Please tell me I didn’t just read a white male blogger dismiss a black woman complaining about the lack of any black or latino bloggers at the Bill Clinton blogger meetup by telling her not to attack “her betters” and insinuating that she is too ignorant to write properly. Pleasepleaseplease. Aw, damn:
So, Liza, dear, before you go assailing your betters and making Jane stand in for every blond white woman who ever pissed you off, maybe you should head back to eighth grade English and, you know, learn to spell and to write in a linear fashion. Although judging from your other posts that I read, mediocrity may be a chronic condition for you….You just might have a future in this blogging thing, although I think you might be more at home on LiveJournal or MySpace where you can post lots of photos of yourself to distract from your decidedly tepid prose and numerous grammatical faux pas.
This is coming on the heels of lots of sarcastic “sic’s” and “ed’s” inserted in the quoted passages. That’s just uncalled for. I make spelling errors too; so does everyone. Telling a minority woman blogger she’s too stupid and uneducated to make it in the big leagues, and telling her not to “assail her betters” (?!) is just bullshit, and all the black-co-blogger-having in the world isn’t going to make it OK. There are plenty of ways to disagree with people, even humorously, even vehemently, that don’t play into harmful stereotypes. I know that sarcastic mockery of other people’s spelling and grammatical errors is an internet trope from the usenet days of yore, and I’m not saying women or minority bloggers are exempt from ordinary mockery, but think about the context a little. Context matters. If someone makes fun of, say, the lovely John Holbo for some typo, there’s really no subtext. It’s just: “ha-ha!” John will think, whoops, I was typing fast. Oh well. No one questions his right to be heard on the internet.
When a black woman is asking a legitimate question about why minority bloggers are absent from a blogger meet-up in Harlem, and you turn around with a lot of complaints about her writing and reasoning ability, there most definitely is a subtext: you’re too stupid to write properly, and that’s why no one who looks like you was at this meeting. You’re not good enough. Don’t assail your betters. I was actually kind of shocked to see this up at Firedoglake, which is an excellent blog. I’ve never read Liza’s blog before, so I have no real opinion about it or her previous dust-up with Jane Hamsher over the Lieberman-in-blackface thing, but I’ll be reading her posts a damn sight sooner than TRex’s, I’ll tell you that.
{ 3 trackbacks }
{ 44 comments }
Barry Freed 09.18.06 at 4:03 am
Thanks Belle for that it needed to be said A lot of ugliness floating around the ol’ blogosphere of late
dearieme 09.18.06 at 8:40 am
Don’t be so mealy-mouthed: tell the rude sod off for misunderstanding the concept of “mediocrity” while you’re at it.
lemuel pitkin 09.18.06 at 8:47 am
Good work. This stuff is important.
A 09.18.06 at 9:14 am
I do read Liza from time to time and frankly I understand exactly why she wasn’t invited. Her question about why no minority bloggers were present is answered in part by Steve Gilliard (Daou knew he wouldn’t come) and Oliver Willis (invited but couldn’t go). It’s a hard line to walk, but Liza needed to be smacked around for her reflexive and ego-based objections. TRex went over the top but Liza is still generally obnoxious.
LizardBreath 09.18.06 at 9:37 am
It’s a hard line to walk, but Liza needed to be smacked around for her reflexive and ego-based objections. TRex went over the top but Liza is still generally obnoxious.
I’ve never seen Liza’s blog, but this is incredible bullshit. There is nothing she could possibly have said which would have justified being to told not to assail her ‘betters’.
Belle Waring 09.18.06 at 9:53 am
I don’t care if she’s the most annoying bitch of all time, that was still out of line. also, in the context of the thread, does it sound so good to say some woman “needs to be smacked around”? wtf, people. if I wanted shit like this I’d read ann althouse comments threads.
kth 09.18.06 at 10:13 am
See, there you go again . Liza complained about the lack of minority bloggers at the event, and in response the insinuation was made, not supported in the least by anything Liza wrote about the event, that she was personally envious of the people who were invited.
Not that Liza was even right in the first instance (it turns out that a number of minority bloggers were invited but declined to attend), but the way she was flamed for even raising the issue totally confirms her larger point.
kth 09.18.06 at 10:14 am
7 to 4, as they say at unfogged.
