I was looking forward to “Get Out,” the critically acclaimed horror film that has been described as “Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner?” crossed with “Rosemary’s Baby.” It has been called “brilliant.” I just watched it on a large flat-screen TV in an Erie, PA. Marriott.
It is not brilliant, except in that it appeals to progressive-biased critics who love its anti-white propaganda. Granted, it is that rare beast, a political horror movie, the genre best represented by the original “Invasion of the Body-Snatchers,” Don Seigel’s paranoid metaphor about the Red Scare. “Get Out,” however has no surprises worthy of the shock genre. Its basic plot, an innocent, trusting victim finds himself the object of a sick and widespread conspiracy aimed at controlling his mind and taking away his autonomy, is familiar to anyone who has seen “The Stepford Wives,” “The Tommyknockers,” “Rosemary’s Baby,” and too many lesser efforts to mention.
I see a lot of horror movies, good, bad, brilliant and terrible, slasher films, gorefests, zombie and vampire movies, paranormal, discovered footage and scifi/horror hybrids, from the best/worst of Ed Wood, to the genuine masterpieces and soon to be classics. They are an acquired taste, and most critics give all horror movies bad reviews, because they don’t respect the genre and look down on it and the artists that create them. Why did they fall all over themselves praising “Get Out”, particularly since it was not especially original in its horror elements? Easy. It is an anti-white movie.
It is a movie that takes place in a world that lives in the hateful fantasies of Al Sharpton, Maxine Waters, Michelle Obama and Black Lives Matters. Every single white character in the film, and there are over twenty of them, are condescending, rude, clueless bigots, unaware of their microaggressions (which are really macoaggressions) toward African Americans. Every black character, in contrast, is benign, wise, perceptive and fair, or a helpless victim. The guileless young black hero is betrayed at every turn by every white individual he trusts, even the one he loves. Because, you see, that’s what whites are like, that’s how they secretly and not so secretly feel about African Americans, and this is what black Americans need to understand.
After the full, evil, life-threatening plot becomes clear to our hero, he systematically kills (brutally) every member of the diabolical white family responsible. This is the part of the movie where Black Lives Matters members are supposed to be taking notes, or perhaps cheering.
Needless to say, and I hate to say it because it has become a hackneyed observation, but a movie with the races reversed would have been instantly condemned as anti-black paranoia and hate. After 8 years of Barack Obama and Eric Holder, however, anti-white paranoia and hate is not merely acceptable, but perceptive and brilliant.
The natural defense against my analysis would be, “Oh, come on. It’s just a movie.” Critics and commentators did not conclude it was just a move, however. Here’s The Economist:
“Get Out” is a comment on the American post-racial fantasy represented by the presidency of Mr Obama: a fantasy thwarted by the killings of Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, as well as the election of Donald Trump. The film refuses to provide any final comfort for white liberals; it does not compartmentalise black oppression in the past or in the modern inner-city. It forces them to look inward, to the state of racial tension today.
This is hilarious, if you’ve seen the movie. The rich white family and their friends and conspirators are as grotesque stereotypes and caricatures of pompous white bigots as Steppin Fetchit was an offensive insult to blacks in the 1940s. They are as relevant to real Americans as the creepy homicidal townspeople in “Hot Fuzz” are representative of real Brits.
Here is the Root, which naturally believes this slur on whites is spot on, in a disturbing essay called Get Out Proves That ‘Nice Racism’ and White Liberalism Are Never to Be Trusted.
That’s right, The Root believes that a movie in which rich white doctors hypnotize unsuspecting blacks and transfer control of their bodies to their white friends and relatives using hypnotism and brain surgery proves something. It proves, I guess, that a lot of bitter and angry blacks and white-hating progressives will find support for their divisive and vile world view wherever they can. Sayeth The Root,
“Get Out also underscores the distrust that black people feel for white women—the same white women who voted for Trump (53 percent), and the same white women whom Angela Peoples warned us about in her viral “Don’t Forget: White Women Voted for Trump” photo at the Women’s March on Washington in January.
But the movie doesn’t just enable black people to see conservatives for who they are and who we’ve always known them to be. Rather, it provides a means to evaluate the demons contained in the nice racism of those who believe that they do good (and who make it a point to distance themselves from what is perceived as bad): white progressives and liberals.”
Again, anyone who has seen the movie will diagnose this analysis as bigoted confirmation bias. There is no “nice racism” shown in the film. Every white character save one treats the black hero like a freak or an oddity, making inappropriate statements about “his kind’s” sexual prowess, or striking up conversations about black athletes, or similar gaffes that model the most awkward reactions of isolated whites at a race-restricted country club in the 1950s. What’s nice about it? Meanwhile, the Root tells us that the movie shows conservatives as they really are: evil plotters who use their skills and money to turn black bodies into their unwilling slaves. The film has illuminated the truth about racism in the US, all right, but not the racism that the critics seem to see.
It is well described by Vox’s race-poisoned Aja Romano, who writes,
“Get Out ingeniously uses common horror tropes to reveal truths about how pernicious racism is in the world. It doesn’t walk back any of its condemnations by inserting a “white savior” or making overtures to pacifism and tolerance. No: In this film, white society is a conscious purveyor of evil, and Chris must remain alert to its benevolent racism. He has to in order to survive.”
Trust me on this, as someone who has wasted too much of his life watching horror movies: the only thing ingenious about the film was making the protagonist black and all of the evil people white so reviewers would rave about it. If the movie was cast with a racially mixed cast, nobody would have noticed it, and savvy reviewers would have slammed it as sadly derivative. Ah, but blatantly declaring whites evil—note that Vox’s writer essentially agrees with this diagnosis—is bold, it’s new, it’s a revelation!
It’s racism. The film is deliberately divisive, encourages racial violence, and it is as insulting to whites as a minstrel show is to blacks, asserting a foul and demeaning stereotypes for political advantage.
Ethics Alarms 
You should probably put a spoiler alert at the top of this post, as the movie actually is still in the theater in many places.
How did you feel about the ending of the firstNight of the Living Dead?
Calling someone a nigger in anger as an insult is not racism in your opinion, but a film ruminating on the various ways racism manifests itself in America, using horror tropes a metaphor is the “real racism”? Ok. If the film had a multiracial cast, it would be pointless. If Sidney Poitier was white in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner , the movie would have been pointless too. Sometimes race is the point.
The movie is already spoiled; in fact, it’s rotten. You will get yourself banned for intentionally misrepresenting me like that, deery. I never said that using nigger was “just an insult.” It is a racist epithet, and I have never said otherwise. The question was whether using a racist epithet necessarily means one is a racist. The subtlety of this issue has proved too much for you, I know.
The ending of NOTLD was surprising and powerful, if a little off topic. The movie also was set 50 years ago. GHCTD was also a half century ago. The question isn’t that race is a legitimate issue. It is. Racist stereotyping of whites is the issue with “Get Out.” As I made clear in the post.
It’s usually considered a common courtesy to put a spoiler alert warning for people who may want to see the film, but not get spoiled by the twist ending. But it’s your blog, so do you. *shrugs*
I thought Get out was rather brilliant. A think piece on how racism manifests in modern times, using horror tropes as a metaphor. It places the viewer into the shoes of and mindset of a black person in the US, so much so that by the end of the movie, when the battered protagonist sees the police lights flashing, there were loud cries of dismay from the audience. During a typical horror film, the audience would be relieved, because we would know the protagonist is going to be rescued. But Peele turned that on its head.
Also note the “color-blind”(literally blind) man who insists that he’s “not a racist.” Outraged at the implication in fact, but all too delighted to take advantage of others racism to further his own ends. Peele is having fun with the notion that being a called a racist is the worst thing in the world for many white people. The character is all too happy to murder someone and steal their body, but don’t you dare call him a racist! That is where he draws the line!
But I don’t see where Peele draws on common white stereotypes. Is body snatching a common thing whites are accused of?
Jack,
He’s right about the spoiler alert warning; it’s terrible etiquette. You do that a lot more than you might think.
I find it…. cute…. That the people who profess an ideology that requires belief that microagressions (TYSRL) are 1) a thing and 2) important are all of a sudden oblivious to microagressions when they effect groups they don’t care about. It’s almost like the group dynamics are more important than the theories. I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told that it’s not only important that minorities are represented in Hollywood, but that their roles are diverse (and spoiler: “Good Guys” and “Victims) do not represent a diverse set of roles)…. But here we are ignoring that a certain racial group is being pidgeonholed into “bigots” and “villains”.
It puts the lie to the assertions that what they’re interested is equality… You don’t arrive at a place of racial understanding by being deliberately obtuse. Conversations aren’t started by someone screaming at you. Revenge might feel good, but it’s very rarely productive.
You don’t believe that whites have diverse roles in Hollywood? That’s a novel theory.
I don’t think most people have a problem with black villains, maids, servants, slaves, and minor roles as such in a particular movie. They have a problem when that seems to be the only roles offered throughout most of the roles available in movies. As far as I know, there is no lack of variety for white characters in movie roles in Hollywood.
Pretending the arguement doesn’t exist doesn’t actually make it go away, Deery. The fact of the matter is that progressives have a tendancy to pick individual movies as iconic of what they see as a problem and make hay with it.
If you don’t think that individual movies are are a problem, good on you, but I’m talking about the people who were deeply offended at the portrayal of a white guy as a white guy because they thought that only Asians know Kung Fu (Iron Fist), or the lack of obviously Asian cast members in a series with Asian undertones (Firefly). I’m talking about the people who, were the races on this cast reversed, would have been crying bloody murder.
Step out of your bias for a second, and just consider… IF this movie had been racially reversed… What WOULD you have said? Because I think this is one of those “power-plus-prejudice” kind of arguments, and if that’s where we’re at, we’re just going to disagree, because I reject the conclusions of that arguement, but at least we won’t be parsing words.
Pretending the arguement doesn’t exist doesn’t actually make it go away, Deery. The fact of the matter is that progressives have a tendancy to pick individual movies as iconic of what they see as a problem and make hay with it.
We do that when individual movies are representative of a trend. “Get Out” is not representative of a trend of white people only being cast as villains, because no such trend exists.
If you don’t think that individual movies are are a problem, good on you, but I’m talking about the people who were deeply offended at the portrayal of a white guy as a white guy because they thought that only Asians know Kung Fu (Iron Fist),
Ah, so you’re talking about strawmen. Thanks for clarifying.
or the lack of obviously Asian cast members in a series with Asian undertones (Firefly).
Wait…do you really think this is a ridiculous complaint?
I’m talking about the people who, were the races on this cast reversed, would have been crying bloody murder.
Were the races of the cast reversed, the movie would have made no sense. It’s a movie about structural racism. Are you arguing that white people face structural racism in America today? If not, why on earth do you think reversing the races in the movie would make sense, or that doing so should provoke anything other than outrage?
“If not, why on earth do you think reversing the races in the movie would make sense, or that doing so should provoke anything other than outrage?”
Because it’s a movie, and movies are fiction, and following that: Fiction could be anything. Look… This movie is either a commentary on race and race relations, or it’s a work of fiction…
If it’s a commenatry on race and race relations, then it portrayed white characters with every possible negative stereotype it could, and black characters with every positive stereotype that it could*. If it’s a work of fiction, people like you need to stop attributing a deeper meaning to it, and it should be possible to consider a race reversed version.
*As an aside… I’m rolling my eyes at the presumed brilliance of this… It lacks all subtlety, class or nuance… Since when did we start attributing deep meanings to fart jokes?
This movie is either a commentary on race and race relations, or it’s a work of fiction…
This is a ridiculous false dichotomy. It is, of course, both.
If it’s a work of fiction, people like you need to stop attributing a deeper meaning to it, and it should be possible to consider a race reversed version.
Where on earth did you get the idea that fiction should not have deep meaning?
If it’s a commenatry on race and race relations, then it portrayed white characters with every possible negative stereotype it could, and black characters with every positive stereotype that it could*.
Be specific. What negative stereotypes of whites are in this movie? What positive stereotypes of blacks are in this movie.
“This is a ridiculous false dichotomy. It is, of course, both.”
In this case, I’m not sure that’s possible… Satire can be meant seriously, but only if the audience is aware that it is, in fact, satire. And as much as I’m sure that you can cite some sites that have identified it as such… Do you really doubt that I can find examples of sites that took it at face value?
