Moreover, far from nihilistically renouncing nature, the marriage movement aims at reclaiming the mantle of nature for homosexuals alongside our heterosexual peers and siblings and parents. We know now that same-gender attraction, bonding and sex is ubiquitous in nature, and almost certainly has some evolutionary explanation. We know too, experientially, that the love cherished by many gay couples is real and beautiful and deeply human. It is not merely "contractual" or "nihilist". It is organic, natural and completing. It is humanizing and it is civilizing. History is full of such relationships, and they stand proudly alongside their heterosexual peers. The reduction of these shared lives and loves to abstract sexual acts is itself a form of bigotry. It is an attempt to reduce the full and complex human being to one aspect of his or her humanness. It is, in my view, anti-Christian to speak of gays the way this Pope does. The Christian calling is not to guard ferociously the ramparts of the 1950s out of fear but to listen to the experiences of gay people - what the Second Vatican Council calls the sensus fidelium - and try to integrate their humanity into the structures from which they have been so cruelly excluded, with such horrible human consequences, for so long.
It is Rod's self-evident panic at the thought of such an integration that has made some of us sit up and take note. There is some lurking fear that if this form of being human is recognized as equal in the civil sphere, let alone the sacred one, then the entire edifice of heterosexuality and marriage and family will somehow be destroyed or undermined. I do not believe that in any way. And I don't think it's possible to believe that without, at some level, engaging in homophobia - literally an irrational and exaggerated fear that the gay somehow always obliterates the straight, or that 2 percent somehow always controls the fate of 98 percent. This is where paranoia and panic take over. It is where homophobia most feels like anti-Semitism.
Be not afraid, as Pope John Paul II kept telling us. Of what should we not be afraid? We should not be afraid of the truth about ourselves.
That last point about paranoia is key, and it really defines, not just anti-Semitism, but bigotry itself. The most laughable aspect of America's long war against racism, is the justification racist would always trot out--the specter of interracial union. I can remember being a kid and reading about black folks struggling for some small right, that, these days, we take for granted. So you'd have some black dude who'd been born a slave, in some one room shack, but had risen to become a lawyer, arguing for, say, school funding for black kids in rural Alabama. And then you'd see some bigot responding with, essentially, the following, "If we give the nigras school funding, they'll take our women! Do you want a nigra marrying yer daughter?!?!?"
I would read that and think, "What? The dude just wants some textbooks, WTF??" There's this great riff in Wattstax where Richard Pryor talks about Southern whites accusing a black dude of raping some white guy's wife. The guy brings out his wife and says something like, "The nigger raped her!" The assembled black folks look at the guy's wife who, let's just say is not Scarlett O'Hara, and go, "You sure??"
But in the white male paranoid mind, the deepest ambition of all black men lay between the two legs of some white woman--any white woman. And white women, of course lacking any real agency in the narrative, joyfully go along. Or are forcibly carried along. From that perspective, white racism really is a fear of a black planet--and (paradoxically) of white women.
Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose. The fears are almost always irrational. To go back to Chuck D, perhaps he was too cold when he said, "Man, I don't want your sister." But there was deep truth in it, the idea was, "Fool, this ain't about you and your fucked-up sexual hangups." In much the same vein when I read people complaining that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, I think, "Fool, these gay motherfuckers ain't thinking about your marriage. This ain't about you and your hang-ups."
Bigotry is the heaping of one man's insecurity on to another. Sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-immigrantism, really all come from the same place--cowardice. In his history of lynching, Phillip Dray
notes that mob violence against black men wasn't simply about keeping
black men in their place--it was about keeping white women in their
place. Lynching peaked as white women went to work outside the home in
greater numbers, developing their own financial power base. White men,
afraid that they couldn't compete with their women, would cowardly
resort to lynching. I am not saying that the anti-gay marriage crowd is
a lynch mob. But in tying opposition to the sexual revolution what you
see is, beyond a fear of gay marriage, a fear for marriage itself. A
fear that their way of life can't compete in these new times. It's ridiculous, of course. But bigotry always is.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose.
That's beautiful. It reminds me I got robocalled last night to call my representative and urge him to oppose gay marriage. Makes me so angry.
Oh, TNC.
Most of this was powerful, and useful, and then you trot out a "joke" that trivializes rape, attempting to characterize a woman as "not hot enough to rape."
Because, you know, rape really is a compliment, right?
That's not ok.
Note: not justifying the ignorant stereotype you were trying to make fun of. Just pointing out a different, and equally lethal and disgusting, piece of ignorance.
I really expect so much better from you. =(
Yes, I thought about that when I wrote that story down. My intent wasn't to trivialize rape, it was to trivialize the rather shameful tradition of using "the idea of rape" to justify the persecution of blacks. The response is ridiculous because of this idea that only "pretty" women get raped. But it highlights the ridiculousness of the accusation--that black men are out to rape all white women.
That said, I'm still turning the joke over in my head. I think the most disturbing part is probably the Scarlett O'Hara thing--as if you don't meet some arbitrary standard you can't be raped. That's problematic. And to the extent that I'm endorsing it, I'm wrong. And you're right to expect better.
Perhaps a better joke to use is the scene in Blazing Saddles where Bart (Cleavon Little?) says "Where the white women at?" to a couple of KKK guys.
