November 25, 2008
First lady got back
Erin Aubry Kaplan in Salon:
Free at last. I never thought that I -- a black girl who came of age in the utterly anticlimactic aftermath of the civil rights movement -- would say the phrase with any real sincerity in my lifetime. But ever since Nov. 4, I've been shouting it from every rooftop. I'm not excited for the most obvious reason. Yes, Obama's win was an extraordinary breakthrough and a huge relief, but I don't subscribe to the notion that his capturing the White House represents the end of American racial history. Far from it. There is a certain freedom in the moment -- as in, we are all now free from wondering when or if we'll ever get a black president. Congratulations to all of us for being around to settle the question.
But what really thrills me, what really feels liberating in a very personal way, is the official new prominence of Michelle Obama. Barack's better half not only has stature but is statuesque. She has coruscating intelligence, beauty, style and -- drumroll, please -- a butt. (Yes, you read that right: I'm going to talk about the first lady's butt.)
More here.
Posted by Abbas Raza at 04:33 AM | Permalink
Comments
I love it when "blacks" subject "blacks" to exactly the style of vulgar, status-neutralizing trivialization that "white" racists do/would. If "black" females are known for their "butts", what specific body parts are "white" females known for? I don't recall reading any laudatory essays about Barbara Bush's ass prior to *that* inauguration. The one about Lady Bird's boobs? Did I miss that somehow?
I don't take the totemic status of president seriously (that is, in the way it's intended), but... (ahem)... I'm certainly not going to treat Michelle Obama's image with *more* vulgar familiarity than I would Jacky O's merely because the former is "black". It's a nasty little antebellum trope (not only "black" susceptibility to vulgarity of address, of course, but this body-part fetish of the auction block that adheres to "black" teeth, butts and that other part) and just because too many "blacks" have internalized it doesn't mean they can't be called on it. If a "white" couldn't get away with writing that (and a "white" couldn't, I guarantee it), why should a "black"?
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 25, 2008 9:13:28 AM
Oof! This piece landed with a resounding thud at Salon a week ago. What merit brings it to 3qd?
Posted by: Zara | Nov 25, 2008 11:43:08 AM
I feel exactly like the host who must graciously ignore at Thanksgiving,the cringing yet vulgar comment made by a last minute guest at dinner. A comment which is meant to convey "see how cool I am and how much I get it" and which in fact leaves everyone cringing in embarassment. Best to ignore and say: Do pass the gravy and you must try this ravishing cranberry chutney. Ah but I fail.
Posted by: maniza | Nov 25, 2008 12:00:54 PM
Yikes! Okay, okay, I admit it was a bad choice. I beg forgiveness. I must say I am happy that 3QD readers don't let a single questionable post go by without strenuous protest! :-) Thanks.
Posted by: Abbas Raza | Nov 25, 2008 12:16:55 PM
Steven Augustine -
Without getting into the rest of your post, I think this last bit is outside the political mainstream. Minority groups have for a while now had a certain latitude in talking about themselves that's not extended to others. You could attack that as well naturally, but you'd be in the interesting position of carrying out righteous attack both from the left and from the right of common opinion...
Posted by: D | Nov 25, 2008 4:46:09 PM
True, there's something here to make many people wince, but the underlying point, that black women may delight in seeing themselves imaged in the soon-to-be most highly placed lady in the land, is a serious one. When I was a child in the 60's, there was no "multicultural" advertising, or literature; black children had to make do with white dolls, white action heroes, and learn to read with Dick and Jane. Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote a moving post sometime back on the meaning of Michelle Obama's particular appearance. Erin Aubry writing for Salon made it all sound rather silly and even offensive, but beneath her style is a heartfelt and accurate observation: Michelle Obama is a beautiful and powerful black woman, and on her own terms, not because of her "close enough" resemblance to some white ideal. I can remember when, if you called a black woman beautiful, you meant, "She'd be pretty if she were white."
Toni Morrison wrote about this. "I didn't hate her," she reminisced about a pale-skinned, silky-haired black girl in her school, the it-girl of her day, "but I hated what made her beautiful."
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 25, 2008 6:24:43 PM
D:
"You could attack that as well naturally, but you'd be in the interesting position of carrying out righteous attack both from the left and from the right of common opinion..."
Where "common opinion" diverges from "common sense", I post this comment (though, now reading through a few of the comments here and at the Salon firestorm thread, I'm gratified to see I'm not a voice in the wilderness on this one).
There is no "left" or "right" on racial matters, really. The salient diff is between "hostile" and "well-meaning", because it's one of the many twists in this ugly old heirloom knot that so many of the "conservative" and "progressive" voices in the race debate grew up in similar households and soaked up the same perception (and intensity of perception) of "blacks" as Other... so, how the two camps grow up and take this "knowledge" into the world will vary according to temperament. If things are to change, it's not the temperaments that must go... it's the "knowledge".
