Foreigners Around the World

December 28, 2005 9:32 AM

"A Brief Survey of the Various Foreigners, Their Chief Characteristics, Customs, and Manners." Israelis, "They were personally responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, the 1929 stock market crash, and the loss of World War II by a prominent European country." On Canada, "It is thought to resemble a sort of arctic Nebraska." It's okay because it's both unapologetic and National Lampoon circa Animal House. Harvard boys in the 60s were original ironic hipsters!
posted by geoff. (361 comments total)

Dad?
Mom?
posted by jonmc at 9:36 AM on December 28, 2005

Wow, was this ever funny? I like offensive humour as much as the next white guy. But these jokes aren't just offensive, they're mostly lame.
posted by Nelson at 9:45 AM on December 28, 2005

*Stupid comment about the modern day, truly conservative P.J. O'Rourke, and how he probably views foreigners the same way now but isn't joking*

Just to save someone else the trouble.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:47 AM on December 28, 2005

I laughed. PJ O'Rourke can definitely be funny when he puts his mind to it.
posted by jonmc at 9:48 AM on December 28, 2005

Isn't PJ O'Rourke just a racist anyway?
posted by delmoi at 10:00 AM on December 28, 2005

It's funny, but it is neither ironic nor hip, both of which would require a hefty dose of self-mockery.
posted by solipse at 10:04 AM on December 28, 2005

Isn't PJ O'Rourke just a racist anyway?

Aren't we all? I say better to throw all the stereotypes and prejudices on the table rather than the banal faux-politeness we're all practicing.
posted by jonmc at 10:06 AM on December 28, 2005

it is neither ironic nor hip, both of which would require a hefty dose of self-mockery.

I always equate rich, white kids making jokes about race as being hipster. Maybe that's just a Viceland thing.
posted by geoff. at 10:11 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm having a hard time finding the irony or humor here. It's okay because it's unapologetic? So because someone wasn't ashamed to be laughing at dumb racist jokes they get a pass? Seriously. I'm confused.

Also - I read lots of National Lampoon circa Animal House and I'm sure this wasn't funny even then. SNL and others back then could do this with plenty of humor and irony. But the National Lampoon take is just asinine.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:12 AM on December 28, 2005

At least this is a demonstration that was passes for offensive humor nowadays is just conservative claptrap, whereas, in the grand old days, it was balls-to-the-wall racism.

Bravo!

Now let me track down the 9-year-old version of myself who used to read this crap and find it funny. I've got to kill that kid for his abominable taste.
posted by maxsparber at 10:12 AM on December 28, 2005

Hey! PJ O'Rourke used to be funny! Stop the hatin'...
posted by Artw at 10:13 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm having trouble believing many of you. You may not have wanted to laugh, but you laughed. Therein lies the rub.
posted by jonmc at 10:15 AM on December 28, 2005

jonmc, I am not a racist, and I would not smother "everyone" with that title like you have. Your last 2 comments seem to say "Hey, be a racist, eveyone is doing it". What's the deal?
posted by parallax7d at 10:18 AM on December 28, 2005

I didn't laugh.
posted by maxsparber at 10:20 AM on December 28, 2005

Your horse is dead. No one wanted to ride it anyway. Time for a new agenda that you may hold us all in contempt with. We get it already - We're hypocrites when we show any dislike for racism. Right.

No, we did not all laugh. It's your fixation. Don't confuse it with reality.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:21 AM on December 28, 2005

Your last 2 comments seem to say "Hey, be a racist, eveyone is doing it". What's the deal?

No, but I'll happily admit to laughing my ass off at some of it. Mainly since O'Rourke is a good comedic writer.

And anyone of any race who claims not to be a racist is either lying or in denial. Racism's still a bad thing, but let's start with honesty, please.
posted by jonmc at 10:21 AM on December 28, 2005

Your horse is dead. No one wanted to ride it anyway.

The vociferousness of the reaction to it says otherwise.
posted by jonmc at 10:22 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm not a racist.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:24 AM on December 28, 2005

I am.
posted by Witty at 10:25 AM on December 28, 2005

i'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony
i'd like to buy the world a coke ...
posted by pyramid termite at 10:25 AM on December 28, 2005

Maybe I'm just naive, but isn't this satire? He makes racism look ridiculous by going over the top, see the above Israeli joke.
posted by geoff. at 10:27 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm not a racist.

Keep telling yourself that. No being on earth is free of some kind of prejudice. I'm not defending it, just stating a fact. Generally speaking, I'm suspicious of people who deny this, since I assume they're mainly doing so to accuse others and deny their own part in things.

As someone once said: You're either part of the problem, or you're a fucking liar.
posted by jonmc at 10:28 AM on December 28, 2005

I don't think there's anything particularly funny about most of these. I guess the point was to present the stereotypes in the most outrageous, over-the-top possible way, to make them look absurd or something, but I don't think it worked.

That being said, I did laugh at the part about the English often having large collections of useless things like lamp finials or toad eggs.
posted by feathermeat at 10:30 AM on December 28, 2005

"The vociferousness of the reaction to it says otherwise."

My bad. I forgot. Anything which is denied is true. You make a very persuasive case sir. As to your accusations that I'm a racist, let me embrace this newly rediscovered grade school playground logic - I'm rubber and you're glue. Whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:30 AM on December 28, 2005

Keep telling yourself that. No being on earth is free of some kind of prejudice. I'm not defending it, just stating a fact. Generally speaking, I'm suspicious of people who deny this, since I assume they're mainly doing so to accuse others and deny their own part in things.
posted by jonmc at 1:28 PM EST on December 28 [!]

Jon, respectfully, while I understand what you're getting at, I have to wonder if you sometimes revel in it a tad?
posted by Rothko at 10:35 AM on December 28, 2005

anyone of any race who claims not to be a racist is either lying or in denial.

Hey, now - some of my best friends are washed-up, mailing-it-in humour writers who were actually at their best as Rolling Stone political correspondents.

Now, O'Rourke's recollections of his hippie days? That shit is funny . . .
posted by gompa at 10:39 AM on December 28, 2005

"You're either part of the problem, or you're a fucking liar."

So it's not enough that I think of all men and women as fundamentally equal? It's not enough that I find racist comments objectionable and I refuse to find them funny? If everyone is a racist and no amount of not being a racist will prevent that, then what is your point?

If we don't find that funny, how can we stop pretending we don't find it funny?

If not being racist isn't enough to avoid being racist, how might one go about not being racist?

And to contrast - If one has pernicious issues that they insist on projecting on everyone else, that might be resolved by just dropping it after looking foolish for the 120th time.
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:40 AM on December 28, 2005

Yes, Rothko, I do revel in showing up hypocrisy and self-serving gestures. Ya got me.

First of all, y6, if you think I don't take racism seriously you obviously didn't read this thread earlier today.

Second, with the exception of a few drinking buddies I hold the whole human race in contempt, not just you.*

Third, my point is merely this: we all fall alover ourselves to be the first to declare how offended we are by stuff like this or to make brave statements like "Racism is bad!" and wait for someone to pin a rose on us. It's self serving, just like many white liberals I know who crow "I just loove black people." I always want to say, "Of course you do, you don't know any."

