Lindon Ollier Resnais sc? Noix Mousse Chantilly dig ingredients sablee genoise oeufs sucre farine maizena pincee levure sachet lait froid decorer Abaisser decouper Fouetter electrique melange blanchisse Incorporer Verser recouvert sulfuris frechauffe refroidir Delayer Battre fouet Couper rond badigeonner tartiner Imbiber sirop refrigerateur sorter refrig chere Suivez bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz savt caaa cola rakom twahachto ghanam hado jbni jjdi chofo hmama dyalli kaybrdo dllah pastique ingr dients Cr?
Nassarius grotte Pigeons Taforalt consid? Liens Partenaires pharmacies Pharmacie d? Devenez barreau Rivalisez verve condamner accus? Direct Sabilil peux zoubir aljia chaouia becharfestival gnaouie B? HD vertex shaders juarez seagate sandisk verrait ssd march? SD crayon broyeur penryn aper? Smash playstation PlayStat Vid? JeuxVideo neteco mobinaute Mobilit? Jour Economistes Organiseront Deuxi? S coquineries baise poil nymphos writeSetHome r? USB mobilise lespagne lecotourisme L? Rovsing Olsen Chants photographiques Rabat? Pact adolescente soirs dramas Ohayooooooo gosa?
Annales titreh publiera senteront roulera scolaris parall unifi?? Rkia Abouali Tighassaline taillad? Ourq Louvre Tuileries M? Algeco abritent escadron survient trenti? Afrique irizam dissidenten fellawen lapartheid seghrouchen derrachidia kateb tamtettoucht l? Lahjomri Marssam Magalay Mosy Pellow Fayard Ouasti Anthologie Sabbaghi Oueni BCM Winny modelesswin mwidth mheight expiration bytheface cDate setSeconds showModelessDialog dialogWidth dialogHeight especfr footbox footcopy footline pornographique mineurs clarez truespeed sexefr videosx lesbienne lesnoiresx pordelante transexuales miporno pornospanish sexoychat lasrecetas recetas cocina macleod peliculas webdescargas maschistes chistes bites etudiante etudiantes amateurx latines mures poitrine transsexuelles obeses orgiesx sexex culs qsJ meilleurdux hetero jYRCRjXCdQYJ sexminou toutgagner Oqj ewGwJ Ccgp hiddensexe recommendez monwebmaster ugSsns wistee bais?
Enseignement QickeWno Fno labolycee l? Homme Guejmoula Skalli d? Ajraoui revanche Eindhoven Micka? Allemagne Slovaquie byid sang Cadrage Plaintes R? The same thought kept running through his mind: Tomorrow is going to really suck, he remembers thinking.
Nine years earlier, Bozell had founded the Parents Television Council, an advocacy group dedicated to forcing advertisers, networks and the FCC to keep sleaze out of family-friendly TV programming. The PTC vehemently disagreed, and with its encouragement, members of Congress took to the House floor to call for action against indecency on TV.
Two months before the Super Bowl, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution calling on the commission to reconsider the Bono decision the FCC reversed its judgment in but still did not issue a fine and to more strictly police indecency standards generally. Jackson was what lanced the boil.
Previously, Powell says the FCC received only a handful of indecency complaints a year. The PTC launched a campaign to punish everyone involved. CBS affiliates need to worry about license revocations if these offenses keep repeating themselves. And MTV … ought to just be thrown out with the rest of the rusty garbage.
Powell, a Republican whose father is Colin Powell, the then-secretary of state, hates when people remember the Nipplegate controversy as Republican-driven. Michael Powell himself immediately decried the show in no uncertain terms. He loves reading about the latest developments in behavioral economics, neuroscience and mindfulness. He does not sound like a man who wants to spend his time policing boobs on TV. Since leaving the FCC in , he has declined almost every interview request to talk about boobs on TV. But 10 years later, Powell is finally ready to admit that he never wanted to police boobs on TV.
Look, I think it was dumb to happen, and they knew the rules and were flirting with them, and my job is to enforce the rules, but, you know, really? Powell was driven in part by fear: The indecency statute is part of the criminal code, so someone convicted of broadcasting indecency could be imprisoned — as could an artist, at least theoretically. I thought we were getting into dangerous territory.
Powell ended up testifying on the wardrobe malfunction more than anything else in his entire career, including his confirmation hearings. A year later, he and a couple of friends founded YouTube, the largest video-sharing site of all time. Across the web, the moment went viral, back when that phenomenon was still somewhat novel. Facebook was launched three days after the halftime show. When Coletti was having trouble with his service, he let slip to a customer service rep that he was the guy who produced the Super Bowl halftime show.
TiVo gave him lifetime service and a special number to call in case he had any trouble. The moment created other seismic cultural changes as well. As of early , SiriusXM had The record was her lowest-selling album since She withdrew from the Grammys under pressure, while Timberlake performed and accepted two awards. Throughout the controversy, the bodice-ripped Jackson suffered much more than the bodice-ripping Timberlake.
Some critics saw gender and race at play and thought Timberlake ducked the heat. Clearly, it remains a sore subject for both artists. Jackson told Oprah she would never comment on the controversy again. When recently asked by The Mag about what he had taken away from the incident, Timberlake laughed nervously as his representative signaled to end the interview. Meanwhile, for the people behind the media spectacle, the controversy never really went away.
