by Jerome du Bois
Almost three years ago we published a little piece called Coda Illegal, in which we wondered whether Downtown Art Doyenne Beatrice Moore was using illegal labor on the roof of her Weird Garden. We posted a photo with it. That digital document caused an immediate brouhaha and lingering charges of racism. We've explained our position more than once. We are not racists. In fact, my own conclusion from years of serious research and reading is that we are all Africans. I've said it, written it, made art about it, because I believe it. There is only one human race; all this ethnic maumauing is just people scrambling for handles of power, such as the notion of "permanence of race." Crazy. In a hundred years, we'll all be beige. Still, every once in awhile some commenter comes around waving that picture and then immediately using words we never did and never would use and attributing them to us. Old tactic --it's called race-gaming-- and I'm going to tear it up and lay it to rest right here before I'm done.
But first, I note that Beatrice Moore could have settled the issue of the guys on the roof years ago. She is sure to know about it by now, our email is always open, and she's had plenty of time to clear up the whole thing. She hasn't. My take? It's in her interest to keep the thing hanging out there in limbo, so people can still have some kind of handle to call us racist. And maybe she's angry because we queered some deal for her. My pure speculation only.
Second, we have often wondered, in print, why racism only seems to point in one direction, and why there's only one group --white folks-- who are forbidden to criticize anyone on racial grounds, yet white people remain the primary target for minority group criticism. Criticism? Hell, it's downright demonization. And nobody calls them on it. Seems unfair to the fairskinned, and to them only. Let's study on that.
For example, why does the black woman "artist" Kara Walker get rewarded for depicting, with sadistic joy, white people commiting the worst crimes imaginable? Why does black male artist William Pope.L get away with calling an art exhibition "Art After White People"? Can you imagine an "Art After Mexican People" show? When Hector Ruiz crudely carves what amounts to white lawn jockeys, nobody calls him racist. When black woman painter Beverly McIver makes fun of white people on canvas, she gets more than a pass, she gets a career. Then there's Haunani Trask. As I wrote in "Rebarbarization In The Academy" two years ago:
When a high-school student turns in a detailed written description of murdering a classmate, he (sometimes, not always) goes to counseling. But when University of Hawai'i Professor Haunani Trask wrote a book of poetry called "Racist White Woman" --which detailed "her fantasy of punching, knifing, mutilating and ultimately murdering a white colleague she despised"-- it was published.
I also remember, even earlier, Catherine's "Just 'Fro Stories," about the SMoCA HairStories exhibition and catalogue. Catherine pointed out
the anti-American hatred of poet Pamela Sneed --who ignores both the Holocaust and 9/11-- and hair expert Pamela Ferrell, who said this:
"It's so interesting to hear the conversation and people talk about the Taliban controlling people in terms of their hair and not being able to cut it. And it's interesting how Americans act so concerned about people being oppressed when we know America is the world leader in oppression and discrimination . . ."[my emphasis]
We couldn't get hold of Sneed or Ferrell, but we did email one of the authors of the catalogue, ASU Professor Neil Lester, a black man, and asked him if he agreed with their political views. He responded with another old tactic --asking if we were under psychiatric care-- and dodged and ignored everything else. Smug bastard, and typical of the insulated tenured.
While we're in academia, I'll bring up one of the many infuriating eye-openers in Jonah Goldberg's goldmine of a book, Liberal Fascism. I refer to Whiteness Studies, which is sometimes subsumed under Critical Race Theory. Here is Goldberg in a passage (p.368) whose first sentence is raising hackles across the blogosphere:
The white male [sic] is the Jew of liberal fascism. The "key to solving the social problems of our age is to abolish the white race," writes whiteness studies scholar and historian Noel Ignatiev. Whiteness studies is a cutting-edge academic discipline sweeping American higher education. Some thirty universities have WS departments, but many more schools teach the essentials of whiteness studies in other courses. The executive director of the Center for the Study of White American Culture [at Harvard] explains, "There is no crime that whiteness has not committed against people of color . . . We must blame whiteness for the continuing patterns today . . . which damage and prevent the humanity of those of us within it."
