The video below has been doing the rounds in the liberal blogosphere. Filmed at a McCain-Palin rally in Ohio, it edits together the "ignorance" and racism of supporters of the Republican ticket. I find it difficult to watch, in part because I don't know what to make of those filmed (Do they really believe what they say? How "representative" are they?), and in part because of their casual dismissal by those who watch them (see the comments beneath the original posting).
Growing up in New York, I remember thinking of the "hinterland" as a strange and fictitious world (a disease especially common in New York perhaps). Now, I'm made all the more uncomfortable and uncertain when that world (the interior, the Red state) is made "real" to me (to the coast, to the Blue state) in the shape of caricature. What can we take from videos like this, and what shouldn't we?
Comments
I noticed that earlier today, and actually found it quite hard to watch. I would *love* to know how representative these people are. They seem to pop up in almost every piece of swing state reportage I read, for example this interesting story. But it would be nice to get some data which isn't just anecdotal - perhaps someone has a pointer?
This video is extremely silly, no more "representative" than a professional wrestling match. And I actually live in Ohio.
Someone took a videocamera to a McCain-Palin rally and started posing provocative questions. Everyone in the video is in on the game, and happy to act out the parts assigned to them. Nothing is revealed or illuminated--not unlike some of the exchanges you can find here in the OD forums.
What is revealing (disappointing, but not surprising) is the way this is is labeled "ignorance," and framed with a reference to "the hinterland." I was about to ask whether "ignorance" was the name of the videographer--too snarky, I decided--until I saw the comment asking for "data," as if this were some sort of ethnographic study. Hello? Have you never met a Republican? Try it sometime; they don't bite unless provoked.
You need to realize that the whole "red-state" cliche is a crude caricature, too often tinged with classist condescension. Try to get out more.
Hobbes, thanks for your comment. I hope you realise I was expressing scepticism about the video precisely for the same reasons as you... "hinterland" is in quotations because I don't think it's a term with any content, just as it is ridiculous for people to claim to see "Red State America" in a video like this. these are misleading - and dangerous - terms, exploited all too often by those who want to live in their comforting simplicity.
Having spend the first 18 years of life in Ohio and then having lived in New York and California since then, I can attest that these people depicted here and their opinions are very "real" and although some seem to be enjoying a performance for the camera, they are not play-acting.
There are regional differences that is for sure. But the idea that people can be viewed as entirely "representative" is a flawed one; these people surely represent some, but not all. There are plenty of ignorant people on the coasts. Plenty of McCain/Palin stickers in California and plenty of dumb racists in Los Angeles.
There are two important points to recognize in this discussion: the McCain/Palin campaign is using fear, ignorance and hatred to whip up frenzied mobs, which has historically been a very effective tool for seizing power in fascist regimes. Secondly, the overuse of "difference" to rationalize people with whom you disagree, (regional difference, class difference, differing race, religion, nationality, etc) is not a useful response -- it further divides us and fails to address the core problems that we all face in trying to fight for democracy.
Hobbes, what's your reason for thinking these people are acting when they talk about "bloodlines", etc.? Do people in Ohio laugh about hoodwinking reporters after the cameras are turned off? Serious question... I'm not dismissing what you say, but it's hard to believe without some evidence.
And for the record, numerical data is valuable in understanding the beliefs of middle-class Europeans too... it's not just for distant tribes.
They don't "talk" about "bloodlines." One woman, walking away, is asked why she thinks Obama is a terrorist, and responds "it's in his bloodline;" another says, "his name." These are not deeply-held; they're off-hand, heat-of-the-moment responses to someone who's mocking your candidate's rhetoric. It's like asking someone whose team is losing a World Series game: "so, why do you want to kill the umpire?"
I'm not sure how you know what people say after the cameras are turned off since, by definition, they're not on record saying it.
Numerical data may be useful in gauging the extent of certain memes, but it won't help you understand anything. Like anything else, it needs an interpretive frame and a basic grasp of social context before becoming meaningful. In general, statistics removed from their specific context of production should be regarded with deep suspicion.
Obama is wearing an American flag lapel pin, while John McCain is not. John McCain is also evidently left handed . . . and we know what they say about left handed people. They did manage to fill the audience with people who don’t have anything interesting to ask . . . which is great combined with the fact that they evidently all suffer from a fear of public speaking.
---------------------------------------------------
Angelinjones
social signatures
Post new comment