Dreams Of Noise

It makes sense, though, given teabaggers' aversion to learning. To quote Pterry in Guards! Guards!:

People were stupid, sometimes. They thought the Library was a dangerous place because of all the magical books, which was true enough, but what made it really one of the most dangerous places there could ever be was the simple fact that it was a library.

From:

nagasvoice.livejournal.com

Hmm, it's intriguing to be given proof that the Tea Partiers are from a foreign country. I just thought it was called Texas or Iowa or Ohio or something like that...

From:

dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com

Nah, Mars is in Texas.

From:

nagasvoice.livejournal.com

BWahahah! LOL very hard!

From:

To be fair, Tom, let's look at the entire quote from the original blog source, rather than the ellipsis-filled "Readers' Digest edition:

"DC's population includes refugees from every country, as the families of embassy staffs of third world countries tend to stay in DC whenever a revolution in their homeland means that anyone in their family would be in danger if they went back. Most taxi drivers and many waiters/waitresses (especially in local coffee shops like the Bread and Chocolate chain) are immigrants, frequently from east Africa or Arab countries. As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African Americans and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) with whom they may have political or military tensions. It's rare to meet anyone who gets really offended, but you can still be aware of the issue.

Many parts of DC are safe beyond the areas I will list here, but why chance it if you don't know where you are?

If you are on the subway stay on the Red line between Union Station and Shady Grove, Maryland. If you are on the Blue or Orange line do not go past Eastern Market (Capitol Hill) toward the Potomac Avenue stop and beyond; stay in NW DC and points in Virginia. Do not use the Green line or the Yellow line. These rules are even more important at night. There is of course nothing wrong with many other areas; but you don't know where you are, so you should not explore them.

If on foot or in a cab or bus, stay in Bethesda, Arlington (preferably north Arlington), Crystal City, Falls Church, Annandale, or Alexandria, or in DC only in northwest DC west (i.e. larger street numbers) of 14th or 16th streets, or if on Capitol Hill only in SE Capitol Hill (zip 20003) between 1st and 8th Streets, not farther out than 8th (e.g. 9th, 10th etc). (Or stay on the Mall and at the various monuments.) Again there are many other lovely places, from the Catholic University of America to Silver Spring, Maryland. But you don't know where you are so you cannot go, especially at night, unless you take me with you."

http://paintmainered.ning.com/profiles/blogs/so-you-are-coming-to-the-828

I've spent a lot of time in DC proper. I wish to hell that someone had told me about the good and bad parts of town. From my memories of the early part of this decade, he's got the high crime areas exactly right.

I challenge you, Tom, to tell me which parts of the full quotation are racist. Hell, I don't see anything particularly racist within the entire blog piece proper. That didn't stop the site that selectively quoted it from calling it racist, though, did it?

As far as I can tell, it's no different from someone telling a person coming to Chicago that it probably is not a good idea to take the L too far South of the Loop if you don't know where you're going or are with someone from there.

Tom

From:

Funny, Tom, but I don't recall ever telling anybody coming into Ann Arbor or Detroit from out of town about being careful to avoid various potential ways of insulting brown-skinned people. That would be the first paragraph you quote there.

Edited Date: 2010-08-25 09:59 am (UTC)

From:

Maybe I'm tone deaf to this, but to me, that first paragraph read as "If you were in your own area, you may make certain assumptions about people that aren't true here, and that can cause insult if you act on them. Here's the reality." I suppose it *could* be read as racist. I'm not entirely convinced that that's more or less racist than being told, for instance, that if you're a woman dealing with an ultra Orthodox Jewish businessman or shopkeeper (as might happen if you're going into certain parts of New York), you shouldn't expect him to shake hands with you.

From:

Fair, there are certain cultural differences to take into account, but that's decidedly different than saying that "African Immigrants" are to be avoided and that you shouldn't assume they are citizens. They're human beings. Citizenship is not a prerequisite for common courtesy.

From:

tcgtrf quoted from the entire excerpt, and that's what I read. It said "As a rule, African immigrants do not like for you to assume they are African Americans and especially do not like for you to guess they are from a neighboring country (e.g. Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia) with whom they may have political or military tensions. It's rare to meet anyone who gets really offended, but you can still be aware of the issue."

