BARBELITH underground
 

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


Stupid White Men

 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:37 / 15.10.02
That book by Michael Moore that sold itself despite the valiant efforts of the publishers, it's quite good and at certain levels very insightful. In order for me to gain a far more fruitful understanding of the book could you please stick in your two cents worth below. If you haven't read it, do so.
 
 
illmatic
09:43 / 15.10.02
I flicked through it in a bookstore yesterday and thought about buy it but it looked a bit too lightweight (not there's anyhting inherently wrong with that - a lot good for it, one could argue - jsut not waht I fel t like reading then)- is this a new genre, popularist attacks on capialism - goes alongside the new look Daily Mirror, I suppose.

(For non UK 'lithers - Daily mirror is a Brit tabloid that has recently gone a lot more leftwing, progressive and anti-Bush)
 
 
The Natural Way
11:55 / 15.10.02
(But is still absolutely fucking horrific)
 
 
rizla mission
14:49 / 15.10.02
There was a bit of a non-starter thread about this book a while ago.

I bought it when I went to America after hearing on Radio 4 that "there were no plans to publish it in Britain" and thus figuring that having a copy would make me the mac.

Here's what I had to say about it in that there other thread;


the bad first -

His tabloid/bad TV comedian writing style is extremely annoying in places, and he makes a few slightly, well, mad points (males are dying out due to natural selection? the Northern Island problem can be solved by convincing Protestants they'll get more sex if they become Catholic? ..um, I think not).

and the good -

When he gets to listing facts, explaining the world situation in simple terms, suggesting solutions, verbally attacking the bad guys - it's fucking brilliant. Unlike, say, Chomsky, you can actually imagine a wide range of (not-previously-political) people reading this book because it's entertaining and full of jokes, and thinking "hang on, this is a bit fucked up - better do something!"

And I always like books that reinforce my political opinions.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:12 / 16.10.02
Yeah, the original publishing company hated the book because it got printed on 10-09-01 and was full of essentially anti-american sentiment. This lead to them point blank refusing to distribute it until some librarians got pissed off sent them hate mail. They then refused to promote it and got pissed that it topped best seller lists resulting in a point blank refusal to distribute the book outside of North America.

Unfortunately or their evil plans they only had a one year hold on the book and as soon as the time rolled over Moore called Penguin and it was on bookshelves before Bush could take a good hard shit on a Sunday morning.

I admit that his writing style can be a bit irritating but this is something more of a cultural thing and more suited to a video nation mentality. I pretty sure he wasn't even part way serious about the Protestants but admit that it could have been written better.
 
 
rizla mission
09:35 / 16.10.02
Well yeah, I'm pretty sure he wasn't serious about the Protestants too, but it's the way he writes these dumb jokes in exactly the same tone (and length) as his serious points, yeilding an immediate "what the fuck are you talking about??" reaction..
 
 
doglikesparky
09:50 / 16.10.02
Coincidence? I stumbled across this in a bookshop yesterday completely unaware it even existed. Picked it up, flicked through it, said to myself "I'll get that in the next few days when I've got some money" and promptly left.

Having seen your comments above I'm starting to think 'Bill Hicks lite'
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
09:57 / 16.10.02
Easy there Rizla Red. For many years we the British have berated the Americans for not grasping our sense of humour.
 
 
dlotemp
01:30 / 18.10.02
Tea Boy:

Haven't read the book, but, for the sake of fairness, I happen to know a publicist for HarperCollins, the aforementioned publishing company, who was involved with Mssr. Moore. The matter of the HarperCollins not promoting the book is more bark than bite. Yes, they wanted to delay the release date and yes, they had trouble promoting it and for a glaring reason that you mention - 9-11. First, I suppose they could have released the book the day after 9-11, when it was scheduled to be released, but they were worried, and I think quite justly, that the American public was focused on other matters at the time - like, 2 skyscrapers and a military complex in flames, thousands dead, and a general feeling of vulnerability. Hardly, the key moment to release a book, particularly one as acerbic to America as Moore's book. Which leads into the second issue - promotion. My source tells me that they had a difficult time trying to determine a decent post-9/11 strategy for the promotion. Contrary to some stories, and I'm not claiming that you said this, but HarperCollins didn't try to squelch this book or stonewall Moore's success. As a publishing company, they wanted to make money off of it and genuinely felt that they needed to proceed cautiously after last year's trauma. That seems reasonable to me. Of course, I'm slightly biased.

