About LS.n


 
 

Somewhere in Louisiana, David Duke Is Smiling
by William S. Repsher

published 3/22/99

FEATURES HOME



William Repsher is a LeisureSuit.net staff writer based in Queens.



MOST RECENT YAK ABOUT THIS ARTICLE:

Subj: Yep...
Happens to me all the time in Chicago. Some black thug or thug wanna-be spits right before or after I walk by.

It's funny, I used to think to myself, "Boy, some of these guys sure do spit a lot; wonder why;" -- then I finally put two and two together and realized it's an aggressive screw Whitey thing.

Whatever. I'm not going to worry about the behavior of people who lack any proper concept of dignity or civility.

-- Me
Mar 29, 2009 at 3:21AM

Read more or post your own





Be cool like us!
Are you getting our weekly update?





It's GOOD to share!
E-mail this article to a buddy

The first time I saw it was back in the Bronx, early January 1997. I was walking home on a cold, sunny Sunday afternoon from the subway stop at 225th Street. There's a stretch of road heading east from Broadway with housing projects on one side, and parking lots and garages for a few hundred yards on the other, up to the Major Deegan Express overpass.

Walking along, I started to notice something odd. That part of the Bronx (actually, most of the Bronx) is overwhelmingly Hispanic, followed by a healthy number of black people, with a vast minority of Asians, Indians, whites and others. I'm white--from a small town in Pennsylvania's Hard Coal region. I had lived in relative peace for 10 years in the Bronx--a few minor incidents as the object of teenage name-calling, but that amounts to nill in the grand scheme of bigotry. A vast majority of my racial experiences were (and still are) positive.

What was odd was that out of the 10 or so kids I passed on that stretch, I'd say seven spit as I passed them. Not at me or on me--they simply spit on the sidewalk as I passed. Being white in this kind of environment, I was hyper-aware of little things like this.

When I got home, I thought, "That was strange." Some days in the city, a cluster of negative coincidences occur, and one can foolishly deduce something more massive, along the lines of "the world is going crazy" or "this town is going to hell."

Little did I know that that was the start of something more massive, although hardly along those apocalyptic terms in the previous paragraph. What it means, I still don't know, and I don't see it as much as I did back in early 1997, but that day represented the start of what I call "this spitting thing." What it seems to be is an ongoing, mostly-teenage trend of black and Hispanic males spitting as a white man passes. Again, not at or on, just spitting as a sign of disrespect, done in a way that if the white man were to react violently, the kid could throw up his hands in mock indignation and say, "I didn't do anything."

I've seen this, literally, hundreds of times. Sometimes blatantly, other times more casually. Not always kids, either--sometimes grown men, but very few women. I'd love to include Asian, white, Indian and other kids in this group, but, in all honesty, that hasn't been my experience.

You most likely won't read about this anywhere else, as when a white person in New York point out bigotry, unless it involves other white people, he's portrayed as a bitter killjoy in a spiked Nazi helmet. Point well taken--a walk through any midtown corporate office or the Upper East Side will illustrate how few non-white faces one encounters in the more moneyed parts of this world. What many never consider is that plenty of white people (especially from the working class--like me) are on the outside of this world, too, and won't be receiving a gilt-edged invitation any time soon.

Is this spitting thing meant to be against all white people? I don't know--I have a white friend who lives in Washington Heights (for those unfamiliar with New York, that's a neighborhood north of Harlem nearly devoid of white people) who notices it all the time, too. (I no longer live in the Bronx--but rest assured, I still see it in Queens.)

At first I thought, "Maybe these kids think I'm a cop," as I do have that burly, Irish look endemic to New York City police (although I'll never grow a bad mustache, get that awful Queens accent or gain 30 more pounds to really get the look down). This was immediately followed by the rational question, "How many black and Hispanic 'cops' do these kids do this spitting thing with?" Meaning, even if that "police" excuse was valid, it's still bigotry, as I'm no cop, and, frankly, have had a few bad scrapes with small-town cops.

I simply did not want to admit to myself that an embarrassing trend had sprung up with New York inner-city kids emulating the sort of low-level harassment more acquainted with your average 1950's white racist. Naturally, racial problems grow far worse (like white ex-cons dragging a black man to death behind a pick-up truck in Texas, or white cops fatally shooting an innocent black man 41 times in the Bronx). I am acutely aware of these injustices, and many more, but that still doesn't invalidate the pity and disgust I feel towards kids indulging in this self-defeating nonsense.

The irony of this spitting thing, especially when I lived in the Bronx, is that the white people who will bear the brunt of this annoying head game are the ones who are the least racist in our society. By that, I don't mean that not being racist is a wonderful, "gold star by your name" accomplishment, but how many white people will ever live, or even consider living, in a neighborhood where white people are not in a vast majority? I was hardly a Freedom Rider for living in a run-down part of the Bronx. Then again, I had no problem with the color of my neighbor's skin on a mass level and still don't now. I often wonder how many white people could take that test and pass.

Does this all sound strange and confused? Good, because that's exactly how it makes me feel, and I anticipate those who haven't experienced this spitting thing will consider me paranoid and/or racist. I am not imagining this and truly wish I was--if anyone has a valid explanation, I'd love to hear it. I have no idea what it means, or how many other people notice it. (It's hardly a hot dinner-table topic, especially with well-meaning white folks who are still convinced that it's 1963 and we're all at some wonderful SNCC meeting on campus.) I don't understand how anyone could feel justified doing something so blatantly bigoted and slovenly and, in his mind, see it as a valid racial statement.

How do I react? Try to humiliate the kid in return? That would only make me a pale imitation of him and spread a disease too many morons already have. Being from a small town and having seen white racists in action, I understand that to act this way, one must already feel a profound sense of humiliation in his life, mixed with a debilitating lack of intelligence. This person craves attention, even if it's negative. He doesn't consider consequences to his actions. He must have no self-respect to openly disrespect a stranger and not see it as a fault within himself. Forgive me for pointing this out, but I'd be glad to point out the same for every black or Hispanic man who keeps his cool on the receiving end of the same kind of cowardly bullshit from white kids: I'm better than that.

Where will all this lead? Hopefully, it will fade as another urban trend takes its place. The inner city is loaded with trends that spread like wildfire and never get picked up by the white media. Most of them are fun. Like the summer back in the early 90's when milk crates started appearing as informal basketball hoops on trees all over the Bronx and Harlem. Or the trend of rolling up one pants leg--by the time I heard white people at work talking about that one, it had been old hat in the neighborhood for a year or two. Or when "Hey-yo" became the shouted greeting of choice between two friends on the street.

When I told a Puerto Rican friend in Manhattan about this spitting thing, hoping he might fill me in on some inside joke I wasn't getting as a white man, he shook his head and laughed, "Bill, welcome to the neighborhood! I've been seeing stupid shit like this all my life, and I'm not even talking about white people."

On my way to the subway train in the morning in Queens, I pass through a large crowd of kids going to the Episcopalian school in my neighborhood. They come flooding off the subway train, mostly black and hispanic kids from places like my old neighborhood in the Bronx, on their way to a school in a racially-mixed neighborhood, although I'd bet these kids perceive it to be "white" as they have only their own neighborhoods to compare it with.

A few mornings, I've nearly been knocked down by the white people from my new neighborhood, scurrying to get out of the way, as if even brushing against these kids will somehow taint them. Now, if kids wanted to do this spitting thing for people like this who are clearly treating them as lesser human beings, I'm all for it. But for a white man walking down the street minding his own business?

All I want is for people to treat me as I treat them, which means showing respect, unless given a reason to show something less. Above and beyond this silly trend, which shall pass, that doesn't seem impossible to me. I've found it time and again with people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds in New York. I think it may be the main reason I stay here, as simple, everyday interactions that debunk racist rhetoric don't exist many places in America.

So understand that when I title this piece Somewhere in Louisiana, David Duke Is Smiling, I do so unsmilingly, with the knowledge that plenty of kids right here in New York have assimilated a passive-aggressive tactic of racial antagonism that would do any Klansman proud. Whatever they're trying to prove with this spitting thing, it isn't working, which must not be an alien feeling in their lives.


Your name:

Subject:


Comments:

Forward a copy of this yak to the LS.n Editors

Forward a copy of this yak to this article's author

If you want to get an e-mail if someone responds to your yak, give us your address below. It won't be made public.

THE YAK SHACK


Name: Me
Subject: Yep...
-- Mar 29, 2009 at 3:21AM
Happens to me all the time in Chicago. Some black thug or thug wanna-be spits right before or after I walk by.

It's funny, I used to think to myself, "Boy, some of these guys sure do spit a lot; wonder why;" -- then I finally put two and two together and realized it's an aggressive screw Whitey thing.

Whatever. I'm not going to worry about the behavior of people who lack any proper concept of dignity or civility.

Name: Anonymous
Subject: Happens to me in NY
-- Feb 12, 2009 at 10:54PM
I am also an African American male in his early 20s and it happens to me on a regular basis. And its not only other blacks that do it...its also Latinos, whites, and Asians.

In fact when I was living in upstate NY for a while it was predominantly done by whites.

I generally carry myself in a "preppy" way and due to my work I have to be professionally dressed at all times.

So I think the blacks do it to me because they can see I'm not cut out of the same cloth as those who do it (i.e. I'm not a thug), and the other races do it to me because I'm black.

I've developed the habit if spitting back and it normally throws them off-guard

Name: Stinky Bot
Subject: It Happens in Oakland Too
-- Oct 21, 2007 at 6:37AM
I've always been curious, because it happens to me in Oakland. Whenever I would pass some young man, usually black, he would spit on the ground as I approached or passed.

I'm a white man living in Oakland, CA for 25 years and I began noticing it in my 20s, the first time, when I was out on a date with a black woman. A man walking the opposite direction spit directly in our path. When I was younger and smaller, I was usually the victim of random attacks on the street, but after I grew over 6 feet tall by age 18, the violence stopped and the spitting began. Once a young black man who lived a few houses down from me spit every time I approached or passed him in the neighborhood, so I decided to try a little experiment. I readied a spitwad in case he spit, and if he did, I'd spit at the same time. We never said a word to one another, but he soon gave up his spitting practice, I think he knew I was on to him.

Name: Mary
Subject: Somewhere in Lousiana David Duke is Smiling
-- Jul 13, 2004 at 11:36PM


I grew up in Baton Rouge, where there is much prejudice against African Americans. Predjudice of any kind is wrong. We have raised our children to never use the word ' nigger.' My husband and I both grew up in families that used that word, yet we don't and don't allow anyone in our presence to use the n word. I am constantly having to remind my mother not to say it in my presence. I think a lot of prejudice has to do with not having a relationship with Jesus and not showing the same mercy to others that Jesus showed to us. It depends on where your heart is. God Bless, Mary

Name: Hutton Gibson's Da Vinci Code
Subject: Mel Gibson is a cultural masochist.
-- Apr 18, 2004 at 4:58AM
Mel Gibson is a cultural masochist.

I. Mel Gibson is the culmination and reification of his period, culture, and civilization. He is likely to rise to prominence in masochistic societies.

The cultural masochist invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and the trappings of power further exacerbate this. Real life authority and Mel Gibson’s predilection to surround himself with obsequious sycophants support Mel Gibson’s grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience.

Mel Gibson's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most masochists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, masochists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".

Mel Gibson fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, and mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.

Mel Gibson is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Mel Gibson became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman" .

But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.

In this restricted sense, cultural masochists are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to, as "nature" is not natural at all.

Mel Gibson invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Cultural masochism is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.

In short: cultural masochism is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this masochistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.

Cultural masochism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Cultural masochism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.

Cultural masochism often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Masochistic movements are puerile, a reaction to masochistic injuries inflicted upon a masochistic (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.

Minorities or "others" - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent" , they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are masochistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenseless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Masochists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.

This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a cultural masochist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.

Mel Gibson prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the after

Name: WASPS AGAINST DAVID DUKE
Subject: David Duke is a malignant narcissist.
-- Mar 8, 2004 at 6:01AM
David Duke is a malignant narcissist.

He invents and then projects a false, fictitious, self for the world to fear, or to admire. He maintains a tenuous grasp on reality to start with and the trappings of power further exacerbate this. Real life authority and David Duke’s predilection to surround him with obsequious sycophants support David Duke’s grandiose self-delusions and fantasies of omnipotence and omniscience.
David Duke's personality is so precariously balanced that he cannot tolerate even a hint of criticism and disagreement. Most narcissists are paranoid and suffer from ideas of reference (the delusion that they are being mocked or discussed when they are not). Thus, narcissists often regard themselves as "victims of persecution".
Duke fosters and encourages a personality cult with all the hallmarks of an institutional religion: priesthood, rites, rituals, temples, worship, catechism, and mythology. The leader is this religion's ascetic saint. He monastically denies himself earthly pleasures (or so he claims) in order to be able to dedicate himself fully to his calling.
Duke is a monstrously inverted Jesus, sacrificing his life and denying himself so that his people - or humanity at large - should benefit. By surpassing and suppressing his humanity, Duke became a distorted version of Nietzsche's "superman" .
But being a-human or super-human also means being a-sexual and a-moral.
In this restricted sense, narcissistic leaders are post-modernist and moral relativists. They project to the masses an androgynous figure and enhance it by engendering the adoration of nudity and all things "natural" - or by strongly repressing these feelings. But what they refer to, as "nature" is not natural at all.
Duke invariably proffers an aesthetic of decadence and evil carefully orchestrated and artificial - though it is not perceived this way by him or by his followers. Narcissistic leadership is about reproduced copies, not about originals. It is about the manipulation of symbols - not about veritable atavism or true conservatism.
In short: narcissistic leadership is about theatre, not about life. To enjoy the spectacle (and be subsumed by it), the leader demands the suspension of judgment, depersonalization, and de-realization. Catharsis is tantamount, in this narcissistic dramaturgy, to self-annulment.
Narcissism is nihilistic not only operationally, or ideologically. Its very language and narratives are nihilistic. Narcissism is conspicuous nihilism - and the cult's leader serves as a role model, annihilating the Man, only to re-appear as a pre-ordained and irresistible force of nature.
Narcissistic leadership often poses as a rebellion against the "old ways" - against the hegemonic culture, the upper classes, the established religions, the superpowers, the corrupt order. Narcissistic movements are puerile, a reaction to narcissistic injuries inflicted upon David Duke like (and rather psychopathic) toddler nation-state, or group, or upon the leader.
Minorities or "others" - often arbitrarily selected - constitute a perfect, easily identifiable, embodiment of all that is "wrong". They are accused of being old, they are eerily disembodied, they are cosmopolitan, they are part of the establishment, they are "decadent" , they are hated on religious and socio-economic grounds, or because of their race, sexual orientation, origin ... They are different, they are narcissistic (feel and act as morally superior), they are everywhere, they are defenseless, they are credulous, they are adaptable (and thus can be co-opted to collaborate in their own destruction). They are the perfect hate figure. Narcissists thrive on hatred and pathological envy.
This is precisely the source of the fascination with Hitler, diagnosed by Erich Fromm - together with Stalin - as a malignant narcissist. He was an inverted human. His unconscious was his conscious. He acted out our most repressed drives, fantasies, and wishes. He provides us with a glimpse of the horrors that lie beneath the veneer, the barbarians at our personal gates, and what it was like before we invented civilization. Hitler forced us all through a time warp and many did not emerge. He was not the devil. He was one of us. He was what Arendt aptly called the banality of evil. Just an ordinary, mentally disturbed, failure, a member of a mentally disturbed and failing nation, who lived through disturbed and failing times. He was the perfect mirror, a channel, a voice, and the very depth of our souls.
Duke prefers the sparkle and glamour of well-orchestrated illusions to the tedium and method of real accomplishments. His reign is all smoke and mirrors, devoid of substances, consisting of mere appearances and mass delusions. In the aftermath of his regime - Duke having died, been deposed, or voted out of office - it all unravels. The tireless and constant prestidigitation ceases and the entire edifice crumbles. What looked like an economic miracle turns

Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: spitting
-- Jan 26, 2004 at 11:10AM
You're probably right. I can vaguely recall conversation with one of my Latino friends about how much I noticed people spitting in the Bronx. The thing is, I don't think he was aware of this either. But as time went on, and definitely later in the 90s, I started noticing this constantly. I was too innocent/naive/wishi ng to believe that all off-white folk were Martin Luther King or Billy Cosby to put things together. And I think most white folk still fall in that camp.

Is it better to be aware of something like this? Sure. It always help to understand hatred. But as noted here, the best plan of action is to simply walk on. Because that warped asshole is only a momentary part of your life and will hopefully stay that way for fleeting seconds. I've known more than a few white bigots in my time, but in all honesty, none so brazen to pull infantile crap like this. Live and learn!

Name: Jeff in DC
Subject: spitting
-- Jan 26, 2004 at 10:35AM
I first noticed this spitting thing when I moved to Capitol Hill in '93. The homeboys hanging around the entrance to the supermarket would spit at my feet as I entered the store. I'm sure it was happening earlier than that, when I lived in other parts of DC, but it took me a few years to make the connection between my presence and the spitting.

Name: William S. Repsher Responds
Subject: Re: Spitting
-- Sep 4, 2001 at 6:44AM
Thanks, Trevor, for not just noticing this nonsense, but saying something about it. I still see it, four years later, and still get that same creepy feeling every single time. I've seen white kids doing it, too -- ALWAYS buffoon hiphoppers. So I'm gathering the roots of this crap lie somewhere around there. But as I'm sure you're aware, this conversation topic is about as popular as inviting a dead skunk to dinner. My only advice is to ignore people this crass and stupid, whatever color they may be -- I've realized there are far too many out there to waste your anger on. I guarantee someone that stupid is bound to fumble through a miserable life -- punishment enough for worthless jackasses like this.

Name: Trevor
Subject: Spitting
-- Sep 3, 2001 at 9:19PM
I am a mulatto male living in Toronto and you are absolutely right with your observances. I too have been the victim of this "subtle" yet annoying spitting thing. I thought it was just me but I decided to do some research on the web and discovered your article. It's a pity that people have to resort to this imbecile behaviour. On a positive note, it could be worse; however, it is totally unacceptable.

Concerned.


This page is best viewed with the latest version of the Netscape or Microsoft Internet Explorer browser.

© Copyright 1998-2001 LeisureSuit Media, LLC, All Rights Reserved.
Some content is copyrighted by the author and is used with permission. No portion of this page or its content may be reproduced, in part or in whole, electronically, in print, or in any other form or by any other means, without the written consent of the LeisureSuit.net editors. Contact us at webmaster@leisuresuit.net.
[an error occurred while processing this directive]