In the comments of Gawker’s obituary for Joan Rivers, I pointed out that nobody seems to be remembering the fact that just a month or two ago, Rivers claimed that Palestinians deserve to die. This is about as gross and racist a thing as someone can say, but is permissible in American media because Arabs are not defended by the usual prohibition against racism. Many commenters popped up to say that Joan Rivers lived a long life and had a long career, and that it doesn’t make sense to mention that controversy in a brief obituary.
Well, here’s the first two paragraphs of Gawker’s obituary for Helen Thomas:
Whoops!
Which is not to single out Gawker. This dynamic can be found in publication after publication. It is inconceivable — literally inconceivable — to imagine that an American celebrity could say that Jews deserve to die a month before her death and not have that information be published in her obituary, right near the top. And this just goes again to show that, for all of our pretenses to equality and a principle of universal prohibition against targeting ethnic and racial groups for generalized criticism, we actually have no such prohibition against Arabs generally and Palestinians especially. They are a group that is valued so little, you can wish death on them and have the entire American media essentially ignore that fact at the time of your death.
Incidentally, I encourage you to listen to these interview clips of Helen Thomas, which demonstrate how much more reasonable and well-argued Thomas’s position was than that of Rivers. And yet these comments destroyed Thomas, while Rivers didn’t suffer a hit to her public reputation at all.
Update: Since somebody asked– no, I don’t think you have to dislike Rivers’s comedy because she said really ugly, racist stuff. It’s the whole Wagner thing. Bad people can do great stuff. Ty Cobb had a great OBP. It happens. You can say she was a good comedian without endorsing all of her views. But it would be nice to have it acknowledged that she did, in fact, have really ugly, racist views on Palestinians, so that should factor in how we think about her as a person. And my point here is more to say that if she had said “black people deserve to die” instead, that would have colored the portrayal of her death in the media much, much more.
Exactly my thoughts. Some tweets critical of Israel that can be misrepresented will ruin your career, but eliminationist rhetoric against Palestinians is at most seen as an unfortunate slip-up not thought to distract from other accomplishments – if not more or less openly approved of.
There was nothing at all racist in what she said. It could have been said against any enemy population, including an enemy of one’s own race. (And since this is the Internet, I have to spell out that this is not to excuse what she said in any way.)
Another comment about your post. Your really big on honesty in Internet discourse, so here are a couple points.
1. You didn’t cite Helen Thomas’s original comments that caused the controversy. Instead, you linked to a follow-up interview where she’d had time to prepare and explain her earlier, controversial remarks – the ones you didn’t even reference. (The Gawker obituary referenced “comments about Palestine,” but of course the actual controversy was about Jews, Germany, and Poland.) The honest thing to do would have been to compare Thomas’s off-the-cuff remarks to Rivers’. It’s pretty dishonest to compare apples to oranges the way you did.
2. The use of the word “racism” to refer to remarks about a group that practically no one considers to be a race – probably not the speaker herself, either – is itself dishonest. I’m not blaming you specifically for that, because your usage is unfortunately widespread. And I understand that in the late 19th century people started using the word “race” to refer to all sorts of social-political groups, even the “French race” and the “American race.” But that’s not how the word “race” is used now, and until very recently it wasn’t how the word “racism” was used either. “Racism” used to have a relatively specific, race-related meaning and theoretical framework. That meaning is lost now that the concept of “racism” has been decoupled from race – or else, the old, racial meaning of the word “racism” is smuggled implicitly into a context where race (as opposed to ethnicity) is absent. So that’s a corrupt use of language as well.
Even if Rivers’ remarks had been against Palestinians as such, and not against Palestinians as an enemy population, those remarks would not have been racist, because Palestinians are not a race in any current definition of the word.
Thomas’ original comments are indeed the ones being compared. They don’t need to be presented because we’re already familiar with them. Which is the point of the essay.
