I think Hitchens attacks on Wanda Sykes say a lot about his deterioration as a writer, and a thinker. In one instance he calls her a "black dyke." In another he calls her a "sable sapphist."
Writing is really hard work--mostly because thinking is really hard work. When you don't want to do that work, but you want the meager payment it offers, the fleeting fame it brings, than you resort to thinking on the cheap. You go for shock. And you do it that way because you have nothing to offer except your rep as contrarian, and a provocateur. You do it because you are lazy.
To call his statements racist, or homophobic, demeans racist and homophobes. Indeed Hitchens displays something more than that--weakness. Weakness is the root of these sorts of slurs--an unwillingness to do the hard work of taking your opponents at their merits. So you name call and strawman. You mock what you don't understand, what you fear.
Adam has a nice take-down, in which he notes that Hitchens doesn't even get the humor he's objecting to. I wrote a post doing the same, and then thought better of it. Life is short. Enough letters today on who's wrong on the internet.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2010 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Now, I know Christopher Hitchens and he's not a racist...
I just thought I should get that out the way. I'm sure someone was going to say it.
Can we make the obligatory mean drunk jokes now? It might be easier if we confine all this to one thread.
i think we shouldn't judge him to hard...writing while hung over can be a drag!
Please don't do that. I know that's a weird request given what he said, but I'd rather we not go there.
Not a problem-- I was mostly riffing on the 'let's get it out of the way' idea, as I've seen it so many times around the Net.
I should write something about his opinions on women, like I did over at TAPPED, but he really doesn't seem worth the energy any more. He reminds me of Ann Coulter-- saying more and more outrageous things in a desperate bid to get more attention.
@persia...
yes...in some way he does...but he's an excellent writer...she isn't...
I know you like him, TNC, but he's a bloated asshole. I've felt that way for as long as I've known the guy. Like a smarter version of Kaus.
I actually don't know him. It just seems weak to call him out for personally attacking Sykes, and then make alcoholic jokes. Either it's right or it isn't.
TNC, this gives us a conundrum...
In the first entry to the comments you state you know Hitchens and he is not a racist.
Now you tell us you don't know him, not to call him out for his racist comments about Sykes, and to avoid mentioning the real reason for his decline as writer, the fact that he drinks -- no, that he is a drunkard. He appeared to be drunk during his recent appearance on "Real Time with Bill Maher," where he came onstage carrying his tumbler filled with his liquor of choice (it appeared to be scotch, but who knows?)
Hitchens recently had the crap beat out of him, while he was drunk. The after photos appeared on Huffington Post. He's had numerous other run-ins, fights, shouting matches, etc., while drunk. Vanity Fair makes fun of their "star" writer in the chronicles of the fictional "Ed Coaster, VF Contributing Editor" constantly getting himself in scrapes and forcing Graydon Carter to bail him out figuratively (and literally?)
The only thing Hitchens has said of value recently is that waterboarding is torture.
The problem with being a public figure and a public drunk -- or should I say being drunk in public -- is that people will talk. And when you say something outrageous and contrcversial, you're inviting comment on both what you said and the state of your sobriety when you said.
Perhaps Hitchens finds the courage he needs to spew his racist homophobic and otherwise idiotic remarks from the bottom of the bottle.
Racist? Maybe not, but he did devote an article to sexism--the "classic piece" on women not being funny.
"Sable sapphist" -- I think Hitchens may have a problem with alliteration addiction. This is a positively pernicious problem!
Hitchens has a single point: Sykes was supposed to go harder at Obama. Fine. She could have. I think as a country, we'll get over it. But I'm sure Slate is paying a couple bucks a word for Hitch's groundbreaking discover there. Beyond that, this article is unsupported assertion and self-contradictory ridiculousness.
By his own "rules of humor" let's see if his "Sable Sapphist" rip works on his own community." How bout... hmm.... "The Limey Ladylover." Nah. Applying it to a straight white male, you have your audience wondering why you're bringing identity crap into the piece.
But let's take a step back here. To Hitch, Sykes was never going to be funny, because women are never funny. (Do you remember that you wrote that article, Chris?)
What happened to Christopher Hitchens?
I'm not sure, but whatever you do, don't mention The War.
I admire Hitchens, his "Letter to a young contrarian" is still very dear to me. But that was just awkward.
