Not how we'd like others to see us, is it? November 13, 2001 11:20 AM Subscribe
Latest entry on the The Amos n Andy Episodes List? I think I'm with Malphigan on this. Talk about a poor reflection of MetaFilter to the larger world.
I have no idea who Amos and Andy are. They are irrelevant to the issue raised in the thread. The thoughts behind including them in the post are misguided perhaps since Mugabe and the destruction of the Zimbabwean economy is no laughing matter.
Please read up about Zimbabwe. Please debate the issue. It should not be ignored as it has been (and I don't just mean here on MeFi) for so long.
Getting side tracked here pointing the finger with regards implied racism won't help the average Zimbabwean. Being informed as to their plight just might.
(gets off high horse, retracts any offensive stance and really really hopes this spurs people to read about Zimbabwe instead of attracting flack for getting shirty)
posted by davehat at 11:35 AM on November 13, 2001
Please read up about Zimbabwe. Please debate the issue. It should not be ignored as it has been (and I don't just mean here on MeFi) for so long.
Getting side tracked here pointing the finger with regards implied racism won't help the average Zimbabwean. Being informed as to their plight just might.
(gets off high horse, retracts any offensive stance and really really hopes this spurs people to read about Zimbabwe instead of attracting flack for getting shirty)
posted by davehat at 11:35 AM on November 13, 2001
I would recommend the thread be pulled except for the serious commentary. The reference is an instant hackle raiser and hence self sabotaging to any direct discussion of the topic. Also, I misspelled malphigian--I wish I had my glasses on when I posted. And a larger monitor.
posted by y2karl at 11:44 AM on November 13, 2001
posted by y2karl at 11:44 AM on November 13, 2001
Dave, people can read about Zimbabwe and be offended by the Amos and Andy comment. Thus the thread in question is discussing Zimbabwe, and we're discussing jfuller's possible racist comment here.
Has he been notified about this? I'd really like to hear his explanation.
posted by Doug at 11:44 AM on November 13, 2001
Has he been notified about this? I'd really like to hear his explanation.
posted by Doug at 11:44 AM on November 13, 2001
amos and andy was a radio show (i believe in the '40s?) about two black men, portrayed as stereotypical characitures by two white actors. it was very popular for the time.
posted by moz at 11:46 AM on November 13, 2001
posted by moz at 11:46 AM on November 13, 2001
No doubt, davehat, I've been doing a bit of reading about this issue since the post.
But you might want to read up on Amos and Andy... it was a radio and then TV program in the US that involved white actors in "blackface" playing stereotypically buffonish african americans.
Its incredibly offensive, because the post implies that the actions of the Zimbabwe government are yet another example of stupid black people (as opposed to stupid government). This isn't PC finger wagging, that was pure racism.
Its as if someone posted about Israel and said, "another chapter for Shylock?".
posted by malphigian at 11:48 AM on November 13, 2001
But you might want to read up on Amos and Andy... it was a radio and then TV program in the US that involved white actors in "blackface" playing stereotypically buffonish african americans.
Its incredibly offensive, because the post implies that the actions of the Zimbabwe government are yet another example of stupid black people (as opposed to stupid government). This isn't PC finger wagging, that was pure racism.
Its as if someone posted about Israel and said, "another chapter for Shylock?".
posted by malphigian at 11:48 AM on November 13, 2001
> WTF is with the Amos and Andy refenrence.
It's a troll, fishing for answers to the implied question "why is it so hard for the world to take African tragedy seriously? Why is it so hard for me to take African tragedy seriously?" When I look at Africa, from the tidal wave of AIDS to black-on-black slavery to constant tribal warfare/genocide to the present topic, I feel as I felt when I saw pictures of people falling from the World Trade Center: here's a horror beyond the reach of human intervention, there's nothing to do but pray, if you're religious, or turn away and distance yourself with a snarky comment if you're not.
Frankly, I think that's the answer to the question about the world's response (or non-response) to Africa's pain: it's so huge and overwhelming, when you even start to learn the details, that it only leads to a (justified) feeling of helplessness. What on earth is there to do to improve a situation like Zimbabwe's, where the government (of Africans, by Africans, for Africans) is acting exactly like and indistinguishably from a character made up by a laugh-at-the-funny-Negroes sitcom writer of sixty years ago?
posted by jfuller at 12:03 PM on November 13, 2001
It's a troll, fishing for answers to the implied question "why is it so hard for the world to take African tragedy seriously? Why is it so hard for me to take African tragedy seriously?" When I look at Africa, from the tidal wave of AIDS to black-on-black slavery to constant tribal warfare/genocide to the present topic, I feel as I felt when I saw pictures of people falling from the World Trade Center: here's a horror beyond the reach of human intervention, there's nothing to do but pray, if you're religious, or turn away and distance yourself with a snarky comment if you're not.
