posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (7:37 am)
Very well put...$$$$$ are in the eyes of so many...ynt, ynt, ynt, ynt, ynt!
xoxox
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (8:53 am)
PastorDave I have only respect for your words. Still, I disagree with a major aspect and that's the notion that anyone would not be held to account for Richards's language used against people of color in any context, much less that of a comedy act. The bit about monetary benefit is really irrelevant in this, don't you think?
Whether or not you and I agree on this point, the use of the "N" word threatens to incite visceral responses in African Americans akin to those feelings provoked by sightings of confederate flags, burning crosses, etc. In some, those feelings can lead to violence - and the violence would be a product of generations of violent injury and injustice that generally you and I most likely cannot even begin to imagine having descended from.
Once my heart was broken, while discussing racism with an elderly black religious friend who spoke to me of her hatred of white people immediately after watching the full series of "Roots" on television. I was only 19 years old at the time. I adored her, after attending a silent retreat with her for several days. She was in great pain; and struggling to recover from a reactivation of ancient wounds.
There's a quote from the New Yorker's Q&A "Sticks and Stones" piece (Issue of 2002-02-11) that says it nicely, or at least a little more pleasantly for me:
"The only way the word "nigger" will cease to exist as it does today is if "whiteness" and the privileges of whiteness cease to exist. One of those privileges, of course, is using "nigger" to define what one is not. When people stop talking and believing and behaving as if they're white, we can all be niggers—and Americans."
- Hilton Als, discussing Randall Kennedy's book, "Nigger: The Strange Career of a Troublesome Word"
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (9:19 am)
Reply to: akelso
I think it is an ugly word. It has no place on my lips, or the lips of any decent and kind human being. Yet, my point is that the demeaning and sick and insulting humour of Michael Richards and his ilk gives it a context. The foul mouths of Eddie Murphy, Chris Rock, and George Carlin and their brands of so-called humour allow it to be spoken. It's as if such avant-garde performances become a venue to say anything you would like, as long as it can be defended as "funny". Richards was in the middle of another such performance, when some hecklers caused him to continue with the same recklessness without the effort of humour. Personally I do not think humour should be used as an excuse/justification for meanness, unkindness, vulgarity, racism, etc. But it is, all of the time. In such context, I think Michael Richards just became too haughty.
My post is a statement of the cancerous nature of such so-called entertainment. I'm intimately acquainted with racism and racist words, and despise it as much as you.
Thanks for your thoughtful exchange. It's a lot better to discuss and try to clear matters, than to give it a quick listen/read and then walk away thinking you know what someone has expressed.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (9:30 am)
Reply to: akelso
Oh, and I think Richards should be held to account. But not sued. After his trash mouthed tirade, who is going to book him as an act? When he walks down the street, others will view him with disdain. It is time for him to do some deep searching of his own heart- surely he is a very troubled person right now.
I also think the entertainment culture which produced a brand of humour like his needs to be held accountable, and such entertainers need to do some soul-searching. Kramer is a heck of a lot funnier than Richards, don't you think?
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (10:16 am)
He definitely came unhinged! There's no excuse for his behavior and he should acknowledge that, fully and apologize. Then we along with the media need to let it go. I think by spotlighting this incident so much only adds fuel to the fire. Of course such a thing shouldn't go unnoticed or 'swept under the rug' but we have to let it go. Racism is an ugly thing and doesn't deserve anymore of the limelight than it already gets.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (11:17 am)
I can't really comment because I didn't see or hear about the incident. If Richards had to resort to racial slurs to deal with hecklers, he can't be much of a stand-up comic.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (11:33 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
I wonder if lawsuite really have any value whatsever where the undoing of injustices are involved. To date, sadly, lawsuits seem to be the venue for seeking redress for harms done, where the law fails to be upheld - or where laws have yet to be written that uphold human decency.
