Diversity

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I think we may be talking about two different things. Your issue, you wrote, is that people are becoming too offended to talk about the past, and the risk is that we'll forget about it. I agree that that is a bad outcome. As you wrote, slavery and the Civil War did happen and we need to own it. This is what education and scholarly studies and oral histories and so on are for. On top of all this, I am saying that the monuments that honor enemies of the U.S. don't have a rightful place in our society. By all means, don't forget about Robert E. Lee, but let's not celebrate him. After all, this is what statues of individuals from the past do. He may have fought well, but he was on the wrong team. I don't see any statues of British generals from the Revoluationary War in the U.S.

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

The Southerners were Americans as much as the Northerners. We were reconciled, north and south, for over a hundred years before a certain political party and its supporters decided to use this as another wedge issue to pit demographics against each other because its the only way they can win elections. Sorry for veering into arguably political territory here, but this discussion clearly is already political.

That's an excellent point, giant_albatross. For over a century no one had issues with any statues of Robert E. Lee or any other Confederate figures until very recently the "politically correct" crowd (and we all know which party they belong to) decided that these are offensive and need to be brought down, hence wedging the divide that we see now. Then they stand back looking all innocent and saying "Gee, look at that angry mob out there marching and carrying pitchforks! What's this all about??!" Moral of the story: don't stir the hornet's nest and then complain when you get bit.

[Pahonu]

That's just the thing. I don't see them as enemies of the U.S. but merely as brave soldiers who fought to preserve their way of life. One person's enemy may be another person's hero. Removing these monuments to me seems to suggest a whitewash of history or simply an attempt to appease the PC crowd and those easily offended. I'm sure there are many in the South who take offense to monuments of Grant but I wouldn't advocate for his removal either. The comparison to British generals in the Revolutionary War is different because they were never a part of the U.S. They were in fact outsiders. The Civil War is much more complicated - it was brother vs. brother, U.S. vs U.S.

The Southerners were Americans as much as the Northerners. We were reconciled, north and south, for over a hundred years before a certain political party and its supporters decided to use this as another wedge issue to pit demographics against each other because its the only way they can win elections. Sorry for veering into arguably political territory here, but this discussion clearly is already political.

That's an excellent point, giant_albatross. For over a century no one had issues with any statues of Robert E. Lee or any other Confederate figures until very recently the "politically correct" crowd (and we all know which party they belong to) decided that these are offensive and need to be brought down, hence wedging the divide that we see now. Then they stand back looking all innocent and saying "Gee, look at that angry mob out there marching and carrying pitchforks! What's this all about??!" Moral of the story: don't stir the hornet's nest and then complain when you get bit.

The argument that it was acceptable in the past is a poor one, not excellent. Slavery was legal and accepted by most for many centuries, but ultimately legally abolished. It seems highly likely that many slaveholders in the Confederacy questioned why this change was happening when slavery had existed for so long. Perhaps many used that very argument. Certainly many fought to stop that change, but failed. I often ask my students, if the confederacy had succeeded and slavery maintained in those states, what is the likelihood that it would still exist today? What would a modern Confederate States of America look like? It's an interesting thought exercise posed by one of my post-grad professors many years ago.

"Times change" is not just a cliché. Minstrel shows, mocking black culture, were acceptable in much of society as little as 70 years ago. Today they are regarded by most as highly offensive. Miscegeny laws still existed in some states just 50 years ago. They are now gone and most of society has zero issue with inter-racial relationships. Society inevitably changes over time. Individuals in society may not always agree with those changes, but it does occur.

I would also add that among the angry mobs of the 19th century were the abolitionists, the cause for which the Republican party of Lincoln was formed. They did stir the hornet's nest, and many were injured or died for it, but our nation without slavery is better for it. A better lesson might be taken from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who said the only constant in life is change.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

That's an excellent point, giant_albatross. For over a century no one had issues with any statues of Robert E. Lee or any other Confederate figures until very recently the "politically correct" crowd (and we all know which party they belong to) decided that these are offensive and need to be brought down, hence wedging the divide that we see now. Then they stand back looking all innocent and saying "Gee, look at that angry mob out there marching and carrying pitchforks! What's this all about??!" Moral of the story: don't stir the hornet's nest and then complain when you get bit.

