-
Don't Get Mad, Get Elected
Print This Post
Jun
13
[Redhorse: this rant’s for you. I know you love it when I get all angry and s**t.]
Sock Obama: started at Plunderbund, now it’s in the New York Magazine among other places.
Hillary The New Republic cover: read the debate here
English-only bills: picked up at TIME Magazine with a lengthy comment thread
I will not link to the Obama sock monkey “doll” website. Just know that many bloggers of different colors have written about it and, as I would have bet $1 million on, people are saying crap like they said about sexist stuff that went down with Hillary Clinton: “Racism? (Sexism?) What racism? (What sexism?) How is that racist? (How is that sexist?)” and the English-only bill: “Anti-immigrant? What do you mean anti-immigrant? How is that anti-immigrant?”
People: this is why we don’t do the hierarchy of oppression but we work to get rid of it ALL. Within ourselves (by becoming anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-anti-immigrant - I’m not even sure if that’s what it’s officially called but IT DOESN’T MATTER - it’s your behavior and attitudes that matter) and calling it out when others do it. Not by saying, “ha! you think that’s so bad? You should see THIS!” or by saying, “oh I know - it’s awful - but it happens.”
But by calling it out. And writing and saying over and over and over: IT. IS. WRONG.
Feel like slapping people down for selective outrage? Guess what? There’s so much of this crap out there now that it’s pretty tough to catch it all. I’m okay with that - especially on a blog where I know others will point it out.
And what if you don’t get any of those associations? Well, I do doubt whether some people ever will. Which makes me wonder, what are people learning - and where - that makes them unable to see this stuff as wrong? Where is the kinder, gentler nation of people? Where is the “if I don’t stand up for them now, who will stand up for me later” ethic in people?
Hmm, wait. Think having a president who calls other countries’ presidents names, regularly, as a matter of course and in the media as his brand of diplomacy has anything to do with setting an example? Nah.
Seven deadly sins proliferating everywhere. How about some virtues, people?
Here’s a reminder - what have you been practicing lately:
Sins:
luxuria (extravagance, later lust), gula (gluttony), avaritia (greed), acedia (sloth), ira (wrath), invidia (envy), and superbia (pride)
Virtues:
- Chastity (Latin, Castitas) (purity, opposes Lust, Latin Luxuria):
Embracing of moral wholesomeness and achieving purity of body and thought through education and betterment.
- Temperance (Latin, Temperantia) (self-control, opposes Gluttony, Latin Gula):
Practicing self-control, abstention, and moderation.
- Charity (Latin, Liberalitas) (will, generosity, opposes Greed, Latin Avaritia):
Generosity. Willingness to give. A nobility of thought or actions.
- Diligence (Latin, Industria) (ethics, opposes Sloth, Latin Acedia):
A zealous and careful nature in one’s actions and work. Decisive work ethic. Budgeting one’s time; monitoring one’s own activities to guard against laziness. Putting forth full concentration in one’s work
- Kindness (Latin, Humanitas) (peace, opposes Wrath, Latin Ira):
Forbearance and endurance through moderation. Resolving conflicts peacefully, as opposed to resorting to violence. The ability to forgive; to show mercy to sinners.
- Patience (Latin, Patientia) (satisfaction, opposes Envy, Latin Invidia):
Charity, compassion, friendship, and sympathy without prejudice and for its own sake.
- Humility (Latin, Humilitas) (modesty, opposes Pride, Latin Superbia):
Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. Giving credit where credit is due; not unfairly glorifying one’s own self.
Okay. Let’s just say it - what the hell is wrong with people? Who can’t care about other people’s feelings? Who place protecting themselves and preserving their paradigms above everything else to the point of exclusion and hatred? Who can’t admit what they don’t know and then seek to figure it out rather than just assume and speculate and be done with it or worse, goad people into mind games rather than just debating? No one knows everything. Talk, ask, question, LISTEN.
Enough.
Get yourself to a church, synagogue, mosque or quiet space and figure out what is WRONG with you instead of blathering about what is wrong with everyone else. Yes - I am saying that there is something wrong with a person who does not see the racism, sexism or anti-immigrant nature in the things I’ve mentioned.
To see it, by the way, does not mean you have to agree with the perspective. It doesn’t mean that you have to also not see the other perspectives of how other people see those things. It only means that you can imagine what other people are seeing that is wrong and you are choosing to say, “Well, you know, I can see how you see it that way. But I don’t.”
