Kowalko called Markell and his peeps Shylocks
Kowalko is his own worst enemy. (And considering the depth of his enemies enmity, that’s saying something.)
“There’s a palpable sense of fear. I see it in the eyes of the governor. I see it in the eyes of Murphy, and Schwinn, and the rest of them shylocks that they have down there…”
Kowalko later apologized:
“I am not anti-Semitic,” Kowalko said Friday. “That was not the word I intended to use. I do understand the context, that it’s a derogatory term. I don’t think I have to apologize for some kind of attempt to denigrate someone. Certainly I should choose my words better. I certainly apologize for using that word. It was never my intention.”
As a duly, self-appointed representative for all liberal Jews….
It’s fine, Mr Kowalko, I know you aren’t a Nazi…. just be a little more careful, please. Our … less-liberal Jewish brethren have thinner skin and are willing to donate a lot of money against you.. or anyone who is “bad for the jews” AIPAC is not something you want mad at you. You’re too important to the cause to go down over some word-vomit.
Queue the PC police! Issue the trigger warnings! Dive into the Twitter trench to escape microaggression! #KowalkoMustGo. Non-inclusive hate speech! Rally the hoardes of blog commenters… Fetch the pitchforks and torches… Ready the ADL’s letter writers!
Everyone who matters in local politics knows what John Kowalko is about. The guy used the wrong word. Let’s all relax.
His follow-up statement is perfect. Nobody ever considers context or intent.
” Nobody ever considers context or intent”
Very true. Still…in my view, it is less about what he said than it is about the reaction (or lack thereof). What if had been someone else perhaps of different political philosophy or membership or even a different slur? At the very least it should cause some introspection by some folks.
More interesting than Kowalko being a bit overblown (because, really, what’s new about that?) was that some progressive groups with progressive agendas decided to stand next to him and his bewigged colleagues during that press conference and demand that the Speaker put John back on the committee.
Political capital is pretty precious. Was that really the best use of it for those groups and their members? To decide to blister a Speaker whose vote could help make their agendas actual laws?
Anyone who has ever read the ‘Merchant of Venice’ knows the term Shylock applies very well to the way Markell and his peeps have handled the priority school disaster.
It is a shame lesser minds have distorted that description into something anti-Semitic, and therefore derogatory… But if one ignores that misrepresentation, and substitutes for the irrelevancy of religion in Shakespeare’s play, focusing only on the character traits of the character Shylock, then I think it is a very apt description of how the principals have played their hand in putting charter schools into Wilmington.
Shylock was a deceitful character. Hence its use as an adjective should be geared more to describing deceit and trickery, instead of being an anti-religious form of expression. The push for charters in Wilmington has been subversive, misrepresented, and yes, deceitful. Saying one thing; doing another; the perfect definition of deceit.
The equivalent would be to be aghast with false horror that someone insulted another by calling them a ‘Fluellen’….. Now THAT, is a real slur…. I’ll let anyone who cares look up that one… (yeah, it’s an obscure Shakespearean character with about as much relevance as Shylock. )
Politicians often have to apologize, not so much because they are wrong, but because it is a natural human requirement if one wants to move on to better things.
Bravo, I guess. This post is about as tardy and half-assed as Kowalko’s apology.
Dorian — yeah, I get it. Not every utterance is the Holocaust. No one should call the ADL. I’m more troubled by Kowalko’s “sorry not sorry” response, as well as this comment in his “apology”: “It was a Freudian slip of the tongue.” In other words, “I meant it, but I’m sorry I said it.”
John Kowalko is many things, but dumb isn’t one of them. He knew exactly what that word meant when he said it. As his response makes clear, his only regret was saying it out loud.
Which play featured Murphy the shylock?
“The Merchant of Dublin”.
Do I need to make the point that kavips here holds forth on one more thing he hasn’t a clue about? Seriously, all of the major characters in the Merchant of Venice are deceitful, but it is only Shylock who is treated as “The Other” here — and he eloquently objects in the Hath Not A Jew Eyes monologue. Shylock’s religion is why he is The Other (and one of the prices he has to pay at the hands of Portia and Bassanio is to convert to Catholicism), and Shylock’s religion is why this play and the character of Shylock was a feature of Nazi propaganda.
