More On Biden
by tgirschFebruary 6th, 2007
An African-American friend of mine, who grew up in the immediate aftermath of desegregation in South Carolina and went to high school with the author, sent me this editorial, on how some people hear the word “articulate,” and why. Read the whole thing.
OK, OK. If one assumes articulate is used to describe someone who enunciates well, then I get it. That is the trivial use of the word, especially when describing a politician. If, on the other hand, one uses the term to mean a clear and precise way of conveying a concept (the way I use it), then why it is offensive is still a bit of a mystery to me. Few people (of any color) are articulate in that sense of the word.
Also note that eloquent is not a direct substitute for articulate. One can be one without being the other. If anyone does not believe this, I suggest a short visit with a good dictionary.
Ted:
History and context, my friend. Look at it this way: how many times can you remember anyone describing someone (especially someone prominent) who’s white as “articulate,” and meaning this as a sincere compliment? Hell, my “good dictionary” gives “intelligible” as an alternate definition for “articulate.” The most generous definition I have is roughly “communicates effectively.” Still not exactly high praise. Coupled with the history, it’s not entirely out of line to take offense.
And by the way, you’re acting as a perfect example of why the use of this type of language is so important, and so subversive. You have the luxury of plausible deniability. “Oh, I didn’t mean it that way…” I frankly wish things really were like the way you choose to see them, where there’s never any such undertone or subversive intent, but that simply isn’t the world we live in. Code language is alive and well.
Robinson’s editorial evokes that key disconnect. People like you (and many others) view this mindset as some kind of relic of some distant past, while people like Robinson remember it all-too-vividly, and continue to see it to some extent today. And people like the Kevins and myself can sympathize with Robinson’s thinking.
Just so I know, what is the term I should use to describe someone who communicates in a clear, precise manner so as not to risk offending anyone? Back in my engineering days we used to say “he has a high signal to noise ratio”, but that doesn’t play too well in a non-tech environment.
*Sigh* You still don’t get it, do you? Describing someone — anyone — as merely being “articulate” isn’t exactly a compliment. There’s a reason calling someone inarticulate is an insult. If being articulate isn’t basically expected, then being articulate wouldn’t be. Add the racial baggage that you’re all too happy to ignore, and it only makes it worse.
Biden commented on Hillary Clinton, Obama, and Edwards, all three. And he only described one of them — Obama — as “articulate.” Are Edwards and Clinton not articulate? What about bright and clean and good-looking? Are Edwards and Clinton none of those things? Why did he feel the need to point that out about Obama and not the others? It doesn’t bother you in the least bit that Biden made it a point to note that the black guy is all of these things, as if those were the best things he could think of to say about him?
But I get it: If somebody’s not burning a cross while wearing a white hood, then people are overreacting to even allude to racism. All of the above points, and the contrast against what he had to say about the others, are mere coincidence, that we are conspiratorially exploiting to score points against, err, a liberal Democrat, because, well, I’m sure we have a good reason.
I’ll repeat my challenge again: find somebody saying something similar to what Biden said about Obama, except about a white congressperson or senator, where it was sincerely intended as a compliment and not a slight, and I’ll concede the point.
Tgirsh, not sure how you interpreted my comment, but I was merely asking a question. I’ve conceded your point and am looking for a term without baggage.
But then you write the nonsense above. Articulate is not a compliment because inarticulate is derogatory, hence articulate is the norm and not complimentary? That is just silly.
Please consider the following: honorable/dishonorable, truthful/untruthful, dependable/undependable, intelligent, sophisticated/unsophisticated, kind/unkind, responsible/irresponsible, attractive/unattractive… I could go on for ever.
So describing someone as attractive is not a compliment because the word unattractive is an insult? That had to be the weakest argument you have ever put forth.
In response to your challenge, a quick google search came up with these:
“Still in all, Graham is a personable and articulate senator. His name has been kicked around as a potential last-minute presidential contender, or as a possible vice-presidential choice by the ultimate presidential nominee.”
“Kyle was known as a hard-working, articulate senator who defended the rights of workers. From 1898 to 1901 he served as a member of the National Industrial Commission.”
“”She has never had a fight before . and I think Texans are ready for a fresh, balanced, articulate senator,” Radnofsky said. Radnofsky is a political newcomer with no previous elected positions.”
“So, John Kerry’s last, best chance to turn his flailing campaign around has come and gone. The highly anticipated debate where the finely nuanced and highly articulate senator from Massachusetts was going to crush the mentally retarded President Bush is over.”
