Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
“CRT is not a diversity and inclusion “training” but a practice of interrogating race and racism in society that emerged in the legal academy and spread to other fields of scholarship. Crenshaw—who coined the term “CRT”—notes that CRT is not a noun, but a verb. It cannot be confined to a static and narrow definition but is considered to be an evolving and malleable practice. It critiques how the social construction of race and institutionalized racism perpetuate a racial caste system that relegates people of color to the bottom tiers. CRT also recognizes that race intersects with other identities, including sexuality, gender identity, and others. CRT recognizes that racism is not a bygone relic of the past. Instead, it acknowledges that the legacy of slavery, segregation, and the imposition of second-class citizenship on Black Americans and other people of color continue to permeate the social fabric of this nation.”
What society can withstand a constant critique of historical norms of the past? None, accusations of a straw man fallacy fail.
Not that you’ll even know who Marcuse is but I’ll do it anyways:
“Withdrawal of tolerance from regressive movements before they can become active; intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word, and finally, intolerance in the opposite direction, that is, toward the self-styled conservatives, to the political Right--these anti-democratic notions respond to the actual development of the democratic society which has destroyed the basis for universal tolerance. The conditions under which tolerance can again become a liberating and humanizing force have still to be created. When tolerance mainly serves the protection and preservation of a repressive society, when it serves to neutralize opposition and to render men immune against other and better forms of life, then tolerance has been perverted. And when this perversion starts in the mind of the individual, in his consciousness, his needs, when heteronomous interests occupy him before he can experience his servitude, then the efforts to counteract his dehumanization must begin at the place of entrance, there where the false consciousness takes form (or rather: is systematically formed)--it must begin with stopping the words and images which feed this consciousness. To be sure, this is censorship, even precensorship...”
Marcuse was a neo-Marxist unable to come to grips with why Marxism didn’t take hold in the west. So when he says “other and better forms of life” he is referring to the neo-Marxist Utopia that should have swept through the west but didn’t. So he presents Totalitarianism as an alternative as is clearly presented in the above quote.
Accusations of a straw man fallacy wholly refuted and rejected.
"Consequently, it was his view that "one should refrain from facile rhetoric about direct attacks against the State and concentrate instead on the difficult and immensely complicated tasks that a 'war of position' within civil society entails" (Buttigieg, 2005:41). Described by Gramsci as "the only viable possibility in the West," a 'war of position' is resistance to domination with culture, rather than physical might, as its foundation (Gramsci, 2007:168). Cox succinctly describes a 'war of position' as process which "slowly builds up the strength of the social foundations of a new state" by "creating alternative institutions and alternative intellectual resources within existing society" (Cox, 1983:165). For Gramsci, issues of culture are what lie at the heart of any revolutionary project; culture is "how class is lived," it shapes how people see their world and how they maneuver within in it and, more importantly, "it shapes their ability to imagine how it might be changed, and whether they see such changes as feasible or desirable" (Crehan, 2002:71). The complex program of radical social change in a modern liberal democracy, as described by Gramsci, involves more than anything, developing a strong and dynamic culture capable of establishing the necessary institutions for a subversion of hegemony."
Not sure you quite understand what's happening here.
Breakfast at Tiffany's played Mickey Rooney in yellowface as a cheap racist laugh. The works, full-out and unironic - prostetic buckteeth, round glasses, silly accent. Har-de-harhar, look at that funny guy not fitting in with civilized people.
Blazing Saddles, on the other hand, spends a lot of running time on skewering just that sort of folksy racism and those who hold on to it.
If you can't handle the idea of someone pointing out that perhaps we shouldn't have made a joke out of this:
- then the creators of Blazing Saddles aren't in your corner.
Mickey Rooney's role is a blemish in an otherwise great film. So we put it in perspective, rather than forget or edit the film. Americans can't handle adult conversations like that?
None of them will pass the purity test that’s being applied. In fact no society can pass the purity test they’re foisting on all of us. But the goal isn’t to purify society, it’s to critique it out of existence until “other better ways of knowing” can be ushered in. Of course they don’t really tell you how that is going to happen, only that it must for us to finally get to Utopia. CRTs see this as a lifelong struggle that requires at every turn a “war of position.”
So it goes something like this. Two people walk into a store, one is white and the other black or vise versa. The store clerk goes up to the white person first. The crime here is that they chose the white person because they’re inherently racist, their implicit bias is showing of not their explicit bias. Had the store clerk gone up to the black person first that would be evidence of their explicit or implicit bias. Both choices are proof positive that white supremacy exist, even if the store clerk is. BIPOC. So now the premise is set that society is systemically racist. If you don’t agree you’re just perpetuating white supremacy. The. The prescription comes. You must take anti-racist training to be a better person, you don’t want to perpetuate white supremacy do you?
It’s a Kafkatrap. No answer satisfies the accuser and any attempt to give them a reasonable discourse will be used against you as proof of your “white fragility.” They don’t really know any other playbook which is why you see them accuse BIPOC of racism when they disagree with them, hello?
So what do you do? Ignore their accusations of racism outright. They accuse you because in a liberal democracy if it doesn’t shut you up it will probably at least make you question if you’re actually guilty of what they’re accusing you of. But think about it like this, if you cannot answer in anyway possible without satisfying the racist accusation, neither can they. They’re guilty of what they’re accusing you of and they cannot escape that reality.
“Hence the saying: If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
The Art of War
Sun Tzu
We know the enemy and we know ourselves but they have us cornered.
Free to watch both, as well. And I do, with gusto. Doesn't change the fact that it's an embarrassing blemish on a great film. But you roll your eyes, think "Man, we've come a ways since then" and move on.
You're aware that Jack Nicholson isn't the sympathetic character in that scene, right? (Reminds me of the embarrassing number of people who think Col. Jessop is supposed to be a heroic character in "A Few Good Men".)
Whose turn is it to explain, using little words, that TCM is in fact showing the movies?
Whose turn is it to explain that bans start in little baby steps as a trial balloon to see the public reaction. Maybe have some vision and intelligence for a change instead of being an indoctrinated serf.
You know, folks, I'm wondering if we should revisit this topic in a year or two. At that time, perhaps all of you who are saying "It's a ban on Breakfast at Tiffany's [etc.]!" should go out and see if these films truly are cancelled or banned or whatever term you like.
See if you can find them at your local public library; and if they're unavailable, find out if another borrower has the library copy, or whether the library never had a copy, or whether the library's copy was worn out. Or, whether the library withdrew its copy because it wasn't popular, and the library needed the shelf space. If all of the above produce reasonable answers as to why the library doesn't have a copy, then ask it if the reason that the library does not have a copy is because some government official or private group of busybodies made them withdraw it from circulation. If the answer to that is Yes, then you might have a point. Until then, you don't.
Heck, call the Library of Congress and/or the American Film Institute and find out if these institutions still have copies of these films in their libraries.
For that matter, in a year's time, order a new, unused copy of these films from Amazon or another online vendor. Visit a local media store (DVDs, Blu-Rays, CDs, LPs, and other pop culture) to find a new copy; or visit a secondhand store or pawn shop, and try to find these films among their DVD/Blu-Ray offerings. Because I'm sure that you will be able to find them, in any or all of the above.
So let's revisit this topic in a year's time, and see if these films really and truly are cancelled, banned, or whatever. I'm pretty sure that they will still be available.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
