At 06:23 PM 2/28/2004, John Thornton wrote:
>>(Of course, creative snipping on your part was far preferable wasn't it?
>>That way, you could simply insult me rather than deal with what I wrote.)
>
>You can try to finesse this anyway you want but the word "redneck" in the
>sentence you typed does not refer to you. The only thing I snipped from
>the sentence was (hi carl).
You quoted me thusly: "I AM a redneck. I was calling myself a redneck."
I had written a good deal more after that, which you snipped, to wit: "But the problem with that is there have been people on this list, other lists, and in graduate school who question my right to say name myself that or anything supposedly less offensive (hick, yokel, backwoodsmen) if I'm not _currently_ living life as a redneck. Most people want this identity to be something I take on and offlike a cardigan sweater--and in some respects it can feel like that. So, with the memory of those conversations in my mind (I've had them with Wojtek about what some of us thought were his stereotypes of rednecks/hicks/white trash), I was careful not to claim I'm currently a redneck so as to avoid the interminable bullshit about whether i really am or not."
You responded: "You did not refer to yourself as a redneck but rather you typed "i'm from upstate redneck new york". I might have thought you would have covered basic composition before graduate school."
Why do you prefer to suggest it's because I don't know how to compose a sentence to say what I intended? Maybe you don't believe it--the part I wrote after "But"?
Also, I'm curious. When your roommate called himself "n-word" did you
instruct him as to its racist meanings? Or, were you interested in learning
more about why he chose to identify himself that way?
<...>
>>What's more interesting, to me, is that it didn't occur to three of you
>>that I might BE a redneck. If I'd been talking about "the ghetto" and had
>>said, "I'm from the ghetto" in order to justify my use of ghetto
>>language, would you necessarily think that I'm disparaging people from
>>the ghetto? Or would you think I'm _identifying_ (even if ambivalently)
>>with people from "the ghetto"?
>
>You're jumping to a rather odd conclusion here. I am well aware of your
>rural origins
Rilly? That claim is undermined by this sentence, IME: "You might want to know that an African American roommate of mine called himself n-word. You must believe that it is only racist for me to say that word and not for him. At least >>now<< I know where you're coming from."
(emphasis on >>now<<, added). It appeared to me that you only realized my roots after I made it deadly dull clear to you and others. If you were aware, though, then it would have been a good idea for you to have acknowledged that. For instance, principled criticism might have proceeded like so, "Kell, I know you're from rural upstate New York and I'm aware of your discussions about this on the list, but I continue to think it's classist and racist to call other people rednecks."
>as is anyone else who has been on this list for any extended period of
>time. What is interesting to me is why you should assume, based on what I
>wrote, that I was unaware of your roots when you quite plainly listed it.
<snipped discussion about whether to put "n-word" under erasure--out of respect for Chaz>
I found Charles' discussion interesting and I'll address it elsewhere. I want to ponder it a bit more.
>>i happen to think there is always space for that discussion and debate, and
>>i would much prefer it if it was banalised by a recognition that racism and
>>sexism permeates what we do here than to shift it into the realm of
>>rhetorical insult (as if it is some kind of wilful malevolence), which is
>>largely and unfortunately where it remains now. and, it's as insult that
>>it becomes enjoyment and the basis for identification, both for those who
>>do the calling and those who are called. that is, there should always be
>>a debate and discussion on whether or not some comment or perspective is
>>racist. what happens more often than not however is that discussion is
>>halted, usually at the line of 'if a woman says x is sexist then it is
>>true'; this is all too troubling so we should stop now; 'you are being
>>racist when you say x'; 'you are/you aren't'; etc...
>>
>>Kelley
>
>I don't recall writing anything willfully malevolent or any rhetorical
>insults.
To explain: Ange was suggesting that concerns about "ism" discourse too often are about are accusations that the speaker is using words so as to be purposefully and malevolently racist/sexist/etc. For instance, Brian's concerns about Carl's use of effete suggested that Carl used the word malevolently. Charging someone with racism/hetero/sexism for using certain words descends to the level of rhetorical insult: "how can you be so ignorant to use that word. don't you know that it's racist/classist/hetero/sexist?"
> The nearest thing to malevolent I've seen written in relation to this
> thread was a reference for a poster to "put it back in his pants", and
> "wrap his lips around someone's ass". I am aware that those are misquotes
> but I am not searching the archives to find the exact wording of
> something so banal.
close enough!
>This thread seems to me to have come to an end. You believe that because
>you are from a rural working class background that entitles you to refer
>to upstate rural working class New York state as "redneck". Your
>authenticity somehow transcends the offensiveness of the term.
not at all. I've already pointed out that one's identity doesn't authorize claims. At the same time, that also means I reject attempts to use a group of people ("the working class we're trying to win over" "the poor" "southerners" "people of rural origins" "blacks" "people of color" ) to authorize one's claims.
But one point: you acknowledged that, had I said "I AM a redneck" you would have understood "where" I'm "coming from". Isn't that your own acknowledgement that who I supposedly am would have made you feel less inclined to openly criticize?
>I do not believe that.
Hey hey hey! We agree on something!
> We will in all probability never come to agree on this issue.
As I've already indicated. I am sure that, like me, you've thought long and hard about the issue and have taken a position, listeningly to several sides of the argument, but finally deciding on one stance.
We disagree, AFAICT, because I don't think that the word has a monolithic meaning and don't wish that it have a monolithic meaning. Since it is a floating signifier (hence my reference to the lezbean phallus), we disagree, but that's not because we are bad people.
I'm curious, though, do you think Jeff Foxworthy and his audience are wrong, too? As you are probably aware, most folks in his audience (and certainly Foxworthy), aren't people who do the things he says rednecks do in his jokes. So, they are laughing at _other_ people.
OTOH, I was reading Bertrice Berry's _Sckraight from the Ghetto: You Know You're Ghetto If..._ and found myself identifying with far more of it than Jeff Foxworthy's "you know you're a redneck if...." Fr'instance, I have _never_ packed my clothes in an cooler and wrapped it with duct tape and five Piggly Wiggly bags!
>Reasonable people can disagree.I assume, again perhaps incorrectly, that
>you chose the quote from Angela about "the enjoyment of distinction,
>superiority" because you believe my pointing out the offensiveness of the
>term redneck was an attempt to assert some sort of distinction of
>superiority on my part.
Angela separated distinction and superiority with a comma because it was a list and not two adjectives. She was saying that people can get a kind of enjoyment out of defining themselves as distinct from the racist/sexist/etc Other(s). It was an acknowledgement on her part (and my quoting her approvingly means it's an acknowledgement on mine) that superiority doesn't have to come into play. I bring Foxworthy up because he has had a lot to do with making redneck very acceptable to a much wider audience than rednecks themselves; hence, the term has floated away from the original meanings. So to, has economic restructuring meant that once doesn't have to be a dary hand or field worker to be able to call oneself a redneck.
>I would not waste my time trying to convince you otherwise as you have
>probably already cemented in your mind that my intention was so. Too bad.
I'm not entirely sure what your intention was other than to instruct me, presumably because you felt I was unaware of the classist and racist connotations of the term. (That, of course, tickles me, and I love a good ticklefest!) So, perhaps you could elaborate more -- and this may be better offlist since it is rather boring. If others want to be involved in the convo, they can write us offlist.
Kelley