Thanks for responding, and for thinking about it. I actually saw the point that you were trying to make, and in some ways that made it a little worse.
The particular piece of asinine paranoia you were talking about (ZOMG THEY COMIN FOR OUR WIMMINS WITH THEIR BIG BLACK COCKS!!!11!!) would be hilarious, itself, if it hadn't killed so many people. And the paranoia inherent in (inherent to?) bigotry is an important thing to address But using another damaging stereotype, (or, maybe cultural meme is a better phrase?) to illustrate your point, in my mind, both reinforces the damaging meme(not pretty enough to be raped) and, in this case, trivializes another very real problem (rape.)
This is another "walk and chew gum" sort of thing, I think. We can talk about one sort of stupid in our culture without dismissing people fighting against a different sort of stupid. I'm not sure any of this makes sense on the outside of my head, but I wanted to say it anyway.
Thank you again for responding, and for being willing to think about criticism without dismissing out of hand. Also, thank you for sharing your process with us.
I agree with Jess. It was disheartening to read that here, because you generally are so thoughtful about that kind of stuff. Anything that appears to condone the message of "men would only want to rape pretty women" is damaging because, like Jess said, it reinforces the idea that rape is a compliment and she was asking for it and probably liked it. Even though you were invoking it to make another really important point, I just don't feel it's ever justifiable. I'm not sure I understand Mr. Shrimp's argument saying that the joke demonstrates that rape isn't about physical attractiveness. I haven't seen the whole thing (couldn't find it on YouTube- anyone have a link?), but the part quoted here doesn't seem to challenge the meme of "not pretty enough to be raped."
I think the important difference is that it wasn't Coates's own joke. He was bringing up a specific piece of cultural production that addresses the issue at hand. That in and of itself is not an endorsement of its content. If anyone attempting to discuss an issue historically has to vouch for every aspect of a film, book, or song that relates to the topic, we'll find that our books and our essays will be very empty. We also run the risk of creating a censored category of "safe" material that narrows any discussion. I'm glad that Coates came out and noted the problematic nature of the skit, it's important that he do so, but we have to stop short of deciding what is and isn't appropriate in an historical discussion of a subject because very soon we won't be able to talk about anything in our past.
When using an example like this, I think the rule of thumb is to cite the author, describe when it was made, and discuss its content without personally excusing its failings. If you can take the time, maybe do a little analysis of the piece. I'd love to see a little something about the use of misogyny to deflect racism, which is a salient topic especially in the male-led 1960s and 70s POC movements. The reader can then make their judgements about the work, including its successes and failures.
Persia, you beat me to it. I had already copied that exact quote to compliment TNC on it. It's a profound truth, beautifully stated.
Jess, I see where you're coming from, but I think point of this Richard Pryor riff was to illustrate the arrogance TNC is talking about, exactly BECAUSE rape is obviously not about physical attraction. It's a way of showing just how completely ridiculous the white fear of black men raping white women is by responding in a completely ridiculous way.
That situation (black accused of raping white woman) led to a lot of lynchings. Not funny at all, in fact, but horribly tragic. And Pryor mastered it by laughing directly at it. That's my take.
I agree, Mr. Shrimp, and not just because you liked the same quote I did. The Pryor riff attacks the whole frame-- that black men rape white women because they're desirable and attractive, that black sexuality is out of control and the cause of rape, etc.
I agree, also because the joke mocks and belittles people who would LIE about rape as an excuse to vent their hate.
Strong post and well written. I plan on subtly incorporating your ideas into my debates with my in-laws about the gay marriage thing. After reading your post their irrational reactions make so much more sense now. They are SCARED out of their minds, yet I cannot for the life of me figure out what the hell is so scary about two people who love each other making the decision to get married. It in turn pisses me off and takes me further from any real understanding of the opposition.
The direct correlation between BIGOTRY and ARROGANCE was especially penetrating, drove right to the core of a complex issue. I'd love to see you explore this more in the future, it's a powerful synergy.
What you wrote was brilliant on a bunch of levels. It's why I come to this site, I tend to LEARN something when I do. Thanks for that.
Yes.
Bigotry is so connected to fear... and that's why we must always remember what the Bene Gessirit taught us...
I must not fear.
Fear is the mind-killer.
Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration.
I will face my fear.
I will permit it to pass over me and through me.
And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path.
Where the fear has gone there will be nothing.
Only I will remain.
Perhaps Rod should think on this...
It's partly about fear, yeah. I'm not sure it's all about fear, though. A lot of it is about the idea of "contamination" and "loss of purity" (along with fear of those, of course). And that is old, old stuff I'm talking about. Every human society in human history has contamination taboos of some kind - who's allowed to eat with who, how clean certain animals are, who can marry who.
Even "enlightened" society still has them. Imagine an 18 year old woman marrying an 85 year old man (or an 18 year old man marrying an 85 year old woman). Kind of ick, right? Yet there's nothing intellectually wrong with it, assuming there's consent and they genuinely love each other. And we don't make it particularly illegal. But I'd bet most people would still have that gut reaction of being pretty grossed out by the idea of it, because it's something people generally judge to be taboo. I think that at least some of the bigotry is coming from a place very much like that. It's a gut reaction, not an intellectual one.
