Newsstand: February 9, 2010
Duly Quoted: Adam Giambrone
Bob Kinnear isn't Greg Kinnear
Newsstand: February 8, 2010
Scale Model City, Actual-Size Grime
Every so often, the internet reminds us that it is a horrible place. They Heard the News Today, Oh Boy seeks to combat that by collecting the worst of the worst comments from Toronto news sites and punishing them with words of our own.
We understand why you'd be confused about that, "lguy." Fred Armisen is in fact offensive, but that is mostly because he sucks so very, very badly.
Now, the obvious takeaway from the U of T blackface scandal (such as it is) is that a bunch of college kids did something that was kind of thoughtless but not unforgivable. However, it is impossible for a certain type of person to accept this on the internet. The internet, you see, is the natural nesting ground for the Anti-Reverse-Racist: the type of guy who gets really, really offended when someone points out that something that is obviously kind of racist is in fact racist. To this sort of person, pointing out the bloody obvious is the real racism that divides our society.
Naturally, when the Globe and the Star reported on this story, those kind of people went apeshit. You could probably create a decent Bingo card out of the responses: the seemingly neverending list of "but the black guy wore 'white' makeup and I'm not offended!" comments, the inevitable references to Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder (which a sadly large number of people do not understand was about mocking people who don't get that blackface is pretty much de facto offensive), and seven billion complaints about political correctness.
But that was only the tip of the iceberg! (Icebergs are white and therefore offensive! See? I am on the internet and I made a cunningly sarcastic response about colour!)
Tyler Perry Is The Real Racist!
Because There Has Never Been A Movie Ever In The Entire History Of Cinema Where There Were Four White Guys And One Black Guy
Since 19th-Century Racial Classifications Are The Only Proper Way To Refer To People's Skin Colour, I Hope You Understand That You Should Properly Be Referred To As "Negroid"
Willy Wonka Is The Real Racist!
Because Swarthy Men Were Once Forbidden To Sit At Lunch Counters, See
As A White Person, I Am Qualified To Explain The Rules As To What Blackface Actually Is
People Who Don't Like Blackface Are The Real Racists!
(He Writes This Comment In Every Thread. It's Getting To Be A Real Downer In The Sports Section.)
NEWSFLASH: White Guy Not Offended By Thing That Offends Other People, Film At 11
William Shakespeare Is The Real Racist!
My Numerous Black Friends Who Really Exist For Reals And Comprise Exactly One-Quarter Of My Total Friends (Who All Also Exist) All Thought This Was Hilarious
In Fairness, The Black Students' Association Probably Should Not Have Put Up Those Posters Saying "Nidal Hissan Is The Awesomest!"
People Who Apologize For Offending People Are The Real Racists!
Yeah, If You Can't Fix All The Problems Of Society Then Why Don't You Just Shut The Fuck Up?
I Totally Spend All My Time Defending The Downtrodden And Persecuted, And Let Me Tell You, White Kids Going To University Have It Worse Than Just About Anybody
People Who Make Me Feel Guilty About Whatever Privilege I Might Possess Are The Real Racists!
As A White Person, I Am Qualified To Explain The Rules As To What Blackface Actually Is, Part 2
They Probably Have A Book They're Trying To Sell
Mounties Are The Real Racists!
Hey, You Know Who Really, Really Cared What Other People Thought About Him? Pierre Trudeau
I See What You Did There
Those Darn Kids With Their Hippity-Hop Music And Their Baggy Pants Are The Real Racists!
"How Could Something Intended To Be Funny Ever Offend Anybody, Huh?"
This Is All Bob Rae's Fault Somehow, I Just Know It
People With Eidetic Memories Are The Real Racists!
And As Always, We Finish With A Sad Truth
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I commend Torontoist for hosting the discussion - it's a tempest in a teapot, surely, but one that offers many useful lessons. So well done.
But this particular post seems less about solutions, more about mockery of those attempting to further the debate.