*I exaggerate. I love people, I just hate humaity. Most people are the other way around.
posted by jonmc at 10:42 AM on December 28, 2005

y6y6y6 - What has six balls and fucks black people?
posted by Witty at 10:42 AM on December 28, 2005

"No being on earth is free of some kind of prejudice."

jonmc, I can agree with this statement. I have several prejudices I routinely work on every day. Nearly all of them have to do my politics, though. i.e. I am prejudiced against people who drive SUVs - I secretly believe they're all soulless, self-centered red-staters. This is a ridiculous prejudice and I work on contradicting it every time it pops into my head.
I'm still sort of prejudiced against old people. I don't know what it is, but I always assume that they'll think my ideas are stupid or worthless and so there isn't really any reason to even speak to them. This is a dumb prejudice, many older folks are actually quite open to new ideas.
Cops. I have a really hard time with this one. I fucking hate cops. Cops make my blood boil. For the longest time I thought it was an "authority" thing, but I'm not so sure any more. If a fire-chief or a professor or a judge or a doctor tells me to jump, and almost always do. But there's a tiny part of my brain that screams "all cops hate you and are out to wreck your life" whenever I see the man in blue.
This is incredibly stupid, especially because most cops are probably more interested in keeping me safe, rather than hurting or attacking me. Cops aren't dumb, in fact most people who work as hard at something as cops do aren't 'dumb'.

But I am not a racist. I grew up in an extremely racially diverse setting, I work with a diverse bunch of people, I've lived in other countries and even been persecuted because of my skin color. I cannot think of one time in my life when I've looked at someone of a difference race and had a stupid stereotype pop into my head or that I've acted in a prejudiced way against them because of their race.
Maybe it's because I'm only 22 and haven't had racism beaten into my head by apologists like you, jonmc.
But you can take your whole, "Racism is ok because everyone is a racist," act and shove it.
It's bullshit, and I think you know it.
I think you're just stirring the pot.

And just for the record -
I think the material linked to in this post isn't funny - I think it's slack-jawed idiocy. It isn't even mildly humorous. It's sensationalist - the only people I can imagine finding humor in it are old racist guys. I'll defend its right to exist, but anyone who laughs at it should crawl back into the frathouse they were spawned in.

Fratboys. I guess I'm prejudiced against them, too.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:43 AM on December 28, 2005

jonmc, while as you know you're one of my favorite guys around here, you should stop and ask yourself how much you're accomplishing when your comments are so predictable they could have been written by a jonmcbot. Fine, you found it funny; you could profitably have left it at that. Everyone who agrees with you that we're all racists already agrees with you; nobody else is going to be convinced by your vehemence.
posted by languagehat at 10:44 AM on December 28, 2005

So it's not enough that I think of all men and women as fundamentally equal?

You think of them that way, but do you always act accordingly? I'm sorry but I have yet to meet anyone, myself included, who is without sin on this front (and I mean all kinds of prejudices, not merely racial ones). If we accept that, we can lower the accusatory, emotional tone of the debate and maybe make some progress. Just one an's opinion. Feel free to disregard and continue showing us how great you are for believing differently.
posted by jonmc at 10:44 AM on December 28, 2005

jonmc - I'll buy that we're all a little racist, but that doesn't make it OK to say racist things. If you walk down the street and see a fat person, you might think "cut out the cakes and get some exercise, you slob", but you wouldn't think it's appropriate to say it.

I found these pieces not even slightly funny. Except the joke about the Chinese people going into a bar, though even that's a less funny version of a better joke.
posted by athenian at 10:45 AM on December 28, 2005

Jon, is it okay to say though some of it made me laugh a little, I was offended? Or does that make me a bad person?
posted by Rothko at 10:45 AM on December 28, 2005

"Racism is ok because everyone is a racist,"

Strawman. I never said it was OK, merely that it is.
posted by jonmc at 10:46 AM on December 28, 2005

Rothko: *applause*

Thank you. Give the crazy gay welshman a cheroot!
posted by jonmc at 10:46 AM on December 28, 2005

The Virginia Lottery!

Now that's funny. No?
posted by Witty at 10:47 AM on December 28, 2005

Oh christ, not another thread about defender-of-the-underclass Jonmc and race..
posted by SweetJesus at 10:48 AM on December 28, 2005

I, for one, laughed. Those who didn't, did not get it.
posted by jsavimbi at 10:50 AM on December 28, 2005

Nobody brought up any underclass but you, SweetJesus. Now do you want to deal with the substance of what I'm trying to communicate or do you just want to brawl or something?
posted by jonmc at 10:50 AM on December 28, 2005

That's just SweetJesus' prejudice talking.
posted by Witty at 10:52 AM on December 28, 2005

Third, my point is merely this: we all fall alover ourselves to be the first to declare how offended we are by stuff like this or to make brave statements like "Racism is bad!" and wait for someone to pin a rose on us.

Yeah! Like those people who fall all over themselves to be first to point out perceived hypocrisy (every fucking time) then spend the rest of the thread defen... oh fuck it.
posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 10:52 AM on December 28, 2005

Now do you want to deal with the substance of what I'm trying to communicate or do you just want to brawl or something?

we want to brawl, of course ... isn't that what you wanted?
posted by pyramid termite at 10:53 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm a racist, but that wasn't funny.
posted by Captaintripps at 10:56 AM on December 28, 2005

I am not a racist because I hate everybody equally.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:58 AM on December 28, 2005

Nobody brought up any underclass but you, SweetJesus.

Jonmc: Third, my point is merely this: we all fall alover ourselves to be the first to declare how offended we are by stuff like this or to make brave statements like "Racism is bad!" and wait for someone to pin a rose on us. It's self serving, just like many white liberals I know who crow "I just loove black people." I always want to say, "Of course you do, you don't know any.

Ahhh yes, nothing to do with class. Just a discussion about how we while liberals, who loooooove black people, even though we don't know any. Nothing to do with class what so ever (as if race and class aren't intertwined).

You have a habit of coming into every fucking thread that has even a tangential relationship to human sociology, and ranting about how we're all racist white effite liberals who are secretly terrified of black people, even though we profess to love them. Eventualluy, the thread just becomes all about jonmc. You've made your point, let it die.

Sorry, but it's just gets old. It's hard to have a discussion with a broken record.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:01 AM on December 28, 2005

On Wednesday nights, I have dinner with my daughter, then we go to the library. While she does her homework, I leaf through old issues of Life. It's fun to read the old ads, like the one for Banquet lemon-cream pies: “sultry! suave! sybaritic!" The most amazing thing was a story I found from the week my dad was born, in 1938. Georgetown University had a Nazi party! No, not a chapter of the National Socialist German Workers Party, but an actual party, with a Nazi theme. See, it was funny then to have 100 or so college boys dressed as Hitler, goose-stepping around the quad (or whatever they have at GU). Quite bizarre.
posted by MrMoonPie at 11:03 AM on December 28, 2005

For some reason whenever I think "Harvard in the 60s" the image that comes to mind is that of Tucker Carlson -- white, probably family-wealthy and wearing bow ties.
posted by clevershark at 11:03 AM on December 28, 2005

ranting about how we're all racist white effite liberals who are secretly terrified of black people, even though we profess to love them

I'm saying that everyone, of every race, every class, in every country is to some degree guilty here. And if we realize that, we can maybe have the discussion more calmly and maybe make some progress. I'd actually like to discuss the merits of that idea. Maybe you want to talk about me, I dunno.
posted by jonmc at 11:03 AM on December 28, 2005

Somehow I'd be surprised if the "Recommend this to a friend" link is seeing much action today.
posted by clevershark at 11:05 AM on December 28, 2005

It is possible to get a joke and not find it funny. And I do not for a second believe that O'Rourke was exploding racism by exaggerating it to show how ridiculous it is. I think he thought he was being a naughty little comedy rebel by indulging in the most reprehensible behavior he could muster, and trying to excuse himself from criticism, as people on this thread are trying to excuse him, by claiming that it's just comedy, and Jesus, get a sense of humor.

I will remind you that the greatest weapon of the schoolyard bully is mockery, and that doesn't make it allowable. And, because others laugh at other's expense, it doesn't mean such jokes are funny. Just that those who laugh wish they were bullies too.
posted by maxsparber at 11:08 AM on December 28, 2005

African
Probably not people at all. Probably some kind of monkey. They eat each other and worship bundles of sticks and mud. You can never remember the names of their countries, which have a new Main Nigger every half hour and too many snakes and bugs anyway.

