yeah, she's so full of shit because she actually wrote a book on a serious topic based on specific historical and cultural facts. Do you understand what 'satire' is? Do you think that Steven Colbert is a serious journalist asking real questions? Did you even watch the piece?
I thought this was one of the funniest things I have seen on the Report, but obviously not for the same reason you did.
She said he is not 'Black' as defined historically in the context of the US. And in that context, despite what you may want to be true, that would indeed be the case. What she is talking about is clearly up for debate and discussion, but to say she is full of shit based on what that clip shows is just retarded.
yeah, she's so full of shit because she actually wrote a book on a serious topic based on specific historical and cultural facts. Do you understand what 'satire' is? Do you think that Steven Colbert is a serious journalist asking real questions? Did you even watch the piece?
I thought this was one of the funniest things I have seen on the Report, but obviously not for the same reason you did.
She said he is not 'Black' as defined historically in the context of the US. And in that context, despite what you may want to be true, that would indeed be the case. What she is talking about is clearly up for debate and discussion, but to say she is full of shit based on what that clip shows is just retarded.
I didn't read the book, just watched the show. I'll have to look up this "satire" word you speak of.
Words aren't defined historically. They're defined in common use. And where the fuck did she give specific historical facts in this interview? She said Obama is not black "in the American political context", which is also false and has no basis in reality.
I saw this last week. She definitely didn't know how to address some of Colbert's comments. It was hilariously uncomfortable. I am almost finished with Obama's latest book, and he has a whole chapter about race. Alan Keyes basically repeated the same argument as this woman, of course more fanatically.
Obama says that, while he is not the descendent of slaves, he has felt comfortable embracing traditional black culture, as it surrounds his adopted church where he was baptized as an adult, on the South Side of Chicago.
Birdman, while she probably has some good points, based on that interview, I would not read her book; she came off horribly, as an awful debater, and got twisted in her own logic by a guy who's schtick is pretty well known at this point.
She may be intelligent, and she probably has some interesting things to say on this topic. But, in this one interview, she came off as full of shit, unprepared, and not at ALL compelling.
If you have another, more serious interview, or perhaps a snippet of the book you would like to contribute, I'm open to being swayed. I REALLY respect her resume, and as daily slate reader, i know they don't make it habit of hiring the full of shit. But coming down on the poster for his take on this is silly- She DID look bad. While this may be an exception to the rule, it was on national television, and she should have been more aware of that.
yeah, she's so full of shit because she actually wrote a book on a serious topic based on specific historical and cultural facts. Do you understand what 'satire' is? Do you think that Steven Colbert is a serious journalist asking real questions? Did you even watch the piece?
I thought this was one of the funniest things I have seen on the Report, but obviously not for the same reason you did.
She said he is not 'Black' as defined historically in the context of the US. And in that context, despite what you may want to be true, that would indeed be the case. What she is talking about is clearly up for debate and discussion, but to say she is full of shit based on what that clip shows is just retarded.
I didn't read the book, just watched the show. I'll have to look up this "satire" word you speak of.
Words aren't defined historically. They're defined in common use. And where the fuck did she give specific historical facts in this interview? She said Obama is not black "in the American political context", which is also false and has no basis in reality.
Words also don't simply have one meaning. She was referring to the concept of 'Blackness', which last I checked was a pretty loaded term, and one that is the subject of much debate. I find it interesting how anxious you are to discredit her work based on one satirical interview.
Birdman, while she probably has some good points, based on that interview, I would not read her book; she came off horribly, as an awful debater, and got twisted in her own logic by a guy who's schtick is pretty well known at this point.
She may be intelligent, and she probably has some interesting things to say on this topic. But, in this one interview, she came off as full of shit, unprepared, and not at ALL compelling.
If you have another, more serious interview, or perhaps a snippet of the book you would like to contribute, I'm open to being swayed. I REALLY respect her resume, and as daily slate reader, i know they don't make it habit of hiring the full of shit. But coming down on the poster for his take on this is silly- She DID look bad. While this may be an exception to the rule, it was on national television, and she should have been more aware of that.
I thought she came off as most people do on that show, as someone who had a sense of humor about herself, and thought she got some pretty funny jabs in on Colbert (the part about fulfilling MLK's dream in a perverse, as opposed to special way, was pretty funny). Granted, I am not here to push her book, I just think that the clip was funny because of Colbert's feigned ignorance and reluctance to 'see color' and her reaction to that as opposed to her being a fool who is drawing conclusions on a topic that has absolutely no basis in reality, as Zen2 put it.
