 |
Here at the Shark Blog we're starting a new feature called the "Crayon Diversity Watch". From time to time when we encounter someone substituting skin color for diversity, we will award them the Crayon Diversity Award. Because even though a box of crayons contains many different colors, at the end of the day, they're all just little pieces of wax. So that's not really very diverse, now, is it. |
I'm pleased to announce that this week's Crayon Diversity winner is Oliver Willis. I like Oliver's blog, and he is usually as thoughtful as he is witty. But this week he wins a box of 8 crayons for his remarks on the San Francisco Blog Bash
I suppose the professional backgrounds were "diverse", but there's a decided lack of color there (brown, yellow, or otherwise).[emphasis his].
I wasn't entirely sure what this observation was supposed to imply. Was he insinuating that we were actively excluding people of "color"? We most certainly weren't. The invitation to the Blog Bash was an open announcement. Besides, I had no idea what most of the people I invited even looked like, just like I have no idea what most of the bloggers I read, link to, and correspond with look like.
But in his comments section, Willis explained what he really meant:
Stefan, I'm not saying its anything you or the people involved did. Blogging is a mostly male, mostly white, pursuit - which is why I'm leery of people proclaiming its revolutionary status. No harm, no foul, just reality.and
What I was saying is quite clear. For all the hubub and brouhaha about blogs bringing new voices to the forte [sic], the people involved are almost all white, all male.And thus Willis misses the big picture. Forty years ago, say, there were relatively few Black newspaper reporters. In no small measure because some of the people who hired reporters didn't want to hire any Black people. Today, there may be less of that type of discrimination than there was forty years ago. But still, in order to get a job as a newspaper reporter, you have to persuade somebody else to give you the job. And hiring managers discriminate all the time, by educational background, by appearances, by personal chemistry, by writing style, etc.
But blogs are revolutionary. The blogosphere isn't about "bringing new voices to the fore". It's simply a place where any new voice can come to the fore, including those who would not otherwise have institutional sponsorship. You don't need an editor to hire you. No individual or institution can stand in your way and prevent your voice from being heard. All you need is a desire to write, some initiative and access to the Internet (which you can even get at the public library). The blogosphere is entirely self-selecting. And nobody even has to know you're a one-legged albino African lesbian single mother with Tourette's syndrome, unless you choose to tell them. And even if anybody is so bigoted to think that any of that is a problem, they still can't get in the way between you and your readers.
So to Oliver Willis and all those who are concerned about the genuine cases of exclusion and discrimination in society -- blogging is not a new exclusive institution to complain about, embrace it as a new resource to help you speak and be heard.
UPDATE For the next Crayon Diversity Award, Erin O'Connor nominates the leaders of 35 higher education associations who wrote a letter to the President in support of the University of Michigan and racial preferences in university admissions.
I concur. I award a box of 64 crayons, to be split 35 ways. I recommend cutting each crayon into 35 pieces, so that every institution can get a piece of every color.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at January 12, 2003 01:36 PMAll male? Joanne Jacobs, Megan McArdle, Virginia Postrel, Meryl Yourish, Susanna Cornett, Lee Ann Morawski... Where does Mr. Willis hang out that he avoids noticing these and hundreds of others? How seriously need we take him?
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on January 12, 2003 03:29 PMIn a piece of cute irony, Oliver's own comments on a piece he wrote betray what some could - rightly or wrongly - consider a bit of racist assumption-making.
Posted by: Russell Whitaker on January 12, 2003 04:36 PMSince I am gay, Jewish, and (temporarily) handicapped, I should get you 3 minority points, right?
Posted by: Mike Silverman on January 12, 2003 06:06 PMIt's not really important what we are, but who we are . . . :-)
Posted by: Ipsofacto on January 12, 2003 08:15 PMRabidly Racist Blogger Responds To Really Ridiculous Brouhaha
Posted by: Oliver on January 12, 2003 08:21 PMIt is 'interesting' that a person of Polish descent thinks the word 'diversity' is an insult. Methinks Stefan should stick to dehumanizing the Palestinians. He is totally out of his depth whenever he says anything about race relations here in the good ole U.S. of A.
Posted by: Mac Diva on January 15, 2003 10:58 AMIt is 'interesting' that a person of Polish descent
I am not of "Polish descent". Not that there's anything wrong with being of Polish descent. On the other hand, I fail to see why my ancestry is relevant to this discussion.
thinks the word 'diversity' is an insult.
