesize that part of the reason why Asian-Americans are so third-rate in cultural achievement, compared to African-Americans, is their highly conformist and shame-based culture, in which investigating the experience of suffering, even for artistic or humorous purposes, is seen as an admission of inadequacy."
You need to get out more.
"(In sharp contrast to black or Jewish culture, which celebrate the exploration of suffering and have thus produced a disproportionate share of great American culture.) This leads to a certain superficiality and lack of innovation in Asian-American culture."
*shrug* your opinion.
"Now, is what I just wrote racist? Does it feel racist to you? It feels racist to me. It also feels like pretty much exactly the same kind of offensive speculation you engaged in above regarding the black community."
No I'd classify it as ignorant more than anything else.
As for my "offensive speculation": Suck it up and deal with it.
As for actors and actresses the answer is so simple I'm surprised you hadn't thought of it yourself. There is something of a cultural bias against Asians in acting because of karate flicks.
You need to watch more crime dramas; there's always an Asian guy as the ME or crime lab guy.
...worked through it without the excessive posturing that you see in the black community.
Yeah, well, that's changing; there's gold in them thar postures, and people are starting to figure that out.
Oh, and interestingly enough, I went to college with Lee-Hom Wang. Guy was a major star even then but nobody had heard of him outside of "Did you know he's huge in Taiwan"?
Say one thing to the first audience, say another to a second: it's not shameless pandering, it's nuanced anti-egotism!
Rob, this is beneath you. You don't talk the same way to a woman you're dating as you do to someone you've hired to do your taxes. You don't talk the same way to your editor as you do to your fact-checker. You don't talk the same way to your grandmother as you do to your sister. Are you a two-faced son of a bitch?
My mother holds views on non-Jews which I consider weird. If she voices these views to me, I consider them irritating eccentricities and tolerate them. If she voices them to my non-Jewish wife, I send a clear signal to her that I will not put up with that. Am I a two-faced son of a bitch? Who threw his mother under the bus?
The rabbi of the only synagogue in Vietnam is a nice guy. He also believes that marrying outside the Jewish faith is a sin, and that because my children do not have a Jewish mother, they don't have "Jewish souls" and have no place in the faith; they can show up, but teaching them prayers or anything like that would be absurd. I think this is atavistic and would prefer a Reform rabbi, but there isn't one here. So I go to holidays sometimes with the ultra-Orthodox rabbi, and the kids (and my wife) come along, and we all have nice conversations and don't talk about the fact that he basically considers my family to have an inferior sort of soul. I completely reject his way of thinking about the human soul, but I'm not going to reject his congregation; I'm not even going to condemn him. He's a nice guy. We have an ideological disagreement that runs pretty deep and verges on some serious problems, but you'll find, as you travel around the world, that this happens pretty often in different settings.
If he ever got up in any context outside the Jewish community and started saying my family isn't really Jewish, I'd cut him dead and never go back to his synagogue. What, I should congratulate him for "sticking to his guns"? Are you kidding me? For a direct insult on a point we dispute? No way. Between the two of us, he can voice his opinions, he can say what he wants and what he thinks to the other Orthodox Jews. But if he starts representing these ideological ideas outside the community, then I have to distance myself from him and his synagogue.
So, am I a two-faced son of a bitch?
There is something of a cultural bias against Asians in acting because of karate flicks.
Whining.
This is because Asians have concentrated into the *sciences* not the arts. Asian families generally are supportive of pursuing science oriented careers. Rap artist? Not so much. As for actors and actresses the answer is so simple I'm surprised you hadn't thought of it yourself. There is something of a cultural bias against Asians in acting because of karate flicks.
So, looking over this again, I have to confess this isn't the way I anticipated you'd respond. I was hoping you'd say something like, yeah, it is really irritating when people outside your racial group start making broad generalizations about why your racial group sucks and what might be the reasons for that, and maybe one should lay off of that.
