Sometimes I love him, even if he is Welsh.
My blog-crush remains in force, generally. The only quibble I have, and it's with your linkage rather than with the linked post, is the line about the UK being a first world country, so there isn't a whole lot of low-hanging fruit policy-wise that will make people genuinely better off. That's a lot truer in the UK than it is in the US.
That letter from Subcommandante Marcos to ETA is something else.
Does "progressive" describe a different general group of people in the UK than here?
The "even being poor isn't so bad" is just not true here in the US. It's possible that the conclusion, then, is that the US is not a first-world country. What's the line? The US is a third-world country with first-world enclaves, or something like that?
5: You need to visit more Third World countries, I think.
I like the exhortations to critique. Funny how when people note that it's easier to criticize something than to come up with sound new ideas, they generally don't conclude that one should therefore devote oneself to the former activity as it is far likelier to yield a successful result. I think this is a rather brilliant point.
Agreed with 2, though, absolutely.
Yes, yes, the American poor shouldn't whine because they mostly have access to clean water. Doesn't change the fact that poverty in the US is a pretty awful thing in a manner that poverty in a country with a stronger welfare state mostly isn't.
"even being poor isn't so bad"
Ah yes, this was the big obstacle that we said the Edwards campaign faced: convincing people that the poor exist.
"Most people know one or two things very well."
that struck me as overly optimistic.
No, Williams is right. Being born poor here is pretty fucking terrible, much more so than in most of Western Europe. It's not as bleak as, say, Mexico, but we're rapidly heading in that direction. It's almost impossible to dig yourself out of the underclass pit if you're born inside it.
It looks to me like D-squared read Andrew Sullivan's book.
Of course we all agree that many people in the US are unacceptably poor. It was the "be careful how you mess with things" parts that I thought were very good. I have no idea what LB is saying about my linkage in a transparent effort to maintain her blogcrush in good conscience.
Who and what the fuck is he talking about? I'm sure that would have made more sense if I were British.
dsquared's masthead is more fun if you imagine it as theses nailed on a door after a night of drinking.
I second the question in 4. And I question the idea that progress is inevitable.
I don't see the appeal of this page. It looks a lot like a standard libertarian "governments don't do anything useful" argument. Oh government programs are just full of careerist do gooders who actually make things worse for everyone.
In the US we saw a great city wiped off the map because of people who believed the government couldn't do anything, and then worked to make that prophecy come true. Ooh if you steal money from me though taxes you will just do useless things like build levees!
I shit back at you.
He's arguing with Condorcet, right?
In the US we saw a great city wiped off the map because of people who believed the government couldn't do anything
Funny, I thought it was a hurricane.
14: If the shorter dsquared is: "Generally, progressive policy positions are likely to be useless and annoying reductions in liberty. Face it, the poor here are already pretty well off, and if they need anything it's more money rather than self-indulgent government programs," that may be a good description of the political situation in the UK, where, e.g., the poor can go to a doctor when they're sick. It's much less true here.
But all of the 'stop messing around with things you don't understand' parts of it are good generally. (And in keeping with the recent Chesterton theme of the comments, there's a good Chesterton bit on this which I quoted around here recently sometime.)
Ah yes, this was the big obstacle that we said the Edwards campaign faced: convincing people that the poor exist.
it would be a big obstacle if "John Edwards" were a proposition on a ballot, and not a man. Nobody* votes for issues. They vote for likeability, perceived honesty, strength of conviction, and a level of comfort. Look, here's the thing. If the incumbent party or candidate is doing badly, people will take a look at the other guy. If they think the other guy is worth trying, they'll usually vote for him. If the other guy is less appealing in some major way, they might stick with the incumbent politician/party. We associate John Edwards with poverty, but if you polled most voters, they'd associate him with geniality, a humble/earnest quality, a charming southern drawl, a good haircut, a sweet wife and a nice smile. Hillary is a strong woman who was married to Bill who seems a little abrasive. Obama is a black man who seems really smart and speaks well (most voters would actually use the term "articulate," racist as it is). That's pretty much the depth of what people are going to vote for in the general, guys.
* By "nobody" I obviously mean most voters, not the Unfogged commentariat.
I think in a sense "progressive" does describe a different group of people in the UK.
You have to remember how constrained the public discourse is in the US, and how far to the right it has been pushed. You have never in your life heard someone in the US public media advance, e.g., socialism as a legitimate policy option. (I ain't saying that's good or bad; just different from in much of Europe and the UK).
In the UK, discourse is less constrained, and there is more representation from leftist views.
Concomitant with the whole leftward shift, there is more representation from leftists who are losers--i.e. people that you and I would think are losers too.
Imagine the left-wing mirror image what has happened in the US in the last thirty years, where more and more right-wing nutcases crawl out from under their rocks and get their own radio shows where they can spout racism and advocate that we bomb all of islam.
I guess I'm saying: dsquared is probably not targetting you or any of the people you read. But he can speak for himself, and often does on this blog.
Fuck the stockbrokers; we want universal health care.
19: No really, it wasn't. There's no such thing as a natural disaster, at least not a completely natural one. Hurricanes are only disasters if you aren't prepared for them.
a charming southern drawl
Why does no one pander to my regional prejudices?
24
that's true of the spanish inquisition, too.
It's a cross you're going to have to bear, J/M.
Kerry tried pandering to mine. And was crushed like a bug for it.
4. well, in Britain, they're in power.
I think the people Dsquared might actually be divided into two groups: people who think they know what's best for you on a communal level, and then on an individual level. There's more of the latter in Britain, I think, though we have some of it over here, more so on the Right than the Left.
Rob, I'm wholly on your side on the hurricane issue. It's not like the existence of storms is a big surprise.
He's clearly talking about the same progressives: people who have a substantial notion of the human good and believe society can be reformed to promote it. Here "progressive" contrasts with "procedural liberal." Progressives in the UK might be a bit more emboldened, but it is definitely the same strain of leftism here and there. It is also the same strain of leftism that gave us everything from a public sanitation system to social security.
17. rob, i could be wrong, but i don't think dsquared was making that argument. More of a don't-go-too-far with government argument, than a gov-is-no-good-at-all argument.
Hey, stockbrokers are people too, with feelings and all. Regardless, I think kid b makes a good point. The mainstream left in the US is way more to the right of the mainstream left in the UK and much of Europe.
I think 4's right--the group he's criticising isn't the same as the progressives here, though there's surely some overlap. It sounds to me like he's criticising suburban liberals, which are an endangered species in the U.S.
That said, and while poverty in the U.S. can be really fucking dire (yes, there are places with no running water), it's also true that poverty here is *not* the same problem as poverty in, say, Mexico or India. It's not as dignified as poverty in the UK or Canada, both of which have (ahem) health care, but partly the answer is in simply handing out larger checks, which is (should be) massively easier than creating a distribution system to begin with.
I suggest that the progressives d^2 speaks about do exist in the U.S. -- they are the people like Tom Friedman who supported the Iraq War on liberal grounds. Hey, it was a government plan to do a Good Thing, what's not to like?
One more thing I'll say about my experience working in the Dem primary: I can't overestimate the extent to which most Americans Do Not Give A Fuck. They become only dimly aware of the presidential election sometime around October, a month before the general. Do you guys really think Reagan won because he convinced America to take a hard right turn? He won because he was a charming actor from a bunch of B-movies that everyone had seen on their TV on Saturday afternoon. The vast majority of Americans couldn't pick his policy positions out of a lineup. He had a great smile, a great handshake and a great haircut. So did Clinton. So did Bush.
31. they really take it too far over there. They've banned smoking in your own car, and there are cameras - everywhere. (To name just 2 violations of privacy in the quest of making people behave like they should.)
What I do want to know, though, is what are the things Ogged is worried that progressives in the US are likely to break?
I am for some reason thinking about immigrant acquaintances who work here and go home for medical care - a Uruguayan friend, here legally, spent six months in Uruguay because he broke his leg badly and couldn't afford care here. I know a couple other people who have returned to the Dominican Republic because of health problems.
I don't want to comment on DD's piece - I commented over there only to point out that radical action is sometime necessary to dispose of institutions that have become pernicious, however organic they may be.
But you do have to bear in mind that the US is a very untypical first world country. My (American) wife once described in in a moment of rage over something the fundies had been up to as "A strangely prosperous 3rd world country in a federal arrangement with the two 1st world countries on either coast."
I suggest that the progressives d^2 speaks about do exist in the U.S. -- they are the people like Tom Friedman who supported the Iraq War on liberal grounds.
Tom Friedman is not a progressive by anyone's standard. He is an idiot. Entirely different.
Tom Friedman is not a progressive by anyone's standard. He is an idiot. Entirely different.
See what I mean? He's not even in the club any more. We don't call these guys progressives in the U.S., because we're calling them Bush-loving bloodthirsty amoral hawks.
37--
yeah, the cameras. I'm enough of a public-health fascist that i think smoking bans are fabulous.
but the prevalence of cameras in London is really spooky. takes a lot to push my civil libertarian buttons--i tend to be more of a sheep-like communitarian in general--but that level of surveillance makes me want to buy a lot of acreage in idaho.
(I wouldn't mind if the cameras were only being used to check smoking compliance, of course.)
Where have you been, Brock? There's a tendency to call black politicians 'articulate' in apparent surprise that they are able to speak standard English rather than AAVE. This is kinda racist, in the 'not all that malicious, but think about what you're saying, could you?' sense. And people have been bitching about it for literally decades, which means that not knowing it's a hot-button word in this context is aggressively clueless.
This makes talking about black politicians who are, in fact, unusually adept at verbal communication a little tricky, but them's the breaks.
Joe, either you're in the wrong thread, or I'm very confused.
Also, the progressives in Britain that Daniel is on about are most visibly the ones who obsessively tinker with functioning welfare institutions, and schools, universities, hospitals etc. with the result that the National Health Service is completely broken and almost bankrupt, and all the teachers I know have left education in disgust.
The opportunity to tinker doesn't exist west of the pond, because the institutions mainly don't exist in comparable forms.
And was crushed like a bug for it
If by "crushed like a bug" you mean "narrowly lost".
I was continuing my 21, but you're probably right.
42--
yeah, I think that's a fair cop. 'articulate' is pretty common in condescending praise of black people. sure, it's a few steps up from 'and such talented musicians', but it's a bit like that.
44. But in your own car, man! That's not public. (I understand that justification is that it supposedly increases traffic accidents. What a crappy justification.)
"Articulate" for black people is like "accomplished" for women. Condi Rice gets described with both.
(I get all my opinions about British politics from Jeremy Clarkson.)
53. which is funny b/c she's neither.
45- I have no idea where I've been. I've never heard this.
We associate John Edwards with poverty, but if you polled most voters, they'd associate him with geniality, a humble/earnest quality, a charming southern drawl, a good haircut, a sweet wife and a nice smile.
I guess J-Dry is a little more familiar with Edwards than he's letting on.
(can't believe no one else made that joke yet)
57: Sorry. Clueless, then, not 'aggressively clueless'. But now you know.
55 - But have you heard that she's a talented pianist?
Maybe "clueful" can be the equivalent term for whitefolk.
Agree with LB's #20, almost entirely, even if she's basically a communist.
60. that would be something. But, then, I heard Bush was absolutely fluent in Spanish, and it turns out he can barely order at Taco Bell.
como se dice "can I get e. coli with that?"
Ok, I agree with D^2 on two points.
(1) We need to be cautious about change, because existing institutions may have wisdom in them we do not understand, and we want to first of all do no harm. This is why I'm a progressive and not a Utopian revolutionary.
