And my son John also posted about the story, and I left a comment over there. I wrote:
Why isn't there an outcry of racism against whoever looked at this picture and thought this is a depiction of black people? You have to have a pattern in your head to do that particular pattern recognition. If these students had had that pattern in their head, they wouldn't have put the picture up (I hope). So who's harboring the racist stereotype? I'm just saying one could flip this very easily and those who called the students out are somehow feeling invulnerable to the very kind of treatment they are dishing out.
Posts
68 comments:
It's simple. Facials are racist. Didn't you know?
The point is to make any action by a non-approved person of color a blatant act of racism and privilege. Some see their chance at institutionalized black supremacy and they're going pedal to the metal.
I think my son John and Instapundit suffer from "white privilege." Penance is required.
We have been fed this racism drivel for years by the media, universities, and and liberals. But I repeat myself. Heck, Monsignor Al has his own racism show. It's an industry now. Not sure what the gross revenue is, but I suspect it rivals the GNP of several South American countries.
There is racism under every rock. Just need to look for it. If it's not there, just plant some. The return on investment is yuuge .... er .... huge.
A Black Dallas County Commissioner caused a huge brouhaha a few years back when he took great offence to the use of the term "black hole." A white commissioner called a county office a black hole due to it's incompetence and inefficiency. "Why'sit gotta be a BLACK HOLE," he bellowed. "Why can't it be a WHITE HOLE?"
He is a Democrat, so we know he believes in science. Not sure he ever heard that astronomical term.
Re: PB:
It's simple. Facials are racist. Didn't you know?
They encode heteronormative and racist conceptions of beauty.
Of course.
Each US university is just South Park playing in a loop
Why isn't there an outcry of racism against whoever looked at this picture and thought this is a depiction of black people?
Because the population disposed to make this argument prefers to disagree without resorting to unfounded accusations of racism? So they prefer to demonstrate the evaluation criterion is inappropriate regardless of who it points to?
"Why isn't there an outcry of racism against whoever looked at this picture and thought this is a depiction of black people?" I'm sorry to see you back at the faux-surprise shtick, but I do appreciate your reserves of indignation.
The facials my wife used to use were green. I suppose the frog people would be outraged.
The universities are cruisin' for a bruisin' from GOP legislatures and the legislatures will be cheered by the majority.
The BLM types are heading into a cul de sac.
The Generational War is making foolish nonsense acceptable. I miss the days young rebels just read The National Lampoon.
Oh, golly, let's see who is really the privileged class here:
African-American applicants receive the
equivalent of 230 extra SAT points (on a 1600-point scale), and being
Hispanic is worth an additional 185 SAT points. Other things equal, recruited
athletes gain an admission bonus worth 200 points, while the preference
for legacy candidates is worth 160 points. Asian-American applicants
face a loss equivalent to 50 SAT points. The underrepresented minority
advantage is greatest for African-American and Hispanic applicants whose
SAT scores are in the 1200–1300 range, and not for applicants near the
lower end of the SAT distribution as some have suggested (cf. Dugan et al.,
1996). Finally, the advantage that athletes have over nonathletes in elite university
admissions has been growing, whereas the strength of the minority
student advantage, especially for Hispanic candidates, has been waning.
https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/webOpportunity%20Cost%20of%20Admission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20June%202005.pdf
So being Black gives you, in university admissions, more privilege than being a legacy admit or a recruited athlete.
So fuck them.
Blacks are ridiculous because they're all gimme and no giving, not because of some white kid wearing blackface intentionally or unintentionally, noticed or unnoticed.
Racist, I take it, means thinking blacks are without dignity.
Blacks do it to themselves. Whites aren't withholding it. Blacks are.
Such a fine line, between microaggression and macroaggression.
Google used to identify back folks as gorillas.
I like the Black Person who might shine my shoes.
I like the Black Person who might serve me my morning coffee beverage.
I like the Black Person who might be my Manager.
I like the Black Person who fist-bumps me as we watch Sports.
I like the Black Person who might be my Banker.
Don't get me going on the Chinese.
I am Laslo.
Incidents like these are pushing me toward Trump.
When you're out behind the boat all day every day searching desperately for a shark to jump, after a while every duck, every clump of sea weed, every floating piece of trash looks like a friggin' shark's fin.
Facists are not welcome at UW........Academics argue that King Kong is some kind of racial allegory or myth or some such thing. You've really got to be careful when you make that argument. One wrong metaphor and your career is over........Lately, Caliban has been played by black actors and his character is used as some kind of symbol for colonialism, but isn't it knd of racist to do that. Caliban is also symbolic of the dark urges of the libido......We really have to avoid having a conversation about race. It's just too damned complicated.
mccullough said...
Incidents like these are pushing me toward Trump.
But Trump just represents the flip side of the same coin. The same sort of low-information disaffection. Instead of whining about the attacks on womenandpeopleofcolor, the Trumpsters are whining about Mexican "rapists" and crafty Chinese monetary manipulators stealing American jobs, which is bunk. I think they've all crawled out of the same fever-swamp.
They even share some of the same villains; "Wall Street," "the establishment," "billionaires (I guess Trump can claim to be against them since he isn't really one himself)," and SuperPACs. Don't forget the lobbyists. Notwithstanding the fact that the ACLU, the NAACP, the Sierra Club, the UAW, the Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and the National Rifle Association all have their lobbyists. Your enemies have lobbyists. And so do you.
The feeling of always "walking on eggshells" - afraid of sudden, unpredictable and senseless outbursts - is something often reported by families and close associates of people with borderline personality disorder. In fact, it's so common that it's diagnostic of BPD. The chancellor's condemnation of two students doing a facial mudpack as "racist" was sudden, unpredictable, and senseless, and these people do seem to want students and faculty to feel constant anxiety about the possibility of becoming the target of such outbursts.
SJWs: Borderline Personality Disorder, in group form!
The side-effects of developing a burn or rash in a class diversity environment can include sticks, stones, words, and broken bones, and in progressive cases has caused a loss of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Keep your Calamine lotion dry.
Fascism, as with all left-wing ideologies, is designed to facilitate monopoly formation to secure capital (e.g. anti-capitalism) and control (e.g. anti-republican or democratic). While it may include elements of class diversity policies, they are typically only a means to an end (i.e. opportunistic).
Principles are significant evidence to discern intent.
I was in graduate school 10 years ago. At the time, in my program, the university had instituted a new course on how to effectively be an administrator or manager (Dale Carnegie's How to Win Friends and Influence People was one of the primary texts). The reason for it was that they had turned out enough graduates prior to that who couldn't get along with people they didn't quite see eye to eye with at work, such that it had damaged the university's reputation with the niche of employers who would want graduates of this program.
I bring this up because even if employers aren't necessarily saying anything publicly, if they start or continue having bad experiences with hyper-sensitive graduates who see racism, sexism, sexual assault, white privilege, etc. in everything, they are going to eventually filter out candidates to try and avoid these problems - either by avoiding institutions with known problems, searching for activists who are unfortunate enough to be named somewhere on the net, or perhaps by eventually preferring people without college degrees (in my particular field, on a related note, a PhD was usually the kiss of death to any career outside of academia - no employer outside of that world wanted anything higher than a Master's).
I'm not in HR and likely never will be in a position to hire, but if I was, I would pretty much automatically trash any applications from the Ivy League and other elite schools, as well as anybody holding a Master's or higher, and have a strong preference for people who had at least 5 years of prior employment at a single place. I think I would probably also adopt my current employer's policy that all new non-exempt hires are temps for a minimum of 3 months to see if they like you first.
Heard Vicki McKenna on WIBA radio calling for a petition to change the racist name of UW-Whitewater because of...you know.....the word White embedded within. She was tounge in cheek on the call but.....as earlier commenter said .....there's a fine line between micro aggression and micro oppression.
No - Chuck actually commented on that fine line between micro aggression and macro aggression.
We need more Orwellian vocabulary training folks. Someone should write a law forcing us all to be retrained.
Tanning salons are racist. Photographic negatives of white people are racist.
Wonderful SayingRagards Tetinfo
I surmise that college kids (and some University professors) are rewarded more for having overactive imaginations than they are for critical reasoning and finding empirical evidence.
Science is how whites oppress minorities. Pursuing truth and wisdom is racist.
You just don't get it, do you Althouse?
That "beauty treatment" you describe...
It's meant to get rid of "blackheads".
Your white privilege is showing.
Why were they dark?
Well, I always thought women didn't like the white-colored facials.
...sorry Laslo.