VP Biden used the word *shylock* talking about bankers some months back and he had to apologize. Spinning up some illiterate bullshit about how The Merchant of Venice doesn’t have anything to do with religion just demonstrates just how far the weak minded will go to justify what was clearly the wrong thing to say. Especially when there are so many elegant and eloquent ways to describe what is going on with these schools.
If the only thing I knew about John Kowalko was these comments, you could make an argument that he hates Jews. But I know John Kowalko, and I know that in his heart, he is mean-spirited, self-absorbed, undisciplined jerk. The particular flavor of assholery is almost irrelevant.
If the only thing I knew about anon was the above comment, you could make an argument that he hates John Kowalko. But I know anon, and I know that in his heart, he is no less harmless than a length of human excrement, released upon unscrewing a sewer clean-out valve, that goes bouncing across the parking lot, surfing wave after wave of effluent, shouting “look at me.. look at me.. look at me.”
“Shylock” is commonly accepted to be a derogatory term toward Jewish people. If Governor Markell was black and Kowalko made reference to “him and his niggers down there” there would be no disagreement as to the inappropriateness of the comment, no matter what the context.
AQC. I’d have to disagree with “common”.. ( maybe it is within your circles) and certainly it is not as frequently used as the “N” word is for blacks. In fact, it would be more like calling them Cosby’s… Future generations would have to dig hard to discover the reference…..
See what I meant when I said that the blog would be better off with less Kowalko?
AQC noted that the word has a “commonly accepted” derogatory definition — not that it was a “common” word. I think I need to point that out to someone who who is such a bad reader of Shakespeare.
But then , kavips — much like Dorian Gray in the first comment — is in the business of communicating that issues of discrimination aren’t worth their consideration. Fortunately for the rest of us, there isn’t enough white male privilege left to definitely silence the concerns of the people who live with the consequences of that discrimination on the daily.
And before the bad readers among us get started — I don’t think Kowalko was discriminating against anyone, but that he resorted to using a word with a common negative meaning that wasn’t the one he wanted for this situation.
@AQC I checked with an actual Jewish person and “Kikes” would have been the word to use if he was going for “N” word equivalence. Shylock tracks more to something like “homies” or “brothers” when used pejoratively by a white person. Still out of line, but not the nuclear option in terms of slurs.
The “common” meaning of shylock is loan shark. Since loaned money isn’t at issue here, he used the insult incorrectly.
Kapvis,
Jewish people hear “shylock” and immediately recognize it as a slur. You can have your own opinion of what it means, but trust a Jew…. it’s a slur. It’s fine. We’ve endured worse. The Merchant of Venice is a pretty distasteful example of the kind of anti-semitism that was so prevalent in Europe for so long.
John Kowalko is clearly not anti-semitic. That is how this differs from a Republican politician “innocently” using a term like “tar-baby”.
The “common” meaning of shylock is loan shark. Since loaned money isn’t at issue here, he used the insult incorrectly.
Priority Schools is about exacting a terrible price for a relatively small amount of proffered money. The Jewish connotation is unfortunate, but otherwise the allusion is pretty close to the mark. It is a shame that the publicity over this incident has not shed one bit of light on the fact that Kowalko was rightly calling Markell and Murphy out on the issues.
wondered how long it would take for the thought police to slither out on this one. unfortunately, this mentality keeps liberals from getting real political traction on the important things.
“merchant of dublin”: good one.
I’m with Ben. He’s Jewish. It’s his call.
And I find it funny how people everywhere (mostly white men) brush off racial, religious, sexist, homophobic slurs as PC overload, but take offense at terms directed at them. Personally, I don’t find the use of these words as clever or edgy. I find the use of them to be intellectually lazy. If all you have is these words, then you don’t have much.
^^^ THIS all day.
So it’s the pound of flesh he’s referencing? I suppose that’s it, but that’s not what most people mean when they use the term.
Now I think of it, I almost never hear anyone use this word outside of discussions of Shakespeare, but now it’s been used by two elected Delaware Democrats in the space of a few days.
How ironic is it for any official from Delaware to complain about loan sharking? You’d think once we made usury legal, the taint would be removed.
