Ed of “Captain Ed” gets his barnacles in a bunch after I called him out for describing Michael Steele as “articulate”, a phrase known throughout American history as a way to damn succesful blacks (and even though I don’t like Steele, being Lt. Governor is an achievement) with faint praise – such as “we expected him to sound like Buckwheat but he really surprised us” . What’s intriguing is that the good Captain and his defenders (whose level of critique gets no more complex than calling me “fat”) like to make this out as me being one of those mythical angry liberals making a mountain out of a molehill. But let’s go back to Ahab’s Ed’s original post, and the second comment there:
Captain Ed, may I recommend not using the modifier “articulate” when refering to african americans?
So, even Ed’s right wing pals understand that the modifier carries a lot of baggage.
You know, I’m not one to make wild speculation about people, but this once again seems to tell me that bloggers – especially cons – are in some sort of homogenous world where black people are just some folks you see on television or cleaning up your table. The idea that a black person would point out that you’re using a loaded word simply doesn’t occur to them. And why should it? Rush/Instapundit/Newsmax/Wall Street Journal all agree… so of course everyone does.
Right?
That had to be the least articulate post i’ve ever seen. That means I’m complimenting you, right?
And a quick Google search using “Barack Obama articulate” yields 44,100 hits. And some of them are from his OWN SENATE WEBSITE! A few others are from an Obama blog, and one is from something called “usliberals.com”.
I guess Obama and his staff and his fans need to meet some more of them colored folks.
It’s done out of love, Ollie.
Why do you assume that the commenter to whom you referrred, John, is “right-wing”? Does Captain Ed limit comments only to those on the right?
Notice he didn’t bother linking to Goldstein’s takedown?
That’s because Goldstein is too articulate for Oliver to understand.
“That had to be the least articulate post i ve ever seen. That means I m complimenting you, right?”
Shut up, you racist!
)
Would it be possible to please publish a list of adjectives acceptable for people of color. It would be good to have a resource to draw from when an appropriate adjective is needed. For instance, I would like an adjective to connote “incompetitence” when I discuss Ray Nagin. One to connote “very smart & communicates well” to discuss Condi Rice. You could develop your own list, it would be a regular desk reference in every news room and political campaign.
Oliver, old pal, may I take a second and just compliment you on your inarticulateness. The inarticulate of this world come and go, but you are the tops.
Dugger, Hope I Said the Right Thing
So, Oliver, I just want to know:
Do you think Michael Steele is articulate?
Ed didn’t say Steele is “an articulate black man.” Maybe you’ll want to check your source material.
It’s not that “articulate” itself is objectionable. Words by themselves mean nothing. It’s all in the context, which includes who’s saying it.
If Oliver were to refer to John McCain as “A remarkably sane republican” you would hear “remarkably sane for a republican” and possibly be offended by it since it implies that you, as a republican, are probably insane.
If Glenn Reynolds said the same thing you would hear “remarkably sane AND a republican” and not be offended.
Oliver has a deserved reputation for thinking that republicans tend to be insane. If he wants to disavow that reputation (which he probably doesn’t), he needs to choose his language more carefully than someone who doesn’t have that reputation.
Republicans have a deserved reputation for tending toward racism. If they want to disavow that reputation (which most do, nowadays), they need to choose their language on the subject more carefully than Oliver or anyone else who does not share that reputation.
That’s just the way it is, sorry.
Sobek, you’re an idiot. Not only is your “interview” with Oliver completely not-funny, but yeah, in fact, Ed did say Steele was “articulate”.
If Oliver were to refer to John McCain as A remarkably sane republican you would hear remarkably sane for a republican and possibly be offended by it since it implies that you, as a republican, are probably insane.
Your little comparison has a couple problems.
1. Describing another person as “sane” is a back handed compliment. Along the lines of, “You’re not as stupid as you look.”
2. Ed didn’t say, “Steele is an articulate black man.” He described Steele as “Articulate, knowledgeable, passionate, and humorous.” He went on to say that Steele “embodies the communication skills of a Ronald Reagan with a keen grasp of policy.”
You lefties keep presenting this as though Ed wrote, “Boy! That Steele sure is articulate for a negro!” and that’s just a continuing pattern of your intellectual dishonesty.
Wilbur,
How very inarticulate of you (don’t thank me).
“Words by themselves mean nothing.”
uhh, OK.
“If Oliver were to refer to John McCain as A remarkably sane republican
This analogy would be fine if what had been said was that Steele was remarkably articulate for a black man.
This whole thing demonstrates the inherent left wing totalitarian mind set. Control language. Twist language. Use it as a weapon. Everything subordinate to political power.
Dugger, Doubleplusgood poster
Speculation about his credit history is perfectly acceptable, though.
There seem to be a number of commenters who are unclear on the concept here. For their benefit, I offer the following. Speculation about the following subjects reveal something unflattering about your character:
Lt. Gov. Steele’s dancing ability
Lt. Gov. Steele’s athleticism
Lt. Gov. Steele’s appreciation of “soul food”
Oh, and discussions of “size” are similarly ill-advised.
You’re welcome.
Twist language. Use it as a weapon.
Are you saying your side doesn’t do that, dugger?
Describing another person as sane is a back handed compliment. Along the lines of, You re not as stupid as you look.
Only in some contexts. Depends on who is speaking about whom. I’ve used the term of fellow left-wingers and in that context it doesn’t mean “not as insane as you look” but “less insane than our political opponents”.
Steele is an articulate black man. He described Steele as Articulate, knowledgeable, passionate, and humorous.
In the context of characterizing him as “one of a handful of prominent black conservatives…” In other words, the Captain did make race a part of the context. His description is part of a familiar right-wing discourse: “Here’s a black man who thinks like me… the kind of leader that african americans SHOULD be following”.
You lefties keep presenting this as though Ed wrote, Boy! That Steele sure is articulate for a negro! and that s just a continuing pattern of your intellectual dishonesty.
My point precisely was that Ed did NOT write that, but that is what he DID write will be understood by many people in the context.
I’m just interested in how much Mikey Steele’s sis took Mike Tyson for.
Look, there’s a reason why GOPers are hard-pressed to break into double digit support among black voters. PSU, jeffy, and Brandi illustrate why.
You’re absolutley right, Guy Cabot (or mac diva or whatever).
