Are My Attitudes About Race Any Of Your Business?
PG was living his life when see saw something on facebook: “And another thing: if you are going to claim NOT to be racist, I feel like you should familiarize yourself with some contemporary writings and definitions of racism, not just what Mirriam Webster says.” The first reaction was to ignore this. If you reply to a comment about racism on facebook, you are asking for trouble. Life is too short to be wasting time on such unpleasantness.
But the thought engine had been kickstarted, and continued to idle in the background. When PG pulled into the Kroger parking lot, the idea hit full force. Maybe whether you are, or are not, a racist, is no one else’s business.
Some people say that a PWOC is not affected by racism. If this is the case, then why should the racial attitudes of a PWOC affect another PWOC? If a person treats you fairly, do you really need to know this person’s attitudes about race?
The ex-fbf did not say what the context of this claim is. Did anyone ask you whether or not you were a racist? If not, are you assuming that they are interested? Maybe someone assumed the listener was interested. Maybe the proper response to look bored, and say TMI.
The comment mentioned “contemporary writings and definitions of racism”. Who are the people who set themselves up as arbiters about what we should think about race? What are the qualifications? Who asked them what they thought? How do we know that these people are dependable?.
Maybe the answer is to show compassion and kindness to your neighbor, and don’t worry about their racial attitudes. If you are proud of your racial attitudes, please refrain from boasting. Not everyone is interested. This is a repost. Pictures are from The Library of Congress.
Why Did The 1956 Legislature Change The Flag?
What Stacey Abrams said about burning the Georgia flag in 1992 The New York Times decided to show a picture of a younger, slimmer Stacey Abrams burning the Georgia state flag. The year was 1992. The state flag had the Confederate battle flag embedded. People were asking the legislature to change that. Miss Abrams was a student activist. This is a repost.
The NYT article sparked a twitter dogpile, about the motives of the Georgia legislature in 1956. PG remembers 1993, when the initial proposal to change the flag was made. Changing The Flag is an account of those years. If you have a minute, you should read that post before going any further. The people who wanted to change the flag introduced an argument. They said that the legislature changed the flag, in 1956, as a protest against integration. PG never believed that. One afternoon in 1994, PG found a newspaper article that supported his point of view. After that, PG did not think much about the issue. The flag was changed in 2000 and 2003.
The issue has a few shades of gray. The reason given in 1956 was honoring the Confederacy. In 1993, the 1956 legislature was said to be protesting integration. The emotions of honoring the Confederacy, and denouncing integration, are not entirely separate. Many of the same people, who are proud of the Confederacy, are white supremacists. To an outsider, they can seem like the same thing. PG can understand how someone not familiar with Georgia could mistake the two.
The debate, over the motive of the 1956 legislature, was never necessary. The flag, featuring the Confederate battle flag, was seen as a symbol of racism. Many people were offended by this flag. Why not just say we should change the flag for this reason, and not worry what the legislature was thinking? However, this was not good enough. People needed some more ammunition for their fight. The notion that the flag was changed as a protest against desegregation was born. PG never heard, before 1993, that the flag was changed as a protest against integration. People believed this notion without any evidence, just because somebody said so. 1994 was 38 years after 1956. Very few people in 1994 were active in 1956. The argument in favor of the changed-to-protest-integration notion had two parts: (1) Because I said so, (2) if you disagree you are a racist idiot.
@KevinMKruse No, she burned the old *Georgia* flag, which had been designed specifically by white supremacists as a show of defiance to desegregation in 1956. Let’s dig in. @chamblee54 The Flag was not changed as a protest against desegregation. Changing The Flag @KevinMKruse I literally wrote a book on this, but congratulations on finding a blog post. @chamblee54 I wrote the blog post. If you read the post, you will see I did research. Did anyone say at the time that the new flag was a protest? Do you have a link to this?
@jdtitan Luther, would you say you’re a racist idiot, or more of a stupid racist? @whoopityscoot Hahahahahahah. I just read your blog post. Sir, you are a moron. @ashleystollar That’s like saying the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery. @Duranti “emotional pride for the traitors to America” @The_SquidProQuo You found one old newspaper article and felt compelled to argue the point huh? Stupid is a hell of a drug. @theDiff_Kenneth I read your blog post and I would like that 10 minutes of my life back. Your “evidence” was an announcement article that supported the flag change and omitted any overtly racist comments. Your writing style is close to unreadable and your investigative skills do not exist. @kingbuzz0 If you ever find yourself in the position of arguing of (insert subject) in the South had nothing to do with (insert stand in for outright racism), you have a bad argument. It’s all racism, always, every time.
@JoshCStephenso You found a single article? Maybe you would trust a paper written by the Deputy Director of the Georgia Senate Research Office – a chamber that is majority R? This tweet was helpful. The report was written in 2000, before the a new flag was driven through the legislature. If you have the time to read the complete report, it is worth your time. If not, a few quotes will be posted here, along with a few helpful comments.
