I’m mainly upset that a rich white man thinks that he’s qualified to write about what it’s like to be a “poor black kid”.
That’s the first problem.
The second problem is that he mentions race but doesn’t demonstrate any understanding of how race effects all Americans, including himself, and his analysis acts as if it is merely economic class that causes the differences. Which low-key insinuates that “poor black kids” are lazy, dumber than average, and etc. negative stereotypes.
The whole article seemed to support the “culture of poverty (racialized edition)” fairy-tale that conservatives made up.
And I’m mad that he appropriated the President’s speech. We all know that Obama doesn’t or can’t (whatever you want to go with) speak frankly about racial issues and that he’s obligated to do the “transcend your race” routine because that makes whites feel comfortable, although it’s just bad, illogical advice.
Obama rarely if ever mentions the poor anyway. Every word out of his mouth is MIDDLE CLASS. MIDDLE CLASS. Preserve the MIDDLE CLASS.
Because poor folks aren’t politically convenient to advocate for. Never have been on a large scale since FDR (and even he excluded blacks).
Blacknes has consequences. Consequences that white supremacy has dictated.
I’mma need all white people who don’t understand that to stop evoking race & telling me what I need to do.
Original article (gross):
Baratunde Thurston’s rebuttal (the comments section is full of privileged whiners, unshockingly):
I live in a constant state of wtf when it comes to upper middle class opinions on race and/or poverty. I just don’t get it.
The moral of the story: if you’re going to steal, make sure you steal BIG.
Or, if you’re going to steal, be sure you’re a rich white guy when you do it.
these are making me laugh through my anger
I’m so tired of this privileged bullshit. I’m so tired of douchebags who say if you don’t have a job you’re not trying hard enough, that being disqualified for being overqualified for the most menial of jobs never happens, that people can survive on sawdust if they just fucking try hard enough — that survival, that scraping by, that barely making ends meet is somehow a laudable goal for one of the wealthiest nations in the world. I’m sick of people who say the 3% of welfare funds that are abused somehow justify taking away the 97% that isn’t, that health and food and shelter are things you should earn and if you can’t then you deserve what comes to you. I hate that people who are secure don’t want to upset the status quo that leaves millions and millions insecure. I hate that it’s easier not to care than to invest in the community of this country and I hate that there are people who take this kind of bizarre, privileged and smug delight in telling others why their efforts just aren’t good enough.
#OccupyWallStreet because the Republican platform of tax cuts for the wealthy and spending cuts for the rest of us is COMPLETELY unacceptable.
lol class warfare. no that’s what the 1% is doing to the 99%, thanks
0 Bankers Were Arrested After Purposely Crashing Our Economy. Nearly 1,000 Have Been Arrested for Speaking Up About it.
NYPD Couterterrorism team at the #OccupyWallStreet protest.
Apparently, calling for economic justice is “terrorism” now.
i agree with the url of this post
real people. real problems.
My latest article for Persephone Magazine about chef Karl Wilder’s attempt to live on a budget equivalent to food stamp benefits. (I mentioned it last week here on STFU.)
very good post.
—By Barbara Ehrenreich
“Brianna’s wish was for her mother to find a job because there was nothing to eat in the house, an aspiration that her teacher deemed too disturbing to be posted on the wall with the other children’s requests.”
”As a Las Vegas statute puts it, “an indigent person is a person whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive” public assistance.”
”A number of cities, led by Las Vegas, passed ordinances forbidding the sharing of food with the indigent in public places”
findingsherlock-deactivated2012 asked: Oy, I'm filled with fail. I have no idea how to reply to your reply. Sometimes I can and sometimes I can't. Anywho, despite the lack of or unconvincing women, I deeply love Holmes ACD!Canon and non. If you couldn't tell given how much I obsess over the character. One of the reasons it does matter, though, is that ACD is like so completely over-the-top masculine and it is clear in his writing and the way his writing is used by his contemporaries. There's this absurd need for journalist of the age to talk about his masculine booming laugh, large frame and obsession with sports. It's all very homoerotic.
I think that there are many good good books that are low on women, or have only cardboard cut outs of us in them. It' s also key to some of my most interesting thoughts on gender and Holmes as secular mythology. Most mythology actually prescribes gender roles by possessing stories that will ultimately resonate, but also proscribe the behaviors that mark womanhood. So what do we do with Holmes? If he is so well loved, and in fact really does act as mythic proxy for many things political, then what were women exactly being proscribed to do? Inherently, we were being proscribed right out of the picture. The victorian era was the era where the invention of public and private spheres really happened. Where people codified space very much on gender lines, and where even the visual culture, the gaze that we turn on each other as we pass through urban environments becomes masculinized.
So moving on to BBC!Sherlock, what role are we to have in this story? I'm not sure, the data's not conclusive, but I'm more interested in the overwhelming role of women in the fandom. More research is needed. Your thoughts as always are welcome . . . this has made me really think about how to inject gender into my ideas on politics of the 19 century. You are good for my brain, clearly. Carry on!
My thoughts are probably unhelpful, because my literary and historical background are extremely limited and my context comes mainly from research into feminism and little else. My personal view, however, and the one I formulated by reading Holmes without any historical context, is that Holmes’s general disinterest in mankind seems gender irrelevant, and to me that is powerful. From Watson’s point of view, he scorned women, but I think that is because Watson is a typical Victorian man, who fawns over wilting violets and admires (usually out of surprise) conviction and passion in women. Holmes doesn’t care for women, but he also doesn’t care for men. He treats everyone with general disinterest, unless he has use for them, manipulates men and women with ease while it suits his purpose.
I realise this wasn’t really your point — more-so that ACD’s writing is so entirely focused on the masculine that he seems to discard women, and because his writing serves as a cultural influence in many ways, that this discarding translates to a sociopolitical atmosphere. I don’t think I agree. I think that Holmes, the figure, insomuch as he can be called a role model, is one who generally treats people the same, with respect to their intelligence and use. In a time when social strata and race were topics that were not broached in British society, we see a man who is accepting of interracial marriage, a man who utilises and respects the lower classes. We see a man who treats women with respect and many men without it. I think that there is only so much we can expect of a series written in this era, and though there is gender marginalisation happening, we do see sympathetic, and even powerful, female characters (limited and shallow though they may be). What I find unusual and exciting about the Holmes canon is the way it treats class divisions, which is progressive for its time.