Reading a piece on Think Progress about Giffords, I noticed the “related stories” list at the end. In some cases, I followed the links. In others, I went directly with the original story. here’s a sampling. More after the fold:
I am livid, beyond belief, and having trouble forming coherent thoughts about this. So I will just say two things. This is a comment I left in another piece:
The more pictures of someone you have with a target over their face, the more rhetoric you use indicating that someone is a Manchurian candidate, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, etc., the more chance there is that when some random person goes off the deep end, they’ll pick the target that you marked.
You don’t need to pull the trigger. You don’t need to be directly responsible. You just have to say the right things in enough places and coyly claim you were just being rhetorical before someone with easy access to a weapon decides to pull the trigger.
…the Constitution will be read in its most modern, amended form. This will prevent lawmakers from having to recite politically uncomfortable portions, notably the provisions on the “three-fifths compromise” under which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purposes of taxation and representation.
I shall now paraphrase what should be a familiar phrase, and say that those who attempt to rewrite history are bound to repeat it.
Here’s the thing: we are a messy nation, with a deep and consistent history of racism, one that neither easily escaped nor simply remedied.
But we have choices how to respond to that. We can:
ignore the bigotry and hope it fades away;
accept the bigotry and figure it’s all in the past;
accept the bigotry and remember that there’s still work to be done.
#1 is a problem for me. It clearly hasn’t worked, and when you completely ignore your history it tends to creep back up again. It’s like ignoring sand at a nude beach. You can pretend it’s not there and you can ignore it for a time, but at some point, you have to acknowledge that you’ve managed to get the sand in the strangest of places.
#2 is something I can understand, but fact teaches us otherwise. Just do a Google image search for “Obama racist images” and you’ll see what I mean.
Which leaves us with #3.
There is argument in support of removing the n-word from Huck Finn. But this isn’t it:
It wouldn’t be considered a classic… If it insulted jews. Jewish people protect themselves very well, ask Rick Sanchez. I’ve often thought if Black Americans would want to consider a Big Brother mentor race we would look to the Jews. A slave race that has not forgotten it’s roots in slavery and are able to be proud of it. No one ever thinks that the Romans were good guys. No one is still walking around doing balls celebrating Nazism like they do the confederacy. All those things pile up on a Black American. Then when we say ouch this hurts, the overwhelming reaction seems to be, yeah well no one solved anything by making it less ugly. That’s real easy when the ugliness isn’t at you.
I’m not posting this to judge the perspective in the above quote– I’m not able to speak to whether or not it’s right for anyone to support the censorship of Mark Twain. I’m writing this, however, to respond to the claim of fact made, and to question the conclusions that have been derived as such.
Because classic works of literature include comments hostile towards pretty much everyone.
Take, for example, this classic work by John Donne:
Spit in my face you Jews, and pierce my side,
Buffet, and scoff, scourge, and crucify me,
For I have sinned, and sinned, and only he
Who could do no iniquity hath died:
But by my death can not be satisfied
My sins, which pass the Jews’ impiety:
They killed once an inglorious man, but I
Crucify him daily, being now glorified.
Oh let me, then, his strange love still admire:
Kings pardon, but he bore our punishment.
And Jacob came clothed in vile harsh attire
But to supplant, and with gainful intent:
God clothed himself in vile man’s flesh, that so
He might be weak enough to suffer woe.
Now– I want to be clear: I think Donne is a fantastic poet, but he’s a product of his times, and I would not have us teach Donne while pretending that this poem does not exist.
If you’re familiar with the classic Noir detective work “The Maltese Falcon,” both the movie and the book use the term “gunsel.” Gunsel is not generally used today, but at the time that Hammett was writing, it was a derogatory term used to reference effeminate gay men. If you want more examples of classic works that demonize lesbians and gay men, you should watch “The Celluoid Closet.”
The fact that the Hichcock classic film “Rebecca” has a lesbian villain who is portrayed in a creepy and disturbing fashion is, again, something that shouldn’t be ignored, but it shouldn’t be a cause for censoring the movie either. It’s an important film, and a very good film. But it’s a film that has a bigoted premise, that’s a product of its time.