The first Confederate flag looked a great deal like the Union flag. In early battles of the war, the two flags were often confused. “The commanding Confederate officer at the Battle of Bull Run, General P.T.G. Beauregard, determined that a single distinct battle flag was needed for the entire Confederate army. Confederate Congressman William Porcher Miles recommended a design incorporating St. Andrew’s Cross.”… “The St. Andrew’s Cross – the flag’s distinctive feature – had its origin in the flag of Scotland, which King James I of England combined with St. George’s Cross to form the Union Flag of Great Britain. It is believed that St. Andrew, the patron saint of Scotland since A.D. 750. and brother of the apostle Peter, was crucified by his persecutors upon a cross in the shape of an “X” in A.D. 60. White southerners, many of whom traced their ancestry to Scotland, very easily related to this Christian symbol.” “Other flags such as State regimental colors were used by the Confederacy on the battlefield, but the battle flag, although it was never officially recognized by the Confederate government, came to represent the Confederate army.”
At first, use of the battle flag was restricted to historic events. It wasn’t until the fifties that the flag began to be used by those who fought integration. In 1954, Brown vs. Board of Education was handed down by the Supreme Court, ordering the integration of schools. The Georgia legislature went into resistance mode, and spent a lot of time denouncing integration. The senate research office devotes page after page to these efforts. Finally, “In early 1955, John Sammons Bell, chairman of the State Democratic Party … suggested a new state flag for Georgia that would incorporate the Confederate Battle Flag. At the 1956 session of the General Assembly, state senators Jefferson Lee Davis and Willis Harden introduced Senate Bill 98 to change the state flag. Signed into law on February 13, 1956, the bill became effective the following July 1.”
“Little information exists as to why the flag was changed, there is no written record of what was said on the Senate and House floors or in committee and Georgia does not include a statement of legislative intent when a bill is introduced – SB 98 simply makes reference to the “Battle Flag of the Confederacy.” … “Many defenders of the flag, including former governor Ernest Vandiver, who served as the Lieutenant Governor in 1956, have attempted to refute the belief that the battle flag was added in defiance of the Supreme Court rulings. Vandiver, in a letter to the Atlanta Constitution, insisted that the discussion on the bill centered around the coming centennial of the Civil War and that the flag was meant to be a memorial to the bravery, fortitude and courage of the men who fought and died on the battlefield for the Confederacy.”
This is where it gets murky. It is apparent that the legislature was obsessed with integration. The circumstantial evidence, of the flag being changed as a protest of integration, is there. However, there is no smoking gun. There are no apparent statements, from 1956, saying that this change was made to protest integration. This detail seems to have sprung up in 1993, without having been widely mentioned in the 37 years since 1956. The newspaper article PG found does not mention a protest against integration, and does mention a desire to honor the Confederacy.
“The argument that the flag was changed in 1956 in preparation for the approaching Civil War centennial appears to be a retrospective or after-the-fact argument. In other words, no one in 1956, including the flag’s sponsors, claimed that the change was in anticipation of the coming anniversary. Those who subscribe to this argument have adopted it long after the flag had been changed.” This is contradicted by the newspaper article, and statements by “Governor Griffin’s floor leader, Representative Denmark Groover … “anything we in Georgia can do to preserve the memory of the Confederacy is a step forward.” As for the after-the-fact argument, you could say the same thing about the notion that the flag was changed as a protest against integration.
“There was also some opposition to the change from the state’s many newspapers. The North Georgia Tribune argued that: “….There is little wisdom in a state taking an official action which would incite its people to lose patriotism in the U.S.A. or cast a doubt on that part of the Pledge of Allegiance which says ‘one nation, unto God, indivisible…’ So far as we are concerned, the old flag is good enough. We dislike the spirit which hatched out the new flag, and we don’t believe Robert E. Lee…would like it either” “The Atlanta Constitution also thought that the flag change was unnecessary for the simple fact that “there has been no recorded dissatisfaction with the present flag.” The newspaper article PG found in 1994 was from the Constitution. Even though they were opposed to the change, they did not attribute this change to a desire to protest integration.
“When the flag change was first proposed, it received resistance from groups that one would think would have highly favored the change – various Confederate organizations including the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). “They made the change strictly against the wishes of UDC chapters from all the states that form our organization,” said Ms. Forrest E. Kibler, legislative chairwoman of the Georgia UDC. … The Executive Board of the Georgia Division of UDC had passed a resolution on January 11, 1956 opposing the proposed changes to the flag, citing that the Confederate battle flag belonged to all the Confederate States – not merely to Georgia – and placing it on the Georgia flag would cause strife. … Also opposing the new flag was the John B. Gordon Camp of the Sons of Confederate Veterans. This group protested against all uses of the battle flag except in commemoration of the Confederacy, or by the official use of the Daughters of the Confederacy, the Sons of the Confederacy, and the Children of the Confederacy.” This opposition was touched on in the newspaper article. This is one of the more confusing aspects of this affair.
