You've perhaps heard of Bill O'Reilly's trip to Sylvia's in Harlem after which he informed people that he "couldn't get over the fact that there was no difference between Sylvia's restaurant and any other restaurant in New York City. I mean, it was exactly the same, even though it's run by blacks, primarily black patronship." Indeed. Ben Wasserstein has some other similarities O'Reilly might have noticed between white- and black-owned dining establishments.
« Making Nice | Main | UN Metablog »
Dining in Harlem
24 Sep 2007 02:00 pm
Comments (37)
O'Reilly should take comfort in the fact that Sylvia's Sould Food does have its own line of hair care products.
Wasserstein's posting seems like one of those odd corner cases of good taste - trotting out ugly stereotypes to make fun of a racist. I'm not sure it worked here.
The bitching about this is moronic. O'Reilly was trying to say something obvious, and he was speaking, as I understand it, to his audience. He's behind the times, said it badly, and in doing so perhaps betrayed an unfortunate attitude for someone living in this day and age. But it was something like an olive branch, and people ought to be willing to give him a little room for such an attempt.
Well, "SomeCallMeTim", the bitching IS probably stupid. Not for the reasons you specified, but because Bill O'Reilly is an individual lacking even the most rudimentary forms of integrity or decency. Thus marvelling at what he says is sort of like being surprised by the smell of cow manure.
Why should people give Bill O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt? What on earth has he ever done to deserve it?
SCMT, I agree insofar as people are actually "bitching" about O'Reilly's comments.
But comedy is comedy, and O'Reilly is an oh-so-entertaining target. Let the kids have some fun.
SomeCallMeTim:
O'Reilly was trying to say something obvious, and he was speaking, as I understand it, to his audience. He's behind the times, said it badly, and in doing so perhaps betrayed an unfortunate attitude for someone living in this day and age.
O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: That's right. That's right. There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea."
There wasn't one person in Sylvia's who was screaming, "M-Fer, I want more iced tea."
Only because I wasn't there that day.
That's usually how I order, although I often finish up with a "and make it quick, bee-yotch!"
Couldn't post this over at TNR because I don't subscribe to the magazine. Bill O'Reilly is an idiot, no question. But, according to the comments over there in Wasserstein's blog, this story is giving people the excuse to air their favorite racial stereotype. Who are contributing these posts? Are these people just dying to use words like watermelon, fried chicken, and crack.
Yeah, but I'll bet the waitperson spit in O'Reilly's iced tea.
I know I would.
Yeah, but I'll bet the waitperson spit in O'Reilly's iced tea.
I think that would happen to him in places other than Harlem.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10004302/
Yes, Todd, if you make fun of both racist stereotypes and the fact that O'Reilly is comically ignorant racist, that means you're a racist yourself. Brilliant logic there.
I went to a Negro restaurant once and I was surprised, too. No one stole my car nor ordered watermelon.
Is that an "olive branch" as well? Or just an incredibly ignorant, racist statement?
Is that an "olive branch" as well? Or just an incredibly ignorant, racist statement?
Yes.
Woody-
Revolutionary idea stating the obvious about O'Reilly. Equally edgy comic material to regurgitate racial stereotypes. You deserve to be put right up there with Richard Pryor and George Carlin.
Todd,
You still don't get it. All of those comments on TNR are what the commentators think O'Reilly is saying. The joke is that O'Reilly's view of blacks is a bunch of regurgitated racial stereotypes, not the stereotypes.
*Lighten up, Francis.*
Eric K-
I get it just fine. What I'm saying is that just because O'Reilly adheres to stereotypes doesn't justify posting whatever supposedly funny racial joke you can think of. And let's not start the I have plenty of black friends posts. I can kind of see where this thing is headed.
Any of you bloggers, you try an' touch me, an' I'll...
Folks, folks, calm down...O'Reily has it wrong.We black folks don't use the term 'm-fer' when asking for iced-tea, we only use it when we are asking for wallets or asking you to get out of your car while it is stopped at a light...just had to clear that up.
I too hate myself everytime I forget that O'Reily is a well paid clown.
C'mon, guys, be honest. Everybody knows that in heavily immigrant cities, few restaurants are owned and managed by African-Americans. I would bet that Matthew Yglesias has been to more restaurants in DC owned and managed by immigrant blacks, such as Ethiopians, than to restaurants owned by American-born blacks.
In 18 years in Chicago, I can recall being to two restaurants run by African-Americans.
