Monday, June 30, 2008
sit quietly in movie theaters, and shush those who don't (part one)
This strikes me as a common white form of behavior, especially, from what I've observed, among middle-class American white folks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
um ... is this supposed to mean that as a nonwhite, I'm less likely to respect others in the movie theater? what, are nonwhites just naturally more garrulous or something?
ReplyDeleteNo 911, it says nothing at all about non-white audiences, or any other kind of audience, other than middle-class white American ones. It also doesn't say that if white middle-class audiences act this way, others don't too. If you or someone else would like to talk about common forms of behavior among other audiences, whether they too tend to act like this or if they tend to act differently, you're of course free to do so.
ReplyDeleteCan't say I get the point either. So white people do this ... but maybe everyone else does too ... but the post wasn't asking if they did ...
ReplyDeleteI do this but the people I shut up tend to be other whites. Whites are the noisiest in my experience and they get especially noisy when they bleach their hair, get a fake tan, and drink Margaritas. (If I sound critical of Baton Rouge, LA, and if I'm stereotyping the white people there, well ... sorry ... I don't mean all of you, I just mean there is a certain subset whose behavior I do not enjoy.)
ReplyDeleteI think it is incredibly rude to be noisy in a theatre and I am amazed that at plays now, before the beginning, someone official has to first get up and instruct people to turn off cell phones and be quiet while the show is on out of consideration for their neighbors.
Hi Prof Zero, would you say that's all the people from Baton Rouge, LA, or just a certain sort that's somehow markable by the characteristics that you identified? Could this be a class difference you're pointing to?
ReplyDeleteSomeone help me out here: if it "strikes [Macon] as a common white form of behavior," then doesn't that mean that it would strike Macon as less "common" for people of color to keep their mouths shut in the theater? Which would be another way of saying that people of color are more garrulous than whites when in movie theaters?
ReplyDeleteThat sounds like I've just been stereotyped.
That sounds like I've just been stereotyped.
ReplyDeleteIt may well be that you've stereotyped yourself, by reading something into the post that isn't there. You may be overlooking the other part of the post--this may be a class thing, more than a white thing. I'm still working that out, and I put up the post in the hopes that readers would comment on it with their own observations about movie audiences. If enough people do comment here about the post, I plan to follow up on the topic in response. Thank you for chiming in, 911.
There is a theatre that I do not go to any more, here in San Francisco, because the majority of the theatre goers are old white middle class people. And they never shut the f*ck up! They talk from the beginning to the end of the movie. I hate it! Absolutely, hate it.
ReplyDeleteAs well, it has been my experience, because I see many non-English speaking movies (aka foreign films), where most of the audience are whites--there, too, the audience talks during the movie. I just don't get this. Unfortunately, for them, I am not a passive movie-goer, for I have paid to be in that theatre, too, and I did not pay to hear audio other than that coming from the movie, so when someone starts talking, I always tell them to stop talking.
By the way: I am a black American woman.
It may well be that you've stereotyped yourself, by reading something into the post that isn't there.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to remove you from my main blog's blogroll now, because I now think your blog and your attitude are more damaging than helpful. The decisive point is both this post itself and your response.
Other posts that I found problematic are (this list is not exhaustive):
Stuff White People Do: dance stiffly
Stuff White People Do: hide their feelings about race behind a calm white mask
Stuff White People Do: refuse to listen to black anger - paragraph 4
Stuff White People Do: restrain themselves
Stuff White People Do: act all humble and stuff - the title only
You're not listening to me. You said being quiet was a white thing, or that it strikes you as a white form of behavior. I'm saying that if it's a "white form of behavior," then that implies it's NOT a POC "form of behavior" (as Miz Darwin points out, it doesn't make sense to say it's a white habit if it's equally the habit of nonwhites). Sounds like you misspoke, or something, but don't tell me I'm reading something into the post that isn't there. It IS there, if you follow the logic.
ReplyDeleteAnd the "other part of the post" doesn't use "middle-class" as an alternative to "white." It uses "middle-class" to further specify "white." You weren;t saying "maybe its because they're white, or maybe it's because they're middle-class," you were saying "maybe it's because they're white" (and somewhere else on this blog you say that always means at least middle class).
I think that assholes talk in the movie theater. Sometimes, believe it or not, the assholes are white. I'll have to wait to see if I'm done chiming in or not.
Macon D,
ReplyDeleteAnd because I'm such a generous person, I'm going to give you another tip. There is an interview with Tim Wise at Addicted to Race. If you pay attention to Tim Wise's discussion of accountability, you may (or may not) learn why your blog is messed up and why Tim Wise's writings are not messed up.
