Race and Stupidity: A Bad Mix
Jul 9
Things are bad down Texas way: an unusually boring Dallas County Commission meeting turned into a racial shouting match over one Commissioner’s bizarre eruption at the use of the word “black” in a non-racial context.
County commissioners were discussing problems with the central collections office that is used to process traffic ticket payments and handle other paperwork normally done by the JP Courts.
Commissioner Kenneth Mayfield, who is white, said it seemed that central collections “has become a black hole” because paperwork reportedly has become lost in the office.
Commissioner John Wiley Price, who is black, interrupted him with a loud “Excuse me!” He then corrected his colleague, saying the office has become a “white hole.”
That prompted Judge Thomas Jones, who is black, to demand an apology from Mayfield for his racially insensitive analogy.
The “black hole” reference, it should be painfully obvious, was an analogy invoking the scientific term for an object with such a strong gravitational field that nothing can escape it (i.e., when things go in they never come out - like the paperwork at the traffic ticket office, apparently). Black holes are “black” because they do not emit light.* The term has nothing to do with race, and is not derogatory (even in a race-neutral sense like “a black day for Dallas”). Mayfield tried to explain this. The story says “other county officials quickly interceded to break it up”, but doesn’t explain exactly how it all ended.
OK, so the obvious first reaction is to note how stupid the outraged Commissioners were. The phrase “black hole” is in fairly common currency these days, and it doesn’t seem too much to expect responsible public officials to be able to recognize it as a scientific term, whether or not they understand it in detail. In addition, their assumption that it must have been a racial insult (and Price’s immediate retaliation with what he apparently thought would be the corresponding racial insult “white hole” [also a scientific term that means exactly the opposite of what was being expressed about the traffic ticket office]), seems to underline the complaints we hear about “racial sensitivity” and the supposed incidence of knee-jerk claims of racism founded on ignorance or unthinking anger.
But there’s a lot more going on here, and it leaves me with a feeling that the situation is more complicated than that.
First of all, Mayfield’s statement was derogatory (he was calling the ticket office a “black hole” because it was non-functional). Secondly, there is a huge history both of using “black” and its variants in a derogatory sense (”black mark”, “dark day”, “pot calling the kettle black”, “dark and gloomy”, “blackball“, etc.) and of using specifically racial terms in unflattering or derogatory ways (”n*gger head”, “squaw mountain”, etc.).
Even if the former uses are not explicitly racial, they overlap with the racialized ones to render any derogatory use of words that can also be race names suspect. And there is the underlying question how those words got their derogatory meanings in the first place: “dark and gloomy” has a clear relation to the objective fact that dark places can be scary (because they hide dangers you can’t see), but “blackball”, “dark day”, and the like all depend upon the implicit assumption that “dark” or “black” is bad (that’s why the pot is calling the kettle “black” - it’s an insult). Why should “black” imply something bad? Perhaps it implies being soiled or marred, but it can’t be coincidental that it is also the name of a racial category constantly treated as “Other” (with all that that implies). Consider that a standard slur name for blacks is “d*rky”, which seems to be both objective description and derogation in mutual reinforcement - a kind of derogatory metonymy wrapped into a circle so tight you can’t tell where the name ends and the slur begins.
Within this context, throwing around race names as derogatory metaphors where no explicit reference justifies them is reckless at best. “Black hole” is a scientific term, yes, but Mayfield wasn’t talking about gravitational singularities; he was talking about a place where incompetent people were, apparently, slacking off on the job and undermining authority with their no-account behavior - which makes his choice of adjective much more provocative than if he was speaking literally.
That is not to say that the reaction from the black Commissioners was justified. Linguistic history notwithstanding, phrases employing the word “black” are a standard part of our language and in many cases they have perfectly innocuous, non-racial meanings. It’s one thing to say that people should be aware of the extended implications of such terms, but another to say they can’t be used at all, still less that any perfectly uncomplicated use of such terms in contexts far removed from racial implication - as this seems to have been - is objectively a slur. Price and Jones are knee-jerk morons, and they embarrass people who are trying to do real work in the area of promoting tolerance and increasing awareness of blacks’ legitimate gripes. Even acknowledging all the many uses of the word “black” in a derogatory sense, that doesn’t mean the sense expressed in this case was derogatory, and at any rate the complainers didn’t object to the possible secondary implications of the phrase, they (implicitly) reacted to it as a slur in its own right, which it isn’t - a fact they didn’t seem to know. They immediately assumed a negative meaning that was false, for a reasonably well-known term that they weren’t familiar with and didn’t bother to question. As I said: knee-jerk morons.
