I don't know if this is old news or not and I'm too lazy to check but, last night on Politically Incorrect, Sarah Silverman (damb she's hot!) gave a recount of the trouble she had for telling a joke on Late Night with Conan O'Brien. The joke was, she got a notice for jury duty, she didn't want to be on a jury so in the comment section of the jury duty form her friend told her to write in "I hate chinks." Sarah thought, while it may have been effective in getting her name dropped from the juror pool, that it was a bit harsh and she didn't want people to think of her that way. So instead, she wrote "I love chinks." Ha ha.

An enraged Asian man sent her a letter and aparently there was some big fuss in the media. In a stunning display, every one of the panelists on P.I. agreed that the incident was being blown out of proportion. Nobody seemed to think that her joke was inappropriate. I'd normally agree. The joke was funny and she has a right to say it, but, what if she'd replaced "chinks" with "negros" or a seldom tolerated harsher N word - would everything have been okie dokie then? What if she'd chosen something even more revolting like "I listen to and support Dr. Laura." ?

Is this a testament to the ongoing selective American prejudice or is it simple a funny joke that was taken out of context?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Answers

Any joke that needs the word Chink in it to make it work, or Nigger, or Kike, or Hebe, or any of a host of offensive racial/religious/etc slurs is not a joke - it is a racist statement. Jokes are observations of human life, and in writing them, joke writers know to look for new ways to comment on commonly understood societal conventions, so 'jokes' like these, instead of being funny, only serve to point out how comfortable some people are with the word Chink.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

I can get that her joke was playing with the offensiveness of the word, and she also has the qualifier of "I don't really hate them/use this word" in it. However, it was downright stupid of her to think that her use of this word would possibly be okay to use in public even given her qualifiers. If a person can be forced to resign from their job for saying "niggardly", ain't no way she can get away with that.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

My personal line for jokes that deal with racial issues is this: is the joke actually making fun of racism, or is it just pretending to make fun of racism as an excuse to get the racist laugh? (There is a third kind, of course, which is a flat-out no apologies racist joke, but I assume you assume that I don't like those.)

I think this joke is on the borderline between my first two examples. I don't think it's actually what I would call a racist joke because it's not actually saying a thing about Chinese people, and I guess technically she's making fun of racism. But she's also going for the shock laugh, people who will laugh at the audacity of someone saying "Chink" on TV. Which, to me, means she's going for the cheap racist laugh, whatever her half-assed intentions otherwise.

I feel the same way about jokes that aren't actually very clever, but nonetheless get a big laugh because the punchline is the word "bitch." Yeah, sometimes those jokes evoke an involuntary laugh from me, but I hate them. They play on the audience's misogyny to get the laugh. Fine and dandy and protected by the First Amendment, but not likely to win my respect or repeated viewing.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

There are funnier ways to make fun of racism and our jury system. The word chink was terribly unnecessary to make her point.

The qualifiers (for me) turn it into one of those very very awful "Before I go on, I have to tell you that my best friend is "

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Y'know, she wouldn't have gotten in any trouble if she'd only said "I hate men" instead, perhaps adding a few really nasty adjectives. Gender is still a perfectly fine field for bashing and stereotyping.

Comedians can make all the jokes they want about Men Do This and Women Do That and no one blinks an eyelash.

Anyone who doesn't know better than to use offensive racial slurs in her comedy routine on a nationally broadcast show deserves whatever she gets.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

besides, all you need to get out of jury duty is express any strong opinion, or show that you can reason and argue coherently. or (possibly the opposite), say that you have a graduate degree.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

I agree with Beth that jokes on racism are funny, but I would go even farther about not wanting to hear racial epithets in those jokes. If the joke isn't funny without the offensive word, chances are it's just plain not funny.

There was a minor flap over the weekend about Dan Rather. Didja hear this? He apparently said that somebody had "got the buckwheats," meaning they were scared. A prominent conservative African-American expressed outrage on a Fox News show, claiming that the reference is to the scaredy-cat Our Gang character, Buckwheat. This critic castigated the media for not publicizing this gaffe, he said, because Rather is considered a liberal, and the liberal-biased media didn't want to pillory one of their own.

I'm puzzled by it on two levels. First, I thought "getting the buckwheats" was a reference to diarrhea, which you can get from eating too much buckwheat. If I'm right, the phrase is the moral equivalent of "the green-apple two-step." That is, Rather was just saying in a countrified way that these folks were so scared, they were shitting themselves.

But, even if the origin of the term is what the Fox News show said, is it a racial slur to pick on a character like Buckwheat, just because he was played by a black actor? I'm not aware of any stereotype that African-Americans are easily frightened, so it doesn't seem like it's calculated to play into existing prejudices. In short, it just seems like an odd fight to pick. Whadday'all think?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

First, I'll concur with Rude on Sarah Silverman's hotness ... I'll even say damb!

I didn't catch the PI appearance, but I did see the original incident on Conan, and my take on it was that the joke was about her own internal conflict ... that because she wanted out of jury duty, but couldn't quite bring herself to say she hates a group, she tried to have it both ways by saying "love" but keeping the slur.

If she had said "I love Chinese people," there would have been no joke. The joke was the contradiction of expressing love with a slur.

I think people who latched onto the word "chink" as a basis for offense missed the whole point. Or maybe I'm just defending her because she's hot.



-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

So you think the joke would have been okay if she had used the N word?

The reason I ask is that I think racism against Asians is generally more accepted in this country than racism against other groups. I mean, even here we're all typing out "chink" even though we're calling it "the N word." Maybe that's because we don't hear it as often, though.

But anti-Asian sentiments are the racist sentiments that I'm most likely to hear expressed among "nice" people, educated people, liberals. It's a common practice among criminal defense attorneys to bump Asians off juries, did you know that? I've had a bleeding heart liberal lawyer tell me she thinks it's malpractice to leave a person of Asian descent on a jury. Since I've heard multiple excuses and explanations for this conventional wisdom -- everything from Asian people are too conservative to they're too mean to they're too smart to they're too illogical -- I have to dismiss them all and say it's racism and nothing but.

I have heard the terms "gook" from people who would never, ever say "fag." I don't know why that is, but I do know it's fucked up, and I also know that if Sarah Silverman's joke had depended on the use of that N word, she wouldn't have made the damn joke.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

The official American hobby is being offended. It has long since grown tiresome and now exists squarely in the land of stupid and boring.

I worked with two fab Asian women at my last company - both of whom slung around so-called racial slurs ('chink', 'gook', etc.) in referring to themselves and their culture in a humorous fashion and had the spot-on attitude that if someone is going to call you that as an intended insult, you walk the hell away and ignore them, for they are morons and not worth your time.

These are words, people: just words. The only power they have is the power we assign to them. If we know a word is intended to be cruel and hateful, our best defense - in fact, our only defense - is to laugh at it and keep on laughing. I have never, ever been friends with persons of color who made it a habit of getting offended and freaking out in the face of racial slurs. I took my lessons from them.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Would it have been ok? It would have made the same point, and it would have caused the same controversy. "Nigger" is obviously considered more offensive by more people than "chink," even though they're equivalent in terms of being racist words for specific ethnicities.

Given that Silverman is Jewish, I doubt she's any stranger to being on the receiving end of racism. Maybe she should have used "kike" so she couldn't be accused of insulting some group other than her own. I tend to think she should have saved that one for her own comedy shows rather than a mass TV audience, but I thought it was funny ... NOT because it says anything about Chinese people, but it says a lot about the human tendency to try to have things both ways. It's an offensive word, and that was her whole point ... that you can't erase the racism of the word by putting "love" in front of it.

I dunno, it just seems to me that she was saying exactly what everyone here (me included) is saying ... but like George Carlin or Lenny Bruce, she was pushing the envelope by using a harsh word to make the point.



-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Alleline ... I'm not familiar with the origin of that phrase, but Dan Rather is becoming really bizarre in his dotage, isn't he?

I do recall the flap here in DC a couple of years back when someone in city government used the word "niggardly." Now I can understand people assuming it's a slur since it has so much resemblance to a certain word beginning with N. But as it turns out, it's of European origin (Danish, IIRC, and I may not), was used correctly to mean miserly, and has no connection at all to any racial term.

But the facts don't often get in the way of a good outrage.



-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Dude. I must say that is a very persuasive argument. You laid it right out there and in doing so, left no room for debate. She is definitely hot. I forgive her.

You're also right about the joke - there isn't one without the feigned racism.

What amazed me was the panel's acceptance of it. Liberal Hollywood usually won't stand for such ethnic blasphemey. Of course, she is one of their own. Had she been a christian, legendary, hall of fame football player using racial terms in a speech talking about the Aisan gifts for building televisions out of Casio watches the outcome may have been slightly different.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

The official American hobby is being offended. It has long since grown tiresome and now exists squarely in the land of stupid and boring.

With all due respect, I don't think straight white people get to make that determination.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

There is a new magazine coming out for Jewish women called Heeb.

"We also want to be the magazine that gives big props to Monica and Chandra," Ms. Bleyer said. "Like, Jewish sluts of the world, unite!"

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Who gets to make the determination, then?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Curtis: I just meant that those of us who are rarely if ever the targets of offensive terms or jokes don't get to decide for other people that they should get over being offended, or that their taking offense is boring and silly. Perhaps if we are completely cool with words like "cunt" and "bitch" and whatnot we have a little more room for big speeches, but even so, I'm not sure sexual slurs are the same thing.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

I vehemently disagree with that, Beth. It makes life into some sort of sick comparison of who is more (help me jeebus) oppressed than thou, which only encourages the love affair with victimization. If you're an Asian male, are you oppressed enough to discuss the slurs against a crippled, Black, woman with diabetes? Or would his manhood put him instantly in the partriarchy and thus, an oppressor of women? Not to mention the animosity between Asians and Blacks in many communities. Jesus - where does it end? When do we say that we've had all we can stand of emphasizing our freaking differences and that we're all about what we have in common?

When do we get a collective sense of humor back? When do we stop looking at each other, terrified to speak because we might offend?