Indian
Dismal, obsequious deminiggers ... 'Sub-' is no idle prefix in its application to this continent.

Jesus fucking cheeerist. Can some of you that found this amusing explain the humor to me, or why I don't "get it"? In order for something so patently offensive to be funny, it should have some measure of self-reference, or recognition that the observer is some kind of ignorant half-wit. Instead, this reads like some kind of White Power or Klan tract.

I'll admit that despite our best courses of PC re-education (I went to college in the late 80s), I still have some racist impulses that make me extremely disappointed in myself, but I really can't see any humor on any of that.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 11:11 AM on December 28, 2005

"At any rate, they are apparently able to train Frenchmen to play hockey, which is more than any European has ever been able to do."

Come on, that's funny.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:13 AM on December 28, 2005

It is funny, crash. Until you hear it in your head in PJ's squeaky nasal drone. And then, it kind of sucks.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 11:15 AM on December 28, 2005

Ah, good point.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:16 AM on December 28, 2005

I'd actually like to discuss the merits of that idea. Maybe you want to talk about me, I dunno.

I'm not sure if you really want to have a discussion. I just think you like to profess your somewhat strange views on race ad-infinitum, and wait for the fur to fly. Maybe I took the bait, and I shouldn't have. Whatever, I'd rather not derail into this further.

As for my take on the link, this is my favorite:

AUSTRALIANS: Violently loud alcoholic roughnecks whose idea of fun is to throw up on your car. The national sport is breaking furniture and the average daily consumption of beer in Sydney is ten and three quarters Imperial gallons for children under the age of nine. "Making a Shambles" is required study in the primary schools and all Australians are bilingual, speaking both English and Sheep. Possibly as a result of their country's being upside down, the local dialect has over 400 terms for vomit.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:16 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm saying that everyone, of every race, every class, in every country is to some degree guilty here.

it's amazing how you manage to talk to 6 1/2 billion people and still have time to post to metafilter ... but, you know, just the other day, i was looking at a 3 month old baby in a carriage and she called me a "honky", so maybe you have something there

do you know what the real problem here is? ... you're indulging in gross, obvious generalizations that don't actually SAY anything ... it's like posting to a thread about cancer and pointing out that everybody dies of something ... it might be true, but is it a really useful thing to say?

do you really think you're the first person to come up with this concept that everybody is racist? ... do you really think that the reaction's going to be anything but "yeah, whatever" or self-righteous denial? ... do you really think you're going to come up with any insights from anyone that wouldn't happen in a freshman high school communications class?

did you really think we were going to have a deep conversation with a link like that in the first place?

here ... just type EIAR for "everybody is a racist" next time you want to comment on a thread like this and we'll all know what you've said

Maybe you want to talk about me, I dunno.

well, it's bound to be more interesting than the link or what you've had to say about it
posted by pyramid termite at 11:18 AM on December 28, 2005

I've never found P.J O'Rourke funny, but this was stupid even for him. If you want good racial humor, rent Blazing Saddles.
posted by InfidelZombie at 11:19 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm not sure if you really want to have a discussion.

I honestly do, FWIW. Why else would I keep bringing it up? I don't actually enjoy fighting, contrary to popular belief.
posted by jonmc at 11:19 AM on December 28, 2005

Tommy Gnosis, P.J. O'Rourke is a well known political satirist. The National Lampoon is a well known satirical organization. It's not "Look how stupid black people are, LOL" it's "Look how stupid racism is, LOL."

Think reading Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" and getting upset that he wants to kill Irish babies.
posted by geoff. at 11:19 AM on December 28, 2005

jonmc: you bring it up because you are a troll.
posted by Rumple at 11:21 AM on December 28, 2005

Bullshit. I maintain that it's O'Roarke being racist and thinking it's funny.
posted by maxsparber at 11:23 AM on December 28, 2005

Stay back, I've got a gun!
posted by caddis at 11:23 AM on December 28, 2005

I actually thought it was funny when it wasn't being racist. The entry about Australians, for example, was chuckle-worthy. The problem was things like this:

"You can never remember the names of their countries, which have a new Main Nigger every half hour and too many snakes and bugs anyway."

I probably would find some guilty humor in the confusing names of African countries and their tendency toward violent, corrupt, and impermanent leadership. But this is just lazy and witless.
posted by bjrubble at 11:23 AM on December 28, 2005

Rumple: please. That's a nice way to dismiss veiws you might not like, but grow up.

maxsparber: now you're a mindreader. Quick, what am I thinking right now?
posted by jonmc at 11:24 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm 38 years old, geoff, I know who P.J. O'Rourke is. As a matter of fact, I thought Eat the Rich was a stupid, self-inflating piece of shite, much like the author himself. We'll have to disagree on whether the "meta" of that is very funny.

We can debate on whether this is good satire, but as you know, good satire doesn't necessarily have to be funny. What I'm saying is that teh funny isn't there. It's not twisted or clever enough, in my view at least.

Perhaps I'd have felt differently about it, if I didn't know who the author was. We'll never know.
posted by Tommy Gnosis at 11:25 AM on December 28, 2005

it's like posting to a thread about cancer and pointing out that everybody dies of something ... it might be true, but is it a really useful thing to say?

Pyramidtermite has it. It's not that jonmc is factually inaccurate, but that the truism that the human brain engages in generalizations doesn't get us very far. Harping on that fact comes across as an excuse to do nothing, a recipe for paralysis.
posted by ibmcginty at 11:26 AM on December 28, 2005

Why else would I keep bringing it up?

I have no fucking idea, yet I could set my watch to your racial philosophizing. Like swallows returning to Capistrano, it's just so predictable..
posted by SweetJesus at 11:29 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm not a mindreader, johnmc. I'm just a reader. I know O'Roarke's writing here is hateful because nowhere in it does it indicate that it's not hateful, that it's a parody of hatefullness. Instead, it tells racist and xenophobic jokes, and I'm not going to find them funny just because some immature part of my psyche hasn't yet completely overcome the racism and xenophobia that is the sadder part of my cultural heritage.
posted by maxsparber at 11:30 AM on December 28, 2005

Serious question, jonmc: You say you honestly want a discussion; however your premise is that anyone in the entire world who claims not to fit into your generalization is a liar. Without arguing the point, I can't really see what you think is left to discuss since you've preemtively dismissed any possible counterpoint.

1) You are a racist
2) Am not
3) Now you're a racist liar
4) Troll
5) See? What do you have against Trollish-Americans?

/okay - mostly serious question
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:30 AM on December 28, 2005

Harping on that fact comes across as an excuse to do nothing, a recipe for paralysis.

That may be how it comes across, but I can assure you my intent is the opposite. Like I said, I seek to lower the emotional and accusatory level of the race/ethnic/gender/whatever debate, since nothing ends rational discussion quicker than accusations of prejudice.

I could be wrong or misguided, but it's an idea I've had for a while.
posted by jonmc at 11:31 AM on December 28, 2005

Really uneven, more misses than hits. Being over the top racist can be funny but it is still only one joke. He repeats the same joke virtually every sentence because there is so little insight in most of his observations.

Including "boy" with racial slurs applied to blacks is funny in a way that calling blacks monkeys isn't; it's somewhat novel. The problem with most of these racist jokes isn't just that they're racist but that they're old and have been old for hundreds of years.