Yeah, Gotta say Macon, I don't get this one at alll.
ReplyDeletePerhaps it's because I live in Utah and the vast majority of the population is white, but the people who annoy me by talking during movies seem to be exclusively white, and vary in gender and age. This post seems to imply that people of color don't get annoyed when people talk in movies, at the very least, which I'm sure is untrue. Also, it seems to imply that people of color are the ones in movies who always talk. I think that's grossly incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, people talking in movies bothers the shit out of me, mostly because I paid to watch the movie and not to listen to other people yapping. But that's just me, and others can disagree.
This post is worded badly, I think. Anyone can get annoyed by people talking in a theater, and anyone can also be the person talking, for whatever reason.
White people are more likely to sit quietly in movie theaters? I can see why this is a troubling statement. It's just not true.
ReplyDeleteYears ago I went to the movies much more often. We're in the Bronx, so it's a bit of everyone (all races, ethnicities, etc.) I've never found any one particular group to be more or less talkative in the movie theater. Those who did talk ran the gamut...some were assholes, some made me laugh, some were goofing with their friends, some annoyed me, some didn't.
I think I've only heard someone else's "shushed" twice in a movie theater. Once was by a white lady who was telling my obnoxious (ex) bf to "please be quiet". Another lady saw fit to holler "shut the kid up!" so everyone could hear her...even though I don't remember hearing a child.
If anything, i see a humor in this post. It IS working off a stereotype, but not all stereotypes are wrong. I happen to be kinda loud in movie theaters, not having full conversations, but with my laughter and my comments. (I was voted the laugh heard around the world by my senior class and i tend to agree). It's not uncommon for me to throw in a "Oh Shit" when i sense something is going to happen (this behavior usually occurs in thrillers and action movies). So, i'm loud and black. It happens. I once got shushed by the loudest individuals in the theaters once and they were whites kids, specifically boys. So, that in its self doesn't help your point, Macon.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, i read this blog and some of the posts have a hint of humor. This may not be Macon's intentions, but "dance stiffly" was
hilarious. It would sometimes be better if people wouldn't be so damn serious all the time. Lighten up, for real. I would hate to see some of y'all's reactions if you hit up www.stuffblackpeoplehate.com.
I think the brevity of this post may be contributing to the negative way it's coming across. You don't really explain how you came to this conclusion or discuss the implications and issues surrounding this 'observation'. A little more content, or perhaps examples?
ReplyDeleteI do think your responses to 911's comments have been dismissive and unhelpful. Listen to what you are saying, and then listen to the response.
Overall, I find your blog honest and insightful. Thanks for being genuine.
restructure!,
ReplyDeleteI think you're being a bit harsh. Yes, there are problems to be found in this (and every) blog, but I think it is very valuable overall. There are far too few white people out there who are looking critically at their own ideas about race. And I don't mean that in a "white person deserves a cookie for not being an asshole" kind of a way, but in the spirit of genuine appreciation of a space to discuss whiteness at a personal level.
I think that while clearly Macon has some issues to work through with race, it's not going to help him (or POC who have to deal with his views) to ostracize him. 911 and Restructure, I understand completely your reactions to both Macon's generalizations about racial others and his dismissiveness toward people who challenge him on those generalizations. But I think Becca B. is right when she says that Macon seems sincere in his desire to look critically at his own ideas of race. I agree with others here who point out that he's not yet doing that effectively (he seems much more comfortable looking at other people's generalizations), but possibly there are people here who can help him.
ReplyDeleteElsewhere Macon has posted on his childhood attitudes toward racial others, even attitudes that questioned whether those racial others had a right to live (see the exchange at "lack empathy for nonwhite people."). At the time that bothered me, and it still does, but I guess what I'm trying to say is that here is a guy who honestly seems to want to think in different ways. Maybe he's worth helping out. What do you say, Restructure? 911?
sandykin,
ReplyDeleteI shouldn't be so generous to you either, but I am:
The helplessness of white people
Macon - on the Baton Rougians - I haven't figured out who this demographic actually is but I think it is mostly law students, lawyers, wives and mothers of lawyers, and also M.B.A.'s to be, M.B.A.'s and their relatives. Also: legislators, lobbyists, oil execs, big pharma people. Similar types exist in Houston.
ReplyDelete@Sandykin
ReplyDeleteI agree with others here who point out that he's not yet doing that effectively (he seems much more comfortable looking at other people's generalizations), but possibly there are people here who can help him.
