I spent the last four days in sunny Southern California, and most of that time found me losing my mind about the zaniness of America’s current racial landscape.
I went out West to take part in a fantastic conference, “Reading Scriptures, Reading America: Interruptions, Orientations, and Mimicry among U.S. Communities of Color,” sponsored by Claremont Graduate University’s Institute for Signifying Scriptures. I presented research from the book I’m currently writing (an examination of African-American Hebrew Israelites) as part of one of the conference panels organized by Velma Love (Florida A&M University), sharing the stage with Renee K. Harrison (Payne Theological Seminary).
Since it had been a long time since my last stint out West, I ended up squeezing in several different things: meetings with potential agents in Los Angeles (about some screenplays I’ve written), spending time with a couple academic friends and their newborn at UCI, and very briefly crashing the Ford Foundation Fellows conference in Irvine, California. (The Ford conference was as inspiring as ever!)
During much of my trip, I was also following three breaking news stories, excluding that boy-in-a-balloon “hoax” that CNN spent most of the weekend unpacking.
There was the story about that Louisiana justice of the peace who was unwilling to marry an inter-racial couple, Rush Limbaugh’s response to his recent NFL snub, and Rupert Murdoch personally announcing FOX News contributor Marc Lamont Hill’s firing at a stockholder meeting. All three stories are still playing themselves out, but I just wanted to make a few early comments.
1. Keith Bardwell, a justice of the peace in Tangipahoa Parish in southeastern Louisiana, refused to marry the mixed couple out of concern for their offspring — at least, that’s the argument he made on CBS’s The Early Show today. “I’ve had countless numbers of people that was born in that situation,” Bardwell said. “And they claim that the blacks or the whites didn’t accept the children. And I didn’t want to put the children in that position.” What a fascinating twist. Traditionally, such racially informed objections to miscegenation would have been framed in terms of eugenics (the degeneration of racial purity/prowess) or adamant white supremacy (the divinely pre-ordained discreteness of our racial order), but concern for the social plight of the children themselves wouldn’t necessarily have been the trump card for an official in Bardwell’s position. Of course, what is most interesting about Bardwell’s stance is that he denies being racist at all — and claims not to even understand why his recusal has caused such controversy. He doesn’t believe that what he did was unconstitutional, and he doesn’t think that it should be considered racist. My recent book, Racial Paranoia, anticipates Bardwell’s move and helps to explain the unprecedented logic of racialism in contemporary America.
2. Bardwell doesn’t accept the charge of racism and neither does Rush Limbaugh. The latter penned a very careful response to his recent disavowal by those would-be St. Louis Rams owners in the Wall Street Journal while I was out in Cali. Limbaugh claimed that many of his accusers (including Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton) are actually the racists, citing Jackson’s infamous “hymie-town” reference and Sharpton’s role in the Tawana Brawley case. He also blamed Sharpton for fomenting the racial rage that erupted in two NYC riots during the 1990s. Sharpton is contemplating a lawsuit (for defamation) unless he gets an apology from Limbaugh, which I can safely predict will probably not be forthcoming. I did read my Brainstorm colleague’s short post on the Limbaugh story last week. Mark cite Limbaugh’s racist statements.” Is Limbaugh a racist? That’s become the operative question. I have listened to Limbaugh. His commitments to racial provocation are, in my opinion, self-evident. His investment in racial insensitivity (like his playful celebration of that “Obama, The Magic Negro” song) is also legion. Does that mean he’s a racist? Part of the point of my recent book is to argue that claims/counter-claims about racism aren’t productive. His advocates claim “no.” His detractors say “yes.” If someone can definitely prove that Limbaugh is a racist, does that mean that he doesn’t have the right to own an NFL team? It is his $400-million dollar media contract. He can spend that money on whatever he wants. But NFL players also have the right to voice their objections. Hopefully, the two sides can listen to one another instead of starting a shouting match that ends with both camps sulking in their respective, noncommunicative corners. Also, I can understand why Limbaugh would try to defend himself against accusations of racism. But I don’t buy the claim (given Limbaugh’s consistency on questions of race) that the accusations themselves are on-their-face absurd. They can be wrong without being unreasonable.
