I don’t like Lewis Hamilton. And the team he drives for. That’s an understatement. This was evident in my last post. My dislike of the man has nothing to do with his being black. Surprisingly, two comments – from people whose thinking I respect – did bring up the black angle, which left me wondering if, in today’s world, expressions of personal likes or dislikes – without any demographic connotations or aspersions – are nevertheless measured against the demographic profile of the individual being spoken about. In other words, I can’t pan Hamilton and say that he is, as far as the world of F1 goes, an extremely privileged individual who has had the best of F1 opportunity handed to him on a platter, without someone being pained by the fact that I criticized the first black in F1. Forget the fact that his race was never a factor in my opinion of him. Disregard the fact that no one remembers that Lewis is to the manor-of-F1 born. And that no one would have blinked an eyelid if I had said the same about any other (non-black) driver.
Are we in an era of an extreme level of political correctness? And before anyone takes umbrage, let me clarify – I am all for political correctness. But are we approaching a point where we have to take our positions only at either end of the spectrum? Are we at a point where the rule is “if you’re not with us, you’re with them”? Is any criticism to be seen only in the broad context of the demographic profile of the person, and not in the immediate context of the criticism itself? Does the demographic profile of the person dictate our views of her? And if we only look at the broader demographic context, what happens when you suddenly have to choose between members of two marginalized groups?
I then remembered having come across this very insightful article on the recently-concluded Democratic primary. The author writes that Hillary got the short end of the stick, and was the victim of blatant misogyny. In contrast, as another article mentions, the attacks on Obama were apparently not blatantly racist . This is something that many people may not acknowledge. Of course, there were so many other factors involved in the Hillary-Barack battle that I may be guilty of reductionism myself. But one can’t help wondering if in the gender versus race factor, some white American Democrats preferred erring on the side of race.
Could the reason for this be a misplaced sense of political correctness? Could it be that this misplaced sense of political correctness dictated that charges of alleged misogyny were preferable to charges of alleged racial bias?
I have only the questions. Perhaps some of you could provide the answers.
July 14, 2008 at 6:32 pm
QI:
I am assuming I must be one of those two people! If I am not, there is no reason to approve this comment. 🙂
The reason his blackness came into the picture is because you said he was privileged. Knowing that in that particular sport, no amount of privilege can undo the effects of belonging to the wrong – non white – race, it was worth providing the perspective that Hamilton’s merit brought him above the factor that would have closed doors shut in his face. It was in this context that his blackness was deemed important enough to mention.
As for your question re “charges of alleged misogyny were preferable to charges of alleged racial bias”, clearly they are. And some of us in this world and in the blogosphere routinely highlight that too. Here are some recent examples.
When Harbhajan allegedly called Symmonds names, the world was in an uproar assuming he was called by a racist moniker ‘monkey’. But then it emerged that it might have been a choice Hindi gaali (I believe ‘maan ki…’ etc) instead, his mother was deemed perfectly expendable. No pipsqueak from anyone. Misogyny over racism? You decide.
Hillary was heckled in her campaigning by men saying ‘iron my shirt’ and it was laughed off by the press; I wonder if someone shouted at an Obama rally ‘polish my shoe’, would things have been a laughing matter? Misogyny over racism? I do not know since it is hypothetical.
Recently at an Obama rally, Bernie Mac made a distasteful joke about women and all he got from Obama was a gentle, mock rebuke and a wink. Misogyny or not? I do not know. It involves two black men, I best not say.
July 14, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Good one, QI.
On the face of it, going by what you’ve written in your post, I don’t think there is any suggestion of bias. And I agree that political correctness has made it well-nigh impossible to call a spade a spade, sometimes resulting in comical reverse discrimination.That said, since your opinion is based on “personal” like/dislike, your erudite commenter was absolutely right in posing all the politically correct questions.
In my limited view, what’s in question here is “intent”. How do you decide intent? How do you decide someone actually meant well even though what they said may be “read” or “interpreted” as suggestive of bias? You can only go by the words used and therefore the movement to regulate these words. The entire political correctness movement has, I believe, sensitized us to the biases that underlie the words we use, the opinions we hold. Let’s not dismiss this.
On a related note, check this out: http://www.cracked.com/article_15677_9-most-racist-disney-characters.html.
It’s an interesting piece on the inherent racism in some of the most famous Disney characters. But these characters were conceptualized at a time when the question of race was not what it is today. And it’s perhaps possible that the writer did not mean to be insulting. Still, they can be hurtful to people being portrayed thus.
PS. Not to worry. That you’re asking these questions is proof enough that your intentions are honourable and that your heart is in the right place. 🙂
July 14, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Personally, I dislike political correctness and think it does more harm than good.