As far as all this goes, then, we have to acknowledge the social context and long history that these conflicts arise in, but we don’t have to ratify every uninformed complaint or blowhard ignoramus. But that’s a fairly common-sense response that also doesn’t require treating this as anything more than a simple misunderstanding. Not everyone was able to see it that way, however.
What really caught my attention about the incident is the response of commenters on the Dallas Morning News blog. From just the first few dozen comments:
Posted by Dallas Citizen @ 6:03 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
Is John Wiley really so ignorant that he doesn’t know what every DISD 5th-grader knows?
Or is he a bigoted race-baiter?
There’s only those two choices.
Posted by Gladidont LiveinDallas @ 6:18 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
John Wiley Price is an idiot, as is Thomas Jones…demanding an apology. A “white hole”, Price needs to apologize for that. I thought you needed an education to be County commissioners… obviously not. Morons.
Posted by martha @ 7:10 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
shut up white people and do as your told
Posted by JND @ 7:17 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
This is a story from the Onion, right?
Posted by G.H. Greene @ 8:23 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
How typical of John Wiley Price! The comment was plainly not racial. Any fool knows what a “black hole” refers to in the context in which it was used in this case.
When will black Americans quit jumping on every opportunity they get to play the race card!
Posted by Didn’tVoteForPrice @ 8:32 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
Geeeeeeeeeeeeez! Price is such a loudmouthed fool. I heard him last week on 97.9’s morning show, and I thought him ignorant because of his ridiculous support for Lupe (he pronounces it “Loopee”) Valdez.
This, though, is just totally absurd.
But I guess this is what the County gets for electing Democrats like Price.
Posted by Janet @ 9:11 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
Is anyone really surprised? Price needs to go back to school…
Posted by The Commish @ 9:27 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
Price needs to learn the difference between a “black hole” and a “black a-hole”…the former is a figure of speech; the latter describes jerks like him.
Posted by Jay @ 9:32 PM Mon, Jul 07, 2008
They are all idiots on the Court…….anyone wonder why the county is in a $34 million defecit now? FYI, Mayfield is as bad as any of them on the court.
Posted by Fred @ 5:17 AM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
What if I got insulted because a severe snowstorm is called a “white out”?
What a crock.
Posted by Ch4 @ 5:25 AM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
I had to move out of Dallas County because I couldn’t order coffee or keep my finances on the positive side of the ledger without JWP freaking out and ripping my windshield wiper off of my truck which happens to be black.
Posted by Mike Kagy @ 7:39 AM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
Typical black reaction. You have to ask yourself - are these people REALLY that stupid. Unfortunately, the answer is yes, they REALLY are that stupid.
Posted by Gene @ 8:08 AM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
I’m so happy that I moved out of Dallas county so that my tax dollars are not spent supporting idiots like these guys.
Posted by Fred @ 9:04 AM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
Maybe Price is sensitive that he’s stashed so many of his ‘brothers’ and ’sisters’ there is cushy jobs.
Posted by buck @ 11:16 AM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
These comments explain a lot about why Dallas is so polarized.
It’s rude to use “black” in a negative context — scientific, maybe, but rude.
Mayfield is a complete jerk anyway. I hope the Democratic broom sweeps his direction next election.
Posted by John Smith @ 3:08 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
Buck:
Is it rude to the color black? I am not getting your point. What if I say he was “black listed”? Is that rude? If so, to whom am I being rude? I don’t get it.
This democratic “broom” that you reference is doing really well. We now have a completely disfunctional sheriff’s office as well as a county that can’t seem to figure out how to balance a budget. Good job democratic broom.
Posted by Don Imus @ 4:28 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
It’s not like they called it a nappy-headed hole. Now THAT would be outrageous.
Posted by MLK @ 7:07 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
what a race-baiting douchebag
Posted by Oatka @ 7:15 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
Commissioner John Wiley Price no doubt thinks that “niggardly” is also a slur. (Wash D.C, flap some years ago.)
I would think that the intelligent black people would be embarrassed by this illiterate loon.
Posted by Bob Scarry @ 7:19 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
I sincerely hope that this article is a comedy routine. It couldn’t be for real, nobody could be that ignorant. (If it is, it’s one of the public education system’s shining moments).
Posted by Max Friedman @ 7:46 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
What happened to Dallas? Did they hire refugees from New Orleans to run the city?
No wonder the song “God Bless Texas” is so popular. The state needs all the help it can get, from anyone, including the big boss.
Posted by Larry @ 7:48 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
My goodness, it seems that Mr. Price needs sum edumacation vout the compression and densifications of stellar ojcectifacations. Go back to schoo; bozo and try this time to pass 5th grade science instead of making a career avout demonizing whitey
Posted by timinphoenix @ 7:52 PM Tue, Jul 08, 2008
He merely confirmed some other people’s stereotypes about the lack of intelligence and chip on the shoulder certain groups have.
The commentary is rather superficial - only one person in the first 20 or so notes the use of race terms as slurs, and is then quickly countered by another poster who claims to be unable to understand what that even means, let alone its relevance. Another asks whether “white out” is offensive, not noticing he is displaying the same blockheaded mindset that he criticizes in Price. The unquestioning willingness to condemn blacks for oversensitivity, without ever asking what reason there might be for that, quickly turns to coded stereotyping:
Is anyone really surprised?
black Americans . . . jumping on every opportunity they get to play the race card
he’s stashed so many of his ‘brothers’ and ’sisters’ there is cushy jobs.
Typical black reaction.
Did they hire refugees from New Orleans to run the city?
and then to outright race hatred in its simplest form:
are these people REALLY that stupid. . . . yes, they REALLY are that stupid.
Mr. Price needs sum edumacation vout the compression and densifications of stellar ojcectifacations. Go back to schoo . . .
He merely confirmed some other people’s stereotypes about the lack of intelligence and chip on the shoulder certain groups have.
And here I am brought back around to sympathy for the black Commissioners. Yes, they’re idiots, but look what they’re up against. Figure it this way: their statement reflected some ignorance and some racial sensitivity - but what do the statements of their fellow-citizens reflect? To put that another way: Price and Jones merely thought a certain phrase was a racial slur that in fact was not (i.e., they misunderstood a term they weren’t familiar with); if, in fact, the term had been a slur, their reactions would have been understandable. But commenter after commenter expressed actual racial animosity and loaded terminology in criticizing them for this. Even if it was dumb not to know what “black hole” means, there’s no explaining away comments like “Are [blacks] really that stupid? Yes, they really are that stupid.”
Beyond that, if you were black and shared a county with the assholes who wrote these comments, would you not be a bit on edge? Might you not suspect that the derogatory things people were saying, in terms containing vague or indirect references to your race (you know, vague or indirect terms like “black”), might not entirely be aimed at persons other than yourself?
And it’s not just the local racial context that is implicated:
all black Crayola crayons, . . . shall henceforth be called “African-American.”
In a country where an entire political movement takes it as a point of principle that objecting to objectionable terms is worthy of ridicule, and where an objection to those terms (even misinformed) is justification for deliberate taunting with the same term, repeated solely for the purpose of causing offense, where being offended by (what one believes is) an ethnic slur can be called ”totalitarianism” without raising the slightest objection, and where absolute and universal denial of the entire history of one race’s oppression by another, extending to every aspect of life of which language is among the least significant, is the invariable context in which racial issues are discussed and racial wrongs are evaluated, might you not be justified in thinking that it was pretty much you against the rest of the world in the racial arena? In a country in which the same people who complain about being victimized by “politically correct” language also support detention without trial, might you not be more concerned about defending yourself and less about the fragile sensitivities of those who suddenly find themselves obsessed with evidentiary detail in your case alone?
Price and Jones have done one thing - one thing that rises nearly to the level of vindicating their stupid and embarrassing mistake - and that is this: they have allowed their critics to demonstrate that the hair-trigger bashing of outspoken blacks that arises from the vast sea of racial contempt and hostility that drowns this nation is not imagined, and overwhelmingly swamps even the most egregious display of hypersensitivity on the part of blacks themselves. In making themselves the mock of those who live to dump mockery, and much worse, on those they despise, they have been proven both better and smarter than their critics.
PS: Several DMN posters noted the parallel case of David Howard, of the Washington, DC city government about 10 years ago. Howard - the budget controller - told two other government staffers that, because of a lack of resources, he would have to be “niggardly” with the city budget. He was white, they were black; outrage ensued; he attempted to explain that the term simply means “stingy” and has no racial meaning or etymology; they would have none of it; the next week, Howard voluntarily resigned, while at the same time the press was erupting with derision at the black staffmembers.