It is a sign of the decadence of the university that it has the resources to expend on racial re-education classes over an utterly banal and harmless picture. That the administrators have the time and inclination to make something out of nothing means that they have too little of importance to do, and entirely the wrong focus on what their job needs to be. This is an institution determined to drive itself to irrelevance by its focus on minutia. Society would benefit by significantly reducing the amount of money expended on race-baiting organizations that actively seek to harm young people by deliberately misrepresenting their innocent actions.
Kids are put in daycare with a bunch of other kids at 6 weeks old. They are raised to think participation itself is enough, no special recognition for winning, and to not use judgement due to zero tolerance policies. But people being people, we seek attention as a reward. It's easier to get attention for being upset than it is to get attention for being outstanding.
And so people find things to be outraged against, and all the attention that goes along with that.
Are people who hate facials called facists?
Here's an idea. The term Social Justice Warriors needs to be replaced by a more accurate term, Social Engineering Fascists, or SEF's.
Woolly bully. The question is: is there any limit to how much crybullying non-affected-class students will take before they've finally had enough, and just begin to bellow their outrage to the skies?
Ann Althouse said...Why isn't there an outcry of racism against whoever looked at this picture and thought this is a depiction of black people?
Others have given good responses to this question but a missing piece is the distinction between feelings and objective criteria or reality. Some group FEELS that this picture is racist/is depicting racism/trades in racists tropes. That FEELING may be unfounded, may seem silly to you, may not make objective sense (in terms of logic, commonly-agreed-upon definitions of terms, etc), but none of that makes a difference--the only question is how it makes the people who object FEEL. Since only they can decide how they FEEL, and since there's no way for you to argue that their FEELINGS are wrong, we're left with a situation where people can decide for themselves whether something is racist or not, and that determination MUST BE RESPECTED no matter what.
When we privilege empathy over objectivity and feelings over facts (when we actually deny that there can be facts, etc) we make this kind of thing possible. You'd think it would be simply a matter of saying "gee, I'm sorry you think this is racist or it makes you feel bad somehow, but really there's nothing racist about it and there's no reason to punish anyone," but of course that attitude would be denying survivors their pain, or something like that--that approach would get you boycotted, protested, and probably fired.
Those of us who give you a hard time about putting too much emphasis on feelings, Professor, don't do so because we think you're too nice or too soft hearted. We do it because we see that your well-intentioned push for empathy is used by the Left to advance their agenda--an agenda that relies on exactly this sort of unreasoning, reflexive accusations to "win" arguments and get their way. When you can shut down debate by shouting "racism!" and you've rigged the system such that there's no way for anyone to counter that charge (since racism is about feelings, and feelings are valid/can't be questioned no matter what) then you hold a trump card and can always get your way.
The "feelings vs. facts" debate is important. Painting opponents as racists, emotional terrorists, people who trigger and cause mental trauma just by holding or expressing contrary ideas--these are all tools of the Left and while it's nice to see some people object to their use now, it's probably a bit too late at this point.
They're doing their best to filter out the independent student connected to reality in the admissions process. It's best not to have spent too much time working to earn money for college and better to have spend that time "saving the planet" in one form or another. The latter is expected and rewarded while the former is viewed as a quaint, old-fashioned virtue better directed to lower-tier state schools and community colleges. The view it as a triage between the thinkers/elites/betters and the workers of the world.
"Others have given good responses to this question but a missing piece is the distinction between feelings and objective criteria or reality."
Actually, it's the two white students and Professor Althouse who are relying on subjective feelings: "If these students had had that pattern in their head, they wouldn't have put the picture up (I hope)." She hopes they didn't have racism in their heads. I hope not too. But the fact is we don't know what's in their heads, we just know what they posted on social media. They posted a picture that looks very much like they are wearing blackface. They aren't in a bathroom or a beauty parlor, they don't have towels over their heads or bathrobes on. They are standing their in regular clothes with black stuff on their faces. The image objectively appears to be blackface. Blackface, like white sheets with eyes cut out of them, burning crosses, etc. has a widely understood cultural meaning. It is objectively racist. If you post an objectively racist image without subjective racist intent, you might not be a racist, but you certainly made a mistake.
"It is objectively racist"
To put black goo on your face? "Objectively?" That is such an absurdly expansive use of the terms "racist" and "objectively" as to render them useless. You could make nearly any human activity "objectively" racist by such usage. Is it the use of black goo that is racist? Or the photographing of it? How about if two Indian women put white goo on their faces? If it's "objective" there can be no debate. Which, I suspect, is the point.
"They posted a picture that looks very much like they are wearing blackface."
