Horton Hears a ‘Why’…FINALLY!
And thus, another layer of the racism onion conundrum is peeled.
I have wondered for years, nay, decades why racists disavowed racism. I just could not put it together. It took me about half a century to realize that racism was a power game, and not about misunderstandings about levels of humanity, or competencies, or whatever. Race and racism are social constructs, and the understanding of our mutual humanness can be observed. The confusion sets in within the game of culture.
Racism, to which I have never been an adherent, is a playground game carried forward into adulthood. You are either in the club, or you are not, and membership has its privileges. Principle is lonely and difficult to bear. You must be willing to lose in order to maintain a principle. Principle is not about winning rewards. Principle is about principle, and it becomes heaviest when it is in conflict with the playground mob. I knew a kid when I was growing up whose father was a pacifist. The kid, my best friend, Ryan, was also a pacifist. As soon as a mob of kids knew that pacifism meant that a person would not fight back, the mob would test it. It starts with a few insults. The mob spokesman wants to pick a fight. The pacifist doesn’t respond. Next, the spokesman attempts a physical altercation. He gets in the path of the pacifist kid. The kid wont respond, but rather stops and goes around. Then the slaps, kicks, and punches begin, to the extent that they can through the one or two kids who try to defend the kid.
You may be thinking, I’ve seen Black kids bullying a White kid before. Yeah, yeah, racism, so what? Well, this wasn’t…and isn’t about race. These where White kids bullying another White kid. (The Black kid was trying to protect him). This wasn’t racism at work, this is about how and why racism works. It is about being different. The lesson is for the members of the mob who may have never said anything, never tried to trip the kid, never threw a punch. They just walked along with the mob until they got to their home. The spokesperson for the mob, and a few of his acolytes, are constructing the ‘you don’t want this to happen to you’ discipline that makes racism useful. Racism, misogyny, homophobia, etc, are all very useful, unless you have principles against that sort of thing.
So, as kids, we all got lessons on the power of the mob, and hopefully we also learned some of the costs. Membership dues call for you to sell a portion of your principles. If you sell yourself out, you will feel it. It took my life, until recently, to understand that the mob aspect of racism was not about a common understanding, or misunderstanding about who the ‘others’ were, but rather, it was about keeping members in line. It is about the implied threat of ostracism.
That being the case, I always wondered why racism, for the racist, was not expressed as a principle, and conceded. If one would act like a racist, why not just claim it as a principle? It seems like that would eliminate a lot of confusion and effort. Those in opposition could agree to disagree and go about their separate ways. If I were racist, I’d just say so. It would eliminate most of the hassle. What I missed, and what I have come to learn is often the missing element in not being able to grasp an elusive, mysterious concept is the invisible middle. Few things default to a binary, on-off, or either-or paradigm. The case of the invisible middle was explained beautifully by Greg Sargent of the Washington Post.
Those who outwardly claim racism are much like the pacifist. They are resigned to having outsider status. They are attacked from all sides for being wrong, if not merely different. They are willing to take that loss because they value racism as a principle. People like David Duke or Woodrow Wilson come to mind in this category. While they are different from one another, they are alike in declaring their racism. They hold it as a principle. This is the rare racist. The more common racist, like Donald Trump, must give signals, or gesture towards others making racist demonstrations. They wont openly claim it as a principle for fear of losing the members of society who walk along without saying anything one way or another.
I have a great deal of admiration for Jimmy Carter, but Carter was once in this large, silent group. While in government in Atlanta, Carter never once met another resident of his city, Martin Luther King Jr. This aspect of Carter’s character disappoints me, but I know this fact because Jimmy Carter brought it to our attention, by way of confession. This aspect of Carter’s character I find admirable. But, today is a good day. One more confounding riddle is forever solved for me thanks to Greg Sargent. All those who play footsie with bigots, whether they are anti LGBTQ, or misogynists, or racists, or whatever, even those who claim to be slow or late adopters of a notion, like many Black Christians were against gay marriage, all of them are playing to the silent middle for approval for themselves.
Whew! One less thing.
koshersalaami
06/30/2020 @ 2:58 pm
I love to read people who think.