“While many questioned the political and philosophical motives of the flag change, there were others who considered the change to be an unnecessary expense that would burden taxpayers, since Georgia law required every public school, and all public institutions to fly the state flag. In voting “no,” Representative Mackay said that the present flag was “a symbol of sacred memory” and that “the change puts every flag owner in Georgia to unnecessary expense.” Alleviating the financial concerns of many, sponsors of the bill pointed out that those institutions required to fly the new flag will replace the old flag with the new one only as present flags wear out. Questions were also raised on whether anyone had a copyright on the flag design which would entitle them to royalties – a charge denied by John Sammons Bell and Representative Groover.”
John Sammons Bell is a name that keeps coming up. From 1954 to 1960, Mr. Bell was Chairman of the State’s Democratic Party. He was, by all accounts, an enthusiastic segregationist. One of the jaw dropping moments in the senate report was this: “Bell, a one-time supporter of Governor Ellis Arnall, once had the reputation of being a “liberal” on race issues.”
When the state senate report was issued, in 2000 (6 years after PG found the newspaper article, and dropped out of the argument,) Mr. Bell had a few comments. “He wanted to forever perpetuate the memory of the Confederate soldier who fought and died for his state and that the purpose of the change was “to honor our ancestors who fought and died and who have been so much maligned.” He has also argued that the flag was not redesigned in reaction to and in defiance of the 1954 Brown decision… “Absolutely nothing could be further from the truth … every bit of it is untrue. ”
“On March 9, 1993, (Denmark) Groover moved many Georgians when he stood in the House well to address his colleagues on the subject of the state flag. In an emotional speech, he acknowledged that the flag is offensive to some and conceded that, “I cannot say to you that I personally was in no way motivated by a desire to defy. I can say in all honesty that my willingness was in large part because … that flag symbolized a willingness of a people to sacrifice their all for their beliefs.” Mr. Groover offered a compromise, which included a smaller version of the battle flag. A flag similar to that was adopted in 2000, only to be changed again in 2003.
To sum up, the Georgia state flag was changed in 1956. The new flag contained the Confederate battle flag. Many people were offended by the 1956 flag. PG thought it was ugly. Many others saw it, with some justification, as a symbol of racism. For some reason, speculation about the motives of the 1956 legislature. 18 years after the passage of a new flag, people are still arguing over the motives of the 1956 legislature. Pictures for this gratuitous waste of bandwidth are from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library”. .
Pre-K Anti-Racism
The facebook meme interrupted the cheerful October apathy. The meme was about an article, My 2-Year-Old Doesn’t Seem to Care About Being Anti-Racist. The colorful graphic did not have a link to the story, so PG googled the title. Soon, there were lots of options for Pre-K social justice education. Pictures today are from The Library of Congress.
The headline story was on Slate. The format is the anxious letter to an advice columnist. The subtitle was “Have we screwed up somehow?”
“Dear Care and Feeding, My husband and I (we’re white) have a 2-year-old daughter and are doing our very best to be anti-racist parents. We’re making sure she has lots of multiracial dolls, only consumes books and TV shows with diverse characters, has no problematic Halloween costumes, and so on. But when we try to discuss issues like structural racism, intersectionality, or White fragility, she doesn’t seem at all interested. She often walks away, asks for a cookie, or even falls asleep! Have we screwed up somehow? Has society’s disdain for the perspectives of marginalized people already infected her? How do we get her to appreciate the urgency of the conversation around deconstructing white supremacy? — Anti-Racist Mom.”
This is where the free story ends. “The rest of this article is only for Slate Plus members. Sign up to get more Care and Feeding every week. For just $35 for your first year, you’ll also get…”
Some of the results are boring. Anti-Racism for Kids … Is most notable for this observation: “ ‘I don’t know that I’d sit down with a 3-year-old and say, ‘Let’s talk about racism,’ says Dr. Schonfeld.”
6 easy ways … hits on a persistent theme in woke literature. “As humans, we are hard-wired to identify with members of our own community, which is why we will never live in a post-racial society. So-called color-blindness as a parenting strategy amounts to complicity in the problem.” Somehow, being color blind is seen as a bad thing. Whatever.
The dependably woke Washington Post populates their paywall with What white parents get wrong about raising antiracist kids … “One of the biggest misconceptions white parents have is that their children don’t notice race unless it is pointed out to them. The underlying assumption is that children only become racist if they are taught to be. In fact, research clearly shows the opposite: Kids develop racial prejudice unless their parents or teachers directly engage with them about it.”
In her book Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? And Other Conversations About Race,” “Spelman College psychologist Beverly Tatum writes that “cultural racism — the cultural images and messages that affirm the assumed superiority of Whites and the assumed inferiority of people of color — is like a smog in the air. Sometimes it is so thick it is visible, other times it is less apparent, but always, day in and day out, we are breathing it in.”
“So kids breathe this racially charged air — and if their parents and teachers don’t help to explain to them what race means (and what it doesn’t), kids start to create their own narratives. They often infer that racial hierarchies exist because of innate differences between people of different races and so start to believe that whites are privileged because they are inherently better and smarter.”
