You haven’t been oppressed for the last millions of years, honkey.
Oh for the love of Moses. HuffPo has a clip from “The View” in which Whoopi Goldberg says, “This is a racist country” and then tells Elisabeth Hasselbeck that she would be scared if she saw “six young black kids” standing on a street corner.
Which Hasselbeck denies, which was a missed opportunity for her to point out that as often happens, the accuser of racism misses the distinction between color and culture. My fear or lack thereof of any human on a street corner, of any color or age, has nothing to do with their race and everything to do with how they’re dressed.
I’d be scared of this guy:
But not this guy:
These kids would scare the shit out of me:
This kid and 20 just like him wouldn’t bother me in the least:
And no, it’s the ties on the black guys, it’s the absence of the stupid shit the white guys are wearing. It’s really not complicated at all and if Whoopi wants to use some street-corner scenario to back up her claim that this country is racist, she’s gonna have to do a bungload better than that.
Anyway. My very favorite part of the clip is when Joy Behar says that white people “haven’t been oppressed for the past millions of years”.
Um Joy? Number one, there haven’t been humans on Earth for that long, and number two, blacks haven’t been oppressed any more than anyone else (who isn’t black themselves) throughout time. Again, I urge a thorough reading of some books on ancient history; it would help the debate a lot. You could read about Asian, Indian, and African history for starters.
Oh, and since we’re having the long-awaited “open and honest discussion” about race, I may as well pile on. Check this out. People are pissed because the following Vogue cover makes Lebron James look like King Kong and therefore is raaaacist!
No, really.
…magazine analyst Samir Husni believes the photo was deliberately provocative, adding that it “screams King Kong.” Considering Vogue’s influential history, he said, covers are not something that the magazine does in a rush.
“So when you have a cover that reminds people of King Kong and brings those stereotypes to the front, black man wanting white woman, it’s not innocent,” he said.
In a column at ESPN.com, Jemele Hill called the cover “memorable for all the wrong reasons.” But she said in an interview that the image is not unusual — white athletes are generally portrayed smiling or laughing, while black sports figures are given a “beastly sort of vibe.”
He doesn’t look like King Kong to me. He looks like a bad muhfugger who could literally leap over my head and totally kick my ass in a game of H.O.R.S.E.
If that’s what he sees, then I’d say that’s his problem. I had the same reaction you did, Rachel, when I saw that cover. If Samir Husni looks at a picture of a black guy and immediately thinks of King Kong, I think that says a lot more about Samir Husni than it does about the magazine.
And clearly Lebron James didn’t have a problem with it since he posed for the photo and approved its use by Vogue (oh God, did I just defend Vogue?).
March 25th, 2008 at 1:38 pmYou’ve made an excellent point. But come on, you’d really be afraid of K-Fed and the Northside Junior High Wigger Posse? I’m going to try to find you some real scary white boy pictures.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pmAnd if one more person uses the term “reverse racism” I’m gonna scream! Listen, there’s one term for it, and it applies to any color of person who refers to another person’s color and relates a bias to it.
Like, for instance Whoopi. Or Joy. Or Mr. Obama.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:45 pmI’ll accept such statements only from celebrities who can prove they have daily strolls in streets outside the posh neighborhoods they usually live in without at least half a dozen bodyguards within a 5 mile radius.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pmAnd without cameras.
Um - I see a huge athelete cradling a delicate model. Tenderness mixed with intensity. The fact that one is white and one is black is incidental. It’s an odd choice for a fashion magazine but - whatevs.
And puh-lease - Joy Behar is a world class idiot. Everything that comes out of her mouth is stupid with too much make-up.
March 25th, 2008 at 1:54 pmI can’t believe I’m saying this, but here goes: Whoopi is worse than Rosie on The View. The reason I say this is because although she is a radical, like Rosie, Whoopi has figured out how to keep her anger in check. Rosie wears everything on her sleeve, whereas Whoopi can say the worst things with a calm voice.
Can somebody please rescue the fair Elisabeth from that show? Please?
March 25th, 2008 at 1:55 pmThis is why I love you. I’ve been ranting for days to any poor unfortunate nearby that rational people are afraid of THUGS, no matter what their color. If these morons are going to help us all out by wearing a “thug costume” who am I to disregard it?
Your brother’s right though, there are much scarier looking white boys out there. I see wannabes like that all the time and my first reaction is usually giggles since they’re generally holding their pants up with one hand and looking like 5 year olds that have raided their daddy’s closet, what with their giant shirts and hats.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:10 pmI would no more watch The View then I would sit and watch soap operas all day. I mean, seriously, who watches that crap?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pmRachl Lukis is a JEEEEEEENyus!!!!!
March 25th, 2008 at 2:13 pmSo white people dressed like black people scare you, but black people dressed like white people don’t. Simple enough. No further inquiry necessary.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:14 pmLord, the wench is stupid. The very word “slave” comes from “Slav,” because those tribes of white people were so often enslaved.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pmWhat are you implying?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:17 pmJason makes his racist point well. Black people dressed well are like white people. As black people can only be expected to dress poorly, in some eyes, then well dressed black people are just trying to pass. Hmmm, next thing you know they will compare well dressed black people to dressed up monkeys. Kind of like that “magazine analyst” did about the piccie on the mag.
And what the hell kind of job is “magazine analyst?” My grandmother and her pals at the beauty solon used to do that under the hair driers.
And I wonder if Behar’s mother had any children that lived?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pmYeah, that’s what I thought he was implying.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pmJason, I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not. But I think you’ve misconstrued Rachel’s point either way.
It’s not about black or white. Rachel is frightened by anyone who dresses like thugs, gangsters, or prison escapees. Rachel is not frightened by people who dress like serious students, working professionals, or church-goers. Makes sense to me.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:24 pmOh, and Jason — you’re a fool. Black Americans and white Americans don’t dress differently from one another. In America we dress according to how we want people to think of us, no matter what the color of our skin. For instance Obama wants us to vote for him for president, therefore he wears conservative suits and ties. And in his more casual appearances he wears the standard polo shirt and slacks combo that all middle-aged upper-middle-class men in America wear for casual appearances.
