#im not necessarily criticising it. okay maybe a little | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

phoneybeatlemania · 2 years

Note

Sorry to discourse at you, you can ignore this if you want. Regarding George's humor, this is a big area where I struggle to like George. Particularly in his relationship to Paul, but also just overall. Like, my sisters and I will make some pretty mean jokes about each other, but we would never make them in front of our extended family. There's a public/private divide with that kind of humor. If that makes sense? And I try not to be too hard on George, because maybe when you're that famous (2/2)

Anon Ask 2: ...it stops being fair to ask someone to censor the sense of humor. But I just get uncomfortable knowing that George knows that some portion of the audience will take the joke seriously and telling it anyway. And I feel like this is particularly prominant with Paul, who he has also said bad stuff about publicly in a non-joking way. I don't actually know what I'm asking here. I'm just blurting this out to you because engaging with how George's humor interacts with his celebrity is hard for me.

Reference to my post and original gif set which sparked this discussion

Hiya anon! No worries about sending an ask, Im happy to talk about this topic in a little more depth :)

So something I didn’t really touch upon in my last post was that I do actually believe there were some Bitchy (for lack of a better term) things George said to Paul, particularly throughout the early 70s, which I think clearly went beyond harmless joking and were legitimately Mean Things to do or say. It’s not that I think these moments between George and Paul should be looked at in isolation, because there obviously was a long history between the two (and as well, the early 70s was just Complicated in general for everybody), so that should be accounted for if were going to criticise George for this. But despite the long history, I still think a lot of these things were unnecessary, and we should recognise that (and to be honest, not feel like we Always Have To Justify Everything? Sometimes people just do shitty things, and we can say that, and not have to victimise or vilify them for that).

I feel like this is the type of point where George fans are gonna read it and think “okay so she *hates* George” and vice-versa with Paul fans—but to be honest, this isn’t really an area where I feel like its necessary to take sides. I feel like there can be a tendency to forget, especially when we’re trying to Psychoanalyse or Understand [or whatever you wanna call it] celebrities, that they’re all just human beings. Like everyone has said nasty things to other people, and everyones had nasty things said to them—but a period of hostility between two friends isn’t necessarily representative of what their relationship is really like, if you catch my meaning. My point I guess is kind of that, 50 or so years on, we should be able to recognise that Sure That Was Kind Of A Shitty Thing To Do, but theres a difference between recognising and critiquing something, and then actually passing judgement on an individual and Taking Sides, which often leads us to trying to justify Everything one person did while critiquing the other to excess. And real judgement seems fairly pointless to me in the case between George and Paul, because I think at the end of the day, they both just did Shitty Things to one another—but try being friends with someone for 15+ years without that happening. Im not saying that it means we should ignore aspect to their relationship or that it makes it licit, but I suppose what seems to be of more importance to me is that I think they both eventually tried change an adapt for one another.

I see what you mean as well when it comes to a public and private divide with humour; there are jokes you’d make in front of your closest friends/family, but wouldn’t make in front of other people. In this specific case though (with the “Paul has no good songs of his own” comment), I honestly just think this was Something Funny that came to Georges mind in the moment, and he wasn’t taking into the wider contexts, i.e music critics. And while I don’t want to Project or anything, just speaking from my own perspective I can say that irl Im the type of person who will say just about anything that comes to mind for me in the moment if I think its funny—and I get that impression from George too. I just feel like me and (probably) George are the types who just like to joke a lot, and are always looking to make other people laugh (as well as ourselves)—which kind of leads me to believe that when George makes a joke like “Paul has no good songs of his own left”, I think his expectation is that Paul is in on the joke, rather then just the butt of the joke. I guess thats really up for your own interpretation though (and as aforementioned, I think there were jokes in other periods of their lives where I wouldn’t feel this really rings true).

I think as well, George must have known the music industry well enough by this point to be aware that sure, there were music critics and people sitting at home watching who genuinely would have Thought That. But again, if we’re speaking about intentions, I don’t get the impression that this was it, because as I mentioned before, I don’t feel like there was even any real intention behind the joke; I really just think it was a funny thing that came to mind for him; whether that makes it okay or not is up for debate (and to be honest, its your call really). Lowkey as well, I actually kind of think the people who Actually Believe Paul had no good songs of his own left (and so was Practically Forced to use some of Johns 😩) are really the butt of the joke? Like it rubs of as very dry, sarcastic commentary on those types of critics to me.