“Others have touted Indiana’s Evan Bayh, an articulate Senator from a family rich in the political tradition”
A small sample, google returned 896,000 matches for the words articulate and senator…
Ted:
I’ve conceded your point and am looking for a term without baggage.
Sorry if I misread you, but you seemed to be “conceding my point” in a very “take my ball and bat and go home” sort of way. Look, I’m sorry that lots of words have racial baggage attached to them, but they do. It’s just the way it is. And for the record, nobody here is suggesting that you’re never allowed to use the word “articulate.” But you do need to be cognizant of when and why you’re using it.
In the case of Biden talking about Obama, it just doesn’t pass the sniff test. The context makes it clear that he’s belittling Obama’s substance. I don’t think anyone disputes that. It was even worse, however, because the way he chose to express that played directly into well-established racial stereotypes that few would dispute exist.
As for your citations, I was frankly quite surprised at the “articulate senator” hits you came up with, but on further review a lot of them aren’t so impressive as they initially seem. Most of what you cite doesn’t meet the “intended as a sincere compliment” test. The Graham reference is clearly a backhanded compliment, albeit not one that’s racist in nature. The context there is essentially “At least he’s personable and articulate.” Ditto for the Bayh reference. Look at them in context, and in both cases, there’s a “but.” “He’s articulate, but…” To be charitable, it’s something you say about someone when you’re looking hard for something good to say about them. And that certainly seems to be what Biden was doing.
And the ones about Kerry and Radnofsky seem to me to pretty clearly be using “articulate” as a contrast against their inarticulate opponents. “Articulate” isn’t so much a compliment to the person it’s describing, as it is an insult against the opponent. The one about Kyle is the closest you come, but describes someone who served over 100 years ago (before the racial baggage surrounding the term was in play), and the context (there I go with that damn context again!) around it makes it clear that it’s a front-handed one, not a backhanded one.
And for what it’s worth, my search on articulate senator returned 955,000 hits, the vast majority of them negative. I had to dig pretty hard to even find the same quotes you list above.
So I’ll score you the point, but only on a technicality, given that you were to find at least one reference to a senator being called “articulate” in a way that wasn’t obviously intended to either sell him short, or to disparage someone else.
As for what term you should use, if you mean “articulate,” you should use that term, understanding that how you use it can make a difference. Calling Obama “one of the most articulate senators in the current congress,” for example, isn’t going to be construed as racist, because it’s clear who you’re contrasting him against. Calling him “clean and nice-looking and articulate” isn’t going to win you any friends, even if you’re talking about a white guy, because you might as well be saying “he meets minimum standards in every regard!”
Something I think is relevant here is my first rule of effective communication:
“What you say is not as important as what the other person hears.”
I also think a key part of Robinson’s column was this:
I don’t believe Biden had any racist motivation behind his words but the point remains that if you want to be understood, it’s not enough to think “well, I know what I mean,” you have to think of how your words will sound to others. Biden’s insensitivity lay, I believe, not in his intent but in his failure to comprehend the impact his words would have on others.
“What you say is not as important as what the other person hears.”
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Tie the two quotes together and what I get is that if I offend when no offense is intended, I should reiterate that my intent was not to offend. If my explanation is not accepted, the other party may remain offended after I have honestly explained my intent. Then I have to decide if the offense I have inadvertently caused requires me to change my behavior or if the offended party is being needlessly oversensitive.
So while “what the other person hears” is important, “what I am saying” requires the same respect. Both parties have to make an honest attempt at communicating, or the intention/reception feedback loop will cause problems.
So while “what the other person hears” is important, “what I am saying” requires the same respect. Both parties have to make an honest attempt at communicating, or the intention/reception feedback loop will cause problems.
Especially when the hearer is already predisposed to finding something offensive in virtually any statement.
I’m sure you’ll call me a racist for this…primarily due to a lack of understanding of the term…but here goes anyway (”He who dares not offend cannot be honest.” — Thomas Paine):
By and large it IS surprising when a black person proves themselves capable of speaking standard English without lapsing into ebonics or flat out poor grammar and elocution. Perhaps this perception is a stereotype, but it is based upon personal experience and is not helped by such incidents as black scholars excoriating an editorialist for correctly using the term “niggardly”…as if that word has some racial connotation.
Personally, I don’t think that Biden’s comments were intended to remark on Senator Obama’s charactaristics in comparison to the black community as a whole, but in comparison to other black, democrat presidential candidates. Jesse (shakedown) Jackson, Al (hymietown) Sharpton et al…
But, as a conservative/libertarian minded individual I must admit, there is a certain level of schadenfreude in watching liberals eat their own. Generally this level of angst is reserved for Republicans who allow their mouths to spin freely before placing their brains into gear.
