« Stevens: The Plot Thickens | Main | The Village Remembers »

September 21, 2007

Comments

I would suggest that low ratings are the ultimate requirement to get fired, but I think that Tucker Carlson has disproved that hypothesis. At least for conservative commentators.

good.....very good......ha ha ha ha ha Really....that was good....

He really is a doofus...

You mean that isn't how you order more iced tea? No wonder they keep spilling it on me.

Hey, this is the network that's backing a snarling racist for president. O'Reilly's open racism is a feature, not a bug.

He really is a doofus...

Loofus?

Isn't he expressing that particular line as a conception that some whites may have, rather than as what he himself thinks?

DPU, you're really willing to bend over backwards for a ridiculously generous interpretation. I'm not that flexible.

We're just not as good at phony outrage as the right is.

dpu,

"Isn't he expressing that particular line as a conception that some whites may have, rather than as what he himself thinks?"

Not if his reaction is "And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City." He himself has that reaction.

On the other hand, at O'Reilly offenses go, this is not anywhere near my top 10.

If it was wrong for Don Imus to refer to the Rutgers basketball team as 'nappy-headed hos', and it was, and if MSNBC rightly decided that they had to drop him, then why on earth does Bill O'Reilly still have a job?

This particular nitwitery on O'Reilly's part is not rising to Imus' level. And when both of them were ostensibly hired to say stupid and often offensive things, and have for years, I'm not sure what sense it makes to demand they be fired.

Does he have to express surprise that Sylvia's goes to the trouble of printing prices on the menu, instead of expecting all their black customers to rob them at gunpoint? Or that the customers use silverware, rather than eating with their fingers? Or that Sylvia's doesn't put brightly colored crack pipes next to the dessert spoons?

Since D-P-U had the courage to stick up for O'Reilly, I'll continue in that fruitless vein. Expressing surprise as to how safe, normal and middle-class Harlem has become over just the past few years is completely understandable and defensible.

DPU, you're really willing to bend over backwards for a ridiculously generous interpretation.

I dislike O'Reilly as much as anyone, KC, but that was my first impression, and I was asking to see if others might have had that interpretation. And, by the way, "ridiculous" is a somewhat provocative description that I don't appreciate.

I disagree with O'Reilly: when you really, really need more iced tea, you need to actually say "muthaf_cker." Folks just don't respond to "M-Fer" any more. Kids and their rap music, I suppose.

That said, although there is a long way to go, society has really moved the last couple years. I'm somewhat comforted by the fact that O'Reilly recognizes it -- although the way that he recognized it suggests that we haven't quite seen (much less reached) the promised land. By way of anecdote, I was listening to PE's "Nation of Millions" the other day -- which is now all-but classic rap -- and was struck about how uniquely mid- to late 1980s it is. Not just in the references (Elijah Muhammed; Barkley), but in the sense that this kind of political record just wouldn't be made today.

OTOH, until Republicans and conservatives in general stop explaining how black folks are just like "us" and start just assuming* it, they are going to lag behind Democrats. It's something that I had hoped would change about the Republican party.

*IMHO, the difference between a white politician "explaining" and "assuming" is best shown by comparing virtually any white politician with Bill Clinton.

Here's the context for the tea statement:

"this is what white America doesn't know, particularly people who don't have a lot of interaction with black Americans. They think that the culture is dominated by Twista, Ludacris, and Snoop Dogg.

WILLIAMS: Oh, and it's just so awful. It's just so awful because, I mean, it's literally the sewer come to the surface, and now people take it that the sewer is the whole story --

O'REILLY: That's right. That's right. [...]"

So I suspect dpu is right. Perhaps the "couldn't get over" bit is him being forcefully reminded of something he knew intellectually but not from experience - how many Caucasians here have had a fancy dinner where everyone else was African-American - intensified by his awareness of white America's broad prejudice.

I think I agree with Dantheman's view that he's said more hateful things.

Expressing surprise as to how safe, normal and middle-class Harlem has become over just the past few years is completely understandable and defensible.

Hold on; that's something different. O'Reilly connected his comments not to Harlem, but to the restaurant being black-owned & have black patrons. Not the same thing.

Sorry, DPU. It does seem to me to be a bit of a contortion, but "ridiculous" wasn't a good word to use.

O'Reilly connected his comments not to Harlem, but to the restaurant being black-owned & have black patrons. Not the same thing.

Hey, I said I was going to try to defend O'Reilly, I didn't say I was good at it...

OK; the combined weight of Cords', DPU's and Rilkefan's posts is starting to convince me that I'm wrong in criticizing O'Reilly.

Sorry, DPU. It does seem to me to be a bit of a contortion, but "ridiculous" wasn't a good word to use.

Actually, on re-reading your statement I clued in that the "r" word was connected with the contortion rather than the question. My mistake, and apologies in return.

I'll agree that the defense offered is possible, but I don't require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt for criticism of O'Reilly. I'm certainly not in favor of spreading lies, regardless of how effective that's been for the right, but that's not what this is. I'm perfectly willing at this point to leave the defense to right-wingers in ambiguous cases.

I'm perfectly willing at this point to leave the defense to right-wingers in ambiguous cases.

And on the other hand, there is the question of whether it makes any sense for left-wingers to be on the offense about this.

gosh, I'm really glad you don't have the moslim problems us naive (and hospitable) europeans have

The current definition of "far left" covers anyone critical of Bush or the Iraq occupation, so it includes pretty much everyone who's outside the United States. There's nothing surprising about O'Reilly's and Malkin's comments.

I did just run across an attack on Bush that is clearly false (on the level of the inane claim that Kerry "lied" about having "Look for the Union Label" sung to him as a baby). Mark Kleiman is on it. I hope the fact that I hadn't heard it indicates that's it's going nowhere.

As a Caucasian who has frequently "had a fancy dinner where everyone else was African-American" and has long wished I could AFFORD to live in the better parts of Harlem, my reaction to O'Reilly's "Wow, they don't have bones in their noses anymore" comments was "What the Fuck?!" Anyone to whom anything he had to say was new or surprising enough to be worth saying simply lives on a different planet from the rest of us.

To answer the question in this post's title ("Why is Bill O'Reilly on the Air") is because a not-isignificant number of people really like to watch someone bully the crap out of their perceived enemies.