I also saw the Notre Dame speech today. Obama displayed every virtue Hitchens' book was about. The USA has an intellectual President now, and one that is also charming, cool and witty. However, it seems to be impossible for Hitchens to admire him. Instead he comes up with this I-can-still-say-banana-attitude. It's just sad.
I have read Hitchens over the years and have always had mixed feelings about him. He tries to be provacitive and ussally succeeds.
Sometimes this can be thought provoking, whether you agree with him or not. Other times , like this time, he can be nasty just for the sake of being nasty.Then it is not thought provoking, only tiresome.
I find this in many British opinion writers today. If Maureen Dowd wrote for the London Times , she would be the LEAST catty writer on the staff.This is why the London Times is great to read much of the time. Sadly, It is also why it often becomes tedious after a while.
When Hitchens gets nasty it is a waste of skill.He can write great articles when he wants to.Some of his best articles are ones that I disagreed with.I still had to admire his debating skills. Sadly, not this time though.
For a so-called sophist, sure sounds like Chris gotta hitch in his giddy-up. His sorry sadist slapdash just more solipsistic sickness, not to mention our President, well, he's just not all that funny, except when speaking of Emmanuel Rahm's middle finger.
Magic Wanda? Your mama, Chris Hitchens. Isn't that when you get right down to it, half or more of Chris Hitchens' so called wit? Something is happening, and you just don't know what it is; do you, Mr. Hitchens? I won't mention alcohol, cause it's mostly a case of bad vinegar.
I read Hitchens regularly for over twenty years at the Nation, The London Review and the New York Review and it's sad and perplexing to see what he's become. "Woman aren't Funny Because they Don't Need to be to Get Laid" "Michelle Obama is the Same Thing as Stokely and Reverend AL, and Her Master's Thesis isn't Written in any Known Language" "Bush is a Better Choice than Kerry"
How many idiotic things does a guy have to say before we stop taking him seriously?
The only "talent" that Hitchens has is put on Bristish Upper Crust accent, which impress Americans a lot! If you want deep thinkers about worldwide issues check Zakaria and Ignatius.
The Black Dyke comment was very weak indeed, i thought that he would come up with something more erudite and obscure.
My impression of British humor and debate is that it relies fairly heavily on clever insult and calculated affront. Which doesn't really explain the peculiar stupidity of 'sable sapphist".
My take: Wanda Sykes wasn't very funny, Christopher Hitchens wrote a whole (weak) column on it, out of proportion with her offense, and you guys are piling on Hitchens out of proportion with *his* offense.
Could we have a sense of perspective, please?
That's the trouble with blacks and queers these days. No sense of perspective. I'm so glad you're here to educate us on the right way to speak, and react.
Your not here anymore. Banned. And deleted.
EDIT: And unbanned. We all have our days...
Have you considered getting a CAT scan? I think there's something wrong with your brain
I agree with Laird. Hitchens's column seemed like garden-variety mountain-out-of-molehill stuff. His nominal slurs against her were part of his argument that she flunked the go-after-your-own test.
Right. Calling someone a "black dyke" is garden variety. From now on, I'll refer to Rush Limbaugh as a fat honkey. The intellectual dishonesty here kills me. If you seriously think its fine to call someone a "black dyke" or a "sable sapphist," I have no idea why you're reading this blog, much less commenting.
Forgive my attitude. This isn't theoretical, or abstract for me.
If you're as into alliteration as Hitchens, you could even call Limbaugh "the corpulent cracker". Or perhaps the porcine pill-popper.
Honkey doesn't hit hard enough. It doesn't carry enough "get off my planet." "Honkey bitch" can almost do it, but it needs the gender spin to work. "White trash" can work, but it needs class on top of race.
Hitchens deployed power of a very old, very bad kind, knowing perfectly well that there was no possible symmetrical response.
I hope his liver fails.
At the very least, the reference was in extremely poor taste (the word "tacky" comes to mind). On the other hand, I do get the sense of one overriding dynamic any time Hitchens comes up: folks are mad at him for backing the Bush admin on the war. You can break out the flamethrowers if you want (some might say "bring it on"), but there it is. Now would people have called him on the way he referred to Ms. Sykes if he *hadn't* supported the war? I should hope so! Would there have been this much vitriol behind it? Probably not.