…
Unless those people who appear to be taking it at face value are in fact employing satire. Oh My God. It’s Happening. We’ve broken on through guys. It’s satire-ception.
In this case, I’m not sure that’s possible… Satire can be meant seriously, but only if the audience is aware that it is, in fact, satire. And as much as I’m sure that you can cite some sites that have identified it as such… Do you really doubt that I can find examples of sites that took it at face value?
I’m honestly confused; what do you mean by “at face value?”
As if it were not satire. I mean… I get it, no one is accusing white people of being body snatchers, but I can (and fairly easily, which is why I have a hard time believing you don’t already know this) find examples of people saying that the behaviours of the white people in Get Out are indicative of the behaviour of white people at large.
Hmm…I guess? Can we say that the behavior of the men in Stepford Wives is meant to be a commentary on men? And if so, was that movie sexist against men? Or was it meant as a satirical take on how sexism pervades society, even in personal relationships? Is it necessary to include a NAWP (not all white people) white savior character or disclaimer if you show other white people in a bad light?
As if it were not satire. I mean… I get it, no one is accusing white people of being body snatchers, but I can (and fairly easily, which is why I have a hard time believing you don’t already know this) find examples of people saying that the behaviours of the white people in Get Out are indicative of the behaviour of white people at large.
What exactly do you think satire is? Of course critics you can find examples of people saying the behaviours of the white people in Get Out are indicative of the behaviour of white people at large. That’s what it’s satirizing.
I find it…. cute…. That the people who profess an ideology that requires belief that microagressions (TYSRL) are 1) a thing and 2) important are all of a sudden oblivious to microagressions when they effect groups they don’t care about.
Wait. Are you saying that microaggressions affect whites as a group? That’s…a novel theory. I’ve literally never heard anyone say this before. I’d like to hear about these microaggressions that whites have to deal with on a daily basis.
I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told that it’s not only important that minorities are represented in Hollywood, but that their roles are diverse (and spoiler: “Good Guys” and “Victims) do not represent a diverse set of roles)…. But here we are ignoring that a certain racial group is being pidgeonholed into “bigots” and “villains”.
As I’ve said before: the problem is the trend. If there were one or two movies where blacks were pigeonholed as criminals and thugs, then there would be no reason to complain. But that trend exists in more than just one or two movies.
Is there a trend where whites are pigeonholed into merely “bigot” or “villain” roles? Of course not. Most lead roles in Hollywood are white. Most heroic roles are white. We are absolutely in no danger of that changing any time soon.
It puts the lie to the assertions that what they’re interested is equality… You don’t arrive at a place of racial understanding by being deliberately obtuse.
And yet…your comment exists.
“Wait. Are you saying that microaggressions affect whites as a group? That’s…a novel theory. I’ve literally never heard anyone say this before. I’d like to hear about these microaggressions that whites have to deal with on a daily basis.”
I’ve… Never considered that the progressive arguement would be so blinkered as to exclude white people from the possibility of being microagressed. I want you to roll the idea around in your head for a little while and honestly ask yourself: Can I not think of any way a white person could be microagressed, taking the theory at face value? I bet you can.
“As I’ve said before: the problem is the trend. If there were one or two movies where blacks were pigeonholed as criminals and thugs, then there would be no reason to complain. But that trend exists in more than just one or two movies.”
This coming from the person who argued that we should follow tradition because it’s tradition. My point is specifically not about the trend. Did Michael Richards need to go on a trend of racist screeds before he was bum-rushed out of the spotlight, or was once enough? How many examples of racial bias are necessary before the progressive stack applies and people like you pretend to care?
Go see the movie Humble. It’s great.
No, I cannot think of any ways that white people can be microaggressed as white people. Can you give me some examples?
This coming from the person who argued that we should follow tradition because it’s tradition.
That has never been my argument. Obviously, I believe good traditions should continue and bad traditions should end. I am sure you can figure out I think the tradition of blacks being marginalized in cinema should end.
This coming from the person who argued that we should follow tradition because it’s tradition. My point is specifically not about the trend. Did Michael Richards need to go on a trend of racist screeds before he was bum-rushed out of the spotlight, or was once enough? How many examples of racial bias are necessary before the progressive stack applies and people like you pretend to care?
Do you honestly see Michael Richards’ racist screed as equivalent to this movie’s portrayal of white people?
What about terms like,”cracker” or “white trash”? And if “you people” can be perceived as racist if said from a white person to a black person, then why not the other way?
“Cracker” and “white trash” are mere microaggressions now? They seem pretty forthright to me.
Ha! I’m having trouble thinking of a microaggression now … how about black people asking me if I must know XYZ person (because he is white), or assuming that I can speak fluently about Downton Abbey (the whitest show on earth)?
Seriously, I’m really struggling here — it is hard to have a microaggression when your culture dominates. That’s the whole point.
Now, obviously there can be comments like “you’re so white” jokes, but that’s overt expression, not passive aggressive or unintentional behavior.
The closest thing I can think of is one of my black friends had a neighborhood baby shower (mostly white people) and a family and church baby shower (all black people). I couldn’t make the neighborhood one so asked to go to the other one — she hesitated a moment before she said yes. But I think that was more for my perceived comfort more than anything else…..
I would call those racial slurs, and racism. But “microaggressions” are meant to refer to small slights that may not even be perceived as slights by outside observers, that add up to create a bigger burden than any one individual insult. So, for example, asking if you can touch a black woman’s hair is often perceived as a microaggression because she has to deal with that all the time.
I can’t remember the last time I was called “cracker-” it’s never happened in my adult life. I suppose it a white person lived in a social context wherein they had to deal with that frequently, I could count it as a microaggression, though only if it were meant in jest; if it’s meant seriously as an insult than it goes beyond that into worse territory. But generally, that’s not something white people have to deal with often in American society.
See, I hate even entertaining this because I think microagressions (TYSRL) is a trumped up, fairly useless term. But… If I had to identify one that I wouldn’t feel foolish because it’s so piddly (which is how I’d describe the vast majority of things labelled microagressions), I think the impression that white people can’t understand things because they’re white could probably be described a microagression.
The radical parlance of “Whiteness” should almost certainly be considered a microagression…And… You know… that kind of opens the floodgates: Toxic Masculinity, White Privilege, Any word including the Prefix “man-” followed by the suffix “-ing”. Microagressions are in the eye of the beholder, right? I suppose unless it’s being weilded at someone specifically as a cudgel, when it becomes a macroagression.
You raise interesting points here, HT. I’ll have to chew on these thoughts further before I respond.
The radical parlance of “Whiteness” should almost certainly be considered a microagression…And… You know… that kind of opens the floodgates: Toxic Masculinity, White Privilege, Any word including the Prefix “man-” followed by the suffix “-ing”. Microagressions are in the eye of the beholder, right? I suppose unless it’s being weilded at someone specifically as a cudgel, when it becomes a macroagression.
So basically anything which tries to put a name to racism or sexism is a microaggression against white people and/or men? I’m not surprised. Not when the “real racism” is invariably against white people and the “real sexism” is against men. Noting something is racist is now considered racism. But microagression is more than just hurt feelings
So first you would want to start with a definition. The Term “microaggression” was coined nearly 50 years ago, so it is hardly new.
Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership”. He describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture. According to Sue, microaggressions are different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets, because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm. Microaggressions are known to be subtle insults that direct towards the person or a group of people as a way to “put down”. He describes microaggressions as including statements that repeat or affirm stereotypes about the minority group or subtly demean them. They also position the dominant culture as normal and the minority one as aberrant or pathological, that express disapproval of or discomfort with the minority group, that assume all minority group members are the same, that minimize the existence of discrimination against the minority group, seek to deny the perpetrator’s own bias, or minimize real conflict between the minority group and the dominant culture.In conducting two focus groups with Asian Americans, Sue proposed eight distinct themes of racial microaggression:
Alien in Own Land: When people assume Asian Americans are foreigners or from a different country. Ex: “So where are you really from?” or “Why don’t you have an accent?”
Ascription of Intelligence: When Asian Americans are stereotyped as being intelligent or assumed to be smart. Ex: “Wow, you’re really good at math, can you help me?” or “Are Asian Americans this good when it comes to school work?”
Denial of Racial Reality: This is when a person emphasizes that as Asian American doesn’t experience any discrimination, implying there are no inequalities towards them. It correlates to the idea of model minority.
Exoticization of Asian American Women: It stereotypes non-white Americans in the exotic category. They are being stereotyped by their physical appearance and gender based on media and literature. One example is Asian American women portrayed as the submissive or obedient type; they are also seen as Dragon Lady or Lotus Blossom. On the other hand, Asian American men are portrayed as being emasculated or seen as nerdy, weak men.
Invalidation of Intra-ethnic Differences: This emphasizes homogeneity of broad ethnic groups and ignores intra-ethnic differences. The claim “all Asian Americans look alike” was identified as a main assumption for this theme. Similarly, thinking that all members of an ethnic minority group speak the same language or have the same values or culture falls under this theme.
Pathologizing Cultural Values/Communication Styles: When Asian Americans’ cultures and values are viewed as less desirable. For example, many people from the focus group felt disadvantaged by the expectation of verbal participation in class, when Asian cultural norms value silence. Because of this discrepancy, many Asian Americans felt that they were being forced to conform to Western cultural norms.
Second Class Citizenship: This theme emphasizes the idea that Asian Americans are being treated as lesser beings, and are not treated with equal rights or presented as a first priority. Ex: A Korean man walks into a bar and asks for a drink but the bartender ignores the man and serves a White man first.
Invisibility: This theme of microaggression focuses on the idea that Asian Americans are invisible in discussions of race and racism. According to some focus group members, dialogues on race often focus only on White and Black, which excludes Asian Americans.
As you can see from above, as the default, “colorless”, and from what I’m firmly told, “cultureless” predominant race, it would be very difficult indeed for a white person in the United States to credibly claim a microaggression.
“He describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture. “
I’m sorry. I inadvertently hit ‘post’ a few minutes ago, before I was finished.
“He describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture.”
“the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm.”
The term may be old, but use of it has burgeoned in roughly the past 5-6 years. Going by the definition given above, I really want to know how people are supposed to control thoughts and body language so as never to commit a microaggression. I have always thought the concept a crock, as what can be defined as a ‘microaggression’ is virtually unlimited…I’ve even seen examples of people getting bent out of shape over a compliment. A guy named Arudou Debito who used to live and work in Japan started to write articles about the microaggressions perpetrated against foreigners in Japan, which was where I first heard the term. They included being praised for skillful chopstick use, and being complimented on one’s Japanese language ability. The people you meet don’t know if you’ve been in Japan a week or three decades. They want to strike up a conversation, and they keep it to something non-personal or complimentary to whomever they’re talking to. But to many people, it’s ‘stereotyping’ and complimenting one’s grasp of Japanese is ‘ridiculous’ when all you’ve done is say hello or ordered a meal, they say. I find it a pretty precious level of sensitivity, and the offense out of proportion to the ‘crime’.
How can people get along if we have to be this careful?
The movie doesn’t present anything within a mile of the kind of microaggressions a typical black man or woman would encounter unless they were visiting the Klan.
I’m sorry, I went off on a tangent on the idea of micro-aggressions in general, I’ve found it a frustrating idea for a while now.
“So basically anything which tries to put a name to racism or sexism is a microaggression against white people and/or men?”
Is that what the terms actually do though? Presumed ignorance, “Whiteness” and “Manspreading” are terms used to put a name to racism or sexism? “Toxic Masculinity” was supposed to be used to describe ways that men are taught to exhibit behaviours that are detrimental in life, and “White Privilege” was supposed to describe ways in which white people have an easier walk through life because they don’t have to deal with things that other groups do. None of these terms put a name to racism or sexism unless you choose to define them intentionally loosely, and at that point, I find it very convenient for you to apply these broad definitions here, but then fall back on a very narrow, historical definition for “Microaggression” (TYSRL). You aren’t consistent. This shouldn’t surprise me, you never are, but just in case anyone was confused: deery is a hack.
“I’m not surprised. Not when the “real racism” is invariably against white people and the “real sexism” is against men.”
Not “the real” racism or sexism, I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone actually argue that sexism doesn’t affect women or that racism doesn’t affect black people, it’s always a discussion of degrees. I’m saying that sexism CAN effect men, and racism CAN effect white people. Are you prepared to argue that they cannot?
“Noting something is racist is now considered racism.”
