What we were vs. what we said we were


This is a factually true statement from Clint Eastwood.

Everybody’s walking on eggshells, said Eastwood, 86. We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.

He’s right. When I was growing up, too, these things weren’t called racist. They were blatantly, unashamedly, disgustingly racist as fuck, but no one called them racist. If only we could go back to the Good Old Days, when we were all complacently complicit in horrific discrimination and denial.

Clint Eastwood has made some really good movies, and we all obligingly bought our theater tickets and happily gave them positive reviews and all kinds of awards. We acted as if being an excellent film-maker would excuse all of his failings as a human being. I appreciate that he’s made it quite clear that good artists can be terrible people, as he joins that ugly pantheon of crappy artists who have respectable skills: Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and now Clint Eastwood.

I won’t be watching his new movie, Sully. There’s a gaping hole in his soul that makes him an untrustworthy observer of the human condition.

Comments

  1. sugarfrosted says

    And Clint Eastwood would know that we all should get over racism. I mean he starred in a movie with Italians play Mexicans.

  2. lotharloo says

    I agree with the sentiment but I think it is too much to place Clint Eastwood at the same category as the two rapists, one of totally unapologetic.

  3. Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls says

    Yeah, I noticed the same problem when I first saw his screed. Just another reactionary wanting to go back to the 1950s with its overt racism.

  4. The Mellow Monkey says

    “Everybody’s walking on eggshells,” said Eastwood, 86. “We see people accusing people of being racist and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up, those things weren’t called racist.”

    If somebody punches me in the face, I don’t really care if they didn’t call that assault when you were a kid, Mr. Eastwood. Maybe the problem was the standards of your day and not me complaining about getting punched.

  5. mamba says

    My family was absolutely not racist…while there weren’t a lot of other races in our community, at no point did my family ever even hint to seeing any other race as anything but another person. we had family who dated or married other races and never had a single thing to say about it other than “congratulations”. My father was in the Navy and travelled the world.

    Thus said, he would have expressions that would make us cringe as we got older. For example, if he was describing something the colour black (like a dark night or a paint job or something innocent) he’d often say “…it was a dark as a n**ger’s hole…” and not ONCE did he see anything wrong with it. It was just an expression from his youth after all. He’ll catch himself and stop himself nowadays, but oftentimes it rolled off the toungue. (yes, even once when my sister’s black boyfriend was visiting…THAT one was painful to watch, even though her boyfriend ‘got it’, liked dad, and understood it as just a slipped expression). He just grew up with people talking like that in his youth and he never thought much about it. It was so common a word it was just a word to him, no racism ever intended, but seriously still messed up.

    Like Clint it was incredibly racist thing to say, but the times were different. My dad grew up and saw that it’s a bad thing to say eventually, even if you don’t mean any negative intent yourself, so why can’t Clint see that?

  6. Gregory Greenwood says

    Whenever I think of Eastwood, I think of the atrocious High Planes Drifter – a movie where an ‘uppity woman’ is put in her place through the use of rape by Eastwood’s character who is supposed to be the hero. Even worse, other characters react to him like he is some kind of rock start because of it. Perhaps I am being unfair, but I find it hard to get past that whenever I see or hear Eastwood, especially since (to the best of my knowledge) he has never apologized for it or even addressed the issue.

    It seems his attitude might be;

    “Everybody’s walking on eggshells,” said Eastwood, 86. “We see people accusing people of being racist rapists and all kinds of stuff. When I grew up made movies back in the day, those things weren’t called racist rape.”

    So, we probably need to chalk up misogyny alongside racism for Eastwood.

  7. davidnangle says

    To be fair about High Plains Drifter, the story didn’t have a hero. It was a story about a cursed town receiving the just rewards of having failed their sheriff in his time of need. Clint’s character was like a demon sent to punish them all, which he did.

  8. The Mellow Monkey says

    It was a story about a cursed town receiving the just rewards of having failed their sheriff in his time of need. Clint’s character was like a demon sent to punish them all, which he did.

    …being raped was just rewards/punishment for this woman? According to the Wikipedia synopsis, she bumped into his character and insulted him, and thus was raped for it.

    Wait. I read further into the synopsis and there’s a second woman he rapes, this woman being the only person who tried to prevent the sheriff’s death.

    If this is framed as justice in that movie, this makes it ten times worse.

  9. Gregory Greenwood says

    davidnangle @ 8;

    To be fair about High Plains Drifter, the story didn’t have a hero. It was a story about a cursed town receiving the just rewards of having failed their sheriff in his time of need. Clint’s character was like a demon sent to punish them all, which he did.

    Hollywood has a long and ignoble history of casting characters who dole out often pretty indiscriminate retribution upon entire communities identified as ‘deserving it’ as heroes, but I take your point that Eastwood’s character is perhaps a bit more ambiguous than that. That said, it really doesn’t make much difference to my core point:-

    Eastwood’s character is a rapist, and is viewed with outright awe for that rape.

    The rape is cast as ‘corrective’ in character with the strong implication that the female character in question was ‘asking for it’.

    There are no consequences for the Eastwood character flowing from that rape, either in terms of the attitude of other characters toward him or any expression of guilt on his part. His character is an unrepentant rapist, and the movie does nothing to suggest that there is anything wrong with that attitude.

    Even with the most generous reading possible, the movie is a toxic, misogynistic mess that is repugnant even by the low, low standards of the time when it was made.

  10. Gregory Greenwood says

    The Mellow Monkey @ 9;

    …being raped was just rewards/punishment for this woman? According to the Wikipedia synopsis, she bumped into his character and insulted him, and thus was raped for it.

    That is accurate from what I remember. It was so repellent that it took me a little while to fully grasp what I was seeing – it was the cinematic trope of the uppity woman getting put in her place through the use of rape in its least subtle, most unambiguously woman hating form. It made Bond movies form the era of Connery look like works of progressive feminist literature by comparison.

    Wait. I read further into the synopsis and there’s a second woman he rapes, this woman being the only person who tried to prevent the sheriff’s death.

    I don’t remember that, but I think I had already switched off in angry disgust long before this point in the movie, but this just seems to further reinforce the ugly aspects of the tale – further rape, again without consequence to the rapist character, and this time of a woman who tried to do the right thing.

    If this is framed as justice in that movie, this makes it ten times worse.

    I couldn’t agree more.

  11. Matrim says

    The “PC culture” hatred basically boils down to one thing: people don’t want to be held responsible for the things that they say.