What about Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead” or Margaret Mitchell’s “Gone With the Wind?” Both these stories (I’ve read the Rand book and seen the film version of Mitchell’s) not only have critical scenes which involve rape, they actively glorify it. In both stories, the rape is a crucial moment which frees and inspires the woman being raped.
Again– this is a criticism of these works, but I would not have us print versions of them which pretended the rape did not exist or toned them down to be more “polite” versions.
When we whitewash our own history, it doesn’t mean that we’ve gotten past these past grievances. It doesn’t mean we’ve escaped it. It just means we are pretending it didn’t happen.
And indeed, this can be done with good intent. There are words that are deeply offensive and I totally understand why they are offensive. But I also understand that there are ways in which we give that language more power by hiding it, by moving it into the shadows and refusing to challenge it directly.
And for me, it boils down to this: if we’re going to teach Mark Twain, we should teach Mark Twain. We shouldn’t teach a whitewashed, watered down version of it. If you’re going to censor it, censor it openly, by putting black marks across the word rather than replacing it with “slave” (which, for some reason, is oddly not considered offensive).
I will convey two stories, both of which involve Richard Prior, though not for the same reasons:
In an interview with Mel Brooks, he talks about the movie “Blazing Saddles,” which makes prolific use of the N-word, such as in this scene:
When Mel Brooks was writing this film, he made a point of hiring Richard Pryor to be on the writing team because he was afraid he wouldn’t be able to judge for himself what was crossing the line in terms of satire. I have this fear, when I see stories about us whitewashing the constitution and Mark Twain, that someday someone will produce a new version of Blazing Saddles which dubs the word “African American” into every moment with the offending word.
The other story is from an interview with Gene Wilder on Terry Gross’ Fresh Air about the film Silver Streak. There is a scene in this movie in which Gene Wilder puts on black face to evade the police. Prior was visibly upset over this, and considered backing out of the movie. The two of them had a conversation about it and they actually reworked the scene together. The result was still a scene which included black face, but took it in a different direction than the original skit. They turned the joke around on all the white characters, making it about how incredibly absurd Wilder’s use of black face was and basically about the complete racial cluelessness of the white characters– the mere idea that Gene Wilder could pass for black in this scene is completely ridiculous, but it’s played for laughs:
I bring these examples up because it would be easy to confuse the two clips above with racism when, in fact, they’re poking fun at racism, at racist history and at our own country’s attitudes towards race, just as the clip at the end of this piece does.
I guess all I’m saying is that it’s easy to pretend that this racism and bigotry in our history doesn’t exist, and it’s easy to pretend it doesn’t hurt, but both these things are true. Twain came from a background that used language differently from how we use it today and used language that is considered beyond the pale in most polite company today. So I get the urge to avoid it, to hide from it, but I don’t think that this, in the long run, serves us well. I’m not saying we need to accept it or think of it as appropriate. I’m saying that when we hide it, just as when we hide the fact that the constitution as originally written included the 3/5ths rule by omitting it without acknowledgment from public readings of the document, it diminishes our history.
If we refuse to teach John Donne because of his derogatory reference to Jews, who are we serving? If we stop teaching Shakespeare because of Merchant of Venice, does it enrich our culture? What if we refuse to teach works which use the words “queer” or “bitch?” Is it worth us to ban classic works because they are offensive? I don’t think it is, and I don’t think it serves us to do so.
For what it’s worth, I’m just going to end with this, which has the added benefit of being not quite as funny when the words are all bleeped, but still pretty damned funny.
Update #4 To take over Jack’s diary a bit more, WaPo’s website has a pdf screen capture from Sarah Palin’s Facebook page, which has Rep. Giffords among electoral targets with crosshair imagery. Here’s the link.
I don’t know how others are feeling about this. I was shocked and then glum… now I feel so angry I probably shouldn’t be around other people for a little while. I realize that’s probably not helpful. — odum again
Update #3: Lost in the understandable concern about the Congresswoman is the fact that, in the same incident, 17 people were injured and the list of those killed includes Rep. Giffords’ Outreach Director Gabe Zimmerman, an unnamed 9-year old girl, and Federal Judge John Rall.
