That’s just plain racism. I’m convinced you don’t actually know what white privilege is.
The people who matter didn’t think it was disrespectful. Neither Biden nor Harris were offended. Sanders himself wasn’t trying to be disrespectful. And the American public in general clearly doesn’t think he’s being disrespectful, or he wouldn’t have become a meme.
If the person the ceremony is for doesn’t feel disrespected, and the person doing it doesn’t feel disrespected, then what grounds are there to call it disrespectful?
That’s like coming to a black funeral, seeing all the people singing and such, and then claiming it’s disrespectful because it’s not the dirge white funerals tend to be. Or saying that the people at a rock concert are being disrespectful for clapping, dancing, and moving around because that is not what is done in a classical context.
If the participants don’t think they were disrespected, and the person wasn’t trying to disrespect them, no disrespect occurred.
And, yes, this is related to why I say this teacher’s argument is bad.
Now to get into the teacher’s argument:
First off, there is room for the idea that a famous black person who dressed that way might not be able to get in, but a white person would, and that this would be white privilege. If that was what was being argued, I wouldn’t object.
But that’s not what I see in the article. What I see is a teacher who pushed her students to see it as a problem, who then is upset that anyone could possibly enjoy the meme, and tries to push a bunch of meaning onto what happened that was not intended and was not received, and thus does not exist (per the above argument). And, because of this, she can’t see why anyone could possibly enjoy it
A scolding teacher looking down on everyone for liking something that bothers her because of the symbolism she assigns to it (but no one else did) is not a good way to argue. It’s not an argument.
And that’s why I argued that I think she was offended first and then looked for reasons. Had the reasons come first, she would have stated them. Instead it was nonsense about how there’s this requirement in the ritual of the inauguration for someone to not dress in a warm manner.
I would have been sympathetic to the argument that some of you are making in this thread–that a black person dressing that way would likely have been treated differently. That is white privilege–albeit one not to get upset at Sanders for.
But what was described in the article she wrote? It just isn’t.
I think it is a fairly simple and standard request for such claims.
What evidence do we have for our claims?
What would we accept as evidence against our claims?
It is up to us, as the claimants, to be able to answer both of those clearly otherwise we can quite rightly expect to have our claims dismissed.
This is a complete non-issue. I am another poster who expected it to be about Bernie’s position on gun control or BLM.
There can be a healthy disagreement about whether he’s properly focused on the concerns of Black people relative to his overall progressiveness, even if I believe the term “privilege” itself is unhealthily overly applied. But that people of color are treated differently in venues in general, and that non White-males are unfairly attacked by the right wing for trivial issues, is surprising to no one and inapplicable to this event and thus doesn’t add anything meaningful to the conversation.
It doesn’t even apply, but something about your phrasing and now I’ve got this stuck in my head:
When we grew up and went to school
There were certain teachers who would
Hurt the children in any way they could
By pouring their derision
Upon anything we did
And exposing every weakness
However carefully hidden by the kids
Sure, but what KIND of privilege is it? Is it white privilege, male privilege, geezer privilege, public personality privilege, etc…? And in what degree? And does geezer privilege supersede the others?
I guarantee that the mittens were the thing that started it; there are plenty of pictures of Bernie wearing similar parkas in outdoor situations in years past- that’s not a new thing at all for him, but it’s never been an issue until now (except for the price of one he wore a couple years back).
The other thing is that if you look through the pictures, he looks like he’s cold AF. Are we really going to expect a very elderly man to put up with that for form’s sake and so some San Francisco teacher’s opinion of his privilege can be satisfied? That seems absurd to me, and I’m not even much of a Bernie fan. But I am empathetic to people who are cold and uncomfortable.
Here’s an example: He doesn’t look like he’s just hanging out; he looks like he’s not comfortable and cold.
Then there’s this black guy that wore gloves during a debate and you know what happened…people asked him why he wore gloves during a debate. They didn’t make memes out of him, well, they did, a lot of them, but it wasn’t about the gloves. They didn’t turn him away at the door until he could be escorted in by a white person. That didn’t tell him him the gloves were disrespectful to wear at a debate. They asked him, he answered, articles were written and that was that.
You’d think he’d know to wear a hat.
Doesn’t that kind of prove the point. People from Texas dress like people from Texas and aren’t challenged. So when a guy from Vermont dresses like a guy from Vermont, why is he given a hard time?
If you want to give someone a hard time for dressing like a cowboy, take our the former Sheriff of Milwaukee, please.
White men
Not just any people. And they don’t do it just because people from Texas do it. They do it to send a very particular message about themselves. And we read that message loud and clear.
This is not what this is. There’s no symbolism or cultural cache regarding parkas like there is regarding cowboy boots for Texan men. There are other people from Vermont. There was another senator from Vermont on that stage.
