A Not-even-remotely-teachable Moment on Dr. Laura

 Signe Wilkinson, Philadelphia Daily News

Once again, some clueless media personality (I use that term loosely), has entered the fray of discussions on race. Once again, there is no lesson being learned.


Dr. Laura, a radio talk-show host, started a firestorm on her show while responding to a caller (full audio & text here). Here is the short version: a black woman in an interracial relationship with a white man called in to discuss her frustration at her partner's lack of sensitivity to what she perceived as racist remarks made in their presence. Dr. Laura asked for an example of what offends the woman, then proceeded to tell the caller that her example was not racist. Dr. Laura then began a rambling rant about race, Obama, black people, elections, and baby elephant poaching. Ok, well, not the last one, but anyway, back to the story. It the midst of her rambling, Dr. Laura repeatedly used the n-word. Her justification/reasoning for doing so was that black people use the word all the time and the word is repeatedly heard on cable TV, in music, etc. The whole incident then went south, with each person yelling over the other, and became a strangely incoherent mix of racial sensitivity, presidential elections, and having a chip on one's shoulder.


Predictably, the furor, buzz, and indignation after the show aired focused almost exclusively on Dr. Laura's use of the n-word. People went nuts because the white woman used the disgusting word. It was cringe-worthy, for sure. But the offensive part, for me, was not simply that she insisted on repeating the word as if to make some point that she could. What was offensive was her simpleton logic of 'others say it, so can I'. I mean, really. This is a grown woman who purports to give out advice for a living. While she is certainly not the first nor the last white person to wonder about use of a racial slur, she is the LAST person to use a justification like that. I absolutely do NOT believe she was attempting to have a conversation about race. 

I was offended that she dismissed the caller's feelings as being overly sensitive. Wait, what? That is your 'professional' advice? Then she makes it seem as if because the caller is in an interracial relationship, she should just get used to hearing offensive stuff. After all, it is all her fault she is so damned sensitive. WOW. Awesome.

Moreover, I was offended that the 'Dr.' pretended not to understand why it was not okay for her to just use a racial slur all willy-nilly like she was just saying 'hydrangeas, hydrangeas, hydrangeas'. Puhleeze. It is about intent people. Intent. A 10 year-old could be taught what intent means. Here is an example for you 'Dr.' Laura:

Teenage daughter to her teenage friends: 'Hey my bitches, let's go to the mall tonight, ok?' 

Dr. Laura to her teenage daughter: 'Honey, you can't go to the mall until you finish your homework.'

Teenage daughter to Dr. Laura: 'Bitch, please. I am going to the mall.'

See? Intent matters. The first bitch was not name-calling, the second bitch most definitely was disrespectful. Now, here is the thing. Dr. Laura knows that intent matters (as do most adults). This tells me that she was being provocative, perhaps in a race-baiting way, perhaps in a ratings-whore way. I don't know. But my point is Dr. Laura saying the n-word is what got everyone talking. Did it start a new 'conversation on race'? Nope. Sadly, there were some teachable things both in the initial conversation she had with her caller and in the fallout. But once again, matters of race, racial sensitivity, interracial relationships, etc. fell by the wayside. 


Now the discussion is either: whether she should be fired or whether what she did/said was perfectly reasonable. Really America? The whole point of a teachable moment is to ... umm .. teach. As per usual, the offending host apologizes, sees the error of her ways, repents, etc. etc. 


Sorry, what was that? You say that, in her apology, Dr. Laura says she was trying to be philosophical? 

Jesus, Joseph, and Mary. Somewhere Socrates just died another death. A not even remotely teachable moment. Sigh.

Lessons from Sherrod Debacle?

I started this little ol' blog in large part because I sometimes found myself full of emotion or reaction about a particular story or event, so much so that I wanted to write about it. This is where I find myself today.

As I put fingers to the computer, I'm wondering where to start with this story. Does it start with Andrew Breitbart's wholly unethical hatchet job of Shirley Sherrod? Well, that is the crux of the story. But the story is merely, I believe, a response to the recent NAACP resolution regarding the Tea Party. In fact, Breitbart admitted as much in his post. He is trying desperately to avenge any notion that the Tea Party has racist elements to it. How desperately? This desperately.

