Uppity-Negro.com: In Memoriam

I don't read Free Republic because it's full of hateful crap by right-wingers. Good to see your reaction to hateful crap by left-wingers is to get a good belly laugh out of it.

Had been wondering about the silence on the right about the Freeper attacks on Margaret Cho...

Well then, let me be the first from the "Right" to say that I'm appalled by the racist emails that Cho has been receiving. As much as I despise Cho, I hate rascism even more.

By the way, I'm still wondering about the silence on the left about Cho's comments that she wants to anally rape the Pope.

But worth noting as, near as I can tell, the only actual person of color commenting on the thing at any of those sites.

First of all, how can you tell someone's race by reading their comments? Second, does one have to be a "person of color" for their opinion to matter on this issue?

Um, anyone here find this offensive or racist or something?

I do. If you had heard it was printed by the Aryan Nation rather than a Left wing group would you still consider it "satire?" Do leftist get an exemption for being racist?

But worth noting as, near as I can tell, the only actual person of color commenting on the thing at any of those sites.

First of all, how can you tell someone's race by reading their comments? Second, does one have to be a "person of color" for their opinion to matter on this issue?

Ah, Joe, thanks for reminding mee: I forgot to add that One Fine Jay is Filipino. I guess Aaron couldn't tell that from his writing. Or maybe a Filipino isn't a "person of color."

First of all, how can you tell someone's race by reading their comments?

Cultural context. There are things Black folks experience (yes, there are class divisions: things richBlack folks experience, things middle-class Black folks experience...), common assumptions lead to things being said or not said, things like that. You can actually do a pretty decent job of it.

Not just that, but you can tell the audience that the author intends to impress the same way.

Second, does one have to be a "person of color" for their opinion to matter on this issue?

Had I made that statement I'd be trying to make a different point than that some opinions matter and some don't. I'd have been making the point that either Black people are vanishingly rare or too tremulous to speak up in such venues, and therefore the idea of those in such venues spinning their statements as being supportive of any actually existing Black people (as opposed to those in their mind) is not credible.

But that would be me, if I said it.

Cultural context. There are things Black folks experience (yes, there are class divisions: things richBlack folks experience, things middle-class Black folks experience...), common assumptions lead to things being said or not said, things like that. You can actually do a pretty decent job of it.

Ahh...you're good. You really had me going. I almost believed you were being serious when you made this statement but then I realized this must be another example of "satire."

For a second I thought you were claiming to be able to stereotype people by the content of their writing. But then I realized you must be joking and that this was another example of how racism can be turned into "satire."

Satire is what you intended, right?

No, Joseph.

And no one said anything about stereotyping.

Thanks for linking to my site. I could use all the publicity I can get. And I break all the stereotypes about blacks: a relatively young, single woman who also happens to be a conservative ("fundamentalist" in liberalspeak) Christian and and an advocate for traditional values. And I love my country. Go figure...

And no one said anything about stereotyping.

A stereotype is "one that is regarded as embodying or conforming to a set image or type." Claiming that you can identify someone's writings by identifying "Black folks experience" and "common assumptions" is a way of stereotyping black people.

So there's no difference between identifying similarities with oneself and stereotyping?

By identifying similarities you are making a judgement about someone's racial background. If you are claiming that "All black people can be identified as having X feature" then no I don't see the difference.

Seriously, you wouldn't think it was stereotypical if a person who wasn't black made the same claim?

Yay! Tourists are here.

And it only took 2 comments before the conversation went from discussing the issues at hand to discussing semantics.

Aaron, you are jedi master of the highest order.

I absolutely love the poster by the way. Because of it's intent and purpose, not because of where it came from, honestly, I don't even know whose propoganda it is.

The reality is that we reached 500 Americans dead last night, at least one soldier gone never to return from 49 of our 50 states and if the obituaries of my Los Angeles newspapers are any indication, most of them have been young people of color.

2 announced just today that were of hispanic/chicano descent. Neither over 23.

And in the same way that Bush must answer for their losses of life, we, as people of color, should be demanding the same, maybe even more of an explanation from Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell. Whether some folks want to hear it or not, I have no expectation that our President is looking out for my best interests. I expect more from Condi and Colin because they are brown folks.

And that is racial. It's not racism. There is a difference.

Re: the poster; can I still lay claim to being offended since I'm white and madamoiselle Rice is definitely not fighting for me ?