I say we start right now.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Life is nowhere near that black and white, Gabby. (Uh, no pun intended.) And it's easy to talk about emphasizing "what we have in common" when we are not among the many people who "have in common" a history of being on the receiving end of slurs and discrimination. In other words, if you're straight and white, it's easy to belittle what racial slurs mean. I don't think I'm qualified to decide that slurs don't matter, and I don't think you're qualified, either.

I wouldn't want a man explaining to me that the word "cunt" is perfectly okay, even if I happen to think it is.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

"So you think the joke would have been okay if she had used the N word?"

Yes, if an African-American was telling the joke, to African-American friends:

So, white guy pulls jury duty....

Silverman would similarly be OK if she'd told the joke using the k-word to a Jewish host, in front of an overwhelmingly Jewish audience.

Richard Belzer did something similar, though the insult was not all that inflammatory: (Pointing to a group of men in the audience wearing yarmulkes) "What's this, some kind of stupid hats convention in town?" (Laughter from the crowd; Belzer continues) "It's OK, Jews can make fun of Jews..." (Then, he feigns being struck by a vengeful God...)

Context is important. It's not fair, but that's the way it is.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

You know, I think what offends me most about this joke is that it isn't funny - or at least it isn't the funniest thing she could have written in the comments field. It is just kind of stupid, and unkind and uncalled for.

Which is why I suspect this was just a big publicity play - a quick way to further her career at the expense of the Chinese.

If she were really going for the 'open people's eyes' to racism angle, I don't think she would have backed off the original statement, "I hate Chinks." I think she only changed it because in her warped mind, using the word 'love' would make it more defensible during her press conferences and media coverage about it.

If she just wanted to get out of jury duty, I am sure a comment like, "I like to eat my own poop" would have done it, without offending anyone. But there is no 'spin' to that, is there?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

And it is with a great sense of irony and amunsement, Beth, that I note you do feel perfectly comfortable speaking on behalf of my experiences with slurs, insults and humiliation and, upon surveying that vast and complex landscape, have found me unfit to speak on the matter in even the most general sense.

Here's a universal truth: people are mean. It doesn't matter in what particular context you come upon this truth, what matters is that it is universal - everyone has experienced cruelty and degradation. You have choices when you encounter these things: either to fume and fuss and become offended (and, let it be said, allow the would-be insulter immediate and instant power over you) or you can smile and walk away, refusing to allow assholes to get the better of you.

When we react to assholes, we lose. End of story. When we allow small words (and all words spoken to hurt are small words) to scare us or anger us or make us cry, we lose. We lose parts of ourselves we may never get back. Oppression and hate aren't going to go away if we keep reacting to them like powerless, victimized ninnies. Reacting is giving in, acquiescing, allowing defeat.

It's the very same sort of attitude that forced that man to apologize (!) for using 'niggardly' - which has no relation at all to the word 'nigger'. It's easier to be offended than it is to go look a word up in the dictionary or, heaven forfend, stop and think before blowing one's top.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Yes!! My thread is causing a catfight! Thank you Sarah Silverman for being a racist bitch. (that's a joke)

Humor is all about making fun of someone/something. Somebody gets picked on no matter what. Cosby goes for the kids, "You might be a redneck if..." guy goes for the hick, comedians on Def Comedy Jam go for white people.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

We're going to have to agree to disagree, Gabby, because I think it's wrong for white people to assume that the type of "meanness" they might have experienced is the same as racism, whereas you apparently think that you can judge everyone else's experiences based on your own, and you can dismiss other people's feelings as stupid even if you haven't experienced what they have. But if I was mistaken and you do have a great deal of experience with being called "chink," then by all means, my apologies.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Gabbby, I think where your argument breaks down is that you are equating racism with 'being mean'. But the problem if racism doesn't go away just by ignoring it - most of the racist stuff I have heard in my life has been said in rooms that only white people are in, while they complain about [fill in race/religion here] ruining all the [fill in industry/job/school/church/neighbourhoods here].

I don't know how people should react to racists remarks made to their face, because I am White, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant, and there really are no racist jokes about my ethnicity - it is a situation I am never going to be in. But whether one chooses to turn the other cheek and ignore it when it is directed at them, or take a stand and fight it, comment by comment, it isn't the stuff that gets said to one's face that does the most damage, it is the stuff that gets said after you leave the room.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Good personal approach, Gabby (one I, myself, take), but certainly not one everyone should *have* to take.

To me, it's like being able to win in a physical fight- yeah, you should be able to, just in case, but you shouldn't *have* to be able to. The goal of civilized society should be a bit higher than that.

Right, bitch?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Kristin, Kristin, Kristin. No jokes about protestant white folks?

C'mon down here and hang with me & my friends for a weekend.

Lawd.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Puuuhhh-freakin'-leeezzze. Tell your little theory of how you can't know the pain of racism unless you've experienced it to the third grade nerd. Or the poor girl in fifth grade whose family can't afford braces. Or the short guy with a speech impediment that gets picked dead last at all the playground games. Or maybe the effeminate homosexual mechanic who can't do the kind of work he enjoys because the guys at the garage make his life unbearable. Or maybe the guy with cancer whose ffamily goes without because he has to pay ten times the insurance premium insurance everyone else does.

Pain is pain. Every single one of us knows what it's like to be left out or thought less of because of our physical appearances, our social status, our accents... the list goes on.

Besides that, if it'll make you feel better to know exactly what it feels like to be looked down upon because of your race/skin color/whatever, it's not that hard to do. Buy yourself a plane ticket to any number of Islamic nations and take a trek down the street to the market. Then, you can come back and in good faith, slap your fellow shunned American on the shoulder and say, "Yessir. I walked me a mile in your shoes and I know exactly how you feel."

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Curtis, do you know how copper wiring was invented?

Two Scotsmen, fighting over a penny.

Seriously - I would love to hear a good WASP slur. One that gets passed around as a valid excuse to hate me, or to not hire me, that isn't a joke, that people use to prove their superiority over all people of specific ethnicity, that someone would use as a way to put me in my place, or define my boundaries, or diminish me.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

It's not about racial slurs, it's about power. Sound familiar?

Well, that's my take.

I agree with Gabby for the most part. Though I think you're free to react to anything anyway you wish -- there's just no auto response to be offended.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Okay, then, here's what I'm looking for: a justification for being offended. What is the positive social and/or personal result in people being offended?

Another question: if we, as members of the Power Structure (aka, whitey, Da Man, Evil Oppressors, etc.) are unfit to say, "You know, getting offended by racial slurs made by people who are, obviously, idiots, is a waste of everyone's time" - are we then, somehow (mysteriously) perfectly fit and able to distinguish those things that are offensive to ethnic groups of which we are not part? If I'm not Chinese/Lebanese/African, do I still know how to spot a racist comment and, more to the point, do I even have the right to do so? Or must white people sit out the racial debate entirely because we are so darn lucky not to be targeted on a daily basis by ignorant swine?

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Cracker (among many others). And because you're a cracker, you probably won't understand why I'm right.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

"If she were really going for the 'open people's eyes' to racism angle, I don't think she would have backed off the original statement, "I hate Chinks." I think she only changed it because in her warped mind, using the word 'love' would make it more defensible during her press conferences and media coverage about it."

Wait... it was a joke, right? Not a straight recounting of something she actually did.

As a joke, it's a pretty standard formula: clueless person says something they know is wrong, but is so clueless they don't recognise what the wrong part of it is, so they change something else. It wasn't exactly a masterpiece of a joke, but I don't see how it says anything about anyone OTHER than clueless racists...any word at all could have been filled in there.

Try this - instead of saying she said it, she said some black woman wanted to get out of jury duty, and wrote "I hate honkies" then changed it to "I love honkies". Would you be regarding that as a racist joke against white people or black people? Pretty obviously, the joke's on the person who was getting out of jury duty - she told it about herself, not anyone else. It was Archie Bunker humor.

Here's what I get from this whole discussion: using stereotypical namecalling (the sort that puts a big neon sign over your own head that you are a bigotted twit) is wrong, wrong, wrong and racist...

...but declaring a group of people as not deserving of expressing an opinion on the matter by simple virtue of their race is NOT about racism?

My pale skin (and it's only skin - my father grew up hearing 'halfbreed' and watching one half his family disown him and his parents for it, and I'm raising mixed-race children so I hope I can be allowed to express myself here) doesn't prevent me from having a brain, nor has it prevented me from being on the receiving end of hurtful words based on assumptions about me that come from nothing more relevent than the way I look or who I am related to.

But damn, all the names in the world don't add up to ONE "you aren't alloworthy of being heard because of your race". That's just wrong, even when it's addressed to straight white people. Racism touches all of us, and if you declare an entire group as not deserving of engaging in a discussion about it, you're just moving the target, not eliminating the problem.

-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Kristin, do you understand that the joke WAS NOT ABOUT CHINESE PEOPLE. It was about the person telling the joke and was a JOKE. Not something she really did, not something anyone really SAID, just a joke that was based on the absurdity of trying to defuse a racist word by associating with love.

It's like saying "Equal rights for women? Sure, broads deserve that." Say it seriously, and you're a buffoon. Say it jokingly, and you're making social commentary. Which is what Silverman's joke was. It was a one-liner on a late-night comedy show, and said by someone whose credentials as an open-minded, free-thinking non-racist person are really not in doubt.

And Az, it sounds to me like Belzer's joke was quite a bit more inflammatory. He was making fun of Jewish customs, even though speaking as a Jewish person himself. Silverman was NOT making fun of Chinese people, she was making herself the butt of the joke.



-- Anonymous, July 27, 2001

Micheal, read the very first post in this thread, and then ask me that.

Of course I know it was a joke, but she released a publicity statement about it, got a lot of people talking about her for it, and spun it to her advantage.

I said it before, and I will say it again for your benefit - she is using the word to get herself some press, not because it was the funniest line she could think of for the joke. And it is appalling to me that people defend it - if she had told a joke where she the laugh line was "I love Niggers" would you still be defending her?