Frankly, I think that's the answer to the question about the world's response (or non-response) to Africa's pain: it's so huge and overwhelming, when you even start to learn the details, that it only leads to a (justified) feeling of helplessness. What on earth is there to do to improve a situation like Zimbabwe's, where the government (of Africans, by Africans, for Africans) is acting exactly like and indistinguishably from a character made up by a laugh-at-the-funny-Negroes sitcom writer of sixty years ago?
posted by jfuller at 12:03 PM on November 13, 2001
> What on earth is there to do to improve a situation like
> Zimbabwe's, where the government (of Africans, by
> Africans, for Africans) is acting exactly like and
> indistinguishably from a character made up by a laugh-at-
> the-funny-Negroes sitcom writer of sixty years ago?
...and anyone who points this out gets rubber-stamped "racist."
posted by jfuller at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2001
> Zimbabwe's, where the government (of Africans, by
> Africans, for Africans) is acting exactly like and
> indistinguishably from a character made up by a laugh-at-
> the-funny-Negroes sitcom writer of sixty years ago?
...and anyone who points this out gets rubber-stamped "racist."
posted by jfuller at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2001
I see, jfuller, you are racist.
Care to explain how they're acting like the good natured yet simple minded amos and andy by forcibly evicting people from land?
posted by Doug at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2001
Care to explain how they're acting like the good natured yet simple minded amos and andy by forcibly evicting people from land?
posted by Doug at 12:06 PM on November 13, 2001
is acting exactly like and indistinguishably from a character made up by a laugh-at-the-funny-Negroes sitcom writer of sixty years ago?
They are acting like any number of stupid/vengeful governments in the world (take your pick at this point), you're choice of this particular comparison makes it seem like you've decided africa's problem has to do with black people being stupid.
As opposed to, say, all lingering problems of colonialism, modern day colonialism via corporations (Shell, De Beers, take your pick again), devastated economies with no means of production, or any number of other factors you might want to point at.
I'm sorry for you that you can't take "African tragedy" seriously.
PS. Thanks for the comment about the WTC, believe it or not, us atheists can be effected and caring without making "snarky" comments or believing in a big guy with a beard in the sky who loves us.
posted by malphigian at 12:15 PM on November 13, 2001
They are acting like any number of stupid/vengeful governments in the world (take your pick at this point), you're choice of this particular comparison makes it seem like you've decided africa's problem has to do with black people being stupid.
As opposed to, say, all lingering problems of colonialism, modern day colonialism via corporations (Shell, De Beers, take your pick again), devastated economies with no means of production, or any number of other factors you might want to point at.
I'm sorry for you that you can't take "African tragedy" seriously.
PS. Thanks for the comment about the WTC, believe it or not, us atheists can be effected and caring without making "snarky" comments or believing in a big guy with a beard in the sky who loves us.
posted by malphigian at 12:15 PM on November 13, 2001
No, really, I don't. I've already explained clearly enough for you to reach your preferred conclusion, so you may be satisfied with that.
posted by jfuller at 12:15 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by jfuller at 12:15 PM on November 13, 2001
It seems a common malady among all people of the world to see the outside world's problems as somehow different and intractable by their very nature.
What is happening in Africa has happened before in Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East. Perhaps in different numbers (Europe's genocides are surely the largest), at different times, or with different ideology, but the basics remain the same.
We're all human, and there are human solutions to our problems.
posted by cell divide at 12:16 PM on November 13, 2001
What is happening in Africa has happened before in Europe, in Asia, in the Middle East. Perhaps in different numbers (Europe's genocides are surely the largest), at different times, or with different ideology, but the basics remain the same.
We're all human, and there are human solutions to our problems.
posted by cell divide at 12:16 PM on November 13, 2001
No, really, I don't. I've already explained clearly enough for you to reach your preferred conclusion, so you may be satisfied with that.
Nice bow out. You said they were exactly like and indistinguishably the same, when the only connection between a show about stereotypical black simpletons and a government land grab is race. That's racism. And that's no rubber stamp.
posted by malphigian at 12:23 PM on November 13, 2001
Nice bow out. You said they were exactly like and indistinguishably the same, when the only connection between a show about stereotypical black simpletons and a government land grab is race. That's racism. And that's no rubber stamp.
posted by malphigian at 12:23 PM on November 13, 2001
"I've already explained clearly enough for you to reach your preferred conclusion"
I think that in reality your explanation was made clearly enough for me to reach a logical conclusion rather than one I prefer. I'm sure I am not alone in my interpretation, either. Maybe if you made your case a bit more clearly, we'd see your point. Or maybe we already have.
posted by Doug at 12:48 PM on November 13, 2001
I think that in reality your explanation was made clearly enough for me to reach a logical conclusion rather than one I prefer. I'm sure I am not alone in my interpretation, either. Maybe if you made your case a bit more clearly, we'd see your point. Or maybe we already have.
posted by Doug at 12:48 PM on November 13, 2001
...and anyone who points this out gets rubber-stamped "racist." Racist is not a word to go throwing around at people indiscriminately, if only for the gulf between conscious intent and unconscious received opinions and presuppositions spoken from without reflection. I have a hard time calling someone that for being unconscious and stupid. But when you are socializing with women just met, do you say 'bitch' or make cracks about 'being on the rag'? I think not.
