Althouse | category: race consciousness



an endless succession of beans and nuts.

Can kids bike to school on urban streets if they form a "slow-moving peloton" that achieves "kidical mass"?

That's the idea, described in "Make Way for the Bike Bus/For the school commute, families are taking to the streets with two wheels. Some have termed the movement 'kidical mass'" (NYT).
Bike bus participants hope that its growing popularity will convince local leaders to do more on issues like speeding and congestion. “We want to show people that you can’t have safe streets for kids unless you literally have people guiding the way,” said Chris Roberti, a father who helps organize the ride to P.S. 110.The school lost Matthew Jensen, an English teacher, to a hit-and-run two years ago. The tragedy galvanized the community to push the city to redesign McGuinness Boulevard, the high-speed thoroughfare in Greenpoint where it happened. These days, a bike bus passes through it, with a police escort. 

It needs to be safe. I'm wary of an approach that puts the kids out there first and uses them to increase pressure to make the streets safe. 

For now, bike bus routes tend to exist in whiter and wealthier neighborhoods. When a reporter joined the Bergen route, no children participated for its first mile through Crown Heights, where cycling infrastructure is less accessible....

Is biking a white-people activity? Or is it that streets in white neighborhoods are more bike-friendly? 

Here's a WaPo article by Nathan Cardon from a couple years ago: "American cycling has a racism problem/How racism has shaped the history — and present — of bicycle use."

USA Cycling recently revealed that its membership was 86 percent White, 83 percent male and 50 percent middle-aged. Beginning in June 2020, Bicycling magazine gave space to Black cyclists who testified to the racially exclusionary nature of cycling. The magazine also revealed a study of police data showing that Black cyclists are stopped up to three times as often as Whites, and it reported on a recent case from Texas, in which a White man beat a Black cyclist while hurling slurs at him....

From the beginning of the bicycle revolution in the 1890s, White Americans worked to stop Black men, women and children from riding bicycles. This was especially true in the South. Threatened by the radical mobility of the bicycle, White southerners attempted to prevent Black Americans from riding in public and sought to curtail the rise of a separate Black cycling culture — the legacy of which modern cycling is confronting to this day.... 
As a symbol of modernity and speed, the popularity of the bicycle declined swiftly at the start of the 20th century to be replaced by the new American obsession with the automobile... 
In 1900, the head of the dying Tennessee Division of the League of American Wheelmen concluded that the “principal cause of the deterioration of cycling in the State is owing to the reduction of cost of bicycles, thereby enabling the colored brother and sister to possess wheels, and as a result one can see in [Nashville] about ten times as many colored people riding as you do White people, and it is a rare sight at present to see a White woman riding a wheel.”...

"In the conservative defense of [Daniel] Penny, a pernicious analogy is visible."

"Police instructor and Army veteran David Grossman writes... that 'an old war veteran' once told him about wolves, sheep, and sheepdogs. 'If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen: a sheep,' he continues. A person with 'a capacity for violence and no empathy' for his fellows is 'an aggressive sociopath — a wolf.' To stop them, there are sheepdogs. 'But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens?' Grossman asks. 'Then you are a sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path.'"

Writes Sarah Jones in "The Sheepdog Defense" (NY Magazine).

This animal analogy is awfully facile. Is anyone really thinking about the case by likening human beings to these 3 kinds of animals? It seems to me that nearly everyone regards Jordan Neely as mentally ill. Wolves aren't mentally ill. 
Grossman’s sheepdog analogy has become popular among law enforcement, servicemembers, and veterans... Now, the right seems to consider Penny an extension of law enforcement, a sheepdog protecting his subway flock...

Seems? What evidence is there that people think Penny was herding the sheep-people of the subway? He was restraining Neely. That's not like anything a dog does to a wolf. 

It gets much worse:

Aspiring sheepdogs face a dilemma, however. In the animal kingdom, it’s easy to distinguish a sheep from a wolf; among humans, it’s more difficult. “Faced with this problem, how can you tell a wolf from a sheep?' asked Michael Cummings and Eric Cummings in Slate. "The easiest way is race."

It's racial because the dog-humans need an easy way to distinguish human wolves from human sheep? But Neely was singled out by his own words and behavior. 

In the Neely case, it matters who was doing the killing but also who was being killed. And if Penny is a sheepdog, then Neely, a Black man, is a wolf....

Yes, his words and behavior were assessed by a person who could see that he was black and that may have affected judgment, but talk about doing what's "easiest" — you're assuming racism.   

While Neely is dehumanized, Penny is valorized.... Penny’s defenders populate the world with vicious caricatures. If there are only sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves, Neely had no chance to be a human. Neither does anyone else....
If there are only sheep, sheepdogs, and wolves.... Yes, well, there aren't. The author is criticizing other people for being simplistic and unsophisticated while being absurdly simplistic and unsophisticated. 