Besides, a middle-aged man would look like a fool in thug-wear. The young toughs that dress in thug wear do so to show that they belong to a certain group that has a certain attitude and outlook on life. That outlook isn’t restricted by skin color, but it is restricted by age. For example, I’ve noticed that as rap stars from the eighties and nineties started getting older, they started moving away from the gangsta wear and into suits and ties. Flashier suits and ties than the average politician wears, but certainly a more adult look than the doo-rag, butt-revealing sacky-pants look. Now if only we could get aged white rock stars to quit baring their stringy chests (I’m looking at you, Iggy Pop), this analogy would be perfect. Then again, one’s costume also can indicate one’s level of mental maturity.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:25 pmJason - It doesn’t have to do with whether you are dressed ‘like white people’ or ‘like black people’. The way you present yourself to society is usually a reflection of your feelings towards that society. Dressing like a gang member is a show of hostility and is correctly understood as such.
I think what Rachel is saying is that the skin color of the individual is irrelevant. However, aspects of their appearances that are elective (dress and mannerisms) indicate their feelings towards ‘normal’ society and are relevant. People who radiate hostility are to be avoided because they are occasionally dangerous and always unpleasant.
(Correct me if I have misunderstood you, Rachel.)
March 25th, 2008 at 2:26 pmhmmm… time to quote some MLK Jr.
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. ”
IMHO: those that scream RACISM, are those that ignore the above comment the most. In the current situation, I don’t think it is a matter of racism; I think it is a matter of a celebrity (Husni, Hill, Whoopie) being attention whores.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:35 pmRachel has made a point I’ve been making for years.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:36 pmwhite people flashing gang signs and colors are scary. doh! what makes the idiot say that sunday clothes are ‘white’? every one knows that dressing like one lives in a gutter is scarier than people who dress like they have jobs and enough self respect to be classy. the moron who wears pants around knees looks like a moron. jason, who is clearly a racist, says being clean and dressing like a businessman is ‘acting white’! dressing like a crack dealer is just being ‘authentically’ black? thanks for revealing your inner racist, jason
March 25th, 2008 at 2:36 pmIf I was dressed like a white person, and standing on a deserted street corner late at night and saw Joy Behar approaching…I would most likely soil myself out of sheer terror. If that make me a racist, then so be it. Wait…a street corner can’t actually be deserted if I am…dressed like a white person…can it?
March 25th, 2008 at 2:38 pmOops! You’re a racist.
March 25th, 2008 at 2:51 pmI just knew you rightously open-minded individuals would be upset that I might suggest that the “thug wear” is black clothing. Of course it really is black fashion (though it has nothing to do with crime), but to acknowledge that pulls back the curtain on this whole asinine “I don’t hate the person, I hate the culture” argument.
It’s become vogue to say “I don’t hate black people, I just hate the way they dress and talk and sing and walk and act”, but that’s an obvious dodge. The follow up is usually “Look, I’m so NOT racist that I even hate white people who dress like blacks.” Also quite weak.
The fashion, as it were, on the white people above is not without context. It didn’t arise organically from a race neutral place. It is contemporary black fashion and it’s emulated by white kids. And those white kids catch a ton of heat for it, just like they did when it was Cross Colors in the 90s, just like they did when it was afros in the 60s, just like they did when it was zoot suits in the 30s. This is not a new phenomenon.
You can dance around it however you’d like, but you’re not fooling anyone. The fact of the matter is, some people have, and have always had, a serious problem with white people dressing “black” in this country. It’s only recently that the prevailing mood has forced them to couch their objections in terms of “culture” instead of race, but it’s not any less obvious what the root is.
I don’t care if you agree with me. I don’t care if you see it in yourself. But you have to understand that we don’t get to individually decide whether or not we’re racist, or whether or not our specious arguments cover it well enough to pass. Nobody thinks they’re a racist, they just think they’re right. In this case, you think it’s perfectly acceptable to discriminate against people for wearing black fashion because, of course, you’ve created all these connations of what that fashion means that are. in fact, based in racism.
Again, don’t feel you have to defend your beliefs to me. I don’t care. I just wanted to let you know what I think of the latest racism dodge. Not impressed.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:12 pmThe above comments prove Rachel’s point. It is not skin color that causes a reaction, it is the person’s choice of marketing that forms an opinion. Excellent Rachel, excellent!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:16 pmI see a ball player posing as if he were trying to intimidate an opponent. King Kong? I still don’t see it. The people who look at that and say “they tried to make him look like a monkey!” are the racists, because they’re the ones who look at a black man and think “ape.” Us normal people see LeBron James with some chick who gets paid a lot of money to wear borrowed clothing.
As for Jason’s stupidity, I’ve got a question for him that he won’t answer. Why is it that an Asian or Hispanic kid dressed well isn’t looked at as “not ethnic enough” but a black man is? Why is it “selling out” to dress nicely instead of as if your clothes were made for someone twice as tall and wide as you are? What the hell!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:21 pmIt is that attitude that is keeping black culture in the gutter. The belief that to talk and dress and act like a nice person rather than an idiot or a thug is “selling out” or “inauthentic” is keeping young black men and women poor and ignorant. If they turn away from what they KNOW is a dead-end, they lose their friends and their family, and possibly their life if some gang member is feeling particularly vicious against the “Oreo.”
Who gives $hit what Samir Husni has to say?
Not me, for one.
If the pic conjures up King Kong for him, that says something about him, not the pic.
When I look at the pic of him, it conjures images of a toothbrush.
Or perhaps Mr. Potato Head.