You shot yourself in the foot and then you act the self-pitying crybaby with the 'your preferred conclusions'--when you ought to be looking in the mirror in regards to your own self-sabotage. It's all very well to decry the excesses of political correctness but there is the concept of good manners behind it--didn't the handshake come from the feudal period where one extended a hand not holding a sword to show one's nonlethal intentions? Your remark violated the Hippocratic oath--first do no harm.
posted by y2karl at 12:55 PM on November 13, 2001
You shot yourself in the foot and then you act the self-pitying crybaby with the 'your preferred conclusions'--when you ought to be looking in the mirror in regards to your own self-sabotage. It's all very well to decry the excesses of political correctness but there is the concept of good manners behind it--didn't the handshake come from the feudal period where one extended a hand not holding a sword to show one's nonlethal intentions? Your remark violated the Hippocratic oath--first do no harm.
posted by y2karl at 12:55 PM on November 13, 2001
But when you are socializing with women just met, do you say 'bitch' or make cracks about 'being on the rag'? I think not.Prude.
posted by holloway at 1:29 PM on November 13, 2001
malphigian:
> You said they were exactly like and indistinguishably the
> same, when the only connection between a show about
> stereotypical black simpletons and a government land
> grab is race.
the connection I notice is buffoonery. It is quite impossible not to observe a parallel between the Kingfish in his lodge uniform doing and saying things imagined by white scriptwriters to get laughs by belittling blacks, and Mugabe in his dictator uniform acting just as if he were being scripted by the same kind of writer -- only he's writing this script himself.
para. 1 of the Times article:
> enable the Government to nationalise up to 90 per cent
> of all white-owned land at the stroke of a pen — a move
> expected to wipe out next year’s crops almost totally.
para. 9:
> The announcement came as the United Nations prepared
> to respond to the Government’s appeal two weeks ago
> for nearly $365 million (£251 million) in emergency relief
> for serious famine that has already begun. With food
> stocks due to run out by the end of January, one million
> people are already in “dire need” of food.
posted by jfuller at 1:33 PM on November 13, 2001
> You said they were exactly like and indistinguishably the
> same, when the only connection between a show about
> stereotypical black simpletons and a government land
> grab is race.
the connection I notice is buffoonery. It is quite impossible not to observe a parallel between the Kingfish in his lodge uniform doing and saying things imagined by white scriptwriters to get laughs by belittling blacks, and Mugabe in his dictator uniform acting just as if he were being scripted by the same kind of writer -- only he's writing this script himself.
para. 1 of the Times article:
> enable the Government to nationalise up to 90 per cent
> of all white-owned land at the stroke of a pen — a move
> expected to wipe out next year’s crops almost totally.
para. 9:
> The announcement came as the United Nations prepared
> to respond to the Government’s appeal two weeks ago
> for nearly $365 million (£251 million) in emergency relief
> for serious famine that has already begun. With food
> stocks due to run out by the end of January, one million
> people are already in “dire need” of food.
posted by jfuller at 1:33 PM on November 13, 2001
It is quite impossible ... And then the rest of your comment.
Why is that, jfuller?
posted by j.edwards at 1:52 PM on November 13, 2001
Why is that, jfuller?
posted by j.edwards at 1:52 PM on November 13, 2001
> Why is that, jfuller?
Well, j., the parallel is factually there and I'm an observant soul.
posted by jfuller at 1:55 PM on November 13, 2001
Well, j., the parallel is factually there and I'm an observant soul.
posted by jfuller at 1:55 PM on November 13, 2001
The parallel is not factually there -- it's an analogy you've drawn between racist comedy and poorly conceived economic management.
Simply because Mugabe is acting foolishly managing his country does not mean he is that same type of fool -- in fact, their actions are completely different, both in principle and in consequence. (trivial and life-threatening... etc).
Given the difference in audience and the difference in circumstance I would say that while the consequences of Mugabe's actions are appalling, the principles of Amos and Andy et al.'s actions are.
posted by j.edwards at 2:02 PM on November 13, 2001
Simply because Mugabe is acting foolishly managing his country does not mean he is that same type of fool -- in fact, their actions are completely different, both in principle and in consequence. (trivial and life-threatening... etc).
