Recently several commentators have complained that concern over political correctness has either one limited their first amendment rights or two somehow limited the public debate in a way that handicaps us as a society. Both contentions are wrong. The reality is that the First Amendment has never been a shield against criticism of ideas by people who oppose your point of view. The idea that private parties should not be able to criticize what you say or think because it would somehow violate your free speech rights is a total perversion of the idea of freedom. As for the latter contention, most of the time things that are politically incorrect are really simply incorrect, dismissing them does not hurt he public discourse.
Your First Amendment rights protect you from one thing and one thing only. The government cannot punish you for your expressing your views on particular topics. When a commentator says something that offends a broad cross section of other citizens you are immune from them throwing you in jail not from them criticizing you and trying to limit your ability to broadcast your views. When a group of citizens say that they will boycott your sponsors based on what you said they are simply exercising their First Amendment rights in the same way that you have exercised them. If it turns out that the organization that argues that your views are so offensive that they should no longer be broadcast is more powerful than the people that think your views should be heard, you are silenced. But you are silenced by private action, not the government.
When what you says offends a large group of Americans they are free to lobby your employer to fire you. On the other hand when what you say offends the majority of Americans they are not able to use the coercive force of the government to fine, imprison, or silence you. The latter is prevented by the First Amendment. The former is a category of speech that is and should be protected by the First Amendment. Be wary of those who say something and then hide behind the First Amendment when others criticize it. If their view or comments are defensible they should be defended on their merits not on whether they are protected. On the other hand, if you get hauled off to jail for expressing even the most offensive of views call the ACLU they will help defend your First Amendment rights.
Moving on to the contention that things that are politically incorrect need to be said because they are an important part of the debate, all I wish to say is that for the most part the emphasis should be on incorrect. Time after time someone has suffered a political backlash for saying something that never should have been said and then spent a few days doing the rounds on news shows bemoaning the loss of their free speech rights and how political correctness is polluting the public discourse.
The recent example of the n-word is telling. The person speaking seems to believe that the context of her comment were benign and that while maybe she should not have used the word, what she was saying (Dr. Laura if you don't know) was somehow a valuable point of view. She basically said that there should not be a melanin content test to determine whether it was appropriate to use the n-word. Fundamentally what she wants to do is ignore the fact when a racial epithet is used, the race of the speaker is a tremendously important part of the context. The fact that Eminem, a rapper widely known for trying to avoid controversy, is sensitive to how his use of the n-word would be perceived should indicate how controversial whites using the n-word usually is. In addition, this comment is simply not true. In the movie Boyz in the Hood one of the most memorable early scenes in the movie was a black police officer using the n-word with as much maliciousness as the word can be used with.
Dr. Laura Schlessinger further compounded her disgrace with what she said later in the phone call. Basically she said that if someone was going to marry outside their race they needed to have a sense of humor about racist comments and not be hypersensitive. The only proper advice here was to encourage the caller to talk to her husband about the issue and provide her with advice or resources about how to educate the people she thought were being insensitive. Our society has not come far enough in race relations to pretend that racial prejudice is simply a joke. In fact, a good indicator that we live in a society where justice instead of prejudice reigns will be when people no longer think making such jokes is acceptable and the jokes are no longer funny.
Even the point Dr. Laura was trying to make is tragically misguided. The use of the n-word by black comics as well as any comedy routine that relies on caricatures of common racial stereotypes by members of that race are not uncontroversial. Many people of all races find such routines to be offensive. One of the more disturbing facts about that genre of comedy is that there are still serious questions of black face and minstrelsy when those comics are performing for a white audience (not just the ones watching at homes, but the ones producing and choosing which comics will be given a national stage). Since some white commentators are now asking why they can't call people the n-word or use the n-word the critics of those comedy specials are perhaps being proven right.