Bitey
06/30/2020 @ 3:00 pm
Well, I’m glad you read me anyway.
koshersalaami
06/30/2020 @ 3:10 pm
Interesting concept. If that’s the model, I can say I observed it on blog sites. There it was worst in chatrooms from what I understand. I started out socially on line in a chatroom called Beliefs Judaism, which is where I met Jon Wolfman, which is how I started blogging when he went to OS and needed people to comment to help him grow a following, so I went initially for only that purpose. There were a few bad things about chat, like the fact that everything had to fit in three lines, but the worst thing was that what people said disappeared in a minute, so they could be as nasty as they wanted. I wanted people to have to stand by what they said, so I never touched chat once I left AOL’s chat world. I think AKA did and it brought him problems. Maybe these gangs developed in chat. But I don’t get the fear. What’s so hard about principle in blogs? What’s anyone going to do to you really? You leave the computer, they don’t touch you. Not your living, not your family, not your phone, not your offline community, nothing. And on a blog you talk to the people whom you like and respect. If they’re worth respecting, they don’t join the gang. If they’re not worth respecting, why are you bothering with the site? I”m not a courageous guy but this was just chickenshit. It’s such an easy place to stand on principle.
Bitey
06/30/2020 @ 3:28 pm
FIrst, there are lots of ways to be courageous. You happen to demonstrate of the valuable ones.
Also, I remember AOL Chat, and the early internet landscape. There were a number of frightening aspects that I recall. First, if you just openly communicated, you were set upon by a group no matter what you said. It was about defensiveness and aggressiveness, and if you exhibited neither, you were attacked. Then you spent valuable minutes/hours/days/months trying to unravel misconceptions. All the while the trolls twisted every word and phrase into a new offense. It could be nightmarish. It was actually hard to get away from it as you got away from your computer. (It got even worse when start phones and tablets came out, and your device might always be with you.)
Then there were the early forms of screwing with people like tiny viruses, etc. The threats of viruses outnumbered the cases, and the ‘hacker’s’ ability to deliver one, but the prospect was initially quite disturbing.
After that came blogging (in my experience) and the horror…and I mean horror of the first time something you wrote was very widely read. Your identity turned from something that you had complete control over to something that lots of other people seemed capable of determining. Horrifying. That takes some getting used to. Eventually you blend back into being just another grain of sand on the world’s beaches.
I’ve always been comfortable in a crowd, and comfortable speaking in person. My elementary school has a speech I delivered in the 5th grade (That’s 1974 if you’re counting.) Initially, the internet robbed me of my comfort. Different rules applied. Actually, it was more like no rules at all. My recent episode here on BS was similar. A stunt was perpetrated and it took going outside of rules to manage it. I was always more familiar with how to remedy or prevent that in person, but it is trickier online. It is not as disturbing in 2020 as it would have been in 2010, but it still provides openings for the unscrupulous.
Art W. Stone
06/30/2020 @ 3:39 pm
I’m not good at being in groups. I had the fortune to be in a chat room at one point with one of the wittiest and quickest thinkers I’ve ever met online or in 3D. He pretended to be a cartoon of limited intellect and scruples. For the most part however the outsider in me didn’t play well with the other outsiders. Contrived commonalities are never more than a way to feel safe, and damn the results.
Bitey
06/30/2020 @ 3:54 pm
It’s funny how the world works. I have my declared preference for the carbon based world, but I number you as one of my important friends. Our interaction has been limited to…well, we’ve never met, but you have made a valuable impression.
Art W. Stone
06/30/2020 @ 8:16 pm
I do not have any inalienable right to hold on to what I was taught. The conversations have taken an irreversible turn anyway, even I thought that should not happen. Nearing age 69 in a couple months I know the world will be dissimilar to the one of my youth by the time I exit. Today I have $186.30 in my pocket. Nine Jacksons, a Lincoln, a Washington, a quarter and a nickel. If they were all changed tomorrow it would not change my life an iota. But it might change the life of a young person who thought their future didn’t matter, which is enough reason to do it. I’ve thought this for some time about the $20’s and would not have been so ready about the others until now, but things are moving fast and this time is upon us.
Bitey
06/30/2020 @ 9:04 pm
I agree with every drop of that, except…no way would I carry that much cash. I tend to forget about the bills because I carry so little. I think I have $17 dollars in my wallet, and that same $17 dollars has been in there since before the Coronavirus outbreak started. I only know it is 17 bucks because I counted it yesterday.