To Ms. Barber: Love your country, great. God-fearing, sure. Conservative - hey, Reasonable People Can Disagree. None of those are bad things. However, statements you've made on your blog such as "The doctrine of feminism has wreaked havoc on the family" or "Millions of the unborn are torn, twisted, vacuumed and poisoned to death in the name of almighty 'choice.' " both demonstrate that your grasp of scholarship is not all that it might be, which is definitely a bad thing (and a shame, because the site/your rèsumè demonstrates that you're a sharp writer). Me, I'd refer you to Susan Faludi on the first point and New Advent and/or Romans on the second. Feminism, by the numbers, is a net Good Thing(Faludi, many other sources). As for abortion and free will - well, if you're a Protestant, I suppose I can't argue with a doctrine that denies free will. I'll leave that to your friendly neighborhood Jesuits.

JUST TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE... and skipping over the morass above, disclaimer disclaimer, yada yada yada... I can see where it *could* be seen as racist to associate conservativism with "Being on Whitey's side". Yes, it's a broad over-simplification of the issue, and I'm not at all sure I agree with such a sentiment, but just for argument's sake... After all, the epitome of racism is to assume that all people of one race think one way or the other, and to call those who chose "the other side" as "race traitors". If a white politician, supporting affirmative action, were shown in black face and was described in racially inflamatory terms, that would be clearly racist, no? I guess my point is, why is this question framed in racial terms? If Condi Rice has fallen for Bush's bullshit, or has decided to toe the party line for her own reasons, is that a racial question, or a political one?
Although god knows, I had expected far better of her and Powell. Hell, when this crap started, I said to myself, 'Self, if Colin is behind it, there has GOT to be something that we don't know. If there's one person in this administration I trust, it's him...' But not because either one of them are black, but because they both seem to be well educated, intelligent human beings. I may hate their boss, but I had desperately hoped that if there was one thing GW knew how to do, it was pick advisors.

Guess I should have known better...
I take Jason's meaning keenly - the armed services are disproportianately filled with both people of color and by whites from the lower economic brackets. But does that *automatically* mean that all questions of military force are, per se, racial issues? Or Marxist ones, for that matter? (I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm genuinely curious.)

Wow, you cats really turned a quip about a poster into a huge racial brawl. I think it is funny, both the poster and the ensuing brawl. I think the poster is funny because the word "whitey" in it doesn't mean all white people (at least not to me), but George W. Bush. Which is hilarious to me because when I look at him I think "Whitey". Though I also think the same thing when I look at Howard Dean and/or Joseph Lieberman, too. I'm not going to go into my views on what all of you wrote regarding stereotyping and racism, etc. other than to say, whichever side you think you are on, to argue about such things, race must really matter to you, which in my opinion, puts you all on the wrong side. Until you have been referred to as a racist and called a racial slur in the same day, until you have been in both the majority and the minority and until you have been loved and hated by people of all races, you are just blowing bubbles because you don't really understand the complexity of an issue that in the end, means nothing.

James S:

Post on point.

Joe:

If you are claiming that "All black people can be identified as having X feature" then no I don't see the difference.

That's not the statement I made. That wasn't even implied. I said you can do a decent job of it, I didn't say it was absolute.

I'm afraid you're interpreting my statement in terms of your own preconceptions about what a Black person might say.

I'm going to have to agree a bit with Dawn, taking exception with the fact that there is a "vast left-wing conspiracy going on...".

It seems like the left has done such a good job pandering to most minorities that it's become almost a cultural identifier to agree with and vote left. If someone comes along that "jumps ship" and signs up with the right, it's seen as a betrayal to the minority as a whole, and you have a reaction such as this poster.

It's like getting left behind for something better (not that I'm implying the any side is better than the other), more than likely your going to have issues with the person who left you.

Sean: The doctrine of free will doesn't preclude my criticism of child killing and feminism. Why does one have to be a scholar to form the opinion that killing babies is a bad thing or that feminism has played a huge part in undermining the family?

There are numberous studies out there to support my view, but all I need to use is common sense and my own eyes.

By the way, thanks for calling me a "sharp writer." I think.

Joe, sorry for deleting your last comment, but that "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" sort of thing doesn't get anyone anywhere.

In my opinion, at least.

La Shawn, erm, if you stick around here a bit, you'll notice that no one really conforms to stereotype.

Well, except Kris Dresen following the "Angry Black Man" thing to the letter, but he's in the Nation of Islam, so what can you expect?

And generally, I'm slightly amused that, instead of confronting their rep -- deserved or not, I ain't saying -- for racism, (white) folks on the right are pointing at behavior on the left and screaming about how those people are the true racists.

Or, you could try looking in a mirror.

Just saying is all.

Joe Carter,

I love that we're going to deal with the semantics. Love it. It's gorgeous.

There is a difference between me, as an individual, basing my attitudes, beliefs, and actions on my own racial prejudices and a government body doing so.

Especially when that situation skews in a certain direction.

And, also, because in police work making assumptions often leads you down the wrong path. I stated something, probably in the comments on something in this very site, last year during the DC Sniper shootings that serial killers tend not to be black. Now, no matter how true that statement is, if I had been an investigator on that case and allowed my own personal assumptions about race affect my judgment, I would have been down a very wrong path.