Identifying Michelle Obama
as representing "black" women *because of the size of her ass* is a retrograde system of racist taxonomy. Period. When I was a boy, the back-slapping jokes were about those beautiful, slavery-bred teeth; in college, the friendly-yet-demeaning punchline was about exemplary penis size; now it's about ass: is this progress? I guess it depends on one's preference in servant-class body parts.
Using plus-sized asses as a demographic synecdoche for "black" females is about as insulting as it gets, except, of course, that in the common-sense-distorting forcefield of master/slave relations, it's taken as some sort of celebration of "difference". Ignoring the genial post-plantation eugenics, for a moment: could anything be shallower? What's next: a paean to a barrier-busting Jewish politico's nose? (You know: because little Jewish girls could look up at that nose and identify with it!)
I haven't read a *single* word about any special part of Hillary Clinton's body; I understand that quite a few "white" women hankered to have Clinton in the Whitehouse because they saw their "image" reflected/embodied in her, but what was it they saw? Was it a bodypart... or an intelligence/temperament/life-experience?
When little "black" girls learn to identify with a Michelle Obama figure (whatever it is Michelle Obama stands for, since she wasn't elected to anything) for reasons grander than the size of her ass, *that* will be progress. Nobody is helping by encouraging *the old ways* with a smile and a pat on the head (or exemplary tuchis).
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 26, 2008 5:48:57 AM
"When I was a boy, the back-slapping jokes were about those beautiful, slavery-bred teeth; in college, the friendly-yet-demeaning punchline was about exemplary penis size;"
I don't think this is a great analogy...
The examples you give are about outsiders taking some perceived advantage a minority group has and using it to stereotype / reduce / fetishize its members in comparison to themselves. Here, by contrast, is a woman who's probably been made to feel inadequate / ugly - not exotic, not objectified - in the past for having a non-European looking butt, and who now sees someone in power and in the media eye who looks like her. As Elatia notes, I think this article, while somewhat disconcerting in tone, is clearly more in the spirit of black is beautiful.
If Michelle Obama were Chinese, I can easily imagine a similarly delighted article being written about her un-surgically modified eyes.
Posted by: D | Nov 26, 2008 9:21:43 AM
"If Michelle Obama were Chinese, I can easily imagine a similarly delighted article being written about her un-surgically modified eyes."
Kudos to M.O. for not having her butt modified.
Meanwhile, if M.O. were Miss America, *your* analogy would be closer.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 26, 2008 10:20:36 AM
D:
"If a "white" couldn't get away with writing that (and a "white" couldn't, I guarantee it), why should a "black"?
That statement of Steven Augustine's is more than interesting. It is also correct.
Yes, minorities do expect (and receive) a certain latitude in speaking about themselves in a way that would be offensive coming from others. However, that does not make it right. At the very least, it is a bit silly and half apologetic ("we can't help it if we have big butts, dark skin, white teeth etc.")
I am of a minority community in the US. I cringe at the too common references to tigers, elephants, (the snake charmer has mercifully been retired) and arranged marriage whenever India comes up in the major American media, even when the topic at hand has nothing to do with any of the above. But then I turn around and find many Indians doing exactly the same - not just in the US but also at home. It is more than sixty years since India's independence. But popular Indian film and fashion magazines still can not not bring themselves to describe a drop dead gorgeous but dark complected Indian woman simply as beautiful. The adjectives of choice are dusky, sultry and most gallingly, exotic. All terribly wrong headed choice of vocabulary in describing dark skinned women who comprise the overwhelming majority of the Indian female population. How's that for a colonial hangover and internalizing the mind set of the master race? Dark complexion, big back sides, white teeth and slinky eyes should not be worth noting within a group where the majority bears those physical markers. They become remarkable only when looking in with an outsider's eyes.
I have addressed this "charming" tendency of minority communities to self deprecate and self justify on my own blog a few times. If we don't stop doing it, why should "they?"
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 26, 2008 11:50:45 AM
Ruchira brings up a very interesting point--the descriptives come from a very narrow cultural environment. And that's the rub, as I see it. Cultural understanding and cultural differences are built on differences in meaning. That Western European cultural meaning says that it's gross to discuss Michelle's ass as a virtue might simply be reflecting a Western European cultural meaning, and misses the fact that in an African American cultural paradigm, a big ass might carry a whole slew of different meanings, meanings that are particular to that culture's history and experience. Perhaps it would be more useful to try and understand what those meanings are, rather than promptly dismiss the reference as "not worth noting," when clearly some feel that it is.