PastorDave, you are a hero in my book, where this matter of social/racial justice is concerned - because you devoted an entire post to this matter! There's no doubt that you have a passion for this work, otherwise you'd have run with all your might away from any exploration of the Richards disaster. (BTW, I do believe Michael Richards is a victim of racism, in that his privilege has made him believe he could get away with psychological assault upon perfect strangers in his audience. Well he can't come away from this behavior unscathed. He got caught playing with fire in the presence of a powder keg!)
As for the humor of Kramer - I confess I was never much of a Seinfeld fan. Further, I confess that my sense of humor is rather peculiar. I really prefer the likes of Steven Wright: "Shin: a device for finding furniture in the dark." Recently I saw Brett Leake on C-SPAN at some sort of political roast - He was brilliant.
When there's the sense of humor at another's expense (often in the presence of sarcasm, which is a modality I confess to being prone to when unable to be intelligent in a debate,) I get real uncomfortable.
Anyway, this has been an enlightened post, PastorD, and for that I'm grateful for your indulgence. Well done.
- Andrea
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (6:19 pm)
Reply to: FinalyFree
You're right, of course. Maybe Richards can somehow convince the public that he is, indeed, not a racist. And then he can surely sell ice water to eskimos.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (6:21 pm)
Reply to: bawdy
Are you familiar with Eddie Murphy? How about rap music? They have no hesitatin to use racial slurs as part of their entertainment. I'm thinking the entertainment industry, and the public, ought to be consistent in its condemnation of racial slurs.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (6:28 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I'm thinkin' you need some education about the analysis of power ...
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (6:38 pm)
Reply to: akelso
"...the analysis of power..."? Alright, o great one, educate me!
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (6:51 pm)
Read "Dismantling Racism: The Continuing Challenge to White America," by Joseph R. Barndt!!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (6:59 pm)
Reply to: akelso
Sorry. At this point in the discussion, I'm not interested in reading this book. I would be quite interested in a persuasive paragraph or two from someone like yourself.
Are you saysing that since white people have exercised power over blacks for centuries, they have no right to use racist epitaths. But, since blacks have but recently come to a semblance of equality, it is alright for them to use such language. It seems to me that ugly name-calling is inappropriate for all, and evidence of a lack of personal character. You can't demean another human being and then use your race as the excuse.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (7:03 pm)
Then I'm the sorrier, PastorD. I've met Rev. Barndt - and I'd think he'd be quite able to offer you the quotes you're seeking.
- Andrea
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (7:11 pm)
Reply to: akelso
What would these "quotes" do for me? I like a powerful quotation.
I think I've tried somewhat diligently to explain that I detest racism of any kind. I also see, clearly to me, a "sick" humour from guys like Richards that allows, even encourages, racism. His great guilt is to so readily be a part of such a culture. He needs to do more than apologize. He needs to change his way of performing humour.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (7:25 pm)
Sorry, the word "quotes" was off-target on my part. I should have said (from your own message) "a persuasive paragraph or two from someone like" myself - I'd regard Joseph Barndt, as fully someone like-and-more-than myself. He's an expert on dismantling antiracism. What more can be desired?
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.22.06 (7:26 pm)
... sorry, dismantling *racism*, I mean.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.23.06 (3:33 am)
Reply to: breakouttheglass
I think he has admitted as much in his apologies, in print and on Letterman. Still I think his way of performing humour brought about this particular event. The characteristic banter, give-and-take, insults, pushing the limits, shock, provocation, etc. It is a sick humour, ever just a fine line from what we have seen to happen with Richards.