(2) Third world poverty is several orders of magnitude worse than anything in the UK or US. As a result, most progressive efforts should be focussed there.
And for the record, although I understand what you're saying and am not asking you to elaborate, it seems odd to characterize this as racist. I'd note that Obama is very articulate not because I expect blacks to be inarticulate but because so few people are very articulate, and certainly few are as articulate as he. I'd understand as racist someone labeling as "articulate" any blacks who could speak proper English, but that's a very different thing. (Similar to accomplished here, I guess: if you're calling a woman "accomplished" just because she has a career, that I can understand as sexist. If you would only use the word to describe someone who was truly, well, accomplished (of either gender), then I don't understand the objection.)
In other words I could see it being used in a racist manner, but objecting to just using the word properly, without selective racial application? I don't know know.
Was this a big national discussion in some election cycle (or other news item) that I'm forgetting?
Those are all fair points; the problem is that it's honestly perceived as a code word, which means that if it disturbs you that people may mistakenly think you mean to send a racist message by using it, you're better off circumlocuting somehow. I'm not going to defend the proposition that 'articulate' is innately a slur as applied to African Americans, just that you should know when you're walking in a minefield.
Brock, you're sounding like you're from Mars. Here's a whole thread about it.
I completely disagree that "articulate" is a code word meant to send a hidden racist message. That's pretty much the exact opposite of the truth. When people say "articulate" or things like that they are intending to be non-racist and entirely complimentary, but reveal themselves to possess a soft form of bigotry that basically consists of lowered expectations.
Chris Rock on the point:
Whenever Colin Powell is on the news, white people give him the same compliments: 'How do you feel about Colin Powell?', 'He speaks so well! He's so well spoken. I mean he really speaks so well!' Like that's a compliment, sh*t. 'He speaks so well' is not a compliment, okay? 'He speaks so well' is some sh*t you say about retarded people that can talk. What do you mean he speaks so well? He's a fuc*ing educated man! How the fu*k you expect him to sound, you dirty motherfuc*er? 'He speaks so well.' What are you talking about? What voice were you expecting to come out of his mouth? 'Imma drop me a bomb today', 'I be Pwez o dent!'."
69- The man went to Harvard Law School and Oxford, of course he's articulate.
But this just isn't true. At all. Not even close. LOTS of people attended prestigious schools and can't speak worth shit. Look at Bush, ffs.
68 is probably correct, though, I guess. Or at least that's what you're all telling me. I just don't understand how, if this is so well known, I've never heard it. Since I'm not, you know, actually from Mars.
I blame this on my lower-middle-class upbringing. And my racist parents.
When people say "articulate" or things like that they are intending to be non-racist and entirely complimentary, but reveal themselves to possess a soft form of bigotry that basically consists of lowered expectations.
How is that not a racist message??
The question, B, is whether it's "meant to send a hidden racist message".
And yes, intention matters.
Okay, I'd agree with M/tch. 'Code word' was wrong -- 'unintentionally revealing racist attitudes' is much more what I meant.
However, Obama is in fact, much more articulate when speaking publicly than virtually any other person on earth. Therefore, the idea that calling him articulate is racist is kind of silly. I mean, you wouldn't consider it racist to say that Ogged has a huge schlong, because he has a huge schlong not only by comparison with the lowered standards we have for Iranians, but by comparison with even the better-endowed races.
Ogged, what do you think of the Iverson trade?
70: Isn't that exactly the point, though? You wouldn't offer a compliment ('articulate') to someone who successfully completed a full sentence unless you believed that deserving that compliment was an accomplishment.
And 'eloquent' is a better word for Obama's rhetoric gifts, anyway.
It's not a code word, it's.. well, what Ned said.
rhetorical, even. I am articulate only insofar as I have the gift of gab.
An Unfogged discussion on a similar topic.
I wonder if we say, "he went to CalTech and he's articulate!" because even though they're highly educated, they're sorta supposed to mumble and look and their shoes when they talk to you.
Anyway, I do think it's a good point that lots of white politicians are also described as "articulate" and liberals probably need to relax about this one. "speaks so well" would be different.
Whatever. How is decoding what "articulate" means in this instance of any interest to anyone, except towards some leftier-than-thou end? Obama's articulate. His speech at the convention was wildly overpraised, he's got Dumbo ears, and he gets credit for somehow being less goofy than he self-evidently is because he's black. And, despite his claimed basketball skills and his height advantage, I am absolutely sure that I could abuse him in the post--he's 165 lbs, for gawd's sake.
The important point is this: JoeD is crazy, and wants to have John Edwards's baby.
73. I'm just going to accuse you of self-parody when you do this.
74: No, it's not meant to, but how much of the racist shit people say is actually *meant* to be racist these days?
Anyway, I do think it's a good point that lots of white politicians are also described as "articulate" and liberals probably need to relax about this one.
This is bullshit. I'm not saying that using the word 'articulate' makes you a racist bastard. I'm saying that because of the dynamic expressed above, you should be careful and thoughtful about what you say in this context. Tell me to relax after I start tying people to a stake to burn them, 'kay?
If the Democrats win, men will have other men's babies all the time.
87: But that's not what was being discussed, is all I'm saying.
Ogged, what do you think of the Iverson trade?
I can't quite decide. I think of Iverson basically like I think of Artest: a very good player who makes your team a lot better but is ultimately so disruptive that you can never win it all. I'm excited to see him and Anthony play together though: there are bound to be games where they both score around 40.
88. sadly, the very face of the left today
87: If we refer to something as a "code word", what we're saying is that it's a word designed to convey a racist message to one's fellow racists while being inoffensive to others. For an example of this, see any political campaign against a black person in the South. "Harold, call me" is code for "OMG Save your white daughters from suffering this fate! Vote Corker"
"Articulate" isn't an example of this.
Ned, I'm the one who said 'code word' and I've already agreed with you that I'm wrong. Bitch isn't defending 'code word', she's defending the proposition that it can be racist without being intentional. Everyone chill the hell out.
Next, we can explain to the crackers why it's not a good idea to describe a black person as "niggardly."
I somehow read Ned completely backwards into saying that it's not racist because it's not a code-word. Sorry about that. I blame grading essays where none of my students can make arguments, and I ban myself.
Eh. "Articulate" doesn't mean anything beyond "well-spoken." It doesn't convey much beyond "lacks a discernible accent" (i.e., "doesn't sound black"). Even if you mean nothing racist by it at all, it still communicates damn low expectations. Try substituting "well-informed," "moving," "communicates complex ideas in clear language," "sounds smart but not nerdy," etc., and you'll avoid the problem.
In any case, you can argue all you want that the world *shouldn't* convey condescension, but the fact will remain that it does to an awful lot of people. If that doesn't bother you, carry on.
93: It is, in fact, a code word to a lot of people. Maybe not to you--and congratulations on not being a racist--but you're damn right that to a lot of white folks saying things like "that black person is very articulate" means "he's one of the safe ones."
Everyone chill the hell out.
You think you can boss us around because you're white?
I do agree that "eloquent" is probably a better word. But "articulate" and "eloquent" are often used interchangeably, by non-racists. So I don't quite understand how this gets around this issue. Why doesn't calling a black politician "eloquent" carry racist overtones for exactly the same reason? Is it only because "articulate" is the word more commonly used in our political discourse? If people switched to using "eloquent" instead, would it *become* a racist descriptor, since again, the use is identical?
"Articulate" doesn't mean anything beyond "well-spoken." It doesn't convey much beyond "lacks a discernible accent" (i.e., "doesn't sound black").
I've actually been googling "barak obama" and "articulate" and the way people seem to be using it is "able to convey ideas/concepts well", which seems in line with standard usage to me.
98. This argument is the sort which I always parody thus: "You shouldn't argue for vegetarianism: Hitler was a vegetarian." And I take great delight in violate teh internet-law.
Tell me to chill the hell out when I tie Tim to a stake and light it up, LB. I do want to see Tim abuse Obama in the paint, though, but not as much as I want to do some of that abusing myself. I have sixty-five pounds on the man, and though I suck at basketball, I can promise you it would be all "where's your awesome God now, bitch?" and "try talking your way out of this one, you well-spoken cockblocking motherfucker."
But "articulate" and "eloquent" are often used interchangeably, by non-racists. So I don't quite understand how this gets around this issue.
This is more Man from Mars stuff, but three points: First, just history -- "articulate" is the word that comes up specifically in this context, so synonyms aren't equivalently weighted. Second, "articulate" and "eloquent" aren't perfect synonyms, and the first does convey lower expectations -- it literally refers to the capacity to produce speech sounds, and is metaphorically extended to the ability to convey ideas. And third, if, in context, it sounds as if you're praising him for the ability to speak in sentences rather than the ability to transport an audience, 'eloquent' is going to get you in trouble too. All I'm saying is think about what you say and how it's going to be perceived.
I do want to see Tim abuse Obama in the paint, though, but not as much as I want to do some of that abusing myself. I have sixty-five pounds on the man, and though I suck at basketball, I can promise you it would be all "where's your awesome God now, bitch?" and "try talking your way out of this one, you well-spoken cockblocking motherfucker."
So what you're saying is that you plan to pin him to the floor of the loading dock with your massive forearms?
LB, I love the way you get right to the heart of the argument.
Look, Brock, just don't compliment Black people and you'll be safe from the PC Brigade.
Mac users, on the other hand, are inescapable.
it would be all "where's your awesome God now, bitch?" and "try talking your way out of this one, you well-spoken cockblocking motherfucker."
So great. Years ago, when ebl and I pulled up next to a priest at a stoplight, I suggested that we run him off the road, get out and yell, "where's your god now, bitch?" but she didn't go for it.
This is really quite simple.
Good: Eloquent, great public speaker, moving, managed to upstage Bill Clinton, etc.
Bad: Articulate, well-spoken, intelligent sounding, someone you could introduce your parents to, etc.
107: What, are you trying to say black people don't deserve compliments? Sheesh, take off the Klan sheets already.
Going back to D-squared's thing for a second, the thing that's puzzling me is suqaring the "don't mess around with things you don't understand" angle with the "if you're so worried about poverty go get into foreign aid" angle. Surely "foreign aid" provides some pretty definitive examples of people messing with things they don't understand, whereas the fact that First World poverty "isn't so bad" is in part a consequence of "progressives" having messed with things they did understand.
The context of the brilliant defense of negativism is clear enough, but I don't see why it has to be couched in an attack on "progressives" as such, when the defining characteristic of the people involved is that what passes for their "progressivism" is just an excuse for jingoistic stupidity. God knows progressives can be tiresome from time to time, but so what?
Dear Ethicist,
I recently saw a production of the Nutcracker in which some of the Snowflakes were extremely articulate. Am I a racist?
I agree that it's a word worth avoiding in this sort of context. the trouble is, that it's the avoidance that's going to get you into trouble, as you squirm frantically to say something other than "articulate". you're going to look silly either way.
by the way, if dsquared does show up on this thread, I think he should use the name of a dead prime minister as a handle.
I'd recommend "lloyd george", for racist reasons.
LB is an excellent typist.
Jackmormon is married to surprisingly few people.
just don't compliment Black people and you'll be safe from the PC Brigade.
It seems to me that while the spirit of the position LizardBreath is arguing (that is, her "third" in 104) point is obviously right, it leads to the perverse effect, discussed here before (and to which I would link if I did not find searching the archives inexplicably hard), of making people afraid to talk freely and openly to persons of other races because of this hypersensitivity at giving offense. Not giving offense is a very good thing (I am PC to an extent which might surprise most of you), but the days of little black children and little white children holding hands and being judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin is not going to come any time soon if we are afraid to talk to each other.
