In Defense of Whiteness

I'm a white guy.  I'm neither proud nor ashamed of the fact.  To use a worn out expression, it is what it is...or I am what I am, to quote Popeye.  To be honest, I never thought much about being white.  The only time I do is when racial discussions reach a fever pitch.  Then I examine myself to see whether I've acted in a racist manner.  Otherwise...I'm just a white guy.

There's a lot of yelling about white privilege, whiteness and the obvious negative connotations of being white.  A lot of it is folderol, a theme concocted by tired academics who need to gain the spotlight to make themselves seem relevant.  Having once been in the near upper reaches of academia -- I was a graduate student in my dissolute youth -- I'm a little familiar with how academics gnash their teeth and rend their garments about otherwise meaningless topics.  If only convection and microwave ovens heated up as quickly as academics...it would be rather entertaining if it weren't so terrifying.

I'm not sure I understand the logic behind the calls that demand whites divest ourselves of our belongings because some whites in a bygone era acted badly to other races, namely blacks.  I understand the iniquity of what happened, sort of.  But I don't know how an entire race can be called upon to account for the actions of a segment of that race, especially when the race is as diverse as whites are.  I mean, if British slavers benefitted from slavery, why should Romanians be forced to cough up their wealth?  That hardly seems fair.

And just how far to we take the responsibility?  I mean, obviously crimes like slavery, murder and rape demand recompense.  But what of battery?  What of adultery?  What of torts, such as negligence?  How about copyright infringement?  What's more, how does one apportion damages? 
What if, as happened, whites (the Irish) were enslaved by other whites (Brits) and forced to breed with African slaves?  Does that entitle those of us of Irish heritage to share in the divestitures, or is it merely an offset because other Irishmen were slavers themselves?

The slippery slope is in plain view.

Yet, there's something else that's troubling to me about this debate.  Why should whites be forced to apologize for the obvious contributions they made to humanity?  I mean, even assuming that whites did horrible things to other races -- which they did -- do their accomplishments for the betterment of mankind count for naught?  What about the struggles that whites shared with blacks to make all men equal?  How are those factored into the equation?  Moreover, if we assume the premise that all men are created equal, why didn't other races achieve the things the white race did?  Blacks, Latinos and Asians all accomplished things, but whites accomplished so many things that lightened humanity's load, yet instead we're supposed to believe that but for slavery, blacks would have accomplished these things?

I have an imperfect memory when it comes to dates of things, but as a general argument, when exactly did the slavery begin that begets this grievance?  Were whites unable to progress until they started enslaving Africans?  Is that when progress took off?  Or were whites doing things irrespective of slavery that Africans and Asians simply weren't doing?  To be sure, there were things whites accomplished because slaves took on burdens that freed up whites to engage in other pursuits.  But not every advance made by a white person is rooted in slavery.  And ignoring slavery for a minute, what about the black and Asian races making similar gains on their own?

The notion that there exists such a thing as white privilege is poppycock.  There is privilege, plain and simple.  Although I come from a middle class background, there is no way I had a privileged life.  And I can point to several people of color who have it far better than I do due to privilege alone.  Where someone has outworked me, that's one thing.  But where someone was born into the lap of luxury and happens to be a minority...how is that any different than white privilege, except for the race involved?  There may be more white people of privilege, but to suggest that only whites have privilege is ludicrous.

One thing I always remember is that certain people complain about how they were kept down by the evil white man -- and they were -- there were whites who did not share that mentality that worked hard to upset that dynamic.  And it's not just lower class whites who fought on behalf of minorities.  Take the seminal Brown v. Board of Education decision by the Supreme Court.  Here's a picture of the SCOTUS justices who ruled unanimously in favor of blacks:

Is there anything noticeable about this photo?  I mean, besides the fact that all nine justices are men and wearing robes?  If whites were so horrible, how is it that nine men, who had the power to maintain the status quo, voted unanimously to end it?

And the 1964 Civil Rights Act?  Was that Act passed by a Congress composed mostly of minorities?  I think not.