Just in case you missed this, Macon himself wrote:
Actually, it may not seem to you to be the case, but I'm not starting to figure out race and whiteness right now. I've been intensively working on these topics and their related problems at several levels, professionally and otherwise and in many settings, for over a dozen years now. For several reasons, though, I prefer to remain anonymous on this blog. I think if my "credentials" were known, I'd probably have an additional aura of authority that you seem to be writing about here. I wonder if Tim Wise, for instance, gets a pass for calling on non-white voices for support that I don't, because he's trusted as an authority in a way that's disallowed by my anonymity.
How long are people supposed to "help"? To patiently listen until somebody finally finds out who he is and what white supremacy as a system means?
White people don't need a pass for their "good intentions" because good intentions aren't enough. And as long as my fellow white people just don't get it how distructive the entire system is, distructive in every means, I am also not patient, 'forgiving' or anything else. Why should I be?
jw, why do you think I haven't figured out quite a bit more about who I am than most white Americans have about themselves? Most consider whiteness an insignificant part of who and what they are, and thus haven't even begun to think about that part of themselves.
ReplyDeleteAlso, why do you think I don't know "what white supremacy as a system means"? I did a whole post on that very topic, where I argued as well that the term should be brought back into common usage to describe today's reality. Perhaps you missed it.
But maybe you find a general naivete in my writings about systemic white supremacy. If so, I'd be glad to hear you describe that, and learn from it if I can.
And for anyone who might wonder why I would suddenly announce in a comments section that I have credentials, the context for jw's decontextualized quotation can be found about half-way down the page here, amidst a discussion of something else this blog has helped me grapple with, that is, who has what kinds of authority in discussions of race, and why, and how to cite that authority in my own writings.
I certainly admit, beginning with my blogging "profile," that I'm still trying to figure out the "white part" of who I am, and of the world in general. But that certainly doesn't mean that I still know next to nothing about the topic, as I would hope that many of my posts demonstrate. I appreciate the help along the way from all those who have offered it, and I hope it's clear to most of my readers that I find time in my busy life for the unpaid labor or writing a blog because I'm motivated by a desire to share information toward the dismantling of contemporary, systemically entrenched white supremacy (and toward the dismantling of whiteness at the individual level, for which I sometimes offer myself, and earlier versions of myself, as an example--thus my email address, unmakingmacon @ gmail). As for those who would rather read someone more fully informed and advanced on the topic, surely there are other blogs, articles, books, and so on to turn to instead.
FYI, white supremacy will destroy the entire planet.
ReplyDeleteAnd can you tell me the reason why it seems that you take my criticism seriously but not the criticism of the non-white members of your blog? You become defensive when somebody non-white criticizes you.
Who's that somebody, jw? Nquest? I have all sorts of reasons for declining dialogue with him, as I've explained in the comments (although I did go back to his questions last night). He labels my comments, and by implication me, desperate, dishonest, and so on. He also sends me at times on very intricate tasks that I sometimes don't have time to fulfill. Yet I've had long dialogues with him, and with Restructure, who yes, did make me defensive when she revealed that she'd constructed an image of me as a twenty-something neophyte who she'd been helping along on his baby-steps toward racial enlightenment. I think anyone in my positions would find that condescending conception of him or herself difficult to accept, and feel defensive. But she is, obviously, very insightful, well read and researched, and concerned about racial/social justice (as is Nquest), so I hope they stick around.
ReplyDeleteYou, on the other hand, seem to engage in more constructive dialogue with me, and I especially have a different impression of you based on the articles that you've been submitting for possible posting here.
So I don't think it's the color of my commenters that provokes my differential treatment of them, but who knows? If there are other POC commenters here who seem to make me defensive, I'd appreciate your pointing those out to me. I'm willing to admit, of course, that I HAVE been trained as white, and so this may well be a common white tendency that I'm enacting. Thanks for alerting me to that possibility, and I'll certainly watch out for it in the future.
"Also, why do you think I don't know "what white supremacy as a system means"? I did a whole post on that very topic, where I argued as well that the term should be brought back into common usage to describe today's reality. Perhaps you missed it."
ReplyDeleteDear Macon D
You may have written a post about systemic white-supremacy, but you hardly incorporate phraseologies like: "racism-white supremacy" or "systemic racist white supremacist policies," in your posts. You should "practice" what YOU preach.
I hope it's clear to most of my readers that I find time in my busy life for the unpaid labor or writing a blog because I'm motivated by a desire to share information toward the dismantling of contemporary, systemically entrenched white supremacy (and toward the dismantling of whiteness at the individual level, for which I sometimes offer myself... As for those who would rather read someone more fully informed and advanced on the topic, surely there are other blogs, articles, books, and so on to turn to instead.
