Southern Comfort

Is it true that southerners are more prone to violence than people from other parts of the country? Don't know, but my gut reaction would by "Hell, yes! You all have a problem with that!!?" I noticed when I lived in NYC for four months that New Yorkers routinely said things to each other clearly NOT expecting a physical confrontation to result, and our southern students just as clearly expected just that.

Maybe this item is evidence:

Pitchers from the South are more likely to hit batters

You might call this one "Sentences to Ponder." It only applies, however, when the batter is white.

I found this info here. Most of the comments seem to take issue with the report. Except for this one:

Southerners are, true to stereotype, nicer and more polite in default situations but much more aggressive when their honor is threatened. Southerners have higher rates of "crimes of passion" but lower rates of regular premeditated crimes. Southerners are also more likely to forgive someone who committed a crime of passion or a crime to uphold his honor.

Come to think of it, the comments are as interesting as the post.

"Avatar" and the White Messiah complex

Haven't had a chance to see "Avatar" yet, a fact partly explained by snow storms and cataract surgery. Both at the same time can complicate your life. I have been reminded of the fact that Carmen really doesn't like winter on a mountaintop. Anyway, we have not been able to see the movie, though I, Carmen, Maire, Murty, and young Clovis all intend to see it soon when the weather lets up (say, April).

We are all agreed that we want to see it mainly for the stunning visual effect due to the new technology involved. None of us have heard anything good about the plot, dialogue, etc. But David Brooks offers his own commentary on the movie as a story, or myth, involving the ubiquitous "White Messiah."

This is the oft-repeated story about a manly young adventurer who goes into the wilderness in search of thrills and profit. But, once there, he meets the native people and finds that they are noble and spiritual and pure. And so he emerges as their Messiah, leading them on a righteous crusade against his own rotten civilization.

He then goes on to recount most of the action in "Avatar," making it sound slightly foolish and naive. Not to mention a bit racist.

It rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic. It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades. It rests on the assumption that illiteracy is the path to grace. It also creates a sort of two-edged cultural imperialism. Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.

It’s just escapism, obviously, but benevolent romanticism can be just as condescending as the malevolent kind — even when you surround it with pop-up ferns and floating mountains

Now when we actually see the movie I will write my own reaction to it. For the moment I will just say that I never thought illiteracy was a path to grace. But then, I was a Federal bureaucrat once.

but I got out after 10 months


UPDATE: Please see the comments. A reader thinks that Brooks is deriving much of his idea from this article from "Racism Review". He has a point. Check it out. If a student did this I would gig him not for plagiarism but for failure to cite the source of his inspiration.

A New Clemen's Contest

That's right folks. You have another chance to win a prize (to be determined). Try to guess which subset of the human race Michael Medved is being most insulting to in this quote taken from a recent column:

There is no rational basis for discomfort at playing with athletes of another race since science and experience show that human racial differences remain insignificant. The much better analogy for discomfort at gay teammates involves the widespread (and generally accepted) idea that women and men shouldn’t share locker rooms. Making gay males unwelcome in the intimate circumstances of an NBA team makes just as much sense as making straight males unwelcome in the showers for a women’s team at the WNBA. Most female athletes would prefer not to shower together with men not because they hate males (though some of them no doubt do), but because they hope to avoid the tension, distraction and complication that prove inevitable when issues of sexual attraction (and even arousal) intrude into the arena of competitive sports.

Tim Hardaway (and most of his former NBA teammates) wouldn’t welcome openly gay players into the locker room any more than they’d welcome profoundly unattractive, morbidly obese women. I specify unattractive females because if a young lady is attractive (or, even better, downright “hot”) most guys, very much including the notorious love machines of the National Basketball Association, would probably welcome her joining their showers. The ill-favored, grossly overweight female is the right counterpart to a gay male because, like the homosexual, she causes discomfort due to the fact that attraction can only operate in one direction. She might well feel drawn to the straight guys with whom she’s grouped, while they feel downright repulsed at the very idea of sex with her.

Just be sure to fill out your entry form in modern Kirghiz so you're entry can be properly judged (to cover expenses we had to offshore this job) and your prize, whatever it is, will soon be on its way.