It is of course a laudable trait to keep in mind other people’s feelings. And I have nothing against those who choose not to use phrases that might demean certain groups of people. However, there are pitfalls to taking these kinds of things too seriously. Today, we are in an era where political correctness often takes precedence over accuracy or truth, or where it is deemed right to suppress free expression simply to avoid hurting certain people. Or, it leads to situations like you mention, where certain groups get worse treatment than others. It leads to other absurdities too, with alarming regularity.
The better alternative to PC is a culture where people are — well — less sensitive. I am not saying this lightly. I am fully aware of the historical suppression of certain peoples and also of the power that words can carry. But everything is ultimately about striking balance and it seems to me that if people display a little less offence and a little more humor in dealing with perceived slights or offences, and able to, for instance, laugh off a politically incorrect joke rather than get worked up over it, we will all be better off. And the kind of culture I am proposing would also be one in which freedom of expression is accorded more respect than it is today in much of the world.
July 14, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Don’t pay any attention to the PC, bleeding heart, race-baiters. Their knee-jerk accusations of racism any time a disparaging comment is directed at a person of color is a symptom of mental illness. A bunch of cry-baby pansies looking for an outrage under every bush. Their lives are empty and pathetic so they are desperately trying to find meaning by rescuing the poor savages (who probably loathe them more than I do).
July 15, 2008 at 1:13 am
Since this post is right up my ally, I will put some effort into coming up with quasi-insightful answers. 😉
July 15, 2008 at 10:06 am
You have raised a very valid point. Something that has been in my mind.
Before I begin I must state a disclaimer that I am no Hilary fan. (There are some things about her conduct like stealing stuff from White House that were unforgivable. She returned those when there was hue and cry.)
I have read our very own fiery Barkha Dutt complaining that Hilary was victim of misogyny because she chose to market herself that way. Nevertheless how Hilary presented herself, did not justify how she became victim of misogyny. Most people I know did not have guts to say anything against Obama for fear of being termed racist. It is sad that it is ok to be misogynist.
I remember a feminist (don’t remember a their names) writing a piece that if Obama would have had same following were he a woman from same race?
July 15, 2008 at 10:08 am
@Shefaly’s reference to Harbhajan-Symonds fiasco was also in my mind when I wrote my comment but I refrained to it. 😦
July 15, 2008 at 11:18 am
@Shefaly – Hamilton joined McLaren when he was as untested and untried as anyone else. What doors were shut in his face? He never tried to go anywhere else, and was accepted by the first team he pursued. Ron Dennis had the foresight to take him in. He was then groomed to be the successful driver he is. And please don’t think that this is not a privilege – Lewis in a Toro Rosso or in a Super Aguri would be at the bottom of the grid. As I have repeatedly stressed, the issue at hand is Lewis and his seat at McLaren, not how tough blacks have it in the wider world. Just because he is black doesn’t mean he was discriminated against as far as F1 teams & opportunities go. On the contrary, my stand is that he is actually privileged in comparison to other rookies. And just because he is black doesn’t mean that every criticism leveled against him is racially motivated. That is what I find absolutely unbelievable. Are we are so blinded by a misguided sense of extreme political correctness that every opinion or statement is judged by the colour of the person being mentioned?
I chose the Hillary-Obama example with good reason. It demonstrates what I said about misplaced PC. If I had said that Obama’s being black was an important factor in his victory – or that I think he did not have the requisite experience or exposure for the job – I would have been bombarded with a thousand indignant comments from people, outraged at my suggestion, and pointing out that it is really tough being black, and how Obama has had to overcome oh-so-many obstacles to have got to where he is. But then, this was about racism versus misogyny, and in cases like this, the sad truth will out. And the truth is, being black ensured he got 90% of the black votes (blacks voting en masse for a black candidate or Oprah going all out for Obama because he is black, of course, doesn’t qualify as racism), and such is the culture of PC in the US (particularly among Democrats) that not supporting Obama would be unconscionable. (He’s black! How can I not support him? I may be accused of being racially biased if I support Hillary, even if I think she may be the right person.) Unfortunately, Hillary ended up losing, and being the victim of not only blatant misogyny, but a very perverse form of political correctness.
The point I wanted to make in the post was precisely this – people who take PC to the extreme end of one spectrum are really indistinguishable from the people at the other end, in terms of the prejudiced and blinkered viewpoints they propagate. It’s quite ironic, isn’t it? We have one set of people who go “Two legs good, four legs bad”, and the other set of people – with all good intentions, unfortunately – who as rabidly parrot their dogma “four legs good, two legs bad”.
I agree – if there is evidence or demonstrable intent of racial disparagement in a comment, by all means point it out and explain why it’s wrong. But to bring in the wider black situation every time someone expresses an opinion about a black writer/sportsperson/performer/politician etc – that’s not only ridiculous, it’s counter-productive.