In fact, i was watching election night coverage and they asked some black guy in North Philly (who wasn’t the least bit articulate. Just thought i’d throw that in there to pay him a compliment) who he voted for and he said “i voted straight Democrat. I wouldn’t even think of voting Republican as long as PSU94 is in the party”.
Wilbur,
I’m sure we do it some but we haven’t perfected as an art form as have the liberals. You musrt admit this criticism of the left goes all the way back to Orwell. And the left is still at it on campuses.
Quaker,
I’m still unclear. I refuse to cede the point that I can’t praise any man, black or white, for being articulate. Its idiotic to suggest otherwise and you probably know that. You guys get so wrapped around the axle with secret code meanings and quadruple entendres that you forget the basics. Steele is articulate, our leader is not, for instance. Whats the big deal. Simplify!
Dugger
Dugger, your grammar is pretty good for a southerner.
Dugger,
I’ll explain the whole thing. It will help having it come from someone who is pretty much on the same side as you.
There ARE white people (Republicans AND Democrats) who are surprised any time a black person speaks better than Allen Iverson. I mean, my brilliant and witty sarcasm aside, the “articulate” thing didn’t come about in a vacuum. There are times when people say “articulate” and actually mean “you don’t sound like most black people”.
The problem is, as Jay said above, Oliver is making it sound like this Ed guy ONLY said he’s articulate, which is bullshit, and Oliver also made it sound like the guy was surprised that Steele was articulate, which is also bullshit.
Obviously, Oliver’s post was partisan race-baiting, considering that up above I linked to a Google search on Barack Obama and the word “articulate” is used over and over again by white liberals and Oliver didn’t mind.
“PSU, jeffy, and Brandi illustrate why.”
I’m really hurt by the insult, Jadey.
This is nuts.
I am frustrated every day by people who cannot express themselves well. My experience covers all walks of life, and all races, colors, creeds and religions. This applies to all trades, professions, and other occupations (including mine, which is law). People don’t talk too good.
When I hear someone who really does communicate well, I call them “articulate.” I’ve said that about John Roberts, and I’ve said it about Barack Obama. I say that about Snoop Dog and Rob Zombie. I don’t say it about Nancy Pelosii or Maxine Waters.
Am I racist?
I would like to see the Democratic Party viable again, but that won’t be happening anytime soon if the shrill pundits don’t learn how to pick their fights and try to gain some credibility. Think about it: The dems voting down Roberts are squandering political capital for what?–absolutely nothing, and he’s an absolutely perfect candidate to anyone who truly understands the constitutional role of the court. And Ollie here is calling people racist for complimenting an African American for possessing a quality that is rare across all neighborhoods of America; the ability to communicate. These are but two examples of the kind of nonsense that keep people like Dubya in office.
Quaker still hasn’t figured it out. Why didn’t you state it as Captain Ed did? How about, “Grammatical, legible, and witty, Dugger embodies the communication skills of a Shakespeare with a keen grasp of spelling.” Is it insulting in this way (with all due respect to Shakespeare’s memory)?
Thanks Nittany. I know what you are saying, but I still do not at all cede the point that calling Steele or Sowell or whoever, articulate is racist or wrong in any way. Nor would I call it wrong to call him a great athlete, if he were that. We are letting ideologically-motivated hyper sensitive leftists create false logic structures in our language and thought that have no business there. Racism is saying all Albanian Americans are dumb. Tie Domi is an Albanian American. Tie Domi is dumb. Saying something that is correct and positive AIN’T RACISM. Period.
And Quaker thank you. Though actually my grammar could stand some improvement
Dugger, Nary a flinch at Quaker’s gurgling Arbogast Jitterbug.
Dugger, honey, Orwell was one of ours. You righties should know better than to cite people you don’t read.
Also, I think Oliver’s point is that “articulate” is not positive. It is a code word.
JWG brings up an interesting example of what dugger might call “hyper-sensitivity” to language on the other end of the political spectrum.
Most of us pinkoes, when we criticize neo-cons, don’t give a toss about the religion of the neo-con in question.
However, some right-wing spinmeisters have tried to deflect criticism from neo-con policies (and other issues, such as coddling of hardline zionists) by characterizing such criticism as ‘anti-semitic”.
Now the dishonesty and hypocrisy of this tactic should be obvious. One need only reflecto on how many of these same spinmeisters probably belonged to organizations that did not admit Jews at some point in their past. But unfortunately there are a small number of gullible, weak-minded people who are actually taken in by it.
So we pinkoes have to ask ourselves this: do we take care to express ourselves more precisely on this issue, to avoid pissing off that handful of gullible, weak-minded people? I think most of us would say no. We don’t much give a shit if idiots like that are pissed off at us.
The republican party has a somewhat bigger problem when it comes to its relations with african-americans.
“Also, I think Oliver s point is that articulate is not positive. It is a code word.”
And by Sadie’s reasoning, inarticulate IS positive.
If we’re worried about code words, then “neo-con” is often considered a code word for a jewish-controlled cabal, but I don’t see anyone being upset about its use around here.
We are letting ideologically-motivated hyper sensitive leftists create false logic structures in our language and thought that have no business there.
By which you mean, of course, that you don’t want anyone pointing out the ideologically motivated logic structures that exist in your language. Every ideology is required to deny that it is ideological.
The Orwell I know despised ideology of all stripes. Had he been alive to witness such lies as the “pro-life movement”, “compassionate conservatism”, “peacemaker missile” and “war on terror” I don’t think he would have remained silent.
I’m a fan of Olivers, and I can point to what seems like a couple of hundred links from my blogs to prove it. And I’m white (I only mention that because it seems to be germane to this discusson).
To me, it’s just confusing to be told that something I only ever mean as a compliment–in fact one of the highest I bestow–is negative in any context.
I’m trying to see it from the other side, because I try to be informed and sensitive. But it stretches credulity to think that if I say Chris Rock is articulate, which he is, and George W. Bush is not, which he isn’t, that in any way, shape or form I’ve insulted Chris.
And by Sadie s reasoning, inarticulate IS positive.
It would be if language were arithmetic. It’s not.
If I said “Brandon is not quite as stupid as a rock” you would probably consider it negative. would it therefore be positive if I said “Brandon IS quite as stupid as a rock”?
a phrase known throughout American history as a way to damn succesful blacks
Oh, really?