So... they're doing this in the New Yorker crossword.

So... they're doing this in the New Yorker crossword.

That's today's puzzle. Clue: "What kind of white nonsense..." Answer: "The Caucasity!"

It's good wordplay — a twist on "the audacity!" — but not anything I'd seen before, and the clue suggests this is a phrase in ordinary speech these days rather than a new joke. 

It really is white supremacy, in my view, which is — as advised yesterday by WaPo's Philip Bump — not to be too "rigid" about the meaning of "white supremacy." Bump, you will remember, argued that "white supremacy" could be understood to include promotion of the "structures of power that largely benefit Whites." So, if you like just about anything the way it is, you may be a white supremacist.

I had thought that The New Yorker would refrain from using racial taunts in its crossword! Why did it seem okay? Answer: White supremacy. You don't understand my point? To quote Philip Bump, "This confusion... stems from overly rigid understanding[] of... 'white supremacist.'"

[C]ritical race scholar, journalist and activist El Jones... says, “The caucacity of it all is that not only can everything that we generate be taken and used, but then white people can turn around and say, it was never yours in the first place — claiming to be the expert on blackness,” explaining that it is audacious for a white person to rewrite the origin stories of Black colloquialisms....
“Caucacity” — a combination of “Caucasian” and “audacity,” is a term coined in 2019 by the Bodega Boys podcast, and has been used all over social media as a way to “marvel at the baffling behaviors of white folks” and capture their “willingness to take bold risks” due to the comfort that privilege provides.

That is, the phrase expresses a belief in the superior position of white people. It's critical of that perceived position, of course, but don't be so rigid. It also reinforces the idea that the high position of white people is real. 

"Why non-White people might advocate white supremacy."

Philip Bump feels called to explain (at WaPo) after a man named Mauricio Garcia killed 8 people in a shopping mall in Texas. There's reason to think that Garcia held white supremacist/neo-Nazi beliefs because he wore a patch with the letters "RWDS," which, we are told, stands for "Right Wing Death Squad."

Maybe the letters don't really mean that or maybe Garcia didn't know the meaning, and maybe Garcia was white, but the point of Bump's column is to assume, based on the name, that Garcia was non-white and that he wore the patch because he was a white supremacist and then to try to explain why.

Bump's first point is that the category "white" is "malleable" and many Hispanic people identify as white, even if they have darker skin.

Bump's second point is that "white supremacy" may be less about race than about "Western civilization." It may not seek race-based superiority but to preserve the "structures of power that largely benefit Whites."

If you don't understand why non-white people might advocate white supremacy, Bump says, it's because you are too "rigid" in your understanding of "white" and "supremacy."

ADDED: Overheard at Meadhouse:
Seems we’ll be hearing all about this Texas shooter’s white supremacy ideology while the Nashville trans Christian school shooter’s manifesto needs to be kept covered up for our own good

Yeah, I was just working on a blog post about that non-white white supremacist in Texas

Yeah, I just sent you a link about that

Cool, well you know what they say — great minds think alike

Yeah, so do stupid minds. 

I was just about to say that

"A couple of weeks ago, I was watching video of people fighting on the street in Washington. A group of Trump guys surrounded an Antifa kid..."

"... and started pounding the living shit out of him. It was three against one, at least. Jumping a guy like that is dishonorable obviously. It’s not how white men fight. Yet suddenly I found myself rooting for the mob against the man, hoping they’d hit him harder, kill him. I really wanted them to hurt the kid. I could taste it. Then somewhere deep in my brain, an alarm went off: this isn’t good for me. I’m becoming something I don’t want to be. The Antifa creep is a human being. Much as I despise what he says and does, much as I’m sure I’d hate him personally if I knew him, I shouldn’t gloat over his suffering. I should be bothered by it. I should remember that somewhere somebody probably loves this kid, and would be crushed if he was killed. If I don’t care about those things, if I reduce people to their politics, how am I better than he is?"

"The modern men’s perm is loud for a hairstyle so soft. On TikTok, the hashtag #menperm... has garnered more than 20.7 million views."

"Those videos often begin with a man in a salon chair, pictured from the shoulder up. The camera orbits around his head just before a final shot of his crown: silky, voluminous waves lacquered with the aplomb of K-pop boy bands...."

I'm reading "Why Are More Men Getting Perms? The modern male perm is softer, more natural and has taken off, thanks to K-pop and TikTok" (NYT).

TikTok is very powerful. Videos don't just get views. They garner them.
[T]he “Korean perm” is... subtle. It’s almost unnoticeable so as to appear natural.... Its top curls are tender and loose....