Sure, Morat20, but a not-insignificant number of people liked Don Imus too.

Sure, Morat20, but a not-insignificant number of people liked Don Imus too.

True enough. Ditto Howard Stern, although he ended up on Satellite.

Perhaps the critical difference is that, well, it's really not surprising to hear it from Bill. He's become such a joke over the last several years that it simply lacks that suprising sting.

So you're looking a crowd of people who either aren't shocked by this, because they've decided O'Reilly is a racist, bullying, sexually harassing idiot and frankly the outrage meter pegged out five years ago -- or happen to agree with Bill there.

The "Some of my best friends are black, I not really racist" racists agree with him, and everyone else either writes him off as irrelevant or just isn't shocked enough to do anything more than say "Good lord, Bill's an idiot".

Imus basically flew under the radar for years and years on the subject. It was surprising, it was actual news. Bill O'Reilly, on the other hand -- does this really surprise anyone?

I'm not sure why Imus was surprising, though, or Stern. Why was it that those particular statements caused them to lose their jobs? Maybe it has to do with sexual content or offensive words, which O'Reilly has avoided.

Both in the instance that KCinDC points to and in this particular issue, there can exist an excess of criticism.

Although I am not as gereous as DPU, Jonas or RK in my interpretation of what O'Reilly said, I also don't think it represents his actual surprise at the lack of certains being slung around the restaurant.

I do think he says things deliberately to create provocation, and there will no doubt an upcoming statement on either his television or radio show or in one of his columns about what a hateful, left-wing site ObWi is, almost as bad as Daily Kos. Also how hilzoy is at the same level as MoveOn.org in terms of character assassination.

Both Bush and Bill O provide enough ammunition without needing to look for something that may have other interpretations.

BTW, good to "hear your voice" von. I can't visit as much as I would like nowadays, so I may have missed you showing up lately.

I can hardly wait for the Senate resolution of condemnation.

CJColucci, you do realize how rare your experience is in America (or anywhere), right? Despite all the progress, black folks and white folks don't mix much -- at dinner, in neighborhoods, at church, etc. Unfortunately, it may very well be you -- not O'Reilly -- who lives on a different planet.

CJColucci, you do realize how rare your experience is in America (or anywhere), right?

Other than maybe Vermont and Wyoming, I think there are few places in the US where there just aren't that many black people. So, I think it's actually more likely than not that most Americans know, personally, people of another race, at least casually.

You don't have to know another person all that well to understand that they wouldn't scream "M-Fer, I want more iced tea" in a restaurant.

So I vote with CJ. If you found yourself amazed to discover that the darkies don't comport themselves like thugs when they eat in restaurants, you're not living in the same world as the rest of us. Maybe you like it better that way, but it ain't normal.

Thanks -

Russell, I think Von may have overstated the bit about not mixing, but CJColucci is "a Caucasian who has frequently 'had a fancy dinner where everyone else was African-American'", and I don't think that's common in any part of the US.

Other than maybe Vermont and Wyoming, I think there are few places in the US where there just aren't that many black people. So, I think it's actually more likely than not that most Americans know, personally, people of another race, at least casually.

You've missing the point entirely, Russell. CJ writes: "As a Caucasian who has frequently "had a fancy dinner where everyone else was African-American[.]" It isn't rare for a white American to have "a" black friend -- particularly in the professional classes. Indeed, there used to be a pretty funny website poking fun at this fact ("We like black people" or something like that). It's also not to rare for the reverse to occur.

My point is that it is very rare -- perhaps even exceeding rare -- for a white person to be at majority-black events. While the opposite it quite common, the legacy of racism, Jim Crow, and social stratification is such that whites primarily socialize with whites and have few black friends. Very few white folks are ever in a position where they are in the minority.

As a result, white folks tend to have huge misimpressions of (1) "black" neighborhoods, (2) "black" restaurants, and (3) "black" gatherings generally. O'Reilly merely reflects that fact. (And, incidentally, I'm writing this as a white dude who has more than a few associates and friends of color, and who has quite frequently been in the minority as a white dude per se, but very, very rarely been in the minority where the majority of folks were black.)

But, beyon
De facto segregation is very much alive and well in the United States. CJ

I can see where DPU is coming from, but then I'm reminded about Chris Rock's rant, more than a decade ago, about people noting how "well spoke" Colin Powell is/was.

I'm not trying to defend anyone (least of all B O'R.) but it is sadly very possible to live one's life not being aware of minorities around you until you get in a situation where it hits you in the face. I think that O'Reilly lives in a world where the only minorities he encounters serve to reinforce his own prejudices. Which probably parallels his attitudes towards women, in that he's often been in situations where he knows them casually, but he believes that he (or is told by other lackeys) is superior to them. If you start from the notion that minorities are primarily responsible for their own suffering, it's not unlikely that you are going to be surprised by a situation like the one he describes.

By way of anecdote, I was listening to PE's "Nation of Millions" the other day -- which is now all-but classic rap -- and was struck about how uniquely mid- to late 1980s it is. Not just in the references (Elijah Muhammed; Barkley), but in the sense that this kind of political record just wouldn't be made today.

Hi there! We're The Coup! You may remember us, as we had the misfortune to have our album Party Music, which depicted the World Trade Center destroyed by explosions, schedule for release in mid-September 2001. Needless to say it didn't go well. We're both avowed Marxists who perform politiclaly-charged left-wing hip hop music. Which you wouldn't know if you only listened to old PE albums and the radio.

Also, further to russell's and CJ's point, my neighborhood in Cleveland is a mix -- on my street, even -- of middle-class white folks like me, middle-class blacks, some poor blacks, and Conservative Jews. While they clearly don't all attend the same church, their kids certainly play together, and people know each other on this street. I don't know what your neighborhood is like.

Incidentally, since race relations are a particular interest of mine -- and one of my goals for the Republican party is to make it much, much more inclusive in this regard -- let me blather on a bit.

There are three barriers, in my mind, to having an honest conversation about race. FTR, I'm addressing myself to white folks, because, frankly, I'm not qualified to address any other group.

One is racism itself, and its legacy of lack of interaction and community. Even though you may be colorblind, that doesn't make you integrated (and I don't really believe that you're colorblind anyway).

