Racist cartoonist Donna Barstow, who is here seen being responsible for racist cartooning on the subject of swine flu, has unsurprisingly dabbled in racist cartoons before.
In the following cartoon, she shows herself as unsavvy about race politics affecting African Americans as she is about race politics affecting the relationship between the United States and Mexico:
As we all know, the only real, good hair is the hair possessed by white people — smooth, silky, shiny, straight, lushly falling whitey white hair. Hair possessed by black people is funny. It’s not like hair at all. It’s like plant growth!
Of course, it’s been well-documented by many bloggers of color that the politics of hair are used to suggest that black people cannot maintain a decent or professional appearance if they wear natural hair, that their hair is something abnormal that needs fixing, and that their appearance is deviant in comparison with the white default. Black people are sometimes charged more for styling their abnormal, so-not-white hair. Kinky, nappy hair is ugly and insulting. And of course, black-looking hair is “bad hair” and white-looking hair is “good hair.”
But I’m sure the observation that our first African American president “looks like a Chia pet” is totally race-neutral, and nothing to do with making fun of him for looking so blatantly non-white, just like all those other totally non-racist visual.
hmm. I usually don’t need a cartoon explained to me, but this one is a puzzler. I get your criticisms, but I don’t understand the cartoonist’s intent at all. Was it only to say black people have weird hair? Is there some point–no matter how dumb or hard to get to–that can be squeezed from this?
Now this blog is a proven thief. And this is obviously because I complained that you stole my other cartoon. What, are you such big babies that you have to steal from cartoonists? Tell me have you paid for any cartoons at all? Ever?
I wonder what is worse: stealing, illegal use on the internet, or drawing a cartoon?
Btw, this is not fair use, when you are obviously writing this as a personal vendetta. Next up: your server.
Oh come now Donna, it’s not a personal vendetta. It’s an effort to point out that your cartoons are racist. If you don’t think they are, then why not explain that?
Also, I too would really, really like an explanation of the point of this cartoon.
Btw, this is not fair use, when you are obviously writing this as a personal vendetta.
Can we get one of our house attorneys on this? I wasn’t aware the fair use doctrine specifically excluded personal vendettas or that critiquing two cartoons instead of one turned a critique into a personal vendetta. But I’m not a lawyer.
Do you really want to go this route? Slander, libel, theft? Really?
Wow, you could have written to me, gotten me as a contributor, all sorts of polite and interesting possiblities.
Here’s the email of your server, in case other cartoonists also want to go this way:
abuse@realitychecknetwork.com
I didn’t take any IP courses, but I do have lyrics from our parody show:
FAIR USE
to “Footloose” by Kenny Loggins
I been working all night
Outlining copyright
Eight hours, for what?
I really gotta stop
I’d rather be singing
Unlicensed ripoffs like this
If he could hear me
Would Kenny Loggins be pissed?
Because it’s not fair use, fair use
We stole the song “Footloose”
Hacks, we’re hacks
Stealing these old soundtracks
Oh, you know
That’s how we wrote this show
There’s no excuse
We know it’s not fair use
We’re all in law school
Too swamped to play it cool
Too tired from acting smart
To write new music for some
Some songs that tell you
Life is passing you by
Our lives are hell too
That’s why we won’t even try
We won’t try to claim that it’s fair use, fair use
Hope that nobody sues
Jeez Louise
These are not parodies
I guess, at best
We’d fail the four-pronged test
The court would use
To see if it’s fair use
Ohhhhhhh
What’s fair use?
Ahhhhhhh
First: How much music did you take?
Second: And how much cash will you make?
Third: Now what’s the point of your song?
Four: Nooooo… n. 46
It ain’t fair use, fair use
This song is not fair use
Hacks, we’re hacks
Stealing these old soundtracks
Jeez Louise
These are not parodies
There’s no excuse
Law Revue is not fair use
Law Revue is not, Law Revue is not
Law Revue is not, Law Revue is not
Law Revue is not, Law Revue is not
Everybody knows that this is not a fair use
n. 46 If you’re paying attention, you’ll notice that this is actually a bastardized three-pronged summary of the actual four-pronged test.
Ooh, slander and libel I do have some background in. Let’s see, no facts about Ms. Barstow have been stated, only opinion: that her cartoons and possibly she herself are racist. That provides fairly clear sailing right there.
In addition, Ms. Barstow also could be argued to be a public figure at least for the purpose of analyzing her cartoons (which are undeniably publicized to the best of her ability) and her motives for creating such work. If she is even a limited-purpose public figure, that also would raise the standard to recklessness even if you had stated facts about her (i.e. even if the facts were proven to be erroneous, so long as you stated them in good faith belief that they were correct, you would be OK).
One way to help clarify whether a statement is fact or opinion is to see whether the subject could disprove it. That is, could Barstow disprove that her cartoons are racist? I don’t see how, because whether something or someone is racist is a subjective assessment. Perhaps her confusion on this subject comes from her using her own website to pursue “vendettas” against service providers she didn’t like. There she makes some highly factual assertions, which could be proven true or untrue, and truth is an absolute defense in defamation (though not to invasion of privacy and other actions). If this moving company really did do all she says it did, for example, then they would lose an action for defamation against her. Apparently the landlords who drew her ire deliberately seek out tenants who have been discriminated against elsewhere (e.g. for employment status or sexual orientation). Those bastards.
I agree with Amp’s previous comment that it is very sad to see a political cartoonist, even one with obnoxious views, try to shut down criticism and debate by making paltry threats of legal action. Especially when she herself will use copyrighted images while reviewing the work.
Now this blog is a proven thief. And this is obviously because I complained that you stole my other cartoon.
Yeah I’m gonna have to ask you to explain how Mandolin’s theft of your other cartoon is the reason there was racist intent in this cartoon (and that is assuming Mandolin did steal it which I kinda doubt).
What, are you such big babies that you have to steal from cartoonists? I don’t know anyone that would be proud of stealing racist cartoons.
Tell me have you paid for any cartoons at all? Ever?
I don’t think you have to pay for a cartoon to review/critique it.
Btw, this is not fair use, when you are obviously writing this as a personal vendetta. Next up: your server.
Pointing out racist intent that was already there is a personal vendetta?
I have to say I’m finding Barstow’s rhetorical stance here a little odd. Or perhaps hard to relate to, would be the better way to put it. I write for publication on a regular basis, and I get “hate mail” (strongly worded criticism, some of it baseless, some of it with basis) all the time. I’ve gotten hate mail over grammatical mistakes that made it into print. I’ve been told I’m to blame for the decline of the American newspaper and the decline of American democracy. I’ve been told I’m in the pockets of ever major interest group in town and I’ve been told I have it out for every major interest group in town. I’ve even had the link to the on-line record of a parking ticket my husband hadn’t paid posted in comments on a story I wrote (kind of creepy and kind of whatever at the same time).
Look at the stuff RadFem describes happening to her. I can imagine some of the stuff that doesn’t make it through moderation here.
Part of putting your work in the public realm is opening yourself up to criticism. Having a thick skin is part of the job description. I’m even required by my employer to respond politely to the people who write me, no matter how many personal attacks they sling at me. Barstow obviously can choose to ignore this criticism and not engage with it, but I’m having a hard time understanding why she finds this so outrageous.
Oh, PG, you got to this first. I was going to begin my comment w/ 76 lines of laughter followed by pointing out that Ms. Barstow combines total ignorance of slander & libel and slander & libel laws in the US with the most stereotypical bluster of a fangless threat that I could have imagined. And then she completes the triple play of bullying by threatening this blogs server.
Ms. Barstow, you are one classy person. Godspeed to you on your comically doomed trip through the wonderful world of personal interaction.
Speaking of whether one can opine that someone has racist sentiments based on their published work: Byron York. Yes?
