I posted my opinion concerning Mayor Ken Pringle of Belmar, New Jersey and the reaction to his newsletter as a comment following another article that appeared on a blog page called, “MoreMonmouthMusings”. If I knew how to create a link to the site, I would, because my comments created a little stir on that site. At the moment of this writing, you can google my name and find a link to that blog site and the back and forth dicussion I had with a writer calling himself Franklin Pierce.
I also responded to a comment directed at me by a writer, JustifiedRight, who apparently has some following and some influence in the Jersey area. That exchange is repeated below in its entirety--as of this time--and unedited. Suddenly, I’m a little bemused to find myself a player in East Coast Italian politics. I guess that’s not bad for a first time blogging effort.
The exchange:
JustifiedRight.com said...
Tell Eric Pairs to read the link below.
Tell him also to come sit in a jury trial with me if he thinks "words can never hurt you." He may be in for the shock of his life should he find himself a defendant someday.
Also, he really doesn't know why Italians would think the label "Guido" isn't about them?
Guido is quintessentially Italian. The name doesn't even translate to other languages or cultures.
If Ken Pringle means to simply describe people of various ethnicities engaged in certain bad behaviors, then the right thing to do is give it a name that doesn't associate with Italians.
Here's the link. Have Eric read it and post again.
http://tinyurl.com/6mtd48
Post Script: Steve Adubato contacted me about what is in the link and told me he thought it was well done.
Monday, July 21, 2008 9:08:00 AM
Eric Pairs said...
You know, I don’t mind if you guys use something from my comments as a springboard into your own comments. I do that myself, and it’s an effective entrance into a piece of writing; but if you are going to reference me specifically or address your comments to me in particular, then I wish you would do a better job of reading--and you really should quote me accurately and completely.
It doesn’t advance the discussion in a meaningful way to cherrypick some incomplete quotation out of context and attack it; and ultimately, when you do so, you not only support your entire argument on a disingenuous and very unstable foundation, but (in this particular case) you also prove my actual thesis to good, thoughtful, intelligent readers.
I’m not worried about these good, thoughtful readers--they can take care of themselves, and as long as my full statement appears above your comments, they will sort it out; but I am a little concerned about those times when my words don’t appear above yours, and I’m especially worried about the less accomplished readers that frequent this site--of which there appears to be a couple. Part of the irony I enjoy is that even that fact helps to prove my point.
So step into Eric’s class in English Comp 101 and let me explain.
First, Mr. Right, thanks for the link. I enjoyed Mr. De Seno’s essay. It is well thought out and well written, and he makes a good point very effectively; but he also helps make a part of my point.
Mr. De Seno takes another writer, Steve Adubato, to task for his comments regarding The Sopranos television series. Steve Adubato is, apparently, a TV news personality. Many of you may know him, but I do not.
So here’s the setup. In one corner, we have De Seno, an Italian man who takes some offense at The Sopranos because he believes it helps perpetuate a damaging stereotypical myth. In the other corner, we have Adubato, also Italian, but he, along with a number of other Italians, seems to enjoy being connected to the “exciting and sexy” mafia image.
I haven’t read Adubato’s actual full article, so I have to rely on De Seno’s representation of it--and no, for the purpose of this writing, it is not incumbent on me to read Adubato, nor is it necessary that I purchase the complete Sopranos series on DVD and scour it for references and examples. However, I do want to give this caveat:
It’s possible that Adubato wrote his comments tongue-in-cheek and that De Seno is exposing his own insufficient reading skills, but I don’t think that’s the case. He appears to have excellent skills.
That being said, isn’t this setup a kind of back door illustration of my statement that “no one of us can anticipate every possible slight that might be perceived in our actions”? The point is that we can’t always know how each individual or group is going to judge our words and actions. In this case, a television show that causes one man to smile proudly and puff out his chest and begin to enthusiastically tell stories of his own Italian family life, causes another man to feel . . . what? Anger? Sadness? Disgust? I’m not sure, but it’s clear the stereotype disturbs De Seno and that he takes no pride in it at all.
That’s why I advocate tolerance and patience and learning to take it with a sense of humor. Society and the current state of human intelligence being what they are, there is little chance of ridding the planet of prejudice and stereotypical thinking any time soon; and when it comes to the stereotypes, I’m going to state boldly that we are a richer society while we remember them--but we shouldn’t believe them.
Here’s another example from the De Seno article, but this one comes from the note at the end that I believe was attached by Richard Annotico, the blog’s moderator--or owner or whatever he is.
How does one use a word like “sfacim” that might be an extreme insult to one person but a term of great endearment to another? The example that Annotico gives is priceless. “Hey, sfacim. Come over here and give your grandmother a kiss before I break your face.” Isn’t that example absolutely illustrative of the stereotypical tough-guy Italian myth? But isn’t it also absolutely honestly representative of the lighthearted, close, loving family life that many Italians do remember?
That’s the trouble with stereotypes. There is usually some truth in them somewhere deep in their core, but the stereotype often only references one tiny ugly part of that truth. It’s like the vicious hangover without the preceding evening of warm pleasure with family or friends that makes it worthwhile.
Here’s the best part of that example. You can’t read it or, if fortunate, actually witness an Italian grandmother say it, and not laugh. You can’t picture that in your mind and feel badly toward Italians. You are too overwhelmed by feelings of love, warmth and laughter.
Again, I’m going to advocate a sense of humor when it comes to stereotypes. Good humor can completely defuse the kernel of hate that exists in a stereotype while preserving and celebrating the unique characteristics of a group that make it a valuable part of the American landscape.
Everybody knows some comedians who are very, very good at this; and they and the groups they parody make us all richer. That’s why I don’t want us to lose our stereotypes--I just want us to lighten up, maintain our perspective, and not be sucked in by them. For the ignorant among us, it’s a very difficult job--but dealing with that ignorance is part of the price of freedom and probably a necessary step on the path to enlightenment.
So Mr. Right, correct me if I need it--because I really don’t know firsthand--or correct yourself. Forget the initial origin of the word. Is Guido still the ethnic slur that you represent it to be? Or has use of the word changed so that it now refers to a look and a style that many young men take pride in?
And while you’re quoting me, Mr. Right, that “words can never hurt”, could you finish the quote? Could you also include the part immediately following that says,
“Look, I know I'm simplifying the issues. I know that words can hurt. I know that tone, intent, and timing are important factors when using politically incorrect speech; and I know that, even when delivered with love among real friends, off-color speech can serve to promote and exacerbate prejudice and stereotypical thinking. But I also know that each one of us can become a better person if we learn to be less sensitive to painful words and ideas expressed by other people”?
I’ll appreciate it, Mr. Right. Class dismissed.
End quote. As of this writing, I would still be interested to read JustifiedRight’s response.
Pairs
Sunday, July 27, 2008
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Mayor Pringle Exposes the State of the Union
While loafing around my home page, I found a news blurb about Mayor Ken Pringle of Belmar, New Jersey that caught my interest. Many of the tourists and summer renters that visit Belmar every summer are upset over the Mayor's comments in a newsletter that he publishes for their benefit.
Pringle distributes his newsletter to the visitors and residents alike, in order to keep everybody informed about what goes on in the town during tourist season. Apparently there is some friction between the two groups, with the vacationers perhaps enjoying themselves a little too much on occasion and running afoul of the town's rules and good nature.
What caught my attention, is that Mayor Pringle is being accused of using ethnic slurs and other questionable language in referring to his guests, and the pressure is forcing him to discontinue his newsletter. Pringle claims that he was only trying to poke a little good-natured fun and show the visitors how the town views them and their behavior. I haven't been able to read the actual newsletter, but I have seen a few articles about the controversy along with opinions from supporters and accusers on both sides.
Anyway, I know something about tourists and living in a tourist town, and something about the fact that, even in a tourist town, not every resident--and not even the town as a whole, in every aspect--is willing to consider all the antics of tourists as just the price of attracting their dollars. Some few of us residents don’t give a damn about tourist dollars. We’d rather have our town back. And while I haven’t been able to read Mayor Pringle’s exact words, I know a couple of other things, too.
I know that our society in the United States has grown ignorant and much too intolerant of anything not politically correct while, at the same time, becoming much too eager to attack others for any perceived slight.
I’m not familiar with the term “Guido” as Pringle apparently used it. I’m not even familiar with it as an ethnic slur, and I’m hard pressed to find any reason that people of Italian heritage could believe that it was directed at them, given the context of Pringle’s comments. Maybe some Italians are just too eager to play the victim.
Now, I am familiar with the use of “blonde” as a slur. Is there anyone over the age of ten who hasn’t made a “blonde” joke? As for girls from Staten Island, is it possible that the normal competition that I hear exists between New York and New Jersey is the bigger reason why Pringle’s comments were considered offensive? I don’t know; I’m just sayin’.
I grew up in a neighborhood and went to school with Wops, Micks, Pollacks, Krauts, and even a few Wetbacks and Slant-Eyes. I myself, was and have been, a cheap, Sheenie Bastard Kike and White Trash--among other things. I don’t even mention a fairly common term for the black kids I grew up with, because if a white guy even thinks the word these days, he is immediately hung or shot on the spot; and I wanted to finish my comments before I die.
Doesn’t anyone remember learning that, while sticks and stones might break their bones, words could never hurt them? Look, I know I'm simplifying the issues. I know that words can hurt. I know that tone, intent, and timing are important factors when using politically incorrect speech; and I know that, even when delivered with love among real friends, off-color speech can serve to promote and exacerbate prejudice and stereotypical thinking. But I also know that each one of us can become a better person if we learn to be less sensitive to painful words and ideas expressed by other people.
Tolerance and sensitivity are not just ideals to be practiced in the way we treat people and speak about them. They are also concepts to be exercised when we are the ones being treated or talked about. In fact, learning to “take it” with patience and a sense of humor--even when the words are not delivered in an innocent or well-meaning way--is a much more beneficial and honest endeavor than worrying super-sensitively about every little thing we say or do. Every one of us acts thoughtlessly at times, and no one of us can anticipate every possible slight that might be perceived in our actions. The one thing we can (almost) always control is our own reaction. Lighten up. And please, look for the bigger picture.