British food is bad? No shit, that wasn't news in the 60s. British people collect stupid shit? That rings as true, but it's novel. I wasn't around in the 60's so maybe the lots mexicans in the car thing was new then, but I kind of doubt it.
posted by I Foody at 11:32 AM on December 28, 2005

I'd say to jonmc that he chould wait to find a better-written wagon to attach his populist horse to.
posted by Space Coyote at 11:32 AM on December 28, 2005

It's Raining Florence Henderson: I can only say what I've seen on that score. I've yet to see any adult human completely innocent of some form of bigotry. I think accepting that makes it more difficult to scapegoat and forces us to actually get down to changing the behaviors.
posted by jonmc at 11:33 AM on December 28, 2005

Tommy Gnosis, conceded. Sorry if I sounded condescending. I found it funny when it didn't rely on old, over-the-top racial stereotypes such as what you highlighted above. Of course funny or not, it apparently is effective saitre as this thread demonstrates.
posted by geoff. at 11:34 AM on December 28, 2005

Maybe we could start putting together a new, more current list of racial stereotypes. Perhaps everyone would feel a little better then. Who would like to go first?
posted by Witty at 11:38 AM on December 28, 2005

This wasn't even funny when Jacob Riis did it seriously in his 1890 How the Other Half Lives:

"Cleanliness is the characteristic of the Negro in his new surroundings, as it was his virtue in the old. In this respect he is immensely the superior of the lowest of the whites, the Italians and the Polish Jews, below whom he has been classed in the past in the tenant scale. . .Poverty, abuse, and injustice alike the Negro accepts with imperturbable cheerfulness. . .He loves fine clothes and good living a good deal more than he does a bank account."

Jacob Riis is a respected journalist with a bunch of parks named after him in New York. This might be a parody of his ethnographic b.s. But still not funny.
posted by Marnie at 11:38 AM on December 28, 2005

Witty, seems to me like Jewish girls love to knit ugly things.
posted by I Foody at 11:41 AM on December 28, 2005

nothing ends rational discussion quicker than accusations of prejudice.

True enough, jonmc, and the "all humans stereotype" fact is worth bringing up, especially among those, typically left-leaning, who are prone to let loose with that accusation.

That said, this thread is a somewhat suboptimal place to defend that point of view against all comers. The Africans and Indians stuff is creepy and unfunny, even tho intended to be satire.
posted by ibmcginty at 11:42 AM on December 28, 2005

Maybe we could start putting together a new, more current list of racial stereotypes.

Spike Lee did in Do The Right Thing. Remember that set of speeches that began with "Garlic breath, Lasagna eating, spaghetti bending..."
posted by jonmc at 11:42 AM on December 28, 2005

Minnesotans like cassoroles that combine marshmallows and cocktail weenies. They also talk funny.
posted by maxsparber at 11:42 AM on December 28, 2005

sometimes, what people expect of others can be revealing

i have to go to work ... bye
posted by pyramid termite at 11:42 AM on December 28, 2005

Detectives sweat too much and love to complain about the weather even when its sunny. They tend to have thick eye brows and beat their wives if they aren't gay. They talk like slow witted children that grew up watching "Nell" everyday. The best thing about detectives is that they sometimes wear disguises that obscure their ugly faces.
posted by I Foody at 11:46 AM on December 28, 2005

I Foody wins.
posted by maxsparber at 11:47 AM on December 28, 2005

I'm with jonmc. This is somewhat funny stuff when you learn to lighten up about this kind of stuff. One can't get offended unless one thinks there is some truth to these kind of descriptions. Once one understands the joke that these are shorthand ignorant generalizations that are patently false, one can see the humor in the piece. Everyone makes prejudiced assumptions about The Other, so once you admit that, you can then set about showing how laughably silly those prejudices are.

Japanese Good Point: Frequently commit suicide.

Now that is funny. And it would be funny as a "good point" for anyone category of people one "dislikes." The cultural artifact of hari kiri just makes it all the more funny.
posted by dios at 11:49 AM on December 28, 2005

jonmc, why can't you just speak for yourself? I can respectfully disagree with your self-fashioned roughneck authenticity on race and politics (because it's dumb and obvious), but realize that having ideals and not meeting them every waking moment is part of life. Yes, many "white liberals" are hypocrites, but don't you think it's a good thing that in many parts of America telling racist jokes can get you ostracized, if not fired? I'd call that a step up, with many more to go.

Your disillusion with it all doesn't make you special or interesting.
posted by bardic at 11:49 AM on December 28, 2005

You're either part of the problem, or you're a fucking liar.

oh i get this meme. if you could only acknowledge yourself as racist (i.e. admit that you are so irreversibly flawed in that respect) then you're more likely to overlook/forgive the same shortcoming in others.

sounds awfully like to the familiar bnp 'common ground' pub meme trodden to death by 30-something barstool philosophers in suburban 80's britain. even when taken with a lager or two it didn't sound too convincing then, i have to wonder what really prompted this turd chestnut back into mass circulation. and here of all places.
posted by rodney stewart at 11:53 AM on December 28, 2005

jonmc, why can't you just speak for yourself?

I never claimed to speak for anyone else.

but don't you think it's a good thing that in many parts of America telling racist jokes can get you ostracized, if not fired?

Depends on the joke, depends on the context.

Your disillusion with it all doesn't make you special or interesting.

I never claimed it did.
posted by jonmc at 11:53 AM on December 28, 2005

if you could only acknowledge yourself as racist (i.e. admit that you are so irreversibly flawed in that respect) then you're more likely to overlook/forgive the same shortcoming in others.

No.

If you acknowledge your own prejudices your less likely to get accusatory and judgemental of the prejudices of others, thus if we all acknowledge our guilt, we can discuss the problem less emotionally and maybe make progress.

Howw many times do i have to say it?
posted by jonmc at 11:55 AM on December 28, 2005

dios, you're in fine form today. People who didn't find this shit funny are the true racists? Dear lord. You have read about "scientific" approaches to race studies in the 19th century, right? That stuff about Africans and Indians used to be quite true, in a relative sense. And it's pretty sick to find that funny.

What pyramid termite said. Don't smear the rest of the world just because your own viewpoints are limited and/or regressive. Racism will probably never go away, but that doesn't give anyone license to not try and fight it, or worse revel in it.
posted by bardic at 11:56 AM on December 28, 2005

Howw many times do i have to say it?

Once more for whites, twice for Arabs and three times for blacks.
posted by Witty at 11:58 AM on December 28, 2005

Your disillusion with it all doesn't make you special or interesting.

I suspect that nothing does.

My take on it is that O'Rourke is actually being racist and culturally elitist and that he actually holds many of the beliefs in the article; he has certainly shown enough elitism, mean-spiritedness, narrowmindedness and abject stupidity in his other works. And he's never been subtle, sensitive or ironic enough to pull off the "no, look, I'm making fun of the horrible people I'm imitating" schtick.

As for myself, I'm racist and try not to be. I spent much of my childhood on a First Nations reserve and had to put up with sloth and anti-white bigotry the likes of which I have never seen since. I now live in a part of town where I might be one of a dozen white folks within a dozen blocks, where I take my life into my hands every time I try to cross the street because of the number of people out Driving While Asian. I have prejudices. We all do. There's nothing hypocritical about trying and failing to overcome them while denigrating others who are even more prejudiced than you are.
posted by solid-one-love at 11:59 AM on December 28, 2005

Racism will probably never go away, but that doesn't give anyone license to not try and fight it, or worse revel in it.

Better that we should treat it superstitiously, like fundie Christians treat Satan? Bigotry is not a monster under the bed, it's a learned behavior. You don't fight it merely be incantating the right words. It requires engagement, not just accusations.
posted by jonmc at 11:59 AM on December 28, 2005

Time for my Brooksian Generalization.

There are two types of people in this world, those who can look past the surface of a racist joke to see the inherent absurdist humor of trying to be as vile, dirty and racist as possible in-order to poke fun at human traits of fear and xenophobia, and those who are distracted by the shiny surface covering of racism, and can't get past it for whatever reason.

If you acknowledge your own prejudices your less likely to get accusatory and judgmental of the prejudices of others, thus if we all acknowledge our guilt, we can discuss the problem less emotionally and maybe make progress.

That's wishful-thinking charm-school bullshit if I've ever heard it... Then again, I like to consider myself a realist with a deeply cynical streak.
posted by SweetJesus at 12:00 PM on December 28, 2005

"How many times do i have to say it?