Some of this material is by “experts.” There are probably people who disagree with these observations, and a lot of exceptions to the rules. PG knows next to nothing about raising children, and is a bad person to have opinions here. Still, PG shakes his head at this: “Looking for a way to talk about race with your preschooler? Try baking. Crack open a white egg and then a brown egg, and show your kid how they’re the same inside. Or you can present your child with two gifts—one wrapped in ribbons and glitter, another in crinkled newspaper. Fill the sparkly one with dirt and the other with a shiny bracelet. Then get the conversation going: ‘Can you really judge what’s inside by the outside?'”
Or this. “White- centeredness is not the reality of [the white child’s] world, but he is under the illusion that it is. It is thus impossible for him to deal accurately or adequately with the universe of human and social relationships.” If you were to substitute black for white here, someone would call you racist. And they would be correct. Sweeping generalization, based on skin color, usually are.
The last result on page one is an NPR interview with children’s author Renee Watson, and Ibram X. Kendi. “I want to go back to “Hair Love.” I think it’s important to bring in books that allow readers to see black people living their everyday lives. We don’t want to teach children that black pain and struggle is the only part of black life. But I also think it’s important to just let young people see that black people live lives. And they do their hair. And they play outside. And they have fun and that that is an important part of the conversation, too.”
Measuring Racism
PG hears the word “racist” tossed casually so much, he suspects it has lost it’s meaning. Dictionary definitions are of little use. The meaning of the word depends on who is saying it.
The modest suggestion here is for a seven point scale to measure racism. Zero would be totally colorblind, and six would be metaphysical hate. For the sake of simplicity, this scale, in the beginning, will only apply to white-black relations in the United States.
The model for this is the Kinsey scale. In his books on human sexuality, Dr. Kinsey described a seven point scale. Zero was totally heterosexual, and six was totally homosexual.
PG does not have a clue how to write a test for this scale, or how to score this test. White people see racism differently than black people. White people are affected by racism in different ways than black people. Different cultures view racism in different ways.
How would PG score on this scale? He has black friends and black enemies. Certain parts of black culture are enjoyable, and certain parts make him want to turn the radio off.
PG does not like people that do not like PG. When it is us against them, you need to remember which one you are. How does this register on this racism scale? It depends on who does the judging.
This is a repost. Pictures today are from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library”. These images are from “… a collection of images of downtown Atlanta streets that were taken before the viaduct construction of 1927 – 1929. Later, some of the covered streets became part of Underground Atlanta.” The renovation at Underground never stops.
Subtle Ways
Facebook has a feature called “watch.” It is a symbol at the top of the page, which is sometimes advertised with a red marker. If you click on the symbol, you are encouraged to watch videos.
The Subtle Way to F**k with Racists – James Davis, with the uncensored f word, was the top video saturday. PG considers the r word to be hate speech, and complained about the video. The evil empire soon replied that the video did not qualify as unsuitable.
The Subtle Way … is a comedy routine. It starts off with some commentary on riots. It is not until 2:26 that we get to the “Subtle Way.” Since copyright protection is real, this will be paraphrased.
After the rioters are finished looting, the comedian goes to the vehicles of “racist people.” He peels the sticker off the license plate. He is not going to (expletive) property, he is going to (expletive) you. You are going to go to the DMV, because Black Lives Matter. After you get back from the DMV, your vehicle gets keyed. The audience laughs repeatedly. They are not worried about their vehicles.
Having “your shit” keyed is not subtle. This is probably someone the performer has never met. The comedian does not say how he knows they are racist. Even if this is a “racist people,” that does not justify malicious damage to property. This is what Facebook is encouraging.
The next “Subtle Way” involves breaking and entering. The comedian is going to break into the house of the policeman. They will break in, take “they best wine,” and put it in the freezer. When the officers wife goes to get the wine, there will be an unpleasant surprise. Meanwhile, the comedian is going to hide in the bushes outside, and yell “N***a.” Facebook, and Comedy Central Stand-Up, think this is a good idea. Pictures today are from The Library of Congress.
#1619Gate
The 1619 Project was published by the New York Times in August, 2019. It was a grand historic project, marking the 400th anniversary of the first African slaves to arrive in Virginia. Claims were made. “The 1619 project is a major initiative from The New York Times observing the 400th anniversary of the beginning of American slavery. It aims to reframe the country’s history, understanding 1619 as our true founding …”
Many of the claims were controversial. A few days ago, without any explanation, the Times deleted many of the “true founding” comments. Not surprisingly, many people noticed the difference. Cached copies have a way of contradicting convenient revisionism.
Full Disclosure: I have not read The 1619 Project. My reading bandwidth is limited. I cannot comment on the narrative presented in the project, and assume that much of it is true. What is fascinating about #1619Gate is the spectacle of the mighty New York Times humbling itself. There is also the bizarre behavior of @nhannahjones, the lady behind The 1619 Project
This tweet landed on my timeline earlier this week. @nhannahjones “There is a difference between being politically black and being racially black. I am not defending anyone, but we all know this and should stop pretending that we don’t”
@kelsey_midd “What does this mean?”
@nhannahjones “If you don’t know it ain’t for you.”
@kelsey_midd “I’m not the only person that asked. I’m also a black person.”