I guess also if you look at most British comedians, a lot of humour relies on deprecating other people—especially on things like panel shows. Again thats obviously a different situation to the one George was in, but I think the general point is that when you have a very dry and sardonic sense of humour, you’re very prone to mocking other people, and that can be malicious—but at the same time, for a lot of people it really is just their way of telling jokes, and no Actual Offence is intended.

But to return to the original point, I do hear what you’re saying in that ‘he has also said bad stuff about publicly in a non-joking way’, and I don’t really disagree. But what I was thinking with my response to that post specifically was like, there are genuinely mean things he said to Paul that I think are very-much worth discussing, but this imo just isn’t one of them? Like the way Im seeing other people respond [and this goes out to both the Staunch Paul Defendants AND the people saying “George was telling the truth!!” btw] just feels like an overreaction to me. So yeah—obviously I have no idea who you are anon, but tbh, I think if you wanted to get a discussion going about Georges treatment of Paul, theres a lot of room for that and Id be interested to read it! I just don’t feel that the joke we’re discussing here today greatly exemplifies your overarching point.

But thats just my thoughts on this :) and tbh, I think I feel especially defensive of George in this specific instance just because Im Well Aware that his joke is the exact sort of thing I would say to people irl. Maybe its just a Sibling Thing, if you see what I mean—I think if you have a big family, everyones always trying to get the last laugh in also feel like this is an Irish Catholic Family thing but maybe thats a talk for another day lol.

#but yeah nws about sending an ask #ive honestly been Bored as of lately so im liking getting asks atm :))#anon #asks #this was Too Long a response (whoops)#you people know how I am tho 😩#key take away ig is that there is a lot of room for discussion of Georges treatment of Paul #and I think theres an interesting argument you make anon with your Wider Point #I just dont think that the specific joke were talking about is really a good example of it tho #cause I do think that its just a joke that he thoughtlessly made #george harrison #paul mccartney #anyway Intrigued to see whose gonna hate on this post first >:) George girls or Paul girls? We'll Wait And See lol #beatles #paul and george #phoneys fandom opinions

20 notes · View notes

menalez · 3 years

Note

Okay, so I want to be clear when I say again that white women in the suffragette movement said/did racist things, just as white women in feminists movements today say/do racist things,. Even white anti-racist activists will, at least on occasion, say and do racist things simply by growing up in a white supremacist society. I don’t want to give the impression that I’m disputing that reality. I only mean to illustrate some of the nuance (and why that matters today).

I sent those quotes in an effort to illustrate how the women’s suffrage movement was intertwined with universal suffrage, both white women and black men campaigned for each other’s right to vote. The women’s suffrage organizations grew directly from the basis of abolitionist movements. The initial suffrage (and wider women’s rights) movement was indistinguishable from the civil rights movement. When the 14th/15th amendment was proposed splits in the civil rights movement deepened — both white women and black women (and presumably some black men) campaigned against any amendment that didn’t include women. Similarly, black man and both white and black women favored the 15th amendment even without including women (of any race), who argued that women could wait. Ultimately the latter group saw their wish, and the division resulted in two separate organizations that continued to campaign for women’s suffrage.

The quotes you screen-shotted are undeniably terrible and exemplify the racism within the movements. To be nuanced however, they also span a wide range of individuals — from actual slave owners to women who said something racist but also directly participated in anti-racist activism.

To illustrate (from the quotes you provided):

Rebecca Latimer Felton - terrible human, slave owner, all out white supremacist

Carrie Chapman Catt - she later said “our task will not be fulfilled until the women of the whole world have been rescued from those discriminations and injustices which in every land are visited upon them in law and custom”, lobbied against the word “white” being added to the 19th amendment, and lobbied congress/used her presidency of the League of Women Voters to advocate for people of color and Jews

Elizabeth Cady Stanton - she also founded the Women's Loyal National League that led the largest abolitionist petition drive at the time, organized the American Equal Rights Association a suffrage organization that explicitly supported universal suffrage. The organization split when (mostly) the black men in the organization supported the 15th amendment without advocating for it to be extended to women. (She definitely said racist things around this time, similarly Frederick Douglass, who was both her friend and one of her main critiques at the time, said many sexist things.) The split was later merged back into one organization that she headed.

Anna Howard Shaw - I know very little about her. She definitely said many racist things, but she did champion universal suffrage and campaigned to end racial violence (arguing that universal suffrage would end lynchings). Still, she also failed to condemn racist actions by her peers.

