Alot.*** 
I’ve been trying to learn to tune out the bullshit from the Washington Asshat Brigade. The Limbaughs, Hannitys, and Coulters. I’ve tried to ignore these asshats. I mean, I didn’t even post when it turned out that Ann Coulter was dating a–gasp!–Negro. (Just like The Boondocks predicted).
But Glenn Beck? You’re really working my last nerve.
Over the weekend, I read about how you hate the World Cup, and turned one of the most exciting sporting events of the decade into a jingoist hate rant against almost every other fucking country in the world:
BECK: I don’t get the baseball thing, but the soccer thing, I hate it so much — probably because the rest of the world likes it so much, and they riot over it, and they continually try to jam it down our throat.”
…
It doesn’t matter how you sell it to us. It doesn’t matter how many celebrities you get. It doesn’t matter how many bars open early. It doesn’t matter how many beer commercials they run. We don’t want the World Cup. We don’t like the World Cup. We don’t like soccer. We want nothing to do with it. You can package it any way — you can spend all kinds of money. You can force it on our television sets. We will not enjoy the World Cup.
But did I say anything? Nope. I let that shit slide.
I just checked my archives, and it turns out that I even let your “Obama has exposed himself as a guy” with “a deep seated hatred of white culture” bullshit slide.
But this? This shit is bananas. And I have something to say about it, and I can’t keep it in.
Glenn Beck? Shut. The. Fuck. Up. Just shut up. All the way up.
Why? Because you’ve begun round two of your wingnut game of “Blame it on Obama” by suggesting that Obama refuses to meet with the CEO of BP, Tony Hayward because he’s white.
I mean.
Wow.
Just.
Wow.
BECK: Now, is it oil? Because you don’t have any oil experience. Did you work at a gas station? Because maybe you could come out and say, “Hey, all gas station owners are alike” in your experience, if you’ve worked at a gas station. Or is it the fact that he’s a white executive? Maybe — maybe your problem is, is that he’s a white CEO that maybe lives out in the suburbs and doesn’t want to pay taxes, you know, for any inner-city children. Yeah, I know that’s such an outrageous –
BECK: Ah, OK. All right, so maybe that’s the problem. Maybe the problem that the president has with the BP executive, that he last week didn’t want to meet with ’cause he had all the information he needed, he wasn’t interested in words, but this week, he’s going to meet with him. And I’m trying to figure out what changed. Did he find out that not all white executives that live out in the suburbs don’t want to pay their taxes to go to inner-city children, which I believe is code language, isn’t it? Is that code language, Mr. President? I thought we weren’t supposed to use code language. A white executive that doesn’t want their tax dollars to go to inner-city children — sounds like code language.
It sounds like racism. It sounds like stereotyping. It sounds like profiling, which, I didn’t think we were supposed to do. Isn’t that your problem in Arizona? Your problem with the Arizona law is you’re profiling. They can stop you just for looking Hispanic. That’s what you claim.
Mr. President, are you profiling this executive? Just because he looks like a CEO? Because he looks like a white CEO? Because he looks like an oil company CEO? I’m not sure what you’re profiling, but there seems to be a little profiling going on here. Were you actually born in Arizona, and not Hawaii? I’m suddenly interested in the birth certificate, because maybe your birth certificate says you were born in Arizona. I’ve never questioned your birth certificate. Now, I’m kind of curious. Maybe you were born one of those evil Arizonan profilers.
And,
BECK: What is it that Barack Obama knows that he won’t even bother to meet with the guy to hear him out? Well, until, you know, he changed his mind a couple of days later. What is it that the dictator of Iran, the crazy guy in Iran has in the credibility department that the CEO of BP doesn’t have? What is it? Tell me. I’d like to know. Does the fact the BP CEO is a capitalist — does that — is that what does it? You know, when I meet with those capitalists — he’s a white CEO. Maybe that’s it. He’s a white CEO. White CEOs — I don’t know if you know this — but white CEOs, they don’t like to — they don’t want to pay their tax dollars and have those tax dollars go to inner-city kids.
…
OBAMA [audio clip]: And I really want to emphasize the word responsibility. I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school —
BECK: I know. Man, all those white executives, what racists they are. They’re all alike, you know. Oh, they just hate those inner-city kids. Wow. Inner-city kids — that’s not code language, is it? And gee, all those white executives that don’t want to pay their taxes, have to go to — that sounds an awful lot like profiling.
…
BECK: It’s almost like he’s generalizing, profiling, and stereotyping.
