| Poem: Submit | Random | Best | Worst | Recent | Comments |
|
Middle-Aged White Woman (Free verse) by Dovina Maybe itâs time.
You look at me and see a symbol
of conservative acts that hurt you.
My kind abused your kind.
Now with your freedom,
your authority, your power,
itâs time for retribution.
Go ahead,
ignore me, donât hire me
belittle me in your verse
skip over me at your readings.
My ancestors did it to your ancestors.
You have the right.
Itâs a new experience for me,
thatâs all.
Maybe itâs time.
Up the ladder:
Leaves, hope and dreams
Down the ladder:
Fathers
Votes: (green: user, blue: anonymous)
Arithmetic Mean: 7.125
Posted: April 8, 2005 9:39 AM PDT; Last modified: April 8, 2005 9:39 AM PDTWeighted score: 5.5715003 Overall Rank: 2426 Comments:
It's good but I want ten acres and a mule before I'll let myself forget what "you people" did to those people
Look, we already promised you your ten acres and a mule. We're just working out a few details, then we'll deliver.
Incidentally, it was 40 acres and a mule, not ten. Both of you tear up your Minority Membership/Discount Cards. Now.
A startling shake of the blubber.
This is among the top, oh, five most disastrous things you've ever written. Some questions:
1) What "freedom", "authority" and "power"? Oh, you mean the Black President. Or maybe you mean for the oppressed in your poem to be Middle-aged white women, and the oppressed group men who would be secretaries but (until recently) were denied the opportunity. 2) Are you being ironic? 3) Do you know? 4) If you are, do you really mean the exact opposite (like ironists tend to do)? 5) Have you ever read Margaret Atwood's short story "Rape Fantasies"? You should. 6) Do you think you can still be friends with al-naafiiysh, blacksoul, and jroday after this? 7) No vote.
1) The freedom, authority, and power many Black people have recieved in recent years.
2) No 3) Yes 4) No 5) No 6) Yes, see below
1) Only a Californian would think that. Maybe you live in Santa Barbara County (black population: 2%)?
How did the bad black people you've encountered give rise to this poem? I'm genuinely curious.
He ignored me, didnât hire me, belittle me in his poetry,
skiped over me at his open mic reading. It's all sadly there.
D. I enjoyed reading your poem.
I was reading some of your comments, and the way I feel is people need to be open minded about the past if they think that this poem will break up our friendship. Then they don't know me very well-10-
Those people donât know me very well either.
I am openminded about the past. I don't think the past should have anything to do with the present situation - which, as I see it, is pretty much:
Black people still don't have freedom or equality of pay, opportunity, education, or power across the board. Sure, my greatgreatgreatgrandparents, had they been rich enough, would have enslaved yours, but also my grandparents are racist, belittle minorities, and deny them opportunities. My parents belittle minorities and deny them opportunities. And tons of people in my generation, myself probably no exception, continue the problem by often-unnoticeable actions. What I was trying to point out is that Dovina's thinking (in the poem) that the problem's solved now, was solved years ago, and she had nothing to do with it is simply nuts. Who needs to go back even a generation to find crimes/persecution against black people? And at the very least, I'd say Dovina has very few black friends in the outside world. Besides, what a preposterous suggestion - that one side's history of (and continuing) institutionalized oppression can be "balanced out" or "made up for" by black people whupping white ass for a while! If an intelligent black person's ever seriously considered it, I'm a stuck pig. And besides, black people have been ignoring white people in their verse, culture, etc, from the beginning. Only a Eurocentrist in the extreme would even imagine she had a place in black verse to be belittled. (For Dovina: Disagree? Consider checking out Gullah culture, Hoodoo culture, Slave culture, Jack Tales, the Harlem Renaissance, jazz, and hip-hop, to name a very, very few.) In short, I don't think you're going to give up your friendship with Dovina because of this poem, because I think you see, as I do, that Dovina doesn't really mean to be offensive; she just doesn't know very well what she's saying. That's all I'm trying to point out to her. Really, I've got no beef with Dovina except that she doesn't express herself very well. All things considered, her heart's pretty close to the right place.
All things considered, you did not consider all things, especially not the poem, which never said anyone ignored me in his/her poetry. It is not a preposterous suggestion that one side's history of institutionalized oppression can be "balanced out" or "made up for" by black people whupping white ass for a while! It is exactly what happened in this case. Remember I'm describing a case, not a population.
Are you suggesting that white people should let themselves be subjugated in the interests of fairness. Frankly I am not really up for that.
The poem could be interpreted as a didactic statement to that effect. Iâm not up for it either. An incident like this shows me in a personal way what black people went through and in some cases are still going through. I am not willing to suffer retribution, however, for what I did not do.
I personally would like to suggest that although white people should not let themselves be subjugated in the interests of fairness, they might want to consider having the decency to not whine and whinge about some instance of "subjugation" that happens to transpire when said "subjugation" is utterly laughably trivial in comparison to the sorts of historical and ongoing subjugation for which the word subjugation ought to be reserved.
