Author: has written 5273 posts for this blog.

Jill has been blogging for Feministe since 2005.
Return to: Homepage | Blog Index

41 Responses

  1. zuzu
    zuzu May 18, 2006 at 9:35 pm | *

    Ken Mehlman dies a little every time any of these lunatics speaks.

    He really does seem to get that if the party is going to survive, it needs to renounce racism and start including people, but he’s undercut at every turn.

  2. Raincitygirl
    Raincitygirl May 18, 2006 at 11:18 pm |

    Yeah, well, Mehlman is also a self-loathing closet case, so I’m not crying too hard that he’s getting ulcers because his buddies won’t shut up and just spend their tax cut money quietly. Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.

  3. Kat
    Kat May 19, 2006 at 12:07 am |

    Well, I think T might be a Republican. Because he got accused of racism this week. By a white woman. He’s autistic, he calls ‘em like he sees ‘em. Very literal, semantically speaking. He called a neighbor child … a black American. This child’s mom told me that she and her son were not offended by the reference nor did she think he had misapplied the term. She was fine with it (she also understands that his disability makes him less than eloquent). But the white neighbor lady ran with it. And when that charge didn’t stick, she decided that T was racist against Native Americans because her son has Native American blood. But the problem with that theory is that T’s own brother is part Hawaiian. So we are sort of pro-indigenous culture in our home.

    Sorry, completely off topic. Just needed to rant.

  4. Nobody
    Nobody May 19, 2006 at 3:42 am |

    The context of Snow’s remark was not at all odd. Ask Molly Ivins. It is perfectly clear what Mr. Snow meant. Why did you feel the need to pad your list?

  5. TheJew
    TheJew May 19, 2006 at 5:46 am |

    Nice link nobody.

    Seriously, I’d like to know what racist context this term has been used in. It seems like all anybody knows about the term “tar baby” is that Toni Morrison wrote a book with that title.

  6. ilyka
    ilyka May 19, 2006 at 7:01 am |

    Wake up, Republicans. This is some vile stuff you’re spewing, and allowing people like Coulter and Limbaugh to be the face of your party is troubling.

    Agreed, and I’d go farther than “troubling.” I used to be able to ignore the both of ‘em on the grounds that they were the extremists. That was before Teh Internet, though. After Teh Internet was when I realized that every angry white male who’d discovered blogging software was basically repeating the words of Coulter and Limbaugh word for cliched word, and getting tens of thousands of hits a day for so doing.

    That said:

    given that much of the American public is apparently racist, misogynist and homophobic as well, since they keep on voting for you (or perhaps they’re too busy living their lives to notice how repulsive you all are).

    No, it’s . . . both, and neither. Both, in the sense that (in my experience) Republicans tend to tie their politics to their identities less than Democrats do–if you’ve ever read a Republican blogger moan about how they Just Don’t Understand All This Emnity, I Mean, It’s Only Politics, or if you’ve ever read a Republican blogger sigh and long for the days when people discussed neither politics nor religion at the dinner table, then you know what I’m driving at.

    The simplified version is, Republicans tend to think of politics as an abstract issue about which you think, whereas Democrats tend to think of politics as concrete issues, your positions on which define who you are. It’s a generalization, I know. It’s not entirely accurate 100% of the time. Nonetheless, that’s partly why Republicans can be “too busy living their lives to notice how repulsive you all are.” Oh, classic example:

    When I posted something or other about Bill Napoli’s repulsive remarks about who, exactly, would qualify as a rape exception to the South Dakota abortion law, the comments I had from Republican readers went like this: “Oh, of course the media would find the biggest loudmouth to say the most awful things”–you understand, they genuinely didn’t realize that Napoli was a South Dakota state senator who supported that law. They had no idea who he was. They thought “the media” had just grabbed some crazy off the street. They’re hooked into a media persecution narrative, for one, but for another, they just don’t pay attention to the details as much. That’s not necessarily stupidity, although it can be; it’s more a preference for the general over the specific, the abstract over the concrete, the forest over the trees.