Hyperbole much?
Evidence please?
Oliver, perhaps your racial sensitivity has to do with your own insecurity about your own racial identity, coming from the Caribean, and having difficulty identifying with real Afro – Americans…
You’re like a short guy that likes to fight all the time, because he thinks other people don’t think he’s tough.
Stop it, Oliver: You’re black, OK, you’re black — we know it, OK?
“Captain Ed, may I recommend not using the modifier articulate when refering to african americans?”
Really? You just need to walk away
Let’s step back a bit, shall we.
In fact let’s step back 48 years exactly to this day, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent United States National Guard troops to Little Rock, Arkansas, to enforce desegregation. And let’s remember the headlines describing the events of the next day on September 25, 1957: “More than 1,000 paratroopers in full battle dress escort nine black children to high school in Little Rock, Arkansas.”
In this context, I’d say it’s a proud achievement that we can nearly 50 years later squabble as to whether the modifier “articulate” is ‘loaded’ if applied to any member of the African-American community.
Are you channeling Rev.Al Sharpton, and simply drumming up traffic for your site. Poor show Oliver….
Sadie,
Love Orwell, but he was a socialist who spoke out against totalitarianism of both stripes. Familiar with the Animal Farm characters?.
Wilbur,
I agree re Neocon or actually any so-called code words. Words have meaning! But this post was about “articulate”. Neo Cons can be (and maybe should be) critiqued w/o it being the same as criticizing Jews. There is a difference though. “Articulate” is an everyday word – devoid of any definable, ostensible political connotation. Articulate is commonly understood as a GOOD attribute. But now leftists are telling us we can’t use articulate to describe an articulate black man. What in the hell kind of rule is that! A white man, yes. A yellow man, yes. A tan man, yes. A black man, no. That is utterly stupid. And the fact there are other stupid code words out there, doesn’t dilute this gross stupidity one iota. Thomas Sowell is ARTICULATE!!!!! Take that.
Dugger, Good Grammar for A Southerner
In this context, I d say it s a proud achievement that we can nearly 50 years later squabble as to whether the modifier articulate is loaded if applied to any member of the African-American community.
Your standards for progress are deplorably low. It’s people like you, who pretend that there’s no problem any more now that blacks can sit at the front of the bus, who keep race an issue and keep our language loaded with disturbing freight.
‘ Articulate is an everyday word – devoid of any definable, ostensible political connotation.’
And now we get to the heart of the matter. There is no such thing as a word devoid of “political connotation.” Language is about power as much as it is about communication. Language is political. Language is politics. Liberal intellectuals, no matter how much the reactionary right, mews and whines, did not make this so. The irony here is that no one understands the political dimension of language — and how to exploit it — better than guys like Karl Rove who, whatever else he may be, is a master manipulator of reality through language.
Let me ask you this, Dugger. Of all the positive adjectives Captian “Mast fetish” Ed could have used to describe the people he poses with in this photo (http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005488.php) he uses the word: “fine.” As in, “Afterwards, I met a number of fine Canadian bloggers for the first time.” Would you read this sentence any different if Ed had written: “Afterwards, I met a number of articulate Canadian bloggers for the first time.” Be honest.
But let’s move on. Referring to Rush Limbaugh’s comments about Donovan McNabb, Capt. Ed said: “Normally I respect Limbaugh’s intelligence even if I disagree with him, but in this case he was a fool.” Is too much to suggest that we can respect Ed’s intelligence but that in this case he was a fool? At the very least I argued he unconsciously stepped in it — which really freaked out the reactionaries. No one likes to be called a racist but to be called on unconscious racist really drives people nuts. But hey, ask anyone was raised by a racist parent: No matter how hard you try to cleanse it out of your soul that shit sticks. Now let’s step back and recognize that we have all been raised by a racist society, no two ways about it. Does that mean that on some level, so deep down they can’t even access it that all whites are racists? Yes. It does. Should we all just hang our heads in guilt all day? No. The point is to stay aware and conscious, as much as, possible about the world we live in and part of that is recognizing that language is politics and power.
I should point out, re the above example of Cap’n Ed and the Canadian bloggers, that it matters less whether the meaning of the sentence changes than whether or not Ed would every even think to use the word “articulate” in describing them. I’ll go out on a limb and bet that it never even crossed his mind that this is an attribute he would or should have had to underscore. Race has something to do with that.
Mark A. great comment!!!
Frank, thanks for the compliment, I like your site, and the photographs in the September 11 post!
BTW do you think Oliver really is black, or is that someone else’s photograph? LOL
I figure in his ‘alter ego’ mode he is black, white, yellow, green…..
Frameone,
Hummm, are you the same guy that had this rather rude and aggressive exchange with Jeff over this very issue on his site? Jeff made sense, why did you argue with him using uneccesarily crude words, when you sort of essentially agree, and you quite obviously don’t need them to articulate.
Let’s see how many times we can use the the word articulate……LOL
Wilbour, are you Oliver’s alter ego? This site is full of little Oliver alter egos…..no real identities…. are you talking to yourself Oliver?
Anyway, you totally missed my point. For a man who said earlier that ‘articulate’ in itself was not a racist comment but taken in the right context is, YOU have taken what I said OUT of context, and placed it conveniently where YOU wanted it to go, as yet another racist slur.
I merely took a moment in history and IN CONTEXT (which surely even you are not debating are you) which I clearly label as a victory for human rights. I did not say we have arrived, nor did I establish the level or progress we are at today. Don’t put words into my mouth.
As for your paranoia, I am not here to answer for the racists in this country which you so articulately describe, nor will I be judged by you who knows nothing about me nor my family’s fight for human rights, for which many have died. Who are you to judge me, sitting in your fluffy slippers and your swivel chair at your cosy home in front of the computer ? What have you done for civil rights, personal freedom, and how many members of YOUR family have died for the cause?
I brush you off my lapel, like a speck of paranoid dust that you are, and don’t even bother answering your racist attacks. You cannot take a perfectly good English word, and hijack it, telling me that it is me who keeps the language loaded with disturbing fright. History or no history, the word doesn’t belong to you, black or white. Period.
In any event , perhaps the word cabbage or potato instead of articulate would suit you better, or will you find some racial insult in that? Like digging potatoes in the South…. it s pathetic really.