Thomas 09.18.06 at 10:15 am
Can we all agree that Jane Hamsher is an idiot? And that it’s wrong for anyone to say that?
Bruce Baugh 09.18.06 at 10:28 am
Firedoglake has provided some real service to the national discourse in the past, and seems likely to do so in the future with Jane’s interest in publishing more “quick books’ to get around publisher congestion. But Dear God in Heaven does she need someone to whom she’ll listen to say, “Knock off with all the damn race-baiting and toying with offensive stereotypes!” It’s not cute, and frankly it’s one of the way that people who think of themselves as liberal/progressive/whatever gradually morph into Rush Limbaugh fans. There are thoughts you need to discourage, not entertain, no matter how funny they seem at the moment.
tps12 09.18.06 at 11:14 am
The rest of the post, where TRex pretends that Liza had posited some sort of racist conspiracy, is just as bad. The whole idea behind multiculturalism is that minority voices get left out without being squelched by active conspiracy.
abb1 09.18.06 at 11:17 am
…complaining about the lack of any black or latino bloggers at the Bill Clinton blogger meetup by telling her not to attack “her betters 
Clinton is God, He can do no wrong. Criticizing Him is profanity. When are you going to get it into your thick heads, people.
mahogany 09.18.06 at 11:20 am
big hugs for belle.
Seth Finkelstein 09.18.06 at 11:26 am
Can someone with the appropriate status please take an incident like this to disabuse some of the more head-in-the-clouds academics about blog utopianism? I know, I know, there’s a trivial reply, they didn’t actually proclaim equality, they said some marketing weasel words along the lines of “best opportunities” or “provides avenues” or some such. But it shouldn’t take much to see how readily all the race/gender/class divisions and power-battles remain.
John Emerson 09.18.06 at 12:20 pm
What kth said — it was the FDL people who brought up the idea that Liza had wanted to be invited. Along with a lot of other shit.
Given that the event was in Harlem, something of symbolic importance which Clinton takes full advantage of, its all-white guest list is more significant than it would have been.
Liza’s blog is funny and sort of flaky.
Disclaimer: I have had a personal dispute with Hamsher in the past. She seems pretty imperious at times, and her minions can be pretty full of themselves.
Anatoly 09.18.06 at 12:32 pm
“What kth said—it was the FDL people who brought up the idea that Liza had wanted to be invited. Along with a lot of other shit.”
Huh?
“I am just shocked at the glee with which Peter Daou has shown his disrespect for Pam Spaulding, Steve Gilliard, Louis Pagan, Chris Rabb, Earl Dunovant and me when he decided to not invite neither of us, or for that matter, any other black or latino bloggers.”
“the glee with which … has shown his disrespect for … me when he decided to not invite”
She’s shocked at the disrespect shown her by not inviting her – and “any other black or latino bloggers”, sure, but she mentions herself explicitly.
The organisers have shown her disrespect by not inviting her.
Nah, of course she didn’t want to be invited!
kth 09.18.06 at 12:59 pm
“Neither of us” is bad grammar and obscures Liza’s point. Clearly she meant either “neither us, or for that matter, any other black or latino bloggers” or “none of us, or for that matter, any other black or latino bloggers”.
Contrary to anatoly’s assertion, the “neither of us” reference lacks an antecedent implying Liza meant “he/she or me”. It’s obvious that she meant, at worst, “none of the six I’ve named, including myself.”
of course the ellipsis in your paraphrase completely changes the meaning of what Liza wrote.
Barry Freed 09.18.06 at 1:02 pm
Continuing in the vein of abb1 above: Hey doesn’t Clinton count? I mean, “our first black president” and all that…
anonymous 09.18.06 at 2:35 pm
kth — even under your preferred grammatical interpretation, anatoly’s conclusion stands. Watch carefully:
“… when A has shown his disrespect for M, N, … and Z when he decided to not to invite M, N, … or Z, or for that matter…”
So, Liza is saying that Daou has shown disrespect for *each person* on that list by not inviting that person. Thus, because Liza included herself on the list, she feels that… the organizers (or at least Daou) have shown her disrespect by not inviting her.