Macon, you would do well to just simply lay down your self-pride and just take the "hits" that the universe (GOD) is bringing to you so you might LEARN and correct that which is false...if you can. Time is very short!
Don't look at this as a task you're doing mostly for the benefit of others. See it for what it is - one individual soul's climb to the mountaintop of truth and light... again, if you can. This is YOUR journey, a journey in which you have invited onlookers to share their perspectives, perceptions, ideas and thoughts.
Only you can decide what you will do with the LIGHT that has engulfed you. Will you go further into the LIGHT or will you ultimately seek to hide yourself from it? The whole universe watches - and waits. Not just for you but for for all of us.
Thank you for the inspiring advice, Just Me.
ReplyDeleteBy saying it is something that is common to "white" culture, you are implying that it is no common to other cultures. There's no way around that.
ReplyDeleteYou are also implying that there is a problem with this behavioural trait. There isn't. People should be quiet in movie theaters.
In my experience with theaters, old people and young people are the ones who talk the most in movies.
While I cannot take predominantly white message boards (political boards, not white supremacists boards) as 100% representative for white America, I at least got a hint of some characteristics: Many whites don't take non-whites seriously and they don't give them the same respect and space they give somebody white. There is a strong tendency to confine Black (non-white) speech, to confine the way they 'allow' them to speek, the subtle and also not so subtle attempts to controll non-white people.
ReplyDeleteI could call you unexperienced (or something like this) and could call a post fabricated and you didn't have an issue with that. But when Nquest challenges you as a Black person about statements you make about People of Color, you find his style condenscending. You call Restructure who had a lot of patience for you condenscending.
I hope it's clear to most of my readers that I find time in my busy life for the unpaid labor or writing a blog
you can't separate your life from 'anti-racism'.
Your post (sit quietly in movie theaters) is odd. I think it appeals again to the stereotype of whites being "calm and rational". The power of positive stereotyping.
I hope it's clear to most of my readers that I find time in my busy life for the unpaid labor [of] writing a blog because I'm motivated by a desire to share information toward the dismantling of contemporary, systemically entrenched white supremacy
ReplyDeleteI don't see how this is relevant to anything, or what point you're trying to make with this. Nquest and I find time in our busy lives for the unpaid labour of writing blogs because we're motivated by a desire to share information toward the dismantling of contemporary, systemically entrenched white supremacy.
However, people like caspie would think that when whites do it, they are doing it to unite the races, but when non-whites do it, we are doing it to divide the races. White society expects non-whites to 'appreciate' 'anti-racist' blogs if they are authored by whites, but if anti-racist blogs are authored by non-whites, then it's perceived as troublemaking and creating racial tensions. Both whites and non-whites could be fighting against white supremacy, but whether this is appreciated as contributing to society or perceived as troublemaking apparently depends on the race of who is doing the fighting.
Who's that somebody, jw? Nquest? I have all sorts of reasons for declining dialogue with him...
ReplyDeleteChief among them being the fact that I ask questions you aren't prepared to answer in any "constructive" manner and that fact alone, obviously, makes you defensive, as this little incident a while ago is a clear example of:
In response to your June 2nd thread titled, "...hide their feelings about race behind a calm white mask " I sent you on that intricate task of "squaring"/reconciling a claim you made in a previous thread with a statement you made in that June 2nd thread and, speaking of LABELING, you labeled my follow-up question asking you to explain the difference you claimed existed as "impolite."
_________________________________
MACON D:
nquest, there's a difference between having deepseated feelings and openly expressing them in collective ways.
NQUEST:
Okay, Macon. Explain the difference.
MACON D:
I'm not used to taking orders. . . are you really asking me, or rather telling me, to explain the difference between having deepset feelings and openly expressing them?
NQUEST:
Now why do you feel I gave you an order? What is that all about?
MACON D:
Because you wrote, "Okay, Macon. Explain the difference," instead of asking me to do so. (Actually, I was letting my common white tendency to insist on "polite" discussion enact itself there. Sort of in jest. But such nuances don't come across in discussion threads well, do they?)
___________________________________
In the midst of all that, JW picked up on how, in your own words, your defensiveness was all about how "difficult [the] issue [is] to pin down" (read: I, Macon, am not prepared or capable of answering the question).
As far as "labeling" you as dishonest... either you have been or you have not. When you say things "in jest" or for any other reason that doesn't deal with the essence of simple, basic, fundamental questions I ask, highlighting points of disagreement and, more precisely, obvious errors in your reasoning/interpretation then the last thing you can say is that you've attempted to have a "constructive" dialog.
