America killed Trayvon. Zimmerman only pulled the trigger.

George Zimmerman was today acquitted of all charges relating to the shooting death of Trayvon Martin. Did the jury make the right decision? Yes and no.

(Update: it's been revealed that one of the six jurors believed Zimmerman guilty of second-degree murder and two thought him guilty of manslaughter. For what it's worth, I think manslaughter would have been the correct verdict... but I don't live in Florida.)

With the information presented to them, within the context of the legal system of Florida, and the US more broadly, perhaps they made the only decision they could make. That is not the same, however, as justice being served. Zimmerman appears to have acted in a way that is fully in accordance with Florida law. So the real question is: What the hell is wrong with a state, or a country, that deems this to be legal?

While the exact details are disputed, here's what most of us can agree on in the case:


Zimmerman sees Martin walking through his neighbourhood, and believing his behaviour to be suspicious, follows him. Zimmerman is armed. Martin becomes aware he is being followed, quite understandably freaks out, and probably attacks him. Zimmerman shoots Martin as he feels (justifiably or otherwise) that his life is being threatened.


Of course, the same logic could be used to apply to Martin; if he attacked Zimmerman, it was because he felt threatened, as a teen, by an older man following him down the street. In other words, we have two people defending themselves against each other. I don't know if that is an actual thing.

Guilty or not, this incident could not happen without two highly problematic pre-existing conditions: the assumption that a young black man is by definition suspicious and threatening, and the right for a person to bear a deadly weapon and use it whenever they feel threatened.

It has been pushed by certain sections of conservative America that Trayvon Martin was indeed a dangerous thug, who probably was looking to rob a house in that neighbourhood, and whose attack on Zimmerman was in line with his thuggish personality. These are things we cannot know.

Likewise, some on the left have pushed the idea that Zimmerman had a racist grudge against black people. Again, I don't think that's something we can really know.

But let's ask this question: if a white male teenager was walking through that neighbourhood, stopping occasionally to look at houses, would Zimmerman have deemed it sufficiently threatening to "tool up" and pursue him?

That's debatable of course. But the big question for me is this:

If Zimmerman was not armed, or does not live in a nation under the sway of the gun lobby, does he even confront Trayvon Martin at all?

I say no. The gun George Zimmerman carried played a larger role that merely defending its holder. It defines the whole episode.

The gun gives the courage to play big-game hunter, and stalk the young man who he deemed to be threatening. The gun means that Zimmerman is more brazen about his pursuit than he would have otherwise been; he is indiscreet enough for Martin to spot him and confront him. And the gun means that when Martin confronts or attacks Zimmerman, Zimmerman does not feel the need to defuse the situation, or turn and flee.

Unfortunately, both lived in a place that gives legal justification for vigilantism, in a way that other Western nations do not. In any other Western country, someone worried that there is potentially dangerous teenager - so scary as to put you in fear of your life - roaming through the neighbourhood does not go confront that teenager, alone.

George Zimmerman instigated a situation which he had no business being in, then resorting to deadly force as soon as the situation looked bad for him.

Florida allows this kind of thing. Below is Florida's self-defence statute (emphasis mine):

A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any other place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.

No duty to retreat. That passage makes it different from most other self-defence statutes around the world, which tend to treat violence as a last resort, to be used only after all other reasonable options have been exhausted or impossible.

Just say I'm in Florida, I'm armed, and I have the confidence that comes with carrying a gun, knowing that I can pull it out if I ever feel threatened. Where is the disincentive for me to avoid conflict with anyone I could potentially have a disagreement or altercation with?

This is an extremely dangerous legal precedent, especially now that this case has acquired so much publicity.

If you don't think there's something sick about the US justice system, have a look at these recent cases:

Jury acquits Texas man for murder of escort who refused sex

Florida mom gets 20 years for firing warning shots

Leslie Jones loves white people

To be honest, I'm not sure I really needed to hear another "the difference between black people and white people is..." -type joke, but this is pretty good.

England vs Serbia U21 football match descends into racist anarchy

Ah, the wonderful world of Eastern European football, where the favourite way for supporters to display their passion for their team is by racially abusing black players. That this happened in Serbia is completely unsurprising, but let me also point out that similar incidents have occurred recently in Croatia, Russia, Spain and elsewhere. (This same weekend, the Danish team complained to FIFA about racist chants during their World Cup Qualifier against Bulgaria in Sofia, directed at Danish defender Patrick Mtliga, who has Tanzanian heritage.)

England Under-21 star Danny Rose has called on UEFA to ban Serbia after admitting that racist abuse he suffered in Krusevac affected his game. The Tottenham defender, currently on loan at Sunderland, said he had been subjected to monkey taunts long before the violent scenes which marred the end of the Euro 2013 play-off.
Sports minister Hugh Robertson today sent a letter to UEFA president Michel Platini urging tough sanctions from the governing body following the "disgraceful scenes" of racism in Serbia. Rose was sent off after the final whistle for kicking a ball in anger in response to provocation as scuffles broke out involving Serbian supporters, players and other officials.
Rose told Sky Sports News: "I remember getting slapped twice and then I got ushered away. "That's when I kicked the ball - and the referee sent me off. I don't understand, the game had finished by then but he still sent me off for kicking the ball. "As I went off again there was monkey chanting, but the monkey chanting started long before I got sent off. "After 60 minutes my head wasn't really on the game. They have to be banned. I don't understand how else they can learn from it, they have to be banned."
Robertson has given his full support to the Football Association, who reported a number of incidents of racism to UEFA. The minister said: "The scenes at the end of the game last night were disgraceful. "I have written to UEFA president Michel Platini, in support of the FA, urging them to investigate immediately. "Racism in any form is unacceptable and must be stamped out. We would expect tough sanctions from UEFA on anyone found guilty of racist abuse." England assistant coach Steve Wigley was caught up in the trouble and was manhandled as he made his way to the tunnel after the game.

