June 12, 2008
You Don't Want to Go There
Judging by all the links noted on Memeorandum to this Salon article, the left has decided to raise a huge stink about a Fox News caption labeling Michelle Obama as "Obama's baby mama."
There are two reasons they should drop this tempest in a teacup quickly. The first is that Michelle Obama has referred to herself in similar terms ("My baby's daddy Barack Obama" is the same thing as calling herself "Obama's baby mama"), making them look rather childish and petty.
The second is that they don't want to start a legitimacy argument related to this particular candidate. Barack Obama Sr. never divorced his first wife Kezia Obama. His wedding to Ann Dunham when she was three months pregnant with the junior Senator was illegitimate, and so was the junior Senator. This isn't "new" news—the information has been out there for anyone to see—and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but his supporters shouldn't start conversations that they may not want to finish.
4-Star Admiral John S McCain. 4-Star Admiral John S McCain II. Captain Senator John S McCain III. Cadet John S McCain IV currently attending the Naval Academy.
vs.
A polygamist communist who abandoned his infant child. A communist woman who recieved food stamps while enrolled as a phD student. A "racist" grandmother who is afraid of agressive pandhandlers.
It's really amazing when you compare the two familes.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 12, 2008 01:34 PMMs. Malkin:
Calling someone "Obama's Baby Mama" is insulting and racist. It speaks to a racial stereotype and I am hopeful that you do not condone such behavior. Ms. Obama deserves an apology, as does anyone who heard your comment.
Now your on-line comment "There are two reasons they should drop this tempest in a teacup quickly. The first is that Michelle Obama has referred to herself in similar terms ("My baby's daddy Barack Obama" is the same thing as calling herself "Obama's baby mama"), making them look rather childish and petty.
The second is that they don't want to start a legitimacy argument related to this particular candidate. Barack Obama Sr. never divorced his first wife Kezia Obama. His wedding to Ann Dunham when she was three months pregnant with the junior Senator was illegitimate, and so was the junior Senator. This isn't "new" news—the information has been out there for anyone to see—and it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but his supporters shouldn't start conversations that they may not want to finish."
#1 If one refers to themselves by a certain term, it is not the same as others referring to you. It is not the same as my calling my wife "my baby's mama, mother, etc". It is calling another something and referring not in a cordial manner, but a manner meant to insult. One would think that with your ethnic heritage, you would be more understanding.
#2 Whether Barack is legitimate, you are legitimate, or anyone else, that does not speak to the legitimacy of the children. I cannot understand how you make that comparison. Your arguement is specious.
So, yes. I do not mind "going there". Your comment led to one of your readers to refer to Obama as a "polygamist communist who abandoned his infant child". Barack (Jr.) is no more of a polygamist or communist than yourself. Again, are you trying to visit the 'sins of the father" onto the son'?
He deserves an apology not an "I am sorry if you were offended" apology, but a heartfelt apology for using a racist term. A professional on-air personality should be held up to a higher standard then using phrases like that.
Your "tempest in a teacup" is a comment made by the creator of the tempest, and it is not a tempest to those insulted. It is a common view of those that make such comments to state that someone (else) is just being too sensitive. That view does not accept that others might see things differently.
Your "tempest in a teacup" is a comment made by the creator of the tempest, and it does not reflect the feelings of anyone that was insulted. It was an on the air comment made for public viewing (loosely speaking, slanderous) It is a common view of those that make such comments to state that someone (else) is just being too sensitive. That view does not accept that others might see things differently. Can you accept that others might see things differently than yourself? If not, doesn't that make you an "ugly American"?
Sincerely,
Iverson Bell Jr., MD
In other words, Barak likes the "bad boys."
It's not a trait you want in your teenage daughter. And it's certainly not a trait you want in your Commander in Chief.
Posted by: Roy Mustang at June 12, 2008 02:34 PMThe Obama's were a relatively trashy family, but hey, look what sonny has accomplished. Baby-momma is no insult, Dr. I. Its what the people say on the street. You don't talk to many ordinary, non-PhD Negroes, eh?
Posted by: ptg at June 12, 2008 02:42 PMHmmm, let's check this out real quick:
"He deserves an apology not an "I am sorry if you were offended" apology, but a heartfelt apology for using a racist term."
Then you say this:
"Your "tempest in a teacup" is a comment made by the creator of the tempest, and it does not reflect the feelings of anyone that was insulted. It was an on the air comment made for public viewing (loosely speaking, slanderous) It is a common view of those that make such comments to state that someone (else) is just being too sensitive. That view does not accept that others might see things differently. Can you accept that others might see things differently than yourself? If not, doesn't that make you an "ugly American"?"
So, essentially, "racism" is in the eye of the beholder, yes? The neat thing about your idiotic post is that you've basically been hung by your own assertion: if the issue at play is merely one of perception based on the person perceiving it, you've emasculated your own argument very nicely. This kind of thinking is part and parcel of PC and the notion that there is no concrete meaning for anything, since pretty much anything you say could be 'viewed by others differently.'
In this case, I side with the original OP: this isn't and never will be anything more than yet more whining from the Obama campaign about non-issues. I humbly suggest that the more Obama (and the likes of you) play the race card, the more likely it is he will alienate broad swaths of the electorate (we Conservatives may be almost-numb to be called racists every other day, but the majority most certainly is not and is going to grow weary of hearing Obama cry wolf on this issue long before November rolls around).
Posted by: ECM at June 12, 2008 02:46 PMSo, essentially, "racism" is in the eye of the beholder, yes?