Posted by: Lambness | Nov 26, 2008 12:22:20 PM
Lambness:
It will be "useful" if and when we also try to understand the "meanings" of Jackie O's skinny super model figure, Hillary's legs, Laura Bush's ample bosom and Barbara Bush's wrinkles. ( And why are we forgetting the body parts of their more notable spouses whom we actually elected to office?) Otherwise, in my opinion, you are infantilizing and exoticizing Michelle Obama. Really, as I said, none of the above is worth noting.
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 26, 2008 12:43:44 PM
Ruchira, I was just thinking the same thing re: spouses. For example, maybe all members of the human race who have prominent ears will feel better because Barack Obama said "I got funny ears"? I never noticed them until he mentioned it.
I think it's even more peculiar if females aspire to be a "First Lady," regardless of their race or body image. Jackie Kennedy said it sounded like the name of a horse. I did prefer her hair style to Mamie Eisenhower's bangs. Interesting when focusing on women, so much is made of physical appearance.
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Nov 26, 2008 1:24:25 PM
Thornier and thornier! It's true, no white woman journalist could/would have written Erin Aubry's article, and she was to my ear over the top. But she was happy, proud and kind of astounded, so it's okay with me, because I understand. In theory, you don't make observations about the First Lady's callipygia, or that of any other lady either. But the "Someone who looks just like me is a high status woman for all the world to see" thing is powerful and encouraging -- you have to be hog-tied with feminist cant not to feel it, needing to live in a zone where every observation is correct and tasteful and body part-free. Writers of many stripes have observed the tremendous power of example Obama himself will provide to boys at risk, boys who need to see there's nowhere they can't go if they try. I believe Aubry's remarks about Michelle Obama were closer to the latter kind of observation than to anything vulgar, sexist, condescending and taboo. There's offense everywhere if you're monitoring what you take in for it. Why not give Erin Aubry a break? In her heart, she's guilty of nothing but writing while over the moon.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 26, 2008 2:26:02 PM
Elatia,
Of course, we notice and we admire (or not). We also have a heart to heart in private with friends and family. It is hypocritical to pretend we don't. I just don't think it should be a subject of national conversation. I am just fervently hoping that this "Michelle Obama, black statuesque woman, nice butt, great poise etc." does not become a media meme for the next four or eight years.
It is far more interesting (and worthwhile) to analyze and understand why Mrs. Obama said, "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 26, 2008 4:24:03 PM
The callipygia of Michelle Obama is not going to be an MSM topic, Ruchira, although it will have a half-life in the blogosphere. White journalists, however, have helped themselves to comments about her color sense in clothing choices; i.e., that it flatters black skin tones. Don't you think most of this is just First Lady chatter? Like all that hoo-ha about Barbara Bush not coloring her hair, Rosalyn Carter preferring a certain shade of green, and Original Hillary's headband? I'm sure Michelle will get attention for whatever she says, and I don't expect much of it to be drivel, but right now, everything -- and, alas, I guess I do mean everything -- about her is newsy.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 26, 2008 7:08:08 PM
There there, Ruchira. You see? Nothing to worry about... you were merely being over-sensitive... everything is exactly as it should be in this, the best of all possible worlds! Why, isn't it perfectly obvious that Barbara Bush's hair color, Rosalyn Carter's decorating taste and Hillary Clinton's headband all exist on the same genteel plane as Michelle Obama's *ass*?
Always remember: if a liberalish "white" finds no evidence of racism where you see plenty, they're usually right! It's *their* context, after all.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 26, 2008 7:46:41 PM
Ruchira,
Yes, minorities do expect (and receive) a certain latitude in speaking about themselves in a way that would be offensive coming from others. However, that does not make it right. At the very least, it is a bit silly and half apologetic
Ah. I certainly grok the good-for-the-gander logic of your remarks. If we allow that X can communicate 'x', we should feel at least slightly queasy about shunning Y for communicating the same exact thing. While I'm not certain I can endorse this sort of thing in full, surely there's much justice here.
However, we do of necessity (well, I do at any rate) use different background assumptions when evaluating what 'x' means depending on who says it. When Jon Stewart makes a joke about Jewish bankers, I don't assume virulent anti-semitism. When Pat Buchanan does I might. If certain other people (and yes, I'd have differing priors about whether I was dealing with some such depending on who they were and how they looked) had written this article, I too would be worrying more about "post plantation eugenics" and "racist taxonomies" than I am now. Given who's writing, and that I've no particular reason to think her a KKK member, I think instead of someone whose self-image has received a huge boost. I don't picture her saying "ha ha it's so pathetic, black women have large and unsightly butts." I picture her saying instead "Yes indeed, many of us have large bootay, and goddamit it's beautiful (*)" I think empowerment and new-found confidence. I see the exuberant tone, and while I cringe a bit at some writing choices I find myself vicariously sharing in her joy, though I'm not a black or a woman and have quite flat butt.