Rose said the issues were a culmination of problems which had been brewing throughout the evening at the Mladost Stadium. The 22-year-old added: "It started when we went out for the warm-up. "They started the monkey chanting straight away. I asked the lads if they could hear it and they said they could hear it. "Halfway through the warm-up I went to 'Wigs', the assistant manager, and told him what was happening. "He said I had to try my best to get through it and they would deal with it straight away after the game. "In the first half I went down to get the ball for a throw-in and the fans started again with the monkey chants, but the first half was nowhere near as bad as the second half. "In the second half I had two stones hit me on the head when I went to get the ball for a throw-in. Every time I touched the ball there was monkey chanting again. "After 60 minutes my mind wasn't really on the game after that. I was just so angry and it was just so hard to concentrate. "I could have cost the lads the game because I made a few mistakes through not concentrating. "Then obviously we scored. After 90 minutes' worth of abuse I just expressed my emotions as soon as we scored. "Then the next thing I know all the Serbia players have run over and were all surrounding me, pushing me and a brawl broke out." 

Connor Wickham's injury-time strike clinched a 2-0 aggregate success. Sunderland backed their loan player, saying they were "shocked" by what happened in Serbia. Sunderland's chief executive Margaret Byrne said: "As a club we strongly believe that the power of football should be used to promote inclusion and celebrate diversity and there is no place for any form of racism within the game of football and society as a whole. "The scenes in Serbia last night shocked everyone and Sunderland Football Club wholeheartedly backs the Football Association's stance on the matter." [Source]

Of course, despite FIFA's public stance that racism is bad, they will do absolutely nothing about this, apart from uphold Danny Rose's red card for reacting to being called a monkey for 2 hours on end.
The monkey chants are clearly audible in this clip:

Scandal as black man has a black accent

In the latest shocking evidence of something or other that right-wing pundits have dug up, Barack Obama has been captured on film in 2007, addressing a black audience and playing up certain "black"characteristics in his voice. And this is important because... I'm not sure exactly.

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Oh the Spew-Hannity
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

Is Obama's accent really that different when talking to the black audience? I don't really think so, but in any case, it's something I don't find particularly unusual. It's called code-switching, and its something that a lot of people do unconsciously. Particularly bicultural people, or those who navigate between different cultures.

For my own part, I speak differently when I'm around people who don't speak English very well. Every time I go to Malaysia, I have a vaguely Malaysian accent after being there about 2 days. I call people "mate" when around working class white Australians, but use "man" when around younger or more ethnic peoples. And having just been intensively watching repeats of The Wire, more and more bits and pieces of ebonics are creeping into my speech. And all this is pretty much unconscious. It just happens, because like many other people I tend to attune to whoever I'm around. So I'm not at all surprised that somone like Obama does it.


Excellent article on this by John McWhorter at The New Republic.

Friends and foes: On race and comedy

I've seen a few comments here and there about race and humour, following the video that went viral of Brett Eidman getting punched out for racially taunting Asian audience members under the guise of comedy. It's an issue that regularly comes up whenever a comedian or other celebrity says something about race: why do some people get away with race-based jokes and others don't? Why does someone like Eidman catch a beating for making fun of a particular race, while the likes of Dave Chappelle and Russell Peters have made a very lucrative living out of it?

I've written on this matter before, but I have a little more to add.

I should first state that even the likes of Chappelle, Peters and others who do it well can still cross the line sometimes, so we shouldn't look at this in overly simplistic terms. But overall, there is a difference between them and someone like Eidman, or like Michael Richards in the rant at black people that so severely damaged his reputation.

For the most part, the good guys play with the stereotypes rather than just regurgitate them; their comedy involves a degree of intelligence; they do not display contempt for the race they are making fun of; and most importantly, they are actually funny.

To a large extent, it comes down to whether the comedian comes across as a friend or a foe.

What does that mean? Think of Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock, who routinely make fun of both black people and white people, and most everyone else for that matter. But rarely if ever would a reasonable person conclude from their jokes that they don't like any of those races. Which is perhaps why their fanbase extends well beyond the black community. Likewise, Russell Peters has based his career almost entirely on ethnic stereotypes, and is perhaps best known for routines poking fun at Chinese people. Yet you will always find Chinese people in his audience.

Peters, to a certain extent, gets Chinese culture and Chinese people, at least more than the average non-Chinese observer. His riffs on the Chinese go beyond the lazy stereotypes that have been done to death. He does accents well enough that it's obvious that he has studied their nuances rather than just the superficial. It's pretty clear that Peters has hung out with a lot of Chinese people (and most everyone else he pokes fun at) and views them with respect. He is a "friend".