  12. Bill Buckner says

    Holy crap I find this judging an actor by his role mind-numbingly stupid. The question should be, is it believable that Eastwood’s character in High Plains Drifter, a western gun-for-hire (albeit a ghost), in the time period sometime just after the civil war, rapes a woman and is treated like a “real man” for it by the other men of the small town? Yes, I think it is entirely plausible.

    Now in real life Eastwood might (I don’t know, do you?) consider his HPD character a real-man whose actions were justified and is worthy of admiration–in which case he should be roundly criticized. But you are talking about a fucking fictional character in a fucking movie who undertakes fictional actions, which illicit other character reactions, all of which are entirely plausible.

  13. davidnangle says

    “the movie is a toxic, misogynistic mess”

    Yeah, I agree. I can’t defend the movie, beyond stating that the main character is NOT a hero.

    The character not only faces no consequences for rapes, but faces no consequences for any of his crimes.

  14. The Mellow Monkey says

    Now in real life Eastwood might (I don’t know, do you?) consider his HPD character a real-man whose actions were justified and is worthy of admiration–in which case he should be roundly criticized. But you are talking about a fucking fictional character in a fucking movie who undertakes fictional actions, which illicit other character reactions, all of which are entirely plausible.

    Bill Buckner, fictional characters in movies are written and portrayed by real people. Real people make the decisions to carry all of this out. Critical analysis of these portrayals isn’t mistaking them for real life. It’s recognizing that the end product portrays the choices of those involved. I do recaps of TV shows, books, and movies and when I criticize the repellent behavior that’s treated as acceptable within the narrative I’m not saying I believe the creators are rapists. If a movie is set up to portray something as “justice” and what is portrayed is morally bankrupt, that’s a very reasonable thing to talk about.

  15. Saganite, a haunter of demons says

    I wonder if he’ll ever get in a tiff with a table or maybe a nice couch.

  16. Bill Buckner says

    Real people make the decisions to carry all of this out.

    It’s called their job. Portraying a slave-owner does not mean one is pro-slavery. Playing a feminist does not make one a feminist. It is up to the viewer to judge and possibly learn from the movie, and not to project onto the actors.

    Critical analysis of these portrayals isn’t mistaking them for real life.

    Seems to be some of that going on here. By the way, not that it matters, the other woman in the movie, who owned the hotel with her husband, was portrayed very favorably– certainly she came across as stronger and worthy of more respect than any of the men in the town. Does that matter? Not really.

    If a movie is set up to portray something as “justice” and what is portrayed is morally bankrupt, that’s a very reasonable thing to talk about.

    Of course it is always reasonable to talk about what a movie presents. This mistake is assuming at any level, with no evidence, that the actors endorse what the movie presents as justice. Making a movie like HPD that (let’s assume for the sake of argument) accurately depicts behavior that we find repulsive is a feature not a bug. If we believe people in that period would have or at least might have behaved that way–then the movie maker is doing their job.

  17. Gregory Greenwood says

    Bill Buckner @ 13;

    Holy crap I find this judging an actor by his role mind-numbingly stupid.

    Actors bear a measure of the responsibility for the roles they take, especially where those roles intersect with problematic issues in contemporary society. It is one thing to play a character who is morally ambiguous, but another to play a character who is depicted as engaging in an activity as harmful and widespread in our society as rape, and rape enacted without consequence and depicted as a morally justifiable act, and then never really engaging with the consequences of that portrayal, especially when you are a figure with such a media profile as Clint Eastwood, who has hardly been shy when it comes to putting forward his opinions on all manner of other topics, both with regard to his movies and more broadly by using his fame to promote political positions (like arguing with empty chairs). It is woefully naive to pretend that art is never political, and that as such artists need never be held accountable for what they create or put their names to.

    The question should be, is it believable that Eastwood’s character in High Plains Drifter, a western gun-for-hire (albeit a ghost), in the time period sometime just after the civil war, rapes a woman and is treated like a “real man” for it by the other men of the small town? Yes, I think it is entirely plausible.

    The fictional plausibility or otherwise of consequence free, ‘morally acceptable’ rape in the Old West could hardly be less relevant to the topic at hand. This movie wasn’t made in the Old West; it was made in the modern era, with the lead played by a high profile contemporary public figure who has never addressed the issues raised by that role and how it interacts with the ongoing scourge of rape culture. Holding up a gilded, cinematic version of the misogyny of yesteryear is no excuse for repeating and reinforcing those attitudes in contemporary society.

    Now in real life Eastwood might (I don’t know, do you?) consider his HPD character a real-man whose actions were justified and is worthy of admiration–in which case he should be roundly criticized.

    That is the problem; he plays the role, which in itself is a political act, but then never addresses its problematic character. That very silence is also a political act, and those acts are the only basis we have to judge him upon until he speaks.

    But you are talking about a fucking fictional character in a fucking movie who undertakes fictional actions, which illicit other character reactions, all of which are entirely plausible.

    Has it occurred to you that depictions of social justice issues in fiction are not magically separated from how those activities are socially constructed in the real world? Why do you think rape culture is called rape culture? It isn’t just about the physical crime itself, but the enculturated social attitudes surrounding rape, and the attitudes that culture builds with regard to the moral culpability of the rapist and what all to often is conceptualized as the ‘moral culpability’ of the rape survivor – the notion that they must have done something to ‘provoke’ their rapists by means of dress, speech, manner or any of scores of other excuses rape apologists love so much. Todd Akin’s heinous notions of ‘legitimate rape’ did not emerge in a cultural vacuum, after all.

    Also, out of curiosity, I wonder if you reserve quite so much passionate ire on behalf of the rape survivors who have to live with what happened to them every day, including having their trauma compounded by crass and offensively misogynistic depictions of rape such as those seen in High Plains Drifter, or if it is only wealthy, privileged and powerful grandees of Hollywood who elicit such empathy from you?

    I mean, I don’t doubt Clint Eastwood would be thrilled to know that you have his back over the historical plausibility of violent misogynists raping women with impunity in the American Civil War era, but he probably doesn’t need your support. Rape survivors might just be a more deserving group for your concern.

    Something to think about…

  18. Bill Buckner says

    Gregory Greenwood,

    Actors bear a measure of the responsibility for the roles they take.

    Where is that written in stone?

    It is one thing to play a character who is morally ambiguous, but another to play a character who is depicted as engaging in an activity as harmful and widespread in our society as rape, and rape enacted without consequence and depicted as a morally justifiable act, and then never really engaging with the consequences of that portrayal,

    Again, where is that written in stone? If it is realistic that the character rapes and gets away with it, then that is how is how is should be portrayed.

    Also, out of curiosity, I wonder if you reserve quite so much passionate ire on behalf of the rape survivors who have to live with what happened to them every day,

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    I mean, I don’t doubt Clint Eastwood would be thrilled to know that you have his back over the historical plausibility of violent misogynists raping women

    Fuck you again.