To me, part of why this is offensive is that it is somehow more acceptable to use the word Chink that it is to use the word Nigger - like one crosses a line that the other doesn't. And maybe I am just hypersensitive about this from living in Vancouver for so many years. It sucks because if she had said Nigger the network would have bleeped it out, but Chink apparently is acceptable, and that is fucked up.

It sucks that her only means of grabbing extra publicity was by saying the word Chink on national television, for the pure shock value, and therefore exposure, it got her. And that she did it twice - once on Conan OBrien's show, and then again on Bill Mahler's. It sucks because as a comic, she should be looking for the funniest, best laugh line a joke offers up, not the one that will get you booked on other talk shows for as a novelty.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I don't disagree with you about the different levels of acceptability for the word. Nor do I know what she said in the statement, although I'll look it up. I DO know that I heard the original incident, and the joke itself was (to me) funny and made a significant point. I also know that she has no known history at all of being a racist in any way, nor does she seem (based on what I know of her from things I've read and heard her say) the type to say things purely for shock value or to get attention.

I could certainly be wrong about that, but your perception of the motivation is much different than mine.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I'm not sure if this is the statement you mean, but she said: "The intent of the joke was to illuminate racism, not support it. Mr. Aoki has associated my name with racism in countless publications this week, which, as a member of the Jewish community, makes me concerned that we're losing control of the media." (http://www.sarahsilverman.de/html/Sarah- news.htm

Do you see? She's making a joke about the stereotype that Jews control the media. (And a good response, not taking the criticism seriously because it's so misplaced.)

What made me wonder if you understood it was just a joke was your saying: If she were really going for the 'open people's eyes' to racism angle, I don't think she would have backed off the original statement, "I hate Chinks." I think she only changed it because in her warped mind, using the word 'love' would make it more defensible during her press conferences and media coverage about it.

It sounded like you thought this was something she had actually said seriously. You then added: If she just wanted to get out of jury duty, I am sure a comment like, "I like to eat my own poop" would have done it, without offending anyone. But there is no 'spin' to that, is there?

More to the point, there's no JOKE there ... no way to make a point about certain racist absurdities in a humorous way. So I wondered if you realized she wasn't telling a serious story about trying to get our of jury duty. My apologies if I misunderstood.



-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Lynda: I did not say that white people don't get to engage in the debate or have an opinion. I said that we don't get to decide for non-white people that their offense is "silly," because we aren't in a position to make that determination.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I'd like to interject, if only because I have been called a Chink to my face, behind my back (but within earshot) and in other various forms - enough so that when I happened upon this topic, I was quite pissed.

If you have create your jokes by using racial epithets, in my opinion, your creativity is worth shit. My mother recently had jury duty. She didn't want to serve it for a plethora of reasons. But she didn't have to stoop to writing, "I love/hate (insert racial epithet here)" on her form to get her exempted.

If you think words can't hurt, you're wrong. They do hurt. When you're told from a young age that you're "a fucking chink who swam over on a boat," you better believe words hurt. They shouldn't, but they do. Next time someone you care for tells you "I hate you," tell me that doesn't hurt. They're just words, right?

And if you don't have the balls to take responsibility for your words, good or bad, then don't say them.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

OK, with Claire's response, I give up. Some people just aren't going to be able to see past the word to understand the point, which was (one more time) that the word IS offensive, and that saying "I love (whichever word)" doesn't make it any less racist. There were some people who never got Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor too.

But I think it's really sad and ironic to see people attacking a person who AGREES with them, and obviously totally missing the point. Anybody who thinks Silverman's joke was about jury duty is doing just that.



-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Micheal, if you can't make your point to me without repeatedly insisting that I don't know it was supposed to be a joke, not a true story, despite my insistence to the contrary, then I don't think you have much of a point. Sorry.

I still think this was a really cheap publicity stunt, and it is made even more hurtful by her pseudo 'racism' platform about it. And i think she specifically chose this ethnic group because there is a much more casual acceptance of racism against Asian Americans than, say - African Americans.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

"I said that we don't get to decide for non-white people that their offense is "silly," because we aren't in a position to make that determination."

She didn't say that I(and that's not how you responded). She said the hobby of being offended has grown tiresome and is stupid and boring.

Sounds like an opinion, to me, and I can't think what a person's race should have to do with whether or not they're entitled to express one. You response was: "With all due respect, I don't think straight white people get to make that determination."

What determination? What her own opinion is about about regarding what she sees as a glut of offense taking? Who else should determine what her opinion is, other than her? And it's because she's 'straight and white' that she doesn't get to? That's about race (and sex, but we seem to be ruling that out if it just means being a woman because...uh.. oh, because then Gabby would have an 'in' to the oppressed club).

If whats-her-name could have made a joke that made the point without using a racial slur as people are saying, then I'm calling you on this one, and saying that you could have found a way to make your point without picking a racial target and trying to slam her with it. Maybe you don't feel equipped to make that sort of determination, which is a perfectly valid outlook and it allows you to choose how to behave - but what makes you or anyone capable of deciding for someone else what they are capable of understanding or deciding, based on their race? How is that different than your illustration of keeping Asian people of juries because they're too whatever?

Pretty ironic, when the point earlier on was taking issue with how some racial biases are ok and others aren't.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Lynda, I'm sorry if I was unclear in my original post to Gabby. Perhaps I misunderstood her, but I didn't take her post the way you are taking it; I thought she was telling people how to feel. And I don't think people who haven't had the same experiences get to tell other people how to feel.

I'm sorry if I didn't make it clear before that that was my point, but since I've said three times now that that WAS my point, I'm not going to keep arguing with you about what I meant or didn't mean.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

By the way, I was talking to Jeremy about this joke last night, and we both realized we'd heard it before. We couldn't remember where -- I think it was on a sitcom, maybe? We don't have cable so it would have been regular broadcast TV. Only when we heard it, the punch line was "I love the black people!" No racial slurs used at all. I can't remember if it was funny or not, because a lot would depend on delivery. I can imagine Jerry Seinfeld making it work.

So I stand by what I said before, which is that the joke itself is not racist, but she went for the racist laugh, the shock at the word "chink." I think she has every right in the world to do that, but people also have the right to be offended by it, and I have the right to think less of her and the Conan O'Brien show.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

In my experience, unless someone has the power to enforce what it is they are telling you to do, they're just expressing an opinion. Then it's your choice decide whether that opinion and the person stating it merits your acting differently as a result.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Then I apologize and promise never, ever to express MY goddamn opinion again in a way that might offend you or Gabby. Jesus Christ.

(Just amused that, as usual, the folks jumping up and down and screaming about not being allowed to express their opinions -- even though that's exactly what they're doing, over and over, in many words -- seem to be the ones who blow a gasket when someone wants to express a different one.)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

bwah!

In other words if someone is offended by something you say and you weren't deliberately intending to offend, it's reasonable to decide whether or not their offense is really valid instead of going solely by whether or not they find offense?

Point made. (I was not offended - I was illustrating the problem)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

If you can show me where people were failing to understand Silverman's point, rather than objecting to the way she chose to make it, then you can claim victory, do a little dance, and gloat all the way home. If you can also show me where I said that you and Gabby weren't entitled to be offended (or any other emotion you care to engage in), then I'll join you in your victory dance.

But back to Gabby's original statement, my point (which I made badly, I know) is that whether or not the white people are bored is about the least relevant issue I can think of in the grand scheme of race relations.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

ok, last try and with this I'm done.

When GABBY says something on the matter, she's speaking for GABBY. She is not speaking about what 'white people' think, she's speaking about what GABBY thinks. To suggest that ANYONE is speaking as a representative of their RACE rather than as themselves, as individuals, is a form of racism - it's based on the assumption that race automatically puts you in a category where you all think alike. Obviously, a bunch of us white folk are managing to disagree and come at this from a variety of viewpoints, so how in hell is she saying anything at all about what 'white people' think? Is it at ALL possible that this might be getting skewered through a biased filter you've got going?

I'm done now (and for the record, THIS is me 'blowing a gasket'. Don't tell me how I feel, at least not in the middle of rant about how wrong it is to do that, 'k?)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

The fact is that like it or not, and individual anecdotes notwithstanding, White people in America live in a very different world than most nonwhite people. That's why in poll after poll after poll Whites are much more likely to say that racism is not a problem than nonwhites.

That's why someone like Gabby can say that this issue is unimportant while someone like Claire can say it is.

The fact is when someone who is really affected by racism says something is racist it should be taken seriously, even if the White folks can't see it. Unfortunately the reaction of many White folks is to simply give a "let them eat cake" response, which is what we're seeing here.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Okay, that was really weird.

Whatever.

I'm totally serious though: I would really love folks to take a crack at the questions I asked above. Can white people spot what is racist, if they are not the race being insulted/mocked/slurred? Do they even have a right to do this? If so, and the person of color in question doesn't agree - who's right?

(For the record, I don't know how to respond to anyone who thought I was mandating what people were allowed to feel, for god's sake - because a) like I could do that and b) like I would want to. I find the 'American hobby of being offended' to be boring and silly (and we all know that a hobby is not a person, yeah?) and, more to the point, totally unproductive and even destructive and absolutely, unquestionably antihumanist.)

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

I did not say - and I challenge you to find it if you think I did - that racism is unimportant. It is, however, being rendered unimportant by the continual rush to be offended currently practiced by a far too large segment of senselessly guilt ridden Americans. I think that this sort of behavior trivializes the very serious and demandingly complex issue of race in this country.

It's easier to get offended than it is to actually do anything else. It's convenient, it's cheap.

And, David, could you please explain what you mean by "someone like Gabby"? Please understand that I'm not angry, just fascinated that we still feel comfortable in certain uses of language with regard to each other (as white people) that we would never, ever use with people of color.

I have no idea about anyone's racial background here (save for those who have self-identified) - I'm dealing with each post based solely on its content and position. I also don't believe that anyone's race has jack to do with their ability to debate or the validity and quality of their statements.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

This is kind of a tangent, but I was dealing with this issue recently. You see, I sometimes give poetry readings, and one of my poems is sort of a poem/play called "Stories Told By Clever Men." It would be cool to get my friends up to the stage to read it with me-- breaks up the monotony of one person reading poetry.