Other comedians, however, seem like foes. Using Brett Eidman as the obvious example, there is no love or respect for Asian people in his repulsive "Dom Fok" character. Slanty-eye glasses and a dumb "ching chong Chinaman" accent suggest contempt for Asians, as does repeating stupid, played-out lines like "Me love you long time" and "Me so horny". He comes across like a schoolyard bully, taunting someone just because they look different.

Friends can poke fun at each other about their race and culture, and for the most part it's okay because you know that joking aside, the friend still respects you and what you are. That's an entirely different thing from being a bully.

Knowing where that line is is a hard thing to know, of course. It's one reason why conservatives often don't seem to get why the likes of Rush Limbaugh is routinely branded a racist for his racial jokes, when more left-leaning comedians are let off the hook.

Check this clip of Rich Vos talking to a primarily black crowd. He's doing something lesser comedians wouldn't get away with - making fun of black people, as a group, to their faces. He's actually doing something very clever - he is making fun of black comics who make fun of white people, yet is indirectly making fun of black people in general. And apart from one dumb heckler, the crowd are on his side, and even seem to appreciate the balls it takes to say what he is saying. Why? Perhaps because it feels like there is an affection behind his poking fun, his execution is so smart. And he's funny. Being genuinely funny can help you get away with a lot.

Obama's gay marriage, fake father and other wingnut fantasies

Ever seen those ads for Dos Equis beer which feature a character they call "The Most Interesting Man in the World"?
Well clearly they've got it wrong, because no one as lived a life as extraordinary as Barack Obama. Or at least that is if you believe right-wing conspiracy theorists.

So far we've seen Obama the Communist, Obama the Black Radical, Obama the Secret Muslim, Obama the Atheist, Obama the Kenyan, Obama the Indonesian, Obama the Black Radical, Obama the Guy Who Is Just Like Adolph Hitler, and even Obama the Antichrist.

Now in a flash of inspiration, someone has come up with a concept that neatly combines the right-wing's two favourite destroyers of the fabric of society (gay marriage and Islam) into one nice package: Obama was secretly married in college - to a man! And to a Pakistani man at that!

What makes Obama the most interesting man in the world is not just that he is able to simultaneously be all of these things - a gay Muslim who is really an atheist yet claims to be a Christian - but that no one who he ever met in all that time seems to be willing to verify any of these details. Which, if you really want to get into conspiratorial mode, is probably because he had everyone who knew his secrets killed execution-style by the Illuminati Hit Squad.

The genius behind this story is the Tea Party's professional conspiracy theorist in chief, Jerome Corsi. You may remember Corsi for his role in smearing 2004 Presidential hopeful John Kerry's decorated record as a soldier in Vietnam, and his role in the Birther movement. His logic states that Obama must have been married because he was photographed wearing a ring on his left hand where one normally wears a wedding ring. And Corsi decides it was probably a gay marriage because... well, in this photo he is seated almost touching another guy, his Pakistani college room-mate Sohale Siddiqui. And sitting close to another guy is, as we all know, a clear sign that one is hungry for cock.

These two are like, totally gay for each other.

These two are just good friends.

To be honest, if BO experimented in college, I personally don't give a shit. A lot of people do that sort of thing; that's what college is for. If he is indeed on the "down-low" as they say, he'll have something in common to chat about with half the congressmen in the Republican party. But anyway, BO looks like he might be the "top" in that relationship, and we all know it's not gay if you're the pitcher.

Speaking of pitching, Corsi is pitching a couple of other conspiracy theories at the moment over at WorldNetDaily.

Firstly, Corsi is touting "absolute proof" that Obama was both an Indonesian citizen and a Muslim, based on a document at the Indonesian school where he was enrolled as a young child. Whether or not the document is real is probably immaterial; anyone who knows Indonesia knows that it's standards of record-keeping are hardly rigorous in their accuracy. As conservatives are constantly telling us, bureaucracies are inefficient, and Indonesia's more than most. What seems likely is that it was assumed Obama was an Indonesian because that's what his stepfather Lolo Soetoro was. Religion-wise, it should be noted that it is effectively illegal to NOT have a religion in Indonesia. Belief in God is one of the tenets of Pancasila, the national ideology, and while no one cares if someone doesn't actually practice the religion, not claiming a religion would draw suspicions of Communism. Thus it makes sense that Soetoro would list his stepson's religion as Islam, since that made as much sense as any other alternative at the time.

An even more interesting theory being promoted by Corsi at WND is that Obama's real father was not Barack Obama Snr, but was instead their family friend Frank Marshall Davis, who was a mentor to the young Obama. This is delicious for the WND audience since Davis was a member of the Communist Party and thus must have been a bad person. Joel Gilbert, director of the "documentary" entertaining this theory, Dreams of My Real Father, wasted 2 years of his life studying photos to support this theory.

“I decided to investigate Frank Marshall Davis. His close physical resemblance to Obama was shocking, while Obama little resembled the Kenyan Obama,” Gilbert told WND. “How could this be?”

Here is a comparison of the President with his Kenyan father and the man Gilbert alleges is his real father. You can initially see where Gilbert might have got this idea from; there are some ways in which Obama looks more like Davis than Obama Snr.

But there's another obvious explanation. Can you guess the detail Gilbert has missed?