The incident transformed how they work too: The wardrobe malfunction changed live television production too. Before then, most broadcasters employed audio delays only, but many began delaying video as well. The Grammys broadcast the Sunday after the Super Bowl used a five-minute delay, which Frattini says was an extreme example of a larger trend. Longer delays are more expensive and require more effort, but they became part of the cost of putting on live television.
Meanwhile, the NFL created contracts with more specific language about appropriate conduct, including wardrobe, and set stiff penalties for breaking them. The next six Super Bowl halftime performers were middle-aged men. The most common assumption was that the flash of nudity was just an attention-grabbing ploy. The question was by whom. The FCC has never had major control over regulating the media — the First Amendment prevents the commission from having a say over what appears in the newspaper, on cable networks or online. By the time they get hit with it, the harm is done and your kid is blind.
The moment became fodder for celebrity bloggers and morning show chatterboxes but was never treated as a problem that needed to be legislated away. Perhaps not coincidentally, CBS never actually paid a fine in connection with Nipplegate — an appeals court ruled in and again in that CBS could not be held liable for the actions of contracted performing artists and that the FCC had acted arbitrarily in enforcing indecency policies.
The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in Maybe that was why there was so much energy around it. The Internet was coming into being, it was intensifying. People wanted one last stand at the wall. It was going to break anyway. I think it broke. They said it was the end of the world. Or maybe he taught you a lesson about the Teflon nature of white male privilege and how, for some, nothing bad sticks.
But times are a-changing. Last night at the BET Awards, Jesse Williams delivered a speech that will blast your understanding of what getting goosebumps feels like to all-new stratospheric levels. If you have a critique for the resistance, for our resistance, then you better have an established record of critique of our oppression. If you have no interest in equal rights for black people, then do not make suggestions to those who do. He decided to tweet from his glass house. Jesse does deserve props for that speech.
But there is an absurd lack of self-awareness at work here. Twitter helpfully pointed this out for him: This is where Justin should have logged off. When someone from a marginalized group expresses his or her feelings on their lived experience, it is not appropriate to step in and say something that makes their message about you. Sometimes the best way to be an ally is to know when to stop talking and start listening.
For over a decade, Justin has gotten away with being mediocre his last single, which is horrible, went straight to 1 and being a coward lest we forget how he left Janet Jackson out to dry, after ripping her Super Bowl Halftime outfit. Then everyone got insanely mad at Justin for messing up. Oh, wait, sorry, I forgot about the patriarchy for a second. Let me try that again: Meanwhile, Justin was not only allowed to attend, but also performed. Janet was blacklisted from radio and music video channels for the next several years, leading to multiple album flops, while Justin got to be goofy on SNL and become a movie star.
But what was up to him was whether or not he used his privilege to highlight the unfair advantage he enjoys in this world and the hypocrisy of it all. So do many African Americans. Cry me a river. After all, Hurley and Chen took the germ of an idea — famously hatched at a San Francisco dinner party — and turned it into a Silicon Valley company that became a global phenomenon in less than a year.
In many accounts, Hurley and Chen take center stage. Other entrepreneurs lost their place in history, too, says James Hoopes, a business history professor at Babson College near Boston. Popular wisdom, for example, says Bill Gates and Sam Walton single-handedly started Microsoft and Wal-Mart, respectively, but they were co-founders. Karim says his idea for what became YouTube sprang from two very different events in YouTube fizzled in an early version, Karim says: A dating site called Tune In Hook Up drew little interest.
The founders later developed the current site, now broadcasting million short videos daily on myriad subjects. He declined to reveal his stake, or the stakes of the other founders and venture-capital investors at Sequoia Capital. Karim grew up in West Germany, and his family immigrated to Minnesota when Karim started high school. His Bangladeshi father is a chemist at 3M, and his German mother is a biochemistry research professor at the University of Minnesota.
Hurley, 29, Chen, 28, and Karim met as early employees at PayPal, the payment service sold to eBay in The three, newly rich after leaving PayPal, talked about a start-up of their own, possibly a database venture, Karim says. They wore elaborate creations, donning wings, tails, and statement jewellery as they walked the catwalk in Paris.
The exotic lingerie has fallen foul of some, who were unimpressed by the Asian and Mexican influences to some of the designs. The critical article has faced a fierce backlash with Twitter users rushing to defend the brand. However, the article has faced a fierce backlash with Twitter users rushing to defend the brand. Footage from the event will air in countries around the world, including the UK, on December 5. Keith Ellison Will Help Republicans. The candidate to run the Democratic Party backed Farrakhan and always votes left.
There are two reasons. The first is that Mr. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic presidential primary. Elizabeth Warren and Harry Reid. But this still leaves Mr. Ellison with a fundamental problem. He is unlikely to emphasize recruiting candidates who mirror the values of the flyover states that Democrats have been losing from the top of the ballot to the bottom. Rahm Emanuel led the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in , he knew his party could not regain the House majority unless it nominated candidates who could win moderate and even mildly conservative districts.
So he refused to insist on ideological purity, even on issues like abortion and guns that are articles of faith to the Democratic left. But Keith Ellison is no Rahm Emanuel. Ellison likely to craft a message that attracts middle-class voters in the political center. Ellison dismissed criticism of his support for Mr. Ellison to fail to grasp he was praising a bigot and anti-Semite.