Anyway. One of the characters of the play is Moses, who is written like, basically, Samuel L. Jackson. And I do have him use the word "nigger" in the play, in the same way that, say, Jackson's character in Pulp Fiction uses it-- humorously and to establish his character.

However. I won't perform this poem/play with that word in it, because it makes me uncomfortable. Although it is in keeping with the character, I wouldn't want to say that word aloud, or even worse, ask some of my friends to do it. The weird thing is that if I had a black friend, who could "legitimately" use the word, it might be okay.

Artistic double standard, or legitimate example of the difference between a white person and black person using the derogatory term? You be the judge.

It makes me think of Pulp Fiction again-- when Jackson's character uses the word, it's okay. But then Tarantino's character uses it, and it just seems vile, even though Jackson's character doesn't seem to mind, and Tarantino's character's wife is black.

If you can extract a point to this whole post, more power to you.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Okay, I'm lost: you wrote a play using the word 'nigger', but you wouldn't allow it to actually spoken in a performance? Then, it must be asked, did you include the word in your play at all?

And I must take to task this repeated insistence that certain language is only acceptable when used by non-whites - stuff and nonsense. Language has everything to do with intent and meaning - and the meaning of the word 'nigger' doesn't transubstantiate on the tongues of white and black people.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

Can white people spot what is racist, if they are not the race being insulted/mocked/slurred? (also throw in Gabby's mention of intent and meaning, because that was going to be part of my point.)

No, not everyone can identify what is prejudicial to one group of people, especially if you occupy the priviledged group. Or, to place it in the context of this discussion: it's damn hard for a white person in the United States to recognize systematic rascism, especially if it doesn't come with a white sheet and burning crosses.

If the system benefits you, it's going to be damn hard to see racism. (As for myself, despite whatever hardships I may or may not have had, I know that the system benefits me.)

White people don't see it. They see some of the big stuff (lynchings, segregation, burning crosses, up-front discrimination), and if their attention is drawn to it, they may start to recognize the more subtle stuff.

Language is especially hard to see. The impulse is to say "they're words. they don't matter." Words are small, you know. They're easy for a lot of us to dismiss.

But words are important. Negative and positive ones. They have meaning, and they have messages. And the slurs and the epithets are particularly loaded. Which is why only the most brialliant of comics can use them to thwart their usual effect. It's a hard choice to pull off.

Just because you don't have the intent (or aren't aware of it or aware of the benefits to you) doesn't mean the meaning isn't there.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

mo pie: As my high school drama teacher put it, it is only okay to make fun of a group of people if YOU are part of that group of people. Her example of this was that she had a horrible (to her) middle name, and another kid in the class had a first name that is regarded as a general insult (which I won't say because if you ever run into this guy in person you'll know him). Only they can make fun of bad names, she said.

-- Anonymous, July 28, 2001

and for the record, THIS is me 'blowing a gasket'. Don't tell me how I feel, at least not in the middle of rant about how wrong it is to do that, 'k?

For God's sake, Lynda, I didn't tell you HOW to feel; I commented on your behavior, which looked very much like someone blowing a gasket. "Blowing a gasket" isn't a feeling; it's an action, one which it appeared to me I was observing. And am still observing when I reread your initial posts.

And I did not -- DID NOT -- say that Gabby was speaking for or attempting to speak for all white people. Did you read this thread or are you just making shit up because you're pissed? No, never mind, don't answer that. This is an idiotic tangent, because you are arguing me about things that I did not say, and that's what you've been doing since your very first post. I'm at a loss as to how I'm supposed to respond to that.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

I'll tell you how to respond! Fill up a kiddie pool of le melted chocolat, throw on a string bikini and do yourself a little puddin' wrestlin'. Isn't that funny how when you group of gals go at it, or any group of gals for that matter, guys get all excited. The mere thought of female combat is enough to give me butterflies.

(see - this is me being the peacekeeper. If we were all on a sitcom, this would be the point where everyone directs their anger at the sexually perverted male co-worker and yells in unison, "Shut up rudeboy!" I will be your John Larroquette the Night Court years anytime. Or, if you'd rather, we could all be on a survivor type reality show. I wouldn't mind spearing fish and walking around naked on the beach to take the brunt of scorn.)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Rudeboy's peacemaking post notwithstanding, I would like to say that somewhere along the line this thread degenerated into the single worst discussion I have ever seen on this board. Nobody is listening to anybody else, as evidenced by the fact that so many posts consist of someone denying they said (or meant) what they were accused of saying (or meaning). Since Gabby responded in such a way to me, I'll cop to the same offense myself.

I would like to point out a couple of things about what has NOT happened in this discussion:

1. Nobody has talked about censorship. Not one person has said that Silverman should have been arrested. No one has said that the Conan O'Brien show should be pulled off the air or have to pay a fine or even that they should have bleeped the word. Maybe some people here think those things, but no one has suggested it. We are all, as far as I can tell, starting with a presumption of free speech, which is why it's so amazing to me that this discussion has been as bad as it has.



2. No one has even called Silverman a racist. She may be, she may not be, but no one here has said that using the word "chink" in the context of a joke that was not about Chinese people makes her a racist. The worst that has been said is that she was an idiot for not expecting people to take offense, or that she was deliberately using the word to play to racism in her audience, to get the racist laugh.

What this all comes down to, then, is arguing over whether people are right to be offended, or maybe over whether Silverman is a nice person. That's it. That's what we have left here.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

People can disagree - strongly - about appropriate responses to a problem without any of them necessarily lacking understanding of what the problem is - and likely, each side is missing an appreciation of aspects of the problem they'll only come to understand if they listen to each other instead of being dismissive.

There's a lot of condescension and assumption going on here on this issue that is reflective of what's happening in the country, and until we get past the idea that disagreement is the equivalent of ignorance or 'offense', we're going to stretch out the time it takes to find a solution. Calling someone ignorant by virtue of their race (even if there are shades of truth to it) or 'offended' when they voice disagreement (even if there are shades of truth to it) are conversation stoppers.

That said, at the point where it was obvious to me that we weren't understanding each other and getting bothered by what was being said, I should have shut up. I didn't, and that makes me a jerk, if nothing else. My apologies for that.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Lynda, you are once again misstating what I said, and I am not going to talk to you about this anymore on this board. You are obviously having some kind of problem with me that has nothing to do with this, and I'm going to ask you to take it to e-mail.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

I don't understand how any sort of progress against racism can possibly be expected so long as color lines are repeatedly drawn and approved because this time, it's done under the auspices of multiculturalism or racial sensitivity. Why is it acceptable to exclude white people from a national conversation on race because they're white and, somehow yet to be sufficiently explained beyond theoretical posturing, are thus unable to see racism in action? I mean, how do you know? How is this the least bit provable? "White people don't get it" is meaningless in the extreme.

And isn't it still plantation owner/colonialist mentality when we've got liberal whites standing up arguing that only people of color have authentic voices on the issue of race? It's still massa' giving the darkies permission to have an opinion! It's condescension dressed up in Birkenstocks and Che Guevera t-shirts.

The conversation on race has got to start on a level playing field, with no special exemptions for anyone - no one is more a victim, or more oppressed, than anyone else. No one's voice is inherently more authentic or valid than anyone else's. I doubt that such a thing is even possible because, again, being offended has become the national hobby - it's easy! It's good press. It allows you to look really concerned and important without having to actually do anything to change the problem.

By god, we need more jokes with racial slurs, not less. Let the country whip itself into a frenzy of hysteria and mass stupidity - wear itself out. Maybe then we can get to work on the issue of race in a serious and respectful manner.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

I don't think white people should be "excluded" from a conversation about racism and its effects. But while it may be prejudicial, I don't think the statement "White people don't *get* it." is at all meaningless.

I think there's an enormous and widespread lack of experience and understanding of the forms and effects of racism on the part of white people. This doesn't mean they should be excluded- it just means that I expect them to either a) acknowledge up front that they lack this experience and perspective and particpate accordingly; b) sit back and listen for a while; or c) doing a hell of a lot of homework before jumping in.

Put another (but maybe not helpful) way: It's like a first year law student trying to edge into a legal conversation between experienced litigators- yes, she may have something novel and interesting and valuable to offer, but they're the ones who've been doing this for years, and odds are they've got a better understanding than her. And *that* fact should be obvious to her and guide her efforts to participate in the conversation.*

So forgive me if I roll my eyes and ignore you when your first efforts in participating in a racial dialogue are "Well, why can't white people use the word "nigger"? You all do."

*note that in both situations, the deficiency is a lack of relevant experience, not anything that the person has done.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

The conversation on race has got to start on a level playing field, with no special exemptions for anyone - no one is more a victim, or more oppressed, than anyone else.

So you're saying we should start with a fairy tale? What good does that do? Because that isn't a factual statement, it's a lie, and I don't see what good it does to start from a lie.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

You know, it strikes me that a bunch of white people sitting around discussing racism is about is a lot like a bunch of men sitting around debating whether or not childbirth is or isn't painful.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Not so.

In one case, there is no possibility of being able to share the actual experience.

In the other, it's unlikely, but far from impossible.

(which applies to which is an excercise left to the reader)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

A differing perspective doesn't have to be correct, but the view from the other side seems equally relevant. (especially when they're involved in the problem)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

But there has to be some agreement on the basic underlying facts of the situation, Cory. And frankly, my experience with white people in these conversations is gross lack of understanding of these facts. When others (usually non-white people) try and correct those misperceptions, it often results in an offended white person pulling back from the conversation because they're feeling personally attacked, or them going on the offensive and claiming to be as well informed as anyone about this issue.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Actually men could at least share the pregnancy experience. It would be the same way women get ectopic pregnancies (outside the uterus). I'm not sure how many failed pregnancies it would take to bring one to term, because, it might (or might not) be necessary to experiment with supplemental hormones, and as the placenta would attach (or implant into an area) where it is not designed to grow, it also becomes dangerous to the carrier. And then he would have to have a C- section in the end. (where's Jen Wade to correct me or something?)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Are we saying that victims of racism share a different kind of pain than any other group or person that has suffered from having their right to be thought of as 'equal' ignored?