Genetically, Obama Jnr and Davis almost certainly do share something: European DNA. Virtually all African-Americans who are descended from slaves have some white European ancestry. On average, 20% of African-American DNA comes from white ancestors. You can be a black American, whose parents are both black, yet be more than 50% European genetically.
Frank Marshall Davis has some level of white DNA, probably in the average range for his ethnicity. Barack Obama II is 50% white. Barack Obama Snr is an ethnic Luo with no apparent white ancestry. Which is why, shockingly, he looks so much darker and more African than his son.
Obama doesn't look much like his mother either, come to think of it. He's sort of... blacker-looking. Maybe she's not his real mother either?

The article also shows pictures of Davis' children, Lynn and Mark, for comparison. He also married a white woman, so his children have that mixed appearance. They do vaguely resemble Obama, particularly if you think black people tend to look alike. But they also look considerably "whiter" than Obama, particularly when it comes to their hair, which appears far less sub-Saharan African in form than Obama's. This is as you would expect, since Davis is presumably "whiter" than Obama Snr.

As a person of mixed race myself, I also don't look all that similar to either of my parents, and it's not uncommon either.

Of course, if you pay attention you may notice that all these conspiracy theories contradict each other. I mean, Obama can't be both a foreign Kenyan AND have a father who is an American communist. And he's probably not both an atheist AND a secret Islamic jihadist. But as any good mudslinger knows, if you fling enough mud, eventually some of it will stick. And given that around a quarter of all Americans think Obama IS a Muslim and a foreigner, Corsi and friends have a sizable audience to pitch their wingnut wet dreams to.


See also:
If Obama is a Muslim, maybe I am too...
Obama's birth certificate, and the racist impulses behind Birtherism
The Muslim-ness of Obama's family, and what it has to do with his presidency

Why Chris Brown is hard to forgive

R&B star Chris Brown has a new album out called Fortune, and one particular review by a Chad Taylor of the Des Moines Cityview has gone viral for its brilliant simplicity.

The women, or woman, in question is obviously his singer ex-girlfriend Rihanna, and while this is a few years ago now, lots of people are in no hurry to forgive Brown. Yet on the other side of things, there are plenty of people, notably young women, who seem determined not just to forgive him for beating and choking her, but to justify his behaviour on account of him being hot and talented, or something like that. If you wanna know what I mean, check here and here.

But is Chad Taylor's 6-word "album review" a justified critique of Chris Brown?

Brown is not the first celebrity to be guilty of heinous violence against women, and he won't be the last. This recent article in the LA Times suggests that his race may be a factor in many people's reluctance to move on and see past his behaviour, since other white stars have done arguably worse yet not been shunned in the same way.

There is possibly an element of truth in that. More of it, I'd argue, is that the women assaulted by Campbell and Sheen are not nearly as well known as Rihanna, who is arguably the biggest singing star in the world right now. That's not right but it's the way the world works.

But there's another layer to it. Like most people, I believe that even the best of us can make terrible mistakes, and shouldn't necessarily be condemned for life because of them. Most people seem willing to forgive a celebrity's sins, to a certain extent, if certain conditions are met.

Firstly, it helps if they are exceptionally talented.Again, it may not be right, but people are more than happy to overlook the domestic violence perpetrated by the Godfather of Soul, James Brown (no relation), largely because James has contributed a phenomenal amount to music in a way that Chris will never do. Tupac Shakur and the Notorious B.I.G. were sufficiently talented and compelling rappers that most of us will overlook the evidence that indicates they were rather shitty human beings (2Pac did time for serious sexual assault and Biggie for dealing crack cocaine). Michael Jackson may well have been guilty of one of our society's greatest taboos - child molestation - yet millions still worship him.

Suffice to say, Chris Brown the artist is not on a level anywhere near MJ, JB, 2Pac and Biggie, no matter what his record sales might say.

Secondly, we want some contrition from the artist. And while Brown has seemingly said all the right things about that incident with Rihanna, his actions can't help but make us think he's not really all that sorry. Where he originally sang typically innocuous commercial R&B, Brown has increasingly embraced the image of the playa, the bad boy. He was involved in that big nightclub brawl with the entourage of rapper Drake. He and his fans - "Team Breezy", as that pack of idiots call themselves - rail endlessly about "haters". He released the execrable single Look at me now which is all about how much money he is making and how everyone is on his dick. Compare that to James Brown, whose music was always fuelled by positivity and social conscience, regardless of what he might have been doing in his private life.

So given that the album is almost certainly a piece of crap anyway, I think Chad Taylor's review is a legitimate comment on the Chris Brown phenomenon. People don't become megastars without the backing of the mass media, and the mass media is still pushing Chris Brown's worthless music on us like it's gold. I do believe that people make mistakes and can redeem themselves, and as celebrities go, Brown is hardly the worst perpetrator of undesirable acts. But he's still out there trying to act like a badass, and the industry is still foisting him upon us anyway. So to me, this reviewer is in effect saying, "Enough of this shit", and I too have had enough.