Given the difference in audience and the difference in circumstance I would say that while the consequences of Mugabe's actions are appalling, the principles of Amos and Andy et al.'s actions are.
posted by j.edwards at 2:02 PM on November 13, 2001
Ok, the parallel is a stretch without a doubt. However, after seeing jfuller's explanation I'm inclined to believe that he was not making an intentionally racist comment. For me intent is all important. The comment was ill-conceived, but not malicious.
posted by efullerton at 2:20 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by efullerton at 2:20 PM on November 13, 2001
It is quite impossible not to observe a parallel between the Kingfish in his lodge uniform doing and saying things imagined by white scriptwriters to get laughs by belittling blacks ...
Just as an aside, have you ever actually heard an Amos 'n Andy radio show? I've heard a couple, and they were much closer to affectionate portrayals than I'd been led to expect by the demonization of the show over the past 30 years.
posted by rcade at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2001
Just as an aside, have you ever actually heard an Amos 'n Andy radio show? I've heard a couple, and they were much closer to affectionate portrayals than I'd been led to expect by the demonization of the show over the past 30 years.
posted by rcade at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2001
> Simply because Mugabe is acting foolishly managing his
> country does not mean he is that same type of fool
No, alas, he isn't. He's not a comic creation of racist fiction.
> I would say that while the consequences of Mugabe's
> actions are appalling, the principles of Amos and Andy et
> al.'s actions are.
But are they equally appalling to you? Mugabe stands to wreak a great many more Black lives with a great deal more finality than Amos n' Andy ever did. Even so, he remains a figure of (little-b) black comedy.
posted by jfuller at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2001
> country does not mean he is that same type of fool
No, alas, he isn't. He's not a comic creation of racist fiction.
> I would say that while the consequences of Mugabe's
> actions are appalling, the principles of Amos and Andy et
> al.'s actions are.
But are they equally appalling to you? Mugabe stands to wreak a great many more Black lives with a great deal more finality than Amos n' Andy ever did. Even so, he remains a figure of (little-b) black comedy.
posted by jfuller at 2:32 PM on November 13, 2001
Ill-conceived and malicious; self-defeating, self-revealing and self-destructive. As to whether by intent or head-in-the-chamberpot, foot-in-the spittoon, oblivious unconscious stupidity, I can not tell.
posted by y2karl at 2:40 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by y2karl at 2:40 PM on November 13, 2001
Can someone explain why the original comment was deleted? Let's pretend that jfuller is racist for a second ( sorry J ), is he not allowed to bring his views into the forum, even if they are presented very tactfully and non Troll-like?
I thought the diversity of opinion was encouraged at this site regardless of social correctness.
There are a lot harsher ways the point could have been made. Not critiquing, just wondering.
posted by remlapm at 2:42 PM on November 13, 2001
I thought the diversity of opinion was encouraged at this site regardless of social correctness.
There are a lot harsher ways the point could have been made. Not critiquing, just wondering.
posted by remlapm at 2:42 PM on November 13, 2001
rem:
i'm going to say that, no, you aren't guaranteed to be allowed to say what you like on mefi -- no matter how tactfully. there is a standard of content on mefi, i think. links which you might find on portal of evil are by and large discouraged here. voltaire would likely disapprove, but hey.
posted by moz at 3:08 PM on November 13, 2001
i'm going to say that, no, you aren't guaranteed to be allowed to say what you like on mefi -- no matter how tactfully. there is a standard of content on mefi, i think. links which you might find on portal of evil are by and large discouraged here. voltaire would likely disapprove, but hey.
posted by moz at 3:08 PM on November 13, 2001
As to the merits of Amos n' Andy and its demonization, the subject of the history of blackface minstrelsy is complex and of interest, and I seem to recall Henry Louis Gates talking about the show affectionately in a memoir, so rcade's comment to the sidebar has merit. Whatever the complexities of the history of minstrelsy or Amos n' Andy, the common popular opinion is such that the average grown up would understand the remark as tasteless, offensive and racially insensitive. As an analogy, it makes no sense and as race baiting is neither persuasion nor reasoned discussion, the edit 's logic ought to be apparent..
posted by y2karl at 3:09 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by y2karl at 3:09 PM on November 13, 2001
A brief history of the Amos 'n' Andy show and the controversy over it.
posted by Carol Anne at 3:50 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 3:50 PM on November 13, 2001
y2karl:
> Ill-conceived and malicious; self-defeating, self-revealing
> and self-destructive.
karl proceeds to namecalling. fuller does not.
> As to whether by intent or head-in-the-chamberpot, foot-
> in-the spittoon, oblivious unconscious stupidity, I can not
> tell.