At the time, I was among those who criticized the complainers. A friend of mine pointed out that the word was occasionally used in a racial sense, even if wrongly, and this contributed to the general understanding of its connotations. He also called Howard “a class act” for resigning in atonement and then re-joining the administration on amicable terms, and for not seeking to blame the complainants even while defending his own innocent intentions. Looking back, I am inclined to agree.
Note Howard’s own assessment:
I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That’s naive, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.
That’s precisely correct. In saying that, he doesn’t admit that he himself was racist in using that word, and he doesn’t dwell on his critics’ linguistic errors. Instead, he notes the very different positions of blacks and whites in regard of race and racial sensitivity, and he places the responsibility on himself (and by implication all whites) to consider not only how their language is intended but the secondary meanings it carries with it, and even the possible mistaken meanings.
That’s responsible and mature. In contrast, right-wing jerks can find nothing better to do but laugh at blacks who somehow just happen to imagine that somebody might be using a coded racial slur against them, and respond to objections to a vagely objectionable-sounding term by chanting “black hole, black hole, black hole . . .”.
I once worked in a home for emotionally-disturbed teenagers. There were “consequences” imposed for bad language (like trying to empty the ocean with a teaspoon, but that wasn’t the dumbest thing about the place . . .), so a few of the clever ones developed the habit of shouting “FLUCK YOU!” whenever they were angry or just wanted to make trouble, and then claiming they were immune to punishment because they hadn’t really used one of the bad words. The right wing basically operates at the emotional and intellectual level of a neurotic adolescent. (Scroll down from the Wikipedia article on David Howard for examples of the use of “niggardly” in a correct, but obviously offensive, manner - a trend that sprang up after the Howard incident became news.) Adults know that being technically right, while offending another person, is less important than simply finding ways not to offend - and that deliberately offending just because you think you can is racist bullshit. David Howard knew that, and I suspect Kenneth Mayfield does, too, though he hasn’t quite proven it. Michelle Malkin, John Hawkins, and, apparently, half of Dallas County, predictably enough, haven’t got a clue - and worse, choose to wallow in their giggling dirty-mindedness, knowing that someone else will bear the hurt of it.
* Yeah, yeah, Hawking radiation, blah blah blah . . .
UPDATE: Fixed some typos, and edited slightly for clarity.
#1 by tgirsch at July 9th, 2008
| Quote
One nit:
Another asks whether “white out” is offensive, not noticing he is displaying the same blockheaded mindset that he criticizes in Price.
I’m pretty sure that was precisely that commenter’s point, actually. Seems to me that the clear implication is that it would be just as silly for him to be offended by that term as it was for Price to be offended by the other. You may not agree on that count, but I think it’s hardly “the same blockheaded mindset.” There’s this thing called “sarcasm,” and as a frequent user, I’d expect you to recognize it in others.
Otherwise, good post, especially in the P.S.
#2 by KTK at July 9th, 2008
| Quote
I got the sarcasm, but to even make sense of the joke you have to see “black hole” and “whiteout” as both being racially loaded. That is, if you know that “whiteout” has no racial connotation at all - that it’s essentially a random term in the sense of conveying a racial meaning - then saying “Hey, ‘whiteout’ is racist!” is like saying “Hey, ‘broccoli’ is racist!”: it’s not only not true, it can’t even be a joke because it makes no sense. In other words, jokes (or sarcasm) have to be somewhat close to the truth to work as jokes; making the joke implies that your statement has some truth to it, which the “whiteout” joker does not seem to realize.
Or that’s how it seemed to me, though I admit I hesitated over that one for the same reason you give.
#3 by Ted at July 9th, 2008
| Quote
OK, ladies and gentlemen. Here’s the setup. KTK is going to attempt to explain that whiteout is to black hole as broccoli is to black hole. Let the action begin.
He’s off. The start is a bit slow, we expected a stronger opening than that. As he rounds the turn he hasn’t picked up much ground. He is going to really have to stretch to pull this one out. And… no. Not even close. Sorry folks, but for right now, broccoli is not a substitute for white.
Next week: which of these three don’t belong? lead foot, brass balls, morning dew.
#4 by Derf's Irom at July 9th, 2008
| Quote
Anyone who is looking to be offended will find someone to accomodate him.
#5 by Big U at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
I agree with your comments on the commenters. The unfortunate part is that the reactions by Price and Jones simply feed idiots’ misconceptions about black people. An intelligent questioning of what was meant by the phrase would have shown restraint and thought.