Look, as we arm-wrestle our ideas in the public square, the voices on every side of the argument will come from people who are flawed and who sometimes speak unwisely and/or intemperately. I just think it's worth remembering that for all his flaws, CH has come out *relentlessly* against enemies even a lot of liberals (and certainly the news media) have gone soft on over the years. Ronald Reagan. Jerry Falwell. Richard Nixon. Henry F*cking Kissinger, whom most of the media have kind of given a pass, as if the entire Nixon regime was just a tizzy he had. Not to mention having penned the best rhetorical beat-down of Sarah Palin ever, when a lot of other liberals were tying themselves in knots trying to be "objective" (i.e. not calling her the dumb bunny she actually is).
Even on the Iraq war, where I thought he was wrong, he at least did his readers the courtesy of making serious arguments rather than just waving a flag and blurting some nonsense about anthrax.
So yeah, CH was tacky and wrong on Sykes. But Laird is right -- a little perspective might not go amiss.
What an incredible strawman. The Iraq War has come up precisely once in this thread--as a joke. Do the people here commenting the justice of commenting on what they wrote, not what you've mind-read.
The mark of a strawman is the lack of a single direct quote. Point to what you disagree with, precisely, and then counter it. If you're going to sub in the argument that you'd prefer to be having for the argument that's actually being made, there's really no reason to debate. No one should take your argument seriously, if you're not going to do the work of taking their argument seriously.
I'm going to repeat this again--I have no idea why anyone who thinks calling someone "a black dyke" is merely "speaking intemperately" is reading this blog. I'm not interested in explaining bigotry. I'm not tolerating a defense of those who dispense intolerance.
Calling Wanda a "black dyke" is utterly unsupportable, lazy, weak, and stupid. Also, really ugly and terribly sad. Shame on Christopher Hitchens.
Still, why did you ban that guy? Bigotry isn't theoretical or abstract for most of us. For instance, among other shortcomings, I'm fat. But, Wanda Sykes opined on the administration of an impressive, smart, popular, black president. Surely we can take a stupid hit as well as anybody.
BTW, I propose calling Rush Limbaugh a white junkie. Not that I have anything against white people or junkies.
I'm pretty sure that if you called Rush Limbaugh a fat honkey, you would be called sophomoric rather than anything stronger. As for why I'm reading and occasionally commenting, I do have a non-offensive (yea, innocuous) track record and if your magical site-owner powers permit you to delve into it, you're welcome to do so. But I'm sure you have better things to do!
TNC,
I think you're letting your (justified) anger at CH's comment blur things a bit. No one's trolling here. Looking back at what I wrote, I genuinely don't see anything inflammatory. I believe I said I get the sense of disproportionate anger whenever the topic of Hitchens comes up -- and I expressed an opinion on what the cause could be. I never said that the people on this topic board shouldn't take him to task for the "sable sapphist" comment (I agree with Sime in that I can only really address what showed up in writing). In fact, I as much as said that taking him to task is perfectly fair and that I would hope he'd have been taken to task no matter what his position on the war was! I can't see how that reads as trolling or making straw-man arguments.
More to the point: having been born with a black skin, I'm not asking you or anyone else to "explain bigotry" -- I know what it is, thanks.
I've already made peace with the fact that some people whose thinking and/or achievements I respect will also sometimes say or think things I find distasteful. If that's flamebait, then flame away.
Sime summed it up better than I did, referring to CH as a "moral intellectual". That's how I see him too -- about 80 to 90 percent of the time he comes down on what I'm guessing the average reader here would consider the correct side of history. I can and do deplore what I consider the tackiness and wrongness of a particular statement that he's made while respecting the overall quality and moral soundness of his thinking on important issues.
To answer your implied question: the reason I read and occasionally comment on this blog is because I find your writing interesting and compelling more often than not, and I think there's a vibrant intellectual climate in the comments section. I hope that's okay with you.
You're right, the anger was a bit much. I had a lot of respect for Hitchens as a writer. I even respected his thing about lefties who think Donald Rumsfeld is a bad as Osama (or whatever that quote was). So it's a little surreal to see this coming from a writer you (well I'll just say it) looked up to. Still, I should have taken a different tone.
That said, the specific charge is the idea that the beef here essentially amounts to just another charge against Hitchens because of the War. If you're going to say that, then it's nice to find evidence--within the thread--supporting it.