Certainly! If the racist insults the 'victim' using a sterotype based on race. Yes! The racists ignorance may prevent him or her from seeing how his statements affect others, or he or she might not care. Why should the insulter be the one to decide what the insulted should accept?
The neat thing about your idiotic post is that you've basically been hung by your own assertion: if the issue at play is merely one of perception based on the person perceiving it, you've emasculated your own argument very nicely. This kind of thinking is part and parcel of PC and the notion that there is no concrete meaning for anything, since pretty much anything you say could be 'viewed by others differently.'
You seem to be talking to yourself. "hung by own assertion", "emasculating myself", "no concrete meaning". You explain nothing, you are just making statements. Please explain these statements. Ms. Obama is not a single unmarried African American female from the ghetto. That is the meaning of Baby Mama to people in the African American community. It is insulting whether you accept that or not.
In this case, I side with the original OP: this isn't and never will be anything more than yet more whining from the Obama campaign about non-issues. I humbly suggest that the more Obama (and the likes of you) play the race card, the more likely it is he will alienate broad swaths of the electorate (we Conservatives may be almost-numb to be called racists every other day, but the majority most certainly is not and is going to grow weary of hearing Obama cry wolf on this issue long before November rolls around).
I am not Obama, I am not a spokesman for him, I am an independent. Not a "ditto head". What is this race card you speak of and how am I throwing it? I made the statement that certain things have racial connotations. I hoe you can agree to that. I did not call dear Michelle a racist, I only said that certain things are insulting and have a racial connotation. I asked for an apology based on her making that statement.
In other cultures, thumbs up is an insult, the OK sign is another insult. Ignorance with refusal to accept other's cultural differences is impolite at best.
The likes of me? You sir, might be a lost cause. No race card, only asking for understanding of differences. Nothing more, nothing less. As a psychiatrist, I wonder if conservatism is truly an illness like racism, or is it just ignorance.
You don't know my background so do not assume my being in touch with some people in the African American (or many other) communities means what you believe. Assumptions are dangerous things.
Iverson Bell MD
Dr. Bell,
If you are indeed asking Ms. Malkin for an apology, why are you commenting on Confederate Yankee? Either you are confused about where this 'story' initiated, or you are simply a sock-puppet.
Furthermore, racism is not a disease. It is a mindset, a belief only wherein the believer thinks their group is better than some other group because of certain factors they consider important distinctions. As a psychiatrist, I would presume you would understand that distinction. Racism cuts 'both ways'. The most recent example of that is Sen. Obama's pastor Rev. Wright and Rev. Hagee (McCain endorsement, now rejected) words about Jews.
Finally, if racism COULD be classified as a disease, it could only be a societal one, not individual as in the "Jim Crowe South" of yesteryear.
Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 04:26 PMYeah, and John McCain once called his wife a trollope and a c***. I suppose they shouldn't be dismayed if Fox decides to caption Cindy McCain accordingly.
Posted by: d at June 12, 2008 04:30 PMDid you hear? Obama is a Muslim!
Sorry, I just like to spread gossip.
Posted by: d at June 12, 2008 04:47 PMd,
Your comments are extremely deep. /sarc
However, I did find your second one interesting for the following reason. I happen to work with several Muslims. On occasion, I discuss politics with them. In my last conversation (before HRC got out) I asked one lady, "Who do you like in the Presidential race?" Her response was "Obama". I asked her a basic follow-up of, "Why?"
Here's where it gets interesting.
She said, "Because he's half-Muslim and half-Christian." This from a woman who moved to the US about 25 years ago and has only visited the ME occasionally since. She is quite "Americanized", yet still identifies Obama as half-Muslim/half-Christian. NOT half-Black/half-White. I followed that question up a bit more generally with respect to her Muslim friends and asked, "So, who do the people at the mosque like and why?" Her response was exactly the same.
Moral of the story: in regards to Obama, Muslims do not look at ‘race’; they look at 'religion'. To them, he IS at least half-Muslim.
Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 05:07 PMBarrack Hussein Obama was born a Muslim. His father was Muslim which, under Muslim law makes B. Hussein a Muslim. He states the Muslim call to prayer is the most beautiful sound he has ever heard. I have heard that call. Sounds to me like catterwalling, but then, I am not a Muslim.
Posted by: Zelsdorf Ragshaft III at June 12, 2008 05:14 PMDoctor Bell:
Thank you so much for your "diagnosis" of racism as an "illness." I would greatly appreciate it if you'd share the DSM-IV code for this "illness," so that I might properly research it. I am having trouble locating it in any of the DSM-IV resources online (and I know where lots of them are, I work for a not-for-profit health insurance provider--I won't name which one, but you'd recognize the name, I guarantee).
Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 05:59 PMI never noticed the color of the BHO supporters skin, but damn, its thin.
Posted by: grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr at June 12, 2008 06:30 PMDr. Carl Bell in Chicago has proposed that "racism" be given a DSM code as a psychiatric diagnosis (possibly a personality disorder). So no, it is not an official diagnosis. It is more like a personality disorder in that those with it do not consider it a problem.
I'm sure you can provide me with a link to the proposal, Dr. Bell.
However, until it is added to the DSM, it is not considered an "illness," so in the interest of clarity, I'd suggest that you choose your terms more carefully, as befits a medical professional.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 12, 2008 09:21 PMYet another psychological disorder to add to the already completely overloaded and over-hyped field.
Tell me, Dr., is there going to be a pill that will solve this new diagnosis like Ritalin for hyper-active children (ADD diagnosis)? Perhaps Cyanide will make a come back?