Who you are mustn't scream so loudly that I lose the words entirely, but acting as if who's writing doesn't change what they're likely to be thinking is not accurate, practical or morally obligatory. To me it gives up too much common-sense for too mannered an affectation of fairness.
(*) This brings to mind a another dynamic here, of a sort you'd also see within gay communities. One reaction (and a useful one) to stereotypically effeminate depictions of gay guys on TV is to deplore the lumping together of gay men to one essence, the limited scope of the media depictions et al. Another reaction is to say simply "yeah, many (a disproportionate number, indeed) of us are kinda fey. We like it that way and if you don't you can go fuck off." The approaches two are complementary and there isn't much utility to their sniping at each other. Coarsely, I want to say I see you and Steven Augustine as performing the first duty and the author of the article as representing something like the second.
Posted by: D | Nov 26, 2008 8:20:03 PM
D, I agree with you here. Considering the writer, there's just no point in being offended, even if a discussion of the body parts of prominent women is exactly what one would pay not to take part in. It's a bit of an uncomfortable place to be, all right, because the usual feminist understandings, which I share absolutely with Ruchira, don't quite obtain. Whoever wants to get down in public with respect to their own identity politics has to be welcome to it, while people who don't belong to that in-group had better not help themselves to the same wavelength. Also, beneath Erin Aubry's "out there" humor is, to my ear, the pain of the struggle for pride in her appearance -- one hardly has to read between the lines for it. I'm very happy that a lot of women -- some of whom Aubry writes about -- are feeling affirmed and joyful about an aspect of their appearance that they had previously taken trouble to conceal. I mean -- don't believe me, read the article. Climbing outside the cookie cutter to look and act like yourself in a mainstream workplace is a good thing.
Steven, you need to stop calling me names. You need also to stop implying I'm a racist. This is the least worthy stuff you've got, and you would look more intelligent if you retired it. I'm confident you can differ with people without this kind of display, and when you do, it will be more fun to engage with you.
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 26, 2008 9:24:30 PM
"It will be "useful" if and when we also try to understand the "meanings" of Jackie O's skinny super model figure, Hillary's legs, Laura Bush's ample bosom and Barbara Bush's wrinkles."
Exactly my point! There are actual meanings associated with these things, otherwise, why would men and women of every culture aspire to accentuate that which they believe beautiful, and conceal that which they believe ugly? Why do some cultures aspire to be big, while others aspire to be thin? I think it is useful to try and disentangle the meanings that are overlayed upon these physical manifestations, since they appear to be the most significant feature of such conversations--not the physical feature itself. Perhaps if we could be open to these cultural meanings, we would learn, we would understand with greater depth what is actually being communicated. That would, it seems to me, go a lot farther in melting the frigid confines of racism than simply engaging in the unhappy evasion of just wishing the meanings didn't exist--which, in any case, doesn't appear to be working that well, ergo, not proving especially useful.
It mystifies me why you put the words 'useful' and 'meaning' in quotes--Why did you do that? What added meaning are you trying to give to these words?
Posted by: Lambness | Nov 27, 2008 12:05:15 AM
I wrote:
"Always remember: if a liberalish "white" finds no evidence of racism where you see plenty, they're usually right! It's *their* context, after all."
Elatia H. responds:
"Steven, you need to stop calling me names. You need also to stop implying I'm a racist. This is the least worthy stuff you've got, and you would look more intelligent if you retired it."
I respond:
I don't see the rational basis for your assertion. You mean I look less "intelligent" because the cited comment is poorly written, or because it's so patently untrue that the functionalities of my brain, or my knowledge of the world, are called into question?
Or is it just more "intelligent" to give your discussion-closing tendency (to blithely presume a kind of elder stateswoman preeminence that trumps all comments on these threads) a pass?
I think *you'd* "look more intelligent" if you stopped steering around the substantive comments/ideas that you have no substantive/experienced-based response for and over-empasizing the trivia merely because you're more comfortable with it
If you don't want to engage with the less-than-nice stuff, you should probably stay out of discussions about *race in America*; no one would fault you for sitting it out. The commenters in this thread who are attempting to engage with, eg, "black" on "black" racism (call it Friendly Fire) probably have more direct experience to bring to the debate than *you* do, so the "intelligent" thing for you to do would probably be to listen (read) more than you talk (type) and *learn something*. Rather than, you know, repeatedly trying to close the thread with an innocuously smiley-faced valedictory which ignores the greater issues the debate stirs up.
Or are these comment threads only for Social Networking?
In my opinion, a comment thread on the topic of racism is as good a place as any to shake up droit du seigneur-style *liberal "white" presumptions*. White Supremacists (tm) can't be reached, and it would take a 50-meter thread (and several weeks of comments) to adequately engage "minority" commenters who have *internalized inferiority paradigms*.