Once more for whites, twice for Arabs and three times for blacks."

[this is funny]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:02 PM on December 28, 2005

jonmc wrote: I never claimed to speak for anyone else.

You don't have to claim anything--you do it in any thread involving race or politics. You, the great maestro of blue collar wisdom, has been to the horrid mountain of liberal hypocrisy and seen how dreadful and gullible self-styled white liberals are. You do this all the f'ing time.

To repeat my earlier suggestion, speak for yourself. Some people try to make a difference. They often fail. They often do it for un-Kantian reasons. But they seem to threaten your insular knee-jerk reactionism, so you lump them all together. It's tired.
posted by bardic at 12:03 PM on December 28, 2005

I don't believe in the existence of race.

Race is a social construct used to oppress groups of people. It isn't real. Even if there are many who do believe in it. Like Santa Claus.

How can one be even a bit racist if they do not believe in race?

I do believe in socioeconomic discrimination (class wars?) and poor people historically are the losers. Like what's going on right now in America. The poor are getting poorer, the middle class is getting squeezed and the rich are getting way richer.

Wanna buy a politician?
On sale this week!
Contact former associates of Abramoff for more information. K street lobbyists are crying 'cause they've lost the Delay machine and Mean Dean won't play ball with them! How sad. Poor corporations and the wealthy who own them.
posted by nofundy at 12:03 PM on December 28, 2005

SweetJesus, I have no problem with humor that uses racist imagery to mock racism. I see no evidence that this is an example of that sort of humor. All I see is a wash of hate masquerading as humor.
posted by maxsparber at 12:03 PM on December 28, 2005

It requires engagement, not just accusations.
posted by jonmc at 2:59 PM EST on December 28 [!]

I engage it by being offfended. We deal with our demons our own way.
posted by Rothko at 12:05 PM on December 28, 2005

"Aren't we all? I say better to throw all the stereotypes and prejudices on the table rather than the banal faux-politeness we're all practicing."

No I think not. Because we ought to be a bit more adult, about it, and insulting folks on this level is abhorrent and beneath contempt. If being polite and not offending your friends, neighbors and strangers offends you then good, be offended.

Yes we all have preconceived notions about others, most probably wrong, but it IS considered POLITE not to voicethem AT THE EXPENSE of others, I guess some can't or won't understand that.

Seems to me I hear a lot of hateful insults followed by, "But I kid" and "Its a joke, Can't you take a joke?", like its the listeners fault for being insulted. THAT is a fucking childish copout and we all know it.

Frankly Jonmc, Geoff, I though better of you.
posted by Elim at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2005

Better that we should treat it superstitiously, like fundie Christians treat Satan? Bigotry is not a monster under the bed, it's a learned behavior.

Two reasons to treat racism with quasi-superstitious aversion: (1) history of racism and its still-open wounds and legacy; (2) racism is more than a learned behavior-- it is natural as pie to the human brain. We're hard-wired for generalization and racism. So it's worth hyper-stigmatizing it to overcome it.

Also, Witty's comment was hilarious.
posted by ibmcginty at 12:06 PM on December 28, 2005

I for one think it is funny as shit, which may or may not make me a racist. But if I am, it is ok because I have a license to be racist. I work in affirmative action and much like 007 has a license to kill, I have a license to disparate treatment.

"....tanned, athletic penis"
posted by hatchetjack at 12:07 PM on December 28, 2005

Some people try to make a difference.

Pin a rose on them. But what if their efforts are ineffective or even make things worse? Should I refrain from criticism.

They often fail. They often do it for un-Kantian reasons. But they seem to threaten your insular knee-jerk reactionism, so you lump them all together. It's tired.

I never read Kant, so I don't know what you mean by that. But, you know nothing of my life, so you're in no position to call me insular.

I don't believe in the existence of race.

No offense, nofundy, but isn't that a belief you had to come to consciously? Which means that at some point you belived in the existense of race. Probably unconcsiously, but just the same.
posted by jonmc at 12:08 PM on December 28, 2005

I engage it by being offfended. We deal with our demons our own way.

Fair enough. But does your offense do anything to change the person who offended you? Because that (along with legalities and educating the young) is part of the battle, too.

(I'm not accusing. merely asking the question)
posted by jonmc at 12:09 PM on December 28, 2005

jonmc: But if absolutely everyone is guilty of bigotry, without exception, in the entire human race, then racism must be an inherent trait. Which suggests there really is no long term "changing behaviors."

I have (at least) two problems with that premise:

1) I don't concede that the universal cognitive pattern-matching form of "pre-judging" which might support your argument is really equivalent to "bigotry," which presumes a natural superiority. I think it is possible to feel loyalty to one's own demographic without demonizing everyone else.

2) I don't concede that your (or my) anecdotal evidence is sufficient to represent a meaningful sampling of possible human experience.

Discuss.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:12 PM on December 28, 2005

I don't believe in the existence of race.

Race is a social construct used to oppress groups of people. It isn't real. Even if there are many who do believe in it. Like Santa Claus.

Where are you getting your pot from, and can I have some?
posted by SweetJesus at 12:15 PM on December 28, 2005

But if absolutely everyone is guilty of bigotry, without exception, in the entire human race, then racism must be an inherent trait. Which suggests there really is no long term "changing behaviors."

Or it's enviornmental, and we're all more or less in similar enviornments. (I actually believe it springs from inborn fear of the unknown, enviornmental pressures, and political manipulation, but eplicating those ideas is for better minds than mine.)

I don't concede that your (or my) anecdotal evidence is sufficient to represent a meaningful sampling of possible human experience.

Absolutely, but that dosen't mean we shouldn't share them if we think they might be illuminating.
posted by jonmc at 12:15 PM on December 28, 2005

The concept of race doesn't exist. It belongs to our pre-scientific vernacular. If we were re-writing our lexicon today, we would not employ such a term. I don't believe in race, so I'm certainly can't be a racist. But I see the humor in this as it is a condemnation of close-minded prejudice. It is a lampooning (hint, hint "National Lampoon") of absurd generalities and prejudices; one laughs at a person thinking that way. One doesn't laugh with that person at the other races.

I would disagree with jon that everyone is a racist; only completely ignorant people are because they are the ones who believe the concept of race exists. But everyone is prejudiced. Hell, many people here are prejudiced against me. But all of us have our prejudices. Some choose race as the asinine basis for their prejudices. Some choose political ideology. Some choose sexual orientation. Some choose gender. Some choose religion. Some choose class. We all have prejudices against people we percieve as The Other. To deny that is to deny reality. To act as if their is something wrong with satirically mocking someone prejudices is to miss the point.

I'm amazed that people who will say the most vile, insulting things and make gross and unfair generalizations about me or Southerners or Christians or Americans or whatever, all of the sudden get up in arms about patently absurd satire of the generalized close-minded American (a "racist"[?]/prejudiced conception that many people have about the standard American anyhow).
posted by dios at 12:16 PM on December 28, 2005

Rofl.

No fundy and I agree on something.

/me commits hari kiri
posted by dios at 12:17 PM on December 28, 2005

Howw many times do i have to say it?

Once more for whites, twice for Arabs and three times for blacks

excellently played, witty.

- lord "black just for the jokes" wolf
posted by lord_wolf at 12:17 PM on December 28, 2005

jonmc wrote: But, you know nothing of my life

Only what you post in every goddamn thread you particpate in.

And I forgot that you're too good for books. My bad.
posted by bardic at 12:18 PM on December 28, 2005

OK, here's a depth charge:

I do data entry at a music company? The other day I was entering titles from a compilation of Hawaiian Music. I remember saying to a freind "I like Hawaiians but their language has too many fucking apostrophes." and we had a laugh. Racist? Perhaps mildly, I guess. But thoughts like that are in all of us.
posted by jonmc at 12:20 PM on December 28, 2005

And I forgot that you're too good for books.