Larry Wilmore on "Caucasiastan"

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Democalypse 2012 - Larry Wilmore & Caucasiastan
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor & Satire Blog The Daily Show on Facebook

On using the word "Negro"

So a friend of mine recently sparked an interesting discussion about the use of the word "Negro". To put it in context, some unidentified acquaintance of this friend was trying to describe a person of African extraction and referred to them using that word. My friend was wondering whether to correct the terminology used by this person, who was of an older generation. A number of other folks added their two cents to this discussion, and among the comments were several condemning this heinous racism and advising that my friend had a duty to correct it.

Me? I have a problem with that actually. In fact it's a pet peeve of mine.
Now I know some of you might find something fundamentally wrong with me, a non-black person, telling people what they should or shouldn't find offensive when it comes to words referring to black people. But f#ck it, here I go anyway.

 Not that I think the term should go uncorrected. But what I'm focusing on is when people are all too quick to conclude that racism is at play, when it may be little more than outdated terminology used by well-meaning individuals. 

Saying "Negro" does not make someone racist, although it could of course depend on the context. "Negro" is not the same as "nigger". Virtually everyone knows that "nigger" is racist and offensive; even if, following the recontextualizing of it by hip-hop culture, some non-black folks think it's appropriate to use in ways that it's not. "Negro" on the other hand, elicits a range of responses. Some people think it's straight-up racist to call someone that, whereas some of you reading this will undoubtedly be thinking right now, "Huh? 'Negro' is racist? Since when?"

"Negro" is certainly out of fashion, and politically incorrect. But it was once a relatively acceptable term, and a lot of old people use it to this day. It is a word with Latin roots - it still features in languages such Spanish and Italian, meaning simply "black" - and thus it was long used in scientific and anthropological contexts. I've heard my grandmother - formerly a biology teacher - refer to people as Negroes, and there's no hint of malice or prejudice there. It's like when old-timers sometimes refer to Asian people as "Orientals"; some Asian-Americans consider that a racist term, but again, to my mind it is merely old-fashioned. You could label a person who talks about Negroes and Orientals as being ignorant, but calling them racist is a step too far without further evidence.

The appropriate terminology changes with time, and it's not always easy to keep up. "African American", of course, is the proper term to use, but even as someone who takes an active interest in ethnic and racial matters, I honestly can't tell you whether or not that term should be hyphenated, or if it's still okay to use "Afro-American". Or whether it's okay to call someone "Black". Or whether "Black" needs that capital letter at all. (My spell checker is telling me that "Negro" requires a capital.)

Now, this post is not intended as a rant against "political correctness gone mad", even though that is something that bugs me. Rather, it's something that anyone who considers him or herself an anti-racist should bear in mind. The more you label people racist when they are not racist, you just contribute to making the label "racist" meaningless. When it feels like anything and everything is potentially racist, we shall reach a point where people just won't care any more.

This is not say that it's not important to get the terminology right, as it shows respect to whoever is being talked about. But fixation on this kind of hair-splitting starts to get unhealthy, and it's something that bugs me about certain sections of the Left-liberal intelligentsia. Why go out of one's way to see racism where it doesn't necessarily exist? And why go out of one's way to potentially make enemies (by branding people as racist), when they might otherwise be a potential ally?


So my advice to my friend was along these lines: It's okay to correct that person, but if you do it, do it in an understanding and tactful way. Presuming they are speaking out of racial animosity is going to make things go south very quickly. If I was unwittingly using words which some people found hurtful and inappropriate, personally I would want to know, so I could reflect on it and perhaps find different ways to express myself. But if it comes across like some holier-than-thou person calling me a racist... well that never goes down too well.

Key and Peele on the auction block

The first thing I ever saw of comedy duo Key & Peele was a bit meh, so I never bothered to look any deeper, but a friend of mine has been talking them up incessantly. So I gave them a shot, and he's right. Damn funny.

Racists disappointed by "Hunger Games"

Sometimes, people just suck.
This is why:

Read the full article at Jezebel. Most fascinating.

"He looks good for an Asian."

A reader emailed me this question:

What do u think when ppl say things like, "he/she looks good for an Asian/black person"? Do u think it's offensive? It's like many ppl ive met in the usa think that whites look better than others, and some would say "you are pretty for a (black) girl". Why is this? I don't think they are racist. Just strongly favoring the Caucasian look. Which can't be helped and isn't their fault...but I find it sad and kind of disturbing.

This is a pretty common thing. I've heard these sorts of comments made about various races.
 
And yes, of course that's offensive. It doesn't mean they hate blacks/Asians/whatever, but they clearly have a perspective (whether conscious or not) that whites are naturally more attractive than others. The person saying might think it's a compliment, but it's an extremely backhanded one.
 
When someone says, for example:
 
"You are pretty for a black girl",
 
they are effectively saying:
 
"I believe black women are instrinsically quite ugly. However, you are not like the rest of them; you are actually quite pretty. Mind you, you are probably not as pretty as most white women, because white women are intrinsically prettier than black women. But, as that ugly race of black women go, you are one of the better ones."
 
So, no, it's not really a compliment.


I don't really have any problem with someone thinking such things - we all have our own preferences, after all - but to say it out loud not only makes the person look ignorant, but will probably offend people too.