This leaves the impression Mr. Ellison is not only radical but also duplicitous, especially after a transcript of a fundraising speech surfaced in which he said that while the U. Given all this, Mr. Longer term, however, choosing Mr. That work eventually resulted in the election of Bill Clinton as president.
While the GOP might make short-term gains while Mr. Ellison is DNC chairman, the country would be better served in the long run by a healthy two-party system. That means Democratic Party leaders should pick a chairman who can actually rebuild the party instead of marching even further to the left and deeper into the political wilderness. Le gouvernement cubain ne va pas la laisser tomber. American music has always been a great and complex exchange.
But who, exactly, gets to borrow from whom, and under what conditions, has become increasingly controversial. What sounds to one listener like homage can sound to another like theft or, more politely, appropriation. And with the white-rapper likes of Macklemore and Iggy Azalea earning Best Rap Album Grammy nominations as well as millions of dollars — that can be hard to swallow for those who see hip-hop as a black form. The appropriation issue, recently renewed and given a new energy by the passionate rhetoric of Black Lives Matter, has been around since at least the early 20th century.
But are we just talking in circles? Is there a way forward? What is gained and what is lost by an increased sensitivity to cultural appropriation? What does acceptable cultural borrowing look like? Or even particularly desirable? Sure, Simon broke boycotts intended to pressure the apartheid ruling power, but Graceland also put a human face on the struggle and introduced millions of Americans to the rich music of Africa. He helped make Ladysmith Black Mambazo international stars in the process.
I think about Justin Bieber turning very publicly to Jesus when his hip-hop-inflected bad-boy persona started drawing court cases. I think I know acceptable cultural exchange when I see it, and it looks like collaboration, not costume, like advocacy, not avoidance. But I wonder if these nuances matter anymore. To my mind, great art fails to embody a better world, but it carries the promise of such a world and encourages its audience to be worthy of it. Mediocre art, on the other hand, reiterates the world as it already is: Lacking transformative energy, it can only reflect the stinginess and squeamishness of its society of origin.
In the end, I suspect that the more profoundly one is influenced by an artist from a different culture, the more one recognizes the foreign artist as someone intelligent enough to understand the consequences of choices of technique and feeling, and as someone mature enough to accept those consequences. Perhaps a more interesting question has to do with why, in the 30 years between now and Graceland, the number of instances where white musicians combine the genius of black musical culture with their own seems to have diminished.
Is it just the ascendance of hip-hop, or is there something more at work? Look at all the country guys talk-singing over programmed drums in the last three years. And people are tired of that. And they have a means of carrying their displeasure directly to the offending parties and drumming up bad press without much effort. You used to have to mail off a letter when you were mad at a musician.
Now a simple tweet will suffice. There are nuances to being an ally, too. For all his faults, Eminem in the first few years of his fame before he became crabby and exasperating is an example of a white rapper who approached the intersection of his race and fame smartly. Dre as his mentor, lent his stardom to lesser-known artists through his Shady Records label, and worked doggedly at his craft.
If all of this seems like coincidence, consider his care in choosing sparring partners: Who knows, it might not even matter that the four Englishmen in Led Zeppelin achieved enormous wealth and celebrity in part by copying the blues and Celtic music, and Indian music, and funk, and reggae so long as their music is superb.
In such a case I think we can firmly conclude that, speaking morally or aesthetically, we could stand to hear a lot less. The question of who gets to speak about what and how only seems to get harder to answer and more tortured. How has the conversation about appropriation affected the way we talk about, and understand, artists? Appropriation, underrepresentation, and disenfranchisement are all different parts of the same beast, and when people tire of fighting against the one, the patience to weather the others evaporates.
Another recent, poignant example: The album got rave reviews, but after earning a rare 9. But his follow-up tweet was more pointed: Prince used to send music publications scrambling because he would specifically request black journalists to do his interviews. Now, cordoning off the coverage of music and the creation of music by race might solve one problem, but it creates others.
I say this as a black Harlemite who, in the space of four days, followed up going to a Garth Brooks show with a Schoolboy Q concert. We have to be respectful of and curious about our differences, and constantly and vigilantly look for ways to promote inclusiveness, and one day — maybe — the nagging feeling that the arts and the thinking and writing about those arts: Criticism is a blend of formal analysis and empathy, and a social group defines itself in part by a higher capacity for empathy for those within it than without. Receptiveness to art is as much a personal matter, something to be tested and improved in solitude, as it is a matter of group solidarity.
In the end, the challenge for writers — and listeners — is the same: The former needs to develop literacy in black culture; the latter has to find a way to express specific cultural knowledge while also remaining accessible. Neither is an easy task. A Point of View: Some students at Bowdoin, a small liberal arts college in chilly Maine, were punished recently for wearing Mexican sombreros at a Mexican theme party. Then, at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts, the practice of trying on a kimono for a selfie in front of a Monet painting of a French woman wearing a kimono was declared verboten for Boston, so to speak.
It showed only a racist stereotype of Japan, as imperially imagined by Victorians. They belong to Others, and we cannot have them, or take them, for ourselves. I am old enough to recall that political correctness actually began as a term of self-mockery used by the hyper-sensitive, ruefully, against themselves, lightly guying their own good efforts at eliminating the casual sadism of daily interactions. Nonetheless, I would be lying if I did not say that the practice we call PC has its absurd aspects. It is funny because it puts more weight on the words we use than the actions we take, always a mistake.
