 |
||||||||
|
12/19/2002 03:10:00 AM | Timothy Bamboozled Does anyone honestly talk like they did in that blitz from Ledyard? I find the 'ho' references offensive, whatever its 'cultural authenticity. Often, so called 'jive' talk is just what people imagine 'gangstas' talk like. I think this whole topic is a very interesting debate. To those of you who question Kumar's point, where do you draw the line? Would you think that minstrel shows, watermelon patches, black face and the like would be a good thing? I hope not, but I challenge those who would defend such an absolutist stance. I'm not speaking of what should be 'banned' or anything like that, but what we should, in our speech and actions, condemn as egregiously offensive. Have you all seen seen Spike Lee's Bamboozled? In it, a black television producer is told to come up with something 'urban' and 'hip' by his white producer, so he comes up with something so shocking he thinks it will get him fired: a modern day minstrel show. But the producers go for it and blackface becomes a hit. When I saw it, I thought the movie was trying to say this isn't so far from the reality of some of today's TV shows. I mean, would all you really say just because it's on MTV or a sitcom, it must be acceptable? If so, think back at some of the shows 20 or 30 (or even 10) years ago, on topics like race and homosexuality. I don't think we should take our moral theory from television producers. So if it is true that just because something is in the culture, that doesn't automatically mean it's not offensive, what standards and whose standards do we judge it by? How do we take claims by groups that say something is offensive? I don't think we say someone finds it offensive, and therefore it should not be on TV. The Catholic League, for example, is constantly condemning things that are really far out there. Should the Sapranos be taken off the air because italian americans worry it may reinforce the stereotypes that all italians are in the mafia? What about South Park??? Talking about literature, what about offending religions? Salmon Rushdie, for example? Or Tom Paine, for example, who condemned Christianity with great virulence (saying it would be better that a thousand devils go forth and preach their doctrines than one believer in the Bible go forth and preach his lies?) The Enlightenment was founded in part on mockery of established traditions and religions like Christianity. A preliminary thought: somehow we have to figure out the spirit in which we should approach claims of being justifiably offended. No one has the 'right' not to be offended, but when we say or do something that others find offensive, we should ask why we are doing it, and do we need to cause this offense? In the case of theme parties, there seems little point to having them themed like that, except whatever 'fun' is gained through the stereotype. What I object to most is not that people would ultimately reject the point of view of people and groups who say 'please stop', but that people don't even really consider their claims in the first place. They often do not need to, and feel no need to understand other cultures. they say I didn't intend to cause offense. Well sure, that means it wasn't intentional, and that's important to remember, but we should also think about what kind of culture exists in America that makes it so people are ignorant and the priviledged can remain so until someone protests. Why needlessly offend? Perhaps there are 'whys' and 'needs' to offend sometimes. But I would say part of the spirit we should approach claims, particularly by minority groups who have been stereotyped in the past, is that 'we' do always know everything and should not presume we do so: we often are not aware of the legitimate reasons why people are offended, and the lack of listening and assuming your current state of knowledge means you should not simply judge without hearing the other side. We should be open to hearing reasons and presume in the first case that the concerns are sincere (which they likely are) and legitimate. But I think this needs to be worked out through examples and counterexamples, so I welcome a continuing dialogue on this. perma link |
| 0 comments
0 Comments: |
Dartmouth The Free Press Alums for Social Change The Green Magazine The Dartmouth Dartmouth Observer Dartmouth Review Dartlog Inner Office The Little Green Blog Welton Chang's Blog Vox in Sox MN Publius (Matthew Martin) Netblitz Dartmouth Official News Other Blogs Ampersand Atrios Arts & Letters Altercation Body and Soul Blog For America Brad DeLong Brad Plumer CalPundit Campus Nonsense Clarksphere Crooked Timber Cursor Daily Kos Dean Nation Dan Drezner The Front Line Instapundit Interesting Times Is That Legal? Talking Points Memo Lady-Likely Lawrence Lessig Lean Left Left2Right Legal Theory Matthew Yglesias Ms. Musings MWO Nathan Newman New Republic's &c. Not Geniuses Ornicus Oxblog Pandagon Political State Report Political Theory Daily Review Queer Day Roger Ailes SCOTUS blog Talk Left TAPPED Tacitus This Modern World Tough Democrat Untelevised Volokh Conspiracy Washington Note X. & Overboard Magazines, Newspapers and Journals Boston Globe Ideas Boston Review Chronicle of Higher Education Common Dreams Dissent In These Times Mother Jones New York Review of Books New York Times Salon Slate The American Prospect The Nation The New Republic The Progressive Tikkun Tom Paine Village Voice Washington Monthly Capitol Hill Media ABC's The Note American Journalism Review Columbia Journalism Review CQ Daily Howler Donkey Rising The Hill Medianews National Journal NJ Hotline NJ Wake-up call NJ Early Bird NJ Weekly Political Wire Roll Call Spinsanity Search Search the DFP  |
|||||||
The opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Dartmouth College or the Dartmouth Free Press.