    But to your other alternative, that the American public is “racist, misogynist and homophobic”–yes, and no. It depends on how you define “racist, misogynist and homophobic.” As best I can tell, Republicans literally don’t interpret those terms the same way Democrats do. To a Republican, calling someone the n-word is racist. What happened to James Byrd was racist. But the less overt examples of racism, the more veiled instances of racism, they don’t always see those. They have a thousand other interpretations and explanations. I’m not saying that’s NOT racism; I’m saying they’ve failed to ask the questions that force one to confront ingrained racism. And they’re supported daily by pundits who encourage them not to ask those questions. That would be “irrational,” see, because unless someone actually got hurt or something overtly hateful was actually said, it was only a phantom, a figment of a paranoid liberal imagination.

    Going back to Coulter and Limbaugh: The real danger from their sort is that they make racist/misogynist/homophobic unconscious assumptions seem normal, right, and just. Their most inflammatory statements, the ones that I see liberals get the most enraged about–those aren’t the problem, because your average Republican says to herself, “Eh, yeah, Ann was over the top with that line, sure, but overall . . . .”

    No. The real problem is the everyday column fodder, the everyday show material, and the ideas (such as they are) that underlie and inform it. The real problem is that your Coulters and your Limbaughs make everything old seem new again; now it’s not stale old racism you’re hearing or reading, it’s Rebel Chic anti-political correctness! It’s prizing free speech above all! It’s liberty and justice and damn the consequences!

  7. firefalluk
    firefalluk May 19, 2006 at 7:28 am |

    I’m afraid the only answer to your title is, Never

  8. April
    April May 19, 2006 at 7:50 am |

    I’m loving the post. Great links!

  9. Marian
    Marian May 19, 2006 at 8:12 am |

    All of the first ones are fairly disturbing. However, I think we may be jumping on the “tar baby” remark a bit much. Isn’t a tar baby in reference to something that looks threatening but isn’t (like in the original context)? What is offensive in that context exactly? Is it because it comes from a movie that’s been deemed offensive, or because it could possibly be used to reference Black people?

    If he was referring to, say, Katrina victims as tar babies, then I’d wonder. But isn’t this a bit like getting upset about the word “niggardly?”

    I agree that using it wasn’t smart, but blacklisting him as a racist just because of it seems like a leap.

  10. zuzu
    zuzu May 19, 2006 at 9:18 am | *

    When I posted something or other about Bill Napoli’s repulsive remarks about who, exactly, would qualify as a rape exception to the South Dakota abortion law, the comments I had from Republican readers went like this: “Oh, of course the media would find the biggest loudmouth to say the most awful things”–you understand, they genuinely didn’t realize that Napoli was a South Dakota state senator who supported that law. They had no idea who he was. They thought “the media” had just grabbed some crazy off the street. They’re hooked into a media persecution narrative, for one, but for another, they just don’t pay attention to the details as much. That’s not necessarily stupidity, although it can be; it’s more a preference for the general over the specific, the abstract over the concrete, the forest over the trees.

    What’s funny about that reaction is that they all seem to know who Ward Churchill is and consider him a mouthpiece for the left.

  11. zuzu
    zuzu May 19, 2006 at 9:30 am | *

    Ooh, Jill, you got featured in the Daou Report for this post! Well done!

  12. RWB
    RWB May 19, 2006 at 10:03 am |

    A “tar baby” is something that you pick up and can’t let go of because it’s stuck to you. In other words, a situation that you find yourself trapped in. I don’t know the folk origin, but it makes sense–you pick up a baby, but because it’s made of sticky tar, you can’t put it down. I had never heard it used as a racist term, but maybe I just don’t get out much…

    I think Snow was completely innocent here, just like when David Howard was forced to resign (but was later rehired, I believe) when he used the word “niggardly” in a DC budget meeting.

