Replies

“The defense being offered (”Who are you to judge?”) is exactly the same defense offered by liberal moral relativists. If you had a stronger argument (and you apparently do), you should have used it from the beginning.”

No, my question was (and remains) who are YOU to judge as racist this movie or the movie still posted by trickyricky? This question does not disqualify the existence of others who could be a competent judge of whether or not the movie possesses “racist” content.

Since you say later in your response that you have actually seen _the Kid from Borneo_, I’d say now that you are better qualified to judge the content of the movie. Aside from actually having seen the movie, other qualifications would include perhaps a degree in American history and the history of American cinema, or at least a willingness to “define your terms.”

The relativist’s defense could only be taken for what I wrote if I claimed that there can be in principle NO arbiter (and no objective criteria) of what is racist (or of literary merit, etc.). And I think it apparent that that is not what I’ve been arguing.

“And exactly what “credentials and bona fides” would you find acceptable? By current television and movie standards, whether you or I like them or not (and I’ll discuss the short in question below), such portrayals are considered racist.”

As for credentials and bona fides, see above. Obviously, I was not impressed with your use of Spike Lee: definitely a film background, but I have no trust in either his bona fides or his ability to come up with a reasonable definition of what constitutes racist content. Current TV and movie standards may be based upon irrational or partisan motives (or both); I don’t see why I should take them seriously outside of a political context. And the context that concerns me is what is the truth of the matter — “What is really racist? Is this movie racist?” That doesn’t appear to be your major concern, which perhaps explains why we disagree so strongly.

“I wasn’t using Spike Lee as an authority and I, too, disagree with some of his opinions (and probably do not interpret the movie Bamboozled as he intended). I offered a montage from the end of that movie as context and it’s in that context that even essentially harmless depictions of black people (and I consider several of the examples given in that montage as essentially harmless slapstick rather than any real racism) are now seen as racist. It’s the same reason why many Freepers roll their eyes at yet another white racist villain in an action movie. On their own, white racists do make excellent villains for action movies but when every action movie villain turns out to be a white racist or we see the villains in book adaptations being transformed from Arabs into white racists, then the pattern makes the practice look, well, racist.”

I don’t understand how using extreme or foolish and inexact notions of what constitutes racism helps in defining what racism really is. Which is to say that using Lee’s montage to provide a context for defining “racist image” is a pretty risky thing to do. For Lee, I don’t think that there IS such a thing as a harmless gesture or image... at least not if he can help it!

“This has nothing to do with whether I personally find a particular picture or practice racist but that plenty of other people do and that it feeds into a prevailing stereotype that conservatives are racist. The left has carefully crafted a trump card that says, “You’re racist!” that they use to effectively bash conservatives with such that it silences legitimate conservative arguments on a whole host of issues including affirmative action and supreme court nominees. Playing in to that stereotype is not helpful.”

To quote Feynmann, “what do you care what other people think”? Perhaps the strategy you outline is *too* reactive.

I find racist expressions to be vile — like that GOP women’s group mailing you brought to my attention — but on the other hand, I’d argue that you could perform the Herculean task of cleansing the GOP (and _Free Republic_, too) of all remaining traces of racist discourse and racist goobers, and the DNC activists and their media lapdogs would just change the definition of “racist” to smear us all over again. The big problem is not that we have goobers on FR who post racist comments or images; the problem is that the conservative movement has been encompassed by the liberal’s Myth of the Racist Conservative. It’s a myth; facts have only a marginal relevance. It’s like the case of the Myth of the Rich Conservative Fat Cats: it doesn’t matter how often you show someone the numbers that prove that their exist a huge number of hyper-wealthy Democrats, the response will always be that the GOP is the rich man’s party.

“In fact, that movie which depicts a modern-day minstrel show (with black actors in blackface playing the stereotypes) has scenes with a black person dressed not all that differently than “Uncle George” for a reason.”

Once again, you use Lee’s and other activists’ definitions of what constitutes racism at your own peril. I don’t think they have your best interests (as a conservative) at heart.

“And it’s not hard to find people on the left asking what the conflict is, too, and the Marxist doesn’t have to believe in a tool to use it. What I’m referring to is specifically what Evan Sayet was talking about in his speeches to the Heritage Foundation.”

I enjoy Sayet’s speeches, too, but he is not involved in academic discourse on these issues and he uses a very loose definition of what constitutes “liberal” or “Marxism.”

“That “Huckleberry Finn” has generated racial controversy suggests that there is something in there that sets off racism alarms and there clearly are. In the case of “Huckleberry Finn”, the problem is that while the depiction has overt resemblances to racist depictions, the underlying characterizations are not intentionally racist and can actually be interpreted as being against racism.”