Donna, I continue to invite you to have a real discussion here of the issues brought up in Mandolin’s post (or, even, of copyright law). But the threats and bluster approach really isn’t getting you anywhere.
Everyone else (especially PG — love those lyrics!), thanks.
Hey, is it slander or libel to point out that this cartoon sucks? Or that it’s not funny, lacks artistic merit, and otherwise annoys me with its presence?
Nope. It is neither. And saying it’s racist is only an extension of the criticism.
And to criticize your work more than once is not character assassination.
Lastly, speaking one political cartoonist to another, Donna: grow a thicker skin. Or else go draw unicorns and fluffy bunnies, cuz if you can’t handle criticism, you’re in the wrong line of work.
My favorite part:
Yes, because that’s just what I say to myself every day.
“Why,” I ask myself, “Why oh why doesn’t Alas feature more racist editorial cartoonists as contributors? If only we could find one who is neither insightful nor funny, it would be such a boon.”
—Myca
Not many posts or comments make me laugh out loud, but you, Myca… Thanks.
…what the hell does that cartoon even mean?
Maybe I don’t get it because I’m black and the Chia roots are growing into my brain.
I think that Donna’s just pissed that you publicly called her a racist (which she obviously is and shows proudly through this cartoon) which is why she’s all about going after your site… People tend to not be fond of publications and people who call out others on their racism, bigotry, etc.
Thanks for the post!
“Why,” I ask myself, “Why oh why doesn’t Alas feature more racist editorial cartoonists as contributors? If only we could find one who is neither insightful nor funny, it would be such a boon.”
I know! I said that to George Soros at the secret conclave where we left-wing fascists decided to go after Donna Barstow….
…but I’ve said too much….
Thanks, and right back atcha!
—Myca
Wow, talk about a totally pointless cartoon. “Hah, the new president is black! He even has kinky hair! I’ll draw it looking ridiculous, even though that has nothing to do with anything he’s done or said or even the way he actually looks. HAH!” Yeah, totally insightful work there, with such clever responses (“I’M TOTALLY CALLING A LAWYER and they’ll do lawyery things and show you that I’m awesome! And not racist! And you’ll be sorry!”) from the creator.
I’m not sure if it’s more or less bad that there actually is an Obama Chia Pet on the market. Available in both Determined and Happy. Oy.
I don’t get it, but I assume you all know that there apparently is a real live Obama chia pet being sold, right?
e.g.
http://www.drugstore.com/products/prod.asp?pid=213041&catid=121914&aid=337953&aparam=chia_obama_determined_&CAWELAID=297897588
I am so floored by the whole chia pet thing I don’t really know what to say, but it may be relevant that the “chia Obama” thing goes way beyond this cartoon.
And as one of the “Amptoons staff attorneys”–heh, what fun–I await being called upon.
PG–that’s hilarious! :D
Now, I am gonna hear it that way from now on and its all your fault –along with “There’s a bathroom on the right” and “Scuse me while I kiss this guy”…
:D
Daisy,
Hey, at least you’ll have some version of the four-pronged test easily in mind if someone comes along calling you a copyright thief because you criticized their work in a non-commercial venue. A handy (if lengthy) mnemonic for any blogger!
she’s a homobigot as well, though she thinks that is somehow ambiguous:
http://thecartoons.net/2008/12/18/time-magazine-uncartoon-of-the-week-2/
I thought when i first saw the cartoons here that she must be some lonely right-winger with an unloved webcomic, and was shocked to see that she is a cartoonist for the New Yorker. Then I remembered why I don’t read the New Yorker very often. Its politics and are horrible, and it prides itself on terrible, famously unfunny cartoons.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/aug/10/entertainment/et-newyorker10
Is it possible that the person who posted above as Donna Barstow is not really D.B.? It’s hard to believe that a real political cartoonist could react so stupidly! Oops, was that slander?
I was hoping when I swung by this morning, D. Barstow would have left a defense of her cartoon. But she has remained silent. Most cartoonists–or people in general–don’t like the charge of racism and if it’s unwarranted, usually defend themselves.
For Donna to leave this hanging out there is pretty pathetic.
And Donna, since you seem to be following the comments, as a political cartoonist myself I’ll echo what Kevin said: If childish bluster and empty legal threats is all you have in your arsenal of argumentation, you should stick with safe New Yorker cartoons and not try any political ones. When you put your name on political opinions, expect some challenges. If you can’t deal with them you should find another line of work.
I don’t get the cartoon. Is it really just about the hair, or is there a hidden meaning? Like the hair represents the bailout or something. Failing that, is it a paid advertisement for the actual Obama chia pet?
Yeah, what sylphead said – if she’d thought up the chia head, it would seem to be saying “Look! I’m racist!”, but it’s just a drawing to say…Chia President exists? I really dont’ get it.
Plus, I have to take this opportunity to say how bummed I am that the Obama chia pet touches so many nerves about racist crap idiots say about Black people’s hair, because I was REALLY wanting to have a little Reagan/Clinton/Obama herb garden. Like Mount Rushmore, only edible.
Racists ruin everything.
Please let us know as soon as you are served by Ms. Barstow’s representatives. I will venture a guess that this will happen just after never.
“Yeah, what sylphead said – if she’d thought up the chia head, it would seem to be saying “Look! I’m racist!”, but it’s just a drawing to say…Chia President exists? I really dont’ get it.”
From her website, it looks like they made the chia pet because of her drawing.
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Cartoonist Donna Barstow Attempts To Shut Down Criticism of Her Work
Wow, you could have written to me, gotten me as a contributor, all sorts of polite and interesting possiblities.
A contributor?
LOL, like people who object to your bigotry should reward you by politely inviting you to spred your repellent opinions on their blog, instead of criticizing you?
Christ — Donna Barstow, you are truly stupid, even for a racist.
Wow, you could have written to me, gotten me as a contributor, all sorts of polite and interesting possiblities.
So if you burned a cross on the lawn of a black family, Ampersand and Mandolin should… what, make you editor in chief?
at first glance the “hair” looked kinda-sorta like a crowd of stick figures. i was already going, “hmm, there’s potential there”… until i noticed that it wasn’t actually drawn that way, and the punchline swung at empty air.
The advertisement for the ChiaObama has been running on TV here in Chicago for at least a month now. So when I saw the cartoon, my reaction was “Huh, rather late to the party and unoriginal.” Sailorman, are you also in Chicago?
Susanne,
It is the president-elect chia head, and her post is dated back in December. So her drawing preceded the release of the actual chia head.
Ms. Barstow is probably feeling the pressure of print sources folding, and her income going away. I can sympathize with that, having myself made a hard transition of my comics to the web, and being on my own self-imposed extended hiatus. The solution isn’t suing critics and fans, though– that’s been proven to fail as a strategy and can only lose you sympathy.
I’d like to share an idea with Ms. Barstow. Webcomics have largely financed themselves over the past 10 or 12 years by selling items based on their strips, rather than trying to “protect” copying of the comics themselves. The most popular item–something that has kept some of the top-ranked webcomics going– is the humble t-shirt.
You could put your Mexico cartoon on a t-shirt, and sell it! Then you could enjoy looking at the kinds of people who would wear this work, and acknowledge them as your dearest fans.
Just think. Barstow work televised live, nationwide at teabagging parties and libertarian rallies, just for starters!
Exciting, isn’t it? You’ve entered a whole new phase of your career.
Yamara,
Brilliant! Thanks for offering a constructive solution to Ms. Barstow’s problems.
Yamara, please allow me to geek out a moment.
Holy crap, I used to read your stuff in Dragon magazine back in high school! You’re awesome! Holy crap holy crap holy crap!
—Myca
Thanks, Charles S. Sorry for the mistake.