My girlfriend taught "Harold and Maude" in her fiction class last year, and that "ick" reaction was pretty commonplace. She used that to her advantage, especially since there are so many reverse examples that don't quite elicit the same response.
Arguably, that "ick" factor comes from irrational fear of old people, a bigotry pervasive in our culture. It would be interesting to know if cultures with less or no ageism have bias against these May-December relationships...
Tel,
I get your point about contamination and ick.. but two things..
1. I think you could actually distinguish between "ick" and "contamination" a bit more.. Contamination is a lot more than just "ick".. Contamination with diseases (real or imagined) generates fear (you want to flee or fight it) that and that can lead to bigotry.. "ick" on the other hand may be similar--but there are lots of "icky" things that have less to do with contamination and more to deal with things we find gross.. such as "old wrinkly bodies having sex" that don't generate fear so much but just make you want to look away. I admit that there are some grey areas here, but while I find the crud at the bottom of a sink when I do dishes (or something left in the fridge too long) to be "icky" it doesn't generate any fear in me...
2. Taking #1 into account.. I don't think it is the "ick" factor that some associate with gays or blacks or whomever is what drives the bigotry. To use a concrete example--my parents are boomers and they have a few gay friends. These friends do make my mom uncomfortable.. and I know for a fact it is the "ick" factor of, let's all say it loud, BUTT SEX! But despite my mom's ick factor, she makes due. She overcomes it quite easily when she needs to, even if she doesn't "understand the gay lifestyle" as she would put it.
Mom, however, also grew up in Indiana and was always somewhat of a racist.. not openly and not a lot, but always underlying... she made assumptions about blacks and said things implying their inferiority at times.. which she would crouch in terms like "black culture," which she didn't know at all and understood even less... and in these pronouncements (and in other actions) I could tell that it was fear that drove this racism... she found blacks threatening for some reason.. and that led to far stronger pronouncements against them then she ever had about gays..
Thus.. perhaps this is just my experience.. but I still think that fear is the key.. "ickiness" may come into the mix.. as an added "bonus".. but taboo's based on ick are rarely enough to generate full scale bigotry ...
For these reasons, I find it especially interesting to see who is terrified of gay marriage (and historically who was terrified of interracial marriage..) and it goes so way beyond "ick" in almost all cases... You may not want to witness an "icky gay marriage" but would you seriously spend millions and millions of dollars to change the laws to forbid it unless you felt really afraid of it? I doubt it and wonder what actually is generating the fear.. perhaps that gays and the way that they have not often managed but thrive in modernity--could even more completely undermine the "traditional mindset" of conservatives that want to take us back to the 50's?
it does make one wonder..
And don't forget: the spice must flow.
I've always loved that "poem."
Reminds me of college...used to have it on the bottom of my skateboard.
Back to the task at hand:
I'm thankful that I come from a generation that has less of this baggage than the last (or so it appears to me). I was devastated when I realized the degree to which my parents had it - although in my case the male was white (me), the fear was still there. It was so strange to me that me (ignorant white boy I know, I know) that I couldn't even see it at first - when I should have been expecting it (sad, I know - but that's averages for you).
I mean, I've got my silly prejudices, biases and stereotypes that I occasionally succumb to but I just can't "get into the mindset" where "but X race will marry/sexup race Y" is ever a bad thing. So of course they have to pile the rape angle on there...
As an extension of that I have an even harder time understanding fear of gay marriage. It sure is hard to work the rape angle into that - "Oh no that married couple is going to rape you!" just isn't a good enough meme. So they go for the child molester angle - or used to at least. They've probably got some new code words now. I don't know I avoid the MSM and ignorant people like the plague.
Gay marriage is about the most logically nonthreatening thing I can think of in this arena.
Gotta love laborious abandonment of logic and subsumation of intellect to rote & repetitive religion.
*sigh*
Oh TNC, this qoute was the best for me."Bigotry is the heaping of one man's insecurity on to another. Sexism, racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism, anti-Islamism, anti-immigrantism, really all come from the same place--cowardice." Persia you were dead on also.
I can see, disgusting as it is, the "logic" that the racists are using.
And definitely the way that anti-gay-marriage activists portray it is as if gay marriage is somehow going to destroy not-gay-marriage. But it's the complete and totally lunacy of that statement that I don't get. There isn't even a tenuous relationship between their fears and the reality -- there's no way that two gay individuals getting married affects two straight individuals getting married.
The only way (and the least justifiable) way I can think of is that it's just entirely an exclusivity thing -- "marriage" is only important if we can exclude people from it.
Of course, I support not letting the government define who is married (or not) at all.
A fear that their way of life can't compete in these new times.
This is a very astute observation. Though, I don't think it's ridiculous. The kind of marriage 'marriage protectors' champion, which is very nostalgic and often includes a longing for less female agency and more male determinism, less state support (in the form of policies regarding parental leave and childcare) really can't survive in these times. We have yet to really grapple with the ways that the institution needs to develop, not only informally, which has been happening over the years, but formally in terms of government policies. Marriage cannot look today the way it did in the 1950s and there's no going back, but many of the same folks championing anti-gay marriage policies as threats to heterosexual marriage are wanting to stand athwart history regarding a number of the realities shaping familial relationships this century.
That nostalgia you describe might be the charming sister of the ugly fear. It's the old lady and her memories of the good days, when people knew where their place was.