The second is mere misconception. You heard Harlem was dangerous in the 1980s -- and, hell, it was. So you don't go there. Today. And you don't let your kids go there. And you'd never live there. Etc. Etc. Likewise, even though that black nightclub is perfectly safe, you've never been and none of your friends ever go. These things aren't racist per se -- and some may be quite rational at a certain level -- but they do dissuade folks from mixing.

O'Reilly's comment is probably a mix of category 1 and 2.

There is a third category, however, and Hilzoy's post may be guilty of it. White folks, particularly white liberals -- but also white conservatives to a surprising degree -- can have a hair trigger when it comes to insensitive comments by other white folks. E.g., O'Reilly making a dumb remark, the nonesense about the candidate who supposedly said blacks can't swim (what he really meant was that, in the South in the 1950s very few black kids knew how to swim -- which was probably 100% correct), etc.

It's important to be sensitive, but I suspect something else is going on here: we're creating a scapegoat (in the classic sense of the term). I suspect that the most troubling aspect of O'Reilly's remark for a lot of white folks is not the remark itself, but the fact that maybe it resonates a little with you (and, frankly, me). And you (and I) feel a little bit guilty about that. But we'll never admit that. And you and I didn't say it -- you and I would never say it -- so we can work out our guilt by taking it out on O'Reilly.

Better, perhaps, would be for white folks -- and, if you're white, you must include yourself -- to admit that we can all be a little dumb on these things. And O'Reilly, far from being an outlier, is probably typical -- if not better -- than most.

Phil, FTR, I know of The Coup. I just wouldn't even mention them -- much less put them even in the same class as PE. (Incidentally, although it's a few years old, may I recommend The Foreign Exchange to hip-hop fans? Truly brilliant.)

I'm remembering an interesting article analyzing the Lethal Weapon series, pointing out that the partnership between the white character and the black character was rooted in a desire to think that when placed in such a situation, our own reactions would mirror those of the characters. So a tossed out question to the commentariat, are there any movies of recent vintage that realistically portray an interracial friendship?

It's amazing what comes out of that mouth. Once again I wonder just how far off the track the hamsters running his brain have gone.

Wow. I actually agree with everyone. Von is 110% right that de-facto segregation is alive and well in the US. But like Phil, I live in a mixed ethnicity area in a major city; my church is about 20% black. But that's bizarre: most Americans don't live like that.


I think we're tripping over the question of how immersed do you have to be in minority environments before you realize that blacks are normal human beings. Is group socialization with black individuals in which the group majority is clearly white sufficient to make people appreciate that blacks are normal human beings? Because even though most Americans don't live in mixed ethnicity areas, most Americans, most Americans do interact with at least one or two blacks socially or professionally.

Most white couples I’ve known who met in the City left the City when children entered the picture. It is kind of hard to deny the general migration pattern. The typical conservative cites “a good neighborhood to raise kids”. The typical liberal speaks of “good schools”. But neither group seems to want to have their children exposed to the realities of our inner city schools.

OK folks.

The first thing I want to say is that anyone who lives in or near a large city has to mix and mingle with folks of other backgrounds. You learn that other folks aren't from Mars even if they are different from you, you learn to not worry overly much about the differences, and you learn to deal. All without necessarily getting all "Kum by ya" about it. It's called getting along. If you don't do that, you end up living in your own little world, and a pretty tiny one at that.

The number of people who live in or near large cities is a lot of people.

Next, lots and lots of smaller communities are not that lily white. So, even if you don't live in the big town, you deal with folks who don't look like you. As above, you learn to deal, or you end up living in your own little self-imposed ghetto. Most folks learn to deal.

Your comment about CJ's experience could be, strictly speaking, true. Maybe most white people in this country have never had the experience of eating out in a context where they were the minority. I bet it's actually less true than you might expect, but I'll spot you that.

My point is that, whether you've been out uptown for soul food or not, most white people know some black people, and know them well enough to know that the kind of colorful antics Bill O'Reilly conjures up are horse crap.

Turbulence got it right:

I think we're tripping over the question of how immersed do you have to be in minority environments before you realize that blacks are normal human beings.

And the answer to his question is "not much, if at all". And FWIW, eating out at a black restaurant is really, really not immersing yourself in a minority environment.

Walk up to any black person you know and ask them if they scream "M-Fer, I want more iced tea" when they go out to dinner. You probably won't do that, and you probably won't do that because you know it will be offensive. You know it will be offensive because it reflects an ignorant and false negative stereotype of black culture and behavior.

In short, you won't do that because it's rude, and wrong, and you know it to be both.

And that, my friends, is why Bill O'Reilly is an ass.

Thanks -

Obsidian Wings is more fun with Von around.

As to O'Reilly, I'm too blissed out at the moment (long day, wine, etc) to care one way or the other, but I wonder, did he stand up at his table, a wee drop in his hand, tip over the chair and stagger to the nearest table and swayingly put his big red Irish face with the hemorraging surface capillaries on his nose giving off a dull red glow right down into the decollatage of the female diner and slur out with an Irish yip:

Heeh! Ther'el be no patty fingers if ya please, Mrs. Donegal! I know what you people are up to; I'd sware it on the grave of me own sainted mother!

... and then break into tears and wet his pants?

No? Good. I trust there wasn't a fistfight either.

Was there an offkey chorus of "Danny Boy"?

Your comment about CJ's experience could be, strictly speaking, true. Maybe most white people in this country have never had the experience of eating out in a context where they were the minority.
Since CJ was talking about being "a Caucasian who has frequently 'had a fancy dinner where everyone else was African-American'", I don't see what this has to do with what Von said in response.

Why is O'Reilly still on the air? Because television is in the business of selling viewers' eyeballs to advertisers. So long as O'Reilly's shtick attracts those eyeballs, he will be on the air.

As Paddy Chayefsky said, television is democracy with a vengeance.

A better question would be is why do black folk keep electing black officials who make racist statements? ie, Charles Barron, etc. And what about Isiah Thomas' recent statement on how he feels it is ok for a black man to call a black woman bitch, but not for a white man, cause according to him, that would be way differet? Imagine a white exec in an analogous case. Would he be still working for the Knicks?

This notion that you hang out with other people means you understand them seems a bit off. Add to that the West's flirtation with Social Darwinism and the US's particular problems with race, means that just mingling ain't going to do it. To draw a parallel, most Japanese interact with a western foreigner socially or professionally, but I still get the most amazing questions about what foreigners do. Now, the language barrier may be a contributory factor, but I think that usually what is required is a stint of having the roles reversed is required. I'm thinking that people like Gandhi and MLK only develop and refine their messages after being 'taken into' the majority society.