God, that art is like something I would draw on my laptop’s touchpad in MS Paint with my left hand in the dark while drunk. Were it not for the caption I wouldn’t have known who she was even being racist *at.*
What’s the count on blogs shut down by the impressive Ms. Barstow? Is it more than zero, yet? How many blogs have been cowed into removing Ms. Barstow’s repulsive and underwhelming (well, except in a “Shags” sense, in that sense it’s awesome) art?
Go, go, go, Ms. Barstow!
Pingback: Rad Geek People’s Daily 2009-05-04 – Steal This Cartoon
I think I have to start responding to people using excerpts from these lines:
Grocery store attendant> I’m sorry, we’re out of kiwi fruit.
Me> THIS IS A HATE CRIME ON YOUR PART.
From http://radgeek.com/gt/2009/05/04/steal_this/
Ms. Barstow wrote in a missive dated 4/30/09 to Rad Geek:
Well, that worked out well for her. I haven’t noticed the blog, her racist idea or her cartoons taken down and we haven’t been informed that Alas received a warning.
Ms. Barstow’s next book of poorly drawn and executed “humorous” comics will no doubt be entitled How Not To Make Friends And Keep People From Laughing In Your Face. Keep up the good work, Ms. Barstow, you’re doing a heckuva job.
Oh, and just so Ms. Barstow is aware that I, too, follow through on my threats, here is the letter I sent in to The New Yorker:
I wonder how State Farm Insurance feels about Barstow using their motto to create a racist cartoon..I wrote an email to State Farm and I encourage every one who disagrees with Mrs. Barstows cartoons to do so as well.
Folks, just so you know I’m really uncomfortable with measures intended to harm Ms. Barstow’s career (or bring her a negative response from the State Farm people).
IMO, the proper response to Barstow is to criticize her cartoons, and to make fun of her threatening emails.
(Note: This is not criticism of your position, I’m just trying to understand it.)
I’m trying to wrap my brain around this and I’m just not getting it.
Ms. Barstow is a person who is actively trying to shut down blogs that criticize her. She’s hoping that her threats of legal action will remove the criticism of her work and, failing that, she is hoping to shut down the blogs that criticize her via threatening hosts with legal action. This is obvious bullying. She’s hoping that her small degree of fame and success will shut down outlets that criticize her and her work.
I found what Ms. Barstow has been attempting to do to be repulsive. I don’t want to support people’s ability to do repulsive things so I inform a financial supporter of Ms. Barstow that they will no longer get my financial support.
I find it more or less equal to my reaction to Walmart. I think Walmart is evil & destructive so I never go there and I tell everybody I know that they shouldn’t shop there if they can avoid it.
So, why the discomfort with trying to remove the small degree of fame and success that allows Ms. Barstow to believe that she may actually shut down blogs that she dislikes? Is it the economic equivalent of pacifism? Is it because Ms. Barstow is an individual and not a business?
Dude, a little slow on the uptake – Accusing her of drawing Obama to look like a Chia pet is light years too late – you can make a pretty good case, though, that the Chia pet people MADE a Chia pet to look like Obama…
“In honoring our 44th US President Barack Obama, the Chia Pet company presents this Special Edition Chia Obama.On the side of the Chia Obama planter are his famous words:”YES WE CAN.”Can you grow one?YES YOU CAN.Easy to do….. Fun to Grow. Full growth in 1-2 weeksContains: Chia Obama handmade planter Chia Seed packet for 3 plantings Convenient Drip Tray Planting and care instruction sheet”
Retro,
Ms. Barstow claims on her blog to have originated the idea of Obama-as-Chia-Pet and demands credit for it wherever it appears.
I don’t think this comic is racist, necessarily. It’s more just surreally absurd. Sure, a chia pet of the president! That’ll go nicely on the armoire, right next to the Henry Kissinger lamp. It’s just meaningless and odd.
The only semblance of a message I can cobble together is that it’s suggesting Obama is seen more as a commodity than a politician, the kind of pop-culture icon that would have cheesy merchandise based on him. Therefore, people don’t look at his political faults, because they’re too caught up in his image. Which would be an interesting critique, if it weren’t so poorly conveyed.
Apparently someone gave Obama a “Chia Obama.”
http://inapcache.boston.com/universal/site_graphics/blogs/bigpicture/obama_07_06/o21_82761113.jpg
Fresh from the “Why intellectual property shouldn’t be protected” thread, I’d like to remind Ms. Barstow that trademark infringement is pretty ugly stuff.
As for the cartoon — not convinced it’s racist. Obama is THE most commercialized president in all of my memory. I can’t remember any other president having his mug on more … mugs … and other objects than Obama. Were I to give it a fair reading, I’d read it more as an indictment of all the Obama chachkis out there. A quick trip to Google turns up pages of hits for obama chachkis. To me, being turned into a Chia Pet is close to the bottom of the barrel when it comes to commercialization. When “Chia Julie” gets made I’ll know for sure I’ve hit rock bottom. But also, looking at the Chia Pet website, it isn’t like Chia Pets only make black guys — they have two apparently white guys made in the likeness of a potted plant. One of them, “Chia Professor”, might potentially be Albert Einstein — especially considering this photo. In which case “Hey, why you making fun of Jews and Jewfros?” might come to mind. Except for the seemingly goyischer Chia head.
On to the subject of Ms. Barstow herself being (or not, as a matter of personal opinion, and not intended to be asserted as a factual matter …) a racist asshat, she strikes me more as an equal opportunity offender. I went and read her blog, The Opposite of Wrong, and found a wide range of sacred cows being skewered. Some were particularly poignant — the OpEd about Prop 8, and how gay rights groups are shying away from criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities. Is she being anti-gay for giving voice to what many gays and lesbians ourselves won’t give voice to? I view that panel as more supportive of gay rights than perhaps she (based on the responses here) might envisioned. Do we not go after those two groups because we’re afraid of being accused of racism?
FCH,
Going after groups defined by a characteristic they cannot change usually is an “ism” — racism, sexism, hetero-sexism, etc. So if you are thinking in terms of “going after those two groups,” then I think it’s reasonable to be worried that you’ll be accused of racism.
PG,
So … it’s racism on her part because Chia Pets only makes heads of people with Jewfros and Afros (they don’t)?
What image of excessive commercialism of Obama would have been guaranteed not to be racist? Oh, and not immediately resulted in “Oh, I just HAVE to get me one of those!” because I’ve seen otherwise sensible people responding to Obamania by doing exactly that.
Name a president who’s been more heavily commercialized than Obama. Personally, I love the guy — he’s the most Conservative president we’ve had since Ronald Reagan, he’s intelligent, articulate, no-nonsense. Very much a bottom-line kind of guy. But I’m not going to buy an Obama mug, t-shirt, bobble-head, beer coozie, bumper sticker OR Chia Pet.
I’m much more interested in “Wow. Look at how this guy is being turned into a product” than “She’s racist!”. Because if we stop at “She’s racist!”, we’re ignoring Obamania, and that’s something I’m concerned about. He’s the President of the United States, not some kind of Hollywood or sports star.
FCH,
Your comment seems wholly non-responsive to the point I was making that it’s a bad idea to “go after groups.” Could you point to any comment I have made saying that the Chia cartoon was racist?
PG,
That YOU have made? No, most of your comments have been about legal matters. But the belief has been expressed here that Chia Obama is racist because certain groups have this wild and uncontrollable hair.
OMG you are not invoking that “blacks and Latinos are at fault for prop 8” nonsense as an argument worthy of rhetorical respect, are you? Not only has it been widely debunked, oh look even right here at this very blog, it’s also RACIST, and feeds into racist acts. Donna Barstow’s attempt to invoke it is another nail in her coffin from where I’m sitting.
1) Certain groups (blacks, Latinos, etc.) are “at fault for” Prop 8’s passage, and/or Prop 8 would not have passed absent the support of voters in those groups.
