Speaking of subtext...and racism...

[kouredios]

Brought to my attention via Alas, a blog:

"Over at the Weekly Standard, Dean Barnett tries to downplay Obama’s speeches:

In spite of Obama’s obvious strengths in this area, questions linger regarding Obama’s gifted speechifying. Do his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a

Comments

[serge_lj]

Speechifying? As in "Obama isn't really a human communicating ideas, he's just a parrot."

Racism isn't as overt as it used to be, but it's still there.

[kouredios]

Absolutely. Which is why it's so important to talk about, even though it's so hard these days when people try to claim that no one's racist any more.

I'm starting to think that the 12th graders are really starting to get it, which is always very exciting. I had a college senior in my class literally tell me "there's no such thing as a racist text," and I wept for the future. But the majority of them can get it, I think. It's just that very few people are talking to them about it explicitly.

[cybersattva]

Interesting, but I'm not sure I buy the racist argument.

For example, it's not uncommon to compare our current Prez to...a monkey. Gee, if he were a minority, would that be construed as racist? A little? But the fact is we do this to all our politicians all the time. If they aren't white male, does that make such analogies off limits?

[ltlbird]

I agree. We talk about "one trick ponies" all the time. It's true that minorities are much more likely to be regarded as lower on the humanity scale, somehow more animalian, and that is disgusting, but I am unconvinced that's the issue here.

In fact, I have that same fear that Obama's fantastic oratory, while certainly a sign of charisma and intelligence, may not translate to good Presidential skills. I hope that his linguistic skills and persuasion will help with diplomacy and bringing about compromise, but we have no way of knowing whether that will pan out.

[cybersattva]

I think Obama's "speechifying" can and will be beneficial on many levels. One, as you brought up, it can only help in diplomacy and international relations, an area this country is in desperate need of repair. Second, it will help sell the American people on any major, sweeping change that this country needs to get done, a la JFK. It will take leadership like this if we hope to execute some ultimately positive (or even necessary) but immediately painful projects, such as substantially reduce carbon emissions, eliminate foreign oil, or bring the budget into balance and prepare to pay the Baby Boomers' Social Security. Beyond that, he has a long history of listening to all sides of an issue before deciding the best course of action, which is a refreshing change from most of the upper echelon of politics (particularly the current Executive) lately.

Since you brought it up... ;)

[kouredios]

Oh, and on the actual content of the column...whether Obama's more form than substance? I can't say it any better than the folks at Making Light have been doing here. If you like discussions like this one, you'll love reading up over there. :D

[kouredios]

It occurred to me to do a google search of the term "like a dog on hind legs" to see in what context that phrase is used, and whether I can find it used in a sense where there is no power dynamic implied. There's one reference to a child (smaller, weaker), one reference to the Ok Go video that's dismissive about them having done it in one take, and that also led me to the known (not so much by me, though it did sound somewhat familiar) quote by Samuel Johnson (who, I may have previously noted here, is NOT one of my favorite people ever--and if I haven't, I'll explain in a different post as it has to do with Pope and translation

[cybersattva]

I'd love to have a fuller discussion about this in person with you someday. We had a very similar discussion at work not too long ago, though the topic at work was sexual harassment, not racism. Even so, the main point was very similar--even words that are not intended to be sexual harassment can be perceived as harassment by the recipient (or even third parties not directly involved in the conversation). I personally find it challenging to decide who I should "blame" when someone is offended in the case of words spoken without malicious intent. I think, as with most things, it's not a black and white issue, but shades of gray, where in certain cases I would side with the speaker--that the listener was being unfairly sensitive, but in other cases I would side with the person feeling harassed--that the speaker was being unfairly insensitive. And of course we all draw the line in a different place based on our own sensitivities

[kouredios]

You got it. What has it been, 5 years? Amy and Chris' wedding, I think.

I think we're both trying to get to a gray area, I just feel like in order to get there we need to weigh intent a little less. :)

[heterodoxus]

overreact much? :|

[kouredios]

Way to just appear at the end of a discussion and blow a big raspberry all over it, dude. And you think I'm rude?

[heterodoxus]

yes.

[heterodoxus]

woops. that was me.