(no subject)
Jul. 30th, 2009 10:15 amRight after I made my last blog post, I was reminded that I'm supposed to be avoiding unnecessary stress, so I haven't even been reading the comments on it. :P I'm actually spending most of the week down at my parents' house (the one on the little lake that I've mentioned before), which is very relaxing... a little mini-vacation, not away from work but away from stress.
But it is still International Blog Against Racism Week, and it'll be more stressful to completely ignore headlines like the one I just read than it would be to take a minute to acknowledge it. I'll just not read the comments until I'm in a better humor, and don't have anything that needs to get done.
r
Actually, on second thought, I'm just going to turn off comments on this post. This is a conversation that's happening all around us. I don't need to hold a debate on my blog.
Okay, when a case that looks like racial profiling comes up, the argument can be made... and frequently is... that the subject of it may have been treated like anyone else in the same situation, that the person who was acting is not a racist, etc. My last post was about how the fact that it might not specifically be racism this time is not reason enough to let it pass without comment. This post is about exactly how far we have to entertain the "not racist until proven guilty" notion.
I saw a headline on CNN.com this morning that had to be seen to be believed: Cop Apologies For 'Jungle Monkey' Email.
It got even more unbelievable: this wasn't a random racial slur, this was a Boston police officer commenting on the Professor Gates case. Officer Justin Barrett, angered by a newspaper column supporting the professor, sent off an email to a bunch of his fellow Guardsmen... yes, he's also in the National Guard... saying that if he'd been the one "verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance".
Emphasis mine. I just didn't want anyone to miss the subtle racial undertones there. Because, you know, it can be hard to tell when someone is being racist and when they're just reacting to a situation the same way they would if it were anybody else.
Officer Barrett also characterized Gates's complaints of racism as "jungle monkey gibberish".
The officer has "apologized" for the email, but guess what? According to his lawyer, he's not racist and he wasn't actually calling Professor Gates a "banana-eating jungle monkey", merely describing his behavior.
Do we honestly have to entertain this nonsense? Is it worth the effort it would take to point out how transparent this pretense is? I mean, one could argue that an officer of the law advocates spraying persons of color who speak up about racial issues in the face with chemical irritants is not a matter of public concern and should not be the subject of disciplinary hearings, though one would then be arguing that an officer of the law advocates spraying persons of color who speak up about racial issues in the face with chemical irritants is not a public matter... but to argue that it's not racist?
Ridiculous.
And I know without looking how all the racist rightwing commentators are going to cast this: they're going to say that people who call Officer Barrett out for his obvious racism are the racists for associating African descent with monkeys. That's ridiculous, though. The association is part of the lexicon of racism. It's not some random insult that Officer Barrett pulled out of the ether, and if he expects that people will be placated by his nonpology explanation, then he's adding an insult to intelligence on top of the initial one.
But it is still International Blog Against Racism Week, and it'll be more stressful to completely ignore headlines like the one I just read than it would be to take a minute to acknowledge it. I'll just not read the comments until I'm in a better humor, and don't have anything that needs to get done.
r
Actually, on second thought, I'm just going to turn off comments on this post. This is a conversation that's happening all around us. I don't need to hold a debate on my blog.
Okay, when a case that looks like racial profiling comes up, the argument can be made... and frequently is... that the subject of it may have been treated like anyone else in the same situation, that the person who was acting is not a racist, etc. My last post was about how the fact that it might not specifically be racism this time is not reason enough to let it pass without comment. This post is about exactly how far we have to entertain the "not racist until proven guilty" notion.
I saw a headline on CNN.com this morning that had to be seen to be believed: Cop Apologies For 'Jungle Monkey' Email.
It got even more unbelievable: this wasn't a random racial slur, this was a Boston police officer commenting on the Professor Gates case. Officer Justin Barrett, angered by a newspaper column supporting the professor, sent off an email to a bunch of his fellow Guardsmen... yes, he's also in the National Guard... saying that if he'd been the one "verbally assaulted like a banana-eating jungle monkey, I would have sprayed him in the face with OC deserving of his belligerent non-compliance".
Emphasis mine. I just didn't want anyone to miss the subtle racial undertones there. Because, you know, it can be hard to tell when someone is being racist and when they're just reacting to a situation the same way they would if it were anybody else.
Officer Barrett also characterized Gates's complaints of racism as "jungle monkey gibberish".
The officer has "apologized" for the email, but guess what? According to his lawyer, he's not racist and he wasn't actually calling Professor Gates a "banana-eating jungle monkey", merely describing his behavior.
Do we honestly have to entertain this nonsense? Is it worth the effort it would take to point out how transparent this pretense is? I mean, one could argue that an officer of the law advocates spraying persons of color who speak up about racial issues in the face with chemical irritants is not a matter of public concern and should not be the subject of disciplinary hearings, though one would then be arguing that an officer of the law advocates spraying persons of color who speak up about racial issues in the face with chemical irritants is not a public matter... but to argue that it's not racist?
Ridiculous.
And I know without looking how all the racist rightwing commentators are going to cast this: they're going to say that people who call Officer Barrett out for his obvious racism are the racists for associating African descent with monkeys. That's ridiculous, though. The association is part of the lexicon of racism. It's not some random insult that Officer Barrett pulled out of the ether, and if he expects that people will be placated by his nonpology explanation, then he's adding an insult to intelligence on top of the initial one.