Or, perhaps we are saying that the receiving end of racism produces a type of distress that only those in certain parts of the world oppressed by a caucasion dominated society can understand?

If the basis for one side of the argument answers yes to either of these questions, I'm left wondering exactly why we have a civil rights movement in this country. Really, where'd it come from? From the county level all the way up to the Hill, white people certainly make up the vast majority of the US legislature. If at least some white people weren't able to understand racism from the victim's point of view, I suspect Jim Crow Law would've been a standard and not a relic. I may never fully understand the agony of rape. I may never sit in a wheelchair at the bottom of a flight of library stairs. I may never suffer looks from gawking little kids while walking through a buffet line, only to have some mother whisper, loud enough for me to hear, "It's not polite to stare at fat people." I may never be mercilessly ridiculed from grade school through retirement because I was born with terrible acne. I may never be denied rollercoaster access because I am not "at least this tall". And, I may never be judged unwise by the color of my skin. But, group any of the people that face such conditions on a daily basis into a room and *I'm positive, upon conversing, they will find themselves standing on common ground. (that's um, literally and figuratively.) * Assuming you leave white bleeding heart liberals out of the room. Let them in and everything goes to hell. (that was a joke. don't hurt me.)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

As to your first question, yes, I'd venture to say that for most, it is "different" in nature and scope. The pain caused by Harvard's failure to see me as an equal to those admitted doesn't quite compare to that of someone who has had to live with his skin as a primary indentifier all his life.

As to the second, the "caucasian" modifier only belongs when talking about some societies in the world, the American one among them.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Gabby,

I think the real national hobby is being an apologist for racism, and you've proven exacty which side you are on.

The fact that a Chinese American was offended by the joke and you dismiss it as being merely a "hobby" that you're "bored" of shows us all exactly what kind of person you are.

The fact is you don't want to fight racism, you want to cover it up and not be bothered by those who are still oppressed in a thousand different ways struggling against that.

So fuck right off, and when you're done, fuck right off again. And take your cult of white victimhood bullshit (oh, I'm so oppressed as a Whit person expected to listen to nonwhite people about how racism affects them) with you.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Well, I *had* been inclined to disagree with Beth's dubbing this the Worst. Thread. Ever. . . .

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Whoooweee... The way we're all getting worked up you'd think we were talking about Calvinism vs. Arminianism. I vote for the next JornalCon to be held in a hostile Arab nation. Would it make any difference to anyone if I said that I, a definitely white boy, was raised in Iran and lived in a cardboard box just outside the Mashhad city gates preaching the evangelical Word of God to any who would listen? Could I claim a little knowledge about facing racism? Well, I wasn't, but I could have. Point is, nobody knows exactly what kind of adversity any other person has faced in life, much less how they feel and what they may have learned through their experiences.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

But Beth - we're seeing the very beginnings of the opposite of what I've suggested going on right here in this thread: when people come in and start claiming levels of oppression, the noise level becomes unbearable. I've been in rooms with people of many races, all trying to claim a more victimized status than another, there was screaming, there were blows exchanged for god's sake (blacks screaming at asians, arabs yelling at jews) - it's insane. No one listens because the rush to capture the flag of Ultimate Victimhood is in full swing.

I cannot sit here and begin to consider that that is the preferred approach. I'd give up. I'd go live in a cave. I've got to believe that people are inherently better than the sick narcissism I've seen displayed.

How can you begin to have a serious conversation about racism when group X refuses to acknowledge that group Y has had an equally terrible experience with racism? Do you even dare call it a conversation when you exclude Groups B, F and Z because they are considered oppressors? I don't believe it's possible. I've never seen it happen in all the 'dialogues' I've attended. It may not be factual, and dear heaven above, it may even be a lie (though certainly better than liberal guilt and condescension, of this I'm certain) but starting with the assumption of a level playing field in terms of experience is the only sane place to start if, indeed, the goal of the participants are the same: the eradication of racism.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Gabby, I have to confess that I cannot fathom where you get the idea that all groups have equal experience with oppression or as oppressors. This is like we are conversing in different languages, or like you are bringing the subject of angels and demons into a discussion about physics. I absolutely have no idea what you're talking about.

A question, which may help to understand what you're saying: are you actually denying history as it is taught, i.e., you don't believe that group x and y actually were/are oppressed, that that's just a revisionist lie (did the Holocaust not happen? was slavery a good and happy thing, or somehow equivalent to indentured servitude?), or are you talking about deliberately adopting a false premise in order to facilitate discussion? I'd really appreciate the clarification.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

I swear to god, this pettiness is starting to irk me. Any white person that thinks that they cannot play an important role in any conversation dealing with the equalization of the human race because they do not feel that they have been suffieciently suppressed, oppressed, depressed, transgressed, thought of as less, cross gender dressed (sorry - the poet in me) -- let me help you buy a plane ticket to anywhere white people, specifically white American poeple, are either tortured, eaten or vehemently despised.

Why can't I encompass and understand what it's like to face racism? Am I that stupefyingly unenlightened? Because I haven't been a direct recipient of it? I just don't get that position. Maybe I'll never empathize (without going somewhere my race is looked down upon) but I can always sympathize. If that's not good enough, then, well, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Maybe that's all we're talking about here. The difference between sympathy and empathy. I will absolutely stipulate that I will never know what it would be like to grow up as a black man. Will you in turn recognize my ability to show compassion to someone who did?

If we went in as a bunch of empathizers and sympathizers, understanding that the two are different but working towards a common goal, just think of how easy the problem would be to solve. It'd be like Oprah for the masses.

(am I the only one looking for common ground here? Don't they teach lawyers and other college educated folk about the art of skillful negotiation and such? Debate is one thing, but sheesh.)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Will you in turn recognize my ability to show compassion to someone who did?

That came out more ambiguous than intended -- but you know what I meant!

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

But Rudeboy, you're the only one who's talking about that subissue now, and you keep expanding and expanding on the point, and reacting to things that nobody here ever said.

Since I got an e-mail asking me why I was baiting Gabby with my last question, I wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to bait her, no matter how it looked; I am honestly confused and curious.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Good god, no. Do I believe that history is inaccurately taught? You betcha - I'm in the middle of reading _Lies My Teacher Taught Me_ (which I think David recommended somewhere).

Here's my stance - which I thought was pretty clear, but maybe not: when I have been in discussions involving racism in which the participants were people of color, I watched as the individual groups got into screaming fits over whether or not jews were as persecuted as blacks - these were jewish and black people screaming at each other - or latinos as much as arabs. There was no actual discussion, because each group was - make no mistake - hell bent on being recognized as the most oppressed, the most victimized - each group demanded to be recognized as having the most valid and true point of view regarding racism.

That, right there ladies and germs, is racism in action. The white man's gift to the people of color.

What I'm saying is that until we get people in a room who are willing to come in WITHOUT claiming the More Oppressed Than Thou mantle, we're not going to get anywhere. Until we accept that this is a group conversation, for everyone - whitey included - then we're not going to get anywhere.

I don't have the least bit of interest - and I don't think our country should have either - on which group was oppressed more or longer than another. The point is that it's morally wrong, it's dehumanizing and we need to knock it the fuck off.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Okay. I am still 100 percent confused on the question I set out: are you saying that no one IS more oppressed than anyone else, or that we should PRETEND that everyone is equally oppressed? Please, I am really and truly confused. And I apologize if I'm being dense.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

But Rudeboy, you're the only one who's talking about that subissue now, and you keep expanding and expanding on the point, and reacting to things that nobody here ever said.

From the looks of things nobody's got any idea what anyone is talking about. The only thing I see now is "You said..", "Oh no I did not, but you sure did say.."

We aren't talking about the inability of white people to engage in forming a solution for the problem of racism? Cuz that's exactly what it sounds like some people are saying. Then again, I don't think that you believe Gabby or Lynda are racists just as they don't believe that you would rather sit back and let race issues be solved only by those affected most negatively by them because you don't have your own racially expressed experience to draw from.

If that's not the issue then I'm either lousy at comprhension or I've missed a post somewhere. If it's not too much trouble maybe someone in the heat of the battle could objectively list the issues we're discussing. Cuz, like GI Joe used to tell me every afternoon over a bowl of Fruit Loops, knowing is half the battle.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Never the mind. That last post of yours on top of mine spells out the issue you're talking about rather clearly. Hooray! Now everybody knows.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

And to answer your your post, I'll draw on advice that my relationship therapists (and most others as well) suggests:

If you have two parties, one having been unjustly wronged by the other, but both are willing to continue on in a relationship then it is incumbent on the offending party to make ammends first and foremost but it is just as imperative that the offended party, having received the ammends, be willing to forgive and forget.

I ended up getting divorced anyway - so take it for what it's worth.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

You know, there are a few people in this discussion who probably could benefit by reading this.

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

Didn't we already have this argument just before you went through the de-tox program?

(That was my favorite. I'm saving it.)

-- Anonymous, July 29, 2001

I think the point of the thread is to confuse Beth. I'm just now catching on.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Late to the party, but it's nice to see a bunch of honkies giving thought to the racism issue. (Yeah, okay, bad joke.)

For what it's worth, I don't think Beth and others are stating that whites shouldn't take part in the race discussion at all. By all means, think about it! Discuss it! Converse with actual, real live minorities as openly and honestly as they will let you. (Sometimes we're just sick of talking about it.) And then do what you can or are inclined to do to stamp out the problem. But I'd prefer it if someone who is not likely to be the victim of racism in their own country refrains from defining the validity of my feelings of offense.