What you have done is attempted to hold on to some of the most problematic beliefs you've espoused (Obama having to "pathologize Blackness", e.g.) no matter how those beliefs ran counter to what you have to say about Whiteness and White Supremacy in other contexts and no matter how compelling my positions have been.
Beyond that...
You, on the other hand (JW), seem to engage in more constructive dialogue with me, and I especially have a different impression of you based on the articles that you've been submitting for possible posting here. - MACON D
The character of JW's questions are no different than my own. You simply can't perform the "intricate task" of showing how they are. Then you want to get upset because I'm explicit about, how did you say, the way you "seem" to engage or, more precisely, try to avoid engaging and directly dealing with the actual point of contention.
Which brings me to one thing I've been explicit about: your passive aggressiveness.
It's odd how you're now saying:
"[Restructure] is, obviously, very insightful, well read and researched, and concerned about racial/social justice (as is Nquest), so I hope they stick around.
When you're on record saying things like:
nquest, I'm not sure what you think "the battle" here is, or why you're interested in "battling" with me (or indeed, why you're even trying to communicate with me, since you've labeled me in another comment a desperate liar)
Note: I hadn't seen that before but it was something you posted again in a more resent thread and happened to be the very thing Caspie ran with. Also, BATTLE is your term, your LABEL, proving JW right in the way she LABELS your attempt to "confine" the what I say to a category that you don't have to treat seriously which would cause you to seriously reconsider the serious errors in your logic that I readily point out and don't just allow you to try to bs your way out of something you just happen to find "difficult to pin down."
That would be why JW notes how you won't/don't necessarily know more than the people who comment here. And I know I recall have even after you noted how perspicacious (Sarah???) something I said was, you still wanted to maintain your problematic, hope-filled belief (i.e. a belief with little or no substantive reason for you to invest in) no matter how that belief was in conflict with a "concern for social justice."
Okay, Nquest, it looks like I've been imprecise in my characterization of your comments.
ReplyDeleteLet's call a truce. How would you like any future dialogue between us to proceed?
To be clear, there is no reason for you to question why I would try to have a discussion with you after I've noted how you've been dishonest in your responses if you didn't want me to leave so you wouldn't have someone asking you to perform "intricate tasks" such supporting your statements and problematic claims (wow!! so intricate and obviously way too much to ask) and not letting you off when you try to blow things off with a bs answer with you often confusing or pretending to confuse what was at issue in the first place.
ReplyDeleteSo, yes, it's quiet odd that you "hope" I'll stick around after you've passively aggressively asked me to leave with that curious rhetorical question of yours that is, as a matter of fact, the definition of desperate.
You just shown how desperate the plea was by paying lip service to hoping I "stick around" as if I've voiced a reason why I would not.
Let me fill you in on something, Macon... In the blogs and boards I've been on, people who respect each other note without a lot of fall out when one of them is being "disingenuous" or make a statement that's dishonest.
The fact that you take that personally while not accounting for the way you tried to avoid dealing with whatever the issues (plural) were in the threads where you were so offended by having to support your claims when, lol, your thoughts were so "outlandish" (and unsupportable apparently) that you felt I was "ordering" you to perform "intricate tasks" you just didn't have time for.
You have time to respond to commenters who LABEL you as a self-loathing/self-hating White but....
How would you like any future dialogue between us to proceed?
ReplyDeleteFirst, you can explain why you use the term "dialogue" and what you mean by it and what you feel is "constructive" dialogue.
Had I asked the question 911 did, in the manner 911 did you would have been defensive. I would like to be able to ask questions, even those I just don't happen to place a question mark on, and have them treated the same way you treat other people's questions. And, when you don't have an answer and just can't seem to stay on "task" or deal with the subject at-hand... Well, it would be nice if you would just say you're not prepared to answer the question.
You could also elaborate more fully on what you mean by certain things you say -- certain concepts and theory of yours -- especially when people (I'm not the only, probably just the most persistent and dogged) take exception to your problematic ideas.
Jeez, Nquest, you sure know how to take over a comments thread. Here you go, dominating another one, killing the topic at hand and chasing just about everyone else away. If this were my blog, I would've banned you just for that a long time ago.
ReplyDeleteWho cares if anything Macon says strikes you as "desperate" or "dishonest?" Those are descriptions of what the person behind the keyboard is thinking and feeling. You simply can't know those things. You should stick to the contents of the posts. That might also make your comments shorter and more readable!
You also wrote,
"You have time to respond to commenters who LABEL you as a self-loathing/self-hating White but...."
