Why is Neeson Getting Skewered?

[bitterross]

I saw so many people here post that Northam should have come out and admitted to his behavior. Talked about it being bad and then how it it was improper. They said if he'd just done that he'd have been okay. That was only 48 hours ago.

Now, Neeson has done just that. Admitted his racist behavior, admitted how horrible it was and suggested that racism and bigotry still exist and we need to talk about it as part of overcoming it.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/04/entertainment/liam-neeson-revenge/index.html

"It was horrible, horrible, when I think back, that I did that," he said.

"It's awful," Neeson continued. "But I did learn a lesson from it, when I eventually thought, 'What the f*** are you doing', you know?"

Shouldn't we be encouraging this sort of dialog the way this op-ed writer suggests?

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/opinions/liam-neeson-interview-racism-courage-joseph/index.html

[Maraya1969]

1. I agree with you. He sounded full of remorse and he made amends.

[fishwax]

2. for the record, it seems to me that he renounces the desire for revenge, but not so much the racism

This article extends the quote a little bit:

“It was horrible, horrible, when I think back, that I did that,” he said. “And I’ve never admitted that, and I’m saying it to a journalist. God forbid. It’s awful. But I did learn a lesson from it, when I eventually thought, ‘What the fuck are you doing’, you know? I understand that need for revenge, but it just leads to more revenge, to more killing and more killing.”

So he seems to be saying that what he learned from this is that his desire for revenge was counterproductive. The desire for revenge would have motivated his desire to attack someone responsible for the rape and assault of his friend. The complicating factor here is his racism, which transformed that desire to attack the person responsible for revenge to a desire to attack someone black. His interview (at least the excerpts I've seen--it's possible that the full interview would paint a different picture--he appears to interrogate and reconsider his desire for revenge, but doesn't seem to address/acknowledge/recognize the role that racism plays in transforming his desire for revenge into a desire to beat some random person of color. That just gets folded into the lesson about revenge, which is unfortunate.

[tblue37]

3. Yes--my immediate question was what if she said the rapist was white? Would he have

gone out looking for a random white man to kill?

[bitterross]

5. Did you miss then entire point?

He's apologizing for being racist toward black men. The answer to your question isn't even relevant because he's already admitting to being racist toward black men.

[BluegrassDem]

6. My thought as well...why did he have in his mind to take an innocent black man's life?

Of course, anyone would be full of rage, but to take an innocent life is nothing something we can just brush aside. And he's never explained this fully. He's canceled in my book.

[bitterross]

4. Could you split the hairs any thinner?

He's talking about the revenge on a black person. It's in the same conversation. It's all in the same context of wanting to go out and take revenge on the first black person he saw. It wasn't necessary to have to qualify it again. That's not the way people normally talk.

Good grief. People are nit-picking the apology in order to not accept it and have a reason to stay angry.

[fishwax]

7. It's not a particularly thin hair

Look, for much of our American history, stories like this weren't particularly uncommon: white person gets assaulted, claims the assailant was a black man, black man who may or may not have had anything to do with the incident (which, it should be noted, may or may not have happened) is arrested and lynched by an angry mob. Why? Because he's black, and the crowd wants revenge.

Killing a random person of color because some other person of color hurt someone you care about is wrong. Liam Neeson, who once set out to do just that, fortunately came to recognize that before he did anything horrible.

That said, however, "revenge doesn't solve anything" isn't the primary reason that it is wrong to kill a random person of color beacuse some other person of color hurt someone you care about. I don't think that's the right lesson to apply to the situation. "Revenge doesn't solve anything" is a very different lesson from "racism distorts our humanity and the humanity of others and has all sorts of horrifying consequences." That's not a particularly thin hair.

And saying all of this is hardly an attack on Neeson. Yeah, in my book people get credit for introspection, for learning from their mistakes, for discussing those mistakes and hoping that other people might learn from them as well. But Neeson's comments were a starting point in that process, not a conclusion.

[EffieBlack]

9. You're right about this being a starting point

He didn't have to say anything.

[bitterross]

15. I thought the subject of the conversation was about his racist past

I read the articles and understood the he subject, he brought up, was about his racist past. One particular event that showed how bad it can be. It is clear my lens and your lens see things differently. I do not share the past oppression of my ancestors and, unfortunately, my contemporaries. It will, I am sad to say, be impossible for white people like me to ever fully understand and see things through the same lens as African Americans. We white people swim in the sea of white privilege just as the fish swims in the water. We never realize it's there until we are the fish out of water. I promise, I do try though. I really do.