Mr. PH
http://www.dominoestoys.co.uk/dynamic/img.php?s=viewer&i=images/02350%20HB001.jpg
Mr. PH Look-alike
http://www.mrmagazine.com/about.html
Besides, he’s sort of nuts…
“Husni owns about 20,000 first editions — and has given up counting the other magazines he has stashed away. Glossy magazines have taken over his den, his garage, his van. His mother still asks from time to time what she should do with all the magazines he began collecting as a boy in Lebanon.”
He prolly has a year’s worth of TIME stuffed down his pants.
Sounds like he ought to be collecting meds.
http://www.tripoli-lebanon.com/samir-husni.html
He’s so into magazines, maybe he should start one and call it Putz.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:26 pm@Jason
Having your own sense of identity and/or choosing to emulate someone else does not mean you have to look like an idiot. Certain stigmas have always existed, and they will continue to exist forever. Humans form heuristics to aide in making decisions. Sometimes heuristics are wrong, but, more often than not, they pay off. That’s why we use them, and that’s why we are still around. When any individual presents himself in a manner that is known to cause a negative reaction among the majority of people (black or white - ask Bill Cosby), they are going to receive prejudice. As Rachel would say, Tough Shit. If you’re secure enough with yourself that you don’t care that people think you look like a moron, power to you. Just don’t whine about it.
The guy with an 18-inch mohawk, facial piercings, and tatooed arms may be a stand-up fellow, but that doesn’t mean Mr. Bank President is going to hire him as a teller.
BTW, I like how you start putting “black” in quotes near the end of your comment. It almost makes you seem like less of a racist jackass. Almost.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:27 pmYes, but Jason, we’re not impressed by you, either. Feel free to go back and play with your toys and little friends in the day care.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:28 pmI was thinking the same thing about your whole post. The thug-wear, which I believe is suitable name for the fashion, does stem from a certain part of the subculture that chose to glorify and embrace gang life and crime. White, black, brown, yellow, red, none of it matters. Choosing to embrace the culture represented by that fashion, by choosing that fashion for your own, does make a voluntary statement, independent of your race.
This part amuses me. You don’t care what we think, immediately making rational debate impossible, effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and yelling “I’m right, I’m right, I’m right,” while simultaneously showing such presumption as to indicate that we’d care what you think, from your obviously racist (no matter how blind you are to it, it’s ok, don’t feel you have to defend yourself) position.
If the true definition of “un-racist” (or maybe race neutrality) is to judge people by the content of their character, by the choice the make, and by the actions they take, then judging them in part on how they self-identify is fair game. Like it or not, they are choosing to wear the style (perhaps to “be cool” rather than to truly embrace the criminal undercurrent), it is decision representative of their character. Note, I said representative, not definitive. They may well be different than that, but for the street analogy we are talking only first impressions.
If I chose to walk around dressed in armor wearing a sword, people would probably give me wide birth as well. They are pre-judging me. How dare they? Just because of my fashion choice? That’s racist.
I get that for whatever reason you won’t grant the premise that people chose how they dress. But I want you to know that I am unimpressed with your agrument. I believe the idea of “dressing white” or “dressing black” to be inherently racist.
Side question: What are Cross Colors? I’ve heard of the others (the only people I personally know with zoot suits any more are white), but never of “cross colors”
March 25th, 2008 at 3:32 pmA pathologically obsessive collector with a dead dirt squirrel on his lip and we should listen to him or an apologist for “de blackses dress dis way so dey all knows who dey is” racism? Not this Jet City dweller. Living here I sure know PC racism when I see it.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:34 pmI understand the point that Jason is making. When a black man wears a polo shirt and khakis…he is dressing like a white man. When a white man dresses in anything at all….he is a racist.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:36 pmJason, you are an enormously silly person.
Your entire argument, if I can dignify your ramblings with that word, implies that there is a monolithic black culture. There isn’t. What is unappealing to a lot of people, white and black, is the ‘gangsta’ subculture. It is unappealing because it revels in violence, misogyny and abdication of responsibility. To imply as you do that the only way to be ‘authentically black’ is to fully embrace that culture is as racist as any moronic drivel spouted by KKK losers and holocaust deniers.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pmBy the way, responding may indicate that I cared what he thought, perhaps proving his presumption correct. However, I honestly don’t care what he thinks, I just am a fan of logic, consistency, and honesty, so when I see an argument that flies in their face (that isn’t blatant trolling) I will often try to defend them.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:38 pmIf you knew we would do it then why did you say it?
That’s right, Jason. Petty criminals wear that crap all the time, yet it has nothing to do with crime.
Okay…why is it “quite weak”?
It’s all well and good to say something is “quite weak”, it’s quite another to justify the argument.
So now the argument is wrong because it’s……old?
The fact that you think dressing like a thug is “dressing black” does not reflect well on you.
Yeah, I think I’ll trust someone who isn’t so heavily invested in white guilt to tell me who is and is not a racist.
Oh good. That’ll make it a lot easier to mercilessly insult you.
Then doesn’t it also follow that you don’t get to individually decide whether anyone else is racist?
Sure Jason. It’s all racism. I mean, it’s not like criminals actually wear any of this stuff. That’s just another stereotype that whitey made up, right?
I’m not defending my beliefs to you. I am mocking you.
He doesn’t care what we think, yet he assumes that we care what he thinks.
Interesting.
Just so you know, we’re not particularly impressed with your feeble attempts to accuse us all of racism either.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:39 pmGee, I see that twice every morning except in the summer. At the school bus stop. Doesn’t scare me a bit, except on really cold days when I’m afraid they’re going to get frostbitten. Then we take some hot chocolate out to them and shelter them out of the wind until the bus shows up.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:39 pmIf a person despises terrorists and most terrorists happen to be muslims, can it reasonably be inferred that the person despises terrorists because they are muslims?
The cry of “racism” is the last refuge of a person who has no argument.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:39 pmThere’s nothing quite so comforting as the feel of a Smith and Wesson 44 mag or Kimber 45 cal in your pocket as you approach a street corner with unsavory looking people hanging around. But, I’m liberal. Pick any brand of pocket cannon YOU like!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:45 pmNice Tully! I guess it’s just a coincidence that you bring them “hot chocolate” ! That is so racist! And you shelter them from the wind until the “BUS” shows up! What’s that supposed to infer?