Only when it’s presumed to be racist because of the races involved. One of the best examples of this is Martin/Zimmerman. To this day, there is no reason to suspect that Zimmerman was acting under racial animus. This makes no judgement on whether he should have been there, should have had a gun, or should have fired. All I’m saying is that there was a reflexive assumption that Zimmerman was a racist for no reason other than that he was white and that Martin was black. If you think that’s a reasonable assumption, then we’re going to disagree, and I’m OK with that.
“But microaggression is more than just hurt feelings”
I’m not sure that they are… Really… We’re saying that things that would not in and of themselves be considered negative become negative when they happen frequently enough to become a grind. In that, the “victim” isn’t aggressed upon because of what any individual has done, they’re aggressed upon because they feel aggressed. This is almost the definition of “hurt feelings”. Maybe it’s a syllogism: All Microaggressions are hurt feelings, but not all hurt feelings are microaggressions?
“So first you would want to start with a definition. The Term “microaggression” was coined nearly 50 years ago, so it is hardly new.”
Sure, let’s take a trip.
“Psychologist Derald Wing Sue defines microaggressions as “brief, everyday exchanges that send denigrating messages to certain individuals because of their group membership”.”
“Whiteness” Just saying.
“He describes microaggressions as generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture. According to Sue, microaggressions are different from overt, deliberate acts of bigotry, such as the use of racist epithets, because the people perpetrating microaggressions often intend no offense and are unaware they are causing harm. Microaggressions are known to be subtle insults that direct towards the person or a group of people as a way to “put down”.”
“Whiteness” Just saying.
“He describes microaggressions as including statements that repeat or affirm stereotypes about the minority group or subtly demean them. They also position the dominant culture as normal and the minority one as aberrant or pathological, that express disapproval of or discomfort with the minority group, that assume all minority group members are the same, that minimize the existence of discrimination against the minority group, seek to deny the perpetrator’s own bias, or minimize real conflict between the minority group and the dominant culture.”
“Whiteness” Just saying.
I get it, you’re going to come back to “Sue said “majority” and “minority” and I’d like to remind you that this is 50 years old. Sue never envisioned the possibility of the internet, and the platform and voice it would give to minorities. He did however qualify that it would be “generally” a majority/minority dichotomy, which at the very least doesn’t preclude the opposite. If instead you used “Aggressing group” and “Victim group” or better “In group” and “out group”, the logic, such that it is, still functions.
A liked this example:
Invalidation of Intra-ethnic Differences: This emphasizes homogeneity of broad ethnic groups and ignores intra-ethnic differences. The claim “all Asian Americans look alike” was identified as a main assumption for this theme. Similarly, thinking that all members of an ethnic minority group speak the same language or have the same values or culture falls under this theme.
After the 2016 election: “Fuck White People” Because we all think and vote alike, right? Chris and Spart obviously voted Trump.
But “Whiteness”, Amirite?
“As you can see from above, as the default, “colorless”, and from what I’m firmly told, “cultureless” predominant race, it would be very difficult indeed for a white person in the United States to credibly claim a microaggression.”
I think the assumption that white people don’t have culture because they are white could probably be called a microaggression. But more, you REALLY need to start reading your citations because that assertion is not backed up by the Wikipedia article you copy/pasted from without citation. And as an aside, I love how you copied the entire paragraph, made the effort to remove the citation markers, and then ‘neglected’ to include the last sentence, here… I got your back:
“In a 2017 peer-reviewed review of the literature, Scott Lilienfeld critiqued microaggression research for hardly having advanced beyond taxonomies like the above outlined proposal by Derald Wing Sue from nearly ten years ago”
By the way…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression
From the same article:
“College campuses[edit]
Allegations of microaggressions are particularly common among the relatively educated and affluent populations of American colleges and universities.[21] Some scholars think that the environment of protectiveness, of which microaggression allegations are a part, prepares students “poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong”.[22]
Derald Wing Sue, the Columbia University professor whose research helped inform the theory, has misgivings of how the concept is applied on campuses, “I was concerned that people who use these examples would take them out of context and use them as a punitive rather than an exemplary way.” Christina M. Capodilupo, an adjunct professor at Columbia Teachers College and a co-author cited on the “Racial Microaggressions in Every Day Life” sheet said “some people use the word to shut down conversations instead of reflecting on the situation”.[23]
Fucking perfect.
crella:
The term may be old, but use of it has burgeoned in roughly the past 5-6 years. Going by the definition given above, I really want to know how people are supposed to control thoughts and body language so as never to commit a microaggression.
I have a problem with interrupting people. It’s something I struggle with. I’m working on it, though. One thing I’ve noticed is that I interrupt women more frequently than men.
I know if I set as my goal “controlling myself so as to never interrupt a person,” I will fail, and feel like a failure. So right now my goal is to do it less, and that when I do slip up, I apologize for it and let the person continue. This is a realistic goal.
Something to consider.
Replying to Chris’ post (my reply is far removed from the post I’m replying to)
” I know if I set as my goal “controlling myself so as to never interrupt a person,” I will fail, and feel like a failure. So right now my goal is to do it less, and that when I do slip up, I apologize for it and let the person continue. This is a realistic goal.
Something to consider.”
By the very definition of microaggression, as suggested upthread, ” generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture.” and “are unaware they are causing harm.” That’s an impossible level of vigilance, to be aware of things so small that usually people aren’t aware of them. Because maybe 3% of ex-pats in Japan are insulted and sometimes enraged (you should see the rants) when a Japanese says “You use chopsticks so well”, how would you suggest that we inform the Japanese that they better not say THAT anymore, and BTW, no complimenting language, because another tiny percent go off if you say “You speak Japanese so well” because they feel it’s patronizing? Is “You have lovely hair” to a black person really offensive? Why is it assumed to be anything other than a compliment? It’s more the attitude of the person exploding and getting bent out of shape than that of the speaker, as i see it. The only way to not commit any is not to talk to people, or at least not to comment on anything personal at all.
Re the movie- Yes, it seems that the whites thought the blacks were cool and wanted their attributes, but they cannot have thought of them as equals and still have stolen their bodies. Stealing their bodies for themselves reveals a total lack of the ability to see blacks as human beings equal to them. They could have taken the bodies of whites who had those attributes, but didn’t. They stole only black bodies and felt justified doing it by their needs.
Jack:
The movie doesn’t present anything within a mile of the kind of microaggressions a typical black man or woman would encounter unless they were visiting the Klan.
The trailer alone shows the main character being treated to unsolicited, random opinions about Obama; that doesn’t sound like something the Klan would do. It sounds like something a well-intentioned but clueless white person would do.
Humble, you seem to be saying the term “whiteness” is denigrating. In what way is it denigrating?
And do you really hear the term “whiteness” every day? If so, you realize most white people do not, right? Even if the term is denigrating, I am not sure how it’s a “microaggression” when probably 90% of the community it supposedly targets almost never hears the term used.
Finally, “Fuck White People” is not a microaggression, it is just overt racism.
“Humble, you seem to be saying the term “whiteness” is denigrating. In what way is it denigrating?”
I find that question abysmally tone deaf… It’s like asking what part of sandpaper is rough. The sand part. “Whiteness”. Look, we don’t go about saying “blackness” to describe behaviours exhibited all black people even though they show a monolythic conformity of thought at the voting booth. Probably because the people who use “whiteness” might be the most likely to use “blackness” and they realise how racist it would sound.
“And do you really hear the term “whiteness” every day? If so, you realize most white people do not, right? Even if the term is denigrating, I am not sure how it’s a “microaggression” when probably 90% of the community it supposedly targets almost never hears the term used.”
I’ll grant you that I probably hear it more often than most, and that I don’t hear it every day… But since when has that been required? Is asking to touch a black person’s hair, or referring to someone as “articulate” only a microagression if it happens to every black person every day?
Finally, “Fuck White People” is not a microaggression, it is just overt racism.
Mighty white of you, Chris. See… I was trying to make the point that something the original coiner of microaggressions (TYSRL) specifically included in as a microaggression (Invalidation of Intra-ethnic Differences) could apply to white people. Maybe I overshot. Let’s go back to “Whiteness”. Part of the reason why “Whiteness” should be classified as a microagression is that it infers a conformity amoung white people that Does. Not. Exist.
I think that your comment there, more than many others could be educational… Especially in light of my second point… You seem so wrapped up in the racial dynamic that you’re applying more stringent requirements on terms and situations that might victimise white people… Why do you think that is?
I find that question abysmally tone deaf… It’s like asking what part of sandpaper is rough. The sand part. “Whiteness”. Look, we don’t go about saying “blackness” to describe behaviours exhibited all black people even though they show a monolythic conformity of thought at the voting booth. Probably because the people who use “whiteness” might be the most likely to use “blackness” and they realise how racist it would sound.
?
A very quick google search states that you are wrong. We certainly use the term “blackness” to describe black people as a whole in some circumstances, in much the same way one would use “whiteness.” I don’t the term, in and of itself, is denigrating.
“We certainly use the term “blackness” to describe black people as a whole in some circumstances”
Oh, do tell… Who exactly is “We” and please cite a single publication that used ‘blackness’ in the context we’re talking about.
I’ll wait.
Oh, do tell… Who exactly is “We” and please cite a single publication that used ‘blackness’ in the context we’re talking about.
I’ll wait.
“Blackness” being used as some sort of racial essentialism (which seems to be the gist of your complaint) seems common in enough in our society (the “we” of which you inquire). Here is an article exploring “blackness” as a cultural concept for black people: http://www.solomonjones.com/what-is-blackness/
as an example.
“And do you really hear the term “whiteness” every day? If so, you realize most white people do not, right?”
You know, its funny…someone on this blog once told me that I “‘refuse to believe” that (the) experiences (of others) may be just as valid as (my) own”. Yet, here you go, suggesting that HT’s experience isn’t as valid, because it’s not shared by a large number of whites.
“…I am not sure how it’s a “microaggression” when probably 90% of the community it supposedly targets almost never hears the term used.”
How could you possibly come to the conclusion that 90% never hear the term used? And we’re supposed to accept as fact, that (your opinion that) 90% of whites aren’t affected by micro aggressions aimed at them, but my personal experience as a black person is nothing more than being an outlier? When coupled with what you said in an earlier post:
“it’s *not* universally socially acceptable to shit on white people, and the notion that we are the “only” demographic upon which shitting is acceptable is ludicrous.”
…Instead of taking your word for it, how about we ask around this blog, what the commenters think. I owe you $20 if more than 50% of the commenters DON’T think that it’s socially acceptable to denigrate white people. And I’m dead serious.
“deery and I are basing our thoughts about race and the black experience on what many other members of the black community have said publicly.”
Your perspective on the black experience is limited to publicly made comments by black people (and to give you the benefit of the doubt, black people in your lives). This is a window into, what, 1, 2, 5% of what they experience on a daily basis? My perspective? Based on every single second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of every year of the last 38 years.
I’ll be very clear about this: My life IS THE black experience.
Sorry, my above post was directed at Chris
This thread is getting long.
Chris Bentley:
You know, its funny…someone on this blog once told me that I “‘refuse to believe” that (the) experiences (of others) may be just as valid as (my) own”. Yet, here you go, suggesting that HT’s experience isn’t as valid, because it’s not shared by a large number of whites.
No, I never suggested his experience wasn’t valid because it’s uncommon. I said it wasn’t a microaggression because it’s uncommon. It can still be a valid experience and not a microaggression–like my experience with the trans writer I mentioned earlier.
How could you possibly come to the conclusion that 90% never hear the term used? And we’re supposed to accept as fact,
I said “probably 90%” and “almost never.” That sounds like an intended statement of fact to you? I didn’t ask you to accept anything. If others here say they hear the term “whiteness” often outside of academic circles or conversations specifically about race, I’ll be surprised, but I won’t “refuse to believe” them. I have mostly liberal friends and coworkers, many of whom also studied the sociology of race in college, and the term simply does not come up in casual conversation. But again, my position here has not been “it is impossible to microaggress against white people.” It’s that I’ve never heard the argument, and I’m not convinced that the term applies. I think I’ve been open-minded here; I had to think about HT’s initial examples of microaggressions against whites for a solid 24 hours before I expressed skepticism.
that (your opinion that) 90% of whites aren’t affected by micro aggressions aimed at them, but my personal experience as a black person is nothing more than being an outlier?