In general, I've found Moore interesting but wonder if he isn't a big (no pun) hypocrite. I have trouble trusting a self-proclaimed voice of the American proleteriate who lives on the Upper East side, sends his children to private school, and must stay at 5 star hotels during promotion. There is a nifty article on spinsanity.com about a reporter who tried to interview Moore for this book and realized that Moore might be stretching the truth about things. www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

A little selection from the article about Moore's mis-use of facts -
>>Consider, for instance, his claim that "two-thirds of [the over $190 million President Bush raised during the presidential campaign] came from just over seven hundred individuals." Given the $2,000 federal limit on individual donations, this claim is obviously false. To back it up, he cites the Center for Responsive Politics Web site (opensecrets.org) and an August 2000 article from the New York Times. As opensecrets.org clearly indicates, however, only 52.6 percent of Bush's total $193 million in campaign funds came from individuals. The Times article Moore references actually states that 739 people gave two-thirds of the soft money raised by the Republican Party (which uses its money for "party-building" activities that support all GOP candidates, not just Bush) in the 2000 election cycle as of June of that year. Whether out of malice or laziness, Moore conflates the party's soft money with Bush's campaign funds.<<

An the other hand, there is another link to Salon that talks about the librarian who battled to get Moore's book out. www.salon.com/books/feature/2002/01/07/moore/ It mentions that HarperCollines supposedly wanted Moore to edit his book and then pay for those edits himself. Unfortunately, I know nothing about that but will try to find out.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
12:24 / 18.10.02
He confirms as much in his book that HarperCollins were unwilling to release the book in it's original form and were demanding an over 50% rewrite and full coverage of the reprinting costs. The demand to rewrite sounds suspiciously unconstitutional and as for the request for reprinting costs, this seems mostly ridiculous as a caveat to publication and distribution. One that I have certainly never heard of before.

It's good to see information coming from other sources beyond just one man and reminds us well that words on a page are not absolute. However the direction of the book is clear and shows that the targets in the book have very clearly earned themselves the title of Stupid White Men, regardless of a little misuse of facts.

All to often governmental systems exercise the oppertunity to opperate autonomously of democracy and with litterings of nepotism and injustice. Even if the book is not 100% accurate, it provokes thought about the manner in which a country should be run and that could well be considered far more important. Sure the timing may have been off, in retrospect of the proposed distribution of the book but attempts to quell one persons words is patently wrong.

One thing the short history of this book, like many others is that the cost of freedom is eternal vigilance.

Some famous said that once.
 
 
MJ-12
13:03 / 18.10.02
The demand to rewrite sounds suspiciously unconstitutional

How so?
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:43 / 19.10.02
First Amendment = Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This in turn makes the freedom of speech and the press a constitutionally protected right. As the constitution with all ammendments was ratified by Congress who speak on behalf of the people as an elected body then attempts by an individual, group, body or company of the United States to censor this right can theoretically be determined to be unconstitutional acts. IIRC this was set as an early legal precedent which stands to this day.
 
 
dlotemp
15:37 / 19.10.02
It's not unconstitutional if a publisher buys a manuscript because then the publisher in effect is the owner. They can do with it what they want. In this case, they asked Moore to perform a rewrite, supposedly to remove caustic remarks about Bush. If they removed the remarks without getting permission, and Moore still had some level of ownership, then that would be unconstitutional. If the author rewrote it then the issue is gray: did he do it willingly or unwillingly. Regardless, the constitutional issue is tainted by the complicity of the writer in the revision, which is probably why Moore gave HarperCollins the literary finger.
 
 
dlotemp
23:21 / 21.10.02
Quick update-

Heard back from my source and was told that Regan, the book was published by HarperCollins subsidary Reganbooks, didn't ask more to edit his stuff, nor did the librarian really affect the release. Regan wanted to release in February anyway, after a 9/11 had died down. Let me state that this is all I found out and there might be more going on. Still, though Barebelithers would appreciate the follow through.
 
 
pointless and uncalled for
10:13 / 22.10.02
Thankee
 
 
dlotemp
22:34 / 09.01.03
For those of you still interested in Moore, here are a few articles a friend forwarded to me about America's posterchild of the libertine, if not the laterine.