112--
maybe the answer goes like this: if you start in the UK where things are not horrible, then your tinkering is likely to make them worse. if you start overseas where things are already horrible, your tinkering is not likely to make them worse.
109: Maybe Mark Steyn was right.
EBL convinced me that the generous social programs of my adopted homeland obligated me to show deference to the local population, and I couldn't help but agree.
120: That was pretty explicitly his point.
111 - Because it's not an attack on progressivism historically or on American progressives, it's an attack on nanny-state British progressives who want to do things like this (only writ large -- see 47). Two countries divided by a single language, although I regret that D^2 failed to use the word "cuntish" in his rant.
Yes! Victory for the American Way and our generous social programs. Look, if you don't like it, I invite you to vote for my coalition, Sweet Smell of My Ass.
(you're Irish, aren't you? It will be embarrasing if I screwed that up.)
122--
so if it's explicit enough, even I get it.
I didn't like it, though. "do no harm" needs to say a lot more about epistemology and probability before it's even vaguely useful.
"don't do things you know are guaranteed to cause harm?" sure--but we all knew that.
"don't do anything that you have reason to believe has any possibility of causing harm?"
practical paralysis.
and then there's this small matter of trade-offs between harm and benefit.
so it just seems like an unhelpful slogan.
I agree with Michael on the liberal-oversensitivity point here. (And am still trying to figure out if LB's uncharacteristically brusk response was intentional or unintentional irony. I'm leaning intentional.) Although I understand the point, this is something I can imagine seeing lampooned by some right-wing talking heads, and I imagine myself chuckling along and thinking "yeah, that's pretty silly..."
But I'm probably objectively insensitive, so there's that.
that brock. he's very sensitive. for a man.
The states touching the Great Lakes would be a third "first world" country if they stood by themselves. And a damn powerful one too.
Had a family argument over the weekend on this "articulate" business. It seems that Obama is an honorary white guy to some people, which won't hurt him.
126: (Ir-ish. Two grandparents from the auld sod, and some rumors on the other side. And certainly an associated family history of drunkenness.)
LB's uncharacteristically brusk response
Hastiness, and surprise that you'd never heard of this. Not intentional irony.
122: Yeah, but it doesn't make any sense, since it's presumably easier to tackle poverty in a society you know while obeying the "do no harm" principle than it is to do in a society you know little about. In fact the very prosperity of the First World would in many ways seem to bear this out.
As far as I can tell, this essay applies only to certain European countries - the U.K. and the various extremely prosperous and egalitarian socialist countries. Not to any other country in the history of our planet. I'm quite pro-public-health-intervention and pro-bizarre-seeming-regulations-that-incentivize-people-to-act-in-the-public-interest, and in the last couple years I've seen maybe 20 news stories that made me think "Oh, come on. That should not be a priority for the government." They were all about things happening in the U.K., Denmark or Sweden, I think.
The one I remember the most was in Denmark, something to do with whether the national health service should start compensating prostitutes to cater to critically ill people. That level of tinkering, or the teddy bear size issue, or the effort to somehow enforce anti-smoking laws inside people's private cars, is not the sort of thing that any principled reformer should be working towards. That is the sort of thing that a joyless and apolitical bureaucrat should be making decisions about; he'd be more likely to get the right answer, because he would stick with the status quo.
128: I feel the same way about "first, do no harm", but don't like mentioning it because it makes me feel pedantic. But I think that a reasonable interpretation of the statement is "give at least as serious thought to the potential harms of your proposed action as you do to the potential benefits, if not more so."
Which rules out 90% of the stuff done by people who label themselves progressive in my neck of the woods.
133: cf infant formula and a million other cases.
1) Iverson:anything that makes a Mav's Championship more difficult is evil and David Stern should intervene and void the trade.
2) I suspect I disagree with everything dsquared said including the punctuation and tabs. I did save it hard disk, for those times I feel Pharasaical (I reserve the right to make-up, mispell, or misuse words and metaphors. It is a political speech-act.) Herzen, Orwell, Emerson (the other one), Chesterton and all who become, like chickens, hypnotised and paralyzed by the yellow line on the road. Utopia may not be on the horizon, but it is a fucking road.
3) "First do no harm"
Like taxing the rich to build NOLA levees? If course, what is presumably meant is "Do no net harm" but then we are into the hard calculations and moral choices and trade-offs that constitute political economics and, well, fucking life.
There is no more pernicious platitude. Why is it not "First do no net harm?" Left as an exercise.
4) The very point of achieving advanced capitalism and 1st world status is the freedom and security that provides space to experiment. How do we help the 3rd world and solve energy/global warming? Fuck if I know, let's try stuff. If we fuck it up so bad that we descend to 2nd or even a depression/war, we will come back. People will suffer and die? People suffer and die now.
You don't make the world better, or even survive, or meliorate suffering, by either Panglossianism (see above) or Pelagianism. Just courage and responsibility
132--
yeah, whatever you do with the 'articulate' thing, you should at least have *heard* about it. honestly.
also generally not good to comment on how clever jewish people are with financial dealings--i know, it can constrain conversations, but it's worth your knowing about.
133: I think the idea is that you can save many more lives with much more ease in areas where "wash your hands between patients" is a new idea than in areas where cancer is the big killer.
132- I meant your response to Michael in 88.
139--
you're supposed to wash your hands between patients?
what if you can't find a couple of patients when you need to wash your hands?
Oh, I'll be hasty and brusque all the day long about 'liberals just need to relax'. "You have a point, which I might listen to if you just weren't so tense about it. But as it is, I'm not going to," is always idiotic.
Yeah, but it doesn't make any sense, since it's presumably easier to tackle poverty in a society you know while obeying the "do no harm" principle than it is to do in a society you know little about.
It's not an issue of the society you know versus the society you know little about. A good aid organization becomes quite familiar with the third-world society it is trying to help.
It's an issue of a society that has lots and lots of room for improvement, versus a society that has already been improved to a level that was unimaginable 150 years ago. It's very difficult to tackle poverty in a wealthy society.
How can we help the miserable people in Mozambique? Create some basic transportation infrastructure, access to non-fraudulent lending institutions, and spend $0.10 per person on anti-mosquito efforts of the sort that eradicated tropical diseases in the US 70 years ago. (NOTE: this was off the top of my head) How can we help the miserable people in Britain? Well, they're already in a rich country...they already have universal health care...that's a very difficult question to answer, and they have a lot more to lose than the miserable people in the third world.
I'm excited to see him and Anthony play together though
Particularly in George Karl's runrunrun offense.
123: Surely we don't have to confine our definition of "progressive" to "New Labour busybody legislation," though, is my point.
131: Yeah, he's probably gotten the "I love you so much, man, I totally forget you're black!" speech from white friends like a bajillion times.
Yeah, if anyone's thinking about end of year charitable giving, anti-malaria bed nets are looking really good, given the new data on malaria being a co-factor in the spread of AIDS.
I guess I have been seriously pwnd on the do no more, altho I take comfort in my greater obnoxiousness, extremism, and hostility.
123: Surely we don't have to confine our definition of "progressive" to "New Labour busybody legislation," though, is my point.
I think it's a coherent usage from a Brit to other Brits. Less so in the US.
Darn it, here I go cleverly googling Edwards articulate and what do I find? Comments from the thread that's already been mentioned.
Again, maybe it's a regionalism, but "progressive" in the SF Bay Area means almost exactly the same kind of thing as DD was describing.
152: It is a regionalism. "Progressive" in Alabama means someone who thinks the income tax on people below the poverty line should not be higher than the income tax on the rich.
"progressive" in the SF Bay Area means almost exactly the same kind of thing as DD was describing.
I think I might have been influenced by this in my reading, since it seemed like a pretty good fit for some of what goes on here.
Someone above said that the US is more of a third-world country than people assume. I think there's some truth in this -- that Americans tend to assume they live in more luxury than they do. Nearly half of the people in the Ivory Coast living on $2 a day own a TV; meanwhile, Americans are generally receptive to the argument that anyone who owns a TV can't possibly be poor.
Also, Detroit is third world.
but 152 and 154 only reinforce what I was saying in 22:
dsquared's targets are way, way to the left of anything that "progressive" means in the mainstream US right now.
Listen up, you honky yankee wankers:
1. dsquared is right about almost everything except w/r/t global warming, where we do in fact need a giant, hippie-style consciousness-raising led by a bunch of smugger-than-us progressives, because nobody else is going to do it;
2. he's thinking about smarmy New Labour, we-know-better-than-you, Chris Clarke, Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson kinds of people who want the power of indefinite surveillance and arbitrary detention of the British public because heaven knows they wouldn't abuse it. What, you think they'd kill a black boy on a moped?
"You have a point, which I might listen to if you just weren't so tense about it. But as it is, I'm not going to," is always idiotic.
No no no, that's not what I was saying. I was saying "you don't have a point, which you'd realize if you weren't so tense about it." Quit taking your reading lessons from B.
143:"Create some basic transportation infrastructure[in Mozambique]"
I want to send a trillion dollars from America to Africa to build infrastructure. It will definitely "harm" a lot of Americans in the short run, but a 2nd world Africa would make the entire world economy astonishing, and help Americans in even the medium term. It will be economically challenging, and probably require a violent political period.
"First do no harm" : the inaction and hesitancy is killing Africans by omission, and probably instilling aristocratic/elite structures in America that require the repressed guilt of the slaver or colonialist. I doubt we are happier in our neglect and indifference. But heck, who am I to prescribe for the racists and exploiters?
154. Dude, you just gave away that you live in Wales.
158: Ah. I was trying to be charitable. If you think there's no value in avoiding language that is guaranteed to make at least some people think you're a racist, you are an incredible dimwit. Need I get brusquer?
bob, d^2 was pretty clear in that piece that he believes that giving people money for stuff is in general a great idea. His objection is to attaching strings to that money in an attempt at social engineering.
See? You're way, way to ridgid to see that you're wrong, wrong, wrong.
It's not an issue of the society you know versus the society you know little about. A good aid organization becomes quite familiar with the third-world society it is trying to help.
To put it another way, if you don't have a means to get the political leverage to ensure that foreign aid dollars and resources actually get where they're supposed to go without having unpleasant side effects, you don't know enough about the society involved to obey the "do no harm" principle.
I'm not saying that foreign aid workers are somehow useless or pernicious, I'm just pointing out that what they do -- no matter how well-informed they try to be -- inherently runs a risk of doing unintentional harm. And I don't buy that the harm in question is negligible on account of its being done to a developing country. Quite the reverse; misbegotten busybodying in the First World is an annoyance, whereas misbegotten reform in the Third World is (often) a catastrophe.
In order to get the First World closer to catastrophe, you need people actively undermining progressive achievements (indulging fashionable xenophobias, police states and manias for privatization-for-its-own-sake, for instance). It seems to me like people obsessed with ineffectual committees don't fill that bill and don't qualify as "progressives" anyway. (Though maybe I'm creeping into "No True Scotsman" territory there.)
How can we help the miserable people in Britain? Well, they're already in a rich country...they already have universal health care...that's a very difficult question to answer
I'd wager "the miserable people" in Britain are mostly illegal immigrants who are contributing to the economy but living in (from what I can tell) something of a legal limbo. The problem is not that it's impossible to figure out any way to make life better for these people because it's already so darn wonderful -- it's getting politics out of a rut in which various actors try to appease local xenophobes by showing how "tough" they are on immigration.
