Well thats certainly true in so much as if we look at areas where television fails massively to accurately reflect society, racism & racist humor are a very obvious example.
Im English white middleclass educated man who has very mixed feelings about political correctness. Racism and other ism's offend me, and I support attempts to reduce such horrors. But I worry as to how effective political correctness has been at actually changing the attitude of lots of people. I go to work and there are no end of working class people born in the last 40 years, who are quite content to remain ignorant, lump groups of people together as one stereotype, blame them for all the woes in the world and make crap jokes about them. And so I want to do my bit against this stuff, but I am aware that just because I am less ignorant about these things, I am still ignorant, and might do more harm than good, especially when I look at the history of powerful men who felt 'white mans burden' - the 'help' they gave some other cultures was often worse than anything else. Im also aware that just because I dont pidgeon-hole people based on race or culture, I may do just the same thing along the grounds of class, wealth, position, eg ranting about certain kinds of business slugs. Stereotypes arent going anywhere fast, pattern recognition is one of the basic mechanisms of the human brain and it creates these ugly phenomenon. There are plenty of people I know who I would describe as being racist through ignorance, and its always interesting to me that when questioned, they are quick to say that they didnt mean black people they actually know, just some mysterious 'other group' that they presume exists. So actually knowing people of different races certainly helps, although I shouldnt be complacent about that because familiarity can also breed contempt which can lead to other sorts of prejudice, for example some people develop a dislike for certain races, religions or cultures based on things these other groups actually do practice. So there are stereotypes and humor that are based on complete unreal shit, and there are some parts that can b based on truth. Whether the person responds to such things develops on how much their own views match, humor works if things ring true, and its more than a bit of a tragedy that there are some people who get something out of that awful video by Loren. I worry quite a lot about the self-enforcing nature of inequality, and the way it can reinforce the status quo and stereotypes. For example it does not help when the TV news has so many crimes where the mugshots are non-white. When this happens it reflects uncomfortable truths about poverty and marginalized communities, but its not discussed properly to give context to the realities of our world, it just hangs there as a largely unspoken problem that few want to confront. Oh woe, oh woe for societies where so much comfort is gained from blaming and picking on those who have the least opportunity to change any negative aspects of their existence. But how to even think this or try to solve it, when this may also lead to unfairly lumping people together as those that 'need to be saved', leading back to the potential horrors of white mans burden. Anyway I would think that if these issues, and gay bashing and other such things, would truly have been solved if there came a time when it was ok for everyone to have the equal opportunity to have the piss taken out of them. If there was no inequality or racial tensions or gay-bashing, then it wouldnt seem so much like there was any harm in joking, howevery badly, about such things? Maybe thats not right, I dont quite know if I believe that, but what is the alternative? Because I was bullied at school for issues such as being rubbish at sport, ginger (quite a bad problem in the uk but its not taken seriously), nerdy. I dont see a time when my feelings should ever be protected against such things, but then I can have this luxury because these things do not normally mean I will be treated unfairly in terms of opportunities to learn, work, get fair pay, be physically attacked in adulthood. I dont think Ive finished getting all my random thoughts on these issues out yet, so more waffle from me later I would expect. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In [email protected], "Charles Hope" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bourgeois? This sort of humor is much, much more commonly enjoyed by lower class whites. In educated circles, such as this list, racist humor is universally denounced. As the past 30 emails monotonously indicate! > > In other cultures around the world, racist humor is typically acceptable, only liberal western societies having declared war upon it in the name of globalism. Instead of exhibiting white privledge, this episode exhibits white repression, being the unique culture where xenophobia is forbidden. > > > --- original message --- > From: "Jeffrey Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: Re: [videoblogging] For Dan McVicar (was Re: Loren Feldman = Technigga) > Date: August 5, 2007 > Time: 3:42:39 > > If the piece were thought-provoking and went beyond the tactics of > neo-blackface tactics found amongst white American bourgeois males (see > links below, and those are merely the ones I could find in a two minute > span) to make his point, I would say Loren Feldman was an artist and not a > self-indulgent, racist attention whore. > > What's sad is that even if Feldman had the best of intentions, he endorses > and encourages the use of "satire" as a means of confirming one's privileged > white straight bourgeois place in society by so clearly displaying and > making fun of what one is not in front of their white straight bourgeois > peers. > > Is it any coincidence that Feldman, a hungry and driven entrepreneur moving > in circles dominated by white straight bourgeois males (several with money > to part with), would feel no qualms in posting such a thing? > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=7H52mjVINt4 > > http://youtube.com/watch?v=XLh7AvyWk1Q > > http://radgeek.com/gt/2006/11/03/thanks_bro > > http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0DXK/is_17_20/ai_110263213 > > http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_tol.jsp?id=713 > > > > > > > > On 05/08/07, Bill Cammack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected] <videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com>, > > Rupert <rupert@> wrote: > > > > > > Hey Bill, > > > > > > Interesting post. I noticed straightaway that you posted here and on > > > Twitter with no explanation or comment, and figured you were fishing > > > for our reactions. > > > > > > I don't doubt that he's well-connected and clued-up. I agree with > > > you that I'm sure he doesn't "believe that's the only way the black > > > TechCrunch could possibly be". And as you say, I'm sure he doesn't > > > think this stuff and that his view of black people isn't that limited. > > > > > > And I'm fine with him dissing people. I think attacking people > > > personally and aggressively and making fun of them is a terrible way > > > to make a living, but I don't have to watch. > > > > Yes. IMO, it's unfortunate. You hear stories of rock bands where the > > members detest each other, but they have no other way of making good > > money, so they stay together. Terrible way to make a living, but > > better than minimum wage. There are lots of people with no niche at > > all. Some of them wish they could be sarcastic and caustic... Others > > are glad that that's not their lot in life. > > > > > I've thought this all along, and so I don't feel "Hornswoggled" > > > > :) > > > > > For me, the point is that whatever he believes, "starting a > > > conversation" and "satire... to bring up a point" is not enough > > > justification for this video. > > > > Good point. There are many BETTER ways to start the exact same > > conversation without offending people. > > > > > Perhaps he thinks his role is to break the boundaries of what we > > > consider acceptable and be a shit-stirrer. Fair play. But I say > > > that there are some things that I'd rather people didn't mess about > > > with like rebellious kids, and then claim they have some kind of > > > moral diplomatic immunity because what they're doing is 'satire'. > > > > > > As in everything, there's a line you can cross where you start doing > > > more harm than good. Where that line is, it's hard to tell - so if > > > you care about not doing harm, you have to be careful. Unless you > > > don't care about what harm you do because the controversy helps you > > > get more viewers. > > > > Or, unless you don't care what harm you do to people, PERIOD. My goal > > is not to defend the person or the methods, and certainly not the > > EFFECT on people. > > > > > He says "Art is a subjective thing" which is a totally different > > > argument, and used like this is as big a cop-out as a priest saying > > > "God moves in mysterious ways" to explain a massive loss of life from > > > a natural disaster. It's worse than lazy thinking, it's cowardice - > > > as is him not commenting or responding to questions. If you don't > > > have the intellectual chops or courage to back something like this > > > up, don't do it in the first place. > > > > No doubt, Rupert. None whatsoever. That's why I was waiting before I > > commented. I wanted to see what his participation was going to be in > > the conversation that he started, but so far, it's been ZERO. > > > > > So whatever he really thinks, and whatever spin he puts on it, I > > > reserve my right to call him a dickhead who's doing more harm than > > > good with this video. Without me being accused of being > > > 'hornswoggled' or 'not getting it'. > > > > Yes Sir. Absolutely. Same to Gena, who commented earlier. I'm not > > trying to make excuses for him or the effect he's had on people. It's > > cruel as well as unfortunate. > > > > > And I still think the main reason he went through with it was to get > > > a bigger audience, not to 'start a conversation' with any real > > > benefits for the community. Whatever. I'm done. > > > > It's possible. I said in my post that I could be completely wrong > > about the motivations behind this bullshit. It could be merely shock > > & awe, designed to get him more viewers that love to live vicariously > > through others that feel they can disrespect people and get away with it. > > > > -- > > billcammack > > http://reelsolid.tv > > > > > > > Rupert > > > http://twittervlog.tv/ > > > http://feeds.feedburner.com/twittervlog/ > > > > > > > > > On 5 Aug 2007, at 02:21, Bill Cammack wrote: > > > If you take Loren Feldman at face value, having never seen his antics > > > before and having no idea who he "hangs around with" in cyberspace, > > > "Technigga" appears to be an idiotic video created by an idiot. > > > > > > In reality, Loren _started_a_conversation_ by sucessfully emulating > > > someone who believes that's the only way the black TechCrunch could > > > possibly be. He also emulated someone short-sighted enough (Kramer, > > > anyone? <http://billcammack.com/2006/11/21/kramer-flips-out-d/>) to > > > feel like he could "pop that kind of shit" without it having any > > > effect whatsoever on his career. Ultimately, there are tons of posts > > > on Loren's site dissing people. This wasn't the first time, and it's > > > not going to be the last time. It's his niche. > > > > > > ..... > > > > > > What was more interesting to me than the video itself was the > > > responses & non-responses from the videoblogging group. Loren started > > > the conversation, I linked to it without context and people either > > > wrote how they felt about it or wrote nothing at all, leaving opinions > > > about their opinions to one's imagination. > > > > > > Having said that, I don't know anything about Loren Feldman other than > > > what I've observed that's freely available on the net... a lot of > > > which, I've linked to in this post. It's possible that I'm completely > > > wrong. It's possible that he really thinks this stuff and his view of > > > black people is that limited. However... > > > > > > I think you've all been Hornswoggled! :D > > > > > > -- > > > billcammack > > > http://reelsolid.tv > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > > > > > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links >