Make no mistake:  There are still problems that need to be corrected.  I personally know whites who are rude about minorities.  But there are plenty of whites who see no difference between the races and firmly believe in equal rights.  The problem is that there is a group of people in control who, by virtue of their privileged status, want to remain in control.  Allowing people of different backgrounds, whether it be racial, social or economic, would threaten their hold on power.  And that, not race, is the true privilege that needs extirpation.

It's easy to hit a target that's made of one large substance.  Unfortunately, society isn't and shouldn't be equal to target practice.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

DWTS and The Voice

I must say this at the outset:  Insofar as dancing is concerned, I have two left feet.  And when it comes to singing, I can hold a tune, but no one will ever confuse me with Josh Groban.  That my wife likes to dance with me and listen to me sing speaks to her absolute love for me overtaking her good taste. 

Because my wife enjoys both dancing and singing, she became a fan of the shows Dancing With the Stars and The Voice.  Because I love my wife, and because I can sit quietly and read while she watches her shows, I spend time with her in the living room absorbing the goings-on.  That doesn't mean I haven't seen a thing or two.

First, allow me to reiterate:  I may have been a good athlete in my day, but when in comes to dancing, I always suggest that we do it in the middle of a large crowd with the lights dimmed so no one is repulsed by the sight of my awkward jiggling.  Someone may get the mistaken impression that I'm having a seizure and call paramedics.  And as for singing, I enjoy it, but I don't have the skill to perform in front of people.  The closest I would ever come to doing that is karaoke fortified by adult beverages in a place to which I'll never return.  I was a member of my high school choir, but no one ever suggested I audition for a solo.  Wisely. 

Still, I am a watcher of television, and having done that capably for over fifty years, I have developed a taste for what's good and bad about television shows.  DWTS is downright horrible and The Voice is troublesome.  Allow me to explain:

DWTS billed itself, at its inception, as ballroom dancing being brought to the masses.  It has devolved into vaudeville crossed with tawdry carnality.  It's almost as if Andy Hardy and Betsy Booth got lost in a kinky jazzercise club.  Scantily clad men and women with undeniably toned bodies incorporate as few ballroom dance moves into routines that stray as far from ballroom as they can and still earn points.  Sure, they call them foxtrot, waltz and tango, but the truth is, over the course of the season, few dances are true ballroom dances and are more properly fusion dances that allow for entertainment to overwhelm the dancing.

How do I know this?  Once upon a time I took a ballroom dance course.  Admittedly, I'm no good at anything beyond a waltz, but I know what's supposed to happen.  What happens on DWTS strays from what I was taught.

As if that weren't bad enough, the schmaltz factor is neverending.  Pro dancers are turned into interviewers cum therapists as these staged discussions about the celebrities insecurities are examined for the cameras.  Nevermind that these celebrities are typically off the C list; that they try to rope the audience into feeling for them because -- look!  they're just like the rest of us! -- they have problems which, in turn, garners votes that have nothing to do with the performances, is nauseating.  It's almost as if I'm watching some sort of dancing therapy show for celebrities. 

Then combine that with the fact that there are ringers in the crowd.  This year's winner is from the Broadway plan Hamilton...in which he dances.  Other winners have included an ice dancer, Olympic gymnasts and professional athletes.  Sure, a few outliers have won, but the thing is rigged.  It's largely a popularity contest until the finale, when the one or two celebrities with any dancing chops are pitted against each other and the popular non-dancers have been eliminated, forcing people to actually vote for someone who can dance.

The judges on the show include some woman who in her effusiveness once infamously misused coño with cojones, a superannuated Brit who tries to keep the dancing on the rails and an Italian dancer whose claim to fame is having appeared as a background dancer in an Elton John video.  Their antics add to the lack of luster the show presents.  They've decided to add guest judges from time to time, including Shania Twain.  Egads. 