These problems aren't separate from overseas problems, of course. But I'd question how useful, over the years, Western interference in overseas problems has really been in solving them.
157: he's thinking about . . . kinds of people who want the power of indefinite surveillance and arbitrary detention of the British public because heaven knows they wouldn't abuse it.
And by what standard are those people "progressives"? Except insofar as they claim to be?
Idealist, Brock, Michael: 1) No, it isn't logical that one word carries racist overtones while another, synonymous one, doesn't. Guess what? History, language, and race aren't logical constructes either. 2) No, it isn't fair that you can't use the word "articulate" in reference to a black politician without sounding either racist or ignorant. So sorry about that. 3) Leaping from "I didn't know that was racist" to "omg, then we can't say anything at all!! is ridiculous. Say whatcha like. Don't get all silly when someone points out that x or y perfectly well-intentioned word might carry connotations you'd prefer to avoid. Knowing things like that makes it *easier*, not harder, to use language to convey the meanings you intend.
I'll step off my soapbox now, but, Jeez.
167. it's like we live in different worlds.
I'll step off my soapbox now, but, Jeez.
I really wish you wouldn't use that kind of language.
164:"But I'd question how useful, over the years, Western interference in overseas problems has really been in solving them."
Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
I really really can't handle moderate, practical, empirical conversations like this thread. Just a nasty negative kinda nihilist, I guess.
Leaping from "I didn't know that was racist" to "omg, then we can't say anything at all!! is ridiculous.
Well, if you say something without any thought of racism in your mind, and someone says "That's racist, BTW", and you say "How so?" and someone says "Well, it just is -- it's not logical, but historically it is --because it involves a particular word that is racist in this context"
- then it's not surprising that you think "Who knows what else I might say that turns out to be racist? Better to not say anything around these people that might take offense".
As far as I can tell, this happens almost never in real life, but all the time online. It's a situation where the inability to judge somebody's tone of voice does a lot of harm.
I'm curious to know what part of my comment 119 comment 167 responds to.
it leads to the perverse effect, discussed here before (and to which I would link if I did not find searching the archives inexplicably hard), of making people afraid to talk freely and openly to persons of other races because of this hypersensitivity at giving offense.
This, I should expect, to the extent that it is understood to characterize the discussion in this thread as 'hypersensitivity'. I don't think you and B are strongly in disagreement here; just slightly at odds about how much to worry about what I would agree is a possible adverse effect.
I fully endorse 167, by the way. Say what you want; just be aware that it might be taken a certain way. If you're ready for that, then godspeed.
I've run into this problem a few times in university classes, especially when kids are from different areas of the country that have different racial sensitivities, and most kids' parents aren't sitting them down and explaining the history of all sorts of negative words. ("No, son, snarl when you say that.") This is a good thing, as it would be weird to cement stereotypes by teaching lists of forbidden words, but it does mean that there's a lot of opportunities to put one's foot in one's mouth.
In one philosophy class, we read an article about hate speech, where the example of an insult used was 'jungle bunny.' Bright enough kids to figure out from context that it's an insult, and the sort of thing that's unlikely to come up unless they already know it's an insult, but it was one that none of us had ever heard, being bright young things in 2000.
I'm not sure you'd have to live on Mars in order not to be aware of some slurs or nuances. (One that confused me until recently: "New York liberal" as code for "Jewish.") Still, once pointed out, moving to 'omg never say anything again' is overwrought. Chances are your conversational partner isn't insane and can understand gaffes.
Sure, that happens. OTOH, the implied solution--not to point out when something has racist connotations, so that you don't make people who don't know any better feel bad--is silly. First, it puts the people who don't know any better in the position of going on to continue saying things that connote stuff they don't mean; and second, it puts whoever's offended in the position of continuing to wonder about the motivations of the speaker.
The underlying problem, really, is that white people are horrified by the idea of accidentally saying something that sounds racist. Surely the answer is to learn what kinds of things sound racist, rather than to ignore racist-sounding things.
I've run into this problem a few times in university classes, especially when kids are from different areas of the country that have different racial sensitivities, and most kids' parents aren't sitting them down and explaining the history of all sorts of negative words.
I may have told this story before, but Buck, as a rural kid, in his first serious job in NY, used 'jew' to mean 'bargain' in a conversation with his Jewish boss. He'd grown up never connecting it with a slur, in the way that most people probably don't realize 'gyp' refers to 'Gypsy'. The boss sat him down explained that he wasn't ever to say that again -- otherwise, no harm, no foul.
177 to 171, but also hopefully clarifies LB's characterization of my response to Idealist, which was correct.
Surely the answer is to learn what kinds of things sound racist, rather than to ignore racist-sounding things.
I think I know what this means, but you might want to try again.
used 'jew' to mean 'bargain' in a conversation with his Jewish boss
Oh Jesus, that's funny. Where is he from, if you don't mind my asking?
where the example of an insult used was 'jungle bunny.' Bright enough kids to figure out from context that it's an insult, and the sort of thing that's unlikely to come up unless they already know it's an insult, but it was one that none of us had ever heard, being bright young things in 2000.
Mcmc had a funny story about this, either on her blog or here -- someone said 'jungle bunny' to her, in reference to a third person, and never having heard the term she said 'what kind of bunny?' The guy said "You know, a spearchucker." "A what?" The guy stalked off in a huff, and someone else who had been listening told her what a great putdown it had been, when she actually had genuinely not understood.
3) Leaping from "I didn't know that was racist" to "omg, then we can't say anything at all!! is ridiculous. Say whatcha like. Don't get all silly when someone points out that x or y perfectly well-intentioned word might carry connotations you'd prefer to avoid.
1) No one made that "leap". Brock made the first statement, I made the second, which I'll still defend. I think you've set the bar for what counts as "racist" low enough that I can hop many other compliments over it using parallel silly arguments.
2) Really, "get all silly"? On one hand, my position is that all public speakers can be judged as articulate or not. That's pretty easy-going. Your position seems to be "oh no! OMG! You have take into account race! and context! and some etymology! You can't just SAY these things!!" is considerably more complex, and tense, and, to me, has an odd sense of priorities - more in line of what I think of when I think "get all silly."
I remember when I was visiting some relatives in Cairo a couple years ago, my sister and I were talking to one of our cousins who had become quite infatuated with American pop culture, and had learned some English in school. She was wearing a shirt emblazoned with "50 Cent" and me and my sister were talking to her about 50 Cent, and my sister was like "He's been shot, you know!" My cousin, without flinching, goes "well, all those niggers have." There were some quite wide eyes, and we just kind of went on with the conversation. I later told her that if you ever talk to any Americans, that's a word you should avoid using. But man, it was kind of funny. She had no idea; of course she'd called a black man "nigger," all she'd done was listen to a bunch of rap.
181: If I say New Jersey, it'll sound unlikely. Does it help if I explain that it was a part of New Jersey where, in the 70's, it was possible and conventional for kids to make money by running a trap line and selling furs?
182: It was on a thread. Her alternative title, as if it were a post, was "Blonde Story."
185 -- just say "South Jersey".
Michael, are you being deliberately contrarian here?
Northwest, actually, on the Penn/NY border.
185: Anthony Bourdain traveled to that part of New Jersey last season. Found some really good foodstuffs.
188 -- "here" is strictly speaking not necessary.
188. Nope; I really think treating people equally (and public speakers have been complimented for being well-spoken for a long time) is the better alternative.
183.2: No one's saying that you take any compliment and any possible history, but that if you take a word with an actual history, it's going to be very hard to convey what you mean (a compliment) with that word. It's not as though this use of 'articulate' is that obscure. I could try to use 'jungle bunny' to describe a modern dancer with spry leaps who is violently energetic, but who the hell are we kidding here.
Surprisingly, the fact that some words have connotations doesn't entail that I can concoct any old story I like about any old word I don't like.
Perhaps the word could communicate by blinking its eyes.
192 - I am a born contrarian, so my judgement on a particular may not be the greatest, I admit.
man, that's a great story about buck and his boss.
i hope buck realizes that he's one very lucky goy.
170: Well, I think the Gates Foundation may be a data point for "don't mess with things you don't understand" on the home front. Can't find much info on their ventures overseas ATM.
194: Perhaps the word could communicate by blinking its eyes.
That is awesome.
Ooo, you betcha. The boss is a great guy, although admittedly a real weirdo -- he's in the process (or may have completed) a redesign of Idealist's firm website.
(One thing about the story I never got is that Buck did grow up next to, and was good friends with, the only Jewish family in the county. Somehow, the term must never have come up with them around.)
LB, I will not hear disparagement of the Delaware Water Gap! If you can think of a better water gap, please let me know.
It's a fine water gap, as gaps go.
I could try to use 'jungle bunny' to describe a modern dancer with spry leaps who is violently energetic, but who the hell are we kidding here.
My s.o. was called a "porch monkey" as a young girl by a few kids who always walked by her house and saw her constantly playing on the porch. She isn't clear on whether the kids thought "porch monkey" was a racially-related term - probably not. She grew up not realizing it was until age 21 or so. We both fully agreed with that guy in Clerks II.
the implied solution--not to point out when somethin has racist connotations, so that you don't make people who do n't know any better feel bad--is silly.
I agree that it would be silly not to point out possible racist connotations of something--LizardBreath's 178 is a good example. What is silly is thinking that this implication reasonably is to be found in my comment or many of the other ones to which you seem to take issue. Something that is silly is to let a hypresensivity to possible insult interfere with real conversation among people from different backgrounds. People of good will normally sort this stuff out when they are talking about stuff like whether it is an insult to an African American to call him articulate.
I would add in the defense of those who have been called clueless here that despite being pretty pc, I have never heared that it was taboo to call an African American articulate. And while I understand the reasoning you put forth, it actually is a touch offensive, because it reaffirms a bigoted stereotype by so assiduously seeking to avoid it. It would not have occurred to me that being inarticulate was a stereotypical characteristic of African Americans--compare and contrast a speech by Al Gore and a speech by Martin Luther King. Similarly, if I had an African American friend over for a picnic, I would not be reluctant to serve him fried chicken and watermelon if I had a reasonable belief that he would enjoy such, simply because there is a stereotype that African American's like fried chicken and watermelon. That is just silly.
It would not have occurred to me that being inarticulate was a stereotypical characteristic of African Americans--compare and contrast a speech by Al Gore and a speech by Martin Luther King.
I grew up feeling this way too. In history class most of the black people you learn about were famous basically for their oratory and their way with words - MLK, F. Douglass, W.E.B. DuBois, B.T. Washington, Sojourner Truth, Jesse Jackson. Contrast this with white people who were famous for all kinds of things, with only a few of them particularly associated with speaking talent.
My guess is that that Chris Rock bit had a lot to do with cementing "articulate" as somehow offensive.
I just talked to a friend of mine, who opines that "articulate" isn't racist, but "soft-spoken and articulate" is. After which she said 'You white people are all insane! The stigmatising of Obama as the Antichrist is a much more important issue than calling the man "articulate". That kind of thing leaks into the social subconscious, for God's sake.'
She finds it amusing that, should Obama be elected, a real "African-American" would be president. [She prefers the term "black" for herself and family. She does not consider herself to be "African-American", as she has both white and Native American ancestors, in addition to African ones.]
I would not be reluctant to serve him fried chicken and watermelon if I had a reasonable belief that he would enjoy such, simply because there is a stereotype that African American's like fried chicken and watermelon. That is just silly.
I dunno, doesn't seem that silly to me. I think I might feel a twinge of discomfort (or awkwardness, or at least awareness) in the situation you describe, but I think that's a good thing.