This is at least convivial. People who try end up seeming insipid and exasperating rather than entirely admirable. My own wife, Martha, for instance, who does try to be so in every exchange, is, though much loved, also famous for the length of time it takes her to extricate herself from a social occasion, having first to be certain that she has been nice to everyone. This leads her, perversely, to avoid many social occasions for fear of wearing herself out from attentiveness — the price of such niceness can be very high.
Prolonged punctiliousness is exhausting to all, particularly to husbands — er, mates — er, partners — er, co-habitating life colleagues. But the idea that cultures — recipes or poses or even hats — belong to one group rather than another is something worse than a moment in a comedy of manners — or, rather, it misses the way that a larger comedy of manners has always shaped what we mean by culture.
Cultural mixing — the hybridisation of hats, if you like — is the rule of civilisation, not some new intrusion within our own. Healthy civilisations have always been mongrelised, cosmopolitan, hybrid, corrupted and expropriated and mixed. Healthy societies seek out that kind of corruption because they know it is the secret of pleasure.
They count their health in the number of imported spices on their shelves. One of my favourite stories of how healthy cultural hybrids happen involves Japan and the West, though not, in this case, the Mikado. Those delicate black-edged figures and long almost cartoonish faces, those startling juxtapositions of foreground and distance, that informal and haiku-like lyricism — Japanese prints had, as everybody is taught in class, an enormous influence on French Impressionist art in the middle of the 19th Century.
They were, exactly, an exotic appropriation. They were the product of the Japanese infatuation with Western perspective drawing and graphics, which had only recently arrived in Japan on ships and boats as part of the Japanese opening to the West. The Japanese artists saw them, and saw expressive possibilities in them that the Western artists were too habituated to the system to notice. The Japanese appropriated Western perspective in ways that Westerners would never have imagined.
Then the Japanese pictures got sent back to Europe, where they looked wonderfully exotic, and re-made the Western art they originally hailed from. Ten years later you got Mick Jagger and John Lennon. Innocent imitation is always the engine of cultural innovation. Nor is it just that the borrowings can be beautiful. The things we borrow show us the things we are.
In the same way, distinctly English food — all those real beers and farmhouse cheddars — has only gotten better because restaurants that served real Italian food helped showed how wonderful a coherent seasonal market-based cuisine could be. If we want to be ourselves, we have to travel — and nowadays, we do much of our travelling internally.
Appropriation is far more often empowering than oppressing. So cultures cannot be corrupted enough, civilizations cannot be appropriated too often. Nor is this only seen in heroic acts of original innovation. Last night, for instance, I made a Burmese curry, which combines Indian spices — cumin and turmeric — with the Chinese technique of stir-frying.
The ingredients came from our local New York City Greenmarket — and I always mix butter in with the cooking oil, a habit picked up in Paris. All in one pot, and five minutes. Blurring the boundaries of culture is what cooking does. When we do the same thing in ways that last longer than dinner, we call it art. Done often enough, it makes what we call civilisation. So wear sombreros and kimonos and Mormon underwear beneath, if you so like. Eat Chinese food with Indian spices and French butter and celebrate the range of being human.
We are mixed in nature, many in our very essence. To be human is to be hybrid. It is as close to a rule of life as you can ever hope to find. In defence of cultural appropriation. Our cultures show that we can select who we are and who we want to be — but can they also be misused? Yet there in one of the 17 palaces and mansions owned by the dictator, among his collection of 20, DVDs that included Friday the 13th and Rambo , was a prized cache of Elvis movies — mostly cornball romances.
Elsewhere were littered Elvis records. Kim liked to wear ten-centimetre platform shoes and had a fondness for American-style shades. So choose your trousers wisely — or else. The policing of appearance is nothing new. What is curious, however, is that the latest round of strictures on how individuals can present themselves comes not from repressive, dictatorial regimes or panicked politicians but from those who consider themselves progressives: The Canadian festival Bass Coast has similarly issued a prohibition on guests wearing the war bonnets.
At a time of heightened racial tensions across the world, with police shootings of black men in the United States and Islamophobia and phobias of all kinds seemingly on the rise, this rage against cultural appropriation is understandable: Yet simply to point out instances of appropriation in the assumption that the process is by its nature corrosive seems to me a counterproductive, even reactionary pursuit; it serves no end but to essentialise race as the ultimate component of human identity. Many of those calling out cultural appropriation of all kinds — from clothing and hair to musical genres — seem to share this proprietorial attitude, which insists that culture, by its nature a communally forged and ever-changing project, should belong to specific peoples and not to all.
More troubling is that it herds culture and tradition into the pen of a moral ownership not dissimilar to copyright, which may suit a legalistic outlook but jars with our human impulse to like what we like and create new things out of it. Both Carter and Brenston were black — but they are now largely forgotten.
It was out there, woven into American life in the s. Appropriation tests imaginary boundaries. It questions them and exposes, just as Judith Butler did in relation to gender, the performative aspects of our racial and cultural identity: It shows that we can select who we are and who we want to be. She should stick to performing. But how far back is she expected to go? And should we impose some sort of one-drop rule? It is true that cultural appropriation can hurt those whose traditions, religions and ways of life have been lifted, taken out of context and repackaged as a new aesthetic trend or exotic bauble.