(This is not a new idea, by the way --Susan Sontag, 1967: "The white race is the cancer of human history."-- but WS is the newest fleur de mal in a poisonous academic bouquet. One encouraging sign: Race Traitor, Ignatiev's online bizzaroland, hasn't published anything new in over two years.)
To pick just one of the myriad outrages of this obscene notion: "whiteness" is not a conscious being that can "commit" crimes. It is not some giant amorphous infectious ghost which roams the land looking for people of color to throw down on. This is common anthropomorphism and bogeyman projection. In fact, there is no such thing as whiteness. But there is flesh, isn't there? the pale living flesh, full of nerves that can feel pain, which some people of color seem to hate so much. Sick bastards. And this so-called academic discipline polishes up reverse racism with a phony shine of legitimacy, keeping up the good fight of keeping whitey feeling guilty. To hell with that.
Another example of contemporary race gaming which blew my mind. It was something my wife, Catherine King, picked up on as we watched the Black Theater Troupe perform Tony Kushner's Caroline, or Change. While we were discussing this piece here, she told me how she had been mulling over what we had seen onstage in the John Paul Theater back in late December. Her earlier piece posted here praised the actors, the staging, and the presentation of the Black Theater Troupe. This is separate. This is about Kushner's concept, and his disingenuous sleight of hand.
A little background. The play is about a very bitter and unlikeable female black laundry worker in Lake Charles, Louisiana, in late 1963. She works in the basement of a white household --father mourning wife's death even while remarried to dead wife's best friend; the new stepmother trying to keep it all together; and the ten-year-old son, disastrously trying to remake Caroline into his dead mother. ("Caroline is God! Caroline for President!") Caroline herself has no friends except the washer, dryer, and the radio, and she lives in a seething anger about her abusive ex-husband. Throughout the play, everyone gives Caroline plenty of room to complain and offend them and even quit and take off for five days and have people begging her to come back. They indulge her insulting behavior when she takes advantage of a misunderstanding about money. Once, in an aside, the stepmother says, "Jesus, lady, would it kill you to smile once in a while?" And even after she comes back and grudgingly "changes," maybe a nickel's worth, it all rings counterfeit, because nobody would put up with that kind of behavior, especially in 1963 in Lake Charles, LA. They would politely and formally dismiss her and hire her friend Dotty, for example; someone with life, spunk, personality, a future, for Pete's sake!
Tony Kushner has tried to retroactively smuggle postmillennial political correctness back to 1963, with a huge dose of white guilt intact, but it rings false. It feels like race gaming. Again, why does everyone --even the Moon-- give Caroline a pass? This is a house still grieving, remember, a house of scars still tender with death's dark bruises. The ghost of a dead mother hovers throughout. Yet Kushner foregrounds Caroline's resentment and selfish anger. The stepmother is the bravest one, stepping onto thin ice all through the play, testing the future, trying bravely to mend the household, but Kushner has the son fixate on Caroline, who, as far as I can remember, never gives him a word of consolation or comfort about losing the principal person in his life. Nor about the newly-murdered JFK. Yet this is Kushner's title character. It's as if white guilt has no bottom, but no, Tony, we're not buying it. (Thank you, Catherine.)
Finally, back to Coda Illegal and pictures and words. Words like, for example, nativist, which the slimer Stephen Lemons at New Times is now using as a slur for patriot. I'm sure he's a little too --what? dare I say double-digit I.Q.?-- to invent the term, but I haven't researched it. Maybe the Ask A Mexican guy, or the new Brown columnist, came up with it. Whatever it's provenance, it's just another liberal weasel word. It reminds me of Woodrow Wilson's use of another word which sounds innocuous but in context . . .