Alex, the “and yet these comments destroyed Thomas” seems to refer to the preceding sentence, not to Thomas’s original comments. But I agree that you have a point. Those sentences of Freddie’s may be more just unintentionally misleading than dishonest.
Palestinians are an ethnic group, no different from Jews or any other. We have, in polite society, a prohibition against saying things like “the Jews deserve to die.” And you know that we do. But you also know that you can get away with it here, because the group in question is a subsection of Arab, and anti-Arab racism– yes, racism– is permissible in a way that other forms are not. And as betaWP notes below, that was not an off-the-cuff remark, but a repeat of feelings that she expressed many times.
She did not say “the Palestinians deserve to die.” She said something like, “You started it – you deserve to die.” Again, the point I made above and which no one has addressed is, that could be said against any enemy population, regardless of “race.” And in fact she did say it against two populations, not one: the Gazans and the Japanese. But no one’s accusing her of anti-Japanese racism.
By this standard I don’t think anti-semitism can even exist.
And she did call Gazans, as a group, “very stupid people who don’t even own a pencil.”
That comment about Gazans is anti-Gazan, but it’s not racism or even ethnic bigotry because – this seems obvious to me, but apparently it isn’t to others – the Gazans are not a race or an ethnie. If she’d said that against Palestinians, then sure – ethnic bigotry.
And of course I’m applying the same standard here as I would to anti-Semitism. Anti-Semitism is not a form of racism unless the speaker considers Jews to be a race. If you say, “I don’t want Jews in my country club,” that’s anti-Semitism, just as “I don’t want Palestinians in my country club” is ethnic prejudice.
Your flailing here — it’s okay to want to slaughter millions of Gazans as long as we categorize them correctly, but not if we don’t — is amusing.
In my first comment on this post I wrote, “And since this is the Internet, I have to spell out that this is not to excuse what she said in any way.” Then you characterize my position as “it’s okay to want to slaughter millions of Gazans as long as we categorize them correctly.” Well, I can’t say it was unexpected. It’s the Internet!
Arguing this extremely pedantic point is de facto excusing what she said, so why don’t you just stop. Even your own twisted logic — she’s not racist because she’s calling for the extermination of a national group, not a race — is nonsensical, since the Gazans are not a national group.
Nobody wastes hundreds of words arguing (incorrectly) the pedantic little point you claim to be arguing unless they are de facto trying to excuse the behavior, so just stop wasting our time.
If you think I’m lying about my intentions, that’s fine. I will waste a few more words, though, correcting a misunderstanding for the record. This “extremely pedantic point” was by no means my main point; my main point, in my first comment, has not been addressed by anyone here. And it has nothing to do with definitions or semantics. It’s simply that what Rivers said could have been said about any enemy of any race/ethnicity/whatever, including her own. Therefore it’s not racist, by any meaning of the word.
Racist? Give. Me. A. Break.
This article is beyond stupid. Her whole schtick was being controversial and you are picking this one instance? Why not grill her over her furs or her Helen Keller jokes? She’s funny and says what a lot of people are too scared to say out loud. Everyone needs to lighten up and not be so hyper sensitive. Hamas is a terrorist organization… she clarified her comments were directed at them. In what way is that offensive?
It was not ‘one instance’ – Joan had been saying things like this for years on The Howard Stern Show. Anyone who’s listened to her over the last decade knows how laughable the excuse is that she accidentally failed to differentiate between Palestinians and Hamas. Joan’s no idiot. Paparazzi eventually learned that you could prompt her to repeat those abhorrent things on the street.
And it was obviously not a bit. Joan held her views on Palestine as straight talk: things that everyone secretly believes, but the PC crowd was supposedly preventing you from saying.
I agree with you that comedians should be given as much leeway as possible, and I think it’s telling which performers are extended that forgiveness. Tracy Morgan faced a much harsher backlash for an on-stage performance at a nightclub than Joan did for unironically advocating for a genocidal act in broad daylight.