Well, Isiah Thomas gets to be an asshole all of his own volition with all of the perils of individual responsibility.

But O'Reilly wants to let us know that he's just now noticing that Isiah's personal issues and worldview don't apply generally to the patrons of the restaurant he's bragging about visiting.

I guess that's personal growth on O'Reilly's part. He's a credit to his race of leprechauns.

Gosh, I hope people don't think all white folks bloviate and act like O'Reilly.

The writer Walker Percy said he watched Jerry Falwell and Bob Guccione have a little gabfest on T.V. years ago. He listened to one of them talk and thought to himself that western civilization was definitely on its way down the rathole. Then the other spoke and Percy thought slightly better of the first guy, but no better about the world's prospects.

Same here with O'Reilly and Sharpton. Can't that restaurant attract a better clientele?


A better question would be is why do black folk keep electing black officials who make racist statements?

What are the qualitative factors that make it a better question?

von, good post at 9:19. I don't agree with all of it but have a better idea of what you were saying, although I think russell's 11:11 is more to the point.

There are many, many times throughout each week when I find myself a minority; do I confess that there are contexts in which it makes me uneasy, and in ways that stem from a childhood in which I was exposed to some pretty casual racism? Yes I do.

But there's also the fact that East Cleveland, between Heights and downtown, is a pretty pathological place right now, devastated by poverty and overrun by drugs and crime -- not a day goes by that I don't read of a shooting in East Cleveland -- and anxieties about that, as you know, tend to flow to people who live in the suburbs. (Although I'm only 6 miles from downtown, it's still the suburbs.) But they don't flow exclusively to white people, and I'm sure there are many black families on my street who have Jesse Jackson-like thoughts about seeing black youth on the streets.

Nonetheless, it's important to note in all of that that I have never, ever witnessed the behavior O'Reilly is so shocked not to have encountered in Harlem, nor anything remotely like it, not even when driving down Superior Ave. through the East 70s, one of the worst neighborhoods around. Hell, the craziest thing I've seen is the homeless guy sitting outside one of the office buildings downtown singing the theme song from "A Different World."

Surely, by definition in this highly urbanized country, "the number of people who live in or near a big city is" in fact, *very large*--but cities don't represent true integration even if they are integrated/multi racial. People like O'Reilly and, really, any other upper class person move in a bubble in which they are actually surrounded by bit players of different races who serve them, stand by near them, wait on them, fix their elevators, etc...but with whom they don't interact as equals. What shocked O'reilly was the realization that "blackness...he'd been soaking in it" that there were places that he'd like to go (famous restaurants) that were literally *filled* with black people *of his own class* and with his own middle class/upper class dress and clothing. He hadn't known that because he'd walked past such people without ever interacting with them just as he'd walked past other classes of people without interacting with them.

aimai

Russell, I don't think you're really examining the issue (or reading carefully).

The typical conservative cites “a good neighborhood to raise kids”. The typical liberal speaks of “good schools”. But neither group seems to want to have their children exposed to the realities of our inner city schools.

Inner city parents don't want their kids exposed to the realities of inner city schools -- but they don't have a choice. Some inner city schools are terrible.

Of course, a voucher system, coupled with deunionization and better funding, might give parents choices as well as incentivize schools to make necessary changes ....

Found the site I was thinking of in my post above -- it's http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/

LJ: If you start from the notion that minorities are primarily responsible for their own suffering, it's not unlikely that you are going to be surprised by a situation like the one he describes.

Your comment made me start thinking about who fits this description – but the first two I thought of were Thomas Sowell and Bill Cosby!

Turbulence: I think we're tripping over the question of how immersed do you have to be in minority environments before you realize that blacks are normal human beings.

I’d say you have to be very immersed. If you grew up in a minority or mixed community then hopefully you don’t give it a second thought.

I grew up in a very small lily-white town in Upstate NY with exactly zero blacks. Everything I knew about blacks came from social studies class, television, or movies. The first black man to walk down Main Street literally stopped traffic as people gawked. The first black family that attempted to move into town was encouraged to move along by the simple expedient of having their house burnt down the same week they bought it, before they had a chance to move in. Attending high school in the big town (pop. 20,000) I did have classes with two black people in four years. College was my first serious exposure to any and all minorities but it was restricted to the classroom (I didn’t live on campus). I did live in small towns in NC for a while but segregation (in all but name) was alive and well.

In my case it wasn’t immersion in a minority environment, but immersion in a mixed colorblind environment – the Army. (Yes I know that wasn’t always the case with the Army, but it really was colorblind by that time.) For me the realization “that blacks are normal human beings” came from sharing barracks and bathroom and meals, from being together 24 hours a day and working as a team, and from sharing success and failure.

But I think it is fair to say that several of my black friends experienced the exact same awakening. Prior to the Army experience they did not realize that whites are normal human beings (or can be anyway).

Ditto everything von had to say (apart from the crap about vouchers and deunionizing the education system;-)), especially this:

It's important to be sensitive, but I suspect something else is going on here: we're creating a scapegoat (in the classic sense of the term). I suspect that the most troubling aspect of O'Reilly's remark for a lot of white folks is not the remark itself, but the fact that maybe it resonates a little with you (and, frankly, me). And you (and I) feel a little bit guilty about that. But we'll never admit that. And you and I didn't say it -- you and I would never say it -- so we can work out our guilt by taking it out on O'Reilly.

Better, perhaps, would be for white folks -- and, if you're white, you must include yourself -- to admit that we can all be a little dumb on these things.

A nice segue into this post of mine.

BTW, I find it interesting that Hil feels O'Reilly's petty inanity merits front page notation, but not Thursday's massive civil rights mobilization in Jena, LA (not that she was the only one who was AWOL).

And no, this isn't meant as a condemnation, nor am I asking for contrition or an explanation; post whatever the hell you wanna post. That said, the fact that the MSM--the MSM--and (as noted by David Neiwert, who also dropped the ball) the Afrosphere were all over Jena but white liberal bloggers decided they had better things to do really leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Thousands of people (peacefully) marched, brought together mostly via electronic word-of-mouth. Whatever your feelings on the Jena 6, Thursday's events were certainly a significant (if not historic) occurrence.

