tdaxp, D. 2007. Why is it that if I refer to Irish as provo coal-crackers…. Thomas P.M. Barnett :: Weblog. April 14, 2007. Available online: http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/2007/04/the_best_analysis_on_imus.html#comment-18335.
Weeks, C.G. 2007. I’ve been pondering the differences between the two approaches. tdaxp. April 16, 2007. Available online: http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/12/j-l-kirk-associates-not-a-better-business.html#c1539569
Weeks, C.G. 2007. I wonder if the garish offense is not JLK’s business practices in general…. tdaxp. April 16, 2007. Available online: http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2007/04/13/the-real-time-consequences-of-the-jl-kirk-associates-kirking.html#c1539382.
Recently, my blogging energies have been consumed by two scandals, Don Imus’s “nappy headed hos” remark and JL Kirk Associates’ threat of a lawsuit. Both cases show visceral reactions against relatively week targets (an MSNBC/radio host and a Tennessean employment agency) by groups known for political activism — blacks and bloggers. Yet Jews were silent when Don Imus called guests pointed-headed Jews, and most of the thousands of companies involved in lawsuits don’t raise a hue and cry. So what’s going on here?
Simple: outrage is a product of perceived group powerlessness and a perceived attack on the group. In the case of Don Imus, “blacks” correctly perceived their political weakness and then perceived an attack on black-ness. In the case of JL Kirk, “bloggers” correctly perceived their political weakness and then perceived an attack on blogger-ness. As Curtis says:
Not only might this describe Coble’s sense of outrage at what she perceived to be a hostile interview; but more to the point, it may explain the blogger response to the threatened lawsuit. To the degree that many bloggers may feel generally powerless in their lives — and, perhaps, also before the law of the land as adjudicated within the courts — such a lawsuit as threatened by JLK creates a backlash and outrage.
And likewise, Don Imus and JL Kirk were targets of outrage, instead of evildoers who actually mattered, because blacks and bloggers are too weak to cause substantive change. So instead, they go after symbolic targets like a cranky radio host and a litigious company:
Again, as Curtis says:
Her one post may have had more effect against JLK than a single post might have against a Microsoft or Google or Ford Motor Company that operates globally.
Both bloggers are blacks are in weak political positions. Bloggers are subject to violent, litigious assaults by corporations and do not have the resources to strike back. At best,
they can go bankrupt defending themselves from rich predators or swarm their opponents.
Likewise, widely visible black culture has transitioned from slavery to serfdom to female-farming society (arguably a lateral transmigration).
As I wrote on Tom Barnett’s blog:
Outrage is not a function of validity of argument. Outrage is a function of powerlessness, a function of Olive Treeism, a function of life in the Gap.
Because of many factors for blacks, and because of our judicial system for bloggers, too many blacks and too many bloggers experience Gap-like conditions even within the United States.
As we move into the medium a generation or two, we can expect less outrages from bloggers but probably an equiavelent number from “African-Americans.” The reason is that “African-Americans” — those blacks who are descendents from slavery in the southern United States — are considered wards of the state. So like the Lakota Indians before them, the federal government contiually makes their lot worse while trying to make it better. Bloggers, on the other hands, are ignored by the government. They exist in a state of benight neglect.