Sunday, July 20, 2008

A Word on the Flaming Sword Hasselbeck/Goldberg Thread; or, an Elaborate Reply to M

First, the issue for Harrogate is not so much that people came down on Hasselbeck per se. Second, Hasselbeck breaking into tears has nothing to do with Harrogate's argument, either. For that matter, it isn't even what made her, for Harrogate, seem more human than Goldberg.

The issue for Harrogate is this: What made Hasselbeck seem more human, as Oxymoron eloquently put it, is that she acknowledges a lack of understanding on what is, contrary to some recently expressed opinions, a very complex issue. Goldberg, on the other hand, drops all the glib talking points about "APPROPRIATION," as if that settles the matter. Maybe in a Graduate Theory Course that would settle it. But that's about it.

Indeed, m, Harrogate vehemently disagrees with your suggestion that there is ever a point in the clip previously shown, where Whoopi Goldberg and Elizabeth Hasselbeck occupy the same footing, attempting to "make themselves heard." Though Hasselbeck talks more, she shows a desire to listen throughout: Goldberg on the other hand through the whole clip is as static as a medical flatline, offering only the monolithic view which she frames as beyond dispute, and cetainly beyond dispute of anyone who is, gasp! White.

How dare a white person weigh in on this issue in a way that is not fawning?--Is this question the product of an understandable impulse? Of course it is. But how it is in any way good for debate, how it advances understanding, eludes reason. And of course that wretched tool, that enabler par excellance, Barbara Walters, is practically fanning her and feeding her grapes while she pontificates.


Supadiscomama pointed out recently that in the movie O, the modern day Othello figure tells his white girlfriend something to the effect of, "I can say Nigger. You can't. You can't even think that word." Again, understandable?--of course. But then, so too are many things understandable that we don't ultimately embrace. Shall we sympathize with O's effusion unproblematically? Does anything outside of absolute identity politics doctrine allow such a weird assertion to pass, uncriticized?


The problem is, again, Hasselbeck and Goldberg were arguing about something that is very complicated. Neither party is Obviously right. Yet on the recent thread we had the suggestion, by two different commenters, that the problem at hand was Hasselbeck's lack of education. The self-righteousness and smugness of which assertion, and most importantly the wrongness of which assertion to anyone not invested in a particular academic doctrine, is not to be missed.

So these things needed to be pointed out, and point them out Harrogate, in his own clumsy way, tried to do. It may well be that, as one commenter said, that the poster child for corporate greed and pampered vacuousness, Elizabeth Hasselbeck, needs to "get a clue." But then, by the same token, it is also the case that Goldberg's modes of argumentation are embarrassing to those of us identifying as three-dimensional liberal humanists, from sea to shining sea.

As for the assertion of departure by Anastasia, whose comments have of course been valued, and whose return we hopefully await. Harrogate, in short, hopes thicker skin prevails.

Finally, since it is so clear to so many on this Blog, Harrogate then could use some "splainin" by some of them, why exactly it is so obvious that there is no social harm done in the Idea of African Americans, among one another, keeping the word "nigger" alive and well.

7 comments:

solon said...

In some ironic fashion, the depth at which I fully cannot understand, a heated controversy broke out and I didn't (1) initiate it through my own reckless discourse or (2) antagonize others to continue it. Yet, since sleep and I do not mix and I am working in this area right now, here are a few thoughts, especially toward you comment at the end on why the term is in use.

I listened to this inane conversation three times to focus on the comments of W.G. and E.H. There seems to be two related issues involved: one, is the use of a word bad? and, two, what is the best means to achieve reconciliation?

On the first point over interpretation, even Curious George knows that signs need some form of context (that was the lesson at 6:10am this morning as Curious George removed the signs from the park and hilarity ensued.) E.H. doesn't understand this point and draws upon the argument that words are bad so they must be banned. The “teaching our children” comment overlooks the power relationships and the real world is never as innocent as our childhood.

The second point concerns the proper method for reconciliation. Here W.H. does not engage in identity politics or, if she does, it is not for identity politics' sake. Her argument is that she does not want to lose political ground in a “Color-Blind” Society.