Crass nailed it 30 years ago. (Yes, von, do come back more often).

"The second is mere misconception. You heard Harlem was dangerous in the 1980s -- and, hell, it was."

Mm. I lived variously around 175th St., and 181st St., and 190th St., and Fairview Avenue, more or less off Broadway, a block or two or three, during the late Seventies, and again in the mid-Eighties to mid-Nineties.

This was more or less Washington Heights, blending into Northern Spanish Harlem.

It blended into what was technically considered one of the most "dangerous" neighborhoods, but in fact, it was, in my experience, quite safe. No one ever threatened to, you know, mug me, and while over the years I experienced some baleful or skeptical looks, the number was drowned by friendly and neutral looks.

Theoretically, there was some danger from it being a "drug" neighborhood, and while in fact some blocks had perfectly open dealers -- though I saw endlessly more of that living in the Lower East Side, where certain blocks where open markets, with wares called loudly by brand name by (white) dealers, and only relatively quiet and comparatively obscure dealing uptown, but, to be sure, there were certain blocks of lower Harlem that were similar, I was aware -- but in neither case did I ever feel in danger: these were thoroughfares, and while the tv and movies will show apparently common gun battles, in fact, I've seen -- although I grant I've seen -- a handful, but only a single handful, and never where I felt close or endangered.

That's doubtless more alarming and dangerous than a lot of people want to contemplate, but what it boils down to is that I was always perfectly comfortable living in these neighorhoods, and never felt in more danger of crime than I felt in danger of lightning. When I was robbed, it was by the NYC Fire Department stealing some items from my apartment after the fire. Damn those minorities.

Of course, this was the horribly threatening NYC that only Rudy Guiliani could subdue, the place I grew up in, feeling perfectly safe (other than in my 9th grade junior high school annex, which was a bit of a hellhole).

My slight amplification on the above is that I'd perfectly agree that living in a city like NYC requires a lot of street awareness, for safety, and knowing how to carefully watch what's going on around you. I'd agree that there are, in various areas, various sorts of con artists, and crazy people, and occasionally violent sorts, and that careful awareness at all times is wise or required to stay safe.

But that's just a given part of living in a big city. It may seem threatening to those unused to it, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's no different than vigilance against snakes and bears, or whatever, in a non-urban environment, either.

There's normal caution against random happenstance, and then there's going back to O'Reilly:

[...] And I couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship. It was the same, and that's really what this society's all about now here in the U.S.A.
I wonder when he thinks it was different?

Phil,

"What are the qualitative factors that make it a better question?"

What's not obvious here? I'ld think that people electing officials who make direct and explicit racist remarks is more of an issue then a TV host whose remarks might be insensitive or interpreted as racist still having a job.

von,

"Inner city parents don't want their kids exposed to the realities of inner city schools"

Attending an inner city school is an easy excuse for failure. It all comes down to values your parents instill in you. If your parents stress the importance of education and ride your ass for good grades, you'll do well. Everything else is a politically correct BS.

Maybe my experience is atypical, but it didn't take long and deep exposure to learn that the darkies don't act like raving savages in their restaurants. Actually, come to think of it, I think I knew that long before.

Attending an inner city school is an easy excuse for failure. It all comes down to values your parents instill in you. If your parents stress the importance of education and ride your ass for good grades, you'll do well. Everything else is a politically correct BS.

This, too, is politically correct BS -- albeit of a different.

It's true that liberals tend to de-emphasize family; also true that parents are a huge influence; and further true that two-parent families are hugely important. Single parents deserve our help, gratitude, and respect, but let's not kid ourselves.

On the other hand, it's foolish to suggest that one's peer group has no influence on what you do. Indeed, I'd say that your peer group has primary influence on what you do, particularly in high school, and your peer group is largely determined by the kids you go to school with. If you're in a classroom and 90% of the kids in it are not getting what you need at home, and the teacher has given up, and the school is run-down, and your parent is the only one who shows on parent night, etc., etc., etc., you're at risk. You might have a better chance at "making it," but you are still at huge risk. That's not an "excuse"; that's reality.

Or: Ask a public school teacher at a "bad" high school about this. Choose the most commited teacher in the building. It doesn't take a villiage to raise a child, but you can't ignore the villiage either.

Matttbastard, appreciate the agreement, and can live with the resulting rip in the space-time continuum.

But that's just a given part of living in a big city. It may seem threatening to those unused to it, and there's nothing wrong with that, but it's no different than vigilance against snakes and bears, or whatever, in a non-urban environment, either.

I've been to courses in NY with (American) collegues who obviously came from more rural/small town environments. They were scared at the weirdest things, and couldn't really judge how dangerous things were. It amazed me at the time, but later I realized that it was the 'small town' environment that caused it (I grew up in Amsterdam and lived there or it's suburbs till I was 32).

I also agree with Von about the peer pressure thing. The friends of your kids will have an important impact, and as a parent you have a limited influence.

von: Matttbastard, appreciate the agreement, and can live with the resulting rip in the space-time continuum..

That would explain G'Kar's presence here. /grin

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I ain't no liberal (nor am I white.;-))

Oh, and you're cordially invited over to Comments From Left Field, if you so choose to respond to my poking. I'll even post your rebuttal on the main page--c'mon, man, my challenge even made Reuters (via BlogBurst). Hit me up @ bastardlogic-at-gmail.com if the spirit moves you (which reminds me: Gary, I have a response in the works for you--am an even worse email correspondent than you are, apparently :-P)

Matttbastard, I freely admit that the Ethiopian government is far from good. But let me look into a little further: Ethiopia/Somalia is an area of interest for me, and I've been off this horse for a while.

von,

"That's not an "excuse"; that's reality."

But, von, I grew up in a low income family in brooklyn and attended "inner city" public schools there. Went to the same jr high as Stephon Marbury and same high school as Chris Rock and half of bed stuy, and for the past 10 years I've been living less then 2 blocks from a project. I think I know about "reality" :)

"If you're in a classroom and 90% of the kids in it are not getting what you need at home, and the teacher has given up, and the school is run-down, and your parent is the only one who shows on parent night, etc., etc., etc., you're at risk."