Would you consider "being forced to eat from a dog bowl on all fours" an instance of subjugation that exceeds the Official Subjugation Threshold beyond which whinging is acceptable? I daresay you would. But do you even stop for a second to think that it might be in the subject's best interest to scoff their food in such a way? When Negroes first decided to come over to the United States all those years ago, they just pitched up on our shores with no education, no transferrable skills, no appreciation of how one should behave at a dinner table, and worst of all no underpants. We then trained and clothed them, and taught them the value of shoehorning. We introduced them to the fundamental building blocks of civilisation: religion, community, faith, family, and trousers. And when at last they had mastered the dog bowl, and could masticate without making an unseemly mess, we said to them "Rise up, and dine with us. You are no longer aminals. You shall feast at the table as men." I'll never forget the twinkle that flashed in their eyes as they grasped cutlery for the first time. It was a twinkle of defiance, of independence, and ultimately, of betrayal. From dog bowls, to cutlery, to top hats. We gave them an inch, and they took their own shoehorn factory.
Actually I'm even somewhat stricter than that in where I set the O.S.T. and consider whinging while being forced to eat from a dog bowl on all fours acceptable only if it is done prettily, with appropriately respectful eye contact. I hadn't thought of tophats...interesting. It might be quite cute.
Ok, that white dude is definitely subjugated. Is that how you earned your wheelchair?
No. It's how my gurning facial expression became a permanent fixture.
Let us not forget the tapioca beards of the negroe jesuse lawne ornamtents.
and what of mock indignation? Is your mock indignation trivial in comparison to that which has gone before or can you rightly be termed a mock indignator.
mmm, my indignation isn't entirely mock. My sanctimony is mock...that's a real tough one to convey properly in print, mock sanctimony...I do it SO well in real life. But whining white people really do piss me off. Even though I'm white myself, and have my share of days where I feel all oppressed and life is just SO unfair blah blah blah...but I piss MYSELF off when I feel that way.
This is the internet. If someone comes (as I do too) from a wealthy western nation whose population knows little hardship and enjoys enormous privelege and wealth compared to most of the world, how much of a bleeding idiot do you think they look like to the rest of the world when they start whinging on about oppression & hardship? Ever watch a movie that has a character who is the stereotypical spoiled whining complaining rich kid? Notice how by the end of the movie you're ready to cheer when something absolutely horrible happens to this character? We should all remember that. It's not something to take lightly.
All this is true and applicable to the poem except the assumption of my naivity for writing a whining poem from the position of middle-aged american white woman who is far less oppressed than most people in the world. I recognize my privilaged position, but it does not prevent me from expressing an instance of racism against me. I thought it would come accrss as a case of what's called reverse dicrimination, but instead it aroused the old racially based passions. That's enlightening. It should be possible to write passionately about racial issues without causing everyone to think I live in a prejudiced box. It should be, but maybe it isn't.
You have to remember that that you come from a country that the rest of the world perceives as having an institutional anti-Black pogrom with wide public support, disguised as harsh drug laws.
I'm not saying myself that it is true drug laws are deliberately designed to suppress the black population. But having lived in Europe for 4 years I can tell you that it is widely perceived as being deliberate. As a citizen of such a country, you should expect what you say to be interpreted in that context, and expect the reaction to be harsh, regardless of whether or not you yourself actually are prejudiced. Simply imagine the reaction to a writer from a fundamentalist Islamic country writing a poem sneering at how some woman has treated him, irregardless of how legitimate his beef was with the specific woman in his poem.
NOTE: my comment might give the impression that harsh drug laws will automatically target Black people. In actual fact, drug use among the black population is roughly equal to that among the white population. It is the overwhelming evidence of selective enforcement that results in the drug laws being perceived as an anti-black pogrom.
That is further support for my growing belief that a middle-aged white American woman can say nothing about our black population without automatically being tagged is some incorrect way.
So?
Newsflash: no one at all can say anything at all or take any position whatsoever about anything without automatically being tagged in some incorrect way. Even attempts not to take a position will result in your being tagged. Even complete silence will be interpreted and result in your being tagged. That is a fundamental characteristic of human society and the nature of discourse between humans. All you're doing is whining again. Instead of addressing the tags and the reasons people give for tagging, you are whining about being "incorrectly tagged" when you should know full well that everyone gets "incorrectly tagged" no matter what they say.
Whatever you say, people who hear it will interpret it in a context that is necessarily different than the context you perceived when you uttered it -- because they are not you in your time and place. If you haven't thought about the various contexts in which people may interpret your words and are surprised and/or hurt by their interpretations, that is your failing. This applies to you no less than to the pimple-writers.
Since I'm already tagged as a whiner, what the hell, here's another whine. What you say about tagging works both ways. Is a person who tags any less of a pimple-writing simpleton than than a person who complains about being tagged? I think such a person is more simple than a whiner because he/she has not the strength to look past surface implications while the whiner at least tries to expose charges leveled by the unthinking whose heads are filled with fixed notions.
"is a person who tags any less of a pimple-writing simpleton than than a person who complains about being tagged?"