  19. donkrieger says

    The author accurately asserts the truth of Clint Eastwood’s comment, “… walking on eggshells …” but then comes off the rails with his/her very personal attack on Eastwood which whether correct or not really misses the point. The necessary objective for our political discourse is to find common ground and solutions for our urgent problems. We entirely fail in this if that discourse dissolves into personal attacks, name calling, etc. The school yard taunts and shouts polarize us and guarantee that we will fail. Restraint, thoughtfulness, speaking with kindness and respect, these are called for most urgently when we are confronted with 14+ million voters in “F*** Muslims” tee shirts shouting “kill that N***” at our President, etc. The threat to our way of life is real and and far more immediate than it was when the Republicans nominated a venerated war veteran who almost certainly suffers from PTSD and an ignorant and extraordinarily mean-spirited ex-governor.

  20. The Mellow Monkey says

    I address this further in my comment, but just because I see this getting glossed over now, let me reiterate it at the top: Clint Eastwood was not a passive actor in that movie, just working for a paycheck. Clint Eastwood was the director.

    Bill Buckner

    It’s called their job. Portraying a slave-owner does not mean one is pro-slavery. Playing a feminist does not make one a feminist. It is up to the viewer to judge and possibly learn from the movie, and not to project onto the actors.

    Film does not exist in a vacuum. There is context. There is narrative. Portraying a slave-owner in Twelve Years a Slave is a different choice than portraying a slave-owner in Gone with the Wind. And if you direct a movie and cast yourself as the main character–as Clint Eastwood did–you’re not just passively doing a job. You had some kind of creative vision. You have created something with great purpose and thought.

    Making a movie like HPD that (let’s assume for the sake of argument) accurately depicts behavior that we find repulsive is a feature not a bug. If we believe people in that period would have or at least might have behaved that way–then the movie maker is doing their job.

    There are many ways to approach film criticism. There are entire schools of thought of critical theories. Simply because you personally think, “Yup, people would have acted that way if a rapist ghost came into an old west town,” doesn’t mean that all analysis by other people must stop.

    One notable film figure disagreed with you about this as an accurate depiction of the west: John Wayne. He denounced the film for its violence, called it revisionist history because he did not see it as a realistic portrayal of human behavior, and refused to work with Clint Eastwood. And I’m fairly sure John Wayne was at least passingly familiar with the concept of acting.

  21. applehead says

    He has made “some really good movies?” Must have missed that. Lest we forget, this is a standout among his opus:

    http://www.raggededgemagazine.com/reviews/drakemillionbaby.html

    Million Dollar Baby is one big revenge fantasy against the disabled, and here you can’t pull the spurious argument that the actor doesn’t agree with the character. It’s not so much a movie as a propaganda piece beating the audience over the head with Eastwood’s opinion, stemming from his vendetta against the ADA.

  22. Bill Buckner says

    Film does not exist in a vacuum. There is context. There is narrative. Portraying a slave-owner in Twelve Years a Slave is a different choice than portraying a slave-owner in Gone with the Wind. And if you direct a movie and cast yourself as the main character–as Clint Eastwood did–you’re not just passively doing a job. You had some kind of creative vision. You have created something with great purpose and thought.

    So? It does not mean that’s how he thinks as a person. Why don’t you assume he is his character from Bridges of Madison County? Or the director of any of the other movies he directed. He may very well have said to himself, this is a brutal scenario. The town had paid for his murder by the gang that they then railroaded, in a brutal time a century ago, and the characters would have been misogynist. Modern feminism had not been born. In and of itself it says nothing about Eastwood’s mores. His creative vision might have included delivering a movie that was faithful to the hideousness of the time and culture.

    One notable film figure disagreed with you about this as an accurate depiction of the west: John Wayne. He denounced the film for its violence, called it revisionist history because he did not see it as a realistic portrayal of human behavior, and refused to work with Clint Eastwood. And I’m fairly sure John Wayne was at least passingly familiar with the concept of acting.

    OK — so what? So weird argument from authority? What John Wayne says doesn’t matter. What you say is what should matter to you. If you think, given the scenario of the movie, that it is implausible that Eastwood’s character would have behaved as he did, then criticize the movie. If you think the behavior fits with the scenario and the context–which I’ll remind you is not in 2016 on a college campus–then in that regard you have no basis for criticism.

  23. Gregory Greenwood says

    Bill Buckner @ 20;

    Where is that written in stone?

    So, an actor depicting Pol Pot as a misunderstood hero, as well as acting in and (as Mellow Monkey points out ) directing this hypothetical movie that goes on to claim that the Killing Fields really weren’t so bad, and it was all a conspiracy to blacken the name of the noble Khmer Rouge, would bear no responsibility for their actions?

    Again, where is that written in stone? If it is realistic that the character rapes and gets away with it, then that is how is how is should be portrayed.

    How is it that you don’t grasp the connection between culture and society? Works of fiction don’t just float free from day to day life – they help to inform attitudes, and those attitudes shape actions.

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    You came rolling onto a thread to defend Eastwood from a critical analysis of his prior actions and acting career with regard to this issue*, and did so on Pharyngula, a site frequented by several rape survivors. Now, either you didn’t know that, making you careless and lacking in the forethought to consider where you are before opining on this issue, or you knew and didn’t care, making you heartless.

    Which was it – fool or sadist?

    Fuck you again.

    Oh, that sentiment is more than reciprocated, believe me.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————

    * It is not as though this is a one off either – Eastwood is a repeat offender when it comes to misogynistic roles in cinema. Ever heard of a little flick called Play Misty For Me? It is about a womanizing radio DJ who winds up being stalked by one of his casual lady acquaintances, a situation finally resolved when, after she attacks him with a knife, with one manly punch he hits her so hard that she totters backwards several feet and falls over a railing down a cliff to her death. Care to explain the ‘historical plausibility’ of a woman stalking a man, when in the truly vast majority of cases, stalking (especially stalking with violence) is a man stalking a woman?

  24. Gregory Greenwood says

    Bill Buckner @ 20;

    Where is that written in stone?

    So, an actor depicting Pol Pot as a misunderstood hero, as well as acting in and (as Mellow Monkey points out ) directing this hypothetical movie that goes on to claim that the Killing Fields really weren’t so bad, and it was all a conspiracy to blacken the name of the noble Khmer Rouge, would bear no responsibility for their actions?

    Again, where is that written in stone? If it is realistic that the character rapes and gets away with it, then that is how is how is should be portrayed.