Back to the issue at hand, I've seen Sarah Silverman do stand-up many times and appreciate her as a comedian. And I wouldn't call her a racist in the broad understanding of that word in America even though we're all racists, really. If you deny it, you're either lying or exceptionally open-minded and deserve some sort of award. See, my issue is with the censors and the fact that it's considered to be an acceptable word for broadcast. As Beth pointed out way towards the top of this page, racism towards Asians is somehow more acceptable among Americans. And just because you don't don a white hood on the weekends and get involved in lynchings does not mean you are not capable of racist thoughts/actions. The reason it's offensive to me is that it's not offensive to (the general) you. That's disturbing, disheartening and scary.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

I'm saying that, in order to have a constructive, productive and respectful conversation about racism, whether or not group X has been more oppressed than group Y must be left out of the conversation entirely. To bring it in results in precisely the kind of fisticuffs and screaming matches I've twice mentioned. I think that the victimization attitude is exactly what racism wants - keep the people of color distracted by yelling at each other and fighting over scraps so that they're too busy to notice that the problem of racism isn't getting solved.

And here's where I get pissy with too prominent white liberal PC, language police nonsense which puts the emphasis on getting offended over words - don't say X, it will offend group Y! I think that it's just as racist and condescending an attitude as the use of word X deliberately to offend group Y. Hence my contention that being offended is an American hobby and is boring and silly - because it concentrates on distracting us from the real and serious issues of racism.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

I guess Cory's right, because I am still confused. I'd ask the question in multiple choice form, but I think I'm giving up. I suppose what you're saying is that it doesn't *matter* who has suffered more, but all I can get from that is that you don't think it matters that anyone has suffered and that anyone else has been the cause of that suffering, and all I can get from that is that racism doesn't matter. I can't follow your logic, you won't answer my extremely simple question, and I can't go along with the idea that the best thing for fighting racism in this country is pretending it doesn't exist. Since you won't actually tell me whether or not that's your suggestion (and I am still honestly, completely mystified), I give up.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

No, wait, one more try. What, Gabby, in your estimation, are "the real and serious issues of racism"? Maybe clarifying that will help me understand.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

If I understand gabby's point from her last two posts correctly, she is making the following argument:

(Major Premise) A meaningful discussion about racism cannot be held without equal participation by all interest groups.

(Minor Premise) Heated discussions about which interest group has suffered the most oppression prevent equal participation.

(Conclusion) Heated discussions about which interest group has suffered the most prevent a meaningful discussion about racism.

The syllogism is not logically flawed, and I can see the merit to it.

I think gabby also makes the point that heated discussions about who has been most oppressed play into the hands of racists, because it distracts the oppressed from fighting oppression and instead sets them to fighting each other. This is a variation on the classic Marxist interpretation of the use of racism for the capitalist establishment: Teach the poor white folks to hate the black folks, so that they will not take out their feelings of disfranchisement on the rich white folks. If the poor folks could achieve class consciousness, they would overthrow the rich. I think gabby is saying that if feuding minority groups would turn away from their inter-group squabbles about who has suffered most and form a coalition, they would be better able to change society.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Okay, I can understand that. I am still one hundred percent mystified about what that has to do with the discussion here, but I'm starting to suspect that I'm stupid.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Yes. Exactly. Bingo. Nail on the head.

Thank you jeebus - because I was totally out of ways to say what I was saying.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

First of all, as Claire said, "it's just words and you're all being too sensitive" is a cop-out.

Words are tools of communication. One of the things they can communicate is emotion. Among the emotions that can be communicated are hatred and prejudice. The people who read or hear your words cannot read your mind, so if you use words that commonly connote hatred and prejudice, and some people mistake you for a hateful and prejudiced person ... sorry, my heart does not bleed for you.

Second, a story which may be relevant:

Years back, the Boston Herald ran a news story in which they referred to some person (I think it was the brother of a murder victim) as "mute". It so happens that the majority of deaf people hate being called "mute" or "deaf-mute", and so the Herald got a flood of outraged letters from deaf students.

In response, the Herald ran an editorial, defending its usage: according to the dictionary, "mute" meant "incapable of speech", and since the person being referred to couldn't talk (fine, he could communicate perfectly well through sign language, but that wasn't speech), the term "mute" was perfectly accurate and not intended to offend.

Your humble servant wrote a letter to the Herald, pointing out that if deaf people don't like being called "mute", then they shouldn't be called "mute", period, end of discussion. Yes, it may be technically accurate -- but it would be just as technically accurate to call Catholics "Papists" and Asians "slant-eyed", and the Herald's editors have more sense than to permit that.

They ran the letter, so at least I made that much of an impression on the editors.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Gabby, could you please answer my question about what you feel are "the real and serious issues of racism"? You don't get to claim victory when I've asked you two very simple questions that you could have answered but did not.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

I'm pretty much finished here. I'm not claiming victory, either, dear heart, because it was never about me, or winning. Merely relief that someone managed to explicate what I was saying for you, when I obviously could not. We are, I believe, coming at this from two wholly separate belief systems - belief systems which may well be incompatible, and which decidedly have different vocabularies. As such, stick a fork in me.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

If you feel comfortable leaving me with the impression that you basically think the continued affects of racism are all imaginary, then that's cool with me. But full disclosure: that is the impression I'm taking away from this.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

I didn't come away with that at all. I came away thinking that Gabby believes there are real problems stemming from racism in America. I also came away thinking that Gabby does not believe the way to solve the problems is by having a contest to see who can be the squeakiest wheel.

On the other hand, I am confused about yuour position in practical terms. No one here denies that racial prejudice exists. The mere suggestion that there needs to be a meeting of the minds on these issues implies that no one here thinks that race issues will disappear by themselves. If you were to chair such a meeting to what you believe would be a successful end, what exactly would the ground rules for the participants be?

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

i don't see how beth's posts are saying that there is a hierarchy of oppression. it sounds to me like she's saying there are different experiences (not merely more or less suffering), and someone who hasn't experienced a particular thing is not entitled to be an authority on it.

and more generally, I'm reading some complaints about how complicated it all is if you have to watch what you say. And about the difficulties you get into if you have to choose your words. and how all these complaints over words are confusing because who g ets to decide what is offensive, and if we listen to *everyone's* complaints you can't say anything..

and that complaint is rather tiresome. because people always have to choose their words. and in any institution or system (from an office to a city to a newspaper to a tv show), what words you choose help to ally and associate you with different groups. if you don't ever think about what you say, you are enjoying the privileges of the alliance with or membership in the dominant groups. it's not bad to have privileges, but i don't have much sympathy for complaints about losing some of them, about having to be more aware. (we haven't been talking about any systematic suppression of words here, via laws or whatnot). having to think about what you say is just what you do, if you recognize that you live in a world with other people.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

You guys are all in trouble when the christian right rules things again. There'll be no more feces laden crucifixes to look at and no more virgin Mary's floating in urine.

I can choose to watch what I say or I can choose not to. I don't agree with the premise that it is just something we have to do.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

you're right, rudy. I was actually going to add on that you have to take responsibility for the consequences of what you say.and different people DO ABSOLUTELY face different consequences in different situations. so you can choose to say whatever, but you shouldn't be suprised if you get shit for it. and it would be pretty silly to complain about getting shit from people for what you say.. aren't they as entitled to say what they want as you are to say what you want?

and herein lies a pretty important point. apparently people don't like hearing certain things. some folks don't like it when someone else says "what you say is hurtful." but if they are defending the right to say what you want, why do they feel so aggrieved whan their words inspire someone else to have their say? if everyone gives no quarter in the "say anything at all -forever" game, it's pretty much the end of dialogue, actually. let alone civility. (rudy i like they way you liven up these boards, but it's especially good because the boards are overall fairly civil, as instilled and enforced by beth. it is not a free-for-all here, and that's not a bad thing).

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

(damn i wish there was an edit function) once again, this discussion wasn't about mandating choices, about fining/ banning/censoring/arresting. so nobody is preventing you from choosing. but people are airing their dislike of certain sentiments and expressions. as is their right.

you can choose to watch your words in various ways, for various reasons. but to to ignore the different repercussions of your words in different situations is to live in a world of fantasy or a world of privilege, or to be the very rare person who has nothing to lose. I don't think any of those worlds are that desirable, and I don't wish that more folks would live in them.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Wow... I go away for the weekend and come back to find the site taken over by the pretentiousness of small minded "liberals" who can say, with a straight face, that traveling to any islamic country would be an adequate lesson for a racial/economic majority member to truly learn what racism means, or that thousands of generations of oppression should be "gotten over", or that jokes evoking racist slurs like "nigger" or "kike" or "chink" can be funny given "the right context"...

What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you actually live in the same world I do? Be wary of being so damn comfortable with your beliefs... you will never, never, ever know what is like to be subjected to pure racism; an underlying threat of prejudice that doesn't rear its ugly head in a white sheet at a klan rally, but in a sideways glance on the street, the denied opportunity of employment and the "wonder why" that follows, or the surprised look of a white women when she turns and sees, my lord, not only a man walking behind her, but a -black- man at that!

Now some of you will say," now that's paranoia,not racism." Nope. There is a clear and visible difference... a real, tangible awkwardness... sometime an over willingness to compensate. But let me be clear: that is still an undesired effect of racism... a recognition that I am different, and that you have some ability (power) to either modify, or correct that in some way.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

On the other hand, I am confused about yuour position in practical terms. No one here denies that racial prejudice exists. The mere suggestion that there needs to be a meeting of the minds on these issues implies that no one here thinks that race issues will disappear by themselves. If you were to chair such a meeting to what you believe would be a successful end, what exactly would the ground rules for the participants be?

First of all, I've never had the experiences that Gabby has. I'm not denying that those things happen, but I've never seen the oneupmanship she's describing. Not ever. So I have no response to that, if you're asking me how I'd deal with that part of the dialogue.

And I'm not sure that no one was denying that racism exists, or at least not that racism exists in a manner that is presently harmful. I asked Gabby more or less that question three times and she didn't answer.

Ground rules? Basic respect, I guess, which is what everyone here is saying, except I think a basic element of respect is not pretending to be all-knowing about issues with which you have no first hand experience. Recognize that words do matter and that asking you to chose them carefully and take responsibility for their results is not the same thing as censoring you. And understand your privileges, especially if you are a white American, because you have a lot of them, even if you're poor and ugly and no one chooses you first for the soccer team.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

I don't think there's a simple answer to that question, Cory. I know there are plenty of African-Americans who think that comedians like Pryor should not use those terms, and there are plenty who think it's fine.