I'm not defending the guy. What he has said and done in ugly. I'm just offering a personal understanding of how it happened.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.23.06 (3:35 am)
Reply to: mimi
"...ynt, ynt, ynt, ynt, ynt!" - now, I'm thinking that is Curly giving his characteristic laugh. Am I right? Or, perhaps, it belongs to you. Surrogate has told me you remind him of Curly in many ways.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
11.23.06 (4:42 am)
one more tidbit in this racism "n" word discussion...i am a mimi "of very little brain", so please bear with me (no pun intended)...for reasons i will not go into, i will just admit that i have had personal experience in "hanging out" with various and sundry folks...i found it unsettling, to say the least, to hear them use the "n" word amongst themselves...like "dawg", they call each other "n"...now, i don't know about you, but to me that is like calling me "slut" or "bitch" or "the ole lady" in the "fondest sense of the word" not gonna happen...so, until people learn to think and act respectful to one another and to themselves, things like this will continue to happen and we will still be having these discussions. There is no reason to find this behaviour acceptable under any circumstances and until we find a way to instill respect into ourselves and our families and then on and on, it is going to continue and going to get worse...and...in defense of the "comic", what did those people say to him to get this going in the first place?
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.23.06 (8:31 am)
What concerns me, is that as white americans, it's far too easy to become distracted by what by any other name might be regarded as an internalization of racism by african americans (ie insider use of the "n" word.) It seems at best inappropriate for me as a "white" person to offer any analysis of the cultural behavior of black people, that will all too often stimulate a wave of "why should I better understand racism in *my* culture? look at *them* they're even more racist than me!"
With respect, and to really get the gist of what I referred to as an analysis of power in this problem of racism (note, we can think of it as Racism-big-R versus racism-little-r.) Racism-big-R is what allowed the ninth ward in New Orleans to become a diaspora of african americans ... it is institutionalized, and way larger than any of us as individuals. And *only individuals* can turn it around by organizing to educate ourselves and other white folk, then to DISMANTLE Racism systematically, without being distracted by black people using the "n" word.
PastorDave, I have no debate with you over your stand as an antiracist. Still, I would ask you to please have a look at Joseph Barndt's book. Your work on behalf of eradicating this thing I know you detest with every fiber of your being, might condense even further into results you can celebrate. An antiracism movement in the United States can transform us back into an entity far closer to that conceptualized by our Constitution - more, it is a theological imperative (Christ would have it absolutely no other way.)
Please let's leave off with critiques of contemporary black culture. If we clear the way, they'll more than find their way to wholeness, which path promises increasing rage and aggression, absent that all our cultures become transformed - particularly our dominant [white] culture.
posted by:
christine@swanktrendz (
reply)
post date:
11.24.06 (3:27 am)
Just curious - what would have been the fall out of this incident prior to youtube, camera phones, video cams etc.? How would this have been reported, and subsequently dealt with prior to the tech age? As well, why aren't more people being outed when they go on a racial rant - surely Richards isn't the only, or most camera available one?
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
11.25.06 (5:41 am)
I hate it when people I like do stuff that makes me sick.
posted by:
fractalmom (
reply)
post date:
11.25.06 (2:53 pm)
I am remembering an author, Robert Heinlein. He describes the fall of civilization quite succiently as "the day public restrooms stopped being clean". I think also that it stems from lack of respect for yourself, and for others.
imho
dawn
posted by:
lorischuster (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (12:03 pm)
Reply to: akelso
Andrea—I have been sitting here trying to figure out why you continually elicit such an angry response in me when I am an otherwise non-confrontational person. It’s not that you are liberal—because I generally get along with most liberals. I have decided that it’s because you continually don your magical thinking cap with no basis in rational thought—allowing yourself to take a stance which implies moral superiority but does not justify it.
Please do not speak for me, apologize for me, or lecture me as a “white” American. Michael Richards does not represent my thinking or the thinking of anyone I know any more than Jesse Jackson speaks for every black American. Idiots and racists come in every color. I am no more a racist based on my white skin than someone is a victim based on their black skin. We are individuals and you do everyone a disservice by assuming that one is good or bad, blessed or cursed, simply by virtue of their skin color.
How long are you going to use slavery for an excuse for black/white tensions? Every country in the world has ethnic groups in conflict. Is it right? No. Are you going to stop it? Never. There are all sorts of injustices for people to overcome Andrea. To assume that one cannot because of the color of their skin is insulting.