As for Dr. Laura basically said that all you hear on HBO is n-word, n-word, n-word, and that since it is o.k. for black comics to say it, it must not be all that offensive. This is wrong and displays tremendous ignorance for at least a couple of reasons. The first is the context issue mentioned above. The second is that while viewers may feel more comfortable laughing at black comics who use the n-word than they would be if a white comic was doing so, any use of the n-word is not uncontroversial. Dr. Laura is not being criticized for a lack of political correctness she is being criticized for a lack of correctness.
My final point on this matter is simple. When educated people jump to conclusions about race or sex and then air them, they are at the very least displaying prejudice of a very common sort. The fact that a black person on television uses the n-word does not mean that the term is not deeply offensive to people of all races. Dr. Laura's feigned or real ignorance of the simple idea that one or even several members of a group saying something derogatory about that group or using terms historically used to defame that group means that all members of that group should not be offended is the basest sort of prejudice. A black comic is not an authority for all black people, just like a white radio host is not the voice of all white people. Confusing one, or some, or even a majority of people of any grouping with all people who share that trait is the act of treating them like things instead of persons. Doing so is simply incorrect the politically can and should be dropped.
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Monday, August 23, 2010
The Ground Zero Mosque and Racism
One of the recent controversies that conservative politicians have stirred up involves whether a mosque/islamic cultural center should be built two blocks from ground zero. One of the most glaring omissions of this debate has been the degree to which racism and prejudice is fundamental to most of the arguments put forward as to why it should not be built.
Fundamentally the repeated linking of Islam and terrorism is about racism. There are terrorists who consider Islam the inspiration for the violence they commit. But they are not alone. Throughout history people have used their personal religious views to justify violence. The distortion of Islam by terrorists in this century is neither new in history nor unique to the religion of Islam. In fact, the recent rhetoric about this country and constitution being the greatest gift that God ever gave the world is another example of using religion to justify violent acts.While there is a real difference between self defense and trying to impose your way of life on other people, our recent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan how easily the two are blurred. The reality is that the people who attacked us on September 11th are as representative of Muslims as the KKK is of Christianity.
We are fighting Al Qaeda because they want to kill us. We disagree with them fundamentally on many issues in different areas of life and most importantly about what values make a nation. The value I think most important in our nation is pluralism. The dream of this country is fundamentally about the idea that the peoples who commit themselves to this nation can come together based on the values of freedom and democracy. The idea that Muslims being welcome to worship where they choose is somehow a victory for the terrorists instead of a victory for pluralism seems simply wrongheaded to me.
Unfortunately the stirring up of this controversy and the rhetoric around it has denied our country the victory that we could have had. In Prom Night in Mississippi Morgan Freeman is asked why he was willing to pay for a school's prom on the condition that for the first time in history the prom be integrated. He responded that when he tells people about this aspect of his home town, that in the year 2007 the school still racially segregates prom night, all he can say is that it's the stupidest damn thing he has ever heard of. I sincerely question how I can talk about the great respect our country has for freedom of religion when so many of my fellow citizens are so easily blinded by prejudice.
The fantasy that allowing the building of a mosque will make ground zero into a headquarters for terrorists is little more than prejudice against more than a billion people based on the actions of 19 of them. More importantly, while some commentators have said that victims of the attack have a legitimate emotional point they ignore the broader the view that reveals the gritty new face of American racism.
Anti-Muslim prejudice has caused local controversies about building mosques in several areas. Some mosques have even been attacked, defaced, and destroyed. The sliver of legitimacy that was provided by the location of the proposed site in New York has allowed commentators to come out against a Mosque with a thin veil of legitimacy to cover up the stink of their underlying prejudice. The national figures commenting on this issue aren't concerned with the thousands of people who were directly effected by the attacks in New York. They are using this controversy to tap into a nationwide animus that is just as illogical as de jure segregation. The sheer hypocrisy of some of leaders who worship the constitution but ignore its pluralist values is astounding.
