Any attempt to challenge the conventional, politically correct conception of "racism" as a phenomenon both pervasive and deeply immoral is bound to be met with the predictable charge of "racism."
I am doubly grateful that my analysis of the concept of "racism" engendered discussion and that most of the contributions to that discussion were thoughtful. Unfortunately, though, my appreciation is conjoined with a frustration over the positively thoughtless comments that, by virtue of the vapidity of their substance and the incivility with which they were communicated, succeeded in undermining the conversation the moment they entered it: they spoiled the well of discourse. Thankfully, the authors of these inanities constitute no more than a small handful.
While their marginal numbers should itself suffice to insure my neglect of them, and while I don't ordinarily make it my business to accommodate the idiocy of others, I feel compelled to make an exception to my own rule. There is one simple reason for this: the spoilers of our well of discourse, though in themselves insignificant and, thus, richly deserving of neglect, nevertheless represent precisely the sort of mindset that renders a genuinely honest and civil discussion of race and "racism" impossible. Questions of race and "racism" are among the most sensitive of any in our contemporary culture, and far too often those who challenge the conventional answers to them are treated in exactly the kind of ways in which the more emotive of my interlocutors treated me. It is for this reason and this reason only that I expend the energy and use the space allotted me to acknowledge them.
Before commencing further, it should be stated in advance that my decision to respond to these critics is not without qualification: because it is not them individually that is the source of my angst, and because individually they are of no importance, they will not be mentioned by name.
The most stupid of remarks — it hasn't the dignity of a "criticism" — was submitted in reply to my first column. The poster– he can't be regarded as a contributor because he contributed nothing — had charged me with "bigotry." That is, from the fact that I put the idea of "racism" into question he concluded that I must be a "racist."
Just the slightest familiarity with the most elementary logic immediately reveals the fallaciousness of this line of reasoning. In order to have an honest dialogue on any issue the central terms in which it is typically characterized must be relieved of their ambiguity. That is, the participants in the dialogue must clarify the sense or senses in which they understand or plan to understand the relevant terms. Thus, if we are to have an honest dialogue on "racism," we must first determine what "racism" means, or what it could mean.
This is what my analysis intended to accomplish.
But by accusing me of "racism" before we are able to achieve an understanding of "racism" and because I am attempting to do just that is to reason in the most viciously circular of ways. It is the equivalent of accusing someone of being a misanthrope because he is attempting to determine the meaning of "brotherly love," or accusing someone of being "illiberal" because he is uncertain that the word "liberalism" any longer has a clear meaning.
This poster also supplies us with a brilliant display of the monumental intolerance that pervades the (typically leftist) "anti-racists" of the world when he deduces from my essay — which asserted not a peep about religion — my religious affiliation. Only a Christian could have such thoughts, he expressly said. For this, we can safely conclude that it is he who is the true "bigot" — an anti-Christian bigot.
It is with reservation that I make this charge, for it has the effect of perpetuating the ill-will that it is my strongest desire to abate. This, after all, is why I urge us to retire the word "racism." My point here, however, is to establish not that this spoiler is a bigot, but that he exhibits the utter self-ignorance and hypocrisy all too characteristic of the most vehement "anti-racists" among us: he effortlessly speaks pejoratively of a huge group of people while posturing as an "anti-bigot."
The point to take away from this first spoiler's comments is that any attempt to challenge the conventional, politically correct conception of "racism" as a phenomenon both pervasive and deeply immoral is bound to be met with the predictable charge of "racism."
No one else wrote as unintelligently and illogically (to say nothing of ungrammatically) as this first spoiler. In fact, there is perhaps only one other poster who I am tempted to call a spoiler. This person identifies himself as a "seventeen-year old man."
With respect to my comments regarding the "racial hatred" model of "racism," the 17 year-old offered a response that was reasonable enough. Or, rather, at least it would have been reasonable had he correctly understood the proposition to which he spoke. I had written that if hatred is always immoral, then the object of hatred is irrelevant. Hatred of tall people is neither better nor worse than hatred of Nazis. My adolescent objector noted rightly that height is not the product of choice, whereas belief is (this statement is actually debatable, but it is grist for another mill). Yet this distinction between determined physical characteristics and voluntarily accepted beliefs is utterly irrelevant — this was my point! — if hatred is always immoral.
If it were a crime, the misreading of another's words is something for which we should all hang, for there is not one among us who hasn't been guilty of it at one time or another. In this case, it is doubtless Junior's as of yet undeveloped ability to read critically that explains the ease with which he drew such an illegitimate inference from a statement that couldn't have been stated more clearly. Still, I appreciate his efforts to engage the reading.
But it is when he referred to me as "ignorant" that he spoiled the well. Notice, of everything that I have written, Junior seizes upon one remark, misinterprets it, and then concludes that I am "ignorant." This is profoundly instructive in two respects.
First, it is illustrative of the other charge to which the radicals among us who challenge the orthodox idea of "racism" are inevitably vulnerable. Not only can we bet on being called "racists" or "bigots," we can also expect to have our intelligence diminished.
Second, the reasoning of this 17 year-old illuminates as well the abysmal levels to which public discourse has degenerated and to which it promises to continue to plunge. The sophomoric attitude reflected by his remarks, I am afraid, isn't just a function of his age. Rather, they comprise an exhibition of a cast of mind shared by all too many, of all ages, a mind sorely lacking genuine education.
Education is not synonymous with formal education. An educated person possesses both the willingness and ability to articulate his perspective, and to articulate it in a manner that is passionate, yes, but also civil and respectful. Yet he is just as willing and able to listen to what his interlocutor has to say, for it is only after he has heard his opponent out that he can hope to further the discussion.