My understanding is that HF is thought objecionable because of the liberal use of the “N-word.” The “N-word” is thought to be intrinsically racist, and so its mere presence damns the book. Or so the argument goes.

“Anything that attacks Obama on race and relies on crude stereotypes is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it’s true or not.”

I would say that you are being way too optimistic. Cf. my notion of myth. I would rephrase what you wrote as “Anything...is going to support the case that the right is racist, whether it’s true or not.” Anything will do, and if the DNC activists can’t find the dirt they will simply make it up. Look at Sara Palin — it doesn’t matter if you respect her or not — and see how they can make up slander out of whole cloth and half truths.

“And, by the way, I didn’t start posting into this thread until after that picture had been posted, so if it was posted for me, it must have been some of that ‘long-distance telepathic ability.’”

No, trickyricky posted the picture of “Uncle George” to me in response to my Our Gang-good times post. Not to you.

“OK, I watched it. My personal assessment? Not racist.”

I rest my case! But, what would the DNC activists think if they saw you post this?

“Again, I think you should understand what I’m saying because after telling me that I shouldn’t try to divine the motives of others for what they post and joke about the idea of “long-distance telepathic ability”, you then proceed to do exactly the same thing to me, considering a couple of possible motivations that I might have for complaining and then settling for the belief that I must have “some kind of ideological axe to grind”. Why?”

No, I wasn’t trying to divine your motives — I was just trying to assert what they were so as to insult you and present you in an unflattering light. That is how I usually respond to someone who I assume is calling me a racist — I get angry and lash out! However, I see now that you were not just slinging mud but are a man with a mission. Apologies for all my nastiness. Best of luck with the goobers, but unless you can find a way to not just expunge any racist residue from conservatism but create a counter-myth that confronts the myth of the racist conservative, I don’t see how you’ll have much luck. At the very least, you need to come up with a better and more convincing definition of what racism is.

When one doesn't specify who or what they'd consider the authority, the general flow of the conversation is that it leaves the person making the "Who are you to judge?" complaint free to dismiss any claim the other person makes as not being good enough. As such, it's a game I don't play. In my experience, the answer is never good enough because what the other person is often really saying is that the only experts they'll except are experts that agree with them.

And if I told you I had a degree in American History and a minor in American Cinema, you could tell me that I was brainwashed by university liberals. It really shouldn't be that hard to find an academic with those sorts of credentials who considers such depictions racist. Ultimately, this is why appeals to authority are considered logical fallacies. Just because someone has certain academic credentials or a certain background doesn't mean that they are going to think a certain way, especially when dealing with soft subjective subjects like film, history, and racism.

In my experience, that's where questions such as yours generally lead. If I go through the effort to find an expert to support my point, then there is something wrong with the expert or the argument shifts to the claims that nobody is qualified to make the claim. You make assumptions based on the past discussions you've been in and I make assumptions based on past discussions I've been in, and that's the general pattern that I've seen.

I offered a clip from a Spike Lee movie that, in a fairly condensed and concise way, illustrates why depictions such as those are considered racist. Did you watch it?

As for not taking current TV and movie standards seriously outside of a political context, isn't Free Republic and all of the content on it automatically in a political context? Isn't this a political web site? Stepping back and looking at these pictures and comments "outside of a political context" misses the point that you can't do that. They are in a political context. That's like saying we should analyze Obama's economic plans outside of an economic context. What's the point? Further, it entirely misses the point. The whole point is that everything said here is political and can be used by our political enemies to paint us as racists. It's already happened. Jerome Corsci had his credibility undermined by flippant comments he made here.

To be honest, I don't think you are giving Spike Lee enough credit and I do recommend taking a look at Bamboozled, which has a little more depth to it than one might expect. Lee's montage is what it is, a montage of depictions of blacks and whites in blackface and I think it does successfully provide a context that looking at any one film or series of films, alone, can provide. And I think trying to lift a film or other work out of that context misses the forest for the trees.

The context is why white people don't see racism in the same places where black people see it. White people miss real racism because it doesn't affect them personally. Black people see racism where it isn't because it does affect them personally. And the disconnect between those two views only reinforce each. Black people see white people flippantly ignoring real racism and not taking racism seriously and see it as evidence that white people are racist. White people see black people complaining about racism that doesn't exist or isn't intentional see it as evidence that black people are making most racism up. Each side feeds the other side's stereotypes.

To quote Feynmann, “what do you care what other people think”? Perhaps the strategy you outline is *too* reactive.

They, collectively, have more votes than I do. In a democracy (or republic or whatever you want to technically call our form of government), it's incredibly foolish to not care what other people thing. Sure, being right can give you the warm satisfaction that you are correct and your opponents are wrong but that's irrelevant if your opponents gain political power and use that power to force their ideology and policies on everyone. This is where the right keeps dropping the ball. And, no, caring about what other people think of you don't mean compromising your principles.

But even less racism would be harder to smear us and it would be less convincing to those who do care about the truth. Why make it easy for them? Is it really that hard to find something else to attack Obama on other than race?

The big problem is not that we have goobers on FR who post racist comments or images; the problem is that the conservative movement has been encompassed by the liberal’s Myth of the Racist Conservative. It’s a myth; facts have only a marginal relevance. It’s like the case of the Myth of the Rich Conservative Fat Cats: it doesn’t matter how often you show someone the numbers that prove that their exist a huge number of hyper-wealthy Democrats, the response will always be that the GOP is the rich man’s party.

I would agree that the problem is that conservatives are currently weighed down by the Myth of the Racist Conservative and the Myth of the Rich Conservative Fat Cats and that both of those myths are a handicap and make it much harder to get people to listen to conservative ideas. As such, it's in everyone's best interest to kill those myths and detrimental to give them credibility. You are arguing that it doesn't matter what conservatives do. I don't think that's true. I think it does matter and that the strength and effectiveness of stereotypes depends on how true they seem to people. Not caring has been and will be a losing proposition.

Once again, you use Lee’s and other activists’ definitions of what constitutes racism at your own peril. I don’t think they have your best interests (as a conservative) at heart.

I don't think that movie was made for white people, which is why it's interesting. It's actually quite critical of blacks for feeding the stereotypes. In other words, I don't think that movie was made to convince you or me about a certain definition of racism. It was meant to show blacks how blacks have been stereotypically portrayed in movies and TV shows and how they still are portrayed. My mention of that stereotype is that Lee chose the stereotypes he chose for a reason, and supports most of them in that montage, which could certainly be a lot longer.

I enjoy Sayet’s speeches, too, but he is not involved in academic discourse on these issues and he uses a very loose definition of what constitutes “liberal” or “Marxism.”

That's true of most normal people, who are not academics. I was under the impression that this wasn't a journal of academic discourse and was not looking for a precise definition of various factions of the left, which is yet another one of those areas where they like to use fine distinctions to claim that there are only trees and no such things as a forest.

It's also considered racist for the overall use of dialect English and in the portrayal of Jim as second fiddle to Huck. But, yes, it illustrates that certain things are considered guilty until proven innocent and they became considered guilty because of the context of how they are normally used.

It's easy to forget that there is a persuadable middle but there is. And while that middle can be fooled, there are limits to how much they can be fooled. The more credible the claim, the more convincing it's going to be and the less credible the claim, the less convincing it's going to be. In other words, the further the left has to stretch the truth and the more they have to spin, the few people they are going to convince. With respect to Sarah Palin, she was badly handled and I would argue that they never really tried to counter the most damning charge which is that she's an uneducated mental lightweight. That's partly her own fault because she's not a detail person and now that the stereotype of ignorance has been set, she's going to have to learn how to master the details to counter it.

I rest my case! But, what would the DNC activists think if they saw you post this?

But my argument wasn't that I personally found it racist. My argument was that it could be used by others to support the argument that conservatives are racist. That means I don't care what the DNC activists think, either. What I care about is what the people in the middle who aren't going to spend 18 minutes watching the short or even longer understanding the context might think. First impressions matter. That's what killed Sarah Palin. The McCain campaign let the media and Democrats create a first impression that she now has to struggle to erase. And the only way she's going to erase it is showing a mastery of details and facts, whether she wants to or not.

You saw a familiar pattern in my response and reacted accordingly. That's what people do. And most people aren't up to spending a few hours watching original sources and debating the fine points to get to an understanding like this. They leave it at the first impressions. That's why I think the first impressions are important.

However, I see now that you were not just slinging mud but are a man with a mission. Apologies for all my nastiness. Best of luck with the goobers, but unless you can find a way to not just expunge any racist residue from conservatism but create a counter-myth that confronts the myth of the racist conservative, I don’t see how you’ll have much luck. At the very least, you need to come up with a better and more convincing definition of what racism is.

To a degree, part of my motivation is to challenge people on these things because the real racist goobers tend to either crawl under a rock or reveal their true colors when challenged. Hopefully, that will result in less of it but at the very least, it will make it impossible for people on the left to claim that racist things are posted on Free Republic and nobody challenges them. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if at least some of the more racist-sounding things posted here are plants from the left trying to make Free Republic look bad and the reason why they disappear when challenged is that the challenge spoils their stereotypes and the propaganda value of their postings. Again, I think we have a strong interest in not playing into the left's stereotypes, even if it's an uphill battle and never fully succeeds.