Don’t you love Primary season?
Ted:
“By and large it IS surprising when a black person proves themselves capable of speaking standard English without lapsing into ebonics or flat out poor grammar and elocution. Perhaps this perception is a stereotype, but it is based upon personal experience”
Sorry, but I think this is pretty much game, set, match Tgirsch.
Austin Mike:
if I offend when no offense is intended, I should reiterate that my intent was not to offend. … the other party may remain offended … Then I have to decide if the offense I have inadvertently caused requires me to change my behavior or if the offended party is being needlessly oversensitive
Almost. You left out a step in the middle: trying to understand why the other person found what you said offensive. Without that, your decision is still based solely on what you said rather than taking into account what the other person heard.
LarryE, And you left out the step where the offended person tries to understand the intent of the speaker…
Kevin, Not sure of the meaning of your last post. Tgirsch has stated that in the past he has been surprised by ..I no longer know what term to use here.. black athletes who speak “white”. I don’t think Sailorcurt’s personal observation is relevant to the Obama situation in that most successful blacks are bilingual, ie they can speak “black” and they can speak “white”.
Interestingly, there was a piece on local Baltimore NPR yesterday on this very topic. The guests and callers discussed how an African American needs to be “bilingual” (seems to be a common term in this context) to advance professionally. Why? Because to speak “black” in a white environment is to meet resistance to advancement and to speak “white” in a black environment is to be socially shunned. The consensus on the show then evolved to be the goal was not to speak “white” but rather to speak “midwestern”, or with no discernible regional accent. Southern accents in particular were deemed to be a professional liability for blacks and whites alike.
Of course we all know this to be true on some level. But it is politically incorrect to acknowledge this truth. We can openly discuss the fact that blacks are, on average, at a disadvantage economically due to historical factors (something I strongly agree with), but we must dance around the fact that being at an economic disadvantage for generations has effects other than on savings account balances. We can agree that schools in black neighborhoods are on average inferior to schools in white neighborhoods, but we get a bit squeamish when test results quantify the consequences of this fact, and thoughts of closet racists enter our heads when someone notes that, on average, blacks don’t have the same command of the English language that whites do. In addition to educational differences, factor in the natural propensity for spoken language to splinter into dialects (would you be a bit surprised if a bartender in a Southern town spoke with a heavy Bronx accent? If not, then explain how you know what I mean by a Bronx accent..), and I for one would be surprised if differences in speech did not exist. The rain in Spain does fall mainly on the plain.
I admit this is all tangential to the Biden/Obama situation. I understand we must consider the context of statements (although it seems historical context trumps current context when current context is a Senator and a newly announced Presidential candidate offering an extemporaneous summary of other Senators who are also Presidential candidates). I was ignorant of the baggage associated with the word articulate and would have used it to describe Obama without any reservation. Yet another reason why my decision to not run for president was the correct one.
Ted:
I don’t think Sailorcurt’s personal observation is relevant to the Obama situation in that most successful blacks are bilingual, ie they can speak “black” and they can speak “white”.
This disappoints me in ways I can’t really express. And it’s symptomatic of the larger problem. A lot of people think like you do. Where it’s misguided is that there’s nothing at all unique to “blacks” about this. Most successful people speak multiple dialects, talking in one manner with friends and relatives and when speaking “off the cuff,” and using a more formal, often less crude form of language when speaking professionally, or with colleagues, or in formal social situations. I guess you’d say that I speak “Polack” in casual speech, but switch to real “white English” when I’m in more formal situations. Of course, you’d never put it that way, because that would be rude and borderline racist. But somehow, when discussing “blacks,” it becomes okay? By the way, when people don’t switch dialects, you wind up with George W. Bush, and his “folksy” (read: dumb) language.
What’s “politically correct” isn’t the acknowledgment of this “truth,” but reserving that acknowledgment almost exclusively to situations involving “blacks.” We don’t faux-laud Southern politicians for being “bilingual” because they can speak Redneck and English equally fluently. But at the end of the day, what’s the difference? Why do we only need to point this out for black people?
Oh, and as a side note, if you think that “black” English is the result of “lack of command” of the English language, then you clearly haven’t listened to much rap. (And while I’m at it, if you think that “lack of command” of English is disproportionately prevalent among poor blacks, you haven’t had much contact with anyone under the age of 25 recently…)
although it seems historical context trumps current context when current context is a Senator and a newly announced Presidential candidate offering an extemporaneous summary of other Senators who are also Presidential candidates
We get it, you’re upset that past abuse of language continues to have modern effects. I’m sorry that seemingly-benign-on-their-face expressions like “articulate” and “states’ rights” and “final solution” have been tainted. Oh, the horror, the sheer affront to the English language, that words and phrases can be tainted by abuse. You can quit whining about it now.
