I've never had a problem with Phil Bredesen, and I still don't. However, the Tennessee governor serves as a good example of how people react to being accused of racism.
The other day, Phil, who's visiting China, sucessfully used what some would call a racial slur in a dispatch home. He said, "The scale, the energy, the focus of this place is astonishing. I’ve thought of China as a giant, poor third world country (remember those Chinese coolies who built the railroads?) now charging onto the industrial stage for the first time." http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5340
The word in question here is "coolies", which is an ethnic slur, according to dictionary.com and other sources. I actually find the whole sentence mildly offensive, although I'm sure he didn't mean it that way, in that he's using poor Chinese laborers (albeit hardworking ones) as prime examples of what China is- in his eyes, a pool of poor laborers.
Why was it necessary to interject that into his sentence? That's like visiting Africa and saying- "I've always thought as Africa as poor (remember those slaves who worked on cotton plantations?)" You would NEVER do that? He's unconciously belittling the struggle of those "coolies" to build the railroads that they never got credit for.
But that's beside the point. I still like Phil. He didn't mean to be racist, and you could definitely argue that there's nothing wrong with what he said, as the word is in historical context. However, it's just one of those little things that slips out because he wasn't thinking at the time and he's not used to dealing with Asians in Tennessee.
What I'm getting to is the reaction when the folks over at the Tennessean picked this up on one of their blogs. Bredesen immediately fired off a brusque email completely denying that his words were offensive.
http://support.tennessean.com/blogs/?p=5348
Not the best move, Phil. What you SHOULD do in that situation is apologize and say that you didn't mean to offend anyone and you won't do it again. Denying that your words are offensive doesn't make the people who were offended by them any happier. Even if he wasn't trying to be racist or just didn't know that that word had negative connotations, he should still apologize. It's just what you do. You'd do it in everyday life- like if you accidentally insult your friend's friend, you apologize even though you didn't mean to offend them. It's polite.
But when racism enters into the discussion, all the shields go up and people just freak out and immediately shift the blame to the people who were offended, saying that they're too sensitive. And then people (usually white people, sorry) go off on rants about how everybody's too PC and minorities are out to get them, etc. Take this comment on the Tennessean blog:
"So the PC dictionary calls it offensive, but a liberal professor on modern Chinese history says it’s not. Maybe we should talk to Wang Dang Bang to find out for sure. Oh, is that offensive?"
Ok, Wang Dang Bang? Are you kidding me? That's pretty offensive. In trying to make a legitimate point, this person gets way too defensive and lashes out at the Asian community, bascially saying that they're stupid for being offended- even though the Asian community wasn't responsible for the article- and (the connotation is) should shut up and go away.
Or how about this comment?:
Phil used the term correctly in it’s historical perspective. My ancestors are called many names. Does that hurt me? NO! Because I’m not a PROFESSIONAL VICTIM as so many of our contemporaries are today! I don’t go around looking, scratching, digging for insult to me through long-dead, generations past relatives.
I’m a MAN, and I’m confident in my stature, and don’t have time to trifle if others want to be petty.
If I may quote some ages old kindergarden philosopher:“Sticks and stones may brake my bones, but words will never hurt me.”
Um, excuse me. First of all, you don't know how to use an apostrophe...or spell kindergarten...or break. The first sentence of this guy's comment was valid. But then it went on to accusing minorities of scratching in the dirt for possible insults. Hate to break it to you, but minorities don't have time to sit around trying to be insulted. We have jobs. We work. We go to college. We can spell "break". This guy's defensive mindset completely obscured the point he wanted to make. He honestly thinks that minorities are out to get him.
This is why we cannot discuss racism in America. People get too worked up and start throwing around insults because they can't possibly believe that they're racist, because racism ended with the "I Have a Dream" speech, right?
So instead of taking in a thoughtful comment, like the one the Tennessean made, people immediately blame minorities for being offended or calling into question someone's behavior. And then minority activists get even more worked up and start saying things that they shouldn't, completely reinforcing the views of their opposers, so everyone forgets about the initial issue and nothing gets solved. It's ridiculous. As long as these attitudes are around, we're not going to change anything in America.
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Thursday, October 11, 2007
Myspace: the new record store?
Back in the day, when people wanted to buy music, they went to actual physical stores (the kind that are in buildings) like Tower Records. Record companies made tons of money off of charging you an extra $10 for the packaging on your CDs, and life was great-but not for long...
Apple came along with its iPod and changed the face of the music industry. Music became the first of the information commodities, signaling a global economic change- the move towards virtual over physical (Facebook gifts, anybody?). Music became more affordable and available. And, with the ability to purchase individual songs, your music collection reached new heights in personalization- something that my generation is all about. No longer did you have to buy a whole CD to get one good song; you could just get one and forget about the rest.