I don't know, are they? The question has no relevance for me. I don't (and didn't in my comment) equate "complains about being tagged" with "pimple writing simpleton" One can infer from my comment that I may be of the opinion that pimple writing simpleton's (P) have a tendency to complain about how they get tagged as a result of the pimples they wrote (C) ie; one can infer I probably believe the premise "P (somewhat) implies C" Given that premise, the conclusion "C implies P" is a logical fallacy I personally would not make; since what you posit is built on your incorrect assumption of faulty logic on my part, I have no response for it. I will point out that I didn't actually "tag" you as whining until the point where you started meta-whining. As far as your meta-meta-whine, it seems actually less like whining to me than rote flogging of a dead horse, the "I know you are but what am I" singsong into which all arguments eventually devolve when the combatants have nothing meaningful left to say. See? I just did it myself.
In the interest of full disclosure, I don't actually think there is a correlation between being simpleminded and whining.
I've encountered stupid stoics & intelligent stoics, stupid whiners, and intelligent whiners. I tend to get labeled a diva myself, ie, someone who sometimes whines aggressively but who's whining is generally tolerated because of a high level of efficacy.
P = Pimple writing simpleton
C = one who Complains about how they get tagged as a result of the pimples they write. (C implies P) is indeed illogical, even if P implies C. My most recent whine was not intended to follow logically from your comment, and may be like flogging of a dead horse, but don't you think it has merit? I mean, someone who tags (uses rote clues to classify) is no better and probably worse than someone who whines. Admitedly, the two things may be unrelated.
Oh. Maybe we should have said in the beginning that writing about any GROUP from the perspective of a GROUP is a major mistake.
Of course, you've already said that you were writing about one person, and even identified the poetry-reading-disser you were thinking of. But I think we can agree all that flew out the window a long time ago. And for that matter, (and this is the last time, I swear,) why did you call the poem "Middle-Aged White Woman" instead of "Dovina"? And why all the "my kind abused your kind" stuff? Of course, it's also perfectly reasonable here to say that any person writing about any person, from his own group or another, can be read as writing about the group as a whole. That's why you have to be very careful.
Only a few decades ago, it was considered perfectly enlightened to say things like, "I love blacks; they're such great athletes and dancers. They've such gleaming white smiles! And they're always very polite and docile."
What's changed since then? I doubt very much Americans' biases have changed very much. And besides, the speaker of the quote above might easily have scored a bias FOR blacks on -=Dark_Angel=-'s test. Still, I doubt even Dovina would feel very comfortable about saying something like the above today. What's changed is the vocabulary for talking about blacks, women, or groups of any kind of people. Someone decades ago realized that despite the above's seeming pro-black bias, it was still mildly offensive or denigrating to blacks, especially ones who, I don't know, fly fighter jets or own small stores of some kind, and the word got around. Most of us probably didn't hear it expressly in school or whatever. And I'd go even further and say our current aversion to saying such things doesn't come naturally to most people. However we learned it, we did have to learn it somewhere, even if just from TV or casual conversation. There are still tons of things that are slightly denigrating to blacks, though most people don't see how until they're told. Perfectly unbiased people accidentally say them all the time without realizing it. Most of what I'm trying to say is that, with all the best intentions in the world, Dovina has. Mostly, like you said, from naivete. I don't think she's really a racist.
You are saying that my way of expressing a racial issue is naive and that I am not a racist. Good, and quite possibly true. I am coming to disbelieve in the possibility of expressing a racial issue in a passionate way without coming accross as racist. It should be possible, maybe I'll try again.
I believe it is possible; it's certainly been done well hundreds of times. The trick is probably to find some new angle, like Alice Walker writing about blacks's search for post-African identity in her short story "Everyday Use", Zora Neale Hurston writing about power-struggles in isolated all-black communities in all her books, or (since I haven't named a white author yet) all the white authors of the television show "Martin".
No, "maybe it's time for retribution" is not a new angle.
I never said the poem said anyone ignored you. I said it proposes that they ignore you. Then I said, guess what, they already are; they don't need your permission.
You always say you're describing a case. You're always describing a population. You're also a racist. Is your answer going to be, No, I'm not; I, Dovina, declare that I'm not? Why don't you try listening for once?
A long time ago I thought you were reading what I said before bashing it. No I think you just bash without reading.
To recap:
Dovina: "...The poem, which never said anyone ignored me in his/her poetry." zodiac: "I never said the poem said anyone ignored you. I said it proposes that they ignore you." Seems clear enough to me. Incidentally, I also read this: "He ignored me, didnât hire me, belittle me in his poetry, skiped over me at his open mic reading. It's all sadly there." So, I don't think you read what you say before spinning off in a completely different direction. Look, I'm putting on my Serious Hat now. I don't much care if anyone did or didn't ignore you, belittle you, etc. That's never been pertinent to anyone but you. I'm telling you, though, that this poem is racist. It doesn't matter if it's about an individual: The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn is racist and it's only about one black individual, Nigger Jim. It doesn't matter if al-naafiiysh, etc, like it and say you're not racist: Nigger Jim liked Huck and Huck was racist. It doesn't matter if its goal (ie, a sense of wrongs retributed or whatever) is unracist: the goal of Affirmative Action is unracist, and Affirmative Action is still racist. As I've said before, the mistakes of this poem are: 1) Placing wrongs against blacks in some vague past (bonus! You were uninvolved.) 2) Taking for granted that blacks today have enough "newfound" power and freedom that they could oppress whites if they wanted to. 3) Thinking that blacks would want to. 4) Thinking you have a place in black culture, community, verse, or readings, when historically black culture has run just finely without you. 5) Thinking a black person belittling you in his verse makes up for 200-something years of slavery, 100 more years of institutionalized segregation, and another fifty of vague badness. All of that's in the poem. Please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please, please believe me.