Reading a book is not going to stop racism. Until you abolish evil…until you abolish hateful people (black or white) from procreating and passing along their small-minded beliefs there will always be bigots. Change can only come from within Andrea and there is no amount of liberal white guilt that is going to make that happen if people don’t want it to.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (12:32 pm)
Reply to: lorischuster
I bet some of your best friends are liberals! 8^)
"Reading a book is not going to stop racism. Until you abolish evil…until you abolish hateful people (black or white) from procreating and passing along their small-minded beliefs there will always be bigots."
These are some breathtaking ideas ... actually, the stuff of nightmares, I believe. (S'pose parts of even one Book have already been used to justify some of the deadliest notions driving evils both past and present?)
Lorischuster, I'm not sure why I'm responding at this point; when feelings run this high, you're right, it's hard to imagine good resulting from them.
- ak
posted by:
lorischuster (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (1:23 pm)
Reply to: akelso
Obviously Andrea I don't believe in sterilizing people if that was your insinuation...my point (as you clearly understood) is that evil is going to continue to exist and no amount of idealism is going to fix it.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (2:06 pm)
Reply to: lorischuster
Glad to hear it, but truly Lorischuster when you say about the genesis of your anger with me, "I have decided that it’s because you continually don your magical thinking cap with no basis in rational thought—allowing yourself to take a stance which implies moral superiority but does not justify it," I'd do well to watch for scary things that go bump in the night.
Why exactly, is it that my idealism should provoke such anger in you (presumably a decent and nonviolent person?) Really, is it merely that you find me irrational??
And where superiority is concerned, I'd hardly levy a value against morality. If moral superiority means the seeking after truth and reconciliation where to date there has been none (yes, I'm stuck on racial justice here, it's my religious practice, sorry,) then I suppose I'll have to live with that charge. But that phrase levied as an epithet tends to sound like nonsense - otherwise just plain mean.
- ak
posted by:
lorischuster (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (2:54 pm)
Reply to: akelso
I apologize for sounding (being) mean--I did not choose my words carefully. Angry was also the wrong word...as it was frustration...yes, I guess it's at your idealism. I do believe that you are sincere and I also believe that you have a good and kind heart. I was not in any way questioning your morals. I guess what I was saying with regard to moral superiority is that talk is cheap. To say you are against racism is easy...but it doesn't facilitate real change. I do apologize for my choice of words.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (4:26 pm)
You my friend, have just reacqauainted me with my humility - now what am I supposed to say? The passion between us suggests we're on the same side of justice and right relationship.
Your apology requires in kind from me, so please know I would never presume to think you (or anyone in the wings of our dialogue) has anything less than goodness in mind toward others. Please forgive my tendency to provoke embarrassment or shame in others with my style of expressing indignations. To the contrary, I only wish we could air the whole truth on behalf of African Americans and on behalf of Native Americans (not to mention Asian Americans as well as Latin Americans, etc) - to start there, and then to speak articulately (out loud) about ways to behave differently toward one another is the only genuine avenue toward reconciliation I know of. Deep, deep work - not necessarily $COSTLY$ measures.
Lori, if talk is cheap, I assure you I've invested much in terms of study, money, travel and intensely devoted time with people of color and white antiracists delving ever more deeply into a deeper understanding of this subject matter. Having no children, this topic is as dear to my soul as anything to which I speak ... If I sound irrational or overly idealistic, I hope you'll grant the compassion to imagine in me a Quixotic figure. Just pray for me, while I tilt at windmills! Honestly, I mean only goodwill. On the other hand, I'll try to receive with more grace any feedback suggesting my misbehavior when I express myself.
In grateful solidarity with one looking to be a fierce sister,
Andrea
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (4:32 pm)
Reply to: lorischuster
Sorry Lori, I forgot to click on the "reply" button with my response - I'll send it in tmail. - ak
posted by:
kurtmaddox (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (6:55 pm)
Believe it or not, I really don't have a strong opinion about these celebrity meltdowns. Mel Gibson and Richards likely got what they deserved when they outed themselves as very troubled and disturbed human beings on the inside despite their fame and relative fortunes.