3. And what can be said about Murdoch’s ousting of Marc Hill? Hill was the object of an on-line campaign after a recent blog-post from David Horowitz that voiced outrage at the fact that Hill was given the privilege of serving as a pundit on Bill O’Reilly’s nightly show. Hill was accused of supporting cop-killers (for comments about Assata Shakur and Mumia Abu Jamal) and of anti-Semitism (for an old article that Hill wrote on Khalid Muhammad). I had assumed that Hill’s job was safe. Fox News gets tons of pressure to oust other controversial figures on their programs, and they never buckle. If Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter are welcome on Fox, how could they ever justify firing Hill? Well, I was wrong. Moreover, there is a general logic to such witch-hunting that has become a pathetically hegemonic mode of political activism. It is justified by rhetoric of holding people “accountable.” But what kind of politic really manifests itself in such victories? Is getting Beck or Hill or Coulter or anyone else off FOX News truly a gesture of political significance? How about thwarting Limbaugh’s attempt to own one of the NFL’s teams? Or do such moves exemplify a trivialization of politics that is part of the problem?
19 Responses to Racial Headlines: Limbaugh, Hill, and Injustices of the Peace
downes - October 19, 2009 at 5:17 pm
> It is his $400-billion dollar media contract. He can spend that money on whatever he wants. No he can’t.He cannot, for example, buy an ad on my website. It’s not for sale to him, no matter what his price.
dank48 - October 20, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Uh, “$400 billion” contract? Surely even in these inflationary times that’s “$400 million.” Still obscene, but not astronomically so.
livefreeordie2 - October 21, 2009 at 7:51 am
I have listened to Limbaugh since he went national over 20 years ago. He has indeed been consistent on race. . . consistently critical of “Great Society” programs that have destroyed the Black family in the country, consistently supportive of the ideal that all people in this country should have the opportunity to succeed on their own. Is he critical of the kind of race baiting that people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton engage in routinely? You bet! As well he should be. And for the record, the “Magic Negro” song to which you refer was satire. . . based on an March 19, 2007 LA Times opinion piece by a liberal writer named David Ehrenstein. I do not accept your premise that it is racially insensitive because to do so suggests that a comment becomes insensitive based upon the political leanings of the person who says it. I realize that liberals actually believe that, but like so much else that liberals believe, it’s simply wrong.
lexalexander - October 21, 2009 at 8:10 am
Google Rush Limbaugh and racism. You will find many “examples” that turn out, upon closer examination, to be misinterpretations, inadequately sourced or just plain fictitious.But you’ll also find a number that are quite simply indefensible. And this pattern is not tangential. It’s a crucial part of the appeal that has won him this $400 million contract from a dying corporation.Actions have consequences. The NFL is the world’s most successful sports operation, and in the only opinions that mattered, those of the current team owners, bringing Limbaugh on board would have alienated a significant portion of its labor pool — perhaps the most brutally meritocratic in the country — and its customer base. What happened to Rush Limbaugh was the free market in action, and the fact that his corporate parent gave him that contract despite its long-term problems is evidence that the markets are not rational.And as is his wont, Limbaugh is trying to make himself the victim. Please.
livefreeordie2 - October 21, 2009 at 9:40 am
I could care less whether Limbaugh gets to be part owner of an NFL Team or not. With apologies to anyone from St. Louis, I can’t think of a worse investment than the Rams. The point is that people through around the term racist with far too much ease. So tell us, lexalexander, what are some statements that you would call “simply indefensible?” It’s far too easy for you to do what you did in your posting. You’ve said Limbaugh is a racist without saying it. You’ve said he made statements without saying what they were. You’ve suggested that there are legitimate sources for those statements without saying what they are and you’ve put the onus for checking on the reader. Personally, I find that kind of logical sleight of hand to be indefensible. . .and pretty lame.