You white people are all insane!
This has pretty much been my reaction to this thread, crackers.
206: I would agree that that is sort of paradoxical; I think the stereotype that 'articulate' plays into is 'uneducated, and not speaking standard english'. It's not so much that an articulate black person is unexpected, as that the term sorts people into articulate, educated black people rather than the illiterate masses. Or, I don't know that it does make sense, I just know that it's a usage with the strong potential for pissing people off.
Dammit. Movable Type, I command you to forget that I am Jesus.
208: Erm... Doesn't damn near every black American who can't trace all their roots directly back to an African country in a few generations or less?
but I think that's a good thing.
I think all it means is that you haven't hung with enough black people to lose the self-consciousness.
re: 209
The thing is, if you know the person and you know they like fried chicken and watermelon, and you like fried chicken and watermelon, isn't it more than a bit silly to have hamburgers, which he might like less, because you would not want him to think that you thought that he actually likes fried chicken and watermelon? There is nothing wrong with liking fried chicken and watermelon. There is nothing wrong with serving someone of Korean descent rice instead of potatos. What is wrong is assuming from the color of a person's skin that they are a certain way or have certain traits.
There are lots of these little words and phrases with hidden racial overtones, and lots of people don't know them. This shouldn't be a problem, since when you use them your friends can point them out and you can stop. No one will be offended the first time. You know, OICTIQ. The only reason this gets out of hand is when people argue "no it isn't racist, i should be able to keep saying it!"
Here's another example of something that's like "articulate" in that you would use it for people of another race in the same context, but you should choose a non-racially coded word when refering to black people. It's quite fine in many contexts for an older white man to call a young white man who is significantly younger "boy," even if he's say 25. But if the speaker is white and the person refered to is black, then "boy" should be eschewed in favor of "young man."
212: That's disappointing, for a minute there I was really hoping that black Jesus was in our midst.
Anyone who gets pissed off from hearing BO called articulate, well, I couldn't care less that that person is pissed off.
205
if some black friend asked me to serve that menu, then of course i'd comply.
(if I had any black friends).
(hell, if i had any friends).
but to serve fried chicken and watermelon to black dinner guests, without their having requested it?
oh, no no no, this i would never do. makes me cringe just thinking about it.
look, it's a sad thing that i cringe. it will be a far better world when none of us have these reactions. but til then--get real.
212. As soon command the tide (of hott sex) to stop.
Commenter, you realize that calling someone "boy" is not at all analogous to calling someone "articulate"?
I think all it means is that you haven't hung with enough black people to lose the self-consciousness.
This is more accurate than a lot of people here seem to realize.
221: Certainly "boy" is far far worse, I just meant that they were analogous in that they're totally inoffensive in most contexts, and that this fact doesn't mean there's any problem in avoiding them in particular contexts.
I'd be offended if someone called me "boy". I guess this is a YMMV thing.
but to serve fried chicken and watermelon to black dinner guests, without their having requested it?
Well, thankfully that situation would almost never come up. I mean, at a picnic it'll seem perfectly natural to have both those dishes while a formal dinner (such as previously unknown guests would likely be invited to) is unlikely to feature fried chicken as a centerpiece.
But if you serve grape soda, you're just asking for it.
No, I'd completely agree that that's true, and that a better world would be a more socially integrated one where we were all less self-conscious. I've never worried about accidentally saying something that comes off as anti-Semitic, and I do worry about things that come off as racist, and that's absolutely related to the fact that I grew up hanging around with a lot more Jewish than black people.
But you can't jumpstart your way to being comfortably sensitive on racial issues by skipping being uncomfortably sensitive and just blathering on without any sense of the history of what you're saying. Someone who doesn't spend enough time around black people to have an intuitive sense of what's going to make you come off as racist won't get there by not worrying about it.
What is silly is thinking that this implication reasonably is to be found in my comment or many of the other ones to which you seem to take issue.
Look, it isn't the fault of the messenger that the word carries those connotations. More than one person has said "yes, it does." You can continue to argue "no, it doesn't!" but that's just wrong. Now, if your point is that we shouldn't think that the speaker was *trying* to be racist, I think everyone's made it clear that, in fact, they don't. So given those two things, continuing to argue about it is silly and weirdly defensive over . . . what?
Something that is silly is to let a hypresensivity to possible insult interfere with real conversation among people from different backgrounds. People of good will normally sort this stuff out when they are talking about stuff like whether it is an insult to an African American to call him articulate. The only reason this convo's been derailed is b/c having established that "articulate" does, unfortunately, carry unwanted connotations, people are continuing to argue that it shouldn't. Or something. Yes, people of good will sort this stuff out. That's what we're doing. Continuing to argue once something's been pointed out isn't good will any more; it's just stubbornness.
I would add in the defense of those who have been called clueless here that despite being pretty pc, I have never heared that it was taboo to call an African American articulate.
So? No one has accused anyone of lying.
And while I understand the reasoning you put forth, it actually is a touch offensive, because it reaffirms a bigoted stereotype by so assiduously seeking to avoid it. Well yeah, it *is* offensive. That's why the word's a problem. Because the implications its come to carry are insulting. Saying that we'd all be better off if that weren't the case doesn't make it so.
I'd be offended if someone called me "boy". I guess this is a YMMV thing.
I'd be offended if someone less than 40 years older than me called me "boy".
Someone who doesn't spend enough time around black people to have an intuitive sense of what's going to make you come off as racist won't get there by not worrying about it.
This is a very true statement. However, the very act of worrying accomplishes nothing except making us willing to learn from our potential mistakes.
223 bugs me. Isn't it just a version of "some of my best friends are black"?
Someone who doesn't spend enough time around black people to have an intuitive sense of what's going to make you come off as racist won't get there by not worrying about it.
You know what helps? Spending time around black people. All of the schools I went through were anywhere from 35 to 95% black, depending on the school system.
query:
if dsquared reads this thread, will he feel more or less kindly towards progressives?
I find myself in rare disagreement with Michael and with general agreement with those here who say a) 'articulate' is a word classically called out as an offensive way to describe African Americans, and b) that words do have connotations you don't intend, and that given how hard it is to know which words are 'radioactive' one should take care.
That said, it's pretty awesome that a thread on a post about the ways in which progressives can be insufferable turned out to feature so prominently yet another way in which progressives can be insufferable (policing people's language and instructing them on sensitivity).
Look, it isn't the fault of the messenger that the word carries those connotations.
what? How do word conntations come about, if not by packs of messengers? Of course it's the fault of the messenger, don't be naive. If we just treated people equally, and didn't try to obsinately insist that this compliment is an insults, then it wouldn't be an insult.
More than one person has said "yes, it does."
More than one highly educated, liberal white person has said that, yes. As to 232, some of my best friends are black, and every one of them would laugh at the hand-wringing on this thread.
Drat, this story isn't going to work because I can't remember exactly what she said. But a month or to ago, I had a Midwestern Catholic lefty friend over for dinner with a NY Jewish couple she didn't know, and Israel came up -- it must have been during the bombing of Lebanon. And the lefty was deploring the bombing, as I agreed with, mostly, and as the other couple (from other conversations) also kind of agreed with. And I'm really fairly certain that she's not actually anti-Semitic, and doesn't favor Israel's being wiped off the map. But she kept on saying things in a way that made me wince, and made the other couple bristle, to the pont where I mentioned her the other day to the woman who was at dinner, she said "Oh, the Palestinian terrorist?" (Kidding, but in an 'if they're ever over for dinner at the same time again seat them as far away from each other as possible,' tone.)
Unfamiliarity is going to make you tactless about hot-button stuff unless you're putting a lot of effort into being tactful. Better we should all learn tact through friendly exposure rather than nervous caution, but if you skip the nervous caution, you run the risk of curtailing your chance at the friendly exposure.
look, it's a sad thing that i cringe. it will be a far better world when none of us have these reactions. but til then--get real.
We disagree with what is "real," I guess. Trying a different tack, let's take this away from African Americans. My wife is Korean (as in immigrant, has a Green Card born and raised there Korean). All her friends are Korean, mostly of the same variety as her. The thought that, knowing her friends and what they like to eat, my wife should nonetheless serve them potatos rather than rice becasue we do not want to perpetuate the stereotype that people with almond shaped eyes all eat rice is silly. Similarly, if you know your African American friend would prefer fried chicken and watermelon, to make a point of not serving it seems crazy. It is as if there was something wrong with liking stereotypical "black" things. There is not; indeed, the notion that there is something wrong with stereotypical "black" things is more than a bit worrysome.
The only thing that is wrong is assuming that a particular person is a certain way or eats a particular thing because of their skin color. So of course, giving your African American friend fried chicken and watermelon without having any idea whether he likes it and based only on the assumption you draw from his skin color, that is indeed cringeworthy.
You know what helps? Spending time around black people. All of the schools I went through were anywhere from 35 to 95% black, depending on the school system.
I tip my hat to you, you're a better man than I Wait a minute, this discussion is starting to make no sense.
i cannot type. Argh. I've got to go buy christmas presents. laters.
237 gets it exactly right.
This has become hilarious. Thanks, everyone.
Someone who doesn't spend enough time around black people to have an intuitive sense of what's going to make you come off as racist won't get there by not worrying about it.
Better we should all learn tact through friendly exposure rather than nervous caution, but if you skip the nervous caution, you run the risk of curtailing your chance at the friendly exposure.
Fair enough. But there seems to be a lot of emphasis on the "nervous caution" at the expense of "friendly exposure." That's all I'm saying.
Do you know what people named "Hilaire" think about that word, oppressor?
The less friendly exposure you have, the more inevitable the nervous caution becomes.
I, on the other hand, hate you all now.
But I just finished the last thing I need to do before some much needed vacation. Woohoo!
245 clearly crosses the line into a slur.
But I just finished the last thing I need to do before some much needed vacation.
Enjoy your vacation.
>That said, it's pretty awesome that a thread on a post about the ways in which progressives can be insufferable turned out to feature so prominently yet another way in which progressives can be insufferable (policing people's language and instructing them on sensitivity).
Ridiculing the PC police works better when you disagree with the PC police.
In response to 237: What exactly is "hand-wringing", anyway? No physical act comes to my mind's eye when I hear that phrase. Can YouTube help me with this?
But I just finished the last thing I need to do before some much needed vacation.
You sure earned your pay today!
The problem with serving fried chicken and watermelon to your black friends is one of taste: macaroni and cheese and collared greens are just much tastier if you want to serve stereotypical foods.
Speaking of, does anyone have any good recommendations for soul food in the Berkeley/Oakland/SF area? Ever since I moved away from home, i kinda miss the food from dinners after the black church we visited once a month. (We went to a Deaf church the rest of the time, but since one of my brothers is black, and since my parents missed good music in church, we also visited a black church.)
And now I've uniquely identified myself. Though probably in a difficult to google way.
Oh Christ, not that again. Get your cotton-pickin' hands out of here.
237: This discussion may be silly, but I don't see anyone completely losing it. Handwringing? Where?
251: Take one hand and grab the extended fingers of the other hand, and twist nervously.
"hand-wringing" refers to pontius pilote's washing his hands of the decision to kill kurt warner's savior, jesus christ. This is back before they had towels, which even "poor" people have now.
>Ridiculing the PC police works better when you disagree with the PC police.
But it can still work!
Unfoggetarian, you can start by checking here.
And Bo's in Lafayette has fantabulous BBQ.
Perhaps, but who wants to go to Lafayette?
228: Grape soda? Is that a joke, or is that really some stereotype I'm unacquainted with?