    The recent immigration hoo-hah has brought some pretty sick blatantly racist remarks out, as you have documented. But I think Snow is innocent in this particular case. Adding his remark to your list slightly weakens its impact, which without him is quite damning of racist rightwingers and their ill-considered, disgusting public utterances.

  13. Jeffrey
    Jeffrey May 19, 2006 at 11:11 am |

    Such selective outrage! It’s true that the right wing is ablaze with racists and nativists, but to ignore the plethora of race and ethnic based cheerleading (and vitrol) that comes from the left – everything from La Raza to A.N.S.W.E.R, not to mention the daily pissing on the white American middle class (and America in general), is one reason that blogs will continue to be mostly ignored or downgraded, and also one reason that the silent majority pulls the trigger for idiots like George Bush: they can’t say publicly what the feel regarding issues such as immigration, self-segregated ethnic, gender and sexual orientation graduation ceremonies, the seeming embracement of the Muslim community coinciding with the seeming rejection of the Christian community, the perceived anti-semitism of the anti-war movement and the left in general, the embracement of communist/socialist dictators/thugs and/or murderers such as Castro, Chavez and Mumia , the double standards based on pop PoMo sillyness, i.e. Rap Stars who spew the word “nigger”, “ho,” and “bitch” embraced by the black community and the overall leftwing, and so on and so forth, without being called racists…

  14. jude folly
    jude folly May 19, 2006 at 12:27 pm |

    at age six it astonished me to see a white woman kiss & embrace a black man. i did not grow up in the south nor did i ever hear a disparaging or preducial comment from my parents about people of color; and i don’t believe we are born to discriminate.

    racism infuses our culture and, i do believe, taints every individual whether one admit it or not. each of us has a choice, however, to let this poison manifest in our words and actions.

  15. Kaethe
    Kaethe May 19, 2006 at 12:50 pm |

    Y’all are suffering from a sad lack of literary/folklore knowledge.

    The White House Press Secretary uses the term “tar baby” in his first press briefing — albeit in an odd context.

    This is not an odd context. This is exactly the correct context. A tar-baby was constructed by Brer Fox as a trap for Brer Rabbit, as recounted in the folklore collected by Joel Chandler Harris and published as Uncle Remus’ Songs and Sayings. The stories aren’t very popular these days, for sundry reasons: 1) they’re written in a dialect that many people find unreadable and/or insulting 2) Uncle Remus is a slave, but the stories were published by a white newspaper writer, etc.

    There are valid cases to be made on either side of the issue of the offensiveness of Song of the South and the Uncle Remus Stories, but the tar-baby did not start out as any sort of racist term, although many now would consider it so.

  16. Chicklet
    Chicklet May 19, 2006 at 1:16 pm |

    When Will the Right Renounce Racism — And Mean It?

    Never. The tinfoil-hat “White ‘Murka is Under Attack!!!” true believers need their red meat. The elites court the red meat-eaters for votes and support. It’s classic co-dependence.

  17. Kija
    Kija May 19, 2006 at 1:55 pm |

    I can understand the argument that the meaning Snow intended for his use of the word “tar baby” was not racist. However, given that most people consider the Song of the South as a deeply racist collection of short stories — a sensitive person would hesitate to draw from such a book for metaphors. Additionally, since most recent use of the word “tar baby” has been as an epithet for black children, it is grossly insensitive to use the word. The bad meaning has driven out the more benign (though not completely) one. Additionally, if you look at the illustrations for the Uncle Remus stories, any doubt that “tar baby” was saturated with racist subtext will be erased.

  18. Nobody
    Nobody May 19, 2006 at 3:05 pm |

    Most people have no consideration for Song of the South. And, anyway, we don’t take a poll on the definition of words.

    It is clear what Snow meant. There’s just no getting around this. What sense would the sentence make if he was using, ‘tar-baby,’ as a racial epithet? Really–”Having said that, I don’t want to hug the [racial epithet] of trying to comment on the program — the alleged program — the existence of which I can neither confirm nor deny.”

