| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c |
| The Word – Neutral Man’s Burden | |
What I think distinguishes "satire" from other forms of humor is that satire includes serious social commentary. As is so often the case, Stephen Colbert makes a great point here. I wonder, though, how much his point really hits home for the white members of his audience.
Do you think many white Americans heard and understood the week-long revelations -- which was discussed in many public spaces by many pundits -- about common white presumptions regarding their own supposed neutrality?
Is there any hope that as more and more non-white people become significant figures in white people's lives, such contact will render commonsensical the truth that we are ALL influenced by our various social positionings, including that of race?
Will we ever reach a point where a majority of white Americans realize that in terms of race, they're not just free-floating individuals? And that instead, being categorized as "white" has a lot to do with who they are, and with how they think and feel, and act and react?
h/t: lisa @ sociological images
(And for those who can't watch the video, here are the relevant parts of the show's transcript.)
Stephen Colbert’s THE WORD segment from THE COLBERT REPORT for July 16, 2009:
Nation, I have never let past life experience get in the way of how I approach a situation. For instance, I don’t prejudge if a hot stove will burn my hand….who knows what will happen next time? [Shows burned hand to camera] But listen to what Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor believes.
[Tape of Sotomayor hearing]
“I can state very simply what I believe, life experiences help the process in the listening and understanding of an argument. . .”
[Cut back to Colbert]
Because of Sotomayor's obvious "things I have learned" bias, the Supreme Court's neutrality is in danger! Which brings us to tonight’s “WORD”: NEUTRAL MAN’S BURDEN
Folks, over the past 220 years the vast majority of our Supreme Court judges have been neutral, like Samuel Alito.
[Tape of Samuel Alito’s confirmation hearing. Justice Alito says:]
“When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.”
[Cut back to Colbert]
Yes, he takes his life experiences into account, but he does it neutrally! So why is he neutral, and not Sotomayor? It’s because Alito is white.
In America, white is neutral.
Now for years, band-aids only came in only one color…white person. It’s standard “person” color. In fact it is so standard, that when I was a kid, in crayola boxes, it was the color called “flesh.” Now most Americans accept this [points at his own hand] as “neutral” without thinking about it.
And that is why the decisions made by all those white justices were not affected by their experiences; because their life experiences were “neutral.” That led to “neutral” decisions.
For instance, take the Dredd Scott Case. Those justice’s life experience, being white men in pre-Civil War America, some of whom owned slaves, in no way influenced their decision that black people were property. And the personal backgrounds had nothing to do with the all neutral court’s decision that it was legal to send Japanese-Americans to internment camps in 1942. Imagine how the life experience of an Asian judge would have sullied that neutrality!
Now, I am sure that Asians are neutral in Asia, and Africans are neutral in Africa, and Hispanics are neutral in Hispania. But folks, it doesn’t work here!
Now I am not saying, I am not saying that Sotomayor’s life story isn’t compelling. Everyone say how compelling her life story is.
[Run clip of three GOP senators saying how admirable her life story is.]
[Cut to Colbert]
It’s just if that if that compelling, humble, strong and admirable life story in ANY way informs her judgment, she will destroy our nation!
But folks, the thing is, she’s probably going to be confirmed anyway. So the best we can hope is to neutralize her personal background. The way Band-aids did when they reached out to minorities. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, “After hearing calls to make Band-Aides more inclusive of various skin tones, the company released its shear Band-Aid.”
So in addition to white band-aids, WE NOW HAVE INVISIBLE BAND-AIDS. Problem solved.
The same goes for the court. If you’re a white male like Sam Alito, naturally, everything that happened in your life just helps make you a completely neutral objective person.
But if you’re Sonia Sotomayor…. everything that happened in your life ….SHOULD BE INVISIBLE.
And that’s THE WORD!
I really and truly hope so. I laughed but felt saddened because all of what he was saying too. And the fact that the other bandaid is "invisible" was not lost on me either.
ReplyDeleteGiven the low, uncomfortable laughter, I definitely think his message hit home.