I’m 12 years younger than you, and the change is already making it a place that I hardly recognize. For the same reason, I have come to think, why not?
Ron Powell
06/30/2020 @ 4:09 pm
@Bitey;
The weaponization of racism as a principle was best expressed by LBJ as follows:
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Just as profiling of black people is the weaponization of the stereotype against black people, an element of the weaponization of racism against passive, conflicted, and ambivalent ‘non-racist’ white people, is the implied threat of ostracism against those who become actively antiracist.
“All those who play footsie with bigots are playing to the silent middle for approval for themselves.”
Often , playing footsie with bigots is about the self preservation of both parties…
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
—-Upton Sinclair
The more common (or unprincipled) racist both sends and receives the dogwhistle signals of racism and will heed the calls and silently follow enveloped in the false sense of security and belonging conferred by ‘membership’ and non-exclusion.
In the fight against racial oppression and the struggle for social justice there is no “middle”.
Not to be conflated or confused with ‘commoground..’
Ron Powell
06/30/2020 @ 4:16 pm
Correction:
Not to be conflated or confused with ‘common ground…’
Bitey
06/30/2020 @ 4:27 pm
I’m glad you showed up, RP. I’d like all of you, but most especially you to comment on “Hamilton”, the George Washington as depicted in “Hamilton”, George Washington from actual history, and the subject of monuments and myths, etc. For that matter, I think we should consider Lin Manuel Miranda. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/30/movies/hamilton-review-disney-plus.html?action=click&module=Editors%20Picks&pgtype=Homepage
He took the Hamilton biography and made it into a stage production. I found the play amazing. It is my favorite piece of art of all time. I saw it about two years ago. Now, only two years later, I am beginning to question all of the characters that I listed above. (I left out Jefferson, but I find it easier to judge him harshly. He’s certainly eligible for this examination). I am curious about your views.
Ron Powell
06/30/2020 @ 5:42 pm
@Bitey;
I haven’t seen either the stage production or the TV film.
I read the review you linked and now I’m curious re how the Musical production of the biography of Alexander Hamilton relates to the essence or gist of your post.
The fact that the institution of slavery had to be marginalzed and relegated to a single line is troublesome as is the ‘disclaimer’ that “the play is not a textbook”.
An all black cast is not nearly as important to me as would be an honest treatment of all the black people who participated, contributed, and sacrificed during the American Revolutionary period
when we have a president who
praises the Colonial army, which he said “took over the airports” from the British during the revolutionary war in the late 1700s…
If the show was more about the musical productions and presentations than a uniquely artistic treatment of history there is little wonder why you are rethinking and questioning your initial reactions and responses to the theatrical performance, as exciting as it may have been…
Bitey
06/30/2020 @ 6:00 pm
You kind of very painfully nailed it. Honestly, the production is stunning. One truly amazing aspect is how it is cast with Blacks, Asians, and Latinos. It gives the examination of some of the ideas, presented or not, new appeal.
However, like the review states, no mention of GW’s ownership of human beings.
Let’s see…it is quite a distant stretch from the post, except for the time that we find ourselves in now. The production had me reconsider the United States…entirely. Now, in the Summer of George Floyd and Darnella Frazier (I listen), so many things taken for granted are viewed differently. When I saw Andrew Jackson’s statue about to be removed, I thought that would never happen because he’s a former president. Then, Teddy Roosevelt’s was being removed in New York, and I agree with it. Then the statue of Lincoln with the Black man kneeling beneath him, and I agree with removal of that as well. The notion is growing on me, and as recently as a couple of months ago, I had not considered it.
My thoughts have moved on to the Jefferson Memorial. At first, I thought, no chance. Now I think, why not? Why should the public space be devoted to such figures? I am closer to thinking the state of Washington and Washington D.C. should be renamed, the obelisk taken down, and Jefferson’s memorial razed than I am to not doing any of it. I say, be done with racism and throw out all of the garbage. If all of those monuments exist in a country where a cop can kneel on a man until he is dead, then they should be removed, and others erected which imp[lore that such things should never be done. What good is the obelisk?