Also let us in on the inside secret of Dr. C. Bell and Dr. I. Bell.
Posted by: Mark at June 12, 2008 09:40 PMPhysician, heal thyself.
Posted by: pst314 at June 12, 2008 09:54 PMWon't let me give the addy, but:
from
(won't let the name go through, it's the commie news network) LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL
America Votes 2004
Aired November 2, 2004 - 22:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BLITZER: We can take a look. Maybe he will and maybe he won't but she looks like she's about to introduce him. Let's listen in.
MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF BARACK OBAMA: My baby's daddy Barack Obama. Yeah!
BARACK OBAMA, SENATOR-ELECT, ILLINOIS: Thank you, Illinois. Thank you. Thank you, Illinois. I don't know about you but I'm still fired up. I am fired up. Look at this crowd. Thank you, Illinois.
....
Tacky.
Posted by: Foxfier at June 12, 2008 10:55 PMPersonality Disorders such as "antisocial personality disorder" are only treatable if the person thinks that he or she has a problem. The person usually refuses to believe that they have a problem. No medication and usually no treatment. Racism is similar in that the person believes that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Their own view of the world does not allow for any other opinions and considers others inferior and often to be feared because of the differences. The racism that I am speaking of, like personality disorders is different from the norms of society. This is not typical "Jim Crow" racism. It is individual opinion based on prejudice.
The 'official' DSM IV psychiatric diagnoses are being reviewed. Research allows for more specific and not ever-expanding diagnosis. But... my point is not to accuse anyone of being a racist, but of making an insensitive, incorrect, racially oriented, and stereotypical remark (a racist remark).
As was pointed out earlier though, anyone and any race can be racist.
Carl Bell MD is a psychiatric expert in Chicago. His expertise is violence in the community and prevention. He is not related to me.
Iverson Bell
Listening to an Obama supporter babble about "racism" is always good for a Friday laugh.
Just so I understand this, if I'm white and think Obama would be a disaster of major proportions as far as being president is concerned, I must be a racist? It is to laugh all the harder.
I'm so sick of African Americans getting all mad if anyone else uses the same word to describe them as they use to describe themselves.
Why don't they make some sort of Ebonic Rosetta stone and send it to all of the major news networks so that everyone in the world knows exactly how to use ghetto vernacular properly. Of course by the time it reached the network, the meanings/context/syntax would have already changed, but that won't keep whoever from finding whatever insult that they can, where ever they can.
How dare "Dr." Bell try to say that he's not using the race card? How the hell are we supposed to know the exact nuance of "baby momma"? Is my name Tyrell? Is my right pant leg rolled up?
When Michelle and Barry did the fist bump, some idiot on CBSNEWS.com wrote a story about how the fist bomp goes all the way back to Africa, or some shit. Like anybody cares. But the Obama's were fine with that over reading of some phantom cultural history, that seems to be being made up on the spot, constantly. Who knows what African American tradition I'll be stepping on next week? I had no idea that every gesture, every movement, every crotch grab, is some sort of cultural touch stone.
Honestly Doc, why don't you write them all down, so in the future we know what the hell you're talking about.
In the meantime, when you call someone a white male, it's not an insult. Even if a black person says it.
I think Fox's caption is fair as long as all politician's wives are called that. Laura Bush is no longer the first lady but should be introduced as Bush's baby mama. Introducing the President of the United States George W. Bush and his baby mama.....That doesn't seem like any kind of denigration at all, does it?
All the crap that CY wants to put out about Obama's dad and mom is the new conservative's code for racism. Its not a secret that more children are born out of wedlock when a minority parent is involved, but its not PC to say you won't vote for him because he is black but you can say, well I won't vote for him because he is illegitimate. Like again, Obama had a choice of who his parents were or what religion they were when he was born. Fox is simply trying to smear the candidate by implying the racism/illegitimate card when they don't introduce her as Obama's wife but twist her words by stating she is (only) the mother of Obama's children. Its lame...period.
Posted by: matta at June 13, 2008 06:59 AM"I'm so sick of African Americans getting all mad if anyone else uses the same word to describe them as they use to describe themselves."..."How dare "Dr." Bell try to say that he's not using the race card? How the hell are we supposed to know the exact nuance of "baby momma"? Is my name Tyrell? Is my right pant leg rolled up?"
African Americans, Irish Americans, Native Americans, all have different social strata within their own group. Just because a segment of the group uses a negative term to describe someone (witin their own group) does not make that behavior correct. Fox News and Michelle Malkin knew that the term is ***Not*** a term of endearment or an honorific. If I personally do not like the name "Tyrell", and call someone within my own group that, the other would understand the 'insult' (because of their own cultural background). Baby Mama may be a cute joke to some, but it is at best a tasteless title to give to someone that they are not familiar with and not within their own culture. In other words cultures accept certain behaviors from those within the group that are not acceptable from the 'outside'. All cultures do that. You don't have to like it, it may not be acceptable to you, but all groups do it.
Fox News staff understand that. Jackie Chan may get laughs for walking into an establishment and saying "My Ni##er" because he heard someone else say it. Most people understand that it is who uses the terms and how they are used.
The best example I can give is that McCain called his wife a "c&nt". Not a pretty term, but how do you think he would react if his best friend agreed with him and said "yeah she is a...". Then how do you think he would react if you called his wife that? If you went to your local bar or pub with your buddies and called one of them a name (jokingly) and then a stranger walked in and said the same thing, would the reaction be the same? Fox News essentially walked into our neighborhood and called Obama's wife a name.
No "race card", only human nature. You cannot know all of the nuances. I don't, no one does. "Baby Mama" is not a nuance. The people at fox know that. They are not using some cultural term of endearment for their wives.
So, "How dare I...?" not easily. Maybe not wisely. I am on a conservative blog, discussing the behavior of the 'owner' of the blog, in an environment that I have no experience with. I have been trying to explain general psychological terms and sociologic behavior to some people that probably don't want to hear it. Perhaps I should keep my opinions and explanations to myself. I am no permanent writer hear. I am only an unwelcome visitor (kind of like the dreaded substitute teacher).
Oh well, I do teach college students, medical students, and psychiatric trainees, and maybe I just enjoy talking to myself. "It is better to light one candle, than to curse the darkness". That is my explanation.
Iverson Bell
Seems like the good doctor/professor is forgetting his oath: "First, do no harm." The candle indeed burns very dimly in his cloistered realm...
One would think that such a learned man would understand the futility of trying ad hominem attacks on a woman in a Conservative Blog to create Obama supporters--assuming (1) he is a doctor, (2) he hasn't been sampling the pharmacy in his spare time, and (3) he is still rational...
Posted by: jtb-in-texas at June 13, 2008 07:45 AMGood points, JTB. I should also point out, as my friend Mark has, that the "learned" man addressed his first comment to a person who, to my knowledge, has never posted on this blog. That in itself calls into question his intelligence and/or attention to details. The fact that just recently he again refers to this other person in a comment, and later in the same comment says he is discussing the "owner" of the blog, lends weight to the conclusion that he is absolutely clueless about just who's blog he is commenting on.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 08:02 AMSpeaking of ad hominem attacks! Not one response to the gist of what I said. Hey, if you don't want a discussion about the material then so be it.
My error, confusion, mistake, was assuming that because the blog linked to Ms. Malkin's webpage, that she ran this blog. She referenced it earlier. Again, such is the dager of making assumptions.
I do not and cannot expect you all to defend or explain her opinions as this does not belong to her. Being 'old school', I ran a BBS years ago with a free flow of opinions (religion, politics, etc.). I agains 'assumed' that the rules of engagement were similiar. Wrong there too.
So, go ahead, attack if you feel that need. The teacher has made some mistakes.
Iverson Bell
Speaking of ad hominem attacks! Not one response to the gist of what I said. Hey, if you don't want a discussion about the material then so be it.
My error, confusion, mistake, was assuming that because the blog linked to Ms. Malkin's webpage, that she ran this blog. She referenced it earlier. Again, such is the dager of making assumptions.
I do not and cannot expect you all to defend or explain her opinions as this does not belong to her. Being 'old school', I ran a BBS years ago with a free flow of opinions (religion, politics, etc.). I again 'assumed' that the rules of engagement were similar. Wrong there too.
So, go ahead, attack if you feel that need. The teacher has made some mistakes.
Iverson Bell
Thank you, "Doctor," for demonstrating not only your ignorance but also your lack of proper reasoning. Permit me, "Doctor," to illustrate.
If this blog links to Fox News, as it has, does that mean Fox News runs it? If it links to NBC, as again it has, does that show evidence that NBC runs it? My, my, there are a lot of people "running" this blog.
A few moments worth of calm consideration would have shown this, I believe. However, "Doctor," you seem to have flown headlong into a hole of your own making, and a very avoidable one as well.
Also, there is the "About C.Y." link on the sidebar which would have provided information to keep you from stumbling, but you were too hot on the path of your righteous indignation at the idea that anyone would dare speak against Saint Obama, weren't you?
Oh, and the most damning piece of evidence is that anyone who knows the least little bit about blogs would realize that they're mostly independent of one another.
You've made quite the fool of yourself, "Doctor" Bell; my prescription is that you take some time and read without commenting, that you may learn about the blogosphere.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 10:48 AMThank you for your kind and reasoned consideration.
It is typical how you easily remark on my error and make absolutely no response to my argument.
I rushed "headlong' into - discussing - an insult. My mistake was in thinking that this site did more than just parrot an opinion and not discuss it. My latter responses were directed more at Fox (run by Roger Ailes former Nixon crony) than Ms. Malkin anyway. I guess my points are valid since no one has rebutted anything more than my admitted error about the blog.
I ran a BBS (Bulletin Board Service for you newbies) from 1983-1987). At the (preinternet) time, I had 13,000 calls by modem over 2 years and 300 regular contributors. I have since been a little too busy to do that. HeadBoard was(unlike this weblog) not for ad-hominem attacks, but people discussed those topics freely and without censorship. Conservatives and liberals alike contributed. I made the grievous error of assuming that this would be similar. As I said, courtesy is not your forte.
So, I readily admit to my ignorance of some things. Do you?
Iverson Bell
You are not the only one who remembers the days of 300 baud modems and BBSes, sir. That such familiarity also speaks ill of you, you apparently realize not; would you assume that a BBS referring to an article on, say, CompuServe was run by CompuServe?
No, sir, I've proven my point, and I'm done with you. All your frantic flailing is merely proving it all the more firmly for me, and for that I thank you.
Good day, sir. I said, GOOD DAY.
Posted by: C-C-G at June 13, 2008 12:01 PMCCG, Good day to you as well. If you ever would like to email me, my email address is right here.
FYI, if you had gone to Malkin's site, saw something labeled "blog" and a list or responses with her name. One might assume that the first response on this page were hers. Nevertheless, that territory is covered and you seem to revel in that.
Alas, my "frantic flailing' proves my point that there were no responses to my discussion about racist statements vs racism. Be done with me, but the topic may continue to haunt you as it apparently bothers you now.