But that's not really what this poster and the reaction is really all about is it? I mean is it really about the idea that non-minorities feel like minorities can say things that they can't, or it's equivalent?

Are you arguing that because "liberals" aren't up in arms about the poster using the term "Whitey" that you, or someone with enough gumption, should be allowed to say "nigger"?

Are the words equivalent? Does "whitey" have the same history?

And does it lessen the intent of the poster, which I gather, is mostly to spur dialogue?

And have we even established who's who in this conversation? Am I a liberal? Is Aaron?

What, exactly, is our reaction to the poster proof of again? And, actually, I've announced my reaction...has Aaron given a reaction other then he laughed at it?

What assumptions are we making?

It seems to me like the critics of the poster are confusing this particular poster of CONDI RICE, and the message it contains (which is, as far as I can see, that the white male government exploits people, particularly people of color, in times of war) with COLIN POWELL and "uncle tomism."

Maybe they ought to wear nametags, so the members of their party can tell them apart?

Or maybe the right needs to stop foaming at the mouth to "catch" liberals committing racism so as to feel better about their own bullshit.

There is a difference between me, as an individual, basing my attitudes, beliefs, and actions on my own racial prejudices and a government body doing so.

Just so I’m clear on your position: racial prejudices on the individual level are fine, but at the government level they should not be applied. Is that correct?

But that's not really what this poster and the reaction is really all about is it? I mean is it really about the idea that non-minorities feel like minorities can say things that they can't, or it's equivalent?

No, I think the poster is a about a knee-jerk “Uncle Tom”-ism on the Left. If you are a minority you are expected to possess certain views and if you don’t then you are a “sellout.”

Are you arguing that because "liberals" aren't up in arms about the poster using the term "Whitey" that you, or someone with enough gumption, should be allowed to say "nigger"?

No. What I’m saying is that liberals need to be consistent in their views. Is it wrong to use racist propaganda? If your answer is yes then it should be condemned even when you agree with the underlying political stance.

Are the words equivalent? Does "whitey" have the same history?

You are misunderstanding my complaint. Condi Rice is portrayed in a military uniform “fighting for Whitey.” There are two things wrong with this. First, Rice serves the American people. You may disagree with her but that is a basic fact. To claim that she represents only “white America” is a racist statement. Second, and even worse in my opinion, is the underlying assumption that all those who serve in the military are “Uncle Toms” like Rice. If you don’t get that from the poster you need to look at it again to see what you’ll find:

1) A black woman in an Army uniform.
2) She claims to be fighting for “Whitey.”

Now if you are a minority in the military and serving in Iraq are you also “fighting for Whitey?”

Joe, when I was a minority in the military and serving in Iraq, at no point did I not think I was "fighting for Whitey."

Your point being. . .?

Oh, and I'm fairly certain you can find additional evidence of racism on the part of the left at The Propaganda Remix Project. And also in the film Blazing Saddles.

I see that you label anyone who took umbrage at the disgusting piece of "satire" a "freeper".

Wow. Impressive.

I haven't seen intellectual majestry since......my last trip to Usenet.

Have a nice day.

At what point was Blazing Saddles racist? The whole scene that was deleted (I think) of Madeline Kahn and Cleavon Little in a dark room making sexual noises was pure genius. She says "gosh, what they say about you people is TRUE!" and he replies "Ma'am, you are sucking on my forearm." How is that not comedic (and satirical) genius? Mel Blanc is a lot of things including (but not limited to): lowbrow, placating, and goofy. But racist is not something I would charge him with.
There is a difference between being racially aware and being racist (in my world). If you asked me, "Who is Cleavon Little?" and I said, "You know, the Black guy in Blazing Saddles", I would be aware, but not judgemental, of his race. On the other hand, if you asked me, "Who is Cleavon Little?" and I said, "You know, the guy who is genetically inferior because he is Black and the sheriff in Blazing Saddles", that would be racist. There's a difference. At least my wife tells me there is and that's good enough for me.

Sorry, I misread the beginning of the post. Let me go on record as saying that I'm not standing up on your behalf. I didn't even know you existed, bud.

Mel Blanc was the voice of (among other characters) Bugs Bunny.

Mel Brooks, you're thinking. And Richard Pryor did some of the writing on Blazing Saddles, too. And I may not have been entirely serious in my previous comment. Hard to believe, I know.

Ricky, oddly enough, I'm rather accustomed to being insulted based on misreadings.

OOps, having so horribly mispoken, I will have to leave with a Bleedee,bleedee, bleedee, That's All Folks!!!



I'm more accustomed to being insulted on correct readings. Hehe, Mel Blanc, what was I smoking?