In order to make his argument that Obama might be racist, Beck, of course, clipped a statement that Obama made 15 years ago. Here’s what Obama said about community responsibility, when asked whether or not future generations will have to deal with the same racial issues the current generation is dealing with:
“And I really want to emphasize the word ‘responsibility.’ I think that whether you are a white executive living out in the suburbs who doesn’t want to pay taxes to inner-city children to — for them to go to school or you’re an inner-city child who doesn’t want to take responsibility for keeping your street safe and clean, both of those groups have to take some responsibility if we’re going to get beyond the kinds of divisions that we face right now.”
Obama clearly says that both groups have to take responsibility. But did Beck reference the entire quote? Of course not. You bet your ass that in support of his “ZOMG! Obama is a racist!” bullshit, that Beck only quoted the section in bold and ignored the italicized section which provides crucial context.
Then, Beck dug into his “Obama is A Racist” coffers and pulled out an old gem from the Skip Gates-gate debacle–“Moooooom!!! Obama called the Cambridge police stuuuuuuupid. Isn’t that, like, sooooo racist?!?!”
Shut up Glenn. Just shut the fuck up and eat your pudding.
Can we just stop with this “black people are racist” canard? I mean, really? It’s bullshit. Sure, there are some black people who don’t like white people. Some black people who don’t like Asians, or Jews, or gays, or Martians, or Katherine Heigl, but racist? No. That’s not racism. It’s prejudice. Irrational bias. But it is not racism.
Why?
Well I’ll tell you. But I’m going to take the lazy way out. Rather than spend the next ten minutes scouring the googlez and coming up with my own cogent argument, I’m simply going to quote a commenter on a blog I regularly frequent (Pajiba). I’m reminded of this comment because it was one of the most succinct explanations I’ve seen for the admittedly unpopular viewpoint that there’s no such thing as racism against white people in America:
The most widely accepted definition of an -ism is prejudice+power. Because whites have institutionalized power in American society, it is actually impossible for a minority to be racist against whites. Minorities can be PREJUDICED against whites, sure. But the power element is what gives racism its widely destructive nature.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
And for anyone who disagrees (or for anyone willing to play devil’s advocate) I propose a challenge: Please explain to me how people of color in this country have oppressed white folks (white men, specifically) to such an extent that it can logically be deemed racism. I would really love for someone to make a straight-faced argument that, strictly as a matter of race or ethnicity, non-white and non-male persons are responsible for any oppression or disadvantage suffered by white folks.
This is a serious challenge. Somebody. Make the argument. Just for fun.
Phone lines are open.
*** It’s not a typo. And for the record, Alot doesn’t swing that way.
Well you’ve oppressed me but only in the sense you oppressed me with awesome every time you like…breathe…is that oppression?
You rock.
Glenn Beck…I just…I can not comprehend that man. I mean a few aspects of politics in the US blow my mind, the sheer depths of hatred and vitriol (and I’m an angry little Owl) people seem to possess….but…it’s the ‘we’
‘We’ dont want soccer.
Um…really?
Cos there are a couple thousand American’s in South Africa, RIGHT NOW, Glenn, who might be inclined to disagree. I know football(soccer) isn’t huge over there but from what I’ve seen, the stadiums you do have are filled to the rafters and every American I know has at least made a passing comment in the vein of ‘go USA, woo!’
I don’t comprehend how he thinks. He can’t be for real, that man…he’s surely imaginary? Right? How can he not be acting?
How can someone who JUST BARELY stops short of calling Obama an N*word president, on camera, be allowed to…exist? How does his show get past anyone, ever?!
LOOK AT THAT MAN! He looks like a fucking POTATO. Who listens to him!?
BAH!
“…and they continually try to jam it down our throat.”
HA ha.
I find that bloody rich coming from an American. Talk about a comical lack of self-awareness.
Where do you find these bigots?
If the answer is on Fox, then colour me unsurprised.
–Well…I’m kind of shunned at getting into all black universities. For example…Morehouse College or Clark Atlanta University. Despite that whole segregation thing.
–My chances of becoming a Blood or a Crypt are kind of shot.
–I’m frowned upon or disallowed completely from going into a Black Strip Club.
–My chances at a rap career are limited.
–I was always picked last for dodgeball.
–Women assume the black guy next to me has a larger penis.
–Can I be a member of the NAACP? I know they wouldn’t let me join the Black Panther Party.
–There’s a Black History Month but not a White History Month.
–When in an all black neighborhood it is assumed I am a drug dealer.
[copying my facebook comment]
off the top of my head, i don’t think not being able to be a crip, or being less likely to be a rap singer (hello, eminem, beastie boys, vanilla ice [heh]), or women thinking you have a small wang, or not feeling welcome at black strip clubs or HBCs is oppression insofar as oppression is the exertion of power by a majority over a minority. as for the insular colleges and social organizations, those were created to provide a “safe space” (god, i hate that term) for traditionally disadvantaged people.
what you’re talking about is not racism/oppression but stereotyping, bias, and your own recognition of feeling “out of place” in “the hood,” so to speak.