Again, you did not listen, or having sistened, decided to ignore the simple effect of my words in favor of outlandish interpretatioins. To wit:
1) Wrongs against blacks are not in some vague past, but are facts of history. 2) Certain Blacks today have enough power that they can oppress whites if they want to. I have been the victim of one such event and wrote the poem in its memory. 3) I not only think that this particular Black wanted to, but heard him say so. 4) I have no place in Black culture and never said that I do. 5) I never said that I thought that, and do not think it.
1) Yes, but the "vague" part isn't the point; the "past" part is. Racism, unequal opportunities, and so on ARE STILL GOING ON FOR ALMOST ALL BLACKS. AND YOU AND I ARE PART OF IT. If you disagree (and I'm not saying you will, it's just that I don't have enough computer time to wait for your response) it's probably because you live in California, which is currently more segregated than Alabama. If you agree, then why did you say "My kind abused your kind" and "My ancestors did it to your ancestors"? Why didn't you just say, "I and my kind still do it all the time to your kind"? (Incidentally, I think that would be a fine reason for blacks to kick whitey's ass.) Whatever you meant by it, "My ancestors did it to your ancestors" says white peoples' crimes were in the past and you weren't part of them. If you're going to say "My ancestors did it to your ancestors" is a historically accurate thing to say, that's not the point.
2) Oh, Jesus. You really think you were oppressed? In my village last year, a woman was actually stoned to death for charges of adultery. The accuser? The man she was sleeping with. Get real, honey. No black person or group of black people in America can REALLY oppress a white person or group of white people. You were hurt, yes, but get over it. And don't abuse words like 'oppression' to mean some guy dissing you for a little while. 3) I've said since the beginning, no black person in his right mind would consider it. Congratulations. Now you're racist because of one lunatic. 4) No, you just told black people to ignore you, not hire you, belittle you in their verse, and skip over you at readings. For the millionth time: they don't need you to tell them. Telling them says that you have the authority to tell them, which you don't. 5) Do you understand that if black people for some unimaginable reason really wanted to make up for past wrongs, it would involve putting you naked on a GODDAMN BOAT, carting you slowly to Africa, and if you didn't die along the way laboring you to death while breeding you like a FUCKING SOW and separating you from your children and parents for YOUR ENTIRE LIFE, YOUR CHILDRENS' ENTIRE LIVES, YOUR GRANDCHILDREN AND GREAT-GRANDCHILDRENS' ENTIRE LIVES, and so on foreverandever amen? And that's just slavery. If they wanted to make up for the rest, they would put you in the SHITTIEST POSSIBLE EXCUSE for a school ever invented, deny you voting rights, adequate housing, adequate work and pay for your entire life, your children's entire lives, your grandchildren and great-grandchildren's entire lives. Then, when you were good and desperate, they would deny you justice, arrest you on the slightest provocation, and put you AND ONE-THIRD OF THE PEOPLE YOU KNOW in jail with double the sentence the oppressing class gets for the same crime. I'm sorry, Dovina, but ignoring, not hiring, belittling, and skipping just don't quite cover it. It's a fucking joke to even suggest they do.
1)Their historical oppression is greater than my miniscule-by-comparison oppression. Their current oppression is not much different from mine in this particular case.
2) same answer. 3) I've said it from the beginneng, some of them do, and one one them did it to me. 4) What? 5) They don't make up for it in kind, but in much lesser kind. I'm sorry, zodiac, but ignoring, not hiring, belittling, and skipping just don't quite cover it. It's a joke to even suggest they do.
1) Yes and no. For one thing, they don't say "oppression... in this particular case." They call that, a bad day. Oppression is bad days forever. For instance, at any point during this reading, did you lose your right to get up and LEAVE the motherfucking reading?