People deserve to be taken on the merits of their actual argument. It may be that the War is at work elsewhere. But, even in your response, you've yet to cite any evidence of it in this thread.
You mentioned that you like the intellectual climate here. Part of the reason it appeals to you is because people extend a basic respect to each other's arguments. You wouldn't want me saying, "The only reason CarbonMike said this was because Hitchens is British." Mostly, because I don't have any evidence of that. It cuts both ways. If you truly believe that this critique is motivated by Hitchens position on the War, then the least you can offer is some evidence.
And yet in your reply, I still don't see any...
TNC:
I hear you. When I say that I think lefties in general (not just on this board) are pissed at CH for supporting the war, I'm not so much leveling any kind of formal accusation as I am making a guess. Certainly the post from permazorch:
made an impression, but that's hardly an ironclad case. What I'm mainly doing is guessing.
The question I'm trying to come to grips with is, why are a lot of us so upset with someone who -- most of the time -- is our most forceful and eloquent ally on the issues that matter? Again, I hope my post has made clear that I'm not limiting this just to people in this comments section. Go and do a casual survey of online writing about CH, and you'll find that negative opinion about the guy from people on the left shoots up right around the time he comes down in favor of Bush & Co. in the runup to Gulf War 2 -- and stays up thereafter. Many of the people who worked with him at The Nation magazine swore up and down thereafter that he became a Republican.
Elsewhere in this section (in my reply to Josh) I cite a couple of places where people have made some dead-wrong characterizations about his ideas; there seems to be a disconnect between where folks think he is on important issues and where he actually comes down in writing.
Keep in mind that what I'm alleging (lefties being mad at the guy because we think he's sold out) isn't any great moral failing. I'm not accusing people of anything egregious, and so I feel freer to employ guesswork and supposition than if I were making some sort of accusation or direct attack. There are plenty of thinkers who'll get a bit of slack from me on the occasional wrongness, plenty others who don't because of something they wrote or said that raised my hackles semi-permanently.
Why do I care so much about this? A couple reasons:
It's actually not as much about Hitchens (he's a grown-ass man and can defend himself) as it is about our intellectual habits on the left. I'm struck by how many people on the right, for example, can't stand a Lincoln Chafee or an Olympia Snowe or a Colin Powell (google RINO) because they came down for the other side in a crunch, even though in every other respect they're loyal players and good for the team. It would be a shame for us to get into purging our heretics instead of tolerating and even engaging them, as every vibrant intellectual movement should do. Even if they say some weak and/or stupid sh*t occasionally.
The other reason is that we're fighting some large and important internal battles in this country and we need all the allies we can get.
Gotcha. I can tell you my response comes out of profound disappointment--but not in his war vote. Plenty of writers I respect and admire supported the war (George Packer for instance) it really is at the cheap-shot he took at Sykes, and (I'd add) how he blamed Michelle Obama for Rev. Wright, last year. See below:
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/christopher_hitchens_on_obama_and_rev_wright_when_all_else_fails_blame_women.php#comments
I don't believe in sacred cows. If he thought she was unfunny and hand't been harsh enough on the president, he should make that case. (As it stands, he didn't even understand the joke he critiqued) Calling her a "a black dyke" or a "sable sapphist" is so damn lazy. There's nothing provocative or courageous about it (as one might say of his take on Mother Teresa or Bill Clinton or even The War). It's just, in a word, a dick-move.
Point taken. You must be psychic -- the article you cited probably rates second in my "all time worst of Hitchens" list, the first being the one where he slams Obama on his race speech -- CH completely misses the point by a mile. I chalked that one up to "white guy wasn't born here and really doesn't get it", but this one is unchalkable.
'Sable Sapphist' was part of an argument?
Please. He's wrong five ways like Cincinnati chili--didn't go after her own? did he miss the 'mulatto President' joke while getting his drink topped off--and slamming her race and orientation wouldn't support an argument if he were right.
"Black dyke" is lame, but "The Sable Saphist" sounds like an alternate-world superheroine, to me. (Maybe that was the Silver Spectre's girlfriend before she took up with that nurse.)
Oh yeah--I'm seeing Wanda, in red lycra and black boots like Condi...mmm.
Edna warned us, though, so I won't even visualize The Cape. 'No capes!'
I am totally going to go home and create a City of Heroes character called The Sable Sapphist.
Christopher Hitchens converted me to Christianity.