Here's another question for you: What % of the American-born black male waiters have you have had in sit-down restaurants who weren't likely gay? I'd probably guess, oh 20%. What about for Mexican-American male waiters in Mexican restaurants? I'd guess the straight proportion was 90% or higher.
You can figure out a lot about modern American from thinking frankly about that for awhile.
I'm always struck by how many commenters here feel ignorance is cool, that to be part of the in crowd, you need both to have zero pattern recognition skills and to make fun of anybody who does notice statistical patterns in reality.
Steve, one can be honest about demographic facts -- yes, it's probably true that there are relatively few young male, black waiters compared to other races; I certainly don't know about the gay part, mostly because it's not really possible to 'tell' someone is gay from looking at them; but there are probably fewer young male black waiters, especially in restaurants you visit.
However, what we object to is the rhetorical sleight of hand by which you attempt to attach some kind of moral weight to these facts through insinuation, a moral weight that seems to inevitably redound (surprise!) to the advantage of whites and the disadvantage of brown and black-skinned peoples.
Moreover, I'd also say the empiricists amongst us object to your extensive use of argument by anecdote, i.e., via your personal observations.
Ben Cronin,
Sailer's usually pretty quick to back what he says up with government stats and the like, when those are available. Arguing from anecdote isn't useless though, particularly when it takes into account a large sum of experiences. I never thought much about the gay thing, but I can concur that here in the New York area, we rarely see a black waiter or black busboy (outside of, say, the local Jamaican restaurant). A couple of weeks ago, my girlfriend and I had lunch at a popular brunch spot on the Upper West Side and we had a black waiter, but that was literally the second time in the last few hundred times we dined out where we were waited on by a black person (the other time was at the local Jamaican place).
Sailer:
American-born, (non-gay) black male waiters: sit-down restaurants :: Mexican-American male waiters:Mexican restaurants
Do you see what's a little off here? (Unless "sit-down restaurants" has some meaning I'm unfamiliar with). You're comparing the frequency of males of one ethnic group being employed in restuarants-in-general vs. the frequency of males of another ethnic group being employed by restuarants specializing in that particular ethnic cuisine. Indeed, that pattern holds for Fred's observation re: black waiters in his local Jamaican restaurant (although this does hit your first point). I admit to being a bit confused by your "another question" point, though - I was assuming you were going for something about how immigrant minorities are oh so much better than homegrown, but the male-but-not-gay thing leaves me frankly bewildered - what are you talking about?
I wonder if many restaurants tend to avoid black people as waitstaff for, basically, status and white-customer-pleasing reasons?
The point is that at present African-Americans and Mexican-Americans have different concepts of masculinity. Mexican-Americans do see being a server in a restaurant, or working in other servile capacities, as demeaning to their sense of manhood, while American-born black males do. This was not true in the past. For example, Pullman-car porters/stewards were almost all black, and stewards were respected within the black community as responsible, well-paid, and worldly. (By the way, Pullman waiters played a key role in developing a national black political consciousness by distributing northern black newspapers like the Chicago Defender around the south.)
After the 1960s, however, this attitude changed and straight black males are today much less often seen in servile jobs. They have largely been replaced by Latino immigrants, or in some places, such as Washington DC, by African immigrants. This would not be a problem, except that African-American male employement ratios are so low these days -- lots of black Americans are just out of the work force.
I often wonder whether Latin American immigrant males will someday undergo the same social evolution and decide they won't work servile jobs either.
Damn.
The second sentence should read:
"Mexican-Americans do NOT see being a server in a restaurant, or working in other servile capacities, as demeaning to their sense of manhood, while American-born black males do."
Fred,
Yes, anecdote has its place, especially in lieu of something more solid.
However, the question is not of the factuality, but of the meaning of the fact that there seem to be, in the experiences of several observers, few black male young waiters in Chicago, NYC, or, in my case, Boston and Ann Arbor, Mich.
But that's not what I'm driving at. It's the meaning of the facts. I would point to larger and social economic factors to explain this seeming-fact of apparent low rates of black male waiters. The question is what significance does one make of this fact -- and I don't think I like the significance Sailer seems to impute. He seems to draw normative conclusions about racial worth from transient political and social conditions WHICH ARE ENTIRELY ACCIDENTS OF HISTORY. His position on race relations seems to be that, simply because something is, it must be just. That is, if whites excercise domination in the US, it is therefore good. It's like some kind of reactionary Dr. Pangloss.
But maybe I'm wrong on Steve;s views, and am open to being corrected or further informed, not least by Mr. Sailer himself, who is admittedly an honest and intelligent contributor to the conversation.
My concern is with the future impact of immigration. We're importing a huge number of unskilled Latin-Americans illegal immigrants in part because African-Americans males have largely opted out of filling those kinds of jobs as being inconsistent with their dignity as men.
I can certainly understand the accidents of history that brought this mood among African-Americans about, and sympathize with it too. The downside of this historic change in attitude, however, is that for unskilled African-American males, their distaste for honest but servile work tends to leave them stranded in the underclass with no work to do.
My question is whether a similar change in mood will not some day also become popular among Hispanic males in America. At present, we don't have as large a Hispanic underclass as black underclass in America, in part because unskilled Hispanics generally don't feel that servile jobs are beneath them. But, what if they undergo a similar awakening, as happened among blacks in the 1960s? Will this leave us with a new Hispanic underclass comparable in size to the black underclass? (While American-born Hispanics tend to be a little more skilled than blacks on average, they still lag well behind whites and Asians on average in educational performance. And the Hispanic community is already larger than the black community and is growing fast.)
And will we then import, say, Indian Untouchables to do the jobs that Hispanics just won't do anymore?
Or, is there something innate that will make Hispanics want to do forever the jobs that blacks won't do anymore? That seems to be a popular assumption among white Americans these days, but I haven't heard a fully persuasive case for it.
I'm not sure why I'm talking to Steve Sailer, but Steve, I used to work in a restaurant in Savannah, ga. All the waitstaff was white. All the kitchen staff, except one head chef, was black or latino (more of the former). This was because the owner of the restaurant was prejudiced against black people, and thought that his business would do better without black or brown faces visible in the restaurant. He may have been right in this business judgment. NB this is not a story about how it's part of black culture to not want to wait on people. It's a story about enduring racial prejudice in our fair land.
Why doesn't Sailer have a place of his own to air his "theories" on race?
I wish there were a restaurant where all the patrons, white and black, were like "motherfucker, I want some iced tea." It would be fun to go to, maybe less fun to work in.
One of the classic examples of African-American men turning away from servile jobs is the decline of the black caddy in professional golf.
I wrote in 2003:
One of the last black caddies on the Tour is Freddie Burns, who has carried Hal Sutton's bag for over 20 years. He pointed out: "In 1981, there were twice as many black caddies as whites. Now I'm the only one carrying a top-50 bag."
Today, PGA tour caddies tend to be white guys who, say, really weren't sure they wanted to go to law school, and have been humping a bag ever since.
At the rich men's clubs that still have caddies, the caddies now tend to be white college kids. The pay is very good these days. I saw an article about some Duke students who fly to Long Island each weekend to carry bags at Shinnecock and The National.
This isn't just a supply-side change. White Americans are very uncomfortable about employing blacks in servile roles. Few images make modern Americans, black or white, more uncomfortable than that of a white golfer strolling down a manicured fairway with his black caddie trudging behind him.
For three generations, the black bag-toter was a fixture at country clubs and on the PGA Tour, most notably at Augusta National, site of this week's Masters Tournament. By now, though, they are almost all gone, replaced at most courses by whizzing golf carts, and at the big-money tournaments by well-educated and remarkably well-paid white caddies.
Christopher, it would all depend on how the patrons said, "motherfucker, I want some iced tea," I suppose.
Steve, the pay for caddies is significantly higher and whites are less likely to want to hire blacks, but somehow there are fewer black caddies because black people don't want to do the jobs? I think there's a bit of a flaw in that logic.
I can't stand O'Reilly either, but weren't his comments in answer to a specific question about the negative cultural influence of hip-hop and rap? In other words, he didn't walk out of the restaurant onto his show and say, "Wow, you won't believe this," but rather someone asked him about the vulgarity of hip-hop and he said, in effect, "That's not typical." Not saying he's still not the worst person in the world, just that this particular quote may not reflect that.
I honestly wasn't offended by his comments. O'Reilly is obviously very ignorant when it comes to us (blacks) but I think his comments highlight the negative and socially incompetent perception that we give of ourselves to the rest of America. It's sad but the reality is that the only exposure to black folks that some people like O'Reilly get is on TV. I'm not excusing what he said. I'm just saying that I think he spoke out of ignorance.
Does anyone know what he was asked prior to making his comments?
Steve -
Thanks for the explanation, but one still needs to consider the 'ethnic restaurant' factor - in other words, to use this as an good illustration of the scarcity of African-American men in "servile" positions, the proper comparison would be with Hispanic or African-immigrant or Asian men working as waiters in non-[their ethnicity] restaurants.
Comments closed October 08, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
They serve falafel?
Posted by ProfD | September 24, 2007 2:11 PM