Ron Powell
07/01/2020 @ 11:59 pm
@Bitey;
“no way would I carry that much cash”
Consider this:
“Cashless systems can be problematic for people who currently rely on cash, who are concentrated in certain populations such as the poor, near poor, elderly,[27] undocumented immigrants, and youth.[20] Electronic transactions require a bank account and some familiarity with the payment system.[28] Many people in impoverished areas are underbanked or unbanked. In the United States, almost one-third of the population lacked the full range of basic financial services.[29] According to FDIC data, of households that earn an annual income of less than $15,000 per year, almost 25.6% do not have a bank account.[30] Nationwide, 7.7% of people in United States do not have bank accounts, with levels over 20% in some cities and rural counties, and over 40% in some census tracts.[31]”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cashless_society
Notice how the author of this Wikipedia entry is careful to avoid identifying or characterizing the adversely effected population as primarily or disproportionately people of color.
A shift to a cashless economy would effectively exclude or shut, already marginalized black and brown people, out of the economic mainstream altogether.
I have several bank and debit cards that I use on a very limited basis.
Generally, I carry enough cash to complete my round of errands or shopping. I’m engaged in resisting the move toward carelessness.
Cash is one of the few areas of economic leverage we commoners have left.
The dollar bill is our marketplace ballot, and just as we should do with our votes on election day, we should protect our right to retain and use as we choose.
Ron Powell
07/02/2020 @ 12:30 am
Correction:
I’m engaged in personally resisting the move toward cashlessness.
Bitey
07/02/2020 @ 5:32 am
Not carrying cash is not the same as “cashless systems.” I merely do not carry cash.
Ron Powell
07/05/2020 @ 8:52 am
@Bitey;
“I think have $17 dollars in my wallet, and that same $17 dollars has been in there since before the Coronavirus outbreak started.”
Clearly, you rely on the use of plastic.
jpHart
07/02/2020 @ 1:31 am
Lord of Song
set the table
we all arrived
ready, unstable,
willing, peculiar,
able
all 10,000 lakes not
counting Lake Superior
10,000 years
old hey!
Indians
canoeing, splashing
a vast love like
Giuseppe Fortunino
Francesco Verdi
we all grew up:
puzzle parts, soon
to navigate starlit
deep memories
how they got us
when young
clever and quiet
yet our songs
are sung
though right now
the banquet is
frozen, old bus
parked, asleep,
so I’m
up for dozin
I suspect we saw
the same piano guy
I know I thought
why can’t I fly
Indeed the first day
of the rest
of life, too early
for chime,
the thing
to know:
Once Upon a
Time
Bitey
07/09/2020 @ 4:31 pm
JP, these impromptu poems of yours are far too good to be mere comments on a post of mine. You would be doing all of us a great service if you would make some posts in your unique style. The way you are able to do that, your source inspiration must be infinite.
Jonna Connelly
07/02/2020 @ 4:43 pm
Some interesting commentary on at least part of the discussion. (I have nothing very constructive or original to offer except to reiterate: “Few things default to a binary, on-off, or either-or paradigm.” Not even heroes.)
https://tinyurl.com/yd8kyp2r
Bitey
07/02/2020 @ 5:09 pm
Thank you for that, J.C.! That is a fantastic contribution.
Like all of the most interesting things, there is no simple answer. “Hamilton” is no different in that regard. I will say for Leslie Odom Jr, though, that “Hamilton” is more than just the words. I saw “Cinderella” with an ethnically diverse cast, and it doesn’t have a deep impact. I think it is because it does not have a deep philosophical value. “Hamilton”, however, discusses the principles of our founding. And it expresses them in a modern style and vernacular, and with people who are not even philosophically part of the story in the traditional telling. I think the production is GENIUS! Pick your favorite Shakespeare play. “Hamilton” is easily as good. It should last 500 years.
I forgot to mention that “Hamilton” will stream on Disney Plus starting July 4th. You can all see for yourselves. Of course it can’t be like seeing the stage production. (The way the stage itself worked was AMAZING!). I recommend it highly. Afterwards, we can do a historical review. That’s a separate subject. For pure entertainment, everyone should see and hear “Yorktown (The World Turned Upside Down)”.
Jonna Connelly
07/02/2020 @ 9:42 pm
When I think of the experience of the stage play – it was almost overwhelming and I was nowhere near the stage. I’m sure there’s a lot I don’t remember and look forward to the TV production for that as well as the whole experience.
BindleSnitch - "no way would I carry that much cash"
07/05/2020 @ 8:59 am
[…] Horton Hears a ‘Why’…FINALLY! […]