    How is it that you don’t grasp the connection between culture and society? Works of fiction don’t just float free from day to day life – they help to inform attitudes, and those attitudes shape actions.

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    You came rolling onto a thread to defend Eastwood from a critical analysis of his prior actions and acting career with regard to this issue*, and did so on Pharyngula, a site frequented by several rape survivors. Now, either you didn’t know that, making you careless and lacking in the forethought to consider where you are before opining on this issue, or you knew and didn’t care, making you heartless.

    Which was it – fool or sadist?

    Fuck you again.

    Oh, that sentiment is more than reciprocated, believe me.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————

    * It is not as though this is a one off either – Eastwood is a repeat offender when it comes to misogynistic roles in cinema. Ever heard of a little flick called Play Misty For Me? It is about a womanizing radio DJ who winds up being stalked by one of his casual lady acquaintances, a situation finally resolved when, after she attacks him with a knife, with one manly punch he hits her so hard that she totters backwards several feet and falls over a railing down a cliff to her death. Care to explain the ‘historical plausibility’ of a woman stalking a man, when in the truly vast majority of cases, stalking (especially stalking with violence) is a man stalking a woman?

  25. Gregory Greenwood says

    Hmm – weird posting glitch again. Apologies if this appears more than once.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————

    Bill Buckner @ 20;

    Where is that written in stone?

    So, an actor depicting Pol Pot as a misunderstood hero, as well as acting in and (as Mellow Monkey points out ) directing this hypothetical movie that goes on to claim that the Killing Fields really weren’t so bad, and it was all a conspiracy to blacken the name of the noble Khmer Rouge, would bear no responsibility for their actions?

    Again, where is that written in stone? If it is realistic that the character rapes and gets away with it, then that is how is how is should be portrayed.

    How is it that you don’t grasp the connection between culture and society? Works of fiction don’t just float free from day to day life – they help to inform attitudes, and those attitudes shape actions.

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    You came rolling onto a thread to defend Eastwood from a critical analysis of his prior actions and acting career with regard to this issue*, and did so on Pharyngula, a site frequented by several rape survivors. Now, either you didn’t know that, making you careless and lacking in the forethought to consider where you are before opining on this issue, or you knew and didn’t care, making you heartless.

    Which was it – fool or sadist?

    Fuck you again.

    Oh, that sentiment is more than reciprocated, believe me.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————

    * It is not as though this is a one off either – Eastwood is a repeat offender when it comes to misogynistic roles in cinema. Ever heard of a little flick called Play Misty For Me? It is about a womanizing radio DJ who winds up being stalked by one of his casual lady acquaintances, a situation finally resolved when, after she attacks him with a knife, with one manly punch he hits her so hard that she totters backwards several feet and falls over a railing down a cliff to her death. Care to explain the ‘historical plausibility’ of a woman stalking a man, when in the truly vast majority of cases, stalking (especially stalking with violence) is a man stalking a woman?

  26. Bill Buckner says

    He has made “some really good movies?” Must have missed that. Lest we forget, this is a standout among his opus:

    Yes he has. And the only basis for saying he hasn’t is “I don’t like what he said in real life, so I’ll dismiss his body of work.” Unforgiven, for example, is a masterpiece. Unforgiven, by the way, has in some sense the opposite message with regards to violence from High Plains Drifter. But Eastwood the man deserves no kudos for the message of Unforgiven (after all, he may disagree with it for all we know). But the film is a masterpiece.

  27. Gregory Greenwood says

    Maybe the link is the problem? One more try.

    ——————————————————————————————————————————————————————–

    Bill Buckner @ 20;

    Where is that written in stone?

    So, an actor depicting Pol Pot as a misunderstood hero, as well as acting in and (as Mellow Monkey points out ) directing this hypothetical movie that goes on to claim that the Killing Fields really weren’t so bad, and it was all a conspiracy to blacken the name of the noble Khmer Rouge, would bear no responsibility for their actions?

    Again, where is that written in stone? If it is realistic that the character rapes and gets away with it, then that is how is how is should be portrayed.

    How is it that you don’t grasp the connection between culture and society? Works of fiction don’t just float free from day to day life – they help to inform attitudes, and those attitudes shape actions.

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    You came rolling onto a thread to defend Eastwood from a critical analysis of his prior actions and acting career with regard to this issue*, and did so on Pharyngula, a site frequented by several rape survivors. Now, either you didn’t know that, making you careless and lacking in the forethought to consider where you are before opining on this issue, or you knew and didn’t care, making you heartless.

    Which was it – fool or sadist?

    Fuck you again.

    Oh, that sentiment is more than reciprocated, believe me.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————————

    * It is not as though this is a one off either – Eastwood is a repeat offender when it comes to misogynistic roles in cinema. Ever heard of a little flick called Play Misty For Me? It is about a womanizing radio DJ who winds up being stalked by one of his casual lady acquaintances, a situation finally resolved when, after she attacks him with a knife, with one manly punch he hits her so hard that she totters backwards several feet and falls over a railing down a cliff to her death. Care to explain the ‘historical plausibility’ of a woman stalking a man, when in the truly vast majority of cases, stalking (especially stalking with violence) is a man stalking a woman? And this was made in 1971, when the early feminist movement most certainly did already exist.

  28. Gregory Greenwood says

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    And coming onto a thread on a website freq

  29. The Mellow Monkey says

    Bill Buckner

    Modern feminism had not been born. In and of itself it says nothing about Eastwood’s mores. His creative vision might have included delivering a movie that was faithful to the hideousness of the time and culture.

    “That’s just how things were back then” is not an excuse because a) at what point in history were rapist ghosts roaming the Old West? and b) there have always been people who condemned rape. To act like condemning rape is some newfangled idea is an active, bizarre choice on Eastwood’s part, if that’s what you think was going on. Here we have a record of a native Byzantine woman killing a Nordic would-be rapist and his companions were so shamed by what their countryman did that they gave her all of the dead man’s belongings. This was in the 12th century.

    OK — so what? So weird argument from authority? What John Wayne says doesn’t matter.

    You seem to think that you finding it realistic matters, so I pointed out that’s not a universal viewpoint. Whether or not I find a rapist ghost believable is actually not in any way pertinent to my own approach to critical analysis. Arguing about the realism of a rapist ghost seems like the stupidest possible approach to analyzing a film.

    My view is that this was a creative choice and can be analyzed as a creative choice. Clint Eastwood was not forced to follow a script because he was desperate for work as an actor, as he was successful at the time and was the director. So he made a creative choice. Clint Eastwood did not have a pack of alternate universe historians looming over him, telling him he must adhere strictly to their ghost-rape history. So he made a creative choice.