/sarc
March 25th, 2008 at 3:46 pmROFL @ Brian!!!
March 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pmJust to clarify, I don’t think that dressing in a suit in tie is dressing “white” any more than I think dressing in baggy pants and an oversized flannel is “black” (or “thug”). That was just the dichotomy presented by the post.
These are, as a commentor above pointed out, stereotypes that we use to make uninformed judgments of other people. It happens. It’s human nature. In this case, the uninformed judgment is premised on the idea that contemporary black fashion is “thuggish” so people who wear it are thugs. I consider that racist, many of you seem to consider it commonsense. That’s where we disagree and that’s fine. We’re not going to settle it here today anyway. At least people are talking about race in America again after 40 years of embarassed silence. We can’t solve our race relation problems until people’s true feelings come out.
And just so you know, you can’t play racism gotcha games with me. I fully acknowledge that this country has a serious problem with racism, and as a native son, I am not immune. I say insensitive and inappropriate things sometimes, I jump to prejudiced or ignorant conclusions based on superficial qualities sometimes, I get a distorted look at things through my myopic midwestern white guy lens sometimes. The difference between us is that I fully acknowledge this and work hard to avoid it, while some of you refuse to acknowledge it and work hard to rationalize it. That’s probably why it doesn’t bother me a whole lot to be called a racist. That’s also probably why it’s almost always other white people who call me such, usually while desperately trying to explain how NOT racist they are.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:52 pmAs long as the NAACP is doing things like this, racism will continue.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:54 pmJason,
I’m sure black people everywhere, many of whom wouldn’t be caught dead in the gear in those photos, deeply appreciate your thoughtful comments on what “dressing black” is. Surely they’re thrilled to learn that what you call “dressing black” is a style rooted in and glorifying crime.
Lucky for all of us self-righteous honkey racists here on this blog, you set us straight and hopefully none of us will ever again make the mistake of thinking that wearing pants that hang several inches below your ass is a “stupid” thing, as we know now thanks to you that it is, in fact, a “black” thing.
See? White people ARE ignorant. Until you came along, none of us realized that wearing well-fitting clothes and minimal jewelry is a “white” thing. I hate to see how businessmen and professionals in Japan, South America, Africa, and China will react when they find out that they’re acting “white” when they wear a suit and tie.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:59 pmjason, would it be racist of me to offer you some Desitin ointment for that stinging sensation you feel on your behind?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:06 pmThen you shouldn’t have said “So white people dressed like black people scare you, but black people dressed like white people don’t”.
If you didn’t mean it, you shouldn’t have said it.
And here we go with the backpedaling.
Actually that’s the connection you are making, Jason. Nobody here said anything about “black” fashion or “white” fashion. YOU were the first person to claim that being “thugged out” is part of “black culture”.
Translation: “I consider common sense racist.”
Yes, we can’t solve our race relation problems until the true feelings of racists like you come out.
Too late, already did.
Yet you believe you have the right to lecture others on race relations.
Pathetic.
…By implying that nice suits are “white” clothes and thuggish clothes are “black” clothes.
Methinks he doth protest too much.
See, THIS is the real reason why we still have problems with race relations in this country. People like Jason take perfectly reasonable statements such as the ones made by Rachel and immediately attach racist connotations to them. If the speaker protests and attempts to explain his or her statement, that is taken as even further proof of racism.
It doesn’t bother you, yet you have re-posted not once but TWICE in an attempt to defend your previous remarks. Interesting.
Jason chastises us for “desperately” explaining how we are not racist, while at the same time trying desperately to explain how HE is not racist.
Oh the irony.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:08 pmGreat fisking, samurai! It’s a pity Jason doesn’t chime in more often. Always nice to have a refresher on the “progressive” world view.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:10 pmIn response to TWO sets of photos- one of which depicts a white guy in a t-shirt with a hostile message, a black beret, and a belligerent pose, and then presents a black guy in a fashionable suit, and the other of which presents a GROUP of white guys in belligerent poses and baggy clothing, one whom is apparently flashing a gang sign contrasting with a black guy in slacks, button-down, and tie, your first response was:
Equivocate and insinuate all you want, but don’t flat out fucking lie to us when all we have to do is hit the “scroll” button.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:11 pmI’d jump in some more, but mightysamurai is doing such a good job it’d just be piling on.
Brian, we tried unflavored snow cones but they didn’t act real interested.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:14 pmHmm.. had to skip down to add my comment before leaving, so I don’t know if someone has made this point:
Thus Jason proves that accusing someone of being a racist becomes the perfect storm of accusation. For, like Alcoholism and Drug Addiction, “denial” is considered part of the symptoms of the “disease”. Therefore, he feels that he can point to any protestations of disagreement as further proof of the accusation, providing a positive feedback loop.
Gah. I have a few black friends I’d like to introduce him to, so they could kick his ass. Oh, wait. They dress “white”, so I guess they are not really “black”.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:15 pmjamfish, I agree. I like to hear the myopic midwestern white guy point of view now and again.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:16 pmOh don’t give me too much credit. Jason is easy.
I’ve seen punching bags that put up a better fight.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:17 pmI was being facetious in my first post. So sorry to offend you.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pmWhatever helps you sleep at night.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:21 pmJason - you are absolutely right. The “thuggish” fashion did not come from a vacuum. Here’s the deal, though - I don’t think it matters WHOSE thuggish fashions people are wearing, we’d much rather hang out on a street corner with someone who looks like an adult than someone who looks like they’re trying to project a tough, thuggish image.
For example:
Would you rather hang out with this or this?
What about…
This or this?
That last one was the same guy, by the way.