I read everyday. I spent 5 years of my life selling books for a living. I said I never read Kant. Your dislike for me is overwhelming your logic.

Only what you post in every goddamn thread you particpate in.

Which is of course all of it. Cool your jets, please.
posted by jonmc at 12:21 PM on December 28, 2005

And he's never been subtle, sensitive or ironic enough to pull off the "no, look, I'm making fun of the horrible people I'm imitating" schtick.

Even when he was flaccidly aping his mentor, the late and brilliant Michael O'Donoghue (author of The Churchill Wit, and semi-famous for his early SNL alter-ego Mr. Mike)?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:24 PM on December 28, 2005

So dios was japanese all this time and no one knew?
posted by nofundy at 12:26 PM on December 28, 2005

Michael O'Donoghue was funny.
posted by maxsparber at 12:27 PM on December 28, 2005

that does explain the kamikaze posting style.

(thank you. the jonmc/nofundy comedy hour will return after these breif messages)
posted by jonmc at 12:27 PM on December 28, 2005

Fair enough. But does your offense do anything to change the person who offended you? Because that (along with legalities and educating the young) is part of the battle, too.

(I'm not accusing. merely asking the question)
posted by jonmc at 3:09 PM EST on December 28 [!]

I honestly don't think anything I or anyone here would say to someone like Mr. O'Rourke would change his narrow-minded views of the world, nor will I waste time trying.

O'Rourke comes from a different culture than you and I, when he can hold and voice such opinions without suffering any consequences. I'm sure you understand this.

Instead of holding everyone at Metafilter to blame for their innate racism, I'd be interested to see if you can go after people like O'Rourke with as much energy.
posted by Rothko at 12:28 PM on December 28, 2005

O'Rourke comes from a different culture than you and I, when he can hold and voice such opinions without suffering any consequences. I'm sure you understand this.

What culture is that? And what makes you so sure either of us truly inhabit a different one?

Instead of holding everyone at Metafilter to blame for their innate racism, I'd be interested to see if you can go after people like O'Rourke with as much energy.

I have and often still do. But I question how effective it actually is.
posted by jonmc at 12:30 PM on December 28, 2005

The concept of race doesn't exist. It belongs to our pre-scientific vernacular.

And with one massively uninformed stroke, Dios erases a useful chunk of medical research being done even today. Lucky for us, he's here to warn us about our tax dollars going to the racist scientific community.
posted by Rothko at 12:32 PM on December 28, 2005

(and the O'Rourkes (putting aside the actual debate over him personally, for the purposes of argument I'll stipulate to what ever you'd like, or let anyone substitute the egregious bigot of their choice) of the world are but one facet of bigotry. There's a much larger swath of people who are fundamentally decent at core yet still hold bigoted or simply wrongheaded beliefs. These people can be changed I (possibly naively) belive, and I question how much our reflexive indignation helps that)
posted by jonmc at 12:32 PM on December 28, 2005

To criticize O'Rourke for this would be to suggest that he believes it. Why would you criticize a satire writer for the thing that he is satirizing?
posted by dios at 12:34 PM on December 28, 2005

medical research my arse.

jonmc and everybody else in the 'everyone's naturally racist' club needs to slow up a tad with the inbreeding and get with a darker or lighter skinned person once in a while. i think that's the real problem here.
posted by rodney stewart at 12:34 PM on December 28, 2005

Even when he was flaccidly aping his mentor

I am unfamiliar with said work, but it's fair to read comments like mine as "never, in my experience".
posted by solid-one-love at 12:34 PM on December 28, 2005

"But everyone is prejudiced. Hell, many people here are prejudiced against me."

No true, most here who have an opinion about you are, driven to that opinion by your comments here, not preconceived,

prejudice: An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.

Most here I think I can safely say, have formed an opinion of you afterhand.

Race as a social construct exists, much like Class and religion. it Exists, so there that fact was simple to establish...

race; A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical Traits and/or Dialect.

See simple, if we can define it then it exists, at least socially.

Yes some here have preconceived notions about Christians, (All though Mine lean toward Christian fundamentalists). Christianity on a whole is a worthy and kind religion, although in this country (US) I see very little of what I would expect from true Christianity and I comment as much when I can.

That and considering how much Christianity ( in what every form) is taking more of a role in defining America I feel free and honor bound to point out my likes and dislikes about it. When it no longer controls me then I will shut up.

If that offends some then oh well. So be it.
One chooses a faith, one chooses a car, one chooses a political party. One does not choose gender, ethnicity, birthplace or even a place to live in some cases, nor a primary language. So I limit any comments on those issues for the most part, (Except Jersey which I hate for more visceral reasons). al these are a personal choice, I understand results may differ from one person to another.

As far as My commenting on Dios, or Jonmc or others I respond to what I see and or read. and as it is a text post, we can't make to many preconceived notions about folx here.
posted by Elim at 12:35 PM on December 28, 2005

To criticize O'Rourke for this would be to suggest that he believes it. Why would you criticize a satire writer for the thing that he is satirizing?

Because there's little evidence that he's satirizing and some evidence that he isn't.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:35 PM on December 28, 2005

What culture is that? And what makes you so sure either of us truly inhabit a different one?

Don't be obtuse. The rich and powerful can do and say what they like, and that's a good reason why someone can be offended by this article. This wasn't written by, say, someone like Studs Turkel (and if it was, that writer's career would have been over long ago).
posted by Rothko at 12:36 PM on December 28, 2005

All I see is a wash of hate masquerading as humor.

All I see is a comedy enema. Sort of a get-it-out-of-yer-system thing. Some may benefit from this procedure. Fine, enjoy. For most us however, like a real enema, maybe we actually feel a little worse for it rather than better?
posted by scheptech at 12:36 PM on December 28, 2005

To criticize O'Rourke for this would be to suggest that he believes it. Why would you criticize a satire writer for the thing that he is satirizing?

Given his body of work and cultural mindset displayed to date in his publically-available work, it's safe to say that O'Rourke may not entirely have satire in mind here.
posted by Rothko at 12:39 PM on December 28, 2005

Fair enough. But does your offense do anything to change the person who offended you? Because that (along with legalities and educating the young) is part of the battle, too.

The expression of offense within your peer group can change racist behavior. I disagree that people are inherently racist; instead, I believe that people are inherently conformist, and will adopt the social norms of the group in which they seek to attain status. If racist behavior is tolerated and accepted within a peer group, it becomes a self-reinforcing social norm. If, instead, peers react to a racist joker by showing offense, the joker will likely change his or her behavior. Not always, because racist behavior is the product of a confluence of factors, but I've seen it work.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:40 PM on December 28, 2005

I'm willing to assume it was and i'll conceived attempt at exposing internal racism, and it went horribly wrong right away, like Ted Danson's Friars Club Blackface move.
posted by Elim at 12:43 PM on December 28, 2005

Doesn't make it funnier or right.
posted by Elim at 12:44 PM on December 28, 2005

To criticize O'Rourke for this would be to suggest that he believes it. Why would you criticize a satire writer for the thing that he is satirizing?

Exactly!

Because there's little evidence that he's satirizing and some evidence that he isn't.

I would venture a guess that the so-called "evidence" you're talking about has much more to do with your views on race than O'Rourke's...

Given his body of work and cultural mindset displayed to date in his publically-available work, it's safe to say that O'Rourke may not entirely have satire in mind here.

Not every conservative is a deep-down racist, Rothko. What specifically in O'Rourke's writing makes you think he's a racist? Excluding this particuar peice from 45 years ago?
posted by SweetJesus at 12:44 PM on December 28, 2005

[iI would venture a guess that the so-called "evidence" you're talking about has much more to do with your views on race than O'Rourke's...[/i]

Ah. Interesting. When I respond negatively to a racist joke, it is because I am a racist, not the teller.
posted by maxsparber at 12:47 PM on December 28, 2005

jonmc and everybody else in the 'everyone's naturally racist' club needs to slow up a tad with the inbreeding and get with a darker or lighter skinned person once in a while. i think that's the real problem here.