To you. The image of blackface is in YOUR head. You are doing the pattern recognition.
"The image objectively appears to be blackface."
It appears that way to you, because you have an idea -- in YOUR head -- of how blackface appears. Using the word "objectively" doesn't get it out of YOUR head. You are doing denial. YOU saw it. YOU have a racist stereotype in your head and YOU are making an inference about what these 2 students thought was worth a sharing in Snapchat.
"Blackface, like white sheets with eyes cut out of them, burning crosses, etc. has a widely understood cultural meaning."
But WHEN is it blackface? You are assuming the question under discussion.
"It is objectively racist. If you post an objectively racist image without subjective racist intent, you might not be a racist, but you certainly made a mistake."
The mistake can be in YOUR head as YOU saw a pattern that matched something in your head. These kids in facial masks looked like imitations of black people TO YOU. Why did you see it?
More importantly, if you want to attack these 2 kids, to unroll that kind of attack, why are you not afraid that a comparable attack will be unrolled against you?
THAT is my question, and you are not taking it seriously.
AF said... Blackface, like white sheets with eyes cut out of them, burning crosses, etc. has a widely understood cultural meaning. It is objectively racist
Begging the question, AF: whether the picture IS blackface or not is exactly what's under discussion. Had the picture been posted with a caption like "ha ha, look at us in blackface" or something, you'd have a point. It wasn't, and you don't...you can ARGUE that it's blackface but's not objectively clear that it is, and it certainly isn't self-evidently clear. You're skipping steps and pretending you haven't.
"More importantly, if you want to attack these 2 kids, to unroll that kind of attack, why are you not afraid that a comparable attack will be unrolled against you?"
I'm not sure what you're asking. Perceiving blackface as blackface is racist? Why? To be clear, I am not saying they look black, I am saying they look like white people wearing blackface. White people wearing blackface is a thing. It is widely considered racist. I didn't make it up. So I guess that is the answer: Because I didn't make up the idea that wearing blackface is racist whereas you did make up the idea that perceiving blackface is racist.
Your other questions about what is in my head bring me back to freshman dorm room. How do I know that anything I perceive is not just in my head? I read, I talk to people, I learn about the world. I acquire a general sense of what other people perceive. It is not infallible. But it is clear that in this case, I am not the only one who thinks the images look like blackface.
Ann Althouse said...More importantly, if you want to attack these 2 kids, to unroll that kind of attack, why are you not afraid that a comparable attack will be unrolled against you?
THAT is my question, and you are not taking it seriously.
I'm pretty sure you know the answer, Professor. What form would you like it to take?
Power dynamics? People making accusations of racism, when done from the Left, are generally immune to accusations of racism themselves. Witness the high esteem in which people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are still held (by the Left) today. Both have said and done clearly racists things, but both are still respected and when either charges racism against someone else the Media listens. The Left has the power when it comes to accusing others of transgressions of the racist, sexist, or homophobic kind, and the Left therefor does not usually have to fear being accused themselves.
Do you prefer an identity-based answer? Racism has come to be defined as valid only when put into terms of oppressor class vs. oppressed class. As long as the accuser is not a member of an oppressor class then by this definition they cannot themselves be racist. It's axiomatic, then, that unless you're white/have white privilege you can't be racist (or perhaps it's better to say it's a tautology). If the accuser is non-white then it's no good saying they're racist themselves, as they can't be! Exceptions are made, of course, when a non-white person is seen as identifying with whites/the Right, but in those cases the argument is that the person in question isn't really non-white...so the same rules apply.
How about a "megaphone" answer? The people in charge of the megaphones (the Media, the student organizations, the school Administration, etc) are almost all on the Left. They are ideological allies and have similar political, cultural, and social beliefs. In choosing what accusations to hear/pass on they make judgments based on their personal beliefs, and those personal beliefs tend to run one way (namely Right bad, Left good; white people racists, non-white people non-racists). If you're a part of that group you normally don't have to worry about being accused of racism because you know the people who'd accuse you aren't a part of your group, and by definition those outside people start out discredited. The Media doesn't fear attacks from the Right because the Media usually controls the narrative. The only reason the administration would fear being called racists if if the accusation came from another member of the in-group, from the Left--but in this case that'd be against the interests of the Left (namely to keep the idea that widespread racism is real and must be attacked and punished) so there's nothing to fear. If the administration was disagreeing with some portion of the Left, on the other hand, they might actually have a problem.
