This entry was posted
[...]

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.

# Alexandra Says: September 24th, 2005 at 4:58 am

 Captain Ed, may I recommend not using the modifier  articulate when referring 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 today, 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& .

# Wilbur Says: September 24th, 2005 at 10:50 am

“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.

# Alexandra Says: September 24th, 2005 at 1:06 pm

Wilbur, 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?

# Semanticleo Says: September 24th, 2005 at 5:58 pm

“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 Says: September 24th, 2005 at 7:05 pm

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.

# Wilbur Says: September 24th, 2005 at 7:47 pm

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.

# Semanticleo Says: September 24th, 2005 at 8:12 pm

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.

# Alexandra Says: September 24th, 2005 at 8:34 pm

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 Rev. Sharpton can rustle something up last minute. YOU are the angry racist Wilbur, not me.

# Semanticleo Says: September 24th, 2005 at 8:40 pm

Alexandra;

Do what you want. But if you expect special treatment because you are a white, conservative female; think again.

# Alexandra Says: September 24th, 2005 at 8:54 pm

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.

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.

“Bottom line we do not control language, it controls us. Even more importantly through centuries of racism and sexism deeply embedded in the language that you use you are doubly bound before you think word one.”

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.

This is too much. Yes we can take it as fact that Oliver is glad it is not 1955. Telling Oliver that  He should be glad it isn t 19553 is a straight up threat and effort to intimidate.

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 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 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.

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.

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.

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.”

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 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.

Anybody have any?

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.

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.

A code phrase for “Don’t you dare suggest I have more shoes than Imelda Marcos’

“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. “

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