Bloodless Coup

If you liked Amanda Bynes in this, check out She's the Man. Paula dragged me to it, and it's really funny.

I liked the movie, but what jumped out at me was the way Tracy was recognized and appreciated as the white girl going out of her way to help the black dancers. It really brought home how today's so called leaders of the black rights movement don't typically credit non-blacks with helping them unless it's a politician who's getting black votes in exchange for help. Now that racial equality is mainstream, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson magnify racial differences for their own political gain, though of course certain North Carolina DA's do this too. This movie is an idealistic version of how those in the majority struggling for minority rights at cost to themselves should be appreciated and given equal consideration, unlike what we saw with the Duke rape case.

1) She's the Man is funny? Seriously? Seriously?!? I really wouldn't have thought so. But I thought Bynes was perfect in this ...

2) Thinking more about perhaps I shouldn't have only noted her because James Marsden and the guys who play Seaweed and Link are so very good too. As is Pfeiffer - she plays a one-note role with great verve, and is hilarious.

3) I have no idea whatsoever what you are talking about on the race thing. What black leaders don't credit whites who helped bring equality (to the extent we've achieved that)? Certainly people like Coretta Scott King, John Lewis, leaders of the SCLC, basically the vast majority of those who led the Civil Rights movement have done exactly that.

4) There are both white and black demagogues who use race to further their careers. And since there are more whites than blacks I don't know that I'd be too quick to suggest that there are more radical blacks doing this than there are reactionary whites (not that you suggest that - but you only name blacks).

"There are both white and black demagogues who use race to further their careers. And since there are more whites than blacks I don't know that I'd be too quick to suggest that there are more radical blacks doing this than there are reactionary whites (not that you suggest that - but you only name blacks)."

Exactly, which shows you how mainstreamed the idea of racial equality is. Look at the immigration debate, would have been a perfect opportunity for some David Duke clone to jump about how we shouldn't let any more of the outsiders in, from any country. But we didn't see that because equality of racial opportunity is mainstream. The old media now finds its drama and conflict by playing up Sharpton and Jackson and Spike Lee and even rap stars as the leadership of today's civil rights movement instead of Coretta. Racial tolerance by the majority race is no longer a story because it isn't different from the everyday.

And, yes, seriously.

Well I guess it depends on what you mean by "mainstream". If you mean most believe in it - okay - if you mean almost all believe in it - uh, no. There's a huge racist side to some of the utterings of the O'Reilly's, Dobbs's, Glenn Beck's of the world, to say nothing of quite a few white politicians in the South, or people like newly-elected Rep. Yvette Clark of Brooklyn. And if you don't think some politicians and political figures are playing that up in the immigration debate, I have no idea what immigration debate you are watching. Sure, most try to avoid the use of the word "wetback", but their meaning is quite clear.

And more generally there are still healthy minorities in this country that readily admit to being racists in national polls. Less than there are in parts of Europe, but they are still there.

You don't have to tell me about the South, it's no secret the racism that callers to local radio shows express towards Bobby Jindal. But these are not mainstream, as was evidenced by that big hooplah by over Strom Thurmond's birthday party a few years back. Even in Louisiana disregarding the progress of the last fifteen years, David Duke got less than a third of the vote with his anti-immigration (but not anti-head games) message that he argued was not racist.

The current immigration debate is notable historically in lacking this message. Yes, people want limitations so our job markets aren't flooded, yes they want security not to be compromised, and yes some even want immigrants to be actual immigrants interested in living in and loving our US of A rather than just to send money back to Latin America. But there was no real voice calling for keeping the immigrants out because they're criminals, the voices were saying keep the immigrants out if they are criminals. That's not a subtle difference.

And given Putnam's recent research, hushed up until after the debate, that more ethnic groups in a community leads to increasing isolation and distrust even among members of the same ethnic community, an objective society not clouded by political correctness would actually start looking into why, what is it about diversity that leads to this and does it have to be that way? Or is it simply the corruptness and exploitation of race and culture by minority leaders that leads minorities to distrust even their own leaders.

If we truly want communities (most psychological research suggests we should), we have to be honest about and research what makes the best community, and fight the enemies who exploit racial differences as the true enemies of diversity, without regard to whether the exploiters are themselves minorities. But try telling Spike Lee that Al Sharpton is as bad for black culture as Uncle Tom, and you'd see in his response that his crusade is not about about giving blacks their due but about identification and anger, in group out group thinking, which leads to win loss scenarios and exploitation.

aw hell, if morris's back, i'll have to jump in and say, um, hi.