Little vignettes are staged as props for the dancing.  The singing, which is just covers of popular songs, leaves a lot to be desired.  The endless mugging for the camera is sickening, as is the over-the-top cutesy behavior of couples who are introduced before their dances is something I would expect from children, not professionals and celebrities.  I've seen teenagers act with more aplomb in public.  That this is encouraged is beyond belief.

Usually, when a celebrity is eliminated, there are unctuous thanks for the pro's tutoring, a profession of undying love and a promise that the celebrity will continue dancing in the future.  It's like revisiting high school where everyone professes things when they sign each other's yearbooks. 

From time to time, no doubt, there's a dance or two that is memorable or moving.  But most of the dances are just overwrought productions designed to tug on viewers' heartstrings.  Some of the professional dancers are excellent.  Derek Hough is a genius, as is Mark Ballas. The problem with Ballas' involvement in the show is that his strengths are more suited to Broadway than the ballroom. 

The Voice, on the other hand, started out trying to play it straight.  Contestants sing for four celebrity judges whose chairs are turned so they aren't swayed by the appearance of the contestant.  If a judge likes what he or she hears, a buzzer is hit to turn the chair around announcing to the contestant that that judge wants him or her on his team.  If multiple judges turn around, the contestant picks which judge will be his coach.  Once the teams are picked, there are knockout rounds within the teams.  This is the first problem that I have with the show. 

The two teammates sing a song together, alternating lyrics.  How anyone is supposed to decide which vocalist is better from this is anyone's guess.  I suppose professional singers can tell; Karen always points out when someone it pitchy, something that completely escapes me, so I'm probably wrong on this point. 

After the teams are set, a further winnowing down of the teams is made.  The vocalists are guided not only by their coaches but by celebrity coaches brought in to tutor them.  Admittedly, they do instruct the contestants.  Then the contestants sing songs either they chose or that were chosen for them by their coaches. 

Here's another problem I have with the show.  At this juncture, the singers are all marvelously gifted.  Virtually any of these people could win the competition.  Sure, there are styles that I don't particularly like, but the talent that reaches this level is astounding.  If the touchstone for this show is American Idol, at no point in that show's history did it have the abundance of quality that The Voice has at this stage in the competition every single year.  This year alone there have to be between five and ten contestants who could have their own recording contracts,  When did that ever happen at Idol?

The judges' votes at this point seem random.  I guess their positioning themselves to have the best contestants for the finale when the public actually votes for the winner.  And this hits another problem with the show:  When they're interviewed prior to singing for the first time -- and at various points as they progress -- more backstories are elicited that play on the viewers' emotions.  I understand people have lives and histories, but the editing that puts these stories out there is done for effect.  And as much as the novelty of having judges not see the vocalists when they do the blind auditions is cool, the viewers see the contestants from the get-go, so hot women and men must earn extra votes for that.

Despite its superior production values, The Voice has fallen victim to its popularity.  At times, it engages in cutesy segments that detract from the purpose of the show just to fill time.  It's not as bad as DWTS, but it's annoying nonetheless.

One final comparison between the shows is worth pointing out:  For as bad as DWTS is, Tom Bergeron is an excellent host.  In fact, he's the only reason I pay any attention.  He's as quick-witted as anyone in show business.  On The Voice, Carson Daly, for as nice a person as he is, is a wooden host, given to over-exuberant reactions at the most inappropriate times.  He's a seemingly nice guy, but he's as stolid in his role as Bergeron is easily personable.

The Voice is the superior show if for no other reason than the product it produces is better.  The talent level of the contestants is so much higher than that on DWTS.  Even if it weren't, the stupid schmaltzy vignettes, the unctuous love everyone has for each other, the attempt at creating a DWTS family -- it all just rubs the wrong way.

But again, there's a reason I don't dance or sing for a living.

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles

Implosions

Fall is my favorite time of year.  The weather is perfect, the smells are heightened, the foods are more to my liking, college football is upon us and holiday season is back.  Add to that it was in October when I first met my bride and it's understandable why I enjoy fall so much.

