April 10, 2007
tbogg: Imus wannabe
"Nappy-headed ho's" had been overused, so he went with the next best thing.
Sure, tbogg's a hypocritical racist, but making a racist attack on a conservative black woman is perfectly acceptable behavior for liberals.
Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.
Update: tbogg's comments echo those of Doonesbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau from April 7, 2004, which prompted this response:
Recently, Trudeau’s political observations ran a red light in referring to the nation’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Condoleezza Rice, a black woman, as "brown sugar." Frankly, the political satire in the April 7, 2004 Doonesbury escapes me and most women I know, black or white, liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican. It draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women. In doing so, it is decidedly unfunny. The only purpose served by this cartoon strip is that it proved one sad fact: despite the contentions of many, in 21st century America, race and gender still matter.[snip]
The fact is that black women at the apex of power have struggled long and hard for respect. The struggle still continues. This is why in this context, references to black women as brown sugar are not funny. It reminds us of the historical exploitation of black women in America. It reminds us that there are those who believe that no matter how accomplished we may become, no matter how educated we are, and no matter how many books we read, black women should remain in "their place," figuratively or literally. This place is one that is out of public view.
tbogg joins a long list of liberals that feel it is their right to use racial slurs against black conservatives.
Some of these past racial attacks on Secretary Rice included Garry Trudeau's "Doonesbury" comic strip having President Bush refer to her as "Brown Sugar," Ted Rall's cartoon suggesting she was a "house nigga" needing "racial re-education" and Jeff Danziger depicting her a the slave "Prissy" from the movie "Gone With the Wind." Additionally, former entertainer Harry Belafonte referred to Secretary Rice as a "house slave" and "sell-out," while NAACP chairman Julian Bond called her a "shield" used by the Bush Administration to deflect racial criticism.
And lest we forget, liberal Steve Gilliard's Sambo smear against another black conservative, Michael Steele.
Tolerance. It's a liberal value.
Except when they don't feel like it.
Liberals know how to bring the hate in a really professional manner.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 10, 2007 04:39 PMShouldn't that be 'whateveh'?
I'm done caring about who says what about whom. Really. It's gossip. We've got far more important things to mull over.
Posted by: Cindi at April 11, 2007 12:51 AMUm, "brown sugar" = "nappy head hos"? Really?
Seems like a bit of a reach to me...
Anticipate other liberal bloggers coming to his defense by sundown.
Why? It's not like he's being attacked by anyone who really matters.
Posted by: Realist at April 11, 2007 06:43 AMKodos423, "brown sugar" is a racist sexual reference. If you don't believe me, look up the lyrics to the Rolling Stones song "Brown Sugar".
Posted by: MikeM at April 11, 2007 07:42 AMHow exactly does "Brown Sugar" equate to "nappy-headed hos"?
Hey, at least you're not just pointing out this insignificant statement by a blogger to score some cheap points.
BTW, I think the fact that he capitalized "Brown Sugar" is an obvious reference to the Stones song and its ilk. I suppose you find Mick and Keith "intolerant" too.
Another BTW, "Confederate" is a term which "draws on centuries of deep-rooted, wicked and indefensible portrayals of black women" too.
Hackneyed and obtuse - must be a republican.
Posted by: jlo at April 11, 2007 07:49 AMI see the Defender Corps has arrived!
I like the logic - since ours is "small 'r' racist stereotyping, and we think yours is "big 'R' racist, we get a pass.
To use the reductio in absurdum filter... oh, never mind, people usually don't get the 'absurdum' part when applied to their POV.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 08:59 AMTrackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 04/11/2007
A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention.
Really? The satire in Doonesbury escapes you? It's not that complicated. Perhaps Family Circus is more your speed. Don't even begin to take on Tbogg. He is way out of your league.
EL
Posted by: dre at April 11, 2007 09:39 AMDre - satire makes it all okay, then. Oddly, I don't often see that defense as being deemed acceptable when it's the right being satirical.
You personally (whatever your political persuasion) may not suffer that peculiar myopia, but it's at the heart of the Bob's point.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 10:16 AMActually, dre is right John. You're not in remotely the same league as racist, sexist bloggers.
Curious that anybody is.
Posted by: lex at April 11, 2007 11:22 AM"I see the Defender Corps has arrived!
I like the logic - since ours is "small 'r' racist stereotyping, and we think yours is "big 'R' racist, we get a pass.
To use the reductio in absurdum filter... oh, never mind, people usually don't get the 'absurdum' part when applied to their POV.
Posted by: John of Argghhh! at April 11, 2007 08:59 AM"
---------------------------------------------
John: I'll see your fallacy in logic charge and raise you one more:
STRAW MAN
Description: It is a fallacy to misrepresent someone else's position for the purposes of more easily attacking it, then to knock down that misrepresented position, and then to conclude that the original position has been demolished. It is a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that one has made.
I never said that CY is a racist because he uses "confederate" in his blog handle, but instead sought to point out the weak position of someone who argues that another blogger they don't like is a racist because he called a black woman "brown sugar" when he happily employs an online identifier that is (at least in this country) explicitly associated with the cause of maintaining slavery by both law and custom.
Now, I'm just pointing out the inconsistency there, not actually accusing CY of being racist or having a sub-consicous racist intent in choosing to use the term confederate. I don't regularly read this blog, much less know anything about its author, so I would never dare to spread such scurrilous charges without a lot more evidence.