Wrong-headed as some of these comments may be, I'm uncomfortable to see them lampooned by the folks who should be hosting the discourse. How useful is that?
The net result is to imply that your own writer, Christopher Bird, is somehow a qualified arbiter of such debates - as if his peculiar combination of snark, irony, and implicit political correctness were the proper prerequisite for exploring as complex and sensitive an issue as this is.
Points taken—however, the entire point of Christopher Bird's They Heard The News Today series is to lampoon outrageous comments from internet forums. The range of articles can co-exist.
The range of articles can co-exist.
Exactly. Torontoist has a range of talented contributors whose purpose is to inform, educate and enlighten. They have me when they need mockery and/or dick jokes.
Stick to the TV reviews. Your all-meta-all-the-time writing style is better suited to that. Plus it's embarrassing when you get owned by half the comments you're allegedly poking fun at.
College kids did something offensive, more at 11.
Plus it's embarrassing when you get owned by half the comments you're allegedly poking fun at.
You have an interesting definition of "owned" that is completely unlike any working definition currently operative and that fascinates me.
When the world at large needs mockery & dick jokes, I rest soundly knowing Christopher Bird is there for us.
As always, your stuff here, there, & everywhere is hilarious.
Nice try. Blackface is almost universally acknowledged as a no-go, right up there with the n-bomb and the word "boy". If ridicule is what it takes to bring this point home to people, then bring it on.
owned
Yes, this word "owned"...I do not think it means what you think it means.
I think it's awfully ludicrous to say to someone that what they're doing is racist when you know there's no racist intent behind it.
It's like, if some old dude is telling me a story about th 40s, about a "colored guy" who gave him a ride into town, or who he was airdropped into France with or something, i'm not going to interrupt him and say "dude, you're a racist". So, honestly, how can i say "dude, what you just said there is racist". They are EXACTLY THE SAME accusation.
And i think it's just plum stupid to accuse a few university students of racism for dressing, not in blackface, but as black movie characters. They weren't mocking anyone, they were paying homage for crying out loud.
There is a very big difference between telling someone they are a racist vs. telling someone that something they said was racist.
How To Tell People That They Sound Racist.
Ok, so work with me here. Is anyone accusing the university students of being racists?
I mean, besides in the general sense that people are people and "everyone's a little racist", but you know some people are more racist that others.
Are they racists?
Chris: you have to add this guy's comment to your list now. Sorry to create more work for you.
I watched the video, btw.
Racism is what we absolutely will not and must not tolerate in this country (and i wish i didn't have to cite credentials here, but i feel like i'm going to be lumped in with the crackpot dissenters here : i do call it out vigorously out when i see it). But we force some kids to apologize for paying homage to some movie characters without any evil intent, and obviously without racism, i think it's doing more harm than good.
When we're policing "offense" rather than "racism", that's delicate game that that can't be won. Offense is an intrisic part of human life. If someone was offended by the costumes, it could have been handled by a private conversation, and not turned into an enormous humiliation for the students.
I'm offended and demand that you apologize to me.
Ok, so work with me here. Is anyone accusing the university students of being racists?
As I've said in the other two articles, I don't think anybody is accusing them of being racists; rather that blackface iconography is racist, and deciding to dress in blackface is likely based in ignorance, not bigotry.
What consistently amazes me is when people tell others that something they're doing is offensive and culturally insensitive to them, and then the response is, "No, you're overreacting," as if it's your place to judge how an ethnic group (that you may not even be part of!) perceives the action. It reminds me of when gay people state how being gay is not a choice, and then the response from some straight people is basically, "Sorry, but yes it is."
Playing with ethnic mimicry is a dangerous game, and if you know that, why play it? And when a vast, vast amount of evidence exists that a stereotype has a history of offense, why exploit it? To teach those uppity whiners a lesson on who makes the rules around these here parts?