You know my experiences at inner public schools are a big part of what made me, what people would call, a "conservative" (my parents subscribing to Newsweek also helped). Nothing like the high school cafeteria to show you what it means to be poor in america. Black kids, almost without fail, decked out in the latest "street fashions", $100+ sneakers, giving a "ticket" at the register instead of paying for lunch. In other words kids on welfare rockin' $100+ air jordans, while immigrants kids (such as moi) paying for their lunch, yet not being able to afford (or even dare to ask) the same high priced goods. This is not something I'd observed once in a while, but pretty much on daily basis for 4 years.

Look, same teachers, same books, same building, same classmates - freshman year the classes are very mixed, but once you advance, the classes become whiter and whiter because the black and hispanice kids fall behind. The problem is not the skin color, or attending an "inner city" school, the problem is the ghetto culture and lack of discipline/respect for adults. If you are on public assistance and yet you buy your kids $100+ sneakrs, then your priorities are screwed. Carribean born blacks, by the way, succeeded on at a higher rate (per my observation, anyway) at my school then american born ones. At least 2 carribiean born girls (man, those accents are damn sexy) told me that their parents forbid them to date american born blacks. My roommate of 3 years (who was also my best friend) at college was american born, but his parents were from Congo, pretty much held the same views as I.

Again, its not skin color, it's culture. We have to demand better of people, not give them excuses.

"The friends of your kids will have an important impact, and as a parent you have a limited influence."

To a degree, yes. Growing up in brooklyn, I've made some choices about people I hung out with based on what my parents instilled in me.

Here's one of the people I stopped hanging with fairly quick - http://www.logicandsanity.com/archives/2007/08/more_details_on.html

What's not obvious here?

Um, anything at all, or I wouldn't have asked. I think the question of what the host one of the most highly-rated programs on one of the most-watched television channels in America chooses to say about black America is an important one. You clearly disagree. That does not in any way make one question qualitatively "better" than the other.

Phil,

I'ld think racist statements at public events by people who are elected by some to represent them in the gov't weighs heavier. But to each his own, I guess.

I think that the O'Reilly comment is offensive because if shows that he has a negative stereoptype in his head of Afican Americans, and that's the functional definition of racism, after all.

Stereoptypes usually have some truth in them. The problem is that a stereotype is a little truth, made big and over-applied. If O'R didn't believe in his steroptype of African Americanns he wouldn't be so surprised to witness behavior that contradicts the stereotype. So his comment is a naive revelation of his bigotry.

Real life is very complicated. As StanLS's story shows, there is a basis for the stereotype of black people, particularly black men, as thugs. There are, in fact, young African Americans who go way out of their way to live down to the stereotype, even as they reject the stereotype as racist.

There is a very complex issue of ethnic identity here that is worth exploring at legnth, probably in a separate post.

Still, it doesn't seem difficult to me for a person to avoid stereotpical thinking. All it takes is the realization that "they" are not all alike.

wonkie,

" As StanLS's story shows, there is a basis for the stereotype of black people, particularly black men, as thugs"

But nowhere have I stated anything about anyone being a thug. Vast majority of these kids were not violent, the problem was that a lot of them did not respect the teachers (or adults in general) and pretty much didn't care about the schoolwork. I suspect it has more to do with the lack of discipline at home then anything else.

It's occurring to me that my initial take on O'Reilly's comment may be due to the fact that I live in a severely multi-cultural society with no segregation as near as I can tell.

Over 50% of Vancouver inhabitants have a first language that is something else than English. Notices come home from my kid's schools come in English and Chinese, street name signs are in Hindi and Chinese in certain neighborhoods. At work, my co-workers are Cantonese, Filipino, Eastern European, Sikh, African, and Russian. My manager is Palestinian from Gaza, one of my coworkers is Russian/Israeli. And our VP is a recently immigrated American.

This may color my thinking on the issue somewhat. Ethnic or racial issues are more of a joking matter than anything else.

omigod, that last paragraph is priceless. I have tears in my eyes from laughing so hard.

WOW

StanLS, I hope you didn't think I was implying that you are a racist. I used to be a public school teacher and I am familiar with the pattern you describe. I agree that most of the kids are not actually thugs themselves. However, they dressing, using the slang, listening to the lyrics, and in other ways copying the patterns of the thug life that they see and hear glamorized on video or CD, or more rarely, as exemplified by the (briefly) economically sucessful example of real thugs in the neighborhood. The thug life is seen as cool. Think Micheal Vicks.
O'R seems to think that sort of surface behavior is normal for ALL African Americans. On the contrary, it is a controverisal part of of African American life, part of the community debate about identity within the large dominant culture as race relations change over time. But O'R doesn't do subtlety.

Stan LS, I can't argue with your point, but you're not addressing mine. I didn't say that peer groups automatically control, or that parents have no influence. Rather, I wrote:

"If you're in a classroom and 90% of the kids in it are not getting what you need at home, and the teacher has given up, and the school is run-down, and your parent is the only one who shows on parent night, etc., etc., etc., you're at risk. You might have a better chance at "making it," but you are still at huge risk. That's not an "excuse"; that's reality."

In other words, I'm talking "on average" and "most likely" -- and not about any single person's experience (which will undoubtably vary).

von,

But my experience is not atypical. There were plenty of off the boat chinese, russian and indians who all struggled with the language the first year but then managed to become B+/A students. Even the american born students knew who to sit next to during the test if they wanted to cheat ;)

My point is that all these problems stem from home. Lack of discipline, wrong priorities, victim mentality, etc.

Most countries have particular sub-cultures where formal education isn't seen as important and the emphasis is on toughness and getting money the easy way, however illegal. That doesn't necessarily have anything to do with race/ethnic origin: the same complaints are made about some groups of white working class boys and young men in Britain, as reflected in the whole 'chav' phenomenon.

Russell, I don't think you're really examining the issue (or reading carefully).

I think my comprehension of the issue is fine. Once again, CJ has put it best:

Maybe my experience is atypical, but it didn't take long and deep exposure to learn that the darkies don't act like raving savages in their restaurants. Actually, come to think of it, I think I knew that long before.

If it suprises you that black people don't behave as per O'Reilly's imagination, then *you* have a problem. Not them, not society, not your lack of immersion in exotic ethnic cultures. The problem is yours.

Regarding this:

It's important to be sensitive, but I suspect something else is going on here: we're creating a scapegoat (in the classic sense of the term). I suspect that the most troubling aspect of O'Reilly's remark for a lot of white folks is not the remark itself, but the fact that maybe it resonates a little with you (and, frankly, me). And you (and I) feel a little bit guilty about that. But we'll never admit that. And you and I didn't say it -- you and I would never say it -- so we can work out our guilt by taking it out on O'Reilly.

Sorry, no. O'Reilly's comments don't resonate with me, and I doubt I'm all that unique. I don't feel guilty about anything concerning his blathering. All I'm "working out on O'Reilly" is my annoyance that he's still blabbing for a living. The man is an ignorant loudmouth.

Better, perhaps, would be for white folks -- and, if you're white, you must include yourself -- to admit that we can all be a little dumb on these things. And O'Reilly, far from being an outlier, is probably typical -- if not better -- than most.

No. Better yet would be for everyone, including myself, to get over the stupid ideas they carry around about other people, and for all of us to deal with each other like human beings for a change.

And no, unless your peer group is Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and members of the Aryan Nation, O'Reilly is not typical, and definitely not better than most.

And no, I don't live in Pollyanna land. And yes, I've spent lots of time in places other than NYC, Philly, and Boston.

Most folks I know would not give a guilty smirk when they heard O'Reilly's comments. They'd laugh, all right, but they'd laugh because he's such a dumbass.

Regarding the "peer pressure" issue, I'm sorry but the peer pressure exemption is no longer valid after you each adulthood.

Thanks -

von: "On the other hand, it's foolish to suggest that one's peer group has no influence on what you do. Indeed, I'd say that your peer group has primary influence on what you do, particularly in high school,"

I suppose it does, for some people. Had nothing whatever to do with my life, though. The people in my high school had nothing whatever to do with my life, and didn't influence me in the faintest way, save by repelling me from the faintest thought of their influencing me. So, y'know, these things vary.

von: "But let me look into a little further: Ethiopia/Somalia is an area of interest for me, and I've been off this horse for a while."

I take it this means von hasn't been reading news of these countries, and thus doesn't news of the region in general. This is, to be sure, the best perspective from which to offer military advice to them.

"Indeed, I'd say that your peer group has primary influence on what you do, particularly in high school,"

Another response to this is that one of us is an alien.

"If it suprises you that black people don't behave as per O'Reilly's imagination, then *you* have a problem."

Again, this isn't O'Reilly's imagination, as indicated by the context, but his caricature of the prejudiced view he ascribes to white America.

And no, unless your peer group is Lester Maddox, George Wallace, and members of the Aryan Nation, O'Reilly is not typical, and definitely not better than most.

See, that's the problem. Unless I'm reading you incorrectly, Russell, you seem to have this notion of 'racism' as being inherently and exclusively linked to malicious intent.

Sorry, bro - 'intent' don't mean sh*t.

You might not think you're trafficking in subtle racisms, but that's because, as a white person, you don't have to think about it. That's why it's called 'white privilege': as a white person, you aren't burdened with the constant reminder that racism still exists, unless you actually choose to notice.

We POCs don't have that choice, that privilege. And trust me, we notice, even if you don't.

My experience--as a person of colour--is that it is impossible to simply "deal with each other like human beings"--ie, 'colour blindness'--without first acknowledging that race and racism still exist, and still have an affect on contemporary discourse--even and especially among those who consider themselves to be 'enlightened' about such matters.

Trust me when I say with absolute certainty that attitudes like O'Reilly's are far more prevalent than you apparently choose to acknowledge.

"Trust me when I say with absolute certainty that attitudes like O'Reilly's are far more prevalent than you apparently choose to acknowledge."

I don't think "choose" is well-judged here - russell is commenting in good faith.

FWIW I appreciate getting your perspective here, mb - one can only have so much self-knowledge without outside input.

Matttbastard: I realize you weren't condemning, or anything close to it, and I'm not going to say what Im about to say because I think you were, or that you regard yourself as requiring explanations from me abut what I do and don't post about, or anything like that. I don't. It's completely different: it's that I respect you, and a lot of the people here, and hate the idea of anyone I respect thinking I didn't think Jena was worth posting about. So:

I have had what I can best describe as a peculiar week, and one not conducive to concentration and thoughtful reflection. For this reason, pretty much all my posts for the last week have been on topics that didn't require those things. There are a number of stories that are very important -- surely more important than the ones I've posted on -- that I have not written about precisely because they seemed to ask for more than I was able to give. The two that leap to mind are Jena and the Backwater story, but there are others.

I could just knock off a post on Bill O'Reilly: it doesn't take much. Likewise, Bush's peculiar statements Stevens, etc. I mean, how hard is it to figure out what to say about someone who seems to be plainly crooked getting taped? Not very. But I couldn't just knock off a post about Jena, or Blackwater, or the demonstrations in Burma, or most of the stories that really grabbed me. And since knocking off posts was more or less all I could do this week, that pretty much determined what I wrote about.

If I mean this defensively, I'm not aware that I do (I mean, who knows what motives lurk in the depths of my unconscious? But I'm not aware of this one.) And, again, it wasn't that I took what you said the wrong way. I just thought it was worth saying that this week, in particular, my posts don't really reflect my priorities.

Sounds like a great restaurant. Soulfood is a little heavy for regular eating, but I think a trip to Sylvia's is shortly going to be in order for me.

You don't at all come across defensive, Hil. I appreciate such a thoughtful response. Especially considering that, upon reflection, I offered my comment in a far more cranky (for lack of a better word) manner than intended. A lot of the bristle is born of genuine frustration that so many bloggers whom I respect weren't making their voices heard (including the aforementioned David Neiwert).

But I do understand how the imposition of real life can make posting even the slightest, most insubstantial piece an effort (especially when one barely has any energy left at the end of the day to do adequate research).

I really did mean it when I said post whatever you want (even if, as mentioned, I put it in an unnecessarily prickly fashion). It was wrong of me to project my general bitterness onto you specifically. And tbh that is what I did, I suppose, as I also did with Russell above (as rf pointed out - apologies to Russell and thanks to rf, both for the attitude check and the acknowledgment).