Now, I have to admit- I find this system preferable to the old one, but there's something about it that's lacking: browsing.
I get that you can look at different songs and artists on iTunes, but it's not the same as looking through stacks of CDs and pulling out something that looks interesting. iTunes was made so that you could avoid that whole ordeal and get specifically what you want. It's more convenient. Unfortunately, with convenience comes the loss of exposure to new artists and ideas. With iTunes, it's easy to restrict yourself to one genre that you think "fits you".
But have no fear. As always, some new technological innovation has come about that makes it all better.
Well, Myspace isn't exactly new, but it certainly is more popular than ever- and if you use it right, it can be the digital equivalent to the old-time record store. It's the perfect venue for new artists who have no label, an indie label, or who just aren't famous yet.
Today I spent my limited spare time on Myspace- not checking out my friends' Top 8- but instead browsing the ever-popular music section (yet another way to waste time! see previous posts...)
And guess what I found? A good 15 or so up-and-coming artists that, when they hit it big, I can say I liked first. All I had to do was go to the top artists page and click on links. A page would pop up, a song would start playing, and if I liked it, I stayed. If it involved loud thrashing, screaming, or unintelligible gibberish, I could steer away in the blink of an eye. You can search bands by location, by name, or (my personal favorite) by a general genre- and since most artists identify across genres, you still get a lot of variety.
So, check out Myspace Music- you never know what you'll find.
Some fruits of my labor:
Ingrid Michaelson
The Scene Aesthetic
Michelle Featherstone
Sea Wolf
Gary Jules
Five Times August
Derek Webb
Laura Marling
A Rocket to the Moon
Jason Reeves
Daphne Loves Derby
Seriously
and of course Anna Bikales
And yes, I realize that the choices are very random and all over the place style-wise. That's the beauty of Myspace Music.
Apple came along with its iPod and changed the face of the music industry. Music became the first of the information commodities, signaling a global economic change- the move towards virtual over physical (Facebook gifts, anybody?). Music became more affordable and available. And, with the ability to purchase individual songs, your music collection reached new heights in personalization- something that my generation is all about. No longer did you have to buy a whole CD to get one good song; you could just get one and forget about the rest.
Now, I have to admit- I find this system preferable to the old one, but there's something about it that's lacking: browsing.
I get that you can look at different songs and artists on iTunes, but it's not the same as looking through stacks of CDs and pulling out something that looks interesting. iTunes was made so that you could avoid that whole ordeal and get specifically what you want. It's more convenient. Unfortunately, with convenience comes the loss of exposure to new artists and ideas. With iTunes, it's easy to restrict yourself to one genre that you think "fits you".
But have no fear. As always, some new technological innovation has come about that makes it all better.
Well, Myspace isn't exactly new, but it certainly is more popular than ever- and if you use it right, it can be the digital equivalent to the old-time record store. It's the perfect venue for new artists who have no label, an indie label, or who just aren't famous yet.
Today I spent my limited spare time on Myspace- not checking out my friends' Top 8- but instead browsing the ever-popular music section (yet another way to waste time! see previous posts...)
And guess what I found? A good 15 or so up-and-coming artists that, when they hit it big, I can say I liked first. All I had to do was go to the top artists page and click on links. A page would pop up, a song would start playing, and if I liked it, I stayed. If it involved loud thrashing, screaming, or unintelligible gibberish, I could steer away in the blink of an eye. You can search bands by location, by name, or (my personal favorite) by a general genre- and since most artists identify across genres, you still get a lot of variety.
So, check out Myspace Music- you never know what you'll find.
Some fruits of my labor:
Ingrid Michaelson
The Scene Aesthetic
Michelle Featherstone
Sea Wolf
Gary Jules
Five Times August
Derek Webb
Laura Marling
A Rocket to the Moon
Jason Reeves
Daphne Loves Derby
Seriously
and of course Anna Bikales
And yes, I realize that the choices are very random and all over the place style-wise. That's the beauty of Myspace Music.
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
The Rich Man's Guide to Environmentalism
Being an environmentalist is easy as pie. All you have to do is make money. Lots of money. And you don't even have to give up the comforts of your cushy lifestyle. Great bargain, right? In this wonderful new age of indulgences, you can have your Hummer AND snazzy "Save the Planet" to adorn it.
Or at least that's what Al Gore would say.
Al Gore is the face of the new environmentalism, where everything is okay, as long as you make up for it by planting trees or buying carbon-free tickets (scathingly referred to as indulgences by the New York Times). So basically, you can keep your fancy cars, private jets, and mansions with $30,000 energy bills (sound familiar, Al?), and as long as you have extra dough to cough up to buy "green" energy and offset your "carbon footprint", it's fine.
