Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Switchboard >

Kanye West: 'George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People'

Page: 1 2(3)

20:45 / 07.09.05

almost all of them that we see, are so poor and they are so black, and this is going to raise lots of questions for people who are watching this story
unfold."

Absolutely it's a slip of the tongue. Look more closely at the quote above. What he seems to be trying to say is, when you look at the crowd, it is made up overwhelmingly of poor people and overwhelmingly of black people, and that's going to have political implications. But he misspoke. Surely you don't think he meant their skin was exceptionally dark?

ONLY NICE THINGS

07:00 / 08.09.05

Well, let's turn it round. Finderwolf, presumably you believe that Wolf Blitzer was expressing his true, racist feelings by mistake when he said that. But what are they? What did this gaffe mean, if it is to be taken literally?

12:58 / 08.09.05

Um, that he's a bit racist deep down? Who knows what lurks within Wolf Blitzer's heart. I suppose it was a gaffe, my thought originally of how it might have been a misspeak is that the situation was so dark and grim, ie. a black/dark situation (it's pushing it, I know, was just trying to think of other trains of thought that might have led to the statement)... I'm a bit surprised that Blitzer isn't being criticized more for this, even if it is just a gaffe, I know he's not a politician, but politicians and other public figures have been raked over the coals and had to publicly apologize for such comments.

13:13 / 08.09.05

that doesnt seem to be answering the question, mr wolf.
what do you think the phrase "so black" means? what are the denotations and connotations?

odd jest on horn

13:15 / 08.09.05

I thought he meant "so predominantly Afro-American".

ONLY NICE THINGS

13:16 / 08.09.05

Finderwolf, presumably you believe that Wolf Blitzer was expressing his true, racist feelings by mistake when he said that. But what are they? What did this gaffe mean, if it is to be taken literally?

13:53 / 08.09.05

I was thinking it sounds like racist phrases like 'black as tar,' etc. I see that he was probably intending to say that 'wow, there are so many poor people here affected by the tragedy and so many of them are black', but implying that it might be different if they were somehow 'less black' still seems a bit odd to me.

ONLY NICE THINGS

14:10 / 08.09.05

I was thinking it sounds like racist phrases like 'black as tar,' etc.

Yes, but it isn't a racist phrase itself, is it? That's just it - as you say, it doesn't make make much sense, although "so overwhelmingly black", say, would support your interpretation. But does that mean that simply using the word "black" leaves you open to accusations of racism? This sounds to me like spin...

Now, you described it as absolutely abominable, but I don't ahve a clear picture of why you think it was abominable, or what the abominable message was, or how it proves that Wolf Blitzer is a racist. Could you explain that for me, please?

14:34 / 08.09.05

I'm not certainly implying that the mere use of the word 'black' means one is racist. There is a context here in this particular situation which I shouldn't have to spell out to make it clear.

'absolutely abominable' was too harsh a statement upon further reflection. And as I said earlier, I see that it probably was just an unfortunate gaffe. Although 'so black', like 'black as tar,' both do have racist overtones (implying that a black person is 'less than' whites, those phrases sound condescending to me) when I hear them. However, I realize that may just be me and that others might not hear them as potentially racist.

ONLY NICE THINGS

15:17 / 08.09.05

Although 'so black', like 'black as tar,' both do have racist overtones (implying that a black person is 'less than' whites, those phrases sound condescending to me) when I hear them.

I think you might say that both phrases potentially set up a scale where "blackness" exists as a quality identifiable through skin tone, and so creates transcendent qualities of blackness and whiteness. However, I would also say that "black as tar" also has historical connections - it is not just the kind of phrase that could be used by racists, but is a phrase that has a long history of being used by racists. Also, tar is inanimate, sticky and unpleasant, and also has intimations of the tar baby and various other things, which again the phrase "so black" as Wolf Blitzer used it does not possess.

Let's take a break and have a quick look at a comparable phrase, "too black", being employed by Malcolm X:

It's just like when you've got some coffee that's too black, which means it's too strong. What do you do? You integrate it with cream, you make it weak. But if you pour too much cream in it, you won't even know you ever had coffee. It used to be hot, it becomes cool. It used to be strong, it becomes weak. It used to wake you up, now it puts you to sleep.

Now, if Wolf Blitzer had meant that the people he saw were too strong, and needed to be integrated with white people pronto for fear of an uprising, that might reasonably be seen as a racist comment. But I don't think he did mean that. I'm not sure he meant anything.

So. Your contention was, and as far as I can tell remains, that Wolf Blitzer's slip of the tongue did not simply result in garble, but specifically that it revealed the racist beliefs that Wolf Blitzer secretly has. I am asking, once again, how exactly you arrive at that conclusion. Assume if it will help that I am so very dim that you will need to explain the context to me.