@nhannahjones “Yes, I am capable of seeing your avatar. And I will repeat: if you don’t understand the difference between being born/designated a certain race and taking up a particular set of racial politics, I am not going to educate you here.
@chamblee54 The lady does not suffer from false modesty @nhannahjones “Reporter @nytmag covering race from 1619-present//AKA The Beyoncé of Journalism//Co-founder ida b wells society //smart and thuggish//Aries//1619Project.” After a while, “The Beyoncé of Journalism” was looking more like the Kellyanne Conway of historic scholarship.
Before getting to the last segment of this show, we should mention what happened earlier sunday night. I am part of a poetry community, which is now meeting on zoom. This group is welcoming, and supportive of my work. Unfortunately, they welcome some less appealing players. Last night, one man had a poem about abolishing the police. There was a line. The only time colonizing white people like the police is when they need to have a (racial slur) exterminated. (That is not an exact quote.) I cut the sound off, and waited for the piece to be over.
The boundless folly of woke twitter awaited me. I soon came across the following exchange. I have a screen shot of the punch line, in case it is deleted. The tacky poet fell into context.
@sullydish “Basic rule in online journalism: if you change something after publication, acknowledge and explain it. On 1619 Project, NYT just broke this basic *ethical* rule. And to further the cover up @nhannahjones deleted all tweet history. Let that sink in.”
@nhannahjones “This is the last thing I will say about this. The wording in question never appeared in the 1619 Project text. It appears nowhere in the printed copy, something easily verifiable as pointed out to you. It didn’t appear in my essay nor any of the actual journalism we produced.”
@ira_mckey “It may be the last thing you say about it, but the Twitter screenshots and the history of what you said about it Still exist.” (Includes photo of NHJ tweet: @nhannahjones “I argue that 1619 is our true founding. Also, look at the banner pic in my profile.”)
@nhannahjones “This is my tweet. My tweets are not official 1619 copy.”
Pictures today are from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library”. More episodes of the #1619Gate series are available. Two Three Four Five
Know What To Do
The Same Drugs: James Lindsay still thinks 2+2=4. There was another youtube conversation. @ConceptualJames talked about a conversation with one of “my actual right-wing friends.”
“I was talking to one though, and this guy’s like you know old school, and super super right-wing … so he said the word racist doesn’t mean anything to me anymore, at all, if somebody calls me racist it doesn’t mean anything, however … I know what the word racist means for me and i’m going to continue not being racist by that definition.”
@ConceptualJames has a lively twitter feed. Yesterday brought “Critical race theory in a single image.” The picture was from another youtube show, Ashleigh Shackelford gives a presentation on Racism. Someone is standing in front of a group of white people, with a sign that says “all white people are racist.” The lady is “Hunter Ashleigh Shackelford (she/ they) … Black fat cultural producer, multidisciplinary artist, nonbinary shapeshifter, hood feminist, and data futurist”
“all white people are racist so I put this up because I really want any white person in the room to know up front that this is what we’re dealing with, that it’s not going to be this coddling of white tears … we’re not going to discuss oh maybe some of us have work it out no you’re always going to be racist actually so even when you’re on your path to trying to figure out how to be a better human being … I believe that white people are born to not be human … instead of people of color and black folks being dehumanized that actually everyone is human … within white supremacy that y’all are born into a life to not be human and … y’all are taught to do to be demons so in this particular way white people are all racist so I just want y’all to know that it’s wrong”
Pictures are from The Library of Congress.
Don’t Yuck On My Yum
Don’t yuck on my yum. This is a thing. It means that if I like something, and you don’t, then keep your disapproval to yourself. Don’t yuck on my yum. PG first heard this saying on the RISK podcast, probably in an episode where host Kevin Allison goes to kink camp.
PG can not track down the exact episode. It is in there somewhere, but looking for it is too much work. OTOH, PG can point out, with great precision, when he became persona non grata in the RISK community. He yucked on somebodies yum.
It started with this episode. Nimisha Ladva told the story “Mother in law.” Nimisha, newly married to David, is dreading a lunch date with his mother, Elaine. David told a story about how Elaine asked him if Nimisha was black. The young bride was outraged. At about ten minutes into the show, Nimisha is ranting about how horrible it was to eat lunch with a racist. PG made a comment in the “RISK! Podcast Fans Discussion Group.”
“I recently sent a link to the Paul Gilmartin story to a friend. He is in the AA program, and I thought he would enjoy the atory. Here is the email I sent with that link. – This is a link to a story. It is an AA war story. It starts at 20 minutes. The first story in this show is about an Indian lady, who does not like her Jewish mother in law. At ten minutes into the show, the bride says “I am going to have to spend the day with a racist.” – At this point, I turned off the show in anger. I am sensitive to the term racist, for perfectly obvious reasons. I did not want to listen to the rest of the show. – When I decided to send you the link, I had to listen to the part of the show around the 20 minute mark, so I could know when the war story started. I set the timer for 18 minutes, and listened to the end of the mother in law story. There is a twist in the story, and everyone is friends now. The bride says “I am ashamed of reducing her to her racism.”