  30. Gregory Greenwood says

    Damn it second try –

    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    Bill Buckner @ 20;

    Fuck you for this argument from intimidation. Just fuck you. Only scum-bags make this kind of cheap extrapolation and call it an argument.

    And coming onto a website frequented by rape survivors to complain about how very mean we are being by applying critical analysis to Eastwood’s acting and directorial choices with regard to the depiction of rape in cinema is the work of a moral paragon, I take it?

  31. Gregory Greenwood says

    Maybe this comment will actually work for once.

    ————————————————————————————————————————————

    The Mellow Monkey @ 27;

    My view is that this was a creative choice and can be analyzed as a creative choice. Clint Eastwood was not forced to follow a script because he was desperate for work as an actor, as he was successful at the time and was the director. So he made a creative choice. Clint Eastwood did not have a pack of alternate universe historians looming over him, telling him he must adhere strictly to their ghost-rape history. So he made a creative choice.

    And not just a creative choice, but a political and moral choice as well. This movie wasn’t made that long ago. There were almost certainly voices expressing doubts about this plot line, and you don’t need to be a visionary to realize that this sort of depiction of rape could be a problem in 1973, when early feminism was already very much in existence. Eastwood chose to go down this path, and it seems inconceivable that he could have done so in total ignorance. And even if he somehow was unaware back then, it doesn’t excuse his silence in the decades since.

  32. Bill Buckner says

    “That’s just how things were back then” is not an excuse because

    Yes it is. Historical cultural accuracy (if that’s what it is) is not a bad thing.

    To act like condemning rape is some newfangled idea is an active, bizarre choice on Eastwood’s part

    Given the scenario– a town of murderers who feared for their lives because the gang they railroaded was about to be released and was bent on murderous revenge, and that they looked at the Eastwood character as their only chance to survive– would they have looked the other way from rape to save their own hides–given they lack of morality they already displayed? Yes it is entirely plausible, not matter how often rape was condemned by how many cultures before and after.

    Arguing about the realism of a rapist ghost seems like the stupidest possible approach to analyzing a film.

    Give me a break. The fact that he is a ghost is irrelevant. That’s the premise of the movie. You are mixing apples and oranges. You can criticize the movie for having an absurd premise (I think it does) but what I am talking about is the character’s behavior given the premise and the context. Was it believable? Most American movies have unrealistic premises. You can criticize the original Jurassic Park for at least two unrealistic premises (the Dinosaur cloning and the lesser-known premise of the park’s control code being written at that time in FORTRAN and not C.) Separately you can criticize the direction and performances given the premise. We are talking about the latter.

  33. anbheal says

    That’s just silly to say he hasn’t made great movies. He has two more Best Director awards than Stanley Kubrick, both deserved. Letters From Iwo Jima and In The Line Of Fire were also top-flight films, very nearly great. We’ll ignore the Sondra Locke and orangutan disasters.

    But where the hell is his agent? It’s sad…..as a kid in the 60s and 70s, Clint and Leonard Nimoy and John Lennon were probably the coolest things ever. But now his legacy is going to be tainted, a la John Wayne or Charlton Heston or Walt Disney. He could donate money to whichever politician he wants, vote for whomever he wants, but one of his kids or his agent should tell him to shut the fuck up.

    I mean, we knew Paul Newman was a liberal, but he made salad dressing, he didn’t go dumping all over baseball and apple pie.

  34. unclefrogy says

    theater and literature including film, are filled with despicable people doing truly awful things some times the story works and sometimes it don’t.
    Are the people who are involved then to be always judged as the same as their worst characters and their characters actions?
    I do not personally like Eastwood’s politics very much I think might have some un-examined biases.
    As was mentioned above he has made a very wide range of stories into movies some were very successful some were not. Hollywood being what it is does not like to let people make movies that do not make any money. With in the genre of violent westerns it fits right in and was of course aimed at the audience that flock to that kind of movie maybe it pushed the envelope to gain interest to stand out and make money, maybe it was supposed to gross everyone out.
    Is Eastwood the same as his character in the movie?
    Is that always true of actors and their characters ?

    uncle frogy

  35. busterggi says

    Applehead – Try Bronco Billy. Once you can put aside what he did to Sondra Locke in real life anyways.

  36. unclefrogy says

    actors are not the people they play, that kind of thinking gave us Reagan and the governernator
    uncle frogy

  37. Vivec says

    If there was, hypothetically, a modern remake of Birth of a Nation that was just as much pro-KKK propaganda as the original, would the actors’ decision to take part in KKK propaganda at all reflect on their character?

  38. says

    “That’s just how things were back then” is not an excuse because

    Yes it is. Historical cultural accuracy (if that’s what it is) is not a bad thing.

    Way to miss the friggin’ point. When talking about a movie’s message, you have to consider more than just the basic facts of the plot. You have to consider how those facts are portrayed. The exact same actions can be shown as laudable or horrific, depending on how the movie portrays it. When discussing how the movie might reflect the opinions of actors and crew, or the cultural impact of the movie, you can’t just look at the surface level.

    I can’t think of a good example at this moment, so this is left as an exercise for the reader.

  39. The Mellow Monkey says

    Bill Buckner

    Yes it is. Historical cultural accuracy (if that’s what it is) is not a bad thing.

    I said (and you quoted me, so you must have seen it) that historical accuracy is not an excuse. Because it’s not. Because this isn’t a documentary, because this didn’t really happen, because there have been historical events when even murderous Vikings recognized that rape was wrong, because movies can portray terrible things and also condemn them with a modern eye. Eastwood made active, creative choices. This does not mean Eastwood is a rapist, or Eastwood is his character, or anything else like that. He made a choice. We can analyze that choice.

    The creator of a work of fiction has chosen to portray things in a specific way. When we analyze it, we can discuss and examine every aspect of it. We’re not somehow incapable of saying “this is morally repellent” because someone thinks that it’s realistic. The plausibility of terrible fictional people existing and ignoring terrible fictional things isn’t the issue. The creator is not forced to portray terrible fictional people and forced to portray them ignoring terrible fictional things and forced to never show any disapproval of those terrible fictional things. The creator has chosen to do this, every step of the way.

    Oftentimes in critical analysis, its the unspoken assumptions by a creator that are the most interesting. In High Plains Drifter we see the assumption that women who are sexually assaulted will relax and enjoy it eventually. This raises a lot of questions. Why is this here? What does this assumption say? Why did Eastwood choose to have the assaulted women be happy about it afterwards, while making it clear they were being assaulted by having them scream and fight beforehand? What does this mean? What view of the world and human relations are we seeing here? If the town is being punished for their role in the sheriff’s death, why do most of the men come through just fine and the only named female characters in the entire cast are dragged screaming into the Stranger’s embrace? And, hell, to borrow from you for a moment I’ll throw in one more question: is it realistic for sexual assault victims to be pleased by it?