I think that it is pretty hard to read that sentence and come to a different conclusion, unless there is yet *another* grammatical flaw… er, hermeneutical ambivalency. And giving that she says she was disrespected by the lack of an invitation for her, how can you not say that she wishes she had been invited?
anonymous 09.18.06 at 2:38 pm
#19 here — those bold words were unintentional, the asterices were just meant for a little bit of emphasis. It it possible to unbold them? (And not let this comment through moderation, of course. That would reveal that I am uncertain whether the plural of asterix is asterixes or asterices, which would be deeply embarassing, even through my anonymity.)
Anatoly 09.18.06 at 3:52 pm
kth, she mentioned herself in the list of people Peter Daou gleefully offended, showing disrespect by not inviting them or other black or latino bloggers. Consider that Peter Daou didn’t offend all bloggers of color – only these five particular bloggers of note… and herself. You can’t plausibly deny that a personal motive is displayed in this angry accusation.
For that matter, your second paragraph makes no sense either. “the way she was flamed for even raising the issue totally confirms her larger point”? She wasn’t flamed for even raising the issue, she very obviously was flamed for flaming on the issue. I’m not excusing the stinky “her betters” line, but you know very well that she wasn’t flamed just because he mentioned there were no bloggers of color in the meeting with Clinton.
Anatoly 09.18.06 at 3:56 pm
Sorry, read “she” instead of “he” in the penultimate line of #19.
Belle, the “her betters” line stinks to high heaven. But what if he just called her an idiot, would that be unacceptable bullshit too? How far does the context matter when talking to a minority woman blogger?
nick s 09.18.06 at 7:06 pm
TRex stepped into someone else’s slanging-match. Whenever that happens, it’s usually not good. If Jane wanted to duke it out with Liza, fine — I’d have preferred more dialogue than bomb-throwing, but this is the internets we’re talking about — but for a third party to jump in? Fucking stupid.
Peter 09.18.06 at 7:40 pm
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but isn’t this what you’re saying:
It’s OK to call a white person stupid, because nobody will draw any conclusions from that. But you mustn’t call a black person stupid because, you know, there’s this stereotype that black people really are stupid, and that’s pandering to it.
Isn’t this a little patronising?
nick s 09.18.06 at 9:26 pm
Forgive me if I’m wrong
You’re wrong, you’re forgiven. You don’t think ‘assailing your betters’ has a certain weight to it? (Never mind that picking on one’s grammar and spelling in lieu of addressing one’s ideas is such a cheap and hoary ad hominem tactic in online discussions.)
There was a way to respond on both sides: Liza was hasty and should have talked to Peter Daou before firing up the flamethrower. But there was a serious discussion to be had on whether an invited blogger audience in Harlem might have been more diverse.
TRex gallumphed in with all the grace of his pseudonym, and the ugly pile-on began. And if John Aravosis hadn’t been there, I have to wonder whether he’d have been outraged at the snubbing of gay bloggers.
Peter 09.18.06 at 9:35 pm
Further to above: Not being able to call a black person up on spelling, grammar and so on – it’s not so much that it’s patronising that I find a little odd. It’s more that, in a perverse kind of way, it feeds the stereotype. It suggests, subtly but unmistakably, that educated liberals really do think that black people have less intelligence than themselves, but they are going to contain the secret. Of course any “secret” protected in this way will perversely gain a lot of credibility. Why would the issue of “black people’s intelligence” require so much effort to keep out of the public domain if nobody thought it was an issue at all?
anonanon 09.18.06 at 9:35 pm
nick s — Tactics are only bad, because ad hominem, in particular contexts. I won’t illustrate the general principle of intelligent ad hominem criticisms, but suffice to say “your writing is awful and ungrammatical, beyond simply lacking insight” is a fair response to “the fact that I was not invited to this event for bloggers was a sign of gleeful disrespect.” (In the same way, “your writing is awful and ungrammatical” would be a fair response to “the fact that I was given a C on this paper was a sign of gleeful disrespect,” despite being ad hominem.)
vivian 09.18.06 at 9:42 pm
Isn’t this a little patronising?
No, actually. In fact, if you only think of calling a black person stupid after she complains about the behavior of your friends, then it ain’t the grammar that bugs you. And when your insults sound like they came from people you (otherwise) despise, then you’re not offering brutal-but-unpatronizing criticism, you’re just shilling, and earning a great big pile of Belle’s outrage.