Nobody is debating that it is, and was intended in Kowalko’s use to be, a slur. But I don’t think he was calling them a bunch of Jews.
oh shit! (pronounced awwwwwwwwwshwitz!)
My go to for Jews is K$@#! (fyi ryhmes with kite!) But I’m racist. and not elected
He totally was calling them a jewish slur. Just like a mick would call me a wop.
So much for Kowalko’s career. Everyone knows the shyl…er I mean, those people run the banks in this state.
but so what. I mean come on…shylock? Who’s offended by that. Good pull Kowalko
As long as we’re quoting our Jewish friends, one of mine likes to say he’s a Hebe, but he’s no Kike.
In popular use, shylock means loan shark, not Jew. You could look it up.
The bigger issue I think comes from the often unregonized problems created by this idea that white liberal/progressive men need to be constantly reminded how they don’t recognize their privilege and how every word needs to be parsed and analyzed. This mentality drives apart progressive people who really need to coalesce around the issues on which we all agree. We’re on your side!
I understand Cass and Pandora’s sentiments, but they create an environment whereby a large swath of allies are by their nature alone now enemies who require regular monitoring to ensure purity of thought and language.
Orwell wrote in 1937, “One sometimes gets the impression that the mere words ‘Socialism’ and ‘Communism’ draw towards them with magnetic force every fruit-juice drinker, nudist, sandal-wearer, sex-maniac, Quaker, ‘Nature Cure’ quack, pacifist, and feminist in England.” He continues, “I have here a prospectus from another summer school which states its terms per week and then asks me to say ‘whether my diet is ordinary or vegetarian’. They take it for granted, you see, that it is necessary to ask this question. This kind of thing is by itself sufficient to alienate plenty of decent people. And their instinct is perfectly sound, for the food-crank is by definition a person willing to cut himself off from human society in hopes of adding five years on to the life of his carcase; that is, a person but of touch with common humanity.” Substitute ‘gluten-free’ for vegetarian and he could be describing 2015.
Feel free to be aggrieved by every off-colour utterance or misstatement or sloppy joke or perceived alienation (or actual alienation for that matter), but try to remember that we are on the same team. All the purity rules aren’t helping and in fact they may be driving decent people away.
I really don’t care if somebody is a gluten-free transgendered acountant or a mixed-race gay Jewish botanist. I want all women to have access to abortion and all kids to have access to good schools and for the working poor to get the support they need. I want equal marriage rights for everybody. I want marijuana legalised and I want the people who’ve been lucky enough to succeed in America to pay their fair share of taxes. Why would you want to continually chastise my white-maleness? We are fighting for the same shit.
Geezer…. Jewish Loan shark.
Aint no italian calling an italian bookie a shylock
I’m over it. words and phrases exist in our lexicon that have pretty offensive roots. ever gyp anyone? how about manning up? He said a dumb word to describe a dishonest greedy person. It doesnt help that it is a term recognized as a Jewish slur, that he used against a Jewish person. I doubt he meant to “go there” and, as far as I can tell, no one is calling for his head over it. not even us himeys.
Feel free to be aggrieved by every off-colour utterance or misstatement or sloppy joke or perceived alienation (or actual alienation for that matter), but try to remember that we are on the same team. All the purity rules aren’t helping and in fact they may be driving decent people away.
Translation: Those of you with issues with my insistence on my white privilege need to accommodate me because we are on the same side. Because I sure as shit won’t be accommodating you or even recognizing you.
You need to get that just because you want to feel free to minimize issues of justice for other folks, you are not immunized from criticism of that stand. I don’t care whose team you are on.
@DV: That’s because there are already lots of slurs for Italians. Why use shylock for a wop/dago/guinea?
Meanwhile, I await Nintendo’s release of Super Hymie, or Super Sambo, or Super Mick, or Super Polack, or Super Bohunk, or Super WASP, or Super…anything but Mario.
Dorian Gray is my Boo. And yet… is there micro-aggression embedded in the very fact that I am white and male? Is that micro-aggression, in the aggregate, noxious to non-white, non-males? Perhaps.
One thing is clear. There is certainly a lot of privlidge embedded in the accident of my male whiteness. Only white male nutbags can deny that (and they do.)
Hmmm? Disclaimer: I love Dorian Gray.