And what else than exactly this nostalgia/fear should the term "conservative" refer to. That's why I think it's such a pity that Andrew Sullivan clings to that label.
Perhaps the best novel ever written on the subject of black men and white women is Negrophobia, by Darius James---it's out of print, but absolutely worth tracking down and inhaling. Great post, T-NC.
@TNC:
Funny, and all this time I actually thought that the fruits of citizenship and the Black Freedom Struggle was for the privilege and right to sleep with White women? Or at least to sleep with them and not have to worry about being killed for committing the deed? (insert ironic voice and maniacal laugh)
Your post made me think of Bacon's Rebellion and how white elites in constructing the first slave codes spent so much time fashioning laws that governed sex and the body. For example, if a white women married a black man or had a child by a black man she could be imprisoned, exiled, or herself made a slave. But of course, white men could have access across the colorline to any bodies they wished or desired--the perks of citizenship.
More seriously, the link between citizenship, patriarchy, and the ability to control "one's women"--and who has access to them sexually--has always been one of the central contradictions of democracy in this country, i.e the mass franchise is extended to include all white men, but said white men then can control access to "their" white women (while simultaneously not extending the vote to them). And hysterically police and protect the "virtue" of their women from black, brown, and yellow men through the noose, lash, whip, gun, racial pogram, law, convention, etc. etc.
But turning it around, is black, brown, and Other citizenship configured in a parallel way, certainly not through State sponsored racial violence, but through an obsession with who has the "privilege" of having access to the bodies of the women in the tribe (and now maybe men as well)?
See the paranoia about interracial sex and outmarriage that doesn't drive just old school nationalists, but also more contemporary black gender politics.
And Richard was the truth. He was the standard for all comedians that followed him, and he made all those who preceded him obsolete.
I'm reminded of an episode of Dr. Drew's show on Discovery Health (this was obviously pre-Celebrity Rehab sell out). Drew attempted to figure out the root of homophobia. The ran a CT or an rMRI (I'm not a neurologist, but something that basically measures brain reaction) on straight men shown images of gay pornography--men of various races, beliefs on homosexuality, etc.
They found that their brain's first reaction was not anger, disgust, hate--but fear. All of them. I used to wonder why the term homophobia was used; I never really saw those bigoted against homosexuality as particularly afraid of them. But it turns out they are. Even tolerant or accepting people are afraid. Like any prejudice, it's how you deal with that fear that determines your character.
I remember a certain Fox News host (John something or other, he's on the radio now, blonde hair, big teeth) commenting on the infusion of Mexican immigrants into the US: they mentioned in the relatively near future, whites will be the minority largely due to the mass migration. His solution to this was literally to tell the white people listening to him to have more kids. Obviously that's the most explicit and offensive way of saying what most modern conservatives believe--that we need to keep America in this perfect, happy time, the way it was in the 1950s. You know, the way it was when we didn't have to deal with the black people around?
Anyway, I recommend the movie "Far from Heaven" starring Julianne Moore and Dennis Quaid to anyone who wants to see a very interesting juxtaposition of homophobia and racism. The thing about homophobia that is unique from racism is that we mostly can hide from it if we want to; but it's still the same bigoted fear behind both.
Thanks Mr. C.
Didn't Salman Rushidie Quote Mencken yesterday that "Puritanism is the haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy." I think you got it when you equated bigotry with the projection of personal insecurities onto people that one knows little about. Personaly I think that the tendency to project and the tendency to be afraid of the "other" are derived from a massive ignorance on the part of the bigots. Ignorance is comforting, it shelters one from uncomfortable reality, and keeps the sun and the stars moving around the earth instead of the other way round. Thanks for teaching me a little bit more about things that I need to learn. It seems that spreading knowledge is the only way to combat such feelings of bigotry that seem to be innate to the human condition. eppur si muove
There's a related idea that Robert Lifton talks a lot about in his writing about genocides, apocalyptic cults, neo-fascism, etc. His take on fascist and fundamentalist movements is that they're about fear of the "protean self" - the idea that from here on, there won't be fixed roles into which you can comfortably pigeonhole yourself and others. Not so much the fear that someone may be happy, but the fear that someone is existing outside of the system you understand, and that you might have to learn to do the same - especially if you already have a general fear that things are breaking down in some way, whether it's the economy or class structure or whatever.
People are tempted to take shelter under any system that claims to be a total solution to everything in their lives, that'll exclude all threats and provide a solid identity. That always requires scapegoats and Others.
True enough, however, I would argue that Iconoclasts (image-breakers) are very seldom rewarded in any society. Most of us don't seek to re-evaluate our opinions we only seek confirmation of what we already believe. This tendency transcends ideology, and it doesn't just apply to what you call "neo-fascists" and fundamentalists but to everyone who seeks to shape the world to meet their expectations instead of shaping their expectations to meet the world. As progressive minded people I would argue that we have a responsibility to work for what we see is a better world while realizing that we have no right to impose a certain way of thinking on any group of people. A certain tragic sensibility is absolutely vital to an accurate understanding of the world.
I used to hang out with people who believed that the world would be a better place if we could just get rid of groups like the Westboro Baptist church. personally I don't think so, because it seems that one of the ways that people define concepts is in relation to the opposite value. In a sense it would be a shame if the world lost all of its intolerant people, because these people help us to set limits on our acceptable discourse. I don't condone bigotry but I think that the bigots help the rest of us to define and clarify our positions. After all, no one said that building consensus in a pluralistic society was easy.
"Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose."
On some level it isn't a shocking arrogance. It is a childish conceit. One of the most important lessons for becoming a functioning adult is "It isn't all about me".
It is constantly shocking to people to find that at least 2/3 of the things that they think were 'done to them' were done without any thought about them whatsoever.
You will often hear straight men react to gays with, "he better not try something with me or I'll kick his ass" etc. I'm not saying that there aren't women who are homophobic, but it's pure Bible-belt bullshit and not an "OMG the lezzies in the locker room are checking out my ass!!!!11" kinda thing. And as a straight woman with lesbian friends, the most common question I get from straight men is: "Have they ever come on to you?" or "Don't you feel weird being undressed in front of them?" (i.e. in the locker room or backstage).
Straight women don't go around assuming lesbians are attracted to them, because straight women don't go around assuming they're attractive. That Pryor quote could fit right in with homophobia as well: "Are you sure?"
zacksback, reminds me of an essay I read some years ago that straight men are homophobic, in part, because they are afraid other men will treat/look at them the way they behave around women.
I'm with you up until the second half of the second to last sentence: most straight men don't go around assuming they're attractive, either.
I would say most straight men have a very vague idea of what it would even mean for them to be attractive, besides quantifiable things like having expensive clothes or big muscles. I think there's a flinching reaction that makes it hard to go there: that is, if you're a straight man with an average level of sexual hangups, imagining your own body as being desirable -- by a man or even by a woman -- is dangerously close to stepping out of the bounds of acceptable straight male imagination. Anything touching on that image, if it gets said out loud, is quickly defused with nervous laughter. I'm not talking about poor self-image -- a guy can still insist that "she totally wants me" to the point of narcissistic delusion. But to say "she totally wants me because of my fine ass," or even "because of my pretty eyes," is way less common & less comfortable. So in that mindset, all the stuff you know very well from your own experience of desiring women -- like (a) everyone has different tastes, (b) you don't actually get hot for every member of that sex, and (c) a grown-up person can be hot for someone and still behave politely to them -- doesn't get applied in reverse; it's just "I'm a guy, so girls should want me" or "I'm a guy, so my ass won't be safe in the locker room."
I'm not as straight as I used to be, but still have trouble with this kind of thing. Sometimes life feels like one endless high school gym class.
Posts like this are why I haven't written anything new at my own blog in over a month. Posts like this that make me want to write though too. I hope to capture a bit of the insight & well constructed thoughts you bring to bear in this post & the Mos Def/Hitchens post. The few times I watch the some news or round table show I always wonder why you or someone like you isn't on there commenting instead of the usual drivel.
Heh, I'm not particularly interested ine being on those shows. I guess that's part of the problem.
Anyway you should write more. The only way to get any good is to write a lot of shit that sucks. I'm not saying you suck, I'm saying for all writers part of the challenge is getting past your own suckiness. It's very difficult to commit something to the page that doesn't match what you see in your mind. But you have to do it. A lot. There simply is no other way.
Eddy,
You want to do a post a day for a month with me son? I know we're two days into the month already, but I'll post sometime before midnight if you promise to do the same.
HR
I whole heartedly agree with the overall theme of this post, the ignorance of bigotry and its roots in sexual fears and frustrations. But the Richard Pryor and Chuck D quotes immediately meade me reflect to something I just rewatched recently. That being Chris Rock's recent stand-up. I linked below his thoughts on the issue of black male standards in relation to white women, and its counter to the feeling that Richard Pryor and Chuck D have.
The relevant part comes in at about 4:45:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9xPh1gcwa4
"But in the white male paranoid mind, the deepest ambition of all black men lay between the two legs of some white woman--any white woman."
How is generalizing about "the white male paranoid mind" any better than some white men generalizing that all black men desire white women? I doubt all white male paranoids are paranoid about the same things. Some are paranoid about completely different issues. And are the rantings of some white men the only basis for that stereotype about black men desiring white women? Haven't some blacks stoked it too, e.g., in the movie Undercover Brother? Or was that another case where white people weren't supposed to laugh too hard at one of Dave Chappelle's characters?
I think that here TNC probably meant " in the mind of the paranoid white male". i really don't believe that TNC feels all white men are paranoid racists. However, you are right that when we talk about touchy subjects, we must try more than ever to speak precisely.
I know TNC doesn't think all white men are racists. I'm saying it's not even accurate to generalize that all paranoid white men are paranoid about black men going after their women. Paranoid white men can be - and are - paranoid about different things, some of which have nothing to do with black people.
Because one has the qualifier of "paranoid" and the other doesn't. Moreover, in the context, it's quite clear that I'm talking about white male racism in a particular era, and a particular place.
I leave to you to explore the "basis of the stereotypes about black men desiring white women." The literature out there is extensive. Ditto for what you can and can't laugh at. That's not my place.
OK, I see your point now. Fair enough.
It could have been better written. It could have been expressed with more clarity.
No worries. If you have a chance, I'd be interested in your thoughts on that comment I made about Maxine Waters on the "Putting Mos Def in Context" thread.