I think both blacks who say they haven’t been “microaggressed” and whites who say they have been are both probably outliers. Again, I am not stating this as a “fact,” I’m saying this is my best guess based on my experience with people. I would like to hear others’ experience.
…Instead of taking your word for it, how about we ask around this blog, what the commenters think. I owe you $20 if more than 50% of the commenters DON’T think that it’s socially acceptable to denigrate white people. And I’m dead serious.
Only a fool would take that bet, or someone totally unfamiliar with the demographics and beliefs of the majority of Ethics Alarms commenters. As I am neither, I am going to have to decline. I can already predict that you would win that bet.
But that wouldn’t prove much; this blog’s base is white conservative men. There’s nothing wrong with that, but most of the commenters here are already predisposed to notice instances of racism against white people while downplaying or ignoring instances of racism against minorities.
For example, I gave you an example of a minority demographic that is currently being denigrated in the US and other countries in far more tangible ways than whites are; you ignored this argument entirely.
Your perspective on the black experience is limited to publicly made comments by black people (and to give you the benefit of the doubt, black people in your lives). This is a window into, what, 1, 2, 5% of what they experience on a daily basis? My perspective? Based on every single second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of every year of the last 38 years.
I’ll be very clear about this: My life IS THE black experience.
No, it is *a* black experience. It differs from the experience of many others. I am not asking anyone to believe my understanding of the black experience–which, of course, is far more limited than your own–over yours. I am asking them to take a look at the perspectives of other black people as well as yours when forming opinions about racism in America, because from what I can tell, you *are* an outlier in many ways. You just said that you have more in common with white people than with the average black person; don’t you think that makes you an outlier?
Your perspective on the black experience is limited to publicly made comments by black people (and to give you the benefit of the doubt, black people in your lives). This is a window into, what, 1, 2, 5% of what they experience on a daily basis? My perspective? Based on every single second, of every minute, of every hour, of every day of every year of the last 38 years.
I’ll be very clear about this: My life IS THE black experience.
I don’t think anyone has questioned whether your experience is THE ‘Black experience”, to you. Then the question immediately arises, of course, is why your written “black experience” should have more weight than any other black person’s written “black experience”, especially since, as you often state with great pride, that you are not a “typical black person”? You stated not so long ago that you feel no affinity to your blackness, and in fact, feel more affinity to your white brethren than your black ones. A perfectly valid position to take. Are other black people experiences, who might feel differently, invalid? Or are you speaking for other black people when you stated that? When black people state that they have experienced things, Chris and I give them the courtesy of believing them, especially when multiple black people have stated the same thing on the same subject. We are not the ones discounting and disbelieving black people, you are. Might I gingerly suggest that no one person owns the “black experience”, that it is multi-faceted and ever evolving, and something that all black people contribute to, both in the United States, and the greater diaspora?
By the very definition of microaggression, as suggested upthread, ” generally happening below the level of awareness of well-intentioned members of the dominant culture.” and “are unaware they are causing harm.” That’s an impossible level of vigilance, to be aware of things so small that usually people aren’t aware of them.
How is it “impossible” for people to try and become aware of things they’re not already aware of? People do that every day. Shouldn’t we encourage that?
Because maybe 3% of ex-pats in Japan are insulted and sometimes enraged (you should see the rants) when a Japanese says “You use chopsticks so well”, how would you suggest that we inform the Japanese that they better not say THAT anymore, and BTW, no complimenting language, because another tiny percent go off if you say “You speak Japanese so well” because they feel it’s patronizing? Is “You have lovely hair” to a black person really offensive? Why is it assumed to be anything other than a compliment? It’s more the attitude of the person exploding and getting bent out of shape than that of the speaker, as i see it. The only way to not commit any is not to talk to people, or at least not to comment on anything personal at all.
No, the way to do that is to make an effort to not say things that are patronizing to large groups of people. This requires education and open-mindedness, that’s all.
Re the movie- Yes, it seems that the whites thought the blacks were cool and wanted their attributes, but they cannot have thought of them as equals and still have stolen their bodies. Stealing their bodies for themselves reveals a total lack of the ability to see blacks as human beings equal to them. They could have taken the bodies of whites who had those attributes, but didn’t. They stole only black bodies and felt justified doing it by their needs.
Yes, of course. All of this is true. I’m not seeing how it’s a problem with the movie, though.
” No, the way to do that is to make an effort to not say things that are patronizing to large groups of people. This requires education and open-mindedness, that’s all.”
Which I’ve done all my life, and will continue to do. That is a no-brainer. You seem to be missing my point, that the definition of what is offensive is becoming so broad that almost everything is offensive.
See, I hate even entertaining this because I think microagressions (TYSRL) is a trumped up, fairly useless term. But… If I had to identify one that I wouldn’t feel foolish because it’s so piddly (which is how I’d describe the vast majority of things labelled microagressions), I think the impression that white people can’t understand things because they’re white could probably be described a microagression.
It’s certainly annoying when I see certain types of social justice warriors tell me my opinion on an issue doesn’t matter because I belong to a privileged group.
For instance, I once asked a trans writer (whom I generally like and respect) who was opining about trans characters written by cis writers if she was saying that cis writers should never write trans characters (I can’t remember the exact comment this was based on, but this is what it sounded like to me). She accused me of “cisplaining” and basically implied that I had no business even asking the question.
This was annoying. Was it a “microaggression?” Well, no. As a cis person who only knows one or two trans people IRL, I don’t really *have* to think about these issues if I don’t want to. I can remove myself from a conversation about these issues any time I want to. I don’t live in a context where my identity as a cis person is constantly subjected to questioning and criticism–really, that only happens rarely even in conversations I have had with and/or about trans people.
“Microaggressions,” in my understanding, are inescapable. I mean, I suppose women could avoid men making unsolicited comments about their appearance, or explaining their own jobs to them, or interrupting them…if they never left their houses.
But I can avoid terms like “white privilege” or “toxic masculinity” by simply avoiding conversations about race and gender. This is amazingly easy, even today. (Most of the people I see complaining about these terms are people who either a) don’t participate in these discussions regularly, at least not with people who think differently from themselves, or b) go into these conversations in a confrontational manner, prepared to be outraged by liberal outrage.)
In addition, I think many of these terms (including “mansplaining) are valid and describe real behavior of many members of our culture’s dominant classes. I think it’s important to talk about those things, and I think if members of privileged classes take them as any form of “aggression…” well, maybe we need to get a thicker skin.
Also, many of these terms were developed as a defense–“mansplaining” is a term because lots of men like to explain things to women who already know those things. Use of the term is not a microaggression, it’s a defense against microaggression.
“This was annoying. Was it a “microaggression?” Well, no. As a cis person who only knows one or two trans people IRL, I don’t really *have* to think about these issues if I don’t want to. I can remove myself from a conversation about these issues any time I want to. I don’t live in a context where my identity as a cis person is constantly subjected to questioning and criticism–really, that only happens rarely even in conversations I have had with and/or about trans people.”
I think that moves the goalposts. trans people make up three tenths of one percent of the population, by even the most generous of measures. Meanwhile, we live in a multi-racial nation, there are minority-majority states (Hawaii, New Mexico, California and Texas), there are several more on the cusp, and that trend is only accelerating. What’s important here isn’t necessarily your personal experience, it’s whether or not the logic applies in general. At some point, it’s possible that what we now think as the default will be upended… And if that happens, it happens… But if these values, these protections, are actually valuable and important, then they should be valuable and important regardless of who they benefit or protect.
Progressives seem to have an awful time recognizing progress, and my concern here is that if we aren’t prepared to apply the logic consistently, eventually we will have absurdities like campus feminists who are protesting viciously because a campus in Sydney offered a male-only bursary for their veteranary program*. The University of Sydney did this because once the majority becomes the minority, and most of your students are what used to be the minority, applying affirmative action on what used to be the majority is logically consistant with the goals of affirmative action.
* https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/08/sydney-university-under-fire-for-vet-scholarship-giving-preference-to-males
Schools in the United States will sometimes give affirmative action to males, based on their sex. I haven’t heard much pushback. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/men-far-more-likely-to-benefit-from-affirmative-action-in-college-admissions/
Deery,
You either don’t read your citation… again… or you have a serious reading comprehension problem, your example doesn’t answer my challenge. Which, just to remind everyone was:
“Oh, do tell… Who exactly is “We” and please cite a single publication that used ‘blackness’ in the context we’re talking about.”
In response to:
“A very quick google search states that you are wrong. We certainly use the term “blackness” to describe black people as a whole in some circumstances, in much the same way one would use “whiteness.””
““Blackness” being used as some sort of racial essentialism (which seems to be the gist of your complaint) seems common in enough in our society (the “we” of which you inquire). Here is an article exploring “blackness” as a cultural concept for black people: http://www.solomonjones.com/what-is-blackness/ as an example.”
So… The example you chose to use to show that “blackness” is “common” in “our society” Is an article by an obscure radio host in Philly that spends the article saying that blackness means different things to different people.
“I had one friend who said blackness meant nothing, while another said it meant everything.”
So helpful. I’m struggling though… I think that you might actually find this a helpful answer, because you’re part of the movement to declassify words… A word that means both everything and nothing might be the pinnacle of your art.
No, I read it just fine. The question was how regular people might hear “whiteness” on a regular basis, and how there was no “blackness” equivalent that could be used without it being considered racist. So, I linked to a story where regular, non-academic people ruminated on “blackness” as a concept.
Of course, this is not academia, which has disciplines devoted to “Blackness Studies” and “Whiteness Studies”, and standard definitions, so yes, of course, “blackness” will mean different things to different people. But note that none of the people interviewed considered it a racist term or were unfamiliar with the term or concept. It’s just not very novel, as you were claiming.
How are black people microagressed as black people? Not sub-groups, like poor blacks, or uneducated blacks, but as black people?
“I don’t think of you as a black person. You’re a good guy!”
“Can you teach me that dance?” *what makes you think I can dance? “Oh, no reason.”
“You people always such colorful names!”
“Can you explain what ‘on fleek’ means?
etc.
Im not saying that because none of those things have happened to me, that they don;t happen. But, truthfully, those sound like stereotypical white person encounters black people for the first time ever, kind of talk. That, or the occasional clueless, ignorant white person. But I refuse to believe that those are common occurrences.
And I have never heard of “on fleek” before, ever, in my life. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but I often say, I have more in common frequently, with my white best friend, than I do with the “average” black person. And yet, I’m supposed to have some allegiance to other blacks, over whites that are like brothers to me, solely based on similar pigmentation. No thanks.
Chris Bentley:
But I refuse to believe that those are common occurrences.
Also Chris Bentley:
And I have never heard of “on fleek” before, ever, in my life. Completely unrelated to the topic at hand, but I often say, I have more in common frequently, with my white best friend, than I do with the “average” black person.
Could it be possible, Chris, that the second quote here might help explain the first?
deery and I are basing our thoughts about race and the black experience on what many other members of the black community have said publicly. You very frequently remind us that your experience has differed from that of many other black Americans…and yet you “refuse to believe” that their experiences may be just as valid as your own.
Yes, and every one of those provokes a face palm from any civilized people of any color within hearing distance. Unlike the world of Get Out,” where the entire white population says even more offensive things, like assuming that a black man must be an athlete, obviously is a big Tiger Woods fan (a less excusable and stupider gaffe now than in 2008), and things like, “well, dark is in now, right?” Do liberals really believe that white behave like that normally, routinely, or frequently? Now and then someone will make an annoying statement to me when we meet, like “Oh, I just loved shaved heads. Who needs hair?” Yeah, I know I’m bald, asshole, and my friends get to joke about it; you don’t. Now say, “I think its so sensible that men don’t obsess about their weight!” My response will be, “I agree—and its great how you can still succeed in America with the IQ of a rock!”
Bald Lives Matter. (I hope we’re close enough for me to make this joke.)
“You’re so articulate!” One of my colleagues used to get that all the time.
Chris, I think the movie is a classic example of a MAJOR Microaggression against white people as white people. It tells white viewers that they should identify with stupid, rude, white people whose immediate response to a black man they have just met is to start talking about Tiger Woods, Obama, and sports. (How they missed dancing and hip-hop, I’ll never know.) This is a bigoted black person’s image of whites, just as the purveyors of classic microagressions towards blacks are cluelessly working off of stereotypes, and thus diminishing the individuality of their targets.