2) Certain groups (blacks, Latinos, etc.) had a depressingly high rate of supporting Prop 8, and the voters in those groups cannot be said to be, on average, very supportive of gay rights.
Those two arguments are not the same thing by any means. #1 has been fairly debunked. #2 has not–and cannot be, AFAIK. FCH’s point was about #2, not #1.
Sailorman is correct —
http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/20/local/me-gaymarriage20
Support for same-sex marriage, and homosexuality in general, does have racial and ethnic differences.
As for the DailyKOS article you referenced, it really doesn’t debunk anything it claims to debunk. No one is saying — that I’ve read or run across — that this ethnic group or that ethnic group is SOLELY and EXCLUSIVELY responsible.
As for whether or not reporting facts can ever be called “Racist”, OH. FUCKING. PLEASE. Elusis absolutely, so very much, proved my point. How the hell can one be a political activist if they don’t even know their demographics?
FCH,
“That YOU have made? No, most of your comments have been about legal matters. But the belief has been expressed here that Chia Obama is racist because certain groups have this wild and uncontrollable hair.”
Then why did you address your comment to me instead of to those who expressed such beliefs?
FCH – “Oh fucking please” is not an argument.
If you want to read and address the fairly detailed points made in the various links (and their links), fine.
But blaming people of color for the passage of Prop 8 is racist, ignoring the long history of racism in the gay community and how that might impact cross-group alliances is both privilged and racist, and attempting to insult my activism by declaring that I just don’t “know [my] demographics” is a poor way to engage.
Elusis,
If you want to say that we can’t talk about groups, only individuals, that’s OK.
But if discussing the anti-gay sentiment of certain groups is racist because they are POC, then it would follow that discussing the race beliefs held by gays is likewise improper.
So:
Are you using a definition of racism that allows you to label a factually true statement as racist? Not every bad thing which is attributed to a group of POC is racist simply because it’s bad, and some bad things–like the high level of anti-gay sentiment exhibited by certain POC voters for Prop 8–are apparently true.
Blaming those voters who helped pass Prop 8 for their part in the debacle is appropriate, no matter the skin color of the voters in question. If there are identifiable groups who have significantly worse records in supporting gay rights, putting more blame on those groups is also appropriate.
Of course, there can be racism implied in how things are presented, or which things are selected for one’s focus. Similarly, there can be anti-gay sentiments implied in how things are presented, or which things are selected for one’s focus.
There is a difference between “ignoring” and “agreeing with Elusis’ conclusions with respect to,” yes?
I’m not FCH, but labeling someone as being a privileged racist because–apparently–they are reaching different conclusions regarding the acceptable motivations of a group, and the consequences of group actions, is also not an especially good way to engage.
Presumably you would not want FCH to start calling you a straight-privileged antigay bigot because you want to move the focus away from Prop 8 and onto what you see as an unwarranted attack on POC. You seem to be doing the equivalent, to FCH.
Elusis —
I’m privileged over heterosexual voters of color because I’m … a big fucking queer? In a discussion about same-sex marriage? If we were discussing sentencing guidelines and their disparate impact on people of color and I thought those sentencing guidelines were okay — sure, call me a privileged racist asshat.
But in a discussion where the material facts are that race, religion, political orientation and standard of living all have a bearing on the predicted support for same-sex marriage, saying someone is “both privileged and racist” is a cheap rhetorical trick of exactly the kind that is used to hide the giant elephant in the middle of the issue. You might get to play the white-liberal-guilt card on some people, but I’m not a liberal. And while I’m white, just plain “white-guilt” doesn’t work on me so good.
Are you going to say I’m “both privileged and anti-Catholic” if I told you that Catholics are also against same-sex marriage more than non-Catholics? What about being anti-Conservative? They don’t like same-sex marriage either. What about anti-working class? Not so keen on same-sex marriage compared to upper class. Anti high school dropouts? College graduates are more for same-sex marriage than high school dropouts — in fact, more education predicts greater acceptance for same-sex marriage. Maybe I’m anti-undergraduate-degree-holders as well.
Please let me know how many -isms I get credit for having because I listed the major demographics groups which oppose same-sex marriage.
FCH,
Race is not a characteristic any of us can choose or change, unlike religion, economic status or educational attainment.
Sailorman,
“putting more blame on those groups is also appropriate.”
As I tried to point out to FCH earlier (and apparently was not clear enough in so doing), it’s generally a bad idea to blame groups — especially so when those groups are defined by an unalterable characteristic, but even when it’s a voluntary one. Why not try blaming individuals instead?
PG,
Because BLAME is not being ascribed. No one, not me, not Sailorman, not even (apparently) Ms. Barstow, is BLAMING people of color for Prop 8.
But if you’ve got group (A) with 90% support, and group (B) with 10% support, which group do you focus on? And it’s my contention queers don’t go after “the black vote” because we’d have to say “Well, black voters aren’t as keen on same-sex marriage as white voters” and THAT is going to be interpreted as “racist” when no one would say that going after the working class vote is “classist”. “Race” is the third rail of politics and politics isn’t served by avoiding difficult issues.
FCH and Sailorman – it’s clear neither of you are reading the conversations I’ve linked to about why a simplistic “brown people are homophobic/brown people are at fault for Prop 8” analysis is at best, inaccurate, and at worst, racist.
I could spend a couple of hours re-writing all of the points that others have already made elsewhere (and better), but I feel like it’s pointless to do so, particularly when attempting dialogue with people who put words in my mouth like “big fucking queer,” “white guilt,” and the like. I am also not going to play the “let’s act like you called me a racist when in fact you said that an argument is racist” game. If you’re not actually going to read them and consider them, then never mind.
Enjoy yourselves.
FCH,
Do you seriously not see the difference between “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities” (what you said Barstow thinks gays should do) and “go after the black vote”? In my limited experience working in politics, going after a particular group’s vote never is seen as a sign of bigoted attitudes toward that group. (The Republicans who go after black votes are seen more positively — even if somewhat mocked for their ineptitude — than the ones who still like Nixon’s Southern Strategy.) Criticizing certain communities, on the other hand, is much less popular and is probably not going to help you get their votes.
Also, did you miss Sailorman’s comment where he said putting blame on those groups was appropriate? How do you read that as his not being OK with blaming?
PG,
I read it the same way someone else said upthread (it might even have been Sailorman) — there’s a difference between blaming a group for an OUTCOME and saying “such-and-such group supported that outcome” (for some less ham-fisted way of phrasing that).
It’s not “black voters fault”, and I don’t read anyone, Ms. Barstow included, as saying “It’s black voters fault”. It is, however, an absolutely incontrovertible fact that black voters (along with a few other groups, some of which would say they didn’t “choose” what they are) support same-sex marriage less than white voters.
Really, if you wanted to prove my point better (that we can’t discuss the intersection of “race” and queer rights without someone getting upset), Elusis couldn’t have done a better job.
FCH,
If you’re saying that “blaming” is appropriate, I’m not sure how to read that other than it’s “black voters fault.” I mean, unless it’s so-and-so’s fault, it’s kind of irrational to blame so-and-so. And if you are in favor of blaming and criticizing and faulting whole racial groups, why do you think you should be able to do so without someone pointing out that such blaming and faulting and criticizing sounds racist?
Let me try putting this another way: if I said that black people become felons (i.e. are convicted of felonies) at a higher rate than other racial groups, I think that would be accepted without much dissent, although some would wonder why I am mentioning this, and also be concerned that I am not aware of factors such as bias among police, prosecutors and juries that leads to this outcome.