  40. Bill Buckner says

    Vivec #33,

    I think there is a distinction (perhaps in the eye of the beholder) between a film made with the explicit purpose of being a propaganda film, as opposed to a drama that happens to depict historical ugliness. So yes, if the the actor understood it was a propaganda film and made it anyway, then I would say it does reflect on their character.

    On the other hand, if an actor plays in a drama that depicts the rise of the KKK then I would say it doesn’t.

    Do you think if an actor plays Rosa Parks in a movie it reflects favorably on their character? I don’t. I think it says nothing about it at all.

  41. Vivec says

    Do you think if an actor plays Rosa Parks in a movie it reflects favorably on their character?

    Depends on the movie. Is it a motivational anti-racism movie, a politically neutral biopic, or a racist hit job? All of those would have an effect on my view on their decision and character.

  42. Reginald Selkirk says

    One of my favorite Eastwood movies is A Perfect World (1993). Eastwood directed and played a part. The star was Kevin Costner. Unlike many Eastwood movies, APW actually showed some awareness of moral ambiguity. Costner and Eastwood could have both walked away with Oscars for that one – if they hadn’t dragged out the final scene to maudlin extent.

  43. Bill Buckner says

    The Mellow Monkey,

    The creator of a work of fiction has chosen to portray things in a specific way. When we analyze it, we can discuss and examine every aspect of it. We’re not somehow incapable of saying “this is morally repellent” because someone thinks that it’s realistic.

    It depicts a culture that is morally repellant. That doesn’t make it (the movie) morally repellant.

    The creator is not forced to portray terrible fictional people and forced to portray them ignoring terrible fictional things and forced to never show any disapproval of those terrible fictional things. The creator has chosen to do this, every step of the way.

    But the creator can choose to portray a morally bankrupt culture and is not obligated to show disapproval–they can leave it to the audience–perhaps they even should leave it to the audience– to reach their own conclusions and make their own judgements.

    we see the assumption that women who are sexually assaulted will relax and enjoy it eventually.

    I’m trying to remember that. She tried to kill him afterwards, and later was very upset that her boyfriend wouldn’t kill him for her. If she was portrayed as enjoying the rape then I think that is a very valid point to criticize, even given the scenario and context of the movie, which in no way demands that the victim enjoy the rape. In fact I would agree that it is reprehensible if she was portrayed as enjoying it. But that she was raped, and that the the people of the town looked the other way, is not valid criticism of the movie. It (at least arguably) fits the story and context.

    If the town is being punished for their role in the sheriff’s death, why do most of the men come through just fine

    You must not have seen the movie. Most of the men end up dead.

  44. davidnangle says

    Another way to look at the rape of the hotel-owning wife, (I’m going off memory here,) is from the point of view of the writer. The rape scene, and him winning her over is character-building. The rape and the seduction of the wife lets us know what the writer wanted us to think about each character.

    Remember, this separated the wife from her husband in a humiliating way. Part of this, in the writer’s mind, was probably about punishing the husband as well as rewarding the wife (with having a real man, and getting rid of a weak coward.)

    Reprehensible thought processes in the mind of the writer, no doubt about it. The writer considered it conceivable that some women could be successfully made to love the rapist, to her benefit. The main character, of course, could tell that THIS woman was one of those. The Fifty Shades story probably used this kind of logic.

    It may be possible that such combinations of male/female couplings exist in happiness, but I don’t want to think about it.

  45. Bill Buckner says

    Vivec,

    Depends on the movie. Is it a motivational anti-racism movie, a politically neutral biopic, or a racist hit job? All of those would have an effect on my view on their decision and character.

    Assume the best possible light. I would still say it, absent additional data, says nothing about the character of the actor. The actor may be making the film from a passion for the message (commendable) or simply for a paycheck (neutral). The actor may hate the message (despicable). So how can making the film reflect favorable on their character?

  46. Vivec says

    So how can making the film reflect favorable on their character?

    Assuming the best possible light and they did a really good job, I’d consider it commendable that they took a well written role in a good movie and did a good job in it, thus allowing the movie to get its message out that much better.

  47. Siobhan says

    happens to depict historical ugliness

    I see that “Eastwood made a choice” argument flew right over your head.

    Rape doesn’t just happen to be depicted. The creators choose to depict it. They choose the subtext, the circumstances, the victim, the perpetrator. It is not an accident of nature but a creative choice. In this case, Eastwood’s creative choice, as he also directed the film.

  48. says

    It depicts a culture that is morally repellant. That doesn’t make it (the movie) morally repellant.

    No. The argument is that how it portrays it is morally repellant.

  49. The Mellow Monkey says

    Bill Buckner

    I’m trying to remember that. She tried to kill him afterwards, and later was very upset that her boyfriend wouldn’t kill him for her.

    Here’s both scenes. [Warning: YouTube video at link.] The first woman screams, she cries, she fights, and then she clutches him in ecstasy and moans. Her sexual satisfaction is a huge focus of the latter half of the scene. Later when she tries to kill him, the Stranger makes a wisecrack about how long it took her to get upset. Second scene, the hotelier’s wife shouts and fights and arms herself against him, accusing him of having raped the first woman. She tries to stab him. As soon as he kisses her, she goes limp. Then she lazes in bed with him afterwards, clearly pleased with herself.

    So. Two happy women, at least immediately afterwards.

    You must not have seen the movie. Most of the men end up dead.

    So far, I’ve seen YouTube clips and synopses. I haven’t made it through the entire movie yet. If most of the townsmen die, I retract that question. From the synopsis I read, it sounded as though deaths were limited to the outlaws. But that’s still an uneven application of the Stranger’s justice and worth exploring: men die, women get assaulted. Why is that?

    From the way the Stranger speaks to the second woman, its implied he doesn’t view these as assaults. It’s quite possible that they weren’t seen that way either in the 1970s when the movie was made. Plenty of bodice rippers written at the same time seemed to believe pleasure = consent. But just as Shakespearean scholars will dissect the antisemitism in The Merchant of Venice, we can still pick apart the rape culture of the 1970s being projected onto the 19th century.

    I’ll likely get through the whole movie tonight, just out of my own curiosity.

  50. Bill Buckner says

    I see that “Eastwood made a choice” argument flew right over your head.