:)
Also, (and I just read this), most of the original founders of the NAACP were white, so you’re totally in, Deist!
And, while white folks weren’t permitted to be members of the Black Panther Party, conscientious white folks asked Huey Newton what they could do to join the cause. He said “form a White Panther Party.” And they did!
From Wikipedia: “The White Panthers were a far left, anti-racist, White American political collective founded in 1968 by Lawrence Plamondon, Leni Sinclair, and John Sinclair. It was started in response to an interview where Huey P. Newton, co-founder of the Black Panther Party, was asked what white people could do to support the Black Panthers. Newton replied that they could form a White Panther Party. The group took the name and dedicated its energies to “cultural revolution.” Sinclair made every effort to ensure that the White Panthers were not mistaken for a white supremacist group, responding to such claims with “quite the contrary.” The party worked with many ethnic minority rights groups in the Rainbow Coalition.”
Is part of the job requirement to host a Fox News show to be detached from reality with a dash of denial and a bulldozer full of assholism? I am thankful I don’t have this channel, but I’m scared that people like this exist and have such a large forum from which to speak.
And as for the World Cup, my brother and his wife were in Seattle last weekend and during their visit went to a bar to watch the US vs. England match. They could not believe how excited the American spectators were and how exuberant their cheering was, so much so that my brother and his wife were too scared to cheer out loud for England.
Oh and go team Portugal!!!
See, now I have learned something new. I never knew racism had to have a power element–I just figured it was “we really really don’t like you because of your race” where as prejudice could be applied to not liking someone for any number of reasons.
And now I know…and knowing is half the battle.
Does sexist have to meet the same requirement? Is it, actually, impossible for women to be sexist?
“we really really don’t like you because of your race” is definitely the most overwhelming component of racism, but without the power to disenfranchise people, or make it more difficult for them to succeed in life, “we don’t really like you” is simply prejudice and bias, i think.
Good point. However, I think the whiteys who cry “reverse racism” or “just plain racism” think that somehow the non-white people stole some power.
They do that to women too–we are obviously the ones with all the power, so they aren’t sexist, we are. So I think I’m going to categorize that under “defense tactics of the privileged–try to convince people that really the other side has all the power, or has taken the power already, so, really, we don’t have any privilege anymore.”
Hobo, good question about sexism! I think that sexism is a bit more complex and difficult to classify than racism because the power dynamics are different than race. for example:
1) The importance of traditional gender roles is dropping rapidly in most progressive states however, gender roles are deeply impacted by institutions(mainly religious) and culture.
2) With the recent emergence of women making up over half the workforce, the glass ceiling seems to me only higher because the percentage of women in positions of power in the workforce has not increased in proportion to the general increase of women in the workforce. Yet, the pay difference between men and women has narrowed considerably the last 30 years including the development that the pay gap which previously favored black men for second place over white women now favors white women over black and hispanic men.
So I guess a white woman could be sexist to a black or hispanic man, but not to a white man and then where can you readily distinguish between sexism and racism in that scenario?
————————————————————————————————————————————–
My brain hurts, I promised myself a rest period after the spring term before summer term begins but I’ll try to keep up on this post.
3)
Hmmm I see what you’re saying, but I think what you define as sexism and what I define as sexism are two different things. I don’t see it being solved because women are now allowed in the work force and make more than black men (and that also discounts non-white women in this scenario).
But okay, if we say that sexism is “I really really don’t like you because of your sex and I have power over you” we’d have to define what that power is. Because even if the white woman was in a position of authority over the black and hispanic men she worked with, would they still have power over her? Could they still make her feel physically threatened? Could they still police her femininity? Does one sort of power triumph over another?
And what would her power over them have to be to negate the traditional “men have the power” relationship?
Interesting thoughts which I will ponder further. :-)
Hobo, if for example a man threatened his female supervisor, she would have the power to fire him (as she should). As far as male subordinates judging a woman’s feminity based on her professional position, that is dependent on one factor: security. If the woman is secure in her feminity then she’s not really worried about whether her subordinates consider her “unfeminine” because of her position. Also, the only men who have a problem with a female in a position above their own are insecure men which discredits any opinion they may have about femininity or masculinity anyways.
A female supervisor has power over her subordinates’ careers; whether male or female, that’s enough power to negate other power dynamics at least superficially. I’m starting my senior level sociology course this summer term so I think I will have better answers soon. Right now I’m just basing my opinions off personal experience with females in a position of power while I was in the Army. Which is probably not a normal situation.