If I looked into a camera in an interview and said “Jews deserve to be dead,” and then later claimed I was only speaking about the IDF, how do you think that would go over for me?
Official Hamas broadcast:
“From the Al-Qassam Brigades to the Zionist soldiers: The Al-Qassam Brigades love death more than you love life.”
She’s an entertainer, and an entertainer always gives the people what they want.
The Palestinian people are not synonymous with Hamas. If I equated Jewish people with the IDF, I would correctly be called anti-Semitic.
How are those remarks different to the kinds of taunts that armies have been making to each other for 1000s of years.
Hamas didn’t come out of the blue. They were duly elected and show strong support to this day.
I wont deny that its socially acceptable to make bigoted remarks about Palestinians, but the idea that its risky to criticize Israel is totally absurd. Those cases where people’s careers have been harmed by criticizing Israel are the exception. It ignores the literally nonstop criticism in news and academia. Have you read any liberally leaning site over the course of the recent gaza conflict? It was wall to wall criticism of Israel its policies, its citizens, and its tactics and American jewish supporters of Israel (see gawker).
Sure in one instance where an academic had some extreme clumsy/inflammatory remarks prior to “officially” starting a new job cost him his job. but to insist that critics of Israel are some kind of brave hero martyrs is totally absurd (not to mention self-congratulatory).
It’s not just Steven Salaita. Juan Cole and Norman Finkelstein are obvious candidates as well. But plenty of people in other careers have been punished as well– Helen Thomas, a whole fleet of politicians and government officials, Vanessa Redgrave, and many, many others. Here, read this piece on Zephyr Teachout and compare the vitriol to what Teachout actually said. You’ll be amazed.
http://observer.com/2014/09/democrats-bash-zephyr-teachouts-outrageous-stance-on-israel/
There’s an obvious difference. We mention Helen Thomas’s comments because they are extremely relevant to a key moment in her career – her decision to retire – while Joan Rivers’s comments have no particular salience to the main pivot points in the story that is her career. Both women worked into their 80s, but Rivers didn’t retire (and wasn’t forced to retire) because of those comments. It’s relevant to point out that careers don’t end for making comments about Palestinians as opposed to Jews. But when it comes to an obituary, we focus on key milestones in life and career and it just wasn’t that important in the grand Joan Rivers story in the same way it is in the Helen Thomas story. What should have happened to someone in life is different that what actually happened.
Joan Rivers was a comedian, with a shock-jock, grenade throwing, purposefully inflammatory and unremorseful schtick. She can’t completely divorce herself from her act, even when she offers “serious” commentary. For better or for worse, everything she says has to be viewed through that lens.
Helen Thomas, on the other hand, was a White House correspondent and a prominent journalist. Her comments on matters of foreign affairs are taken -and should be taken – much more seriously than the musings of Joan Rivers.
That said, there are plenty of serious commentators who say racist/bigoted/prejudiced things about Palestinians, Jews, Muslims, African-Americans, Hispanics, and other oppressed minority groups, and they should be called out on it. Preferably before they die.
“We are owned by the propagandists against the Arabs. There’s no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion.”
– Helen Thomas
http://archive.adl.org/ADL_Opinions/Anti_Semitism_Domestic/20101208-Op-ed+Huffington+Post.htm
From a Playboy interview:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50980781/Interview-Helen-Thomas
Reply
I don’t agree with her. Is being a conspiracy theorist worse than calling for the death of Palestinians?
Well, they’re
conspiracy theories. This brings them much closer to Rivers’ statement. You were using quotes that positioned her much further away.
You’re larger point is probably true. I think there is a rather well confirmed study out there (Michael Tessler maybe, just of the top of my head) demonstrating that Barrack Obama suffered more from anti-Muslim prejudices than even anti-black ones…when he ran in ’08. I can probably dig it up if your curious. I think this is in-line with what you’re saying.
I didn’t mean to format “anti-semitc” that way. I intended it to simply be in italics. Damn tag-fail makes me look like a drama queen.