Go ahead, karl, if you're bold enough to guess the malicious and self-revealing part, the rest should be no stretch for you.
remlapm:
> I thought the diversity of opinion was encouraged at this
> site regardless of social correctness.
It's a private site, not Usenet. Matt can delete whatever he likes, including my login. If the host shows you the door at a party, you leave in a mannerly fashion.
y2karl again:
> Whatever the complexities of the history of minstrelsy or
> Amos n' Andy, the common popular opinion is such that
> the average grown up would understand the remark as
> tasteless, offensive and racially insensitive.
One kowtows to uninformed popular opinion? One does not!
posted by jfuller at 3:57 PM on November 13, 2001
> Ill-conceived and malicious; self-defeating, self-revealing
> and self-destructive.
karl proceeds to namecalling. fuller does not.
> As to whether by intent or head-in-the-chamberpot, foot-
> in-the spittoon, oblivious unconscious stupidity, I can not
> tell.
Go ahead, karl, if you're bold enough to guess the malicious and self-revealing part, the rest should be no stretch for you.
remlapm:
> I thought the diversity of opinion was encouraged at this
> site regardless of social correctness.
It's a private site, not Usenet. Matt can delete whatever he likes, including my login. If the host shows you the door at a party, you leave in a mannerly fashion.
y2karl again:
> Whatever the complexities of the history of minstrelsy or
> Amos n' Andy, the common popular opinion is such that
> the average grown up would understand the remark as
> tasteless, offensive and racially insensitive.
One kowtows to uninformed popular opinion? One does not!
posted by jfuller at 3:57 PM on November 13, 2001
y2karl:
> the history of blackface minstrelsy
I have no idea what race the radio actors were but here is the television series cast. Not white actors in blackface.
posted by jfuller at 4:07 PM on November 13, 2001
> the history of blackface minstrelsy
I have no idea what race the radio actors were but here is the television series cast. Not white actors in blackface.
posted by jfuller at 4:07 PM on November 13, 2001
Doug: point taken in advance, sorry about that, but I was seriously and I feel, quite justified, in assuming that it would distract from the wider issue.
Mathowie: Thank you.
Everyone: I am not here to preach. All I can say is this, there have been 30+ comments here and 15 in the previous thread.
I am sad about this (even though, having now looked at the Amos and Andy reference, I do see the misguidedness of the post and the outrage it causes).
posted by davehat at 4:39 PM on November 13, 2001
Mathowie: Thank you.
Everyone: I am not here to preach. All I can say is this, there have been 30+ comments here and 15 in the previous thread.
I am sad about this (even though, having now looked at the Amos and Andy reference, I do see the misguidedness of the post and the outrage it causes).
posted by davehat at 4:39 PM on November 13, 2001
I'm going to go one step further and then retire to bed.
The parallel that seems to be being drawn here relates to buffoonery. Let me make clear, Mugabe is not a buffoon. This is the final stage of an orchestrated move towards a total political clampdown on opposition within his country.
There really is no point in me "telling" it how it is. I have supplied plenty of links within the thread from both left (Guardian), central (Independent) and right wing sources (Telegraph) in the UK and the only independent newspaper in Zimbabwe (The Daily News). You may have to re-search the Telegraph's database due to inadequecies with their CMS. The content and scope of their articles is extensive and acurate though.
Please read at least one of the stories there. I hate to beg, but I still get the feeling that some people here have got so caught up with implied racism (yes, implictly or explicitly, racism is bad, I am not detracting from this) that they haven't had a chance to read about the issues at hand.
Furthermore, I know that technically I am causing a topic drift here. All I can say is sorry.
posted by davehat at 6:16 PM on November 13, 2001
The parallel that seems to be being drawn here relates to buffoonery. Let me make clear, Mugabe is not a buffoon. This is the final stage of an orchestrated move towards a total political clampdown on opposition within his country.
There really is no point in me "telling" it how it is. I have supplied plenty of links within the thread from both left (Guardian), central (Independent) and right wing sources (Telegraph) in the UK and the only independent newspaper in Zimbabwe (The Daily News). You may have to re-search the Telegraph's database due to inadequecies with their CMS. The content and scope of their articles is extensive and acurate though.
Please read at least one of the stories there. I hate to beg, but I still get the feeling that some people here have got so caught up with implied racism (yes, implictly or explicitly, racism is bad, I am not detracting from this) that they haven't had a chance to read about the issues at hand.
Furthermore, I know that technically I am causing a topic drift here. All I can say is sorry.
posted by davehat at 6:16 PM on November 13, 2001
Not white actors in blackface.