The argument that it was acceptable in the past is a poor one, not excellent. Slavery was legal and accepted by most for many centuries, but ultimately legally abolished. It seems highly likely that many slaveholders in the Confederacy questioned why this change was happening when slavery had existed for so long. Perhaps many used that very argument. Certainly many fought to stop that change, but failed. I often ask my students, if the confederacy had succeeded and slavery maintained in those states, what is the likelihood that it would still exist today? What would a modern Confederate States of America look like? It's an interesting thought exercise posed by one of my post-grad professors many years ago.

"Times change" is not just a cliché. Minstrel shows, mocking black culture, were acceptable in much of society as little as 70 years ago. Today they are regarded by most as highly offensive. Miscegeny laws still existed in some states just 50 years ago. They are now gone and most of society has zero issue with inter-racial relationships. Society inevitably changes over time. Individuals in society may not always agree with those changes, but it does occur.

I would also add that among the angry mobs of the 19th century were the abolitionists, the cause for which the Republican party of Lincoln was formed. They did stir the hornet's nest, and many were injured or died for it, but our nation without slavery is better for it. A better lesson might be taken from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who said the only constant in life is change.

You mention "minstrel shows" and maybe you mean racial jokes in general. But I for one mourn the loss of racial jokes. Those were always the best! Of course this was when people knew how to laugh at themselves and didn't take this stuff personally or get easily offended. Jewish, Polish, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indian jokes. Those were a riot! Can't do those anymore because people are too thin-skinned these days. The media and left-wing politicians tell us that we should be offended by such things. We've become a society of wimps these days. No back-bone. No sense of humor. Gotta play it safe with "safe jokes" but tell me - where's the humor in that? What are we gonna do? Knock-knock jokes? That's why a show like ALL IN THE FAMILY couldn't be made today. People simply don't know how to laugh at racial jokes. You go ahead and laugh and people look at you as if you just murdered someone. That's totally messed up! You may not have a racist bone in your body but if you find racial jokes funny you must be a racist. They don't even think that the humor comes from the stereotyping of different cultures and races. That's what we're laughing at - the stereotypes. Of course a lot of the stereotypes come from FACT. Different cultures and races behave in certain ways and they get stereotyped a certain way. That's where the humor comes from. But there's nothing racist about it. It's just funny. Pure and simple. No agenda. Of course the "progressives" simply don't get this and I'm afraid they never will. They just see evil in everything. It's a sad state of affairs really. Lots of comics have said that comedy isn't what it used to be. So many things you're no longer allowed to say that there's really no point in becoming a comedian. Gotta keep playing it safe, safe, safe. That's no way to do comedy. As a comedian you want to go all out, let it rip!

[Reef monkey]

Most people aren't informed on Lee. He didn't agree with secession, slavery, or the war. He supported his home state when the war broke out. He was a military genius. Yet, since he was the Confederate general, he's vilified.

It doesn't mean I don't believe that he was a saint or that society shouldn't evolve, but the facts are that he wasn't the monster that he's been painted.

I don't think Lee is being painted as a "monster", it's just that his legacy is and always has been the military leader of a rebellion against our republic, for the purpose of preserving slavery. That's not a proper legacy to be honoring someone for on public property.

You’re correct that Lee did not favor secession, did not want a war, but on slavery, you’re quite wrong. Lee was a slaveowner, and a typically cruel one at that. There is documentation of two of his slaves running away, and upon being recaptured, Lee ordered his overseer to lash them, telling him "lay it on well." Wesley Norris, one of the slaves who was whipped, recalled that “not satisfied with simply lacerating our naked flesh, Gen. Lee then ordered the overseer to thoroughly wash our backs with brine, which was done.” If Lee really had had a problem with slavery, he had an easy out, he could have freed all his slaves when he inherited them from his father-in-law, George Washington Parke Custis, as Custis’s will had stipulated he wanted. Lee, however, refused to honor Custis’s will, and kept the slaves. Lee also stopped honoring the Washington/Custis tradition of keeping slave families together, and by 1860, all but one family had been dispersed. Lee was on record as late as 1856 saying that black slaves in America were better off than free black people in Africa, and that slavery was improving the black race.

But putting aside Lee’s views and practice of slavery, and only focusing on his choice to fight for the Confederacy, I think it makes sense to compare Robert E. Lee to Erwin Rommel. Rommel, like Lee, was and still is considered a brilliant military leader. He is also praised for his humane treatment of Allied prisoners of war. Should, then, there be statues all over Europe and North Africa of Rommel proudly poking his head out of the turret of his tank, the way there are statues of Lee proudly astride his horse? I think any reasonable person would answer no, because it is a really bad idea to glorify someone for fighting for an evil cause just because they fought for that evil cause in a courageous and chivalrous manner.