During this conversation, E.H. exemplifies her idealism and adopts Chief Justice Robert's line, " The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race." This contrasts nicely with the realism of W.G. For example, in the discussion of whether or not people of different races and ethnicities live in different social realities, I think that we would like to believe E.H. but we know her opinion is not empirically correct. Maybe our society is not as dire as W.G. suggests but it certainly is not as wonderful as E.H. believes. Just ask Harold Ford about the “Call Me” ad used against him in his 2004 Senate Race.

W.G. opens up to argue that she does not want other races/ ethnicities to speak for her because when they did the results sucked. To lose this political identity, the ability to control terms, the ability to control a voice, and the ability to speak for oneself opens the door for other political and civic losses. Here, the N-word represents a larger political identity and the idea of empowerment—to take control of one’s life. I would not place all my chips on the N-Word as I spun the wheel but this is what W.G. chooses as this is the topic of conversation. Fine. As consumers, we must accept this, turn the channel, or find another website to visit.

Returning to W.G.’s argument: The introduction of a Color-Blind society threatens the ability of empowerment as it allows another group to take control over you and tell you what is good, appropriate, just, beautiful…. I think W.G. believes that if she gives in on this one word now, in some time, it will be another word later… then another… then another… then another, resulting in self-determination. For W.G. the harm exists in the world separate from and prior to the word; reclaiming the word may not bring reconciliation now (though I doubt she believes reconciliation is possible in the present) but it builds political ground for reconciliation in the future. Reconciliation cannot exist on uneven ground.

Conversely, E.H. just wants this bad word to go away and when it does the world will be a better place. Fine. She states, “How can we move forward if we use terms that bring back that pain.” Here, E.H. believes if we eliminate the word and the differences, then there will be no pain, allowing for reconciliation in the present. This, of course, deflects attention away from material interests and attitudes concerning race and the scores of people who don’t want reconciliation or wouldn’t mind it as long as it happened somewhere else.

A Better example of this than the N-Word is the Voting Rights Act: Should Congress or the Supreme Court eliminate the Voting Rights Act? While it has extended the ability of racial minorities to participate in civil life, it classifies (and as Chief Justice Roberts would state) discriminates, and separates on the basis of race? Perpetuating some racial distinctions may be beneficial in this case, especially when politicians make racial appeals to diminish the voice of communities and hurt the abilities of candidates to gain office. Again, see Harold Ford JR. and the “Call Me” ad from 2004.

harrogate said...

Solon,

Although it will not surprise you that Harrogate dissents from your relatively benign assessment of WG, as well as your apparent (through omission) indifference to EH's acknowledgment that she does not fully understand the topic at hand--yea, despite these important quibbles, for Harrogate your take on the stakes of the debate (which you rightfully designate inane) is well-said.

Indeed, as is so often the case with language, WG's effort to uphold the value of a certain discourse is, however pitifully articulated, representative of a perfectly understandable desire for empowerment.

What is most fascinating about your comment, and about this topic in general, is the suggestion of a Color-Blind society as threatening, even menacing in its implications for minority groups.
How very different this concept, from MLK's raucous speechifying as it is popularly understood (at least by white people).

So long as we could reach some level of agreement that when whites express a desire for colorblindness, they are not Obviously forwarding a mendacious agenda, then common ground with Harrogate on this issue is more than available.

BTW: the Sausseurian analysis of that classic Curious George episode is much appreciated.

solon said...

Harrogate,

I am not sure if commenting on the experience or knowledge of W.G. or E.H. matters since I do not take them to be representatives of a political group nor know enough about their life experiences, through formal and informal education, to reach any meaningful conclusion that would not exacerbate problems further. We can only rely on the text we have in front of us and use it to discuss the wider implications.

Yet, if I were to make an assessment of the two, I would say that they both act as is no one else can be correct, which is fine so long as they each can get the others to accept their viewpoint and, in this case, neither does. As we disagree, they disagree. This too shall pass.

As for E.H. she can wish all she would like for like for a better world and scold us by telling us we really ought to approach every situation by thinking how I should teach my child, which is all well and fine but I know damn well that others will not take this approach. E.H. does not want to raise the wise, precocious young lad such as a Huck Finn who sees through the deceptions of society but rather the starry-young child that loses all his/her money on the streets of Urbanville in a game of three-card monte. “If I lay another twenty I know I will get the correct card….”