What are you implying here? If it's that Macon treats you differently from other posters, what are you saying about that difference--why do you think he does that? As I think I've seen you write before, "Come on, out with it . . ."
Over a year ago, I went to my daughter's dance recital. A fellow african american woman seated behind me loudly cheered as her daughter took to the stage. I noticed the reaction displayed by a white family who sat in front of me. Though the cheering was brief, the white family continued to look back at the woman in disgust and covered their ears as if too fragile to handle the woman's enthusiasm.
ReplyDeleteThe children were dancing to a loud hip hop song, and the overall environment was crowded with children, families, loud music, and etc., yet this family was somehow only able to center in on the black woman's cheering and take offense.
That might also make your comments shorter and more readable!
ReplyDeleteLOL! I agree that Nquest's comments are not that readable and not concise. I don't like his general style of communication, but I guess I understand what he means because I thought the same thing as him, with respect to express amazement when non-white people see them as "white" and believe others consider them trustworthy.
I was also laughing at loud at the absurdity of caspie's comments and her astounding condescension and typical white behaviour.
LOL!!!
ReplyDeleteI'm killing and taking over a thread where not only have other people talked about things that were not the "topic at hand" but mentioned my by name and, to top it off, YOU (anon) want me to "COME OUT WITH IT" as if you just can't read.
Macon insisted the differential treatment JW suggested existed did not exist because I (Nquest) "LABEL" him. So when I note how Macon dedicated a whole topic/thread to someone who LABELED him there is no implication there. There is a direct contradiction to his claim regarding differential treatment.
Any other stupid and easily dispensed with questions, my dear anon friend??
What? Macon's and JW's post are hard to read, too?
Please COME OUT WITH your excuse for not keeping up with the class.
(How you like that 'style of communication', Restructure?)
I didn't really get the post either. It just seemed to be sensing whiteness in a behavior that isn't necessarily white, and the implication of the post, at least what I got from it, was that this was somehow indicative of whiteness.
ReplyDeleteRestructure and some others also seemed harsh in their comments, but I seem to be missing a lot of the background that went into both their comments and your response to them.
linden branch and others who might still comment here, this post will make a lot more sense if you read the one above, "part two" of this post.
ReplyDeleteRestructure:
ReplyDeleteI was also laughing at loud at the absurdity of caspie's comments and her astounding condescension and typical white behaviour.
Ah, so not only are you astoundingly condescending, you're also amazingly presumptuous. I'm a Japanese American man.
Don't worry macon, I do support your efforts here, but I won't do so in the comments anymore, at least not to the extent I did the other night.
(Exit stage left)
Jeez, Nquest, you sure know how to take over a comments thread. Here you go, dominating another one, killing the topic at hand
ReplyDeletethe problem is that Macon D kills his own topic of the blog. It's also the believe of white entitlement that whites can talk uncensored regardless what non-sense and also regardless how disrespectful towards non-whites and in this case particularily towards Nquest, and at the same time trying to censor or silence a Black person.
This is not anti-racism or anything else, this is the typical white behavior to exploit a social topic to be seen as "good", when in reality this is only another way to perpetuate racism
Overall, I've been in a theater with middle class whites, and I can't say that they're all quiet, and nor can one blacks can't contain themselves in such a setting.
ReplyDeletecaspie,
ReplyDeleteWow. Sorry, I didn't see your reply until now.
When you say that non-whites are racist against white people because of that vanilla smell that follows them everywhere, are you including yourself?
When you say that non-whites are racist against white people because of that vanilla smell that follows them everywhere, are you including yourself?
ReplyDeleteI didn't say that. I was sarcastically summarizing my supposition that you and Nquest peck away so vociferously at Macon in part because he's white. Not that all non-white people do that to all the white people they encounter.
So no. I don't include myself. But hey, maybe Macon's right to say that we should mistrust him, even him, for that reason. Just because he's white, that is. Like Tim Wise said in that quote back wherever that he knows PoC initially distrust him because he's white, and rightly so. I certainly do still mistrust macon, in some ways, despite my general support of his efforts here. I read his blog more carefully in some ways, because it's buy a white guy, then I do those by non-whites. Hell, I bet your sense of ME changed when you found out that I'm not white. Maybe you oughta suck it up and admit that you too give Macon a harder time than you might otherwise, because he's white. You probably hold his proverbial feet closer to the proverbial fire because of that. And rightly so.
I didn't say that. I was sarcastically summarizing my supposition that you and Nquest peck away so vociferously at Macon in part because he's white. Not that all non-white people do that to all the white people they encounter.