The problem with "he/she looks good for an Asian/black person" -type comments is that it assumes some sort of objective measure of physical attractiveness. While good looks can be objectively measured to a certain extent, a significant element of what we find attractive is culturally defined. Which is to say, influenced by cultural values and prevailing trends. Some examples would be South Asians preferring light skin or black dudes liking women with "thick" figures". The ancient Chinese practice of foot-binding for women, or the practice of blackening women's teeth in medieval Japan, are examples of standards of beauty that exist in a specific context but seem downright bizarre today.

And the other extremely important aspect to attraction is of course personal taste. Two men growing up in the same cultural circumstances can have very different preferences. One may like brunettes, the other redheads. One may like curvy, busty women, the other may prefer a small and thin figure.

So to say that someone is or isn't attractive is not as straightforward as some might think. While it might be possible to speak on behalf of what you think other people might agree on, ultimately we can only speak of our personal opinions.

And even if the person who said "You are pretty for a black girl", instead said something more correct like, "I don't normally find black girls that attractive, but I find you to be very pretty", he would still sound like a bit of a jerk.

So if someone is good-looking and you need to comment on it, perhaps it's best to do so without the qualifier.  Stick with the "he's good looking" and leave out the "... for an Asian" part. It will just highlight your ignorance.

To paraphrase the theme song of an 80s sitcom:

"... the world don't move to the beat of just one drum... what might be hot to you may not be hot to some."

Shit White Girls Say…to Black Girls

Created by video blogger Chescaleigh (aka Franchesca Ramsey), this clip has swiftly become a viral sensation. Apparently she posted it, went to work, and by the time she had come home it had already amassed a million hits. Of course, it has stirred up some controversy too - the obligatory "if a white girl made the same thing about black girls, it'd be called racist" and so on. Which misses the point of why someone would make a video like this in the first place. It's also worth pointing out that this is a parody of another recently popular viral video, Shit Girls Say".

I like it not just because it's funny, but also because Ramsey has a rather unnerving resemblance to my own partner (hair aside).

On Suarez and Evra

In the English Premier League, matches between Liverpool and Manchester United are always testy affairs due to their long-standing rivalry. This past weekend's game had another nasty angle to it due to racism claims on the field. United's black French defender Patrice Evra reported to referee Andre Marriner that he was being repeatedly racially abused by Luis Suarez, Liverpool's Uruguayan forward. He later told French TV station CanalPlus "There are cameras, you can see him (Suarez) say a certain word to me at least 10 times." If you're not sure what that the "certain word" is, it's the one that begins with N that black people are generally not fond of, unless the person saying it is black in which case it's sort of okay. Suarez is a little brownish perhaps, but technically not black, which means he's potentially in hot water as the English FA are conducting an investigation into Evra's claims.

Liverpool, for their part, have completely backed Suarez's claims that he is a lovely person who loves everybody, and have also called for Evra to be punished for making a false allegation should the FA find no proof.

European football is riddled with racism; in some countries on the continent, large sections of the crowd routinely bring banana peels to the game solely to throw at black players (based on the logic that there is some correlation between black people and monkeys). The English league has been one of the more successful at eradicating this kind of rubbish, so the allegations will no doubt be taken seriously.

Evra and Suarez have their own individual baggage that impacts on this furore. Evra has been the alleged target of unproven racist incidents before - which makes it easy for some to dismiss him as someone who was struggling to contain Suarez on the field of play and so played the race card in retribution - although to be fair to Evra, the previous allegations were not made by him personally. For his part, Suarez was sent off in the last World Cup for the most obvious and cynical handball you'll ever see, is continually accused of diving and feigning injury to get other players in trouble, and not so long ago was suspended for biting another player on the shoulder during a game. All of which doesn't mean he's a racist prick - just a prick - but I doubt anyone would be surprised if his list of odious behaviours happened to include racist taunts.

Of course, according to Suarez, he's not a bad guy, just misunderstood, if this amusing statement on his Facebook page is anything to go by:

“I’m upset by the accusations of racism. I can only say that I have always respected and respect everybody. We are all the same. I go to the field with the maximum illusion of a little child who enjoys what he does, not to create conflicts.”

But Liverpool's stance on the matter - that Evra be banned if Suarez is cleared - is ridiculous in what it implies, although that hasn't stopped 'Pool fans enthusiastically embracing it. Unless video replays can conclusively prove what Suarez said, which is unlikely, or unless someone else on the field can credibly verify what Suarez said, then it comes down to one man's word against another's.

Without trying to be hyperbolic, there is a parallel with rape cases here. In an incident in which only the two people involved know what happened and which is difficult to prove, the odds are that the accused is cleared of the charge. But that doesn't mean the incident didn't happen. Obviously making false allegations is very serious, as it potentially leads to an unjust punishment and can ruin someone's reputation even if the charges are found to be baseless. But if we were to punish everyone who made an accusation which could not be proven, it would be an active discouragement for anyone to report the transgression. There is a massive difference between deliberately lying and alleging something that cannot be proven.

There even remains the possibility that neither of them are at fault. Given that English is a second language to both Evra and Suarez, I wouldn't be surprised if it stemmed from a misunderstanding; perhaps Suarez said something in Spanish, or in his Uruguayan-accented poor English, and Evra misheard it as the N-word.

Although Suarez being Suarez, I reckon he's probably guilty. Great player, but he's kind of evil.

I do loves me some Onion.

On being tried while black. Sort of.