Just, be aware that it (racism) has always existed along with xenophobia. The only positive way to deal with it is to notice it upfront, point it out, discuss it, and be aware that other cultures might not laugh at the same jokes that you find funny.
Iverson Bell Jr., MD DFAPA
Board Certified psychiatrist
For your elucidation, Dr.
Bigot
Via Merriam-Webster.com
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Since being a bigot, as defined above, includes the concept of ‘being intolerant to members of a group’, I declare - here and now - that I am indeed a bigot because I HATE bigots. Rather neat circle, don’t you think? Furthermore, I HATE green peppers. Gee, more bigotry on my part. Of course, that second ‘prejudice’ of mine isn’t against any other individual or group of humans.
I think, Dr. Bell, you are somewhat correct in your ‘free flow’ statement. The reason, I believe, in this case is because your errors are in presentation and definition. For example: Bigotry (the state of mind of being a bigot) is your contention, not racism. Your presentation elevates ‘racism’ to a higher order than bigotry.
Now, if you want to have a free discussion of bigotry, I’m all ears. Just you and me to start. Others may join in after we define the conversation. If, however, you simply imply those of us who have ‘attacked you’ in the comments, CY, and Ms. Malkin are fundamentally bigoted on ‘race’, then please do take yourself from this site.
Back to the discussion of bigotry now and a bit of background on me. I am of middle-class background. You would classify me as ‘white-male’. I classify myself as human. My parenting included being raised ‘color-blind’ and I remain so to this day. My personal belief on the word ‘racism’ is that the word - its connotations, and its definition - are that both are incorrect and/or incorrectly used. ‘Racism’ is a bigotry based upon ‘color of skin’ or, possibly, ethnic origination is more correct.
The reason I consider the use of ‘racism’ to be incorrect is my upbringing of color-blindness. I don’t give a damn what color any human’s skin or their ethnicity is. I care about the content of their character,actions, and words.
For a member of the psychological community to even propose a diagnosis of ‘racism’ to be on the order of a ‘psychological disorder’ cheapens both the profession and other diagnoses of real mental disorders such as schizophrenia. The reason I believe this is ‘bigotry’ is a perpetuated from generation to generation within societies – some as small as individual families (Hatfields/McCoys for example). It is also quite natural for one group (or individual) to entertain collective (or individual thoughts) of ‘envy’ when viewing another group’s (or individual’s) possessions, accomplishments, etc (the sayings “the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence” or “keeping up with the Joneses).
I find for you, a psychiatrist, to claim bigotry is or should be classified as a ‘mental disorder’ to be repugnant and against human nature.
Care to discuss this? If not, farewell.
As an addendum (since I wrote this before your last reply to CCG): your statement:
Just, be aware that it (racism) has always existed along with xenophobia. The only positive way to deal with it is to notice it upfront, point it out, discuss it, and be aware that other cultures might not laugh at the same jokes that you find funny.
verifies my point that a diagnosis of 'racism' being extraneous to the profession. Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2008 01:10 PM
Paranoid personality disorder: DSM IV # 301.0
Paranoid Personality Disorder is a condition characterized by excessive distrust and suspiciousness of others. They may exhibit thinly hidden, unrealistic grandiose fantasies, are often attuned to issues of power and rank, and tend to develop negative stereotypes of others, particularly those from population groups distinct from their own.
Narcissistic Personality Disorder: DSM IV # 301.81
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy.
Racism in it's virulent form has characteristics of both. Both grandiosity, lack of empathy, and negative stereotypes of others, particularly those from population groups distinct from their own.
No I am not talking about people that don't like someone, but are able to work through those differences through familiarity. A "racist" by this definition might be Adolph Hitler or Tom Metzger. Let me be clear. I am not calling anyone here nor Ms. Malkin a racist or a bigot. No "race card"!
I am saying that unlike the stereotyped "PC", I only ask for some reasonable sensitivities to the differences of others. I ask that those around me not tell ethnic jokes or religious (anti-certain religions) jokes. I make no demands, ask for no laws, just a sensitivity to others. The real meaning of PC to me is this sensitivity. The term has been distorted and stereotyped to be silly and insulting.
We all may be hard wired to be xenophobic, but most can get past that through communication and familiarity. Tom Metzger with the WAR has no desire for any of that.
Iverson Bell
Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 13, 2008 01:55 PMIverson (if I may),
(these points will be out of order from your latest comment)
Racism in it's virulent form has characteristics of both.
Characteristics, yes. However, "paranoia" and "narcisim" are also 'human nature'. The extremes of those two are properly 'disorders'. However, I still cannot see ‘racism’ as being classified as one.
We all may be hard wired to be xenophobic, but most can get past that through communication and familiarity.
Agreed, hence the phrase "finding common ground". You also, however, seem to be stating that 'racism' (I prefer the term bigotry) 'may be hard wired'. This agrees with my previous post, "human nature" = "hard wired".
So, how is a new diagnosis of 'racism' going to help (from prior comment)
The only positive way to deal with it is to notice it upfront, point it out, discuss it, (snip) ...?
Do you agree or not agree with my earlier statement
My personal belief on the word ‘racism’ is that the word - its connotations, and its definition - are that both are incorrect and/or incorrectly used. ‘Racism’ is a bigotry based upon ‘color of skin’ or, possibly, ethnic origination is more correct.?
Is racism being misused in your argument?
