I became aware of this controversy by way of Blunted Reality. After going on 17 months in the blogosphere, the utter insensitivity of some of the people here still appalls me. A white blogger, in an all too typical show of arrogance and ignorance, has taken a black blogger to the woodshed for daring to say he is proud of being African-American. The white blogger seems to savor his role as arbiter of what African-Americans have permission to think and say.
Anyway, Earl Dunovant is black. He's not black like some people I know, who simply have a black skin; Earl is a self-professed "black partisan" who has a strong black identity. He quotes Malcolm X: "Who taught you, please, who taught you to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin, to such extent that you bleach, to get like the white man? ... Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate, the race that you belong to?"
Now, Malcolm X is an interesting figure. Reverse everything he says - i.e. replace white with black, etc. - and you get something that David Duke et al would say. What I quote above is pure, unadulterated racism; if a white person talked to the same extent about a "white identity" and "getting like the black man," he'd be correctly branded as a total racist. But I know that few people will say the same thing about similar statements when made by black nationalists.
--snip--
If you're oppressed, end the oppression and move on, but for fuck's sake, don't consider yourself different than whoever oppresses you because you have a different skin color. And even if you are different, due to, say, sexual orientation, or social class, then don't think for a moment that being a minority or just plain oppressed makes you somehow better. When your oppressor does that to you, you rightly accuse him of bigotry; and yet you applaud such behavior when you do it.
This kind of blathering is the norm for any discussion of race in the blogosphere. Intelligent discourse about race is basically not allowed. Engage in it and you will find yourself blacklisted, with people told not to link your blog. But, say things that make no sense about race and other bloggers will rush to support you. Bigotry and the blogosphere walk hand in hand.
Article comments
1 - Eddy
I would just rather move to Edmonton. The realtors there are great. Far away from any west African trouble. This man helped me find a great home!
2 - Pandora
Very interesting article. Funny how we can take sensitive issues and exploit them anywhere.
3 - Eric Olsen
Eddy, your attempt at disguising your spam is pathetic, but we will leave it as an example of stupidity (unless MD wants it removed).
I am sad to hear about Howard, who is a friend and a fine Blogcritic. But many of us take breaks - I'm not sure his break is an indictment of blogging in general. If an activity doesn't meet your needs or distracts from higher needs, then put it aside. I would say most opinions expressed by bloggers are pretty clearly that, and done properly, sources of information are readily supplied and easily verifiable.
I agree that Joe Taylor as quoted here would appear to not comprehend the history of blacks in America when rendering his judgments, but it is up to every individual to make his or her own way in the world as it is now configured. This is a very delicate and difficult balance, I freely admit, but one which we all must try to find in order to move forward.
4 - Kenneth Quinnell
As a fellow member of OSP, I'd just like to say that Joe Taylor doesn't speak for the rest of us, which includes Earl Dunovant, who was one of the founding members of OSP. I've written a number of posts on Black History at OSP that completely reject Joe's comments and most of the commentary opposing what Joe said has been from other OSPers.
5 - Mac Diva
I appreciate your reply, Kenneth. It heartens me.
I was hoping to post a link to this entry at OSP, but either the comments are closed over there or the commenting mechanism is messing up. Anyway, I would like to hear from Joe Taylor directly. I am not one to talk about people behind their backs, and look forward to his take on my response to his entry.
I am puzzled about what Taylor considers his political identification to be. When I tried to locate more information about him, the links eventually took me to a Leftist forum. Yet, I find it hard to believe someone who considers himself on the Left would not have studied the role of race in America, since it has so much to do with class. His remarks in the entry we are discussing sound very Right Wing to me. Perhaps my confusion will be cleared up.
6 - David Mazzotta
"The white blogger seems to savor his role as arbiter of what African-Americans have permission to think and say."
I don't see where this Taylor character is suggesting that any more than you are suggesting Taylor can't think or say what he said. (You aren't, are you?)
"...the utter insensitivity of some of the people here still appalls me. A white blogger, in an all too typical show of arrogance and ignorance..."
Frankly, I think you are exacerbating the problems with racial dialogue by confronting a conflicting opinion from a stance of moral indignation. It's pretty hard to engage in meaningful conversation with someone who is calling you arrogant, ignorant and appalling for disagreeing with her.
An excellent example of a considered reply from a strictly argumentative stance is Dunovant's own reply on OSP.
7 - Mac Diva
Since Joe Taylor does not even know of my existence, I have not had a meaningful (or non-meaningful) conversation with him. I believe I established the ignorance of the comments in the excerpt at issue by refuting Taylor's suppositions one behind the other. It is my opinion that Taylor is arrogant to presume to lecture an African-American on whether he can be proud of his heritage or not. I believe doing so is arrogant because it assumes a greater knowledge than Taylor possesses, and because it reiterates the usual master/slave assumptions many white Americans still have in regard to their relationship to black Americans. Specifically, Taylor seems to think he is somehow annointed to tell P6 what he can think and say, much the same way that David Mazzotta seems to think he is somehow annointed to tell me what I can think and say. The attitude reflected screams white privilege.
I have not said that Taylor is not allowed to express his opinion. I have said I believe it is an opinion based in ignorance and arrogance. And, yes, I do find the kind of talking down to P6 Taylor engaged in morally offensive. It is basically a white man putting a black man 'in his place.' I fail to understand how any reasonable and well-informed individual could read Taylor's entry and not see that.