More frequently than not, people are desirous of nothing else but proving their own intellectual and moral superiority by circumventing almost entirely the views of those with whom they disagree by launching personal attacks against the latter. Yet this approach, far from betraying an intellect and character that is strong, shows them, rather, to be quite weak.
Finally, one person accused me of defending the "indefensible" position that "'racism' is a 'meaningless' concept."
The first thing to take notice of here is that I never said any such thing. Again, that to which we painfully bear witness is an inability to read, and thus, to think, critically. On the contrary, I argued that "racism" has multiple meanings. The conventional, unreflective notion of "racism" has it that "racism" is something both ubiquitous and, more importantly, for my purposes, gravely immoral. I distinguished and identified four fundamentally distinct conceptions or models of "racism" and showed that none could accommodate this conventional idea. I then recommended that we contrive a new vocabulary for identifying racially-oriented injustices and cruelties, for "racism," thanks to the decades of abuse to which the term has been subjected, is no longer adequate: it is confusion, both intellectual and moral, not clarity, to which the charge of "racism" more often than not leads.
Furthermore, if this person believes that I said anything that is "indefensible," then it is incumbent upon him to explain why it is so. This, though, he has singularly failed to do. Rather, he proceeds to define "racism" as "prejudice"– as if this is a definition not covered by any one of the four models that I identify. To prejudge is to engage in a kind of discrimination, and I have already enumerated the problems with the "Racial Discrimination" model of "racism." If my criticisms are misplaced, then this person should have brought their weaknesses to light for our edification. Yet he didn't even try taking the intellectually serious line. He sought instead to cavalierly dismiss what didn't fit with his own prejudices.
My objective here has not been to castigate my interlocutors. It was, rather, to show them, and everyone, that their propensity to hurl personal insults at those with whom they have intellectual conflicts is destructive both of the dialogue in which they hope to engage as well as their own intellectual and moral growth.
I am not convinced that all conservatives believe as this author does (although he doesn't presume to speak for the group). I have heard the term "racist" used to describe Jesse Jackson, for example.
I can't say I mind someone attributing generalized attitudes against a certain race to a person who consistently displays them. It wouldn't matter whether the word "racist" exists in that case, would it? The thought could still be conveyed.
I think the problem is that the damage and basic unfairness of baseless accusations of racism has not been properly exposed, discussed and appreciated. People making these charges need to be challenged.
Mr. Kerwick, as a guy on the other side of the street, I’d like to offer substantial agreement, but with a question for you as well.
The problem with the word ‘racist’ is obviously that it is fraught with associations, and serves to short-circuit reasoned discussion. Calling someone a racist is a simple and effective solution to a problem. The problem is that your opponent’s views are threatening to your world-view, your comfortable ‘truths’, and your sense of righteous superiority.
Although I would probably qualify as a liberal, count me among those who find the indiscriminate screech of ‘racist!’ or ‘bigot!’ frustrating and disgusting. As you say, it is predominantly a pathology of the Left to impute racism – overt or subliminal – to any who question Leftist remedies to historical race crimes—-remedies such as affirmative action, reparation, or collective groveling.
I’m not sure I agree with your cure, which is evidently to expunge a particularly apt noun from political discourse simply because it is commonly misused. There ARE racists. I could probably provide a definition, if asked, but for the moment I’ll leave it facile: I know them when I see them. Don’t you?
But I sympathize with the impulse. It is like ‘Fascist’, or ‘Nazi’ – words that shed only heat, never any light, and are usually applied with maximal imprecision and exaggeration–mere bludgeons. ‘Fascist’ is a mindless insult, and the conversation is over, which is usually the intention. We can drop this junior F-bomb, high-five, snigger, and saunter off. No need to grapple with uncomfortable, assumption-shaking views. No need to examine evidence or carefully define terms.
The Left hurls ‘fascist war-pig’ at George W Bush, and the Right now cries ‘Liberal Fascist’ at tedious book-length. Neither is serious, both are only insulting. Both hoist straw men.
I am a Leftist, I suppose, but I cheerfully acknowledge the vacuity of the ‘Racist!’ racket puked up by those I must reluctantly claim as my brethren.
Will anyone on the Right do the same? What is the conservative analogue? I think there must be one. I view intellectual laziness and the delights of the ad hominem attack as incorrigible human foibles, rather than something exclusively associated with either pole of our political ambivalence.
I’ll throw one out: ‘POLITICALLY CORRECT’. Yes, the term lacks the history and pedigree of ‘Racist!’, but it strikes me as every bit as lazy and empty. It is a new term of abuse, whereas ‘Racist!’ is as old as dirt, but I find it to be a rough parallel.
Racial chauvinism and bias are subtle but consequential, pervasive but often unconscious. Do you disagree? I think it’s clearly true. These biases exist in the actual world, but are rarely intentional or with malign intent.
So, let’s say I choose to draw attention to our peculiar and baffling prejudices, to shine an uncomfortable light on matters we’d prefer to remain subterranean and deniable. It takes only a cry of ‘Politically Correct!’ to dismiss me as weak-kneed and fey, a joke to be derided. It’s just another nuke.
Should we not retire ‘Politically Correct’? Like ‘racist’, it does injury to reasoned discussion and clear thinking. It is a bludgeon, not a scalpel, and deserves a requiem.
If I bitch-slap the next dumbass Leftist that bleats ‘Racist!’, will you knee-cap the next Winger that bleats ‘Political Correctness!’ ?
What say you?
Ozzie
Mr Kerwick, I was wondering whether you had read Jim Kalb's article on "Anti-Racism". You may find his analysis of those who bandy around the word "racist" to be of interest.
Ozzie
I suppose that along with "Politically Correct" we can dispose of "Politically Incorrect"? And, who was it that named his TV show "Politically Incorrect"? No other than the leftist, Bill Maher, who claimed that Rush Limbaugh is a racist!