Organized religion may well be the necessary training wheels for the bicycle of human morality and existential meaning, but some people can take the training wheels off and learn how to ride without them.
Although I have eschewed organized religion most of my life, including that of my mothers, I believe in God, and for the most part, although never having been a follower of Jesus, live a life that is harmonious with much of Christian morality (often moreso than many Christians I have read, met, or spoken with).
While I am grateful for those in history who have provided humanity with food for thought and the spirit, I am of the school that thinks it is up to the individual to find his or her own meaning out of being alive, up to the individual to learn the poverty of egotism. I look at history and it is quite clear that atrocities done in the name of religion have been piled up end to end in the junkyard of human infamy, that meaninglessness has been repeatedly and massively inflicted upon humanity by those who promote themselves and their distortions in the name of God and religion.
Because we live in a Christian society, I think it is important to point out to Christians that Jesus' great riff on organized religion was to unshackle humanity from a literal understanding of religious teachings--whether that be about keeping the Sabbath or forgiveness. Organized religion of every sect has used doctrine for power, and often so deceptively that those who have led such perversions of the spirit have deceived themselves most, and so remain immune to seeing the larger truth. History is littered with Rod Drehers who sincerely thought they meant well, but could not leave Plato's cave for their addictions to ignorance and "paranoid fear of what one [they] might lose."
In much the same vein when I read people complaining that gay marriage is a threat to traditional marriage, I think, "Fool, these gay motherfuckers ain't thinking about your marriage. This ain't about you and your hang-ups."
I'd say that the best summation of it ever. Because yeah--I'm too busy making sure my own marriage stays healthy to give a fuck about some straight couple I don't know.
Do you want a nigra marrying yer daughter?!?!?"
Well, yeah actually. More Halle Berrys is fine with me. You have be one heckuva racist/bigot/whatever to be against more hot chicks.
Thanks Ta-Nehisi it finally works.
"Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance, a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around your destruction. It is the ultimate narcissism, a way of thinking that can only see others, through a paranoid fear of what one might lose. The fears are almost always irrational."
My intial thought is this is dead on but on second thought it isn't because destruction is being held to the status of self. Destruction is more the warning from the Prince Chapter 17...but above all things he must keep his hands off the property of others, because men more quickly forget the death of their father than the loss of their patrimony. Patrimony here refers to their economic circumstances, i.e. their income. Any threat against it is responded to by force. As you point out lynching declined as white men chose to send their women to work to support their families income. Marriage has become a susbsitute for income. The hatred is another person into the pool of labor diminishing his/her wages and privledges bought w/ it. In this case it is homosexuals having the privledge of income.
Basically, TNH, I disagree.
The "spectre of interracial union" was a strong motivator for so long not because it was improbable, but because it was a reality of Southern society. (See: W. Faulkner, collected works.) White men (and women) were terrified of black emancipation because the rape of black women by white men was a given of the society. Of course the Golden Rule looked like an awful threat: "what you did shall be done to you in turn" is terrifying what what you've done is rape, abuse, and oppression.
A lot of straight-male homophobia (e.g. the "gay panic" defense) looks to me like a Golden Rule Threat, where what men fear is being thought of the way they think of women. Look at what Hob wrote above @2:23 -- he (and IMHO many straight men -- see: J. Apatow, collected works) can't imagine themselves as sexy, because that would mean ... what?
That you're an object, a thing, I guess. I don't know! I'm a woman, so it all seems incredibly frakked up and mysterious to me. Subtractive masculinity is the best explanation I've been able to come up with.
Along similar lines, I've read that a significant unconscious aspect of opposition to gay marriage may be that it throws established sex roles in every marriage open to negotiation. This has been evolving for decades, of course, but this culture still has fairly defined roles for men and women in a marriage. If any two men or any two women could decide who's to be the provider, who's to be the caretaker, to what degree they share these burdens in a marriage, that really undermines any argument for the traditional roles in mixed-gender marriages.
Oh, I think this is absolutely true -- I assume that's what they mean when they say "SSM is a threat to my traditional marriage!" If marriage is between any two *people*, than any two people are truly equal, not some God- or anatomically-given Dom/sub relationship.
This is why IMHO same-sex marriage is a woman's rights issue.
....
eep. I never thought of that. Gak. The paranoid circles just get tighter and tighter...
One thing that nobody has mentioned so far is the fact that the bigot who saw in school textbooks the first step toward interracial marriage was RIGHT.
The Civil Rights movement was the product of a Southern black bourgeoisie that had finally, gradually clawed its way up into social spheres that were once almost exclusively white. The attack on the arbitrary nature of skin-color discrimination didn't find its moment until, in some areas at least, it really WAS an arbitrary distinction for a large number of people, in the sense that it no longer served as a reliable shorthand for socioeconomic status. The textbooks that TNC's lawyer requested were the building blocks for that bourgeoisie; interracial marriage was one of the fruits of its particular and characteristic political movement.
So even though there is a pathological level of paranoia surrounding bigotry, we should remember that sometimes even paranoid have enemies. The best, most truthful response to the fear of interracial marriage would have been to DEFEND interracial marriage --- though of course that wouldn't have been politically expedient before Civil Rights.
Of course, there are also paranoids who don't have enemies --- tinfoil hat types. I think we should try to be more careful in differentiating between paranoids with enemies --- against whom we should defend our own ideas about what's good --- and paranoids without enemies --- whom we should offer a glass of warm milk and a frontal lobotomy.
