blargblog
An expulsive extension of
The imagery of this week's cartoon consciously alludes to the symbolism of Jim Crow—for reasons that should be obvious since the Massachusettes Supreme Court made a point of using the phrase "separate but equal" when it ruled that civil unions are no substitute for marriage. But I also intend it as a rebuke of a recent joint statement by the Black Ministerial Alliance, the Boston Ten Point Coalition and the Cambridge Black Pastor's conference. The statement rejects gay marriage on biblical grounds; on the issue of preserving family and the importance of opposite sex parents—particulary in our present context of absentee dads whom they are rightly trying to encourage to take responsibility for their children (but wrongheadedly applying it to this issue); and on the usual misconceptions of homosexuality as a "behavior."
Fine. Yawn. Heard all this crap before. But what really steamed me was hearing various clergymen in the press and on the radio reject the gay marriage issue as a civil rights issue. The oft-repeated rationale evoked the painful struggle of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 60s, and expressed offense that anyone could draw an analogy between the bitter history of racism in America and the bitter history of homophobia in America. I found a pretty good and I think representative example in this Boston Globe opinion piece:
As one clergyman put it to me this week, "Think about Emmett Till, the Scottsboro Boys, and those police dogs in Birmingham -- and then tell me they've faced what we've faced. This has nothing to do with civil rights." Who he meant by they is obvious.If you know your history of gays and lesbians, you know the clergyman is profoundly unaware of, say, gay-bashing? Curbing? Matthew Shephard, anyone?
Yet here's what got me riled: Anyone who takes Civil Rights history and the history of democratic struggle in America seriously should find the clergyman's invocation of Emmett Till, et al. absurd and insulting. The Civil Rights Movement was not about Bull Connor's attack dogs or the assassination of Medgar Evers or any of the horrible things that the Southern white power structure inflicted upon black people to suppress their democratic rights. Those are historical facts, they are a part of the story of the movement, but they were not guiding principles of the movement itself. The Civil Rights Movement was about asserting the rights of full citizenship and demanding that those rights be honored for all people. Yes, the movement fought against lynching, police brutality and the Klan—not only because people suffered, but because such practices and groups were active parts of a system of suppression. Civil rights, as a concept, is about citizenship, full participation in the life of one's society and full exercise of one's democratic rights. The level of suffering one must endure to make one's society respect those rights is not a bar that is set to determine whether one gets those rights; it's not a hazing ritual. Such suffering as any minority group has faced in this country is an unfortunate factor of history and certainly a component of a group's oppression. But it is a serious mistake to confuse the suffering inflicted with the struggle for human rights itself. It is also ridiculous to expect, as this clergyman's words imply, that other people must suffer as greatly as one's own people has in order to "deserve" the right to equality.
Unfortunately this clergyman is not alone in this attitude. Historically oppressed groups do not necessarily recognize each other's oppression. One can hear some Jews reject using "genocide" to describe the systematic extermination of American Indians or "holocaust" to describe the affects of the Slave Trade upon African families. In turn, one can hear any number of groups—African Americans, Palestinians, Southern white trash—deny The Holocaust itself. (No one acknowledges the holocaust of the Roma.) I hear lesbians complain of affluent gay men, and both groups diss bisexuals, while the intersexed get completely ignored.
I like to call this phonemenon "The One-Upmanship of Suffering." The game has essentially one rule, harsh and extreme in its effect: The one who has suffered the most wins by denying the suffering of everyone else. Yet you can see this game played in even the most mundane circumstances. Talk to someone about your day. "My job sucks." "Oh, yeah? You think you got it bad! Well, let me tell you!"
The One-Upmanship of Suffering is a conversation killer. A discussion killer. And in its social effects, a progression killer. We won't get anywhere if we can't listen to one another. What's worse is we'll waste time squabbling over who got the most dings on the skull while the benefactors of the system of inquality—the bosses, the richers, the fat cats, whatever you wanna call 'em—watch in amusement at our folly.
Posted by kevinmoore at February 16, 2004 12:53 AM | TrackBackVery well said. Human suffering is human suffering, period. I do take exception with one thing you wrote, however: "In turn, one can hear any number of groups—African Americans, Palestinians, Southern white trash—deny The Holocaust itself."