Look, if you really want to make a point, don’t claim it’s a “black” thing, because it’s not. There have been thugs for centuries. It doesn’t matter whether it’s the flashy “black” thug, the tank-top with the gold cross of the “Mexican” thug, or the spiked leather jacket of the “white” thug. In the end, it all boils down to one thing:
Class.
See, Rachel doesn’t have a problem with black people - she has a problem with poor people, or people that dress like poor people. Duh! She’s one of the bourgeois holding down the proletariat, preventing them from making proper communal fashion choices! C’mon!
(Note: I’m being facetious about the class struggle… though it is about class, just not of the income-level kind. If you have class, you’re fine. If you don’t, stay away from us. Thank you.)
(Another note: I just read that Jason was being facetious as well. Fine! I throw my feces at you, you fecetious pile of feces! Poop!)
March 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pmjason is clearly a idiot.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:23 pmI’m a myopic midwestern white guy too, but don’t try to lump us all into some lockstepping mono-cultural stereotype. That would be, dare I say it…RACIST!
Ya know which race I hate? The human race! Suck it, you bi-pedal pants-wearing scum!
(p.s. that’s the right way to be facetious)
March 25th, 2008 at 4:29 pmYour next post was:
So, in other words, you deliberately equated blatant thuggish postures and dress to “dressing black” and clothing worn by people dressing for respect as “dressing white”, knew that we would be irritated by the comparison, and then opened up a completely different line of argument about “I don’t hate the people, I just hate the culture” that neither Rachel nor any of her commenters put forth because they were too busy bashing on your “dressing like a thug is dressing black!” thing.
Which you acknowledge was stupid. And which we continued to assume was your position, because you continued to argue for thug wear as “black fashion”. In other words, “dressing black”. Because, you know, the idea that you were arguing with some other group of people that had said “I don’t hate black people, I just hate black culture!” would have been totally fucking absurd.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:34 pmYou make a valid point Oatworm, and I think it was one that was also alluded to above in reference to the punk rock kids with black, spiked leather jackets, dyed hair and metal in their faces. That’s a perfectly reasonable position and I know that it’s the one that Rachel was reaching for.
My problem with that position though is that it makes a convenient proxy for racism, and it’s almost always brought up in the context of race, as it was here. Like I said before, it’s not a coincidence that every other style from a distinct minority group has suffered the same fate throughout the history of this country. Zoot suits make a fine example: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoot_Suit_Riots). Sure they seem like an innocuous fashion choice today, but back in the 20s and 30s they were the equivilent of baggy pants and doo-rags, and they sufferred the same negative connotations because of where they came from. Seems silly and immature now, but most stuff that’s motivated by racism looks silly and immature in the rearview mirror.
I’ve said my piece. I think claiming you hate black culture but not black people is a cop-out, and I hear people do it by citing “thug” fashion every day. Despite the purported “ass whupping” (which really didn’t sting a bit, thanks), I’ve appreciated the comments of those of you who aren’t being intentionally obtuse.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:37 pmSo, you really ARE arguing with a group of people that isn’t even here.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:43 pmRick Lucas,
March 25th, 2008 at 4:48 pmAlthough I like to think of myself as a polyopic northeastern beige guy, I don’t think I mind being lumped together into some lockstepping, monolithic jack-booted cultural steroetype…as long as they have fun picnics.
Jason: As long as you “acknowledge this and work hard to avoid it” you might also look up “projection”.
Going back to the original post, I think some of the “righteously open-minded” individuals who regularly read/post here are tired of being lectured about race by celebrities and politicians (with a tenuous -at best- grip on the reality of everyday life) about the state of race in America.
I went to integrated public schools, played on integrated sports teams, attended a state university in the heart of a major urban area, attend an integrated church (take that, Mr. “Most Segregated Hour in America”) and continue to live and work in integrated neighborhoods. I don’t need Barack Obama or Jeremiah Wright or guilt-ridden liberal idiot Joy Behar or Myopic Midwestern White Guy to tell me anything about the nature of race relations.
I understand why both sides play the “race card”: it has “worked” so well in the past - in the sense that it has helped demagogues and grievance-peddlers get what they want. (We’ll leave aside the rank hypocrisy of Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan or Rev. Wright accusing anyone of racism for another day.)
It’s also shortsighted: If the victim status of a group is it’s source of political power and authenticity, what motivation does that group have to stop being victims? (Plus, wasn’t it Malcolm X who said that liberal attitudes and policies on race have always been about white people keeping the moral upper hand?)
I also think that the “race card” has reached a point of diminishing return, because the bar on what constitutes “racism” has been so lowered as to be meaningless, if not ridiculous.
I’ll give you this: You’ve hit (inadvertently, I suspect) on the one thing that will “heal our souls” (and it’s not your husband, Mrs. Obama) each of us has to do our own work on this subject.
That said, I don’t think it does anything to help you on your personal journey (and it certainly does nothing for me) for you to come here and self-righteously accuse the commenters of being self-righteous; to come here and articulate, in detail, a view you claim to know these readers won’t agree with and then claim not to care. WTF?
Unless you’re just doing it for the attention.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:52 pmOh, and on the whole “King Kong” thing, I just have one question: What color are gorillas?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pmJason, what race is/are thug clothes? If the clothes don’t have a race how can I be racist for forming a judgment about the clothes?
March 25th, 2008 at 4:53 pm…for the first time in my life, I am proud of this website.
March 25th, 2008 at 4:57 pm@ jason.
You’re a putz. Race has nothing to do with it.
If someone wants to be treated like an adult, they will act accordingly. Dressing like you spent the day digging through goodwill dumpsters will not cut it. Acting like a dumb punk also will not cut it.
Having role models picked from people who make ‘songs’ about the joys of drugs, violence and prostitution and THEN talking that way, acting that way, and dressing that way, will NOT get you a good job. It will however lead reasonable people to conclude that if you’re out late at night, you’re up to no good. And, no doubt, will lead you to get to know the local law enforcement community on a first name basis.
Like so many others said, race has nothing to do with it. Common sense on the other hand does.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:37 pmDamn right America is a racist country! All these black Americans keep accusing me of being a racist and insensitive to their condition when I’m not, saying I have ‘white privledge’ when I’m just as not-rich and not-powerful as they are. All because of the lack of color in my skin.
March 25th, 2008 at 5:50 pmHmm. What qualifies as “white people” to that loudmouthed idiot Behar? I can think of six million of them that were “oppressed” in Europe.
There is no way I could watch that video. Any time I hear Joy Behar’s voice, I want to claw my eyes out and stuff them in my ear canals just to stop the noise.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:19 pmI first saw LeBron James play basketball when he was about 14. We went to the same high school. That expression on his face is one that is pretty common place. On the court he is intense but also obviously enjoys the game.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:45 pmI agree that whoever thinks this is racist is actually the racist or possible someone with his head up his a$$ who has never watched or participated in basketball.
I’m not afraid of anyone of any color, race, religion, sexual preference, nationality or creed that means me no harm.
Those that statistically are most likely to commit crimes against my person?
I think it’s okay to be afraid of them. To act otherwise would be contrary to self-preservation.
Don’t you agree, Jason?
March 25th, 2008 at 6:46 pmGoing back to the original topic, it’s not the color of their skin or how their dressed that I judge someone by. It’s their attitude, someone that’s hanging out just chillin’ relaxed posture and expression I don’t hardly notice. On the other hand someone with an aggressive stance, challenging stare, all tensed up, gets my attention as wanting to start trouble. The color of their skin or how they’re dressed isn’t a factor.
March 25th, 2008 at 6:56 pmMy god, mightysamurai is on a ROLL. Last post he cleaned clocks, and now here he is destroying Jason.
Jason, backpedal all you want, but I read the first 3 posts and it was only in the 4th or 5th that you claimed the first was satire. Sorry…like Nomad says, does not compute.
I have been judged by my dress, but that was in the ’80’s, when I had long hair, a jean jacket with Iron Maiden, Slayer, Metallica, and Judas Priest patches on it, ripped jeans, and Converse hi-tops. Growing up in a rural Texas community, this obviously was not normal. I was pulled over numerous times by the police, questioned at football games, the whole nine yards. Yet I had a job, never missed school, made straight As, and ended 13th in my class. I never felt persecuted or wronged by the attention my dress brought…I knew I was asking for it, and I accepted it.
…Matter of fact, I’m rather proud of being the archetypical ’80s metalhead. And even while I was dressing this way, I was a delegate to the Republican County convention in ‘88. Appearances are deceiving. But still…I harbor no ill will to anyone who judged me by how I dressed…because I was asking for it. FACT.
I see kids in my store every day showing their underpants because their pants are so low that they’re literally falling off their asses. I ALWAYS approach them and tell them that there is an invention man made years ago called a belt, and when they learn how to use it, they can shop at my store. Until then, they are unwelcome.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:26 pmA “convenient proxy for racism”?
Is that the best you can do? Seriously? What next? “Code words”?
I love this guy. He admits that Rachel is not the least bit racist, then claims that her words were a “convenient proxy” for racism.
You should read your own sources.
The Zoot Suit Riots happened because a group of soldiers were attacking anyone wearing a zoot suit, assuming they were Hispanic.
In other words, they were exactly like you. They saw the zoot suit as “latino clothes”, just as you see thugwear as “black clothes”.
Precisely.
You THINK.
You don’t know.
If you have any proof of racism other than what you think we might mean, I suggest you cite it.
Oh good, then you won’t mind if I hand you another one.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:28 pmOn an unrelated note, to compare LeBron James to King Kong is just insulting to LeBron. Because Kong never single-handedly let his team to the finals.
I have seen the future, and it is LeBron James. And this is coming from a Spurs fan.
March 25th, 2008 at 7:30 pmMightysamurai - my thoughts exactly. Neither Jason nor anyone else here knows what people are thinking when they write or say something. The most we can do is hope they’re communicating clearly enough where we can make an educated guess. If racism needs to be defined through “proxies” and that’s sufficient, we’re in serious, serious trouble.
In short, don’t assume that, when somebody says something like, “I don’t like thuggish culture”, that it really means “I don’t like black culture”. Thugs come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. That person could actually have more of a problem with the Latinos that just moved in across the street, or the white punks down the road, or the drunk Asians around the corner. The most you might be able to claim with some small amount of credibility is that the person is using it as a proxy for saying, “I don’t like poor people culture,” which, more often than not, is what thug culture is - a response to poverty. Now, does that mean that the person actually hates poor people? Perhaps, but it’s much more likely that they just hate poor people that decide that the path out of poverty is to rob, attack, kill, and maim everyone around them to get out of it. That’s perfectly rational.
When people stop paying attention to the African-Americans that assume that white people are talking in code words and using proxy statements to oppress them (a rather racially prejudicial attitude, that), we’ll be able to have a serious adult conversation about race. Until then, it’s going to be impossible as long as the merest contrived hint of mentioning race is considered “racism” or “racist”… like declaring that showing a black man holding a skinny white woman “reminds people of King Kong.” Think about it - how do you talk about something that you’re not allowed to mention, allude to, or think about?
March 25th, 2008 at 10:11 pmI wear a jacket and tie in my classroom everyday. It sends a message: education is serious, formal business. I haven’t written a discipline referral all year. What do you think happens in a classroom where the teacher dresses like a ragamuffin? Yeah . . . chaos. Clothing matters.
Thug-wear informs the entire world that the dresser is a loser. The individual wants everyone to know that he’s antisocial. Fine. Point made. But don’t complain to me, kid, when you get treated like scum. “The security guards follow me around the mall like a criminal.” No kidding?
More pernicious is slut-wear for teenage girls. Well, it does attract the attention these young women want. But at what cost? You a ho, girl. And you’ll be treated like one.
Rachel is spot on. The threads you wear are more important than race. Dress for respect or suffer the consequences. Is that shallow? I think not. It’s human nature. You can only make one first impression. But it’s a choice.