2) You think I'm not listening to you and pulling interpretations out of my ass. Now you listen. I am listening to you. But there are things you don't know, because you have to learn them in college classes, or you have to live and work for a long time among African-Americans, or you have to spend a long time actually working towards greater freedom and equality for African-Americans, or you have to have a lot of common sense. You've got none of these things. I do. So, pay attention: These are not zodiac's wild-haired out-of-the-blue interpretations; these are the STANDARD INTERPRETATIONS for writing of this kind, taught on the first day of any literature class. To wit, I showed this poem to my wife - who, by the way, is nothing like me and only took two semesters of literature as an undergrad. She said EXACTLY THE SAME THING. Incidentally, if you'd made this poem about women instead of blacks, I'd be saying the same thing. 3) Great, and we both know this poem's only about one individual, because you've really only met one black individual, haven't you? Oh... but wait. You've posted this poem on a public website, where we readers read poems and try (since this is the point of poetry anyway) to somehow relate them to our lives. But, then, we don't know your one black disser, so we start thinking about other black people WE might know. AND IT COMES ACROSS AS MOTHERFUCKING RACIST, GODDAMMIT. Is that how you want to present yourself to the world? No, you say, just to zodiac. Bow'ls. If you were on a real poetry site you'd have been lynched the first day, no explanations. At least I'm trying to explain what's going on here, preferably before you go saying it to the SECOND black person you meet in your life. 4) If I told you "Dovina, go ahead, post 25 comments on poemranker today", what would you think? 5) Then it's not making up. The suggestion that it's even in the same category is racist. To wit, consider if instead of "ignoring, not hiring, etc" you'd said to your black reader, "go ahead, my people deserve it, take this Nerf foam bat and go wild on me." It's simply silly. 6) So I'm supposed to be giving constructive advice and all. Here goes: Re-write this poem so it has nothing to do with white ancestors and black ancestors (incidentally, the trouble comes when you start grouping whites and blacks, even ancestors). Make it about a guy that dissed you, but it was okay because while driving to the reading you hit all of his children with your Volkswagen. You'd been powerbrokering on your cellphone at the time.
2) Oh, I see. I am supposed to bow down to your comments because you say your are more educated than I am.
6) That's a stupid suggestion because the poem is about what I want it to be about, not what you want it to be about.
2) Consider the alternative: You have almost no experience with blacks, have no education in appropriate ways of talking about blacks, and have pretty much nothing else except a room-filling self-righteousness. If you were trying to be a car-mechanic instead of a poet, you'd be adding cats to the gas tank and using week-old luncheon meat for steering-adjuster. Then, when an actual mechanic tried to tell you that car was never going to run on cats, you'd trump in his face and leap headfirst into a wall.
And I don't just "say" I'm more educated than you are [in terms of talking about African-Americans]. I AM more educated than you are [in terms of talking about African-Americans]. That's not in dispute. But no, I'd like to think you'd at least give my comments a chance because they made sense, mainly, and because I had more experience than you in the subject, secondly. 6) Um, yeah. That's why it's called a suggestion. Is what you want this poem to be about essentially, "I, Dovina, am colossally ignorant of anything about blacks at best, and a racist at worst"? 4 [Reprise]) If I told you "Dovina, go ahead, post 25 comments on poemranker today", what would you think?
2) I have a lot of experience with blacks and my ways of talking about them are more appropriate than yours because I understand them better.
I don't believe you. Sorry, I'm well-aware this is the comment-equivalent of a spaz.
D. as for as your poem reads why should I do you like
that? When my ancestors would'nt do you like that? Some of the comments that were made to you. Some people don't understand that all black people don't feel the same about the past.Our father jroday taught us to look at the past in a positive way, and what I mean by that is look at what our ancestors had to go through so we could have the future that we have today. and don't go out there in the world acting like the world owe you something because you're black. -10-
Almost all of the Black people I have encountered have treated me with respect. A few exceptions gave rise to this poem.
Almost forgot to tell you.
The old man is very ill.
Iâm sorry to hear that.
I like the subject matter, but I would re-do the ending, it seems a bit hurried.d
Itâs meant to be hurried. The entire poem is direct, non-ironic, and marches toward this simple ending. Itâs an isolated case of racial prejudice and happened just as stated.
Dovina and zodiac: -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I. has discovered a wonderful online test, developed by Negro Experts at Harvard, which calculates how racist you are. I suggest you both take it, and present the results to the rest of the group.
"[My] data suggest a slight automatic preference for White People relative to Black People" https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk Click on "take the race IAT". Work quickly, and for the love of Christ be honest when you present the results.
The thing did not load right and I'm not about to change a bunch of settings to make it work.
It will save you time in the long run. If you don't take this opportunity to have an independent, objective assessment of your Racism Quotient, the speculations will continue. Here's one for starters: I think you DID take the test, but your data suggested a strong preference for Whites relative to Blacks. Not wanting to share this white-hooded dumpling with the rest of the group, but still too spineless to tell an outright lie, you opted for the flaccid "it didn't work" compromise. Which is still an outright lie, by the way, but one that is subtle enough to wriggle through your unbelievably porous integrity membrane. Quite frankly I'm appalled.
Seldom has a wagonload of giraff shit received so intricate decoration. You will doubtless conclude that I have a prejudice against giraffes relative to zebras, otherwise I would have said zebra shit. Of course the truth is that giraffes genuinely ARE slightly worse than zebras, so my slight preference is not so much a prejudice as an accurate one.
You're way off the mark.