If I said, “The high level of crime around here is black people’s fault” or “putting more blame on black people for the crime problem is appropriate” or “We need to have the courage to criticize the criminality in the Black community,” I think people would be justified in saying, Uh, that’s kinda racist. They probably would NOT say this if I said, “We need to reduce bias against Black people in the law enforcement and justice systems; make it safe for Black people to report crimes in their neighborhoods and stand as witnesses; and offer more opportunities for Black people to plead out to a misdemeanors and provide rehabilitation.” My statement would still be reacting to the same statistical fact, but instead as blaming a whole group (when moral fault is attributable only to individuals), I’d be talking about a group in a context where it makes sense (i.e. the problem of the group being perceived a certain way, stuck in certain neighborhoods, deprived of certain opportunities).
Given that on this blog (i.e. among most Alas bloggers and readers), support for Prop. 8 is seen as being almost as morally bad as committing a crime (indeed, as more morally wrong than crimes like smoking pot), if you are endorsing the idea of “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities” (as you apparently did at #54), then people are going to say, Uh, that’s kinda racist. They will NOT say this if you say, “The LGBT community needs to do a better job of building alliances with the Black and Latino communities, where we are supporters for them and they are supporters of us.”
Do you see the difference?
(1) because I have no way of knowing which individuals are involved;
(2) because it is common to use group labels in discussing major problems;
(3) because it is simpler; and
(4) because I am capable of distinguishing the individual from the group.
#4 is the crucial one. I think it’s perfectly fine to talk about groups who voted for Prop 8 disproportionately, be they fundies or hippies or whites or blacks or what have you. That said, it’s not as if I assume upon meeting every member of a high-Prop-8-support group that they personally must have voted for Prop 8. How could I? Doing so would be making individual assumptions from general trends, and I’m too much of a statistician to do that.
Also: I want to be careful not to ascribe this view to you personally, PG. But I gotta admit that I don’t see a whole lot of “blame the individual, not the group” claims showing up on Alas when it’s the majority or powerful group being blamed. The discussion seems to be edging a bit towards “if it’s bad and about POC, then it’s racist.” We are all human and we all do some bad shit, occasionally in ways which are linked to our underlying culture (and which sometimes correlate closely with race.) This is true for all of us, skin color aside. Why do we have to tiptoe around it when in this particular instance it happens to be a group of POC who participated in said bad acts?
Sailorman,
Seriously, you’re not seeing why people should be more cautious about blaming “down” (i.e. criticizing groups that are minority and less powerful) than blaming “up” (i.e. criticizing groups that are the majority and more powerful)?
PG,
You really have to twist my words in #54 pretty hard to reach the conclusions you did. I’m not even discussing ACTUAL criticizing of the Black and Latino communities. I’m criticizing gays and lesbians for NOT engaging the issue for fear of being called racist.
Here —
Those were QUESTIONS, and the fourth word in the paragraph was “poignant”. These are difficult and painful questions, not “Oh, gee, we should go trash those groups!”, cavalier or callous statements.
FCH,
And as I said in my first comment responding to you @54, “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities” and “go[ing] after those two groups” probably will be criticized as racist. And when Elusis said that the claim that “blacks and Latinos are at fault for prop 8″ is racist (see @59), you did not seem to take that as OK, looks like people will see that criticizing and ‘going after’ as racist, question answered, but rather as Elusis called reporting facts racist! (see your comment @61).
How am I “twisting” anything you’ve said? I am quoting your own words and citing the places at which you said them. Given your reactions to Elusis, you do not seem to be in a mode of questioning and wondering, but in a very defensive position.
I agree that it can be proper to treat different groups differently. But we’re applying the difference in the wrong place.
I don’t think one needs to hold back in digging for a conclusion. Those are early steps of a basic three step process: first you figure out what happened; then you figure out who made it happen and why; then you figure out what to do about it.
Being a disempowered individual or group may mean that the “what to do about it” part gets limited or even perhaps eliminated. But it seems ridiculously Big Brother to be limiting the first two steps. How are you even supposed to keep track of what level of limitation is appropriate, if you’re not entitled to have the early conversation without a gag on? It’s as if the door gets closed and we are asked to leave it shut, without knowing what’s behind the door.
And as a second response: Yes, of course I realize that we treat groups differently. I just get a bit frustrated when people–you or anyone else–use language which suggests that we’re not actually using different treatment. No fair trying to support disparate treatment using general language.
Sailorman,
Since we’ve been talking about faulting individuals versus groups, could you point out who at Alas is OK with “the majority or powerful group being blamed”? That is, who do you think would be OK with a statement like, Why don’t we “go after” white people for re-electing Bush? (Hey, if it had been left up to POC, that wouldn’t have happened.) Or civil rights groups are shying away from criticizing the lack of support for Obama in the White community. (If it had been left up to Whites, his election wouldn’t have happened: 55% of Whites voted McCain.)
I doubt you’ll find many such, because the majority of bloggers (and I’m betting also readers and commenters) on this blog are white. They don’t set up an opposition between “we” and “white people.” In contrast, FCH think of gay people as a “we” distinct from “those two groups” (Blacks and Latinos).
You and FCH aren’t advocating just for figuring out what happened (we know: Prop. 8 passed) and where the racial breakdown was (we assume we know based on CNN’s exit polling). You want to go to step 3, which apparently is: “If there are identifiable groups who have significantly worse records in supporting gay rights, putting more blame on those groups is also appropriate.” (See your comment @64) How such blaming will advance the cause of equality, I do not know.
Perhaps I’m grasping at the wrong strands here, but haven’t many of the articles on this blog been about calling people on their racist/classist/morphist/sexist bullshit? Isn’t it true from the links posted above that at least the majority of Black voters that were interviewed did not support gay marriage?
Gay marriage isn’t a preference, like a tax reform bill or passing the budget. It’s about basic human rights, to be free in a society to do the things society expects you to do in your own way.
It’s wrong to say all Blacks don’t support gay marriage, or even that a majority of them don’t – voters don’t represent an entire population. But it’s also wrong to give that type of rejection (shown by Black voters) of basic rights a pass just because it’s a traditionally disadvantaged group. Blame isn’t what’s important; recognition of the facts and perhaps a little shame for striking down the freedom of others. BTW – older people also caused this bill to fail so it’s not an issue exclusive to POC – shame on the 65+!
Simple Truth,
In my experience, this blog generally calls individuals out on their racist/etc. bullshit. Such posts are not about identifying a group based on an involuntary characteristic (such as race, sex, nation of origin, age) and calling out such a group, which seem to be what FCH and Sailorman are saying is an idea that at minimum should be on the table as an option.
PG,
Let’s take the two most commonly discussed majority identifiers on Alas: whites and men.
I think that I read you as claiming that people here do not make statements about those groups, but that people always prefer to discuss individual white/male individuals. And/or you may be claiming that people do occasionally make group statements, but that they are improper and viewed as such by most Alas readers and mods…?
I’m questioning my reading of you primarily because those conclusions seem very different from my own readings of Alas posts, and I am suspicious that we would disagree so much about something.
We can both start Google searching and swapping Alas links, of course, but before we think to do so, am i even reading you right?
I agree that generally it is individuals (or corporations, which legally count as individuals) that get called out here. I was rereading some of the posts here, particularly the How Not to Be Insane… post because I feel that there’s a greater complexity here that PG is bringing up – mainly the individual vs. the group. If, as a group, Blacks or 65+ are against gay marriage, it seems a convenient way to target a campaign for greater acceptance. However, calling them out is different from calling them on it, in my experience. Sort of the same way that Amp’s post that I referenced above says that if someone calls you on being a racist, you should stop and listen to what they have to say. Calling someone out implies a fight.
How this applies to groups gets more…intricate. If you truly have a majority of a group who is against human rights, it doesn’t seem wrong to use that marker as a way to target an opinion/culture that needs to be changed. Forced integration of the South comes to mind; National Guard troops didn’t need to be stationed in Northern schools, although there was racism there as well. That population, Southerners, in particular needed to recognize that denying human rights to black students was not acceptable. Were there Southerners who agreed with integration? Sure. But they were a minority.