I am a regular reader of Tbogg though and find his insights often biting and hilarious. Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me, but I would guess the twin pop icons of the Rolling Stones and Doonesbury are the likely antecedents. Does that make what he did right? I would posit the more pressing question is: "was it wrong"? It certainly doesn't make him racist without anymore evidence.
Lastly, your plea to except the cases of satire from knee-jerk cries of "racism", "sexism", etc. is right and should be obvious (but sadly is not to many), which is exactly my point in distinguishing Tbogg (who is making a political point) from the likes of that mean-spirited hag Imus (who made his statement rashly and insensitively with no intent to do anything other than hurt someone).
However, what example of right-wing satire do you specifically refer to? I don't remeber any right-wingers attempting to satirize something that left-wingers attacked as being racist in intent when the opposite was clear to any objective viewer.
I'm sure someone as astute about logical fallacies as yourself wouldn't be introducing a classic red herring in your response to Dre.
Why he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me
What does Occam's Razor suggest? He's simply a racist.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:41 PMjlo: maybe you can kid yourself, but do not try and kid everyone else, tbogg's caption is clearly racist (negative comment based on color of skin); you can continue to defend tbogg, but read over caption and ask yourself, is this how I would want to be portrayed if that were me (caption is based on color of skin rather than merits of acccomplishment); the answer is NO, whether you will admit it or not.
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 12, 2007 07:22 PMAnd I am loving the idea that Imus insulting a female basketball team was "satire". What exactly was he satirising?
Posted by: Dr Zen at April 13, 2007 05:12 AMWhy he chose to refer to Ms. Rice as "Brown Sugar" is beyond me
What does Occam's Razor suggest? He's simply a racist.
Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 11, 2007 04:41 PM
-----------------------------------------------
Purple - Occam's Razor could also suggest that you're simply a disingenuous authoritarian who loves to declare someone a racist upon the most paper-thin evidence, particularly when you disagree with his political stance. I'm sure if Imus was Rush, you would be on the other side arguing against "pc culture" run amok.
Maybe not, but Occam's Razor analysis does concern itself with nuance, does it?
----------------------------------------------
jlo: maybe you can kid yourself, but do not try and kid everyone else, tbogg's caption is clearly racist (negative comment based on color of skin); you can continue to defend tbogg, but read over caption and ask yourself, is this how I would want to be portrayed if that were me (caption is based on color of skin rather than merits of acccomplishment); the answer is NO, whether you will admit it or not.
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 12, 2007 07:22 PM
---------------------------------------------
Bored - Is this site always so supercilious? How is it "clearly racist" to point out that someone is black? By that standard, anyone who remarks that Barack is a "black candidate" running for Prez in '08 is a racist? And clearly, by your standard, Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb were "clearly racist" as he was basing his criticisms of the media on his perception that McNabb's celebrity was based almost exclusively upon his skin color. Race is a social construct we are forced to live with until our society does a lot more growing up. Until then, toughen up or stay home.
As to the "caption" you refer to, it's a snippet from a larger post about Wolfowitz's possible corruption problems at the World Bank. So, yes the issue is the "merits of her accomplishments", the quality of which reasonable men can differ about.
-----------------------------------------------
And I am loving the idea that Imus insulting a female basketball team was "satire". What exactly was he satirising?
Posted by: Dr Zen at April 13, 2007 05:12 AM
------------------------------------------------
Dr - I don't know if you were directly responding to my comment, but if so - I have to wonder if you somehow missed the part where I said this:
"which is exactly my point in distinguishing Tbogg (who is making a political point) from the likes of that mean-spirited hag Imus (who made his statement rashly and insensitively with no intent to do anything other than hurt someone)."
Where I come from, when someone makes the point of "distinguishing" two elements under examination, he or she is not equating the two.
A powerful undercurrent of good satire is anger, which can be expressed in terms that others who don't share that anger find bewildering and offensive. What Tbogg was attempting to do was satirize the atmosphere of corruption that clouds the current administration. On the other hand, Imus was just be an old white asshole with no substantive point at all.
You can disagree with Tbogg, but calling him a racist for what is an ambiguous (at best) statement is just a cheap diversion from meeting his political points head-on.
jlo:
Is asking you to read something over and think about it actually haughty or treating you or subject matter with disdain, I do not buy it. Try this, forget context and who said what (your original point was comparing caption to Imus comments), or switch them; are you saying that if Imus used some expression equating Rutgers team or certain members as "brown sugar", that would be acceptable to you? It may not have caused the same hue and cry, but is it really acceptable?
In any event, learn to read, or read it again, caption does not point out C. Rice is "black" it labels her "Brown Sugar" (if you refuse to concede that connotative meaning of "Brown Sugar" is racist and replete with negative racial overtones (and the SOLE reason that tbogg used that expression) - it makes it pretty hard to take you seriously). With that in mind, I am not sure who or what you were actually responding to in first paragraph addressed to me.
One final note, I do note beleive that caption has anything to do with rest of tbogg entry (I beleive that first paragraph relates to Wolfowitz and current ethics problems and second paragraph refers to C. Rice and G. Bush), consequently, label says nothing or portrays nothing or is not even remotely about, C. Rice's "accomplishments".
Posted by: Bored at Work at April 13, 2007 03:03 PM