    This argument is akin to saying anyone who listens to Wagner is an antisemite, because he clearly was, and because many Jews insist that it’s so.

  19. ilyka
    ilyka May 19, 2006 at 3:10 pm |

    What’s funny about that reaction is that they all seem to know who Ward Churchill is and consider him a mouthpiece for the left.

    Or Noam Chomsky, right. But that phenomenon goes both ways, ’cause I’m pretty sure Jill could name more Townhall columnists off the top of her head than, say, Glenn Reynolds could.

    I will, however, blame the right for most of that. When you divide your input sources into “approved” (FOX News, National Review, talk radio) and “unapproved” (everything else) categories, you can cherry-pick your political enemies so that the other side appears to put its worst face forward all the time. To find out any differently, to find out which persons most actual liberals consider their leading political lights, a Republican would have to read from unapproved sources, and heavens, an activity that could turn one into a Communist baby-killer. Better leave chores like that to Rush and Ann, folks who have the fortitude for it.

  20. Glaivester
    Glaivester May 19, 2006 at 3:51 pm |

    Although I could see why people would consider the story of the Tar Baby racist, or why they could see Song of the South as racist, I did nto know that the term “tar baby” itself was used as an epithet for “black person” until Richard Pryor died, and they replayed the old Saturday Night Liveracist word association” skit he did with Chevy Chase.

  21. ss
    ss May 19, 2006 at 10:12 pm |

    Perhaps it is my age showing — but tar baby was often used as a racial slur. Haven’t heard it in many years. And I also remember reading the Uncle Remus stories. Even as a child I knew a tar baby referenced black people and it was very uncomfortable to read.

    So nice to find this blog. I saw the reference on Salon. It is particularly refreshing after reading Americablog.com today. I have enjoyed that one for quite awhile, but today the site owner decided that calling cowards ‘girls’ was quite alright and that we ‘girls’ who complained are wackos. We progressives have a long way to go, too.

  22. Feministe » Derbs, Darling, You’ve Outdone Yourself!

    [...] the modern world. Note to conservatives: This is who is speaking for you. I’ll ask again: Where’s the outrage?

    [...]

  23. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU May 20, 2006 at 4:24 am |

    Racism and insensitivity aren’t a uniquely conservative characteristic. I remember a Democratic congressman from Virginia named Moran blamed the war in Iraq on Jews. Every anti-war demonstration I’ve seen since 2002 has prominently included language and imagery hostile to Jews.

    And both the left and the right have constituencies on both sides of the immigration issue, which is why leaders on both sides have skirted the issues by ignoring anything of substance and fixating on shit like what language they should sing the national anthem in. That way they can pretend to have taken a position with the people who want them to take the position, without alienating the people who would be pissed off by them taking the position.

    As for the “tar baby” thing, I have never heard that used as an epithet. The “tar baby” short was all over the Disney channel when I was a kid, as a promotion of the theatrical rerelease and subsequent video release of “Song of the South.” That’s the only context in which I’ve ever heard the term.

    I looked it up on Wiki, and according to that, the parable of the tar baby is adapted from African folklore, and according to the listing, the term is used among blacks to connote a person with an especially dark complexion, rather than being used by whites as an epithet describing blacks. Obviously, Wiki isn’t always reliable, but that may be why many whites are unfamiliar with the usage.

  24. Nobody
    Nobody May 20, 2006 at 5:00 am |

    The issue can’t hinge on whether or not Snow knew that tar baby has been used as a racial epithet. I’d be surprised to learn he didn’t know that. It’s fine, even, to argue over whether it is, now, too loaded to use in the original sense; sad, but fine. That’s not what is being argued. What is being argued is that when Snow aluded to a widely enough known story, in a context where he could not have meant anything else, he was demonstrating racism. Even though what he said could not make sense if he’d meant to use the phrase as a racist epithet.