Up until this second, I never tried to discover whether the writer of “Get Out” was white or black. I never heard of him, though I am told he is a rising comic. I will, however, bet all my worldly goods as well as the lives of my family that Peele is black, because no white man, not even Chris Matthews, could be so bigoted, paranoid, insulting and ignorant about how white Americans think about African Americans…now let’s see..and remember, the odds are overhwelmingly in favor of Peele being white, since we all know that bigotry prevents many balcks from writing or directing Hollywood films.
Well waddya know!
It tells white viewers that they should identify with stupid, rude, white people whose immediate response to a black man they have just met is to start talking about Tiger Woods, Obama, and sports.
Is it really asking white viewers to identify with these characters, though? We’re not supposed to think they’re the good guys. We’re supposed to be experiencing the story through the eyes of the black main character, aren’t we? If that experience is uncomfortable, it’s because being a black man in America is often uncomfortable.
This is a bigoted black person’s image of whites, just as the purveyors of classic microagressions towards blacks are cluelessly working off of stereotypes, and thus diminishing the individuality of their targets.
I don’t think it takes a bigoted black person to notice that microaggressions against blacks happen often, and are often directed at them from white people.
You’ve really never heard of Key and Peele? You should watch their show; it’s brilliant satire.
I said I’ve never heard of them, so yes, I’ve never heard of them.
And since half of them spent two hours of my time calling me a hateful, stupid racist, I think I have better uses for my time, thanks.
“Is it really asking white viewers to identify with these characters, though?” Well, if they think they are white, and the movie’s argument is that every single white liberal secretly wants to exploit and subjugate blacks for their own advantage, what else can one think?
I had read about the film and was looking forward to it. I assumed that the set-up was a riff on “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” and the idea of the soft bigotry of that film’s liberal family being morphed into horror movie evil seemed like a great concept. But the film went far beyond that: there is no suggestion in the film that any white people are anything but monsters—even the young black hero’s girlfriend.
You really need to see the film, Chris. You might even agree with me. I wasn’t offended by “Blazing Saddles,” even though the whole town of Rock Ridge and the agents of the government were portrayed as over-the-top racists. But the satire was clear, the townspeople learned to get past their assumptions, and most of all, we saw unbigoted whites too.
I criticized a lawyer here who brought a frivolous lawsuit claiming that the film “Drive” caused Jews psychic distress on the theory that the only Jewish characters in the film were vicious criminals. Well, there were, I think, three such characters. Even taken all together, no rational viewers could think they were supposed to represent Jews generally. Now, if dozens of assorted characters who were also Jewish displayed the same immoral and anti-social traits, and no Jewish character appeared to suggest that these traits were not endemic, his complaint would have been valid.
And since half of them spent two hours of my time calling me a hateful, stupid racist, I think I have better uses for my time, thanks.
This really seems like an overreaction, Jack, as does this:
Well, if they think they are white, and the movie’s argument is that every single white liberal secretly wants to exploit and subjugate blacks for their own advantage, what else can one think?
I will have to see the movie. But I simply don’t find this plausible. Even if this movie doesn’t show any white people as decent…millions of other movies do. We don’t live in a culture where white people are only portrayed as villains. I don’t think I can take seriously the notion that one movie out of millions where all the white characters are villains is actually trying to say that all white people in the real world are evil.
I had read about the film and was looking forward to it. I assumed that the set-up was a riff on “Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner,” and the idea of the soft bigotry of that film’s liberal family being morphed into horror movie evil seemed like a great concept. But the film went far beyond that: there is no suggestion in the film that any white people are anything but monsters—even the young black hero’s girlfriend.
Jack, do you feel that the movie would have been more effective as a story if there were whites who were portrayed more sympathetically?
I criticized a lawyer here who brought a frivolous lawsuit claiming that the film “Drive” caused Jews psychic distress on the theory that the only Jewish characters in the film were vicious criminals. Well, there were, I think, three such characters. Even taken all together, no rational viewers could think they were supposed to represent Jews generally. Now, if dozens of assorted characters who were also Jewish displayed the same immoral and anti-social traits, and no Jewish character appeared to suggest that these traits were not endemic, his complaint would have been valid.
I think he might have a valid complaint, but not a valid legal complaint. Such a lawsuit would be frivolous even if the movie accused Jews of the blood libel.
“We don’t live in a culture where white people are only portrayed as villains. I don’t think I can take seriously the notion that one movie out of millions where all the white characters are villains is actually trying to say that all white people in the real world are evil.”
I don’t know what that means. This movie does exactly that, intended to do that, and this is why it is being praised: See? See, white people? This is how black Americans see you! How do you like it?
I don’t believe that for a second, but if I did, my response would be, “Fuck you all, then! You want to vilify me and this country, as much as it has struggled with racism, and to portray me and my family and so many of my friends and neighbors as evil and plotting against you? You are hateful, miserable, bigoted assholes, and you are determined to divide the nation by color. Well, good luck with that.”
The movie is so unethical because it is inflammatory, and encourages exactly that kind of hostile reaction.
Chris, I think the movie is a classic example of a MAJOR Microaggression against white people as white people. It tells white viewers that they should identify with stupid, rude, white people whose immediate response to a black man they have just met is to start talking about Tiger Woods, Obama, and sports.</I?
I think the viewer (of any race) is supposed to be identifying with Chris, the black guy, not the villians. The movie is trying to get the viewer to identify with Chris's discomfort and unease when people start talking about Tiger Woods, or asking whether the rumors about black guys in bed are true, or attempting to speak in African-American vernacular.
Up until this second, I never tried to discover whether the writer of “Get Out” was white or black. I never heard of him, though I am told he is a rising comic. I will, however, bet all my worldly goods as well as the lives of my family that Peele is black, because no white man, not even Chris Matthews, could be so bigoted, paranoid, insulting and ignorant about how white Americans think about African Americans…now let’s see…and remember, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of Peele being white, since we all know that bigotry prevents many blacks from writing or directing Hollywood films.
Well waddya know!
Do you consider it ironic in any way to insist that only a black man could be so bigoted?
You most recently used a picture of Peele dressed up as James Brown in your Maxine Waters post. His other half, Keegan, used their Obama anger translator bit at Obama’s last correspondence dinner. Both of them are biracial, with white mothers. Peele was raised solely by his white mother. He is currently married to a fellow comic, who is also white, and they are expecting a child. He has spent most of his life surrounded by his fellow white people, so I think he knows his subject matter as far as racial microaggressions go. Get Out was made for a $4 million budget, by a small independent studio. This was not a vote of confidence by the Hollywood mainstream about the movie.
Here is one of K&P’s more famous skits, as long as we are on the subject of racial microaggressions: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw
Do you consider it ironic in any way to insist that only a black man could be so bigoted?
Sometimes its hard to decide whether you are trying to be funny. Do I think it’s ironic to conclude that a movie that demonizes the entire white race and presents a kind, trusting, intelligent and sensitive young black man as the victim of white betrayal and a conspiracy to use blacks as brain-disabled tools for their own purposes was written by a black screenwriter? Are you kidding?
Sometimes its hard to decide whether you are trying to be funny. Do I think it’s ironic to conclude that a movie that demonizes the entire white race and presents a kind, trusting, intelligent and sensitive young black man as the victim of white betrayal and a conspiracy to use blacks as brain-disabled tools for their own purposes was written by a black screenwriter? Are you kidding?
So a white person could never make a movie with a black hero and evil white people? Ok.
I guess representation does matter after all, when it comes to white people. So there should not be a film about evil white people that doesn’t also contain good white people? White people are definitely underrepresented as heroes in movies, and we don’t want to crush a white person’s self-esteem, not even for one second.
The conspiracy in the movie is explicitly not all white people in the world, or even most. It is a secret evil cabal, originated by the grandfather due to racial resentment from his youth.
The microaggressions you found so incredible were basically the whole point of the film. I think you lost the thread being so outraged on behalf of white people. The protagonist Chris was obviously very much used to being in a predominantly white space. And he was so used to everyday microaggressions, so used to swallowing his unease and being polite, he didn’t realize he was in danger. I assumed the movie title was a riff on this famous Eddie Murphy routine: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IH6IeiLtts Chris ignores that whisper voice to his peril, until it literally becomes a shout, and then it is almost too late.
The party starts off on what a viewer might think are microaggressions, the cringe-worthy Tiger Woods comments, the speculation about his bedroom prowess, etc. but you gradually realize that these aren’t microaggressions, they are (literally) feeling him up to see if they want to make a bid on him.
The Tiger Woods guy wants to see Chris’s swing, since he used to be a golf pro. The lady inquiring about his bedroom skills has her ailing husband right beside her. The Asian man asking how Chris feels about being black in America is pondering whether the switch would be worth it.
Chris, in the beginning, is lulled, but gets increasingly uneasy as the party goes on, as does the audience. Finally, he can’t take it anymore, the “microagressions” have gotten to him. He wants to “get out.” And he is lulled, once again, by his girlfriend into ignoring his instincts and staying.
Of special significance, the girlfriend. She carefully notes all the microagressions, and empathizes with Chris over them. But notice how she never confronts or corrects any of the friends and family who have behaved badly towards her boyfriend? She sees the racism, and says the right things in private to Chris, but won’t do the difficult work of also making herself uncomfortable and confronting the racism head-on. One of the early clues that she is a false ally.
I didn’t say never. Your logic gets worse as your misrepresentations get more egregious. It was vanishing point unlikley that anyone but an anti-white racist black American would write a movie with that plot. It was overwhelmingly likely that exactly the kind of writer who did write it would write it.
At this point, you’re just flailing.
The clue that she is a false ally—actually a conspirator whose job was to entrap him—is her color. Can’t trust whites, even Liberals; can’t trust white friends or even lovers. When it comes down to it, race trumps everything, and while whites may pretend to tolerate blacks, and pretend to be nice, but their real goals are malign and racist. That was the plot and the message of the movie. No white individual ever quit the plot or felt pity or empathy for the abused blacks. EVERY other black character—four of them—- tried to warn or help the protagonist. tow minor black characters refused to believe the plot when it was told to them.
Jack, like deery said, you’re basically saying “representation matters.” You’re saying a movie with white villains needs to also have sympathetic white people, otherwise it’s offensive to whites.
Can you see why minorities sometimes express concern over their representation in Hollywood now?
That’s the tit for tat response other critics of Get Out have received. That’s not an argument, it’s a rationalization, and an admission that the movie was what I have said it was: an intentional attack on whites. (Except you haven’t seen it.)
There is nothing racist or biased about telling a story in which there are black villains and white heroes, unless the story intentionally suggests that the story is intended as general commentary, or an allegory about society generally. Black gangs are real. Black crime is real. White cabals trying to take over young black bodies while masquerading as friends and lovers are not real. Plenty of movies have white villains and white evil organizations.
As I said: if Get Out restricted itself to one evil white family, that makes no statement about whites generally. Instead, it brought in dozens of diverse white people, and all of them were in on the anti-black conspiracy. You’re a smart guy: I know you can discern the material difference in messaging.
I didn’t say never. Your logic gets worse as your misrepresentations get more egregious. It was vanishing point unlikely that anyone but an anti-white racist black American would write a movie with that plot. It was overwhelmingly likely that exactly the kind of writer who did write it would write it.
Interesting. So even if we were to take your underlying premise as true, that the movie is anti-white (I don’t), what about the movie to you is so specifically black that a self-hating white person could not have written it? And are you a believer in the “one-drop rule” now?
The clue that she is a false ally—actually a conspirator whose job was to entrap him—is her color. Can’t trust whites, even Liberals; can’t trust white friends or even lovers. When it comes down to it, race trumps everything, and while whites may pretend to tolerate blacks, and pretend to be nice, but their real goals are malign and racist. That was the plot and the message of the movie. No white individual ever quit the plot or felt pity or empathy for the abused blacks. EVERY other black character—four of them—- tried to warn or help the protagonist. Two minor black characters refused to believe the plot when it was told to them.
Yes, I see you searching desperately for a white savior in the movie, and feeling quite frustrated that there is not one in this film. The filmmaker smartly refuses to give the audience a white savior character to cling to that a white person can identify with. The audience, for lack of any other option, is then forced to identify with the black characters, and their peril.
The movie does not center whiteness, instead centering the “black gaze” when it comes to race relations, and I suppose the feeling must be disorienting. The “double consciousness” that DuBois referred to (represented by the ‘Sunken Place’ in the film) is supposed to be an uncomfortable experience.