Incidentally (and, shamefully, without bothering to consult your past comments), it strikes me that you really started thinking -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. (or, to a lesser extent, I) was racist because he said a bunch of things like "this poem is as appealing as a refrigerator-truckful of suffocated Negro refugees" - i.e., in terms of bias, something equivalent to your giraffe metaphor. Can I conclude that you're not being ironic, then? Do you even know? PS-As I said below, I think it's unfair to equate a bias with racism, sexism, or whatever. As far as I can tell, people will inevitably have biases. But a more severe bias just doesn't necessarily correspond to more racist behavior. To wit, accept for a minute that -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. does have a stronger bias toward whites than you (or I) do. Does that mean he (in good faith) writes more poems or comments denigrating blacks than you or I do? Of course not. Your poem is actually racist; his posts are usually just making fun of people who are unknowingly (or hypocritically) racist. PPS-I'm willing to accept that you've totally unknowingly created a racist poem, and to apologize for calling you, rather than the poem, racist. However, I'd say there are probably a lot more unknowing racists, or people who are racist by carelessness, than people who are knowingly racist. If the poem were all I had to go by, I'd have to say you're racist - despite knowing that you're really a decent, loving person. PPPS-I'm writing this way because I'm drunk and have been reading Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel in downtown Amman. How's your Friday night going?
My Friday night is going unracistly, and so is my poem. How you can see any implication of racisism in this poem is beyond me. If anything it favors Blacks, but I would not even admit to that if challenged. To say that one race is slightly worse than another, thereby justifying favoritism is ludicrous. And why do you always step in to defend Dark Angel, as if he needs your help?
I know you don't, despite that I've tried to point it out in about a half-dozen different ways. You can't say that it favors blacks because (nominally) acknowledges (distant past) white mistakes and offers a kind of compensation. For the last time, suppose I said the following:
Go ahead, Dovina, post 25 comments on poemranker tonight. In the Middle Ages, men regularly oppressed women. Now that there's no inequality between men and women, go wild. Yes, I know I'm exaggerating. That's not the point. What would you think about me saying that? Would you think I was feminist? Would you not think one or more of the following? - In the Middle Ages? What the fuck is he talking about? - No inequality? What about women making 70 cents on men's dollar in America? - Who is he to say how many comments I can post on poemranker? - I was going to post 25 comments anyway. In short, would you not feel a little condescended to and indignant? Please, please just answer these questions. PS-No one is seriously suggestiong that saying one race is slightly worse than another justifies favoritism. I don't know where you got that, unless it was from some ironic comment of -=Dark_Angel=-P.I.'s that I've forgotten. If anything, your poem is the only thing justifying favoritism. PPS-I'm not worried about defending -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.. I'm worried about getting his respect back after mistakenly calling Goad 'as vernal as spring' ages ago.
If you can only expunge calling Goad 'as vernal as spring' you think you can regain the respect of -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I.. To gain my respect, it will take more than that, as if you care. It will take making sense at least 30% of the time.
Your test statement to me: "Go ahead, Dovina, post 25 comments on poemranker tonight. In the Middle Ages, men regularly oppressed women. Now that there's no inequality between men and women, go wild." is not offensive. Men and women have never been equal and never will be, neither will giraffes and zebras. Pointing out differences between giraffes and zebras or pointing out the ways they have treated each other over the years is not the same as favoring one over the other.
NO, NO, NO. LISTEN, NO ONE IS SAYING IT'S THE SAME THING. AND NO ONE'S SAYING BLACKS ARE THE SAME AS WHITES OR WOMEN ARE THE SAME AS MEN. NO ONE. NOBODY.
But no one except for you is saying whites or men have the right to tell blacks or women what to do. That's point number one. I'm growing to hate these bulleted lists, but seriously I can't think of another way to get it into your head (or at least keep us on the same page). So here: 1) "Go ahead", "ignore me", etc, TELL YOUR BLACK ADDRESSEES WHAT TO DO. Yes, you assume (and I assume) that's what they want to do in the first place. That's irrelevant. The stanza assumes for one that they're not already doing it (or else why would you tell them?) and for two that they'll care that (or act differently because) you're telling them. Assuming that they're not already doing it is racist because it gives whites a higher place in black thinking, employment considerations, verse, and readings than they have or deserve (i.e., none.) Assuming that they'll care that you're telling them is racist because why the hell should they care? And WHY DO THEY NEED YOUR APPROVAL? Oppression is by definition unrelated to the approval/disapproval of the oppressed. As in the example, I simply haven't any right to tell you how many comments to post tonight. And by telling you to post 25, I'm assuming I have that right/authority; I'm putting myself over you, even if you refuse to acknowledge my authority. Can you seriously not see how? 2) As always, oppression of blacks is not referenced anywhere in the poem except in the past tense. Saying that past events justify black counteroppression of whites but not that current events justify it is racist because it denies a whole continuing slew of injustices against blacks which also ALSO JUSTIFY COUNTEROPPRESSION (if anything does.) It also conveniently distances you, Dovina, from any injustice against blacks. That cannot be the case, if only by the fact of your existing and being white in the world; and in any case it's bad form not to acknowledge that there are bad things YOU might have done.
1) When I said "Go head . . . " it was not telling anyone to do anything, but on the order of "Go ahead, make my day."
2) The statement does not concern itself with current injustices to blacks. It only mentions past injustices and muses that retribution might be in order. The implication is that retribution is not in order.
1) The verb go in "go ahead" is in what's called the mandative tense. That comes from the same root as command and mandatory. "Go ahead, make my day" is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The guy obviously can't really make Clint Eastwood's day, except by Clint's express permission.
2) I don't see how the poem implies that retribution isn't in order. Out of curiosity, what part do you think implies that?