I think we need to consider

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11782142

[fishwax]

33. No, that wasn't the subject. He was asked about a character's anger and desire for revenge

He wasn't asked about racism and he wasn't offering "his racist past" as a subject of discussion. That wasn't the topic of the conversation at the time, and it isn't the focus of the lesson *he* assigns to it. When the story got picked up by other news agencies, they framed it as him making a confession about his past desire for racist revenge, and so it became a story about him being contrite about this past desire for racist revenge. But the content of his comments doesn't really support that.

He was asked a question about the anger that a character he plays is feeling. So the framework of the conversation at that point is about anger. And he offers this story as an account of how he understands anger and how he's come to understand it differently through his own experience. The story goes:

1.) Once a friend was raped, and Neeson got very angry (This speaks to the topic and establishes context);
2.) His anger created a primal desire for revenge (the first mistake);
2.) Not knowing the identity of the culprit, but knowing that he was black, Neeson took to the streets with a weapon, prepared to exact revenge against a random black person (the second mistake) if the opportunity should present itself;
3.) He came to his senses and realized that revenge won't do any good, but will only create more problems. (This is the lesson.)

So I think we can see two big flaws in his thinking here, but in this particular answer he only really renounces the first. And, as far as I can tell, that was the entirety of the discussion. (This link has the audio of the full quote.) Note: that doesn't mean he doesn't also renounce the second mistake. He was speaking off the cuff about something deeply personal and emotional and upsetting to him, and nobody would expect full and complete fluency from such extemporaneous remarks. I'm not suggesting that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. I'm just pointing out that there is an absence of him actually renouncing the explicitly racist components of his story here.

For the record, I'm white too. So I have plenty of experience with privilege and its blind spots. I think the way we get past that is by listening to other voices in the conversation and not by assuming that the lessons that we've learned are the best and/or only lessons to learn from a given situation. I think there is another lesson from Neeson's story that he doesn't talk about, and I think that lesson is worth talking about, and I think it's worth making a distinction between, on the one hand, interrogating the desire for revenge and, on the other, interrogating the racism inherent in naturalizing the shift from a desire for revenge against one perpetrator to a desire for revenge against any random person who shares the same skin color as the person responsible. Those are *both* things worth talking about and *both* things worth getting past. In pointing that out I'm not attacking Neeson or implying that he shouldn't ever be forgiven for such things.

[fishwax]

34. one other thing I forgot to mention

I think it's certainly possible that Neeson does or would renounce the racist components of his past revenge fantasy. But it's also quite possible that he wouldn't see the problem with that component, and that if someone were to point out to him that it's wrong and racist to extend that desire for revenge to any person of color, he might defend himself by saying something like "I was just anger, and that's what anger does." I have no idea either way, and wouldn't pretend to be able to know his mind in that regard.

But the crux of the matter is that the entire logic of the story--the thing which allows him and so many readers to gloss over the slippage between "i desired revenge" and "i desired revenge against any random black guy" is the very racism of it. The story doesn't make sense if, instead of finding out his skin color (the question he asks immediately after finding out the victim doesn't know the assailant's name) he finds out some other random detail--he was wearing a yellow shirt, or he had a crew cut, or he had blue eyes. If Neeson were to tell a story about how he then spent the next week walking the streets with a weapon, hoping to find some dude wearing yellow that he could beat with a stick, the story would seem rather different. And we would think Neeson a bit off if he didn't say: "man, how stupid was that to think that my anger justified my judgment and antagonism towards anybody wearing yellow." But here, "man, how stupid was that to think that my anger justified my judgment and antagonism towards anybody with dark skin" doesn't seem to be part of the story at all. And when someone points out that it probably should be, we're accused of splitting hairs

[LanternWaste]

21. I see six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

People are nit-picking the apology in order to not accept it...

While yet others are simply rationalizing a distinction lacking any relevant difference to pretend criticism against racism is oppression (seems you're allowing yourself an excuse to "stay angry" about that... ironic, no?).

I see six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

[EffieBlack]

8. I agree

[Raine]

10. Yes, it seems you're damned if you do and

damned if you don't.

[bitterross]

14. No one else is going to try now.

Neesom did exactly what people across the spectrum said should be done. As soon as he did then he was attacked. His apology wasn't good enough. He didn't say the right words to appease everyone.

see my response above:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=11782142

[brooklynite]

11. Because his starting point was potential assault leading to murder?

"Yes I wanted to kill someone randomly, but I really feel bad about it now..."

