Wednesday, November 29, 2006

More dopes on Michael Irvin

You can read my initial thoughts on Micheal Irvin's bizaare commments here, and my follow-up comments here and here. You can also read some interesting takes at Leave the Man Alone here and here.

First of all, I want to emphasize a few points that I've noted before.

1. Explicit comments that make note of racial stereotypes and assumptions get attacked when implicit comments are more prevalent, more damaging, and largely ignored from discourse. Take note whenever a white wide receiver is referred to as "deceptively fast" or having "deceptive speed," and tell me there aren't all sorts of implicit assumptions about race and athleticism.

2. White people complaining about a "double standard" that benefits minorities is the height reactionary, ridiculous hypocricy. There is still all sorts of institutional and individual racism in America, but we're supposed to be uptight because members of minorities get away with saying things that members of the majority can't?

PFT has some new stuff on Irvin's comments, and as usual, there are some dopey comments. There are links to columns by Nancy Gay, Marc Narducci, and Scott Bordow about the incident.

Narducci is sort of stupid. He says, "Those who ever get in front of a microphone should be smart enough to stay away from racial stereotyping, even if something is said supposedly in jest."

OK, tell that to every standup comedian. Have you people seen The Aristocrats? How about Chappelle's Show? Sometimes joking about an issue is a good way to actually deal with an issue.

Narducci goes on, "Whether the person thinks he or she is being funny isn't the point. Race is a serious subject and no matter how lighthearted a remark, it is bound to offend a certain segment of viewers or listeners."

In America, we don't have the right to not be offended. I'm sure there are some racist southerners who are "offended" that a black man is even allowed to speak on TV. Do you care about offending such people? Me neither. If commentators are going to worry about offending "a certain segment of viewers or listeners," we're not left with much of anything.

Narducci says, "While anybody can make a mistake, this lapse of judgment would be serious enough to warrant at the least a suspension and at the most dismissal, especially in these politically correct times."

"Political correctness" is a stupid concept. It's lame, hypocritical, and rarely used for things that are truly regulated by political correctness (you want real political correctness? Try saying something bad about U.S. soldiers. It's "politically incorrect" to do so, but nobody refers to that as political correctness). There's some possible circular logic here, but possibly not, so I won't dissect that.

Bordow says that "The same standard should be used for the black commentator as the white commentator." Maybe. But when the same standards are used for judgment and treatment of black people in America as for white people, I'll start complaining that a black commentator gets less punishment for racially awkward comments than a white commentator gets.

My interest in this issue is the reaction. I'm interested in issues like use of language, free speech, and racial equality, and I've found this a story that features all of that.

I don't think Micheal Irvin's comments about Tony Romo are the equivalent of Rush Limbaugh's comments about Donovan McNabb. In the former case, a member of the minority made a joke using stereotypes of the majority and the minority. In the latter case, a member of the majority suggested that a member of the minority is overrated BECAUSE he's a member of the minority. That's not the same thing, even though some sportswriters are reacting as if it is.

8 comments:

  1. Not to be a douche, but I have to point out that as you discuss issues of prejudice and unfair treatment among different groups, you don't hold back at all in your southerner-bashing. I know a lot of people in Minnesota who have similar views as a 'racist southerner' would. I don't know many southerners; I only know two, from Texas. But they are very progressive and forward thinking. They like all races, and they don't vote republican.

    Just saying.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm geographically a southerner and there are many southerner's I know who do not fit the stereotype. However, there are still some southerners who do, but from what I can gather they are just as prevalent in Minnesota and the north. The difference is the ones up there do not have a social climate that allows them to voice these absurd views in a way that wouldn't alienate them from the larger body of society.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:39 PM

    I'm sure there are some racist southerners who are "offended" that a black man is even allowed to speak on TV.

    I'm sure that there are some ignorant doucebags out there who like to generalize while handpicking when it's okay and when it's not okay to generalize, too.

    Neither deserve respect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Let me clarify: when I said "racist southerners," "racist" was not intended to be an adjective applied to all southerners. It was probably unnecessary to even add "southerners": the point could have been just as clear by saying "there are probably some racists who are..."

    Let me make a second point: I write a BLOG and I don't care if I piss you off.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Two other points:

    1. If I were labelling all southerners, I wouldn't have even added "racist" as an adjective. I would have just said "There are some southerners who are..." and then maybe you could say that I'm an ignorant douchebag that handpicks who I generalize. But I wasn't doing that. There ARE racist southerners. There are also racist northerners, so it was probably unnecessary to specify (though a brief understanding of American history should make it understandable why I specified).

    2. I'm not impressed with the ability of somebody to anonymously insult me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous3:15 PM

    It was probably unnecessary to even add "southerners":

    Yep, 'twas. You could've stopped there.

    though a brief understanding of American history should make it understandable why I specified

    History was THEN. For example: it was southern Democrats who were of the "Bull Conner" sort, not Republicans. Times change and, believe it or not, most of those racists are DEAD. It's no longer 1961 in Podunk, Alabama.

    Why you added "southerners" is apparent and if you'll be honest you'll admit it: you're bigoted against southerners (my guess is because they don't vote according to your wishes, but that's a guess).

    I'm not impressed with the ability of somebody to anonymously insult me.

    You can call me "Armed viking" then. Apparently, a pseudonym signifying nothing works better than "anonymous" which also signifies nothing. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. History wasn't "then." If you think racism is gone, in the past, no longer an issue, you're deluding yourself. The problems of race in America didn't just go away at some specified moment; the problems linger and lead to future problems. As William Faulkner said, "The past isn't dead. It isn't even past."

    I am, admittedly, "biased" against the South. I don't know if I'd go so far as to say "bigoted." I looked up the definition of "bigot," and that certainly doesn't identify my attitude toward the South.

    From wikipedia: "A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own... Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to their prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false."

    Now, that's actually a pretty mild definition of bigot, but even that doesn't suit any attitude I have. However, I admit a negative bias in my assumptions about the South. I am self-aware and honest enough to admit that. And if you'll be honest with yourself, I think you'll admit that it's not like racism is dead in the South (or anywhere else in America, for that matter) as you seem to imply in your comment about history being "then."

    A pseudonym at least signifies some form of identity, even if it's an online identity. Honestly, I also haven't done much on this blog (or comments elsewhere under this name) to hide my real identity.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous5:35 PM

    YOUR AN IDIOT. I CAN TELL YOUR A BLEEDING HEART LIBERAL FROM THE POSITION YOU TAKE ON THIS TOPIC. THOSE SAME TYPE OF COMMENTS GOT JIMMY "THE GREEK" FIRED AND NOTHING HAPPENS TO ERVIN. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, WHAT JIMMY "THE GREEK" SAID IS ABSOLUTLY TRUE AND DOCUMENTED FACT. ANOTHER THING WHEN A PLAYER IS SAID TO HAVE DECEPTIVE SPEED I THINK ITS MORE OF A REFERAL TO THAT PARTICULAR ATHLETES SIZE OR PHYSICAL FEATURES NOT HIS SKIN COLOR. YOUR REACHING FOR JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHAT ERVIN SAID THAT JUST ARE THERE AND HAVE NO BEARING ON HIS COMMENTS. THIS IS 2006 AND WE SHOULD HOLD OUR MEDIA BROADCASTERS TO A HIGHER STANDARD, COLORED OR WHITE

    ReplyDelete