Here's a picture of me at the office Xmas party. Two of the people in that picture are my bosses, and I'm fine with that. The rest are all friends. I also reside in the most racially diverse county in the country and work in a predominatly gay area of the city.

Nice try, though.
posted by jonmc at 12:49 PM on December 28, 2005

jonmc and everybody else in the 'everyone's naturally racist' club needs to slow up a tad with the inbreeding and get with a darker or lighter skinned person once in a while. i think that's the real problem here.

I've never met jonmc, but I've been here long enough to know almost verbatim what his reply to this will be...

On preview: nevermind.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:51 PM on December 28, 2005

Instead of holding everyone at Metafilter to blame for their innate racism, I'd be interested to see if you can go after people like O'Rourke with as much energy.

I have and often still do. But I question how effective it actually is.

... There's a much larger swath of people who are fundamentally decent at core yet still hold bigoted or simply wrongheaded beliefs. These people can be changed I (possibly naively) belive, and I question how much our reflexive indignation helps that)

And yet you don't seem to question how effective your "hey lighten up we're all racist" routine is here, or how much your reflexive chain-yanking helps. Do you think it's at all possible that on reflection you might conceivably come to the conclusion that it's doing more harm than good, causing people to dismiss whatever genuine insights you have? Just like the reflexive indignation of the people you criticize does more harm than good, in your opinion?
posted by languagehat at 12:52 PM on December 28, 2005

Ah. Interesting. When I respond negatively to a racist joke, it is because I am a racist, not the teller.

Well, I think the diference between you and I is that I believe one can tell a racist joke and not believe it's true, and you think one can't. The Sarah Silverman Theory, if you will...
posted by SweetJesus at 12:52 PM on December 28, 2005

stinkycheese: I'm just refuting the idea that anyone who questions the prevailing wisdom on race lives in a lily-white world.

alex: O'Rourke may be wealthy & somewhat powerful now, but he wasn't born to it as far as I know, and when this peice was written he was merely a comedy writer at a low-rent humor mag.
posted by jonmc at 12:54 PM on December 28, 2005

No, I think it's absolutely possible. I just think that this is not an example of it. Silverman's work repeatedly demonstrates that she's mocking these viewpoints, and also turns her biting humor inward. No such thing exists in this particular piece.
posted by maxsparber at 12:55 PM on December 28, 2005

And yet you don't seem to question how effective your "hey lighten up we're all racist"

I'm not saying "lighten up." More "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone."
posted by jonmc at 12:55 PM on December 28, 2005

I would venture a guess that the so-called "evidence" you're talking about has much more to do with your views on race than O'Rourke's...[...]What specifically in O'Rourke's writing makes you think he's a racist? Excluding this particuar peice from 45 years ago?

No, it has to do with O'Rourke's. And while I hate to sound like a broken record, even though I have made my own views on racism very clear in my first post to this thread, this isn't about me. Attack the argument.

And to tie in your question to Rothko, neither he nor I need to provide specific evidence (nor, realistically, should we be expected to do so in the middle of the day without ready access to any of the printed works of his that he or I have read).

And, yes, SJ, conservativism is a much, much stronger indicator of racism than progressivism.

On preview: maxsparber has also made an interesting point.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:56 PM on December 28, 2005

Well, I think the diference between you and I is that I believe one can tell a racist joke and not believe it's true, and you think one can't. The Sarah Silverman Theory, if you will...

I think what you think is wrong, because I fdon't think you have framed his argument fairly or correctly.

I, for example, think that there is ample evidence that O'Rourke is a racist dink, but that Silverman is subtle, ironic and skilled enough to do the job right.

On preview: I'm too slow a typist.
posted by solid-one-love at 12:59 PM on December 28, 2005

If you want to get O'Rourke's honest take on these issues read All The Trouble in the World. He misrepresents a lot of science and history and his positions are ill-informed and disingenous. But to the best of my recollection, he looks on the countries he visits and their inhabitants with real kindness and concern, and seems like anything but a racist. (He does get fed up with Somalia and pretty much damns them to hell in the end, but I'm not inclined to suspect racism as bewildered exasperation at what anyone would find to be an unbelievably messed-up place.) His chapter heading about overpopulation, "Not Enough of Me, Way Too Much of You" is so obviously satirical that it's hard to imagine he could simultaneously hold that view and explode it with a barb like that.
posted by George_Spiggott at 12:59 PM on December 28, 2005

Everyone's a little bit racist
Sometimes.
Doesn't mean we go
Around committing hate crimes.
Look around and you will find
No one's really color blind.
Maybe it's a fact
We all should face
Everyone makes judgments
Based on race.
posted by brain_drain at 1:03 PM on December 28, 2005

race; A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical Traits and/or Dialect.

for bible believers, obviously the dictionary's always going to be right. that's bible believer logic for you.

define then please: what's the difference between a 'race' and a 'mixed-race'?
posted by rodney stewart at 1:03 PM on December 28, 2005

On the other hand, it could be that I'm prejudiced in favour of cute, funny Jewish chicks and prejudiced against unfunny stogie-chomping conservative asswipes.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:04 PM on December 28, 2005

Without his books on hand or recordings of his work on radio I can't give you specific quotes, SweetJesus. Still, I have read a few of his books some years ago and there is a thread of cultural superiority running through him that pervades past the comedy. Given the way Ivy League admissions were run as recently as 45 years ago I don't see this article entirely as a surprise or aberration.
posted by Rothko at 1:05 PM on December 28, 2005

His book, All the Trouble in the World: came off as more than a wee bit suspect, like Mencken before him, he comes off as an Apologist for Not making things better, and an Anti-intellectual's intellectual. Everytime he brings up racism, its to make fun of someone else writing or commenting on racism, not unlike what we see in Metafilter sometimes. When he makes a true point he often gets it way wrong, case in point: "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when it's free." (P. J. O'Rourke)

That being said He is outspokenly politically incorrect, and can be downright insulting to those who disagree with him politically. Niether is a virtue.
posted by Elim at 1:05 PM on December 28, 2005

rodney stewart: That is another social construct, where one has parentage of two or more different ethinic backgrounds. Why I had to explain this is somewhat telling. hmmmm. Today it seems common American norms dictate that it is an individuals choice wether they are of Mixed Race or not. results again vary from person to person. (not valid in New Jersey)
posted by Elim at 1:13 PM on December 28, 2005

I din't know that O'Roarke is racist. However, I think that this example is him indulging in racism because he thinks it's funny, not because he wants to demonstrate how absurd it is so we can all laugh together at how silly racists are. I have yet to see any evidence to the contrary.
posted by maxsparber at 1:14 PM on December 28, 2005

So some of you are quite certain that O'Rourke is in fact a racist and he was trying to make racist commentary that he believed in....

Well, I didn't realize that Canadians/English/Irish/Scottish/Swedish were all different "races," so I'm a little confused as how this can be considered racist to begin with.

If you think O'Rourke really is this racist and is making a sincere argument in this piece in the National Lampoon magazine, the first question you are going to need to answer is what "race" is he representing and how that "race" doesn't include Canadians or English people.

The "O'Rourke is being a racist and he means this stuff group" also needs to explain why a person of direct Irish lineage would be be "racist" about Irish people.

And, are Israelis a race?

In other words, the racist screed argument fails. That isn't what this is. Is a satirical look at closed minded prejudice with the joke being not on the people described, but on the un-stated category that is missing---the same category that the first-person voice speaks from---that is, the American voice. We are all quite well-aware of the close-minded American cant. (In fact, many people outside the US believe in the prejudiced generalization that Americans do in fact think this way, which adds another layer to the satire). And from the structure of the article and the omission of the only other group not described, it seems obvious that this a satire of the stereotypical close-minded American.