The overreaction to what they thought was a slur showed a lack of education at best and a hypersensitivity to anything that may be perceived as an insult (or perhaps an intent to look for an insult) at worst.
#6 by Brooklynite at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
Nice piece, K. One other quick thought — if someone uses the word “black hole” in a non-scientific context, to describe a place where “when things go in, they never come out,” it seems to me that this is part of the cultural baggage being carried.
#7 by Derf's Irom at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
Wasn’t “black hole” in use before it was used to descibe a scientific phenomenon? As stated above, it was a place where things go in and never come out.
#8 by Derf's Irom at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
I just heard the audio of the incident. It just proves that stupidity and ignorance knows no bounds. I wonder where the complaining commissioner and the judge went to school. This kind of stupidity feeds stereotypes and encourages those who want to perpetuate racial hatred.
#9 by KTK at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
This kind of stupidity feeds stereotypes and encourages those who want to perpetuate racial hatred.
Well, I suppose so, but who bears the blame in that case? The person who holds and promotes racist stereotypes, or the person who fails to sufficiently guard their own behavior to dispell them?
As I said several times, the behavior of the two black Commissioners in this case was ill-informed and dumb, but that’s hardly a big deal. I would bet money neither of them has ever in their lives said things as stupid and vicious as Jesse Helms made a lifetime career out of saying again and again, but he gets a continual pass and a national period of mourning, and they get ridiculed. More to the point, nobody ever suggested that all white people are stupid, racist, and evil just because Jesse Helms was - even though he had legions of white people eagerly cheering him on for being so. But two obscure black guys on a county administrative board make the mistake of misunderstanding one trivial phrase, and suddenly their critics feel justified in claiming that all blacks are somehow tainted, while their supposed supporters claim that they are responsible for the racists’ racism.
That’s ridiculous. The incident by itself means nothing, and it is no justification for anyone’s malicious generalizations. It’s not black people’s responsibility to make it impossible for racists to hate them - that’s a fool’s errand anyway. The responsibility for stereotypes and prejudices lies squarely with those who hold them.
#10 by tgirsch at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
I got the sarcasm, but to even make sense of the joke you have to see “black hole” and “whiteout” as both being racially loaded.
I disagree. You have to see “whiteout” as being just as racially loaded as “black hole,” and the point is supposed to be that neither one of them is at all. As sensitive as I am on racial issues (and I’m pretty sensitive), I’m with that particular commenter on this one. To argue otherwise is to argue that the term “black” (and, to a lesser extent, the term “white”), must always, in all contexts, be “racially loaded.” I just don’t buy that.
Yes, “black hole” was intended as derogatory in the context in which it is used, but it has nothing at all to do with the “black” part of it — it was in no way, shape, or form racial in intent or context. Period.
That said (and as I said in another thread), I do understand why an African-American not familiar with the scientific term might assume there was racial intent there, just because the history of such things in this country is so abhorrent. They’d be wrong, but it’s at least understandable in the abstract.
And absolutely nothing excuses the language and behavior of most of the commenters there; I just disagree with your inclusion of that particular comment. Unless it’s off-limits to in any way point out the absurdity of the assumption that there was racial intent (or, at least, unless proof by counterexample is out of the question), I just don’t see that comment as anywhere near as objectionable as the others. It’s not even in the same zip code.
The incident by itself means nothing, and it is no justification for anyone’s malicious generalizations. It’s not black people’s responsibility to make it impossible for racists to hate them - that’s a fool’s errand anyway. The responsibility for stereotypes and prejudices lies squarely with those who hold them.
On this, we agree completely.
#11 by Big U at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
“I do understand why an African-American not familiar with the scientific term might assume there was racial intent there”
“It’s not black people’s responsibility to make it impossible for racists to hate them - that’s a fool’s errand anyway. The responsibility for stereotypes and prejudices lies squarely with those who hold them.”
Take a close look at those two statements. I agree with the second one. But does that not then meant that the responsibility for African-Americans in the first comment should bear responsibility for their own prejudices and stereotypes? How long does someone have to be exposed to certain things before they are no longer responsible for their prejudices and the way they stereotype people? When should someone be held responsible for their views?
#12 by digglahhh at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
Good post, KTK.
I think the black as a substitute for bad is a very interesting matelinguistic phenomenon. However, I think “black hole” is a relatively poor example of that phenomenon at its most egregious and damaging.
Think of black in terms of absence of light. Now, light has multiple meanings and implicit associations too. When light is used to mean simple visible wavelengths, whatever, and black is used as the antithesis thereof (as is the case in black hole), its basically devoid of baggage, IMO. When black is used in contrast to light also represents things like insight (enLIGHTenment, BRIGHTness), hope, or purity then you start picking up the baggage.
#13 by Vodalus at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
Er, isn’t a black hole so called because it absorbs everything much the way black pigment absorbs all visible wavelengths? It was also my impression that the opposite “white hole” emits the full spectrum much the way that white pigment reflects all visible wavelengths.
Calling a paper-eating department a black hole seems more directly descriptive of its absorptive qualities and not so much the result of traditional negative qualities associated with blackness.
That said, I cannot disagree with your assessment of why one could easily perceive stereotyping of the color as negative.
#14 by Ted at July 10th, 2008
| Quote
Vodalus, technically no. A black hole is a super dense entity that has such gravitational force that it does not allow anything to escape, including electromagnetic radiation. So it’s a gravitational condtion, not an absorbtion/reflection condition. But the point you are making is certainly valid.
#15 by tgirsch at July 11th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
But does that not then meant that the responsibility for African-Americans in the first comment should bear responsibility for their own prejudices and stereotypes?
Of course it does, and nobody’s excusing the commissioners for their overreaction (least of all me). IF they weren’t familiar with the term, THEN I can see why they might have thought there was racial intent (because, historically speaking, a good deal of the time there is racial intent with such terms); HOWEVER, they should have known THAT particular term was NOT racial in nature. That is, they should have been familiar with the term. I’d also go so far as to say that they owe the commissioner who used the term an apology, now that it’s been made abundantly clear the term is in no way racially motivated.
Now if, on the other hand, they WERE familiar with the term, and were simply trying to make something of nothing here, then that is indeed inexcusable.
I think we’re closer together than apart on this. But I think the biggest disagreement we have is that you seem to want to get to a point where we can simply “leave the past in the past,” and behave as if all the nasty racial baggage we have is “so yesterday.” I don’t think we’re at that point, and I don’t think we’ll get there in my lifetime. Make no mistake, it’s getting better, but not better enough, and not quickly enough.
You seem to want to get to a point where you don’t have to be so careful about what you say when it might be perceived as a slight. The problem is, the people who are perceiving various terms as slights often have good reason for doing so, even today. So thanks to our awful history, and the continued existence of racial code, this problem is going to be around for a while.
Bottom line is the two commissioners who got offended were knuckleheads, and I’m not going to defend them for their overreaction. At the same time, as KTK points out, the comments at the newspaper web site are highly illustrative of why they would be so hypersensitive. Being hypersensitive is, in their case, justifiable. Being a knucklehead isn’t. Is that clear enough?
#16 by Big U at July 11th, 2008
| Quote
Well put Tgirsch. I would agree with you.
You are right that I would like to get to the point where the past is the past but I agree that it will not happen in my lifetime or possibly ever. Human nature is what it is. Improvements are being made and I hope they continue.
I do also realize I need to be careful about what I say and work very hard on phrasing things properly so as to not offend. I won’t say it’s easy because I get tired having to not only think for myself but also take into consideration the possibility that almost anything I say can be taken out of context. But it is something I am working at.
What I would really like to get to is a point where I am not seen as racist simply because of my skin color by people who would be seriously offended if I viewed them a particular way because of their skin color. I hate double standards in anything and that is one thing I really struggle with. That being said, I know that people’s perceptions are based on what they have dealt with in the past and have to continuously remind myself that often-times it is not personal. At the same time I have to constantly re-evaluate myself to make sure racist tendencies or attitudes are not creeping into my thought patterns as well.
#17 by Elaine at July 12th, 2008
| Quote
Thank you for the very well-written and thoughtful piece. It was a good investment in time.
#18 by tgirsch at July 12th, 2008
| Quote
Big U:
That’s the best any of us can do. The only additional point I’d make is that the double standard isn’t very evenly double. In other words, some groups have more justification for being predisposed to taking offense than others. That said, yes, we all have to work to get past it, irrespective of our race, gender, sexual orientation, religion (or lack thereof), etc. As I often say, “It starts with me.”
#19 by Derf's Irom at July 13th, 2008
| Quote
I have a friend who lives in Dallas. She says that the commissioner who got offended is know for his publicity seeking ways. According to her, he has made other stupid statements just to get on TV or get his name in the paper.