Political Correctness
(not taking the link)
(http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Political%20Correctness
) : conforming to a belief that language and practices which could offend political sensibilities (as in matters of sex or race) should be eliminated
This definition is as close a one as I’ve found for my understanding of “being” PC. My understanding includes “being offensive to any person or group”.
As Foxfire posted:
BLITZER: We can take a look. Maybe he will and maybe he won't but she looks like she's about to introduce him. Let's listen in.
MICHELLE OBAMA, WIFE OF BARACK OBAMA: My baby's daddy Barack Obama. Yeah!
BARACK OBAMA, SENATOR-ELECT, ILLINOIS: Thank you, Illinois. Thank you. Thank you, Illinois. I don't know about you but I'm still fired up. I am fired up. Look at this crowd. Thank you, Illinois.
Since the origination of this ‘story’ actually began with Michelle Obama’s introduction of her husband, is the use (or an extrapolation as in this case) of the same by other individuals or groups considered non-PC even though used by Michelle Obama first? How about ‘typical’ black usages of the word (don’t think CY will let me so I’ll mask it) ‘ni***r’ also non-PC? It has been shown on too many occasions to count that when a ‘white’ person uses that word they are demonized as ‘racist’, yet when a black person uses it they are within their ‘culture’. A distinct double-standard if there ever was one.
This is yet another reason a ‘racism’ diagnosis is farfetched at the least.
If being PC is your goal, Iverson, then you might complain about ANYTHING that could be taken as ‘offensive’.
The 1st Amendment gives each American the RIGHT to speak as they wish, with very few limitations. That is why the KKK and Nation of Islam can exist in the country along with the rest. To extrapolate a bit further, a diagnosis of ‘racism’ mental disorder could then be applied even further down the chain. Even unto and including any ‘offensive speech’ (written or otherwise).
While the 1st Amendment grants such a right to speak, it does not grant the right to not be offended.
I shall post this much and await your response most eagerly.
Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2008 03:05 PMI will respond in full a little later, I am working now. I will reiterate what I said earlier. McCain (in 1992) payfully (?) called his wife a "trollop" and a "C*nt". He did this in front of a number of reporters. So be it. I am not disparaging him, only making a point.
He did it. Maybe his best friend or her best friend can call her that. Can I?
I am not part of their relationships. In the greater sense, if someone is in a pub like "Cheers", -literally "where everybody knows your name", they may insult each other playfully. They may say something particularly cutting. Should I be offended because I can't walk right in and call someone a name? I would imagine that I might get punched out by McCain or his wife if I called her a "c*nt" no matter how playful I thought it was.
Iverson Bell
Iverson,
Working, yes I'm doing that too, so understood. Reply in full when you are able.
My quick response to your quick response:
I am not part of their relationships. In the greater sense, if someone is in a pub like "Cheers", -literally "where everybody knows your name", they may insult each other playfully. They may say something particularly cutting. Should I be offended because I can't walk right in and call someone a name?
Of course you shouldn't be offended. The example is one of 'personal relationships' and racism is societal. Just like I've addressed you as "Dr." initially and now as "Iverson" (I did ask permission). This is how personal relationships progress. I showed you respect by using "Dr." as is befitting and then moved, with permission not denied, to first name. Societal relationships do not follow the same mechanism. Therefore, I submit your analogy to a 'Cheers setting' in this discussion is false.
Please try to answer why it is 'wrong' (read politically incorrect) for a group or individual to use Michelle Obama's words (or a logical extraction thereof) themselves as a descriptor.
Posted by: Mark at June 13, 2008 04:33 PMI think that we see this differently. In the society (ethnic group) that I am part of, like "Cheers", I am amoung familiars, friends, or enemies, but still those that share some similar values and usually share some of the same history. "Where everybody knows your name". refers to a place where everybody is at least aware of cultural background. If we call each other "ni**er" (and I don't) then it is a self deprecating but humorous term. It is a very negative term that I refuse to use, but the context is teasing each other about our own value as humans. We were peers with other "ni**ers" not the property of. When we are called that term or "Baby Mama" by someone of the majority group or another group, it is very difficult for us to accept that term as a gibe amoung friends. As you said, "racism is societal". Such words used by the historically oppressive group are perceived differently by the historically oppressed. Racism can also be very personal as well - Tom Metzger can be a racist all by himself in a desert without a group supporting him.
Racism obviously still exists and the historically oppressed are reminded of it frequently - I can provide examples if needed. So, as I stated above, being referred to in the words "Baby mama" by a national news network is not the same as me making a disparaging comment about myself, or my spouse.
The previous statement about an official diagnosis of "Racism", points out that there are many similarities to personality disorders. A diagnosis does not excuse antisocial behavior of a "hitman" or a 'professional' thief. People with the diagnosis of Antisocial Personality Disorder are regularly discharged from the military, incarcerated, and should be avoided. They for example do not respect the values (or property) others. Racism like Paranoid Personality Disorder, often singles out a group based on differences - ethnic, religious, race, country, etc. A diagnosis is not ! a free pass to behave badly. It identifies the problem only. Many genetic diseases identify nontreatable problems.
Iverson Bell
Not differently at all, Iverson. We see it exactly the same, only from different perspectives. Allow me to use a couple specific personal relationship analogies: If my friend CCG introduces himself as a geek, as he does occasionally, by your logic he can claim to be offended if others, who (whom? I always forget that rule) he doesn't know, call him a geek.
My answer is ‘no’ to that. If one introduces oneself as “fill in the blank” then one does not have the right to claim offense if someone from ‘outside’ does the same.