As for the “iron my shirt” thing – it is already a link in my post, as is the “Hillary nutcracker” gizmo.
July 15, 2008 at 11:23 am
@asmokescreen – I completely buy your point. If there is evidence or demonstrable intent of racial disparagement in a comment, or if certain words deemed to be racially offensive are used, by all means take umbrage, point it out and explain why it’s wrong. But to bring in the wider black situation every time someone expresses an opinion about a black writer/sportsperson/performer/politician etc – that’s not only ridiculous, it’s counter-productive.
I always knew my heart was in the right place.:-) I asked these questions so as to be able to make my point better. But many thanks for the vote of confidence. Really appreciate it!
My intention is certainly not to dismiss PC, but to ensure that it doesn’t become the sad caricature it is in the process of becoming.
July 15, 2008 at 11:27 am
@Abhishek – thank you for the comment and the links. I couldn’t have articulated it better. Needless to say, I am in complete and unqualified agreement.
Cheers.
July 15, 2008 at 11:35 am
@johnnypeepers – thanks for visiting and for the comment. I believe in the power of words, and I think a certain sensitivity in expression is needed. I do not believe in gender or racial abuse/stereotyping.
However, as Abhishek rightly says, we shouldn’t lose our sense of humour and our objectivity. Nor should we compromise too much on freedom of expression. You might detest what I have to say, but you cannot question my right to say it. Seeking out alleged racial slurs or gender abuse in every statement does more harm than good to the cause!
July 15, 2008 at 11:36 am
@LM – looking forward to that!
July 15, 2008 at 1:05 pm
@Poonam – thanks for the comment. That was the point I was trying to bring out. That it was only when the issue was “racism versus misogyny” could one criticise Obama without being deemed racist. If I had criticised him in isolation, I would have had tons of hate-mail from very politically correct people. Ah, the ironies of life!
July 16, 2008 at 4:40 am
[…] Personally, I am no big fan of political correctness. I articulated my thoughts recently in a comment at Quirky Indian’s blog: […]
July 16, 2008 at 9:32 am
QI:
I am rather bemused by your wholesale endorsement of one of your commenter’s views about being less sensitive. A fine, enlightened, “liberal” view perhaps, but
one that can only be articulated by certain people in certain positions and locations. For those who have suffered injustice and humiliation for centuries it is not possible to “take things lightly” I should think. To them, and their empathisers, such clarion calls to take things lightly would seem like a sham and I don’t see why their position should be dismissed as untenable. I think the least other people can do is to be as sensitive as possible since the wrongs done to them cannot anyway be undone.
Location and position carry certain powers; just as black or Dalit carry certain implications; free speech – that is only possible when everyone is free to speak. It is fatuous to pretend that we’re on a level playing field where eveyrone is free to articulate their views or be heard.I take a dim view of any protestation of freedom that does not include reponsibility.
July 16, 2008 at 10:29 am
@Asmokescreen – valid concerns all. But when I said that being at either end of the PC spectrum is untenable, this is exactly what I meant.
When I called Lewis Hamilton privileged as regards his specific situation – not blacks in general, not the blacks who may or may not have tried to enter F1 – there was sanctimonious moral indignation all around, based on the wider black situation. It seemed as if one couldn’t – shouldn’t – express a dislike of a black sportsperson, performer, politician what have you. Regardless of how objective or specific the criticism may be. At the margin, it could be seen an assault on my freedom of expression, my right to have an opinion – and an opinion which I repeatedly stressed was based only on his specific situation. Abhishek rightly pointed out – with some interesting links – that this extreme level of PC has degenerated into absurdity, with the moral brigade descending with war-whoops on every alleged slight.
My position was – for lack of a better word – centrist. I believe in sensitivity, and the power of words, yet I believe – passionately – in the freedom of expression.
However, the tragedy of all the well-meaning people out there is this – by taking such a shrill and extreme position, they leave no room for the middle path anymore. My wholesale endorsement was based on this fact. You are free to label my views any which way, but in the face of such obdurate inflexibility and sweeping generalisations, I am afraid I must insist on my right to have an opinion.
Cheers.
July 16, 2008 at 1:50 pm
@ QI:
The man doth protest too much. 🙂
I didn’t think I was labelling your views. Any which way. Am concerned that you think so. You are of course entitled to them.
As someone who works in the government sector, believe you me I actually see what ‘socially disadvantaged’means and what it can do. My location and position, of course. One that engenders cynicism of a certain kind. Specially against generalisations based on isolated episodes.
Typos in the earlier comment. Sigh. Why isn’t there a spellcheck option for comments?
