Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 08:28:35 -0500
From: Katha Pollitt <kpollitt-AT-thenation.com>
Subject: Re: AUT: GA shit


I think there's something rather patronizing in Luther's attack on free
speech.  He writes that by tearing down or obliterating graffiti calling
for the death of "slags who go with blacks" he is helping a white mother
of a mixed race child who would feel "intimidated, scared and worried"
by such a message. I'm all for writing over fascist and racist graffiti
with one's own message.  I think that's part of the whole graffiti
thing. But Luther, it troubles me that when you look around for an
example of the harm racist graffiti does, you light on that
quintessential symbol of helplessness, a mother and child.  
  Why do you assume that the white mother of a mixed race child cannot
obliterate racist graffiti on her own if it bothers her so much?
   Why, even, do you assume it makes her feel "intimidated, scared and
worried"  as opposed to enraged and energized?  In the US there are many
cases in which the painting of swastikas  and racist slogans have led to
community action, the awakening of passive people . I'm not arguing for 
racist graffiti, obviously.  But  I am troubled that you deny agency to
so many:  portraying yourself as the chivalrous defender of powerless,
frightened women and racial minorities who can do nothing for
themselves.
   The thing about denying speech (as opposed to debating it) is that it
does not, in fact, get rid of those noxious ideas. Germany has laws
against nazi-type propaganda;France has laws against Holocaust denial.
Both have big fascist movements all the same.
  Especially in the age of the Web, horrible ideas can always find
currency. Better bring them out into the light and vanquish them with
real information than suppress them and add to their glamor.

  Best, Katha


     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---