ReplyDeleteIf this is the case, then why didn't I do it before? I hadn't (and still haven't) read the entirety of SWPD, but I had previously added SWPD to my blog roll based on the sample of posts I saw. (I saw SWPD when it first began, but I haven't read all the posts.) misremember MLK used to be "emasculate MLK", and based on that, I developed a bit of distrust of him with respect to sexism, but again, that's because of what he did, not because of his gender.
I'll admit that if someone writes something sexist against women, the first thing I think is that he must be a man, and when someone says something racist against non-whites, the first thing I think is that she must be a white person. However, it doesn't go the other way, like that.
Hell, I bet your sense of ME changed when you found out that I'm not white.
Certainly it did. I thought you were just ignorant before, and now I think you're messed up. I'm also responding to you and criticizing you instead of ignoring you.
Maybe you oughta suck it up and admit that you too give Macon a harder time than you might otherwise, because he's white.
Again, then why didn't I do it before? It's possible that I'm giving him "a harder time" because his blog has a relatively large white audience, and he has white male authority, so his voice will be listened to over the voices of PoC, whose antiracist blogs are more numerous. With great power comes great responsibility, to use a cliche. However, I still feel that his earlier posts were better quality than his recent ones, and that this blog has degenerated.
Caspie, you obviously don't know me. If anything, Macon is getting off easy. I am, in no wise, "harder on him" because he's White.
ReplyDeleteThat's a dumb azz assumption you make with no reason for you to make it other than your own ideas which have nothing to do with me and how hard I am on other people.
The people on Africanamerica.org will readily debunk your notion. They know me by another name but my blog bearing the name I use here, Nquest, is now my signature there.
So now it's time for you to come up with another line of bs to explain the problems you're having.
Macon "got off easy"? Ooo, yeah, you the biggest baddest whatever on the block all right. Why do you perceive yourself as a punisher, Nquest? As if Macon should be glad you used your fist instead of your belt?
ReplyDeleteRestructure, I think we're all "messed up." That you are too was demonstrated by the impetuosity with which you removed Macon from your blogroll.
Also, you wrote, ""misremember MLK used to be "emasculate MLK", and based on that, I developed a bit of distrust of him with respect to sexism, but again, that's because of what he did, not because of his gender."
Thanks, I looked beck at this. So, what did you develop for him when he changed the post title in response to your critique? Why is it so hard for you to say that, along with your other critiques? You and Nquest seem so focused for whaddever reasons on dragging Macon down, tearing him down, rather than also supporting his efforts against whiteness. I'm just wondering why. (I acknowledge taht the claim you don't like him just becuz he's white is off base--my apologies.)
caspie,
ReplyDeleteMacon "got off easy"? Ooo, yeah, you the biggest baddest whatever on the block all right. Why do you perceive yourself as a punisher, Nquest? As if Macon should be glad you used your fist instead of your belt?
Nquest probably means that this is how he interacts with people in general. Are you new to the internet or something? I don't find what he says unusually harsh, although I think he needs to trim off the irrelevant ad hominem.
Restructure, I think we're all "messed up." That you are too was demonstrated by the impetuosity with which you removed Macon from your blogroll.
If you think that was impetuous, you probably haven't been paying attention. It was more like the straw that broke the camel's back, rather than something out of the blue, which you perceive it to be.
We'll all messed up, yes, but you're especially messed up because of your very stereotypical view of PoC, excluding yourself from the stereotype, of course.
Thanks, I looked beck at this. So, what did you develop for him when he changed the post title in response to your critique?
Well, when I first saw the blog, I was glad that there was an antiracism blog criticizing whiteness. However, seeing 'emasculate' bothered me, and at that point, I realized that even if I have an 'ally' along one dimension (race), the same person can be an enemy along another dimension (gender). I have quite a few intersectional identities, so in practise, who I consider my 'ally' is going to be an ally in a limited sense, and who I put on my blogroll is going to be based on a balance of more help than harm. I can't completely trust anyone.
However, I responded to "emasculate MLK" to see what his reaction would be. Surprisingly, he knew what the problem was and changed it. This made me feel more comfortable with him, since as a woman of colour, I feel that racism and sexism are connected, that a racist person is more likely to be sexist and vice versa, especially if they belong to both dominant groups (white and male). Back then, because he changed the post, Macon D seemed intelligent, willing to learn, and willing to change.
However, now, due to what has transpired lately, I'm looking back at that incident and I'm wondering that maybe he changed it only because he knew there was something not quite right about it beforehand, while for the recent posts, he sees nothing wrong, so he goes into PR mode and avoids responsibility.