Peter 09.18.06 at 10:00 pm
Nick: Yes I admit, “assailing one’s betters” is a loaded phrase, and the first question that comes to mind is “who do you mean by ‘betters'”. It just seems to me that some of the things you said open up a can of worms ie the idea that one shouldn’t criticise the grammar, spelling and reasoning ability (which you admit is pretty much par for the course on the Internet) of a black person because of the different “subtext”. To me, that seems to add emphasis to that subtext which it might not otherwise have (in the case of your post above, among other things, that black people can’t be expected to write properly).
In my country there is a brown-skinned minority which is overrepresented in various problem categories. From time to time the government sponsors various advertising campaigns (eg seatbelts, drink-driving, fire safety etc). This minority always features prominently in those ads, and sometimes I wonder if that isn’t doing harm. It says to the country “these people are the ones who have problems, and when we say ‘don’t let your kids play with matches’ it’s them we’re talking to.”
cs 09.18.06 at 10:00 pm
Hmm, I feel this is verging on the worst sort of “political correctness”.
I really really disagree with the idea that just because a meeting takes place in Harlem one should go to greater lengths to invite black people. It’s not like they chose Harlem for it’s cultural significance, they went there becuase Clinton has an office there. And anyone who thinks Harlem is just a black neighborhood hasn’t been to Harlem lately or probably ever. (If Bill Clinton meets some bloggers for dinner in Little Italy, does he have to invite an Italian-American blogger?)
Also, I’m suprised no one here has pointed out the context of that “betters” line. TRex has just written that Liza complains about not getting links from Atrios, Kos, etc. So in that context the “assailing your betters” phrase can be taken simply to mean “agitating for attention from (deservedly) more widely-read bloggers”. Read the TRex piece and you’ll see what I mean.
Jumping on TRex for one (perhaps hastily-written) phrase that sounds racist out of context is no better than jumping on Liza for sloppy grammar and spelling.
Belle Waring 09.19.06 at 2:49 am
I’m not jumping on him; I’m saying what he said was messed up. I think they would have had just as great an obligation to go the extra mile to recruit minority bloggers to the meetup if it had been on the LES. nonetheless, it seemed especially ironic that everyone was traipsing uptown for an all-white gathering. and no, I’m not saying “no one should ever criticize women or minorities for their bad grammar–they can’t help it, the poor dears!” I’m saying, think a little about what’s coming out of your mouth. or cursor. there’s a wide world of bitchery out there that doesn’t make you look (inadvertently, all unknowing) like a racist asshole. it’s fine for TRex to say, “jealous much!” or “get over yourself” or “FYI people did make an effort but plans fell through” or whatever else. and when Liza’s making some other, unrelated point he disagrees with, he can perfectly well go grammar nazi. no one can deny this came out badly, though. if you can easily imagine a sexist, racist jerk looking over your shoulder and saying, “yeah, you put that little bitch back in her place! right on!” then probably things have gone a little wrong for you somewhere, no?
nick s 09.19.06 at 2:51 am
It suggests, subtly but unmistakably, that educated liberals really do think that black people have less intelligence than themselves, but they are going to contain the secret.
I think you’re over-reading, but that’s possibly because I’m a USENET veteran who’s seen that line of attack for over a decade. There’s no wiggly green line when you’re typing into a text box. Homonyms and bad grammar creep when you’re typing as you think, and sometimes you hit ‘submit’ way too early. Sex, race or whatever else has no bearing on the fact that building a flame on nit-picking spelling or grammar was pretty lame in 1996, and is even lamer now. After all, on the internet, nobody knows you’re a dog, and typing with paws is bound to lead to errors.
It’s not like they chose Harlem for it’s cultural significance, they went there becuase Clinton has an office there.
[See, I could nitpick the “it’s” there, couldn’t I? Hahaha, you’re a dumbass!! U R TEH PWN3D!! etc.]
But Clinton chose Harlem for its cultural significance, even if his presence is now regarded by many black residents as a sign of unwelcome gentrification.