So, let's assume that the majority-liberals are most amenable to change. I think it's a good time to help the scales fall from liberal "white" eyes: things are rather worse, for your darker/darkish brethren, than you care to admit to yourselves.
PS to Lambness: America isn't Western Europe: it's way too "black" to be so. My my, there's just *so much* deconstructing to do here...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 27, 2008 3:42:18 AM
"There are actual meanings associated with these things..."
Exactly, but they aren't neutral meanings, in the manner of scientific data; in the cited examples there's a compelling case to be made that the (dominant) meanings are sexist. These women aren't even elected, after all; their political function as the women of tribal chieftains is almost totemically female, embodying American sex, motherhood, the home, blah blah blah.
And: the point is not whether or not the exemplary black ass of legend is valued by the (implied monolith of) "black" culture: it's the double-standard of talking about Michelle Obama (in the media),in a way that's *unthinkable* for all the other First Ladies in history, that's problematic.
As Ruchira put it: such talk is okay in private, but publishing this material in a mainstream outlet is a breech of decorum that a "white" First Lady would never be exposed to.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 27, 2008 4:16:51 AM
Or a breach, even.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 27, 2008 4:18:21 AM
Give it a rest, Steven. I am not an elder stateswoman on 3QD or anywhere else, and even a casual reader would be correct in remarking that name-calling lowers the tone around here. Likewise, imputing racism to somebody you disagree with rarely stimulates that person to reflection, and other readers may feel that a serious charge too easily leveled amounts merely to reflex.
I'm awfully sorry if you have some problem with me that, periodically, needs airing in public. I lack certainty that there is a client universe for the drama, however. Shall we just dial it down, and take ourselves out of Kiddie Korner? Happy Thanksgiving!
Posted by: Elatia Harris | Nov 27, 2008 10:45:01 AM
Elatia:
You do whatever pleases you, and I'll call 'em as I see 'em. If you'd prefer to discuss racism with people who've never actually *experienced* any first hand, among whom you can be a pundit on the topic, that'll probably work better for you.
Enjoy your bird! No hard feelings (honestly), and don't eat anything you'll regret later...
S
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 27, 2008 11:00:49 AM
German scientists in Southwest Africa in the 19th century invented special clamp-like tools for measuring the haunches and breasts of negresses, and published their studies in clean tables and charts in medical journals back in Berlin. Their data were as skewed as the results of craniometric studies of the same era intended to establish that European skulls were larger (and thus, somehow, better) than African ones.
Later statistical analyses have consistently undermined the myth that women of African descent have --qua African-- larger hips and buttocks than women from other parts of the world. It might be true that African-/American/ women are on average heavier, and therefore have bigger butts, than American women of European descent. But if so, this is a consequence of local differences in diet, and not a 'racial' difference.
One imagines that the Germans with their clamps enjoyed their work, and particularly enjoyed the safe cover of science that permitted them to pursue it as if it were something other than sublimated eros. Why this particular element of classical racism --and not, say, the idea that Africans have wool instead of hair, or that their skin is literally thicker than that of 'whites', or that they are born white with a black ring around the navel that then spreads out to cover the entire body within a month (Kant's view)-- why this element should have survived into the Obama era while all the others have been exposed as myths and thankfully forgotten, I'll leave to others to say.
Posted by: Justin E. H. Smith | Nov 27, 2008 1:01:58 PM
The above comment makes this whole thread worth it for me. Lovely!
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 27, 2008 5:13:12 PM
That's a very learned comment, Justin Smith. You've connected this stereotype to old-school racist attitudes, carefully deflated it, and shown it to be ungrounded in fact. Very nice, very scholarly. Your comment also seems to me more tone deaf than anything Erin Aubry Kaplan has written.
Your post makes most outsiders (of all butt sizes) feel better about themselves, more enlightened and noble. It also pleases some black people, who are glad to see an unflattering / embarrassing stereotype debunked. Black people are no likelier or less likely to have big butts, studies show. Wonderful. Regarding the butt sizes of such black people I'd be willing to entertain certain assumptions, but what of it? Still, some black people, like people everywhere, in their healthy state have big butts anyway, and your reassurance that such have nothing to do with ethnicity does nothing to the idea that they are unsightly, low status, vulgar and fetishistic. The one group of people your delightful post does nothing whatsoever for, black people who do have Michelle Obama butts, is the group of people victimized by the stereotype to begin with. Odd form of solidarity, this.
Kaplan gets nothing from your learned disquisition to the effect that all black people don't have butts like hers. She does, and she's been mocked for it, and felt inferior. She's fought everyone, even herself, to come to the conclusion that the stereotype is crazy. Not statistically inaccurate, crazy. Nevertheless, there it is anyway. Now for once she sees the stereotype attacked, not with number-crunching, but with the powerful example of a woman who's big butted and whose butt size does nothing to hinder her intelligence, ability or appeal. Proud and vindicated, she writes a happy, gleeful and funny column celebrating big butts everywhere. I think she should be able to do that without being accused, by the Steven Augustines of the world, of being a self-hating Aunt Jemima collaborator in her own oppression.