I can understand how same-sex marriage is a threat to Dreher's view of sexuality, because it IMHO *does* undermine the patriarchy. What I don't understand is the existential crisis, where for him SSM undermines the possibility of morality. Why is the very idea of right and wrong so tied up with traditional gender roles, that undercutting the latter makes the former collapse in smoking ruin?
Wonderful post, Mr Coates! I've spent a week in the comboxes at Rod's site and there's NO chance of common ground there. Every couple of days, Rod just posts the same tired, open-ended "can't you just admit that MAYBE everything will fall apart?" trope. I think you nailed it: if we take that last step toward losing our abject terror of the gays, what's left? You've rejected ALL my ignorant faith-based biases! How will I remain morally superior if you stop being scared?
"In morals what begins in fear usually ends in wickedness; in religion what begins in fear usually ends in fanaticism. Fear, either as a principle or a motive, is the beginning of all evil."
Anna Jameson
I see your point and agree that bigotry requires a shocking level of arrogance and a belief that other communities deepest desires revolve around someone's destruction but I think you might be over simplifying it.
Gay marriage isn't just opposed by cowards, religious zealots and bigots. The broadening of the definition of "marriage" to mean between any two people does much more than just make all people equal or insult a sacred institution. I believe strongly in the traditional definition of marriage because of what it represents in my faith but the possibility my belief system might be insulted is not why I oppose gay "marriage." I am uneasy about broadening the definition of "marriage" because it implies a huge culture shift in which I will loose my ability to articulate what marriage means to my children and this is no little thing that can be distilled down to shocking arrogance or vanity.
In the postmodern culture we live in, very few things have absolute meaning. Father would no longer mean father. The word parents would no longer mean mother and father and even if it did mother and father will have lost their connotation. A fundamental shift in language with such large implications shouldn't be taken lightly, isn't simple bigotry, and should be openly opposed by those whom it affects.
I don't think gay people desiring to be married are thinking about me or plotting how they can infringe on my belief system but none the less I think it has huge implications for our culture that I don't agree with and I'm neither a bigot nor a coward.
It seems to me that the most controversial positions throughout history were the ones that went against the grain of culture. Everyone was talking "Do you want a nigra marrying yer daughter?!?!?" in the ante-bellum south then there was a culture shift and in the first half of the 20th century civil rights became more broadly accepted. You were considered a bigot to oppose either of those views, the only difference was the cultural wisdom of the time. It seems like now you are a bigot if you reject any egalitarian principles. I'm not OK being labeled a bigot or a coward but I can't suppress my own convictions to accommodate a culture shift simply because it's widely accepted or because it's the next step. Newer beliefs aren't better simply because they reject older beliefs.
That being said, your one of the few people I try and read everyday. Its the wry wit that attracts me.
I find Andrew's thoughts very moving, but your own foul-mouthed response less so. I have shifted left over the years, and I now rejoice with gays whenever a state legalizes same-sex marriage. But I also grew up evangelical, and I know many, many people who hold the Biblical position on homosexuality. They are kind and compassionate people who take no pleasure in saying homosexuality is wrong, but who are only trying to be true to what they believe (and that includes in their own sex lives). The root of bigotry is unwillingness to identify with the other person enough to understand them.
Wow.. this is such a hard issue.
As a Californian and a Christian and someone who believes herself to be open-minded, I agonized over Prop. 8.
I saw through the paranoia of the ads claiming homosexuality is going to be taught in schools, that gay marriage is going to change the institution of marriage, the 'If we allow gay marriage, will sodomy..etc, etc..be okay too?" stuff. It seemed a really ridiculous and an obvious ploy to play on our fears. At the same time I smarted at the idea that I could be a 'bigot' if I voted against gay marriage. Everyone is so comfortable with putting religious people in a box of paranoia and hatred. Is it so inconceivable that there could be some real soul searching conflict going on?
In a previous post, another person talked about their mother and how she feared black people. As a black woman, when I read that..I didn't feel any anger or hatred for her thinking. I felt for HER. Because she was raised to think in a way that is wrong. To fight against your belief system is the hardest thing to do. I have nothing but compassion for her and her struggle.
Yet, at the same time I don't condone behavior or actions that cause harm on in the name of one's belief system. This is what I have conflict with. Denying someone something that should be a civil right seems really wrong to me. Denying someone love and happiness seems really wrong to me. And so I am conflicted and really struggling with this issue right now.
TNC was really careful about not condemning a whole group of people by focusing on the 'bigots' or the 'paranoid'. And I am thankful that he has shared his thoughts with us so eloquently. However, I get the feeling that what is implied in this whole conversation is that those who are against gay marriage are bigots. End of story. Racists are just plain racists. End of story. Paranoid white men..are blah..blah..blah. End of story.
I would like to caution everyone to remember that each "story" is rarely complete. Nothing is black or white. I have said this before: I have a real and complete (and some might say naive) faith in humanity and our ability have understanding and forgiveness and love for one another- and our capacity for change. Some things just take time and patience and (ahem) lot's of prayer. ;)
At the same time I smarted at the idea that I could be a 'bigot' if I voted against gay marriage. ... Is it so inconceivable that there could be some real soul searching conflict going on?