I think the main distinction is not to lay the blame of it on the group, i.e. “They voted that way because they’re Black/African-American/Elderly” but to recognize a common characteristic – “A majority of Black/African-American/Elderly voters voted that way.” Correlation, not causality.
Still, I think PG has a very valid point about individual vs. a group. I’ve tried very hard to articulate why I think it’s okay to use this as a marker, but I might very well be off. If it’s meant to be a discussion of the best tactic to achieve success in legalizing gay marriage, I didn’t really address that part of it.
PG,
Here’s what Elusis write in 59 in response to what I quoted above —
Me:
Elusis:
As you can see, the question was “Is she anti-gay”? I didn’t even suggest, because that wasn’t even in the cartoon panel, that she was “using the race card”. Elusis immediately launched into the accusation that I was somehow “blaming” those groups.
In 63 Elusis again attacked me for a statement I never made —
I didn’t blame anyone in my response, and I explicitly stated that I WASN’T blaming any particular group —
@61:
The rest of my responses, to that point, focused on whether or not REPORTING a demographic fact can be fairly accused of being racist. Not whether or not assigning BLAME to a specific group, but on the act of REPORTING —
How can reporting a FACT be called “Racist”? Bare facts, without analysis, are always neutral. It’s the analysis and conclusions — opinions, beliefs, etc. — that impart “Racism” (or other “-ism”‘s) to facts.
Just to make it absolutely clear that I wasn’t singling out Blacks and Latinos for some kind of “brown people are icky” special treatment, I laid out all the major demographics that I know of that don’t support same-sex marriage —
#65:
The responses all focused on “Racism” when some of those groups — like, being a “Working Class” person isn’t exactly a choice. Not like a construction worker or seasonal agricultural worker can say “Hey, I’m going to move to San Jose and get me a $200K job in high-tech!”
How are you “twisting” my words? Because after #61 I asked how REPORTING facts is racist, and others made the same point — How is REPORTING a fact ever a RACIST act? (chirp, chirp, chirp). In #65 (which you didn’t mention), I laid out all the demographics I could come up with off the top of my head. Finally, in #79, even after my post in #65, you repeat the mistaken belief that I’m limiting my comments to any one group, rather than the totality of the pro-Prop 8 population.
So, yeah — you’re definitely twisting my words by selective quoting, ignoring numerous posts where I’ve clarified and refined my comments in response to various criticisms.
(Edited to add, because I can already see the attacks coming …)
Of the pro-Prop 8 demographics, which ones are we realistically able to ally with?
Conservatives? No, many would like to see sodomy and other decency laws returned.
Catholics? It isn’t like Catholics are some kind of “oppressed minority” in need of an alliance with LGBT folk in order to secure their rights.
The working class? Given the amount of charity work done by many LGBT groups (I raised the roof on a Habitat for Humanity “Pride Build” several years ago — big, queer, me set the roof trusses, along with several other big queers), I think we have that alliance in place.
Blacks and Hispanics? These are two — of many — groups where we have our work cut out for us, as this article explains —
Two Little Boys
To suggest that attitudes in Families of Color (or Conservatives, or Catholics, or …) are the fault of LGBT “alliances gone wrong” is just bizarre, it’s blaming the victim, it’s homophobic, it’s just BAD.
Sailorman @80,
“statements about” =/= “faulting, blaming, criticizing”
“White men commit most $1million+ white collar crime” =/= “why are WoC shying away from criticizing the financial fraud in the White Male community?”
I am surprised that after the several comments I have made reiterating the point that there is a difference between (1) stating a fact or statistic, versus (2) blaming/ faulting/ criticizing a group (particularly one defined by an involuntary characteristic), you and FCH continue to insist that the mere stating of facts is being called racist, when in fact it is what you want to do with those facts — blame, fault, criticize, “go after” — that is at issue.
Simple Truth @81,
I think you are basically getting my point, and thanks for your post. However, as a factual matter I’d note that if you want to see Northerners who didn’t cope well with integrated schools — had marches and rallies and standing in schoolhouse doors to fight them — look at Boston in the 1960s and 1970s with the busing fights. Northerners had racially-segregated housing patterns that allowed them to avoid school integration until the courts started going after de facto segregation as well as the de jure kind. This is part of problem with criticizing groups to which one doesn’t belong: it often allows one to ignore the speck in one’s own eye because, hey look over there, the beam in that group’s! The racism wasn’t *as bad* outside the Confederacy; the reason Topeka, KS became the lead case for Brown v. Board was that it was the school district that had most closely approximated “separate but equal,” whereas the South Carolina school district wasn’t anywhere close. But Kansas, which most people don’t consider Southern, still had mandatory segregation under the law.
FCH @82,
You asked, “Do we not go after those two groups because we’re afraid of being accused of racism?” based on something from Barstow (I don’t know what because the link you posted gives an error message). Given the context of “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities,” the phrase “go after” seemed negative, to say the least; synonymous with attacking, criticizing, faulting, blaming. If that’s not what you meant by “go after” — if you actually meant something like court, seek out — it was not at all clear.
I think it was entirely reasonable for Elusis to question why you would say that “[gays should be] criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities” is an argument worthy of rhetorical respect. I’d also like for this discussion to avoid using quotation marks when one is not actually quoting the person with whom one disagrees; I find italics to be a good substitute. Otherwise we run into stuff like “using the race card” being put in quotation marks even those Elusis made no reference to any such card.
Moreover, you complain of having your words twisted, yet where did Elusis say that there was anything racist merely in stating statistics about voting patterns based on race, at least insofar as those statistics are accurate? Elusis’s complaint was about blaming (a normative act), not about stating facts. Yet over and over and over and over, you and Sailorman claim that you’re merely in favor of stating facts — even after Sailorman says, “If there are identifiable groups who have significantly worse records in supporting gay rights, putting more blame on those groups is also appropriate.”
If you insist that when you talk about “go[ing] after” groups, you don’t mean “blaming,” and that you were in no way endorsing the idea of “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities,” then clearly there has just been a misunderstanding. I hope that you will clarify what you mean by “go after” in the context of suggesting that Barstow might have something worthwhile to say regarding “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities.”
PG, I think you may be getting my positions mixed up with FCH, so let me clarify.
first, re facts/bias:
1) I think that generally speaking, presenting, questioning, or discussing facts should be encouraged.
2) I think that the presentation of facts must by right allow for presentation negative facts, even about a minority or disempowered group. Just because a fact is amenable to an anti-XX interpretation does not mean that the fact is XX-ist.
3) I also think that the selective presentation, questioning, or discussion of facts can be biased, and that the simple “these are facts!” response does not disprove bias.
4) That said, I tend to think that the solution for said bias is generally to present more (competing/disproving) facts, not to stifle discussion of existing facts.
next, re groups: I think I was fairly clear about my position w/r/t the appropriateness of referring to group identities, earlier on. So I won’t talk about that here, other than to say that it’s not clear I have the same views as FCH.
Finally, re blame:
5) To the extent that one is discussing generalities and to the extent that one is using groups to do so, then it seems perfectly appropriate IMO to blame a group. So: Who is primarily at fault for the fact that women are relatively disempowered? Men are. Who is primarily at fault for the discrepancy in white/nonwhite race privilege? Whites are. Are black voters one of the voting groups at fault for the Prop 8 debacle? Yup.
6) However, obviously it would be ridiculous (absent 100% participation) to blame each individual member of a group for that group’s actions.
So…
When you look at this argument here, we have a reasonably accepted set of facts, namely “black voters supported prop 8 at a depressingly high frequency.” (Note, BTW, that unlike FCH I continue to use the “voters” qualifier, and not the “community” qualifier. One is supported by obvious evidence; the other may be but I don’t know.)