Hyphenated.
That was the word. Think about it. But there was another . . .
Brown! That was the word.
When we posted that roof photo, we said nothing about the ethnic profiles of the men on the roof. We just said they looked illegal. The commenters that came flaming back had nothing to go on except that photo and our words. Now, from the photo, you cannot tell anything about the ethnic profiles of the people up there: tall or short, dark or light, young or old, male or female. Simply no way. They're as bundled up from the sun and toxic chemicals as extras on a desert planet in a Star Wars movie. They look more like bug-robots than people. Yet, and here's the key, the commenters projected words like "little brown people" onto us in their rantings and accusations. We said nothing about that in our posting; we said, "illegal." Everything else comes from them, not us.
Nobody comes around this blog and accuses us of racism.
Posted by Jerome at February 1, 2008 08:40 AM | TrackBackIt's funny how the white people most likely to shout that their being prejudiced against are generally the most bigoted. Aw, poor Jerome, couldn't make friends in Hawaii. So sad.
All one has to do is type "dead criminal alien" in the search box to see how many times you've used "illegal" as a coded term for "Mexican", which is something the nativist faction does (and then we could bring up your "poison-tipped nail-bomb" comment about Arabs in schools, but that's more about religious bigotry, I suppose).
It's only when you've been repeatedly called on it that you've come up with this bullshit anthropological defense. Love the "serious research" comment. Now, is this field research or did you just read some books and declare yourself knowledgeable?
And while being of African origin possesses no philosophical problems for me, it's just fun (and easy!) to point out when you're wrong - there's no definitive proof that man originates exclusively from Africa (many anthropologists believe in a multi-point origin). But go ahead and peddle that line in the South and see how quick your convienient "race doesn't matter" comment becomes a point of contention. What's the weather like in your bubble today, Jerome?
Nativist = Patriot? Please. Puttting yourselves on the side of actual local facist J.T. Ready, Jerome? Maybe you should get yourself a profile at NewSaxon.com too and you can be bestest pals!
Also, you forgot: ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!
Posted by: The Klute at February 4, 2008 04:30 AMBernard:
It's funny how the white people most likely to shout that their [sic] being prejudiced against are generally the most bigoted.
And your figures --you know, numbers-- for this assertion are available where, Bernard? Just generally, where can I find them? Or is this only more of your hot air?
Aw, poor Jerome, couldn't make friends in Hawaii. So sad.
Like most people, I had the most friends I ever had when I was growing up, and in my case most of them were not Caucasian. I don't know where you got this "sad" idea. It's in your head, man.
All one has to do is type "dead criminal alien" in the search box to see how many times you've used "illegal" as a coded term for "Mexican", which is something the nativist faction does (and then we could bring up your "poison-tipped nail-bomb" comment about Arabs in schools, but that's more about religious bigotry, I suppose).
We are no part of any "nativist faction," and won't be tarred with a brush created by others. We don't use coded terms, we use plain words. We don't hide. Weaselly people use coded terms, and words like "coded terms." "Dead criminal alien" describes facts and is in no way a racist phrase. "Dead" is forensic and ontological; "criminal" is legal; and "alien" is legal and political-geographical. The posting you're referring to --a display in the StopNLook window-- makes no bones about the dead being Mexicans. We also made clear in that posting that the world would have been and would be better off if those people had stayed in Mexico. They would be alive. You imply that we're glad they're dead, and nothing could be further from the truth. They could be alive in Mexico, making Mexico a better place to live. (Why does Mexico always get a pass here? As for the Arab reference, go yourself and type in "Down Syndrome" and "Muslim bomber" together. It's just as relevant as your stupid slur.)
It's only when you've been repeatedly called on it that you've come up with this bullshit anthropological defense. Love the "serious research" comment. Now, is this field research or did you just read some books and declare yourself knowledgeable?