    Jill falls back on the argument that the story is inherently racist (which renders moot the business about whether the phrase has been used as a racial epithet, doesn’t it? If the thing is racist, in and of itself, what does it matter if some part of it has, additionally, been used in racist ways?). When will you be scolding Disneyland for having what you must necessarily find to be a deeply racist theme park ride?

  25. zuzu
    zuzu May 20, 2006 at 9:39 am | *

    Racism and insensitivity aren’t a uniquely conservative characteristic. I remember a Democratic congressman from Virginia named Moran blamed the war in Iraq on Jews. Every anti-war demonstration I’ve seen since 2002 has prominently included language and imagery hostile to Jews

    Sorry, punkin, but Israel =/= Jews. And neocons =/= Jews, for that matter.

  26. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU May 20, 2006 at 11:30 am |

    Sorry, punkin, but Israel =/= Jews. And neocons =/= Jews, for that matter.

    Moran didn’t say anything about Israel or Neocons. He said we were in Iraq because of the Jews.

    As for the protesters, their decision to single out Israel’s territorial disputes and self-defense properties for protests and boycotts over all the real human rights crises in the world, like Darfur or Iran or China can only be explained by one motivation.

    The very idea of these neocon bogeymen is anti-Semitic, because it’s absolutely ridiculous to argue that these guys (there’s like four of them in the administration) and their hawkish articles in the National Review sent us to war, instead of the oil companies and defense contractors Bush and Cheney are so tight with, who are reaping record profits right now.

    Instead, the left has come up with a conspiracy right out of the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” involving a shadowy Israeli lobby and everyone with a Jewish sounding name who works within six blocks of the White House. When shit goes wrong and you look for a Jew to blame, that’s anti-Semitism.

  27. zuzu
    zuzu May 20, 2006 at 12:10 pm | *

    Please provide a cite (mainstream source) for your contention about Moran.

    As for protesters, you might be aware that the US provides a great deal of material and defense support to Israel, which affects the balance of powers in the region. You also may be aware that there’s a war on in the Middle East and that the protection of Israel is one of the many justifications floated for the war, particularly among the very people in the Defense Department — neocons, how about that, like Feith and Perle and Wolfowitz — who were driving the war effort and backing Chalabi. So it’s not at all random that anti-war protests would include references to Israel.

    The neocons themselves have made the link between Israel and war in Iraq and Iran explicit:

    The ousting of Saddam and the rebuilding of Iraq (and by implication, the Middle East) was a key part of this program for American leadership. In the words of Raymond Tanter — a member of Reagan’s National Security Council and now a visiting fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy — “the road to Jerusalem goes through Baghdad. The road to Tehran goes through Baghdad. The road to Damascus goes through Baghdad[I]f you change the regime through force in Baghdad, American military power will cast a long diplomatic shadow, and it will be America’s decade in the Middle East.” This became the mantra of the Necon’s foreign policy. In 1998 eighteen associates of the PNAC, including Richard Armitage, William Bennet, Francis Fukuyama, Robert Kagan, William Kristol, Richard Perle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz , wrote a letter to President Clinton. In it they warned of the need to secure the “significant portion of the world’s oil supply” in Iraq, advising the President that the only acceptable strategy is to “undertake military action” and remove “Saddam Hussein and his regime from power.”

    As for your contention that anti-war protesters should focus on Darfur or Iran or China, that is utterly ludicrous, given that the war is in none of those places (or at least not yet, in the case of Iran). And you may have noticed that there are people who do, in fact, protest the situation in Darfur — several members of Congress, in fact, have been arrested in front of the Sudanese embassy. Ditto for Iran, and China, and whatever else. Multitasking, you know.

  28. Daniel@NYU
    Daniel@NYU May 20, 2006 at 6:48 pm |

    Please provide a cite (mainstream source) for your contention about Moran.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A7832-2003Mar10?language=printer

    Cynthia McKinney is also a great friend of the Jews.