“We’re in a moment, in the United States at least, where younger generations are very critical of something like toxic masculinity,” said [S. Heijin Lee, a professor of women, gender and sexuality studies]. The hairdos of beloved K-pop boy band members and lead actors from Korean dramas offer an alternative, she said.... 
Back in the late 1990s and early 2000s, major American news outlets and talk show hosts zeroed in on Korean people wanting plastic surgery to “look white,” Dr. Lee said (for example, some Americans obsessed over Asians’ undergoing double-eyelid surgery).“Fast forward to the current moment, where we see all of these trends toward ‘looking Korean,’” she continued....

What is it about curly hair that's less (toxically) masculine? Just that it is understood to look like "boys" in a boy band? 

If these permanents are understood as efforts to look Korean, are they not inappropriate for nonKoreans? And if Koreans are changing their natural hair from straight to slightly curly, aren't they still subject to the old criticism that they're trying to "look white"? Or is that just the way American TV people talked in the 1990s and early 2000?

Really, what are the ethics of hair texture these days? 

"I mention a television interview with Freeman in 2005, in which he said the only way to get rid of racism was to stop talking about it."

"'I’m going to stop calling you a white man,' he told the white host, 'and I’m going to ask you to stop calling me a black man.' I ask if he still feels the same." 

Morgan doesn't answer the question asked. He offers "Two things I can say publicly that I do not like," suggesting there are other things he thinks but will not say.

He calls 2 things "an insult." First, Black History Month. (Why just one month?) Second, the term "African-American." (Because we don't say "Euro-Americans." We get more specific and say "Italian-American," etc.)

So, you can see that Freeman did not go back to his 2005 position. It's been almost 20 years since he called on Americans to simply leap forward into color blindness. That's not how we've used the 20 years. Quite the opposite. It's understandable that he's not accepting the nudge to repeat the same advice.

But perhaps you can see the same idea in the 2 grievances he did voice. Both suggest treating black people the same as white people — no special month and no grouping by continent.

"Endless"... it's been one week.

I'm trying to read "Jill Biden’s gaffe about women’s basketball and its endless fallout/Sports is usually a safe zone for the first lady. But her suggestion that both the winning and losing teams visit the White House prompted a week of outrage" by Jada Yuan (WaPo). 

You want some generally applicable rule that outrage must die after one week?

And the complaint here is that Jill's gaffe was ridiculed on "Saturday Night Live." The championship game was on a Sunday and the ridicule took place on the very next Saturday. Is SNL supposed to bypass all outrages that take place on a Sunday?

I'm annoyed by this overprotectiveness toward Jill Biden. She made a significant gaffe that was subject to racial critique. The only reason to want to go easy on her is to lay groundwork for excusing the gaffes of others (and they will, undoubtedly, arise in the future).

Here's the gaffe: “You know what? I’m going to tell Joe I think Iowa should come, too, because they played such a good game. Right? Winners and losers … that’s good sportsmanship!” 

The most striking line in the "SNL" bit (not quoted in the WaPo piece): "In the history of sports, when you lose, you take your ass home. But then white girls lost, and, suddenly, it's all teams matter."

"Liberals win control of Wisconsin Supreme Court ahead of abortion case."

That's the headline at The Washington Post.

I remember when it was considered important at least to pretend that judicial elections where nonpartisan and that judges decided cases according to something that was quaintly called "the law." 

The article does throw a crumb of nostalgia to those of us who remember:

Judicial candidates in Wisconsin do not run with party labels, but...

10 words and then the "but" grabs back any concession to the old pretense: 

... the race was steeped in partisanship....

Lots of political money sloshed over both candidates. And: 

At Protasiewicz’s victory party in downtown Milwaukee, the three liberals who sit on the court marched into the hotel ballroom arm in arm to Lizzo’s “About Damn Time.”

Marched, did they? 

Speaking of "About Damn Time," there has never been a black person elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. There was one black justice appointed by the governor to fill a vacancy in 2004, but he was defeated the first time he faced an election. 

"About Damn Time" begins "It's bad bitch o'clock, yeah, it's thick-thirty." That's the song they chose to blast as 3 white female justices "marched" in celebration of political power acquired through the election of another white female justice.

They later joined Protasiewicz onstage, and the four of them — the court’s incoming majority — held their hands aloft as the crowd chanted “Janet!”

Meanwhile, in the Republican camp, the loser Dan Kelly gave one of the least gracious concession speeches you will ever hear: 

On Tuesday night, Kelly accused Protasiewicz of spreading “rancid slanders” and said he did not have a “worthy opponent to which I can concede.”...

“I wish Wisconsin the best of luck because I think it’s going to need it,” he said, speaking from a rural, lakeside hotel 70 miles north of Madison.

So... they're doing this in the New Yorker crossword.

Report "Althouse"

Are you sure you want to report this post for ?