Honoring people for fighting bravery and valiantly for a cause without considering the morality of that cause is a really bad idea because we don’t want more people to fight well for bad causes. From Virginia in 1861 to Germany in 1939, the world has never had a shortage of ardent young men willing to fight and die “in glory” for their country, no matter how nefarious their country’s reasons for going to war. There is nothing honorable about blindly fighting and dying for a dishonorable cause. We WANT young people, when called to fight, to question whether the cause is truly just, and if it is not, refuse to fight. We aren’t encouraging that kind of decision making if we honor people for fighting for an unjust cause. Confederate war memorials, honoring people for fighting and losing a bad cause, are the ultimate participation trophies.

Also, someone ( can’t remember who) talked about these statues meaning a lot to certain people, and removing them would alienate those people. But one could easily reverse that argument, since these statues were mostly put up around the turn of the century through the 1950s by the same people who were instituting Jim Crow, they also mean a lot, negatively, to black people, they are a symbol of the persecution of black people, and so leaving them up alienates black people. And if we are to weigh which group has more legitimacy in its strong feelings about these statues, Confederacy romanticizers or black people, objectively, black people win. Why should anyone who claims to love the United States of America, cherish its constitution, have strong feelings in favor of statues honoring people who fought against our country, who violated their oaths to protect and defend that nation and its constitutions? On the other hand, there are black people alive today who were discriminated against by the very people who erected these statutes.

One last thing for the pro-statue people to think about. In 1869, David McConaughy, who spearheaded the effort to buy up and preserve the Gettysburg battlefield as a memorial to the Civil War, invited Robert E Lee to attend an event related to the establishment of the memorial, Lee replied:

"My engagements will not permit me to be present. I believe, if there, I could not add anything material to the information existing on the subject. I think it wiser moreover not to keep open the sores of war, but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings it engendered."

Lee's nephew Fitzhugh also declined to participate, saying "if the nation is to continue as a whole, it is better to forget and forgive rather than perpetuate in granite proofs of its civil wars."


So there you have it, neither Lee nor his family would have wanted these statues to him. Those who think they are protecting Lee's memorials from disrespect are actually doing the greater disrespect to Lee by protecting them.

[Reef monkey]

You mention "minstrel shows" and maybe you mean racial jokes in general. But I for one mourn the loss of racial jokes. Those were always the best! Of course this was when people knew how to laugh at themselves and didn't take this stuff personally or get easily offended.

Or pretended they weren't offended just so they weren't seen as "uppity". I am a huge Sinatra and Rat Pack fan. Sinatra was a strong champion for racial equality, and helped his good friend Sammy Davis Jr. overcome racial barriers to his career. Sammy loved Frank and was always grateful for that. But Frank and the rest of the Rat Pack weren't above making the occasional racist joke at Sammy's expense, especially onstage at the Sands. I remember reading about how Sammy would play along, and knew that Frank, Dino, Pete, Joey didn't mean them maliciously, but confided to family that inside he often found them humiliating, and was also worried that at least half the audience were laughing at the jokes for the wrong reason, and seeing Frank make them sent the message that it was alright for them to do so when they got home from Vegas.

[Pahonu]

That's an excellent point, giant_albatross. For over a century no one had issues with any statues of Robert E. Lee or any other Confederate figures until very recently the "politically correct" crowd (and we all know which party they belong to) decided that these are offensive and need to be brought down, hence wedging the divide that we see now. Then they stand back looking all innocent and saying "Gee, look at that angry mob out there marching and carrying pitchforks! What's this all about??!" Moral of the story: don't stir the hornet's nest and then complain when you get bit.

The argument that it was acceptable in the past is a poor one, not excellent. Slavery was legal and accepted by most for many centuries, but ultimately legally abolished. It seems highly likely that many slaveholders in the Confederacy questioned why this change was happening when slavery had existed for so long. Perhaps many used that very argument. Certainly many fought to stop that change, but failed. I often ask my students, if the confederacy had succeeded and slavery maintained in those states, what is the likelihood that it would still exist today? What would a modern Confederate States of America look like? It's an interesting thought exercise posed by one of my post-grad professors many years ago.

