The Racial Politics of Speaking Well
Feb. 6th, 2007 03:55 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
morrigirlThere was an article in the Sunday edition of the New York Times called The Racial Politics of Speaking Well. Sparked by Joseph Biden's now infamous comment that Barak Obama is "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," rather than fixating on Biden's use of the word "clean" as so many have, this article examines his use of the word "articulate." I highly encourage all of you to read the entire article before forming an opinion on the piece, but to summarize: Clementson makes the astute observation that wealthy, powerful, extensively educated, black people are often described as being "articulate." She speaks with several high profile black people who confirm having this "compliment" paid to them over and over and over again. And all of them note that you rarely hear of wealthy, powerful, extensively educated white people being called "articulate." Clementson says "When whites use the word in reference to blacks, it often carries a subtext of amazement, even bewilderment." And she's right.
In my own life, I've noticed the only people I ever refer to as "articulate" are young children who have said something I didn't think them capable of saying, or vebalizing, or expressing with such clarity. And why just children? Because I expect adults to be able to express themselves clearly. I do not expect children to be able to.
Clementson claims this is the same reason well spoken black people are so often described as "articulate." Clementson goes on to write "Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the 'compliment' is notably different from other black people." One of the interviewees goes on to ask "How many flukes simply constitute reality?"
I thought the article was very smart, very well written, and very clear on its point. Even so, all morning I have been reading blog entries all over the net written predominantly by white people who have either totally misread the article or who, in what I can only imagine is a bout of good old fashioned white guilt, have interpretted the article as a personal attack. In one personal blog entry the writer claimed Clementson had claimed the word "articulate" was an ethnic slur. Nowhere in the article does she say anything remontely close to that! Another young blogger thought the focus on race somehow made the discrimination she faces as a low-income woman less visible. Huh?! Turns out this woman hadn't read the article but only heard about it. After I left a comment on the entry directing her to the full text on the NYT website she thanked me and tweaked her previous statements.
I get so angry when people fail to actually READ controversial articles written on the topic of race and racism. Some people will read and fail to comprehend, choosing instead to superimpose thier own ideas about how the argument being put forth will shape up rather then actually absorbing what is being said. Still, others will get all their information second hand never bothering to read the original article for themselves.
Given the importance of race in our country I wish more people would actually listen to those who know what it's like to live with racism. I wish more people understood that not every discussion of racism is undertaken for the sole purpose of placing blame. I wish people were comfortable with examining matters of race in general. If there wasn't so much fear, we might be better able to educate one another.
In my own life, I've noticed the only people I ever refer to as "articulate" are young children who have said something I didn't think them capable of saying, or vebalizing, or expressing with such clarity. And why just children? Because I expect adults to be able to express themselves clearly. I do not expect children to be able to.
Clementson claims this is the same reason well spoken black people are so often described as "articulate." Clementson goes on to write "Such a subtext is inherently offensive because it suggests that the recipient of the 'compliment' is notably different from other black people." One of the interviewees goes on to ask "How many flukes simply constitute reality?"
I thought the article was very smart, very well written, and very clear on its point. Even so, all morning I have been reading blog entries all over the net written predominantly by white people who have either totally misread the article or who, in what I can only imagine is a bout of good old fashioned white guilt, have interpretted the article as a personal attack. In one personal blog entry the writer claimed Clementson had claimed the word "articulate" was an ethnic slur. Nowhere in the article does she say anything remontely close to that! Another young blogger thought the focus on race somehow made the discrimination she faces as a low-income woman less visible. Huh?! Turns out this woman hadn't read the article but only heard about it. After I left a comment on the entry directing her to the full text on the NYT website she thanked me and tweaked her previous statements.
I get so angry when people fail to actually READ controversial articles written on the topic of race and racism. Some people will read and fail to comprehend, choosing instead to superimpose thier own ideas about how the argument being put forth will shape up rather then actually absorbing what is being said. Still, others will get all their information second hand never bothering to read the original article for themselves.
Given the importance of race in our country I wish more people would actually listen to those who know what it's like to live with racism. I wish more people understood that not every discussion of racism is undertaken for the sole purpose of placing blame. I wish people were comfortable with examining matters of race in general. If there wasn't so much fear, we might be better able to educate one another.