By doing this, I think she is naïve. I think she does not understand the political aspects of race-relations very well, regardless of whether or not it is complicated, but neither does Chief Justice John Roberts. This may have something to do with experiences, education, intellectual disposition, where one was raised, or the fact that I disagree with them, etc., but since we cannot know all of that from this clip, I would argue E.H. carries a philosophical idealism into politics when clearly, philosophical realism, would have been much better. Not that I believe that the real is “real” as we are always trying to persuade one another of how the world works and how the world ought to be, but with her naïve view of interpretation, she does not help her case at all. Though, to be honest, I don’t think she sits around and ponders these questions every day--- why would she?

Even though she is naïve, she is not evil. She is no Jesse Helms who desired a Color-Blind society to ensure racial minorities never progressed. For some who desire a Color-Blind society, and Jesse Helms would have been one of these, Affirmative action programs or majority-minority districts that empower racial minorities in the face of severe political and societal disadvantage which drains resources available for “those who deserve it,” and waste resources on “those who do not.”

As for Martin Luther King’s comments, “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character,” we have quite the dilemma, which occurs through the “One Day,” which suggests the far-off future and “children” which suggests the present or “near-off” future. Here King is an idealist but he must know, unfortunately, that what he desires will occur over multiple generations. It has been one generation since Congress passes the Voting Rights Act legislation, which has helped tremendously. However, the Supreme Court still strikes down legislation that prevents racial minorities from electing candidates of choice as state legislatures diminish their right to a meaningful ballot.

As I said before, I would not place my bet on the N-Word to make my case. Rather than debate the merits of the word “nigger” through The View, I would rather start a discussion group over Randall Kenendy’s book, Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word. Yet, no matter how inane, I think that W.G. ‘s comments provide a starting point on how, in certain circumstances, words wound to the extent the person allows them to wound and, further, a person can use a troublesome word to provide a corrective reading, leading to empowerment. But I digress so as not to walk down that path again…

M said...

"E.H. does not want to raise the wise, precocious young lad such as a Huck Finn who sees through the deceptions of society but rather the starry-young child that loses all his/her money on the streets of Urbanville in a game of three-card monte. “If I lay another twenty I know I will get the correct card….”

I have to tell you, Solon, I love this characterization of Huck Finn. So few people recognize that he is not an idealist, something we tend to expect children to be. What I love about Huck is the fact that he so clearly struggles with his own racism. He loves Jim, but he also can't divorce himself from the common mid-19th century (and if we're being truthful with ourselves, 21st century) belief that black Americans are inferior to white Americans. He doesn't achieve what E.H. seems to want her children to achieve, which is almost akin to willful ignorance of an issue simply because it is painful and difficult to explain and even more difficult to understand. But Huck does learn something about humanity and individuality.

solon said...

From what I remember of Huck (and it has been a few years), Twain writes Huck so the character sees the deception and sees through the deception but, as you point out, struggles with how to reconcile it and draw conclusions about it. Huck can recognize the problems within society but he possess limited resources to to work through them and constantly moves.

For Twain he presents his readers with an interesting existential dilemma: can you recognize the problems in your own life and in your own society? Twain seems to write on a much smaller scale, which presents his own problems, in that he desires awareness about the self and awareness about society as a precondition for action.

Throughout this clip, I think E.H. fails in this regard. There may be many reasons why the comments by W.G. seem just as bad but she recognizes the problems rather than suggesting it is best to overlook them.

M said...

I think you're right on all accounts, Solon. Huck ultimately helps Jim escape b/c he grows to love Jim and to recognize him as an individual. He still, however, grapples with the legality of the issue. He displays an awareness that most of us don't have when he recognizes the hypocrisy of slavery and people who profess to be Christians while owning slaves.

I think this is the most important thing to take from this exchange: ignoring problems doesn't make them go away. We can tell our children not to use words that are hurtful, but we have to teach them the history of such words and help them understand why they are hurtful. Ignorance is never bliss, and that seems to be what E.H. is advocating.

harrogate said...

To follow these points about Huck, Harrogate would add that his statement "I guess I'll go to hell" (not a verbatim quote) for acting on Jim's behalf represents a level of moral bravery to which few works of literature and even fewer real people have ever aspired.