Satirist Moore Storms Out of Britain

American satirist Michael Moore has stormed out of Britain after a bust up with the London theatre
hosting his one-man show. The Bowling For Columbine moviemaker performed Michael Moore - Live! to packed audiences for two months before Christmas at The Roundhouse in Camden, North London. But on the penultimate night he reportedly flew into a rage, verbally attacked everyone associated with the theatre because he thought he wasn't being paid enough. During the performance he complained he was making just $750 a night. A member of the stage crew says, "He completely lost the plot. He stormed around all day screaming at everyone, even the £5-an-hour bar staff, telling them how we were all conmen and useless. Then he went on stage and did it in public." Staff retaliated by refusing to work the following night, which led to the show being held up for an hour.

Eventually he made a groveling apology to staff and the angry audience finally took to their seats. A
source reports that Moore then packed his bags and flew to New York the next day without saying thank you or goodbye to anyone.


This next one is from The Independent in the UK and is featured on the front page of the Drudge Report:

Drudge Report: Michael Moore Claims 9/11 Passengers Were Scaredy Cats Because They Were White
Black-on-black violence: there is a way forward
Yasmin Alibhai-Brown
06 January 2003
I took my son to see Michael Moore live at the Roundhouse, in north London, before Christmas. The US
radical and author of the best-selling book Stupid White Men was (mostly) clever, funny, angry, sharp,
iconoclastic and sceptical about the lies and humbug processed by the US government and big business. Sure there were some flunked bits - you expect that, the troughs are part of the adventure, an evening with a well-worn rebel. What we did not expect was to feel so enraged at one point that we almost walked out.

It was when Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody. God save us from such stupid white men, especially now, when in the US and the UK, black people's lives are being ripped to shreds by drugs, lawlessness, fear and frightful violence plus the endless circle of racism, exclusion and incarceration.

This is not awesome, Mr Moore; it is a calamity, for descendants of slaves unimaginably more so. Remember this as we mourn the murders of two young Caribbean women, victims, it is believed, of tough black men who control some streets of Birmingham and London and Manchester and who kill because they feel like it and they can. "Young, Gifted and Dead," Metropolitan Police anti-gun crime posters in 2001. They showed real pictures of young men in pools of blood. Nobody took any notice.
The maiming and killing goes on and on. Blood is freely spilled in clubs, schools, streets, shops, the
privacy of a balcony and a small garden. Orchestrated feuds between gangs became more thrilling as guns took over from knives and knuckles. Michael Cabey was shot as he sat on a wall; Wayne Henry and Corey White were felled as they sat in their BMW; Godfrey Scott was shot in the neck and his flatmate Ray Samuels was found skinned and his tongue sliced off; the brother of the soul singer Mica Paris was shot dead in Croydon. In parts of London,14-year-old boys carry weapons and show them off.

A black youth worker too frightened to be named tells me: "These kids are vicious. They think bullying and beating each other up is what sissies do. They talk about killing. They are kings when they kill. One even brought me a cat he had shot to show the others they are in command. They love it that everyone is afraid of them, even their own parents."

What lovely names they had, Latisha Shakespear (17) and Charlene Ellis (18), blasted away as 30 bullets were fired early on New Year's Day as they stepped out from the stuffiness of a party to get some fresh air. A picture of them taken just before the party shows them in hats and identical fluffy white jackets. A former black gang member - Scorcher, if you please - says he is sure that these victims weren't "gangsta bitches but that they were well connected and there will be reprisals for this". How reassuring on both counts.

So it is OK to waste "gangsta bitches" and those who may be members of the gang who did this?
There is something distasteful, obscene even in the coverage that has followed the killings. Male
journalists in mainstream papers, like Moore above, write over-excitedly about the guns, giving us
pictures and prices, plus interviews with cool gang members, carrying on as if this is some Tarantino
movie that has hit town. Meanwhile, decent black men and women in particular - mothers, sisters, lovers and daughters - weep and grieve as black-on-black killings rise in our inner cities, just as they have in the US.

Yes, we have massively more guns and armed crime in our society, and all races are involved. But British
Caribbeans are disproportionately affected by the problem, and their numbers are small - only about
550,000. Their lives are vulnerable, for a whole raft of reasons. Blunkett and Blair are, at last, turning their
attention to this problem, too long ignored or hidden by white and black leaders. A summit is to be called
in Birmingham, and there is to be a change in the law to introduce a minimum five-year sentence for anyone found with a firearm.