What’s the value in that? Because you then hope that when such prejudicial junk comes their way or happens to someone they know or love, they will recognize it - and this is how we work to build empathy where there is none. Understanding where there isn’t any.
Because right now? We got a boatload of not-understanding - and not caring that they don’t understand - dragging us down. And we will sink. We absolutely will.
Talk about feh.
Sphere: Related ContentBy Jill Miller Zimon at 12:50 pm June 13th, 2008 in Debates, Barack Obama, George Bush, Gender, Sexism, Race, Hillary Clinton, WH2008, Media, Education, Culture, Women, Civil Rights, Politics
Comments
16 Responses to “The Sock Obama=Racist; Clinton TNR Cover=Sexist; English-only bills=Anti-immigrant”
Leave a Reply
-
Look Who's Talented
With respect to the equation “English-only bills=Anti-immigrant,” “Well, you know, I can see how you see it that way. But I don’t.” I think “English-only bills=Anti-immigrant” is rather simplistic.
Here’s the argument I would make for “official English” bills:
1) The lack of a common language within a nation (i.e., the presence of large groups within a nation that can not easily communicate with each other) tends to be divisive and to undermine national unity.
2) To avoid promoting divisiveness and disunity, government should avoid actions that undermine an existing common language.
3) The use of multiple languages by government in its official actions tends to undermine any existing common language.
4) Therefore, to avoid promoting divisiveness and disunity, government should generally use the existing common language in its official actions.
5) In the U.S., the existing common language is English, so government should generally use English in its official actions.
6) To ensure that English is used in official governmental actions, it may be appropriate to enact “official English” laws.
And please don’t engage in labeling (”Anti-immigrant!”) because I don’t see it your way. I’m pro (legal) immigrant, but expect immigrants to do their best to learn English.
All the points you make could be true, and the bill would still, also, be anti-immigrant, in intent and impact.
The problem with your reasons is that no evidence has been proffered to demonstrate that the negative or worst case scenario of any of those potential issues currently attains. In the absence of that, politicians coming up with these bills have failed to come up with any demonstrable reason for the bills to be passed or exist.
I take full responsibility for my interpretation of why I believe these bills are proffered and that reason is to clamp down and be unfriendly to immigrants - doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal. There’s no evidence that legal immigrants have any greater English skills than illegal - at least not that I’ve seen.
If the description doesn’t fit for you, then it doesn’t fit.
Last I agree 100% with you here, “I’m pro (legal) immigrant, but expect immigrants to do their best to learn English.”
All the points you make could be true, and the bill would still, also, be anti-immigrant, in intent and impact.
Correct me if I wrong, but I think that most opponents of the Ohio bill recognize that the bill–with all of its exceptions–won’t have much practical impact (at least not in the foreseeable future). I therefore think that much (most?) of the opposition is really motivated by opposition to the perceived anti-immigrant intent.
While it seems likely that some supporters of the bill are anti-immigrant, might I also suggest that many (most?) are pro-national unity? (There’s probably a better phrase than “pro-national unity,” but it’s good enough to make my point.) One can be pro-national unity without being anti-immigrant, and I think that many supporters of “official English” are. (As the organization U.S. English puts it, “Without a common language, how long would we remain the ‘United’ States?”)
As some may oppose official English bills on principle, others may also support them on principle. Just different principles.
The problem with your reasons is that no evidence has been proffered to demonstrate that the negative or worst case scenario of any of those potential issues currently attains. In the absence of that, politicians coming up with these bills have failed to come up with any demonstrable reason for the bills to be passed or exist.
I think the operative word in the above paragraph may be “currently.” There’s plenty of historical evidence from other countries that tension and/or conflict frequently arise when there are subpopulations in a nation who do not speak a common language. And there are increasing populations in the US who have limited English proficiency, so there is the potential for such tensions/conflicts in at least some jurisdictions in the future. (The 1990 census found 13.9 million persons 5 and up with limited English proficiency; the 2000 census found 21.3 million. In California in 2000, 20% of the 5 and up population had limited English.)
I take full responsibility for my interpretation of why I believe these bills are proffered and that reason is to clamp down and be unfriendly to immigrants - doesn’t matter if they’re legal or illegal. There’s no evidence that legal immigrants have any greater English skills than illegal - at least not that I’ve seen.
If the description doesn’t fit for you, then it doesn’t fit.
I respect your interpretation, although I may disagree with it. I would, however, like to draw your attention to a June 4 Quinnipiac poll that found “Ohio voters support 85 - 12 percent a proposal to make English the state’s official language.” What do you think that response says about Ohioans?