July 16, 2008 at 4:00 pm
@Asmokescreen – since you’ve brought in the Bard, let me reply to your quote by saying there was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently 😉
And when I talked about the labelling, the “you’ was rhetorical, and didn’t mean you…..perhaps I should have gone the “more matter with less art” way…..might have made things clearer. (You brought him in, so you started it!) 🙂
It’s not just you who actually sees what “socially disadvantaged” means. Many Indians – including me – do. But I do not think that censorship of opinions is a solution, and definitely not censorship of opinions where the intent to disparage/demean is not seen.
And I don’t think the transposition of “y&r” and the omitting of an “s” merit a sigh.
Why can’t we – and I include myself here – all laugh more and agonise less?
Ok people, no need to answer that!
Cheers.
July 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm
QI:
I most certainly do not support censorship of any kind. Nor am I against free speech. I just think that it’s not a universally applicable, unproblematic concept that one can support unconditionally. That’s all.
Ciao.
July 16, 2008 at 5:36 pm
@asmokescreen: then we’re more or less on the same page. I agree free speech is not unproblematic. But the trouble starts when you start moderating and regulating the application of free speech (even if it’s with only positive and socially laudable intentions) – because the moment that happens, there’s no drawing the line. Then it’s just a matter of time before one group doesn’t like this thought, another doesn’t like that book, yet another doesn’t like that commentary – and before you know it, it’s the end of free speech. And all other liberal ideas, because if there is no free speech and therefore the right to dissent, you can never have a liberal and civil society.
Possible? Frighteningly possible, with enough examples in history!
And that’s all I have to say about that!:-)
Cheers.
July 17, 2008 at 10:51 am
Okay, it’s late and I am clearly one giant ignoramus. I had to Google “Lewis Hamilton” to get with the program. First off, having read your posts and the subsequent comments, I think your use of the word “privileged” is entirely innocuous (and race-irrelevant). If you get to make a living doing something the rest of us would pay to do (drive cars, pay sports, go cool places and have people take pictures of us, make believe/”act”, etc.) you’re privileged! More power to and god bless ya!
Nonetheless, as a professional woman at the moment (and attractive to some) misogyny it seems – from my totally subjective perspective – is definitely elected over racism. On the other hand, I’m an American in 2008. as a female, it certainly could be much, much worse…
http://www.wideawakeinwonderland.wordpress.com
July 17, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Misogyny is wrong. Racism is wrong. We have our fair share in the U.S. just like every country in the world. I don’t think Obama’s victory can be seen merely in terms of racism being trumped by the exercise of misogyny (and I’m not implying that’s what you’re saying). I think Obama’s victory is a function of a highly energized base of whites and blacks who just feel like he is the better candidate for the Democratic Party. I’m one of those persons. I would be fine with Hillary as well, but I had to pick one. (I certainly can’t support McCain ’08 — as opposed to McCain ’00 — because he’s become nothing more than a Bush clone.)
I’m as cynical as they come, but just like your comment about Lewis Hamilton is not racist, a vote for Obama instead of Hillary is not misogyny. And a few idiots aside, the vast majority of Obama supporters are just like me — for him, not against her. That’s my 2 cents. Well, adjusting for the weak dollar due to Bush’s economic policies, my 2 cents is now worth only .5 cents.
July 18, 2008 at 1:43 am
Hi QI: Please don’t take my silence as an unwillingness to engage in this conversation. It’s been a manic week, work-wise and I’ve been unable to devote the time to submit an adequate response.
July 18, 2008 at 10:45 am
@VW – welcome, and thanks for commenting. It seems F1 does not have too much of a following in the US and Nascar is where it’s at!
I suppose we all should count our blessings that 2008 is a lot better in many ways than 1908…
@supercynic – appreciate your comment. My motive in choosing that particular example was to highlight the ridiculous lengths that political correctness can be taken to.
@Liam – no sweat.
Cheers.
September 22, 2008 at 5:59 pm
[…] correct, and have suggested politically correct alternatives. Now, while I still maintain that Political Correctness has, in my view, come close to being preposterous (as when a local council in the UK banned the term ‘brainstorming’), it must be said that the […]
January 4, 2009 at 9:00 pm
[…] – bookmarked by 2 members originally found by hjortholm on 2008-12-07 Of Racism, Misogyny and Political Correctness https://quirkyindian.wordpress.com/?p=53 – bookmarked by 5 members originally found by keasone on […]
March 12, 2009 at 5:49 pm
[…] OK, so I know I promised something about my recent … Saved by strings28 on Sat 07-3-2009 Of Racism, Misogyny and Political Correctness Saved by diamondz on Mon 02-3-2009 On Misogyny, Racism, and the MSM Saved by noodpan on Fri […]