And then of course there's this reliance on these papers, which have carefully clarified everything. Stipulate that these, unlike the German clamp papers, are exactly right. People being a well represented species, and the earth a large place, I'm sure there are some people somewhere who do in fact have larger butts than is the European norm. What might you say to them? You have been examined by European, hence Platonic, standards of butt-comeliness and found wanting? Studies say you are in fact more ugly and vulgar? Obviously not, so why not skip the numerological mumbo jumbo? Or, since your approach is useful, just not useful to all people everywhere, why not allow those you do nothing for to have their own parades?
Posted by: D | Nov 29, 2008 8:14:40 AM
"I think she should be able to do that without being accused, by the Steven Augustines of the world, of being a self-hating Aunt Jemima collaborator in her own oppression."
True, D. And I don’t much care for it when young "black" men who call each other "nigga", either, despite the fact that you probably consider the practise a precious cultural inheritance. But that "Aunt Jemima" riff sure isn't mine... where did it come from? A top-secret file in your "knowledge" of "blacks", possibly?
"Proud and vindicated, she writes a happy, gleeful and funny column celebrating big butts everywhere... "
Please explain just how Michelle Obama's unelected butt "vindicates" anything? I'm still waiting for *someone* to explain the connection. Were they *voting on (spousal) asses* when Obama aced it?
The essential point of the adverse reaction to Kaplan's essay is that there isn't a corner of America where a published essay on a woman's posterior would be either taken or offered as a gesture of *respect*.
No, not even amongst the spookily-Other, mysterious-beyond-comprehension, apparently non-Western and reassuringly monolithic "black community". To test this assertion, ask one of your professional "black" friends with a "black" female boss if he/she feels comfortable commenting on the boss's caboose on Facebook.
It's symptomatic of good-natured liberal "white" racism to *insist* on the Otherness and then think of themselves as being the souls of tolerance for *defending* the Otherness they insist on.
Considering the figures ("Between 1962 and the year 2000, the number of obese Americans grew from 13% to an alarming 31% of the population.-- 63% of Americans are overweight with a Body Mass Index (BMI) in excess of 25.0.-- 31% are obese with a BMI in excess of 30.0."), what we're discussing here are *American* details of physique, not especially "black" ones, Ms. Kaplan's brainwashing (or alibi) notwithstanding.
The most magnificently Cinemascope arses I've seen this decade have *all* belonged to American tourists, and not a single specimen was "black" (unless there were some crafty Octaroons in there "passing").
I like this one: "I'm sure there are some people somewhere who do in fact have larger butts than is the European norm..."
1. Europeans who overeat get (surprise!) *big arses* (see: "UK arses"). Hey, how about the Ethiopian norm? The Tamil norm? The Masai norm? The Japanesee norm? There you are, blithely identifying slender arses as a "European norm"... you haven’t even examined your own presumptions; you'd be on safer ground getting off that semi-racialist (post-eugenics) pedestal and using sensible qualifiers like "Vegan" norms, or "Upper class, better-diet" norms when you mean to say "slender".
2. When you use the word "norms" do you mean "ideals"?
What you've done is conflate *Hollywood standards* with "European norms" (with "European" as a code word for "white"); you probably haven't noticed that Winona Ryder's arse is not representative of "white" averages, or that underfed "black" fashion models have what you’d call "European" asses. Only they aren't "European", though I can see how people of (dominantly) European ancestry would like to think that sylphitude (along with a greater innate proficiency in math and science) is their special birthright.
D, attitudes like yours aren't "defending" difference", they're *enforcing* it.
Q: what do you suppose has had the most devastating influence on average "black" American life the past forty years: 1) the Klan or 2) Liberal whites in media/education/politics handing "black" people PC Cultural Suicide Kits?
Women who lack self-confidence due to body-shape issues come in all colors, classes and nationalities. It is indeed a serious matter, bodily self-image misery (good health and fashionable aesthetics are often mutually antagonistic goals), but it is *not* the issue *here*.
D, I'll bet you have a pretty fun defense of "Ebonics" up your sleeve, too! I'm sure you'll get a chance to use it soon enough. Maybe someone will write a nice essay about how "white" Obama is...
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 29, 2008 4:04:29 PM
Hi All:
For what it's worth, having (unfortunately) read this post and its comments, I will certainly be focusing more attention on Ms. Obama's posterior in future, to determine if it really is As Big As All That. Whether this change of focus will mean I am paying less attention to what she is saying, or less attention to her chin and underbite (formerly the most salient part of her appearance for me), I really couldn't say.