Why is it so hard for you to say that, along with your other critiques?
Say what?
You and Nquest seem so focused for whaddever reasons on dragging Macon down, tearing him down, rather than also supporting his efforts against whiteness. I'm just wondering why.
See why YOU are a ridiculous cliché here. (Dated: June 14, 2008. This is another blog of mine.)
(I acknowledge taht the claim you don't like him just becuz he's white is off base--my apologies.)
I still think you have some serious issues.
Restructure:
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering that maybe he changed it only because he knew there was something not quite right about it beforehand . . .
No, I didn't. The thanks I extended in a comment to you for the suggested change was sincere. I've also changed other posts in response to other commenters, and plan to continue doing so.
Please define "PR mode."
Why do you perceive yourself as a punisher, Nquest?
ReplyDeleteQuote where I said something to that effect or STFU!!
You made a bs assumption that was easy to debunk. I don't and wouldn't have to perceive of myself as "a punisher" to tell you you're full of stupid assumptive sh*t when you claim I'm "harder" or question Macon more than I do other non-white people.
Face it. You're out of your league, in way over your head and can do nothing but say some more stupid sh*t after your previous line of stupid sh*t doesn't work for you.
As if Macon should be glad you used your fist instead of your belt?
No... it's "as if" you were stupid enough to think you could suggest/claim that I question Macon the way I do because he's White.
YOU WERE WRONG!! ... and stupid to boot.
All I simply indicated is how I've been harder on other people, particularly Black people, and haven't been particularly hard on Macon, contrary to your routine ignorance. And now you talk "AS IF" you didn't say that dumb sh*t.
Now you talk "AS IF" I said "Macon should be glad I used my fist" when I simply indicated that YOU haven't seen my "fist" or my "belt" unleashed on anyone or me being "hard", much less, "harder" on Macon.
You and Nquest seem so focused for whaddever reasons on dragging Macon down, tearing him down, rather than also supporting his efforts against whiteness.
Stop the bs. Your issue has to do with what you alluded to here about the kit gloves you extend to Macon and the fact Restructure and I don't just ignore the problematic things Macon says in his blog because, how did you say it, "because it's buy a white guy." AS IF that's something special and something for which special "handle with care" instructions are required, mandatory adherence and all.
So, actually, your issue is about Macon not getting some kind of kindler, gentler, less "hard" treatment or scrutiny because, to you, there's something worthy of not only reading "more carefully" but because the blog is "buy a white guy" it's something that we should apparently give extra care to, be more careful not to critique, etc., etc., etc.
Sorry, Caspie... I'm the same with people across the board when it comes to questioning problematic (and unfounded) claims they make.
And I don't want to hear another word about me and "ad hominems" when that's all Caspie got... I hope you hear that Restructure... Macon...
Nquest,
ReplyDeleteYeah, but I think Caspie's a ridiculous troll to begin with, while what you say has substance. Thank you for arguing against the content of "express amazement when non-white people see them as white". I agree with you, but I got exhausted.
Great response to Caspie, by the way.
Jeezus, Nquest, who died and made you boss of this blog?
ReplyDeleteJeezus, Nquest, who died and made you boss of this blog?
ReplyDeleteUnintelligible.
i.e. it's impossible to make out what the hell you think you're talking about or what you think you're trying to accomplish.
I'm an obliger. I obliged Caspie's troll azz just like I'm obliging you. Prior to that, I posed questions no different than the one that started the comments here but you haven't questioned who died and made 911sajoke the boss of this blog.
That's all the negative attention you'll get from me.
Restructure, I have no issue with you and you don't have to note whatever extent to which you agree with me on anything. I just expect for whatever you note about me and any ad hominems I make, perceived or real, also be noted as it relates to others.
ReplyDeleteYou've said several times that you didn't like/agree with my "style" and, now, this "ad hom" thing. That's not something I've seen you say about anyone else yourself, Macon or Caspie included.
You have to know that that's not something, after all those times, that I'm just going to let go.
"janthonyjackson said...
ReplyDeleteBy saying it is something that is common to "white" culture, you are implying that it is no common to other cultures. There's no way around that."
No. Saying "fur is common to cats" does not mean it is not also common to dogs or mice or bears. Logically speaking.
Saying "monogamy" is common to American culture is not saying it is uncommon to others, just as saying that "chopsticks" are common to Chinese culture doesnt mean it is not also common to Japanese or Korean culture.
" You are also implying that there is a problem with this behavioural trait. There isn't. People should be quiet in movie theaters."
Says who? There are plenty of people who talk in theaters and enjoy talking and hearing others talk.