Here’s a clip from last March, in which Rep. Giffords expresses concern about being “targeted” by Sarah Palin over her politics. It’s disturbing to watch, given today’s events (h/t TPM):
I mean, people don’t — they really need to realize that the rhetoric and firing people up and, you know, even things, for example, we’re on Sarah Palin’s targeted list. But the thing is that the way that she has it depicted has the crosshairs of a gunsight over our district.
— odum
Update #2: Welch statement on Arizona shooting –julie
HARTLAND, VT – Rep. Peter Welch issued the following statement
Saturday in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a
fellow member of the House class of 2006.
“Gabby Giffords is one of my closest friends in Congress. A persistent
and effective legislator, she stands out for her warmth, genuine
attentiveness and concern for all. Gabby is one of the best listeners
I know. Her kindness and graciousness know no bounds.
“As this tragic situation develops, Margaret and I are keeping Gabby,
her family, her staff and the many others involved in this horrific
episode in our thoughts and prayers.”
UPDATE: There’s a lot of conflicting information, but Rep. Giffords is still alive, but in surgery. She was reportedly shot at point blank range.
I would concede that even the most unhinged Tea Party Republicans probably don’t intend to incite their followers to violence and political assassination. On the other hand, what message do they think they’re sending when they say it may be time to exercise our “Second Amendment remedies”?
Step 3: Report the event to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on December 22.
Step 4: keep running those sappy “I am Vermont Yankee” ads on TV. Ignore the fact that nobody much cares how nice the employees of Vermont Yankee are, but we care very much about whether they are competent enough to run the plant and honest enough to be trusted with the public health and safety. I keep waiting for them to identify one of their employes as a fork and spoon operator from Sector 7g, but so far no luck.)
Good work for Reformer reporter Bob Audette to come up with this. The source for some of his analysis was an e-mail from Vermont Yankee. Apparently no explanation was available for why the information about the leaks, which VY had in April, or its analysis of the leaks, which they had in October, wasn't disclosed to the NRC until just before Christmas.
Oh, and if you're wondering, the collection of press releases and news updates on the Vermont Yankee web page doesn't say anything about this latest set of leaks. Not even in the section they call “We're all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts”.
Maybe, in Entergy lexicon, “facts” means “stuff we couldn't keep covered up any longer”.
It’s intensely easy for people to slip through the cracks when things get bad. This is one of the immense values of the Greater Falls Warming Shelter, an overnight shelter that helps the homeless survive through the cold and sometimes deadly, Vermont winters. As a result, I’ve organized a benefit show:
BENEFIT CONCERT TO BENEFIT GREATER FALLS WARMING SHELTER
When: Saturday, Feb. 5 at 7:30 p.m
Where: Immanuel Episcopal Church (the Stone Church) in Bellows Falls, VT
The dramatically changes Senate has its committee assignments posted. Of particular interest are the roles for three unique new Senators who individually stand to change the face and dynamics of the Senate (given that a mere three Senators equate to 10% of the body).
Blogger and novelist Philip Baruth has been assigned to clerk the Agriculture and Education Committees. Newly re-minted Democrat Anthony Pollina serves on the Government Operations Committee and also clerks the Health Committee. Finally, controversial international diplomacy-celebrity Peter Galbraith also serves on Gov Ops, and clerks the Economic Development Committee. Sadly, there will still be no Vermont Senate Foreign Relations Committee for him to Chair…
Good, clear-headed stuff. Maddow’s postscript: “Democratic Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont. We’ve seen his national profile rise recently with his strong criticisms of the Republicans and, at times, of his own party.”
“Our patchwork of broad-based taxes that have accumulated over the years, combined with overburdened property taxes, require our attention. But let me be clear — as we tackle the difficult challenge of balancing our budget, we must not and cannot succumb to the idea that Vermonters have the capacity to pay higher taxes right now,” he said. “In order to grow jobs and be more competitive with neighboring states, we must resist the temptation to raise broad-based taxes.”