17:02 / 08.09.05

I never actually said "this must mean that Wolf Blitzer is secretly racist". I speculated that MAYBE this means he's 'a bit racist deep down' given the possible Freudian slip/subliminal effect that might have been at work here. The idea that some can be 'more black' than others, inferred from the phrase 'so black,' smacks of racism to me, although I have already acknowledged that maybe that's just me.

I note that you edited your post, which formerly contended that 'black as tar' was not, in fact, a racist phrase (you wrote "but it isn't a racist phrase, is it?" or words almost verbatim to that effect in your earlier version of the post), and now you acknowledge that it does have a history of being used by racists.

I do think that even slips of the tongue can often have subliminal meanings, as with the famous Freudian slip. So for him to say 'so black' kind of sounds odd to me, even though I know that what was intellectually going through his head was 'there are so many poor people suffering here and so many of them are black.'

Anyway, I am no longer pursuing this line of inquiry. You must not have read my earlier post, as I said above:

>> 'absolutely abominable' was too harsh a statement upon further reflection. And as I said earlier, I see that it probably was just an unfortunate gaffe.

And I would not assume you are dim, Haus. We just have different ways of looking at things, and I am not as fond of splitting hairs in long message board debate/discourse as you are. Suffice it to say I have come to the conclusion that it was likely a harmless, unfortunate gaffe, although it does smack of questionable Freudian slip overtones to me. I don't need to write a three-paragraph discourse to justify that to you in order to validly hold that opinion. But I do appreciate your love of discussion and debate, I'm just not interested in discussing this specific point any further as I feel it's reached a point of over-analyzing. But feel free to repeat your question over and over yet again if you like.

17:57 / 08.09.05

I will add briefly that the radio program I heard the Blitzer quote on featured several people laughing with surprised outrage and shock at what they clearly perceived to be the audacity of the phrase 'so black' as it came out of Blitzer's lips and then commented about the possible racism implied therein, so I know that there were others besides me who had this initial reaction.

19:38 / 08.09.05

FinderWolf, I'd suggest to you that it wasn't Blitzer who injected negative connotations into the word "black," it was you. So did a lot of other people when they heard the clip, which would include the folks on Howard Stern, which is where I'm assuming you heard it since my friends heard it there too. I'm not implying that you or they are racist, just that your reaction relates directly back to what I said about "white America's neurotic self-consciousness wtr racism, or more accurately seeming racist."

It's not inherently racist for a white person to describe or observe a person's race or skin color. When you said "There is a context here in this particular situation which I shouldn't have to spell out to make it clear," the only context I can think of that you might be referring to is that Wolf Blitzer is white, or perhaps more broadly that the media is "white" (or perceived to be so). This is the exact reason why, Robin Young (I think - sorry, I can't remember) said, the media wasn't mentioning the predominant race of the hurricane victims for two days.

To be fair, there was a period of time, I guess the 80s-90s, when the fashionable mode of American thinking had it that we were all supposed to be "colorblind," and perhaps that's where some (white) people have gotten the idea that mentioning race at all is taboo. But I think most people would agree today that to be "colorblind," particularly in a matter like the Katrina aftermath or more generally the demographics of New Orleans, would be to completely discard a huge chunk of important information.

ONLY NICE THINGS

19:46 / 08.09.05

I note that you edited your post, which formerly contended that 'black as tar' was not, in fact, a racist phrase (you wrote "but it isn't a racist phrase, is it?" or words almost verbatim to that effect in your earlier version of the post), and now you acknowledge that it does have a history of being used by racists.

I edited it to clarify that I meant that "so black" was not a historically racist phrase as "black as tar" has been used historically by racists, because I realised that you would not understand the sentence without a guiderail. I was, of course, correct. That edit seems to have gone a bit kablooey, though. I will correct it for Wiggumality.

Ah yes, missing angle bracket.

I realise that you think, even though it has taken a lot of questioning to turn the supertanker of your brain, that this is "over-analysis". But that's the thing, Finderwolf. You would have been quite happy to have sat on the idea that it was "absolutely abominable" because you were told that it was. You had to be pushed actually to think about it. You still have yet to come up with a coherent idea of what it was about it that was actually racist. You now think it was an "unfortunate gaffe" and a "Freudian slip". You have qualified your Um, that he's a bit racist deep down? with a capitalised MAYBE, as if the uppercase can replicate itself back through time, Primer-stylee.

I think this is quite interesting and useful, because it shows what we're up against, in terms of media receptivity. Earlier in this thread, Ganesh said of Kanye West that a lot of people are _telling_ us how outrageous this must be and how offensive, but that doesn't mean it actually _is_. YOu are free to believe that it is "splitting hairs" to question the Fox News account, but it did succeed in changing your position several times.