You forget to note the white police officer in the beginning of the movie, the only person Rose does confront about a “racial microaggression.” The audience is obviously meant to cheer her actions. It is one of the ways the movie sets up the expectation that she is an ally. It is only in retrospect that you realize that the officer was probably just doing his job, and that Rose was trying to avoid any record of Chris being in the area. The white police officer is explicitly *not* part of the plot against Chris and company.
You note that four black people help Chris, but did not note that three of those are also fellow victims of the conspiracy. The only person who helps Chris without also being entangled in the conspiracy is his best friend. Two black police officers laugh directly in the best friend’s face after he tries to tell him about the conspiracy. They obviously do not believe that all white people are evil.
You want to see the movie as a referendum on white people, and whether Peele believes that all white people are evil, even though he is biracial himself. The question presented is not whether white people are evil racists. It is about how one black character will deal with a racist conspiracy against him, and how his past encounters with racism have put him in a position to be exploited by the conspiracy. If you are saying that the filmmaker is making a sweeping statement that all white people are evil racists, is he also trying to say that all black people are bumbling idiots, too stupid to notice white people are body snatchers?
Anything is possible. Since I am and was appropriately perceptive in seeing the intent and spirit of the movie, while you refuse to because it would upset your automatic acceptance of widespread white racism as reasonable and based on current fact, I was able to discern that this was NOT the product of a self-hating white writer, just as I would have said with similar certitude that Basic Instinct and Showgirls were not written by women, while “Steel Magnolias” and “Terms of Endearment” were.
Anything is possible. Since I am and was appropriately perceptive in seeing the intent and spirit of the movie, while you refuse to because it would upset your automatic acceptance of widespread white racism as reasonable and based on current fact, I was able to discern that this was NOT the product of a self-hating white writer, just as I would have said with similar certitude that Basic Instinct and Showgirls were not written by women, while “Steel Magnolias” and “Terms of Endearment” were.
?
Terms of Endearment and Steel Magnolias were both written by men.
Right—thinking of different movies. Never mind. I always get “Crimes of the Heart” (Beth Henley) mixed up with “Steele Magnolias.” Don’t kn o what I was thinking with “Terms of Enderment,” since I’ve read every McMurtry novel and knew he wrote that one.
Congratulations: you’ve finally driven me crazy.
“Wait. Are you saying that microaggressions affect whites as a group? That’s…a novel theory. I’ve literally never heard anyone say this before. I’d like to hear about these microaggressions that whites have to deal with on a daily basis.”
Well, start with being the ONLY demographic where it’s is currently universally societally acceptable to s*** on, and not only not be considered a racist, but to be applauded.
I mean, Im not white, so what do I know, but I do have eyes and ears, and if I had to put up with the level of vitriol I see/hear aimed at whites, I’d feel pretty damn micro-aggressed. I do not care what what your grandpappy did to my grandpappy, b/c you are not your grandpappy. I do not care that you have a privilege that I do not, because I have privileges that others (including many whites) do not, and will not apologize for them. All I care about is what you do, and how you treat me. As long as it’s on the up-and-up, I have ZERO justification for trashing you based on your skin color, or treating you like a generalization. Why people can’t embrace this simple logic is beyond me.
Well, start with being the ONLY demographic where it’s is currently universally societally acceptable to s*** on, and not only not be considered a racist, but to be applauded.
But it’s *not* universally socially acceptable to shit on white people, and the notion that we are the “only” demographic upon which shitting is acceptable is ludicrous.
My country just elected a man who, during the presidential campaign, proposed banning members of a certain religion from entering our country. In France, a woman who has said proposed even more drastic measures against her country’s Muslim population now has a shot of becoming prime minister.
Is that not “shitting on” that demographic? Does proposing laws deliberately targeted against a minority religion not count as “shitting on” that demographic, but mean words do? Doesn’t this show that modern societies still do, in large part, consider shitting on minority demographics societally acceptable?
I saw the movie twice — once with friends and once with my husband. This is not an anti-white movie, the movie is about a small secret society of white bigots and nowhere does it suggest that all whites are bigots. Would we criticize a film about a concentration camp as being anti-German because all the Germans in the film are murdering assholes?
I thought Get Out was great. The first time I was jumping out of my seat (I scare easily) and the second time I could concentrate on the dialogue. And while the film played up the racism to the extreme (as it should, it’s a horror movie about stealing black bodies), it does explore interesting issues. I’m still thinking and talking about them with my friends. It is rare that a movie stirs up so much conversation.
Then maybe the story isn’t about the movie so much as the portrayal of it. It’s hard to argue that the movie doesn’t have racial undertones when basically every progressive media outlet is selling it as if it did. If you disagree with that portrayal, we just might have common ground… Which is that the media, as always, is ass.
Oh, the movie most definitely is about racism, but it turns it up to 11 so even a bigot has to see it. (Then again, bigots are probably not seeing this movie, so there’s that.) But the movie does not suggest that everyone is racist, but it is brilliant because it might make us think about things we do, say, act, when we speak with people from other groups. For e.g., my mother goes out of her way to tell one of my gay friends about all the other gay friends of mine that she has liked. That’s a little weird don’t you think? I don’t go up to black people and casually say, “You know, I’ve always thought Ella Fitzgerald was underrated.” But perhaps I do have odd things that I say and just don’t know it. It’s interesting to think about.
Spartan writes: “Oh, the movie most definitely is about racism, but it turns it up to 11 so even a bigot has to see it. (Then again, bigots are probably not seeing this movie, so there’s that.) But the movie does not suggest that everyone is racist, but it is brilliant because it might make us think about things we do, say, act, when we speak with people from other groups. For e.g., my mother goes out of her way to tell one of my gay friends about all the other gay friends of mine that she has liked. That’s a little weird don’t you think? I don’t go up to black people and casually say, “You know, I’ve always thought Ella Fitzgerald was underrated.” But perhaps I do have odd things that I say and just don’t know it. It’s interesting to think about.”
Actually, you are wrong here. The ‘bigots’ are always vitally interested in the analysis of these ‘cultural products’ and look at them through a media-studies lens. But their analysis is never an accepted analysis, and is never *correct*. It is usually ironic and undertaken with some lightness, but it starts from the presumption that there is a nefarious ‘race-blending project’ which does not (DOES NOT) have the interests of a white community in mind. That idea alone, for you, would likely be impossible to think.
I can tell you from a brief Google search that the Alt-Right is seeing this film as just one more expression of the America-driven ‘race blending project’ which, in their eyes, is seen as being spear-headed by Jewish radical interests. I think there is an element of truth in this but that they also exaggerate. And yet the Jewish revolutionary spirit can be thought about and discussed without careening into exaggerations.
As you surely must know that is the interpretation of Jewish influence often made in the Alt-Right in its many different manifestations, here in America, in Europe, and over the globe. They see the race-blending project as outright social engineering and connect it to arrays of other engineering. And they resist it of course, or at least they begin to resist it, at an ideological level. They also try to localize it, to discover in what exactly it is based. That is, what stands behind it. Carrying that forward, they end up in difficult and dangerous territory where they have to turn against *standard interpretations* and engineer new, more complete ones.
These sorts of productions must be studied very closely and one has to gather out of them the intended *lesson*. These are specific teachings that are intended specifically for the white community and they seem to be establishing the new modes that are being instituted in the general culture.
I cannot agree with Jack that the movie (based on the trailer anyway) is ‘racist’ in itself, and I have no doubt at all that racial prejudice and race-aversion are real things, and also that dislike and aversion of being thrown into a race-blending vat overseen by corporate and government interests and undergirded by PS intellectual culture and Hyper-Liberal operatives is a real thing, but my view — very different it seems from most who write here — is that these things need to be thought about in different ways. But that does not necessarily mean to think about them in ‘bigoted’ (whatever that really means) or racist terms, but really that it is the issues underlying those labels which need to be examined, and reexamined, very much more carefully, and also freely: as free, sovereign thinking persons.
It is necessary to establish and carry-forward a narrative that will allow black and brown people in the next segment of time (between now and 2060 more or less) to insert themselves as the dominant grouping, and for white people to learn to take a back-seat role. Whites will be *revisualized* and assigned a new status when before they were the ones that made these assignations.
It does not matter if in relation to that one is a ‘bigot’ or not, it is still very interesting from a sociological perspective.
As a rule, I tend not to engage with Alizia, but I will clarify one thing here.
When I wrote “bigot,” I was more referring to the people I know (mostly relatives) who would never label themselves bigots, but in fact are racist to some degree. None of them are seeing this movie — and I know this because they have told me so.
Whether or not the KKK, the alt-right, or Whiteys-R-US are seeing this movie is something I really don’t care about one way or the other.
Spartan writes: Whether or not the KKK, the alt-right, or Whiteys-R-US are seeing this movie is something I really don’t care about one way or the other.
Well, you are making a mistake exactly there. And my interest, as it always has been, is in examining the glossed-over area, the area that — for sheer *decency* — you (a plural and general *you*) will not look at. I have learned to place attention in the areas of *your* neglect. In this sense I apply the media studies lens to your yourself: you as *production*, you as *product*. You can shut yourself up into whatever box you are comfortable in, that is your right, but the *world* is much larger, much more interesting, much more complex and strange.
In order to defend your values, ill-defined as they are, you must understand, and everyone concerned for ethics must understand, that in a segment of our society there are people who are undertaking serious evaluation and reevaluation projects. They are examining these things from different angles and they are concluding unlikely things. Shutting your ears seems merely silly.
I happen to be one of them who examines from different angles, and I happen to have devoted (what I think is) serious thought and years of research to aspects of these questions and issues.
Therefor, for this reason, and also because my endeavor is fundamentally ethical (and if it were not it would have to be modified or abandoned), I continue to suggest to very very close-minded people who are also, IMO, very indoctrinated, that there are alternatives to how things in our present can be seen.
Alizia,
All he meant was that it wasn’t apropos to his point, not that he didn’t care in any sense of the word. You’re not examining “glossed over” points; you’re focusing on the minute semantics of a person’s argument and extrapolating it into a whole other discussion.
I think what drives people nuts is that you never address points as people address them, but rather seem to take every discussion over and carry into some convoluted (often abstract) rabbit-trail that has little to do with the original point of discussion.
I think I have a better sense about what Spartan (Karen) meant than do you Neil. She is one of the first ones to have interacted with me when I first signed up here. I remember the exchanges well. They have been a part of my learning-process.
You make I suppose a good point in the second paragraph. And I have thought about it. I approach a specific issue less from the specificity or smallness of it, and more at a macro level. So, it is less of an ethical concern that this movie is or is not ‘racist’ against whites, and much more a question about what these productions do in society, and what purpose they serve.
For you this may be ‘abstract’ or a rabbit trail or what-have-you, yet for me it is the more important aspect.
I lament in a certain way, sincerely, that you do not like my approach, but it is my approach.
“Whiteys-R-US”. That was funny. I? need a chuckle today. I got my brain kicked in court and I am nursing some wounds.
jvb
So sorry. I don’t miss practicing law.
Here is one such critical review by Taki’s Magazine:
http://takimag.com/article/get_out_get_your_money_back_steve_sailer/print#axzz4fHJyWjFm
Well, that’s 3 minutes I’ll never get back again. Here’s my favorite snippet from this “critical review.”
“Kaluuya is, in truth, a creepy-looking actor most notable for his jet-black skin and bloodshot giant white eyeballs. He resembles a witch doctor in a 1950s safari movie. Kaluuya would be better off making a career out of playing villains because it takes much force of will for audiences to see him as the hero of a movie. But that’s what people mandate themselves to do nowadays to avoid being called racist.”
Racist much?
Jesus Christ. Alizia exposes her Nazism yet again.
Whoa…..
There you have it. This is a good example. The description, if looked at coldly, is simply an accurate description. To be able to see what you see, and describe what you see, is actually quite a challenge in our present. Especially when the PC Committee, when it senses something slightly amiss, barges in wtih Shame Statements.
These *enactments*, as I call them, are theatrical rehearsals by white liberal types. Ick.
No, it is not an “accurate description” that ” it takes much force of will for audiences to see [Kaluuya] as the hero of a movie,” it is an entirely subjective one. And in this case, since the writer just came out and said the actor’s black features are the entire reason he sees him as a villain rather than a hero, it is a subjective opinion based entirely on racism.
I do not intend to shame you. Nazis cannot be shamed. They can, however, serve as a cautionary tale for others.
