The Corner

PC Culture

When Feelings Don’t Care about Facts

A Pennsylvania coal miner with soot on his face (John Collier via Wikimedia Commons)

Here’s an interesting headline:

Phoenix restaurant says this is a photo of coal miners. But I see offensive blackface.

And here’s an even more interesting subhead to the op-ed:

Opinion: Who determines what’s offensive? A photo in a downtown Phoenix restaurant raises this key question.

Even before you get the essay, you can tell we’ve wandered off the path. The “photo in a downtown Phoenix restaurant” didn’t raise any questions, never mind a key question. The question is raised by the author’s reaction to a photo on a restaurant wall.

Anyway here was go. Rashaad Thomas begins:

A few weeks ago, I attended a holiday party at a downtown Phoenix restaurant. I walked around to view the photographs on the wall.

Then a photograph caught my attention.

Friends said, “It’s coal miners at a pub after work.” It was a photograph of coal miners with blackened faces. I asked a Latinx and white woman for their opinion. They said it looked like coal miners at a pub after work. Then they stepped back, frowned and said it’s men in blackface.

I asked the waitress to speak with a manager. Instead, I spoke with a white restaurant owner. I explained to him why the photograph was offensive. Evidently, someone else had made a similar comment about the photograph before.

Yet, the photograph remained on the wall. He said he would talk to the other owners and get back to me. While leaving, I asked him had he spoke with the other owners. He had not spoken with them, but mentioned Google said it’s coal miners after work.

Thomas goes on to discuss DW Griffiths’ Birth of a Nation before finally getting to this stand-alone sentence that almost feels like an editor crammed it in there:

Fact: The photograph shows coal miners’ faces covered in soot. The context of the photograph is not the issue.

And here is the conclusion:

At the downtown Phoenix restaurant, my concern that the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored.

A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, “Whites Only.” It says people like me are not welcome.

The operators of that downtown restaurant can choose to take the photograph down, leave it up or create a title card with an intention statement. No matter their decision, I think the photograph should be taken down — sacrificing one image for the greater good.

Now, I don’t think one has to be absolutist here. I can imagine all sorts of hypothetical scenarios where emotional responses should matter. But in this case, it seems obvious that Thomas is bringing all of the emotion to this situation. After all, he was a black man who was served — presumably without incident or he would have mentioned it — at a restaurant where he had to go find a picture that supposedly says “Whites Only.” That should have been his first tip that his reading of the picture was wrong.

But the real problem is simply that there is no limiting principle here. The capacity for people to take offense is infinite and infinitely subjective. If the new standard is that if something — anything — gives offense to a single person who doesn’t think the facts matter at all,  then let’s take all the pictures down and be done with it.

Most Popular


Angela Rye Knows You’re Racist

The political philosopher Michael Oakeshott said that the “rationalist” is hopelessly lost in ideology, captivated by the world of self-contained coherence he has woven from strands of human experience. He concocts a narrative about narratives, a story about stories, and adheres to the “large outline which ... Read More

What the Viral Border-Patrol Video Leaves Out

In an attempt to justify Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s absurd comparison of American detention facilities to Holocaust-era concentration camps, many figures within the media have shared a viral video clip of a legal hearing in which a Department of Justice attorney debates a panel of judges as to what constitutes ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Pro-Abortion Nonsense from John Irving

The novelist has put up a lot of easy targets in his New York Times op-ed. I am going to take aim at six of his points, starting with his strongest one. First: Irving asserts that abortion was legal in our country from Puritan times until the 1840s, at least before “quickening.” That’s an overstatement. ... Read More
Film & TV

Murder Mystery: An Old Comedy Genre Gets Polished Up

I  like Adam Sandler, and yet you may share the sense of trepidation I get when I see that another of his movies is out. He made some very funny manboy comedies (Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore, The Waterboy) followed by some not-so-funny manboy comedies, and when he went dark, in Reign over Me and Funny People, ... Read More