The feather headdress, for instance, has deep symbolic value to many Native Americans and to see it balancing on the wobbly head of a drunk, white festivalgoer might feel like an insult. Little of substance has been taken away. To the white reveller, those feathers probably signify something as simple as: Appropriations of this sort can, if unchallenged, entrench negative racial mythologies. But such myths are part of the language of human culture and their potential for harm can only truly be diffused by putting forward stronger, newer narratives about ourselves and by tackling the systemic injustices that oppress us: I can live in the knowledge that the Mikado myth continues to have some currency and that films, songs and books still toy with the orientalist fantasy of Japan.
Catégories
That is partly because their sting has been dulled by an ever-increasing understanding in the west of what real life in east Asia is like. Like it or not, it becomes theirs as much as ours. Sometimes, we have to let culture do its thing. Yo Zushi is a sub-editor of the New Statesman.
His work as a musician is released by Eidola Records. One can only imagine the furor if the lez had accused Michelle of chimping out. This shit never ends, and I love it. Since a white penis dangles atween my legs, progressive identity groups have designated me as their natural-born enemy. Therefore, I take tremendous pleasure when my supposed enemies start shooting each other with friendly fire. One of the most fascinating aspects of the O. Simpson murder trial is that it forced the progressive-minded to take sides: Do they go against the woman-killer or the racist cop?
There are numerous examples of such seemingly insoluble liberal dilemmas, all of them hilarious to me. Do you protect the environment, or do you allow the Third World to continue breeding like dusky hamsters? Do you support Islam or the women who are getting their clits sliced off? Do you come down on the side of unions or illegal-alien scab laborers?
Such constant squabbling usually devolves into pissing contests about who is more oppressed and who exactly is bullying whom. The general concept supposedly arose in the s when black feminists started bitching about white feminists over who was more oppressed. In other words, it was the fruit of infighting among leftist identity groups, the result of cannibalism among the oppressed.
People who buy into this notion that they suffer from multiple forms of oppression—rather than the more likely explanation, which is that they suffer from multiple personalities—tend to explain intersectionality in ways either histrionically angry or academically tortured. Intersectionality, because it is by definition an insane if unfalsifiable notion, has gained traction in the so-called social sciences. Never have so few used so many words to say so little.
This is one of the reasons I sort of hope for a wholesale economic collapse—because people who talk like this will not have jobs. So much for transcending labels and viewing one another as individuals. These people want to institutionalize such labels. People with bad personalities seem to have a built-in defense mechanism that makes them believe you actually hate them for any other possible reason besides their bad personalities. Personally, I found these people far more likable when they were disenfranchised. Think everyday, interpersonal racism is a thing of the past? Campus newspapers have begun denouncing the evils of such small, apparent slights.
The concept of microaggression has leapt from the shadows of academic writing into the bright light of general conversation, especially in the wake of widely consulted work by professors Derald Wing Sue and Madonna Constantine over the last seven or so years. Microaggressions, as these academics describe them, are quiet, often unintended slights — racist or sexist — that make a person feel underestimated on the basis of their color or gender.
The idea is that whites should now watch out for being micro-aggressors, in the same way that they learned long ago not to be racist in more overt ways. The idea is that whites should now watch out for being microaggressors, in the same way that they learned long ago not to be racist in more overt ways. The critic likely had no idea how that came off, and of course Toure went on to have a fine life.
But this was, nevertheless, a microaggression. As was when a middle school teacher praised a feminist friend of mine for having made the highest math score of any girl in the class. In fact, some might see this whole microaggression concept as just a way to keep grievance going in an America where it gets ever harder to call people on naked bigotry. Perhaps there is value in fostering an awareness of such things, in the name of our society becoming ever more enlightened. It acknowledges that change has occurred, that we are dealing with something smaller and less starkly egregious than name-calling and formal exclusion.
However, there is something equally counterproductive about the microaggression concept, at least as it is currently being put forth. But all it does is create endless conflict, under an idea that basically being white is, in itself, a microaggression. Creating change requires at least making sense. The Privilege of Checking White Privilege. Why, and for whose benefit? Rather, your existential state of Living While White constitutes a form of racism in itself. Your understanding will serve as a tool … for something.
To be sure, there is, indeed, a distinct White Privilege. Being white does offer a freedom not easily available to others. You can underperform without it being ascribed to your race. And when you excel, no one wonders whether Affirmative Action had anything to do it. Authority figures are likely to be your color, and no one associates people of your color with a propensity to violence. No one expects you to represent your race in a class discussion or anywhere else. There are college courses , and even a yearly conference.
White Privilege is suddenly a hot topic and cottage industries have sprung up around it. What exactly are we trying to achieve with this particular lesson? I assume, for example, that the idea is not to teach white people that White Privilege means that black people are the only group of people in human history who cannot deal with obstacles and challenges.
If the idea is that black people cannot solve their problems short of white people developing an exquisite sensitivity to how privileged they are, then we in the black community are being designated as disabled poster children. But those urging us to think about White Privilege are not buffoons.
Is the goal to urge people into activism against the conditions that afford whites their privilege? White Privilege spokespersons would surely agree. First, making a lot of the changes White Privilege tutors seem to suggest would tie us up into knots, especially in the educational realm. If no one asks black people to comment on racial issues, then the charge will be that whites are turning a blind eye to … White Privilege. As to discomfort from being suspected of being an Affirmative Action hire, to have any but the tiniest of criticisms of racial preferences is considered blasphemy, displaying an ignorance of … White Privilege.