    It didn’t fly over my head. For fucks sake–my response flew over your head. Rape happens, and as such it can and arguably should be depicted in film, as long as it is not obviously gratuitous. In this film it, and especially the “let’s all look the other way,” is arguably not gratuitous.

    Rape doesn’t just happen to be depicted. The creators choose to depict it.

    Well duh. They also choose to depict murder, arson, …

    They choose the subtext, the circumstances, the victim, the perpetrator. It is not an accident of nature but a creative choice. In this case, Eastwood’s creative choice, as he also directed the film.

    Did I say otherwise? Did I argue the rape scene was depicted against Eastwood’s will? If so point me to where I wrote such nonsense so that I can retract it. What I argued was that the rape scene and the reaction was plausible for the characters, the scenario, and the context. I never argued that it was not a creative choice. Where did you pick that up?

  51. Bill Buckner says

    The Mellow Monkey,

    I agree that any depiction of the victim enjoying the rape is inexcusable. I admit I forgot that the hotel owner wife was also raped.

  52. says

    Sounds to me like the argument is that Eastwood, by making a movie that presents rape as a legitimate form of punishment, has contributed to the normalization of rape and the support of rape culture and that this may be indicative of some antiquated attitudes on is part. Something like that.

  53. Bernard Bumner says

    It may be a tone deaf reading on my part, but the point of the Stranger in High Plains Drifter seems to be that he is terrible, almost a devil. He is sadistic revenge made flesh. I’m not sure that the film demands that anything the Stranger does is considered just. There is an implication that the spirit is born as much from the collective guilt of the town, and a rotten decadence that gave rise to that first murder, as it is from the soul of the dead marshal.

    I think it is possible to read the film in a way where the Stranger is unjust and terrible, and where nothing good cones from any of it.

    Depictions of cruel violence and humiliation fill the entire piece, and if everyone gets what they deserve, it is difficult to argue from any progressive perspective that any of it is deserved. What was needed was fair and official justice.

    Having said that. The depiction of corrective rape is a real problem, and it is an extreme example of common tropes which treat the sexual assault of women as legitimate, and show women submitting to and enjoying various violations. Hollywood is ripe with examples of forced kisses in works aimed not towards adults, as for HPD, but at family audiences. I wonder whether those are more damaging in their effect.

    Oh, and we all already knew that Eastwood was a right-wing ass, didn’t we? Is it surprising that he is also an anti-PC Trump supporter?

  54. mithrandir says

    mamba @6:

    Thus said, he would have expressions that would make us cringe as we got older. For example, if he was describing something the colour black (like a dark night or a paint job or something innocent) he’d often say “…it was a dark as a n**ger’s hole…” and not ONCE did he see anything wrong with it. It was just an expression from his youth after all. He’ll catch himself and stop himself nowadays, but oftentimes it rolled off the toungue. (yes, even once when my sister’s black boyfriend was visiting…THAT one was painful to watch, even though her boyfriend ‘got it’, liked dad, and understood it as just a slipped expression). He just grew up with people talking like that in his youth and he never thought much about it. It was so common a word it was just a word to him, no racism ever intended, but seriously still messed up.

    You remind me of my mom, who still persists in using “Jew” as a verb, as in “jewed him out of something”, playing off the stereotype of Jews as ruthless and unscrupulous deal-makers. As with your father, it’s a habit she developed in her youth, and although she doesn’t consciously hold any anti-Semitic views, she doesn’t feel the need to try to break herself of the habit.

  55. tkreacher says

    mithrandir #52

    and although she doesn’t consciously hold any anti-Semitic views, she doesn’t feel the need to try to break herself of the habit.

    Given that the second part of this implies that she is aware that it is anti-Semitic, this seems to me to be a contradiction.

    mamba #6

    I find a similar contradiction in this post.

    My family was absolutely not racist

    and

    Thus said, he would have expressions that would make us cringe as we got older. For example, if he was describing something the colour black (like a dark night or a paint job or something innocent) he’d often say “…it was a dark as a n**ger’s hole…” and not ONCE did he see anything wrong with it. It was just an expression from his youth after all. He’ll catch himself and stop himself nowadays, but oftentimes it rolled off the toungue. (yes, even once when my sister’s black boyfriend was visiting…THAT one was painful to watch, even though her boyfriend ‘got it’, liked dad, and understood it as just a slipped expression).

    Don’t gel, to me. It might be accurate to say that he is is only racist in some minor (is it minor? I mean, I know to say it’s “absolutely not racist” is ridiculous – but I don’t know if it’s even just minor. I know that if I heard him say dark as a n**gers hole I probably wouldn’t consider it minor, and I wouldn’t take it just as a “slipped expression. I’d say, “wow, you’re a fucking racist”) ways, and is working on it. But to say that this can coexist with “absolutely not racist” is, frankly, absurd in my opinion.

    I get growing up in an environment where certain words are so ubiquitous that they can be assimilated pretty easily without attaching them in some concerted way with a group of people. But I don’t think anyone is dense enough not to know that the words are slurs. This shows a casual disregard for the group being slurred, which is racist.

    Not “I’m looking to beat me a negro tonight” racist. But racist.

    Further, continuing to use the slur even after it’s been pointed out only adds to this. If one realizes that something is a slur, is demeaning to an entire group of people, and it doesn’t begin to jar to even , then I’d say the racism/bigotry is almost beyond casual at that point.

    I’d reconsider terms like “absolutely not racist” and “doesn’t consciously hold anti-Semitic views” when “n**ger’s holes” and “Jewed” are being causally tossed out – no matter how common they might have been back in the day, or whatever.

    By the way, I’m not all offended and trying being hostile here – I often come off more hostile than intended. Figured I’d just put that in here, knowing that I’d look back later and think, “hmm, that seems pretty aggressive.” :P

  56. tkreacher says

    Me above, “doesn’t begin to jar even when just hearing someone else use it“*

    Also and extra “is” is in there somewhere.

  57. snuffcurry says

    Bill Buckner, you keep endorsing two contrary ideas: that we can never know what existed within Eastwood’s innermost heart of hearts when planning, writing, and executing his film, and that if only “additional data” existed, you would allow strangers on the interwebs the extraordinary privilege of approaching film with a critical eye. What is this “additional data” you refer to? How do we unearth it?

    Further, you keep trying to contextualize two rapes within the context of the ghost’s “revenge” against the town. Why are only the women raped and the men killed? Rape is inarguably a humiliating and frightening experience, one that can destroy a person’s ego, leave them with permanent and haunting scars, damaging their reputation and potentially making them an untouchable in society; so, if one was planning revenge, rape might have its uses. Men who are raped, particularly by other men, experience all these consequences, with the additional humiliation of having been feminized, being treated like a woman (one of several fates usually categorized as Worse Than Death). The film acknowledges that being a rapist can raise your position in society, and that being a victim of rape can cost you your position. Curious, then, the men weren’t raped. It’s almost as if your explanation for the two rapes is unsupported by the evidence. But, no wonder you’re so threatened by the analysis here, given that it disproves something you very much want to believe for reasons you seem wary to explicitly lay out.

