On strapping

Paul Krugman rattles off a long series of "innocent mistakes" that President Ronald Reagan made that may have led some people to conclude that he had a pattern of pandering to white racists.

Like, say, kicking off his campaign for president at the notorious site of the murder of three civil rights workers and proclaiming there, "I believe in states rights."

Or his urban myths about "welfare queens." Or his siding with Bob Jones University in support of its ban against interracial dating. Or his opposition to Martin Luther King Day. That sort of thing.

I think I've discovered the religious root of at least one of Reagan's innocent mistakes. Here's how Krugman summarizes it:

In 1976, he talked about working people angry about the “strapping young buck” using food stamps to buy T-bone steaks at the grocery store.

Granted, that sounds bad. "Strapping young buck" is, after all, language taken directly from the auction block. By using such language, Reagan doesn't just seem to have been merely signaling his sympathy for segregationists -- he seems to have been signaling his sympathy for slavery.

But I think I can explain how Reagan and others like him were just making an "innocent mistake" based on their reading of the Bible.

Specifically, Acts 8:26-39. This is the story of the apostle Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch.

Now to a liberal backslider such as myself, this passage is another example of the anvilicious motif of inclusion that dominates the first half of Luke's account. Luke is taking great pains in these pages to show that the gospel is meant for everyone, and thus selects an unsubtle series of representative encounters: the European gentile businesswoman; the African official; the Roman centurion. It's like the politically correct ensemble of an after-school special. The previous two chapters told the story of Stephen -- an official in the church's affirmative action program for the Greek widows. And this chapter begins with the apostle Philip preaching among the Samaritans -- the ultimate despised pariah group for the young church. (I picture Theophilus rolling his eyes by this point, "Yes, yes, Luke, I get it. Every tribe and every nation as equals in a single community. Point made already.")

In the latter half of Acts 8, Philip is suddenly whisked off to Africa, where he meets "an Ethiopian eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians." Philip tells him "the good news about Jesus," baptizes this new member of the multiethnic, transnational community of believers, and the man goes on his way rejoicing.

So to a reprobate liberal reader such as myself, it would seem that a passage like the eighth chapter of Acts would be strong evidence that Reagan's attitude ought to be anathema for Christians. How then do we account for "Christians" like those from Bob Jones University, or the many more "good, Christian people" to whom Reagan was appealing with his loaded language and his racist description of this "strapping young buck"?

The explanation, I think, lies in Dr. Tim LaHaye's reminder that:

"Unless you take [the Bible] literally, you will never understand it. The key to receiving blessing from this very exciting book is to take it literally, just as the Lord intended."

A literal interpretation of Acts 8 doesn't get bogged down in consideration of the motifs and the themes of Luke's account. It doesn't worry itself with distracting questions like, "What is the context?" or "What does this story mean?" It simply focuses on the words themselves.

Read literally, Acts 8 does not teach that all people everywhere are welcome into the community of believers. It teaches, rather, that African men are welcome only if they are eunuchs.

I'm being facetious, of course. I don't know of anyone who explicitly advocates this particular literal reading of this particular text. And yet, somehow, America is rife with nominally "Christian" people who act and live and behave (and, yes, vote) as though this were precisely what they believed.

Odd, that.

(For further reading: The Southern Strategy Revisited, by Joseph A. Aistrup; Soul on Ice, by Eldridge Cleaver; The Gospel in Black & White, by Dennis L. Okholm, ed.)

Comments

[1982_Cygni]

Maybe you read the text literally in another way, it appears that black people are welcome to the church provided they take initiative, like anyone else. After all, the eunuch does read the scripture, ask questions about it (although his answer did come about by a literal Deus ex machina), and most importantly point to the water and ask to be baptized. Eunuchs are associated with being soft and effeminate and taking orders, not engaging in theological discourse.

But what do I know? I'm still very much in the beginning of learning faith, although I'm a cradle Catholic, and I'm white.

[Scott]

Ahhhhh....it's been too long since Fred posted another "admire my superior morality, admire me bitch, ADMIRE ME!!!" screed. Thanks, Fred, but you left out the "and this is why people like me should have power over you" bit.

[burgundy]

"admire my superior morality, admire me bitch, ADMIRE ME!!!"

Ooh, it's another t-shirt motto! I hope someone's collecting these; we could make a killing on Cafe Press.