Final point: TRex is a fairly recent arrival to FDL. The site was not built on his back. Having him flame Liza of his own accord is a bit like Zeppo Marx taking umbrage at an attack on Groucho, without the defence of brotherly love. And that’s my biggest issue, even more than the sloppy language: it’s not wise to jump into other people’s flame wars unless you have something other than badly-directed scorn to contribute.
John Emerson 09.19.06 at 6:57 am
It’s not like they chose Harlem for it’s cultural significance, they went there becuase Clinton has an office there.
Clinton got lots of brownie points because of Harlem’s “cultural significance”. Relevant.
Hamsher sent not one but two flunkies over to set Liza straight, but did not deign to show up herself.
“Your betters” sounds bad in context. The context here was an ongoing feud between a black woman and a white woman.
On her own blog, which is quite amusing and interesting, Liza actually did admit that she had shot her mouth off, but by that time it had escalated. I don’t think that at this point anyone is claiming that she was faultless. The FDL response was just over the top and escalating.
My initial impulse, expressed at Gilliard’s, was to hope that everything could be smoothed over, but especially because of Tbogg, my memories of my own run-in with Hamsher and her crowd have now come into play.
cs 09.19.06 at 9:19 am
john emerson:“Your betters†sounds bad in context. The context here was an ongoing feud between a black woman and a white woman.
I guess this is meant as a response to my point in comment 30. But clearly you are using the term “context” differently from the way I used the term, therefore you are not refuting my point at all, so nyaah. [nick s correct me if I spelled nyaah incorrectly, I don’t feel like looking it up.]
I think there is a little bit of a slippery slope here where any critisism directed at a black blogger can be turned into a racial thing. (e.g. “I thought TRex beat Liza in that debate” – Hey, you can’t talk about “beating” a black woman.) Obviously if TRex had said “go back to the ghetto” or something, that would be bad, but “betters” to me sounds at least arguably race-neutral, especially in the context of a dispute between Liza and more widely-read bloggers (and in the context of the generally nasty tone of the TRex post).
Belle – Yes you were jumping on TRex. I suppose different people have different definitions of what constitutes “jumping on” someone, but I can’t think of a reasonable definition that would exclude the post you wrote. How would your post be any different if you were jumping on him?
I realize that it’s a minor issue [look nick s, I used “it’s” correctly], but why deny jumping on him when you clearly did that?
not any one's standard poodle 09.19.06 at 2:48 pm
Jane Hamsher was absolutely being an clueless and attention-seeking idiot when she posted that image of Joe Lieberman in blackface at the Huffington Post of all places. Now, we all show a lapse of judgement sometimes, so at the time I was willing to call it a lapse of judgement and let it go until I saw her not-really-an-apology. You see, it was that little word “if” that rubbed me the wrong way. “If I offended anyone.” That was when I knew (and I am white) that she had not developed the capacity to really look into her own soul and do battle with her own racist demons, as all of us who grow up in this country must at some point, that is if we really do understand what a demonic thing all forms of racism are. (btw–I think she grew up in Missouri, thus, it is hard to imagine that she would not have to do a little something more than declare herself colorblind in order to throw off the cultural memes she grew up in the midst of.)
So, Liza got it absolutely right. Jane Hamsher can be an idiot. So, kudos to Liza for showing enough restraint and not coming right out and calling Jane Hamsher what she really is: a “well-meaning” liberal white racist in denial about her racism.
The bullying by Trex (probably cleared by and certainly abetted and lauded by Hamsher) is just stripped the veneer of tolerance off the table. Which is not surprising if you consider the way any commenter who has the gall to even midly criticize a post or even take a stance contrary to that which is bouncing around in the walls of the echo chamber over there. Jane Hamsher and Christy Hardin Smith do not tolerate dissent (a form of *difference*) of any kind.
Full disclosure: I have never personally tangled with Jane Hamsher or anyone else at FDL. But I have seen what I describe, many many times, as have plenty of others.
Doctor Slack 09.19.06 at 5:16 pm
TRex needed jumping on. I don’t think the guy is a racist, and I can understand a certain amount of impatience with “why aren’t I part of your circle?” drama in the blogosphere (though the question of diversity at the Harlem lunch is a fairly serious one). But for real, the only way he could have hit a worse note in responding to a black female blogger on that particular topic would have been to include the sentence “now go collect your welfare check, Shaniqua.”
Any criticism directed at a black blogger doesn’t have to be turned into a racial thing, but it’s just head-whackingly stupid to go blathering about “your betters” and then be surprised when someone sees it as a racial slur. We just don’t live in the post-racial utopia where this wouldn’t, or shouldn’t, happen.
nick s 09.19.06 at 6:35 pm
Oh, and I noticed that TRex updated the original post, telling people to ‘stop whining’, apparently after comments had been closed. (If it happened earlier, I’d like to know.) anyone Wanting to respond, in the discussion in his thread on Georgia’s voter-ID race-baiting, got summarily deleted. (The tell-tale signs: he quoted comments in replies when the original was nowhere to be found. That’s such bad online form.)
Someone at Steve Gilliard’s blog suggested that the value of FDL is inversely proportionate to the prominence of TRex’s posts. I’d throw in another variable: the moderation has gone from pruning trolls to memory-holing criticism. In short, this sad little episode has made it pretty clear that commenters at FDL have two options: suck up or ship out. Clay Shirky’s A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy comes to mind.
Donna 09.20.06 at 12:24 am
The use of the “your betters” phrase goes back to slavery in the US, and even further in England where an Aristocrat might tell a servant or commoner who questions him to mind his betters. A Georgia boy like TRex would probably have heard it in a racist context the same way that Felix would have heard macaca.
The context does matter, If you told me I was stupid and we are talking economics/politics in general/gardening and I genuinely made a stupid mistake, I might be annoyed, but I wouldn’t consider you racist. When we are talking racial politics and you dismiss me as being too stupid to answer, it’s racism.
cs 09.20.06 at 8:11 pm
I know no one is reading this thread anymore but I want to respond to donna even if I am talking to myself.
donna -You say the phrase “your betters” goes back to slavery. What do you mean by that? I’m sure “your betters” was used with slaves, but so was every nasty insult and put-down in the English language. Are you suggesting that “your betters” was an especially common phrase used towards slaves? If so I’d like to know what is your basis for that statement.
I admit ignorace of the question, but I did a Google search for slavery and the phrase “your betters”. (This Crooked Timber post was the first hit.) None of the top hits, until I got tired of reading, described that phrase used specifically to refer to a black slave in the United States.
cs 09.20.06 at 8:13 pm
The strikethrough in the previous comment was not intended. I used dashes, and it was interpreted as starting and stoping strikethrough.
nick s 09.21.06 at 12:26 am
Google does not always provide:
[Aphra Behn, Ooroonoko (1688) – my emphasis]
not any one's standard poodle 09.21.06 at 10:58 am
cs: you must have grown up in a cave. Even where I grew up in lily-white Vermont, being told to not question your betters was a put-down of colossal proportions. So if it did not imply race, it certainly referenced class.
But Trex grew up in Georgia, where attitudes regarding class and race are joined at the navel.
To wit, here are two illuminating comments from the rightwing blog, Ace of Spades:
And even better, this:
Now, it should be made clear that most of the commenters over there were loath to call TRex a racist (as the then they would have to start looking at themselves) but even the wingnuts could see the irony of Trex’s attack on Liza. And the hypocrisy.
not any one's standard poodle 09.21.06 at 11:01 am
Sorry, I screwed up the formatting up there. The wingnut quotes should read like this:
And even better, this:
Donna 09.21.06 at 2:20 pm
cs, Actually I should have said it goes further back than that, since many English settlers would have still used it for class, but in terms of Americans usage when speaking to blacks it goes back to slavery. You should have gotten Samuel Adams in your search of “betters” and “slavery”, although he is actually talking about American colonials being enslaved by the British. The idea is still there, that it is a slave/master relationship. When I googled it I found this:
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/20797.html
Read Levy’s comments.
Also on a website called Uppity Negro there is this comment:
“Wow, that looks harsh. I should follow the example of my betters, and demonstrate as much respect for the late President Reagan as he showed towards, say, the late Martin Luther King”
http://www.uppity-negro.com/2004/06/west_wing_staffers_call_bush_a.html
You don’t suppose he is talking about class here, do you?
Just think about it, how often do you come across that phrase in everyday conversation? It is used either ironically or sarcastically for racial or class situations (usually by Brits), or meant literally by white supremicists.
Comments on this entry are closed.