Posted by: Vicki Baker | Nov 29, 2008 4:54:35 PM
Steven Augustine -
That's a post covering a lot, and I don't know which parts you actually care about, but will try to cover each
1) Nigga, ebonics etc...
"black" men who call each other "nigga" ...precious cultural inheritance: Yes, think there's a place for reclaiming for oneself erstwhile / continuing marks of oppression. No, don't think slang in general is unusually precious. No, don't get worked up that nigga / nigger is a word only some people can use.
Defending ebonics Nothing unusual to say. Nothing that'd raise the antennae of Language Log. I admit that a standard dialect for a language is a practical necessity. Don't think non-standard dialect is sub-standard or inferior.
2) the Aunt Jemima stuff: seemed like a reasonable capture of the sense of your first couple posts here. Still does, upon reread. All that stuff about internalization of racist tropes. Don't think it's an accurate assessment of Kaplan's article. I think it's more about an overcoming of such internalization.
3) lack of corresponding disrespect to comparable white women etc...
vindication...published essay on a woman's posterior...disrespect: Ok. I said vindication, as in Kaplan's sense of validation etc. Don't think her article was trying to either respect or disrespect MO. Like you would have preferred an article like this to have been about a Miss America (the article Kaplan recycled from, about Jennifer Lopez, is better in that sense) but don't all things considered think it a big issue. To quote you from earlier, salient difference is between "hostile" and "well-meaning". Also, don't think there's a widespread way that white women of any ass shape or size are uniquely stigmatized for having a so called "white ass"
body-shape issues...*not* the issue *here*: Obviously we disagree then on what the important issue here is surrounding this article. You see a disrespected first lady. Given that it's not meant as such I don't care much and celebrate the body image aspects of it. Probably not much point debating that.
Were they *voting on (spousal) asses* when Obama aced it? To the extent this applies it applies mutatis mutandis to pretty much anything you might say about any *first lady*, not very strong as specific objection to this particular article. But yep, first ladies are in fact kinda-sorta judged when elections happen and spend lots of time getting coached, making speeches, being in the public eye etc. As it happens, was also thinking of fact that she's gone to to an ivy from a poor home, is seen as beautiful, successful career and home...
4) obesity: Assuming no-one here thinks either MO or Kaplan is obese. We're talking about large asses vs small ones, holding weight constant, if you will. Kaplan herself did...mentioned something about 120 lb women in her article. We are talking about something like the ratio of the last two numbers in a measurement like 36-24-36. (Picture German caliper doctors doing the measuring, if you like) No health implications for either kind of ass, AFAIK. I agree morbid obesity is a Very Bad Thing.
5) Norms and ideals of beauty across dimensions of white/non-white european and not and all that stuff...
When you use the word "norms" do you mean "ideals"?Yes. Misspoke, though the word 'Platonic' might have tipped you off :) I've never thought most women look like Winona Ryder, though am glad to be confirmed in my suspicions
Ethiopian norm? The Tamil norm? The Masai norm? The Japanese norm? 1. As far as the question I posed is concerned I don't much see the difference on on an abstract level. 2. Don't be fatuous, this isn't a world where Masai ideals are imposed upon anyone. 3. Know something about current tamil ideals, yep there are noticeable differences, (though lighter skin is preferred, a subject in that in itself merits several theses, and a source of irritation to self for purely selfish reasons) But yes, Tollywood stars don't look just like Hollywood ones. Google tamil or malayalam film actors and actresses...
conflate *Hollywood standards* with "European norms": If you insist (actually don't bother, it's a reasonably open door with me on Hollywood beauty, doesn't need knocking) Doesn't much matter for my argument what the precise etiology is of the slender beauty standard that exists, only that the standard also has a stereotypical color coding.
6) Other things, again across dimensions of white/non-white european and not and all that stuff...
spookily-Other, mysterious, apparently, non-Western, monolithic, black community, professional "black" friends: I am not being white. I am being Indian. Myself non-Western. Dark-skinned. Not monolith unless sahib insist. I am not requiring professional black friends, but professional low-caste friends please to apply by email with horoscope.
I am not knowing if you are a great white gora burra sahib, but I am very humble to talk to you like this, as you are sounding like a very enlightened and Advanced white person. You are helping all the ignorant black souls. Sometimes a few of them are wanting to write bad articles, but you are saving them from themselves :) (sorry, couldn't resist)
I can see how people of (dominantly) European ancestry would like to think that sylphitude (along with a greater innate proficiency in math and science) is their special birthright You don't get to play the James Watson card with me. 1. I've said nothing of the sort. 2. Happily enough, his lot don't think my people are very clever either.
7) "defending" difference", they're *enforcing* itI'm happy to live and let live on each of defending and debunking differences. I don't think people should be ashamed of doing either. Also, I don't think I've said anything that imposes anything (authenticity or conformity for example) upon anyone. If I have, tell me, and I want to take it back.