Not that I'd ever offer anyone grape soda. That stuff is nasty.
Perhaps, but who wants to go to Lafayette?
The ex and I used to drive from Palo Alto to Lafayette just to go to Bo's, so maybe you hate black people don't like BBQ, JM.
Seriously, I spend a lot of time thinking about integration, racial, ethnic, and economic, as something that's underrated as a necessary step toward getting the US slightly less fucked up around race. I've led a really very segregated life in a lot of ways -- I went to schools through law school that were probably all 90% or better white and Asian, and the law firms that I've worked in have had few black lawyers. I don't, actually, have any close African American friends (I don't have a whole lot of close friends), and African American friends I've had in the past have mostly been isolated in a predominantly white setting, rather than my knowing them in an African American community.
And this is horrendously embarrassing to admit. Hi, I'm a honky with very limited contact with African American culture. And as a result I'm careful and self-conscious around racial issues, and a great deal of what I think I know about race is from reading, rather than personal experience. And a better society would be one where my life history was different in this regard, and so was that of a whole lot of people in the same position I am.
So I spend a lot of time thinking about the problem of defacto segregation in the public schools, and in residential housing, etc. Because cracks like the one in 223 and 233 do embarrass the hell out of me.
Is that a joke, or is that really some stereotype I'm unacquainted with?
A real stereotype, is what my Wire watching says.
That stuff is nasty.
Racist.
253: I used to like this place on the Berkeley/Oakland border. Everyone referred to it as the "Gingerbread House" -- I don't know if that was the name of the place, or merely a description. It was in a creepy little Victorian house, filled with scary dolls and various knick knacks. They had the best cornbread -- it came soaked in a bowl of melted butter -- and gingerbread cookies that weighed about a pound each. You have to make a reservation and place your order a day in advance, if I recall correctly.
Also, there was a good restaurant in Hayes Valley, a little meat and threes place. I think it was called "Powell's Place"? I seem to recall it was owned by someone famous -- there were celebrity pictures and such on the walls. Yummy ribs.
Oh, going to Lafayette from Palo Alto might make sense.
"Gingerbread House"
On Telegraph?
262: I don't feel this, and while I wouldn't ordinarily think of myself as particularly privileged, in this respect I suppose I am. I saw very few blacks until I was twelve, but then moved into an area where they were close to half the population, and have been in fairly continuous contact since. I discovered that my dad came from a town in Nova Scotia that was significantly black, and was easy, familiar and comfortable around blacks, when I was a bit frightened, or at least wary. What always amazes me is how many white people can't hear or understand black speech, which I don't think I ever had a problem with.
What always amazes me is how many white people can't hear or understand black speech, which I don't think I ever had a problem with.
That's just weird, of course.
It's because blacks typically communicate at subsonic frequencies. Back on the veldt, this conferred a significant advantage upon their criminal ancestors.
What always amazes me is how many white people can't hear or understand black speech, which I don't think I ever had a problem with.
That shouldn't be any more amazing than American people having trouble understanding Scottish speech.
Isn't there an objective difference there, in that Scottish speech is genuinely incomprehensible? My understanding is that the Scots communicate with each other mostly in writing, and through coded manipulation of tartan patterns.
The Scots stopped using quipu in the 18th century, you racist.
I wasn't trying to embarrass you, LB. Mid-sized southern cities, like the ones Michael and I grew up in, are really very, very integrated. You almost have to consciously wall yourself off from black culture to not be familiar with it. It would never occur to me to be uncomfortable serving fried chicken and watermelon to black guests, because everybody serves fried chicken and watermelon all the time down here, no matter what color your skin.
With the Obama thing, it seems overly sensitive to object to labelling him "articulate" when his fame lies almost entirely on giving memorable speeches that articulate his points using language Democrats have traditionally had trouble using effortlessly. It's about as offensive as saying "that Michael Jordan sure can play basketball."
JM, I think it's not on Telegraph, but I can't be sure.
I didn't mean to suggest that you were out of line for saying it -- it's a state of affairs that I find, again, wildly embarrassing (and I suspect that this reaction is broadly shared, because I think a whole lot of people lead lives as segregated as mine, and I've hardly ever seen anyone acknowledge it), but that's not a reason not to bring it up. But I do think simple exhortations along the lines of 'Don't be so self-conscious about race, you wouldn't need to be if you spent more time around black people,' doesn't recognize the fact that lots of white people outside the south just don't, but they still need to think and act about racial issues somehow.
(And of course, I've lived in New York all my life, and I live in Upper Manhattan now. When I say I've led a segregated life, I mean the schools and jobs I've pulled friends from have been way predominantly white; not neighbors and people in public places, if you see the distinction.)
That's just weird, of course.
Errmmm, I dunno about that. Even having lived a remarkably integrated life, there are times that I'll hear a few teen girls from Bronzeville on the bus shouting off to each other at lightspeed, and I would have to work uncommonly hard to figure out what the hell they're saying. Of course, this is mostly because they're teenage girls and thus capable of vocal speed incomprehensible to the average human being. But this is really beside the point.
However, in a neat tie between 268 and 271, I remember my mom telling me about when she was working at UIC Medical School and they had a bunch of visiting doctors from University of Glasgow. One day she went out for lunch with these doctors and they all chose to go to a KFC that happened to be staffed entirely by heavily "accented" south siders. She ended up having to translate everything that each group wanted to say to the other for the entire lunch.
263: Ah, that explains it. We don't get the Wire here on Mars.
I think a whole lot of people lead lives as segregated as mine
I always had a few black friends from childhood through college (not the same ones). Nowadays I have one black co-worker, but other than that, I could go days without seeing a black person.
274: Well, you're also from the South if I'm not mistaken, and that makes a big difference in the food stereotypes department since basically everything northerners consider to be stereotypically Black Food is actually Southern Food.
As much as I absolutely agree with 223 and 233, when I (a white guy) worked at a 50% black non-profit in the West and South sides of Chicago, I was chastised for using "these people" in a meeting -- where I used it to refer to a group of people of all varying races, including white! I was yelled at merely because the phrase itself had racial connotations, despite its non-racial use in context. I am positive that a suggestion that Obama was "articulate," in the same crowd, would elicit the same response.
277: That because teens, whatever their ethnicity, speak in a language all their own. And because they now talk in text code. I find many of my son's conversations with his peers to be incomprehensible. Lately, they seem to be peppered with Chinese and Japanese, in addition to the normal Spanglish and rap slang.
I think I'll take to answering the phone "ni hao" or "konichiwa"and see what happens.
This "segregated life" thing really bothers me. For me, it's not just my school, but my public environment too. My neighborhood, and furthermore the entire North Side of Chicago, is incredibly White; Chicago is one of the most segregated cities in the country. I don't know what to do about it except move, frankly. It feels particularly problematic to me because in all the internships I've had, and the job I'm starting next year, my clients have been and will continue to be overwhelmingly Black. So, here I am, trying to serve this community I know nothing about, really. I went to an international high school with like four African-Americans, a huge, segregated college where I had basically only white and Hispanic friends, and a white-ass law school. Now what?
281: I'm tempted to say that it would be perfectly warranted for the white guy in this situation to push back a bit. Maybe unwise, but warranted.
I wonder if there's a north/south difference there in sensitivity to code words. I have the strong (albeit uninformed by personal experience) impression that straightforward unashamed racism is more common down south than up north -- not that there's necessarily more racist people, but that those that exist are less inhibited about saying explicitly racist stuff. If that's the case, I'd figure that there'd be a lot less tension around misinterpretable ambigious stuff in the south, because you could rely on someone who actually meant something racist to tip you off to their opinions by saying something unambigiously ghastly. In the north, on the other hand, you'd get a lot more interpretation of possibly coded language.
Not forgetting, of course, that in the strictest sense of the word, I, too, am an African-American.
283 gets it exactly right. The main reason I didn't do "Teach For America" after graduating from college was that there seemed to be a 98% chance that I would end up trying to teach classes composed of 98% kids I had no idea how to communicate with.
What's happening with the Supreme Court's "Louisville: Affirmative action or segregation?" case, anyway?
280 makes a great point. In my mid-atlantic home town almost all the black families came from a particular county in South Carolina. I didn't know any white people growing up whose families came from anywhere south of Northern Virginia. So basically all the southerners here are black. (Of course we had rednecks galore, NASCAR, country music, etc. But those were all northern rednecks.)
288: Actually, me and Barack Obama.
283: You'll be paying attention, you'll be starting from the assumption the people you talk to are worth listening to, and you'll be fine. The farthest north part of Chicago, Howard on the Red Line, is a very black neighborhood. Even Morse and Loyola have a very high black ridership, and most people waiting for trains there are black.
285: You crazy Yankees with your secret racist code words.
What's happening with the Supreme Court's "Louisville: Affirmative action or segregation?" case, anyway?
I should look at that -- it was in the news when I was busy and sick.
281: True. It was too junior to do so at the time, but true. But it does go to show, I think, that some level of racism (or, at least, racial offensiveness) can be inferred even when there is both lack of intent and race neutrality of meaning.
285: Definitely. Also, I think, Chicago especially. Also, anywhere you get a big collection of white, overeducated, overanalyzing liberals. Which: pot, kettle.
What's happening with the Supreme Court's "Louisville: Affirmative action or segregation?" case, anyway?
The reported questions from the bench weren't very encouraging, but you never know.
287: See this article on seven TFA teachers in Memphis.
I don't envy them.
Hey, M. Leblanc, what sort of internships and organizations are these in Chicago that they don't also have a large number of hispanic clients? Or are you mostly shifted toward working with blacks for language reasons?
Where's w-lfs-n when we actually need him? I don't disagree with LB on being careful about unintended connotations, but I don't think "articulate" and "eloquent" are synonyms. I understand "articulate" to refer to precision and complexity in the use of language, while "eloquent" has more to do with beauty and evocativeness. Am I full of shit (again)?
Random probably overly obvious thought on the nature of stereotypes. They often don't stand up to integration. Yet it seems that one thing that keeps stereotypes alive longer than they should is greater cultural diffusion/mobility.
E.g., without the Internet, I don't think I would have known the apparently common stereotype that Asians are poor drivers. Learning the stereotype hasn't made me believe it of course, but now I know about it, and I wonder if on some things, they would have died a natural death sooner otherwise.
They're not exactly synonyms, but everyone should be praising Obama for his eloquence anyway, since that seems to be what's truly remarkable.
297: Don't want to get too specific, but yeah, there are a goodly number of hispanic clients at the organization I'm going to be working for. However, my project is focused on prisoners, who are overwhelmingly black, particularly mentally ill prisoners, which is the population I'll be working with.
Language is another good reason. I hope to, sometime in the next couple years, start taking Spanish classes. Everyone thinks I'm Hispanic anyway, might as well be able to respond when people address me.
everyone should be praising Obama for his eloquence anyway, since that seems to be what's truly remarkable.
Also, I hear he's reasonably law-abiding. I'm very proud of him for that.
Everyone thinks I'm Hispanic anyway
some of my best friends are black, and every one of them would laugh at the hand-wringing on this thread.
What always drives me batshit about these discussions is someone says X. Then someone else says, "X has yukky connotations, you know." Then the first someone, instead of saying, "I had no idea, really?" and moving on takes offense and starts saying "does not! I didn't mean it that way" and the second speaker says, "I didn't think you did, but it does too" and then first speaker says "nuh-uh, words only mean what I want them to mean! If you think that word's bad, it's because *you* think bad things!" And so on.