[W]hat is it about diversity that leads to this and does it have to be that way? Or is it simply the corruptness and exploitation of race and culture by minority leaders that leads minorities to distrust even their own leaders.

or is it -- you omit to include -- that the races mistrust each other in close quarters not just because a few gadflies make rain for themselves by exaggerating the existence of prejudice, but because it's far more mainstream, and in close proximity it becomes hard to ignore the pervasiveness of subtle racism in each ethnic community respectively.

resorting to anecdata, my ethnicity in my poorer neighborhood is probably in equipoise with the next most numerous ethnicity in that neighborhood. sometimes, there's a palpable hostility toward me on my own street as i walk or ride or drive by. now, granted, that might be sharpton's work. but my guess is these folks don't spend much more time listening to sharpton than i do. i find it far more likely that such hostility comes up whenever some of my neighbors are around people of my race, but that, in a segregated city like pittsburgh, i'm one of a relatively small number of people of my race who they get to see on a regular basis.

naturally, this isn't true of everyone in my neighborhood, and as a homeowner therein i try my damndest to put a good spin on everything, but there's just no question in my mind that there's tension, which in turn makes me tense, and the cycle continues.

none of this, in my view, is demonstrably sharpton's fault. sharpton has very little effect on my neighbors' lot in life; that's a product of the policy makers. and last i checked, our welfare policy and the like, as well as the particular nature of our business climate, have all largely been formed by GOPers, who do their level best not to use the "n" word, inter alia, but aren't as good at playing off the effects of their policies (on the poor generally, in fairness, but african-americans are poor in far higher proportions than any other group, and that fact isn't lost on them, the GOP, or anyone else who's being honest). (and before you wag clinton like a rubber chicken in my face, let's not pretend that his "reform" was largely a full-blown accommodation of the GOP masquerading as bipartisan innovation. i don't hate the result, or even strongly dislike what i know about it, but it was hardly a democratic plan.)

in short, you give far more credit than they deserve to two things: 1) the influence of sharpton and jackson, et al. 2) the degree to which sanitized rhetoric by people who have learned to say as little as they can get away with is reflective of their motives or expectations or the biases animating their decisions.

In 1991, David Duke got 39% of the vote for governor against Edwin Edwards. He got 55% of the white vote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Duke#Challenging_Edwin_Edwards_and_Buddy_Roemer

That's right: just 16 years ago, a majority of white voters voted for the leader of the Klan to be the governor of Louisiana. Not sure, Morris, that this is a great example for you.

Bruce,
Thanks for the figures, but I would argue even at 55% 15 years ago (and if you want to see how PCism has been mainstreamed since then, go back and watch Night Court or Cheers), that's so much better than it would have been in decades past. The focus on race as the card that's played here came out clearly when Katrina was said to be a plan by Bush to drive blacks out of New Orleans. Black and white clergy and politicians jump to race, it's how they've divided our peoples for more than a century, one color against another, one class against another, one political party against another, and so blacks begin to avoid school because they think it's a betrayal of their race to be book smart, it's something whites do, despite MLK having said, "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity."

Political correctness has given whites a strong dose of guilt for the crimes of our ancestors, at the same time quelling any response to what's perceived to be righteous anger from the black community. But you don't grow when you're angry, you blame something else and strike at it. But who has the guts to stand up and say that stoking anger over ancestors' wounds ends up in savagery like what we see in the Middle East? They don't exactly make themselves prosperous with their constant killing, which is exactly what's happening in the 9th ward, young black men keep killing each other.

Martin Luther King talked of hope, of something more. He talked about tolerance and love. I just don't hear that today.

Moon,
Can't we all just get along? Before you lay racism off as the result of GOPers knocking welfare, perhaps show me where allowing able bodied minorities to live off majority wages ends racism. It doesn't lead to a sense of mastery, it leads to a sense of dependence, and just as with dependant personality disorder, it's characterized by resentments towards those they expect to care for them (because they don't believe they can take care of themselves) when things don't go the way they think they want them to go.

People who are unemployed for long periods of time are not happy, it's a great risk of suicide. Because they don't work, they're less likely to experience moments of creative flow (which typically come during moments of work), when that which bugs them slips into the background so the more effective deliberating brain rather than the less effective conscious brain can chew away at their complex problems. Yes, work involves difficulty, but it is in mastering difficulty that people experience a sense of mastery, worth, and possibility. We do them no favors by providing welfare without end, and if anywhere was proof of this, it's New Orleans.

I don't even know where to begin with this last comment Morris. I just don't know ...

So I'll simply note (at least for now) that there's no good to be found in the idea that ONLY 55% of whites voted for the avowed racist to lead the state government.

And yes, I'm sure all those people who a pulling double shifts on janitorial staffs or on various forms of back-breaking labor are gaining great self-worth out of their jobs. Never getting to see their kids or sick grandmothers, always smelling of the job, permanently exhausted ... how happy they must be. [Which isn't a knock at "welfare reform" as a whole - but your response to it is rather silly.]

Silly, eh?
From the GSS via Arthur Brooks:
"Among adults who worked 10 hours a week or more in 2002, the General Social Survey (GSS) found that 89% said they were very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with their jobs. Only 11% said they were not too satisfied or not at all satisfied....

"There is no difference at all between those with above- and below-average incomes: nine in 10 are satisfied, as are people without college degrees. 87% of people who call themselves "working class" are satisfied....

"Happy people work more hours each week than unhappy people, and work more in their free time as well. Even more tellingly, people with more hours per day to relax outside their jobs are not any happier than those who have less non-work time."

What is the posited causal mechanism operating here?