It is YOU who keeps the English language loaded with disturbing racial fright, by insisting to keep the fire burning with these so called racial code words. Are you channeling Rev. Al Sharpton or Oliver Willis?
Some years ago, I encountered a black woman who was a medical student doing a rotation in my department. She had the most incredible voice and diction. I told her “When you speak, you remind me of Barbara Jordan.” Her only response was to give me an irritated look. I later approached her and asked if I had offended her in some way. She said that she understood that I was paying her a complement by comparing her to such an emminent woman as Barbara Jordan, but her speech had always been problem for her. Totally baffled, I asked why. She said that she came from an upper-middle class family–her father was a dentist and her mother was a college professor of English.
Her mother read the classics of English literature to her from a very early age and drilled her on grammar and diction. However, when she came in contact with other black children, they mocked her and accused her of “acting white.” When she tried to adopt the speech of her peers, her mother admonished her, saying “I taught you Standard English, and you will speak Standard English. I forbid you to speak that gutter talk.”
As a teen, it only got worse. She was called “Oreo,” not only for her speech, but also because she was a gifted student who became the Validictorian of her predominently white high school and went on to medical school. She always gets complements from whites for her speech and her accomplishments, but always gets mocked as an Oreo and “not authenticly black” by blacks.
I guess the message is: “Authentic” blacks are inarticulate, do poorly in school and have few accomplishments.
BTW do you think Oliver really is black, or is that someone else s photograph? LOL
I figure in his alter ego mode he is black, white, yellow, green& ..
You should have quit after the last post. Cut back on the testosterone,; the mustache doesn’t make it.
Alexandra –
Are you kidding me? I used crude words? I used the word shit. As in Jeff can;t write for shit. I’ve never visited Jeff’s site before. The guy struck me as a particularly self-obsessed pedant who’s argument shifted erratically between jargon-heavy word salad (seriously, if you’re not Saussure or Barthes and you use the word grapheme in a sentence you’re a total moron) and total non-sequitors. Mime? The guy brought up mime.
At any rate, everyone should just remember that Cap’n Ed’s original post was all about politics, race and language. Entirely. Every word. Thus every word and idea can and should be read in that context. He was, essentially, suggesting that democrats feared nothing more than an “articulate black conservative.” To suddenly turn around and say “Whoa, hey, why are you bringing race into this? Why are you reading politics into this?” Isn’t just disingenous, it’s dishonest. Race, politics and language was precisely Ed’s point. Without doubt.
I’d like to point out one last thing on this to everyone here who thinks that this beef over “articulate” is part of some left-wing language grab. The Bush administration took great pains to convince the media that the phrase “homicide bomber” was more acurate than “suicide bomber.” The administration’s argument being, if I recall, that “suicide bomber” is too pro-terrorist because it emphasize the bomber’s so-called martyrdom or some such nonsense. Only Fox News went along. Is this because the media is liberal and secretly loves terrorists? No. It’s because, as countless others have pointed out, the phrase “homicide bomber” is actually less descriptive, it gives less information, it obfuscates reality, indeed, it is entirely redundant. If you’re going to say “homicide bomber” why not just say “bomber”? “Suicide bomber” actually describes something, it allows for more specific communication because it imparts what kind of “bomber” committed the homicide. Clearly, the conservatives spinmeisters of the Bush administration understand the political dimensions of language and have attempted to exploit that fact to their own ends. But were those ends? This manufactured controversy — as most controversies are — was not about accurately describing anything. It was actually just another sleight of hand attempt to paint the media as liberal. It was yet another attempt to trash and jam the channels through which most Americans get their information. Now the idea is fixed, even subconsciously fixed, that any media outlet using the phrase “suicide bomber” is showing some kind of bias, an idea that taints all the information presented by the outlet regardless of the story. So by politicizing the term “suicide bomber” the administration equally politicizes coverage of social security reform, Katrina etc. etc. They did this because they recognize that language is political and that the meaning of every word is always and for ever up for grabs.
How did you take it when you were called an anti-Semite, Oliver? Seems to me that you wigged out but didn’t apologize for using the word “filthy” in relation to a Jew. It was almost like you were in some sort of homogenous world where Jewish people were just some folks who control the media and America’s Zionist foreign policy. The idea that a Jew would point out that you re using a loaded word simply didn’t seem to occur to you.
I wish I could actually refer to your post, but your archives don’t go back that far. Odd, that.
Ed’s not a racist. Neither are his defenders. I don’t think you’re an anti-Semite, but you sure are being stupid.
(By the way, I managed to defend Ed without once calling you fat.)
Semantecleo,
Hey another one of Oliver’s regular alter egos. Give it up Oliver you are too obvious. And judging by the photo YOU need to take it easy with the testosterone.
If in doubt just resort to rudeness, that always helps you deal with the big words.
Man, lots of anger and hatefulness coming from the right wing these days!
Alexandra, you come on a black man’s site and say he should be glad it’s not 1955. That’s the definition of no class. I’m done with you.
Guys chill, I don’t expect anything other than common courtesy, and interesting dialogue.
When someone tells me they have laid a claim to the English language, and now according to Wilbur, American history, I question the sanity of the debate. Accordingly, when the dialogue resorts to my testosterone, I politely withdraw.
I came on this site as a white conservative female, and don’t intend to leave as a black liberal channeling Oliver, (hairy chest and all) unless you guys have got other plans. LOL.
Wilbur and Semantecleo,
Are you guys switch hitting on me now. The ‘alter ego angry black guy’ is done with me, but ‘the sharp shooter alter ego’ says:” hey stay for some more white girl conservative bashing. No thanks guys, things to do…..
Wilbur, you need some Prozac, either that or a black march or something , perhaps the Reverant can rustle something up last minute. YOU are the angry racist Wilbur, not me.
Alexandra;
You are a bit hysterical. Admittedly, I was a bit abrupt in my criticism. It was meant as a cautionary tale. Take what you will from it, but settle down and pick your battles. You’ll find most of us fight farily around here.
Frameone,
Regarding your exchange with Jeff, I am simply stating an opinion from a reader’s point of view.