Admittedly, the LBs and me of the world should probably just fucking drop it after having made our point. But it's really irritating to be blamed for being the PC police, or for hand-wringing, or whatever the hell, when you're not the one putting up the ridiculous resistance to something that most people *do* know.
And I'm not going to get into the "but my black friends say . . ." argument, because that's obnoxious. Presumably one's friends, of whatever color, have pretty much the same attitude towards these things as oneself, or they wouldn't be one's friends. Dragging them out as tokens is shitty.
What always amazes me is how many white people can't hear or understand black speech, which I don't think I ever had a problem with.
First off, racist, there isn't any such thing as "black speech." Many different dialects. I don't know what the white people you're referring to are referring to, but there is a dialect down here among some poor blacks that would be completely incomprehensive to you. It takes some exposure to be able to understand; I have to have a translator.
OTOH, stripping the offensive connotations from a perfectly good and useful word is also a worthwhile project.
And I'm not going to get into the "but my black friends say . . ." argument, because that's obnoxious.
Also, Apostropher's pretty clearly right. It turns out that black people are, you know people, and like other people everywhere, make decisions based on context, prior behavior, visual and tonal clues, etc. It's more likely to be either (a) the embarrassed pause after "articulate," or (b) the reference to "marrying my daughter" afterwards that raises the flag. Some people are more sensitive than others, but, jeebus.
putting up the ridiculous resistance to something that most people *do* know.
This.
282: I like the Chinese style of phone answering--you just pick up the phone and yell "wei!" I think I'll try that on the next telefund caller I get. The Japanese phone greeting, "moshi moshi" is also good.
First off, racist, there isn't any such thing as "black speech." Many different dialects
Absolutely. This is why, when somebody complains of or demonstrates this incapacity, concerning somebody clearly intelligible, you're dealing with a racial construct.
I served with and have worked with guys, black and white, I found hard to understand, usually Southerners, I'll admit. But there is a categorical failure to understand the speech of someone whose accent is much less pronounced, and that's what I'm talking about. Especially when its expressed to you as an opinion.
Crap, I can't remember what the Italians say when answering the phone; is it "Prego!" or "Pronto!"? Either would be charming.
312: Then there's this, which just goes to show that IM IN UR INTERNETS BEING RACIST
And the difference is almost as startling when the names are spelled right.
314: It helps if you spell "Wallace" correctlly, but MLK still wins by a lot.
315: how many of those results on the left go along with a phrase like, "not particularly"?
319: Results may not be to scale.
Those results charts for google fights are so out of scale. "articulate barack obama" should be about 1 pixel high compared to "your mom."
Also, here's some encouraging data.
Speaking of missing commenters, which no one seems to be doing, where's eb?
To follow up 323, some candidates really have no buzz at all.
re: 329
I guess that fat, graying old man fetish is really taking off! Yippee!!!
I suppose 12-2 is too narrow a lead to really claim victory, especially given this.
Do you know, I had never heard someone use the verb "to jew" in conversation until I was in my mid-20s? And then, it was from a half-apologetic coworker, who knew that I would find it offensive, but said it anyway because he felt that there was no better word to describe the kind of aggressive bargaining/cheating to which he wanted to refer.
Also, "jungle bunny" -- isn't that used in Reservoir Dogs? You kids need to put down the video games and see a movie once in awhile.
As for "articulate" the specific connotation that it has always had for me, when I've heard northern* white liberals use it is: "I'm not a racist, but I am troubled by working-class black people, whom I often see behaving poorly in public, and I want to make it clear to you, interlocutor, that I'm open-minded enough to see that not all black people are really like that, and I would just LOVE it if they were all as well-spoken and pleasant as this black person, and did I mention I'm not racist?" But I'm totally willing to believe that this is a disease particular to NWLs.
*Maybe Chopper and John Emerson can help me out here: When did Minnesota stop being part of the Northwest and become merely Midwest or Upper Midwest? It's certainly within my lifetime. I was just eating lunch today on a table with an image of the 1975 Minnesota State Fair in which WCCO (the local media conglomerate) was billing itself as "the Voice of the Northwest" or something. And of course there's Hamm's Beer, and Northwest Airlines and Norwest Bank and lots of other examples. Maybe it's just that no one can take South Dakota seriously as "northwestern" either geographically or culturally.
If we had babies, they would be a super-race.
I was totally unaware that people described any African-American who could speak standard English (or whatever the right term is) as articulate until I read an article in Elle about Obama. Michelle Obama was quoted as saying how blown away by his eloquence/ articulateness when she met him. She hadn't been expecting much even though everyone had described him as articulate.
My guess is that Cryptic Ned is right to say that it's not so much a code word as an unintentionally revealed racist attitude. The person doesn't realize that s/he's racist, because s/he doesn't recognize how low his/her expectations had to have been in the first place.
Brock was unaware of this usage and didn't understand the problem, since Obama is, indeed, quite articulate.
I kind of wish that we could have started a discussion on universal healthcare and the role of policy makers in figuring otu what's best. There are a lot of NHS managers who have mucked things up pretty badly. It would have been a lot better to let doctors practice medicine and treat teachers as professionals and let them teach withotu micromanaging them. OTOH, US doctors often aren't very good about parcticing evidenc-based medicine, and it turns out that money doesn't always insure better care. (Florida Medicare patients consume a lot more healthcare than those in Minnesota do, and Minnesota has better outcomes.)
Plus, I'd really love to see dsquared duke it out with baa in teh comments.
335: They wouldn't look very good, though..
When did Minnesota stop being part of the Northwest
After the Louisiana Purchase put it in the middle of the country.
336--
"Florida Medicare patients consume a lot more healthcare than those in Minnesota do, and Minnesota has better outcomes."
may be relevant that Florida is where old people go to die, and that people consume a huge percentage of their life-time health care in the last six months of life?
I mean, maybe the study you're citing has controlled for all of that. But if not, then the mere fact that Florida residents consume a lot of health-care--well, it just tells me it has a huge retiree population, which we already know.
Where's w-lfs-n when we actually need him?
Having coffee with me and PK. Me, apologetically: "he's a little spoiled." Ben, with raised eyebrow: "a little?"
And I'm not going to get into the "but my black friends say . . ." argument, because that's obnoxious.
Also, Apostropher's pretty clearly right. It turns out that black people are, you know people, and like other people everywhere, make decisions based on context, prior behavior, visual and tonal clues, etc.
And, like other people everywhere, not all black people think alike. Apo's black friends don't represent black people everywhere, any more than mine do, which is why dragging "black friends" into an argument to prove one's point is obnoxious.
Where was it (here? some other blog?) that telling someone that their words had racist connotations was compared to telling them that they had boogers visibly hanging out of their nose? You don't expect someone to get defensive and explain how they never have boogers, or that all of their best friends have clean noses.....
all of their best friends have clean noses
They must not hang out at the Mineshaft much, then.
Kid bitzer-- I think that the studies are out of Dartmouth. It's the sane peopel who first noticed that drug coated stents don't work very well when compared to bypass surgery.
I said that Florida Medicare patients have more money spent on them than Minnesota Medicare patients do. It's true that people on disability are also Medicare patients, but most of the data are comparing old people. I believe that New Jersey is also really expensive. Massachusetts has very high per capita healthcare costs, but I don't know whether that's specific to the elderly. New York may be worse. I think that the basic point is that the Mayo Clinic practices really good medicine.
Apostropher is right about this.
Yes he is, my brother.
340: OTOH, rejecting the viewpoints of the members of a clade who are being discussed as if they were monolithic in their attitudes ["X word is racist/ a pejorative/ an insult to Y ethnic group"] and refusing to acknowledge that maybe, just maybe, not every member of that group finds that to be so, or refusing to admit that the perspectives of members of the "oppressed" group are more significant than those of members of the "oppressing" group is, well, patronising.
The friend who stated that white folks are all insane made mention of that: She's tired of white liberals deciding "what the pickaninnies should find insulting". Her example: To her, anyone using the term "soft-spoken" is being racist in a sidewise way - "complimenting" a black man on knowing his place, on deferring to whites. She finds that careless and subtle racism to be far more damaging than declaring someone to be "articulate" - the latter, to her, indicates, at worst, a lower expectation overturned; the former is just another way of saying "boy".
Also, to accuse people of tokenism because they asked a black friend for an opinion on this issue is just silly, as it is to decide that for people to be friends, they must have cookie-cutter opinions. It makes perfect sense to consult someone one knows, whether a friend or an acquaintance or a relative, who is a member of a group whose issues are being debated. IMX, if one is not a member of the group, one cannot have a real gut level comprehension of the subtleties. Sometimes asking for an opinion or clarification is a valuable learning experience.
The point isn't, and I don't believe anyone ever said, "all black people find this racist." It was, and remains "this word used in this way is generally known to have objectionable overtones."
And I'm not buying the identity politics argument that only Real Black People are qualified to point these things out, or that if a Real Black Person disagrees, then that trumps the game.
One thing among many that puzzles me about this conversation is the extent to which "articulate" itself has troubling conotations vs. how much *any* compliment of culture, good behavior, sophistication (i.e., the anti-stereotypical traits for blacks) will have racist overtones because of the suspicion of, as they say, the soft bigotry of low expectations. I don't hear "articulate" as particularly problematic in itself; it's troubling because it's part of a larger pattern of praising, on faint grounds, "good behavior" as though it's unexpected.
It's too bad YouTube took down the Daily Show video with Senior Black Correspondent Larry Wilmore discussing the George Allen "macaca" and John Snow "tarbaby" incidents. Cursed copyright law.
If you call a black person "articulate" there is a good chance members of your audience will consider you to be insensitive or clueless. They probably won't think you actually hate black people, they'll just laugh at you. I advise everyone to continue as they have been doing.
347: I think it's at least plausibly reasonable for people to worry more about their racism offending members of disadvantaged minorities, and less about offending privileged white professors / lawyers / engineers?
The objection to "soft-spoken" is a new one to me, but I can totally see where DE's friend would be coming from with it. I heard Morgan Freeman introduced on an NPR interview with the adjective the other day, and it gave me a little buzz of weirdness.
347: In fairness, apo isn't pulling the 'I have a black friend so therefore you can't talk' manuever. It's quite likely his experiences differ from mine (where 'articulate' would be uttered in surprise by a well-meaning and clueless grandma), and the word's connotation very likely varies across contexts. (cf., 'cotton-pickin' hands okay from parent to child, probably inadvisable from prof to black student.)
347: Well, of course. But again, not all people of any group think alike. Saying "my black friends would laugh their asses off" is no different from saying "my women friends think it's ridiculous to use words like 'chairperson' instead of 'chairman.'"
353: No, I don't think he is, but it seems to me that he's using it to ridicule the issue. All I'm saying is it isn't terribly relevant; as you said to me not too long ago, it's a bullshit maneuver.
347: And I'm not buying the identity politics argument that only Real Black People are qualified to point these things out.
Oh, for pity's sake, that wasn't what I was saying and you know it. It's research, just like any other research, to sample opinions of concerned parties. When I ask a friend - and that's what she is, a friend, not a "black friend" - for her input on a subject that she possibly - nay, probably - has thought about more than I have done, and that has a greater impact on her life and the lives of her children, it's because I want to learn from her perspective. And I did learn something - that "soft-spoken" is a far more pernicious code word than "articulate".
Several people, yourself included, declared that the word was racist, either explicitly or indirectly [vide 21, 45, 98 etc]. One generally assumes that a "racist" epithet is so found by the majority of the members of the group it is directed at, ergo, the leap to the concept that the implication was that "most black people find the word "articulate" to be offensive when uttered in reference to a black speaker".