Race is one of those issues that I find hard to maintain a measured, objective tone when discussing - probably because it's one that, for obvious reasons, I have a direct stake in. That affects how I choose--whether consciously or otherwise--to present the things I say and write. Sometimes I think that, instead of letting my fingers get ahead of my better judgment, it would be better to simply post cute kitten vids, or my favourite Richard Thompson song (which changes daily--today is a toss up between Shoot Out The Lights and Walking On A Wire).

Jena's a situation that both is and isn't black and white (depending on what one means by the phrase *ahem*). Requires a lot of contemplation and nuance to get a proper handle on it. Hell, took me since May to actually collect my thoughts on the matter (and only because I was recently asked to by the fine folks @ Comments From Left Field--where, for the record, my 'guest' status has become a permanent-type thing).

Also hope that I haven't scared you off from writing about this topic in the future (whenever you're ready, of course). Thursday's march was only the beginning; thoughtful, eloquent voices such as yours will only make the ongoing discourse that much more rich and vibrant. I sincerely look forward to your contribution (again, if and when you're ready).

(For those looking to get caught up on the reactions to Thursday's mobilization in Jena, Slant Truth's regularly updated Bloggers For Jena post is a good place to start. Also check Kevin and Carmen D.'s Jena 6 tags for background.)

Though at first glance, this may not seem related, I think it points to something interesting in talking about the disjunction between being maliciously racist and being unthinkingly racist, which MB and Russell seem discussing.

"Sounds like a great restaurant. Soulfood is a little heavy for regular eating, but I think a trip to Sylvia's is shortly going to be in order for me."

You live in NYC, and have never heard of Sylvia's?

(I confess I've never gone around, but I've heard of it since at least the Eighties.)

No indictment. I'm just surprised. (Similarly, I've never gone to, say, Peter Luger's, or Studio 54, but they're all pretty well known.)

What's with Peter Luger's being a cash only place? What's up with that? How difficult is it to get a VISA scanner. Ugh. Anyway, never been there, either. Morton's on 5th ave is my steakhouse of choice.

"On the other hand, it's foolish to suggest that one's peer group has no influence on what you do. Indeed, I'd say that your peer group has primary influence on what you do, particularly in high school,"

I'm stuck thinking about this. In my life, I moved in with my 23-year-old sweetie, when I was in my senior year, when I was 15, in 1974. I had a few high school friends, but mostly I had contempt for the whole lot, and for most people in general, alas.

I hadn't the faintest interest in what my peer group thought, save that I mostly thought it tended towards the idiotic.

Von, on the other hand, apparently was dominated by his high school classmates. What my own classmates thought, as a rule, I found hateful: admiration for football, and bullying, and jerks, and no interest in science, or anything interesting. Mostly they seemed to like gum.

I suspect Von's politics, and mine, were different considerably before that. I had similarly utter contempt for the popular people of my high school, and junior high; I expect Von had different views.

Utterly normal, to be sure; I was the outlier, he was the norm. His suggestion that norms influence most folks is doubtless correct.

It just creeps me out. Eeuw.

I mean, wow, I hated those people who were "peer-influenced" in high school. They struck me as enormously stupid and hateful. That might have been blind and ignorant and wrong of me, but they never suggested to me, by their conversation, that that was so. They never discussed anything I found interesting, such as science, history, politics, and such, at all; indeed, they beat up people interested in such things.

I may not have known the right people, to be sure. But memories of Midwood High School are not, for the most part, fond ones for me.

My friends at the time were almost all ten years older than me, folks I'd met via science fiction fandom. They talked about science, history, art, politics, etc. They tended to write books, or be professional artists, or scientists, or academics, or just smart and knowledgeable fans.

They were my peers.

High school students? Ignorant putzs, I thought. No influence whatever on me, ever.

To reiterate: people have different lives. The notion that most Americans, even males, are influenced by high school classmates seems to explain an awful lot of Republicanism, though. These are the folks who admired people popular in school.

Is it that simple?

Stan, one thing I will never hold against you is that for some odd reason, I don't care for steak. Hamburger, mmm. Meat, fine. But large lumps of uncut whole meat turn me away: beef, pork, chicken, whatever.

I just like my stuff in small parts. No politics involved, to be sure; I'm just saying that chopped, and herbed, is the way I like my food, including that which I haven't killed.

I'm sure you're fascinated.

"Indeed, I'd say that your peer group has primary influence on what you do, particularly in high school,""

This reminds me of what a friend pointed out, in that a person who constantly tries to adhere to a timeless sort of fashion rather than the current fashion is just as influenced by being fashionable as anyone who tries to keep up the latest. It seems the difference I see is whether one acts with one's peer group or against it, as it's not really possible to act in a way completely unrelated to the peer group.

Hilzoy: "I just thought it was worth saying that this week, in particular, my posts don't really reflect my priorities."

If there's one assumption about bloggers that makes me a touch snarly, it's that their posts reflect their priorities.

Mine thoroughly reflect clinical depression, and inability to focus on what I'd like to reflect on, myself.

Gary,

I went to Madison HS (1992-96). Had friends who attended midwood...

"influenced by high school classmates seems to explain an awful lot of Republicanism, though. These are the folks who admired people popular in school."

I suspect that this is something you want really hard to believe, but its not so. I was pretty friendly with people in my school, everybody from "group A" down to the geeks. Never cared for what others would think of me if I was seen talking to this person or that. I only hung out with 2-3 people outside of school, though. Never was much into big crowds. My brother is the same way, and both of us are republicans.

You might want to look into why the vast majority of the hollywood/celebrity types are democrats, though ;)

Gary,

"Hamburger, mmm. Meat, fine. But large lumps of uncut whole meat turn me away: beef, pork, chicken, whatever"

I like a good burger, but a steak... mmm.. That's a whole different league. Nothing like a nice 16oz - 20oz rib eye or a filet mignon sizzling on my weber till medium to medium rare. They don't sell prime beef at the local stop n' shop, but the angus stuff comes surprisingly close. Lamb rib chops are pretty good, too. Not a fan of pork chops, though

I wouldn't dream of criticizing another's eating habits.

I tend to prefer stuff cut into small bits and bites, myself, is all.

"I went to Madison HS"

In Brooklyn? Well, there are a lot of people in the naked city.

"(1992-96)."

Oh, my, my child. I graduated in 1975. It's no wonder I'm so much wiser than you. :-)

"a filet mignon sizzling on my weber till medium"

Sir, step away from the filet.

The comments to this entry are closed.