The soul-searching conflict you (and others) have described seems to be entirely between your own conscience and the bigoted teachings of your religion. Yes, that is certainly a conflict, and a painful one. It is very difficult to realize that thinking of oneself as a good, open-minded person is not the same as actually *being* one, and that being a good person may involve making yourself uncomfortable.
This is where my Christian (Catholic/Lutheran) upbringing has been helpful to me, in fact. I was raised to believe that everyone -- even a saint -- is a sinner, and that calling any person "good" or "bad" is inaccurate. You don't get to say, "I'm a good person, so I don't do bad things" -- no, it doesn't matter how good you are (or think you are), you'll still do bad things.
You can be a nice, kind person, and still be a bigot, or a racist.
You can be a nice, kind person, and still be a bigot, or a racist.
True, but then is lumping everyone into a category as a bigot or a racist without understanding and compassion really solving anything? Jesus had compassion for everyone ..the sinners and the saints. Judge not less you be judged? That is what my faith taught me.
Here's the thing, I am not asking people to not call people for what they are. The sinner needs to look his sin in the face, own it and well..repent. It's all a part of the process that every human being has to experience. I am just asking that we be open-minded and compassionate during that process.
What percentage of evangelical opponents to gay people are of the "kind and compassionate" variety? And how many are not?
Surely, you're not suggesting that all opposition to us is without hatred.
@BobN
No, just sharing with you the possibility that some opposition towards gay marriage isn't about hatred.
I actually have no idea how many opponents of gay marriage are of the 'kind and compassionate' vs not. It just seems that the 'not' group seems to be more visible..
BobN, no I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of bigots around who hide behind the Bible. I'm saying that it's as mistaken -- bigoted, if you will -- to assume most Christians fall into that camp as it is to assume most gays are libertines have a guilty conscience. Doctor Science seems to confuse open-mindedness with approval of homosexuality. First of all, that conveniently requires open-mindedness and tolerance of social conservatives but not liberals. Gays often rightly implore us to open our eyes and see them for the decent fellow human beings most of them are. They should extend the same charity, the same willingness to see from the other's perseepctive.
Doctor Science seems to confuse open-mindedness with approval of homosexuality.
Um, what? Or rather, how do you see that? I do not see how you came to that conclusion.
Your assumed equivalence between "liberals who think all Christians are bigots" and "conservative Christians who don't approve of homosexuality" is IMHO not an equivalence. Conservative Christians aren't just "disapproving", they're *making laws to control other people's families*. I am not saying anyone is a bigot in a defining, unchangable way -- but they're *acting* like bigots, and they're using as much power as they can get their hands on to enforce bigotted behavior.
Good article, Ta-Nehisi!
Finally, someone who's VERY close to the target about what racism is all about - but, as a 41 Year Old Straight WASP (literally) who spent most of his first 34 years in the small town and small city Deep South, I have to say it's NOT QUITE on target - but you definitely approach it when you said.
Bigotry, in all forms, requires a shocking arrogance...it is the ultimate narcissism,
This is definitely on the right track. However, I think your explanation of why so many whites(nationally, not just in the South) preferred not to associate threatened by blacks and gays is much simpler - based on a few decades of experience around such people
Simple personal distaste for people that are outside the norm! Hardly any whites I went to school with were all that paranoid about black-white relationships, or felt threatened by them. I simply saw mentalities akin to "EWWWW, GROSSS" or "That's just LOW CLASS" than to paranoid fears. I say this as someone born went to high school and college in the 80s and 90s, and admittedly a bit racist back then - "soft core" racist, that is. NOT hard core ranting bigot fixated on them. Fortunately, I outgrew that mentality when I got to bigger cities and got exposed to many different kinds of people and many different ways of thinking.
MORE SPECIFICALLY about Racism as Narcissism, or at least the product of NON-narcissistic individuals brainwashed by a narcissistic culture:
Although I'm not educated in psychology in any formal way, I have read the DSM-IV criteria for the Cluster B" Personality Disorders (especially Narcissistic and Antisocial), and can't help but be struck by the similarities of the mentalities of Narcissists, Antisocials on one hand, and bigots on the other*
DSM-IV Criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder (think in terms of GROUP narcissism this time, rather than individual narcissism).
Does the culture Whites and/or Straights as a group tend to have these attitudes regarding Blacks and/or Gays as a group?
1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance
2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
3. believes that he or she is "special" and can only be understood by, or should associate with, people (or institutions) who are also "special" or of high status.
4. requires excessive admiration
5. has a sense of entitlement
6. is interpersonally exploitative
7. lacks empathy
8. is often envious of others or believes others are envious of him or her
9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Try the same technique with Antisocial Personality Disorder - particularly the part about "rationalizing or excusing causing hurt, pain, or damage to others". IMO, sounds like bigots to me.
*As a side note, I see airs of that same mentality who opposes tougher anti-Bullying laws in recent years, as in "Good Grief! That's gonna turn our kids into wimps". In this case, "wimps" are often looked upon with just as poisonous a scorn as gays were in the 80s and black were in the 50s and 60s. Perhaps attacking anti-wimp bigotry could be next on society's agenda. Strange and bizarre? No more so than the notion of gay rights and gay marriage was in the 40s and 50s - and look where we are today.