« Ayotte vs Planned Parenthood - Reasoned arguments -- UPDATE | Main | If he had done it in an American Library ... »
December 01, 2005
Stupid Quote of the Day
Yet another piece of 99 cent store paste jewelry from Amanda waxing poetic (and clueless) on racism
Stereotypes are how the oppressor justifies oppression.Yes, Mandy, my sweet. No one but the melanin-challenged ever engage in stereotypes and racism.
Jaysus on a Pony. Count on Mandy to open mouth and spew leftiest cultism without even any attempt at serious reflection.
(and Mandy is quite the coward, too.)
Posted by Darleen at December 1, 2005 08:27 PM
Comments
The stereotype of the homophobic, Jesus-loving, hick conservative is the most amusing thing online. Remember Angry White Men in 1994? (Maybe not. That was a dozen years ago)
My point: we all engage in stereotypes to some extent and it has nothing to do with oppression -- and everything to do with ignorance
Posted by: donsurber at December 2, 2005 04:56 AM
Mandy. . . she's that weird chick who spews obcenities in her blog, then makes up for it by showing cute panda pictures.
Obcenity and twee-ness; that kinda sums up the Left for me these days.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 2, 2005 07:49 AM
It's not JAYSUS. It's JAYsus.
Posted by: Carl W. Goss at December 2, 2005 09:55 AM
TalkinKamel, do you read Darleen's blog? Obscenity and tweeness are rampant here as well. Does that make her a lefty? (Don't you hate getting trapped by your own stereotypes?)
Posted by: Angel at December 2, 2005 12:38 PM
"No one but the melanin-challenged ever engage in stereotypes and racism."
Nothing in what she wrote implies that.
If you bothered to think, you'd realize that the oppressors in Rwanda certainly used stereotypes to justify their genocide; the caste system in India could be considered an elaborate system of stereotypes with higher-caste groups enforcing restrictions of lower-caste groups. I'd be willing to bet that wealthy Latin Americans of Spanish descent have stereotypes that they apply to Latin Americans of native descent, which are used to justify the major wealth imbalance.
Further, the fact that a group in power uses stereotypes in no way implies that the groups without power do not use stereotypes. It's just that, being without power, they're in no position to oppress anyone. Unless there is a caste or group beneath them.
Now, if you wanted to flag a stupid comment Amanda made, you probably should have selected "Stereotypes exist so privileged people can justify their privilege and their mistreatment of others to themselves."
That's just dumb. Everyone has stereotypes, whether they have privilege or not.
Posted by: Jon H at December 2, 2005 08:41 PM
So.... um.... where in that quote does Amanda mention the "melanin challenged"?
Are you saying that it's untrue that oppressors use stereotypes to justify their oppression of another group? That sounds pretty stupid to me.
Posted by: Jrod at December 2, 2005 08:58 PM
Gosh, Darlin, seems like you forgot to attempt some "serious reflection" before spewing. As others have pointed out above, that statement t'aint so much about crackers stereotyping non-crackers.
"Oppressor" is a racially neutral word. It is you, not Amanda who equates "oppressor" and "whitey". Why is that? Go ahead and reflect a bit. We'll wait.
Posted by: mark at December 2, 2005 11:44 PM
Gosh, Mark, let's see what Mandy sez
As an exercise in this, I thought up some particularly repugnant and common racist stereotypes in our cultureand how they benefit the oppressor:
Black people are lazy and stupid. This one is a favorite of conservative columnists and disturbingly enough, it's the one that a handful of conservative black pundits are paid nicely to repeat, like Thomas Sowell and his "black redneck" bullshit. This stereotype is how the privileged justify the fact that job and other economic opportunities go overwhelmingly to white people.
Asian women are submissive. Ah, the racist stereotype that got me into a huge shitstorm when I protested it--Pandagon was swarmed by the misogynist bastards who not only want to believe they can tell a woman's submissiveness by her race, but think they are "punishing" white women by inflicting their sorry selves on Asian women. Needless to say, this racist stereotype is how that racist, sexist group of losers with entitlement issues justify themselves to themselves.
Black women don't control their sexuality/reproduction. This is an interesting stereotype in that while the general gist of it hasn't changed in a few hundred years, the function of it to the oppressor has. For most of our nation's history, black women's supposed looseness was, to be blunt, was an excuse for white men to rape black women with impunity and get away with it. Of course, it had many other functions, primarily to dehumanize black people in general, but the actual rape of black women and metaphorical rape of black people in general is justified by this stereotype.
Interestingly enough, the function of the stereotype has changed. Now it's used to justify cutting critical social services to some of the most vulnerable people in society--poor women with children. Black women are routinely painted in the media as oversexed and as having "too many" children, giving the conservative punditry a handy, dehumanizing stereotype to sell people on the idea that it's a good idea to take food and housing away from mothers with small children.
Mexicans are lazy/Mexicans are hard-working but ignorant. The previous stereotype is one that has existed relatively unchanged for hundreds of years. This one is interesting because the stereotype of Mexican nationals who move to the United States has changed, because what the privileged classes need to believe about Mexican immigrants in order to justify oppression has changed. The stereotype of a Mexican lazily napping under a sombrero that graced many a white asshole's lawn art is on its way out. (Though still around, of course.) Instead, we're hearing more of the stereotype that, "Mexicans will do work that white people won't," a stereotype that our President coughed up the other day. [Note: such a quote doesn't exist....ed.](Nothing like stone cold racism coming from the nation's leader to really bolster the racists' cause.) Obviously, this newer stereotype exists so that farm owners can pit illegal immigrants and people who have a legal right to work in the U.S. against each other and drive down wages so both groups can be exploited for their labor. Greg has an excellent post on this.
Black men are criminal. I almost feel stupid pointing out how this stereotype functions mainly to give the government an excuse to wreak havoc on black communities by locking up as many black men as they possibly can, which hurts families, earning potential, and even disenfranchises a lot of people from the vote. Basically, it's a way to take away all those things from black people that will make it easier for them to do better for themselves and gain power in this country. The War on Drugs, which is by definition selectively enforced, is a Jim Crow law if ever there was--black people and white people use drugs at the same rates, but black people are thrown into jail for it a lot more than white people, by leaps and bounds. Who is the "privileged" oppressor in Mandy's worldview? Go ahead and give it a read. She is very passionate about her own bigotry.
Posted by: Darleen at December 3, 2005 12:16 AM
So... talking about the stereotypes in one culture means she doesn't think sterotypes exist in other cultures?
You know, I think it's dumb how you harp on Pandagon; as we all know, other liberal blogs never say stupid things about racism.
[Darleen says: yes, Chris, I've blogged for more than a year, 820 entries and have mentioned Pandagon (sometimes only in passing) a total of 7 times. Yessireebob, that's some heavy harping.]
Posted by: Christopher at December 3, 2005 12:28 AM
Well, and Pandagon has had articles reflecting problems with racism and misogyny and oppresors who weren't white.
To just assume that because one article mentions one group of people as a problem means that the author must think other groups are never a problem is a bit silly.
As silly as saying you think only Pandagon writes liberal stupidity because of this one blog post.
I was attempting to go for some irony.
Posted by: Christopher at December 3, 2005 03:07 AM
So who do you think has been doing the oppressing in "our culture"? Blacks, asians, and Mexicans, I suppose.
Of course, no single group of people has a monopoly on oppression in this world, or even the American culture. Nor are stereotypes only used by oppressors. However, I still fail to see how Amanda's "stupid quote" is actually stupid. It's the truth.
Perhaps you think the truth is stupid? There are times that I'd agree...
P.S. Please explain how Amanda is a coward. She is at least brave enough to use your actual name when referring to you, whereas you have to make up a diminuitive name for her to make yourself feel bigger and superior.
