Yeah, and it's an especially telling word because the only people who I can imagine would use it are people with a really low opinion of blacks as a whole, so it completely gives away the racism of the speaker, even if he doesn't think he's racist.
This is a funny article. Being white and liberal, the only contact I have with racism is through the media, with rare exceptions. So it's interesting to read about something that's so far evolved as the "articulate" euphamism and to be able to immediately identify the problem with it, but to have no exposure to it in the real world.
I also thought it was weird that the author of the article said, basicaly, that calling Barack Obama articulate was a kind of a put down because, given his education level he has to be articulate. So stating the obvious in that way is a means of calling attention to how he differs from the stereotype, which is, of course, racist. But I think it's funny because, in today's political climate, with the idiot in chief being so completely inarticulate, that it isn't a given anymore.
Heh, yeah, that did occur to me actually, but I couldn't think of a funny way to, ah, articulate it. "Is it some sort of sublimation of Bush fans' secret shame at their numb-tongued leader makes them call Obama 'articulate'?" Etc. ba-dump-bump-ching.
On second thought, strident is not really a direct situational analogue, because it's clearly derogatory no matter to whom it's applied. It was on my mind more as a temporal analogue -- because it gets applied to Clinton in place of more positive adjectives like "forceful", and because I strongly doubt it would be applied to a man in her position.
I mean, I love the word because it has such a precise meaning - there isn't a better word for what it means - and if I say someone's articulate, it's high praise. And now all of a sudden I have to think of a person's race before allowing myself to say it?
Sometimes I think I'm racist just because of how much I hate when people expect me to be racist because I'm white. And those people, as a general rule, aren't white. But seriously. I roomed with a black girl for two months and she wouldn't speak to me or to my white/Hispanic suitemates. We tried to talk to her - to make her feel comfortable, to joke around with her, whatever. She'd turn her back, leave the room. Who's racist?
"Articulate" is actually somewhat vague - it can denote clarity, precision, persuasiveness, or it can even just indicate basic fluency. Is the speaker especially precise, lucid, expressive, eloquent? I think that's why "articulate" works well for this kind of thing - like "bright" or "ambitious", it doesn't make a specific claim and can in a way be damning with faint praise.
I'm sorry you had a crappy experience with an ex-roommate. But I think it's unhelpful to react to this article by thinking it's just teaching you a new way to walk on eggshells, "oh no what do I have to do to not be racist now". It's just describing a symptom of a problem, not behavior that is itself a problem.
Hmm. I've never thought of "articulate" as vague - maybe it's just the way it gets defined in my brain. When I call someone "articulate," I mean that they really have a damn good handle on their vocabulary - use precisely the right words to make their point. (Which, of course, for my poor grammar-ridden brain, is a huge deal.) "Articulate" to me is a staccato word - no wishy-washyness, no vaguery, but definite movement. I don't know if that makes any sense.
But really. I do think that the expectation of racism affects my attitude towards people of other races. I almost want to say the best solution would be to break it down even further. Stop saying "white, black, hispanic, native American" and start saying "Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Abenaki." But then, not everybody knows. But if everybody said their exact origin, we would have a better understanding of everybody's diversity. After all, while my ex-roommate's family was struggling for freedom, my family was experiencing a potato famine
( ... )
The Irish Potato Famine was 1845-1849, while the American Civil War was 1861-1865 (the Emancipation Proclamation was in 1863). So they're pretty close.
If people learned not to make this slip-up, it wouldn't change their underlying attitude, or stop the myriad of other subtly sinister actions that stem from their stereotypes. It would, however make it harder for others to determine whether or not they had these notions in the first place. We manage the disease, not each of the individual symptoms, and it's easier to fight the disease if you can recognize it. So I think I actually prefer that people who have these ideas about people are unknowningly transparent about it.
Yeah - I don't think the point of the article is to point out an offense, as if the behavior were itself a problem, but to point out "articulate" as a symptom. It's more a tool for well-meaning people to be able to recognize this symptom, so they can better root out the problem as it occurs.
Of course, since this is the NYT, some wag on frikkin Fox News will probably pick it up and say, "We're not allowed to say 'articulate' anymore!" etc etc. So I think (maybe) I see your point, and it's right. But the other thing this article offers is just a reminder of a generalized tool - asking "would I apply that praise to a non-minority or a privileged person in that position?" to re-evaluate your own thinking.
Comments 20
Anyone who doesn't see why that's immensely offensive has problems. Even I knew that.
Reply
Reply
I also thought it was weird that the author of the article said, basicaly, that calling Barack Obama articulate was a kind of a put down because, given his education level he has to be articulate. So stating the obvious in that way is a means of calling attention to how he differs from the stereotype, which is, of course, racist. But I think it's funny because, in today's political climate, with the idiot in chief being so completely inarticulate, that it isn't a given anymore.
Reply
Reply
I think "strident" is a sexist analogue.
Reply
Reply
On second thought, strident is not really a direct situational analogue, because it's clearly derogatory no matter to whom it's applied. It was on my mind more as a temporal analogue -- because it gets applied to Clinton in place of more positive adjectives like "forceful", and because I strongly doubt it would be applied to a man in her position.
Reply
I mean, I love the word because it has such a precise meaning - there isn't a better word for what it means - and if I say someone's articulate, it's high praise. And now all of a sudden I have to think of a person's race before allowing myself to say it?
Sometimes I think I'm racist just because of how much I hate when people expect me to be racist because I'm white. And those people, as a general rule, aren't white. But seriously. I roomed with a black girl for two months and she wouldn't speak to me or to my white/Hispanic suitemates. We tried to talk to her - to make her feel comfortable, to joke around with her, whatever. She'd turn her back, leave the room. Who's racist?
Reply
I'm sorry you had a crappy experience with an ex-roommate. But I think it's unhelpful to react to this article by thinking it's just teaching you a new way to walk on eggshells, "oh no what do I have to do to not be racist now". It's just describing a symptom of a problem, not behavior that is itself a problem.
Reply
But really. I do think that the expectation of racism affects my attitude towards people of other races. I almost want to say the best solution would be to break it down even further. Stop saying "white, black, hispanic, native American" and start saying "Polish, Nigerian, Mexican, Abenaki." But then, not everybody knows. But if everybody said their exact origin, we would have a better understanding of everybody's diversity. After all, while my ex-roommate's family was struggling for freedom, my family was experiencing a potato famine ( ... )
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Of course, since this is the NYT, some wag on frikkin Fox News will probably pick it up and say, "We're not allowed to say 'articulate' anymore!" etc etc. So I think (maybe) I see your point, and it's right. But the other thing this article offers is just a reminder of a generalized tool - asking "would I apply that praise to a non-minority or a privileged person in that position?" to re-evaluate your own thinking.
Reply
Leave a comment