ReplyDeleteThat was an insightful, on Colbert's part (hopefully for whites), commentary: Sharp, to the point, and no putzing around. (Thanks for including a transcript; I read it, instead of viewing it.)
ReplyDeleteAlthough, I did not listen to the entire hearing for each day, I've gotta tell ya' that the white men Republicans, whom I heard, on that panel really sickened me with their dripping from their lips racism/ethnocentrism (because in all honesty, Sotomayor is a white Hispanic) and sexism. Particularly, Lindsay Graham and Sessions (from Alabama) and, I think, Orin Hatch? (Was Hatch the one who did that Ricky Ricardo imitation? In Arnaz's Cuban accent: "You got some 'xplaining to do!" What a schmuck that guy is!) Really, if one does not know what racism and sexism sounds and looks and smells like, then take a listen to how those [right-wing] white boys related to Sotomayor--after viewing that horror show, without a doubt, one will know what it is, for certain!
And one of the many things that sucked about that hearing was that she (gosh, I know she wasn't blind to it and that she felt their hatred towards her and her kind) had to sit there and take it. In no way, not if she wants that job, can she call those scumbags out on their shit; she is not allowed to shine a light on their hatred and nastiness. She has to be the good and compliant and meek Latina--answering the stupid questions of men who are intellectually inferior to her. (That is the thing about the combination of whiteness and maleness, not only are you the "neutral", you are also assumed to be smart/intelligent because of that white skin and possession of a penis...not! You don't know how many dumb, unintelligent, not curious, politically unaware, white men I have encountered.)
The other thing that sucked is that no one there (other senators) stood up to those bullies. No other senator called them out on their shit (perhaps, one of them did privately, but I doubt it, because at the next day's hearing, they seemed to amp up the racism and sexism). Yeah, the progressive and liberal "pundits" talked about it on their television and radio shows. (One liberal talk-radio guy, Mike Malloy, who really understands, and talks about, white supremacy/privilege, ripped those nasty white boy Republican right-wing senators new ass holes every night on his show. But he is not on many stations, so his audience is not that large. And NPR is a disgrace, for they never mentioned the racist and sexist treatment.) That is the thing about Americans, basically they (we) are cowards. We talk a good game after the fact, but when the shit is going on, when the dirty deed is being done, we say nothing, we do nothing. If someone's racist or sexist (or whatever) cruelty is not touching us (as an individual) directly, then we stand/sit on the sidelines and do nothing but observe or walk away or cast a blind eye (kind of like what happened to that janitor, mentioned in one of your previous posts--neither the author of that piece or anyone else present, did anything to stop the cruel and humiliating treatment being inflicted on that man).
"Do you think many white Americans heard and understood the week-long revelations [...] about common white presumptions regarding their own supposed neutrality?"
ReplyDeleteI fear not.
I think that the process of coming understand social injustice is a personal one. It has to be, or it won't stick. And this wasn't personal enough.
The defensiveness that gets in the way of hearing and understanding this stuff is highly emotional. The process of humbling ourselves enough to hear & understand has to be emotional, too, I think.
That's what led me to understand that places like SWPD are so important. Here, we can process our own and each other's emotional awakenings to social justice without wasting the time and energy of people who are (rightfully) impatient with how long it takes us to grapple with stuff that is So Darn Obvious.
I've mostly examined this in terms of the feminist movement but I think it applies to more than just gender. I know that my own process of understanding racism was largely started in places where I am deeply, personally ashamed of something I've said or done, not just embarrassed at things other people like me do.
Ah Stephen Colbert! I knew their was a reason I love him. Wonderfully insightful social commentary on his part. I doubt if most of the folks in the audience truly thought about what he said though...of course that could be the cynic in me coming up for air.
ReplyDeleteThat is the thing about Americans, basically they (we) are cowards. We talk a good game after the fact, but when the shit is going on, when the dirty deed is being done, we say nothing, we do nothing. If someone's racist or sexist (or whatever) cruelty is not touching us (as an individual) directly, then we stand/sit on the sidelines and do nothing but observe or walk away or cast a blind eye . . .
ReplyDeleteYES! This!