Yes, as you say, "I know them when I see them." They appear on Fox News, on the Republican side of the ballot, their skin is pink, their noses are narrow, their hair is blond or red, they do not hyphenate their nationality, and they live in Oklahoma.
Oh my, lions tigers and bears. We must be moving into the twilight zone.
I note a reference in comments to Jesse Jackson and a veiled suggestion that he is not a racist. Why not? Anyone pressing advantage for a group based on rase is a racist unless they are darlings of the media then they are civil rights activists. Orwell had something as he pointed out the names that will be used to obscure actual meanings.
Like it or not there will be some issues associated with race. In the real world businessmen attempt to hire the best candidates, oops government intervention not the best but the one that offers diversity or multi-culturalism. Is this the effect of racist government policies? Hmmm.
Until things are made race and culture blind there will continue to be issues of racism, particularly from the best qualified candidates passed over for a diversity hire.
Mr. G,
I did not take nor did I imply any position regarding whether Jesse Jackson is, or is not, a racist. I used his name as an example to support my theory that, while this author would prefer to retire the term "racist" (for reasons he explains thoroughly), and while this author is apparently happy to be identified as a conservative, apparently not all conservatives object to the term; in fact, some find it useful, as you have. I know very little about Jackson, other than that he is black and controversial, so I decline comment on him. It's fair to say he is not one of my heroes.
However, I did explain that I have no objection to the charge of "racism" if it is demonstrated, but I resent, on behalf of the victim, unfounded accusations of racism, as I would resent an unfounded accusation of, for example, theft. It seems that you and I agree on that.
So you are free to call Jackson a racist if you can support it with evidence when evidence is requested. I wouldn't dispute it with the information I have.
Moreover, I have no idea where my question (or theory) about how conservatives will react to Mr. Kerwick's proposal will lead. I was just mentioning that I notice the charge of racism is made against people of all colors.
Nor have I accused anyone of abusing Jesse Jackson.
Whew!
OK, as long as I've come this far, it is necessary to point out the middle ground scenerio: someone claims that "Person X is a racist" and I feel that he is mistaken, but not as a consequence of a pattern of wanting to malign people, but rather, there is a sincere effort to understand but an incorrect conclusion. In this case I would neither resent the accuser nor let my respect for the accused diminish.
—–I suppose that along with "Politically Correct" we can dispose of "Politically Incorrect"? —–
Sure, no problem. Works for me.
Seems a little wide of my point, though, which is that for every ad hominem bludgeon-word used by the Left, I suspect we could discover one used by the Right. Probably we'd be better off if both sides tried to avoid them.
Oz
Mr. Ivanovich, I quote,
"Yes, as you say, 'I know them when I see them.' (racists). They appear on Fox News, on the Republican side of the ballot, their skin is pink, their noses are narrow, their hair is blond or red, they do not hyphenate their nationality, and they live in Oklahoma."
Is this the sentiment that you attribute to Ozzie? If so, please note that he has not expressed any such notion. He could have been talking about Jeremiah Wright, or me, for all anyone knows. In fact, though, he is not talking about individuals, but behaviors. He deliberately, and purposefully avoided maligning any demographic. In that case, you have made a groundless accusation.
Is this not the same as the authors objection to the indiscriminate use of the term "racist?"
"…for every ad hominem bludgeon-word used by the Left, I suspect we could discover one used by the Right." A nonsense argument designed to obtain moral equivalency. The author rightly makes the case that the word "racism" has been cheapened by the Left. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the Right might or might not do.
"Politically correct" is a phrase that is useful and rarely used as a bludgeon. Or rather, the Left probably doesn't like its use at all, since the Left likes to have power over people and prefers to do so with impugnity.
Ozzie,
I thank you for good will and reasonableness. That you are willing to both sympathize with my concerns and recognize that it is those on your side of the aisle who are chiefly (though not, sadly, exclusively) responsible for the ill fortunes by which the term "racism" has been beset speaks to your intellectual honesty and moral courage.
As for your question to me, a question, I will add (so as to reciprocate your good will), that is quite legitimate, I have two quick replies.
First, we shouldn't automatically assume that just because there are two or more parties, whether political or otherwise, there must be parity in belief and conduct between them. That is, while there are doubtless code words and other "bludgeon words" used by many on the Right against their opponents on the Left, that there should be an intellectual and/or moral equivalency between two or more groups corresponding to their numerical equivalency is a supposition in desperate need of an argument.
Second, I have had problem with one word especially that many on my side have, I firmly believe, abused: "elitist."
If you are willing to drop "racist," I promise that I will drop "elitist."
Thanks again.
Jack Kerwick
—–he author rightly makes the case that the word "racism" has been cheapened by the Left. This has absolutely nothing to do with what the Right might or might not do.—–
This is a literally true but utterly pointless observation.
You can't make an accusation of another, while being yourself guilty of the behavior you are criticizing, and not expect it to be pointed out.
(I am not directing this at the author of this piece, by the way. As far as I know, he is entirely civil).
Surely you understand that. There's nothing wrong with it. I've seen it done by the conservatives on this very board, by the way.
—–"Politically correct" is a phrase that is useful and rarely used as a bludgeon. ——
I disagree. It is quite frequently used to close off discussions about subtle racism, racial sensitivity, and such. It may have once had a meaning, but now it has just become an insult, and as such is useless in reasoned debate.
It is not as vicious as accusing someone of racism, but that is a difference in degree rather than kind. I could point to much more vicious and counterproductive epithets that have been in usage by the Right.
—–since the Left likes to have power over people and prefers to do so with impugnity (sic).—–
That's just more silly exaggeration.
PS– when you say that I point out the Right's tendency to bludgeon people with insulting labels (in the same way that the Left does) for the purpose of establishing 'moral equivalency', you are correct. Obviously. That was, um, my whole point. Childish name-calling by either side is approximately morally equivalent.