Who would have thought that the fiery Diane Abbott, lifelong fighter of racism, would today be calling for this tougher legislation? But then she is a black woman and MP for Hackney, where she has watched the horror of spiralling black-on-black violence.

But the law alone cannot do the job. I think Abbott should head a task force to challenge the culture of
confrontation, ignorance, violence, drugs, sexism and heartlessness that has corrupted young black males with their false emblems of pride and extracted respect. She is trusted more than many of the black middle-class suits who will be called upon to take charge of any initiatives.

We need the Government to nail the producers of
vicious filth. Violent songs and videos sustain these
men in their life choices. They feel good that they
are lauded as desensitised robo-killers. And please, I
simply don't accept all that liberal wash about the
neutrality of art, popular culture, television and
music. In December, a pitiless black gang of young men
were convicted for violent car jackings. They had
modelled themselves on old American gangsters, even
dressing like them. The hardest gangs love So Solid
Crew and the duo Oxide and Neutrino, who, of course,
deny they have any real influence with such songs as
"Bound for D Reload (A&E)". Neutrino has himself been
shot outside a club, and three members of So Solid
have been charged with carrying loaded guns. It is
scandalous that the music industry and others walk
away without any conscience about the harm they do or
the good they could do.
Many other interconnected issues need to be examined.
Afro-Caribbean men are over-represented in the mental
health services, according to a new report by the
Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health. There is a crisis
here, and the treatment offered is inferior to that
received by white patients. School exclusions and
behavioural problems, too, need to be part of the
analyses. Policing has gone through dramatic changes
since the Lawrence report (although too many racist
officers remain in place) but what can be done about
the refrain that there is no trust between the police
and black and Asian people? Home Office research
(Paper 129, 2000) shows that now there is support for
stop-and-search among all ethnic groups, as long as
the police treat suspects fairly, with dignity and
without racism. There will be more black men stopped
in some areas where gun crime is high. To decry this
as evidence only of prejudice is now unacceptable.
There is another name I would suggest to Blunkett for
his summit - Jock Young, the criminologist whose book
The Exclusive Society is the most compelling and
convincing analysis I have seen on some of what we are
witnessing. He can see the connections between
Thatcherism, racism and the self-perpetuating cycles
in which images and expectations of young black men
have been ingested by some of them and activated to
become our worst collective nightmares.
While nice liberals and career anti-racists luxuriate
in denial, a community implodes.
 
 
rizla mission
10:32 / 10.01.03
Regarding the first couple of paragraphs of that second article (can't be fucking arsed to address the rest), that's basically my feeling about Moore -

Half the time he hits the nail on the head, the other half of the time he says stuff which is just spectacularly dumb.. and while I'm not advocating a strict dichotomy between seriousness and funniness, I still find it completely jarring the way that (in his book in particular)he moves from fairly sensible discussion of important matters to a complete bunch of potentially offensive arse, with seemingly no distinction between the two.. witness completely absurd comments reported in above article..
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
10:52 / 10.01.03
The irony/tragedy of the second article quoted above, though, is that in many ways it perpetuates the same stereotypes about young black men that it (correctly) identifies Moore as offering - it's the savage/noble savage thing...

On a more gossipy note, I did hear reports from an acquaintance who was working backstage during Moore's London show that he was "demanding" - guess this confirms it, and renders it something of an understatement.
 
 
dlotemp
11:36 / 10.01.03
Take this last bit with a grain of salt, but my source tells me that The View - a female talk show in America - wanted to have Moore on to discuss these recent strange events and, not only did he decline, but he told them not to even discuss it otherwise he'll consider it libel and have his lawyer handle the matter. Very peculiar.
 
 
bigsunnydavros
12:33 / 10.01.03
[random factoid]
While he was in the country for his stand-up show, Michael Moore surprised staff at Ottakars bookstore Edinburgh by appearing one afternoon in their store and holding an un-announced book signing. When staff asked him why he was there, he said that he'd heard the train journey from London to Edinburgh was nice, and that he'd wanted to see it for himself.
I don't believe anyone was able to assertain whether or not he enjoyed his train ride though...
[/random factoid]
 
 
The Natural Way
12:38 / 10.01.03
Yes, but isn't this degenerating into a bit of a see-all-the-horrid-prima dona-stuff-dlotemp-can-dig-up-about-Moore thing now?
 
  
Add Your Reply