As brilliant as The Onion is, sometimes the funniest thing about them is the Youtube comments from people who think these stories are real news. This is why canned laughter was invented for TV comedy.

The racial politics of imitating someone's accent

FOX News reported - or concocted - a controversy last week when it accused Jon Stewart of racism for imitating Herman Cain, a black Republican presidential candidate.

The Daily Show
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

Now I'm obviously a fan of Stewart and The Daily Show, so perhaps I'm biased here. But it's hard to see the racism in the segment about Cain. As Stewart points out, he routinely imitates the accents of all kinds of people, and it never previously caused an uproar at FOX. The issue smacks of right-wing resentment that liberals so frequently play the race card, so the Right don't want to miss their chance to play it too.

FOX contributor Bernie Goldberg has this to say.

Let's say a white guy goes on television, puts on an exaggerated "Amos 'n Andy" "black voice" and proceeds to make fun of a black man whose politics the white guy doesn't like. Actually, let's say he goes beyond merely making fun of the black man. Let's say he tries to make the black man sound downright stupid. Does that make the white guy a racist?
The correct answer is ... it depends.
If the white guy is Rush Limbaugh and the black man is Barack Obama, then of course the white guy is a racist - according to liberals.
But if the white guy is Jon Stewart and the black man is Herman Cain, the conservative businessman seeking the Republican nomination for president, well, then, that's another story.
The other night Jon Stewart went on his show, and while he didn't put on blackface makeup and start tap dancing he did put on a "black voice" and proceeded to mock Mr. Cain in a way that would never be tolerated if a conservative had done it.
Yet liberals didn't scream "racist" the way they do when they see a tea party rally or when a conservative so much as looks askance at Barack Obama. Instead, they laughed. They thought it was a regular riot that a genius like Jon Stewart made that conservative black guy sound like a dumb character in a minstrel show.
But why isn't Jon Stewart a bigot, when Limbaugh and Hannity and O'Reilly would be tagged as racists if they had done the very same thing? That's easy. Because Jon Stewart is a liberal and liberals aren't racists. Only conservatives are.

Now, surprisingly I actually think there's a lot of truth in what Goldberg says regarding the liberal-Left being way too quick on the trigger to cry racism. It is an annoying tendency of the Left which is often counter-productive in a "boy who cried wolf" kind of way. When someone somewhere is ready to accuse someone of racism over something that is only racist at a real stretch, then it allows the Right to decry political correctness yet again. Then when someone does actually say something racist, the Right find it easier to rebuff criticism by claiming to be victims of PC hegemony.

But Goldberg displays another classic trait of the American Right, which is to be completely ignorant of context when deciding what's racist or not. When he claims "Jon Stewart made that conservative black guy sound like a dumb character in a minstrel show"... did Stewart really do that? Did Stewart really put on "an exaggerated Amos 'n Andy 'black voice'", or did he imitate the way Cain speaks reasonably accurately? Does Herman Cain speak with an exaggerated Amos 'n Andy "black voice"? Where he says "Let's say he tries to make the black man sound downright stupid"... could it not be that Stewart tries to make politicians sound downright stupid every night on his show, and this one just happened to be black. So while Goldberg's broader point is a fair one, he has chosen a dumb example for his example of "liberals making racist comments".

Goldberg is not really saying that Stewart is racist, only that conservatives should cry racism about it in the way that liberals cry racism when Rush Limbaugh and his ilk make comments disrespectful of blacks and other minorities. Of course, in a racism-crying competition, conservatives would be blown out of the water, and it's not just because liberals are so much better and more practised at it. Primarily it's because most black people probably wouldn't find Stewart's dig at Cain to be racist; yet they'd more likely take greater umbrage at the comments of right-wingers like Limbaugh, Malkin and Hannity. Because Limbaugh, Malkin and Hannity are, if not racists, at least doing a good job of sounding racist from time to time. So if conservatives want to make out that they are less racist than liberals, surely the first step would be to, you know, stop conservatives from saying racist things.

Here's another conservative, James Hirsen, commenting on "liberal racial hypocrisy" who shows that knack for missing the point of jokes, not once but twice.

After showing the footage, the Comedy Central star displayed a billboard that read: “Herman Cain 2012 — I Don’t Like to Read.”
The racist threads woven into this comedic sketch are that the black man has difficulty reading and lacks intelligence. Neither Jesse Jackson nor Al Sharpton saw fit to call a press conference.

See, no. The "I Don't Like to Read" thing comes straight from Cain's statements of not wanting to read long bills. It's nothing to do with the idea that black people lack intelligence - that exists only in the mind of some viewing who would already think that. The implication of what Hirsen is saying is that no one can ever mock anything an individual black person says as being stupid without it being a de facto attack on the intelligence of black people as a whole. To be fair, had a right-winger made a similar comment, I'm sure liberals would probably use the same faulty logic to accuse him of racism too. Hirsen continues:

Bill Maher also used Cain as comedy fodder for the “New Rules” segment of his HBO show. While giving mock advice to GOP candidate Newt Gingrich, Maher said, “Let me put your unpopularity in context for you — you're a Republican and you're polling behind a black guy.”
The not-so-coded racism in Maher’s skit is that Republicans are hated, but if the Republican individual is also black, he or she deserves even more scorn because of his or her skin color.

