� Feminism, Evolutionary Biology & The Cellphone Shopper | Main | Hedrick v Davis �
February 18, 2006
Call & Raise
Just when it looked like a boring weekend, I see that Jeff Goldstein has been fortifying his battlements on the matter of Bryant Gumbel's apparent gaffe over the Winter Olympics. There's nothing like a good debate to warm the typing fingers, so I imagine that I'll blow off some time and engage.
The argument has three dimensions, the way I see it. The first is the dimension of race, or more appropriately the politics of anti-racism. Anti-racism is, of course, the proper principle to invoke, and quite frankly is the most important matter to be discussed, whether or not we want it to be. Are the poltics of anti-racism effective, and if so how are they displayed relating to this 'event'?
The second dimension is that of Sport. In this context what is a sport and to what degree does that sport merit the attention of thoughtful people? Granted there will be fans of any number of bizarre human activities, including reality television, but are those activities worthwhile?
The third dimension is the actual nature and form of debate between bloggers, and in particular between these two. Is JG a mealy mouthed chattering squirrel, am I a sloppy Technorati stalker?
I'm going to focus on the first dimension in contradiction to what I said in Snow Foolin'. Why? Because I have to have the last word, and I believe I have a more nuanced appreciation for the problem than does JG, and I'd hate to leave the blogosphere with only his attempt.
In summary I say that first of all, it's difficult for me to take any debate on Hannity and Colmes seriously. Firstly because I knew that second-rate radio hack Sean Hannity from the mid 90s in Georgia when his greatest claim to fame was defending Bob Grant of WABC. As for Colmes, I don't know jack about him, but who would play second fiddle to Sean Hannity? So if Goldstien is riffing off Hannity and Colmes... what am I supposed to do, listen attentively? But the meat of the subject is the old canard that a black man can't be racist, therefore Bryant Gumbel's 'objectively racialist' comments cannot be racist. Well, I suppose that's worth debating. Also
Assume the worst. Bryant Gumbel is a racist and he honestly believes that the Winter Games are not worth watching because of the paucity of blacks. Assume that is his single point (when in fact he made three). The crippling impact of this comment, indeed his most vile direct suggestion of the night was basically this: Don't watch the games. But there's a second implication if we are to assume the worst which is that the Winter Games are racist discriminators against black atheletes.
But let's take the implication even further. His assertion that the game were as lily white as a GOP convention suggests that the Republican party itself is as racist. This should really burn me up as a Republican (read the masthead). I should be really insulted. But I'm not. The reasons why are fairly simple. As JG notes, I am the final authority, not because I'm black, but because I've done my homework - homework I don't expect any of you to check, but homework done nonetheless.
So here's where I make my stinging point. It happens to be a point I didn't bother to make before but it was in the back of my head.So my stinging point is this: Why should white people make a big deal about a comment that is nothing more than a racist insult by a black man? Well, considering the responses I've gotten here and read there are several reasons.
1. There's a double standard. Blacks get to make racist comments but whites don't.
Blacks also get to call each other 'nigga' and whites can't. And of all the blackfolks on the planet, you complaining whitefolks want to be like the niggas that call niggas niggas? Fine, nigga. But seriously, anyone who reads Cobb knows that I dismiss Class Three Racism all the time. So for the first time in their lives perhaps, readers of Protein Wisdom may be finding that they are accused of whining about racism. That's right. I'm accusing. No double standard here. You're all playing victim of the Evil Racist and Moronic Two Horseman of the Black Supremacist Apocalypse, Colmes & Williams. That is mealy-mouthed, petty, small minded and simply wrong.
What ultimately is the price paid by the existence of a double standard when it comes to public speech about race? Is it that because (some) blacks are saying one thing and (some) whites are saying something else that nobody can really know what is racist or not? I think that's a pathetic and lazy excuse for not reading a book or walking outside of your front door and observing reality. I would take conservatives to task on this matter especially. It doesn't matter what people say, there is no moral relativism.
2. Well it's really racist and we should stand against racism in every form.
We should stand against mathematical incomepetence in every form as well. It's one thing when your kid fails to put her decimal points in the right place, it's another when NASA engineers make the exact same mistake and crash a spacecraft into Mars. So where is your sense of proportion here? Is Juan Williams the enemy?
Aside from scoring points in a debate over the semantics of race (which this boils down to if we're not actually talking about sports in the full context of Gumbel's complaint over the Winter Games), serious people have to determine who itis worth castigating and for what reasons. It's not something I saw in the 5 minute clip of Hannity's show, but we can do that here in the 'sphere.