Could that be applied to you telling me that it IS in fact offensive, when I am part of the ethnic minority here? I don't see a difference, but am open to an explanation.
Nope. What I'm saying that while some people may not be offended, playing with stereotypes that are widely known to cause offense is a stupid game. Rather than be glad that they didn't offend some people, they should be examining why they offended others, and basing their future actions on that. If someone tells me they're offended about something, I should know why rather than discount or dismiss their offense as an irritating overreaction.
What these guys should have done right off the bat was explain that they had no idea that what they were doing had the gravity that it did, and to admit that they learned something. It's clear that they meant no offense, but it's not the people who remained unoffended that they should be concerned with.
I think we're going to agree to disagree on this, as I did on the previous thread.
The only thing I'll say is, you (a white guy) have no right whatsoever to tell me (a black woman) what is or isn't offensive towards my culture and by your own argument I would/should be correct.
I feel really bad for these guys.
But I do, as a white guy, have the right to claim personal offense at the exploitation of a stereotype that I'm not part of, just as anyone else does. I'm not telling you what to find offensive; I'm saying that what they did is offensive to many, many people, which you are well aware of, even if you aren't part of those who took offense.
Sorry, Marc, for not being familiar with your body of work. I guess i'm a latecomer to this discussion.
I think what bothers me most about this story is the abject humiliation those students had to go through. And please, don't start in on me with "the priviledged majority" stuff. People are people. Nobody likes to be humiliated. In the long run, the coverage this story got will be found to have driven a wedge, even if only a tiny one, and improved race relations not one iota.
"...as if it's your place to judge how an ethnic group (that you may not even be part of!) perceives the action."
Isn't that what you and Bird are doing?
No, but nice try. I'm saying that the people who are dismissing the offense are not necessarily the ones who get to say what is or isn't offensive about that stereotype.
And it shouldn't be only the respective ethnic group that has the right to be offended at ethnic stereotypes. Nor does having a member of that ethnic group included in a photo cancel out its potential offensiveness.
My argument about this since the very start focuses on the matter of judgment. Whether it offends you personally or not, the choice to wear blackface at a public event is stupid, stupid, stupid, and people who do stupid things need to be called on them.
But you just did it again.
Saying that dressing in blackface is a stupid move is a statement of fact, irrelevant of who finds it offensive.
I get it that symbols hurt. Even if they're historical. Everyone knows the swastika is offensive. It is a symbol of the some of the most vile hatred and persecution the world has ever seen. When i see a swastika, i automatically get a churning feeling in my stomach, thus is my conditioning, having grown up in Canada.
So, I went to a Hindu friend's house for lunch once (chana masala, so good i wanted to marry it), and she had a shrine in the corner that had swastikas all over it. I mean, there were at least four swastikas.
And guess what? I got a churning awful feeling in my stomach. I'm eating lunch under the watchful eye of a hindu god with swastikas all around him. Freaked me out a little.
But i supressed it. I didn't call her on her racist act ("you know, even though i assume you're not racist, what you have on your wall is racist") because obviously it was from a context that didn't consider the swastika to be racist.
There are some people who might tactfully explain to her that in Canada, the swastika is considered a racist symbol, but i thought it would be culturally, you know... stupid. A stupid move to do so. But some people might be offended anyway. They might consider putting up the swastika in ANY context a stupid move. They should speak up
Wow, sounds like Canada. Sounds like we have to live with each other, and some people might be offended in the long-haul. Good thing we have skills for dealing with that.
... good thing we don't have to humiliate each other (thanks to you, Torstar Media) to express when we're offended.
I love the people who are like, "I've never had a racist thought in my life, and *I* didn't think the costumes were offensive!"
Dudes, get over it. Everyone is racist in one way or another. At least be smug about the fact that Canadians are probably significantly less racist than most other nationalities in the world.
Was that racist?
If "reverse racism" actually existed, I think that that would be pretty close to what it meant. (?)