2) The tone of the narator is so overly submissive to abuse that a reader has to ask if she is really serious when she says "Go ahead . . ." and "Itâs a new experience for me, thatâs all. Maybe itâs time."
I thought of that. But then I thought it was probably your real personality. Hence my original comment: "Have you ever read Margaret Atwood's short story 'Rape Fantasies'? You should."
Ok, zodiac, the rules of language (which my posting history demonstrates are as important to me as they are to you) come not from God⢠but from common usage. If something has become common usage, it's not really fair to deliberately refuse to interpret it by its common usage and insist it be interpreted according to rules that applied before it became common usage.
I can't think of a common-use situation where the phrase "go ahead" isn't a command - or at least a subtle or weak close cousin.
Okay - mostly because -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. knows better, yes I can. In a bank-teller's line, for example, you might say, "Can I go ahead of you?" But I'm sure we can agree that's nothing like the case we're talking about here. Ibid as far as "ignore me, don't hire me," etc etc goes. Dovina probably meant something closer to "you ignore me, you don't hire me," etc, but that's not what she said. What she said has no other English usage, common or not, except mandative. Does German have a mandative tense with distinct conjugations? (I figure it's probably known in German as a 14-syllable word meaning roughly, 'the way we talk to each other all the time', but that's another matter.)
hmmm, maybe it's a regional thing.
It's when someone does some minor anti-social thing (xxx), and you say "Yeah, go ahead (or, SURE) -- xxx", heavily emphasizing the verb of xxx, and with either exaggerated sarcasm, or an air of "Fine. Be that way." Long live the mandative tense! It is vital that all good grammarians play their role in encouraging proper usage of subjunctive clauses. Hopefully, this is clear to all. If it were up to me, I would require that candidates applying for a driving license demonstrate correct usage of the subjunctive before being permitted to proceed to the physical driving test. In fact, I suggest we consider this idea carefully -- although I must add: were a better way suggested, I'd happily throw my weight behind it.
3) My family is British imported to Ireland in order to oppress your family. Would anybody with any maturity suggest that this justifies your oppression of me? Would anybody with any maturity suggest that your oppression would best take the form of refusing to vote on my poemranker posts? Why not? My family's oppression of yours is contemporaneous with slavery, likely as horrendous, and much more certain than your or my family's association with slavery. In any event, it's horribly perjorative to black suffering (in the past and present) and to blacks living today to propose that black suffering might be even slightly amended by black people's refusal to hire whites or by skipping you at their readings, and to suggest that any reasonable black person would suggest it. Especially considering that MOST blacks know there's just no point to it, it's childish, and nobody alive today really had anything to do with slavery. With Rodney King, yes. With slavery, no.
4) Statistically, blacks have far less power, wealth, freedom, and so on than whites. There is simply no way blacks could realistically oppress whites. What's that? They have poetry readings? They have poetry readings of their own, where they insult whites? So what? Whites own 99% of the world's media, and a good 99.5% of its poetry readings. Most of which, if it touches on race at all, denigrates blacks. That's hardly what I call a situation ripe for black conquest. Suggesting blacks could realistically do anything close to oppression shows at best a colossal ignorance of the inequality still faced by blacks. PS-I was being ironic about the vernal thing. And if you're going to hold me to some sense-making standard, try making a little yourself. A good place to start would be actually reading my comment and responding to what's written there. Replying 'blah blah blah, you sure do talk alot,' is just not going to cut it.
This comment is an example of what I mean by 30%. Everything in it has been said on this page before.
And I'm ashamed to have repeated it all. You just didn't seem to have gotten it before.
I'm saddened that you're withdrawing "as vernal as spring" as an epithet for me! I've really taken it to heart over the last year, relying on it (for example) on certain mornings, saying to myself, "No, today I'm not going to lie in bed until 11 and then phone the office and tell them to fuck off like I did yesterday, because I AM AS VERNAL AS THE SPRING and instead I am going to pop right out of bed, brew a java, have a shower, and be at my desk by 10:43"
I even added it to my personal business card, in tiny italic print with quotes and an ellipsis, like so: M------ J--------- "...as vernal as the spring!" though lately I've taken to crossing it out with a purple gel roller and writing "fucking sanctimonious bastard" instead. My two cents: I don't want to defend the pome as a whole because the whining of white people who, even if they are lower middle class, are vastly wealthier & have life easier than at least 95% of people who ever lived or are currently alive annoys the fuck out of me BUT I do think most people would read the "Go ahead..." stanza not as telling someone what to do, but disgustedly mentioning something they have already done. You know, someone cuts you off and you say "yeah sure...CUT me off. Fucking bastard"
How could it be taken otherwise? Oh yeah, by zodiac.
Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for White People relative to Black People
Do you think that's a fair result? I'm grotesquely ashamed to admit it, but I definitely found it easier to associate Good with White. One may not be racist on an intellectual level, but when such associations are operating subconsciously, they're bound to pollute our objectivity glands :( Of course the truth is that Blacks genuinely ARE slightly worse than Whites, so my slight preference is not so much a racist preference as an accurate one.