For the other analogy, I often refer to myself as a ‘cripple’. I have done so in the presence of other ‘cripples’ who have ‘taken offense’ for themselves at the term. It didn’t matter to those people that I was only talking about myself and not them. They were offended ‘anyone’ would have the temerity to use such a ‘deprecating’ term, whether ‘self-’ or not. (I happen to actually BE a cripple thanks to MS.) Truly the term, when I use it, is self-deprecating and quite humorous – TO ME. I don’t give a damn what ‘other cripples’ or ‘normals’ might think when I say it. I also do not take offense when being called a ‘cripple’. In fact, it usually leads into an interesting conversation with someone when they are new to my life.
If a group OR an individual refers to themselves by a certain term, then they HAVE NO RIGHT to take offense when a member of a different group uses that term as a descriptor. The precedent has already been set by the self-described group, whether they ‘like it or not’.
Now for this specific case: Michelle or Barak have NO RIGHT to be offended when ‘their group’ has already used the terminology as ‘self-descriptors’ and then another individual/group uses the same or logical extrapolations. FSN, was not ‘out of bounds’ as you seem to be claiming…they were accurate within the scope of the referenced group/individual’s use of the term.
That, in a rather large nutshell, is our difference of perspective on the issue of the use of ‘Baby Mama” to describe Michelle Obama. You are attempting to use a double-standard that I refuse to accept since this double-standard, you see, is also a double-edged sword – it cuts both ways. Whether the ‘majority’ or the ‘minority’ use the “offensive” X after the ‘minority’ has already set the president – it matters not one iota ‘who uses it next’.
As part of the “black” community, you have abdicated honesty on this point whether or not you, personally use the term ‘ni**er’. Claiming to be ‘advancing the discussion’ is a waste of your breath because you HAVE NOT ATTEMPTED to find an equal partner for that ‘common ground’. You have defined the offensive X in your terms alone. By your own (or your group’s) perspective without any recognition of the ‘other’ group’s perspective you have unintentionally poisoned the ‘conversational well’.
And that paragraph is why ‘race-relations’ in the US are where they are today. “Honest and free-flowing”? – No. Skewed, twisted, and spun – Yes.
This is why ‘white folks’ as a group or individual are afraid of discussing ‘race issues’. They are afraid of being branded a ‘racist’. With the entire connotation that term currently holds, it is quite literally professional death for a white person in this country to be so branded. (You may even find some poetic justice in that turn of phrase since some runaway slaves were, quite literally, branded after being caught.) The best example of this is Sen. Trent Lott. If you need the specifics of that story, please ask as I presume you know the gist.
I appreciate your agreement that “racism is societal”. Thank you for being intellectually honest on that point. I do have a slight problem with the Tom Metzger statement. Basically it ignores “who taught Tom M to be a bigot?” One must LEARN bigotry as it is NOT inborn. Other emotions are yet you have already conflated two ‘disorders’ to attempt to arrive at a third of ‘racism’. The syllogism does not follow.
Have you ever watched small children of different ‘colors’ play together? Their disputes are never about “Hakim’s skin color” or “Joshua’s religion”. The mindset of racial bigotry is learned by children from several sources including but not limited to: parents, relatives, events, media of all forms, and their own life experiences. Thus, whether Tom Metzger is a racist or not becomes a moot point since you, obviously, refuse to look at the root cause of his ‘disorder’.
In order to prove to you the complete and utter failure of your premise I offer this personal experience:
The only time in my life I have ever felt discriminated against on racial grounds is when I was walking around Washington DC in 1986 and ended up about 3.5 blocks north of the Capitol building. I was wandering around looking at architecture and enjoying the balmy summer weather. Suddenly I had the distinct feeling of ‘eyes on the back of my neck’. So I stopped walking and looked at the people instead of the buildings. The best phrase I can think of to this day is “all I saw were eyes and teeth” and the people those belonged to were not happy with my presence. I felt like I did not belong there. In my nation’s Capitol! I, an American citizen within site of the Capitol building, felt I did not belong. Being a rather pragmatic young man at the time, I did an about-face and quick marched back toward the Capitol. If I did not do exactly as I had done, I felt I was in imminent danger of ‘something bad’ happening to me. No one said a word to me. No one smiled a friendly smile. They stared, malevolently. Obviously all the people I saw were black skinned. I also don’t remember a single female.
By your standard, all of those ‘blacks’ that day are racists.
Racism is indeed societal, Iverson. An individual ‘afflicted’ with this ‘disorder’ has been taught in one fashion or another. Examine the root cause of ‘racism’ and you’ll find the cure. Continue on your current path and even this humble conversation partner will become unavailable.
Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 03:38 AMI believe that series of posts now 'defines the conversation' sufficiently. If you agree, Iverson, I hope others will post their own views. Providing, of course, our verbosity hasn't bored them to tears or put them to sleep :)
Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 03:54 AMI admire your logic, though I don't agree with all of it. I will respond, and I will try to be more succinct.
Self dishonesty or hypocrisy does raise it's ugly head in all of this. No group (because of self hate or whatever) should denigrate itself. It is not intellectually honest for me to call myself a "geek" (as I too am referred as) and then be insulted by others. Groups in general do not think through things. By my own statement I should never call myself, my buddy, or my wife a "geek". If I do though, two wrongs do not make it right (or even Reverend Wright :-) . Most people (66%-70% according to one study by Piaget) are not fully capable of 'abstract thought'. Neither Fox, NBC, or my buddies (that understand the negativity of the term) should use the term. Call it courtesy.
Bottom line, whoever uses the term ("whomever?") and is aware that it is insulting, is as guilty as Michelle Obama. "Nappy headed ho" is another example (though much more extreme).