As anyone with internet access knows, a comment like that is likely to stir up trouble. People enjoy the sport of trashing another human being because of their racial attitudes. If you follow this link, you can see the dogpile that resulted. It got to be a cliche party, with chestnuts like this: “I would invite you to reflect on your pain in being called racist, and imagine how much worse it is to experience racism. Dismantling racism is the goal, not making sure no ones feelings are hurt.”
Performative name calling does does not affect police brutality, economic opportunity, or access to decent housing. All it does, in this case, is hold up a lady to ridicule, based on her perceived racial values. This social justice performance art goes on all the time, and if you object to it, then you can expect to be called a racist. The white savior considers criticism of their privilege to be racism, and does not have a problem with telling you about it.
It should be noted that their were other yumyucking incidents. The one described merely is the first one. There were other breaches of *community standards*, until Kevin delivered the “you’re an asshole” fatwa. When you do the work of creating a show, you earn the right to ban inconvenient members of the audience. PG can say he did nothing wrong as much as he likes.
Calling people racist is their yum. And when you say that this is not really a good thing to do, you are yucking on their yum. This facebook thread was the first time some of these people have heard that saying racist is not helpful. If you engage with them, you violate an ancient bit of wisdom: Never wrestle with a hog. You will just get dirty, and the pig will enjoy himself. Pictures for this conflict devolution chronicle are from The Library of Congress.
Rhetoric Over History
The symbolic fight today is over Confederate monuments. The high octane rhetoric is heard loud and clear. There is even historic revisionism. “…the real motivation was: to physically symbolize white terror against blacks.” PG finds this reasoning tough to believe. It sounds like another argument, from another symbolic battle. History likes to repeat herself.
In 1993, a movement emerged to change the Georgia state flag. At the time, the Saint Andrews cross, aka the Confederate flag, was on one side of the flag. Many people were offended by this flag, Many people liked this flag, and wanted to keep it. The argument went on for a few years.
In 2001, a new flag was adopted. The 2001 flag was even uglier than the old flag. The 2001 flag was rammed through the legislature. Part of this change was a law, protecting state monuments. “When Georgia took the Confederate battle symbol off the state flag in 2001, part of the compromise lawmakers struck was a new state law that protected Confederate memorials and monuments from being removed, relocated or even altered.” This law did not apply to the state flag, which was changed again in 2003. The current flag is similar to another Confederate flag.
When the flag change movement got started, a bit of historic revision was introduced. The story was that the legislature changed the state flag as a protest against desegregation. The first page of google does not have any of the 1993 rhetoric. The talk was louder, and angrier, in 1993.
PG never did believe the argument that the flag was changed as a protest. PG accepted that the flag was offensive to many, and did not object to changing it. However, he does not like to be lied to. If the flag was offensive to a large part of the state, why would you need to rewrite history? The 1956 legislature was a gnarly bunch… crooked, alcoholic, racist, and overwhelmingly Democratic. If anything else, they were not smart enough to change the flag as a protest. In 1956, protest was not the national pastime. Not everything had a hidden meaning.
Microfilm may wear out, but it does not lie. PG found an article announcing the change in the Atlanta Constitution. There was no mention of protesting integration. The fishwrapper, and the politicians, spoke about honoring the Confederacy.
The argument over changing the state flag was totally symbolic. The issues that affect communities of color, and communities without color, were not affected. Economic opportunity, equitable justice, access to housing and education… none of these life or death issues were affected by having the Saint Andrews cross on the state flag. The squabbling over the state flag was a proxy fight over black vs white. Pictures today are from “The Special Collections and Archives, Georgia State University Library”. Most of today’s photos are from 1954 – 1956.
UPDATE This is a repost. The 1993 state flag debate was brought up during the 2018 Governor’s election from hell. The rhetoric was just as foolish as ever. PG took another look at the matter, found some new material, and came to the same conclusions.
Michael Donald
PG was looking at facebook, minding his own business. Then he saw something he could not unsee.(TRIGGER WARNING) The NSFW image showed a dead black man hanging in a tree. You can see his face. The caption: “Fox News commentator and Trump sycophant Tucker Carlson said yesterday that “white supremacy is a hoax.” I wonder if this poor man would agree? (I apologize if the image offends but sometimes right-wing idiots have to have reality stare them in the face.)”
The gut level reaction was that of being violated. What gives a facebook “friend” the right to shove a gruesome image in the viewers face? A lot more than “right-wing idiots” will see this picture. We understand that a Fox-boi said something you don’t like. That does not give you the right to disturb the community peace of mind.
There are plenty of arguments you can make. You can post your two-wrongs-make-a-right all day long. No doubt _______ did something terrible last week. That does not give you the right to post an obscene picture on facebook. UPDATE: The image has been *hidden* by facebook.
White Supremacy® is an expression that grows by leaps and bounds. It used to mean the kkk, and other hard-core racists. Now, it means whatever you want it to mean. The definition of WS has expanded to the point where the term is meaningless. It is tough to say what, if anything, Tarlson Cucker meant. We would be better off using the phrase White Supremacy® a lot less frequently.