To me, that doesn't sound like he's saying that "African Immigrants" are to be avoided, just that they can be insulted if you assume they're African Americans or from the "wrong" country. Additionally, note that last sentence; he's pointing it out as something that RARELY happens, but something to be aware of.

Re the common courtesy part: if you're interacting with one of these immigrants and you hear an unusual accent that you think you can place, is it discourteous to ask, "Oh, are you from [name of country]?" I think most Americans would consider that a little nosy, perhaps, but not really discourteous, and some would think the curiosity flattering. Sooo...citizen is not a prerequisite for common courtesy, but what if something you consider reasonably courteous can be misinterpreted? Then it's actually a courtesy -- and not racist -- to give someone a warning about it. Or am I reading this totally wrong?

From:

and to me, he's saying 'Don't assume these people are REAL Americans, therefore don't treat them as equals.' Courtesy is not the same as misunderstanding of culture. Courtesy is a matter of decency. What this jerkoff is calling for is a lack of decency, and I can't abide that to ANY people, regardless of cultural heritage.

From:

Okay, then: How do you know someone is an African immigrant, or an African American? From which part of Africa? As Dan Quayle says, it's a big country. Or might they be Australian aboriginals? Or, or, or?

No, "common courtesy" means that you just treat them like a person, rather than a potential threat. If you're dealing with a service person, e.g., waitstaff, bellhop, cabbie, etc., there's no particular reason their nationality should come up, unless their accent is so thick you can't understand them, and that's a mechanical problem which can likely be solved easily, rather than an ethnicity problem.

There is an awful news story today, about a cabbie who was stabbed because he is a Muslim (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/8/25/896043/-Updated:-NYC-Cab-Driver-Stabbed-By-Passenger-Who-Asked-Are-You-Muslim). Some schmuck went looking for trouble, and now he's charged with 2nd degree murder and a hate crime.

As a typical tourist -- hell, even as a conservative political activist -- there is no reason whatsoever to assume that a person is anything other than... a person. What the original post is trying to do is to helpfully racially profile anyone who's black for the benefit of the incoming Tea Partiers... who, given the previous demographics of these events, are likely to be 99-44/100% white.

I make no assumptions about their attitudes or personalities based on this; as has been mentioned, every person is an individual, and should be treated as such. But at least some of them are operating on the notion that they must fear and distrust those different from them.

Which in my book, at least, is not exactly "restoring honor".

Edited Date: 2010-08-25 06:46 pm (UTC)

From:

Again, Tom, some of the commenters above *are* getting it. You are reading the subtext into it. Nowhere does he say the immigrants are a threat. He's talking about politeness to people who are encountering the alien for the first time.

In my mind, he's saying, "Don't make any assumptions about your cabbie or the person who serves you coffee, even if their skin color is different than yours." Tom, that's good advice for *anyone*.

The statement about the Orthodox Jews shaking hands, for instance, that a previous commenter noted. I'm from the Midwest. I didn't know that--now I do, and I can avoid a potentially embarrassing situation. That's not racism, that's drawing on someone else's experience.

Tom

From:

LOL! Actually, it isn't that ultraorthodox Jews don't shake hands. It's that they don't shake hands with anyone of the OPPOSITE gender. I think I was unclear in my post. Sorry about that.

From:

YES, I AM READING THE SUBTEXT INTO IT. It's practically text, fer cryin' out loud.

From:

I'm going to let this go after this comment. I think that you and Lizzie were taken in by the "slanted quotes" on the site that quoted the blog piece out of context and you're stuck in your original concept and can't get out. In any case, I'm getting nowhere fast and I'm tired of arguing about it.

I do want to talk about subtext, though, since you and Eric brought it up.

Haven't you two ever had anyone come up to you and start talking about one of your songs and it's as if the listener heard a completely different song by someone else?

When I write a story, I have a feeling that I want to impart to the reader. Maybe there's a moral or a message that I want them to think about. Sometimes, I use alliteration or tone poems within the text to get them in a specific mood.

Much of the time, it works and they get it.

I have had, though, people with vastly different wiring come up to me and start telling me "what I meant" by this and that phrase and that this and that plot point meant that I was fulfilling a fantasy of mine in writing.

The problem with subtext is that it's *not* text. It is in the eye of the beholder. Depending on the state of mind *and what the reader expects*, a sentence can be read as meaning wildly different things.