March 25th, 2008 at 10:22 pmHeh. Got lost in the whole “Black Culture”/”Thug Culture” earlier and forgot about the “King Kong” part of the original post. Remembering that, since my wife kept telling me that I looked like the Silverback Gorilla at the Cincinnati Zoo (that just died a few years ago - his name was Goliath), I’d say I was probably even more likely to be referred to as King Kong in a picture like that.
Oatworm makes a very good point just above. How are we supposed to talk about Race Relations when White People are not allowed?
(Actually I know the answer to that, at least from the Race Hustlers’ point of view - we just have to take everything they say at face value, and not try to dispute it at any point. Tough. I’ll dispute it all day long, if they’re saying something stupid.)
March 25th, 2008 at 10:49 pmBe nice if the people bitching about the oppression would do something about the slavery that is occurring worldwide today. That business is just as large as drug trafficking. Few know about it because no one talks about it - too stuck on their own problems.
March 25th, 2008 at 11:07 pmWell now! That’s one hell of a thread, I must say. I do have a question for Jason, though. Why CAN’T I decide whether I’m a racist or not? Do you recommend long, tearful sessions in groups of people with whom I have nothing in common to have it decided for me? How does one find out whether one is a racist? Who is the final arbiter? Certainly not you. You’ve already stated that you harbor racist feelings (against which you strive mightily, I suppose). And you’ve already proven yourself to be an asshat of the first water. Damn. I guess I’ll have to do what MEN have always had to do: make my own decisions about it - and then take responibility for those decisions. [You might want to try that sometime, li'l feller]
March 26th, 2008 at 12:41 amNobody! N_O_B_O_D_Y! is qualified to tell me how I feel about anything or anybody. Nor is anyone else allowed to take smug retreat in couching their arguments in terms that presuppose I think a certain way and insist that I prove a negative to them. Certainly not presumptuous little snots like you who aren’t even worth a spoonful of warm spit. Your best next move would be to grow up and grow a pair of balls. Man up! Stop whimpering and hiding behind a wall of supercillious blather; and try to find out what the hell is going on in the world. Not everyone holds - or even appreciates - your snotty little world-view. Most of (as in the majority)the people in this country are not racist — and they are getting damned tired of pretentious twits like you trying to make them feel guilty about a nonexistent prejudice. You and the professional race baiters (you know to whom I refer) should all burn in hell.
Have a nice night………………………
What I don’t get, is how the hell was he able to dribble that fuggin’ ball and hold on to her too?
March 26th, 2008 at 1:54 amI’d avoid them either way - five men dressed in thug attire would scare me, and if I had to walk by five men dressed in white shirts and ties, I’d be afraid they would set upon me and convert me to Mormonism. Oops, does that mean I hate Mormons? Sorry, did not mean to introduce a new racism there - it’s my own personal problem.
March 26th, 2008 at 2:10 amJason Says: I was being facetious in my first post. So sorry to offend you. -March 25th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
You could at least come up with an original cop-out. The “just kidding” gainsaying ploy is getting kind of old, don’t you think?
March 26th, 2008 at 3:41 amIf we’re ever going to have a serious discussion of race in this country, we need some ground rules. I propose the following for starters:
(1) No one may call anyone else a racist. It is a toxic claim that is impossible to disprove, because it alleges a state of mind.
(2) We will judge people by their statements and actions, not by our assumptions about their beliefs.
(3) We will ignore extremists of all stripes, because they are few in number and their rants bring heat, not light, to the discussion.
(4) We will not dwell on the past, even though that is how we got here, because it does not illuminate the way forward. History may be cited to inform, but not to accuse, and not to excuse.
(5) We reject guilt by association, whether it be racial or generational. A just society treats each person as an individual; it does not put its citizens on trial for the crimes of their ancestors, or for the crimes of others who “look like them”.
(6) We will permit each other to speak frankly, so that long-suppressed thoughts can be expressed, discussed, and understood.
(7) We will challenge both logic and assumptions freely, in good faith and in the spirit of rational inquiry.
(8) Above all, we will permit ourselves to make progress. We do not share the tragic view of history. We are Americans; we believe that things can and do get better, and that race relations need not be an exception.
March 26th, 2008 at 3:58 amThat Joy Behar has a job of any kind that involves an attempt at intelligent discourse in front of an audience is a testament to the great opportunity available in this country.
I know in my heart that four women randomly selected from the street would provide a more informed, more productive forum than these frothing ninnies.
Some day, when we’ve put some distance between ourselves and the last episode of “The View,” we’ll conclude that it set back women’s rights a quarter of a century.
March 26th, 2008 at 4:45 amJason’s comments are typical of liberal projection. He’s a racist so everyone else must be too. Sorry, but Rachel’s right - clothes DO make the man. Whether it’s thug wear or the hippy look, the wearer wants to deliver a message. In the Army everyone wears a uniform and I guarantee when you look at a Soldier you see the uniform first and everything else is immaterial; especially if you need help.
March 26th, 2008 at 6:33 amHeck, what is all this crap Jason is always spewing? I’m a racist and damned proud of it. I DESPISE the rat race. I will MEVER participate in a 25k race. I think the Tour de France is ludicrous (as are all things designed by cheese-eating surrender monkeys). As a matter of fact … I always walk, NEVER race!
Color? I think color is cool. I have several orange motorcycles, a black cherry one and even a red bike. I have a rustbucket truck with doors a different color than the rest of the truck. Colors make things easy to identify. Now I don’t actively discriminate against the multi-colored truck … I prefer to use it instead of one of the monochromatic vehicles when I need to haul shit.
But racist? Damn straight … this rat race sucks!
I’ll second Rachels comments about clothes … people who respect themselves and want to portray a positive image know the value of clothes. Conformists who want to pretend to be nonconformists have a uniform which helps to let sane people identify them quickly (close your eyes and imagine the smelly hippy era). Heck, I can’t even stomach Dress Down Fridays … what a STUPID concept. Business attire is business attire … jeans and t-shirts ain’t it!
