Is It Just Me?

The other night we watched a television program on the subject of oratory. It was broadcast on the BBC in primetime and it focused mainly on American political oratory and the effectiveness of Barack Obama as a public speaker. One of the interesting facts highlighted was that fifty years ago a typical “sound-bite” lasted up to forty seconds. Today, sound-bites are much more brief. The statement, “Yes we can” being reflective of our times, if not our attention spans.

The other interesting aspect of the program was that it was so interesting. But that’s the nature of the BBC. The program was a lead-in to a series on the subject in which British young people engage in an ongoing oratory contest. Each week they cover a different aspect of public speaking and the contestants are judged and either voted off or moved on the next round.

Barack Obama being elected President of the United States has been a great boon to a host of subjects of interest to Europeans (a socio-geographic description to which the British people claim nominal allegiance).

We’ve seen many examples whereby news reporting over here doesn’t always get it right. Historical facts are often misstated and we don’t bother to send in corrections. It’s not their history and they can’t be bothered to know that John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected President and that Teddy Roosevelt was actually the youngest person to assume the office.

In some matters we do try to bring corrections to bear. There is a different sense of racism here than in the United States. What in one place would go by unnoticed in another seems like a jarring slap in the face. Living in a different country requires a certain sense of tolerance for different cultural reference points. However ...

In Glasgow there is a great love for things of the American country and western genre. There is even a “Grand Old Opry” night club just this side of the City Centre. But they mix up country and western with the “old south” so that it is rife with, from our perspective, racist overtones. Every Saturday night at closing time the patrons at the Glasgow Grand Old Opry sing a rousing rendition of “Dixie.” We see it as their thing and we don’t go there.

Up until the late 1970’s there was a long running program here along the lines of the old Mitch Miller show in the U.S. Basically an all male chorus singing old favourites. Choral singing is big in Britain. But this particular show, up until the late 1970’s mind you, was called “The Black and White Minstrel Show.” All the performers were in black face. It finally went off the air simply because it had run its course and people’s tastes changed. Rather like how The Sonny and Cher Show or Tony Orlando and Dawn ran their courses in on U.S. television.

So yes, different sensibilities at work.

Recently I picked up a magazine that contained an article about Barack Obama. Nothing unique in that. The content of the article was fairly benign, if not positive and informative. However, what struck me was the title of the piece: “New Boy on the Block.”

I wrote a letter to the magazine’s editors that included some historical references describing the racist overtones of referring to an African American man as “boy.” What peeved me was that the magazine in question was the official publication of the Church of Scotland, called Life and Work.

The editors responded immediately, stating that they would deal with the criticism in the June issue. The writer of the article took offense at the criticism and responded in a personal letter with a fair amount of defensiveness and vitriol. He accuses me of engaging in “ill-informed rants” and of “straining at gnats.” He concludes by telling me, “You really are deeply offensive.” His note confirmed for me one of the reasons why I tend to avoid committee meetings over here.

Anyway, what I’m wondering is, is it just me? Am I being overly sensitive? Is it okay to refer to Barack Obama as “boy” even with the perceived safety of term, “new boy on the block?” And when it comes to racism, where do you draw the line in saying that one thing is on this side of the line of acceptability and one thing is not? Is the line a static reality or a moveable reality dependant on one’s particular perspective?

Or, as the writer of the article chided me, should I have more important things to worry about?

Take Care – John Mann

 

Comments

[nancy hitt]

No, John, it's not just you. Language is very important, as the vehement response from the author illustrates. If it was of little or no consequence, he would make little or no response. It sounds like your remarks exposed the violence in his words so that he responded with more violence. Especially in a religious journal, I think it is important to be aware of the violence of language. Furthermore, that expression has morphed into man/guy/person on the block over here. No man accepts being called a boy without an awareness of being demeaned- an act of violence. As always, it is the responsibility of the speaker/writer to clarify meaning and use language acceptable to the person under discussion to describe them. Regardless of British sensibilities, when writing about people from other countries/cultures, a sensitivity to the language of the culture is called for. I think you are right to call it to attention rather than perpetuate the violence inherent in the title.