Not news to me--hence the Henry Louis Gates reference. But in the common account, your comment will almost invariably be seen as an inflammatory reference.
posted by y2karl at 6:23 PM on November 13, 2001
Not news to me--hence the Henry Louis Gates reference. But in the common account, your comment will almost invariably be seen as an inflammatory reference.
posted by y2karl at 6:23 PM on November 13, 2001
As for my other assessments, well, I should never read and respond to this stuff at an internet cafe when the meter is running. If I'd thought about it, I would have avoided the harsh criticism. As for uninformed social opinions, baiting one's audience is not exactly a user-friendly technique of opening minds. I've made enough stupid remarks here that I don't feel all that holier-than-thou. But I still think it was a stupid and self-defeating, in the larger sense, remark.
posted by y2karl at 6:32 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by y2karl at 6:32 PM on November 13, 2001
Whatever the complexities of the history of minstrelsy or Amos n' Andy, the common popular opinion is such that the average grown up would understand the remark as tasteless, offensive and racially insensitive.
So the average grown up is shallow and uninformed. What's your point? I have to agree with jfuller about "kowtowing to uninformed popular opinion." The only way to educate the uninformed is to expose them to a thorough dialogue on the subject, unhindered by prejudice and presupposition.
posted by rushmc at 6:38 PM on November 13, 2001
So the average grown up is shallow and uninformed. What's your point? I have to agree with jfuller about "kowtowing to uninformed popular opinion." The only way to educate the uninformed is to expose them to a thorough dialogue on the subject, unhindered by prejudice and presupposition.
posted by rushmc at 6:38 PM on November 13, 2001
Right on. I couldn't believe it either. That's Freeper talk.
Rodii is neither shallow or uninformed. Nor am I--and that's how I saw the remark as well: something one would expect to see at the Free Republic.
All this hashing over prejudice and presupposition is begging the question. What appears to be baiting on first pass functions as baiting whether intended or not, or whether the beholder is deep or shallow on the reference, no matter how byzantine the rationale. It hinders rather than furthers the 'thorough' dialogue on the topic of Mugabe and the destruction of Zimbabwe. Which was the topic. At least that's how I see it.
posted by y2karl at 7:06 PM on November 13, 2001
Rodii is neither shallow or uninformed. Nor am I--and that's how I saw the remark as well: something one would expect to see at the Free Republic.
All this hashing over prejudice and presupposition is begging the question. What appears to be baiting on first pass functions as baiting whether intended or not, or whether the beholder is deep or shallow on the reference, no matter how byzantine the rationale. It hinders rather than furthers the 'thorough' dialogue on the topic of Mugabe and the destruction of Zimbabwe. Which was the topic. At least that's how I see it.
posted by y2karl at 7:06 PM on November 13, 2001
Since there's no Metafilter News at 11 to recap the day (and do Mefi sports and Mefi weather), could someone explain to me what A&A link? I see one here, but was there one on Mefi? I only see a link here to an article on Zimbabwe. Am I losing it?
posted by ParisParamus at 8:40 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 8:40 PM on November 13, 2001
Paris, the first line of this post originally appeared at the end of the MeFi post concerning Zimbabwe. Or at least I believe that was the wording.
posted by Doug at 8:58 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by Doug at 8:58 PM on November 13, 2001
Paris, there was a link to Amos 'n Andy (still in the source if you view source) that I saw was creating controversy here and on the thread. Whether it was ultimately right or wrong, I thought it overshadowed the real point of the link, to shed light on the problems in zimbabwe, so I commented it out.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:06 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:06 PM on November 13, 2001
what A&A link?
you can still see the original comment with A&A link if you View Source of the original thread. It's been "commented out", meaning that it's now inside brackets with dashes and an exclamation point (I'm too lazy to type it out...). (In HTML, text in that format is considered a comment and will not be displayed.)
posted by mattpfeff at 9:07 PM on November 13, 2001
you can still see the original comment with A&A link if you View Source of the original thread. It's been "commented out", meaning that it's now inside brackets with dashes and an exclamation point (I'm too lazy to type it out...). (In HTML, text in that format is considered a comment and will not be displayed.)
posted by mattpfeff at 9:07 PM on November 13, 2001
Rodii is neither shallow or uninformed. Nor am I
I'm not suggesting that you are. I support (and welcome) your right to present and explain your take on things. It's the seeming insistence that it is the ONLY possible perspective in order to shout down or push aside other attempts to consider or examine a subject that makes me uncomfortable.
Or maybe I'm reading too much into your words and, feeling generally pissy tonight, going off on an irrelevant tangent, in which case I apologize.