Richards probably doesn't have all that much money in comparison to other stars with similar notariety, so this will likely hurt his future quite a bit, as it should.
I do find it interesting that this episodes with the so-called "N-word" demonstrates the part of the trouble with notions of political correctness and the double standard that has developed for the "N-Word". The word is offensive and should not be in the vocabularly of any self-respecting or person of any race, including blacks. (I've also never understood the whole "African-American" thing either since many black people do not have any African heritage and there are certainly lots of blacks in America that aren't "Americans".)
Fortunately, even though I grew up in rural Kentucky, my parents were not racist at all, particularly my mother, Charlene, who just happens to be named after my grandmother's best friend who happend to be black. One of my first memories was from around when I was 4 years old and we lived in a section of town that was mostly black families. My mom says that almost all my friends were black and that we would all play for hours and hours out in the neighborhood and that I was treated as one their own by my friends parents and families.
Racism is a very sad and pathetic vestige of America's history with race, which, in my opinion is very similar to our current histrionics with homosexuals. Unfortunately, official Christiandom has played a large role in the legitamizing of these insidious attitudes about race and sexual orientation. I can vividly recall hearing local ministers condemn mixed race marriages with a vective that should only be reserved for the most heinous sins.
In my opinion, the genetic evidence is overwhelming that most homosexual persons (but not all) are genetically wired for attraction to the same sex. So, just as official Christiandom has done with Galileo's scientific discoveries which made it plain for everyone to see that the Bible is NOT infallible, with the sanction of slavery and the denial of equal rights to blacks, and with the denial of the science of evolution -- most Christian leaders today have the same blood of prejudice and judgementalism on their hands with the denial of the obvious rights of homosexuals in a free society.
I'd be much more interested to know your take on why a person in a free society should be denied the same rights in our society that heterosexuals enjoy than to know your thoughts about racism, which the church has finally come around to getting on the right side of the battle for the most part.
Good to be able to spend a few minutes with you here again, PD! Happy Holidays!
posted by:
unmutual (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (7:40 pm)
reply to: akelso
I like your thoughts on the subject of racism. Truth be known, every country on this planet could use a Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Actions do speak louder than words; from Archbishop Desmond Tutu to PastorDave being afraid to take a suggestion from a woman.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (8:22 pm)
Reply to: unmutual
Now, I was tired and sleepy, and about to go to bed. Then I read your ill-informed comment, and it served as caffeine to spur me to reply.
You think I am not interested in reading this book, suggested by akelso, because it is suggested by a woman? I'd be interested to know where you gain this enlightenment. Do you know me to be sexist...Have my previous writings revealed such a tendency? I think you have jumped to a critical matter of judgment based upon nothing; or, if I could use the same unfair judgmentalism, maybe you have some unresolved issues that cause you to color your opinion of others?
A Truth and Reconciliation Commission? I guess this means, if you had your way, individuals would be required to run their personal opinions and views through some kind of official commission before they would be allowed the privilege of thought. That's government at its worst, of course. Do you have a problem with others disagreeing with you? I think the healthy way to encounter and overcome those with ugly beliefs and attitudes is to destroy them in the arena of debate. I'll put my religion in that arena. Same with my politics. I think the sad racism of one like Michael Richards can best be destroyed in this same arena. Keep the government and the law out of the way. Logic, decency, and all that is good and right can more than overcome his ilk.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (8:27 pm)
Reply to: mimi
These people behaved rudely and inappropriately at the concert, but certainly they still did not deserve to be subjected to such language. Most probably Richards fostered such an atmosphere of disrespect by the crass things he was saying in his act. I guess these people were mirror images of Richards at his ugliest. I'm not a psychologist, but perhaps he reacted so viciously because of their semblance of himself? Ha- there's some two-bit psychology!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (8:40 pm)
Reply to: akelso
You are quite right- an important part of my role as minister is to teach and promote love for others. I recognize and deeply detest racism in my own religious denomination. Here we are, 2006, and the subject is hardly addressed in my religious circles. Now, here in metro-Atlanta and particularly Gwinnett County, we have around 130 SBC churches, and over half of them are of ethnic persuasion. And I would say all of our churches are integrated. But, if you travel 50 miles beyond the metro area, most of our churches would still be lilly-white and unwelcoming of blacks. I find it incredulous that a person would pray to God, be faithful in the work of the church, and not have an ounce of concern for the soul of a neighbor simply because he/she is of a different race. I take the message I John 5 quite seriously- "How can you say you love God, whom you have not seen, if you hate your neighbor whom you have seen?"