Barring that, I thought you might object that Asian-American culture is actually quite creative and interesting, which I'm sure somebody could make a case for -- just as anybody could point out that black people don't actually generally suck, contrary to what you've been writing here.
But I didn't anticipate you'd go for "It's true that Asian-American culture is pretty weak, but that's because we're all science nerds." That seems like a surprising tack to take, to me, and I don't actually think it's true; I think you may be generalizing too much from your own experience.
Brooksfoe, speaking of beneath you, your examples aren't even remotely analogous. The controversy surrounding Wright, and Obama's rejection (?) of him has nothing to do with private theological disputes or personal insults.
Wright's church is not the only black church in Chicago; if there were a Reform synagogue available to you, you'd go there, "rejecting" the views of your current rabbi. Obama did not do that.
Wright's church is heavily politicized by his own choice. It's not that he said something in private to Obama that is problematic, it's that he aired his kooky views on a weekly basis essentially in public while Obama listened. The fact that he didn't change them when asked to air them to a wider public audience is a point in his favor; if he had changed them, he'd be a weathervane. So yes, props to him for sticking to his political guns because it was the right thing to do.
The points of dispute are not personal to Obama and his family, for the most part. Wright has not insulted Obama or his daughters as "not really black" because of their mother. He did call Obama a politician who does political things, but as that's indisputably true, it's hard to call it a true insult.
If your Rabbi was talking every week about, I don't know, how gentiles put Jewish blood in their Easter brunches, then yes, I'd have questions for you when you ran for office. And if you defended yourself in the same way as you're defending Obama--hey, that was a private Jews-only conversation! No fair listening in!--then I would be less than impressed by your candor. And if your rabbi then went on national TV and said something totally different, then I really would think he was a two-faced SOB. (Just for reference, this sort of behavior is common among Palistinian politicians: on speech in Arabic, another in English. And they really are two-faced SOBs.)
I can see that it might be appropriate to say some things in private that you wouldn't say in public, although I would also note that character is what you do when no one can see you; we'd mock a politician who gave speeches about hating ethanol but quietly assured his farming father that he'd get the subsidies passed. But even more important, I can't see how public sermons directed at an enormous black audience should be considered "private" in the same sense. If you want to convince me, you'll have to make that point clearer.
You don't talk the same way to a woman you're dating as you do to someone you've hired to do your taxes.
Maybe you don't, but I think "Do my taxes, beeyach!" works for both.
Person, I never claimed there was an easily understood list. I don't believe Megan did either. Beat away at your straw man all you want, but first please carefully read these sentences I wrote: "Try eye contact and a 'hello, how are you?' If she is interested, she will respond and slow down. So my advice to men -- don't be lewd or bossy in your very first interaction with a strange woman."
Pay particular attention to that last bit: "in your very first interaction with a strange woman."
I gave you an example of what I believe would elicit a bad response from a woman upon your first interaction. I won't address the part of your post that is responding to something I never wrote.
And seriously, the last sentence of your post is unnecessary given that I never went all ad hominem on you. If this is how you normally interact with people, you might want to work on things other than your opening lines with women.
Rob Lyman, I agree with you. As I tried to point out above, what Brooksofoe is arguing is that it's okay for a pastor to let his hate flow freely and his crackpot theories run wild at church, just not at the National Press Club.
If anything, it seems far worse to do it at church, which is supposed to be the House of God, and where there are young people who look up to the pastor and imbibe his idiotic theories. One wonders how many black kids he persuaded that they are "right-brained" and should therefore be listening to Snoop Dog rather than their math lessons.
Brooksfoe is a good contributor here, but in his efforts to justify Obama's failure to censure his pastor for some really vile teachings, he has fallen into absurdity.
When Obama said that he had tried to give the Reverend the benefit of the doubt but was now realizing that he hadn't known the man as well as he thought, he was essentially conceding that it was a mistake to have been so close to crackpot and a bigot.