Don't be ashamed. I found three potential problems with the quiz:
1) I think I might have associated good with white more readily because it was the first option given (i.e., whatever the orientation - left or right - given to white/good, I trained myself in the first sections to hit, say, the white button for the response good, and so on.) I know the test worked to reduce that outcome by more-or-less systematically giving every permutation for white, black, good, bad, left, and right - but I don't know how effective it was. (I also wondered if I'd answered something different on the survey bit it might have started me with black/good and white/bad.) In any case, the test is probably only really effective for comparison; i.e., I got moderate preference for white, but Dovina got extreme preference, or something such, so she's more racially biased. 2) I couldn't convince myself that a face I thought was white was really black, and so got an X of shame for the entire test on that particular face. Also, testing only for black/white bias is extremely bunk. Where, then, do you fit a Japanese in the racial scheme of things? 3) I think you're going to disagree, but I think one's (automatic) racial bias rating has very little to do with one's engaging in overt racism - or what I'd simply call racism. For example, you're aware that you're automatically biased toward whites, so you make a conscious (and educated) effort to not say or do racist things, while Dovina, who maybe scores milder on the racial bias test, writes poems such as this one. (The part where I think you'll disagree is defining racism as 'racist actions' rather than 'racial bias'; you've said something to that effect before.) In any event, the test has little bearing on the conversation above. By the way, I've become extremely (and fully self-awarely) prejudiced against Arabs recently. They are, as far as my experience goes, the most predictably and consistently stupid, unimaginative, and unentrepeneurial class of people I've ever met. Now I can't tell if George Bush & Co. really new that or were just racist when they started this whole recent Middle East annihilation business.
If I was a Negro, I wouldn't want White people tiptoeing around me because they were terrified of inadvertantly saying something racist. Imagine trying to be friends with someone who was subconsciously opposed to you, and was only capable of a pseudo-objective analysis of your behaviour, implemented via a complex feedback mechanism of ropes, pulleys, and two-way mirrors. I agree that the vast majority of people who are aware of their racial biases try to compensate somehow, but it's nigh impossible to calculate how much you should compensate. Most people overcompensate, and become patronising. They go up to a Black and for no reason just say something like "Denzel Washington... what a fantastic actor. He's not my favorite actor though. That would have to be Mr Sidney Poitier." (a snippet from The Office)
Incidentally, the test is based on the times taken to respond to each question, not on how many errors you make. Of course if you make too many errors, there won't be enough data to draw statistically significant conclusions. The survey bit is optional, and does not affect the test (it is included so they can use your data to make exciting new discoveries in the field of Advanced Negro Engineering.)
Oh. I guess it's a marvel of computer programming then.
My wife says that as an undergraduate she got a mild preference for blacks on the Harvard test. Should I worry?
Only if you're a Negro.
Our brains have evolved to have unconscious biases. In many ways these unconscious biases are incredibly advantageous, if not necessarily to us as individuals, to the propagation of our genes.
At least, that was true in the past. In our current society, the biases and instincts we naturally tend to have/develop are often at odds with the ideals and values of society. What counts is not whether you have such incorrect biases and instincts. Virtually everybody does. What counts are the conscious choices you make about whether or not to align yourself with the values & ideals society is moving towards. And it is moving. Black people don't have equality in America, but they've more equality than they had a generation ago, and it's likely they'll have more equality in another generation than they do now. Perhaps even as much equality as they have in Canada and other more enlightened nations. Similarly, women do not yet have equality in America, but they have rather significantly more equality than they had a generation ago, and will likely have even more equality a generation from now. Perhaps by then America will have even had a female national leader, as several more enlightened nations have already. Health care is another excellent example. In the past, health care was grossly unequal but now most enlightened nations have some sort of system that provides access to health care to virtually all of their citizens. Even America has a rudimentary form of such a system that's available to most of it's citizens.
If I may offer my enormous sagging tuppence:
As you may know, I am the primary patron of the Reading Room at Wiltsbury. Therefore, as well as because of my degenerative condition, I am entitled to a certain... shall we say "leeway" in my behaviour. It does not shame me to say that I push this privelege as far as possible at all times. One morning I wheeled into the Belkin foyer, covered in jellied-eels and bellowing. Another time I flopped out of my chair and squirmed upon the carpet pitifully. When Mrs. Hedges hurried to the rescue, I beckoned her down to my buttocks, and parped on her handbag. On Christmas Eve of 19--, I suspended myself from the domed ceiling of the Chetwoad Room, using a horrifying system of hoists and reverse buckle-squats. I had instructed my manservant to dress me as "Mephistopheles, were he caked in faeces." It was a glorious, glorious moment when I descended, shrieking, onto the Nativity play below. A child was crushed in several places. There was a short-lived attempt to lynch me, which I countered by lifting the crushed child and rubbing it on myself. Or perhaps I only imagined that later, when I had been sedated. What has this to do with the matter at hand? Quite.
I don't think it's fair to criticize my country for lacking female leaders. All you've done is borrowed some other country's aging queen.
Kim Campbell
Here's a more accurate quiz: http://tinyurl.com/9gxrc
"Begin with an individual, and before you know it you find that you have created a type; begin with a type, and you find that you have created - nothing."
-'The Rich Boy' 430 view(s)
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
<3 Jason