Can we all agree the clip is funny? How is that for being a unifier?
Words also don't simply have one meaning. She was referring to the concept of 'Blackness', which last I checked was a pretty loaded term, and one that is the subject of much debate. I find it interesting how anxious you are to discredit her work based on one satirical interview.
Seems like you came into watching this having been familiar with her work, so maybe you failed to notice how weak and unfounded her arguments were in Colbert's interview.
Yes, the definition of 'blackness' is less than concrete. Exactly why she looked stupid declaring on national television that Obama is "NOT BLACK" with such resolution. I get real tired of hearing dumb shit like this. I'm sure there's an entire continent that would take issue with her ignorant claims. I'll let you guess which one.
Words also don't simply have one meaning. She was referring to the concept of 'Blackness', which last I checked was a pretty loaded term, and one that is the subject of much debate. I find it interesting how anxious you are to discredit her work based on one satirical interview.
Seems like you came into watching this having been familiar with her work, so maybe you failed to notice how weak and unfounded her arguments were in Colbert's interview.
Yes, the definition of 'blackness' is less than concrete. Exactly why she looked stupid declaring on national television that Obama is "NOT BLACK" with such resolution. I get real tired of hearing dumb shit like this. I'm sure there's an entire continent that would take issue with her ignorant claims. I'll let you guess which one.
Her argument is in the context of the history of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And it's part of a larger argument on the concept of Blackness, which she clearly stated in the clip! I don't assume that people in Africa have discussions about their 'blackness' in the context of United States, unless they live here. Why is it so difficult to accept that there are layers to this? That it is not all encapsulated in a simple term?
Why is it so difficult to accept that there are layers to this? That it is not all encapsulated in a simple term?
Because she herself encapsulated it in a single term. And once again, in the interview, she wasn't speaking historically, only politically. Watch again if you don't believe me.
Her argument is in the context of the history of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
For the sake of argument:
When in history has the term "black" been confined to descendants of slaves? I'm pretty sure Kenyan immigrants weren't drinking from the "white" water fountains back in the day.
I watched this episode last night and thought it was pretty funny. The way colbert can twist logic is awesome, because the "real news" people do it all the time, they just don't realize how ridiculous their shit is. Every time Colbert does the "I don't see color. I know I'm white because..." schtick it absolutely kills me.
Is Obama black? Well, he's blacker than me. The only way to tell for real is to see if he is friends with Dolo.
Her argument is in the context of the history of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
For the sake of argument:
When in history has the term "black" been confined to descendants of slaves? I'm pretty sure Kenyan immigrants weren't drinking from the "white" water fountains back in the day.
African-Americans weren't called 'Black' then by the establishment, they were 'Negroes', and obviously, a Kenyan at the time would have been identified by Whites as 'Negro'. Her point, and it is a point she made clearly, is that the term is too simplistic to describe everyone under it's umbrella. I don't believe this author is on a crusade to call Obama out as 'Not Black', but rather use his visibilty to elevate the debate she has spent some time researching.
"This is not a critique of him, what this is is a critique of White self-congratulation."
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
What's funny to me is when I hear an American refer to a British black person as "African-American".
Her argument is in the context of the history of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
For the sake of argument:
When in history has the term "black" been confined to descendants of slaves? I'm pretty sure Kenyan immigrants weren't drinking from the "white" water fountains back in the day.
African-Americans weren't called 'Black' then by the establishment, they were 'Negroes', and obviously, a Kenyan at the time would have been identified by Whites as 'Negro'. Her point, and it is a point she made clearly, is that the term is too simplistic to describe everyone under it's umbrella. I don't believe this author is on a crusade to call Obama out as 'Not Black', but rather use his visibilty to elevate the debate she has spent some time researching.
"This is not a critique of him, what this is is a critique of White self-congratulation."
Ok, so if I have this straight:
'Black' is too simplistic a term in her opinion, but 'white' is ok? (I'm assuming she must believe this seeing as how she sprinkles the term all through the interview).
Or are 'white' people only considered 'white' if they're descended from slave OWNERS? Because THAT might actually bring some sense to her argument.
Puhleese. She's just a pundit manipulating some interesting sociology in order to sell herself. Yes, there are many different ways to conceptualize blackness, and the division between black people with slavery in their ancestry and those without is very interesting. But no one should be going on television calling someone out for not being black or black enough on those grounds.
Puhleese. She's just a pundit manipulating some interesting sociology in order to sell herself. Yes, there are many different ways to conceptualize blackness, and the division between black people with slavery in their ancestry and those without is very interesting. But no one should be going on television calling someone out for not being black or black enough on those grounds.
Colbert clowned on her so hard, it was amazing.
This will be her life moment in the public light, but it will be an ignominious one. From the opinion of someone who's read her articles on Salon for a few years now (and I clearly recall the ensuing deluge of reader mail from all races when this article was first posted), Ms. Dickerson is not nearly as deep as she seems. She raises pithy and absorbing societal issues, but often fails in her conveyance or concept of them - especially as they concern the younger generation; just read her account of the displaced family of that lived next to her (another article). She often straddles the lines between naivete, the most annoying aspects of old-school feminism, and the bothersome ability to assume that she is speaking for all Black people currently living (note this tripartite tone succinctly iterated in the "all blacks are for Hillary, anyway" line she carelessly throws in the middle of the piece).
There is certainly substance to the question of "who am I?" as asked by African-Americans. Frankly, the majority of Black people in this country have had almost nothing but the color of their skin since their forced arrival to this country. The diaspora of any culture - especially under such circumstances - will always carry in their minds necessary questions of identification. I see this Obama matter as an issue for the African-American old guard in this country (mindset-wise) in that their time is naturally ebbing away, but they don't want the current and future generations to forget their past (a la Santayana's famous aphorism). There's nothing wrong with this; as this county gets more integrated and less absorbed with race, I find it hard to believe that a lot of traditional Blacks wouldn't feel like their culture is becoming forgotten and their Blackness discarded, id est, all their forefathers had to their name. This is strong and salient and cannot be brushed away. The problem is that Ms. Dickerson seems to think that she is on the cutting edge of the Black conception of Who Is Black. The structure of racial discourse is changing by the decade, and for Ms. Dickerson to predicate her opinion on the premise that "The most popular Black politician in the history of this country - a potential uniter for the ages - is not Black, people! He's not one of us!" - and then go on to talk about this on television smacks of either racial elitism or look-at-me-ism. Nobody likes a wet blanket, and nobody likes to be spoken for, especially when the country as a whole seems to be taking another small step forward in civil rights history.
The day it was posted on Salon.com, I showed Ms. Dickerson's article to a 30-something African-American workplace associate; my friend couldn't even read past the first paragraph. "I don't need to," she said. "That's some bullshit." Ms. Dickerson is perhaps onto something, but no one in the mainstream - in Chicago, at least, where Obama is seemingly every Democrat's blood brother - will begin to listen to her until she softens her absolutist assertions. Questions are honey, and statements are vinegar for most of us flies.
It's a fascinating topic to try to operationally define "black". It is important--as I've brought up before--in discussing reparations and affirmative action. For her, blackness means being a descendant of West African slaves. I honestly see her point. When I was growing up in the south, I took this for granted until I moved to DC and heard from the many first and second generation Nigerians and Ethiopians that they feel fundamentally disconnected from American's definition of blackness. In fact, one has to ask what are the differences and similarities among recent African immigrants and other immigrants to the United States? I have a close friend who is a first generation immigrant from Romania and another who is a second generation from Ghana. Neither one seems to give fuck about any of this. Anyways, I'm sounding like the "I have black friends" asshole. My point is that how can one claim their Blackness in the context of America without the complex lingering psychological issues of being a few genrations removed from "property"?
For her, blackness means being a descendant of West African slaves.
My biggest problem with this is the double standard that she exercises. She seems perfectly fine with lumping anyone of European decent under the blanket term "white", but has a strict definition for who is "black". Complete bullshit.
I'm waiting for the day that everyone like her takes their archaic separatist ideologies with them to the grave. This "us" vs. "them" mentality is what continuously fucks this country up. We see it on all sides: applied from everything from terrorism to racism, with the only common denominator being the ignorance of the fucks of all colors and nationalities perpetuating this nonsense.
For her, blackness means being a descendant of West African slaves.
My biggest problem with this is the double standard that she exercises. She seems perfectly fine with lumping anyone of European decent under the blanket term "white", but has a strict definition for who is "black". Complete bullshit.
I'm waiting for the day that everyone like her takes their archaic separatist ideologies with them to the grave. This "us" vs. "them" mentality is what continuously fucks this country up. We see it on all sides: applied from everything from terrorism to racism, with the only common denominator being the ignorance of the fucks of all colors and nationalities perpetuating this nonsense.
over
Again, I think it's good that she keeps the discussion focused on the slave trade in the New World and its lingering effects--if only by proxy through her narrow definition of "black". If you want to talk about "what fucks this country up" look at how we keep diluting a real discussion of slavery or simply ignoring it all together.
ZEN2
1,540 Posts
Comments
yeah, she's so full of shit because she actually wrote a book on a serious topic based on specific historical and cultural facts. Do you understand what 'satire' is? Do you think that Steven Colbert is a serious journalist asking real questions? Did you even watch the piece?
I thought this was one of the funniest things I have seen on the Report, but obviously not for the same reason you did.
She said he is not 'Black' as defined historically in the context of the US. And in that context, despite what you may want to be true, that would indeed be the case. What she is talking about is clearly up for debate and discussion, but to say she is full of shit based on what that clip shows is just retarded.
I didn't read the book, just watched the show. I'll have to look up this "satire" word you speak of.
Words aren't defined historically. They're defined in common use. And where the fuck did she give specific historical facts in this interview? She said Obama is not black "in the American political context", which is also false and has no basis in reality.
I saw this last week. She definitely didn't know how to address some of Colbert's comments. It was hilariously uncomfortable. I am almost finished with Obama's latest book, and he has a whole chapter about race. Alan Keyes basically repeated the same argument as this woman, of course more fanatically.
Obama says that, while he is not the descendent of slaves, he has felt comfortable embracing traditional black culture, as it surrounds his adopted church where he was baptized as an adult, on the South Side of Chicago.
So why exactly did you find this funny?
She may be intelligent, and she probably has some interesting things to say on this topic. But, in this one interview, she came off as full of shit, unprepared, and not at ALL compelling.
If you have another, more serious interview, or perhaps a snippet of the book you would like to contribute, I'm open to being swayed. I REALLY respect her resume, and as daily slate reader, i know they don't make it habit of hiring the full of shit. But coming down on the poster for his take on this is silly- She DID look bad. While this may be an exception to the rule, it was on national television, and she should have been more aware of that.
Words also don't simply have one meaning. She was referring to the concept of 'Blackness', which last I checked was a pretty loaded term, and one that is the subject of much debate. I find it interesting how anxious you are to discredit her work based on one satirical interview.
I thought she came off as most people do on that show, as someone who had a sense of humor about herself, and thought she got some pretty funny jabs in on Colbert (the part about fulfilling MLK's dream in a perverse, as opposed to special way, was pretty funny). Granted, I am not here to push her book, I just think that the clip was funny because of Colbert's feigned ignorance and reluctance to 'see color' and her reaction to that as opposed to her being a fool who is drawing conclusions on a topic that has absolutely no basis in reality, as Zen2 put it.
Can we all agree the clip is funny? How is that for being a unifier?
Seems like you came into watching this having been familiar with her work, so maybe you failed to notice how weak and unfounded her arguments were in Colbert's interview.
Yes, the definition of 'blackness' is less than concrete. Exactly why she looked stupid declaring on national television that Obama is "NOT BLACK" with such resolution. I get real tired of hearing dumb shit like this. I'm sure there's an entire continent that would take issue with her ignorant claims. I'll let you guess which one.
Agreed. Definitely a top 10 Colbert moment.
Her argument is in the context of the history of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. And it's part of a larger argument on the concept of Blackness, which she clearly stated in the clip! I don't assume that people in Africa have discussions about their 'blackness' in the context of United States, unless they live here. Why is it so difficult to accept that there are layers to this? That it is not all encapsulated in a simple term?
Because she herself encapsulated it in a single term. And once again, in the interview, she wasn't speaking historically, only politically. Watch again if you don't believe me.
For the sake of argument:
When in history has the term "black" been confined to descendants of slaves? I'm pretty sure Kenyan immigrants weren't drinking from the "white" water fountains back in the day.