Same as (1)

Belle Kearney - terrible human, slave owner, all out white supremacist

Frances Willard - confusing mix of actively recruiting and working with black women and also promoting racists myth that white women were in danger of black men that facilitated lynchings (due to her “temperance reform”). Also appeared to be more laissez-faire when president of the WCTU since she let conservative states hold on to conservative and/or moderate positions regarding reform for both women’s rights and racial justice.

Same as (1)

As for why it matters today:

No, women definitely won’t have the right to vote revoked for discussing racism in past movements. But there’s a difference between discussing racism, and perpetuating misinformation. One of the main ways the American government disrupted activist movements throughout history was to sow dissension in their ranks. (And the American government/military taught many of these techniques to foreign countries.) An excellent example of this is the COINTELPRO operation, but it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Their goal was to divide and conquer - a movement can’t make progress if it’s busy fighting itself - and poison the public’s opinions of the movements, so as to dissuade new members from joining. (At this point, I want to reassure you that while this may sound like a conspiracy theory, it is very much proven and it/other programs did much harm to domestic and foreign reform movements.)

The myth that the suffragette movement was specifically racist, rather than operating in concert with and emerging from, anti-racist activism contributes to this divide and conquer method of disrupting activism. If you (general you) can convince women of color that the “original feminist movement” (ignoring the ahistorical nature of such the label itself) actively campaigned against them, then it’s much easier to dissuade them from considering feminist activism or to divide activist movements. (And, if it were true, it would be entirely justified!)

Of course, that’s not to say that feminists shouldn’t criticize (or disavow, to the extent possible) white supremacists like Felton or Kearney, or that we shouldn’t discuss and reform the racist sentiments in past and current movements. (In fact, I believe, and expect you do as well, that doing so is not only permissible but necessary, because to deny the racism that did exist in past/current movements would alienate women of color just as much as the idea that the feminism-of-old was solely for white women, and would in fact be an expression of racism in and of itself.)

I hope this clarifies what I’ve been trying to convey.

im surprised about the claim that white women and black men campaigned for each other's right to vote. i was under the impression that the civil rights movement was largely focused on black men and often outright excluded black women having a say, so i don't really know why they would support other women (such as white women) having a say when i heard they didn't support that for black women, who were always black men's biggest supporters.

i do get your point, to a degree-- and i think we agree overall but simply word things differently. i don't think that the women's suffrage movement was Bad and i don't think the white suffragettes back then were like, all evil and more racist than the avg white person in their society. i would say overall, those women were quite forward thinking and progressive for their time. i don't doubt that a significant portion of women were far worse than that, and even opposed women's rights (bc of the society they grew up in where this was a controversial thing). my only argument is that pretending they weren't also racist and had traits worthy of criticism (such as their racism) is innaccurate. a lot of prominent suffragettes were quite racist, and that's not to say that their feminist beliefs lead to that or that women's rights is interwined with racism, but just to point out that even those women who fought for the right to vote for women were not particularly good allies to poc but most specifically black people, and more importantly, black women. i also wanted to point out that being anti-slavery and campaigning against it, did not mean they were generally anti-racism or fighting against racism overall. they were fighting against the worst and most extreme forms of racism in their time, but they were all still racist in their own right. i'd like to reemphasise what i initially shared that you disagree with (+ my tags, and my previous comment on it so as to be fully transparent), which is not that different from what you're saying imo:

now i'm not trying to argue the origin of the movement, what it rose out of, how it relates to racism or anything else; my qualms are with the claim that the suffragettes were not racist. maybe back then, they were closer to allies to black people than most, however they were still quite racist. similarly, since you brought up white allies, white allies today may be the best we have and the best in our time, but they are also still often quite racist themselves.

my main and only point is that these women were still racist, and this is not to discount the women's suffrage movement, i just think that when we deny that aspect of the past then what we're doing is alienating woc. i've noticed a general trend of white women on here saying that white women were targetted by the KKK for example, fixation on stuff that is targeted at white women like 'karen' and placed on equal grounds with calling black women 'laquisha' to berate them, arguments that white women dont have racial privilege, etc and while i don't think the people making such arguments are necessarily coming from a bad place, many woc seeing this will end up feeling like the movement is geared towards white women and does not properly consider & include woc. that's why i take issue with the claim that xyz white female historical figure wasnt racist bc she was pro-slavery abolition, like, sure that must've been really progressive for its time but at the same time it doesn't change that the same woman did work w white supremacists and white supremacy was used as an argument to support white women's suffrage. it probably worked as a strategy and helped pave the way for other women, but its good to acknowledge these issues and criticise them esp since they remain relevant today when people are still indirectly debating how much woc should be considered in feminism.

7 notes · View notes