Again, I'm much more interested in discussing Obama's protectionism than his pastor, but Brooksfoe's defense is not persuasive.
I still think you guys just don't get how this kind of stuff works in communities other than your own. Look: If your Rabbi was talking every week about, I don't know, how gentiles put Jewish blood in their Easter brunches, then yes, I'd have questions for you when you ran for office. Okay. In every synagogue I ever went to until the early 1990s, rabbis repeatedly stated in political sermons that the Israeli Army never drove any Palestinians out in 1947, that they left at the request of their own leaders while the Jews begged them to stay. We know now due to historians like Benny Morris, Tom Segev, etc. that in fact the Israeli Army drove most of the Palestinians out and that there were at a minimum dozens of massacres and rapes of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, besides the old "exception" case of Deir Yassin which was always dismissed as an Irgun thing, not real Haganah. In other words they were basically selling a fascist Big Lie to generations of impressionable Jewish kids. It's distinct from Holocaust denial only in scale, not in kind.
If you were to renounce your ties with every Jewish leader who claims that the Israelis never drove the Palestinians out, you'd have to cut your ties to half the community. This is a vicious and evil falsehood, but it's a falsehood that is widely shared in the community. If you want to go to shul, you'll most likely have to put up with a certain amount of this. If I were running for office and somebody called me up and said, "We have footage of Buddy Abramowitz claiming the Israelis never drove out the Palestinians," I wouldn't renounce him; I'd say I disagree strongly with his views, they are wrong, but I can't disown him, he's my rabbi and he's got some wrong ideas. But if he then runs out and schedules a media week to try to reiterate the lies he believes in, then at that point I'd say the hell with it Abramowitz.
Finally, Wright's "chickens coming home to roost" thing is actually true. So there's a mix in there of crazy and pernicious ideas, with ideas that are very out of the mainstream but actually correct.
Wonderful post, Megan, and I second the comment on your unusual predilection for citing Christian works in your posts lately.
I come from a country in Asia with a lot of racial issues - imagine a country with three major ethnic groups, all of which have suffered various forms of apartheid from one another and from colonial powers in the past - and this post struck a chord in me for how much it reflects my experience. I'm of mixed race, so I never thought a lot about race as a child. I played and studied with people of almost any race, and when I matured, found it extremely disturbing how I would hear my friends denigrate someone from another race, and how they would inject race into almost any situation.
I don't think enough people truly appreciate how complicated this problem of race is. On the one hand, I am always horrified internally when racial prejudice comes up because I know so well that it's unfounded and wrong. On the other, I am equally horrified because I understand all too well how both sides of the racial divide feel, and why they feel that way. I can't disown my friends for their beliefs which they confide to me in private, but the moment they state them in public, I'd be the first to criticize those views - it's a doublethink mayhaps, but it's the natural response somehow, and I understand where Obama is coming from in that regard.
Overall, race is just an incredibly depressing problem. I'm not sure how far Obama's speech was actually criticised, but anyone who holds those views and tries to publicly state them where I come from will be shouted down by both sides of the debate. I have gotten in trouble many times before for trying to point out that no, "our race" is not the only one which has been victimized in the past, and that no, "their race" is not the only one which wantonly discriminates and indulges in racism.
Another thing, however, is that despite my country's problems, we're still much more open about them in some ways than the US - we're often the epitome of political incorrectness when we come over to the US because of how open we can sometimes be about race and racial stereotyping. It's strange.
Are catcalls a big city phenomenon? I've never done it, never seen it, and can't understand why anyone would consider it anything other than crude posturing.
I'm struck by the phrase Asian-American culture. My wife is and considers herself to be a Japanese-American. If anything, she is mildly irritated by being classifies with other Asian nationalities based on ethnicity. It would be like classifying me with a Swede. We don't have a common culture or language or religion. We just look similar.
Judging by our children, the idea of a separate Asian-American culture is going to be a struggle. They don't perceive that they are different from anyone else. Why would they have a different culture?
Now that analogy makes some sense, brooksfoe, although I note you didn't include in your action plan "Deny having heard rabbi when he said that" or "refer to controversial views only vaguely without specifics." If the views are as prominent as you claim, Obama can't have somehow missed them, and if he thinks they're wrong, he should be able to name them.
Simply put, there is no need for a soaring meditation on race in America. There is a need for a straightforward statement: This I believe, I can do no other. I don't think we got that, and I think the reason we didn't get it is because Obama is as two-faced as any politician, attempting to curry favor with (genuinely and in good faith) offended whites and blacks who agree with Wright. In other words, I don't buy the "Obama is different" meme, and I think this incident showed it more clearly than anything else.
BTW, I'm still troubled by the desire to disown a guy who goes on a media tour to push what he "believes in." What's wrong with that? Lying, OK, that's a problem. But pushing things you genuinely believe? That's not a renouceable offense in my book, anymore than I could renounce my liberal friends for the sin of going to a John Kerry rally.
I still think you guys just don't get how this kind of stuff works in communities other than your own
If so, that would largely be because in my community, you don't hear stuff like that in the house of God. Or at least, I never have. I've heard lots of stuff about loving your neighbor and the Second Coming, but nothing about foreign policy. There may have been something about rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's, too, which strikes me a possibly relevant.
BTW, I'm still troubled by the desire to disown a guy who goes on a media tour to push what he "believes in." What's wrong with that?
I think at that point the guy simply loses any residual claim to your allegiance or consideration. What Obama said in his first speech was, I don't agree with these ideas of his, but he's been my pastor and I do agree with a lot of the other stuff he does so I don't disown him. Then the guy goes on a media tour which he obviously can only do because of his association with Obama and promotes all these things Obama not only disagrees with, but which he knows will damage Obama by association. At that point Obama says, if you're going to trade off my name to spit in my face, then the personal consideration I gave you earlier no longer applies, so now I both disagree with your views and I have nothing to do with you at this point.
brooksfoe wrote:
“… all critiques of Obama’s speech were by conservatives.”
Juan Williams is a conservative now?
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120726732176388295.html
MarkD:
Roger Ebert once chastised John Woo in a similar manner: Although Woo is Asian, he treats the enemy Japanese troops as pop-up targets, a faceless horde of screaming maniacs who run headlong into withering fire.
I was stunned to read this and ended up firing off an angry letter.
I'm about to have a kid in a similar situation as your own; I too don't know how different they will be. It's my hope that she will be able to speak/read/write two languages, but she's going to be fed a diet of "Dora the Explorer" just like all the other tots of the world.
Person, I never claimed there was an easily understood list. I don't believe Megan did either.
Yes, you both certainly did. By acting like, duh, it's soooooooo obvious that you shouldn't do X, you were certainly implying that. My claim is that NOTHING is so obvious. You might think, for example, that rape would be a bad idea, but then you'd see the romance novels and "A Streetcar Named Desire. So, yes, I strongly object to your attempt to paint these "no-no's" as somehow obvious.
"Try eye contact and a 'hello, how are you?' If she is interested, she will respond and slow down. So my advice to men -- don't be lewd or bossy in your very first interaction with a strange woman."
Pay particular attention to that last bit: "in your very first interaction with a strange woman."
Why would anyone read your statement to mean "Don't be lewd or bossy in your first interaction ... but the second is okay" ?
And do you really think I can't find a counterexample to your latest clarified version? Have you ever been e.g. attracted to your boss? Who, in the situation, almost certainly was, er, bossy on your first meeting?
And seriously, the last sentence of your post is unnecessary given that I never went all ad hominem on you. If this is how you normally interact with people, you might want to work on things other than your opening lines with women.
If you think internet discussions are exactly analogous to meatspace interactions, or that my post was an example of what it's like to pick up girls, I don't know what to tell you. How I treated you is how I treat people who perpetuate dangerous lies and should know better. Women advocate that men act certain ways, and then go for guys that do the opposite. I hope you understand why that's dangerous.
I believe that real life will not contradict me when I say that the word "meatspace" should not be used in interactions with prospective sexual partners.
Just as a tip.
"You might think, for example, that rape would be a bad idea, but then you'd see the romance novels and "A Streetcar Named Desire."
Dude. You're a freak. Seek help.
M, I'm not saying I've tried to rape anyone, or that it's a good idea. Please.
My point was just that advice from women about women is absolutely not consistent. (Yes, I know ASND wasn't written by a woman. I'm making a general point here.)
My point was just that advice from women about women is absolutely not consistent
You will find that as women mature, this problem is greatly reduced; maybe you're looking in the wrong age cohort. Also, consider dating ugly nerd girls.
On Africans
Hey to those I have outraged. I didn't start this, the Africans did. Two lied to me in a way that I have never come across before, just out and out bizarre lies that attempted to do nothing but inconvience me.
Further, I recently listed for sale some electronic equipment on Craigslist, almost half the replies were from Africans who wanted me to ship it to them in Africa with all types of convoluted payment schemes.
I don't know about you, but the real shocker to me was the American black who was recruited by a Nigerian to steal credit card info at check-in at a Renaissance Hotel.
I think some portion of the African culture has in bred in the blood of con-men who as a bonus hate Americans. I don't know what percentage it is, but given my general lack of coming across Africans, it is truly remarkable what percentage that I have encoutered are running some kind of sacm. Thus, I find it remarkable that so many Africans control night time access to so many buildings in New York City.
Rob_Lyman, I'd maybe like to date women under 35.
Rob_Lyman, I'd maybe like to date women under 35.
Now that's a tactful thing to say on this here blog. Please tell me you self-censor better than that in meatspace. But at least our gracious hostess still gets compliments on her legs from drunks, so she need not be concerned about this single slight.
Rob_Lyman, I'd maybe like to date women under 35.
Now that's a tactful thing to say on this here blog. Please tell me you self-censor better than that in meatspace. But at least our gracious hostess still gets compliments on her legs from drunks, so she need not be concerned about this single slight.
I'd maybe like to date women under 35.
Wouldn't we all. However, as a point of reference, I might suggest that:
1. If recent social experiences have lead you into the type and volume of frustrated postings you have expressed in this thread, you may need to work on more general friendships in the real world before rusing into either romance or t3h Internets.
2. Find common interests and let friendships come naturally, instead of trying to force yourself into the fray. Learn how to talk with discretion; learn how to listen early and often without constantly interjecting criticisms or solutions. Relationship building is not a blog debate.
3. Don't ever believe you can buy, bargain, or bully your way into a girl's heart or pants. The girls that fall for that crap are either miserable single mothers by the time they reach 35, or else fabulously wealthy on account of having taken their first and second husbands for 80% each in divorce court.
Ah, mouse, so much wisdom in one so young.
Person, trust me, I feel your pain; I've lamented many of the same things you lament. But lamentations, as it turns out, don't actually help.
Anyway, I'm married with two kids after a misspent youth as the "just friends" guy. It worked out OK.
Great post.
Especially liked the C.S. Lewis piece that you quoted, I hadnt come across it before. Would you have a link for the complete piece?
Meagan, thanks for continue the discussion on race.
Can I put some pressure on one thing?
People think (cognition) that they are less race influenced than they are. (check out this post, for instance - take the online tests).
I have a hard time accessing the most strident of objections of some to Obama's mention of his grandmother's racial comments or the hopeless "no win" situation that some think it puts them in.
Frankly, it costs me *nothing* to be (a) educated about racial sensitivities and the causes of grievances as they might exist in the collective conscience (b) act accordingly, even if that means a 'double standard' for how my comments might be judged. *Nothing* And even if it did, I'd willingly do it for pro bono publico. This is because I've seen some of the harms that racial prejudice brings, upfront and personal, both of the "innocent" variety and the mendacious variety.
As for chip on shoulder ... a story:
In my sort-of hometown, we had a gay couple, back when that sort of visibility was quite rare. One guy was ebullient and full of life, so that in a crowd, he always had people to talk to, and because of it, he never really had to deal much with the prejudice. He was given a social space as an "odd ball".
His partner on the other hand, everyone thought was gruff. Even I thought he quick to the draw. He had decided to "stand up" for himself and that brushed people the wrong way. I vowed not to become like that, if I could avoid it. As I watched though, I got the sense that he was really quite a softy. He wasn't "naturally" belligerent, he just ended up that way, because his "out" existence at the time demanded that he might have to jump into "defensive mode" at a moment's notice, to assert a right to something he shouldn't have had to.
So I would agree with you that the environment has some effects, as do the individual personalities. But there doesn't have to be a pervasive environment of discrimination. Even low-probability instances can have a disproportionate impact, because they can have powerful conditioning affects (I think).
The truth, which is hardly original to me, is that we are all racist, in that we still think of race as an important difference.
Which is maybe why we ought to be especially careful in reaching across the greatest racial divide in our country for a president.
Utada Hikaru ...
Wang Lee-Hom ...
Vanness Wu ...
All are fluent in English, and started music careers in the US, before moving to Asian markets.
Three examples does not constitute reliable evidence, especially for a claim so broad as "Asian-Americans don't succeed as pop stars in America because they go back to Asia to succeed as pop stars instead". You should realize that if you're statistically inclined. Firstly, I could name hundreds of Japanese/Korean/Chinese singers/actors/whatever who didn't get their start in the U.S., and rather easily argue that those who did are statistical anomalies. Secondly, there are successful Asian-American musical acts that didn't go back to their home countries but performed in a more U.S.-radio-friendly musical style (e.g. Linkin Park). Thirdly, I'd be willing to bet that a HIGHER percentage of U.S. pop culture stars are foreign born. Even in the music industry, where language barriers tend to limit international appeal, there's Shakira, Amy Winehouse, Rihanna, Shania Twain, and Leona Lewis. And that's just a list of recent stars off the top of my head, saying nothing of every British invasion band or Europop act that's ever been big in the U.S.
With regards to your experiences - yes, most of the world is racist. The US is really the only place people are making a go at eliminating racism.
I disagree. I think there's some consciousness of it here, and certainly quite a bit in Europe, not to mention Canada and Australia.
Racism against whites (in Asia) is highly segregated by class. If you work in high-powered corporate positions, you won't experience much racism. If you're yet another single-white-male English teacher, then expect a lot more racism.
I've been in both situations, and that's true to an extent. Partially, though, I think it's just a question of who it's acceptable to be openly racist towards. People here aren't racist, or at least aren't inclined to express their racism, toward white corporate types because said people tend to be powerful and important. I don't think that's different in America, though - I doubt Bob Johnson or Oprah Winfrey would encounter any sort of racist treatment if they walked into a store or restaurant either. As for single-white-male English teachers, there are plenty of asshat ones about, no doubt, but they still fall in for disproportionate scorn. I've known quite a few Japanese-American and Korean-American post college eternal fratboy (yes, sadly, they're all male) types who are just here to drink, screw around, and generally act like assholes, and strangely, they don't encounter the same problems I do, despite the fact that I respect the culture, have learned the language, and don't drink, screw around, or act like an asshole. I see an analogy to how white suburban teens in the U.S. who get into barfights, get pregnant out of wedlock, get into drugs, etc. are thought to be "going through a rough patch" and receive every effort at rehabilitation, whereas black urban teens exhibiting the same behaviors are labeled hoodlums and burgeoning menaces to society and are basically kicked to the curb by being sent to prison for years or whatever. Hence, the newfound empathy for the racism that blacks still face in America.
On Obama, his whole reaction to the Wright thing was extremely dishonest. Before the tapes came out, Wright was like an old uncle who occasionally said things he disagreed with. Once the tapes come out, Obama says this is all a big shock to him. He wasn't in the pews for those remarks and never heard anything like them before. In fact, when Obama went to church, all Wright ever talked about was "talk about Jesus and talk about faith and values and serving the poor" (Anderson Cooper interview, 3/14). When no one bought that, he admits in the speech that he heard Wright make some controversial remarks about race in the past, that it wasn't all Jesus and faith and serving the poor. But that's excused because, back when Wright was growing up, racism abounded in the land. Well, Wright's views aren't exactly specific to his age bracket so that's a pretty dishonest explanation. But whatever. Then, when Wright has the temerity to say that (a) black people listen to Louis Farrakhan, (b) the government is, theoretically speaking, capable of infecting its citizens with a virus, and (c) Obama's race speech was politically motivated, it's time to denounce Wright! What appalling sentiments! Of course, no more appalling than anything he said in his sermons, which Obama wasn't too exercised about. All Obama was really upset about was Wright having the audacity to show his face on television.
As for the speech, I thought it was fine as far as it went on race, but that the ending - that is, the only part with any substance - followed the same logic as his infamous bitter comments. Perceived racial inequities are just a function of a bad economy, so what we all need to do is ignore pseudo-problems like affirmative action or immigration and focus on pouring money into failing schools and punishing those nasty corporations shipping our jobs overseas "for nothing more than a profit." Of course, what makes the latter problems any more real than the former isn't at all clear; we're just supposed to take it from Obama that, contrary to appearances, it's never the case that "your dreams come at my expense."
"1) Employs an all-white staff."
TR: I don't know about all white, but stores that have no black employees? I would think that happens in many towns in the following states: Montana, Idaho, both Dakotas, Maine, Utah, Wyoming, New Hampshire, Iowa, New Mexico, Arizona, West Virginia, and Nebraska. Of those I'd say there's a good chance that there are stores in West Virginia, Maine, New Hampshire, the Dakotas, and Iowa with only white employees. These states are well-over 90% white to start with. Anyway there is a world outside the coasts you know.
"2) Has employees who actually care whether they are being ripped off or not."
TR: There are still businesses that inspire loyalty. Or alternatively there are still businesses where the boss feels free to make, sometimes degrading, demands on employees.
"3) Only has one black customer at a time (or enough employees actually working to follow multiple African-American shoppers)."
TR: See states mentioned above on the first thing. At the local Mall I'm not sure any of the employees are black. Possibly a waitress at the restaurant, but possibly not.
"Only has one black customer at a time (or enough employees actually working to follow multiple African-American shoppers)."
I should add something here. I think some sub-groups among blacks get targeted more than others. In particular blacks under 30 years of age or blacks wearing baggy clothing. (In fairness whites with baggy clothing are sometimes also watched for shoplifting)
I think some portion of the African culture has in bred in the blood of con-men who as a bonus hate Americans.
Okay, I take it all back, I guess racism really isn't much of a problem in America anymore.
Megan, the word you're looking for here is "privilege." You have some from being white. Your male friend has some from being male. Amazingly, you're not the first person ever to figure out that other people are being subject to discrimination and other offenses that are completely invisible to everybody else.
Liberals have known this for, oh, I don't know, about a century? It's not "weird" that commonplace, offensive behavior by men towards you is invisible to other men. It's called privilege. It's that thing that conservatives and libertarians keep insisting doesn't exist. And there you go, stumbling right onto some!
Women advocate that men act certain ways, and then go for guys that do the opposite. I hope you understand why that's dangerous.
No, Person.
Some women don't want men to act a certain way, and some women do; some women express their preferences for how men should act, and then other women date men who behave differently from that.
Because women are individual people, with individual preferences, not merely interchangeable accessories for the end of your penis, as you view them.
The above, incidentally, is why you can't get laid. Women can sense your dripping contempt for them.
Brandon: Yes, he is. Or, more specifically, he's a "libaral" who always agrees with conservatives so conservatives can say "Even the liberal Juan Williams."
Even the column you're citing was published in Murdoch's Journal. Sheesh.
Megan: Fantastic post.
MarkD >>> You nailed it. Asian-American is a pretty useless construction ... only completely Americanized Asian-Americans actually feel solidarity with other Asian-Americans. For the rest, it is Japanese-American, Chinese-American, Korean-American, etc...
Xeynon >>>
You asked for examples, I gave examples - since your exact words are here on this page, it would be rather difficult to move the goalposts now...
Recall my original point - the growth of Asian-American culture (vis-a-vis Black culture) has been retarded by the siphoning of top talent to Asia. There are plenty of originally Asian-American acts that moved to Asia, I only chose the three that were dominating, multi-platinum groups that have totally conquered the Asian markets. Given the billions of people live in Asia, and single-digit millions that live in the US, Asian-Americans are already over-represented in the Asian markets, certainly by revenue share. That is my statistically-inclined point.
As to your other two points, the acceptance of some Asian-American acts, and the over-representation of foreign-born artists, they do not contradict my statements, nor do they support your rebuttal. The UK? Canada? Euro-pop? Might the fact that they are singing in English have something to do with that?
(B-b-but what about Shakira? Well, think about how many Spanish-speaking residents there are...)
Anyways, moving on:
The Americanized immigrants (Japanese-Americans in Japan, Korean-Americans in Korea, etc...) who come back with an arrogant sense of entitlement get just as much scorn once identified...they just have better camouflage. Usually they have friends and relatives who are understood to be responsible for their behavior as well.
The rap against English teachers boils down this: "Why have you decided to fly half-way around the world, to leave your country, your friends and family, and your culture, to take a low-wage job selling a skill that is your birthright, the ability to speak American-accented English?" What's the answer?
It's like the man at the club who is just a little too old - just doesn't pass the smell test. "What are you doing here?" - "I like the music." There is no good answer that is believable and respectable. The same is true for foreign English teachers.
Excellent summation, Asher. In thinking about it, I recalled also that week and a half when the party line from Obama was that we were seeing 'an endless loop of 30 second sound bites of Rev. Wright.' We saw plenty of party line followers too. We were to believe that Rev. Wright was a religious Einstein who maybe had been exclaiming after he dropped the shampoo on his toe. Fox News was denying us the equivalent of Einstein positing C for the speed of light as the only invariant speed in the universe. So far all we have seen though is Rev. Wright breaking through the bounds of reality tooting gayly and angrily away. So far I don't see St. Einstein with Rev. Wright though, do you?
BORING!
The word "catcall" does not mean what everyone in this thread thinks it means. The dictionary definition is "..a negative, derisive comment", as in the phrase "boos and catcalls". It's not a synonym of or even a near relative to "wolf whistle".
"Both communities" - there aren't just two communities in the whole world, young lady. There are many more. I was also born from parents of different communities, not the same ones as Obama's, and I'm also glad that by and large the younger generation seem less dysfunctional than the older ones (though they have their own quirks).
All that to say that if you get a little perspective, you find that the black community is a victim mostly of its own game of identity politics. The ultimate white american privilege is to have been raised in a spirit of self-reliance and an individualist stance that leaves group politics behind.
The truth, which is hardly original to me, is that we are all racist, in that we still think of race as an important difference. Which of course, it is, if only by virtue of the fact that we all think so.
No. Race is an "important difference" because the government makes it so. So long as we have "Affirmative Action", so long as we have government openly judging people based on the color of their skin rather than the content of their character, so long as blacks who are not nearly as well qualified as their competitors get jobs / into colleges simply because of their "race", race will matter.
And the more "liberals" try to justify the racism of "Affirmative Action", the more race matters.
house glass look site google cube free university night australia google
woman yahoo woman white ibm free busy university tom