Posted by: D | Nov 29, 2008 8:04:03 PM
Yikes. Monster URL. Closing tag. Sorry.
Posted by: D | Nov 29, 2008 8:21:47 PM
Ah yes--
Stuff White People Like-----
The defining cultural moment. Please stay in the shallow end of the pool, or I'll but a TV and a Mac.
Posted by: Dave Ranning | Nov 30, 2008 1:31:35 AM
"I am not knowing if you are a great white gora burra sahib..."
I'm "black" my deeply-perceptive friend.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 30, 2008 3:58:03 AM
And just so you *understand* the caste-dimensions of the very complicated argument about North American Racialism you've got yourself into here, here's the definition of "Caucasian", for starters:
1. of, designating, or characteristic of one of the traditional racial divisions of humankind, marked by fair to dark skin, straight to curly hair, and light to very dark eyes and orig. inhabiting Europe, parts of North Africa, W Asia, and India.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 30, 2008 4:17:40 AM
Well I did say I was not knowing if you were being white. Also, ahem, you started it.
Thanks for the causasian def; as with Winona Ryder the insight is deeply appreciated, though it isn't a word I've used (or a term I think of as a caste for that matter) coz in practical terms it isn't very useful when you're Indian in the US. It's like African American when you're African but not black or vice versa, I daresay. But yep, black beats indian, so I'm going to call it quits while I can :)
D @ mac
Posted by: D | Nov 30, 2008 5:00:44 AM
D:
Thanks for engaging it, man! I think these issues are too often politely glossed over. "Arguing" is better.
Posted by: Steven Augustine | Nov 30, 2008 5:11:21 AM
Well, Abbas (if you're listening) this wasn't such a bad choice after all. I mean look at the quality of the debate it has generated!
Posted by: Manas Shaikh | Nov 30, 2008 8:55:45 AM
In the early 1990s when the AIDS epidemic had just begun its gaudy dance of decimating the gay male population in the US and the general population in sub-Saharan Africa, I had heard many Indians including some doctors, gloat that HIV *doesn't infect* Asians.
Having had the experience of living in a Bengali-Punjabi "mixed marriage," and as a member of a minority community in Europe and the US, I have encountered numerous unfounded stereotyping. Which is why my antenna is specially sensitive to a whiff of unnecessary generalizations. Wrote a non-erudite anecdotal post on the same on my blog once.
Live and let live is indeed a commendable virtue and most of us do that most of the time. I am not recommending that we resort to shrill pontification every time someone steps across the line of "propriety." That wouldn't be fun. But there is a time and place. Comedy Central and gossip magazines are okay. Silly articles masquerading as socio- political commentary are not.
The reason that this article generated so much heat (and not perhaps enough light) is because it is trite and irrelevant, it was published in a major media outlet and it refers to a future presidential spouse, a serious and smart woman whose role on the national scene is not on the same plane as Jennifer Lopez, a movie star. In fact Allison Samuels, another black woman, points out in Newsweek that Michelle Obama's high profile, dignified role will at last provide a wholesome model for little African American girls, taking it away from one which depends on physical stereotypes:
I just happen to agree more with Samuels' vision than Aubrey Kaplan's exuberant celebration of a body part.
BTW, Steven and D, I enjoyed the give and take between the two of you. But the allusion to Winona Ryder eluded me. Except for her membership in the skinny-butt sorority, where does she figure in the larger picture?
Posted by: Ruchira | Nov 30, 2008 12:30:36 PM
Let me point out that my comment was not on the thread, which as usual I did not read, but on the article.
If I may be permitted to do my best Stanley Fish, let me also point out that I never said I approved of the article, nor that I disapproved of it. I only said that there is in fact a deep, and deeply racist, historical background to the light-hearted and harmless presumption of the author that megalopygia is a distinctly 'racial' feature. If someone wants to argue that this is an empowering appropriation of a stereotype by a member of the group it previously objectified, I have no problem with that.
Let me add finally that, racial trait or not, I fully share Sir Mix-A-Lot's sentiment that packing much back is something to be celebrated.
Posted by: Justin E. H. Smith | Nov 30, 2008 2:20:29 PM
And I'm sure neither Sir Mix-A-Lot nor Dr. Wicked Wit meant to deny that the diminutive derriere might also be celebrated. This is the silliest thread I've ever read here. Butt is beautiful or something?
Posted by: CriticalMassI | Nov 30, 2008 7:21:05 PM
Steven Augustine - 'twas fun
Ruchira - Winona Ryder has nothing to do with anything, so far as I know. Playful jabs.
Justin Smith - that was a superb Fish (or is that very Fishy indeed? lol)
Posted by: D | Dec 1, 2008 7:04:37 AM
Post a comment