  58. Saad says

    Film critic and white man Lewis Beale has declared Eastwood can’t be racist because some of his best co-stars are black.

    So I ask you:

    Does a racist make a film like “Gran Torino,” in which a grumpy old racist learns compassion for others when a Hmong family moves in next door?

    Does a racist make a film like “Bird,” the story of black jazz musician Charlie Parker?

    Does a racist appear in a film in which his lover is a black woman, as McGee was in “The Eiger Sanction?”

    Does a racist consistently appear along with, or cast black performers in key roles in his films (Morgan Freeman in “Unforgiven” and “Million Dollar Baby,” Isaiah Washington and Lisa Gay Hamilton in “True Crime”)?

  59. tkreacher says

    And Mel Gibson can’t be racist because he was best friends with Danny Glover in multiple Lethal Weapon movies.

  60. says

    Back in the day my mum used to smoke everywhere, even with us little one’s in the car. Clearly, it couldn’t have been toxic back then. Nowadays people start acting like you’re trying to poison their baby just because you lean into the pram while having a burning cigarette in your mouth….

  61. The Mellow Monkey says

    Saad

    Film critic and white man Lewis Beale has declared Eastwood can’t be racist because some of his best co-stars are black.

    Mr. Beale appears to have mistaken racism for vampirism and POC for sunlight. The fact that Eastwood doesn’t burst into flames when exposed to POC doesn’t actually mean anything.

  62. tkreacher says

    Someone here said something to the effect, “100% of misogynistic wife-beaters are married to women”, which I plan to use when I hear “X can’t be racist, some of X best friends are black”.

  63. mamba says

    #59, Oh I agree that it sure sounded racist, and anyone listening would start listening for the banjos, but that’s what made it so messed up. The point was that HE agreed that it was messed up too, he saw the same thing, but growing up he never saw it as such, so it burned into his brain as just an expression. (like the other poster’s mom saying to JEW someone meaning to cheat them.)

    Of course he stopped himself whenever he could, but the only way to compare it with an example would be like if you thought that all your life “queer” was a term of flattery for the gay community, like you honestly thought it meant “different” or “uniquely fabulous” and then one day you realize that the gay community hates that word. You’d stop from calling them that from this point forward, but after decades of it just being another NON-JUDGEMENTAL word to you, it would slip out a lot, even if you had no negative feelings towards the gay person…simply becasue to you that word would NOT be a negative.

    In Dad’s case, weirdly the same. He never say “niggers”, he just saw people with different colours, but at the time where he was growing up, “nigger” was just what black people were called (I guess? I never lived that casual racism nor would want to!). But I agree with you, it would be almost impossible for anyone to think he was not racist unless you knew him based on that.

  64. tkreacher says

    mamba #67

    I still think we’ve got a different position on this.

    I don’t think it “sounds” racist, I think it is racist. And, even if I knew him, I would think it was, and he was, racist to at least some degree.

    You’re analogy is a bit off, because there is no corollary with regards to n**ger in terms of flattery. The word f**got would be a closer fit, and nobody confuses that with a flattering term. That, however, is a perfect example.

    When I was a kid I used the word f**got from time to time to disparage some other (ostensibly) straight kid, because I knew it would hurt his feelings. I never hated, feared, or saw a gay person as anything other than a person, had gay friends, had confronted people who bullied gay people, and would never have (purposefully) used the term to disparage a gay person.

    The term wasn’t linked to gay people in any meaningful way, to my mind, when I would casually, laughingly, jokingly sling it at someone. It was just a common insult used to deride someone, I thought.

    However, that was thoughtless and, indeed, unequivocally homophobic. Absolutely, no-bones-about-it, homophobic. Notice that though I didn’t considered myself homophobic at the time, I am saying I, without a doubt, was. There’s no getting around this. It doesn’t matter if the gay people I knew wouldn’t have considered me some vile, bullying, full on bigot – they for sure would have thought I was homophobic and thoughtless and would have been hurt if they ever heard me using the word casually in that way. And they’d have been right.

    Further, the very first time I read about how it was a slur (nobody had ever said anything about it in person because it was, and still is, so normalized), and I saw the obviousness of this, I immediately cringed. “Fuck. That’s just straight up, by necessity, equating homosexuality with ‘bad’, and further, doing so with a slur used to denigrate gay people. Ugh. I wonder how may times I used that word in public, how many times a gay person might have heard me, or, how many people I’ve said it to might have actually been gay without me even knowing it, how many people I’ve hurt, or just in general have added to the normalization of using the word…”

    And, though it had been normalized, though it had been everywhere, though I had used it and never consciously, specifically, intentionally used it to bash a gay person, I never used it again. What’s more, when I hear it in public I’m instantly reactionary, and I’ll say something.

    My point is that I just don’t buy into the “slipping out a lot”, or even “slipping out sometimes”, but not actually racist/homophobic/bigoted thing. Aside from certain conditions or syndromes, words don’t “slip out”. I say them. People say them. And if a vicious slur – and by all accounts everyone discussed seems to have been made aware that they are viscous slurs – continues to be used then that person is at the very least racist/homophobic/bigoted to the degree that it isn’t a big enough deal for it to stop them from “slipping” it into casual conversation.

    And, to be clear, I’m not saying I’m not saying I am now some flawless saint who is free of any prejudices – I’m sure there are any number of implicit biases and assumptions I might still suffer from time to time. I’m just saying that when I recognize them, I will call them what they are, examine them, and correct them best I can… and will certainly avoid spreading them casually.

    Which brings me to my final point – I know that even I, who am mixed, have found internalized racism within myself from time to time; It is therefore absurd for me to think that an old white man who “slips” the term “dark as a n**ger’s hole” from time to time can possibly be “absolutely not racist”, and that, “if I knew him” I would believe that were true.

  65. mamba says

    tkreacher: Hard to argue that, as it clearly is racist, even though he personally was not. Maybe it’s clearer to say that he was actively trying to get past the ingrained racism of his youth, even though he didn’t actively share the belief? But yeah, to say it’s not racist is, as you say, not correct. IT is racist, HE simply wasn’t. At least, consciously.

    Ah well, at least he was trying to counter the mentality…and the expressions that it spawned. Still embarrassing though.