That’s an identifiable group. Why not talk about them, if you’d talk about registered Republican voters or male voters or older voters or Massachusetts voters or Catholic voters or any other group?
And if you’re talking about them, why can’t you assign blame to them, if you’d assign blame to registered Republican voters or male voters or older voters or Massachusetts voters or Catholic voters or any other group? It can’t be that you can talk about a group and only say good things, right?
Now, if you would not talk about groups at all, then of course you’d be acting very strangely if you assigned blame to a group. I am not one of those people though, so I’m acting consistently in praising, discussing neutrally, and blaming groups. This consistency is, IMO, what is needed to avoid an initial accusation of bias.
Sailorman,
I don’t think PG is getting you and I confused — I think PG is simply confused by what’s being said and applying a double standard. In #69 she said Republicans “go after” the Black vote —
Is this like Animal Farm — if PG uses the term “go after” it is OK, but if we use “go after” it is possibly negative (as in #83)
I think that’s about as dishonest as PG can possibly be. I’ve repeatedly stated that I am NOT blaming people. I said they were facts, presented without interpretation (no room to call it blaming there), I said I wasn’t, and that I didn’t see anyone else blaming (again, no room to call it blaming). I’ve not said I’m not criticising because criticism can be positive / constructive or negative / destructive. However, since I’ve not provided any analysis of the basic, raw, unvarnished facts, I’ve also not criticised anyone, except LGBT people.
PG admitted that it is the bloggers who treat support of Prop 8 as some kind of moral crime and that claiming someone or some group supports Prop 8 is akin (or whatever PG used) to accusing them of this crime. I’ve not stated my beliefs, one way or another, in this thread about Prop 8, it’s supporters, or anyone else.
This entire tempest in a teapot is something Elusis and PG crafted and they need to own it. I ain’t gonna, that’s for sure.
FCH,
This is just getting silly. How could the phrase “go after” in my sentence mean “blame, criticize, attack”? Obviously phrases have different meanings in different contexts. You started in a context of saying that Donna Barstow thinks gay people should criticize the Black and Latino communities for lack of support. In that context, it was reasonable to interpret your phrase “go after those two groups” in a negative way rather than a positive one. As I said, “going after” a group for their votes won’t be seen as racist. So if that’s actually what you meant, I can lay your fears to rest.
What is your “positive” criticism of the Black and Latino communities wrt Prop. 8? And what did you mean by “go after those two groups”? I was willing to acknowledge that there might just be a misunderstanding, but you don’t seem willing to clarify what you DO mean by your words, only to deny that whatever meaning is ascribed is what you meant.
PG @86:
Uh, no I didn’t. Here’s what I wrote —
Those are called QUESTIONS. Then end in question MARKS. A statement usually ends in a PERIOD (or “FULL STOP”).
Furthermore, the entire paragraph was not about Prop 8 at all, it was about whether or not Ms. Barstow is a racist asshat. It became about Prop 8 because I listed what I described as various “sacred cows” I saw being “skewered”. I even identified them as being “sacred cows” (that’s the term I used, it is therefore in quotation marks), which means that they are topics, which by their very nature can create controversy. To further indicate that I felt they were also difficult topics, I described the discussions I saw as “poignant”, a term which means that something can be painful or difficult to discuss —
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/poignant)
Just not buying it. Elusis attacked me, you piled on, kindly own it.
As for providing you with an explanation for something I never did (criticise Blacks and Latinos, claim that Ms. Barstow is hawt because she does, or whatever else you want to put in my mouth as saying), I’m also not going to play that game. YOU are the one responsible for the assertion, you can own it and all the bizarre accusations you’ve come up with since.
Statements that are apparently safe to attribute to you as things you believe because they end in full stops:
“Some were particularly poignant — the OpEd about Prop 8, and how gay rights groups are shying away from criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities. … I view that panel as more supportive of gay rights than perhaps she (based on the responses here) might envisioned.”
So you consider it to some (unstated) degree “supportive of gay rights” to note that “gay rights groups are shying away from criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities.” But you don’t think that sounds like you’re endorsing something when you call it supportive of gay rights?
Here are answers to your questions:
Q: Is she being anti-gay for giving voice to what many gays and lesbians ourselves won’t give voice to?
A: I generally don’t consider it a good idea to speak for a group to which I don’t belong when people within that group aren’t saying what I’m saying for them. So perhaps not anti-gay in the sense of homophobic, but probably presumptuous.
Q: Do we not go after those two groups because we’re afraid of being accused of racism?
Depends on what is meant by “we.” If you mean Do I, FCH, not go after them because I’m afraid of being accused of racism? then I think you’ve made clear that you have no such fear and are feeling free to “go after them,” whatever that means. Do you mean that other LGBT folks, having had to deal with plenty of thinking about them as a monolithic group, are inclined to “go after” groups because they’re afraid of being accused of racism? I’d say that the folks who don’t do such “going after” probably operate less on fear than on a belief that such behavior IS racist. It’s not like Dan Savage was going to lose much that was important to him by criticizing the Black and Latino communities, so there was no reason to be afraid — so he did it.
Also, I am surprised to be told to “own it” by someone who, when I pointed out that she seemed to be addressing me about stuff I never said, didn’t “own” that and apparently considered it sufficient that other people in the same thread had said it for me to be held responsible for it.
PG,
Uh, where did I attribute it to YOU, PG, Individually and Personally? Again, my comments in #56 were a question. You chose not to answer the question, but instead have taken it as my making a statement about your beliefs. I don’t know what your beliefs were. And just because I respond to you doesn’t mean I’m talking ABOUT you. YOU are not the only reader or respondent on this blog. I didn’t say, for example, “You clearly think she is racist” or “You must obviously think she is racist.” Please, which part of #56 lead you to believe I was ascribing a specific belief to YOU, PG, Individually and Personally?
As for the statements you want to attribute to me, I think I more than adequately disclaimed them as hard issues to resolve. Words have meanings — “poignant” and “sacred cow” weren’t used by accident. I type fast, but I try to think along the way. I didn’t say “Well, I think blah, blah, blah” — I made it a point, very intentionally, to say that I felt these were hard and pontentially painful issues (“poignant”), prone to creating controversy if raised (“sacred cows”).
What is bizarre about this is that the paragraph was intended to be a discussion about Ms. Barstow and somewhere along the line (Read: As soon as Elusis got involved) it spun out of control into an entirely different direction, unrelated to the SUBJECT of the post (Ms. Barstow’s political cartoons) that caused the controversy.
A new level of bizarrity comes to Alas.
FCH,
Inasmuch as you continue to refuse to state what you do mean by the words you use, and will only disclaim that you meant what Elusis and I understood by them, I don’t think there’s anywhere to go with this discussion. I cannot have a productive conversation with someone whose only answer to my asking Do you mean X? is to say No! without explaining what she DOES mean. I am left in the position of apparently being incapable of understanding your meaning and not receiving any assistance from you in improving my understanding.
Also, Elusis @59 was in fact sticking to the topic you raised. You suggested that perhaps instead of just relentlessly mocking Barstow, we should see her as an equal opportunity skewer of sacred cows (incidentally, “sacred cows” carries the connotation that the cows aren’t really very sacred and that it’s a bit silly to think them so; it comes from the British imperialists’ amused contempt for Hindus’ respect for cows as sacred; other people’s concerns are called “sacred cows,” one’s own are not), one who raises poignant questions.
Elusis strongly disagreed, concluding, “Donna Barstow’s attempt to invoke [justifiability of criticizing the Black and Latino communities for Prop. 8’s passage] is another nail in her coffin from where I’m sitting.” The fact that Elusis was disagreeing vigorously with your take on Barstow doesn’t mean that Elusis derailed.
PG,
Perhaps if you spent less time putting words in my mouth this discussion would have been more productive?