When you are collateral damage on facebook, you have a few options. You can unfriend the perp, and say rude things about them behind their back. This has always seemed petty and childish. Another thing you can do is research the picture. PG did a google images search of the picture. It turns out to be a powerful story. Is it proper to appropriate this image to shame Tarlson Cucker? As if he would know it happened, or care.
Michael Donald is the man hanging in the tree. Here is the story of how he got there. “That week, a jury had been struggling to reach a verdict in the case of a black man accused of murdering a white policeman. The killing had occurred in Birmingham, but the trial had been moved to Mobile. To (Bennie) Hays — the second-highest Klan official in Alabama — and his fellow members of Unit 900 of the United Klans, the presence of blacks on the jury meant that a guilty man would go free. … Hays had said that Wednesday, ”If a black man can get away with killing a white man, we ought to be able to get away with killing a black man.””
“On Friday night, after the jurors announced they couldn’t reach a verdict, the Klansmen got together in a house Bennie Hays owned on Herndon Avenue. According to later testimony from James (Tiger) Knowles, then 17 years old, Tiger produced a borrowed pistol. Henry Francis Hays, Bennie’s 26-year-old son, took out a rope. Then the two got in Henry’s car and went hunting for a black man.”
“Michael Donald was alone, walking home, when Knowles and Hays spotted him. They pulled over, asked him for directions to a nightclub, then pointed the gun at him and ordered him to get in. They drove to the next county. When they stopped, Michael begged them not to kill him, then tried to escape. Henry Hays and Knowles chased him, caught him, hit him with a tree limb more than a hundred times, and, when he was no longer moving, wrapped the rope around his neck. Henry Hays shoved his boot in Michael’s face and pulled on the rope. For good measure, they cut his throat. … Henry Hays and Knowles returned to the party at Bennie Hays’s house, where they showed off their handiwork, and, looping the rope over a camphor tree, raised Michael’s body just high enough so it would swing.” For a while, it looked like the case would go unsolved.
Some people kept looking. “After hearing a lot of lies and following many unproductive leads, (Thomas H.) Figures and (James) Bodman uncovered one key fact: On the night of the murder, Tiger Knowles had returned to Bennie Hays’s house with blood on his shirt. With this new evidence, the Justice Department convened an investigative grand jury in Mobile. Incredibly, the Klansmen called to testify did not bring lawyers with them. In short order, one witness told the grand jury that young Henry Hays had admitted everything to him. This got back to Tiger Knowles, who began to worry that Henry Hays would confess — and, by trading testimony against Knowles for a reduced sentence, leave him bearing the greater burden of guilt.”
“In June of 1983, Knowles confessed to F.B.I. agent Bodman. After pleading guilty to violating Michael Donald’s civil rights, he was placed in the Federal witness protection program — a fairly standard accommodation for Klan informers — and sentenced to life in prison. In December, when Henry Hays was tried for capital murder, Knowles appeared as a prosecution witness.”
Henry Hays was found guilty. “Hays was executed in Alabama electric chair Yellow Mama after Governor Fob James refused to commute his sentence. He was the first white person executed for murder of a black in Alabama since 1913.” Mr. Hays died June 6, 1997.
“Donald’s mother, Beulah Mae Donald, in assistance of SPLC, sued United Klans of America in a civil suit. An all White jury found the Klan responsible for the lynching of Michael Donald and ordered it to pay 7 million dollars. This resulted in the Klan having to hand over all its assets including its national headquarters in Tuscaloosa.”
Pictures today are from The Library of Congress. This is a repost.
PRX Racism Scandal Part Two
PRX Racism Scandal was featured at chamblee54 this past wednesday. It is about Palace Shaw, a young lady of color. Until recently, PRX employed Ms. Shaw. The employment ended badly. Ms. Shaw was not quiet about it. The alleged racism got the non profit agency a few minutes of unwanted attention. There is nothing like woke silliness for cheap amusement.
The bad boss letter featured complaints of hair touching, pay inequality, and insufficient concern over social issues. The hair touching incident was a purple prose classic: “… our CEO, Kerri Hoffman … saw me from outside working late at the Podcast Garage, and came in to touch my hair, put her fingers into my top bun, immediately after she commented on my “distinct profile.””
A white man, like PG, can be confused by hair touching hysteria. It might be more of a woman thing. PG has been told many times, in angry tones, never touch a black ladies hair. This is despite the fact that PG has absolutely zero desire to touch a black lady’s hair. Apparently, this is a big thing with black women. Palace Shaw left a $48k job, in large part because someone touched her hair.
Salary inequality is as old as working for wages. Sometimes it is justified, but usually it is not. Ms. Shaw mentions that co-workers, doing the same job, were paid more. The race of these co-workers is not specified. In the Podcast Garage website, staff pictures are displayed. (Ms. Shaw models the distinct profile.) The other “Community Manager” is Se’era Spragley Ricks, a lady of color.
