April 3, 2018

"People say, you know, we need to have a dialogue about race, but what that means is shut the fuck up..."

"... because nobody wants to have a dialogue about race, because it's too much — it's to much of a — we're having a dialogue about race: It's called America."

Said David Mamet, talking to Marc Maron (at 1:04:51).

50 comments:

Original Mike said...

Haven’t we been having a dialogue about race for the last several decades? And how’s that working out?

Birkel said...

Somebody is up very early.

Why then do some people pretend to want to talk about race? What advantages do those people seek? And how can we thwart their intention to gain advantages?

Bob Loblaw said...

He's right. People who say they want a dialog about race want to lecture you about race. Exhibit one: Eric Holder.

exhelodrvr1 said...

It's not a dialog if only one side is trying.

Ann Althouse said...

"Haven’t we been having a dialogue about race for the last several decades?"

Decades? I think Mamet is saying we've been having a dialogue for centuries.

Ann Althouse said...

"People who say they want a dialog about race want to lecture you about race."

Yes, Mamet says that.

And I realized I forgot to put the right time for the quote. I'd copied text from last night's post, which had the time for when he talks about Jesus. I've got the correct time in there now. It's right after Mamet talks about the audience's overheated reaction to his play "Oleanna" (which is about accusations of sexual harassment) and, by contrast, the reaction to his play "Race."

Ann Althouse said...

"It's not a dialog if only one side is trying."

Yeah, which side is that, and how many sides are there and are there sides to the dialogue about which side is trying?

Kevin said...

"White privilege" ended any chance for a reasonable discussion of race.

It exposed the game for what it was.

rhhardin said...

Don't identify as black and the problem is solved.

Everybody wants blacks to do well, and is now noticing that public blacks show nothing but stupidity.

Don't be a public black. Blend in. Be an American. Then you get judged on your own character rather than the character of black leaders.

Bart Hall (Kansas, USA) said...

The necessary discussion is not so much about race, but about the utterly dysfunctional sub-culture of urban AAs. Their common social pathologies are nonexistent amongst **rural** AAs, and most suburban AAs, too, for that matter. Nor is that subculture at all common amongst recent immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean, who do their best to get their families out of the urban core as fast as possible.

It's interesting that 250 years of slavery, plus a century of Jim Crow, did not really damage the AA family, but in a single generation Democrat welfare programs and policies essentially destroyed it.

exhelodrvr1 said...

"which side is that"

The right would welcome one that takes an accurate look at the issue. The left does not want an honest dialog - this is obvious by the way attempts at one are treated. Or by the way conservative blacks are treated.

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Here's a shut the fuck up article about race and genetics, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html

Luke Lea said...

I think a better answer might be to completely stop talking about race, including in public policy discussions. Make it about class instead.

tim in vermont said...

I just watched Murder on the Orient Express and I guess they felt that the movie would not have been any good if they didn't slip in some racial politics and anybody who complains is a Nazi.

It used to be a rule of good writing that it not call attention to itself or get in the way of the story. I have nothing against art that treats racial relations, and certainly will watch it or read it, but when it is extraneously grafted onto an unrelated story? In thirty years, movies from today will be mocked for their political earnestness, or the politically earnest will have won and all movies will be straight out productions of the ruling party.

tim in vermont said...

Make it about class instead.

LOL! What class exactly do you think is managing the discourse? Haven't you heard of "divide and conquer"?

Phil 3:14 said...

Does it mean anything that the white commenters here want to discuss being black in the US?

Larry J said...

It seems the Left doesn't know the difference between a dialog and a monologue. When they say, "We need to have a dialog", what they really mean is "Sit down, shut up, listen to me, and reflect on what a terrible person you are and what a wonderful person I am. I may give you time to confess your sins later."

Tommy Duncan said...

There will never be an honest dialog on race as long as progressives need race as an issue and as long as blacks want the victim status that their identity group provides.

As a liberal friend once said: "I'm not seeking truth, I'm seeking advantage."

tim in vermont said...

Plus what was she doing with both red and white wine with her meal, and why did she ruin a fine red by mixing it with white wine and how did she choke it down? Oh, it was a metaphor so normal rules don't apply! But that's just what I mean, by ruining her wine by mixing it, it reveals that it was a poorly chosen metaphor that more goes to support the Nazi's point than refute it. That's what happens when you decide that you need a little morality play inserted orthogonally into your unrelated drama, you make bad artistic choices! Scott Adams would likely say that the viewer would have a visceral reaction to the mixing of red and white wine that had nothing to do with any racist tendencies on their part, but by setting up the little drama, that little visceral disgust will then be transferred to the subject matter of the metaphor. Bad propaganda, but worse, bad art.

mikee said...

