Letters

From the March 2003 issue

E Pluribus Umbrage

Tim Cavanaugh, author of "E Pluribus Umbrage" (December), finds it amusing that in the midst of the church's priest scandal, the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights "alerted its 300,000 members to a grave threat to the faith: a King of the Hill episode in which cartoon housewife Peggy impersonates a nun."

This makes it sound as if we object to Sister Act portrayals, but anyone who has really followed the Catholic League knows this is bunk. Our objection to this episode was the vile way in which the Eucharist was treated. Cavanaugh omits this because it would interfere with the point he wants to make.

On a more important note, Cavanaugh says that our petition to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) protesting Opie and Anthony shows we really do believe in censorship. This is nonsense. Congress long ago established the FCC, and no one has ever ruled it to be a censorial body. Indeed, when we succeeded in getting the show kicked off the air, we immediately requested the FCC not to go through with yanking the license of the station.

Perhaps the most telling comment by Cavanaugh is his remark that "the most endearing thing about Bill Donohue is that he genuinely seems to enjoy hurting people." It would be more accurate to say I enjoy giving it to intellectual jackasses. Cavanaugh will escape my wrath because he is no intellectual.

William A. Donohue
President, Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
New York, NY

Kudos for Tim Cavanaugh's well-written piece on the subject of stereotyping. He makes some cogent points.

However, as a teacher and longtime Italian-American historian, I did spot an error. When David Chase "lampooned" activists in a recent episode of The Sopranos, he wasn't poking fun at the alleged absurdity of rampant Italian stereotyping in Hollywood. He was making fun of the activists personally, out of spite. Their crime? No, not a sense of victimization, which they have never claimed for themselves; rather, their acknowledgment of the constant degradation of the Italian-American image in the media, which extends far beyond The Sopranos to TV sitcoms, advertising, theater, pulp fiction, newspapers, etc.

I find it amazing that Cavanaugh isn't amazed that over 800 films produced about Italians since 1928 portray us as the unofficial scum of the country. Does he actually buy into these images? Is he also a secret fan of The Sopranos, with its Grand Guignol theatrics? And doesn't this constant mocking of Italian-American culture prove that discrimination doesn't take place just via housing or the workplace -- that Italian-American actors, writers, and directors are forced to prostitute their talents in order to succeed in Hollywood?

Of course, one can always do so willingly, as have David Chase and others. Far from being labeled racists, however, these self-loathing types are acclaimed as great artists. They earn high ratings, win distinguished awards, and, alas, even get glowing write-ups in reason.

Bill Dal Cerro
Chicago, IL

I don't agree with Ted Grippo's attempt to silence The Sopranos. The best way to fight stereotypes is with real-life accomplishments, which Italian Americans certainly have exhibited in this country.

However, Tim Cavanaugh and Nick Gillespie ("Looking for Hate in all the Wrong Places," December) are wrong on three counts. First, Gillespie disputes the charge that the show regularly portrays "Italo-Americans as uneducated, low-life brutes." Come on, really. I don't know what episodes he's been watching, but the few that I have seen were overwhelmingly full of such characters. Fine, I don't have to watch the show.

Second, as a weekly program The Sopranos has more influence than, say, a truly intriguing and artful work about the Mafia, such as the film Goodfellas, and so it must shade America's perceptions of Italian Americans. Terrible? Not compared to what other ethnic groups undergo, sure. But stereotypes are still wrong. Otherwise, why not have a show that suggests all Arab Americans are terrorists? Why is one acceptable and the other not?

Finally, from what I've seen, this TV show isn't much good on merit. The Sopranos glorifies violence for its own sake. Goodfellas uses violence to reveal the Mafia for what it is: a sad group of bullies who'd rather break heads than use their heads. Not the Sopranos bunch, who are portrayed as generally regular, if rough, guys in the garbage hauling business with psychological problems just like the rest of us.

Comments

nfl jerseys|11.13.10 @ 12:06AM|#

tdht

log in or register to reply