I have a question. If all these terms are no big deal and people should just get over it, then why would you care if I chastised your white-maleness?
And if chastising your white maleness drives you away, then wouldn’t the same be true for other minority groups? If that’s true then haven’t you just made the case for not using these words?
I would say that your white maleness prevents you from experiencing slurs directed at minorities – slurs that blacks, Jews, Muslims, women, homosexuals, etc. deal with on a daily basis. Which might be why these “jokes” don’t impact you negatively, and why you have the privilege of not being too concerned about them.
Jay Smooth spoke about this. His point boiled down to this: When you are with friends and everyone is okay with off color humor, that’s fine. But when you’re in public you have to remember that Everyone doesn’t know you that way. That seems to be a good rule of thumb.
“You need to get that just because you want to feel free to minimize issues of justice for other folks, you are not immunized from criticism of that stand. I don’t care whose team you are on.”
And you need to understand that your view of justice is not shared by everyone. Some people aren’t impressed by your high horse.
Indeed, considering what an obnoxious jerk you can be as a supposedly disempowered black woman, I think you’d be a horror as an empowered white man. But since you’ve never been one, you of course don’t have the vaguest idea of what you’re talking about beyond your resentment.
Heck, you’re so full of resentment you practically are a white guy.
@Pandora: This wasn’t kidding around among friends. This was a vituperative insult, hurled in anger.
That’s funny. Because blaming the people who have legitimate justice concerns for even having those concerns is about as white as it gets.
It still isn’t my job to accommodate your privilege issues. Get over yourselves.
I get that, Geezer. It was beyond stupid.
My points are bigger than Kowalko and Biden.
Geezer, do you realize that what you call out Cassandra for is exactly the way you blog? Fine with me, but… Just saying.
Yeah, exactly. I’m that way because of white privilege. What’s her excuse?
“micro-aggression” — has somebody been reading jonathan chait? all liberals consumed by identity politics should. at least he’s a good counter to some of the commentators here, who have the language of grievance down-pat (apologize to the irish).
@cassandra: I have no problem with you calling out white males. I have a problem with your inability to take what you dish out. And I have a problem with you pretending to understand how white males think when you wouldn’t for a nanosecond put up with a white male explaining black females to you.
So back to the original post. What does calling out Kowalko as an anti Semite accomplish exactly? I think there are maybe higher priorities than policing the internet for folks using the wrong trans terminology and who may not be fully and appropriately respecting the rights of anti-vaxx vegans.
Look I understand what you’re saying. I do have a privileged background and it is helpful to hear arguments to keep it in check. But as far as “justice” goes maybe more energy in the streets for people would be better than patronizing overwrought anonymous “internet“ justice.
In other words, I dig what you’re saying, but I think if you are truly concerned about justice for people you may have missed a few steps. Let’s actually get equal pay for equal work before we strictly enforce mansplaining on Twitter.
Pot, meet kettle. Good news, they are both colorless, unpainted iron… Strong, ridged, and cold.
Serious question for Cassandra.. Are you of the opinion that there is insufficient outrage pointed at Kowalko? Or is this an example of white men not being outraged over a slur used by a politician?
I totaly agree that happens all the time… Some gop-er says something awful and it gets laughed off and they don’t appologize. This feels like a different situation to me, I also feel like I’m allowed to have an option here, because I get to to be more than a fairly-straight white man in this one instance.
So other than the perpetual battle with geezer (which I love) what’s the issue?
@DG – Well put. As with everything for me, this comes back to a woeful lack of leadership within the Democratic Party.
Has anyone called him an anti-Semite? ( not in jest)
And actually Cassandra, if you’d like to build consensus and make some effectual political change – which based on reading this blog over the years I assume you do – than you actually do need to attempt to accommodate everyone’s issues. Do you want to persuade anybody of anything or just project yourself as a pompous, know-it-all bore?
Now hold it. Why does it have to get all personal?
ftr, I meant what I said about iron as a testament to resolve and I never miss a chance to obscurely reference Game of Thrones
Just for the record, from my perch of white male privilege, I think he was out of bounds. It’s clearly a word we don’t need, and I say clearly because I almost never hear it. For the record, it’s not the first time I have heard Kowalko use the term, so I’m not surprised he let it out in anger in public.
Meanwhile, if you’re looking for a privileged white male to target for using a slur, you can use this guy in Virginia who called a black reporter “boy” while chastising him:
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/01/virginia-county-official-calls-43-year-old-black-reporter-boy-during-public-meeting/
There. THATS what I’m talkin about. I’ll say one thing about the repukes, you can always count on em to piss off the decent people
Why can’t we fight for the issues everyone agrees on AND the ones not everyone agrees on. Why is this an either or debate? And why would my fighting for an issue that not everyone agrees on alienate people? And, and, and… the reason they feel alienated is because…??? Flesh this out for me.
And while you guys do that could someone address my other questions? I’ll post them again:
I have a question. If all these terms are no big deal and people should just get over it, then why would you care if I chastised your white-maleness?
And if chastising your white maleness drives you away, then wouldn’t the same be true for other minority groups? If that’s true then haven’t you just made the case for not using these words?
White privilege? They don’t get any whiter than Mark Murphy. Or more privileged; for that matter. Kowalko’s remark was white-on-white crime.
Leading with a disclaimer…. I approve this double standard. I recognize the hundreds of years of history leading up to it and I not only accept its existence, I approve…
It is more acceptable for not-white-men to openly mock the typical white man than any form of the reverse. Think about the “punch up” rule for satire. Some white men, who didn’t participate in the 100s of years of oppression and who probably disapprove of it, feel unfairly targeted as the face of such bad times. I’m not gonna tell people how they should or shouldn’t feel. Pandora, I dont know if that answered your question.
Because you’re blaming white males for nothing more than BEING WHITE MALES. This is like saying blacks are to blame for their own poverty.
It’s obvious to anyone who cares to look that white males are specially privileged in Western society. But for most white male progressives, the lack of understanding is because of a lack of education about these issues, not something innate in whiteness and maleness. I didn’t understand what women meant by a “rape culture” until I read the #yesallwomen tweets, and if we keep talking about white male privilege enough I believe other progressive men will begin to get it, too.
Yes, it’s possible to fight more than one battle at a time, but which one you fight first is a statement of priorities. And Dorian isn’t the only white male progressive who fails to feel all cuddly inside when he’s told he’s part of the problem.
boo????!!!!!! wtf!!!!!
@puck: I think you mean “goy on goy crime.”
I remember hearing my first Jew joke on the playground of SMM in like 4th grade. Theres no damn way the word wasnt used because Markell is jewish…maybe he’s not all jewwy in the way of Henny Youngman or Rabbi Kabitzenstein…but Kowalko know’s he’s jewish and he said shylock. again…so what
…maybe he’s not all jewwy…
Now you are just effing with people.
Because you’re blaming white males for nothing more than BEING WHITE MALES.
If this is responding to me, then you will need to point me to where I said that. But I’m going to fix that for you: Because you’re blaming white males for nothing more than BEING WHITE MALES whose cultural conditioning leads them to expect that everyone who is not a white male should just live with their unexamined bullshit.
white males are specially privileged in Western society. But for most white male progressives, the lack of understanding is because of a lack of education about these issues, not something innate in whiteness and maleness.
This is where I start, if you had bothered to ask, rather than create the conditions that you wanted to argue from. (Privilege in action or just plain rude?)
And Dorian isn’t the only white male progressive who fails to feel all cuddling inside when he’s told he’s part of the problem.
That’s fine. It isn’t my job to make him comfortable with being confronted with being part of the problem.
But… I asked why if words/names aren’t a big deal then why is calling someone a white male a big deal? This is coming across as… people shouldn’t get upset over racial, bigoted, sexist, homophobic, etc. words/names, but I (general “I”) am upset over being labeled a white male.
Am I really mistaking this?
cassandra’s why liberals can’t have nice things.
I think privilege is sometimes viewed as solely an advantage – you got the job, the promotion, the best seat, etc. – but a lot of times privilege is something you don’t have to worry about.
There are states that discriminate against LGTB people. If we were transferred I would never even have to worry about those laws. That is privilege.
“If this is responding to me, then you will need to point me to where I said that.”
Sorry, it was intended to answer Pandora. My bad for not making that clear. In my case, both privileged and rude.
“Am I really mistaking this?”
I think so. I’m not an anti-PC warrior, so I’m not speaking from personal experience, but the reactions I hear — some of my best friends are privileged white males — are more along the lines of “if you’re that easily offended, why should I take what you say seriously?”
In their eyes, it’s similar to the way conservatives find everything to be Obama’s fault: They say it so often it’s lost its meaning, so nobody listens to them even when something is Obama’s fault.
@Pandora: Here’s Jonathan Chait’s gripe, from his anti-PC opus:
“Political correctness is a style of politics in which the more radical members of the left attempt to regulate political discourse by defining opposing views as bigoted and illegitimate. Two decades ago, the only communities where the left could exert such hegemonic control lay within academia, which gave it an influence on intellectual life far out of proportion to its numeric size. Today’s political correctness flourishes most consequentially on social media, where it enjoys a frisson of cool and vast new cultural reach. And since social media is also now the milieu that hosts most political debate, the new p.c. has attained an influence over mainstream journalism and commentary beyond that of the old.”
I think he’s complaining because his arguments are being dismissed on the basis of their source rather than their content.
“I think he’s complaining because his arguments are being dismissed on the basis of their source rather than their content.”
Welcome to the club! 🙂
question
If Markell was a black guy (i know I know, roll with me)
And Kowalko called him a “thug”
would we be having this discussion?
No, because Markell would have popped a cap in his ass.
you’re multitasking is impressive
Seriously;
“What does calling out Kowalko as an anti Semite accomplish exactly?”
Nothing.
“If Markell was a black guy…And Kowalko called him a “thug” would we be having this discussion?”
Yes. Or rather the outrage machine would have kicked in. And that’s the point. The machine did not kick in (well, there was significant delay anyway). So why?
Kowalko is a liberal favorite (one of you)?
The slur was a minor one and not actually equivalent to the N word?
It was about Jews who are not really a protected class?
He didn’t really mean it?
Poor choice of words in the heat of the moment?
My opinion is that it’s probably a combination of the first few reasons. But I’m just guessing. Each of us can test for the reason by simple substitution of the person, the word, and the targeted class and determine why there was no real outrage.
Related comment: I’ve read most of Shakespeare’s works, including his sonnets and except for some pithy sayings, my vocabulary does not contain words like shylock. It also doesn’t contain gyp, kite, wop (although I know a meatball joke with that word), etc. So if I were extemporaneously grasping for a term, those words would never surface. I’m really curious as to why Kowalko’s brain would have pulled “shylock” up. I mean really it’s not the first thing that would come to most people’s mind.
For me personally, I didn’t know about the Kowalko thing. I don’t get the News Journal and I have been busy lately. And until this blog thing pays I’m sure we’ll miss some things.
Several people have called out DL for not covering this story (I finally caught up with my blog reading). I can’t speak for any contributor here, but what I can say is we cover what we can, when we can. It’s one of the primary reasons for our daily Open Thread. Did we cover Mike Huckabee’s racist, sexist attack on Beyonce? I don’t think so, so what does that mean? That we like Huckabee? That we gave him a pass?
There isn’t much I can do about a lot of the “big” problems other than vote for people who will (hopefully) make change, attend rallies/protests, sign petitions, advocate, attend meetings, etc.. I do all that and still manage to work on other things that matter to me.
Prioritizing what individuals can/should care about is pretty arrogant. So is referring to them as an outrage machine.
The machine did not kick in (fast enough for Dave). So why?
Who gives a fuck. Possibly Kowalko fatigue. That’s my guess.
Anyway, I hope this length of the thread atones for the tardiness of the outrage.
The machine didn’t kick in because nobody under 40 is familiar with the term Shylock.
Sussex Anon.–you’re right. I heard Kowalko use the term at that board meeting and didn’t know what it meant. My mother taught college Shakespeare, so I guess I can blame her for my ignorance.
It was a very heated moment. I don’t condone racial or ethnic slurs, but it was certainly not a term that JK selected with consideration–the conversation was really heating up at that point. He may not be the only person who said something publicly that night that he regrets (only a guess).
“I’m really curious as to why Kowalko’s brain would have pulled “shylock” up.”
I’ve always wondered what would happen if a kid with Tourette’s were kept sheltered enough to never hear any profanity. What would he involuntarily blurt out?