Some commentators have intimated that because some of the people involved in building the mosque favor the imposition of sharia law we should be troubled. But the same commentators refused to call out leaders who argue that good christian values must be reflected in our marriage laws. Or leaders that proclaim that the Ten Commandments should be openly worshiped in our courts. These leaders do not stand for the American value of pluralism. The imposition of a Christian theocracy is just as unappealing to me as the imposition of an Islamic one. On the other hand, I am not troubled by the Catholic that wants to ban birth control and condoms for the same reason that I am not troubled by the Muslim who wants to impose Islamic law. Neither idea will ever become a reality as long as our country is recognizable.
Fundamentally we have to ask ourselves whether our commitment to pluralism, promised in the 1st Amendment and bled for in several wars, is so weak that we cannot support an Islamic cultural center close to a place where people of many faiths were killed by an enemy of our Nation.
If we really don't care about pluralism, then I would question how important winning the war really is.
Fundamentally the repeated linking of Islam and terrorism is about racism. There are terrorists who consider Islam the inspiration for the violence they commit. But they are not alone. Throughout history people have used their personal religious views to justify violence. The distortion of Islam by terrorists in this century is neither new in history nor unique to the religion of Islam. In fact, the recent rhetoric about this country and constitution being the greatest gift that God ever gave the world is another example of using religion to justify violent acts.While there is a real difference between self defense and trying to impose your way of life on other people, our recent actions in Iraq and Afghanistan how easily the two are blurred. The reality is that the people who attacked us on September 11th are as representative of Muslims as the KKK is of Christianity.
We are fighting Al Qaeda because they want to kill us. We disagree with them fundamentally on many issues in different areas of life and most importantly about what values make a nation. The value I think most important in our nation is pluralism. The dream of this country is fundamentally about the idea that the peoples who commit themselves to this nation can come together based on the values of freedom and democracy. The idea that Muslims being welcome to worship where they choose is somehow a victory for the terrorists instead of a victory for pluralism seems simply wrongheaded to me.
Unfortunately the stirring up of this controversy and the rhetoric around it has denied our country the victory that we could have had. In Prom Night in Mississippi Morgan Freeman is asked why he was willing to pay for a school's prom on the condition that for the first time in history the prom be integrated. He responded that when he tells people about this aspect of his home town, that in the year 2007 the school still racially segregates prom night, all he can say is that it's the stupidest damn thing he has ever heard of. I sincerely question how I can talk about the great respect our country has for freedom of religion when so many of my fellow citizens are so easily blinded by prejudice.
The fantasy that allowing the building of a mosque will make ground zero into a headquarters for terrorists is little more than prejudice against more than a billion people based on the actions of 19 of them. More importantly, while some commentators have said that victims of the attack have a legitimate emotional point they ignore the broader the view that reveals the gritty new face of American racism.
Anti-Muslim prejudice has caused local controversies about building mosques in several areas. Some mosques have even been attacked, defaced, and destroyed. The sliver of legitimacy that was provided by the location of the proposed site in New York has allowed commentators to come out against a Mosque with a thin veil of legitimacy to cover up the stink of their underlying prejudice. The national figures commenting on this issue aren't concerned with the thousands of people who were directly effected by the attacks in New York. They are using this controversy to tap into a nationwide animus that is just as illogical as de jure segregation. The sheer hypocrisy of some of leaders who worship the constitution but ignore its pluralist values is astounding.
Some commentators have intimated that because some of the people involved in building the mosque favor the imposition of sharia law we should be troubled. But the same commentators refused to call out leaders who argue that good christian values must be reflected in our marriage laws. Or leaders that proclaim that the Ten Commandments should be openly worshiped in our courts. These leaders do not stand for the American value of pluralism. The imposition of a Christian theocracy is just as unappealing to me as the imposition of an Islamic one. On the other hand, I am not troubled by the Catholic that wants to ban birth control and condoms for the same reason that I am not troubled by the Muslim who wants to impose Islamic law. Neither idea will ever become a reality as long as our country is recognizable.
Fundamentally we have to ask ourselves whether our commitment to pluralism, promised in the 1st Amendment and bled for in several wars, is so weak that we cannot support an Islamic cultural center close to a place where people of many faiths were killed by an enemy of our Nation.
If we really don't care about pluralism, then I would question how important winning the war really is.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)