Here is my comment on race in America, and I'm not interested in dialogue:
The fastest and most effective way to eliminate the vestiges of racial inequity (and that is all they are - vestiges) in America is for the local, state and federal government to forego any interest in skin color of people, and instead to treat all individuals as equal before the law.

Virgil Hilts said...

Here's a discussion - 97% percent of Millennials who follow the sequence (graduate HS, get job, marry and then have kids) aren't poor; 86% are middle class or better. It's not that hard unless you have low IQ, addictive personality and decide to partake, or otherwise lack any sense of self-control. We know this. So why do liberals and progressives, if they really care about the racial poor, not push the sequence? Is it so much more important to you that you cling to your tired/unsuccessful narrative (and call everyone who disagrees with you racist) than actually try and help people lift people out of poverty? Answer - yes! That's why its hard to discuss.

AllenS said...

Allow people to discriminate. No laws against discrimination. No lawsuits because of race, or any other thing.

Molly said...

I think a lot of black people think: "White people -- even good well-intentioned white people -- don't really know how hard it is to be black in America." Those people imagine a "dialog" or "conversation" in which blacks can attempt to communicate more effectively to whites how bad things are for blacks in the U S. And there are whites (who aspire to wokeness) who accept the assertion that white people -- even they themselves -- can never fully comprehend how bad things are for blacks. This vision of dialog really does cast blacks as the teachers and whites as the students in need of education.

If anyone objects to this characterization, and claims that what is desired is really a two-way conversation in which whites can communicate how bad things are for whites, or some other message, I'd ask that person to answer the following question: Can you tell me a statement about race that you seriously disagree with, but which a white person could say (in a conversation about race) without being racist? Can a white person say (without that being "racist" in your opinion) that affirmative action has failed, or that social welfare programs have been harmful to blacks, or that blacks benefit from charter schools?

Roughcoat said...

My Irish immigrant great grandfather and his brothers had their "conversation" on race by enlisting in a Union Army volunteer regiment from Decatur, IL, before they could learn to speak English without a thick Gaelic accent. Two were KIA and two WIA while having that "conversation." The sorrow of their passing/wounding and the pride inspired by their service and sacrifices in a good cause resonates down through the generations of my family. We remember. We do not have conversations about race.

Fernandistien said...

Diogenes of Sinope said...
Here's a shut the fuck up article about race and genetics,


Quite the opposite; guys with qualifications as long as your arm are arguing about it.

John Lynch said...

Dialogue = monologue.

Fernandistien said...

Luke Lea said...
Make it about class instead.


But but! Legacy of Slavery™!
IIRC, someone famous, perhaps Billary, is associated with that magazine so we know they're reliable.

Bay Area Guy said...

The Left's version of a proposed "dialogue" about race goes something like this:

1. You tell us what you think about race.
2. We tell you that you're a racist

Well, wasn't that fun!

My idea of a proposed dialogue about race is to have leftists read anything by Dr. Thomas Sowell and a few of Clarence Thomas dissents and then see if they can explain what they've read.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

mikee: Here is my comment on race in America, and I'm not interested in dialogue:
The fastest and most effective way to eliminate the vestiges of racial inequity (and that is all they are - vestiges) in America is for the local, state and federal government to forego any interest in skin color of people, and instead to treat all individuals as equal before the law.


Depends on what you mean by "equity". As a matter of fact, that word has been popping up recently in the arguments (that is, sermons) of the usual suspects, used to espouse the opposite of what you're hoping for here.

You're also assuming that people would just accept "letting the chips fall where they may", if strict equality before the law continued to produce unequal group outcomes. You can't make people stop noticing patterns like that. What do you think the last fifty years of ever more ptolemaic sociological explanations (and intrusive legal remedies) for disparity in outcome have been about?

exhelodrvr1 said...

Once the left is willing to consider the possibility that racism is not the primary reason for the different experiences of different cultural groups, there can be a real dialog.

Angle-Dyne, Angelic Buzzard said...

Fern: Quite the opposite; guys with qualifications as long as your arm are arguing about it.

Anybody really interested in the topic (rather than just wanting to repeat team bromides) will enjoy this. The review is multi-post, starts here.

tim in vermont said...

