|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 01/05/2009 : 21:35:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
My participation in the discussion is evidence of interest. Why would you suggest otherwise? |
Because you don't seem to be actually discussing much.| Dave, you're smarter than that. Go back and re-read that paragraph. It is clear I wasn't talking about a desire to discuss the issue, but in not buying into the false choice you offered. It is not a true choice between agreeing with you that the song is the equivalent of black-face or agreeing that those lyrics are really something Sharpton might say, etcetera. |
Here, you've simply missed my point.| Ironically, in the very next paragraph you call *me* dishonest. |
And you seem to continue to be such.| Dave, if I misunderstand something you say, please correct me, but that seemed to be what you were saying. |
I did correct you, didn't I?Except that you dispute this:| I disagree. There isn't any meaningful definition that would include Morpheus that wouldn't also include virtually every non-white supporting character where the lead character is white. |
Morpheus fits the definition that you thought was good.| I didn't say anything like that. |
Of course not, because you're not saying much of anything other than to say that I'm wrong. So much for discussion.| It's up to you to demonstrate how his article is racist, if that's your assertion. |
I could have sworn that I did. Didn't I?| I don't see how making statements about how peoples actions may be motivated by race, whether true or false, is inherently racist. At worst he's simply wrong. |
If he'd simply made statements "about how peoples actions may be motivated by race," we wouldn't be having this alleged discussion.| No, but if you do the search... |
I have no interest in working to support your assertions.| ...you will find examples where journalists stereotyped black attitudes without being reprimanded or fired. Talking about demographic groups is pretty normal in an election year. |
So all demographics are stereotypes now? Do you not understand the difference in meaning between those two words?| So why is the idea of some white voters looking to (and voting for) Obama to assuage guilt so preposterous to you? |
I never said that it was.| The charge of racism also has the effect of shutting down free and open discussion. |
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 21:51:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dr. Mabuse
Someone please explain to me if I got it wrong, but isn't the "Magic Negro" a tool in an attempt to white-wash (no pun intended) movie and TV from blatant racism, and in doing so making it a token of a new and more discreet racism?
|
It's unlikely that any writer sees it that way. It's more likely, I think, that any specific writer who creates a "Magic Negro" character is trying not to be racist. After all, the "Magic Negro" character is a positive character. It's kind, helpful, wise and noble. It's only when we realize that it's an archetype that spans many stories in many variations that we begin to understand that the existence of the archetype reveals some ugly things about the relationship between society and minorities. Things such as:
1) A reluctance to make the minority character the protagonist.
2) A subconscious acceptance that a person of colour is more primitive, and thus more likely to be in touch with "magical powers", spirituality, or an earthy wisdom.
3) The implication that if a person of colour sacrifices himself for the white main character, it's motivated by an unspoken agreement that the person of colour is less important than the white main character.
So I really don't think it's as simple as identifying the "Magic Negro" and proclaiming the creator as racist. Rather I think it's more important to try to understand how this archetype has evolved, why it persists, and hopefully in coming to understand those issues will lead the way to putting this character to rest and making way for more realistic, more complex and more equal black characters in our literature. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 22:00:23 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
I do disagree, but all you would have to do is look back at my comments in this thread to know that.
My last comment was questioning what seemed to me to be a statement of certainty on your part. Your "worst case" stops short of considering the possibility of racism.
|
If I form an opinion, shouldn't I be certain of that opinion? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 22:24:45 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Kil
I do disagree, but all you would have to do is look back at my comments in this thread to know that.
My last comment was questioning what seemed to me to be a statement of certainty on your part. Your "worst case" stops short of considering the possibility of racism.
|
If I form an opinion, shouldn't I be certain of that opinion?
|
No.
You can be certain that you have an opinion, but you can't be certain that opinion is a statement of fact. That's why it's called an opinion. Would you be willing to defend your opinion as though there is enough evidence to support it as a statement of fact? And if you know that your opinion is not a statement of fact, why should you be certain about your opinion? Why even bother to use the word "opinion" as a qualifier if you are certain?
I'll take it that when you said "worst case" you were expressing your opinion and not a statement of fact. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 22:29:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
You, Mycroft, want to make this about Ehrenstein's single sentence about assuaging liberal guilt, in pointed ignorance of the many paragraphs he devoted to describing Obama as a Magic Negro. |
That's not true. I addressed Ehrenstein's paragraphs devoted to describing Obama as a “Magic Negro” multiple times. Each time I was critical of Ehrenstein. I said he overstated his case, that his use of the term was a streatch, that he misses the mark, then I even called it crap.
Then when I did focus on what I felt was Ehrenstein's valid point, that some people might vote for Obama to assuage liberal guilt, I followed it up by saying, ”so what?”
The truth is, Dave we both have a low opinion of Ehrenstein. My opinion of his article – and this opinion can be found by re-reading this thread – is that it's largely ignorant and stupid. I believe where he does make a valid observation, that the observation isn't all that important.
The only area where you and I disagree is you call him racist, and I don't.