Well, ideally, if a man threatened his female subordinate, she’d have the power to fire him, but the reality is that is not how the power structure works. Because a woman in the work force is still operating under a different set of rules than her male colleagues.
If a female superior is, say, sexually harassed by her subordinate, IF she is high enough in the company to have the power to take disciplinary action over him, she may do so.
However, the potential backlash from taking such a step may actually put in her a position of dealing with the harrassment rather than report it. If she confronts her harasser and tells him to stop, and he doesn’t stop, she has to then involve HR, and possibly higher-ups as they handle the process of firing him.
In that case, said employee could say that she made the whole thing up, is desperate for attention, or any number of things that paints her as a troublemaker and discredits her. He could also point out her outfits or her own behavior and suggest in various ways that she was asking for it, that this is revenge for him turning down HER attentions, etc. (Remember, we still live in a rape culture where the burden is still on the victim to prove they have actually been appropriately victimized beyond their control). This is classic “he said she said.” And it’s worse because as a person presumably in the position of authority, the burden of proof tends to fall more heavily on her.
But let’s just say he actually takes the warning to heart and changes his behavior. Or the company has a zero-tolerance policy (as many now do) and fires him.
It’s already too late. Her position of authority has already been undermined because she was confronted with a situation she was not able to handle herself–she issues a warning and he still harassed her. She was not able to discipline her employee on her own. And her male superiors can’t help but be reminded of how nothing like that has ever happened to them, and most likely never will. (There are cases of female harassment against men, and actual complaints brought forward, but the odds are still against that happening.) No male boss has ever has to fire an employee because the employee couldn’t resist making comments about his boss’ breasts. Now the company is down an otherwise valuable employee and has to go through the financial and time burden of hiring a replacement (this same thinking in fact is why many companies are reluctant to promote women into positions of power over male employees.)
And then the female superior is labeled a trouble maker. And if you don’t think that is damaging to her career, let me use this as an example–a relatively recent study said that women who ask for raises or who negotiate salaries during the hiring process face a stigma. http://www.feministing.com/archives/007469.html
Any woman seen as causing issues is seen the same way. So most female bosses end up enduring the harassment, or adopting male behaviors to cope with them, since the only way to be a boss is to be the same kind of boss that already exists–the white, male bosses.
I would say that bosses of different races face similar issues in terms of dealing with the racism of their subordinates. Being the boss doesn’t actually give you absolute power. What it gives you is an even more difficult time navigating office politics because the standards and judgments assigned to you are different than what the typical white male experiences.
Not to mention all the “she slept her way to the top” mentalities or “he just got that job because he was black.”
Okay, so, for me at least, my conclusion is that gaining some thresholds of power as someone who has been the victim of other people’s -ism doesn’t actually equate to a balancing with those who are -ist, let alone actually give you power over those who are -ist, because the dominant power structure still being in place overrides any individual scenario where the person normally subjected to -ism may be in a position of power over someone who are -ist against them.
So, if if it impossible for a black person to be racist against a white person, it is actually impossible for a woman of any race to be sexist against a man of any race. The power structure is still skewed dominantly male.
Which isn’t to say white women don’t, in other areas, have it easier than non-white men. But the jobs they are getting and keeping are not, frankly, high powered jobs to begin with. And their wage gap has actually been attributed to WHY women are being hired, retained, and promoted (at least to middle management) because it’s cheaper to hire, keep, and promote them than their male counterparts.
And as a last note: “Also, the only men who have a problem with a female in a position above their own are insecure men which discredits any opinion they may have about femininity or masculinity anyways. ”
Maybe that discredits their opinions to you, but that does not in fact discredit their power over women. Frankly, the whole misogyny thing stems from a bunch of men feeling insecure (and I would wager a lot of the racism too). But that also comes from a limited view where only so many people are allowed to have the power/job/whatever and so we have to compete for the limited resource. Thus, if a woman has it, a man doesn’t. And if a black man has it, a white man doesn’t. So in order for the white men of the world to keep the power/jobs/whatever they have to make sure the other side doesn’t get it.
(Note: not saying all white men feel this way, or even most–just saying that a particular group of them that tend to be racist and sexist and homophobic do–your marriage threatens my marriage, etc. They must really love it when their friends get divorced. More marriage for them!)
I really hate zero-sum thinking.
I wish “shut the fuck up” worked. As you can imagine, his gullible minions say the same thing to me.
O’Reilly’s word for Beck’s opinion of the World Cup?
Pinhead. That’s about right.
http://www.sharethisurlaboutglennbeck.com/2010/06/bill-oreilly-beck-is-pinhead.html