“Everyone at PRX should know that each characteristic on the list of White Supremacy Culture Characteristics is fully expressed in the workplace …” The WSC document is curious. It lists many so-called sins of management. It is tough to see how exactly this becomes white supremacy. In fact, the WSC document states “Organizations that are people of color-led or a majority people of color can also demonstrate many damaging characteristics of white supremacy culture.” Does PRX express every characteristic on the list? Who knows.
Palace Shaw used to co-host a podcast. “The Whitest Cube is a podcast about the exclusionary history of art institutions from the perspective of people of color.” The motto: “Museums are really sensitive to critique. We decided we don’t care.” The show lasted seven episodes.
The PRX story is playing out. Top bun enthusiast Kerri Hoffman sent out a heartfelt letter, promising to do better. This prompted a reply, saying this is not good enough. There was also a survey sent out, to anyone who cared to participate. One of the questions is a crowd pleaser: “For current donors/financial supporters: How much would you be willing to increase your current pledge if PRX makes necessary changes to address its white supremacy culture?”
Pictures today are from The Library of Congress.
PRX Racism Scandal
@yourpaljonathan“I was angry, frustrated, and frankly embarrassed to read a letter from a Black employee of PRX who was not treated with the respect that she deserved while working there. I don’t work for PRX, but they are the company that owns Radiotopia, which distributes my show.”
PG has never met, much less become pals with, @yourpaljonathan. PG is not sure what PRX is, except that it has something to do with podcasts. It probably involves financial support, which makes one wonder why podcasters would publicly call out an organization that gives them money. The tweet above was retweeted by one of these shows, @TheTruthFiction. This is how PG found out about this.
The sensible reaction to seeing a racism tweet is to ignore it, and move on. Unfortunately, PG had a weak moment, and sent a reply. @chamblee54 “are you going to share the letter with us? how do we know that BEOP is not the problem, and conveniently blaming her own issues on racism? it would not be the first time” Before you can say 240 characters, there was a reply. @evantessuraea “I’ve read the letter, you can find it”
@rvanroon “For now Jonathan and Helen are talking shit. Prove what the former employee writes is the truth.” @HelenZaltzman “It has been confirmed to me by several sources, and some of what the employee mentions is racially specific. Other things are statistically demonstrable. We’re “talking shit” until proven otherwise to you? Fuck off yourself.” @HelenZaltzman has a very fine show on PRX, The Allusionist. In an ironic touch, the last episode was “Allusionist 120. Shine Theory.” Shine is sometimes used as a derogatory term for African Americans.
At some point, we should ask, what is PRX, aka Public Radio Exchange? “The PRX Exchange is a nonprofit Internet-based service for distribution, review, and licensing of radio programming.”
Radiotopia is the arm of PRX that PG is most familiar with. “Radiotopia, from PRX, is a curated network of extraordinary, cutting-edge podcasts. Radiotopia empowers independent producers to do their best work, grow audience and increase revenue. … is a partnership between PRX and Roman Mars, creator of 99% Invisible, supported by the Knight Foundation.”
Radiotopia, and all of her shows, conducts fund raising drives. The tip jar is always on the counter. Some people wonder why @HelenZaltzman is so eager to wash nonprofit laundry on twitter. @chamblee54 “If this matter is not publicly resolved to your satisfaction, will you continue to take money from @prx? Or will you look for a more “woke” source of revenue?”
Finally, curiosity got the best of PG, and he decided to read the letter. After consultations with Mr. Google did not uncover the letter, PG found a twitter thread. Here are four tweets from the thread. The first is the introduction. The next three deal with specific grievances by BEOP. They are presented in order of appearance, which is presumably the order of importance.
@freepublicradio “A Thread… Recently, a black woman who worked for @prx sent an email to her colleagues to let them know why she was leaving the organization. Here are some highlights:”
“-CEO Kerri Hoffman touched a this black womans hair without her permission making her feel violated. This issue was brought to HR and they did nothing, but defend Kerri Hoffman and tell the offended woman “I am sorry if that made you feel othered.”
“-PRX refused to pay this black woman more than 48K a yr in her position. She later found out that co-workers who have the same position & responsibilites as her, & who have less experience, & who she trained, both started their positions 7K & 5K more than the cap she was told.”
“-She knew she could no longer be a part of PRX after an all-staff meeting following George Floyd’s murder. “There was no organizational acknowledgment of George Floyd’s murder or the uprisings until over a week past his death despite having a large office in Minneapolis..”
Pictures today are from The Library of Congress. UPDATE: The actual letter has turned up. The ladie’s name is Palace Shaw. The letter has a few more details.
The Hair touching story is like something out of a bad romance novel. “Early on into my time as the Community Manager our CEO, Kerri Hoffman, touched my hair without my consent, it was a total violation. She saw me from outside working late at the Podcast Garage, and came in to touch my hair, put her fingers into my top bun, immediately after she commented on my “distinct profile.” That moment deeply disturbed me. I brought it to HR and they chose to defend Kerri by not acknowledging the obviously racialized nature of the interaction, which I was very clear about. I was told, “I am sorry if that made you feel othered.” UPDATE: PRX Racism Scandal Part Two is now available.
Chamblee54 
leave a comment