About Margaret Cho Racism, Sexism, and Homophobia
By and large, people seem to be horrified about the response Margaret Cho received to her routine at the MoveOn.Org bash. But there are others (also read comment sections of people linked above) who seem to believe that being called a "slant eye", being told to "go back where you came from" (Cho was born in San Francisco), being told to "go back to China" (her parents are from Korea), and being called a "cunt" or "whore" are just honest responses to Margaret Cho, individual, the celebrity. Or the stunning response of "...the people who adore you have AIDS for a REASON." What an unmitigated load of bullshit to think that any of that is about Margaret Cho.
Sorry folks, but responding with racist slurs is not responding honestly to what Margaret Cho said. How is it an honest response to Margaret Cho? Calling someone a "slant eye", telling someone to "go back to China", calling someone "a gook" is a response about Chinese, Koreans, and Asians in general, not about Margaret Cho. I don't care how many people anyone has pissed off. You CAN and SHOULD get mad at people who respond to an individual's words by making derogatory comments about his/her entire ethnic group.
Or who call a woman a whore. Assuming Cho even is a whore, and, really, we all know she isn't, what does that have to do with her words? Nothing. It's just a derogatory comment about being a woman. It's also not about Margaret Cho the individual, the celebrity. The only words that merit a response of "whore" and apply to the individual are "Pay me $XXX, and I'll have sex with you." Just calling someone a whore because she's a woman who did something you don't like indicates a problem with women in general, not just with the individual. It's like when I ignore some guys who make lewd comments about me, and they retaliate with the cognitively dissonant comeback of "whore". Obviously if I were a whore, my response to their comments would be to tell them my price and suggest a place we could go. Their comeback isn't about me as an individual. It's about their overall view of women.
As for the "...the people who adore you have AIDS for a REASON" comment - See, that's a slur against gay people, not Margaret Cho. It isn't even insulting her directly. It's insulting gay people directly and Margaret Cho indirectly for having gay fans (well, presumably it's insulting her directly in so far as she is gay, although she doesn't have AIDS). Still not an honest response to Margaret Cho.
So sorry, but there is nothing that Margaret Cho could do or say that would make those kinds of responses something not to care about or things that she doesn't have every right to be upset about. Even publicly upset about. Because this is larger than Margaret Cho, the celebrity, the individual. And it was the people who responded to her with racist, sexist, and homophobic slurs who made it that way. Not Margaret Cho.
Comments
What have we learned Dorothy? That crackpots come from all across the political rectum… er spectrum. But you’re right this has nothing to do with Cho and everything to do with people who hate.
Off Topic, I lost Dietz over to URU [grin]. Hope he comes back.
Posted by: Rick DeMent | January 21, 2004 08:48 AM
Following on Rick's comment, I missed the entire Margaret Cho thing due to a Syberia addiction.
Posted by: Jane | January 21, 2004 11:10 AM
I finally finished the Uru game proper on Monday. Now I'm wandering around the online city (when I can get in), waiting for them to open new ages.
I haven't yet loaded up Syberia, but I will probably give it a whirl this weekend. Which may lead to another bout of non-blogging.
Posted by: Lesley | January 21, 2004 01:29 PM
You read my post COMPLETELY wrong. I don't think the nasty things said to her was right. The people who said those things are sad and pathetic. All I said was that freedom of speech also extends to freedom of thought. People have the right to respond to honestly to what she says. Again, that doesn't mean that she deserves to be called "slant-eyed", but people do have the right to their opinion of her.
Posted by: Gennie | January 23, 2004 11:54 AM
I think Den Beste put it best when he said: The philosophic justification for the "root causes" argument that we've heard so much about is the point: individual racists are not necessarily evil, even though racism is. Individual racists can be loving and compassionate chauvinistic contempt.
It reached its most pathological in Fisk's notorious attempt to explain away his being beaten by a crowd in Pakistan as ultimately being the result of western imperialism.
This attitude is racism of the characters. There are no villains in the movie, because it's not about that. By soft-pedaling the racism and yet never ducking it, the movie makes a more profound statement about it than some other films which pound it into the ground and paint all the characters as caricatures.
But it goes deeper than that: if we are responsible, then they will live good lives. They are less than we are. This is deeply loving and compassionate chauvinistic contempt.
Mark V. Shaney
"Non calor sed umor est qui nobis incommodat!"
Posted by: Mark V. Shaney | July 4, 2004 07:31 AM
I'm assuming that the cause of your non sequitur is not the heat, but indeed the humidity.
Posted by: Lesley | July 4, 2004 07:51 AM
I think Margaret Cho is an extremely talented comic, and she is so passionate. In response to the post, which was also passionate, I'd like to give a standing ovation. :) Great writing.
Posted by: Marshall | July 8, 2004 12:27 AM