Personally I don't have much of an opinion on the issue. I am well aware that it means something very different for me to use that word than it does for Richard Pryor to use it, so I don't use it, but I don't think that whether he uses it is really my issue.

I guess my own personal bias is toward reclaiming the words that affect me personally. I'll take back "bitch" and "slut" and "girl," thanks, but as for reclaiming other words, I think that has to be up to the group affected by them, because no one else can make that decision.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Since Morpheus' response seems to refer to something I said about context, I'll repeat that a similar joke that begins "White guy pulls jury duty..." would be construed as funny in a group of African Americans because it would be making fun of a white guy's stupidity and racism. Making fun of the majority, even if it involves hitting below the belt, is a common tool employed in "fighting back" among historically oppressed minorities, is it not? The joke would, of course be an objectionable one owing to its use of the n-word as well its stereotyping of white people in general.

I am not saying words are harmless or that racism exists in the minority imagination. (Being as I am from the Middle East, believing that would involve ignoring part of my life experience.) I agree with most people here that the inherent benefits of being in the white majority are not always obvious among whites, even those who try to "get" racism as best as they can (this I know because I have been in the majority most of my life); and that folks who, relatively speaking, have it easy, should not tell a persecuted minority how to feel, when to be offended, and when to chill. I personally would not tell any joke using any of the slurs mentioned so far, and I don't think this one's a very good joke because it depends on the use of a slur to work. Nevertheless, the joke does effectively skewer a racist.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Just as a point of information, Richard Pryor just up and announced on stage one night (late 70's?) that he wasn't going to use the word in his routines anymore. Said that after his trip to Africa, he couldn't do it.

(It's said that the guy who followed him on stage started with "Well, I ain't never been to Africa- so y'all are still a bunch of niggas to me.")

(did you just laugh?)

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Doesn't sound all that funny. Did the audience laugh? It sounds like the second guy's either (a) making a lame attempt at a witty comeback, or (b) aligning himself with Pryor's point by agreeing with him that Pryor's earlier usage was rooted in raw insensitivity.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

If you don't think words have any power, then how do you think you plan on converting anyone to your point of view?

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

You left out "inherent" when you asked that.

Words have "all" the power that the "person listening" gives them. No more. No less.

I've convinced them if they "choose" to believe that. The power of choosing is entirely their own.

(though with gurus and other charismatic types, you wonder why some people want to suspend their critical thinking at some point)

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Gee, as someone who uses persuasive words to make my living, I'm awfully sad to hear that they have no power except for what the people who read them choose to give them.

Come on. Sure, there's context, and there's interpretation, but there's also intent and accepted meaning.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

who can say, with a straight face, that traveling to any islamic country would be an adequate lesson for a racial/economic majority member to truly learn what racism means, or that thousands of generations of oppression should be "gotten over"...

You're probably right, but I think a trip into a hostile country could prove helpful for some white folk. It probably wouldn't help Jewish Americans though, I think they've already their thousand and some odd years of oppression.

As a very open-minded, liberal, accepting type of person, I have no problem with any color of man walking behind me just as long as he's not staring at my ass.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Okay, I retract the part about your dog. Cause maybe you swat him. But maybe at least he thinks he's going to get away with "a little" rebellion at the time.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

For whatever it's worth... I spent some time trying to track down the details of the story that this topic used to be about.

The idea of "offense" is being thrown around here much more liberally than it was in the actual event. Mr Aoki was not some 'enraged Asian man' - he is the President (I think) of the Media Action Network for Asian Americans (MANAA), and he wrote the Conan O'Brien show and Silverman's agent letters explaining why that slur was not acceptable. He wasn't 'offended' in the sense that he was speaking from a purely emotional base, wasn't whining, wasn't crying, or whatever you think of when you picture someone very very hurt and offended. He's had moderate success over the last couple of years pointing out examples of Asian stereotyping to the various networks as well as awarding some programs for examples of positive Asian images.

What he was doing regarding this letter was spelling out quite professionally, politely, and assertively what he and the people his organization represents find unacceptable *as consumers* of the program and the products its sponsors sell.

Which is just what a person should do about any product that disatisfies them. And since the network is fully aware that they are selling satisfaction to their viewers, and satisfied viewers to their sponsors, they apologized.

Should they have known before getting called on it that the word was offensive...yep, I think so, if they're going to apologize after (I don't think they suddenly saw it in a new light. The apology was damage control). But I don't really look to network television for redeeming social values, so I think Mr. Aoki probably dealt with them in a more practical way then just getting offended - by approaching them as costumer to business.

Should Silverman apologize? Not unless she feels inclined to - she's an individual, not a corporation. But it's probably about time for her to learn that network television is a whole 'nother world (where the name of the game is don't take ANY risks that will make your corporate sponsors have to apologise). And maybe it's not really where she wants to be.

(Oh, rudie, the reason why no one on the Politically Incorrect panel got outraged is because it's Politically Incorrect - get it??)

Unfortunately, MANAA's website is really light on content, and I've not been able to find the full letter Mr. Aoki wrote. I do take some issue with a portion that has been quoted as saying that 'any other' racial group would not have made it past the censors. I can think of quite a few that not only would have made it past, but wouldn't even have been understood enough as a slur to allow the joke to be comprehendable. But he was right to point out that it should have been bleeped out, if that's what they'd do for ANY other racial epithet.

I'm really torn on that, by the way - while the last thing this conversation needs is to have censorship drawn in, the danger of censorship is the only reason I can think of to allow this kind of speech... because if dangerous speech is taboo (and trust me, on the O'Brien show at least, it's gonna be real tightly looked at after this), the first people to get silenced for it are the ones least able to fight back, but who need dangerous humor the most in order to get their points out there.

Network TV and it's history with conversial speech is a huge subject and maybe it doesn't belong here.. But when Beth asked if the idea was to start with a fairy tale, I thought about all the nice, safe network shows composed of a careful blend of white, black, Latino and Asian characters (all of whom lack any personality that identifies which might be played by which actor), and where racial disputes, if they are addressed at all, are tiny things that are solved before the next commercial.... And i guess I wonder if we really want to telling the networks and the companies that sponsor them that what we want is that sort of fairy tale crap when real discrimination still takes place inside their corridors...but if the name of the game is to keep the customer happy, then I suppose it works. But before you villify anyone who mistakenly concludes racism has been conquered... you might look to where they're getting a large part of that impression, and think about whether the demand for pretty, nonoffensive fairy tales is contibuting to a false message.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

"My argument has always been, in part, that words don't have any inherent power."

The flaw with this reasoning is this: if these words have no power, they wouldn't have stayed in our lexxicon. Look at all the other slang that dropped in to use, and then dropped out over the years, never to be used again. This happened because the words themselves had no power.

The best example of a word with power is the word Fuck. It means consensual sex, but you can't use it in polite company, in most magazines or newspapers, or on network television. Even more interesting is that you can use a word like 'rape' on network television, which is forced sex, but you can't use Fuck, which is an act between consenting adults. Why does this word have more power than the word rape? It isn't because of its meaning, it is because it has been assigned a place in our language, a place where both the user and the listener understand its power.

Racial slurs exist to allow one person to depersonalize/dehumanize another person into an object. If the words didn't have any inherent power in them, nobody would ever use them. They use them precisely because they do have power, because they have an inherent power understood both by the speaker AND the listener, and they have the same inherent power in enough similiar situations as to assign them a permanent place in language, understandable by everyone, in exactly the same way other words are assigned a permanent place in languge.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Oops, well, the last post is not a quote. I left it in italics by accident.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Well, nothing is inherent in the word itself. If we didn't learn those meanings we wouldn't be able to communicate. There is nothing about this configuration of shapes -- C A T -- that inherently conjures up an image of a foul little hellbeast. We have to collectively give it that meaning. Obviously these are generalizations and all words take their meanings from context and history and blah blah blah, but if we take your argument to its logical conclusion, Cory, then you don't even have an argument, because you're just stringing out shapes on a computer screen that don't mean anything until we look at them and decide what we want them to mean.

-- Anonymous, July 30, 2001

Right. I'm not really sure where this conversation is leading us in relation to the topic. But I have to ask. Does respect mean anything? If some people get offended at being called "chinks," wouldn't a good response be to stop using the word to describe them? You know, out of respect. You can't very well argue that "Well, it's just a word. So don't get your panties in a bunch." Sure, it's an emotional reaction, but I thought the point was to not deliberately hurt each other's feelings.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

I wish we could edit. So I'm not implying that people here use it everyday. But it's so commonly accepted and so easily shrugged off by non-Asians. Of course, we don't want to let it bother us, but after hearing it used with malice so often, it's difficult for me to hear it in any other context. Malice is the immediate association.

Oh yeah. I also wanted to point out that minorities are capable of racism too. In truth, I've been called "chink" by more minorities than whites. That's what I think explains gabby's observations of "more oppressed than thou." So for those who use Ms. Silverman's ethnic background as a reason to explain why it was not a racist comment, I'd have to say not good enough.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

I think that Silverman's joke has been widely misunderstood. In Silverman's STORY, her friend offers a scenario that she knows will cast doubt on Silverman's fitness as a juror (portraying her as a racist). In the story, Silverman's own discomfort with having herself portrayed as a racist causes her to modify the statement to what she thinks would make her seem LESS racist. The absurdity of her character’s logic and the irony of the resulting line (her character fails miserably at making herself seem less racist, because the word “Chink” has been left intact) is what’s supposed to be funny.

My point is that Silverman created a story, and in this particular story the character needed a racial slur to create her little lie. If you were trying to convince someone you were a racist would you say “Chinese people” or “Chink”?

My question is, how is using a racial slur as part of creating a characterization racist? Was "Archie Bunker" a racist television show? Is the author of any story, which contains dialogue with racial slurs, a racist? Is it simply irresponsible to pen such horrible words, no matter what?

Ken

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

You know, I was going to say something similar, but I was going to take it even further. Yes, it's about respect, and it's about kindness, and it's about having some concern for other people's feelings, but at a very basic level, you can also boil the issue down to simple etiquette. Again, we haven't been discussing censorship for the most part; we're talking about human reactions to behavior. So we can take this all the way down to the level of etiquette.

What that means is that you don't throw around racial slurs for the same reason that you don't pick your ass during board meetings: because people will think you're a boor. I don't think that's a terribly oppressive scenario; I don't think the world needs racial slurs any more than it needs ass-pickers.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

To clarify, I was responding to the post above Ken's. We posted at the same time.

Ken, I know this is a very long thread, but what you've just outlined is exactly what we've been discussing. Everyone knows what Silverman's joke was about. I still dispute the idea that the joke needed the racial slur, since I've personally heard it told without the slur.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Well, hopefully, not being at emotional mercy of inflammatory language can be separate from advocating inflammatory language -- at least the sort of inflaming racial slurs usually incur.

Ideally, though, I'd like to see all words, de-fused. Not realistic, I suppose.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Beth, I respect your discomfort with Sliverman using the word, and I assure you that I have read the entire thread. It's my reading of the entire thread (something I shouldn't be doing at 2 AM when I have to get up and work soon) that has made it seem to me that many didn't get what Silverman was trying to do with her joke.

In my opinion, the joke doesn't work nearly as well if you use "Chinese people", because that eliminates what her character's obvious revison to her jury duty excuse SHOULD have been (to make it seem less racist). To me, A big part of the humor in the joke is the fact that her character chose the wrong part of her sentence to "fix".

Anyway, I think I offered a new and pertinent question to this very long thread. Maybe it will be addressed.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

I forgot to check back in after I posted, and now it's all over for me... my post is old news. But I did want to respond to Gabby, who said anyway:

Okay, I'm lost: you wrote a play using the word 'nigger', but you wouldn't allow it to actually spoken in a performance? Then, it must be asked, did you include the word in your play at all?

It's not that I object to using the word in a performance. It's that I don't have a black person available to play the black character, so it would be a white person playing the character, and I'm not comfortable with that.

I'm starting to think that I just don't want to be using that word at all, though. It's not integral to the poem, and I can get my point across in other ways.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Well, hopefully, not being at emotional mercy of inflammatory language can be separate from advocating inflammatory language -- at least the sort of inflaming racial slurs usually incur.

That depends (in my unpopular opinion anyway). For example, if you're in a room with a bunch of friends or co-workers and they casually throw around a racial slur, what would you do? Is it too much trouble to take issue with them? Would it occur to you (again, the general "you" and not Cory in particular) that this was even offensive? Or does it only become offensive when a person of that ethnicity is present?

I'm of the opinion that it is offensive in any case and that the people who are using the word should know that. I wouldn't kick, scream or bite to get my point across. But a simple "Please stop using that word," would let them know that I am not advocating the slur. Sit silently and it seems like acceptance (sometimes).

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

I'm thinking I should add the following addendum to my last post.

We often (and I don't think this applies just to me) do more for other people than we would for ourselves. So, in theory, for me, it really doesn't matter, but I would probably find myself inclined to take harder such offenses to others, assuming most aren't claiming this position anyway. Somewhere the humanity creeps in.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

"For example, if you're in a room with a bunch of friends or co- workers and they casually throw around a racial slur, what would you do? Is it too much trouble to take issue with them? Would it occur to you (again, the general "you" and not Cory in particular) that this was even offensive? Or does it only become offensive when a person of that ethnicity is present?"

Those are good questions (and just as relevent regarding sexism, sexual orientation, body shape, class, etc. Personally, I find it most offensive (defined here as that same nose-curling disgust that comes when confronted with a bad smell, not being 'hurt') when someone who knows better than to say something in front of someone who would be personally hurt by the comment does the little quick look-around to see if anyone might overhear, and then proceeds to make the comment. I don't like the assumption that I'm okay with it just because I don't appear to be a part of the group. My personal quirk is that if you're brave and/or stupid enough to openly say what you're saying regardless of who is listening, I'm more inclined to be internally lenient about it, then if it's someone who obviously DOES know it's wrong and just goes undercover about it. The one who is open about it - well, at least they're not trying to con anyone about how they really feel, so it's easy to decide how much validity to give to the things they say.

It's the undercover people I am most inclined to confront, and I do. I consistently confront those who do it in front of my kids - which happens way too often. I don't want that poison passing on to them without them immediately hearing the counter argument, and I hope that will give them an understanding that it's ok to confront people who do that to them - I feel a burden of teaching them that ranks higher than my own comfort level regarding confrontation. I am likely less consistent in confronting people if my kids aren't listening and a lot of it has to do with my own mood, and whether or not I think the other one will get the point... if I think they are too clueless to even get what I'm saying, I'm more likely to let it go.

At work (and working at a federal gov't facility with a LOT of rules about appropriate behavior) I'm more inclined to simply point out the many rules against it and ask the person not to expose me to their personal views on the subject, and I avoid personal conversations altogether if there is any risk of learning more about the person speaking than I want to know.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

"We often (and I don't think this applies just to me) do more for other people than we would for ourselves."

I think that may have to do with the fact that when someone says something about you that is false and you recognize the utter falseness of it, it pretty much takes all the personal bite out of the comment and really just makes the other person look like an idiot, so why get het up about it? It's only if they can convince others that what they say is true and affect you in some concrete manner that their words have meaning.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

I consistently confront those who do it in front of my kids - which happens way too often.

This brings up another thing I was thinking of in regard to the Silverman joke. I have mixed feelings about this angle, because I don't think the whole world of adult entertainment should revolve around the question of "but what about the children?" But I do think that "the children" are one consideration here. You and I can hear that joke and maybe find it troubling, maybe not, but we do know that at the heart of it Silverman at least acknowledges that "chink" is an offensive term. (Whether she acknowledges how offensive it is, I don't know.) Maybe a 12-year-old hears it and just comes away thinking that "chink" is a word that's okay to say on network television, and that it makes people laugh.

I don't think that's grounds for censorship and I think it's okay to say that we only have to gear late-night television to adult sensibilities, but it is an angle that nobody's mentioned.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Right.

I am so goddamn tired of hearing about the children.

New Thread.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Yea I should probably clarify... the nature of my confrontation isn't "Don't say that in front of my children"... it's to counteract what is said.

Example that happened a couple weeks ago - and one the bugs the living shit out of me because it came FROM someone involved with one of my kids - we were over at the home of my oldest and her boyfriend. They live (being young and poor) in lower income housing that is racially diverse. They were talking about how some of the neighbors were problematic, loud parties, fights, etc.

My youngest asked if she could play outside and the boyfriend said that wasn't a good idea and followed up with the explanation that there were a lot of blacks in the neighborhood.

Hideous on a million levels, not the least being that we've ALWAYS lived up racially diverse neigbhorhoods, most of them lower income, and my daughter just stood there not saying a word.

I told him it was that if there is a problem with their neigbhor's BEHAVIOUR, it's a behavior issue, but it has nothing to do with whether or not they are black, and that in the grand scheme of things their neigbhors have got a much larger reason based on history to be leery of violence from them for being white.

(My eight year old then went outside and met a few new friends.)

In that situation I'd just as soon it WAS said... so I could make clear my own thoughts, get my counter-argument to my youngest before she hears the same nonsense somewhere out of my hearing (and she will), and also to serve boyfriend AND my oldest that if you're going to say something stupid like that in front of me you better have a damn good explanation for why.

Dumb stuff on TV? Talk to your kids about it, don't shield them from it, because it's still alive and well in real life. I heard all these words a lot back in the pre-Archie Bunker days when TV land was heavily censored, but not usually when I was anywhere where my parents could start a conversation with me about it.

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Yeah, as I said, I wasn't suggesting that "the children" were an excuse for censorship. Just bringing up the subject of how the joke might play to kids, as another angle of how to examine Silverman's intent vs. her effect. (Did you start a new thread, Curtis?)

-- Anonymous, July 31, 2001

Um ... Silverman made her remark on a show that airs from 12:30 to 1:30 a.m. on weeknights. If there are any children even watching the show, other than older teens maybe, there's some seriously lax parenting going on.

I've been reading this thread back after a few days away, and if anyone's still interested, I have a few new thoughts.

First is that racism really shouldn't be about words so much as attitudes. To return to the initial example, Silverman used the word "chink" to make a point against racism. Granted, the word itself may cause hurt feelings, but which is worse? To use an offensive word in the course of making a joke that criticizes racist attitudes, or to avoid the racist word but hold prjudicial attutudes? To make it more abstract, if one white person has a lot of black friends -- genuinely close friends -- and jokingly says "Some of my best friends are niggers," and another white person never would use that word but also never would spend one more minute than absolutely necessary in the presence of black people and believes them likely to be criminals and unintelligent, who is the racist?

If I hurt a few feelings by using the N-word above, when my whole point is against racism, am I wrong to do so?

The other thing I noticed is that most of the people posting in this thread -- self included -- tend to look at racism as something that minorities experience and the race in the majority (presumably caucasian) doesn't. But I would argue that just as members of some minority groups can be prejudiced toward one another, they can also be prejudiced against whites. Granted, the political power structure has been such that non-whites have taken the brunt of institutionalized racism ... but try being a white person and walking into a bar or a convenience store in a predominantly non-white area, and see if you don't attract a few disapproving stares.

Anybody ever see the old show Good Times? Remember how the white characters were always either clueless or evil? Isn't that just as racist as the other way around?

The fact is, racism is pervasive in the way people of all races think. It can be felt by anyone toward any group, and it takes a conscious effort to identify it and root it out of your psyche.

Actually, I think simple exposure makes a lot of difference. I've lived in racially diverse neighborhoods and I've lived in mostly white neighborhoods, and uniformly I've found the people in racially mixed areas treat one another like neighbors, without paying any attention to skin tone or eye shape.



-- Anonymous, August 04, 2001