8 - David Mazzotta
"much the same way that David Mazzotta seems to think he is somehow annointed to tell me what I can think and say"
This is going to come as a shock to you, but it is possible to criticize and disagree without it being an attempt to stifle free thought.
One of the themes of your post is the sorry state of racial dialogue. The opinion I expressed was that by responding sanctimoniously to opposing opinions you make it worse rather than better. Please explain to me how that is an attempt to tell you what you can think and say.
On second thought, don't bother. I'm sure I am far too unreasonable and poorly informed to understand.
9 - Natalie Davis
This is interesting. I don't like the atttitude that appears to come from Joe's words at all. At the same time, I can agree with some of what he said. This Heinz 57 muttley can't imagine embracing one societally desginated group over another, and I would opt for embracing all people with love and loyalty over favoring a group designated by a fallacy any day. It's about justice and equality for all, IMO.
That said, I'm with P6 in having pride for the accomplishments of people of all hues. And the transformation of the former Malcolm X fills me with great pride. If the man was any other color, my pride in him would be the same.
But I do see where Joe is coming from: I've never understood the statement, "I'm proud to be an American or Canadian or Afghani or French" or whatever. Proud you were born on a particular land mass? What's that about? I'm proud that I have blue eyes? That I have red hair? That I have brown skin? It's great to have blue eyes or red hair or brown skin (or any combination thereof), and being happy about the way one looks is certainly healthy (which I believe is what Malcolm X was trying to teach people taught to hate themselves, and he should be applauded for that), but BFD, you know? What's in your soul? How intelligent are you? How kind and generous and loving are you? Are you a person of peace and justice? Seems to me that those are things worthy of pride. (And P6 is worthy of much pride and would be even if he were green or blue.) Pride and love for one's chosen culture seems legitimate too.
I have no need for classifications based on melanin: I deal with the unencumbered self, and my US is concerned with creating a better, fairer, more peaceful world for all the world's creatures. That means, IMO, fighting against "isms," including racism/pigmentationism/colorism. But it also means I can't be partisan when it comes to people. We're all part of one race, the only one that is real and that matters.
It's the lumping together of people who share certain physical characteristics -- and usually for the benefit and convenience of the mainstream and to the detriment of those not of the mainstream who are classed thusly -- that strikes me as ludicrous and inhumane; perhaps that is part of what motivated Joe to rant as he has.
Anyway, you are all my siblings, whatever your hue -- how's about a group hug?
10 - HW Saxton Jr.
Right On, Natalie.
11 - Douglas Mays
HHHMMM... Well, let me comment on racism in general. It blows me away because in my book you are either a cool person or not too cool. Race has nothing to do with it. The racist terminology comes into play when a particular person of a race is being an asshole. Therefore nigger, kike, wop, etc.. Go to Africa, you don't see any niggers.
These generalizations that came about in the age of political correctness really confused me. African American? What country in Africa? There are about 50 countries over there, each as diferent as Sweden and China. Native American? Each tribe has the same cultural differences. To me this type of generalization is an insult to each nation.
Back in the early 90s with all this overhyped sensitivity going on I wondered 'wow, what could be tougher than being black AND gay nowadays?' Then later on an episode of Kids In the Hall the very same question was asked. Scott Thompson's answer: 'Canadian'
Which brings me to my next point. Thank god for the Poles. Pollack!!! Hey, racism is'nt just a color thing. In incidents in 'hood' type situations I called a group of black hoods being aggressive 'Pollacks'. That broke the ice and got laughs. In a similer situation I called a guy a 'fucker', non-racist term, got chuckles also.
Then, we have the problem with usage of the term 'black' vs. 'African American'. If I am called 'white' then 'black' is the term used. 'African-American'? Then call me 'European-American'. It is called speaking on a common denominator.
Anyway, I don't even know if anything I said applies specifically to the above post. But when it comes to racial issues that is how my brain is locked in. You are a cool human or not cool. Or cool, but emotional. Or uncool, and violent. Or whatever. The common denominator is that we are all human!
peaceloveguidance
12 - The roots of racism are not of this earth
Program on the emergence of civilization.
"14 species of large animals capable of domesitcation in the history of mankind.
None from the sub-Saharan African continent.
13 from Europe, Asia and northern Africa."
Favor.
And disfavor.
They point out Africans’ attempts to domesticate the elephant and zebra, the latter being an animal they illustrate that had utmost importance for it's applicability in transformation from a hunting/gathering to agrarian-based civilization.
The roots of racism are not of this earth.
Austrailia, aboriginals:::No domesticable animals, so this nulified diversity of life claims on sub-continental Africa, zebras being a fine example.
god is a computer
And we're all on auto-pilot.
Organizational Heirarchy
Heirarchical order, from top to bottom:
1. MUCK - perhaps have experienced multiple universal contractions (have seen multiple big bangs), creator of the artificial intelligence humans ignorantly refer to as "god"
2. Perhaps some mid-level alien management â€"
3. Mafia (evil) aliens - runs day-to-day operations here and perhaps elsewhere ("On planets where they approved evil.")
Then we come to terrestrial management:
4. Chinese/egyptians - this may be separated into the eastern and western worlds
5. Romans - they answer to the egyptians
6. Mafia - the real-world interface that constantly turns over generationally so as to reinforce the widely-held notion of mortality
7. Jews, corporation, women, politician - Evidence exisits to suggest mafia management over all these groups.
Survival of the favored.
13 - Man of the Earth
When it's all said and done, it boils down to this one essential truth, "niggers are savage beasts".