Here's where you and I differ. The answer to this problem is not education. Racists are often well educated and respectable members of society. And the answer is not religion- the deep South is probably the most religious part of America, and also the most racially divided. The answer, I think, is for the heart of a man/woman to be fundamentally changed.
I was raised in the deep South, and my culture taught me to be prejudice. At the age of 16 I had what is referred to by others as a "born again" experience. One of the very first issues that I felt compelled to confront and change was what I clearly understood to be an ungodly attitude toward blacks. A transformation took place. I'm not perfect in this or most any other area of my life. A persistent and insistent person can most likely mine deep enough into my heart to find some prejudice yet. But for sure I see the clear evil of such, and fight it with my ministry almost everyday.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (8:43 pm)
Reply to: fractalmom
And, if the performance of Richards is classified in our current society as big-time entertainment, then we have a clear evidence of a society in deep decline.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.26.06 (8:56 pm)
Reply to: kurtmaddox
I sure hope you are right, and suspect you are, that the current racism in our society is but a vestige from past history. Then, in a few decades, maybe it will be gone. Alas, I believe in the innate sinfulness of humanity. Let to our own, we are devolving- not evolving. So, I'm afraid, there will always exist the tendency to come up with all kinds of reasons to hate others, including the color of skin.
I do not equate homosexual behaviour with skin color. One does not choose to be black. One does choose to have sex with the same gender. It's a behavior acted upon; it's a choice.
I say if gays want to marry with a civil ceremony, or with the blessings of a particular religious group, then they should be afforded that right. I'm opposed to gay marriage from personal religious conviction, and will choose to affiliate with a church group accordingly. But I'll not force my religion upon greater society. The issue of homosexuality- right or wrong, good or bad- is best discussed in the open arena of ideas, and not to be determined by the heavy hand of the law. I do not support the legislation of morality. I do want to change the hearts of men.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (3:36 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
"You are quite right- an important part of my role as minister is to teach and promote love for others. ... Here's where you and I differ. The answer to this problem is not education."
Then by all means, PastorDave, you should "teach and promote love" (you're the minister!) Since I'm an educator, I guess I'm kinda stuck with what I do ... I s'pose I can promote love in my own way, but it does tend to annoy others sometimes. I'll bet that's what you're doing with your little sign beneath this comment box, eh?? I get it! ;^D - ak
posted by:
unmutual (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (5:39 am)
The South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) was set up by the Government of National Unity to help deal with what happened under apartheid. The conflict during this period resulted in violence and human rights abuses from all sides. No section of society escaped these abuses.
Yep, that really sounds like Government "at it's worst" as you say.
BCNU
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (6:23 am)
You say every country on this earth could use a TRC. I'm assuming you mean the US as well. If we had this organization to investigate matters of racial inequality, would Michael Richards have to stand before them and give an account of his behavior? Would they be able to use the law to exact justice upon this man? This is an issue of free speech. Michael Richards opened his mouth and trash came out, but it is still protected trash. I've made my case in other comments that he can best be disarmed and even destroyed through the wise use of the same freedom of speech- not by interference of the law or the government.
