Following up on yesterday’s post where I criticized Chris Muir for his use of black face to depict Hillary Clinton’s craven pandering to blacks by affecting the cadence and idioms of black language when speaking before an African American audience, I just want to thank Mr. Muir for his comments directed toward me on CQ Radio yesterday. (The relevant portion starts at about 9:50 into the podcast.)
It really wasn’t necessary.
It wasn’t necessary to point out that I’m soused with political correctness for criticizing his use of a symbol that I took great pains to give some historical background on – the use of black face in minstrel shows and how those entertainments shaped white attitudes and ideas toward black culture. Specifically the idea that context sometimes doesn’t matter when using symbols that are particularly hateful and hurtful.
Mr. Muir dismisses this argument out of hand by saying that “thinking people” are smarter than that and that context always trumps being sensitive to how symbols impact others. His statement that “symbols only have the power you give them,” could also apply to specific words like “nigger” (and, one would assume “kike” and “spic.”) He quotes from my piece at Heading Right to illustrate his point:
This is not political correctness per se, although there will be some racialists who would use Mr. Muir’s depiction to advance their own political agenda. Being sensitive to the real feelings of others is always the right thing to do regardless of intent or context.
Note to Chris: “Racialists” is indeed a word. See here and here and here. In another context, it refers to those who use race as a platform to attain a supposed moral superiority, usually in order to shut off debate on issues of political correctness or public policy. I don’t think Jeff Goldstein was the first to use it in that context, but his blog was the first place I saw it used thusly.
Muir takes my quote and says that “it is the very definition of political correctness.” He accuses me of using a “fast, cheap, and easy way to feel superior by assuming that those who are offended are weak and can’t make up their own minds.”
First of all, Muir assumes that the only people offended by black face are blacks. I challenge anyone of any color to watch the film I mentioned in my piece, Holiday Inn, with Bing Crosby singing “Abraham” in black face with his black cook and her son joining in without becoming embarrassed. It is offensive in the extreme as are the 97 other films listed here that use black face in various contexts.
I guess I’m just weak and can’t make up my own mind about these things. Too much listening to Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, I guess.
Muir’s first amendment arguments are spot on and I would never advocate banning the use of words or symbols in any way whatsoever. But I will continue to make the argument that yes indeed, there are some symbols and words that are just too offensive, too drenched with a history of repression and violence that the use of them in any context and regardless of intent is just plain wrong.
I took a similar tack with my arguments against the use of the Confederate Battle Flag:
The history of the Battle of Gettysburg says that the Union won. But the heritage of the battle belongs to the south.
Perhaps not so much today as the cloying grip of mass media has blurred the sectionalism so much responsible for that long ago conflict. But it’s also true that many southerners alive today are just one or two degrees of separation from that time in their history. After all, the last Civil War soldier lived until 1954. Many a southern grandfather can tell stories of long ago Fourth of July’s with some of those same boys that trudged up the ridge at Gettysburg, grown old and bent but still proud, marching in parades behind that most distinctive of American symbols.
Distinctive and yes, hurtful. For many Americans, the Confederate Battle Flag represents a hateful system that held human beings as chattel slaves. For them, there is no heritage only history; a shameful chronicle of rape, of whippings, of oppression that colors our politics and culture down to this very day.
My admiration for the Southern soldier and the martial legacy of the Civil War that is so much a part of Southern history nevertheless must take a backseat to the very real pain caused by that “most distinctive of American symbols.” I sincerely hope that one day, we can reach a point in our national life where the Battle Flag can once again be flown, proudly bringing to mind the courage and valor of the Southern soldier. But not now. Not when that symbol has been used to show resistance to federal authority with regards to civil rights and integration.
Political correctness? Or an empathetic response to a hateful symbol? Those of you who read my site on a regular basis know that accusing me of being “politically correct” is pretty baseless. But I think that there are times we conservatives go too far in denigrating the very real and necessary reasons for, lack of a better term, political correctness; that to clutter our national conversation with words and symbols that come with historical baggage from a past where the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were relatively meaningless only serves to keep us separate as a people and gets in the way of uniting us.
It is a shame that the left uses political correctness as a club to score political points and choke off conversation. I would hope that by giving meaning and historical context to these very, very few words and symbols that signify hate and divisiveness in any context, we can elevate the national dialogue and talk about these issues without fear of wounding those who have suffered and continue to suffer from an American past that too often failed to live up to its golden promise of being that “shining city on a hill.”
9:16 am
Your citing of “Holiday Inn” as a case-in-point actually makes Mr Muir’s point about context. You’re talking about a movie made in 1942, with one musical piece done in blackface. The context for the blackface is in the movie – Bing Crosby is trying to hide Marjorie Reynolds and uses blackface to accomplish the task. So, while you may argue that scene was embarassingly overacted, it’s hard to find it offensive unless you’re looking through the prism of modernity and PC.
11:37 am
Gee. You almost made it to the end of an otherwise very good post without taking a gratuitous swipe at the Big Bad Left. But you couldn’t help yourself. It’s a shame, because you have a good mind and write well. But you just can’t keep your Us vs. Them loathing in check for even a few brief paragraphs. It really diminishes you as someone worth reading.
1:21 pm
His statement that “symbols only have the power you give them,†could also apply to specific words like “nigger†(and, one would assume “kike†and “spic.â€
Which is the claim used to justify the black use of the dreaded “N” word,in order,it is said,to reclaim it and disempower it.
Honkie,cracker,redneck,trailer trash are all racial,class slurs consciously used to demean,diminish and debase a specific group,should we ban those words?
All symbols offend someone.