One other thing about that scene. She clearly only drank the vile concoction to shock him. What does that bring up? She should have talked about Door County cherries and Persian pistachios. The it would be clearly great and the Nazi would be faced with the reality that she was truly enjoying it.

buwaya said...

When the Chinese take over it'll all be moot.

Amexpat said...

Wouldn't be a Mamet quote without at least one "fuck".

Caligula said...

"May I start a dialogue about race? OK, you owe me. You owe me plenty, and whatever you pay me, I'll demand more. Let's talk about it."

("")

Kevin said...

Does it mean anything that the white commenters here want to discuss being black in the US?

Nothing more than the non-white commenters wanting to discuss being white in the US.

Or are you of the mind that one is racist while the other is not?

rhhardin said...

The dialogue about race feeds on whites being, on average, higher IQ than blacks.

Stop noticing white and black and it goes away. Then there's only fellow citizens.

Marty Keller said...

Like so many social issues these days, it is impossible to separate the leftist drive for power from the actual problems and potential remediations. It's part of the odious way the Left has always played the game: stir up people's emotions then demand that they submit to the Left's "solution," which always, always ends up with more power shifted their way (see: marriage, gay).

As part of the resistance to the resistance, I refuse to play that game.

rhhardin said...

When the Chinese take over it'll all be moot.

There's a goldilocks theory (too little or too much is bad) that the Chinese lack a cooperation tendency, and that screws up anything collective. IQ isn't everything.

Howard said...

The Chinese aren't taking over. My kids are at top STEM institutions and almost all the foreigners are weak sisters that can do nothing more than memorize flashcards. As soon as creative thought is required, they freeze.

Gahrie said...

My biggest disappointment with Obama is the fact that he wasted an opportunity to improve race relations and made them worse instead.

Gahrie said...

The dialogue about race feeds on whites being, on average, higher IQ than blacks.

But no one seems to care that Asians have higher IQs than both.

Big Mike said...

One of the sad things about living into your seventies is the thought that we are farther from Martin Luther King's ideal of judging people by the content of their character instead of by the color of their skin than we were the day he uttered those words. And, frankly, it is 100% on Democrats that this is so.

Howard said...

Big Mike: Blaming one side for 100% of the problem is just narcissistic ideological childish claptrap. Are you really that brainwashed? Do you need to absolve yourself 100% for any responsibility for the race problem? That's feminized thinking, my friend.

Gahrie said...

@Howard:

Which side is demanding the return of segregation?

Which side says that saying '"all lives matter" instead of "Black lives matter" is racist?

Which side demands that government and other institutes discriminate based on skin color?

Which side believes that the most important thing about an individual is their group identity?

Which side only elects minorities to Congress from Gerrymandered safe seats and which side elects minorities from majority White districts?

Gahrie said...

That's feminized thinking, my friend.

Are you using 'feminized" as an insult? Isn't that a thought crime?

Bob said...

The dialogue about race feeds on whites being, on average, higher IQ than blacks.

But no one seems to care that Asians have higher IQs than both.


I'm not sure it's that no one seems to care. It's just an inconvenient possibility -- or even likelihood -- that threatens the race dialoguer's premise.

Bob said...

I have a friend who is black. Quite dark, actually, almost enough to call him "black as the Ace of Spades". He worked a conventional middle-class trade from which he retired some years ago. He owns a house in the LA area and has rented out rooms over the years. I've met all his brothers and sisters, who live in the midwest. He has a lot of white friends.

I never overlook that he is black. It is impossible. It would be like overlooking his height or weight or personality. He is, without question, a black person.

But, basically, he's a person. Enough said.

Phil 3:14 said...

Kevin said:
"Nothing more than the non-white commenters wanting to discuss being white in the US."

Great point.

and no I'm not of the mindset that either is racist.

openidname said...

Why don't black people read Althouse? Or if they do read it, why don't they comment?

I recognize that we're all anonymous, so I can't be 100% certain that none of us is black. However, there are certainly commenters who, while not revealing their names or faces, present themselves as liberal and try to argue the liberal point of view.

I sometimes (not often) read The Root or The Grio and even (less often) comment on them. I don't "out" myself as white, but generally I'm taking issue with a black-oriented position, so I think it's not to hard to at least suspect that I'm white. But I never see the reverse of that on Althouse.

Is this a result of self-segregation? Do black people communicate only with other people inside the black bubble? Or do they deem the commenters here hateful?