"Times change" is not just a cliché. Minstrel shows, mocking black culture, were acceptable in much of society as little as 70 years ago. Today they are regarded by most as highly offensive. Miscegeny laws still existed in some states just 50 years ago. They are now gone and most of society has zero issue with inter-racial relationships. Society inevitably changes over time. Individuals in society may not always agree with those changes, but it does occur.

I would also add that among the angry mobs of the 19th century were the abolitionists, the cause for which the Republican party of Lincoln was formed. They did stir the hornet's nest, and many were injured or died for it, but our nation without slavery is better for it. A better lesson might be taken from the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, who said the only constant in life is change.

You mention "minstrel shows" and maybe you mean racial jokes in general. But I for one mourn the loss of racial jokes. Those were always the best! Of course this was when people knew how to laugh at themselves and didn't take this stuff personally or get easily offended. Jewish, Polish, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Indian jokes. Those were a riot! Can't do those anymore because people are too thin-skinned these days. The media and left-wing politicians tell us that we should be offended by such things. We've become a society of wimps these days. No back-bone. No sense of humor. Gotta play it safe with "safe jokes" but tell me - where's the humor in that? What are we gonna do? Knock-knock jokes? That's why a show like ALL IN THE FAMILY couldn't be made today. People simply don't know how to laugh at racial jokes. You go ahead and laugh and people look at you as if you just murdered someone. That's totally messed up! You may not have a racist bone in your body but if you find racial jokes funny you must be a racist. They don't even think that the humor comes from the stereotyping of different cultures and races. That's what we're laughing at - the stereotypes. Of course a lot of the stereotypes come from FACT. Different cultures and races behave in certain ways and they get stereotyped a certain way. That's where the humor comes from. But there's nothing racist about it. It's just funny. Pure and simple. No agenda. Of course the "progressives" simply don't get this and I'm afraid they never will. They just see evil in everything. It's a sad state of affairs really. Lots of comics have said that comedy isn't what it used to be. So many things you're no longer allowed to say that there's really no point in becoming a comedian. Gotta keep playing it safe, safe, safe. That's no way to do comedy. As a comedian you want to go all out, let it rip!

I don't mean racial jokes in general. I'm referring to minstrel shows of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here's a link to the University of Southern Florida on the topic.

http://exhibits.lib.usf.edu/exhibits/sh ... conography

Here's a typical image from these shows that lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface ... e_edit.jpg

You seem to be painting with an overly broad brush. It's more complex than that. My family is inter-racial and have enjoyed greatly comedians who joke about racial and cultural differences. From George Lopez to Jeff Foxworthy to Allie Wong to Tyler Perry and many others, these comedians provide us all laughter as they joke about there experiences unique to their community. The form is alive and well based on the number of comedians I have seen in the last decade. I see no shortage of comedians making us laugh about these topics. You said it yourself, they can laugh at themselves. The very BIG difference is when someone chooses to joke about or mock other groups to which they have limited knowledge or experience. This was by definition, a minstrel show.

America was not laughing at Archie Bunker because of his wit and cleverness as he made his bigoted comments. His foolishness was central to the character's humor, as Carroll O'connor himself described in creating the character. I have a friend and colleague I've worked with for over 20 years who grew up in Appalachia, specifically West Virginia. He recommended the book Hillbilly Elegy to me, and I enjoyed it's insights immensely. I have recommended it it to many others since. He and I have discussed this very topic on more than one occasion. Over the years, he has joked frequently about his "Appalachian ways", much to our enjoyment, but hehas also commented on the sting of people commenting about hillbillies and rednecks. He has a doctorate degree and tenureship at the university. There is a difference there, a BIG difference.

[Pahonu]

You mention "minstrel shows" and maybe you mean racial jokes in general. But I for one mourn the loss of racial jokes. Those were always the best! Of course this was when people knew how to laugh at themselves and didn't take this stuff personally or get easily offended.

Or pretended they weren't offended just so they weren't seen as "uppity". I am a huge Sinatra and Rat Pack fan. Sinatra was a strong champion for racial equality, and helped his good friend Sammy Davis Jr. overcome racial barriers to his career. Sammy loved Frank and was always grateful for that. But Frank and the rest of the Rat Pack weren't above making the occasional racist joke at Sammy's expense, especially onstage at the Sands. I remember reading about how Sammy would play along, and knew that Frank, Dino, Pete, Joey didn't mean them maliciously, but confided to family that inside he often found them humiliating, and was also worried that at least half the audience were laughing at the jokes for the wrong reason, and seeing Frank make them sent the message that it was alright for them to do so when they got home from Vegas.

Hey Reef Monkey,

I've read the same account. I'm glad you brought it up. My dad was a huge fan of the standards, including Frank, Dino, and his favorite, Nat King Cole. I heard them growing up all the time.

How's the sailing with your daughter going? My son is so busy now as a high school junior, I've sailed only once with him since school started and we've had fantastic weather for it.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

You mention "minstrel shows" and maybe you mean racial jokes in general. But I for one mourn the loss of racial jokes. Those were always the best! Of course this was when people knew how to laugh at themselves and didn't take this stuff personally or get easily offended.

Or pretended they weren't offended just so they weren't seen as "uppity". I am a huge Sinatra and Rat Pack fan. Sinatra was a strong champion for racial equality, and helped his good friend Sammy Davis Jr. overcome racial barriers to his career. Sammy loved Frank and was always grateful for that. But Frank and the rest of the Rat Pack weren't above making the occasional racist joke at Sammy's expense, especially onstage at the Sands. I remember reading about how Sammy would play along, and knew that Frank, Dino, Pete, Joey didn't mean them maliciously, but confided to family that inside he often found them humiliating, and was also worried that at least half the audience were laughing at the jokes for the wrong reason, and seeing Frank make them sent the message that it was alright for them to do so when they got home from Vegas.

I still think the problem is more with the thin-skinned individual. A comedian's job is to make people laugh and the audience respond by laughing. If the individual is uncomfortable then he can just choose not to watch or choose not to participate. Or in Sammy's case even come right out and talk to Frank in private. It's not like Sammy didn't have enough clout within the Rat Pack. If you have thin skin sometimes you just have to suck it up. I don't know if that sounds mean or not. But to change comedy routines because some folks are uncomfortable is not the answer. I don't like the idea of "policing" people. Don't do this, don't say that. I'm of Slavic descent and I've heard tons of Slavic jokes and I'm always busting a gut laughing. Lots of the jokes are pretty spot-on, lots are exaggerated but it doesn't matter. At no point do I feel offended. Don Rickles was a great example of a comedian who just let loose and didn't spare anyone. Nothing was off limits. Rickles couldn't do that today. Different times. He'd be labeled as racist or cruel or whatever. But that's what made him funny. He wasn't playing the nice guy. He was playing the mean-spirited guy and he did it well. All part of the act. People understood that and didn't get their britches in a knot. And those who didn't understand it probably chose not to watch him. They had that right too.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I don't mean racial jokes in general. I'm referring to minstrel shows of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here's a link to the University of Southern Florida on the topic.

http://exhibits.lib.usf.edu/exhibits/sh ... conography

Here's a typical image from these shows that lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface ... e_edit.jpg

You seem to be painting with an overly broad brush. It's more complex than that. My family is inter-racial and have enjoyed greatly comedians who joke about racial and cultural differences. From George Lopez to Jeff Foxworthy to Allie Wong to Tyler Perry and many others, these comedians provide us all laughter as they joke about there experiences unique to their community. The form is alive and well based on the number of comedians I have seen in the last decade. I see no shortage of comedians making us laugh about these topics. You said it yourself, they can laugh at themselves. The very BIG difference is when someone chooses to joke about or mock other groups to which they have limited knowledge or experience. This was by definition, a minstrel show.

I see that. But aren't these caricatures pretty much what was shown on TV in the 50s on AMOS 'N ANDY?? You can check out a few episodes on YouTube. These were black actors playing these types of characters. Or how about Redd Foxx in SANFORD & SON two decades later? AMOS was before my time but I loved SANFORD (actually that show was before my time too). Both shows were very popular in the black community and in fact were created FOR the black viewing audience. Neither show painted blacks in a particularly positive light or as being successful and yet both had a large black following. Clearly there was something that the viewing audience could identify with and laugh at. Perhaps minstrel shows were more degrading (I've never seen one) but it seems like the black comedians picked up on this and ran with it.

[Reef monkey]

I still think the problem is more with the thin-skinned individual. A comedian's job is to make people laugh and the audience respond by laughing. If the individual is uncomfortable then he can just choose not to watch or choose not to participate. Or in Sammy's case even come right out and talk to Frank in private. It's not like Sammy didn't have enough clout within the Rat Pack. If you have thin skin sometimes you just have to suck it up. I don't know if that sounds mean or not. But to change comedy routines because some folks are uncomfortable is not the answer. I don't like the idea of "policing" people. Don't do this, don't say that. I'm of Slavic descent and I've heard tons of Slavic jokes and I'm always busting a gut laughing. Lots of the jokes are pretty spot-on, lots are exaggerated but it doesn't matter. At no point do I feel offended. Don Rickles was a great example of a comedian who just let loose and didn't spare anyone. Nothing was off limits. Rickles couldn't do that today. Different times. He'd be labeled as racist or cruel or whatever. But that's what made him funny. He wasn't playing the nice guy. He was playing the mean-spirited guy and he did it well. All part of the act. People understood that and didn't get their britches in a knot. And those who didn't understand it probably chose not to watch him. They had that right too.

Well, Sinatra had a famously mercurial temper, and certainly could be an emotional tyrant, and the rest of the Pack walked on eggshells around him a lot. His treatment of Pete Lawford demonstrates that. Lawford was married to Pat Kennedy, JFK's sister (Sinatra called him "Brother-in-Lawford"). Sinatra was a huge supporter of JFK in 1960, campaigned hard for him, threw his celebrity (and some say his mob connections) towards helping get Kennedy elected. After he was elected, JFK was supposed to visit Sinatra at his Palm Springs house, but Bobby Kennedy, concerned about the optics of Sinatra's underworld connections, nixed that. Sinatra was furious, and believing Lawford had failed to intercede on his behalf, cut him out of his life completely. The rest of the Pack new the price of angering the Chairman of the Board.

I've never been a fan or Rickles, or his brand of put-down humor. I just prefer more gentle, self-deprecating humor. My concern when people talk about others being "thin-skinned", is it seems to invalidate others' right to have their own taste in humor, and not find certain kinds of humor to be funny. People have different temperaments, some are more sensitive than others, just neurologically hard-wired to be that way, and telling them they are thin-skinned is basically telling them there is something wrong with who they are. It takes all kinds, and while we need people who insults roll of their backs for certain roles in society, so too do we need people who have a very well-developed sense of empathy.

I'll be the first to admit that there is a lot of ridiculous, BS political correctness out there (especially on college campuses), but at the same time, there are a lot of people who use the negative connotations of "political correct" as a cover for mean-spirited comments and behavior. At the reasonable end of its spectrum, all political correctness is, is good manners - tact (tact having the same root word as tacit, which means "leaving things unsaid.") One can certainly choose not to associate with tactless people at certain times, but other times it may not be possible, and the price of letting them know you don't appreciate their lack of tact may be too high. At my previous job I worked with such a person, hired after me, who was the best friend of my boss, who made all sorts of sexist and racist jokes, and when I spoke out about it, I got labeled the difficult one (I imagine I was considered "thin skinned") and it affected my standing there, I ultimately got let go.

[Reef monkey]

Hey Reef Monkey,

I've read the same account. I'm glad you brought it up. My dad was a huge fan of the standards, including Frank, Dino, and his favorite, Nat King Cole. I heard them growing up all the time.

How's the sailing with your daughter going? My son is so busy now as a high school junior, I've sailed only once with him since school started and we've had fantastic weather for it.

Pretty much the same thing with me, my daughter started middle school this fall, joined the speech and debate team, is in choir, has school events that have kept us from heading to the coast, even though we're starting to get into the best weather of the year down here. It's a bummer. We're heading down in two weekends, though it's also the best fishing of the year right around then, so we'll probably be doing that.

Funny, your comments about Appalachia. My wife is originally from Tennessee, and her grandfather had such a thick Appalachian accent I could barely understand him at times. Sweet, sweet guy though. I call my wife "my little hillbilly", but she has a PhD.

[Pahonu]

You mention "minstrel shows" and maybe you mean racial jokes in general. But I for one mourn the loss of racial jokes. Those were always the best! Of course this was when people knew how to laugh at themselves and didn't take this stuff personally or get easily offended.

Or pretended they weren't offended just so they weren't seen as "uppity". I am a huge Sinatra and Rat Pack fan. Sinatra was a strong champion for racial equality, and helped his good friend Sammy Davis Jr. overcome racial barriers to his career. Sammy loved Frank and was always grateful for that. But Frank and the rest of the Rat Pack weren't above making the occasional racist joke at Sammy's expense, especially onstage at the Sands. I remember reading about how Sammy would play along, and knew that Frank, Dino, Pete, Joey didn't mean them maliciously, but confided to family that inside he often found them humiliating, and was also worried that at least half the audience were laughing at the jokes for the wrong reason, and seeing Frank make them sent the message that it was alright for them to do so when they got home from Vegas.

I still think the problem is more with the thin-skinned individual. A comedian's job is to make people laugh and the audience respond by laughing. If the individual is uncomfortable then he can just choose not to watch or choose not to participate. Or in Sammy's case even come right out and talk to Frank in private. It's not like Sammy didn't have enough clout within the Rat Pack. If you have thin skin sometimes you just have to suck it up. I don't know if that sounds mean or not. But to change comedy routines because some folks are uncomfortable is not the answer. I don't like the idea of "policing" people. Don't do this, don't say that. I'm of Slavic descent and I've heard tons of Slavic jokes and I'm always busting a gut laughing. Lots of the jokes are pretty spot-on, lots are exaggerated but it doesn't matter. At no point do I feel offended. Don Rickles was a great example of a comedian who just let loose and didn't spare anyone. Nothing was off limits. Rickles couldn't do that today. Different times. He'd be labeled as racist or cruel or whatever. But that's what made him funny. He wasn't playing the nice guy. He was playing the mean-spirited guy and he did it well. All part of the act. People understood that and didn't get their britches in a knot. And those who didn't understand it probably chose not to watch him. They had that right too.

There are certainly thin-skinned people in every generation. I have a very self-effacing sense of humor as does my wife and my daughter, but my son, less so. This seems to be more nature than nurture as far as my wife and I can see. Along those lines, however, I don't believe that today there are suddenly dramatically more people who are thin-skinned and pre-disposed to sensitivity. Instead I see the circumstances being a social moment where minorities finally feel empowered to speak up and say they don't like these type of comments or this type of humor. Sammy likely didn't speak up about his dislike of these racial jokes because just a decade or so earlier, and during his childhood, doing so could have had tragic consequences. "Uppity" black folk, to use Reef Monkey's sadly too accurate term, often found themselves hanging from a tree. I believe the same is true of other minority groups, not just racial minorities. In the past, speaking out against these bigoted comments carried with it very real consequences. A significant part of this perceived "politically correct" behavior (or overly politically correct according to some) is simply the new-found voice to speak up without serious consequence. People aren't suddenly more sensative to hurtful racial jokes, they are simply more likely to speak out against them than they were in the past.

[Pahonu]

I don't mean racial jokes in general. I'm referring to minstrel shows of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Here's a link to the University of Southern Florida on the topic.

http://exhibits.lib.usf.edu/exhibits/sh ... conography

Here's a typical image from these shows that lampooned black people as dim-witted, lazy, buffoonish, superstitious, and happy-go-lucky.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface ... e_edit.jpg

You seem to be painting with an overly broad brush. It's more complex than that. My family is inter-racial and have enjoyed greatly comedians who joke about racial and cultural differences. From George Lopez to Jeff Foxworthy to Allie Wong to Tyler Perry and many others, these comedians provide us all laughter as they joke about there experiences unique to their community. The form is alive and well based on the number of comedians I have seen in the last decade. I see no shortage of comedians making us laugh about these topics. You said it yourself, they can laugh at themselves. The very BIG difference is when someone chooses to joke about or mock other groups to which they have limited knowledge or experience. This was by definition, a minstrel show.

I see that. But aren't these caricatures pretty much what was shown on TV in the 50s on AMOS 'N ANDY?? You can check out a few episodes on YouTube. These were black actors playing these types of characters. Or how about Redd Foxx in SANFORD & SON two decades later? AMOS was before my time but I loved SANFORD (actually that show was before my time too). Both shows were very popular in the black community and in fact were created FOR the black viewing audience. Neither show painted blacks in a particularly positive light or as being successful and yet both had a large black following. Clearly there was something that the viewing audience could identify with and laugh at. Perhaps minstrel shows were more degrading (I've never seen one) but it seems like the black comedians picked up on this and ran with it.

Interestingly, Sanford and Son was based on a BBC series called Steptoe and Son which drew much of its humor from lower class society stereotypes. Sanford and Son took that premise and added the racial component, as the majority of African-Americans were in lower socio-economic circumstances in this country, as is still true today. Amos 'n Andy is not is not highly regarded in the black community today, nor in any critical circles. The same holds true for the earlier film actor Steppin Fetchit. They all made a living playing to the stereotypes of the day, but are judged accordingly today.

[Pahonu]

I still think the problem is more with the thin-skinned individual. A comedian's job is to make people laugh and the audience respond by laughing. If the individual is uncomfortable then he can just choose not to watch or choose not to participate. Or in Sammy's case even come right out and talk to Frank in private. It's not like Sammy didn't have enough clout within the Rat Pack. If you have thin skin sometimes you just have to suck it up. I don't know if that sounds mean or not. But to change comedy routines because some folks are uncomfortable is not the answer. I don't like the idea of "policing" people. Don't do this, don't say that. I'm of Slavic descent and I've heard tons of Slavic jokes and I'm always busting a gut laughing. Lots of the jokes are pretty spot-on, lots are exaggerated but it doesn't matter. At no point do I feel offended. Don Rickles was a great example of a comedian who just let loose and didn't spare anyone. Nothing was off limits. Rickles couldn't do that today. Different times. He'd be labeled as racist or cruel or whatever. But that's what made him funny. He wasn't playing the nice guy. He was playing the mean-spirited guy and he did it well. All part of the act. People understood that and didn't get their britches in a knot. And those who didn't understand it probably chose not to watch him. They had that right too.

I'm not trying to make this partisan, but in speaking about individuals being thin-skinned, I find that President Trump seems quite sensitive to this kind of lampooning by late-night talk shows, SNL, etc... It comes with being a public figure, and certainly a political figure. I recall he appeared on SNL years ago and was in a pretty funny skit that was a commercial for Trump's House of Wings. I remember it well because I'm a huge roots reggae fan, and Toots and the Maytals performed. SNL hasn't featured more than a couple reggae artists in over 40 years. He seemed okay with the mild lampooning then.

Based on some of his tweets, I'm reasonably sure Trump wouldn't appear again now with Alec Baldwin's caricature of him. It's unfortunate. Sarah Palin appeared in a skit with Tina Fey playing her and Hillary Clinton did as well with Amy Poehler's portrayal of her. I also recall President George HW Bush invited Dana Carvey to the White House to perform as him. These were all pretty funny characters, Carvey's being one of my all-time favorites. I also loved Darrell Hammond's absolutely wooden Al Gore and Will Farrell's W impersonation. I forgot Larry David's Bernie impression. These are all talented comedians and I totally agree with you that that's there job.

[ZelenskyTheValiant (Ivan)]

I've never been a fan or Rickles, or his brand of put-down humor. I just prefer more gentle, self-deprecating humor. My concern when people talk about others being "thin-skinned", is it seems to invalidate others' right to have their own taste in humor, and not find certain kinds of humor to be funny. People have different temperaments, some are more sensitive than others, just neurologically hard-wired to be that way, and telling them they are thin-skinned is basically telling them there is something wrong with who they are. It takes all kinds, and while we need people who insults roll of their backs for certain roles in society, so too do we need people who have a very well-developed sense of empathy.

I loved Rickles. I enjoyed his put-down humor and the jerk persona he always played. He always stayed in character, especially when guesting on Johnny Carson. I thought he was a riot! Funny thing is that I never got the vibe from him that he was a jerk in real life or that he really enjoyed treating people like crap, even though I rarely saw him out of character. He always stayed in character playing the jerk persona. But now Johnny Carson, he always seemed like a funny and likable guy yet rumors are that in real life he was quite cruel and mean-spirited and could really hold a grudge and destroy people, perhaps similar to Sinatra.

I'm sure there are some fine comedians out there today but I find that many of them are a bit too safe. Not that I don't enjoy safe comedy (I always liked Jay Leno's monologues as well as the above-mentioned Johnny Carson) but I guess I like my comedians to have a bit of a bite, to show some teeth. That's why I liked Rickles. One guy today that I like is Russell Peters (you can watch his stuff on YouTube). He can be a bit blue but he's not afraid to offend and he has that bite that I'm talking about. One thing that I don't enjoy is really crass humor or bathroom humor. Reeks of desperation to me and just tastelessness. It's one reason I never cared for Jim Carrey and his 90s "comedy" movies. To me they were just plain stupid and targeted at the lowest common denominator. I can laugh at racial jokes but I can't laugh at a toilet flushing. Sorry. Too low-brow. I require some intelligence in a joke. Same thing with Adam Sandler where he's babbling like a baby through the whole movie and I'm supposed to find that funny?