That's not the right data to use to contradict my point. The data you want to use involves those who've been forced off welfare, not data for the general population. I'm aware of the numbers on the impact of having a job versus not re: happiness and the job vs. wealth numbers.

And I still can't get over this: "Political correctness has given whites a strong dose of guilt for the crimes of our ancestors, at the same time quelling any response to what's perceived to be righteous anger from the black community." First, what is this political correctness of which you speak, aside from a general sensitivity toward the feelings of circumstances of others, and secondly what evidence do you have for these statements? As CNN showed, the slavery reparations was clearly the least popular question in the YouTube debate.

And is any of this really relevant to Hairspray?

Armand,
I suggest you send the people making up the next GSS a question so we can get the kinks out. "Would you let other people pay for your food, housing, and anything else they would, if they're big enough saps to do it?" I guess it's superfluous to ask what armed guards showed up and marched people to forced labor camps. If they don't want to work, salvation army and church rescue missions serve many meals and give many a place to sleep, so they're getting as many luxuries out of life as the work they put into it. If they want better accomodations, they have to work for them.

And if you'd read the article, you'd have seen:

"No doubt there is great job dissatisfaction among people with low incomes and little education--the folks working in factories and on farms; the people who sell you socks and serve you lunch--right? Wrong. There is no difference at all between those with above- and below-average incomes: nine in 10 are satisfied, as are people without college degrees. 87% of people who call themselves 'working class' are satisfied.

I would agree political correctness in its roots began as sensitivity, but it has quickly become oversensitivity. "The underpriveleged" now don't have to answer for themselves, because if they are in any way perceived a victim, no answer is expected except that it's George Bush's fault. And we're back to the dependence cycle that I described above, when you communicate to people they aren't responsible for their actions, they blame others and build resentments whenever they don't get what they think they want.

This is why people get onto Cosby for telling parents they have a responsibility to their kids, and telling kids they have a responsibility to their parents, and they all are responsible to themselves. It's seductive to believe whatever problem they have in front of them is George Bush's fault or more generally the fault of men, or of whitey. If something goes wrong, they don't have to take the burden. But the truth is not taking the burden becomes their burden.

And Katrina is a great example of why people need to be responsible for themselves, because government is a tree whose branches become less supportive and have more opportunities to be diseased, the further those branches stretch. Corruption hits both parties, and Katrina saw failures at all levels of government because they just didn't stretch that well (with arguably the notable exception of the Coast Guard).

Binky,
I'll have to get back to your question later.

Where are you getting this stuff on "political correctness"? Who are these people are saying this? How widely is this view spread? This all sounds to me like a frequent Fox CNN and MSNBC tactic - raising a ruckus about something that barely exists (if it exists at all).

And I think your personal responsibility thing goes totally off the rails on Katrina - it's matters like that that many individuals can't prevent on their own, and need government assistance to help them overcome.

if you're right about katrina, morris, the branches must have been made of different stuff the year before, when a massive mobilization preceded potentially catastrophic storms' landings in swing state and lily white florida. you know, things like having water on the ground in anticipation of the displaced, rather than some stuffed suit on tv promising water in the near future hours after the storm had ransacked the city. i'm not inclined to ascribe anything so diabolical to bush's inaction during katrina as overt race-driven neglect; but if you want to persuade me that the disparity between florida and louisiana doesn't reflect unfortunate aspects of the degree to which electoral politics and issues of class affect the quality of government, you've got a long row to hoe.

regarding welfare -- honestly, whatever. even if i take as gospel your points regarding welfare, you didn't respond to the substance of my post, which was that to give sharpton credit for being a prime mover in shaping black perceptions of their plight in this country is ill reflective of what i see and believe, and gives him far more credit than he deserves. he might be the closest thing to MLK that the black community has these days -- and if so, it's a pity -- but to say that he's closest is not to say that he's close with respect to the depth or materiality of his influence. and he's not close, not remotely so.

as for your GSS survey, be that as it may, i don't think making minimum wage (and, typically, being treated like shit) enables someone to live much better than he would in the shelters or on welfare. a full-time (40 hours/wk) minimum wage job, even at its boosted level, will still leave the worker in most parts of the country at bare subsistence, and below the poverty line. some incentive to straighten up and fly right, eh?

So after an super-tasty (and nap-inducing) Thanksgiving dinner hosted by Baltar and Binky, I had a couple of my favorite law students over for games and Hairspray. And I've got to say Hairspray holds up really well on a second viewing. I'm definitely buying it. It's loads of fun. What struck me most this time (apart from being even more impressed by the design and musical elements) was just how perfect Nikki Blonsky, James Marsden and Michelle Pfeiffer were in their roles. Why people sometimes bring up Travolta (the film's weakest link) as a potential Oscar nominee, but not so much Blonsky or Pfeiffer (okay, that'd never happen - but it would be such fun) ... well, it's yet another sign of just how unfortunate the Oscars can be.

Oh, and I probably should also point out Zac Efron (who really is remarkably good in the part - though I prefer him as a blonde/brown guy) and Amanda Bynes' outfit at the end. That dress and those shoes are fabulous.