What appears to be baiting on first pass functions as baiting whether intended or not
I'm not willing to grant that much power to every single one of the thousands of readers of MeFi who might choose at any given moment to interpret something (anything) as baiting, trolling or inflammatory, I guess. I partially agree with your point, and though I did not see the original post, it sounds as though its construction was counterproductive to jfuller's intent, which certainly means it was problematic. I'm commenting more on the principle, I guess. Because on the other hand, I do think that intent is important in the determination of "baiting," as "baiting" is an act and therefore needs an actor. A case may be made that someone can be inflammatory without meaning to be, or that the majority can often judge transgression when it sees it...I'm just not comfortable with the idea that the casual, initial reaction of the average person should be the final arbiter of judgment. Quite often, a better judgment is reached with time, thoughtful consideration of different perspectives and context, and more understanding than first instinct might provide.
posted by rushmc at 10:04 PM on November 13, 2001
I'm not suggesting that you are. I support (and welcome) your right to present and explain your take on things. It's the seeming insistence that it is the ONLY possible perspective in order to shout down or push aside other attempts to consider or examine a subject that makes me uncomfortable.
Or maybe I'm reading too much into your words and, feeling generally pissy tonight, going off on an irrelevant tangent, in which case I apologize.
What appears to be baiting on first pass functions as baiting whether intended or not
I'm not willing to grant that much power to every single one of the thousands of readers of MeFi who might choose at any given moment to interpret something (anything) as baiting, trolling or inflammatory, I guess. I partially agree with your point, and though I did not see the original post, it sounds as though its construction was counterproductive to jfuller's intent, which certainly means it was problematic. I'm commenting more on the principle, I guess. Because on the other hand, I do think that intent is important in the determination of "baiting," as "baiting" is an act and therefore needs an actor. A case may be made that someone can be inflammatory without meaning to be, or that the majority can often judge transgression when it sees it...I'm just not comfortable with the idea that the casual, initial reaction of the average person should be the final arbiter of judgment. Quite often, a better judgment is reached with time, thoughtful consideration of different perspectives and context, and more understanding than first instinct might provide.
posted by rushmc at 10:04 PM on November 13, 2001
self-pitying crybaby
Jeesh, is there a linguistic term for an epithet which, when applied to another, perforce applies better to the speaker?
posted by Zurishaddai at 10:33 PM on November 13, 2001
Jeesh, is there a linguistic term for an epithet which, when applied to another, perforce applies better to the speaker?
posted by Zurishaddai at 10:33 PM on November 13, 2001
Metatalk is now more compelling than Metafilter.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:40 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by ParisParamus at 10:40 PM on November 13, 2001
Jeesh, is there a linguistic term for an epithet which, when applied to another, perforce applies better to the speaker?
Projection?
posted by Optamystic at 10:50 PM on November 13, 2001
Projection?
posted by Optamystic at 10:50 PM on November 13, 2001
In Yiddish it would have to be a pötkettl. As in: "Stop pötkettling me, already - your yarmulke is just as lop-sided as mine!"
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:03 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:03 PM on November 13, 2001
Nonsense. However, there is a Yiddish phrase - "Klop mir mishkin shynik" (totally phonetic, since I have no idea how to spell Yiddish) which means don't bang my kettle (don't pull my leg; quit fucking with me).
posted by sylloge at 11:11 PM on November 13, 2001
posted by sylloge at 11:11 PM on November 13, 2001
In Yiddish it would have to be a pötkettl. As in: "Stop pötkettling me, already - your yarmulke is just as lop-sided as mine!"
Heh. Actually, I sometimes here the old southern phrase rendered, "Pot. Kettle. Black."
posted by anapestic at 6:18 AM on November 14, 2001
Heh. Actually, I sometimes here the old southern phrase rendered, "Pot. Kettle. Black."
posted by anapestic at 6:18 AM on November 14, 2001
A comparison of two tragic beings--Robert Mugabe and "The Emperor Jones" (as portrayed on film by Paul Robeson)--might be enlightening.
posted by Carol Anne at 6:24 AM on November 14, 2001
posted by Carol Anne at 6:24 AM on November 14, 2001
"Pot. Kettle. Black."
God forbid, lest we inch yet another notch closer to Usenet. *makes warding gesture*
posted by rodii at 6:26 AM on November 14, 2001
God forbid, lest we inch yet another notch closer to Usenet. *makes warding gesture*
posted by rodii at 6:26 AM on November 14, 2001
Thanks for the BBC link, Carol Anne.
> Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Mugabe is becoming
> a cartoon figure of the archetypal Africa dictator.
Show of hands, please: those prepared to stand up and call Desmond Tutu a white racist, or an Uncle Tom...
posted by jfuller at 6:58 AM on November 14, 2001
> Archbishop Desmond Tutu said that Mugabe is becoming
> a cartoon figure of the archetypal Africa dictator.
Show of hands, please: those prepared to stand up and call Desmond Tutu a white racist, or an Uncle Tom...
posted by jfuller at 6:58 AM on November 14, 2001
Jeesh, is there a linguistic term for an epithet which, when applied to another, perforce applies better to the speaker?