I've read "just" a couple of dozen books about the whole field, and I've lived in lots of places and circumstances, some of them quite unusual, and I've kept my eyes open. And I never "came up" with "this defense" after being "called on it." I declared this position a long time ago, long before you came along, you jackass.
And while being of African origin possesses no philosophical problems for me, it's just fun (and easy!) to point out when you're wrong --there's no definitive proof that man originates exclusively from Africa (many anthropologists believe in a multi-point origin). But go ahead and peddle that line in the South and see how quick your convienient "race doesn't matter" comment becomes a point of contention. What's the weather like in your bubble today, Jerome?
I never said the Out of Africa theory was the one and only and final answer; I only said that I subscribe to it: that the evidence I've seen so far supports the Out of Africa theory more than the multi-origin theory. Talk about easy to point out when someone's wrong . . . And the South is just a straw man; it's irrelevant to me. Better, how about shouting out "race doesn't matter" in Barack Obama's church on Sunday morning? I've lived here in the Southwest for over thirty years, and race doesn't matter here. The law does, though, and should.
The law matters. There are over two dozen people in our family who are Hispanic, ex-Mexican American citizens who came here the legal way, over years, waiting in line. They're stand-up people, and we respect them. It would disrespect them, and the laws they and we honor, to give any illegal person, of any race, creed, or color, one goddamn inch, one iota of support. Go back and get in line.
Nativist = Patriot? Please. Puttting yourselves on the side of actual local facist [sic] J.T. Ready, Jerome? Maybe you should get yourself a profile at NewSaxon.com too and you can be bestest pals!
I never equated those two terms. You just did. I made sure to note that "nativist" is a slur, a "coded term" that coats patriotism in bile. They are two different things, but to conflate them is the whole point of a slur, and I suppose I should thank you for illustrating a typical liberal fascist bait-and-switch tactic. I never said what you said I said.
Also, you forgot: ME ME ME ME ME ME ME!
But you didn't forget you, did you?
Posted by: Jerome du Bois at February 4, 2008 10:48 AMYOUR WORDS:
"Words like, for example, nativist, which the slimer Stephen Lemons at New Times is now using as a slur for patriot."
"I never equated those two terms."
You believe Nativist is a Slur for Patriot, so yes, you damn well did equate the two terms. Is English your second language or something?
It's like that goddamn thing with Bill giving you the finger... Either these logic blocks are willful, you're blacking out due to binge drinking or a head injury, or you just don't care.
Patriotism is patriotism. Nativism is not patriotism. They are not coded terms, they are two different things. You just don't care to make the difference.
Wow. Terrorists using the mentally infirm as bomb-delivery systems is hugely different than accusing - without to base it on (anything other than your own paranoia and prejudice) - Muslims giving a presentation in our schools of being terrorists. Didn't happen at Beslan, didn't happen at Chapel Hill (if we're using the Debbie Schlussel/Michelle Malkin determination of what makes an attack terrorism).
"criminal is legal"
EXCEPT THEY WEREN'T CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. Just as you took umbgrage in being called a "punk" having never been in prison, I take umbrage in people, not convicted of any crime, being called "criminal".
Hypocrisy, Jerome. You stink of it.
I have more to say, but I'm late for a show. More later, if I feel like it.
Posted by: The Klute at February 4, 2008 03:21 PMStill waiting for an answer about your first broadbrush slur, about those "general white people." Don't expect one; you just scattershoot and move on, which is a clue to how much weight to give your statements.
A caricature (nativist) is not a definition (patriot). It is just that --a slur, not identical, definitely discernible as two distinct things. So they can't be equated. But that distinction is exactly what Stephen Lemons and other liberal fascists want to erase, and that was my point. They believe being a patriot is a bad thing, but they can't use that word as a slur --not yet anyway-- so they invent this ugly decal to plaster over a righteous concept.
English is my first language, which I know how to spell, too.