And in any case, what good would it have done to tell these white kids to not talk around black kids about their toys and trips? Obviously, no one puts it that way, but as those interested in White Privilege know so well when it comes to racism, what people say is often an approximate reflection of their true feelings and intents. White Privilege puts a laser focus on the awareness raising. The awareness raising is what it is about. Of course, the idea is supposedly that we need to disseminate this awareness of White Privilege before we can start on the political part of the project.
The question, then, becomes: Precisely what benefit do White Privilege lessons add to all of what there already is? America is by no means post-racial, but it is not either; change happens. Justice Department has officially faulted the Ferguson police department for discriminatory ticketing and could even shut it down.
I cheer that development, but the protests over the Michael Brown verdict, magnified by social media, are what created this attention. What popped the lock was good Old-Fashioned Civil Rights law.
Books by Julie Stein
And yet, quite often to even ask a question like that is heatedly dismissed as missing the point. This is what suggests that the activism part is, indeed, not the real point. There are some key giveaways. White Privilege lessons require endless reiteration of key principles to retain. Politics is about society. Religion, however, is personal. The White Privilege paradigm seems to be more about feelings than action.
In a society where racism is treated as morally equivalent to pedophilia, what whites are seeking is the sweet relief of moral absolution. Semi-coerced self-interest rather than genuine enlightenment or understanding seems to be the vehicle for this racial revelation. When your people have been enslaved for centuries followed by another century of lynching, Jim Crow, and worse, the racial ego suffers. The Noble Victim is in control—of the conversation, as it were, of the parameters of moral judgment. The Noble Victim, most certainly, matters. He is, in a sense, whole. But meanwhile, no one gets a job; no one gets fed; little tangible progress is actually made.
The Struggle, as it used to be called, sits on hold. Indeed, as Barney Frank writes in his new memoir: I am neither criticizing activism nor saying that everybody needs to just pull themselves up by those proverbial bootstraps. I get too much hate mail from the right to submit gracefully to the sellout label. I support prisoner re-entry programs, supported the Ferguson protests ardently, and was behind Barack Obama earlier than many black writers.
I have never voted Republican in my life. However, I firmly believe that improving the black condition does not require changing human nature, which may always contain some tribalist taints of racism. We exhibit no strength—Black Power—in pretending otherwise. Plenty of ordinary black people nationwide would agree with me on the difference between White Privilege teach-ins and continuing the struggle.
For that reason, I question this particular focus on sessions, modules, readings, and talks commanding whites to reflect endlessly about their privileged status. They deserve civil answers to their questions. She deserves to be given a rationale, and if that rationale is essentially a repetition of the White Privilege lesson paradigm, then we need to ask some more questions.
Enjuivez, enjuivez, il en restera toujours quelque chose! Je pourrais intituler ce film: Les salauds sont les terroristes, allemands et palestiniens. Les corniauds enfin ce sont tous ceux qui ont fait la fine bouche devant cet exploit: La presse de gauche fait la grimace ou condamne: Le commando terroriste est-il une illustration du nazislamisme? Tout repose sur lui, comme sur le pilote du premier avion Hercules qui va poser son appareil dans le noir.
Il faut le rappeler aussi, Fidel Castro est le seul et unique responsable de la rupture de toute relation commerciale ou autre entre Cuba et les Etats-Unis. Et il faut le dire: Il faut le dire: The death of Fidel Castro was the first foreign policy test for President-elect Donald Trump and he acquitted himself brilliantly.
For anyone who thought that his tough talk was just campaign bluster, witness the incredibly strong statement made about the bloody Cuban strongman:. Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades. While Cuba remains a totalitarian island, it is my hope that today marks a move away from the horrors endured for too long, and toward a future in which the wonderful Cuban people finally live in the freedom they so richly deserve.
For nearly six decades, the relationship between the United States and Cuba was marked by discord and profound political disagreements.
During my presidency, we have worked hard to put the past behind us, pursuing a future in which the relationship between our two countries is defined not by our differences but by the many things that we share as neighbors and friends — bonds of family, culture, commerce, and common humanity. This neutral nonsense betrays a cowardly refusal to condemn Castro as a tyrant. Perhaps President Obama forgot that he is leader of the free world and could have used the death of a dictator to say something about the importance of human liberty and human rights. But why, after eight years of Obama cozying up to Erdogan of Turkey and, worse, Ayatollah Khameini of Iran, should we expect anything else?
Could there be any greater confirmation than this, and just six weeks before he leaves office? But while Trump distinguished himself as a leader prepared to bravely express his hatred of evil, virtually every other world leader followed President Obama instead, disgracing themselves to various degrees. I put them in three categories: His obsequiousness to the murderous Castro was so great that it read like parody:.
If there is any spiritual justice in the world the only place Castro will rest is in a warm place in Hell. The Pope, to whom so many millions, including myself, look to for moral guidance, on this occasion can look to the president-elect of the United States for the proper response in the confrontation with evil. Follow him on Twitter RabbiShmuley. Fidel Castro is dead at age In power for more than a half century, his regime ruled the last planned socialist economy. Unless we include quirky North Korea. When Fidel marched victoriously into Havana, it had fifty-eight national newspapers.
Now it has six, all published by the Cuban communist party and its affiliates. They argued that the Communist system is sound. The problem is that Communist countries have had the wrong leaders. They ignored the fact the Fidel remained in power thanks to repression of political opponents, his willingness to lose his most ambitious citizens as boat people to the US, and cheap oil as a client state of the USSR and then Venezuela.