Oz
Mr. Kerwick, our posts crossed in the mail.
As far as 'racist' and 'elitist' go, I'd be very pleased if they both went away. But, to offer a mild disagreement, there ARE racists, and there ARE elitists, and there always have been. It strikes me that it is not the words that are the problem, but the naked dishonesty and ill-will with which they are commonly used. Your piece seemed to call for an increase in generalized civility in political discourse, which of course means an increase in restraint and good faith–and with all of that I heartily agree!
Peace,
Ozzie
————Mr. Ivanovich, I quote,
"Yes, as you say, 'I know them when I see them.' (racists). They appear on Fox News, on the Republican side of the ballot, their skin is pink, their noses are narrow, their hair is blond or red, they do not hyphenate their nationality, and they live in Oklahoma."
Is this the sentiment that you attribute to Ozzie? If so, please note that he has not expressed any such notion. ————
Ruminator, you are correct, thank you. Racism (actual, rather than imaginary) can be seen among any group. I didn't further respond to Mr. Ivanovich, because frankly I didn't really understand what he was saying. :-)
Oz
"…utterly pointless observation…" How? In what way? A bald contradiction only requires a similar rejoinder, so here it is: Yours is an utterly pointless observation. Ok, your turn.
"You can't make an accusation of another, while being yourself guilty of the behavior you are criticizing, and not expect it to be pointed out." Who on this thread is guilty of the behavior being criticized? What exactly are you pointing out, other than the general and meaningless observation that "everybody does it?"
"It is quite frequently used to close off discussions about subtle racism, racial sensitivity, and such." Examples, please. I have never heard anyone do such a thing, so prove your point: Who has done this, and when?
"That's just more silly exaggeration." No it isn't. See, I can make baseless, unsupported rejoinders, too.
"That was, um, my whole point." Do you stutter when you type? Or is your use of the word "um" an attempt to condescend? Oh, and by the way, I understood your point, that's why I wrote my response. Your point was empty and baseless.
As was your response to my point.
——–"It is quite frequently used to close off discussions about subtle racism, racial sensitivity, and such."
Mountain Man–
Examples, please. I have never heard anyone do such a thing, so prove your point: Who has done this, and when?——-
Because of my occupation, I am privy to many discussions among social scientists about the difficulty of pursuing certain lines of research (such as race-based preferences, effects of subtle stereotyping, use of language about race) without being tarred as ‘politically correct’, often by individuals who have read nothing about the research being proposed.
I watch TV and read the newspapers, and while I unfortunately have not DVR’d or clipped every instance, I have concluded that being tarred as ‘politically correct’ has become a strong deterrent and impediment to communciation.
I don’t think I’m alone in this opinion. For example, if you wanted numerous specific instances and quotations by those affected by this phenomenon, read this book, called ‘The Myth of Political Correctness’. Obviously, from the title, you can tell that the author has an axe to grind, but he does present enough specifics that should be persuasive that the use of ‘political correctness!’ as a bludgeon is not the least bit uncommon.
http://thinkerspodium.wordpress.com/2008/07/12/the-political-correctness-conspiracy-theory/
A few quotes:
———————————————————————————————————
“Political correctness is a label slapped on an enormous range of liberal views…according to one writer, “It is PC to be in favor of affirmative action, and to ‘profess a belief in environmentalism, Palestinian selself-determination…”
“By expanding the meaning of the term political correctness to include any expression of radical ideas, conservatives distorted its original meaning and turned it into a mechanism for doing exactly whqt they charge is done to them—silence dissenters. Michael Berube points out that the term PC is doing the work that the term ‘liberal’ did for Bush in 1988”: it’s trying to dismiss large potential constituencies for cultural activism…”
“As the American Association of University Professors observed, “Charges of political correctness …have a way of taking on their own coercive tone.” If an opponent could be dismissed as politically correct, there was no need to reply to any substantive arguments.
Anthony DePalma observes that “PC…;has evolved into to a catch-all campus putdown.”
Catharine Stimpson of the MacArthur Foundation reports that the ‘accusation of campus malfeasance have taken hold, to such a degree that the label, ‘You’re PC’ can now be slapped on like a gag.”
While claiming to be silenced, conservatives now use PC to silence their opponents. In August 1993, Joe Rabinowitz, news director of WTTG, the Fox station in Washington DC, wrote a memo to the chair of Fox Television, urging the firing of ‘politically correct’ employees. To hunt these employees down he consulted with conservative media critics like L Brent Bozell III…
————————————————————————————————-
From an article about Michael Howard, a conservative British politician
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/has-political-correctness-gone-mad–or-has-michael-howard-lost-the-plot-534575.html
Howard personally piloted Section 28 – the most nakedly homophobic piece of legislation introduced in the past 50 years – through the House of Commons. He chided all the Labour MPs who warned that it would lead to homophobic bullying and teenage suicides as – you guessed it – "politically correct".
"Political correctness" has become a generic term used by the right to slap down the extension of equality to minority groups without seeming like monsters.
——————————————————–
These snippets do not *prove* that the epithet ‘PC’ is used to silence debate. For me to present a conclusive case in that regard is a larger project than I am willing to undertake for a discussion board’s sake. But I just wanted to point out that it is a widely held view, not just mine, and supporting it with evidence is not too difficult.
Putting “PC” aside, one could point to any number of other rather ugly epithets that the Right uses in much the same way that the Left uses cries of 'Racist'. For example, Jonah Goldberg appears to call Liberals ‘fascists’. Ann Coulter calls them ‘Godless’ and it’s a small leap from the title of her book (Treason) to imagine that she is calling us Treasonous. (I didn't read any of these books, admittedly). Before the collapse of communism, "Commie!" or 'Com Symp!' was unfairly applied with regularity. Since that word has gone out of vogue, the word ‘Socialist!’ was endlessly trotted out by the Right in the presidential campaign.
All of these are lazy intellectual shorthands we’d all be better off without, I think. 'Ad hominem' is too freighted with downsides to be encouraged. It is done by both the Left and the Right, with similar (counterproductive) results.
Oz
Ozzie said–
—–"You can't make an accusation of another, while being yourself guilty of the behavior you are criticizing, and not expect it to be pointed out." —–
Mountain Man retorted—
Who on this thread is guilty of the behavior being criticized? What exactly are you pointing out, other than the general and meaningless observation that "everybody does it?"——-
I did not say that anyone on this Thread is guilty of it. I said that some of the conservatives "on this Board" have done it. And I was referring to the use of the 'tu quoque' argument ('you too'). And then I said there was nothing wrong with it anyway. What's your point? You've lost me.
Oz
Ozzie said:
——–"That was, um, my whole point."
Mountain Man scolds:
——–Do you stutter when you type? Or is your use of the word "um" an attempt to condescend?
Yes, it does sound kind of condescending, now that you mention it. It was an error, my apologies. I'll try to do better.
Oz
Hmmm…..interesting.
If misreading is a crime for which all should surely hang, then Mr. kerwick, you and I will hang together. I never wrote(said, felt, believed) that only a Christian would have such thoughts. You made that up. It was not exactly a leap for me to categorize a conservative poster on Intellectual Conservative as a Christian. If you posted on slashdot maybe you would have a point.
Further, I don't think I misread you. I may have reacted in an overcharged fashion, but for my purposes that was the point. Before my post, you didn't have a discussion of racism that was destined to explore its real meaning and consequences, or anything so grandiose. You had a hand shaking and thank you session with a bunch of people that agreed with you. Its tough to unearth new truths when all around believe that discovery is at an end.
Finally, I did not effortlessly(or with duress) speak pejoratively of a "huge group of people"(wasn't aware that you felt membership in a group, considering you accused me of errantly placing you in one). I spoke negatively of you, and more specifically your article..which was garbage.
The word racism isn't complex. Feelings are though. Sure, plenty of people cry wolf, as it were, on matters of race. I employ some who have accused me of the very same. Its unfortunate, but its reality and I live with it as do you and your fans and detractors alike.
What you don't talk about, because its on the other side of your fence, is the real racism that is out there. The room full of white guys that look around before they tell the off color joke is real. I see that all too often as well.Just this week I heard the words nigger and shine come out of the mouth of one of my superiors. How likely is that man to give a black person a fair shake?
I don't know if you're a racist Mr. Kerwick. Only you know could know that. The thing is, just because you could know it doesn't mean you do.
And all of you could do a great deal better for yourselves than criticizing my grammar. I typically post on my cellphone, not a PC. Additionally, English is not my first language. I think I do fairly well considering. If you don't, I guess that's unfortunate. I'm feel fairly confident, however,that I do better in your language than you would in mine(or any other second language).
Take care Mr. Kerwick.
MPanetta,
As I explained in my column, it is not my custom to engage people who have supplied every indication that they are neither willing nor even capable of having rational, civil discussion. The bad news is that you are such a person. The good news, however, is that I have a glimmer of faith that there may just be hope for you yet.
This is why I will exempt myself from my own rule just this once and speak to you directly.
First of all, Mr. Panetta, don't ever accuse me of making anything up. What you wrote, sir, is that my analysis of this much abused word insures you that I must be a Christian. In saying such a thing, whether you had the analytical powers of mind to recognize it or not, you imply that Christians generally are, as you would say, "racist." What you consciously intend to say and what you logically, necessarily imply by your words, are two distinct things. This is what makes logic a mixed blessing: without it, thought would be impossible, yet it also has a way of frustrating our wishes and compelling us to account for our utterances.
Second, once more, you beg the question by assuming the meaning of "racism" by insinuating that your "superior" is "racist" for making a racially-charged joke. If you have a problem with anything that I wrote, sir, then please stay focused on my analysis. So far, though, neither you nor, for that matter, anyone, as far as I can recall, has commented on any of the details of it.
I ask you: if you heard your superior and his colleagues making "dumb blond jokes," would you have reacted with the same horror with which you reacted to their "color" jokes? Would you have concluded that the chances are slim that he would be willing to give a blond female "a fair shake?"
By the way, is it "racist" when Chris Rock and a slew of other black and brown comedians routinely make fun of whites? Do you lament, then, the lost opportunities in the entertainment industry that whites are likely to suffer because of the biases operating against them? Somehow, I doubt this.
Third, I do apologize for making remarks concerning your grammar. You spoiled the well of discourse, Mr. Panetta, and so I was angry. But this is no excuse. Still, just for record, I have studied two languages beside English, and passed proficiency tests in both. I acknowledge, though, that at this time, you write much more fluently in English (assuming that you are telling the truth about this) than I can write in either of my additional languages.
Finally, you suggest that I (and the rest of those who regularly visit this site) live in an intellectually insular world, that unless you posted the comments that you did,I would remain forever oblivious to any conceivable criticism against my essay.
This is ludicrous. The group of people who visit this site compose anything but a monolithic bunch. Furthermore, sir, I am an academic. I have master's and doctoral degrees in philosophy, and I teach philosophy at a variety of northeastern colleges and universities now. In case you don't know, the contemporary university isn't exactly a bastion of conservatism. In fact, it is precisely my experiences in academia that have lead me to my present intellectual location, so to speak.
Take care yourself and thanks for reading.
Jack Kerwick
"Godless" as used by Ann Coulter as a bludgeon? I don't doubt it. But in my case, as a liberal democrat, no offense taken, because I know that some atheists (such as musician/comedian/author the late Steve Allen) are (were)intensely driven by moral concerns. Some would describe him as self-righteously moralistic, as one of his pet peeves was the crude language of today's comedians.