I want to start by saying that I am thrilled that Shulmin is governor and very happy to have him in office. But that doesn’t mean we, as activists, bloggers and liberals, don’t have an immense amount of work ahead of us. It’s our responsibility to push him in the right direction.
So in that vein: of course some Vermonters have the capacity to pay higher taxes and to try to give the wealthiest Vermonters relief from tax burden will do nothing to stimulate the economy, nothing to promote growth, and nothing to help our state.
A common refrain from the more wealthy comes from people who do not wish to pay taxes on their 2nd homes or part time residences. The problem is that these people are not doing nearly as much to contribute to the economy of Vermont as the full time residents. They, apparently think of it as though it’s a hotel that they should only pay for part of time.
While I can understand this, people who do not live in an area they reside some of the time still use up state resources and civic services: fire stations and police are still on call to protect their house, even if they’re almost never there. Dead end roads to private residences still need to be maintained.
Yet they do not buy much of their food from the local vendors. They do not go to local stores. They don’t put nearly the contribution to the local economy that people who are of their primary residence put in.
We can talk, in general, about tax burdens, but the real question is one of what we get for the taxes we pay and whether they are fair.
Taxes that focus on the poor, such as sales taxes, would be great to lower, especially for essentials. Taxes that focus on the wealthy, such as high-end property taxes, taxes on large business that can be used to alleviate their health care costs? Those aren’t just good to increase. They’re actually of benefit to do so.
How do you stimulate the economy? You give relief to people who are holding on to their money because they’re scared to spend it. How do you just help people line their pockets? You treat the wealthiest among us as though if you just give them money, they’ll give it back. They don’t. They hold on to it, save it, and accumulate it. I’m not criticizing them for that. I don’t blame them for that. I just don’t think we need to be rewarding it with tax cuts.
Like I said, I’m thrilled Shumlin is governor, and I could spend a lot of time writing about all the things I love about his opening address (and there are quite a lot), but I don’t think we’re going to find our way out of this recession by treating taxes as a necessary evil that must only used in the most dire of circumstances. Taxes are what fund and fuel the works of government, and without them we would be lost. The important thing is not how much we pay, but if they’re administered fairly and if we get what we pay for.
“I have never felt so proud as I did today. Being at Peter Shumlin’s inauguration was just awesome. I felt in my heart back in June at the Brattleboro Forum he was going to be the our next governor, but today as he took the oath of office for Governor my heart was so full of pride and joy I felt like it would burst. He gave a wonderful speech and when he spoke on early education he looked directly at Amy and me, giving us the feeling that we had really made a difference in his eyes. I, in turn gave him a thumbs up and he smiled back at us.
This has been an opportunity I will hold in my heart forever. I sincerely believe we have made a great impression on the political world. In turn this is going to bring forth our professionalism with Our Union. Our Union is where we can bring all the best of each and everyone of us to the forefront and set Early Educators on a path to quality care and financial success.” – Joyce Wheeler, pictured on right.
A lot of people in Vermont have a lot of different reasons to celebrate the commencement of the Shumlin era in Montpelier. So what’s this particular Vermonter referring to?
Regular readers will remember Julie’s reports from 2009 about UPV-AFT’s efforts to organize early childhood educators and child care workers across the state. With the inauguration of Peter Shumlin, the work to secure basic collective bargaining rights with the state for this historically vulnerable, yet absolutely critical sector of the workforce is much closer to fruition.
I say “critical” because children are critical, and their care and early education has to be a front-and-center priority, rather than one we simply take for granted. Critical because this early education and care industry is a foundation that most other industries are balanced on (whether they realize it or not) – and without basic protections for those working in this sector (even the confidence in the ability to make a basic living in the field), it can never be the stable foundation our families and our economy need it to be.
And now? Enabling legislation is being drafted to create a regime for this uniquely modern model of workforce organizing and bargaining. Hubbub in the statehouse is already circulating among those that may be inclined (for whatever reason) to oppose this legislation that they might as well save their energy, as support for the bill is strong and wide enough to make passage look all but inevitable.
And that should be good news for everyone in the state.
(Full disclosure moment: I’m currently doing some communications consulting for UPV-AFT through PowerThru Consulting)