I'm not going to address any of the rest of your post. It all seems needlessly confrontational. I hope in the future you and I become able to discuss issues without personalizing them, but for now that seems to elude us.
Peace.
|
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 22:42:22 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Originally posted by Mycroft
Originally posted by Kil
I do disagree, but all you would have to do is look back at my comments in this thread to know that.
My last comment was questioning what seemed to me to be a statement of certainty on your part. Your "worst case" stops short of considering the possibility of racism.
|
If I form an opinion, shouldn't I be certain of that opinion?
|
No.
You can be certain that you have an opinion, but you can't be certain that opinion is a statement of fact. That's why it's called an opinion. Would you be willing to defend your opinion as though there is enough evidence to support it as a statement of fact? And if you know that your opinion is not a statement of fact, why should you be certain about your opinion? Why even bother to use the word "opinion" as a qualifier if you are certain?
I'll take it that when you said "worst case" you were expressing your opinion and not a statement of fact.
|
Interesting.
I'm confident of my own perceptions. If I make a judgment, in my own mind I consider it fact, at least until new evidence comes around that might persuade me otherwise. If I describe it as opinion, I'm really just being polite to those who disagree with me. I assume that someone else can be just as confident in their own judgment, and be wrong.
At the same time, I reluctantly acknowledge sometime I can be wrong, even if I'm confident I'm not.
However it seems to me in something like this we can try to be objective. We can find a definition of racism that is inclusive of all the elements we agree are important, then we can search the article and see if we can find elements that match the definition. If we find these elements, then I'm clearly wrong and the article *is* racist. If we can't find these elements, then maybe you will acknowledge I'm right, even if right now your confident I'm not.
Fair? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/05/2009 : 23:07:15 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
The only area where you and I disagree is you call him racist, and I don't. |
No, Mycroft, our main area of disagreement now is that you say that the only thing I did was call Ehrenstein a racist, and (by looking at the thread) I know that isn't true at all. I'm pretty sure that you knew it wasn't true when you made the statement, too. But for whatever bizarre reason, you can't bring yourself to admit it. You can't even say that you made a mistake (if it was just a mistake, and not a coldly calculated attempt to discredit whatever I might say).| I'm not going to address any of the rest of your post. It all seems needlessly confrontational. I hope in the future you and I become able to discuss issues without personalizing them, but for now that seems to elude us. |
This particular situation is your creation, Mycroft. Trying to ignore it won't make it go away. At least not so long as you expect me to treat you as if you are capable of having an open and honest discussion. About anything. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 04:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
No, Mycroft, our main area of disagreement now is that you say that the only thing I did was call Ehrenstein a racist, and (by looking at the thread) I know that isn't true at all.
|
No, you're right. You also made the claim that Ehrenstein is racist because he didn't provide evidence for his statements and that he's racist for stereotyping white voters. I should have said you didn't make a strong case against him. My apologies.
Originally posted by Dave W.
I'm pretty sure that you knew it wasn't true when you made the statement, too. But for whatever bizarre reason, you can't bring yourself to admit it. You can't even say that you made a mistake … |
I believe this kind of personalization of the argument to be inappropriate.
When you made false statements about what I said, I didn't respond with conjecture about your motivations, I simply corrected you and moved on. When you claimed I had ignored Ehrensteins paragraphs devoted to describing Obama as a Magic Negro, I assumed you were not purposefully lying, but that you had read the statements I'd made, but simply didn't recall them when you made your statement.
Isn't that a much simpler explanation than assuming a purposeful lie that would be easily exposed?
Acting in good faith means in part giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and not jumping to conclusions about nefarious motivations.
Originally posted by Dave W.
…(if it was just a mistake, and not a coldly calculated attempt to discredit whatever I might say). |
Dave I assume you did not intend this to sound as embarrassingly paranoid as it does.
These forums are supposed to be fun. If it's not fun for you, if you honestly feel people are making coldly calculated attempts to discredit you, whatever that would mean, then maybe it's time for a break.
|
| Edited by - Mycroft on 01/10/2009 04:55:41 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 09:53:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Mycroft
When you claimed I had ignored Ehrensteins paragraphs devoted to describing Obama as a Magic Negro, I assumed you were not purposefully lying, but that you had read the statements I'd made, but simply didn't recall them when you made your statement.
Isn't that a much simpler explanation than assuming a purposeful lie that would be easily exposed? |
That's the wrong question to ask. Because in the example you bring up, my point was that your argument was forcing you to ignore the largest part of Ehrenstein's article, which you rather neatly did by dismissing it all as "archetype crap" very early on. I neither forgot your comments nor lied about your argument.| Acting in good faith means in part giving the other person the benefit of the doubt and not jumping to conclusions about nefarious motivations. |
I gave you a lot of benefits of doubt, but things just kept getting worse.| Dave I assume you did not intend this to sound as embarrassingly paranoid as it does. |
Ascribing an utterly foolish position to one's rhetorical opponent is an ancient and widely used technique which I've been victim of many, many times. And now one more time from you calling my position paranoid, thank you.| These forums are supposed to be fun. |
Sometimes they're fun, sometimes they're serious. I was trying to engage in a serious discussion. Perhaps part of our problem here was that it was more-or-less impossible for me to discover, from your posts here, that you were just trying to have fun. Seen in that light, of course you weren't lying, you were just screwing around. I'll try to keep that in mind as I read your comments in the future.| If it's not fun for you, if you honestly feel people are making coldly calculated attempts to discredit you, whatever that would mean, then maybe it's time for a break. |
And on that note, your entire reply reads as, "My apologies... but this is your fault for being too uptight." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 19:38:57 [Permalink]
|
I just wanted to point to the proposed agenda for the Republicans which Chip Saltsman has posted. Note that Saltsman says a few pretty candid things about the massive failure of the GOP, including: If there is one area Democrats out-worked Republicans over the past four years, it is expanding their voting bloc. Many scoffed at Howard Dean's “Fifty State Strategy,” including other Democrats. But the fact remains that his party became more competitive in more places over the past two election cycles. In 2006, Democrats won House and Senate seats in traditional Republican territory. Two years later, Obama won nine states President Bush carried in 2004, and, in almost half of those states, Obama ran ahead of the national vote. The Republican nominee did not win any state John Kerry won in 2004.
. . .
Notwithstanding accusations of voter registration fraud by ACORN, it is undeniable that Democrats out-registered the GOP this past cycle. In some states the figures were staggering. According to news reports and statistics from secretaries of state, Democrats increased their registration advantage by more than ten times in North Carolina, from 18,274 to 198,557; among registered Florida voters from 368,757 to 618,244; and by nearly triple in Pennsylvania, from 191,269 to 556,109.
In other states, the registration advantages Republicans held all but disappeared. In Iowa, for example, Democrats reversed a Republican lead of 7,658 registered voters in 2004 to take a 103,756-voter advantage in 2008. Democrats gained a 93,727-voter advantage in Nevada, overcoming a 4,431 deficit in 2004. In Colorado, there are almost 50,000 more registered Democrats than there were in 2004 and nearly 80,000 fewer Republican registrants. Is it really surprising that all three states voted Democratic in 2008 after supporting President Bush in 2004? |
But Saltsman doesn't really seem to have learned much, except that the GOP got the holy crap kicked out of them.
He begins with pledging, "No Despair, No Recrimination." The subtext seems to be, "And No lessons learned."
Saltsman also has a section where he suggests the GOP "reach out." He specifically says the GOP should try to recruit more Hispanics. But Saltsman utterly fails to even mention any programs which might attract Hispanics to the party, only suggesting the GOP get its act together to be "strong on border security and employer verification" -- positions likely, in my opinion, to lose them even more Hispanic votes! (Is Saltsman really this out of touch?):| But, as CNN's Bill Schneider argues, Hispanic voters supported Obama because they disapproved of President Bush's job performance more than the rest of the country. About 80 percent of Latinos gave Bush negative marks. With the changing of the Republican guard, we must make the strongest effort possible to reach out to Hispanic voters. We must search the community to recruit exciting, vibrant candidates who will articulate a conservative message to Hispanics on issues of education, jobs, health care and social values. Most importantly, the party will also have to develop a unified position on immigration, while standing strong on border security and employer verification, or risk losing the Latino community for generations to come. |
Perhaps most notable of all, Saltsman says absolutely nothing at all about trying to recruit African Americans as Republicans. In my opinion, this is completely in line with Saltsman's "Magic Negro" racism. He not only doesn't see a hope of bringing any significant number of blacks into the GOP, he probably doesn't want them in his club in the first place.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
| Edited by - HalfMooner on 01/10/2009 19:41:48 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 01/10/2009 : 23:08:55 [Permalink]
|
Saltsman said: | We must search the community to recruit exciting, vibrant candidates who will articulate a conservative message to Hispanics on issues of education, jobs, health care and social values. |
Lol, so what's the "conservative message" on those things? "You ain't getting none of ours?"
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 01/11/2009 : 09:54:40 [Permalink]
|
Perhaps Saltsman is just crazy. It's as though he can't see Bush's numbers, and sees only that the Democrats did a good job of registering new voters. It doesn't seem to occur to him that Republican policy played a roll in their drubbing. It doesn't seem to occur to him that one of the reasons for the Democrat's success in registering new voters is at least in part a reflection of how many of the new or young voters feel about the condition of the country right now. He also seems unaware of how many Republicans jumped ship in largely Republican districts.
I think Saltsman might be the perfect example of how cognitive dissonance works. Reality would be much too painful to face. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Mycroft
Skeptic Friend
USA
427 Posts |
Posted - 01/12/2009 : 00:23:10 [Permalink]
|
| We must search the community to recruit exciting, vibrant candidates who will articulate a conservative message to Hispanics on issues of education, jobs, health care and social values. |
I wonder if the emphasis there isn't on the "social values" part, meaning that this person believes he can connect with the Hispanic community based on conservative religious values. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
The GOP "Magic Negro" mess