.. and again, totally misses the joke. What Maher seems to be implying is that Republican voters don't like black people, and thus for Gingrich to be less popular than a black candidate (Cain) with Republicans must be a grave indictment.

So, to one of the main issues of this whole business: Is it racist to imitate the accent of someone of a different nationality or ethnicity?

My answer: Hell no. Or at least, not necessarily. Depends how you do it.

I tend to think that if you can pull off the accent of a particular person or ethnicity properly, it's probably OK. If instead you resort to a dumb, uber-stereotypical accent, then you're starting to tread on more dangerous ground. Stewart gets away with his "Amos 'n Andy" "black voice" because Herman Cain actually sounds like that. On the other hand, when you hear people mocking accents in the most stupid and disrespectful ways - like Rush Limbaugh has done in the past - it's much more likely to be racist.

It's all about context, but unfortunately context is one of those things that a lot of stupid people don't really understand.

"Curb Your Enthusiasm": Larry and Leon mix up phones

Curb Your Enthusiasm, if you haven't got hip to it yet, is a sitcom revolving around Larry David, co-writer of Seinfeld and the insipration for the Seinfeld character, George Costanza. The show comes across as the somewhat less brilliant cousin of Seinfeld. But given that Seinfeld was clearly the best sitcom ever in the history of the universe, that's no disgrace. CYE still has its moments of utter brilliance.

In one of my favourite moments from season 7, Larry accidentally swaps phones with his extremely ghetto houseguest, Leon. Hilarity ensues.

Satoshi Kanazawa and black women

Satoshi Kanazawa, evolutionary psychologist and a lecturer in the management department of the London School of Economics, ran into some controversy this week over a blog posting, entitled "Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"

It's part of his Scientific Fundamentalist blog at the Psychology Today website, in which Kanazawa's subheading claims to take "A look at the hard truths about human nature". Psychology Today soon removed the offending article, and the London School of Economics is considering Kanazawa's future at the institution.

Fortunately, someone managed a screen-capture of his blog post, which you can see via BigWOWO's blog, here.

Here's an excerpt:

"It is very interesting to note that, even though black women are objectively less physically attractive than other women, black women (and men) subjectively consider themselves to be far more physically attractive than others… Nor can the race difference in intelligence [...] account for the race difference in physical attractiveness among women."

So is he a nasty racist, or truth-telling scientist who fell foul of political correctness gone mad?

Or a bit of both, perhaps?

It's telling that the title is not "Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"...

but:
"Why Are Black Women Less Physically Attractive Than Other Women?"


In other words, Kanazawa seems to accept unquestioningly that black women are less physically attractive, and thus straight away focuses on why this must be so, rather than whether such a highly controversial statement could be true, or how such a conclusion could be reached.

It's also interesting that such an article comes from a member of another group - Asian men - that is frequently perceived as undesirable and less attractive. The same study cited by Kanazawa that indicates that black women are seen as less attractive also paints a less-than-rosy picture of Asian male attractiveness. Would Kanazawa be so quick to accept the conclusion that Asian men are "objectively" less attractive than others? I wonder.

In any case, Kanazawa's approach is problematic.

Firstly, "black women are objectively less attractive than other women"? How the hell does someone measure black women's beauty, objectively? By popular vote, perhaps?
I would have no problem with Kanazawa writing a post about how people tend to find black women comparatively less attractive than other women. If surveys show that, then sure, write about it if you wish. But to treat this as some objective means of measuring the physical attractiveness of anyone is deeply suspect.

So how did the study come up with the objective evaluation of beauty?

"Add Health measures the physical attractiveness of its respondents both objectively and subjectively. At the end of each interview, the interviewer rates the physical attractiveness of the respondent objectively on the following five-point scale: 1 = very unattractive, 2 = unattractive, 3 = about average, 4 = attractive, 5 = very attractive. The physical attractiveness of each Add Health respondent is measured three times by three different interviewers over seven years."

Oh, I see. So the opinion of three different interviewers constitutes objectivity.

If you're smart, you might surmise that it might just be possible that these interviewers' judgement of beauty is subject to their own prejudices and preferences.
Even if there were not three but three thousand interviewers measuring people's beauty, it still wouldn't be worth a damn.
 
You could poll the entire world on their racial preferences in beauty, but what would it prove, in objective terms? A similar approach to music and food might reveal that Lady Gaga is "objectively" better than Aretha Franklin, and a hamburger and fries is "objectively" the best food in the world.
 
The other problem is one that you can commonly observe amongst the HBD crowd: treating social phenomena as if they have a basis in human evolution or genetics, and disregarding the importance of social context.
 
There are plenty of different social contexts that will affect the way we perceive the relative attractiveness of different races. But let's start with this one: since the dominant forces in global popular culture are mostly white and American, most of us are conditioned by a standard of beauty that is mostly white and American.
 
So rather than leaping straight to the assumption that black women are less physically attractive probably because they are dumber and have more testosterone, as Kanazawa does, he might reflect that the results represent the predictable outcome of a study conducted in a predominantly white country.

Race and Representation: Idris Elba in "Thor", and why it's nothing to complain about

This. Watch this. That is all I have to say.

Courtesy of The Escapist.

"Kung Fooled"

The new short film from Wong Fu Productions has fun with racial stereotypes while also turning them on their head.

Like.