Tgirsch, sometimes your assumptions get you in trouble. You assume I attribute the bilingual situation only to blacks? I don’t. It so happens that the topic in this thread concerns blacks. And I believe you and yours have gone on quite at length about how certain things are different with respect to blacks. So get over it.
The folks I picked up the terms speaking “black” and speaking “white” from were the guests on the NPR show mentioned above. One is an African American professor of History at Temple, one is an African American lawyer in DC, and one is an African American school teacher - I didn’t catch from where. They, the host, and all the callers on the one hour show had no problem with these terms. You do. Is that telling at all?
I think if you read my comment above without going into your “oh my God, he’s being racist” tizzy, you will understand that I do not attribute a lack of command of the English language to being black, I attribute it to being poor and going to inferior schools. And yes, many blacks fall into this category. I hope you would not deny that blacks are, in general, at an economic disadvantage or that, on average, the schools they attend are as good as those attended by whites. It will be a bigger stretch for you, but if you are willing to be honest, you might even acknowledge the fact that there is bias against assimilating white speech in the black community.
The fact that you use rap lyrics to judge the English skills of the African American community would be laughable if it were not so depressing. I don’t see how we will ever be able to really solve the problems of racial inequality if on the one hand we spend our time getting upset because someone used the word articulate and on the other hand ignore or refuse to acknowledge, much less try and change, what is really important. Economic, structural, and societal roadblocks to poor people receiving a good education being a great place to start.
As for whining, let’s not forget whose topic this is. That would be yours, not mine.
Ted:
sometimes your assumptions get you in trouble
Said the kettle to the pot.
And I believe you and yours have gone on quite at length about how certain things are different with respect to blacks.
Only insofar as blacks have been / are being unfairly treated differently by others. As in this case, where the very “bilingual” aspect you concede is not just limited to African-Americans seems only to be discussed with respect to African-Americans. And yet it seems to bother you not at all that this is the case. Or if it does bother you, you seem more interested in arguing with me than with acknowledging that.
As for my “‘Oh my God, he’s being a racist’ tizzy,” as you called it, that may have more than a little bit to do with the fact that Sailorcurt comes in here, drops a telling little piece of racist drivel (essentially, “it really is surprising that an African-American candidate should be well-spoken”), and you stopped millimeters short of agreeing with him outright.
And while I see your point (and saw it when you first made it) on economics and education level being more important factors than race (they clearly are), somehow it still only gets actually talked about when the person in question in African-American.
The fact that you use rap lyrics to judge the English skills of the African American community would be laughable if it were not so depressing.
You think my “ferinstance” is some sort of binding litmus test, and you get on my ass about assumptions? Please…
I don’t see how we will ever be able to really solve the problems of racial inequality if on the one hand we spend our time getting upset because someone used the word articulate and on the other hand ignore or refuse to acknowledge, much less try and change, what is really important.
And I don’t see how crying foul when somebody pulls a bonehead that clearly evokes the ghosts of our collective racist past impedes that goal. (And I defy you to tell me with a straight face that Biden’s statement, in context, doesn’t carry the slightest tinge of implication that those qualities — clean, articulate, nice looking — are surprising or unusual for an African-American candidate. I’m willing to grant Biden his insistence that by “clean” he meant “not corrupt,” but I fail to see how that makes it any better.)
Shall we look the other way when people make borderline racist statements? “Oh, if we make a big deal out of this, it will only upset people.” Well if you ask me, people should get upset. This wasn’t a botched word, or a teeny-tiny little misstatement. Intentional or not, this was a sentence that fits the Southern Strategy playbook to a T. Whether it’s a truly idiotic misstatement or something more subversive doesn’t change the fact that this is something that a lot of people have very good reason to get upset about.
It’s admirable that you acknowledge that it’s not race’s fault that such perceptions exist. Now if you could just take it one step further and acknowledge that it’s not fair that African-Americans should still have to combat such stereotypes in the 21st century, still less that they should be reinforced (intentionally or not) by long-tenured members of Congress, we’d really be getting somewhere.
The above in short form: It upsets me that Biden’s statement didn’t seem to upset you in the least, or that if it did, you’d rather argue with us about it than acknowledge that. And it bothers me that you seemed not to be at all bothered by Sailorcurt’s putrid remarks.
Racism is not always so in your face. It’s often subversive. Refusal to acknowledge as much is, it seems to me, naive.
“Sailorcurt comes in here, drops a telling little piece of racist drivel”… This is confusing to me. Wasn’t it you that claimed you used to be surprised by the same thing Sailor says surprises him? Is your point you were racist but no longer are? Or do you apply a different standard to him than you do to yourself?
You say I stop just short of agreeing with him when what I wrote was most successful blacks (this thread is related to Obama, and I think he qualifies as successful) can speak “white”. In other words, I’m not the least bit surprised Obama is a well-spoken man. I then went on to explain that the phrase “speak white” was the term a panel of blacks used just that day. So no, Sailor’s remarks don’t bother me. I think he is intentionally being deceptive by ignoring the obvious impact of wealth and education on speech. Either that or he is ignorant on the subject. I described his remarks as irrelevant. You interpret that as “just short of agreeing with him.” I am disappointed in your interpretation of my remarks. I must be the world’s worst communicator.
Obama said that Biden’s statements did not upset him. Why? He has more important things to get upset about. Jesse Jackson said Biden’s statements did not upset him. Why? He has more important things to get upset about. I don’t claim to have a deep understanding of Biden’s true intent. But I have no reason to not take his word as to what his intent was. So no, I am not upset by his remarks. They were ill-chosen words, and his uttering them means he has no shot at being elected president. That’s enough for me. I don’t see the need for three posts on the subject here at Lean Left. If you are concerned about racism and/or unequal opportunity for blacks, post about meaningful things. Post about the awful schools or the substandard health care most blacks have to deal with. Post about the cycle of poverty and poor education and how we can break it. Post about politicians who do and who do not advance the cause of the underprivileged. You think the kids in DC that have to wear coats to class because their schools (a couple of blocks from Biden’s office) have no heat give two shits about Biden’s use of the word articulate? You can make a difference or you can make noise wrt this subject. Thus far you choose to make noise.
Ted:
Wasn’t it you that claimed you used to be surprised by the same thing Sailor says surprises him? Is your point you were racist but no longer are?
What I actually said was “Hell, at one time in my life, I was one of the ones guilty of saying it.” I thought it was clear from both the context and my use of the term “guilty” that yes, I was a racist. And while I try very hard not to be one any more, I think everyone (irrespective of race) has certain racist tendencies that they have to actively suppress. This is actually part of why I think vigilance against the more subversive forms of racism is so important.
So no, Sailor’s remarks don’t bother me.
This saddens me, it truly does, and goes a long way toward explaining why we’re never going to see eye-to-eye on this (and why I keep alluding to the fact that not all racism involves the burning of crosses and the wearing of hoods).
I don’t see the need for three posts on the subject here at Lean Left.
Probably because you seem to be completely missing the big picture. This is a lot bigger than just Biden, and that’s why it touched such a big nerve. In the vacuum you choose to view them in, Biden’s remarks might not seem like that big a deal. But they’re symptomatic of a much larger, more pervasive problem. The Southern strategy is still very real (even former RNC chair Ken Mehlman has conceded as much), and remains very effective precisely because “reasonable” people hold the sorts of views Biden revealed by the way he phrased his remarks. Biden almost certainly didn’t intend to use the Southern strategy, but intentional or not, he used its language. If he gets away with even that — if people don’t “make noise,” as you so condescendingly put it — then somebody else with less scruples is going to take notice, and play that card to their advantage. As far as I’m concerned, it needs to be crystal clear that using the language of the Southern strategy means political death, and why this is so.
I simply don’t share your view that how language has been used and continues to be used to demean and trivialize successful African-Americans doesn’t meet the criteria of “something important.” Nor do I share your apparent view that racism will somehow magically go away if we just shut up about it.
Post about the awful schools or the substandard health care most blacks have to deal with. Post about the cycle of poverty and poor education and how we can break it.
Been there, done that. And you can rest assured that I will again. But the importance of that matter doesn’t lessen the importance of this. Racism continues to exist (and in some ways to thrive) precisely because too many people won’t call bullshit on this more subtle and more pervasive form. I get that you don’t think that past and present use of language to trivialize African-Americans is important. But we do. (And if it’s really so trivial as you seem to think, why do you persist in arguing it? For someone who doesn’t think this is all that important, you sure seem reluctant to let this go…)
Let me close by saying that your implication that I comment on Biden’s remarks instead of doing anything else that might “make a difference” is simply insulting, and beneath you. I don’t do as much as I’d like to or probably should, I’m sure, but I do what I can, and that includes financial support. And I’ll continue to fight the fights, both big and small, that I think are important.