He begins his post with a soaring speech on how the Tea Party is not racist and how the Left, the Democrats, the White House, the Easter Bunny, Fidel Castro, and the troll under the bridge are simply out to vilify the cause and moral fiber of the Tea Party. He then posts a video (which to my knowledge he has yet to reveal where he got the video or who he got it from or who edited it) with ominous graphics announcing how this is a federally-appointed employee practicing racism ..  
....bom bom bom bommmmmm.

In the video, Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, is seen and heard telling the story of working with a white farmer at some point in her career. It is completely unclear from this two-minute video what the context of this story is, i.e. when did this incident take place, in what role was she helping him, why is she even telling the story, etc. She speaks briefly of the condescending way in which she perceives this white farmer speaking to her (*gasp* white people in the deep South talking condescendingly to black people??!! Unheard of!) despite the fact that she was in a position to help him. She talks of her admitted hesitancy to help this man with her full resources (an honest admission, in my book). She goes on to speak of how she took him to see a white lawyer, 'one of his kind, ya know' she states, to see if this white farmer can be helped. She makes a reference to so many black farmers losing their farms at the time, yet she is still having to work with this white farmer. Again, no context is provided because of the editing down of the full video. She finally concludes (in this tiny, edited portion) that she came to realize that the issue was not about race as much as it was about poverty. Not exactly earth-shattering revelations for anyone under the age of 92 living in the United States. The U.S. has a long, torrid, racist history. Shocking, I know.

But Breitbart would have you believe you are reading the devil's lecture. His breathless narrative reads:

"In the first video, Sherrod describes how she racially discriminates against a white farmer. She describes how she is torn over how much she will choose to help him. And, she admits that she doesn’t do everything she can for him, because he is white. Eventually, her basic humanity informs that this white man is poor and needs help. But she decides that he should get help from “one of his own kind”. She refers him to a white lawyer.
Sherrod’s racist tale is received by the NAACP audience with nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement."

So wait, 'nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement' is evidence of racism? Breitbart clearly failed Science 101 and could not pass Remedial Logic. This is not evidence and his conclusions are inane. Perhaps the people in attendance were nodding because they understood the dilemma and conflict that a black woman helping a white man in the Deep South might have been feeling. Perhaps they were were recognizing that, like Shirley, sometimes our prejudices keep us from initially assessing a situation in the most righteous way. Hell, perhaps they were falling asleep and the nods were actually their heads tipping over. We do not really know. But Breitbart trumpets this snippet as if this is irrefutable evidence of racism. He fails miserably.

First, Breitbart is clearly ignorant on what racism ACTUALLY is. Here, Andrew, is a definition. A six year-old could look this up, but since you are too lazy, I'll provide you a link. Let's see, does Shirley express a doctrine that black people are superior to whites? Nope, actually quite the opposite. Does she exhibit a policy or system of government that espouses racism? Uh, no. Does she display hate or intolerance for whites? No, she does not. She actually admits to, points out even, her own prejudices (another word Andrew needs to look up. Here you go, lazy boy).

So, the 'context' that the despicable Breitbart so blatantly tries to peddle, is, in fact, important. Here is the true context. He is playing a game. A desperate game trying to avenge his wounded exposed delicate Tea Party position. It is a familiar game .. from our childhood. When young children are on the playground and calling each other vile names, they sometimes try to be annoying by saying "I know you are but what am I" every time one child calls him or her a bad name of some sort. It has nothing to do with defending oneself. It has nothing to do with whether the 'bad word' is true or not. It is merely deflection. That is the context here. On it's surface, it is a silly game that Breitbart is playing. Looking deeper, it is a dangerous game.

One does not prove your beliefs are not racist but calling the accuser racist. There are plenty of examples of racism to be found without trying that tactic. Breitbart has made of name for himself (albeit not a name I would wish for myself) with his ACORN shenanigans and his silly use of dog-whistles. But the puppetmastery of this stunt is so blatantly politically motivated, it is horrifying. It is so clearly done for self-interest and for self-preservation - damn the cost. Everything about it reeks of opportunism. Nothing of it smells of genuineness.