March 26th, 2008 at 8:19 amJeff Bonwick — your comment just made it into my “Favorite Posts” folder. Spot-freaking-on, and don’t I *WISH*.
March 26th, 2008 at 8:23 amI bow to the genius that is MightySamurai.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:04 amI want to have the babies of several of you. MightySamurai’s child will be my firstborn.
Jason has fled the heat of this kitchen and I’m a little sad about that because it is so much fun to watch someone like him make an idiot of himself. If he or anyone else saying stupid shit comes back, I’m gonna make a whole post about it featuring the holy smackdown responses.
March 26th, 2008 at 9:16 amRachel,
Long time reader, big time fan, first time poster. Just wanted to let you know this post is now being used on my local newspapers discussion forums. No worries, it was properly credited, kinda (’Donkey’ has been substituted in for ‘honkey’). Good to know there’s another Rachel Lucas fan in my city!
March 26th, 2008 at 10:01 amWhy argue with Jason? He’s not a thinker and thus can’t be persuaded by logic. He says some pretty silly things in order to work out his white guilt (and, judging from his own words, I see the reason for the guilt). Why spend time refuting an argument that (1) has no logical basis, (2) is inherently racist and (3) makes him feel so comfortably self-righteous?
March 26th, 2008 at 11:00 amDoes anyone else have a mental image of Jason scourging himself chanting “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa”?
March 26th, 2008 at 11:39 amI dunno, Lebron does look like he’s gonna eat her in the picture. But, apparently, he had no problem with that picture being used.
March 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pmPeople choose clothes based on an image they want to portray, and unfortunately a ton of kids of all races across the country dress like thugs. They are choosing this because they want to look tough, whether to intimidate other kids, impress girls, or sadly, put up a front to not be messed with.
Most of the thug style comes from a style of music that glorifies crime. (Hint: it doesn’t include John Mayer.) How difficult is that to understand?
There’s an anti-social message in a lot of punk, too, and the music along with the style of dress are purposely done to set the punks apart from the rest of society. Most punks are white, and most other white people would get cautious very quickly if they came across a group of punks at night. (I’m talking about real punk, not the gaunt, vegan, skinny-jean-and-black-sweatshirt-wearing, sneaker-gazing, bangs-having depressed emo kids.)
If people dress in a way that others associate with crime, they can expect to be treated accordingly. It’s possible that blacks and hispanics need to try a little harder to dress nice in order to get the benefit of the doubt, and whites and asians get a little more slack, but that’s about as far as it goes.
If one’s own culture is preventing him or her from dressing in a way that society accepts, that sure as hell isn’t the fault of a completely different race!
Seriously, kindergarteners could figure this crap out. The head-in-sand irrationality and patronization expected because of political correctness is staggeringly stupid…
March 26th, 2008 at 12:47 pmMy observation is that when anyone goes out of thier way to look scary and intimidating, they probably have a good reason for doing so and they are generally prepared to back up thier threat display with actual agression.
This has nothing to do with skin color except to the extent that each race has its own distinct criminal class (or classes) each with its own distinctive uniform and ‘cant’. Gang culture in the raw is simple tribalism. I ought to know, I’ve been there.
If I see some white guys on the street corner with beards, shaven heads, tatoos covering every bit of exposed flesh, biker jackets, boots, and spiked wrist accessories I’m going to judge that they are displaying thier aggressiveness for a reason. The same goes for black guys wearing oversized pants, baggy basketball jerseys, colored bandannas, loads of jewelry, and cornrows. The same goes for six white guys with shaven heads, jeans or camo pants, and t-shirts. The same goes for six white guys with mohawks, needles through thier lips, boots, and black eye makeup. Or virtually any garb designed to attract attention, announce territoriality, and make threat displays. If you are dressing like you don’t want to make friends, I generally assume that you don’t. And I generally can spot posers, but if there are six of them, even posers might decide to try to prove thier ’street cred’ to themselves. I’m not going to risk it. Heck, I’m going to exercise caution around a group of young white men in frat boy clothing who are exibiting classic ‘I’m young and looking for trouble’ swagger. No matter the case, I’m going to avoid eye contact, straighten up but try not to swagger, acknowledge thier presence only enough to try not to look like I don’t belong here, and move quickly through the area. If I attract attention, you better believe my pulse rate is going to go up.
It has nothing to do with color. It has a certain amount to do with maleness, but I’ve seen enough knives come out of girls pockets to not make that mistake either. If some black guy is afraid of a gang of white guys, it doesn’t make him racist - it makes him sane. If some black guy is not afraid of a gang of black guys, it makes him stupid. Black men kill more black men than white men do. So lets not pretend this has anything to do with color.
March 26th, 2008 at 11:11 pmThis has been an interesting thread. It also brings to mind something that has puzzled me for many years: how will we ever know when “inequality” has been vanquished from today’s society? Will there be a vote? A proclamation? And by whom? How will we ever know when “a frank discussion about race” has taken place, and we are officially “over it”?
As long as we have morons like Jason on this earth, the answer will be “never.”
March 26th, 2008 at 11:58 pmI’m afraid of “youths” wearing ‘che guevara’ clothing. Stupidity coupled with entitlement makes a dangerous mix. (Saw it again today. Still wondering why the ‘boy’ wasn’t in school. Was staring at himself in the restaurant mirror. )
March 27th, 2008 at 1:04 amWhat bugs me about the Vogue cover is the model with the athelete. Apparently, men with great bodies are strong and athletic, while women with great bodies are fragile and willowy.
I’m so happy that none of my men friends are into that type. They like women strong, healthy, active and feisty. Much more interesting…
March 28th, 2008 at 4:30 pmActually, your first black guy does scare me. I have reason to be believe he is in fact a Cylon and wants to use human women as breeding machines.
April 17th, 2008 at 6:43 am