    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/opinion/baroneweb/mb_020829.htm

    As for your contention that anti-war protesters should focus on Darfur or Iran or China, that is utterly ludicrous, given that the war is in none of those places (or at least not yet, in the case of Iran). And you may have noticed that there are people who do, in fact, protest the situation in Darfur — several members of Congress, in fact, have been arrested in front of the Sudanese embassy. Ditto for Iran, and China, and whatever else. Multitasking, you know.

    Yeah. And the war is not in Israel either. But Sharon’s face is on a lot more protest posters than Tony Blair’s, even though Blair committed a lot of troops to the war in Iraq and Sharon sent zero. And we’re suddenly hearing a lot of trumped-up shit about the nefarious Israeli lobby from well-credentialed professor types. Despite the fact that, as a lot of progressives have noted, apocalyptic Christians have their own agenda about Israel and carry a lot more weight with the Republican administration than the predominantly-liberal American Jewish community.

    Yeah, a handful of guys have been advocating military adventurism abroad for a long time, and in the (oil-rich) Middle East in particular. That doesn’t inexorably lead to a conclusion that Perle and Feith have more sway in directing the administration’s foreign policy than, say, Falwell and Robertson or Exxon and Halliburton.

    But when people look for a scapegoat, they always like to find a Jew.

  29. Nobody
    Nobody May 20, 2006 at 7:13 pm |

    CNN article, quoting Moran:

    “If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this,” he said at the forum in Reston, Virginia. “The leaders of the Jewish community are influential enough that they could change the direction of where this is going and I think they should.”

    He clarified, later:

    “What I was trying to say is that if more organizations in this country, including religious groups, were more outspoken against a war, then I do not think we would be pursuing war as an option.”

    I don’t think it’s fair to say that he was blaming Jews for starting the war. He was blaming them for failing to stop it, which, while not a whole lot better, is different. In a different context (but still relevant, here) Menachem Begin once said, “Goyim kill goyim, and they blame the Jews.”

  30. Standard Mischief
    Standard Mischief May 20, 2006 at 8:08 pm |

    Not my battle of course, but the vast majority of skinheads would probably prefer if you did not automatically equate “skinhead” with “racist”.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skinheads_Against_Racial_Prejudice

    One little chair incident by a fringe element on “trash-TV” no less, and your entire subculture is scarred for life.

    The MSM usually preface “racist” in front of “skinhead” when they want to talk about the nazi goon nutjobs.

    Whoops, I evoked “Godwin’s Law” by mistake. I guess I automatically lose.

    BTW, not all goths wear trench coats either.

  31. Lauren
    Lauren May 20, 2006 at 8:22 pm |

    I was wondering when somebody would bring up the SHARPs.

  32. nonwhiteperson
    nonwhiteperson May 20, 2006 at 10:07 pm |

    “There are some conservatives and wingnuts who aren’t racist. And there are absolutely many liberals who are quite racist.”

    Someone recently said that there are no Democrats who are racist (as differentiated from the word “liberals”). This rang true for me because the Democratic party stands for the civil rights movement, Kennedy, Clinton, Gore. I’m probably not making any sense.

  33. Nobody
    Nobody May 21, 2006 at 2:07 am |

    Disney, knowing the racist roots of “tar baby,” substituted a pot of honey for the tar baby on its ride.

    So it’s not the story, any more, that’s inherently racist? We’re back to just the word/figure of a baby made of tar being rooted in racism? I don’t much know what to make of the construction, “racist roots.” Are you saying that its racist roots (I’m stipulating, not agreeing) make using it the sort of thing that only a racist would do? If you would be so kind, please make clear how the term tar baby may be used or, that it cannot at all, be used. I can engage on those terms. But I’m too lazy to keep chasing your flicking tail.