Your entire approach or orientation, if I can call it that, is based in 1) emotionalization and 2) shame.
This is a feature of your perception, the way your mind and consciousness operates, and it has come about because you allow that politically correct views of things, all things I assume, enter in to dominate and dictate what you see, and how you see it.
It gets expressed as shame when, as here, you come down with an absolute moral force which is religious at its base. I know that I have said this a number of times. It is the only way to respond to you.
To label me as Nazi is over the top, not the least reason because of my background. This term is a religious term for you, and this fits into a whole structure of view and an ontology of evil which has supplanted a traditional religion. This is why you are dangerous.
It is a demonological term and one that you can toss out, spitting, at anyone you decide is your enemy, or someone who opposes you, or who sees things differently, or interprets their world differently. This ‘Nazi’ for you even has an irredeemable feature: ‘Nazis cannot be shamed’. Meaning, they are beyond redemption. What you mean to say is that I am committed to evil, like Satan is committed to evil. (You may or may not know that theologically Satan’s decision to oppose God cannot be rescinded).
You are worthy of study because you embody a post-Christian ontology. And you understand not a word of this!
When push comes to shove, as the saying goes, it will be people like you who on the basis of such labels end up doing harm. The label is the first step to justify some sort of control, containment, and even violence.
I included an article to indicate that there are other people who see these things — that is, these things which by the progressives are seen through a lens of mono-vision — in different ways. With more freedom, less dictated by PC, more sovereign and more free of very real ideological impositions. But I did not say that I necessarily agreed with the content.
If I provide a *lesson* to you, fine. But you don’t really articulate what that lesson is. There really needs to be a well-expounded general condemnation, a careful explanation of where, exactly, I go wrong (and I do not feel int he wrong at all, nor unethical in any sense). You cannot do this because your only content is brash emotion.
You provide a lesson to me, which I intend to make the most use I can of, in how it happens that a person’s mind can become controlled by exterior forces, or group-think, or the pressure of social conventions, that they turn into a Chinese operative in their own thought-reform project. It would be better if a person thought badly but freely than to end up like you.
It is a demonological term and one that you can toss out, spitting, at anyone you decide is your enemy, or someone who opposes you, or who sees things differently, or interprets their world differently.
No, I only apply it to people who see non-white people as essentially villainous and subhuman, advocate for the return of legal segregation, cast doubt on facts about the Holocaust, and blame every problem in the world on Jews.
You know. Like you do.
You stupid fucking Nazi.
This is so laborious Chris. Time and again you have to be corrected. But no matter how many times, and how detailed and careful one is, you have willed to impose your will! It is in a sense an extraordinary accomplishment. If it were not also very dangerous.
This is why I say it is like a religious position. It is not a reasoned position but an emotional one. It is held to not in the reasonable part of you but in the emotive one, and that is why you seal it all with a curse, the ultimate emotional condemn.
And the only way to break it down, or to break through it, is by getting to the core of the emotional knot. But how, Good Heavens, could that be done? It could only be done by some inner work of realization on your part.
Because you cannot hear straight, I mean, cannot receive in the way they were said, things that were said, your *processor* as it were mis-hears them, or hears them as your will applies to them what is your will’s choice. Don’t you see?
You seem unable to actually, and rather simply, hear what I say, but deliberately mis-hear it, and mis-hearing it you transform it, almost mystically, into the object of your hatred; the thing or the emblem against which the full force of your being rises up: Satan, the Nazi: an ontological malevolence entirely separate from your own self.
This is madness Chris. If you even can get a glimmer of what I am saying here, I swear to you it will serve you and help you.
In any case, you provide a very thorough, an almost chemically pure version, of a social contagion, a social sickness like a plague which has infected minds and souls. Where this will go and where it will end is hard to say.
Now for the exercise in free thought, unconstrained by the dictates of PC forced thinking. It is a daunting task! But it can be done, it really can.
No, I only apply it to people who see (1) non-white people as essentially villainous and subhuman, (2) advocate for the return of legal segregation, (3) cast doubt on facts about the Holocaust, and (4) blame every problem in the world on Jews.
1) I do not look at people in that way myself. But I am aware that some do. To see things in that way is a mistake because one is working from an a priori. However, people and groups and cultures and nations can be looked at with a discriminating eye and intelligence, and if one is not constrained, or forced by ideological imposition to mis-see, one can discern very real and very obvious differences between different and differing people. No amount of ideological imposition will change this fact. So, the art is to see clearly and fairly, but at the same time not to lie to oneself, and very certainly to reject absolutely the mechanism of PC and its impositions as I call them. A great deal more can be said about this, indeed it is all a vital question. There is, of course, no such thing as the ‘sub-human’. One is by nature human and if there is a ‘sub-‘ it is not human! There are though differences between human types, and these differences can be noted, and of course they are generally well understood.
2) Well, as far as I know (unless my left hand has been up to things my right hand is unaware of!) I have not ever said any such thing. But I absolutely assert the sovereign right of an individual to be able to make choices about associations. And I definely question — and challenge — the oligarchic and elite forces that have operated, often behind the scenes and through intelligence operations, to create a blended society, the consumer culture of today, the sea to shining sea Walmart culture of sameness. But notice that what I am speaking about is simply beyond the grasp of your limited and binary mind. You will hear it, then reshape it, into some evil statement, when in fact it is not evil that leads to clear seeing, but rather its opposite. This, too, is a long and involved conversation. A difficult and contentious one.
3) Heh heh. Again, you have recrafted in your fertile imagination-oven the assertion that a decimation of European Jewry most certainly happened, but that it did not happen through the use of gas-chambers. It is s simple assertion really. The gas-chamber story is part of a myth-construct that has become a part of Holocaustianty as I have seen it called. It is the Emblem of the machinations of an absolute ontological evil: horrid demons with forks and prods pressing people into ghastly gas chambers and then shovelling the corpses into industrial ovens. It is an image taken from Hieronymus Bosch but not from factual history. Once you submit yourself to the study of it, you will see how preposterous the assertion is, and yet how central to the religious understanding of the Holocaust event, and the insertion of the Story into the modern mind. I do understand that to deconstruct it make demand on the soul and intelligence. But what comes from it is better and more thorough understanding, which means to wean oneself from the lie. Truth is freedom they say.
4) Jewish will has been, and still is, a problem. Jews have a very intricate relationship with Europe and European history and I say this, of course, as a Sephardic Jew (who converted deliberately and freely to Christianity). The Emancipation of the Jew has resulted in many many different issues and problems, and these have gone on and still go on today. It is true that many classic antisemites see every dark turn of history as being of Jewish origin — a false idea and a dangerous perception — yet ‘the Jew’ as idea, as image, and as player at a world-level, is still just as ever a sort of trope. I cannot say that I have this one figured out. It is very clear to me though that Jewish influence has tremendously affected America policy over the last 20-25 years. Very destructively I would have to say. The Neo-Conservatives were mostly Jewish and it seems that America’s policy has been bent, substantially and obviously, to serve Israel’s interests. These are, of course! forbidden observations, are they not Chris? Who can talk about them? And were they to be talked about, who can talk of them fairly? That is of course a question, and the question. It is the question I ASK. You can put me in prison, and someday perhaps *you* will, but I will not ever stop exercising my right and my obligation to see the world clearly.
Finally, that is the real issue. Discernment. Interpretation. Penetrating intellect. Conversation. Free examination. Getting through the sheer walls of lies that surround us. Is it ultimately metaphysical? (From a Christian perspective, yes).
Every question has to be reformatted and put on the table. It all has to be examined from tops to bottoms. One must be fearless.
Someday, m’boy, you might show yourself also capable! Don’t give up!
Then maybe the story isn’t about the movie so much as the portrayal of it. It’s hard to argue that the movie doesn’t have racial undertones when basically every progressive media outlet is selling it as if it did
Huh? Absolutely no one is arguing that “the movie doesn’t have racial undertones.” Spartan specifically said it’s about racism. The argument is that the movie is not racist toward white people.
Jack,
“The rich white family and their friends and conspirators are as grotesque stereotypes and caricatures of pompous white bigots as Steppin Fetchit was an offensive insult to blacks in the 1940s. They are as relevant to real Americans as the creepy homicidal townspeople in “Hot Fuzz” are representative of real Brits.”
You had the point .. and then you lost it. The characters (all of them) were supposed to be over the top. But, that’s all I can say because this debate will go nowhere. It’s at least good to know you’re keeping up on popular media.
I hope you’re feeling better. Cheers!
If the characters were supposed to be over the top and satyrical… I’m waffling, but I think I could buy that. But in that case… The reviewers who are taking this very seriously have completely missed the boat. All those idiots who think this was a representation of modern race and police relations, what the hell were they thinking?
I think progressives got the movie just fine: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/24/516883213/get-out-mixes-satire-race-and-horror-and-the-result-is-a-scream
The film works as a satire and a ghoulish thriller. It’s a scream. Daniel Kaluuya plays Chris, a black photographer who travels to an affluent, upstate New York town with his white girlfriend, Rose, played by Allison Williams, to meet her family. Rose hasn’t told them he’s black, and Chris is nervous…
From the tone of your commentary, it doesn’t appear that you’ve seen the movie yet? I think once you’ve seen it, you will get it, especially if you’ve seen any other Works by Peele, like his comedy sketch show.
The movie functions as an allegory, not a one-to-one faithful reproduction of society. Each character carefully represents some aspect of the way societal racism manifests. But there is a ton of comedy thrown in there, and the movie is relatively short. I do recommend seeing it in a full-ish theater, while you still can.
Though we often disagree, you nevertheless have a talent for articulating points I was having trouble codifying into words. Thank you.
If the characters were supposed to be over the top and satyrical… I’m waffling, but I think I could buy that. But in that case… The reviewers who are taking this very seriously have completely missed the boat. All those idiots who think this was a representation of modern race and police relations, what the hell were they thinking?
Where on earth did you get the idea that satire cannot also be a representation of the modern world?
That was my impression of the movie, too; deliberately satirical of current trends. An interview with the director pretty much confirmed at least his intent was as much.
I think Jack is spot on in demolishing the critics. I think they left their minds in the dark place when they wrote their reviews.
Humble,
I would argue it IS a representation of all those things, but done in satirical form. Most of the films racist moments by the white characters are actually humorous (“I would have voted for Obama a third time if I could have. Best president in my lifetime!” — which got a HUGE laugh). It’s mostly to demonstrate how people’s own discomfort talking about race actually leads them to say incredibly awkward things.
A move is a movie is a movie. If some reviewers are others choose to see this as an “accurate” portrayal of race relations, then it’s merely because they themselves look at everything through a satirical lens.
I have not seen the movie, so I don’t have much to offer. I wonder what your thoughts on “Black-ish” would be, as it plays on white stereotypes.
jvb
If the colors/races were switched in this movie, would it be hate speech? Would it be allowed to be screened on campuses, or anywhere?
It’s a movie about systemic racism. If the colors/races were switched, it would be incoherent.
If you did nothing but change the races, and reverse the black/white references, the movie would not make any sense. The code switching alone would render the movie incomprehensible. I am about to say a word I know many on this site hate: CONTEXT. Yeah, I said it.
I think it might actually make MORE sense in a way, but not in one the critics would like. If you’re a racist, why would you want the body of a race you look down on? On the other hand, if you’re a minority, wouldn’t it make sense (from a sociopathic perspective) to trade up, if you could snatch a white body?
I recall an episode of “Touched by an Angel” that actually DID reverse the races, in a somewhat similar scenario. The main angel, Monica, gets changed from Irish to African-American, AND is made mortal to boot. When she gets chased down by a couple of white guys on a black killing spree, she begs for God to make her white again. She gets changed back in the nick of time, then realizes (to her horror), that if she was WHITE and mortal. she would never have asked to become BLACK to save herself.
Go see the movie.
Thanks deery and Chris, you made my point. Very predictably. Right on time.
Your point was that sometimes you can’t just switch out one race for the other in a given work? Ok. Then yes, we agree.
I don’t buy the concept that someone who may be discriminated against is incapable of herself being discriminatory or hold racist opinions herself. The concept of “systemic racism” is itself racist. It says all white people are inherently and inevitably racist. What’s the cure for systemic racism? Acknowledge it’s a fact? Why should I acknowledge something that’s absurd?
In short, deery and Chris, what do you want? And what will your getting it accomplish?