Teriwells and I see little or nothing racist in the piece. You and Eric do. Therefore, there's two completely different interpretations, which indicates to me that there's no intentional subtext to the piece and we're bringing to it what we expect to see.

So, what does he mean, really? Let's talk about intent in writing.

My stories can be interpreted best in the context of who is in the intended audience for the piece. Deer Hunting with the Prey, for instance, was written for an anthology of "Queer Fiction"--the story, therefore, was created to be best appreciated and understood by people who are gay. I hope that straight people can read it and take something home with them when they close the book, but if they can, I've exceeded my goal.

He wrote his blog piece for a group of people from Maine who were coming to the big city. If I was writing it, I would expect that they are nervous at arriving in a city much larger than they are comfortable. They are from a state with extremely low crime and a homogeneous population, so it is unlikely they know how to prevent a mugging with body language. In addition, the political party they are associated with has been accused of being racist.

Therefore, I would write a piece that explained how to avoid making mistakes in dealing with the people that they're not accustomed to being around, *especially* those of a different race. I would also work to make sure that they were completely safe while they were here, in a city I know well.

What you guys need to look at is not subtext, but context. In context, there's not a damn thing wrong with what he did.

Tom

From:

Letting it go, indeed. I have things to do, and obviously we are not going to come close to changing each other's mind.

From:

Tell you a story about Champaign, then. Years ago, before we bought the house, we had a square block of North-west Champaign.

Our neighbors on the block to the east were Latinos. They were very good neighbors, six families had all come to America together, and we used to sit outside with them listening to music and watching strangers' cars lost in the cul-de-sac.

One night, I made the mistake of implying that they were Salvadoran. They were not--they were from Honduras. They were insulted, I was embarrassed, and we lost some good friends.

Would I be racist if I mentioned to someone who comes from an area where there were few Latinos that it would not be a good idea to assume that because someone looked Latin, that they were from any specific area in the world because *it would be impolite to do so*?

I would not hesitate to tell a visitor about the "bad parts" of Champaign-Urbana. There's a few neighborhoods where you're liable to get mugged if you walk alone down here after dark. Yeah, some of them are predominately black, but one of them is whiter than snow (trailer park with meth labs), and two of them are where student apartments are common because drunk students are good victims.

Look at his audience, Tom. They're from Maine. The largest city is about the size of Ann Arbor. Their murder rate is 2.5/100,000. They have a black population of 0.5%. Odds are that the folks coming down to Washington DC have never known anyone of another race well, unless they left the state to go to college.

He's trying to help them not make asses of themselves in the big city.

For something to be racist when said about someone else it has to 1) be said of "all" members of a racial group or 2) be provably incorrect or 3) derogatory.

It is my opinion that he's clean on both his intent and his actual actions. He writes like someone who's lived near DC for a number of years and knows the town pretty well. His advice certainly jibes with the city that I did my consulting in.

Tom

From:

ginkage.livejournal.com

In regards to your anecdote, I can only gauge that it did not occur to you to ask your neighbors about where there family might be from before making your assumption. I would find it more reassuring if you advised someone who is not from a Latino-rich area to kindly ask before making the same mistake. A polite question is always better than an impolite assumption and can save your example person a great deal of headache. Ignorance is not bliss.

That is perhaps neither here nor there, though, and I will provide other thoughts in their own comment to Tom's posting.

From:

I used to work in that area on the very far south side of Chicago. It's GLORIOUS. there are areas that aren't as safe at night, but that doesn't mean I shun an entire section of the city because of it. one of the greatest university in the COUNTRY is on Chicago's Southside regardless of the plethora of brown-skinned people living there, so perhaps you'd like to stuff it.

From:

Lizzie, let's say you've got a friend coming in from Maine. They want to know where to go in Chicago, but they are unfamiliar with big cities (the largest one in Maine is 64,000).

Where would you tell them to go without you along? Be honest, now.

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/redeye/2009/10/the-chicago-ward-with-the-most-homicides-is.html

Where are the safe parts of town and where are the dangerous ones?

Oh, and it does no good to insult me. I care nothing about your opinion of me.

Tom

From:

I am being honest. You have no idea what honest looks like from me, so don't be so quick to judge my honesty. Especially since you see fit to throw stones in a rather large glass house. Who's insult who, now?

And I agree, I don't care about your opinion of me, either. yet you keep trying to insult entire groups of people and think that people aren't going to call you on it. Be honest now, did you expect that to work?