    That Disney substituted the character (obviously I didn’t know they had, or I wouldn’t have posted the gotcha point) does not mean they “[knew] the racist roots of ‘tar baby.’ ” Clearly there are reasons other than agreement that can explain the change. Burger King didn’t agree that its ice cream packaging was rooted in racism. Anyway, that you’ve seen fit to respond to my second instance (in this case, not quite parallel enough, I suppose) makes it all the more vexing that you haven’t seen fit to address Molly Ivins’ explicit use of the racistly rooted ‘tar baby.’

    But I presume to far in telling you what to write. Avocational hazard.

  34. Standard Mischief
    Standard Mischief May 21, 2006 at 11:06 am |

    Jill Says: …and did this thread just get to the point where we’re defending skinheads? Ookay, time for me to make my exit.

    Sorry, Jill. Normally I don’t comment on the threads unless I’m in substantial disagreement. You don’t need any more yes-men (err, I mean yes-persons) now do you?

    But here, the irony was just too delicious. In a post about racist remarks, both you, Alex Koppelman, and Ann Coulter perpetuate the “all skinheads are racist” stereotype.

    Again, It’s not my battle, but I hope I’ve let you down a little easier that the typical anti-racist vegetarian anarchist skinhead would.

  35. piny
    piny May 21, 2006 at 11:26 am |

    One little chair incident by a fringe element on “trash-TV” no less, and your entire subculture is scarred for life.

    Actually, your entire subculture is scarred for life because neo-nazi groups appropriated it. It’s not “one little chair incident” so much as a whole lotta stubble-headed jackbooted violent racists. While all skinheads are not racist, racist skinheads are not exactly uncommon.

  36. Standard Mischief
    Standard Mischief May 21, 2006 at 1:32 pm |

    Actually, your entire subculture is scarred for life…

    For the third time, not my subculture.

    …It’s not “one little chair incident” so much…

    Here are the markup tags I left out: [snark], [/snark]. Can you figure out where they go? How much snide remark language do you expect from someone who signs his comments “Standard Mischief”?

    Have I exceeded those expectations?

  37. piny
    piny May 21, 2006 at 3:42 pm |

    That was the universal “you,” sugarbutt. But if skinheads are actually committed anti-racists for the most part, why would it bother you either way? My point was that equating skinhead and neo-nazi is a more honest mistake than equating goth with sociopath, since there is a good amount of overlap there. It isn’t one little anything.

    Here are the markup tags I left out: [snark], [/snark]. Can you figure out where they go? How much snide remark language do you expect from someone who signs his comments “Standard Mischief”?

    Eh. I expect what I’d expect from someone whose livejournal was titled, “Random Musings,” or anything along those lines. There’ll be snark there, but it’ll be lousy snark. So no, you haven’t exceeded my expectations.

  38. Standard Mischief
    Standard Mischief May 21, 2006 at 5:39 pm |

    That was the universal “you,” sugarbutt. But if skinheads are actually committed anti-racists for the most part, why would it bother you either way? My point was that equating skinhead and neo-nazi is a more honest mistake than equating goth with sociopath, since there is a good amount of overlap there. It isn’t one little anything.

    I’d like to think if someone mistakenly threw out a stereotype regarding females, gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered people, I’d do the right thing and not let it stand. Not having known any of the last category, I might not be a big help there; Having known quite a few skins, however, I felt I ought to say something.

    The skins of my generation, BTW were predominantly not racist, but they weren’t this generations’ anti-racist vegetarian anarchist skinhead.

    Here’s something interesting:

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1662845&page=1

    The guy getting dragged away was a counter-protester. But you have to read very carefully to see this. If you just glance at picture, you will see a skinhead being arrested by riot police. In this case, the Boneheads (neo-nazis) did their protest and left without incident (no arrests). I’m sure, however, that this news photographer got the shot he was looking for, and sees no need to explain the whole truth.

    Four riot pigs and a skinhead. Hot shit!

    (please note: I have no idea if this guy deserved this, it’s possible he was assaulted first by some other confused counter-protester. OTOH, he might be guilty)

Comments are closed.

The commenting period has expired for this post. If you wish to re-open the discussion, please do so in the latest Open Thread.