But the question remains: How do we go about reversing this trend?
Also posting this at my LJ.
I have never seen Colbert (no TV in my house) but now I understand why so many of my friends around the Net speak so highly of him.
ReplyDeleteAnd yet, I doubt very many white people got the point. The ones who were predisposed to be receptive to this messge already knew this. The ones who weren't probably don't watch the show, and if they did happen to catch it they probably thought the man was babbling.
Out on Main Street, the white crowd is closer to David Arquette's comments than to Colbert's. They might not actually mind having a Latina on SCOTUS (and in this I think we have improved in the last generation), but they will continue to see her as the judge who is different from the "neutral point of view". Or, more bluntly, "the Latina Judge".
OTOH, I think this will change quite a bit after Sotomayor has been in for a while, and those who come after her won't have to go through the same humiliating circus.
Strangely enough "flesh" colored bandaids were always too dark for my skin. Guess assuming we're all the same doesn't work well no matter how you slice it.
ReplyDeleteWhen Colbert is on his game he is damn good.
ReplyDeleteThe "we have to make her invisible" (paraphrase) line at the end really hit home for me, particularly as it came after contrasts between Sotomayors testimony about her use of "personal experience" in her work vs. Sam Alito's. He gets to go on and on about discrimination faced by Italians, but she can't talk about being Puerto Rican at all.
It felt familiar. I went through a phase where everytime someone I was talking to started going off about how proud they were to be X (usually Scottish or Irish) and how much that had informed who they were, interrogating that person and demanding evidence of their direct ties and personal experience with the culture of that country. The phase lasted a couple of weeks before it became weird.
An earlier commenter mentioned that Sotomayor is technically a "white hispanic", which had a level of judgement to it that made me feel weird (especially given the complicated racial/ethnic/whatever the in vogue term is dynamics of the vast geographic region whose people are considered to be Hispanic). As someone who is both darker and "less hispanic looking" then Sotomayor, and with a less Spanish sounding name (to a white audience) I get the silencing thing from conservatives (who don't want to hear about how my background disproves various strawmen) and people who claim to be anti-racist or progressive etc and are upset that I dare claim myself as being hispanic or hispanic-ish because I don't seem like I am "Latino enough" or "Mexican enough". There is nothing that makes one feel more helpless then being called a racist or accused of cultural appropriation or lying when answering direct and specific questions about ones background or surname by people who claim to be morally superior to you by virtue of their progressiveness.
So, yeah, the post hit home for me. It brought together a lot of threads about my feeling identity-less as well as the issues that brought me to reading this blog in the first place, and the things that make me want to delete it from my feed-reader and never come back.
jules said:
ReplyDeleteAn earlier commenter mentioned that Sotomayor is technically a "white hispanic", which had a level of judgement to it that made me feel weird (especially given the complicated racial/ethnic/whatever the in vogue term is dynamics of the vast geographic region whose people are considered to be Hispanic).
Well, jules, I am that earlier commenter. Aside from the fact that much of your comment was incoherent, may I suggest, if you think that there are no Hispanics who are white, if you read my stating that Sotomayor is a white Hispanic to be a judgment (WTF does that mean, BTW?) that made you feel weird...may I suggest that you take a little trip to Miami, Florida. There you will meet lots of Hispanics, muchos Cubanos blancos, who will let you know, for sure as shit, that there do exist Hispanics who are white. And many of those white Cuban Americans in Miami sure do know how to exercise their white skin privilege. They might even display a little of it for you, being that you are a darker Hispanic, as you have stated you are.
By the way, as an Hispanic, you should know that that is a [US Census] category created to dump all culturally Spanish-speaking people, who live in the US, into one basket. Being Hispanic is NOT a race--it is an ethnic category. And even there, on the census form, there is a distinction made for Hispanics along racial lines, and (I think) ancestral country of origin lines, too. If you think that all Hispanics (in the US) are culturally Mexican (like yourself, no?), then you don't get out much, at least not out of the southwestern United States.
colbert is a genius! I gotta start watching more of his shows.
ReplyDelete