What makes this sad is that I used to get a kind of thrill from reading him. There are certain writers who have such a deep reservoir of knowledge, and the rhetorical skill to use it, that reading them is like watching an acrobatic performance - even when I may disagree with the point that they're making.
Over the last few years, however, the deterioration in the quality of his writing has been distressing. This latest nonsense makes him sound like Michael Savage with a thesaurus. I can't even call it intellectual dishonesty, because there doesn't seem to be much intellect involved.
I hope he snaps out of it, whatever it is.
It's not just his skills, I also consider him to be a moral intellectual (I know this is debatable, but it's what I think). What troubles me most is the last paragraph (the "black dyke" - to be fair - wasn't in the column, and I actually didn't know what a "sapphist" was before I looked it up).
It's not the actual reasoning of that paragraph that bothers me, although the suggestion that the voice of a multi-millionaire who is also considered to be a "spokesperson" for one of the most powerful political parties in world history is being silenced by government sponsored comedy in the form of Wanda Sykes is weird at least.
It's the insinuation that sensitivity in racial matters is contradictory to free and independent thinking. This claim has a tradition, and it's not a glorious one. You end up believing that calling someone a "black dyke" is an act of intellectual bravery. You end up thinking that the injustice is done to you and not to all the people you're offending. You end up attracting all sorts of friends who defend you against the "PC-police". You end up being the person you despised when you were a young contrarian.
Yes, and it's a fine line to tread. For example, his anti Mother Theresea articles were most definitely un-PC, but the arguments presented so well that it made me re-evaluate my previous assumptions of service, compassion and fame. I can't say that I drew the same conclusions as he did, but the process was valuable to me.
I get the feeling he's trying to achieve a similar thing here (at a smaller scale), but the effect is different. Now, all that I'm re-evaluating are my previous assumptions about Christopher Hitchens.
I don't know how far back the misogyny goes, but Hitchens has been awful on race as far back as I can remember. There's a piece on "Black English" in Unacknowledged Legislation that makes huge condescending generalizations about black literature and black speech.
Given that the guy has been known to associate with scholars and intellectuals, and teaches university regularly, there's no excuse for his ignorant swagger.
Josh:
You mentioned that Hitchens has been "awful on race" and cited his writing in his "Unacknowledged Legislation" compilation of essays.
Here's Hitchens in an excerpt from the article "Black English":
I've read the entire article in question, and while you may disagree with his premise, citing this as an example of him being "awful on race" is a bit of a stretch to say the least.
TNC implied that I was "defending those who dispense intolerance". Here's Hitchens in an essay defending gay marriage:
and later in the same essay:
Now I'm sorry -- two stupid comments (only one in writing, the other hearsay mind you) referring to someone's race and sexual preference don't automatically turn this guy into "Michael Savage with a thesaurus", as someone else commented here. That kind of comment is what I mean when I talk about the need for perspective.
I thought Wanda Skyes was a black dyke... Is he talking another Wanda Sykes?
Sorry, meant to say "Is he talking about another Wanda Sykes?"
What happened to the "Reply" button? Disabled by high flamage?
That said: As a fat honky cracker, I resent being put in the same class as Rush!
As an alcoholic (in AA for 15 years), well, Hitch is a type familiar to me. Sad to see the deterioration.
And nor it works, but the post I made was parented wrong...
I just read the Hitchens piece on Slate and not see where he used the term "black dyke" to describe Sykes? Did I miss something? Or has the piece since been edited to delete that offensive term?
Black Dyke signing off.....
Black dyke signing back on...
Forgive me, the use of the term "black dyke" was another piece by Hitchens not in the Slate one. I got now.
It was a joke. See below. "Not a racist" is a running joke on this site.
http://ta-nehisicoates.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/lame-sauce.php
I have no idea who Hitchens is, but I have to stand with him for at least not walking on eggshells or being PC concerning his feelings. He's a total asshole, but at least an honest and straightforward one.
TNC,
I know I am coming late to this discussion but I wonder if you have seen the film Mephisto – it documents the unwitting but steady and often adamant, slide towards fascist collaboration by a left cultural figure bent on maintaining his public profile despite dangerous changes in the political winds in Germany. I have thought of it more than once whenever I read the rising pitch of Mr. Hitchens columns. I think I mentioned this many months ago somewhere else.