Nevertheless, I don't think any debate about this gaffe or that gaffe contributes in any significant way to an effecive anti-racist politics in America, and if I sound like a grumpy self-righteous curmudgeon about it, then sobeit. I grew up black in the city, so riding dirtbikes without helmets or playing street football doesn't bother me. I grew up in California, so chicks from Texas do nothing for me. I wrote the Race Man's Home Companion in 1995 so this little episode about the implications of a sportscaster's snarky remarks aren't all that deep. However, it does make for fairly interesting blogging.
Other Sniglets
a). If you absolutely positively want to go there with race, then I can quickly tell you that I think the world's foremost authority is Adrian Piper.
b). I didn't troll Technorati on this matter, Protien Wisdom has been on the blogroll for a while
c). I really really do want to see a video of that Lindsey Jacobellis blooper.
d). I will continue to blow off racial whining, white, black or otherwise.
Posted by mbowen at February 18, 2006 12:01 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.visioncircle.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4969
Comments
Nevertheless, I don't think any debate about this gaffe or that gaffe contributes in any significant way to an effecive anti-racist politics in America, and if I sound like a grumpy self-righteous curmudgeon about it, then sobeit.Here is where we disagree. I find it illuminating -- and worth pointing out -- whenever I see proponents of racial identity politics bending over backward to protect those politics by forgiving gaffes that would seem to expose those politics for what they are: an attempt to use particular groups as voting blocs under the aegis of an interest in said group that is really but an interest in the interests of the groups prevailing voices.
Also, there's the pragmatic aspect of the thing: I happened to be eating dinner and watching H&C, and was simply amazed at the Colmes statement. In fact, it made me literally giggle aloud (which doesn't happen often these days). And as my blog is a place to chronicle such events, I did so in a quick post noting what I'd seen.
Do I find this a seminal moment in race-relations or racial dialogue in the current political ethos? No, of course not. In fact, I chided Hannity for overpoliticizing what I saw to be of minor political importance
But I did find it useful to point to the larger engagements within that battle using this mini-debate for my occasional, and taken in that context, that's what my post does.
Regular readers of my site know that I write an awful lot on the themes of identity politics, mulitculturalism, assimilation, and the way each of these things -- as both social and political philosophies and as strategies guided by said philosphies toward the implementation of said policies -- is both created by, and dependent upon, certain incoherent (but wildly popular) misconceptions of how language functions, particularly as a communicative tool, and most especially in written form, where context must often be reconfigured after the fact.
My post my hold no sway alone; but placed within the context of what has been well-covered territory on my site, I submit that it is another useful nodal point in an overall philosophical conversation I am having with a particular brand of social organization.
Finally: for my part, I chose to ignore the question of what is a "sport" and what isn't; although I will say that to disparage people who have spent a good portion of their lives trying to become the world's best at any one sporting-like activity shows a bit a classlessness that is perhaps beneath Mr Gumbel.
Posted by: Jeff G at February 18, 2006 02:06 PM
Well, I'm glad you have the energy and patience which I often lack. In fact it was over the matter of identity politics that began the beginning of the end of politics as a primary topic of this blog and more of that of the Conservative Brotherhood portal.
I am rather fatigued of an entire set of political arguments whose life continues unabashed and unabated by rational attempts to combat and defeat it. And quite frankly I think that my positions are fairly complete. So it's tiring for me to repeat myself. However I do engage on the off chance that my negligence of the subjects finds me backsliding into something unrelated to reality.
Consider the following:
Again, I find that the benchmark for racial progress in America is economic - to the extent that race and ethnicity do not provide or promote barriers to social equality. We have yet to evolve a proper multicultural ethos for that, but there's a lot of reasons for that, not the least of which is that there's a war going on.
I'm comfortable in assuming that we are in fundamental agreement with respect to a number of issues regarding identity and citizenship. However, I think there are different costs for engaging in similar discussions. I haven't seen you accused in this discussion of agreeing with Hannity because he's white, whereas I have been accused of defending Bryant because he is black. There's nothing quite so galling as being accused of playing identity politics when it is in fact the bane of your existence. On the whole, I'd rather talk about sports.
I am in fact quite skeptical of the way the blogosphere works with regard to helping people understand points of agreement and disagreement. That's why I'm working on a successor. I have a bit less patience with these incoherent misconceptions, me being a scientific type and all. At any rate this is another useful nodal point.
Posted by: Cobb ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.mdcbowen.org/cobb/nav-commenters.gif)
at February 18, 2006 02:48 PM