When you read an exchange between two or more people you look for intersting and captivating discussion, and views which you may not alaways agree with, but which are articulate and thought provoking. Jeff always has an extremely engaging point of view, which is well articulated, more often than not substantiated, and only gets down and dirty if the reader starts it first. At that point, as in the exchange between the two of you, especially about the ‘chickens’, I for one switch off. It becomes personal, resorts to personal insults, and usually means the ground has been more than adequately covered and we need to move on.
For me, Oliver’s alter ego’s comment above is that very signal to depart, I don’t enjoy limited minds exercising their level of belligerence on me personally. My point of view yes, anytime, me, no. I can think of far better things to do on a Saturday evening. There is no mileage in staying to listen to what one of my readers called diatribe: ” I haven’t wasted my time on that poor guy’s site in along time” He goes onto give some excellent explanations to the very subject we are discussing, in direct response to my post today and in response to Oliver’s accusations. If you have time to read it click on the Kenny on my post called You just need to walk away
Lastly, you are judging Ed unfairly, he is not now nor has he ever been a racist., and to say that there is no such thing as a word devoid of political connotation,” is where I think our opinions differ so much that the grounds for debate are just not there.
Alexandra;
Do what you want. But if you expect special treatment because you are a white, conservative female; think again.
Alexandra –
Just for the record, again. The only “offensive” word I used was “shit.” As in “Jeff can’t write for shit.” The chicken stuff was all Jeff in full flower of his articulateness. And I quote verbatim: “I fucked you like a chicken, frameone.” I just left that one alone and tuned out soon thereafter, as well. Elsewise, you may be dazzled when Ed writes:
“As someone who is invested in language and the dissemination of meaning – and in particular, as someone who s been long engaged in a meta-analyses that proceeds from the thesis that how we believe language functions has practical, real-world consequences, in that our structural understanding of what constitutes a valid interpretation will necessarily find its way into policy and law and legal precedent – I find scratch s comment absolutely chilling.”
But to me it’s just a jumbled mess. He doesn’t have any idea what he’s trying to say here so he just keeps stringing together clauses and words until the whole thing just crashes to a halt. It’s a question of style. In my book, Jeff can’t write for shit. As for his actual argument, all he really had to say, some 1200 words later, is this:
“My argument has been that granting primacy to the interpreter for determining meaning relativizes language and destroys the ground for interpretion.”
My response is very simple: Welcome to the 21st Century Jeff. How exaclty does granting the interpreter the right, or even the primacy, to interpret destroy the grounds for interpretation? It’s ridiculous, on its face. I’m willing to bet that Jeff’s most frequent response to those who criticize his fiction is “Well, you aren’t taking the work on its own terms.” Because you see, if we all take Jeff on his own terms then Jeff gets to control the terms and limits of the debate. And, of course, no one gets to say things that hurts Jeff’s feelings.
If Oliver doesn’t get to control the terms of the debate or lay claim to the word articulate, why the hell do Jeff or Ed? Bottom line, the ground of interpetation that Jeff places at the foundation of civilization itself was always just a construct of power, a power that wanted to control who got to say what about what when.
Again, it’s all about power. Quite frankly, Oliver didn’t so mcuh lay claim to the word “articulate” he asserted his right to challenge its use in a certain context. It isn’t losing the word “articulate” that Jeff and his supporters care about. It’s the fact that Oliver dared challenge its use by one of their own. And again, I want to repeat this, Ed used the word in a post that was all about race, politics and language. He was not, as everyone keeps saying, simply, innocently complimenting Steele. He was complimenting Steele in the context of saying that Democrats fear “articulate black conservatives.” You cannot get more political — and ludicrous — than that.
Please tell me where I’m being angry and hateful, Wilbur. As far as I can tell, all the hatefulness in this conversation is coming from Oliver. I’ve never referred to another person as “filthy,” for instance.
Oliver uses loaded, potentially racist terms and doesn’t like being called on it. Yet he’s the first to scream “RACIST!” when a Republican compliments a black man. I’m just surprised at the lack of self-awareness in one so sensitive about a “loaded word.”
I had forgetten about the “filthy Wolfowitz” comment by Oliver. Interesting comparison!
“Obviously, Oliver s post was partisan race-baiting.”
If so what is this, from Cap’n Ed:
As one of a handful of prominent black conservatives coming up through the ranks, any election involving Michael Steele will have a high priority for Democratic opposition.
O.K. Frameone, you have my attention.
I don’t understand why you have difficulties with the paragraph you quoted from Jeff, it made perfect sense to me when I read it. It does not come to a crashing halt, but makes perfect sense in the context dealing with another one of Oliver’s alter egos called “Scratch”, (Oliver, I think ‘Itch’ would sound better, you should change that one) who said:
“Articulate is in the same category as niggardly & best not risk it, no matter how appropriate”
So now I know that makes Wilbur feel all warm inside, but in reality, and in the multicultural world that I certainly live in, it is scary. I don’t live in this ‘Let’s slap each other around ‘cos one is black and one is white’ world. And Jeff articulates just that, and in my opinion very well. I still struggle Frameone, why you are so vehemently opposed to his style of writing. He is, as he says he is, invested in language and the dissemination of meaning, and in particular, someone who s been long engaged in meta-analyses .
Secondly, in your quote:
My argument has been that granting primacy to the interpreter for determining meaning relativizes language and destroys the ground for interpretation.
The author will always have the primacy to determine meaning, and the interpretation is left to the interpreter. However , if, as in Oli’s case (even though you are not talking to me under your real name I am getting sort of attached, in a sweet way), you as the interpreter lay a claim on that primary right, FEATHERS WILL, AND DO FLY! Oli may attempt to control the terms of the debate, or attempt to lay a claim to the word ‘articulate’, but he cannot touch the sacred primacy of the author’s right to determine meaning. The reason why inherently it destroys the actual grounds for interpretation, is because in any argument, you have to establish a starting point which in this case would be the author’s original intent. If you try to massage that intent or interpret it in any way, prior to the onslaught of the debate, you destroy the very grounds to interpret it. It is a slippery slope in the wrong direction, and actually away from the idea of free speech.
I’m still waiting for the historical evidence that the word “articulate” has been perjorative, or offensive, to blacks…
Anybody have any?
frame,
I understand the “hidden” argument. One (closet or unintentional racist?) uses “articulate” because, as he sees it, it is, say, a particularly unique compliment since (so goes the submerged racist thought) most all black folk are not articulate.
And I say, strongly, it is a crock of sh*t. Nothing passes the smell test unless you, OW or progressives are mind readers. First, the primary reading is likely absolutely correct in the speaker’s mind. Mr X IS articulate. Not in spite of his being black. He’s articulate. Period. You and the left-language police-political correctness totalitarians – read things into this speakers mind and marry those things you thus ASSUME with his statement and call it “racist”. Yet, the statement is clearly NOT racist. It is a compliment. Even if you could read minds and determine he was making a racially conscious/motivated compliment, it is a deep, deep stretch to call it racism.
The speaker wishes to say something good about a person, a person that he knows, say, is articulate, works hard, smart, dresses well, and is a good cook. Now he can pick any one of five traits to compliment Mr X. But I’m certain a few of those other traits (indeed any list would have special code words for racism only you guys see) would have you and your friends screaming racism anyway. Can’t say he’s smart, can’t say he dresses well, can’t say he’s articulate. Lets see, then, because this man is black, there is a list of positive attributes about him that I am forbidden to notice or comment on. I can say he’s a good cook or works hard. Fine he works hard. No, somebody may be sensitive about that too. Hes a GOOD COOK!!! Thats it. By obeying your rigid racial orthodoxy, an Orwellian attempt to control thought by controlling speech, the speaker has been forced to preclude the major or major positive attribute of a human being – BASED ON SKIN COLOR. Now, that also sounds like good ol’ racism to me.
I say it again. It is downright idiotic to suggest complimenting a black person for being articulate is racist. Come out to the real world.
Dugger
A word to the wise from the next President of the United States:
Why would I worry about that? The fact of the matter is, Bill, I ve been black all my life, nobody needs to tell me how to be black
Condoleezza Rice
At this point I offer the lucid and articulate thoughts of a reader of mine, which may help Frank:
“Words and phrases carry connotations due to the way they’ve been used historically, and those connotations can be in outright conflict with the strict denotation of the word or phrase. It is quite true that Southern racists have historically been capable of complimenting “articulate” black men in a tone of voice that clearly implies that black men are in general unusually inarticulate; and such a compliment is offensive. But it of course doesn’t change the fact that persons who are not Southern racists almost certainly have never used the word “articulate” as anything but a compliment. That set of connotations is a historical accident associated with the particular experiences of a limited group of people.
Because different groups of people have different experiences with the same words and phrases, the connotations can vary dramatically, making it practically impossible for a human being to utter any sentence remotely relevant to anything controversial that somebody won’t find offensive. For example, Ann Althouse finds it offensive for John Roberts to use sports analogies, because feminists of Ann’s (and my) generation are accustomed to perceiving the male use of sports analogies as betraying insensitivity to and disrespect for women. Ann appears to think that Roberts should tell himself, “There will be ladies listening; so I need to avoid sports analogies, since sports are a guy thing.” But my young friend Vanessa would find it outrageously offensive and sexist and patronising for Roberts to avoid the use of sports analogies when in the presence of The Weaker Non-Sports-Playing Sex; feminists of her Title-IX generation find the idea that sports are a guy thing to be intrinsically sexist and offensive. So when it comes to the use of sports analogies, Roberts is damned (by Ann) if he does and damned (by Vanessa) if he doesn’t. “
nobody needs to tell me how to be black.
A code phrase for “Don’t you dare suggest I have more shoes than Imelda Marcos’
Really it strikes me that the reason this debate has been going on so long is because we’ve been talking about the wrong word. The word most loaded and fraught with danger in Ed’s comments isn’t “articulate,” it’s “black.”
My argument about Cap’n Ed’s use of the word articulate is based on the post as a whole. It was all about race, politics and language. indeed, it was about how Democrats fear nothing more than an “articulate black conservative.” In his post Ed suggests that Steele’s race, and Steele’s race alone, pushed Dems to break the law in an effort to hurt him politically. That’s some pretty fucked up shit right there. So right off the bat, Ed is using race in the most loaded, politically charged manner. And in that context he doubly emphasized Steele’s ability to communicate well in using the word articulate and in a comparison to Ronald Regan.
I was raised by a racist parent. My dad was and is a straight up, old school racist. I grew up in California where Hispanics were my dad’s number one target. He used the word Mexican as an epithet. It didn’t matter whether a person with brown skin was Mexican, El Salvadoran, Guatamalan, whatever. To him they were all “Mexicans,” spoken with all the contempt and venom he could muster. To this day when I use the word Mexican simply to describe someone’s nationality I can’t shake the feeling that I’ve also just insulted them. Try as I have over the years to purge this meaning from my mind, I have had to accpet the fact that I may never be entirely clean of that shit. I have to accept it as in me but not of me and deal with it accordingly.
Step back and look at our society and culture as a whole. We are still trying to shake off the vestiges of centuries of racism and sexism but let’s face it, over the centuries they have penetrated deep into the foundations of our lanuage and so our way of constituting and making sense of the world that we may never be rid of them. It’s easy to suggest that Ed had no idea how loaded a word “articulate” may be for some in the black community but that doesn’t fly when you look at how he was mobilized the word “black.” Literally in his post he uses the word “black” as a threatening modifier — as in a “black conservative” is more of a threat to Dems than just a “conservative.” In this instance he is deliberately, consciously mobilizing race in a politically charged context but in the next, when he comes to compiment Steele, race comes back to bite him on the ass. It;s the return of the repressed, in this case being his repressed, unconscious understanding of “black” as inferior which presses him to overcompensate when complimenting Steele. Ed has no idea this even happened to him. That’s why it’s not true that the author of a text should “always have the primacy to determine meaning.” And certainly not a “sacred right” to it.
From “Freudian slips” to simple blank repetition, in daily conversations people say things, the meanings of which completely allude them. They think they know what they are saying but they really don’t. It happens to all of us everyday. Take that out to a larger level. What Dugger thinks is mind reading isn’t. It’s looking at the culture and society we live in and attempting to discern how those larger structures manifest themselves consciously and unconsciously in what we say and how we say it. Jeff is essentially arguing that authors produce meaning by mobilizing words as language. But language precedes the author and the author has no control or influence over the larger structures of meaning that constitute that language. Indeed, he or she — as are we all — are trapped within those structures only able to say what language will allow to be said. You cannot step outside of language. The proper ground upon which intepretation should rest is not the author’s intent but the vast network of meanings and context’s that contain and constrain the auther because they constitute the very language that he deploys. In Ed’s case, he fell victim to the repressed connotation of “black” as inferior. My ultimate point is not that Ed is a racist but that a repressed racism still exists and exerts its influence in him — as it does in all of us. I think the stupidest thing here is to suggest that in accusing Ed of something I am abolsolving myself of it at the same time. I am not. We are both constituted by the same society and culture — it doesn’t matter what region we live in or what generation we belong to. The shit is there, deeply impended in the very fabric of our lanaguage wherever we live.
Frame, it is not for you to grant the author primacy, that right is wholy his, your right is to interpret the meaning of his work. How on earth do you think you can take away my right to tell you what I truly meant to say, and force your interpretation of what I meant to say on me? That would be quite a violation of my freedom, surely you understand that?
Alexandra –
Why do you have to ask that first? What’s the context? Did you suggest that Oliver should be glad it’s not 1955? I could see how someone could take that as a veiled threat and evidence of an overt and conscious racism. That would be like telling a Jew he or she should be glad this isn’t Berlin circa 1936.
As for Frank, dim bulb that you are, you are demanding historical evidence of something that occurs by and large in the realm of the personal, that is the often unrecorded history of day-to-day racism in America over the centuries. It’s like saying “Give me historical evidence that women find the word “c” word offensive.” Where would you start to look? You could look in memoirs or personal histories by black authors or you could ask people you know if they’ve ever felt slighted by what was intended as a compliment. Oliver didn’t just make it up on the spot. I was aware of the issue long before Oliver posted about it largely through conversations with black friends and, quite frankly, by learning it the hard way as a writer with an editor who drew my attention to similar potentially offending constructions in my own work. Remember Frank: The personal is the political.
I m still waiting for the historical evidence that the word articulate has been perjorative, or offensive, to blacks&
Anybody have any?
After this I’m done:
I want to be clear that I am not one of those “the author is dead” types. But the author is certainly not what it used to be. Granting primacy to an author to interpret the meaning of his or work kills interpretation dead. Not the least reason is because so many authors and artists love to play the mystical influences game in which images and ideas just come to them from the ether of their bountiful creativity. When that’s the grounds for interpretation the best you can hope for is a completely ahistorical, universalized mush that allows the author to slip by any and all social and cultural responsibility for the impact of his or her work. It’s the “I was only following my muse” excuse. Blah. If that’s what you consider enlightening criticism, you’re welcome to it.
Frame, before I answer, can I ask you something?
Do you think Wilbur’s comment: ” ….you come on a black man s site and say he should be glad it s not 1955….” is a racist comment, and that a repressed racism still exists and exerts its influence on him ?
I think we are writing simultaneously….
“It is my primary privilidge as the author to know that my comment was merely a valid statement of fact.”
This is too much. Yes we can it as fact that Oliver is glad it is not 1955. Telling Oliver that “He should be glad it isn’t 1955″ is a straight up threat and effort to intimidate. That’s it not two ways about it, I don’t care what you meant. Indeed, comging back and saying you were just stating a fact is evidence of profound disingenuousness and dishonesty. How could you not know, in 2005, that this phrasing carries an implicit threat? If you didn’t, first of all, god help us, and second, then yes, it is evidence of unconcious, barely repressed racism.
As for the first part of the sentence, You come on a black man s site& it speaks to what I’m saying. When talking to a black man in 2005 about race relations and racism in 1955 you have the responisbility to know what the fuck it is you are talking about and what it means to say what you said. Think about this Alexandra. If the movie “Back to the Future” starred Will Smith instead of Michael J. Fox, it woudl have been a completely different fucking movie. So the sign doesn’t say “Whites Not Welcome” it’s “Stupid Whites Not Welcome.”
You haven’t answered my question.
Don’t get stuck on the latter part of the sentence. The part I am refering to is: “You come on a black man’s site….”
Is that not expressly exclusive? In other words ‘racist’. Should there be a big sign saying “White people not admitted”.
My question is simple, and not out of any context: “Was that remark racist?” my question is not: “Was my remark racist?”. It is my primary privilidge as the author to know that my comment was merely a valid statement of fact. Your interpretation of it is not in question here. I am however asking for your interpretation of ‘Wilbur’s’ comment.
“it is not for you to grant the author primacy, that right is wholy his, your right.”
And one more thing. Why is it the author’s right? Who gave it to the author in the first place? There are lots of people in this society who have no right to the things they produce. Indeed, capitalism is founded on this notion, that a worker has no right to what they work to make, not who uses it, how its used or for what. Why do authors get some special pass? Gosh, could it have anything to do with power and the desire to exert it? Why on earth would I grant someone a right to exert power over me and my interpretation of what it is they are doing? You see it’s a two way street this power and freedom thing.
Let’s take a simple, or rather over simplified, example. You write a story about a man who saves a woman from danger and then they get married to live happily ever after. You say you wanted to tell a fun story and that there’s nothing else to read into it. I say, “Well, your story reinforces the foundations of a patriarchical society in which women are rendered passive and are told they need a man to be complete. Why didn’t write a story about a woman saving a man?” Well, you say, “Because I was only following my inspiration and everyone knows that all good stories are about men saving women. There’s nothing more to it than that.” But there’s much more to it. What you think is spontaneous and natural — i.e. “inspired” — is really only another manifestation of the larger patriachal society that constitutes your very consiousness. If you are not aware of this influence it doesn’t matter. It’s still there.
Alexandra –
You clearly don’t understand what I’m saying. I don’t mean to patronize you but there it is. You keep talking about freedom but that freedom is in itself an illusion. You are, already, not free to say what you mean. You can only express what language will allow you to express. Right there you, as an author, are facing a limitation, a restriction, a bind on your freedom to say what you feel. But this isn’t about getting a thesaurus. It’s much deeper. It isn’t about what you write on the page, you’re very consciousness is limited and shaped by what language will allow you to think and conceive. Through in centuires of racism and sexism deeply imbedded in the language that you use and you are doubly bound before you think word one. The bottom line is we do not control language, it controls us.
So it is not about taking away your right to define what you mean to say. It’s only to suggest that you or I, as authors, may not always be consciously aware of what it is that you are saying.