I watched this episode last night and thought it was pretty funny. The way colbert can twist logic is awesome, because the "real news" people do it all the time, they just don't realize how ridiculous their shit is. Every time Colbert does the "I don't see color. I know I'm white because..." schtick it absolutely kills me.
Is Obama black? Well, he's blacker than me. The only way to tell for real is to see if he is friends with Dolo.
African-Americans weren't called 'Black' then by the establishment, they were 'Negroes', and obviously, a Kenyan at the time would have been identified by Whites as 'Negro'. Her point, and it is a point she made clearly, is that the term is too simplistic to describe everyone under it's umbrella. I don't believe this author is on a crusade to call Obama out as 'Not Black', but rather use his visibilty to elevate the debate she has spent some time researching.
"This is not a critique of him, what this is is a critique of White self-congratulation."
That and the whole "My Black Friend Alan" thing.
Ok, so if I have this straight:
'Black' is too simplistic a term in her opinion, but 'white' is ok? (I'm assuming she must believe this seeing as how she sprinkles the term all through the interview).
Or are 'white' people only considered 'white' if they're descended from slave OWNERS? Because THAT might actually bring some sense to her argument.
God that was unreadable.
Colbert clowned on her so hard, it was amazing.
"Barack Obama is nooooot black!"
This will be her life moment in the public light, but it will be an ignominious one. From the opinion of someone who's read her articles on Salon for a few years now (and I clearly recall the ensuing deluge of reader mail from all races when this article was first posted), Ms. Dickerson is not nearly as deep as she seems. She raises pithy and absorbing societal issues, but often fails in her conveyance or concept of them - especially as they concern the younger generation; just read her account of the displaced family of that lived next to her (another article). She often straddles the lines between naivete, the most annoying aspects of old-school feminism, and the bothersome ability to assume that she is speaking for all Black people currently living (note this tripartite tone succinctly iterated in the "all blacks are for Hillary, anyway" line she carelessly throws in the middle of the piece).
There is certainly substance to the question of "who am I?" as asked by African-Americans. Frankly, the majority of Black people in this country have had almost nothing but the color of their skin since their forced arrival to this country. The diaspora of any culture - especially under such circumstances - will always carry in their minds necessary questions of identification. I see this Obama matter as an issue for the African-American old guard in this country (mindset-wise) in that their time is naturally ebbing away, but they don't want the current and future generations to forget their past (a la Santayana's famous aphorism). There's nothing wrong with this; as this county gets more integrated and less absorbed with race, I find it hard to believe that a lot of traditional Blacks wouldn't feel like their culture is becoming forgotten and their Blackness discarded, id est, all their forefathers had to their name. This is strong and salient and cannot be brushed away. The problem is that Ms. Dickerson seems to think that she is on the cutting edge of the Black conception of Who Is Black. The structure of racial discourse is changing by the decade, and for Ms. Dickerson to predicate her opinion on the premise that "The most popular Black politician in the history of this country - a potential uniter for the ages - is not Black, people! He's not one of us!" - and then go on to talk about this on television smacks of either racial elitism or look-at-me-ism. Nobody likes a wet blanket, and nobody likes to be spoken for, especially when the country as a whole seems to be taking another small step forward in civil rights history.
The day it was posted on Salon.com, I showed Ms. Dickerson's article to a 30-something African-American workplace associate; my friend couldn't even read past the first paragraph. "I don't need to," she said. "That's some bullshit." Ms. Dickerson is perhaps onto something, but no one in the mainstream - in Chicago, at least, where Obama is seemingly every Democrat's blood brother - will begin to listen to her until she softens her absolutist assertions. Questions are honey, and statements are vinegar for most of us flies.
My biggest problem with this is the double standard that she exercises. She seems perfectly fine with lumping anyone of European decent under the blanket term "white", but has a strict definition for who is "black". Complete bullshit.
I'm waiting for the day that everyone like her takes their archaic separatist ideologies with them to the grave. This "us" vs. "them" mentality is what continuously fucks this country up. We see it on all sides: applied from everything from terrorism to racism, with the only common denominator being the ignorance of the fucks of all colors and nationalities perpetuating this nonsense.
Again, I think it's good that she keeps the discussion focused on the slave trade in the New World and its lingering effects--if only by proxy through her narrow definition of "black". If you want to talk about "what fucks this country up" look at how we keep diluting a real discussion of slavery or simply ignoring it all together.