Anyway, you can frame the answer in a number of different ways but most of the boil down to the fact that the Left has set this informal system up such that they control the narrative and they don't have much reason to fear that the tools they use against the non-Left will be used against them. That's one reason people like me are so interested when there are intra-Leftist fights (feminists vs. gay rights activists, etc)--those are the only times we get to see the Left's tools turned against them!
Your question might as well be "why aren't things in the political/ideological realm fair?" Professor. They're not and they won't be, and it's really pretty obvious why that is true.
Everything is race or sex or homosexuality to the left. You can't even have a facial that's darkish to not get charged with racism. I bet these two are hard core liberals totally believing in the who identity politics claptrap. They've learned the lesson that the revolution ends up eating its own.
""They posted a picture that looks very much like they are wearing blackface."
OR, like they are wearing stuff on their face that you would put on your face if you had a facial.
Isn't the real problem that the manufacturers of the stuff that people put on their face use colors that some might say resemble skin tones? No whites, browns, beiges, reds, yellows.
AF, if they were doing black face wouldn't they paint their WHOLE face black?
"AF, if they were doing black face wouldn't they paint their WHOLE face black?"
No, white people in blackface often leave a space around the eyes, mouth, and chin/neck for example:
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1926860/images/n-BLACKFACE-large570.jpg
http://media.salon.com/2012/11/RogerSterlingBlackFace11.jpeg
"They posted a picture that looks very much like they are wearing blackface."
AA said:
To you. The image of blackface is in YOUR head. You are doing the pattern recognition.
"The image objectively appears to be blackface."
It appears that way to you, because you have an idea -- in YOUR head -- of how blackface appears. Using the word "objectively" doesn't get it out of YOUR head. You are doing denial. YOU saw it. YOU have a racist stereotype in your head and YOU are making an inference about what these 2 students thought was worth a sharing in Snapchat.
-----------------------------------------
Others and I have directed this argument back at you, Prof. Althouse, when you post your tea-leaf and entrails readings of supposed sexism and racism in comments/actions of conservatives.
Never seemed to elicit a response from you, although my memory is not infallible.
Does this represent a new wisdom on your part? The removal of a log from your own eyes?
From my perspective I see this as you undergoing an epiphany driven by your desire to be intellectually honest.
Good on ya, mate.
AF, objectively speaking, any administrator who used his time to attack these kids should be fired, because they are idiots.
And one more thing - an attack on this kids is undeniably and objectively racist, oppressive and fascistic.
Your support of objectively fascist and racist administrators, objectively proved you are a racist and a racist. Please report to the nearest diversity administrator and take a class on diversity and non-racism.
AF wrote:
"AF, if they were doing black face wouldn't they paint their WHOLE face black?"
No, white people in blackface often leave a space around the eyes, mouth, and chin/neck for example:
but you more often see black face represented as the whole face painted, and sometimes the lips painted white.
But regardless, that is also what it looks like when you get a facial. Have you ever had a facial before? If a black person had a facial and put on white goop would they be doing "White face"?
Its' a facial for crying out loud.The problem with having a standard where the person taking offense determines whether something is offensive is that an awful lot of overly sensitive people are taking offense simply because they are overly sensitive.
AF, do you know the product they put on their face? What color is it? what is it used for?
Here's an idea. The term Social Justice Warriors needs to be replaced by a more accurate term, Social Engineering Fascists, or SEF's.
I still like "snowflakes"
They're doing their best to filter out the independent student connected to reality in the admissions process. It's best not to have spent too much time working to earn money for college and better to have spend that time "saving the planet" in one form or another. The latter is expected and rewarded while the former is viewed as a quaint, old-fashioned virtue better directed to lower-tier state schools and community colleges. The view it as a triage between the thinkers/elites/betters and the workers of the world.
They're ALSO making arguments AGAINST gutting higher education funding tougher to fight.
If THIS is what colleges are churning out, what, precisely, is their benefit? The youth aren't taught how to think --- they're only taught WHAT to think. How is that a state interest to fund?
They produced an action plan to handle this non-issue in the future? Clearly, they are lacking any real work to do. So why NOT cut funding 25% immediately?
They posted a picture that looks very much like they are wearing blackface.
Assuming one has never seen blackface. Nor is there any reason WHY they'd be in blackface? It's just "Well, I THINK it looks like that".
Well, snowflake, fuck your feelings.