You seem to be an intelligent, imaginative person--why rely on such hackneyed phrases as "Southern white trash" to get your point across? Have you ever given any REAL thought to what it means to call an entire group of people TRASH just because they are poor? I know, I know, you were specifically referring to those poor white Southerners who are racist and backwards, but maybe you should invent a special string of epithets for those who really deserve it and leave impoverished white people out of it.
Sorry to take it out on you, I'm just sick to death of hearing people throw the word "trash" around when referring to PEOPLE.
You seem to be an intelligent, imaginative person--why rely on such hackneyed phrases as "Southern white trash" to get your point across?
They are my people. My lineage reaches deep into the hills of the Smokey Mountains and other parts of Appalachia. Dirt floor homes with stinky outhouses and struggles with daily life, extreme poverty and social inequities beyond their control.
So I say "white trash" with some element of pride, but that would be undetectable in a piece like this. I did actually hesitate to use the word, but realized that even Rednecks and "white trash" have developed a sense of identity pride. Like all such forms of group pride, it's convoluted and messy and not always, shall we say, nice.
At the same time I sympathize with your objections to the use of the word "trash" to refer to anyone. I particularly chafe when snooty rich kids use it as a term of derision, in part because I feel they are talking about my grand-daddy. Yet "trash" can also refer to how low-wage workers, the working poor and other members of the "social underclass" are treated by American society in general. They are the people who do the shit work and earn shit wages and get shit on by big business and the governments that should be serving them instead of cutting rich folk's taxes that fund social services that poor folk desperately need.
For me, "white trash" is short hand for a lot of things: a nod to my own personal history; an expression of anger against systematic exploitation by Southern ruling classes; a sense of pride in a culture that has wrought us bluegrass and Johnny Cash and some fine cooking; an acknowledgement that elements of the proletariat are not quite the ideological vanguard our more comfy comrades might hope; and in this blog entry, a reference to a persistent element of the Southern poor who insist that "Jews killed our God" and refer to "Jewcraft" and other scary/insane/absurd notions about Jews. I have had the misfortune of meeting such people. But I gotta call it like I see it.
Posted by: Kevin Moore at February 16, 2004 10:24 AMCaucasoid sanitary landfill engineers?
Posted by: J. Pinkham at February 16, 2004 11:18 AMRight on, Kevin. Well said and true.
Posted by: PinkDreamPoppies at February 16, 2004 01:48 PMI live in a lower-middle class area next to some very affluent communities in the SW Chicago suburbs. Affluent as in "If you see a Mercedes in the High School parking lot, you know it's got to be a student's." The athletic and other competitions between my kid's HS and these kid's HS are the highlight of the various respective athletic calendars.
So a few years ago during football season, the Friday before the Big Game the kids at each HS decided to mock the other school during classes. The kids at my kids' HS dressed up and talked snooty all day, etc. Then the reports came in. Turns out the kids in the other HS dressed in crappy clothes, and the girls messed up their makeup and a bunch of them put pillows under their clothes to make out like they were pregnant, etc. "White trash" was the order of the day.
The administration of the rich kids' HS was apoplectic and apologetic in the extreme. The custom of mocking the other school before games has been permanently banned. But the interesting thing was that the kids in my kids' HS thought it was pretty funny and gave the rich kids props. They were asking for pictures.
Posted by: Ron Fox at February 17, 2004 06:42 AMPoverty and the struggles of lower middle classdom provide excellent instruction in developing a sense of humor. Great story, Ron!
Posted by: Kevin Moore at February 17, 2004 07:32 AMI've struggled w/ the same terminology. Like my new home. The neighborhood is redneck populated. I feel that redneck is a derogatory term, yet I've no idea what else to call them that others will understand. I've got no idea how they would refer to themselves. Of course, I've known people who are self proclaimed rednecks. But still...... Suggestions for other working descriptor labels would be appreciated.
Posted by: Jake Squid at February 17, 2004 10:40 AMpo' folk
saltines
melanin challenged
brothers of the bleach
crimson collars
people of neck color
pinks
bubbalicious
foxworthy's children
Very nice cartoon, Kevin!!
Posted by: Elayne Riggs at February 17, 2004 12:43 PM