You know, I learned to ASK what people mean, instead of telling them what they mean.
There is a big difference between “That sounds like blame to me” and “You are blaming those people”. It’s like the difference between “You make me feel … when you do XYZ” and “When you do XYZ I feel …”
Which do you think you were doing with
You may also want to consider the difference between these two —
Would you like a cheeseburger?
You would like a cheeseburger.
You didn’t get your questions answered because all of your questions (more or less) came pre-loaded with accusations. A bit like “Have you stopped beating your wife?”
You didn’t ask me “Are you saying we should blame Blacks and Latinos for the passage of Prop 8?” you wrote that I AM blaming them, and that it is a bad idea. In response to “it’s generally a bad idea to blame groups” (and others) you were repeatedly told that I wasn’t blaming anyone. Not to evade the question, but because there wasn’t even a question to answer. The question you DID ask — “Why not try blaming individuals instead?” — was also answered — I’m not blaming anyone. Each time I was accused of blaming people, I said that I wasn’t blaming anyone. Perhaps that should have been your clue, rather than being patronizing and trying to repeatedly explain why something I wasn’t doing was a bad idea?
Something I learned in a few different classes / lectures / seminars on anti-racism work — a knee-jerk reaction calling trivial things “racist” is itself racist behavior. It trivialises actual racism and actual racism isn’t a trivial matter. Likewise, instantly agreeing with People of Color — also racist.
Not that we had these discussions — you never gave me the chance to. So, really, don’t blame me. I’m not accepting responsibility for your behavior.
And as an aside, if you want my opinion it’s that you really were confusing what Sailorman was saying and what I was saying. Sailorman wrote that blaming groups is okay. Just my opinion — could be wrong.
I think this discussion is failing to be productive (although I appreciate that people are, or so it appears to me, attempting to remain civil even while getting heated).
I’m not going to order anyone to quit or anything, but I think all contributors should seriously think about if their next comment is really going to further the discussion in any useful direction.
Yes, FCH, that’s correct, under limited circumstances as I talked about in #84.
I do think there’s been a bit of mixup here between me and FCH, though I’m certain it was unintentional: AFAIK, my position and FCH’s position on this particular question are different, though we share some other similarities.
FCH @67 said, “No one, not me, not Sailorman, not even (apparently) Ms. Barstow, is BLAMING people of color for Prop 8.”
This may have been how I got the idea that FCH thought her position was the same as Sailorman’s — she was claiming that even after he had said @64, “If there are identifiable groups who have significantly worse records in supporting gay rights, putting more blame on those groups is also appropriate,” that he was not in fact “BLAMING people of color for Prop 8.” I disagreed with FCH that his statement at @64 was correctly read as NOT blaming groups.
If I misread either post, my apologies to the authors.
FCH,
As for
I am not sure what you consider trivial:
– Your question, “Do we not go after those two groups because we’re afraid of being accused of racism?”
– My repeated explanation that a statement of fact like “X% of black voters voted for Prop. 8” is not the same as “blacks and Latinos are at fault for prop 8,” and therefore Elusis was not saying that a statement of fact was racist, only that a normative claim involving fault or criticism was racist.
– Sailorman’s statement (which you said did not constitute blaming anyone): “If there are identifiable groups who have significantly worse records in supporting gay rights, putting more blame on those groups is also appropriate.”
Also, this labeling of Elusis’s and my concerns as “trivial,” simply because you don’t agree that “criticizing the lack of support for gay rights in the Black and Latino communities” is potentially racist, reminds me of the folks who say, If you refer, even outside a legal context, to sex that a woman didn’t want to have as rape, when she didn’t fear for her life and didn’t get hit or anything, that trivializes REAL rape. And of course REAL rape is something only other people would do, never me, because I am too enlightened to screw up like that, so you mustn’t label behavior that I might engage in or consider acceptable as rape.
Telling people that their concerns about racism are mere “sacred cows” and “trivial” doesn’t do much for your credibility in being sensitive to racism, no matter how many workshops you’ve attended. See also Amp’s post on how this is not a good reaction to someone’s suggesting that a certain statement or behavior is racist.
PG,
I really don’t think there is any point in continuing this with you. I’ve stated that I feel you’re twisting my words, I’ve presented what I think are clear arguments why I feel that way, and I think your latest post is just more of the same. I feel that at this point you are trying to convict me of racism and that further clarifications of my beliefs will all be interpreted in a way that reinforces that conclusion.
Follow Amp’s advice in #93, why don’t you?
Hey Amp,
I tried to post something on this thread regarding the prop 8 issue yesterday but I think it might have been chewed up by your spamguard. Would it be possible for me to repost it again today?
Cheers.
PG,
Going on the temporary assumption that you and FCH won’t continue this conversation as per FCH’s request, I am interested in resuming the “inappropriate to make group generalizations” thread that you and I were discussing earlier, and which I wrote on in #84.
Sailorman,
It is inappropriate to make group generalizations of the form you seem to want to make. It’s why I stopped saying that no one was blaming Blacks and Latinos for passing Prop 8, because clearly you are, and I disagree with that approach.
Facts are fine. One sided or shallow analysis isn’t. There are many potential reasons why those two groups appear to be more opposed to same-sex marriage. My personal feelings are that in my experience, Blacks have a more conservative religious foundation within the Protestant tradition, and that Latinos tend to be more Catholic than not. If you look way back, you’ll see where I listed a wide variety of demographic groups that TEND to oppose same-sex marriage. Sadly, we never discussed those demographics and the thread turned into a pile-on about racism and blaming and things I never said.
Now that I’m not going to waste my fingers engaging PG, I’ll say this — try to look for plausible and simple explanations when doing political analysis. Read the research. What the research says is that after controlling for things like education, religious beliefs and standard of living Blacks and Latinos are about the same as Whites. Now look at the average level of education, religious beliefs, and standard of living of those two groups and tell me what you think. (And so I’m not attacked by PG, I’ll say that education and standard of living are byproducts of racist societies, not some character flaw based on race.) Because what I think is that successfully engaging (“going after” is the term I used — “engaging” is likely less value laden, after this discussion) those two groups requires we expose the underpinnings of religious beliefs, and how those religious beliefs have been used to oppress those two groups themselves (Slavery in the Conservative Protestant tradition much?), and then to compare it to how religious beliefs are used against gays and lesbians. That, to answer one of PG’s bizarre accusations, is how I’d proceed in what I think is a productive and constructive manner, without dragging race into the issue.
Taking the easy, and lazy, way out of the process does lead to what I read as your position — that it’s the groups, based on their race alone, that leads them to these conclusions about same-sex marriage. Sadly, in the age of 24 hour talk radio, people no longer do that deep analysis. Blogs can help, but often blogs have their own biases and people get stuck in a specific rut if they don’t open their minds and try understanding others. That, I think, is what happens with “Alas” a lot of the time — well-meaning people who view racism as this Dragon they must slay at every turn. Or perhaps, more like Don Quixote and those damned windmills.
Actually, I’m not. (sheesh, all those posts complaining about misreading, you’d think you would copy and paste my words to avoid this sort of thing.)
“Black people” are an enormous and poorly defined group, as are “the black community,” “POC,” etc.
“Black California voters” are, comparatively speaking, a small and well defined SUBgroup, and are even smaller when used in the context of that particular election.
I have been, quite deliberately:
1) limiting my comments on the issue to black California voters, not black people;
2) explaining why I think it is appropriate to use “black California voters” as a descriptor, as it is to use other similar descriptions of voting groups.
Now, if you want to discuss the issue of whether or not those descriptors are inappropriate, I’m game. It’s an interesting conversation, at least to me. But before we start discussing it, it’d be helpful if you could understand and acknowledge the distinction between large groups and subgroups; and the differences in predictive value between them.