Last I agree 100% with you here, “I’m pro (legal) immigrant, but expect immigrants to do their best to learn English.”
Forgot to mention … I’m glad to hear we’re in agreement on that point.
Anon, thanks - you always write pretty thoughtful comments. But that one got stuck in spam and since you like staying anonymous, I couldn’t email you to apologize that it did in fact get stuck. Anyway - I apologize.
Ok - on to the comment.
You wrote: “Correct me if I wrong, but I think that most opponents of the Ohio bill recognize that the bill–with all of its exceptions–won’t have much practical impact (at least not in the foreseeable future). I therefore think that much (most?) of the opposition is really motivated by opposition to the perceived anti-immigrant intent.”
Even if this is true, flip it around: if the bill won’t have much practical impact, then the proponents are really motivated by…what exactly? See my point?
You wrote: “There’s plenty of historical evidence from other countries that tension and/or conflict frequently arise when there are subpopulations in a nation who do not speak a common language. And there are increasing populations in the US who have limited English proficiency, so there is the potential for such tensions/conflicts in at least some jurisdictions in the future.”
I’ll use the “even if this is true” tactic again: there is still no imperative in this line of argument, Anon. Nothing is imminent and yet here in Ohio we have SO.MANY.MORE.IMMINENT. threats to the well-being of this state and the people who live here. Again, the use of time by an elected official who is paid by taxpayer dollars is a complete and utter waste given the lack of need and the lack of urgency.
Finally, you wrote, “I would, however, like to draw your attention to a June 4 Quinnipiac poll that found “Ohio voters support 85 - 12 percent a proposal to make English the state’s official language.” What do you think that response says about Ohioans?”
I’d prefer to look at the breakdown and see more about that but I will admit that I won’t be taking the time to do so this morning.
My first reaction was, a lot of people supported Hitler too and that turned out to be pretty wrong.
A lot of Ohioans go and gamble over state lines, but we keep defeating the ballot initiatives. A lot of people go to strip clubs and adult entertainment facilities and use pornography in myriad ways. And still Phil Burress got the law changed.
There are many examples of this kind of nullification in one direction or the other.
I’m not going to label or name-call Ohioans based on that poll. Obviously, I would be in the 12% and that works for me.
What do you think the response says about Ohioans?
[…] Jill Miller Zimon wrote: People: this is why we don’t do the hierarchy of oppression but we work to get rid of it ALL. Within ourselves (by becoming anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-anti-immigrant - I’m not even sure if that’s what it’s officially called but IT DOESN’T MATTER - it’s your behavior and attitudes that matter) and calling it out when others do it. Not by saying, “ha! you think that’s so bad? You should see THIS!” or by saying, “oh I know - it’s awful - but it happens.” […]
Shalom Jill,
Hands down, this is the best post, maybe the best anything, you’ve ever written.
Passion is a wonderful thing, even if some ill-informed people consider it a sin.
As for virtues, I prefer Franklin’s list.
B’shalom,
Jeff
[…] The Sock Obama=Racist; Clinton TNR Cover=Sexist; English-only bills=Anti-immigrant 0607 WAL-MART NO TIENE PIEDAD… Posted in Comments, Wal […]
Jeff, that is incredibly high praise coming from you. Thank you, very much.
I’ve heard about Franklin’s list before but never looked at it. I particularly like the inclusion of “silence” because I think silence gets a very bad rap. It really depends on the context.
Shalom Jill,
Silence is a wonderful virtue. We don’t experience enough external silence in our lives, let alone internal silence.
Want to spot the wisest person in a room? Look for the one who could be speaking (is known to not be shy) but isn’t.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Shalom Jill,
And this just in from the makers of the sockobama:
I’m not buying it. Anyone?
B’shalom,
Jeff
Yeah - I think that’s total bunk but you know, there are the rare few - I keep trying to imagine if it was about Jewish people or some other identifiable minority with such iconic slurs typically known and eschewed being used this way.
In any case, the fact that they aren’t saying, we didn’t realize how it affects people, we’ll drop it, is telling, IMO.
Oh - and I love that wisdom of silence. I completely agree. I love it when I remember to look to that person in a room. Great advice. Thank you.
Shalom Jill,
Can you imagine the uproar if our local baseball team changed its name to the Kleveland Kikes and they had a chasid shuckling every time the Kikes hit a home run?
B’shalom,
Jeff
Anon, thanks - you always write pretty thoughtful comments. But that one got stuck in spam and since you like staying anonymous, I couldn’t email you to apologize that it did in fact get stuck. Anyway - I apologize.