Concerning the big picture, here’s a couple more things I know:
1) The recent New Yorker cover depicting the Obamas was widely misunderstood.
2) There are still people in our society that believe Huck Finn should be banned.
3) The current ignorance and widespread illiteracy that permeate our society frequently threaten some old, honorable forms of expression--and maybe much more.
If the people who objected to the New Yorker cover could have controlled their jerking knees long enough to think about or investigate the meaning, they might be richer for the experience. The same is true of those who would ban Huck Finn. In both cases, the creators of the works wanted to expose the prejudice that seems apparent on the surface of the works as well as entertain. Satire and irony are intended to shock as a first reaction. That is a large part of their value as artistic tools; but those tools, to be most effective, also depend on the viewer being educated and thoughtful enough to see beyond the surface. Those are skills that are disappearing from our society. Mayor Pringle and his blog--which I understand was quite popular and helpful--are just the latest victims.
Pringle distributes his newsletter to the visitors and residents alike, in order to keep everybody informed about what goes on in the town during tourist season. Apparently there is some friction between the two groups, with the vacationers perhaps enjoying themselves a little too much on occasion and running afoul of the town's rules and good nature.
What caught my attention, is that Mayor Pringle is being accused of using ethnic slurs and other questionable language in referring to his guests, and the pressure is forcing him to discontinue his newsletter. Pringle claims that he was only trying to poke a little good-natured fun and show the visitors how the town views them and their behavior. I haven't been able to read the actual newsletter, but I have seen a few articles about the controversy along with opinions from supporters and accusers on both sides.
Anyway, I know something about tourists and living in a tourist town, and something about the fact that, even in a tourist town, not every resident--and not even the town as a whole, in every aspect--is willing to consider all the antics of tourists as just the price of attracting their dollars. Some few of us residents don’t give a damn about tourist dollars. We’d rather have our town back. And while I haven’t been able to read Mayor Pringle’s exact words, I know a couple of other things, too.
I know that our society in the United States has grown ignorant and much too intolerant of anything not politically correct while, at the same time, becoming much too eager to attack others for any perceived slight.
I’m not familiar with the term “Guido” as Pringle apparently used it. I’m not even familiar with it as an ethnic slur, and I’m hard pressed to find any reason that people of Italian heritage could believe that it was directed at them, given the context of Pringle’s comments. Maybe some Italians are just too eager to play the victim.
Now, I am familiar with the use of “blonde” as a slur. Is there anyone over the age of ten who hasn’t made a “blonde” joke? As for girls from Staten Island, is it possible that the normal competition that I hear exists between New York and New Jersey is the bigger reason why Pringle’s comments were considered offensive? I don’t know; I’m just sayin’.
I grew up in a neighborhood and went to school with Wops, Micks, Pollacks, Krauts, and even a few Wetbacks and Slant-Eyes. I myself, was and have been, a cheap, Sheenie Bastard Kike and White Trash--among other things. I don’t even mention a fairly common term for the black kids I grew up with, because if a white guy even thinks the word these days, he is immediately hung or shot on the spot; and I wanted to finish my comments before I die.
Doesn’t anyone remember learning that, while sticks and stones might break their bones, words could never hurt them? Look, I know I'm simplifying the issues. I know that words can hurt. I know that tone, intent, and timing are important factors when using politically incorrect speech; and I know that, even when delivered with love among real friends, off-color speech can serve to promote and exacerbate prejudice and stereotypical thinking. But I also know that each one of us can become a better person if we learn to be less sensitive to painful words and ideas expressed by other people.
Tolerance and sensitivity are not just ideals to be practiced in the way we treat people and speak about them. They are also concepts to be exercised when we are the ones being treated or talked about. In fact, learning to “take it” with patience and a sense of humor--even when the words are not delivered in an innocent or well-meaning way--is a much more beneficial and honest endeavor than worrying super-sensitively about every little thing we say or do. Every one of us acts thoughtlessly at times, and no one of us can anticipate every possible slight that might be perceived in our actions. The one thing we can (almost) always control is our own reaction. Lighten up. And please, look for the bigger picture.
Concerning the big picture, here’s a couple more things I know:
1) The recent New Yorker cover depicting the Obamas was widely misunderstood.
2) There are still people in our society that believe Huck Finn should be banned.
3) The current ignorance and widespread illiteracy that permeate our society frequently threaten some old, honorable forms of expression--and maybe much more.
If the people who objected to the New Yorker cover could have controlled their jerking knees long enough to think about or investigate the meaning, they might be richer for the experience. The same is true of those who would ban Huck Finn. In both cases, the creators of the works wanted to expose the prejudice that seems apparent on the surface of the works as well as entertain. Satire and irony are intended to shock as a first reaction. That is a large part of their value as artistic tools; but those tools, to be most effective, also depend on the viewer being educated and thoughtful enough to see beyond the surface. Those are skills that are disappearing from our society. Mayor Pringle and his blog--which I understand was quite popular and helpful--are just the latest victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)