They aren't in a bathroom or a beauty parlor, they don't have towels over their heads or bathrobes on. They are standing their in regular clothes with black stuff on their faces.
They're IN THEIR DORM ROOM. They are in clothes I've seen plenty of women chill around their home in. Do women HAVE to wear towels over the head and bath robes to do a beauty treatment?
Have you ever met a woman?
The image objectively appears to be blackface.
Wishing it to be so does not make it so.
I'm not sure what you're asking. Perceiving blackface as blackface is racist? Why?
Because, CLEARLY, that's how you think black folks look.
Objectively, even.
Because I didn't make up the idea that wearing blackface is racist whereas you did make up the idea that perceiving blackface is racist.
I'd say it's more sexist. If only they dressed in a way YOU found acceptable, then it wouldn't be racist. But because they didn't abide by your stereotype, they gotta be racist.
I acquire a general sense of what other people perceive. It is not infallible. But it is clear that in this case, I am not the only one who thinks the images look like blackface.
But all of those people, to be charitable, are fucking morons.
If you wish to join that group, feel free. I'd recommend not doing so, but you're not me so I am hardly vested.
You don't know what a facial is. Got it. But since EVERYTHING is racist, is there any reason whites SHOULDN'T be racist? If we'll be accused anyway, shouldn't we have the fun of not having to walk on egg shells for people whose own people still sell them to this day?
AF, do you know the product they put on their face? What color is it? what is it used for?
Let's be honest ... they put white privilege all of their faces. Objectively.
In the course of trying to look pretty did these two young ladies do something...ugly? Gosh I hope not.
Garfunkel & Oates: All Over Your Face
Reminds me of the early South Park episode about the town flag: "When Chef stands up and demands they address the racist aspect of the flag, he and the rest of the adults discover that the children had not even perceived that there was a racist aspect, seeing the flag as a man being hanged without registering his color, and had instead thought that the issue at hand was capital punishment.".
People with a race obsession see everything as a race issue and try to make you do that too.
Althouse - you link a lot of your posts to your son's blog. Does he, like, need help getting eyeballs or page views or whatever? Or are the rest of your readers (unlike me) just DYING to know what your son thinks on everything?
I actually like John's take on things. His blog is interesting when I read it and I appreciate the Prof for dropping some interesting links to look at.
Char Char Binks said...
Google used to identify back folks as gorillas.
Well, black folks and gorillas differ genetically by less than 2%.
I am sad to see no students here voicing a need for a new student rebellion against this. The assumption made by many, I think, is that this generation of students is progressive and radical and is getting support from an older generation of radicals which enables it to enforce its demands. Whether they like or dislike it, that is how many see it. I disagree. I recall a day when both students and college administrators were like those today. But they were the pre-Sixties silent generation. They shared a common uneasiness about the Beat generation arising among them. Speakers like radical educator Paul Goodman caused a furor. Comedians such as Mort Sahl or Lenny Bruce were seen as "deeply offensive." It seems to me we now have a repeat of that buttoned-down Fifties mentality among both our students and administrators - and when I say students, I mean both the BLM bullies and the pathetically passive bullied majority. ALL seem to buy into this bizarre notion of hurt feelings as some sort of arbiter of taste, permissible speech, thought, etc. What is needed is a NEW student movement, one that would take on people like this chancellor with direct action protests. It might start student underground publications (online, now, I guess) that would put up the horrid black factr photo of these students, riff on it, push it, celebrate it. And to everyone who dared to take offense it would say, "TO BAD, LIVE WITH IT." I recall a day when Madison's second best ("Connections" was best) underground newspaper was named "Take Over," with the subtitle "Don't Take Orders, Take Over." Forget suing this insufferable chancellor at Whitewater - though God knows she deserves it in spades. Start a real student movement, call for her ouster and take over. Am I kidding myself? Just waiting for Godot? Maybe not.
Doug, I am more interested in John's blog than I am in your views about it, I must say.
"Why isn't there an outcry of racism against whoever looked at this picture and thought this is a depiction of black people? "
Because that person is black. Duh.
@Doug
My blog is based on what I happen, for one reason or another, to see and then feel like blogging either because it's good or because it's bad in an interesting way or because it's a jumping off point for something I feel like saying. I don't think I ever blog for the sake of boosting traffic to some other website. As for John, I don't think he checks traffic to his blog, and he mostly writes at Facebook, where you don't even see your traffic.
Post a Comment