[bitterross]

12. So, forgiveness 40 years later is not possible?

Last edited Thu Feb 7, 2019, 10:57 AM - Edit history (1)

I used to not understand how Mandela could have forgiven his oppressors. Now I think I'm beginning to.

It seems that when we have nothing but the desire to punish people and never forgive them for their past behavior we do not progress. He was very wise to see that if he didn't forgive and set that example the people would be mired in the past forever and never move forward.

People here, and all across the national media said that what needs to be done is what Neesom did. That they could be forgiven.

Then, as soon as he did it, it wasn't good enough. He didn't say it the right way. Now, when someone has done just that he's been skewered.

Neesom's apology wasn't perfect and may not have been enough. But, we must begin somewhere. What the treatment of Neeson has done is set things back. No one will be willing to risk it now. They will have justifiable fear that no matter how sincere they are they, too, will be skewered.

I guess you didn't bother to read:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/05/opinions/liam-neeson-interview-racism-courage-joseph/index.html

[Mr. Quackers]

24. Forgiveness requires compassion

Forgiveness isn't for the transgressor, it is for the injured. You forgive someone to save yourself.

Hard to do sometimes though, but it is something that could be interpreted as Christ-like.

[Raine]

35. Yes, EXACTLY nt

[LAS14]

13. Thanks for posting this. Exactly what I've been thinking. nt

[nini]

16. Part of getting skewered is because he's made so many uncomfortable

I'm glad he admitted what he did and acknowledged it shook him to realize how horrible his thoughts were. By doing so he is encouraging others to face themselves in a mirror too - I hope.

It doesn't erase the thoughts he had then - it does open a door to getting our failures and biases out there and talk them out. Some assholes will never be reached but many can if they admit those feelings they have and work through them.

NOT talking about these things does no one any good.

[bitterross]

17. The problem is, it's going to discourage otheres.

His treatment is going to discourage others.

I'm not saying he deserves any awards or accolades. He does not. He wanted to kill a random black man.

But we need to handle these things differently.

[nini]

18. Well, not everyone has to go on TV to do it either

But I get your point.

If it even makes someone think about themselves that'll be good.

[WeekiWater]

19. Because the actions deserve it. Has he ever been skewered for doing it? No.

Because you saw "so many people". That does not define everyone. Is everyone skewering him? These things will never fit into a nice little gift wrapped package.

[Autumn]

20. I can understand the rage Neeson felt, he went crazy with it. I think it was courageous of him

to bring this out, he didn't have to.

[gratuitous]

22. From his comments

It appears that Neeson's on that path that starts with the notion that violence does not overcome violence. Acknowledging all-too-human impulses (vengeance and violence in return for violence), but coming to recognize that there's another way. It's a long path and there are a lot of people who will try to discourage him from continuing on that path.

[Autumn]

23. Very true.

[Mr. Quackers]

25. But why allow the long path

when you can just punish?

[gratuitous]

26. True enough

Judgment and condemnation bring an immediate return. Nuance and introspection need more cheap thrills to compete.

[Autumn]

29. Judgment and condemnation are easier than looking inward.

[LongtimeAZDem]

27. Thoughtcrime. Room 101 for him.

[OnDoutside]

28. Well said. I sense some are using occasions like this to express their own inner hatred about

events in their own past. This time Neeson is the sacrificial punchbag, rather than having an open and frank discussion.

[RobinA]

30. Because The People

who say Northam (or whoever) should fess up ahead of the curve are full of it. The person who admits to ANYTHING these days will get knifed. Unless their name is Trump.

[kimbutgar]

31. Distraction from the orange maggot and Northam

He is a friggin actor not a politician.

That said the movie goers will decide the next time movie of his comes out and if movie producers punish him for relaying a story he is now ashamed of.

[Afromania]

32. Now, later, whatever. Just another ding of the bell for my life doesn't matter all that much to some

folks. That it's prevalent out of hand and requires extensive unlearning. Forgive me if it doesn't make me feel all warm and cuddly inside that he didn't get his chance to kill a black man in however number of days he choose to prowl around like wannabe murderer. That's why Neeson is being dragged the way he is.

Northam on the other hand was, and probably is, a bigot on some level. By and large I don't trust him or his decision making skills, but what he wasn't as far as I know is a potential premeditated murderer. He didn't go out of his way to harass innocent folks trying to live their lives. Still you have to factor that he has an entire state to run, which includes the lives of many black and brown folks. That is why Northam is being dragged. If he came out earlier he probably wouldn't have won his nomination.