Old Glory flew over slavery,share cropping and Jim Crow,should we ban it?The muslim crescent has flown and is flying over aggresive wars of imperialism and oppression,should we ban it?
We are busily banning Christian symbols,less they offend jews,muslims,athists,gay activists,etc.Is this not offensive to many and not just Christians?
The flag issue is more complicated than you acknowledge,frankly.To many,many southerners it has become a symbol of opposition to,dare I say,the cultural imperialism of the White left elite that has long since declared ALL things southern as nasty if not downright evil and to be abolished.
Just mention Nascar and watch the sneers bloom among the Annointed as they shudder in horror.
P.S. I watched “Holiday Inn” on one of the cable channels a couple of months ago,a small inaccuracy that never the less undermines your other factual claims.
P.P.S. You seem to take the idea of banning it as a positive while insisting you oppose censorship.
Well,a neat way to keep your own hands clean,bemoaning censorship in general while implying approval in this case.
P.P.P.S. The last thing the conservative movement needs,or frankly will tolerate,is self appointed Inquistors attempting to police it with “more PC than thou”ness to show they are,unlike THOSE people,socially acceptble to their betters.
2:00 pm
Nowhere do you see me advocating banning anything. Get a grip.
What I said about Holiday Inn:...”has not been seen on over the air TV for many years.” I’ve seen it on TCM every year. Please read the damn post.
Where in God’s green earth did you get the idea I wanted to ban anything? ESPECIALLY AFTER I SPECIFICALLY SAID I WAS OPPOSED TO SUCH A THING? Stop reading things into the post that isn’t there.
You wouldn’t know “PC” if it came up and bit you in the ass.
3:50 pm
That strip was on the same day that hillary came to an agreement with the chick who black-faced joe lieberman. He even mentioned jane hamsher.
3:54 pm
The difference I see is Joe Liberman has never to my knowledge tried to pander as southern sounding and black empathetic but was painted with the black face by a very left website as a symbol of being a sellout.
Hillary has actually pandered to African-Americans with word choice and southern drawl by choice on her part.
Even if Muir had not blackfaced her, some would have been offended just by the wording he attributed to her in the strip.
When leaving City Hall a few minutes ago I had to wait at a long red light and two African-American males in the lane next to mine were playing a cd of rap or hip-hop that used every last term you could think of that SHOULD be called offensive to blacks and described acts by women that should be offensive to all women.
In the Imus case, I would love to know if any of the offended ladies had any similar music on their Ipod or CD collection. Sounds like otherwise it was very selective outrage, no so much as what was said but who said it.
4:45 pm
As a child, I enjoyed reading “Little
Black Sambo”, and listening to the “Amos and Andy Show” on radio. Both were long ago banned because of stereotyping or racism, or something even though I didn’t see anything offensive about them. Seems to me that some in our society have become way too sensitive.
Used to have terms such as “colored people” or “negro”, can’t say them now and “blacks” has evolved into “African American” even though most are not from Africa. Of course the warlords of race don’t want to stop being offended because that is how they derive their power and influence.
5:37 pm
I think we’ve got a fundamental disconnect going on here. As Sister Toldjah often writes, just because you have the right to say something, does not make it a/the right thing to say. I support Chris Muir’s right to draw any damn thing he wants. I support Rick Moran’s right to question whether he SHOULD (as opposed to CAN) draw such a thing. And it’s the right of anyone, conservative or liberal, politically correct or in-your-face, to rip a cartoonist a new one when s/he feels a serious boundary of good taste is being crossed. As I wrote earlier, I was a fan of Chris Muir; I thought the use of black face tasteless and was glad to see he was taking some heat for it; and, based on his comments (as cited by Rick), plan to read less of his work.
11:27 pm
Rick Moran said:
“But I will continue to make the argument that yes indeed, there are some symbols and words that are just too offensive, too drenched with a history of repression and violence that the use of them in any context and regardless of intent is just plain wrong.”
What this argument fails to allow for is the fact that as time passes subsequent generations tend to form and follow new trends in language.
The “black face”, in the context used by Chris Muir, is today’s generations’ way of nailing the tag of “hypocrite” right to the target.
I’m sick of political correctness, which dredges up history from the rotting corpses that long ago should have turned to ashes. Who I am today, who we are today as a nation, is NOT defined by our history, but rather whether we have learned the lessons of that history and are actively growing and changing to incorporate the wisdom gleaned by past mistakes.
Putting people on a perpetual guilt trip simply because long ago generations were not sophisticated enough to recognize the destructive trends of their eras is foolish and self-defeating.
My ancestors were Vikings. And I was born and raised in Camden, New Jersey, into a very poor, very large white family. My neighbors were Blacks, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians, Irish, on and on. We didn’t have to deal with racial prejudices back then because we were too racially diverse. But we shared the common bond of being dirt poor.
Shall I tell you what kind of extremely destructive and hurtful prejudices exist against poor folk, especially poor white trash? I think not. Just like any other prejudice and hardship in life, it had to be overcome.
Rather than waste time running around like “thought police”, I think you “politically correct” types would help things along much more effectively by comparing past and present, looking for the improvements that have been made, even small ones, and sharing that wisdom for all of us living in today’s very complex world.
And give positive advice and offer growth-encouraging perspectives where appropriate, instead of having knee-jerk reactionary lynchings should someone slip up.
This
isthe 21st Century, after all.10:32 am
I enjoy how Yankees pols always feel obligated to take a shot at the Rebel flag when they come to SC. I think it’s up to the people of SC to figure it out. It Dems hate the Battle Flag so much why are they displaying half of it on their podium at the big press conference on surrender? See current pic at Pajamas…
10:34 am
Pardon the sloppy spelling above.