No need for an apology. For me, costs and benefits of anonymity balance out.
You wrote: “Correct me if I wrong, but I think that most opponents of the Ohio bill recognize that the bill–with all of its exceptions–won’t have much practical impact (at least not in the foreseeable future). I therefore think that much (most?) of the opposition is really motivated by opposition to the perceived anti-immigrant intent.”
Even if this is true, flip it around: if the bill won’t have much practical impact, then the proponents are really motivated by…what exactly? See my point?
I think proponents of the bill have three categories of motivation: practical, symbolic, and political. I’ve already said that I think the practical impact of the bill will be minimal, although I’m sure at least some proponents would argue that the bill will encourage immigrants to learn English. (The bill also requires a line item in government budgets for monies spent providing services in languages other than English.)
With respect to symbolic motivations, the legislator who introduced the bill said, “This bill also has an important symbolic function because it sends a clear and concise signal to all those who want to participate in our State as citizens that there are responsibilities as well as benefits. […] Our immigrant forefathers were expected to learn English and our expectations for this generation of immigrants should be the same.” Had I introduced the legislation, I would have also included a statement to the effect that the legislation was symbolic of the importance placed on national unity and improved communication fostered by a common language.
With respect to political motivations, the poll I quoted (85% of Ohioans approving of official English) suggests why a politician would introduce the legislation. There is nothing inherently wrong in introducing popular legislation–politicians on both sides of the aisle do it. It would, of course, be inappropriate to respond to the popular will if that will represented malign intent or ignorance of probable negative consequences of the legislation. I’m unaware of any evidence that either condition holds.
I’ll use the “even if this is true” tactic again: there is still no imperative in this line of argument, Anon. Nothing is imminent and yet here in Ohio we have SO.MANY.MORE.IMMINENT. threats to the well-being of this state and the people who live here. Again, the use of time by an elected official who is paid by taxpayer dollars is a complete and utter waste given the lack of need and the lack of urgency.
Ideally the Ohio General Assembly would deal with the most urgent problems first. However, the reality is that many bills are introduced to address problems that are not of immediate or general import. Here are some bills introduced during the current session of the Assembly:
- HB 18: College/professional sports - allow brought-in liquor
- HB 210: Tomato - adopt as state fruit
- HB 353: Ladybug license plates
While none of these seems important to me, they are obviously important to someone.
Finally, you wrote, “I would, however, like to draw your attention to a June 4 Quinnipiac poll that found “Ohio voters support 85 - 12 percent a proposal to make English the state’s official language.” What do you think that response says about Ohioans?”
I’d prefer to look at the breakdown and see more about that but I will admit that I won’t be taking the time to do so this morning.
The relevant question in the poll is number 21. The support-oppose percentages are: for Republicans, 93%-6%; for Democrats, 81%-15%; for Independents, 86%-11%. For men, women, white born-again/ evangelicals, and six geographic areas of the state, support is in the range of 81%-89% and opposition is in the range 8%-13%.
My first reaction was, a lot of people supported Hitler too and that turned out to be pretty wrong.
[…]
I’m not going to label or name-call Ohioans based on that poll. Obviously, I would be in the 12% and that works for me.
What do you think the response says about Ohioans?
Support for English as Ohio’s official language hardly seems comparable to support for Hitler. (Hmmm, I wonder if it would be appropriate to cite Godwin’s Law here? :-).)
And support for an official language isn’t exactly some Ohio anomaly. According to U.S. English:
- 29 states (including California in its constitution) already have English as the official language (link);
- “More than 90 percent (177) of the world’s nations have enacted an official language” (link).
While there is undoubtedly some anti-immigrant sentiment in Ohio, I think the poll response primarily says that Ohioans believe it would be a good idea for immigrants to learn English.
(I’m going to be short of time for the next few days, so I probably won’t respond to anything posted in response to this very long comment. Please feel free to have the last word(s) in this exchange.)
I suspect that many online dirty tricks have been used by Obama supporters, for in addition to the never ending avalanche of nasty sarcastic posts from pro Obama bloggers … the unprecedented online fund raising by the Obama camp … the online dominance by several pro Obama websites, like Huffington … and, this recent blocking of anti-Obama bloggers, several times, when I posted anti-Obama, Pro Clinton, pro McCain posts to sites who guranteed the aminitiy of my email address … I ended up getting hundreds and hundreds of pieces of spam in my mail box shortly after each time I posted.