I do not think that the word 'diversity' is an insult, nor have I ever expressed that. Admittedly, my definition of diversity might be more encompassing than the diva's
Methinks Stefan should stick to dehumanizing the Palestinians.
I do not dehumanize the Palestinians, although I think that many people acting in the name of the Palestinians do a pretty good job of dehumanizing themselves.
He is totally out of his depth whenever he says anything about race relations here in the good ole U.S. of A.
Hmm. I happen think that anybody who lives here in the USA has as much credibility to express their personal views on race relations as anybody else. Any disagreements should be about the facts raised and ideas expressed, not about one's so-called qualifications to comment on a society that we all have to live in. But what the self-appointed Diva seems to be saying is that people who don't buy her view (which seems to be that white people are permanent oppressors and people with colored skin are perpetual victims) shouldn't express their opinions. For more of the Diva's comments (where she describes herself as a "newspaper reporter" and a "bright person sensitive to issues involved in race in America") see this thread.
What the Diva is saying is that Stefan is too arrogant to know when he is making a fool of himself. He invariably makes a fool of himself trying to discuss race. Therefore, he should:
1) Educate himself on the topic so that he has something worthwhile to say; or
2) Keep mum, so as to save himself embarrassment.
His remarks above prove my point.
Posted by: Mac Diva on January 16, 2003 02:29 AMHey "Mac Diva",
Thanks for giving us all a lesson on appearing foolish.
Perhaps you can also explain why those who are unwilling/incapable of debating an issue on substance and rely instead on lies and ad hominem insults are almost always afraid to give their real names?
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on January 16, 2003 08:53 AMMr. Sharkansky (8:53am):
To support an argument by ad hominem attacks is to make an unwitting statement about its relative merits. Conversely, well-reasoned responses to inflammatory rhetoric are appreciated by many readers.
Alastair Mackay
Posted by: AMac on January 16, 2003 09:44 AMSince the URL for the discussion is posted, I encourage people to look at it for themselves. If it disappears, just go to Oliver Willis' blog and search 'Crayola.' Hint: The substantive remarks do not come from Silly Sharkansky or the echo puppet he carries around with him.
What will Stefan do next to embarrass himself? How about, use his half-Asian child to claim not to be a racist, while simultaneously spouting the usual racist crap about affirmative action? Oops! He already did that.
Posted by: Mac Diva on January 18, 2003 12:35 PMMac Diva's comments--
>Since the URL for the discussion is posted, I encourage people to look at it for themselves.
It's nice to have something we can agree on.
>...the echo puppet [Sharkansky] carries around with him.
The item under discussion was ad hominem attacks.
Mac Diva, I hope the time comes when you can look back on your remarks with embarrassment. I don't really have more to say. Email me if you want to have a civil discussion on some topic. Or post another trollish slur. Or both.
Good luck in your life.
Posted by: AMac on January 19, 2003 04:10 AMI think ...I will comment on this discussion...when I have something to say that hasnt been said before. OK I thought about it:
"DIVERSITY" as a term can be taken and used a variety of ways...like "RACIAL QUOTAS" or "WHITE DEVIL" (DOUBLE-SPEAK)..or that a MINORITY person is not able to figure out things for themselves. There is such a thing as the wrong kind of "HELP".........The terminology (WORDS) used in political movements always seem to have much more to their meaning than on the face of it..don't you think?
For example, the word "CHOICE" might not be a real choice at all or certainly not a good or right one! Do you all see what I mean? :-)
Posted by: PatJ on January 19, 2003 09:23 AMInteresting.......Surely language is combined with expression to deliver intention. Transcription is not an accurate record of statement.
Posted by: Alastair Mackay on September 26, 2003 06:23 PMIt is true that the pro-diversity seem always to be reduced to fallacies like ad hominem. Only the fascist, only the racist, only the xenophobic... would be capable of not rating diversity an end-in-itself, therefore no argument or proof need ever be given. And... only certain people are qualified to discuss the state of intercommunal relations in a polity... how convenient. Let some such disqualified representative tell us what this racialized anti-culture is about; I say it is a quest for power by pro-dystopians who have despaired of other ways toward civil war and despotism, and have fallen back on the time-tested issue of race. more at jsb below...
Posted by: jsbolton on March 27, 2004 07:25 PM