One generally assumes that a "racist" epithet is so found by the majority of the members of the group it is directed at
Unfortunately, this may not be true. I think consciousness-raising is a lot better among black people than say, women, but for example, I think a majority of women would be confused at the description of certain sexist things as such. If we had to restrict our charges of sexism only to things that most women would identify as sexist, we'd be in deep shit, yo.
Plus, it's interesting and useful to talk about things that have offensive undertones, overtones, histories, or futures, without needing to actually be personally offended by them.
I think bringing up friends was really helpful, because the discussion was happening in the frame of quite formal or personally distant interactions: public pronouncements, having just met someone, work. It exposed our isolation from black people, by reminding us that if we dealt with black people day to day, in ways that made us relax around them, we wouldn't have to worry about the list of forbidden words, because we'd be set straight if we said something offensive, and would talk back and explain ourselves--all without the world coming to an end. So I didn't take apo to be saying, "my black friends don't think it's racist, so it's not racist," but "my black friends would think it's hilarious that a bunch of white people are getting all jesuitical about what might offend a black person."
I thought we weren't allowed to use "jesuitical"in ways that might be construed negatively.
You're thinking of "cocksucker", Tim.
Check the googlehole standpipe; I think it's both, and particularly in close proximity to one another.
359: Sorta. Although I'm still sort of taking this to imply that being aware of these connotations and pointing them out somehow implies that one isn't comfortable around black people/doesn't interact with them much, which is ridiculous. If what you mean, though, is that saying a Bad Word in front of an Actual Black Person isn't going to get you killed, well then, yeah.
Nigger:niggAAAHH::Jesuitical:jesuitical
...alternatively...
Since I'm probably the only one here who's considered becoming a Jesuit, I claim the own-group privilege, such that I can make Jesuit jokes, but no one else can.
...more seriously...
I was inventing a quote to express my understanding of someone else's point, so I wasn't in fact endorsing any pejorative connotations for "jesuitical." Furthermore, you snipe monkey, the connotation wasn't so much pejorative as playful, in a rhetorically overheated way.
Pray to your black pope, heretic.
I was also one of the people pointing it out, B, which ipso facto means that it wasn't a bad thing to do and implied nothing bad whatsoever about the people doing it. But the discussion itself--a 300 comment examination by white people for white people about black people, is fucking hilarious. We so need a token black person around here.
who's going to be the first to rhyme "jesuticles" with "neuticles"?
Where's w-lfs-n when we actually need him?
Having coffee with me
I hope he escaped with his virtue and his honor intact.
If what you mean, though, is that saying a Bad Word in front of an Actual Black Person isn't going to get you killed, well then, yeah.
I think what it means is that there is genuine disagreement about whether word is bad, and if so, how bad. The "articulate" thing is like the "athlete" thing for black athletes; some of the sting, and therefore some of the stigma,is gone from such usage because there is less effect to worry about. It's good to know that "articulate" has often been a tell. I think it's less of a tell now, when I hear or see old people on Sunday morning shows use words like "diss" or "bling" without irony. And that's a good thing.
The Jesuits got a Black Pope, so step back.
From the link in 372:
The term is also sometimes used for a pope who comes from Africa.
I wish I had been here when the talk about Jesuits was going down.
It's surprising and disappointing to me how few of my peers understand what I mean when I put down an argument as "jesuitical".
I think what it means is that there is genuine disagreement about whether word is bad, and if so, how bad.
That's not really what I meant.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be describing what you said, but rather what was at issue.
No, I'm sorry, for telling my Black Pope to damn your soul to hell. My bad.
Black Pope got his Mass on in the Chizzurch!
Michael, if I told you it was your job for the next week to raise the tone around here, do you think you could handle that?
382: But I read somewhere that Mexicans don't know anything about being funny (cf. Carlos Mencia). So can we really trust your judgment?
367: Well, yeah.
"Dear black person. We are a group of mostly white overeducated overearnest types. We are creating a new outreach plan. . . ."
I hope he escaped with his virtue and his honor intact.
He's Jewish, Michael.
I've never in my life been so ill-used as I was by PK at the cafe—and I loved it. Dr B, I've come to ask PK's hand in gay marriage.
Michael! Quick! Raise the tone! It just got all gay and pederastastic!
He's not-commenting as fast as he can, Stanley! Jeez!
He does, but I doubt turning it would raise the tone here.
teo, I planted that fruit tree so that we could make a pie for d^2, a sort of "sorry we missed you, champ" gesture. If you go picking off all the low hangers, it's going to take forever.
you're at least supposed to buy me a drink first
If you go picking off all the low hangers, it's going to take forever.
This means that Stanley wants you to stop with his balls and return to the main course.
394-5: Actually, there's a distinction between fruits and nuts that you plebes obviously don't know about.
Goddammit. You people are going to make me opine on the main post. I think "progressive" is excactly how liberals on this-pond-side should characterize themselves. There's a long history to the term, and when you talk about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire, you remind us that the government is there to make people avoid carbonization when they report to work.
We've already had the "liberal"/"progressive" discussion. I suspect you're just bringing it up to bait d^2 into commenting.
402: In fact, I colour myself "pwned" and confine myself to the sweet, warm folds of w-lfs-n's fruitsac for the remainder of the nighttime hours. Good night, one and all.
re: 272
I am watching you, you bastards.
"Dear black person. We are a group of mostly white overeducated overearnest types. We are creating a new outreach plan. . . ."
Which brings us back to what dsquared was saying.
BTW, surely the reason people say Obama is articulate is that the current benchmark standard for political speaking is George W. Bush?
According to google, roughly the same number of people say Obama is articulate as say John Edwards is articulate. And likely for the same self-evident reason of actual articulateness and having made their livings by public speaking.
a 300 comment examination by white people for white people about black people, is fucking hilarious
This is what I meant when I offensively trotted out my black friends as tokens to shame you, HonkyPhD.
I know I should quit beating what's left of this poor horse, but the problem with "most" people knowing a word is offensive is that a small minority of whites and a small minority of blacks spend their time, binoculars in hand, on the lookout for language with secondary or ironic meanings so that their sensibilities can be appropriately offended. What most white people and most black people do is roll their eyes at them and return to their conversations.
Watch it 'Po, the P.C. Squad is gonna take you down for claiming to know what "most black people" think.
But you know, if someone really is offended, even if you didn't mean anything wrong by it, the civilized thing to do is to apologize and move on rather than to berate them for being an asshole. And knowing what '"most" people know' is offensive lets you pick up on what's going on if you actually do offend someone. If you go back to my dinner party story, there really wasn't any malice there, and the Jewish couple was probably being a little touchy. But my lefty friend was being cluelessly insensitive, and that's not going to turn into one of the great friendships.
Mocking the oversensitive liberals here for being PC nitwits is fine, and you should keep going with it if it entertains you. But no one here was actually oversensitively claiming offense -- the conversation took off from informing someone who'd never heard it that there are people out there who are going to be annoyed by hearing a black man described as 'articulate'.
410: There is something objectively funny about spending any number of comments (or any amount of time) trying to find a word that allows one to describe Obama as "articulate." Ooops, I meant "eloquent." Most people--white or black--will take the two words as synonyms in any normal conversation. I certainly could give you an easy answer as to the difference. And if everyone starts using "eloquent" when they'd like to say "articulate" in reference to black people, I suspect African-Americans will figure out what the new word is. It will, obviously, take them longer than people from other races, but still.
take them longer than people from other races
Which is funny, because my black friends always beat me when we race.
i've generally sided with the bphd/lb bloc here, which I summarize as "here's a bit of linguistic knowledge you apparently didn't have; do with it what you will; have a nice day."
it leaves me wondering what to do with two bits of knowledge that I myself never had before (in fact, still have doubts about), namely that there is some comparable racist connotation to "grape soda" (?!?!?), and that there is some stereotype floating around about asians being inept at driving cars.
i mean, they'll both probably take care of themselves. in the first case, it would never ever occur to me to offer anyone grape soda, or to think of grape soda as even a possible food for human consumption. so it's not going to come up. (I hope.)
in the second case, i'm not much inclined to criticize or comment on other people's driving. if i'm on the highway some time and someone drives badly in a way that forces a comment from me (e.g. 'cripes, they almost hit us!'), and the other driver is asian, will this new knowledge affect what i say?
i doubt that, even prior to this, i was likely to bust out with 'watch where you're driving, you ASIAN you!'. so i don't know if it will have any effect.
i think i'll just file it away.
Fuck, are we still talking about this? 413 comments?
nahh, joe, now it's really a thread about grape soda.
still have doubts about . . . that there is some stereotype floating around about asians being inept at driving cars
The only stereotype I ever heard of regarding grape soda was that drug addicts drank it (in addition to smoking Kools and parting their hair in the middle), but that was long ago and far away.
The asian driver thing is one of long standing. I think of it particularly as being something you hear in LA. Although given what she has done to the rates on our car insurance, you also hear that conversation in my house between my wife and me, but that's another story.
The asian driver thing is one of long standing. I think of it particularly as being something you hear in LA.
That sounds right. That would also explain why it pops up regularly in sitcoms, formulaic Hollywood comedies, and EW articles; the unfounded assumption among entertainment-industry types that this stereotype was common somewhere outside LA has now spread it to the rest of the country.
408: The funniest sig block I've ever seen is one used by an old friend of mine whose forum postings carry a fake newspaper ad reading "Small minority wanted: to spoil it for the rest of us. There's always one - is it you? Call.."
I've never in my life been so ill-used as I was by PK at the cafe--and I loved it. Dr B, I've come to ask PK's hand in gay marriage.
You did seem pretty amused. PK said he wasn't quite sure why he liked you so much, but he just did. I think it's a match.
a small minority of whites and a small minority of blacks spend their time, binoculars in hand, on the lookout for language with secondary or ironic meanings so that their sensibilities can be appropriately offended. What most white people and most black people do is roll their eyes at them and return to their conversations.
Which is what LB and I and whoever else were doing initially. The reason the thing blew into 400+ commments isn't because we're on the outlook with binoculars. It's when we say, "oh, did you know?" the Michaels of the world won't let us return to our conversation because they're too busy defending themselves against non-existent charges of racism.
I know that my stubbornness is a pain in the ass. Where I go wrong is when someone says "nuh-uh, you're wrong," and I don't let it go. But I adamantly deny the charge of prissiness.
Asians are bad drivers. Luckily, you can see their riced-out cars coming from a mile away and move over.
Everyone drives badly in Los Angeles. They all insist on driving whilst calling people on their cells, putting on mascara, doing their nails, watching the latest DVD on their handy in-vehicle entertainment consoles, texting and occasionally blogging on their laptops.
And if it rains, stay off the streets if you value your lives. There's something about the presence of water droplets on windshields that makes them all shut their eyes and hit the accelerator. Ghu help us if it ever snows.
They all insist on driving whilst . . . occasionally blogging on their laptops.
Hey! I only do that once in a while.
It seems to me that those who by-and-large learn to drive as mature adults will drive stiffly, mechanically and over-cautiously, at least. This was certainly true of my dad, who learned when he was forty. I attribute the stereotypical bad drivers of any era to this late-learning factor.
This is why no one should accept an offer from me to drive them anywhere -- I didn't learn to drive until 27, and still get nervous about trying to turn the radio on while the car is in motion.
Minnesota is still the Northwest. The Pacific Coast is the Pacific Coast. The Great Plains are the Great Plains. The Rocky Mountain States are the Rocky Mountain States.
The South starts in central Iowa, south of De Moines.
The East starts with Milwaukee.