My parents raised me with manners. In fact, it's still common to hear me say "Sir" or "Ma'am" when I'm talking to my elders or to people above me in social stature. I don't find it demeaning. People in general, I believe, deserve respect. At least until they demonstrate to me that they don't deserve it. I don't need any legislation, I don't need to be censured, I damn sure don't need any censorship. I believe I should be able to speak my mind about anyone or anything and people that disagree with me can freely judge if I'm out of line or not. I do try to do it with some element of class. Though I'm not always sure I succeed.So, when I read about Republican House Representative Chip Saltsman giving away a comedic CD by Comedian Paul Shaklin in his Christmas gift package to fellow Republicans that included parodies such as "Barack the Magic Negro" my reaction was, "What an ass!" Nothing more, nothing less. However, the resulting condemnation by the Main Stream Media and the blogosphere got me thinking that there was something fundamentally bias about the way this was being handled. Oddly enough, Peter, Paul and Mary, who wrote the song "Puff the Magic Dragon" didn't even have any objections to "Barack the Magic Negro"on their website.
For the past nearly 8 years, I have heard George W. Bush called some of the most God-awful, disrespectful names by my University colleagues, comedians, commentators and the MSM. He's been compared to Hitler, Stalin and Charles Manson. The media laughed out loud when Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez called Bush "Diablo" and commented that the podium where G.W. was just standing "Smelled of sulfur". They damn near applauded (some even did) when an Iraqi journalist threw a pair of shoes at him. Comedian Bill Maher gets his over-the-top disrespectful videos replayed all over the Internet by the Bush Haters who feel they have the right to compare G.W. to any one of histories worst villains, to animals, or to human waste. And yet there was no condemnation by the MSM.
There seems to be a real double standard here.
The rules on President-elect Barack Obama seem to reflect the rules that we have established in society in general. One set of rules for white males, and a different set of rules for everyone else. Already the press has come out hard and strong against Obama being compared to a monkey (which has become the standard caricature of George Bush), any swipes at his intelligence (even to the point of it being wrong to say he's "articulate") plus any references to his hygiene, his race, his color, his religion, his looks, his speech, his middle name, and on and on and on. In fact, it appears that the only thing you can say about Obama that won't be roundly criticized by the MSM is how wonderful he is. That's plain old wrong. And this is coming from a guy who voted for Obama.
The standard line that is used to defend this obvious hypocrisy is that it's different for minorities. White males have never had to be called a "nigger" so they shouldn't use the word. (Although I've often wondered if it's O.K. for us to call some of our fellow white males, "wiggers") Women have been oppressed throughout history and have special sensitivities to being called a "bitch" or a "ho". (Except, of course, by black rappers and hip-hop artists. Then it's O.K.)
The problem I have with all of this is less about hypocrisy, and more about censorship.
Censorship is power. Plain and simple. Picture that you and me didn't much like one another, much like our two political parties. Now picture that you could say anything, and I mean anything, negative about me to the public, but I could not say a single negative thing about you. You could be the worst human being ever and I could be a reincarnation of Ghani and the public would think you were the Saint. In our political spectrum, this gives our leaders immunity against any criticism of their policies or actions, no matter how egregious. This is not how you want our government to operate. Secondly, as much as I personally disagree with the politics of using derogatory language and comedy on our leaders by our entertainers (I believe it lowers other nation's view of them), I respect their right to do so. I myself, have taken a cheap shot or two at some of them. Strictly for comedic purposes, of course. It's not all a negative thing anyway. There is something to be said for self deprecation. It shows that you can take a joke, even when it's on you, and most people respect that.
In the next 4 years your going to hear a lot of howling by the press over the way President Barack Obama is handled. Anytime Obama is criticized or parodied, the MSM is going to rush to his defense. Sure, the right-wing radio commentators will still have their say, (if they're not silenced by the (Un) Fairness Doctrine), but they only preach to their choir anyway. That's going to have very little effect on the general public. Here in Michigan, we elected our first female Governor ever and she has been a complete disaster by any measure. Despite this fact, the press has gone out of their way to not criticize her and to defend her. The result has been the worst state economy in the U.S.. Fair is fair. If your a bad leader, black or white or brown. Man or woman. You should be judged on the job you do, not defended simply because your the first this or that. Criticizing our leadership is the way that we, the people, keep them in line. It keeps them from doing anything that the lobbyists ask. If President Obama isn't treated exactly the same as he would be if he were a white male, his administration will forever be tainted with accusations of bias no matter how it turns out . And bias it will be. H.C.
8 comments:
By the way, contrary to some beliefs, black folks DO NOT believe Obama is off limits.
Hey Dre,
As you know, I would never defend "Free Speech" that would include direct physical threats. However, I read the lyrics to "Barack the Magic Negro" and it would be a "hell of a stretch" to say that it was in any way threatening. Certainly there are some things, (like references to lynching) that I will not tolerate. But, I don't agree with the "butterfly effect" of anything negative said about Barack leading to dehumanization and therefore can be connected to violence. That's just an excuse to censore. Having said that, I think this just hurts the Republicans anyway as it makes them look like insensitive asses. I'm being completely consistant here as I was never a fan of the rhetoric that was aimed at Bush and I'm no fan of the Hannity/Rush methods against Obama. But let's be fair, the MSM applauded it when it was against Bush and acts like it horrific when it's against Obama and that's my beef. Thanks for your spin on it, there's always two sides and I want my readers to get both and you always help me with that-which I greatly appreciate.
H.C.
When did a government agency get involved? I find it amusing that when people talk crap and it gets flung back at them, they cry censorship, as if the state sanctioned their speech. First, the "MSM" is a commercial enterprise, not a government organ. It's under no obligation to uphold any standard other than the one its audience purchases with their attention to the commercials sandwiched between the news reports. Second, if a person isn't man or woman enough to deal with the consequences of their own words and actions, that's nobody's fault but their own. Suck it up or hit back, but don't cry censorship.
Hey Malik,
I don't believe I said anything about the government being involved except through the Fairness Doctrine. Which definately is government involvement in monitoring speech (in my opinion). As far as the state santioning my speech- My beef isn't really with the state, it's with the MSM, and all I'm doing is pointing out their inconsistances, which I'm entitled to do. Censorship can take many forms, much like racism. You can say "Your free to say whatever you want." But am I really if it costs me my job like it did Senator George Allen? It's more of inconsistancy that makes it censorship. If there's no repercussions for your speech but there is for mine doesn't that make it censoring one side? I understand that there is always consequences for anyone's "free speech" but this is the MSM deciding who suffers. I would equate it to you being told you can live wherever you want but if you live on the white side of town be prepared to be harrassed. In one way or another, that's an attempt to keep you out of that side of town just as I'm being discouraged from having a certain point of view. I understand where your coming from and you know I respect your opinion (your one of the brightest guys I know) But I have to point out what I consider to be censorship just as you have to point out what you consider to be racist. I hope you can at least respect that, even though we disagree. Thanks for your side!
Hippie, I think the problem in your argument lies in your comparisons. Referring to Obama's race, ethnicity, and a number of other fear-inducing attributes is not the same as criticizing Bush for being a bumbling idiot...which, by the way, is a claim that often goes uncontested. I mean, the dude really is a bit...how should I put it...'special' at times. Even some of the more extremist comments made by opponents of Bush and the right (i.e. Bush = Hitler) are often met with indifference, because the comments are simply perceived as noise from loud liberal windbags who have no legitimate way to challenge 'the system' except by hurling over-exaggerated insults. But infusing race in a political season where race was one of the largest instigators? That shit is plain wrong.
Again, I'm not against free speech - to any extent. I don't believe the feds have the right (especially with the Fairness Doctrine) to impose censorship on even the most vile of expressions. But at the same time, open responses to said ignorance should be forthcoming. Simply put, the First Amendment protects our rights to speak freely. It does not shield us from the backlash that may occur from doing so.
Hey Dre,
I get it. I mean, I know there's a difference. But it's sometimes easy to make it about race when it's really not. For example, Bush bungles the english language (without a doubt) but if I criticize Obama's speech some people (probably not you) may say that I'm attacking his heritage and that certain speech patterns are unique to blacks (This isn't very likely since Barack speaks better than 99.9% of all Americans. But you get my point.) Also, remember when Billary made that comment about RFK being assassinated? Out ran the MSM to express outrage. Do you really think that would have happened if it were Bush that Hillary insinuated could be killed? Heck, I can give you examples of people actually saying he SHOULD be killed and no outrage. My bigger complaint is simply the fear the mainstream media has of being seen as racist or risking the race-baiters. Rather than risk those people, they would rather not risk it at all. Whereas with Bush there's no danger. Also, since the MSM is overwelmingly left-leaning, they have no motivation to criticize him anyway unless it's that he didn't go far enough to the left. That leaves all of his left-leaning policies without critique by our MSM. I understand both you and Malik's points, I'm just giving you the other side. I actually think Barack has done a good job of allowing criticism, so I have no beef with him at all. I think the point your missing is that the fear of being accused of being racist can lead to a lot of people deciding it's better to not criticize someone at all. That is censorship of a sort. I agree with both of you though that free speech can come with backlash and that's just part of the game. Good debate, this is the kind of exchange I love!
I understand the fear of being called racist. I fear being labeled an "angry black man". I know there are certain things I can't ever say around my co-workers, no matter how true and accurate they are, because I'll be ostracized, socially and professionally. Unfortunately, not everyone is tolerant of diversity of opinion. You have to pick your spots. I guess you could call that a kind of "social censorship". We all have to deal with it, on all kinds of issues, from race to religion. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in, in order to stay true to yourself. But sometimes it's just better to shut up and color, even if you believe you're right.
Hey Malik,
Well said. We all have to watch our tongue at some point, and that would definately be a form of "social censorship". There's always going to be out-of-line criticism in the media and expressing outrage is a part of the First Amendment that I will always defend. I just want our media to make some kind of attempt to be fair. Maybe I'm asking too much. Fox News is definately on one side and MSNBC is on the other. It's not really that bad, I can get criticism of anyone from somewhere. Still, my point stands that the MSM seems to have a liberal bias toward Barack (it could be just the "honeymoon" phase)when compared to how they treated Bush. My job is to point things like that out. My hope is that people will understand their media has bias, whether it's FOX or MSNBC, and consider that when they watch. Thanks for your input!
Post a Comment