Before we continue on here, Alexandra maybe you should give me the quote in context that triggered Wilbur’s response. You’re asking me to judge Wilbur’s response without telling me it is you said initially. All I have to go on is this:
& .you come on a black man s site and say he should be glad it s not 1955& .
Again, if you wrote somewhere that Oliver should be glad it’s not 1955, well, how is anybody, black or white, supposed to take that? Everyone knows that 1955 was not a banner year for civil rights in this country. We’re trying to suggest that we’ve come along since then? If so you choose an odd way to phrase it. Which brings me to your other point.
It doesn’t matter how deliberate and considered you are when you write there will always unintended meanings or meanings you never thought of in the work you produce. Have you ever heard an author or filmmaking answering questions about their work when a questions prompts them to think about their work in a different way? Have you ever heard a writer say, “Oh, yes, I never thought of it that way. Maybe I was thinking of my childhood when I was describing that summer cottage.” Also, think of it this way. You have no doubt re-read and re-watched a favorite book or a favorite movie a number of times and every time you see something new you didn’t see before or think of something you had never thought before. Well, this can go on infinitely with a work of art, even bad works of art. Do you think that even the most deliberate and exacting artist could consciously account for every level and layer of meaning in his or her work? At the same time, why would you grant that artist the right to limit what you see in his or her work? Would you want Remembrandt to tell Bob Dylan that he has no right to say that “Mona Lisa must have had the highway blues” because when he painted her she was thinking of flowers?
What a terribly impoverished culture we would have if only authors got to tell us what their work meant or how it should be understood. Because you know we aren’t just talking about interpretation in the negative here. It works in the positive direction as well. Intepretation freed from having to worry about what the author intended can be a richly rewarding and revealing activity. For some reason the right only seems to get upset about loosening the ground of interpretation when someone asks them to take responsibility for something. Funny that.
Speaking of which, I never said coarseness wasn’t part of my debating style. Only not so much when I was dealing with Jeff. Who, I have to remind you again, is the one who brought up the chicken fucking. I only said he couldn’t write for shit (which again is a matter of opinion).
You have just called me a stupid white disingenuous and dishonest person who, to quote you verbatim “doesn’t know what the fuck [she] is talking about”. Well that’s what you said about Jeff Goldstein, so I feel I am in good company. Shame on you though, you are resorting to the identical tactics which you denied earlier were a part of your debating style. Be that as it may, I think I have taken enough insults for one day, between you and Oliver’s various ‘alter egos’. You however, may want to consider anger management therapy.
Not so. Here’s why – and that is particularly so in the written language: writing is deliberate; meaning it’s done consciously and intentionally; fully considered; not impulsive; in a careful and unhurried way.
You may have a point when considering the work of a psychoanalyst dealing with an individual’s neurosis regarding certain ‘trigger’ words or terms encountered in conversation. It’ll be his job to unearth the cause/source and then attempt to deal with it. But in the case of a writer’s deliberate choice of words, he ought to be able to transcend both universal as well as personally ‘established’ connotations of certain words or phrases as well as ideas or feelings that a word invokes in him IN ADDITION to its literal or primary meaning. EXAMPLE: the word ‘discipline’ has unhappy connotations of punishment and repression.
I have to bring you back to a line from one of my favorite movies called ‘Young Frankenstein’:
“Hump? What hump?”
You are constantly coming from the premise that we ought to either know or at least assume that all African-Americans are carrying a major chip on their shoulders.
I do not do that as I consider that patronizing. I treat fellow human beings as equals and without a pre-prescribed label.
Only when you understand that will you understand that your concern about the date is entirely baseless and misguided.
And by the way, where does this “he should be glad it isn’t 1955″ come from? I neither said it nor implied it. But then Wilbur owns my words too, the ones that come out of my mouth, along with the entire English language, American history…..
So, the ‘valid statement of fact’ is what it is: it’s not a threat in itself unless perceived otherwise, and at that moment I better hand over to the more qualified practitioners in the field of psychoanalysis or related fields….
You didn’t need to run the whole thread. I just didn’t link what Wilbur was saying back to comment about 1957 — not even when I first read it. I thought he was referring to something you said on another thread. The reason being what he says you said is totally different from what you actually said. Is that indicative of some kind of latent, uconscious racism on Wilbur’s part? Well, in distorting your words, no. In overidentifying with Oliver by, in a sense, assuming to speak for him as a black man? I don’t know. Is Wilbur black? If he’s white like me (a pun by the way on the movie title, Black Like Me, which is always worth a look) there’s no doubt there’s some kind of racial guilt at work there. But listen, you’re making me sound like I’m the final arbiter of who is and is not a racist as if I’m beyond racism myself. I’m not. I’ve said that again and again. It is always there doing its quite little work in my head in part because, as I said, I was rasied by racist parents and its tough to get that shit out of your head. But we were all raised by a racist, sexist society so that shit is in all of our heads. You brought up the progress that we’ve made as a society since 1957. And, yes we have made a lot of progress. But some of that progress is only apparent because racism has gone underground, hidden itself deep in the trenches of culture and politics. You scoff at the idea of ‘racial code words’ but there they are. The fear and hate is still there only they manifest themselves in different ways. I don’t know why that’s so hard to believe. One reason I can guess is because — like back in 1957 — confronting it and dealing with it means someone has to surrender a little power or an effective means of influence or else they just have to admit that yes, racism still plays a big part in our society which let’s the air out of a whole set of related assumptions about America, democracy and our brand of freedom.
At any rate, we’ll have to take this up later or let it go cuz I have to get a bunch of work done and I’ve been procrastinating all day.
ciao.
I am now really confused. Have you not followed the thread above? Have you been ranting and raving about something you haven’t even read? It is all said in the exchange above, obviously. At least extend me the common courtesy of bothering to read it before you start calling me names. I have excluded the comments directed at you, as I am making an altogether presumptive assumption that you have at least read those:
From another thread? No. I don’t spend so much time commenting on three threads simultaneously like you, which is probably what by definition makes me a better listener.
My experience is that men are lousy at double tasking, and when you get to the triple task stage, they just end up the loosers. This by the way is a self-confessed sexist comment!
Ciao.
[...] n articulate and charismatic black American who also happens to be a Reagan conservative. Sho nuff.
This entry was posted
[...]