From:

ericcoleman

I think that the difference is, if I tell someone that they shouldn't go to 23rd and Forest in Des Moines at night. That is good advice. If I tell them that they shouldn't go to 23rd and Forest because there are scary black people there, that is heading toward racism.

If a black person were to tell a friend to not go to E18th and Euclid at night. If a black person were to tell a friend not to go to E18th and Euclid at night because there are scary white people there, all bets would be that the person who wrote this would be one of the first in line to say "LOOK, HE'S RACIST TOWARD WHITES !!!"

The point isn't that this person is saying avoid certain areas. That is a good thing. It's how it is said. You're a writer, you know the power of the written word. And you know how to read between the lines, you understand subtext.

From:

Nowhere in his entire blog article does he say "there are scary black people there", Eric. He lists the areas where he recommends that tourists from a rural state not go unless they're accompanied by someone who knows the city (himself)--and I agree. In my opinion, the only completely safe areas in DC (for anyone, of any race) are the Mall and the NW quadrant. The crime statistics back me up on this.

Race is never mentioned as a safety consideration for neighborhoods. Can you show me where it is? We're talking two different paragraphs, here.

Let's face it, Washington DC is a dangerous place for a newcomer:

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/2009/CityCrime2009_Rank_Rev.pdf

Tom T.

From:

ericcoleman

I'm talking subtext, not text. The core of the actual article is all about "be careful how you talk to the brown people".

Yes he states the areas in a noncommittal way, but the intent is already there. You are in DC, watch out for the brown people.

From:

Maybe I'm deaf to subtext then. Or certain kinds of subtext. :-/

From:

THIS. Exactly this.

Jeez, it's not exactly subtle, either.

From:

gorgeousgary

Maybe it's not racist per se, but I see two incorrect assumptions in the very first paragraph:

(1) The poster appears to assume all developing countries regularly change their governments through violent revolutions.

(2) The poster appears to assume anyone from those countries is a "refugee", as opposed to simply an embassy employee, student, H1-B worker (or other similar classification), or just a normal immigrant.

Meanwhile, I had a cousin who lived just east of the Eastern Market Station. I don't recall either him or his girlfriend (now wife) ever being concerned for their safety or security.

Ditto for my two friends in Cheverly (eastern end of the Orange Line, just over the DC/MD border) and my friend in Hyattsville (northeast end of the Green Line).

And I know dozens of people in Silver Spring (and next door neighbor Takoma Park).

From:

mouser.livejournal.com

And Tea Partiers aren't racist.

Um, it's "The Tea Party isn't racist" - individuals can be as racist as they like.

From:

Here's a map of the homicide distribution in DC from a few years back. Note that the dangerous areas according to this map are an overlapping set with the ones mentioned by the blogger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DChomicides.jpg

Tom T.

From:

gorgeousgary

Most of the violence in DC tends to be drug- or gang-related (including the innocents caught in the crossfire), plus the occasional domestic dispute.

So, outside of the real hot-spots on that map where homicides are clustered, I wouldn't consider DC particularly dangerous. Even the areas up in NE DC where there have been scattered homicides aren't really that dangerous.

From:

madrona.livejournal.com

Glenn Beck is hosting a rally to...restore honor?

I...no words.

From:

old-fortissimo.livejournal.com

Perhaps he might find some, y'know?

He does put the mess in messianic....

From:

There's a fourth comment there now, talking about all the free stuff in DC, including museums, the zoo, and the National Cathedral.
Why isn't anyone decrying this as taxpayer-funded librul socialism?

From:

THANK you.

From:

http://www.nationalcathedral.org/support/index.shtml

"Washington National Cathedral is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. We receive no funding from the government or any national church. Your gifts are tax-deductible and support the Cathedral’s educational programming, services, and events."

Tom

From:

Ah, thanks. The church-state entanglement was bugging me, but not enough to look it up.

But the museums and zoo are still taxpayer-supported, and thus constitute RAMPANT SOCIALISM, as I'm sure you'll agree.

From:

Yeah, they should be sold as soon as possible. In the meantime, I would go and pay extra to make up for the fact that they're doomed by the oncoming Depression and inability of the government to pay for virtually anything, after it hits.

I mean, seriously, I listen to NPR and breath the air, too.

Tom

From: