One of the more interesting aspects of that JournoList thing is that none of the Heathers will really come to his defense. Jonathan Chait, who comes across as the most grown-up, mostly just points to the bad form of trash talking in the man's absence. But you can at least tell his heart's in the right place. Anyway, here's the "money quote" from Peretz that nearly all of the Heathers feel is "f***ing racist" and proof that he's a "Crazy-A** Racist":And Ta-Nehisi Coates' defended said reaction."Well, I am extremely pessimistic about Mexican-American relations, not because the U.S. had done anything specifically wrong to our southern neighbor but because a (now not quite so) wealthy country has as its abutter a Latin society with all of its characteristic deficiencies: congenital corruption, authoritarian government, anarchic politics, near-tropical work habits, stifling social mores, Catholic dogma with the usual unacknowledged compromises, an anarchic counter-culture and increasingly violent modes of conflict. Then, there is the Mexican diaspora in America, hard-working and patriotic but mired in its untold numbers of illegals, about whom no one can talk with candor."The "near-tropical work habits" line is unfortunate. But is this whole thing really so beyond the pale? If it is, no wonder it's hard to have that long-overdue conversation about race people keep talking about.
But it's pretty clear that racism — real or alleged — isn't the real issue. These guys hate Marty, hate TNR (no doubt in part because some of them couldn't get jobs there), and are willing to use racism against their own the same way they use it against conservatives: as a branding tool against heretics.
Personally, I don't feel the need to carry a lot of water for Martin Peretz (nor The New Republic, which has hardly been kind to me recently). I don't think we've ever met, though we did talk on the phone once over a decade ago. I've zinged him quite a bit about his over-the-top support for Al Gore over the years, too. But I'm really quite surprised no one will defend the man from the charge that he's a "f***ing racist." Not just a racist, mind you but a f***ing one. The man has devoted decades of his life to keeping the flagship liberal publication afloat. He's at the center of the liberal-academic-journalistic establishment. And yet where are his defenders?
I mean, doesn't this silence amount to shocking ingratitude from lots and lots of people who owe their careers to the man? Shouldn't the alumni of TNR — and they are not lacking for outlets to express themselves — mount something of a defense?
I don't know whether Goldberg's goal is defend Peretz's comments or denegrate the liberal vanguard denouncing him. Likewise, I don't know whether Peretz in his heart is a racist. Whatever. Broad generalizations about a whole nation are bad journalistic practice, and Peretz's were indefensible as a matter of fact.
All this does make me wonder how or why something borderline gets tagged as racist. As far as generalizations of a nation about which the author admittedly had very little advance understanding, it's hard to top Michael Lewis' recent piece on Iceland. It was one of the most gripping articles I've read in years, but if you changed every characterization of "Icelanders" to "Mexicans", it's hard to see what separates it from Peretz's post. Lewis describes a nation of scrappy fishermen blindly confusing themselves with the Masters of the Universe, run by a bunch of stupid, arrogant, aggressive, sexually repressed bull-men. At one point, he calls Icelanders "mousy-haired and lumpy." For the most part, Lewis approaches his subject with more eloquence and tact than Peretz does with Mexico (imagine that), but if racism --as defined as a biased, uninformed view of a nation of people leading to unfair conclusions about their character-- is the measuring stick, I wonder why there was no negative reaction to Lewis' piece. Aside from this, anyway. And this.
I don't mean to imply that the JournoListers are hypocrites, or at least that they are while I am not. (And for all I know, there was a heated debate about the article that wasn't leaked.) I was entertained by Lewis' piece, and alarmed by Peretz's post. I just wonder what it is about our mental framework on race that the Iceland article didn't trigger our "Racism!" alarm.
2 comments:
Lewis actually went to Iceland, for one thing, and formed his generalizations based on observation. Peretz, not so much. In addition, there really isn't a preexisting stereotype about Icelanders, except maybe that they know how to make sweet swan costumes (see http://www.fabsugar.com/144212 if ya don't follow me). But there are all sorts of convenient stereotypes about Latinos that Peretz can wield without ever leaving the comfort of his living room. I'm not trying to defend Lewis because I have no idea how apt his characterizations are (though my roommate just went to Iceland and reported much the same) but there's a difference between applying pre-existing stereotypes to a place you clearly know nothing of and going somewhere without such preexisting tropes and then creating a story that happens to reflect poorly on its subject.
That's a good point about actually reporting from there, that of course makes a difference. As far as when stereotypes offend, I think youre right, it really does just depend on the group. If you repeat tired old stereotypes about a well known group, then you are a racist. If, dealing with a less familiar people. you invent new stereotype or pick up on them before they are well known, then they are much likely to offend. Even if the latter stereotype is in and of itself more hurtful. That all sounds pretty obvious and logical as I write it now, but it struck me as I read the Lewis piece.
Post a Comment