What happens when people stop being nice and start getting real?
-The “Real World” season 1
Last week in my 8th period class I had yet another confrontation with one of my students. This student who has a history of belligerence was going about his usual routine of non-compliance when I asked this question: “Are you and I going to get along in this class or are we going to continue to butt heads everyday?” The student then replied: “I ain’t no butt head…Don’t call me no butt head!” As laughable as this may seem, it represents in many cases how we as Americans react when we feel that we have been personally insulted. Most of us are dealing with beasts that are caged and pacing back and forth somewhere in our psyches, just waiting for the right opportunity to pounce any victim who dares to stick their hand in our cage. This beast does not listen to logic and has no use for logical discourse. It only wants to attack.
Ironically I was reminded the next day during my weekly snowboarding trip that although many of us have learned to contain the beast better than most, there is always a chance that someone might unwittingly open the cage. This moment happened when a seemingly benign conversation came up about the recent controversy surrounding the New York Post and it’s political cartoon which some allege was directed toward Barack Obama. The driver on this trip stated (I’m paraphrasing) how ridiculous he thought the whole debate was because presidents all throughout history have been subject to criticism in the press and that Obama was not exempt. He also stated that it was silly that people thought that this cartoon was offensive because in the past even president Bush was depicted as a primate. He went on to say that it was ridiculous for anyone to associate the gorilla in this cartoon with Obama since he did not write the stimulus bill. He only signed it. This was the point at which the beast in my cage began to emerge. The argument which followed later however is irrelevant because I consider this individual a friend therefore, a tirade highlighting all of the reasons why I felt he was wrong is not necessary. It is necessary however is to display what I learned from our discourse.
1. Each culture that makes up this country possesses a set of sensitive and inherent triggers derived from history. These triggers can at any time impede the progress of the country to move forward. For example, no matter what the intent of the New York Post cartoon was, it set off a trigger in African Americans because for generations since slavery we have been compared to the primate. Although some of us have transcended this insult, many of us still feel the pain especially when it could possibly be used to insult our first African American president whom I’m not ashamed to say I am quite proud. Also, when I think of all of the faces of older African Americans who openly wept after the election I cannot help but think that they are the ones who actually experienced Jim Crow. Some of them can actually remember a time when voting was a life threatening experience. My grandfather who is my last remaining grandparent remembers. I wonder how he feels about the New York Post cartoon.
What I learned: In hindsight, I see my friend’s point. Why should Barack Obama be exempt from criticism? If we start excusing every thing that he does and when attacking him starts to become a taboo then we begin to approach a dangerous realm reminiscent of the fascism that this country fought in the not so distant past. It is possible that because of my friend’s Jewish background that my defense of our president might have sounded too much like the kind of support that another leader in the 1940’s might have received. These triggers are real.
2. Because everyone possesses these triggers, it is helpful when opinions are expressed in the appropriate setting. Although there was slight tension between my friend and me when this debate happened, it was completely healthy and beneficial to us both. I am confident that we both walked away a little more enlightened then we were previously. However, I cannot help but think about other situations when the same differences might not have been so neatly resolved.
What I learned: When our discussion ended we both agreed that the reason for our debate was that we both came from two unique backgrounds with different sets of issues. We also expressed that we have both been in somewhat awkward situations where we might have been outnumbered by the dominant culture and been forced to be diplomatic when we would have rather come out with our guns blazing. For example, he is a white male who moved to Bedford Stuyvesant right before its current gentrification boom. During that time he was subject to all sorts of insults designed to either discourage his choice of residence or to test his metal. I on the other hand, have been the subject of backhanded insults by some of my white counter parts which were designed to measure my level of intelligence or to see whether I was A. the type of ‘angry black man’ who was insulted by everything or B. the type of man who was only interested in getting along with folks and would turn a deaf ear to their coy banter. The bottom line is that in the hood whether it is Bed Stuy or Benson Hurst, no one cares about the type of discourse that we had the opportunity to engage. In most cases people just start pulling their triggers and letting metaphorical bullets fly. And there are some that would agree that this type of response is the best because it leaves little room for bull. Again, one must know their audience.
It is no secret that in the world of commerce, it is essential that no matter how many times during the course of our day that we are insulted we must maintain certain amount of decorum or be reduced to the level of lawless cowboys who settle our differences with six shooters. The insults that we feel most passionate about are mostly rooted in personal tragedies that we had to endure from our past. In a world that is so concerned with the present we may sometimes be unaware of the ripple effects of the past. Although there are many of us who possess the awareness needed to deal with some of these issues, there are others among us who find comfort in the simplicity of ‘hood thought’. And for some of us these roles are interchangeable. At the root of it all is raw emotion. Despite our social, financial or cultural backgrounds we have all been blessed and cursed with the ability to feel based on our life experiences. If enough of people feel a certain way it might behoove the rest of us to consider that these emotions have not been formed in a vacuum. In the case of the New York Post, maybe a simple apology and attempt at understanding would have gone a long way.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Semantics, Sensibilities and Sensitivity
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
you have fairly well misrepresented my position in the discussion. at no point in the conversation did i suggest that any opinion or debate was "silly" or "ridiculous". these are your words. just as in the car, where you acknowledged putting words in my mouth, you have again attributed comments to me that did not come from my mouth.