Of course, just as with his ACORN witch hunt, he eventually had to admit that the video was edited.  Once the full speech was released, it was abundantly clear that this was a hard-hearted, mean-spirited, falsely-trumped up hatchet job. He responded to accusations of racist elements of his pet political project by trying, and in some measure, succeeding in obfuscating the whole issue of racism. We are all profoundly sensitive to accusations of racism. Most of America cannot have a discussion about race in a non-defensive, non-accusatory, and/or intelligent manner. This entire episode has given us not a 'teachable moment' as some love to profess, but another example of how we do not know how to discuss race. We do not know how to be uncomfortable in the realities of our prejudices, our histories, our past, our present, our innermost anxieties about one another. That is why this game he is playing is so dangerous. It advances NOTHING; it plays into fears; it sends us all to our respective corners to defend our respective ideologies. Breitbart and his tactics are held up by the Right and excoriated by the Left.

In other words, homeostasis maintained. Damn shame.

A primer on racism (for people too ignorant to know)

Racism, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.  To say, for example, that blacks make better athletes is a racist statement. If you cannot get past this basic assumption, then you should probably close this window and go back to watching Fox News or the Home Shopping Network or some other intellectually-challenged TV show.

Let's go a step further and discuss institutional racism. One definition calls this: those forces, social arrangements, institutions, structures, policies, precedents and systems of social relations that operate to deprive certain racially identified categories equality. Segregation is an example of institutional racism. Again, if you cannot agree on this basic fact, perhaps enlightened reading is not for you.

Segregation is based on racism. White people in this country did not want to drink from the same fountains, sleep in the same beds, ride on the same bus seats, etc. etc. as black people because they believed them to be less-than, to be subhuman, to be inferior. This is an historical fact, don't argue with me.

Fast forward to 2002. Trent Lott, then Senate Majority leader made this ridiculously ignorant comment:

"I want to say this about my state: When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We're proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either."

In case you don't know about Strom Thurmond, here's a quick background on the 1948 presidential election Lott is referring to in his quote. Thurmond ran for the Dixiecrat Party, a right-wing breakaway party whose platform was based on the defense of segregationist policies. The party's platform included this: "We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race." Thurmond said, during his campaign, "All the laws of Washington and all the bayonets of the Army cannot force the Negro into our homes, our schools, our churches." (and don't go filling up the comments section with a bunch of apologist statements about how Thurmond moved away from his segregationist beliefs later in life. That is completely irrelevant here.)

THIS position is what Lott was supporting. THIS politician in THIS election is what Lott was supporting in his statement. He is clearly supporting a racist candidate and espousing racist beliefs, at a minimum for the period during which Thurmond ran and Lott voted for him. More likely, he like many others continued to espouse these racist beliefs for a long time. Either way, it was an incredibly offensive comment that was supporting racist practices and beliefs.

Fast forward to 2008. Harry Reid, while discussing the electability of then presidential candidate Barack Obama, made a short statement to a reporter. Harry Reid's paraphrased words as reported in the book Game Change:

He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a “light-skinned” African American “with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,” as he later put it privately.

Now, let me me state two things very clearly: 1) the use of the term 'Negro' is cringe-worthy and offensive to many, and 2) had Reid said the EXACT same thing, but used the word 'Black' instead, most of us would have simply nodded in agreement and noted that America still has many racial issues and hang-ups to overcome.

But, now stay with me here (those of you who haven't floated off to watch Wheel of Fortune), Reid's statement was, at its essence, an indictment of the racism that exists in America. His statement is not racist. Let me say that again. Speaking about racism is not the same as being a racist. I can talk about baseball all day long; this does not make me a baseball player. See the difference?

Now go back and read the first sentence of this post. Go on .. I'll wait here.

There is nothing in Harry Reid's statement that is racist. He is not supporting racism, endorsing a candidate who supports racism, or saying anything racist.

Let's take a peek at Lott's statement. He states, with enthusiasm, that he supported racist policies and racist beliefs HIMSELF and voted as such. Not my words. His. (again, I don't care if you believe he and Thurmond later renounced these beliefs. It is not the issue.)

Needless to say, the fact that the Republicans and the right-wing pundits are trying to make a false equivalency between Reid and Lott in order to justify getting Reid to step down is ridiculous. In fact, the irony of their position is that it just further proves that we can't have honest dialogue about race in this country STILL. We can't even get people to acknowledge what racism is and what it isn't or whether racism exists or not. Sad, but true.

(and coincidentally, exactly what Reid was reflecting on in his now infamous statement)