Two decades back, only ten percent of Americans viewed Cuba favorably. The party divide is enormous: Three quarters of Democrats and one third of Republicans hold positive views of Cuba. In the s, the New Left, with its ubiquitous Che posters, was enraptured by Castro and the Cuban model.
More recent assessments by socialists fret that Cuba is not striving for a true form of socialism. It is managed by a regime that has run the economy into the ground, despite accomplishments in education and health care. Equality in Cuba means an equal right to poverty. An oppressive dictator who imprisons opponents and forces his best-and-brightest to flee or a heroic leader thumbing his nose in the face of the global hegemon while providing his people with education and health, one thing is clear: The Castro planned socialist economy has doomed the Cuban people to lives of poverty.
If Cuba had simply matched the lackluster performance of Latin America, the Cuban people would have double the living standard they have today. If so, let them give one real-world example, and not the phony Scandinavian model. Fidel knew otherwise and did not tinker with democracy, and he died in power. Gorbachev did not, and he was unceremoniously dumped from power. I imagine Raul Castro is aware of these facts. The death of Fidel Castro is the perfect Rorschach test for our times.
What you thought of Castro, who died at the age of 90 on Friday, has always been a reflection of your politics, your nationality, and your age. He was a communist stooge to the American officials who repeatedly tried to kill him, presiding over an outpost of the Soviet Union just off the coast of Florida. To Cubans themselves he was a dictator who impoverished the country, jailed and killed thousands of dissidents, and stripped citizens of their basic rights.
And to those who came of age in the post-Cold War era, he was simultaneously a retro figure on a T-shirt and a cranky old man in an Adidas tracksuit. So far, Trump has indicated nothing more than that he is aware of the news, which we can all agree, even in these divided times, is a good start.
Bref, elles votent en masse et en tant que telles.
Rencontres de cinéma
La taxation, dans nos pays, est confiscatoire. Reagan et de Mme Thatcher. Le Figaro , 12 novembre Examinons les deux aspects de ce Kulturkampf. Racisme, vous avez dit proto-fascisme? It is a truism that America has become a more diverse country. It is also a beautiful thing to watch.
Visitors from other countries, particularly those having trouble incorporating different ethnic groups and faiths, are amazed that we manage to pull it off. Not perfectly, of course, but certainly better than any European or Asian nation today. But how should this diversity shape our politics? Which is a splendid principle of moral pedagogy — but disastrous as a foundation for democratic politics in our ideological age.
Web server is down
One of the many lessons of the recent presidential election campaign and its repugnant outcome is that the age of identity liberalism must be brought to an end. Hillary Clinton was at her best and most uplifting when she spoke about American interests in world affairs and how they relate to our understanding of democracy. But when it came to life at home, she tended on the campaign trail to lose that large vision and slip into the rhetoric of diversity, calling out explicitly to African-American, Latino, L.
This was a strategic mistake. If you are going to mention groups in America, you had better mention all of them. Which, as the data show, was exactly what happened with the white working class and those with strong religious convictions. Fully two-thirds of white voters without college degrees voted for Donald Trump, as did over 80 percent of white evangelicals. The moral energy surrounding identity has, of course, had many good effects. Affirmative action has reshaped and improved corporate life. Black Lives Matter has delivered a wake-up call to every American with a conscience.
Have you changed anything in your daily life since the election? For example, have you tried to understand opposing points of view, donated to a group, or contacted your member of Congress? Your answer may be included in a follow up post. But the fixation on diversity in our schools and in the press has produced a generation of liberals and progressives narcissistically unaware of conditions outside their self-defined groups, and indifferent to the task of reaching out to Americans in every walk of life.
At a very young age our children are being encouraged to talk about their individual identities, even before they have them. By the time they reach college many assume that diversity discourse exhausts political discourse, and have shockingly little to say about such perennial questions as class, war, the economy and the common good. In large part this is because of high school history curriculums, which anachronistically project the identity politics of today back onto the past, creating a distorted picture of the major forces and individuals that shaped our country. Which only plays into the hands of populist demagogues who want to delegitimize learning in the eyes of those who have never set foot on a campus.
How to explain to the average voter the supposed moral urgency of giving college students the right to choose the designated gender pronouns to be used when addressing them? This campus-diversity consciousness has over the years filtered into the liberal media, and not subtly. But it also appears to have encouraged the assumption, especially among younger journalists and editors, that simply by focusing on identity they have done their jobs.
Recently I performed a little experiment during a sabbatical in France: For a full year I read only European publications, not American ones. My thought was to try seeing the world as European readers did. But it was far more instructive to return home and realize how the lens of identity has transformed American reporting in recent years. Fascination with the identity drama has even affected foreign reporting, which is in distressingly short supply. No major news outlet in Europe would think of adopting such a focus. But it is at the level of electoral politics that identity liberalism has failed most spectacularly, as we have just seen.
Ronald Reagan did that very skillfully, whatever one may think of his vision. By remaining in office for two terms, he was then able to accomplish much for different groups in the Democratic coalition. Identity politics, by contrast, is largely expressive, not persuasive. Which is why it never wins elections — but can lose them. A convenient liberal interpretation of the recent presidential election would have it that Mr. This is convenient because it sanctions a conviction of moral superiority and allows liberals to ignore what those voters said were their overriding concerns.
