In this case, the audience are connected and powerful people exchanging phony victimhood for social capital.
If anything, he gave his audience too much credit.
I don't think it's that simple, especially when the "some people" are teenagers. Teenagers, more often than most, can be a rather inflammatory combination of ignorant and zealous.
Memes can be funny and express pretty dumb generalizations, all at the same time.
The author’s remarks regarding cultural appropriation and blackface is an example. “The students felt that it was never, ever appropriate for any white person to adopt anything from another culture — not clothes, not music, not anything. I counter-argued that all cultures grow by adopting from others.”
Emotions were already running high because he stupidly used the n-word (even if was used as a reference and not against somebody), and then he tried to cite some obscure fact that some black Africans also practiced blackface that they learned from some roadshow, but that only pissed off the students even more. I suspect a more academic audience would have been more receptive to that fact, but for everyone else, that’s kind of a “rest of the owl” moment. And now they’re saying he supports blackface.
"I described covering it and said there was one awkward moment — I asked a “dance captain” if I could interview one of her girls. She said they were mostly too shy, but there was a bold one she would introduce me too. I started the interview, and immediately 20 topless girls cluster around wanting to talk too. My photographer sees me in the middle of this throng — I’m in deep Zululand, miles from a paved road, but I’m wearing a coat and tie like a good Timesman — and he starts to shoot a picture. The picture catches me yelling: “Don’t take a picture! My wife will kill me!” Apparently, some students took offense at that."
mind you he was talking to an audience of almost exclusively teenage girls here when telling that story. I don't think he ever used the n-word maliciously but from the sound of the entire thing he might also not fully be aware of how he comes across when he talks.
I'm sure to him it seems like a story of a young-ish man embarrassed and in over his head, but to a teen (especially one primed to think about colonialism and imperialism) it probably comes off as a story of an old white man with authority receiving vaguely sexual favors from young girls.
“Vaguely sexual favors”? How? I don’t see that in the least.
Again, to be clear: I am not in any way claiming that the scene was anything like that. The reporter was likely younger when it happened, inexperienced. The photographer was likely mischievous rather than leering. The reporter likely felt embarrassed and overwhelmed.
But, what are the chances a group of self-righteous, woke young teenage girls (he already knew they were like this, by his own account) would see the scene like that, imagining this powerful, authoritative old man they are seeing was once something else?
Are you saying the two men never should have taken pictures of topless teenagers despite the fact in the girl’s culture it would be entirely appropriate and non-sexual?
I’m still confused.
If you’re saying the reporter shouldn’t have told the story then I would disagree as well. We don’t gain anything by shielding people from things that offend them because they don’t understand them.
There is such a thing as an appropriate VS an inappropriate joke/story for a particular audience and context. Just like you shouldn't start telling funny stories to a widow at a funeral, or programmer jokes to a philosopher audience, or sad gory stories at a birthday party. It's not about stifling free speech, it's about knowing what your audience is open to at this time.
Not to mention, you need to understand how your audience is likely to perceive you, whether they will trust your bona fides, and adjust your message accordingly if your interest is to reach the audience. Especially if you have a clear real life audience, not just shouting over the internet like I am now.
His account shows that even after the teenagers complained he still didn't bother to find out why someone would find that offensive. I find it hard to believe that a long time NY Times reporter would never have received training on this, it is really basic stuff.
I fail to understand how someone can be offended by a situation that has nothing to do with them other than hearing the story.
And it’s not sexualizing anything. It’s a joke about what his “work” is.
God damn some people are wound tight. They just go looking to be offended. Maybe trying to seek moral high ground or something? It’s just odd.
His account does show that he payed little mind to how the teenagers he was there to teach were likely taking his stories. He is guilty of misjudging his audience, and of making them feel uncomfortable. He is not guilty of anything else, at least based on his own account (obviously, reality may be arbitrarily different from his own account).
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/22/world/enyokeni-royal-resi...
It looks like he was 44 at the time of that article and 64 when he was in Peru.
If you mean his "thought" process was likely embarassment -> make joke and nothing more, sure. But the reason it would be considered embarassing in the US is that women going topless is often considered sexual. And the joke he makes directly references that. He doesn't seem to be thinking much about the effect of his reaction on the people he is interviewing. Of course he is human and if sufficiently embarrased won't have a lot of thought prior to reaction (and it sounds like it could easily be the photographer intentionally provoking him knowing he won't react well), but he can still change how he reacts later and how or if he talks about the story later.
I guess there are two basic (but not entirely different) reasons the teenagers in Peru could react negatively (maybe more). My guess is that they do not have the same cultural assumption as the reporter that being topless would necessarily be a sexual or embarrassing thing and find that assumption sexist. It sounds like your guess is that they do have a similar cultural assumption and are imagining this old reporter in a vaguely sexual situation with young women.
Anyone who doesn't get this should seriously do some reading now, as this is basic stuff.
If he had asked them to put on clothes, is that cultural denial? Is that sexualizing them since he acknowledged they were topless?
The notion that pointing out reality is somehow bad is such a dumb concept.
So, what, he should have lied down the in the fetal position and feigned dead?
Oh wait, that might be misconstrued as something about babies and woman. I guess lie face down, eyes closed, hands over ears and hope it all goes away.
"My wife will kill me" was a sexist comment, but not necessarily perceived as offensive at the time (although I certainly wouldn't trust his judgement if it was). By telling the story the way he did to the teenagers he is not just showing that he sexualised the people he was interviewing at the time but was revealing that he was likely sexualising the women he was travelling with as well.
Wow, this is really going past the far end. It was a story of cultural clash and slightly bewildering situation for a relatively inexperienced reporter at the time, to go from there to essentially accusing him of pedophilia is many steps too far.
Something makes me think this was not a calm, two-sided, conversation amongst equals. It sounds more like he lectured them and belittled their opinions.
If that's the case, it doesn't automatically make him racist, but it does mean he misjudged the situation and what he was supposed to be doing.
edit: My original comment was something along the lines that if 4 people accuse someone of being a witch, then there must be something there. I edited my post within a minute, and no one had replied to it yet(from my perspective). Maybe HN should support append-only edits, because I didn't realize what I was doing was wrong. In my mind I was just rephrasing my point without using cliches("witch hunt")
If you want to replace your original argument (about witches) with a better one (about McCarthyism), that's great. But once there are replies whose meaning depends on your original post, please do so by appending it. Otherwise it's unfair to the other user and raises suspicions of malice.