marktropolis - October 21, 2009 at 10:10 am
livefreeordie2 – I beg to differ, in that context is a crucial component in looking at racially charged comments (your choice of words was “political leanings” but it’s basically the same thing). As for whether or not the Magic Negro song was satire or not, I think it’s important to remember that most of what Limbaugh does or says in the arena of race he couches in satire, which is true of much of the rhetoric in the far-right of this country. Folks think they can get away with it because it was “only a joke.” Like the affirmative action bake sales that have happened on some college campuses. Isn’t it hysterical that we have cookied named “Uncle Tom,” “The White Oppressor” or “Self-Hating Hispanic Race Traitor.” Cue the giggles. Meanwhile, Rush and his audience can have a hearty laugh enjoying the “satire” of the Magic Negro song, confident in the knowledge that such rhetoric will only embolden those who are ardently racist and believe that Obama can’t be president because he is not an American. He can’t be American because he’s Black.The satire becomes not so funny when one of the listeners decides to blow up a federal building. Now that we have a Magic Negro as president, suddenly it’s OK to start carrying automatic weapons to public meetings with elected officials. Now isn’t that funny? I read a report the other day about how the Secret Service is simple overloaded by the sheer number of threats to Obama that they have to pursue. To the point that they may be requesting that many of their other duties (like investigating fraud for the Treasury) be assigned to another agency. All this funny “satire” that Limbaugh, and Beck and Malkin are engaging in are only awaking the racist right-wing fringe. And giving them ammunition (pun intended) for their belief system. In other words, there’s a direct connection between this rhetoric and the rise of the racist right. This, combined with the rise in militia activities, and “satire” like the online game “2011: Obama’s Coup Fails” (check http://www.usofearth.com/ for all the bizarre details), and you’ve got a bunch of trigger happy knuckleheads who want to keep laughing on their way to the next lynching. Meanwhile, Rush keeps pulling in the dollars. It may be the free market at work – making money off of racism – but then again so was slavery.
dank48 - October 21, 2009 at 11:09 am
Those things Limbaugh has said–and hasn’t said–are well documented on Snopes, for anyone who cares to look. The fact that some people have claimed he said things he didn’t does not obviate the fact that he’s said more than enough that truly is racist, sexist, misogynist, etc.It’s one thing to come up with the current but mindless “I could care less” for “I couldn’t care less”; that’s to be expected “in these degenerate times,” as Arthur Schlesinger Jr. used to put it. But it’s quite another to write “. . . people through around the term racist with far too much ease.” People throw their ignorance around with far too much assurance.
livefreeordie2 - October 21, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Dank48 – I just went to snopes. The list of “quotes” is a combination made-up, Wikipedia nonsense and sentences that are listed without context. The only quote that is clearly one he made was the criticism of the media regarding McNabb. And he was spot on with that remark. I know. I’m an Eagles fan and McNabb, while a great quarterback, has had some very rough patches during which he did indeed get a pass from many in the media. But don’t worry. . . I get it. Only liberals are allowed to comment about race. Sorry, but I won’t accept that. As I said to lexalexander. . . it’s easy for you to say “he’s said more than enough that truly is racist, sexist, misogynist, etc.” but it has no merit because you don’t (probably can’t) back it up with facts. As for your criticism of my grammar and occasional typing error, well. . . I thought most reasonable people understood that this was the comment section of a blog. . . a place where comments are typed quickly and with little or no review or editing. I personally find it pretty pathetic to focus on something mistyped rather than the issue at hand. . .but if one is going to do that, one should then never make an error. . . like using the noun form (misogynist) rather than the adjective form which would have been correct (misogynistic). I do want you to know, however, that I agree with your last statement – “People throw their ignorance around with far too much assurance.” But it is based upon your failure to back up your argument, not on the fact that your grammar and typing are apparently just as flawed as mine.
marktropolis - October 21, 2009 at 12:55 pm
livefreeordie82 – maybe Snopes had time coming up with sources, that said, it doesn’t look like they tried very hard. Media Matters recently did a pretty good summary (complete with video and sound clips of the man himself) at http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049Also, I don’t think anyone has said “Only liberals are allowed to comment about race.” But I will say, and I think I said something similar in the similar debate over on Baurlein’s blog (http://chronicle.com/blogPost/At-the-NFL-Hints-of/8451/), that I’m not going to except racists’ claims that they are not racist. David Neiwart did a nice little piece on the history of the right turning bullies into victms (http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2009/10/limbaugh-conservatives-and-bloody-shirt.html). Which is what happened with Rush. He’s being held accountable for things that came out of his mouth, and now he wants to play the victim. And get paid while doing it.
minnesotan - October 21, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Chronicle of Race Re-education? This blog is more consistently preachy than Barrecca’s is consistently vapid.
dank48 - October 21, 2009 at 2:10 pm
Apparently we have consulted different dictionaries. For what little it may be worth, according to MWCD10, “misogynist” is n. or adj.Clouding the issue with minutiae doesn’t change a thing, including people’s minds, a fact I overlook as often as anyone. So, does any of this convince anyone that Limbaugh is a benchmark of fairness, a standard of decency, a bulwark of truth, justice, and the American way? Who says I’m a liberal? Or a conservative? Labels are merely a convenient way to dismiss others whom one finds inconvenient to have to deal with. I personally think Rush Limbaugh is a pathetic excuse for a human being, albeit a wealthy one, and more pathetic yet is the fact that people listen to him. He has the right to say what he thinks. And I have the right to ignore him. He’s got the money. I’ve got the self-respect.
livefreeordie2 - October 21, 2009 at 4:24 pm
dank48 – A fascinating reply. Since when do public policy debates involve one side or the other being a benchmark of fairness? Decency? Limbaugh’s certainly as decent as most other people. He abused painkillers. . . Bill Clinton abused the help. . . Charlie Rangel abuses the tax laws (like half of Barry Obama’s appointees). . . So he’s human like everyone else. Truth? Well. . . I’d say that most of his perspectives are correct, so that would be truthful in my estimation. You (and most other liberals, of course) rarely argue his public policy points of view, preferring the more mature path of name calling. He’s a racist. . .he’s a pathetic excuse for a human being. As an aside, I found the “albeit a wealthy one” comment to be VERY interesting! Does his considerable worth make him less pathetic or more pathetic? And while you obviously disagree with his point of view, why must you condemn others as pathetic for listening to him? I listen to lots of different points of view – it broadens my thinking. I suppose, however, if I was a liberal, I would probably do the same as you. . .condemn with ad hominem attacks and ignore his point of view. It’s really the only safe way to avoid becoming a conservative!
livefreeordie2 - October 21, 2009 at 4:45 pm
marktropolis – You are so over the top, it’s hard to respond. I’ll say this. . . I spent the last 8 years listening to all manner of vile crap said about President Bush – including a movie about assassinating him and a Nobel Peace prize winner (Betty Williams) who thought is was just fine to say she wanted to kill him. All kinds of garbage from the left. . . And during that time we were told, why, dissent if the patriotic thing to do!! And I’d be willing to bet that you would take a shot at justifying all of it and say it was just fine.But in your posting, you try to argue that there is a direct path from Limbaugh making some joke or other to the bombing in Oklahoma City. . from bake sale satire to the assassination of a president because of his skin color. Well, I and I’d guess tens of millions of others in this country don’t see it that way. We don’t believe that taking a public policy stance that isn’t liberal should be a crime. And fortunately, the Founding Fathers foresaw attitudes like you seem to portray and included freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights. we listened to left wing nonsense for 8 years, now you get to listen to what you consider right wing nonsense, though with the way Barry and Nancy and Harry are going, you’ll be back to complaining by the end of next year!And of course it’s true that only liberals can speak about race issues. Why? Because anything other than liberal ideology with regard to race is immediately characterized as racist. Opposition to affirmative action? Racist! Ten years ago Workfare (rather than welfare) was characterized as racist. And now that our President is an African American, opposition to his public policy objectives is questions as likely to be racist. If you are conservative, then things that aren’t racist are labeled as such. On the other hand, if you’re a liberal or a Democrat, then no one cares. Jesse Jackson called New York “Hymietown”. . .no problem. Democrat Senator Byrd, a former KKKer, talked on national TV about “white (n-word)” and no one bats an eye. So. . .don’t pretend that you don’t know that anything with which liberal disagree is immediately demonized.
jsch0602 - October 21, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Interesting that the owners of sports teams get to choose their competitors. How many other businesses operate like that?
suomynona - October 21, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Throwing around accusations of racism is rarely a productive thing, even when the accusations are demonstrably true (hard as it is to prove such things). Something to take away from Prof. Jackson’s post: even if one can prove another is a racist, simply leveling that accusation doesn’t in and of itself address whatever problematic attitudes or assumptions about race that cause the allegedly racist words or actions. We can scour the Internet for Rush Limbaugh quotes, but that isn’t telling us much. That said, a few words on satire: both Rush and his defenders often claim that ‘drive-by’ journalists and liberals attack Rush for his programming and the things he says because they misunderstand his various means of ‘satire.’ It’s a broken record by now. But I would point out that, just like trying to shut down a debate with accusations of racism, invoking ‘satire’ as an excuse to defend some of the things Rush says on air is a total dodge. Just because something is a satire doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be read and scrutinized like everything else, and its author held accountable like everything else; the only difference between a satire and a non-satire is that we ought to read the former like a satire. If I’m generous and I allow for the sake of argument that, for example, Rush’s ‘Magic Negro’ bit is indeed satire, then let’s consider:’Magic Negro’ apparently satirizes an LA Times article in which the author invokes the sociological (as he calls it; but it’s more a liteary and film studies term, and it comes from Spike Lee) concept of the ‘magic negro.’ The LA Times writer contextualizes this term properly in the article, then applies it to observed criticisms of Obama as not black enough, or not authentically black, because he’s ‘articulate’ and polished. Ultimately the LA Times writer, David Ehrenstein (himself an Afrian-American) is critical of this idea of the ‘magic negro,’ and critical of the idea of whites foisting historical guilt and racial anxiety on this kind of figure, and critical of the application of this burden on Barack Obama. Yet Rush takes this opportunity, in which Ehrenstein is critical of the concept and its application, to call the left racist (he assumes automatically that Ehrenstein, as an LA Times writer, must then be a leftist) for racializing Obama via this magic negro trope (false; the writer is highly critical of exactly what Rush is accusing him of doing).So Rush’s show broadcasts a ‘satirical’ song, sung in a crudely stereotyped, theatrical ‘black’ voice, using urban black vernacular; and the song is about how Obama is not authentically black because he’s not ‘from the ‘hood’(lyrics from a transcript on Rush’s site):So this ‘satire’ comes down on the side of its own object. What kind of satire is that? Did someone miss something? And this ‘satire’ uses crude racial stereotypes opportunistically *without diffusing or critiquing any of them.* So it essentially satirizes nothing.Any of these people who try to defend Limbaugh by claiming that people just don’t get his ‘satire’ should consider A) knowing something about satire and B) reading and commenting directly on the actual texts. How vacuous it is to expropriate the word ‘satire’ and act misunderstood every time someone needs to back away asswise from taking responsibility for such garbage.
suomynona - October 21, 2009 at 9:16 pm
My apologies for the lyrics not pasting properly into the post above. The pasting seems not to be working, so you can read the lyrics to the ‘magic negro’ song here on Limbaugh’s site:http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/estack_12_13_06/BarackSection/Drive-By_Media_Misreporting_of__Barack_the_Magic_Negro__Song.guest.html
livefreeordie2 - October 21, 2009 at 10:46 pm
suonynona – How vacuous it is to expropriate the word ‘satire’ and act misunderstood every time someone needs to back away asswise from taking responsibility for such garbage.Dude…if you have to work that hard to try to make the case, you are probably off target. And you are. . . As proof that you simply don’t get it, that “stereotyped, theatrical “black” voice is an excellent parody of Al Sharpton with his trademark bullhorn. It was Sharpton that, in 2007, questioned whether Obama was “authentically Black.” Oops! Didn’t know that, did you? It’s funny stuff. . .but that’s the problem, isn’t it?Much like a certain religious group, liberals are happy to make jokes about others. . .all the jokes about Bush – Bush as a monkey, Bush as Alfred E. Neuman, jokes about Kathrine Harris’ appearance in 2000 – were real knee slappers, kinda like depicting other religious groups as animals and such. But criticize Obama or disagree with liberal dogma and you might as well have made a cartoon about somebody’s god. And by the way, I wouldn’t expect you to accept “facts” from the “Christian Coalition.” Don’t expect me to accept “facts” from Media Matters. They are nothing more than a liberal “hit squad” who routinely take quotes out of context. If Media Matters said the sky was blue, I’d go outside to check.
suomynona - October 22, 2009 at 6:56 am
livefree,Consier that in the link to the Rush Limbaugh Web site I posted above this information about the voice in the song being sung by a Sharpton imitator is included. Yes, I read that. And yes, despite your completely irrelevant claim that I didn’t know that the song was also about Sharpton, I did. But again, that changes nothing about what I wrote. I addressed your claim that the song was satirizing the LA Times article, and I showed that in fact the song satirizes nothing. And no, I don’t think the song is funny, nor do I think the fact that the singer is impersonating Al Sharpton makes it somehow funny. As I wrote above, the song, taken as a satire, merely uses inflammatory stereotypes of blacks to critique a position that was *already* being critiqued by the object of the satire, the person whom the satire is aiming to critique. Brigning Sharpton into the picture only shows how sloppy Rush and his people are in lumping together two generalized ‘figures of the left’–the LA Times and Al Shaprton–when in fact they’re on opposite ends of the argument. Like Sharpton, Limbaugh engagees in ignorant race-baiting, and in this case, he does it while attempting to critique those on the left for ignorant race baiting. See, this wasn’t exactly hard work. It’s just the fruits of a willingness to step away from the mindless liberal v. conservative soundbite reductivisim and actually read and scrutinize someone else’s absurd political claim/s.
lexalexander - October 28, 2009 at 10:55 am
[[So tell us, lexalexander, what are some statements that you would call "simply indefensible?"]]– See below.[[It's far too easy for you to do what you did in your posting.]]– No, it’s far too easy for people like you to deny the obvious when the evidence, courtesy of Teh Googlez, is all around you. I’m not sure if they let you say “anti-intellectualism” here at the Chronicle, but your behavior is an excellent example.[[You've said Limbaugh is a racist without saying it.]]I’m saying it now, jackass. Am I typing loud enough for you to hear me?[[You've said he made statements without saying what they were. You've suggested that there are legitimate sources for those statements without saying what they are and you've put the onus for checking on the reader.]]– No, I’m putting it on you. There’s a difference. When my foot is getting peed on, the onus is on the guy who expects me to believe it’s just raining.[[Personally, I find that kind of logical sleight of hand to be indefensible. . .and pretty lame.]] — livefreeordie2Personally, I find your superpowers of denial, or, worse, your abject willingness to defend the indefensible, evidence of high moral obtuseness.It would have been a very simple matter for you to Google “Rush Limbaugh” and “racist or racism” and find, along with any number of exaggerations, misinterpretations and apocryphal accounts, a number of well-documented examples. Here are just a few, duly documented (and I know that it’s common sport among Rush defenders to blow off FAIR and MediaMatters as propaganda mills, but at least they link to their sources, while Rush just pulls stuff out of his rear end):http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3928http://mediamatters.org/research/200910270044http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200910140031http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909160012http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200908280013When even Kathleen Parker and David Brooks think you’re racist, you’ve got problems: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200909200006I also would commend to your attention David Neiwert’s essay Rush, Newspeak and Fascism: An Exegesis, which, although not focused primarily on Rush’s racespeak, includes it in its larger context.Thus endeth the lesson, and thus endeth my part in this discussion. I am no more interested in wasting any more time debating the existence of Rush Limbaugh’s racism than I am in debating the existence of gravity.