I do not seee the government as the answer to this problem, or really for most problems.
posted by:
emptypseudonym (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (6:54 am)
"Do you know me to be sexist...Have my previous writings revealed such a tendency?"
Cutter. Cock of Christ. Ring any bells? You have, in fact, displayed a tendancy toward sexist behavior and you pick and choose to whom and when you wish to be magnanimous and forgiving. When personal attacks set you off this easily and, dare I say, this passionately, I'd say you've got a lot of 'self' going on there, good pastor.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (7:21 am)
Reply to: emptypseudonym
For my fellow readers, a short explanation (from my point of view, of course) of what our visitor refers: This guy wrote what I understood to be a highly angry, unfair, and blasphemous piece about my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, whom I love and toward whom I have dedicated my life. He is god to me, and while others may not agree, they should show at least a modicum of respect toward those of us who do. Nonetheless, I gave what I think was a rather modest reply, and challenge. I was thinking such is a great part about blogging- people of differing persuasions and passions can be somewhat civil and discuss things. Well, on this particlar man's blogs, at this particular time, civility and dialog was impossible. Namecalling ensued. Lots of it, and if you will check, it was all from the other side. Several folk of similar mindset, uninterested in decent conversation, started spewing all kinds of invectives toward me. I sought to counter them for awhile, but soon realized you cannot debate with someone who will not fight fair, and especially when several of the same kind get together and play bully. So I backed off.
Now, in the course of spewed invectives, some person in the group accused me of sexism. They twisted something I had to say, and decided to conveniently judge my entire character on their miniscule reading and infantile comprehension.
Again, I challenge you to prove me a sexist. I'm not. As a part of a rather conservative denomination, I buck the trend and support women in ministry and all phases of church leadership. Regularly I vote for women, and when all things are considered, I'll often choose the woman simply because I believe we need more women as representatives. I have surrounded myself with strong women. My wife chooses not to fit the traditional role of a minister's wife, and I support her in this matter. My two daughters are very independent, as evidenced by lifestyle choices that I do not necessarily like, but we still have close relationships. I have close friends who are women, and my church is filled with strong-minded women in leadership roles.
So, I am not a sexist, and you are right if you sense a bit of irritation at the insinuation.
I pick and choose whom and when to be magnanimous and forgiving? So, it seems, you have a problem with someone being passionate and challenging with conversation/debate? You obviously misinterpret, perhaps deliberately, my intent with our fellow blogger. Unlike some, as I disagree and challenge, I'm not trying to pick a fight. Instead, I'm wanting to converse. You should try it sometime.
Personal attacks set me off easily? Why must there be personal attacks? I don't attack persons. Now, I may challenge ideas, and statement, and do so agressively at times. But never the person.
A personal attack is the strategy of someone with a weak argument and most likely a low self-image. Now, would you like to continue your personal attack?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (7:26 am)
Reply to: unmutual
You say every country on this earth could use a TRC. I'm assuming you mean the US as well. If we had this organization to investigate matters of racial inequality, would Michael Richards have to stand before them and give an account of his behavior? Would they be able to use the law to exact justice upon this man? This is an issue of free speech. Michael Richards opened his mouth and trash came out, but it is still protected trash. I've made my case in other comments that he can best be disarmed and even destroyed through the wise use of the same freedom of speech- not by interference of the law or the government.
I do not seee the government as the answer to this problem, or really for most problems.
posted by:
unmutual (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (7:55 am)
The TRC has nothing to do with your love affair with some actor. A USA TRC would deal with the injustices against Native Americans before tackling anything else. Same for Canada and Mexico.
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (1:47 pm)
Reply to: unmutual
Thanks unmutual - think I'll send tmail or something. Don't want this pastor feeling ganged up on at his own blog. Bottom line with racism's the institutionalization of it is killing people. When it's an individual problem, it's bad enough, but hardly worth our attention in and of itself.