Posted by: Jrod at December 3, 2005 08:40 AM
Is Darleen here saying that white people in America are NOT privileged? It is mere coincidence that they possess nearly all the wealth and power in the culture?
This from the person who wants to stamp "Judeo Christian culture" on the forehead of every baby born in the USA?
The lack of self awareness on the right, especially when coupled with such belligerance as Darleen exhibits, is surely a subject ripe for satire. Now that the conservatives have saturated our public consciousness with their domineering and bellicose attitudes, the inevitably shifting tide will finally allow us all the hours of mirth we've been starved for - as films and television begin to prick their self importance and flamboyant illogic.
Posted by: Tallulah at December 3, 2005 09:53 AM
Tallulah
BTW, can you cite a television show or film that offers an identifiable conservative (aka a classical liberal) in a heroic role? How about one that shows the ideas and values of conservatives/classical liberals in a positive light?
I'll wait.
Posted by: Darleen at December 3, 2005 03:42 PM
I'm still waiting to see where Amanda mentioned the melenin-challenged in that quote. I assume it has something to do with why exactly the quote is stupid, but obviously I'm too slow to figure it out on my own. Please, help me, Leeny! Not to mention, I'd still like to know why she's a coward. C'mon, this is your chance to change my mind with your unimpeachable logic!
[Darleen says: I can't help your reading comprehension problems. Mandy's leftist 'stereotypes are the tool of the oppressor' mantra with subsequent examples of 'oppressed' is sufficient in both knowing the 'oppressor' she is shaking her fist at in good 60's style agiprop. That she doesn't like anyone that doesn't fall in submission to her pronouncements is illustrated by her craven practice of throttling trackbacks to all who Annoy Her Highness.]
Posted by: Jrod at December 3, 2005 05:01 PM
Yeah, Angel, but I happen to like Darleen's version of obscenity (she is never, EVER twee!) more than Amanda's!
:>)
Seriously---have you actually read Mandy-Pandy's blog? It's like trying to chew bubble-gum laced with cyanide!
And she takes the meaning of "twee" to whole, new levels---and does much of the ratin', ravin' left these days.
Posted by: TalkinKamel at December 3, 2005 05:28 PM
You'll wait? Oh my, Darleen, were you always so arrogantly obnoxious or did your ideological crusade make you so?
What the hell IS an identifiable conservative, which for some reason you call a 'classic liberal"? Do you understand you make these definitions up in your head to soothe yourself?
Let's see. Conservative values, if I remember from growing up in a staunchly Republican family, were - fiscal responsibility (first and absolutely foremost), pro business government policies, limited government, strong national defense, traditional moral values, personal liberty. However, you are now looking for a classic liberal as well....which I'm guessing is how you define today's conservatives. So today's conservatives....fiscally profligate, militantly pro-corporate (complete with rampant cronyism, corruption and payola) , gigantic overblown government, irresponsible meddling in foreign affairs of other nations, moral hypocrisy and abusive proseltyzation of Christianity within government, invasion of privacy by government involvement in life and death family issues, limitations on civil rights of Americans even unto denying them the ancient right of habeas corpus, irresponsible and incompetent deployment of the military and homeland defense forces without regard to the longterm defense needs of the nation.
Please explain how such a character might be portrayed as a hero. And to what audience? The American people have traditionally identified with the honorable underdog. Explain how a wealthy white male who espouses tax cuts for the rich, military service for the poor, corporate welfare and an activist Supreme Court that imposes his definition of moral order upon "free" citizens is ever going to fit that role.
I'd like to agree with Angel here also that there's plenty of tweeness on this blog, mixed in with a disturbing proclivity for profanity directed almost insanely at anyone who veers from the ideological warpath this blogmistress is on. Fascinating, this unholy alliance between the American corporatists, warped Christo-Yankees and ... those like Darleen who seem to have no stake in the whole thing other than to hate anyone who isn't them.
Posted by: Tallulah at December 4, 2005 04:44 AM