I don’t buy the concept that someone who may be discriminated against is incapable of herself being discriminatory or hold racist opinions herself.
Neither do I. What have I said that would suggest otherwise?
The concept of “systemic racism” is itself racist. It says all white people are inherently and inevitably racist.
No, it doesn’t.
Rope-a-dope. You’re just being obtuse and stubborn again, Chris.
“Systemic racism” is a shibboleth you and the rest of the left waive around. What does it mean? It’s a social theory. Is it some sort of magic trump card that ends all discussion. Is it a secret to which I’m not privy? Too sophisticated for an old white guy to “get?” It strikes me a quackery. In so far as it is the theoretical basis for Black Lives Matter and Tanishi Coates, et al. it am going to have to assume it’s Authentic Frontier Gibberish.
OB, two questions might help establish a baseline for our discussion here:
1) Do you believe systemic racism ever existed in America?
2) If so, when do you believe systemic racism ended?
“Systemic racism,” like “racism” itself, has had its legitimate meaning distorted, usually intentionally, by activists who want to pretend that the entire social system in the US is rigged to defeat and subjugate blacks. That’s nonsense—though that’s the definition of “systemic racism” the movie is portraying. (I’d say a conspiracy by all rich, empowered whites to turm blacks into complacent and submissive slaves is systemic racism.) Many aspects of American society are affected by bias, prejudice and racism. People have biases in favor of people similar to themselves—that’s a bias. (but not racism). It harms minorities in systems, and helps majorities. Past disadvantages under slavery and Jim Crow damaged black culture and make positive advances now harder…but still showing the affects of past racial injustice doesn’t make the current system racist. Resulting disproportionate misconduct within a group, such as crime or antipathy to police, causes any group to develop a bad reputation and a negative stereotype. That’s not racism either. But its simple, simple-minded, damning and politically expedient to ignore these layers and nuances, and just declare the system racist, so offensive hyperbole like “Get Out” is saluted as “truth.”
Chris, I think systemic racism was outlawed in the U.S. in the 1960s. Are there bigoted and racist people in the U.S. still. Yes. Is discriminatory conduct illegal? Yes. Are those laws enforced? Yes. Are some people awful to other people because of their respective races? Yes. Other than making such conduct illegal in many crucial areas is there anything else a government can do? I don’t think so.
At some point we all have to play the cards life had dealt us, Chris. If we spend all our time saying the game is fixed or asking for the deck to be re-shuffled so we can be dealt another hand, we’re not doing anyone, including ourselves, any favors.
(Not sure where this is going to show up.)
Thanks, OB.
Chris, I think systemic racism was outlawed in the U.S. in the 1960s.
I think this statement makes some sense if you define “systemic” as having to do with the law; but of course we have many other “systems” other than the law in our society. Hollywood is a system. Corporations are systems. These institutions still discriminate in ways that are perfectly legal, and often more subtle than Jim Crow. For example, studies have shown that applicants with traditionally white names are more likely to be hired than applicants with more “black-sounding” names, even when their resumes are identical. There is no legal remedy for this; the government can’t (and shouldn’t) do anything about it. People educating themselves, and people at the top of institutions making an effort to change them, can.
Resulting disproportionate misconduct within a group, such as crime or antipathy to police, causes any group to develop a bad reputation and a negative stereotype. That’s not racism either. But its simple, simple-minded, damning and politically expedient to ignore these layers and nuances, and just declare the system racist, so offensive hyperbole like “Get Out” is saluted as “truth.”
And so when you have the police caught, on tape, being told to focus on stopping and frisking minorities to the exclusion of other groups, that’s not systematic? When you have other police departments with actual “black op” sites that they used to torture and extract confessions from minority suspects, which operated for decades, that’s not systematic? When you have the lab tech, with a wink and a nod from prosecutors, forge tens of thousands of drug results which resulted in the incarceration of untold number of people, that’s not systematic?
No, deery, that called a specific abuse of a policy, not systemmic racism. That’s the trick in the movie: take the worst of the worst conduct of members of a group, and portray it as the typical conduct of the entire group. The entire movie was a macroaggression against whites. And I have read black critics who responded to criticism of the film by writing, “See what it feels like?”
No, deery, that called a specific abuse of a policy, not systemic racism.
A specific abuse would be one rogue officer abusing the policy, being found out, and punished. It’s systemic when the discrimination actually is the policy, formulated by those charge, and those who do not discriminate are the ones punished, like the stop and frisk policy in NYC for e
That’s the trick in the movie: take the worst of the worst conduct of members of a group, and portray it as the typical conduct of the entire group. The entire movie was a macroaggression against whites. And I have read black critics who responded to criticism of the film by writing, “See what it feels like?”
Yes, see what it feels like to be “othered” and not be the centered, heroes of the story. Your head is exploding and you are shouting “RACISM!!!!” at the sensation of white people either being sidelined or portrayed as villians for the duration of just one movie. Of getting a forced perspective of the viewpoint of one black person. Now imagine that feeling you are feeling when watching that one movie multiplied throughout most of the history of cinema. See what that feels like?
Jack,
“hyperbole like “Get Out” is saluted as “truth.”
Isn’t the idea of satire to carry an idea to it’s logical (and often ludicrous) extreme for comedic effect?
I have no interest in this film & I love horror films.
First off I don’t ever rely on Hollywood for confirmation of anything other than propaganda & entertainment. I assume all popular media is blended w/ propaganda so I don’t take personally movies that are “diverse” or not or claim to have “a message” or not. Nor do I expect Hollywood to have a clue about what’s really going on. Just look at Leonardo “I love my private jet but everyone else shouldn’t have air conditioning” DiCaprio or Meryl Streep who I used to enjoy until she wouldn’t stop being so darn smug off screen. That being said, a film, even horror can have depth & meaning too. John Carpenter has some real good points in The Thing, They Live, and Halloween 3: Season of the Witch, for example.
I find a film like this to be on par with the “whites are bad mmmmkay” ideology. They’re supposed to watch this & then internalize hate & take a back seat to POC I suppose. Living in a white socialist town (Portland) is a testimony to this mindset, which has basically been engineered & then affirmed by groupthink. Most white liberals here are almost scared to offend folks like me & will have BLM signs in their yard but are reluctant to have real discussions with POC who don’t ascribe to their social justice cult. A film like Get Out affirms their white self hatred while using blacks as the devise for it. I find *that* to be what’s actually offensive…to everybody.
We all know that there are some racist whites who do bad things but a film like this turns them into boogymen just like Trump is a boogyman for certain liberals. For a long time Hollywood has portrayed rural whites as ignorant brutes. I could make a list but there’s just too many. Where is the outrage? Oh that’s right, there isn’t any because you know “they deserve it.”
I’ll stick with horror films like Eyes of Fire or Night Wing when I want to see some minority representation.
Thank you, Mrs. Q.
As a horror film lover, have you seen Candyman, Tales From the Hood, or The People Under the Stairs? If so, did you think about those films?
I liked Tales from the Hood even though it was cheesy in that Creepshow kind of way. It was a horror movie & a warning the youth type film. The 1st Candyman I appreciated but can’t say I loved. Mainly because I hated Candyman 2 & I tend to view series as a whole. The peeps frumunda I haven’t seen. I can watch some things but Rob Zombie style stuff ain’t my thing. Or was it Eli Roth who did that one?
Have you seen Friday the 13th part 5. The black kid saves the day & it’s awesome. Also I count Death Proof as horror/revenge & Rosario Dawson kicks some ass.
Well, if you like Tales From the Hood, and the first Candyman, you would probably like Get Out. The movie is very much within that vein, albeit with a better script and better production values, so it isn’t as cheesy. But the allegorical nature of the films is very similar. The People Under the Stairs was a Wes Craven production.
Oh yes, Friday the 13th, part 5, where the little black kid saves the day. His name was Tommy, correct? Like Nightmare on Elm Street, the odd-numbered Friday the 13th movies tend to be better, for whatever reason.
Death Proof I really enjoyed, for many reasons. Some called it anti-male, but I didn’t see it that way. Definitely in the top-tier of the Tarantino pantheon.
Craven yes thank you. I’ll put that Peeps one in my movie queue. Hellraiser films are a bit intense but kooky scary for sure. Well I’ll tell ya what I’ll definitely rent Get Out. I’m pretty much willing to rent anything that on the surface I don’t assume I’ll like & don’t want to see in the theater. I actually watched A Serbian Film when initially I was like “heck no” & found it to be a powerful (but utterly bleak & awful & sick) political film.
Reggie was the kids name in pt. 5. Loved that character. Just remembered that at the end of The Thing, a black guy was still alive w/ the main protagonist. In They Live the same actor was the one who finally saw the truth after a long struggle. I’ve wondered if Carpenter was trying to say some?
Have you seen Kingdom of the Spiders? There is the most humble depiction of a black farmer I’ve seen in a film, save for all those spiders!
I don’t think Carpenter had a light hand with the allegory in They Live, to say the least. He really, really wanted even the dimmest person to get what he was trying to say.
I think most horror movies work better with an audience, so I try to see most of the “high-brow” ones in the theater, though when I was younger I would try to see pretty much all of them in the theater. Audience reaction is hard to replicate at home.
I have not seen Kingdom of the Spiders. I liked Arachnophobia, so hopefully it will be something similar to that. Though I see it has Shatner, so I should probably gird my loins.
Don’t underestimate the Shat. He makes an excellent native American in White Comanche. I’m serious.
Yes the allegory is clear in They Live about Reagan & such. But his choices to have black characters in prominent roles in that film & The Thing was what I was referring to based on the discussion of race in horror films.
Note that 1) They Live is a piece of crap and 2) few critics, even genre critics, called it brilliant, or even good.
That’s an elitist attitude. I’m sorry Rowdy Roddy Piper can’t move like Danny Kaye, but singing and dancing isn’t everyone’s cup of tea.
They Live is an amazing movie.
Neither of those films, which were both excellent, were intended and crafted as a full on assault on an entire race.
Neither was “Get Out.” You are perceiving a defense of one race as an assault on another.
For a long time Hollywood has portrayed rural whites as ignorant brutes.
True, though if I understand correctly (and I should have said this earlier: I have not seen the movie yet), this movie portrays the whites as fairly well educated and seemingly “respectable.” They don’t seem to fit the “redneck” stereotype as I understand it.
You are correct Chris. The movie mostly skewers people who would consider themselves liberals, of the upper-crust variety.
You are a hoot. It picks what are regarded as the “best” whites, and portrays them as vicious, black-hating racists! We can stipulate that the filmmakers believe that conservatives are horrible. You seriously think this was just a satire against white liberals who “would have voted for Obama for a third term”? Oh! So it wasn’t an attack on whites at all! Hilarious. If confirmation bias was a virus, you’d be dead.
Chris, I think it is very, very hard to get the sense of how racist the film is without seeing it. These are all country club, IVY league grad, rich, fat cats, chablis, NPR liberals, and they secretly see blacks as inferior and ripe for exploiting and destroying. All of them.
Jack,
The point is that they didn’t see black as inferior. They saw them as strong and “hip,” and they just needed a little help to achieve their full potential. It’s a satire on how black culture is marketed and sold to whites and others.
But that doesn’t matter because your mind is made up.
Exactly! Grandpa wanted to be faster and Grandma wanted to be beautiful forever (presumably the idea that black people age better than white people). The art dealer wanted the best eyes available. Some of the other people at the party wanted a husband who was better in bed and another was shopping around to be more hip.
These are all black stereotypes turned up to the nth degree. The white people wanted to experience life through their bodies — and the only way to do that was to take their brains and put them in their bodies.
So it’s a satire on how white liberals idealize blacks and put them on a pedestal?
Jeez, you’d think white conservatives would LOVE this movie.
There aren’t any white saviors in it. Therefore, it must be bad. Or something.
Yes. Look especially at the creepy lecture on judo that the brother gives Chris at the dinner table. They like black bodies just fine. Black minds, on the other hand….
What’s interesting is that almost any internet commentary or blogger would agree that “spoiler alert” is not only a courteous, but good manners. But, since you don’t subscribe to THOSE rules of etiquette, you’ve still posted no such disclaimer.
Thank you, Decider.
From Vox’s review: “It doesn’t walk back any of its condemnations by inserting a “white savior” or making overtures to pacifism and tolerance.”
“Overtures to pacifism and tolerance.” Telling. The Left is tired of pretending to care about peace and tolerance.