It also encourages the fantasy that the Republican right is doomed to demographic extinction in the long run — which means liberals have only to wait for the country to fall into their laps. The surprisingly high percentage of the Latino vote that went to Mr. Trump should remind us that the longer ethnic groups are here in this country, the more politically diverse they become.
Finally, the whitelash thesis is convenient because it absolves liberals of not recognizing how their own obsession with diversity has encouraged white, rural, religious Americans to think of themselves as a disadvantaged group whose identity is being threatened or ignored. Such people are not actually reacting against the reality of our diverse America they tend, after all, to live in homogeneous areas of the country.
Those who play the identity game should be prepared to lose it. We need a post-identity liberalism, and it should draw from the past successes of pre-identity liberalism. Such a liberalism would concentrate on widening its base by appealing to Americans as Americans and emphasizing the issues that affect a vast majority of them. It would speak to the nation as a nation of citizens who are in this together and must help one another.
As for narrower issues that are highly charged symbolically and can drive potential allies away, especially those touching on sexuality and religion, such a liberalism would work quietly, sensitively and with a proper sense of scale. Teachers committed to such a liberalism would refocus attention on their main political responsibility in a democracy: A post-identity liberalism would also emphasize that democracy is not only about rights; it also confers duties on its citizens, such as the duties to keep informed and vote.
A post-identity liberal press would begin educating itself about parts of the country that have been ignored, and about what matters there, especially religion. And it would take seriously its responsibility to educate Americans about the major forces shaping world politics, especially their historical dimension. Some years ago I was invited to a union convention in Florida to speak on a panel about Franklin D. The hall was full of representatives from local chapters — men, women, blacks, whites, Latinos.
As I looked out into the crowd, and saw the array of different faces, I was struck by how focused they were on what they shared. Since the end of the Cold War, America has been mesmerized by two ideas that have given hazy coherence to the post world: Political and intellectual elites dismiss these movements because they believe the post world as they have understood it is still intact, and that no thoughtful person could think otherwise. Hence, the only-dumb-white-people-vote-for-Trump trope.
Both sides believe in the inevitability of their idea of globalization. We live, however, in a world of states. In that world, the movement of cultural information and material goods has not been free-flowing, and really can never be. Regulatory agencies within the state, often captured by corporations who by virtue of economies of scale can afford large back-office compliance staff, determine what comes in and what stays out.
NAFTA is hundreds of pages long. TPP is thousands of pages long. The real beneficiaries of these arrangements are state regulators and large corporations. Consumers get cheaper goods, but a chasm opens up between those who are in on the game and those who are not. Standards of living fall for all but the few. What happens to everybody else?
If states matter little, then citizenship matters little. To assist in this diminishment of the importance of the state, we have become enthralled by the idea that we are not citizens who have been encultured into a certain set of practices and traditions that we hold dear because we are legal members of a state in which we find our home. The real debt of money does not matter, for the U. Government can go deeper into debt without cost.
They, who are getting rich while you are getting poor, tell you so. The upcoming Presidential campaign is about many things, not least the persons of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. In the midst of a world that longs for perfection, we find ourselves with two human-all-too-human candidates. Beyond the lure or abhorrence of their character is the singular question: Hillary Clinton and The Clinton Foundation are ground-zero for this configuration. Donald Trump opposes that configuration, on a good day gives inchoate expression of a genuine alternative, on a bad day blunders horribly, and will probably lose the upcoming national election.
Because States are territories within which specific laws are enforced, borders matter. Borders mark where one set of laws begins and another set of laws ends. If mercy is shown, it is as an exception to generally-binding law, and not a repudiation of it. Because the laws of States work only when people are acculturated to them and adopt them as their own, legal immigration of people from cultures not accustomed to the laws of the State and their practical foundation must proceed slowly, and with the understanding that it takes several generations to acculturate them. Because we live in a world of States, there will always be war.
Therefore we must firmly establish who our allies are, and what we will do to defend them.
In keeping with a somber view of the world, we cannot be driven by the dreamy ideals of universal world-around democracy in choosing our allies. Foreign policy is for the purpose of defending our own nation, not spending blood and treasure trying to persuade other nations to imitate our laws and ways.
National interests, not so-called universal interests, matter. Because the United States is composed of immigrants, admission into the Middle Class, made possible by robust economic growth, must be among the highest domestic priorities. Crony-capitalism diminishes growth by pre-determining permanent winners and permanent losers. Also slowing growth is the ever-increasing state regulation of nearly every aspect of daily life, which purports to protect us from harm.
What good is such protection, however, when citizens cease to believe that they are responsible for themselves, their families, and their neighbors; and when the very spirit of entrepreneurship is undermined by it? Because the sway of lobbyists in national politics grows in proportion to the growth of the federal government, the distorting power of lobbyists cannot be curtailed until the Constitutional limits on the federal government, established by the Founding Fathers, are observed anew.
The federal government was set up to adjudicate certain issues, but not others. Those other issues—issues pertaining to the daily life of citizens—were to be adjudicated by state and local governments. When the purview of the federal government is extended beyond its original bounds, it becomes dysfunctional, and the power of the Executive and the Courts extends to compensate.
This invites the tyranny of the Executive.
The greater danger is not the person holding the Presidential office at any given time; the greater danger is the nature of the Executive office when the federal government grows disproportionally. Federalism and the decentralization of power matters. PC speech is corrosive to the soul of America.