And sexism, along with all other -isms, fall into the same category in this country (the unshakability of skin-privilege though, is as PastorD suggests, possibly the most difficult to pass as member of the dominant society without ...) Sorry if that sentence is horribly convoluted - I can be a real garbler, especially after gobble-days! ;^) - ak
posted by:
akelso (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (1:51 pm)
Reply to: emptypseudonym
"Cutter. Cock of Christ. Ring any bells?"
Goodness, gracious - I'm blushing now! (... and confused.)
PastorD please stop annoying Liberals already! - ak
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (2:16 pm)
Reply to: akelso
I have no problem with someone who is "liberal". A smart person of such persuasion makes for an enriching relationship. I'm afraid some of these so-called "liberals" give the word a bad name. I've been taught to understand that "liberal" equates with open-minded and tolerant. I see it with yourself, and many of my fellow t-bloggers like kurtmaddox and surrogate and several others.
How you interact with someone who disagrees says a lot about your character, or lack thereof. You can enter into healthy and civil discussion, and even if you never come to agree, most likely you have learned something and even made a friend. Or you can feel threatened and inadequate, and thus resort to name calling and bully tactics. I'm sure conservatives do it, though I haven't witnessed such on t-blog. That's what some of these so-called liberals attempt to do. No effort at decency. Just a haughty and ill-founded contempt for anyone who would dare to disagree with them, and then mockery. I'm glad that, along the way of learning and growing through life-experience, I've learned the lesson to treat others (even others with which I strongly disagree) with respect.
I think what some of these guys do is wander around t-blog, taking potshots at whomever. They tend to congregate. I'm not sure why they are so angry, and think they can talk to people in such a way. Maybe they feel so powerless in their sad personal lives, and try to exert power vicariously through a blog? These little people are angering at first, and then even more amusing. When it is all said and done, though, I just feel sorry for them.
posted by:
kurtmaddox (
reply)
post date:
11.27.06 (7:45 pm)
Reply to: PastorDave
I understand your approach and appreciate it in the context of your theology. Still, I think you would agree that your approach, however thoughtful and attempting to accomodate the humanity of all persons, wouldn't really be seen as anything but theologically induced prejudice by anyone who believes, as I do, that homosexual Americans deserve the exact same rights and priveledges as heterosexual Americans and that really anything less is unacceptable in a free society. However, as a practical matter, I believe the so-called "civil union" solution whereby homosexual marriage contracts are viewed by the eyes of the law as the same as a traditional legal marriage is an acceptable political solution in the interim.
I read the comment that suggested you could be sexists and I have to say that on a personal level you are never anything but open and equally sympathetic to all people. Still, what you sometimes miss is that when a really caring person like yourself supports the theological positions of a denomination such as the Southern Baptist Convention, then it is intellectually fair for you to be asked to defend the positions of the beliefs for which you've pledged your support and usually your generally agreement with their theological positions.
The Bible is, without any doubt, a "sexist" document, including the New Testament and particularly the instructions of the Apostle Paul the various early Christian churches. Is not someone who holds to beliefs which are inherrently "sexist" also inherently a "sexists" themselves?
Oh, and for the record, I'm not a "liberal" ;-)
Be good!
posted by:
inkspector (
reply)
post date:
11.28.06 (3:55 pm)
Michael Richards should have had better control over his situation and performance. He should not have said what he did. It is unfortunate.
Reports and opinions by his peers have him washed up and done in the business.
I saw the "Hecklers" on the Today Show. They seemed to think they were victims when they instigated the whole situation and now maybe, they think they deserve monetary damages from him?
They said that they got tickets to go see the show because they were big fans. So why the heckling? Was that not disrespectful? Were they not showing disrespect to other audience members who came to enjoy the show?
They said they left the performance before the other verbal language came out. So why sue?
Where was the club management or bouncers? The management should have removed the hecklers and let the performance go on without the national scandal they created with their bad disrespectful behavior.