20:38 / 08.09.05

Fair enough, you both raise valid points on this. Though Haus, I must note that 'supertanker of your brain' is the kind of arrogant, snide, condescending talk that doesn't make me much more receptive to your points, even though I am rising above it to see the validity of your intellectual points on this.

20:46 / 08.09.05

>> The idea that some can be 'more black' than others, inferred from the phrase 'so black,' smacks of racism to me, although I have already acknowledged that maybe that's just me.

I would list this as fulfilling the criteria of a 'coherent idea' on why the comments suggests racist overtones to me, but it appears you disagree. 'So black,' which implies that people can be 'More black' or 'less black' can mean many things from actual skin tone to perceived cultural attitudes and so forth. It also suggested - to me, and I understand as I said several times that this may be an association that only I am making here - a connection to the phrase 'black as tar' to me which we established has a racial history.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:21 / 08.09.05

>> The idea that some can be 'more black' than others, inferred from the phrase 'so black,' smacks of racism to me, although I have already acknowledged that maybe that's just me.

I would list this as fulfilling the criteria of a 'coherent idea' on why the comments suggests racist overtones to me, but it appears you disagree.

Way-ull... no. I mean, I think that's a coherent idea of why the comments suggest racist overtones to you, but that's circular - what you're saying is "I believe x. In the context of that belief x, statement y seems to me racist. Howeever, x may just be me". Which is cool, but very limited, because it doesn't take into account that... well, that x may just be you. Which is why I mentioned Malcolm X above, among other reasons - you're depending on the precepts:

1) To say that one person can be more black than another is racist.
2) The phrase "so black" as used by Wolf Blitzer (as a Freudian slip which apparently reveals his true thinking) demonstrates a belief in precept (1)

I have yet to see you make these statements cohere, internally or with each other. So.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:22 / 08.09.05

Oh, yeah, if you want to get rising above points you might want to have tried it a little previous, before your rude and dismissive talk of splitting hairs and accusations of deceitful editing. Again, you can't take your first impression for granted as truth even regarding your own text; one's self-perception rarely survives first contact entirely unscathed.

12:07 / 09.09.05

I sincerely didn't mean to be 'rude and dismissive' in my comments about feeling that you and I have different interests in terms of how we discuss things on the board. I offer my genuine apologies for my sometimes reactionary responses when I take issue with the way you phrase things. In some cases I think you’re insulting me, you may think in such an instance that you’re merely trying to address the point at hand, the truth may sometimes be all one, all the other, or a little bit of both depending on the specific discussion, and then I counter with a response that indicates I was offended and am annoyed, and the circle of snippiness just goes on and on. I am going to do my best to end that cycle.

Interestingly, I saw a play last night in which a racist character called a black man 'so black that he'd block out the daylight,' and was thinking about the fact that while the sentence on its face could have merely been a description of the man's skin color, there was clearly more at work there and the sentence (and the character) had a lot more subtext going on. However, admittedly, this character was not Wolf Blitzer reporting on disaster relief, and Wolf Blitzer certainly didn't make any other remotely racist comments in his broadcast.

13:14 / 09.09.05

I will add briefly that the radio program I heard the Blitzer quote on featured several people laughing with surprised outrage and shock at what they clearly perceived to be the audacity of the phrase 'so black' as it came out of Blitzer's lips and then commented about the possible racism implied therein, so I know that there were others besides me who had this initial reaction.

that others had the reaction i can well believe.
there are many peoiple who react strongly to perceptions of iffy talk that veers near to racism.
in my experience it can often happen when there is no racism there, perhaps due to the laugher's disproportionate fear of transgressing themselves.

doesnt make mr blitzer a racist, though.

13:17 / 09.09.05

Very true, toksik. Ibis also raised excellent points on the subject above.

14:16 / 09.09.05

such a cunt.

14:32 / 09.09.05

i dont get you.
who?
why?

14:46 / 09.09.05

huh? I was agreeing with Toksik's observations and acknowledging ibis' post above.

21:53 / 09.09.05

You know who's a racist? That Lou Dobbs jackass. Holy shit. I'm watching it RIGHT NOW.

He's floored by the insinuation that class and poverty and race are linked. He's amazed that we might have a race issue becasue of Katrina. And about a hundred other what the kcuf statements. I'll see about getting a transcript as soon as I can.

11:53 / 10.09.05

George Bush doesn't care about black people. George Bush kills black people. Either by sending them to Iraq or the electric chair.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

13:50 / 10.09.05

Even Jeremy Clarkson, not usually the voice of liberalism, agrees that this whole clusterfuck has a great deal to do with race in his Sun column today. (Not available online, as far as I know, but I'll try to grab some quotes when I'm at work tonight).

Page: 1 2(3)