If I sit on a sofa and cross my legs, no big deal. If I have the sole of my shoe in the direction of another (in the US) no big deal. If I do this in many other countries, not a big deal unless in less forgiving company. It is an insult! If I did not know this and it was pointed out to me, I would apologize for my ignorance and try to avoid what I personally consider 'no big deal'. If I am aware of the insult (repeating a denigrating term or whatever) and I do it anyway, that is rude at its' best.
Iverson Bell
Thank you for the compliment, sir. Agreement is not necessarily needed with logic. It is either true or it is false. Prove the parts you don’t agree with are false and I will accept that. Otherwise, acceptance is required if the logic is true.
Remember this from my comment on June 13, 2008 01:10 PM?
Since being a bigot, as defined above, includes the concept of ‘being intolerant to members of a group’, I declare - here and now - that I am indeed a bigot because I HATE bigots. Rather neat circle, don’t you think?
You are using quite a bit of circular logic in your argument. Each cause/effect is built upon the previous and the argument returns in cyclical manner to each cause/effect. That is, quite frankly, THE problem with racism/bigotry on any side. They are self-perpetuating. They are also fed by the ‘offended’ group’s use of the exact same terms and stereotypes found offensive when the ‘offending’ group comments – using exactly what the ‘offended’ group says/does in their commentary.
Your ire was initially raised under that pretext. You were offended by the use of “Baby Mama” as a descriptor of Michelle Obama. Michelle, herself, has used similar terms to describe herself and her husband. You agreed above:
It is not intellectually honest for me to call myself a "geek" (as I too am referred as) and then be insulted by others.
Yet you took offense on behalf of the original user of that term.
Break the circle, Iverson.
Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 12:12 PMBriefly. I am offeended by the term "Baby Mama". A number of my peers are offended by the term. Regardles of the number or percentage, quite a few people are offended by the term.
I do not use the term. "Geek" yes, but "ni**er", "Baby daddy", "Baby Mama", or other racially disparaging terms. Ms. Obama used the term. We find it racially offensive. Even Richard Pryor, and Malcolm X, saw that using negative racial descriptors were offensive and stopped using them.
It would be hypocritical for the Obama's to complain. It would also be hypocritical for McCain to complain about someone using the term "c*nt" or "trollop" (very old school).
'Iff' (If and only if) a group that does not use a (racially offensive) term finds it 'offensive' (a very subjective term indeed), and that group is denigrated by the racially offensive term by being of that particular racial or ethnic grouping, then it may be deemed offensive. I for instance cannot designate what an Inuit Eskimo should be offended by - it is up to that group.
One can either choose to accept that the group is offended or not. If one accepts that it is offensive, one can choose to ignore it and offend or be cognizant of that and sensitive and not offend.
The editors of Fox or any new network should be aware that some terms are offensive. No matter who uses it.
By the way, some racists are not taught to be that way. The paranoia is part of their personality and they choose to pick a particular group to be scapegoated. These are the people that I refer to as possibly having a diagnosis. Paranoid Personality Disorder is the term that best fits now (with traits of Antisocial, Narcissistic, and Borderline). Instruction and exposure to others will do little or nothing to change their minds.
Iverson Bell
My apologies for the spelling errors.
Posted by: Iverson Bell at June 14, 2008 01:16 PMThe "circularity" of the argument is an unfortunate product of racism. Minority groups (the Ainu Japanese, Native Americans, etc.) and groups that are subjugated for long periods (African Americans and the Indian Untouchables) often identify with the oppressor (not all people but some). They often try to look like the oppressor, behave like, and take on the values of, **at the expense of their own**. This creates a kind of self hate that is often passed along through the generations.
That does not make it acceptable to use self deprecating terms, but should make it more understandable. I grew up sitting in the back of movie theaters, being able to roller skate at the rink one day a week, not being able to use hotel swimming pools. In the 60s, apartments were not available to me once I showed up to rent, but were again available - by phone after I left. If one is told they are inferior, their parents are told that, and their grandparents are told that, some accept it.
That may be part to the reason we "play the dozens", "talk about our mamas", insult each other, and if we riot - burn our own neighborhoods. It isn't right, but it happens. Others of other groups do not need to participate in that.
Iverson Bell
And with those comments, my dear Iverson, you have completed and confirmed my entire thesis.
We agree re: FOX in this case. The use of the term was in very poor taste though not dissallowed. We agree it is up to any group to define what is offensive to them.
We agree that if a group or members therein use deprecation that has been labled by that group as offensive it is up the the group itself to correct the error.
We agree protesting about outside groups using those same terms is 'wrong' yet NOT dissallowed merely because the offended group "says so" and continues to use those phrases themselves.
We agree 'racism' is not a psychological disorder but a manifestation/symptom of several others combined with 'experience' in various forms.
Thank you for a very stimulating, honest, and educational discussion. You have gained great respect in my eyes, Sir.
Posted by: Mark at June 14, 2008 02:33 PMdang you guys are deep,I give that round to Mark. I understood him better,thanks both of you.
Posted by: 1903A3 at June 16, 2008 09:16 AMThank you, 1903A3. I must say I actually learned quite a bit in this discussion.
I do not know if there is a 'clear individual winner' in this sort of debate. The fact both sides and everyone reading it can gain some deeper understanding without having to deal with the acrimony usually associated is the true winning. I enjoyed this conversation more than most I've had on any topic for the past few years.
Kudos to Dr. Iverson Bell for being willing and most able to engage!
Posted by: Mark at June 16, 2008 11:36 AM