Why then is there the race to label racism?
posted by dios at 1:14 PM on December 28, 2005

(not valid in New Jersey)

Well, the toxic waste in Jersey has mutated everybody so much that race is pretty much irrelevant.
posted by jonmc at 1:14 PM on December 28, 2005

HA! True,
posted by Elim at 1:17 PM on December 28, 2005

Obviously, for Dios' sake, I will need to start putting the word "Xenophobia" into my discussions here, as I did at the beginning.

Frankly, if so much cautious interpretation, unsubstantiated by the text, is required to turn O'Roarke's piece into a satire of racism and xenophobia, rather than an example of it, than the author has failed as a satirist. However, I must commend his apologists for doing his work for him.
posted by maxsparber at 1:18 PM on December 28, 2005

And, yes, SJ, conservativism is a much, much stronger indicator of racism than progressivism.

So says you.

And to tie in your question to Rothko, neither he nor I need to provide specific evidence (nor, realistically, should we be expected to do so in the middle of the day without ready access to any of the printed works of his that he or I have read).

Right, no need to back up accusations. Just toss it out there, and let someone else do the research. As a satirist, I give him the benefit of the doubt that he's being, uh, satirical when he writes. You claim that he isn't, and it shows in his nebulous other writings. All I'm asking for is a concrete example. Usually when you call someone a racist you need to back it up with, uh, a fact or two.

Without his books on hand or recordings of his work on radio I can't give you specific quotes, SweetJesus. Still, I have read a few of his books some years ago and there is a thread of cultural superiority running through him that pervades past the comedy. Given the way Ivy League admissions were run as recently as 45 years ago I don't see this article entirely as a surprise or aberration.

Except O'Rourke didn't go to Harvard. He went to Miami University in Ohio, and grew up in the deep heart of conservative power - Toledo. But I'm sure you knew that, right?
posted by SweetJesus at 1:20 PM on December 28, 2005

" ... it could be that I'm prejudiced in favour of cute, funny Jewish chicks ... "

I thought you were talking about Sarah Silverman.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2005

Well, I didn't realize that Canadians/English/Irish/Scottish/Swedish were all different "races,"

In my first post I wrote "O'Rourke is being racist and culturally elitist". Wherever I later accuse O'Rourke of racism, one should read it as me accusing him of both. It's shorthand.

Seriously, Dios, you're being either careless or disingenuous. We need not lay out every point in every post. It is a strawman to suggest otherwise by reducing the argument to one term.
posted by solid-one-love at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2005

And from the structure of the article and the omission of the only other group not described, it seems obvious that this a satire of the stereotypical close-minded American.

O'Rourke is a bigot in the same way that Mark Twain was a bigot when he said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Though he is an emblem of American comedy, I refuse to discount my offense at this statement because of his stature. I would give O'Rourke even less leeway given an upbringing and an intelligence level, such that he should have known better. Sorry.
posted by Rothko at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2005

An interesting link for those following the "is race real" debate.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2005

Except O'Rourke didn't go to Harvard. He went to Miami University in Ohio, and grew up in the deep heart of conservative power - Toledo. But I'm sure you knew that, right?

No, I didn't actually. I think this makes his behavior worse, though.
posted by Rothko at 1:24 PM on December 28, 2005

O'Rourke is a bigot in the same way that Mark Twain was a bigot when he said, "The only good Indian is a dead Indian." Though he is an emblem of American comedy, I refuse to discount my offense at this statement because of his stature.

Fair enough, but does your offense at him change anything? Any Indians sleeping more soundly tonight? I'm not picking on you, merely trying to make a point.
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on December 28, 2005

I think this makes his behavior worse, though.

How? I'm actually curious.
posted by jonmc at 1:25 PM on December 28, 2005

I am not of the opinion that we need to prove that this is a racist and xenophobic piece. I think tthe follwing sentence proves it quite nicely:

"Probably not people at all. Probably some kind of monkey. They beat each other and worship bundles of sticks and mud. You can never remember the names of their countries, which have a new Main Nigger every half hour and too many snakes and bugs anyway."

I am of the opinion that it is other's responsibility to prove that it is satire. Is a racist joke satire simply because you found it funny?
posted by maxsparber at 1:25 PM on December 28, 2005

Sorry - that was supposed to link to the main page, not to favor any particular author.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:26 PM on December 28, 2005

Dios, again Race is a social construct based on regional background, so in answer to your question with another question, Why not Scots vs Swedes or do you need Skin tone? is Language root enough? Israelis, vs European Jews? and what is American for that matter? My folks have been here for 10,000 years plus (Admittedly that is estimated) so am I more American than you?

Too Some swedes and the english are a different as asians and icelanders the same, to others Canadians are stupidly lumped as one race.

ITS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, it don't gotta have concrete rules... hell that last ones to true and make concrete rules on race were the (Removed by the GODWIN POLICE). and look where that got us?
posted by Elim at 1:26 PM on December 28, 2005

So says you.

Actually, it's pretty much the definition of progressivism that says so. Note that I did not say "liberalism".

Right, no need to back up accusations.

No, there's no need to require backup that you know you're not going to get and then claim some kind of moral victory when you don't get the backup that you knew you weren't going to get. Your request for said evidence was dshonest, not the claim itself.

Usually when you call someone a racist you need to back it up with, uh, a fact or two.

Fuck that. When we have an obvious example of racism in the FPP link, nebulous supporting assertions aren't even necessary -- you need to provide a god damned peer-reviewed journal full of evidence to prove the opposite assertion.

And Crash writes...

I thought you were talking about Sarah Silverman.

I'd be all up in that. She's a double hottie burger, hold the cheese (because with cheese, it's treyf, y'know).
posted by solid-one-love at 1:27 PM on December 28, 2005

dios-- your argument about racism reminds me of leftist stuff I read in college as a Comparative Lit major.

They'd focus on the incoherence of some classification along the borders, then claim that the entire classification was incoherent. Ie, that because there are people with aspects of both male and female genitalia, there's no such thing as gender, it's all socially constructed.

As a lawyer, you surely know that some difficulty in applying a definition along the borders doesn't mean that the distinction is senseless.
posted by ibmcginty at 1:28 PM on December 28, 2005

I think this makes his behavior worse, though.

You hold him to a higher standard because he was too dumb to get into Harvard and had to settle for a school so incompetent that it's named after a city not even in the state of Ohio? How does that work?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 1:29 PM on December 28, 2005

I am not of the opinion that we need to prove that this is a racist and xenophobic piece.

OK, then. From here on out whatever maxsparber has to say on the subjects of race and humor is gospel, carved in stone. And nyone who disagrees is an apologist. His coronation is at noon.

(actually the sheer ridiculous overstatement of the usuaul stereotypes should be a clue that this is satire. NTM, all the people mentioning O'Rourke's cigar chomping neocon image need to remember that this piece was written back in the 70's when he was still a shaggy pothead subversive or whatever)(
posted by jonmc at 1:30 PM on December 28, 2005

had to settle for a school so incompetent that it's named after a city not even in the state of Ohio?

mrs. jonmc attended Miami Of Ohio. I'm deeply offended.

*sniff*
posted by jonmc at 1:31 PM on December 28, 2005

Jonmc, if you're writing a piece of this kind to an audience that will pay you for it, that's even worse — IMO — than simply going along with the cultural view of the people around you. To extend a rock metaphor, it would be 'selling out', the consequence being furthering bigotry at the expense of cultural progress.
posted by Rothko at 1:32 PM on December 28, 2005

I was not aware that stating an opinion, and then backing it up, made me next in line for coronation.

Strange world.
posted by maxsparber at 1:32 PM on December 28, 2005

(And lining your own pockets at the same time.)
posted by Rothko at 1:33 PM<