Honestly, Mr. Gore, would it kill you to turn off a few lights every once in a while?
The major problem I have with this theory of environmentalism is that it concentrates on making up for whatever damage you've done to "Mother Earth" instead of eliminating it (or at least reducing it) altogether. It functions on this idea of free passes, but only you have the money to donate to some random company that claims to plant trees in the Amazon. It really doesn't surprise me that so many of America's rich and famous back Mr. Gore's environmental campaign because it lets them save the world without lifting a finger, and give them feelings of self-righteousness about it, too.
It doesn't matter if you're using green power or coal power: you're still using electricity, and the less you use, the better. Same goes for carbon coupons. If you just USED LESS instead of gabbing about how great you are for planting trees, the world would be a better place. You don't even know if those companies you're giving money to are actually doing anything. They're probably just taking your money and stashing it in a bank account in the Bahamas.
I guess what I'm saying is that this road towards saving the world is not going anywhere. As long as there are huge McMansions sucking up energy, there will be blackouts. Come on, people, do you really need 6,000 square feet for a family of four?
What happened to less is more?
And the other issue I have with Mr. Gore's theories is that, well, the vast majority of Americans, or humans in general, don't have an extra thousand or so bucks a year to spend on offsetting their carbon emissions. Most people are spending that money on FOOD. So, his message doesn't really apply to them.
In fact, if all the Hollywood bigshots who loaded up An Inconvenient Truth with Oscars lived like the poor Americans did, there wouldn't be an energy problem. You don't see clotheslines or people taking the bus in Beverly Hills, do you? Well, maybe you should. I find it ironic that the best methods of saving energy are the ones that are most stigmatized by American society. Take a hike (or a bike), and turn off your energy guzzling stereo systems and giant TVs. Set the air conditioning to 74 and deal with it. Hang your socks up to dry. Make an effort to be energy conscious, if only because it saves you money. Do all that stuff and more, it's great. But please, don't drive a Hummer and tell me you want to save the environment.
Indulgences were yesterday's news in 1517. Why should today be any different?
Or at least that's what Al Gore would say.
Al Gore is the face of the new environmentalism, where everything is okay, as long as you make up for it by planting trees or buying carbon-free tickets (scathingly referred to as indulgences by the New York Times). So basically, you can keep your fancy cars, private jets, and mansions with $30,000 energy bills (sound familiar, Al?), and as long as you have extra dough to cough up to buy "green" energy and offset your "carbon footprint", it's fine.
Honestly, Mr. Gore, would it kill you to turn off a few lights every once in a while?
The major problem I have with this theory of environmentalism is that it concentrates on making up for whatever damage you've done to "Mother Earth" instead of eliminating it (or at least reducing it) altogether. It functions on this idea of free passes, but only you have the money to donate to some random company that claims to plant trees in the Amazon. It really doesn't surprise me that so many of America's rich and famous back Mr. Gore's environmental campaign because it lets them save the world without lifting a finger, and give them feelings of self-righteousness about it, too.
It doesn't matter if you're using green power or coal power: you're still using electricity, and the less you use, the better. Same goes for carbon coupons. If you just USED LESS instead of gabbing about how great you are for planting trees, the world would be a better place. You don't even know if those companies you're giving money to are actually doing anything. They're probably just taking your money and stashing it in a bank account in the Bahamas.
I guess what I'm saying is that this road towards saving the world is not going anywhere. As long as there are huge McMansions sucking up energy, there will be blackouts. Come on, people, do you really need 6,000 square feet for a family of four?
What happened to less is more?
And the other issue I have with Mr. Gore's theories is that, well, the vast majority of Americans, or humans in general, don't have an extra thousand or so bucks a year to spend on offsetting their carbon emissions. Most people are spending that money on FOOD. So, his message doesn't really apply to them.
In fact, if all the Hollywood bigshots who loaded up An Inconvenient Truth with Oscars lived like the poor Americans did, there wouldn't be an energy problem. You don't see clotheslines or people taking the bus in Beverly Hills, do you? Well, maybe you should. I find it ironic that the best methods of saving energy are the ones that are most stigmatized by American society. Take a hike (or a bike), and turn off your energy guzzling stereo systems and giant TVs. Set the air conditioning to 74 and deal with it. Hang your socks up to dry. Make an effort to be energy conscious, if only because it saves you money. Do all that stuff and more, it's great. But please, don't drive a Hummer and tell me you want to save the environment.
Indulgences were yesterday's news in 1517. Why should today be any different?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