Whereas some people who are seen in church each week are keeping up appearances and not more preoccupied with moral questions than was Mr. Allen.
I'm not making generalizations. On the whole I respect the practice of organized Western religions. Just pointing out that the deliberate use of the bludgeon can backfire on the perpetrator. Another argument in favor of avoiding it.
Dr. Kerwick, and readers,
I have a question which is "delicate," for lack of a better word. Please understand that I don't know the answer, and I'm not trying to provoke, but to learn.
How does the word "Anti-Semitic" hold up to scrutiny? It's not a "bludgeon" of the right nor left, but accords a special status in our collective consciousness. Does it mean that hatred of Jews is worse than any other brand of hatred? Does its use shut down reasonable discussion, or malign any innocent parties?
Just asking, and any thoughts are appreciated.
Dr. Kerwick, I don't comment on the details of your essay because I don't have your erudition and training! Thanks for your work.
Feel free to refer me to books.
I appreciate the attempt to get discourse through comment off the ground! My experience is that they always end with a few posters continually marking lines in the sand, each becoming more and more intractable as they stalk the walls of their castled positions. Ultimately someone Godwin's and its time to move on. Of course what else can we expect in the world of twitter and instant gratification, those consumers of "fast" vices don't have time to stop and think but only leap to the next shiny thing that will perpetuate their man-child ways. But again, my hats off to you, best of luck!
Ozzie_M,
"I don’t think I’m alone in this opinion. For example, if you wanted numerous specific instances and quotations by those affected by this phenomenon…" No, I don't. I didn't ask you for people who thought they were being opppressed by words, nor did I ask you for the opinions of leftist professors in academe.
I asked you to cite instances of right-wing gratuitous usage of the words you deride.
Mountain Man says:
"I asked you to cite instances of right-wing gratuitous usage of the words you deride."
I did. Here:
———————————————-
n August 1993, Joe Rabinowitz, news director of WTTG, the Fox station in Washington DC, wrote a memo to the chair of Fox Television, urging the firing of ‘politically correct’ employees. To hunt these employees down he consulted with conservative media critics like L Brent Bozell III…
————————————————————————————————-
From an article about Michael Howard, a conservative British politician
Howard personally piloted Section 28 – the most nakedly homophobic piece of legislation introduced in the past 50 years – through the House of Commons. He chided all the Labour MPs who warned that it would lead to homophobic bullying and teenage suicides as – you guessed it – "politically correct".
—————————————————
Plus, I provided quotes from University Professors and others who recall being stifled by accusations of 'PC'. I see no reason to dismiss their 'testimony' out of hand.
—————————————————-
I think that's doing pretty well. Sorry you remain unconvinced.
In the bigger picture, I used 'politically correct' as one counter-example–among many–of conservative use of ad hominem epithets. I provided several more. Why didn't you question those and demand I provide evidence? Probably because there's really no question about it.
Oz
Evidence is important, truly. But I'm not going to beat myself up too much if mine doesn't satisfy, because I haven't been exactly overwhelmed by the quality and quantity of evidence provided by the Conservatives in my brief presence here.
For example, people will make sweeping and personal criticisms, and then fail to provide the slightest evidence to back them up.
Here's an exchange from a previous thread:
Mountain Man alleged:
——————————————————————————–
(Ozzie_M), How do we deal with your tendency to completely ignore the substance of the posts of others?
——————————————————————————–
Ozzie Replied:
———————————————————————————–
Mountain Man, if I've ignored any substance, it was an oversight. Please point out to me any substantive areas I completely ignored, and I will be happy to … provide an answer to the best of my ability. I believe I have actually been pretty dogged about responding to each point raised…
————————————————————————————
And later Ozzie said:
————————————————————————————
By the way, (Mountain Man), how's that deal coming where you were going to support your contention that I 'don't respond to the substance of posts'? Just hoping you can give some examples. I'd like to go back and respond to anything I might have missed.
————————————————————————————
And days later Ozzie said:
————————————————————————————
I do reserve the right to return if either Mountain Man or Dr. Jackson provide some evidence of their previous allegations: that I avoid dealing the…substance of my opponents' posts; and that I provide emotion-drenched opinions rather than evidence and logic, respectively.
I've been waiting a couple of days now, guys, surely if these are such pervasive behavioral tendencies of mine, the evidence should be easily located, shouldn't it? Some specific posts or quotes would be helpful.
————————————————————————————-
I've still been waiting…it's been pretty quiet.
Oz
Ruminator,
It has only been as of late that I have given any consideration at all to the notion of "anti-semitism." In fact, it is strange that you should raise this question at this point, for I am currently working on an essay–which I hope can be published here before Easter–on the charge of "anti-semitism" that has been raised against the Gospels themselves.
I do indeed believe that "anti-semitism," like "racism," "sexism," "homophobia," and the like is, shall we say, a "conversation-stopper." And, to be fair to you and your ilk, I think that this is but another word that many on the right have taken to using to "bludgeon" their opponents on the left. I recently heard a caller on a talk radio program that I listen to daily, a Jewish woman, assert that ANY criticism of Israel is a function of 'anti-semitism." The host, a man who I happen to like quite a bit and a Roman Catholic conservative, agreed!
Indeed my dear ruminator, "anti-semitism" is another word whose time for interrogation has come.
Good question.
Jack
Joe Rabinowitz, hm? I googled his name and the phrase "politically correct" and found hardly anything except this single hostile reference" http://www.ludiccrew.org/wark/republic/chapt07.htm
I therefore conclude, in the absence of corroborating evidence, that this event never happened.
Regarding Howard, I said "Gratuitous." I think he was absolutely correct in his assessment. Besides, do you really have to go all the way over to Austrailia to find an example?
"I see no reason to dismiss their 'testimony' out of hand." I do, however, given recent history like Professor Kerri Dunn's fake hate crime charge: http://www.natfront.com/shieldedreporting.htm. By the way, I did not reject them "out of hand," I rejected them because they were not what I asked for.
"Why didn't you question those and demand I provide evidence? Probably because there's really no question about it." I picked one charge because I only have so much time to waste on your ignorance. If one instance proves to be a fiction you invented, which is the case, then the others most likely are as well.
Well, MM, here’s what I said:
—————————————————————–
The Left hurls ‘fascist war-pig’ at George W Bush, and the Right now cries ‘Liberal FASCIST’ at tedious book-length. Neither is serious, both are only insulting. Both hoist straw men.
I am a Leftist, I suppose, but I cheerfully acknowledge the vacuity of the ‘Racist!’ racket puked up by those I must reluctantly claim as my brethren.
WILL ANYONE ON THE RIGHT DO THE SAME? WHERE IS THE CONSERVATIVE ANALOGUE? I think there must be one. I view intellectual laziness and the delights of the ad hominem attack as incorrigible human foibles, rather than something exclusively associated with either pole of our political ambivalence.
I’ll throw ONE out: ‘POLITICALLY CORRECT’.
(CAPS added for emphasis)
—————————————————————-
I’m sorry you didn’t find my evidence convincing, when I cited college professors, a couple of specific anecdotes, a book, and personal experience to support my assertion that “Politically correct!” is used by conservatives to silence debate on meaningful topics. I’m a little surprised that you think that because you can’t find something on Google, it must not have happened. You should probably get out more.
But I think you are simply doing what you accuse me of doing (without evidence, of course): ignoring the substance of posts. I said the ‘politically-correct’ name-calling was ONE example of my larger point. I also mentioned ‘Fascist’ in my original post. In my follow-up, I mentioned ‘Godless’ and ‘Treason(ous)”. I could give more examples, easily. For example, Dr. Jackson is feverishly enamored of using ‘stupid’ and ‘idiot’ to refer to anyone with whom he disagrees—I don’t recall you ever objecting.
I wonder why you didn’t ask for proof on those. I suppose it could be that, as you say, since I didn’t adequately document ‘politically correct’ as partisan name-calling, you concluded that all of my other points must be erroneous as well.
Gosh, Mountain Man, that analytical strategy sounds kind of hasty and impulsive. Seems unreliable.
But I think the real reason is that you recognize that the 'substance' of my post is entirely valid and well-documented. Conservatives commonly use harsh epithets, analogous to ‘racist’ on the Left—-to attack and close off meaningful debate. Both sides are guilty.
By the way, didn't Liddy Dole trot out 'Godless' in just this last election? And Goldberg apparently called Liberals ‘Fascists’ 163,310 times, and Coulter called them Godless and Treason(ous) over 500,000 times, according to sales figures.
And that’s just on the COVER of their books.
But I know it takes a lot to convince you, MM. If you’d like, I can direct you to a nearby Barnes and Noble, where you can investigate the matter on your own, without any liberal jibber-jabber interrupting your counting.
Oz
"I’m a little surprised that you think that because you can’t find something on Google, it must not have happened." YOU asserted it did. YOU supplied no reference. I looked for it and did not find it. And somehow this is my fault?
I would think that if gratuitous name-calling is so prevalent on the Right, that it is on par with the sewage spouted by the Left, that their would be numerous contemporary examples for you to document.
However, usage of terms like politically correct, liberal fascist, godless, etc., do not constitute evidence that your thesis is correct. The usage has to be gratuitous. Correct, accurate usage of these terms is perfectly acceptable.
If you want to refute Coulter, or Goldberg, or Ingraham, or Limbaugh, or anyone, cite the quote in context, provide your analysis of why it is gratuitous, and I will respond. The author, Mr. Kerwick, did this very thing.
I note that you did not address Professor Kerri Dunn. I'm sure that you did not overlook this point as you have been accused, right?
—–I note that you did not address Professor Kerri Dunn. I'm sure that you did not overlook this point as you have been accused, right?—–
Of course not, Mountain. I could not access that website from where I was today. Firewall stuff.
I've looked at it now, and I see that Professor Kerri Dunn appears to be a kooky lady that pretended to be a victim of a racial hate crime or something like that. So? How does that cast any doubt on my assertion that Righties have a history of using simplistic and counterproductive epithets to describe Lefties, just as the reverse is true?
Thanks for the newsflash, Mountain, but I'm pretty well aware that there are psychotic, illogical, and troubled people in the world. I would be happy to give you a corresponding list of websites that portray extremists and mentally ill people who subscribe to right-wing or libertarian ideologies.
Here's a couple you can start with:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unabomber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_duke
http://www.thepittsburghchannel.com/news/19096134/detail.html
———–f you want to refute Coulter, or Goldberg, or Ingraham, or Limbaugh, or anyone, cite the quote in context, provide your analysis of why it is gratuitous, and I will respond. ———————-
Riiiight, that's a great idea, Mountain. I'm tempted to plead a health exemption from the assignments you are trying to give me, because my head would probably explode if I had to wade through that stuff.
But on second thought, why evade a good challenge? Okay, I'll do it.
Let's meet back in a month, and I'll give you my critiques. In the meantime, I would merely ask that you agree to read the following books, so that we can have an informed exchange of views:
Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot (by Al Franken)
The Lies of George Bush
The Nature of Prejudice (by Gordon Allport)
Lies, and the Lying Liars That Tell Them (by Al Franken)
Make Me Wanna Holler (by Nathan McCall)
All the President's Men (by Bob Woodward)
Please also take some time to watch the following shows and movies:
The Color Purple
In the Heat of the Night
Sanford and Son (seasons 1-3)
Chico and the Man (seasons 3-5)
And, importantly, please give a listen to the collected works of the following modern rap artists
"Snoop Dogg"
"P Diddy"
"Eminem".
Agreed? I'll even let you submit your findings first.
Oz
Ozzie:
——-"I’m a little surprised that you think that because you can’t find something on Google, it must not have happened."
Mountain:
YOU asserted it did. YOU supplied no reference. I looked for it and did not find it. —
But I did. That anecdote comes from the book, The Myth of Political Correctness, that I clearly referenced. Re-read my post. I even obligingly acknowledged that it was unlikely to be an unbiased source, but since they were reporting a specific event rather than an opinion, I thought it was an acceptable illustration.
It is true that I inadvertently provided the wrong link to the book, sorry, although if you just take the trouble to google The Myth of Political Correctness, you'll no doubt find it. But if you don't find it on Google, Mountain Man, that does not mean it does not exist.
Oz
If it's too much trouble for you to document your empty assertions, it simply means you haven't actually read or heard a right-winger do what you assume they do.
I'll therefore assume you are conceding the point to me.
—–I'll therefore assume you are conceding the point to me.——
An unwise assumption, plainly contradicted by ample evidence.
You make my point, Mountain. You seem to assume all sorts of things, without enough justification.
Oz
It is YOUR assumptions about the right wing that I am challenging. YOU assume too much. Your unwillingness to do anything except spout off indicates that you are unable to back up your statements.
You concede by failing to do anything except offer up a vapid opinion.
"Ample evidence." The first laugh out loud I've had today.
Mr.Kerwick,
I, to be honest, couldn't care less about your rules of engagement. I am glad to have the discourse, but frankly your the only person in said discourse that feels your time is any more important than mine(and yes, I am assuming you feel that way. I would if I were you).
1) Show me in my original post where I said that the content of your article led me to believe you were a Christian, and I will concede that I have made the logical error you identified. I have reread it and cannot find something making mention of the word Christian and drawing from any implication at all. Below is my ONLY Christian quote:
"So take your thinly veiled bigotry back to the church(I'm sure you're a Christian) and ask for forgiveness…because its really immoral."
Suggesting that the church should forgive you for being a bigot(I do apologize for calling you that..I too was angry) most certainly does not imply that the church would condone such behavior and consequently that Christians are bigots. I did say I am sure you are a Christian, but again…consider the forum. It was a reasonable assumption.
2) I did not say that I heard my superior make a racist joke.I said that I heard him use the words nigger and shine. I heard him say nigger in response to my explanation of a black mans attendance situation, and shine in response to a inquiry regarding a telephone conversation with another manager who happens to be black.
I can understand, based on my talk about the room full of white people and my lack of details, how you could come up with "Mr. Panetta is accusing someone who makes a joke of being a racist". I am not, however, all that concerned with jokes…Chris Rock's(which are hilarious) or otherwise. I AM horrified, however, at hate and spite. That's what my supervisor had oozing from his voice. Even that doesn't mean he is a racist, but I think that one could understand how I may glean that from two separate conversations both ending in hateful epithets concerning one's membership to a race and consequent behavior.
Let's be a little more clear about what horrifies me as well. I don't really care if my supervisor hates black people. What really concerns me is that he is in a position of power and can use that hate to do something. There are probably black people in a similar position with similar ideals about whites, but I haven't met those people. Every organization I have worked for has been managed almost exclusively by white people. For the record, I find both flavors of unjust control over another equally distasteful. The black American holds no special place in my heart.
3) I also never said that you needed the benefit of a balanced discourse on racism. I have no idea what you need or do not need intellectually. I did notice that you claimed I made a meaningful discussion of race and racism impossible. That's why I said that you had a bunch of hand-shaking and compliance. That, to me, doesn't constitute a well of discourse.
While I don't really find your article about racism and its social productivity particularly useful,you are the only one it that supposed well of discourse that actually said anything.The rest just said nice job and patted you(and each other on the back). That's some pretty one-sided discourse if you ask me(not that anyone did!).
If you want to criticize my approach as more inflammatory than productive, you are right. If you want to say that I treated unfairly as a person, you could be right(I don't know you, maybe you just got back from a Klan meeting) and I'll take the lump.
Unfortunately, that was not the bulk of your rebuttal. Rather, you continually make inferences from what I wrote. I did not say anything denotative or otherwise negative about Christians. You inferred it of your own accord(or in the parlance of Akron Ohio,you made it up buddy). I did not say that you personally needed to hear the other side, I called foul or you titling that accord a discourse. It wasn't.
Still, if I WAS somehow unclear, maybe now I have made myself a lot more clear.
4) Your educational background and profession, while interesting at a personal level,are not particularly important here. Being a professor does not mean you are not of an insular academic world. One must not only be around opposing views, but also be willing to consider them seriously. I have only two choices,then. I can assume you are too set as the person you are to take that higher road and give due consideration, or I can assume you do openly contemplate alternative ideology. Neither particularly changes anything from my point of view, but I do like to think the best of people when I have the opportunity.
Anyways, its not your open mind that was challenged, or the minds on this site. Rather, it was the diversity of opinions presented as a consequence of your essay that I was speaking of. That, after all, is all I could really know about. Frankly,even after re-reading it I didn't see anything to warrant a different view.
I have to strongly disagree on your assertion of the diversity of minds here though. I just haven't seen that. Maybe I haven't combed the forum as you have, but I thought I had read quite a bit of the last two months of it. Unless of course you feel a large number of tuna lovers arguing over the best way to prepare it is diversity of taste. For my part, onion and tomato or mayo and scallion, at the end of the day you are all eating tuna.
The right wing of politics in this country consistently does better at election time because there is more accord. At least,that is what I believe.
5) Happy Easter!!!! I off to see my parents.
…