Projection
y2larl?
or troll for troll... even so, the hook wasn't barbed enough to not let the fish slide off.
rushmc- first sentence of this post was all that deleted from the original. You be the judge.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on November 14, 2001
Projection
y2larl?
or troll for troll... even so, the hook wasn't barbed enough to not let the fish slide off.
rushmc- first sentence of this post was all that deleted from the original. You be the judge.
posted by y2karl at 7:37 AM on November 14, 2001
jfuller: Ah, but you're no Bishop Desmond Tutu, you're a Dead White Male.
Please, don't cite me as an enabler for your position.
posted by Carol Anne at 7:43 AM on November 14, 2001
Please, don't cite me as an enabler for your position.
posted by Carol Anne at 7:43 AM on November 14, 2001
Egads. I meant "hear", not "here".
And it's a pretty old usage, independent of this thing you call "usenet".
posted by anapestic at 7:45 AM on November 14, 2001
And it's a pretty old usage, independent of this thing you call "usenet".
posted by anapestic at 7:45 AM on November 14, 2001
I still don't see how Amos and Andy are anything like even cartoonish African dictators, except for the fact that they're black, and jfuller thinks they're stupid.
posted by Doug at 11:17 AM on November 14, 2001
posted by Doug at 11:17 AM on November 14, 2001
The actors on the radio show *were* white. Whether that's racist, just insensitive or typical for the times is your own judgement. My personal opinion is that there was nothing racist about the show, but that no ethnicity likes to see its members—in their only mainstream role—look like buffoons, dolts and uneducated (but big-hearted and well-meaning) louts. Except for the big-hearted and well-meaning part, I could see how jfuller would compare Amos & Andy to the leadership of Zimbabwe, purely on the characterization of "stupid" alone (though I would never have made that comparison myself, seeing how barely apt it is, and how explosively distracting from the original topic, and so likely to be willfully misunderstood). That, indeed, is how the characters were played for laughs, for I have heard the radio show many, many times.
No, the problem wasn't that the actors were white playing black. The problem was that there were no smart black men on the show, that the so-called dialect they spoke was fake and inauthentic and completely different from real African American Vernacular English, even for the time. Effort was made to make these characters seem dumb.
While I'm on the topic, it's worth point out that Eddie Anderson, a black actor who played Jack Benny's valet Rochester Van Jones on the Benny's radio and television shows, was often accused of being an uncle tom, or of unfairly portraying blacks. People disliked that he was the servant of a white man, and a Jewish man at that. They also disliked that he also played a bit of the buffoon, and was sometimes portrayed as lazy. (The critics of these portrayals would always have saints representing their race in the various media, or at least much clearer definitions of good and bad, rather than humans being represented as the contradictory messes we are). But as I remember the character, Rochester was always his own man, willful, maybe a little contemptuous, and always on the side of the other players in the company against Jack. I still do a passable, short, voice impression of Rochester: it makes my very sensitive friends cringe. They're not sure why it's wrong, but they feel a white man should never imitate a black one. From my point of view, as someone who is a dialect and linguistic dilettante, I see no difference between Eddie Murphy imitating a white man and Alvin Childress imitating a black man. Or me imitating Rochester Van Jones.
Anyway, I wander...
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:49 PM on November 14, 2001
No, the problem wasn't that the actors were white playing black. The problem was that there were no smart black men on the show, that the so-called dialect they spoke was fake and inauthentic and completely different from real African American Vernacular English, even for the time. Effort was made to make these characters seem dumb.
While I'm on the topic, it's worth point out that Eddie Anderson, a black actor who played Jack Benny's valet Rochester Van Jones on the Benny's radio and television shows, was often accused of being an uncle tom, or of unfairly portraying blacks. People disliked that he was the servant of a white man, and a Jewish man at that. They also disliked that he also played a bit of the buffoon, and was sometimes portrayed as lazy. (The critics of these portrayals would always have saints representing their race in the various media, or at least much clearer definitions of good and bad, rather than humans being represented as the contradictory messes we are). But as I remember the character, Rochester was always his own man, willful, maybe a little contemptuous, and always on the side of the other players in the company against Jack. I still do a passable, short, voice impression of Rochester: it makes my very sensitive friends cringe. They're not sure why it's wrong, but they feel a white man should never imitate a black one. From my point of view, as someone who is a dialect and linguistic dilettante, I see no difference between Eddie Murphy imitating a white man and Alvin Childress imitating a black man. Or me imitating Rochester Van Jones.
Anyway, I wander...
posted by Mo Nickels at 2:49 PM on November 14, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by rodii at 11:27 AM on November 13, 2001