I've always loved the word reverse racism. To me, it implies tolerance.
I figured the U of T blackface story would bring out the whole "reverse discrimination" crowd in droves. Sure enough...
It's disturbing to see how many people agreed with that viewpoint. Cause you know, life is so hard for us white folks.
"Wrong-headed as some of these comments may be, I'm uncomfortable to see them lampooned by the folks who should be hosting the discourse. How useful is that?"
Very useful, actually. One of the reasons that people can get away with being apologists for racism is that no one has ever indicated to them just how widespread, varied, and nonsensical the reverse-racism argument is. Now this article doesn't draw that discussion out in explicit detail, but, as others have said, it shouldn't have to do everything.
So being made fun of by Christopher Bird is going to prevent people being racist, while simply watching their positions erode in a meaningful argument isn't?
Of course if you're chasing away everyone who'd like to explore the issue by mocking them, there won't be any argument anymore.
I really don't think that's going to make the world a better place.
The collective IQ of the posts Bird mocks here is in the high 2 digits. It should be pretty obvious that these are not people likely to be swayed by rational argument. So mockery works pretty well, because people hate being laughed at. In short, it may not change their mind, but it will keep them quiet, which is a start...
But keeping people quiet isn't what public discourse is about, is it?
Not every post Bird mocks is pure drivel. In fact, many contain the seeds of the arguments which make up the "other side" of the issue here.
What! Another side? Impossible! you say.
But there it is.
Intelligent, caring people, really wanting to understand this thing, disagree with, or fail to see the logic of, the prevailing position.
It's almost like a democracy, or something, where a multiplicity of beliefs is allowed and encouraged, understanding that these things are complex and that it's neither likely nor desirable that we should all see eye to eye on them.
Intelligent, caring people, really wanting to understand this thing, disagree with, or fail to see the logic of, the prevailing position.
And this has precisely nothing to do with the people that are the subject of discussion. Before you get the vapours over the fate of our democracy, you might want to actually read the comments Bird was mocking. They are not intelligent, they are mock-worthy.
McKingford, not every comment is brilliant, but I never said they were.
What I said was that not every one of them was pure drivel, a fact which I ascertained by READING the comments long before you sarcastically suggested I should.
I further stated: "Intelligent, caring people, really wanting to understand this thing, disagree with, or fail to see the logic of, the prevailing position."
Mock away.
Does anyone remember the movie "White Chicks" by the Wayan brothers? I've never seen it, but I remember the trailers.
I don't think there was any malicious intent by the university students and this has been blown out of proportion.
Slow day in Toronto, 'eh?
Really milking this for all you can.
I think the bigger issue at hand are the men dressing up as women at Halloween. The years of women being treated as property is insulted by tons of drunk men pretending to be easy sluts.
I hope you are joking. Please tell me you're joking?
Sexism is still alive and well.
Do you really get offended by men dressing up as slutty women? Being a woman, I sure don't. It seems pretty harmless to me.
Brittnee, I'm afraid you're too clever for this site :(
Sarcasm is so difficult to detect sometimes. I fell for it :(
The internet, you see, is the natural nesting ground for the Anti-Reverse-Racist: the type of guy who gets really, really offended when someone points out that something that is obviously kind of racist is in fact racist.
This gets it exactly right. You never, but *never* hear the Anti-Reverse-Racist call out actual racism. To them, racism doesn't exist anymore - it's the product of a bygone era (like say, when blackface was funny! - which is why it's like totally funny today!). But boy is reverse racism ever a problem...
Christ. Can this be the end of Torontoist milking this (non) issue please?
Definitely beating a dead horse on this one.
I'm most amused at torontothegreat's assertion that offense is in the eye of the beholder, rather than something mutually agreed upon by society. If that were true, those who were offended by seeing gay kissing on television, or the Piss Christ art installation, were perfectly justified in their offense.
This is a non-issue and a non-story.