If you can stand another entry about Fahrenheit 911...

[firecat]

...my sweetie jwermont just forwarded me this excellent critique of the movie by Robert Jensen, professor of journalism at the University of Texas: "Stupid White Movie: What Michael Moore Misses About the Empire".

Comments

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I agreed with the analysis of thhe friend: Moore does need to mobilize comfortable, mostly white, mostly middle-class people and the way to do that in a movie is to give the audience images that resonate with them personally. Picking out the white guy may or may not be arguably racist, but I think it is necessary for the audience Moore is trying to reach: people who perhaps haven't begun too experience, let alone articulate, their rage at the efforts of the Bush administration.

[firecat]

I agree with you that Moore pitched his movie to white middle-class people and overall I think that was a reasonable choice. I also think it's worthwhile to point out the ways in which his choices can be seen to contribute to racism in our culture.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I think it is, too, but not as a repudiation of the overall message of the film as constructed.

Additionally, I think that I'd have a strong disagreement about tactical imperatives with anyone who put "smacking around Moore for supposed racial marginalization" ahead of "getting Bush out of office."

[firecat]

The author had this to say about the importance of getting Bush out of office. I largely agree (the one difference is that I'm voting for Kerry even though I'm not in a swing state):

I agree that Bush should be kicked out of the White House, and if I lived in a swing state I would consider voting Democratic. But I don't believe that will be meaningful unless there emerges in the United States a significant anti-empire movement. In other words, if we beat Bush and go back to "normal," we're all in trouble.

Note also that I don't think a significant anti-empire movement will emerge. If the US gets out of the business of empire-building, it will be because we get it beaten out of us or our economy collapses, same way as other empires have fallen.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I find his language interesting in its self-defeatist tone. The christian right didn't spring forth fully formed from the forehead of Jehovah; it involved a lot of grassroots organizing and single-issue voting. I've seen more whinging from lefties like Jensen who want the political fruits with little or none of the labor.

[djm4]

Additionally, I think that I'd have a strong disagreement about tactical imperatives with anyone who put "smacking around Moore for supposed racial marginalization" ahead of "getting Bush out of office."

Possibly, but I despair somewhat for your country if that's actually an either/or. And when you've elected your 'any person who's not Bush', I hope you do then turn your attention to addressing the ethical compromises that you've had to make to do it before you've so much as poured your first glass of champagne.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I think it is possible to do both.

However, I also realize that in order to effect change within government one first has to hold office. So I'm not seeing the ethical compromises you are in removing Bush from office and I will enjoy a toast to succeeding in achieving the first step before moving on to the second, third, and 995th.

[djm4]

So I'm not seeing the ethical compromises you are in removing Bush from office...

Erm ... you don't see 'racial marginalisation' as an ethical compromise? It's not your compromise, certainly,because you're white, but if I'd just got a candidate I supported into office by playing down the message of support for genuine minority interests, I'd want to be pretty damn sure that such messages weren't going to be in any way marginalised once said candidate had got into office, or I wouldn't see a whole lot to toast. I would possibly permit myself a grim smile, because the wrong kind of lizard had been kept out of office, but that's about it.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

First off, I said supposed marginalization; I'm not sold yet on whether Moore did so or not.

Second, I see a difference between political and ethical compromise. To me an ethical compromise is setting aside the matter entirely; a political compromise is setting the schedule by which matters are prioritized.

[djm4]

First off, I said supposed marginalization; I'm not sold yet on whether Moore did so or not.

Indeed, but I don't really think that changes my point. The people doing the criticising/smacking are sold on whether Moore did it, and are providing examples where they see Moore doing it, which makes it a legitimate area for debate in my opinion.

Second, I see a difference between political and ethical compromise. To me an ethical compromise is setting aside the matter entirely; a political compromise is setting the schedule by which matters are prioritized.

To the extent that I am a political person, my politics are heavily informed by my ethics. I don't think I can easily make that distinction. I'm not even sure I want to be able to do that - I can't actually conceive of a situation in which I'd want to say to someone 'we're going to represent your country as an insignificant bunch of savages' or 'we're not going to include a person with your coloured skin, because it'll scare our audience', and not feel that I was doing something deeply, hurtfully unethical. Adding the phrase '...but we might reconsider next year' to the end of either of those sentences doesn't change that for me.

One thing that might change that for me would be if the other (marginalised or stereotyped) person agreed that it was the right thing to do. But I don't actually see that happening here.

You and I have very different ethical structures, though, I think.

[rmjwell.livejournal.com]

I dunno how far apart we are in our ethical structures as I don't think we've ever tried to compare them in detail.

As to my desire for prioritization, I think that the achievement of my ethical goals is better served by arranging my assets and efforts to proceed toward a victory rather than noble but defeated attempts. I see little benefit to whatever downtrodden class one is supposedly trying to aid if there isn't some forward movement. And if I judge that my efforts are unlikely to yield forward movement for FOO or that my efforts might more readily generate forward movement for BAR that can be used as a building block for FOO then I am less likely to apply them on towards FOO and direct them towards BAR.

As a slight digression, this touches somewhat on why I tire so of people who promote themselves as Selflessly Championing The [Poly/BDSM/Pagan/Etc] Movement. More of their efforts seem to be spent on enhancing their own stature as Noble Martyrs than actually doing something productive.

[lysana.livejournal.com]

The subtle racism Jensen noted in F9/11 pops up in left-wing and other writing more than some people might think. The anti-Splenda material I've seen winging around the 'Net lately included a Q&A with an alleged expert who denigrated a slew of countries who approved sucralose for sale in their countries as being too busy with matters like internal strife to be trustworthy. He ignored Canada and much of Europe in his zeal to claim only Third World nations were going along with it.

[firecat]

Yeah. I think many people and coalitions on the left are more than subtly racist, although the racism looks different from much right-wing racism.