Your words:
"criminal is legal"
EXCEPT THEY WEREN'T CONVICTED OF ANY CRIME. Just as you took umbgrage [sic] in being called a "punk" having never been in prison, I take umbrage in people, not convicted of any crime, being called "criminal".
Bernard, they were "convicted" by unforgiving reality. When they crossed the border, they committed the crime. If the hand of the law had descended on them at that time, all the evidence --no papers, where they were picked up, no visible means of support, no transportation, and so on-- the evidence, taken together, would certainly result in them being convicted of the crime of illegal entry. If you really want to deny the overwhelming probability of that happening, then you're the one living in the bubble, man. I believe in the law, but you're being hairsplittingly legalistic, like Alan Colmes constantly reminding people that a jury of his peers found OJ Simpson innocent.
And you speak not a word of sympathy for these people who died in the desert, either; you're too busy trying to conjure up attacks on us.
About the Muslim school thing. You brought it up as an out-of-context example, for reasons of your own. Our original example, in our series about Islam in public schools, was not an "accusation." It was an example, though, and it is still a live possibility. Catherine emphasizes that Beslan did happen; Beslan was infiltrated months in advance by evil Muslim terrorists who took terror to a whole new level. We don't back down from our position one inch, and that isn't religious bigotry, it's mere recognition of reality.
Our post was not about Islam; it was about racism.
As for your "more later, if I feel like it," it's actually like this: more later if Jerome du Bois and Catherine King feel like letting you in our door. So wipe your feet and watch your words and your tone and your attitude, Bernard, because I'll slam the door on your silly face quicker than you can spell your lameass moniker. And, being polite and unhypocritical, I'll pass over in silence what you stink of.
Posted by: Jerome du Bois at February 4, 2008 04:38 PMMeanwhile, as always, Beatrice Moore just sits back and lets us be accused of racism, when of course, she has her business records to prove the legality of the work team. We all know that the Grand Doyenne has to keep all that in order to continuously expand her empire. Is everybody just afraid to ask her? I'm not-- Let's see the paperwork, B.M.
Posted by: Catherine King at February 5, 2008 06:36 AMSome say a picture is worth a thousand words. I don't believe that, though. One can project an image in front of others and really not be sure how it will be perceived.
But words are far more precise. Even if someone desperately wants to distort my meaning, my true intentions will stand for themselves as indestructible electronic witnesses. Yes, words are worth thousands of pictures.
Because some people are so thick, you see. I've got to spell this out very clearly; what is the significance of the photograph Coda Illegal. You see how people like The Bernard want to tangle Opponents of Illegal Immigration up with Racism. Think about how desperately they need scapegoats, and they're not above using them.
If we Americans stand up for our own country, then we risk being called racist. The intimidation of the Liberal Fascists is somewhat effective. Look around you, you don't see many people that risk. So I'm wrestling this topic, Coda Illegal, from people like The Bernard and bringing it back around to the subject of illegal labor.
To put a fine point on it: Jerome and I published the photo in the context of The Phoenix Artist Storefront Program. You will have to take my word for it, that it was a scorching Sunday morning in July and there were half a dozen guys up on the roof. American workers don't roof under such conditions.
Clearly, Beatrice Moore was using illegal labor, and we wanted the appropriate parties to take that into consideration if she applied for a Phoenix Artist Storefront Program grant.
If she really loved Phoenix as much as she has people hornswoggled into believing she does, she would hire, let's say, Jo's All-American Roofing from over on, say, Indian School. If she had to pay Jo more, because Jo's crew were all citizens, well, Beatrice Moore would gladly do that, to put money back into the local economy instead of her shabby old hippy bag. That's another kind of Fairness, and being responsible to one's own community.
But that's not her style, is it? Her style is to enrich herself off of the community, and it wouldn't suprise me if the use of illegal labor has been one of her tried and true techniques.
Posted by: Catherine King at February 6, 2008 08:56 AM