And even if it was some kind of universal symbol of Vermonter masculinity, we would understand that he is allowed to assert that symbolism because he is a white man.
We know who that guy is and how he presents himself to the world. He’s sending a very particular message. It’s not “just how he dresses.”
For fuck’s sake, he’s an old man trying to stay warm on a cold day. That’s it. There’s nothing more going on. Everyone who says there is is just embarrassing themselves.
He still should have worn a hat. Preferably a knit wool cap with a fuzzball on top.
Is that message don’t mess with Texas or something more nefarious?
You said they were asserting their white male Texan identities by dressing like that. When I said ‘people from Texas dress like people from Texas’, you told me I was wrong and that they were actually sending a very particular message, loud and clear. I guess I missed it. What’s the message?
Then what’s the problem with Bernie wearing it. If there’s no symbolism or cultural cache regarding his jacket, what’s the big deal?
Again with the vagueness. If there’s a very particular message David Clarke is sending by the way he’s dressed, I guess I missed it, can you fill me in.
And, I’m not being sarcastic. You’re making the assumption that everyone is reading these things the same way as you and it’s not likely the case. Since I can’t guess what you’re thinking, you’ll have to spell it out. I’d like to understand but you’ll have to help.
I really and truly don’t understand why anyone can be offended by his choice of jacket and mittens at the event. I can see why some might think the mittens are kinda silly, but offensive? I’m not seeing it.
And have you commented on the picture you requested? A Black woman wearing a parka at an inauguration?
Okay, I went back and checked. You asked for proof that she didn’t face criticism. That’s not a fair request and you know it. How about this, why don’t you find proof that she was torn apart on the internet? If she got even 10% of the ridicule that Bernie got, it shouldn’t be hard to find. Memes? Late night monologue jokes?
Can you find anything suggesting that she faced criticism for wearing a gray parka?
That’s Jimmy McMillan, founder of The Rent Is Too Damn High political party in NYC.
He’s kind of a fringe character, but he’s not actually a crackpot, and he’s generally well-liked here in the city. Even if we won’t vote him into the mayor’s office.
I am entirely unconvinced he avoided thinking about it or dismissed those considerations. Oh, I think he thought about it quite carefully. You seem to be assuming he didn’t care about how he was dressed. I say his getup was entirely calculated.
Well, in fairness, women have a wide variety of styles and colors that they are allowed to wear in business and formal situations; men’s suits all look the same, so it’s hard to tell if they’re wearing different suits or the same one every day anyway.
A better, and odder, analogy would be Jim Jordan’s ardent refusal to wear a suit jacket in situations where it appears men are normally expected to do so. I’ve only ever seen one article outright criticizing him for it.
(Granted, there are SO MANY other things to criticize him for.)
I don’t need to answer any questions about being offended, because I haven’t said that I’m offended. Have I said anywhere that I have a problem with what Sanders wore? All I have said is that our society gives white men a pass on clothing matters in a way that others don’t get. That’s part of the privilege of being a white man. Now that privilege can cut across other types of privilege as well: the privilege of being a senator, the privilege of being powerful and wealthy. But none of that erases his white male privilege.
I haven’t said there is a “problem.” And the “big deal” is only that it has been pointed to as an example of white male privilege. All I have actually said is that white male privilege exists with respect to clothing.
My point was this: White male Texans are widely known for using cowboy boots as a way to assert or identify as white male Texans. Texan men don’t wear cowboy boots in Congress just because that’s how Texans dress. When they walk around the Capitol in cowboy boots they are intentionally sending a message about their maleness and Texanness that everyone around them is aware of.
(I’m not about to write an entire thesis on what the social significance of a male Texan identity is. It’s probably worth a research paper. I’ll tell you this, though: I’ve lived in Washington, D.C., for over 25 years, and I’ve met people from all over the country, and Texans are the only ones who want everyone to know without a doubt that they are Texans. They’re very obnoxious about it.)
There is no such widely known cultural trope regarding parkas and Vermont. Vermonters might wear parkas, but there is no cultural trope regarding Vermonters boldly asserting their Vermont identities by wearing parkas all around the country in all social circumstances.
So, no, a Texan wearing cowboy boots at the Capitol is not the same thing as Bernie wearing a parka at the Capitol.
If you are suggesting that it is the same thing, then you are admitting that Bernie is intentionally asserting his white male privilege in order to boldly express his identity while attending a formal event, like a Texan in cowboy boots is.
I’ve seen both Hispanics and Navajos wear cowboy gear here. Hispanic people don’t wear cowboy gear in Texas?
I’m kind of on the fence about this one. Good points are being made about the privilege that is being above adhering to conventional dress codes. On the other hand, did Bernie really “get away” with it? He has been criticized and mocked. He might have a sense of humor about it but he was still roundly derided. Does anything short of being denied admission into the event not count as being called out for it?