I think it would work better if it were more succinct though. I propose:

ADMIRE MY SUPERIOR MORALITY, BITCH

[Ecks]

Oh Scott, I imagine you wearing one of those propeller beanies from way back when, made entirely out of tinfoil. It's your unique blend of paranoia and juvenalia I think.

On the topic of disturbing statements, but from an *actually* unimpeachable source, I was just re-reading Night Watch by Pratchett that had been languishing on my shelf, and there's this whole page where he launches into NRA wingnuttia. It's the bit where Vimes reflects disapprovingly on the old patrician before Vetanari, who was insane and tried to ban weapons in the populace. Of course, criminals don't actually obey the law so they had a great time feasting on the innocents foolish enough to comply, and by enforcing the law on those citizens they did catch, it turned the watch into just another armed gang struggling among many. Seriously, he goes through this whole logic.

And, y'know, in a fantasy world where the crooks really are crooks, and the innocent really are... well, wacky, that's all well and good. But surely he's got to know what is REALLY done with this rhetoric, and how many people believe it to such destructive ends. It also made me realize that (at least in this book), Vimes really is a bit of a Marty Sue.

Please make it go away, I don't like thinking bad things about the Pterry!

[hapax]

Honestly, Scott, laudable as his morality may be, I personally admire Fred for his superior writing. His writing shows deftness, cleverness, thoughtfulness, succinctness, humor, and grace, all of which are sadly lacking in your responses. (Although I admit you've got him soundly beat on vulgarity, randomness, and l33t punktuashun skillz.)

And THAT is why people like him should have power over you. (Oh, yeah, and because he's paying for hosting this place. Not you.)

[Tonio]

Luke is taking great pains in these pages to show that the gospel is meant for everyone

I never made that connection. I had assumed that Acts was intended as an inspiring historical account of the early church.

[ako]

It teaches, rather, that African men are welcome only if they are eunuchs.

That argument's scary, even as a joke. Someone might jump on it. I mean we've successfully redefined 'religious freedom' in the US to the point where people seriously claim that the gay couple down the street getting married is violating their religious freedom to look down on gay relationships. Someone gets wind of this, the national debates might shift to whether intact African males are violating the religious freedom of people who take this passage "literally".

[Pope Easier Rhino I]

Is it just me, or did anyone else hear the words, "strapping young buck," and think of sadomasochistic fan fiction involving the GIRAT? Probably just me.

Then, strapping young Buck to the table, Nicolae pulled out his unholy whip and began beating the reporter. 'I'm going to make you MY whore of Babylon,' he whispered in his ear.

Whoa, definitely just me.

On a more serious note, I think it's a measure of how racist we all are that I had no idea that "strapping young buck" was a racial slur. Mea culpa.

[Ecks]

Me either (knowing that SYB was racial). I guess it's one of those dog whistle words that only people of the right background will understand the full meaning of.

[burgundy]

I guess it's one of those dog whistle words that only people of the right background will understand the full meaning of.

Or people who've read a lot of historical fiction. I remember one book we had to read for my American History class in middle school...

[Linkmeister]

Historical fiction like Mandingo or even Gone With the Wind.

In other words, popular novels. I wonder if the phrase is used in Uncle Tom's Cabin?

[scottbot]

Scottbot is back, and Scottbot is able to navigate the tricky waters of modern American discourse without using the words 'bitch,' 'slap,' 'pimp' or 'strapping young buck' because Scottbot is a superior form of life. Scottbot also finds it natural to avoid all uses of the word 'Reagan' in public (such as Washington National Airport - an airport built by FDR, not far from Roosevelt Island).

But then, Scottbot is not easily programmed to accept whatever those around Scottbot believe. For example, that 'state's rights' is an honorable term, just like the Confederate flag is a sign of regional affiliation, and nothing else. Though Scottbot confesses the term 'loser's lane' for a certain street in Richmond is funny, even if certain genteel members of society don't laugh at the joke.

Sadly, time is running short, and Scottbot found compassion to be far worthier topic of derision than discussing whether Reagan was just a typical member of his generation. He was - which means, for example, that he would have had to worked pretty to be a lynch mob denier. Though all that 'morning in America' rhetoric just might have been a way to avoid recognition of what had been riding in the night. just a few years in the past. Before that welfare queen bought her Cadillac.

[MichaelR]

So...what, Scott, are you trying to say that it should be just fine to discriminate against them damn uppity blacks or something?

I knew you were a stupid fuck, but a stupid racist fuck? For shame!

...and because you're a stupid fuck who won't get my point, let me spell it out for you nice and clearly: I am putting words in your mouth and chastising you for them. Which is exactly what you do to Fred every single time you can stop masturbating furiously over Atlas Shrugged to post here.

[ako]

Is it just me, or did anyone else hear the words, "strapping young buck," and think of sadomasochistic fan fiction involving the GIRAT? Probably just me.

I hadn't thought of that, but I will now.

I blame you for all future inappropriate giggling.

[hagsrus]

OK, what does anvilicious mean? I can't seem to google a definition that enlightens me.

[Thel]

It must be because Family Guy was just on, but "ADMIRE MY SUPERIOR MORALITY, BITCH" is so totally ringing out in Stewie's voice that I think I'm going to have to go back and read *all* of Scott's posts in Stewie's voice now.

[hagsrus]

...there's this whole page where he launches into NRA wingnuttia...

Coming from Pterry the theory seems worth serious consideration.

What's the fallacy? (Gut tells me there must be one. Should gut be trusted?)

[MatthewF]

The very first Google result describes it quite well:

"A portmanteau of anvil and either delicious or malicious, depending on the usage, anvilicious describes a writer's and/or director's use of an artistic element, be it line of dialog, visual motif, or plot point, to so obviously convey a particular message that the viewer feels as if he is being hit on the head with an anvil. Frequently, the element becomes anvilicious through unnecessary repetition, but true masters can achieve anviliciousness with a single stroke."

[Turcano]

On the topic of disturbing statements, but from an *actually* unimpeachable source, I was just re-reading Night Watch by Pratchett that had been languishing on my shelf, and there's this whole page where he launches into NRA wingnuttia. It's the bit where Vimes reflects disapprovingly on the old patrician before Vetanari, who was insane and tried to ban weapons in the populace. Of course, criminals don't actually obey the law so they had a great time feasting on the innocents foolish enough to comply, and by enforcing the law on those citizens they did catch, it turned the watch into just another armed gang struggling among many. Seriously, he goes through this whole logic.

Well, in Men at Arms, the subtext gives a gun-control message anvilicious enough for a Michael Moore film. So if Pratchett is a wingnut, at least he's an even-handed wingnut.

[MatthewF]

The very first Google result defines it nicely:

"A portmanteau of anvil and either delicious or malicious, depending on the usage, anvilicious describes a writer's and/or director's use of an artistic element, be it line of dialog, visual motif, or plot point, to so obviously convey a particular message that the viewer feels as if he is being hit on the head with an anvil. Frequently, the element becomes anvilicious through unnecessary repetition, but true masters can achieve anviliciousness with a single stroke."

[ako]

What's the fallacy?

Splitting people into two categories; criminals who don't care about breaking the law, and law-abiding citizens who just don't do that sort of thing. A lot of people do commit violent acts that aren't part of pre-planned crimes. Make guns illegal, and they're likely to grab whatever else is lying around the house. And while a lamp or a frying pan can be lethal, they're less regularly lethal than bullets.

Also, laws aren't optional. Someone who doesn't care about breaking the law isn't necessarily going to get away with it. Prohibitions are never completely effective, but they aren't completely ineffective either; they can limit the availability of the thing banned, but are unlikely to eliminate it. So, banning guns (or in Discworld, crossbows) is likely to reduce the ability of even willful criminals to get get their hands on them.

Banning weapons creates a much larger problem, as that gets into what constitutes a weapon, and how many potentially dangerous tools you can take away before people are unable to accomplish necessary tasks (because humans without cutting tools are hard-pressed to function as humans). But it doesn't work how Night Watch would suggest. Because you don't have The Criminals, who violate the law with impunity, and The Law-Abiding Citizens, who don't do anything illegal.

[bad Jim]

Actually, strapping a freshly killed young buck (deer) to one's fender used to be considered commendable, if I remember aright, and I might not; as far as I know my dad never shot one with gun or bow.

I've got Reagan's signature on my U.C. diploma (he was the governor back then), which perhaps makes it more impressive now than the "With Distinction in General Scholarship" lettering of which I was inordinately proud when I got it.

[Ryan Ferneau]

Thanks, Fred, but you left out the "and this is why people like me should have power over you" bit.

Because it's never been there?

[bad Jim]

So how, exactly, are we supposed to distinguish W from Reagan? We don't yet know how badly W's brain is damaged, but at the time we didn't know the extent to which Reagan's had been ravaged by Alzheimer's, and we probably still don't.

Repeat the "No taxes" mantra. Check. Start a new war before the next election. Sure. Perhaps neither Bush nor his advisers looked at a map before the invasion and weren't aware that Iraq is a little bigger than Grenada.

[Johnny Pez]

'I'm going to make you MY whore of Babylon,' he whispered in his ear.

Spoken, mind you, by a young Robert Redford in a Romanian accent.

[Rosina]

'I'm going to make you MY whore of Babylon,' he whispered in his ear.

Surely that should read 'I am going to make you MY whore of Babylon,' he whispered in his ear without contractions, deviations or hesitation.

[not_scottbot]

au contraire - with deviations aplenty

[Francis]

It wasn't the first time that Pratchett had come out with that line. It was also in Interesting Time "Did you know that swords are outlawed, so only outlaws have swords. And that" Cohen grinned [I think there was a diamond laden description here] "Suits me just fine."

On the other hand, I would argue that within the bounds of Night Watch, Vimes was right about what he was saying. Within the Ankh Morpork of Night Watch there was ultimately no rule of law despite the power of the Watch. In such a situation it is up to everyone to protect themselves because there is no other reliable way it is being done. For that situation, everyone does need weapons, and the weapons need to be slowly whittled down to create a safer society. I don't consider the advocacy of the right to arms in a violent dystopia a sign of wingnuttery. That is very different from carrying arms in a stable and civilised culture.

[Josh]

I'm thirty-nine and from Ohio, and I've been aware most of my life that "young buck" (in the U.S. --the British use is different) connoted a "buck n****r." Indeed, an older friend of mine from that state, a Quaker with impeccable liberal cred, said he remembered the back of the novel Babel-17 depicting a "handsome young buck," in complete ignorance of the problems inherent in referring to a male of a different race as though he were of a different species. As you might guess, I also knew white people who did not call black children "children," but used a different word for them.

[Jesurgislac]

Pope Easier Rhino: Is it just me, or did anyone else hear the words, "strapping young buck," and think of sadomasochistic fan fiction involving the GIRAT? Probably just me.

...that wins several Internets.

[Tonio]

I've heard the term "strapping young buck" used in a more benign way - to describe a man from any race who sees himself as successful with ladies. But in the context that Reagan used the term, the term's racist meaning was more obvious.

Which would be more morally reprehensible - if Reagan wasn't racist and was simply using racist language to pander to white racist resentment, or if Reagan really was racist?

[Tonio]

Off-topic for this thread, but appropriate because it's a Python reference...

Conservative Christians claimed that "Life of Brian" was blasphemous. Would you agree? If so, what were the specific elements in the film? I always wondered if those Christians were objecting to Brian's speech to his would-be followers - "You don't need to follow anybody...You've all got to work it out for yourselves...Don't let anybody tell you what to do." Or perhaps they objected to Brian losing his shoe and his gourd and the crowd dividing into rival sects of Shoe followers and Gourd followers.

[cjmr]

Tonio, did you see the version of Life of Brian with or without the full frontal nudity?

It was blasphemous, but that's what made it funny.

[sophia8]

Actually, what about the rest of the quote? Were people able to buy "T-bone steaks" with food stamps then?
And what was the big deal with black people/poor people buying steaks anyway? I thought meat in the US was pretty cheap.

[inge]

hagsrus, re: PTerry: Context. One might have become used to Ankh-Morpok being a modern place, but that's what Vetinari (and Vimes, and probably Ridcully) made it.

[inge]

Tonio: After some back-and-forth translations, a man from any race who sees himself as successful with ladies is what I would have come up with to explain "strapping young buck". (That is, before I read far too much slash fanfic.)

[bulbul]

ako,
So, banning guns (or in Discworld, crossbows)
IIRC, Lord Snapcase banned all weapons, including swords and daggers and such.

I always thought the whole story was a metaphor. And so was the weapons bit in Men at Arms. But while I'm pretty certain that the gonne in MaA was a metaphor for power (especially the kind wielded by a madman with a messianic complex), I'm really not sure what that was all about. Something with oppression?
Time to reread Night Watch.

Oh and two hours left till the deadline for the Legendary Write-off of 2007.

[Vermic]

Conservative Christians claimed that "Life of Brian" was blasphemous. Would you agree?

The Pythons, when talking about Brian, make the distinction that while the film is certainly and deliberately heretical (i.e. against the church and organized religion), it is not blasphemous (it doesn't say anything bad about God). The "real" Jesus is a character in the film, and he's portrayed respectfully for what brief screentime he gets.

On the commentary for the film, one of them (I think Eric Idle) notes that the Pythons did a lot of Biblical research when writing Brian, and they concluded that there wasn't much in the teachings of Jesus itself to make fun of. "Love your neighbor" and similar sentiments -- that's pretty solid material that's tough to object to. But what they did find ripe for mockery was the tendency of people to misinterpret, overanalyze, or simply ignore Jesus' message; and so it was that, and not the message itself, that became the target of the film's satire.

[Jesurgislac]

But what they did find ripe for mockery was the tendency of people to misinterpret, overanalyze, or simply ignore Jesus' message; and so it was that, and not the message itself, that became the target of the film's satire.

...which explains that while the churches got very irate about Life of Brian, Graham Chapman was never struck by lightning, but James Caviezel was hit twice.

"I'm about a hundred feet away from them when I glance over and see smoke coming out of Caviezel's ears." (cite)

Obviously, God is a Monty Python fan! (And hates Mel Gibson, but don't we all?)

[Tonio]

Tonio, did you see the version of Life of Brian with or without the full frontal nudity?

With. I cringed and then I laughed.

while the film is certainly and deliberately heretical (i.e. against the church and organized religion), it is not blasphemous (it doesn't say anything bad about God).

Good point. My response to complaints about heresy is usually some version of "Tough shit." No organization should be immune from criticism.

[Tonio]

Obviously, God is a Monty Python fan! (And hates Mel Gibson, but don't we all?)

I hadn't heard about the lightning. The Schadenfreude temptation is strong, but if I gave into it I would feel like Pat Robertson.

[Abelardus]

"and this is why people like me should have power over you"

Fred can be my emperor any day of the week ... Ave, Fred!

[jamoche]

Obviously, God is a Monty Python fan! (And hates Mel Gibson, but don't we all?)

When I saw the Apocalypto (which sounds like it ought to be an X-Files villain, but I digress) trailer, I turned to my friends and, after a moment of stunned silence, said, "He really wants to make a snuff film, doesn't he?"

[cjmr]

Didn't a freak storm destroy the set of Life of Brian? Or was that Star Wars? (The 'director and producer reminiscing on the filming' specials all seem to run together once you've watched 20 or 30 of them.)

[Toby]

The Pythons, when talking about Brian, make the distinction that while the film is certainly and deliberately heretical (i.e. against the church and organized religion), it is not blasphemous (it doesn't say anything bad about God).

A heresy is a doctrine that is contrary to some orthodoxy. I don't know of any church whose creed expressly denies the existence of Brian. So while I am a fan of heresies, I don't see how the movie is heretical, either.

Not blasphemous, not heretical. Call it satirical.

[Jesurgislac]

Tonio: I hadn't heard about the lightning.

Proved that God has terrible aim. Obviously, he meant to get Mel Gibson.

cjmr: Didn't a freak storm destroy the set of Life of Brian?

If so, it's not listed on the IMDB trivia, though this is: "After the first take of the scene where a nude Brian (Graham Chapman) addresses the crowd from his window, Terry Jones pulled Chapman aside and said "I think we can see that you're not Jewish", referring to Chapman being uncircumcised. This was corrected in subsequent takes with the application of a rubber band."

[cjmr]

referring to Chapman being uncircumcised. This was corrected in subsequent takes with the application of a rubber band.

As all the men cringe....

[damnedyankee]

The Tattooine set of the first Star Wars movie got hit by a pretty severe sandstorm, IIRC. Filming was done in Tunisia.

Of course God's a Python fan. How else can you explain watching the news at night and feeling this growing sense of absurdity?

My theory about Theophilus is that he had a certain Scott-like density to his intellectual processes. Luke, not knowing that you should never feed a troll, proceeds to hit Theo over the head with every damn example he can think of to illustrate his point.

Theophilus' reply is alleged to be short and sweet: "LAWLZ! U SO GAY!"

And the response to that gave us the Book of Acts. Again, IIRC.

[Joolya]

application of a rubber band
Ouch! What a Python wouldn't do for his art, eh?

[cjmr]

Life of Brian was also filmed (at least partially) in Tunisia. It's where to go if you want Biblical era looking desert.