"the driver on this trip stated (I’m paraphrasing) how ridiculous he thought the whole debate was because presidents all throughout history have been subject to criticism in the press and that Obama was not exempt".
I stated no such thing. I believe debate is healthy, not ridiculous. Again, "ridiculous" is your word. Further, criticisms of presidents past and present were not the "because" of my point of view. My position was that the protests, led by Charles Barron and Al Sharpton, and signs calling for the incarceration of Rupert Murdoch and the shutting down of the Post were extreme based on an interpretation of a comic that I believe is not racist. I explained that I did not see the straight line from A to B, connecting the chimp to barack obama. there was no caricaturing of obama in the drawing of the chimp. there was nothing in the drawing suggesting that the chimp was a representation of obama. the caption read: "they'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill". i believe most know that obama did not write the stimulus bill. the artist himself explained that the comic was an attempt to poke fun at what he believes is a poorly written bill, a bill he was suggesting could have been written by a rabid chimp and using the chimp killed by police days before in connecticut to make his point. therefore, i explained, i thought it was a stretch to say that this comic was racist and, as some suggested, calling for the assassination of barack obama. is it any more a stretch to believe that the artist was invoking the infinite monkey theory? give a monkey a typewriter and enough time and he could write the entire stimulus bill?
He also stated that it was silly that people thought that this cartoon was offensive because in the past even president Bush was depicted as a primate.
again you have misrepresented me here. at this point in the discussion you were explaining why you found the comic offensive and you were speaking of the historical use of primates to depict african-americans to make your point. i argued that past presidents had been caricatured as primates, most recently george bush. the question that ensued was, given that precedent, should/would it be offensive if obama was clearly and intentionally caricatured as a primate and are journalists/artists/cartoonists bound to a different set of standards when parodying obama given the historic use of primates to represent african-americans and the resulting sensitivity to that symbol. there was no point in this conversation that it was suggested people were "silly" for thinking the cartoon was offensive, with the justification being that in the past bush had been depicted as a primate.
It is possible that because of my friend’s Jewish background that my defense of our president might have sounded too much like the kind of support that another leader in the 1940’s might have received. These triggers are real.
one might infer from this sentence that i was attacking obama, which did not happen. although i believe he has made promises he cannot keep, and to date has already broken campaign promises, as politicians do, i support him. i don't know what your "defense" of obama was in response to. and i promise you, the last thing your support of obama does to me is trigger visions of you and hordes of fanatical african-american supporters goose stepping in sync to some socialist rhetoric.
with respect to the comic in question, nobody but the artist knows what his true intention was when he drew it, just as nobody knows what's on your mind at the moment you pen the lyrics to a song. might one interpret the lyrics to one or more of your songs to be offensive on some level, regardless of your intention? absolutely. anyone can be offended by anything at any time, thereby making the song (or comic) in question "offensive" to that person. that's the world we currently live in. but how do we responsibly take that leap from something being personally offensive to publicly claiming that it is generally racist when it is not clear that the artists intention was to make a racist statement?
that is the point i was attempting to make. offensive and racist are two different things and you are entitled to feel offended at anything you wish. but i personally don't feel one can, with any degree of responsibility and certainty, make the assumption that the comic was racist. and certainly not to the extent that some have charged.
with that said, i don't feel that anyone with a differing opinion is silly or ridiculous and have never suggested so.
Most of this post was focused on the 'triggers' that all of us possess due to our own personal histories in this country. When you suggested that the debate was silly I found it necessary to disagree with this point because of all of the emotions that are attached to these triggers. Yes I still maintain that any comparison of Obama to a chimp would indeed set off these triggers. The problem is that no matter how much we get into semantics on this issue the fact still remains that in many cases the average working class African American would get highly offended because at no time in his life time has he seen a black man in office. This does not mean that he is exempt from criticism but at a time like this especially when most of us are still basking in this milestone in history the cartoon in my opinion was just plain bad timing. Maybe you didn't use the words exactly as i said them...Again these triggers are real. On the other hand, I do feel that there are those who only wish to capitalize on issues such as this but as we have proven with this debate often they do an awful job representing how many of the masses feel. Our discussion was just my attempt at showing what others might think or feel who don't have any thing to gain except understanding. Thanks for your comments.
Post a Comment