This fall, however, has an added bonus.  Simultaneously, three industries are imploding.  Two of them I detest, one of them I tolerate with indifference.  Never in my wildest dreams did I think any one of them would teeter so much, let alone all three of them teeter at the same time.  But the planets aligned perfectly to cause the NFL, the Democratic Party and Hollywood to all go through massive implosions one right after the other.  And the beauty of each one is that each implosion just keeps going and going and going....

The NFL has faced a backlash of fan discontent when the players decided to emulate Colin Kapernick and kneel during the national anthem.  Reports vary as to the motivation behind the kneeling, but it hasn't resonated with the fans.  Fans in droves are staying away from the stadia to the point that the owners are concerned.  This weekend there's supposed to be a boycott of the games to show support for veterans, given that tomorrow is Veteran's Day.  Add to that the ongoing struggles addressing abuse of women and the CTE issue and the NFL is a hot mess.  It's so hot that now renegade owner Jerry Jones is threatening to sue the NFL a la Al Davis because the compensation committee is about to renew commissioner Roger Goodell's contract for $44M.  Needless to say, it hasn't been a good year for the NFL.

If the NFL has issues, the Democratic Party is beside itself.  Having lost the presidential election to a non-politician after harrumphing that there was no way on God's green earth that Donald Trump would ever be president, Cankles lost all but the coastal elites at the end of her Inevitability Tour.  She then took to the book tour where she tried to explain away her loss on everyone but herself, further casting the party into disrepute.   In the meantime Wikileaks provided evidence that the DNC rigged the primary so that Cankles would win and Bernie, despite the groundswell of grassroot support, didn't have a chance.  Recently, Donna Brazile, who took over the chair of the DNC for the disgraced Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, has written a book wherein she pointed the finger at Cankles for taking over the DNC.  As if all that weren't bad enough, an ultra-liberal activist group referring to itself as Antifa (short for Anti-Fascist) has been wreaking havoc nationwide because it feels that President Trump is racist and fascist, for some reason.  In the process, antifa has highjacked the Democratic Party, causing even such liberal stalwarts as Nancy Pelosi to criticize its tactics, which are, ironically, reminiscent of Nazi tactics.  Donna Brazile is now sniping with Cankles and Cankles is accusing Ms. Brazile of being a Russian agent.  It's so aburd that it almost sounds like the plot of a Hollywood political farce...

...Speaking of Hollywood, I've detailed the notorious indiscretions and possible crimes of movie czar Harvey Weinstein.  Given Weinstein's girth, it's not a stretch to claim that his fall broke the dam, so to speak, on other powerful men who have groped their ways to power.  Now, other moguls have been accused of being Weinsteinian, as have high-profile actors like Kevin Spacey.  The shooting inside Hollywood's tent is fascinating.  People are claiming everyone knew, while others claim not everything was known.  As this goes on, movie ticket sales plummet, a la the NFL's attendance figures.  Virtually every day another story comes out about some actor or actress who was violated in some fashion.  The interesting spin on the Hollywood implosion is that it goes from heterosexual to homosexual abuse and, sadly, even into abuse of minors. 

Why am I so tickled by all of this?  First, the NFL is a behemoth that I've said for years is too full of itself.  Football is football, but compared to the college game, the NFL is sterile, stoic, almost robotic.  The Democrats have been fooling people for years, touting itself as the more moral of the political parties (is that even possible?) and hypocritical as hell.  That they've been shown to resort to decidedly undemocratic tricks to win elections even within their own ranks is telling.  And Hollywood?  Those people who imitate other people for a living have been so busy telling the rest of us that we don't know what we're doing, that we are racists, rapist enablers and worse, and yet within their own community, they're worse than anyone.  Either they were involved in the abuse, or they knew about the abuse and condoned it with their silence, or they were willfully ignorant of the rumors.  Yet they acted as if they owned the moral imperative and had the right to criticize the rest of us.

I don't know much about the story of Nero fiddling while Rome burned, but I wonder if anything that was burning while he fiddled was like the NFL, the Democrats or Hollywood...

(c) 2017 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles