Thanks for your response, Tom. I trust that you already know that I resent the ignorance that influences society to act in ways that limit human potential. You’ve never given me a reason to doubt similar thoughts on your part. Racism and sexism are part of the same mindset.
Shodan, have you ever heard the word “racist” used by Black liberals who weren’t losing an argument? Might you be biased as to whether or not a liberal is “losing” an argument? (I know I tend to see conservatives as the losers in most political arguments.) Have you heard the word used by other liberals also? Do non-liberals use the word “racist”? Are you aware that liberals can also be called “racists”? Do you ever see or acknowledge any racist feelings in yourself?
Sure. Did you notice the words “too often” rather than “every single time” in my post?
Sure. Might black liberals be biased as to whether or not they are losing an argument?
But I thought MGibson pointed out how the use of the term “racist” could constitute a distraction from an argument. People don’t usually do that when they are winning, in my experience.
Sure, but then it more often means what it originally meant.
Which constitutes, IMO, an example of changing the subject, as MGibson described. We have switched to the personal.
I am not saying this might be unsuitable for GD, just that this is an attempt to switch from debating a term to “prove you’re not a racist”.
Firstly, let me say reading over this thread and finding tomndebb energetically agreeing with one of my opinions is a lot like unexpectedly getting bumped up from coach to first class. So thanks for that.
– Blithely skipping ahead to interesting opposing POVs –
I don’t think so, either. I am guilty of applying a different set of standards for racism than I do for often-conflated other racially biased behavior – ethnocentrism, prejudice, bigotry, racism, xenophobia, ethnic cleansing. We’ve disagreed over my definitions before, you with the face. Before I can call someone racist there has to be a whole lot of other behavioral indicators in evidence for feeling racially superior, hateful and possessed of a willingness to use violence, discrimination and to assert a racial superiority. Had not Michael Richards made the lynching reference, even all the “niggers” wouldn’t have been enough to call him racist: I’d have just called him a bigot and a deeply disturbed idiot for committing career suicide.
Whites are mostly potentially extra offended by being called “racist,” just as blacks are mostly potentially extra offended by being called “nigger.” You will always run into people who don’t particularly care one way or the other. I am humorously reminded of Dick Gregory’s quip when a racist waitress once refused to take his order in a diner. “We don’t serve niggers here!” “That’s okay. I don’t want any.”
He asserted, “I’ll never call another black man “nigger” again.” Prior to that (pun intended) he made the comment that niggers don’t exist, and that it was a word used to describe our own wretchedness. Pryor was an interesting amalgamation of contradictions. Most of the really interesting people you can listen to often are.
YOU MISSED THE MEMO? Are you paid up in your membership dues to FUBU? We keep the membership updated on racially charged terms in my newsletter. Terms like “society’s nigger”, "woman is the nigger of the world, “sand-niggers” and “Arnold Schwarzenigger” have broaded the ethnic and gender scope of “nigger” somewhat, at least as a modifier. Find me a “sand-kike” and we’ll talk.
Well, I brought it up because I thought it was an interesting observation: that racist was the only emotionally charged word I could think of that inflicts similar hurt and distress on whites that “nigger” does to blacks. I didn’t say it affected people the same way – just in similar ways. This was made from the many posts I’ve read describing racial incidents where the charge was made, either overtly or implied, and real life evidence of apparently deeply hurt feelings, distress, bewilderment, anger, guilt, discomfort, loss of trust, hatefulness…
I’ll go one further. (Uh-oh.) I think “Racist” is a widespread descriptor slowly being turned into a slur. I know “Nigger” is a virulent slur that was once a widespread descriptor. Both can be used as insults and it’s forensically dishonest to pretend otherwise. So whenever I see arguments that they aren’t similar because “racist” doesn’t have as much baggage, I shrug my shoulders. That wasn’t my point.
I never said they were equitable, equal in intensity, perfectly opposite slurs or anything like that. I observed both had the power to hurt feelings over racisl matters – that’s where I pointed out the similarities. The degree of offensiveness is a whole 'nother discussion.
I would caution anyone who asserts that being unjustly called a “racist” by a black person is not under any circumstances as hurtful as being unjustly called a “nigger” by a white person needs to consider the vagarities of individual feelings and contexts in which such insults are made. Until you’re in somebody else’s shoes, you don’t know exactly how much it hurts. Maybe it’s the same. Maybe it’s less. It just might hurt more.
rjung, rjung, rjung… when I deign to share my all-knowing insights, my observations are to be given superior weight to factual evidence. Who you gonna believe – my fresh viewpoints, or your tired dogmatic vetted sources?
I would say very slightly somewhat. If I walk into a room and demand all the “niggers” to raise their hands, no one will be eyeing the white women, Arabs, or the Terminator. They’ll be looking at you and me.
:: Gratutious ‘Lawrence Fishburne’ reference :: Yes, but the nigger would be the one to respond to that question. :: Gratuituos’ Lawrence Fishburne’ reference ::
Askia, what is the difference between a racist and a bigot? You mention that if Richards hadn’t made the lynching reference you’d consider him to be the latter, but not the former. I always considered them to mean the same thing.
I understand that. You have to have a whole a lot of evidence before you declare that someone is racist and it has to be really strong evidence that points to a rather restrictive definition of racist they I happen to disagree with, but honestly that’s okay. I’m in no rush to go slapping the racist label on people myself; when it comes to labels I usually focus on attitudes and behavior, not people.
But why does it seem that with other “-isms” (sexism, homophobia, anti-semitism, etc), people on this board and elsewhere are allowed a lot more leeway in their judgements? If I started a thread positing that that I disliked Jews, I seriously doubt the thread would derail into a frenzy of definition swapping as posters try to figure out if my ideas technically count as anti-Semitic or whether they are just bigoted, just prejudiced, or just insert whatever term you want. If I said that gay people are fags and need Jesus, again, I seriously doubt people would be scratching their heads, trying to figure out whether to call me a homophobe or not. Even the homophobes would agree that I was a homophobe. If I said that women are too emotional to be president, who would really care if I was called sexist “when gasp! I’m really not sexist”. More attention would be given to arguing against my ideas, and not arguing about the words being used to describe me or my ideas.
There is no rational reason racism should be held to a different standard than other forms of prejudice, and yet it is. With other “-isms”, you rarely if ever hear any one say stuff like “in order for you to be sexist/anti-Semitic/homophobic, etc, claims of superiority must involved” or “in order for you to be sexist etc. hate and violence have to be involved… or else you’re some other lesser thing that doesn’t sound so bad or something”. You and others employ a legalistic approach to racism that is not as commonly applied to other forms of prejudice, even though the same type of thought process is at work. What the hell is up with this? It makes no sense intellectually and I know I’m not imagining things.
I fail to see why it is so crucial that this distinction be made. If Michael Richards had been talking about gays, for instance, I have a feeling all this bigot versus whatever talk would not be taking place. I can’t imagine too many people thinking that calling him a homophobe would be a rash decision made on too little evidence.
“50 years ago we would have beat your punk sissy ass like Jake in Brokeback Mountain…He’s a fag, he’s a fag, he’s a fag!.. That’s what happens when you interrupt a real man.”
No debate on the presence or absence of Richards’ homophobia would have been necessary. No warnings about the danger of rushing to judgement based on so little evidence. No requirements to know the inner-workings of Richards mind before being so bold as to call him homophobic.
But it becomes a different thing when race is involved.
I couldn’t help but wonder why you said “too often” rather than just “often” and why you specified “black liberals” and not just liberals.
You say that you won’t reexamine your attitudes just because someone calls you a name. I think that’s fair enough. But if someone I respected said that my speech was racist, I would reexamine my speech. And I don’t have to be prompted to reexamine my thoughts and reactions for any bit of racism. And, to my discredit, I find it.
I admitted my own bias when hearing liberal arguments. Some black liberals might be biased as to whether or not they are losing an argument; some might not be.
If you are interested in explaining what you mean by this statement, I’m all ears…uh, eyes.
You should know me better than that by now. We were already talking about the personal – both of us. I certainly have no motive for an attempt to get you to “prove you’re not a racist.” That’s not what my questions were about.
I understand now and respect that this is not something that is personally up for debate with you.
I said “too often” because any time that it happens is too often. Ad hominems have no place in rational discussion. And I said black liberals because it most often comes up in discussions about race - the charge of “racist” is usually perceived to have more impact coming from a black person.
So would I - if it came from someone I respected. Someone who plays the race card rather than change their mind is not someone I respect.
(Not referring to you, Zoe,I hope it is clear).
Maybe that is the difference. The definition of “racism” is too flexible for me to spend much time worrying about it.
It is like the change in desired terminology for black folks - from “negro” to “Afro-American” to “black” to “Black” to “African American”. At some difficult-to-define point, it becomes politics-by-gotcha.
[anecdote] I had a woman object, many years ago, to use of the term "colored people"when referring to blacks. I asked her what was the preferred term that was not offensive. She replied, with a perfectly straight face “People of color”.
I don’t think she was kidding, but she might as well have been. [/anecdote]
I mean that when non-liberals use the word “racist”, it is more often meant to refer to someone who judges another’s worth based on the color of their skin. And not the content of their character.
If I refer to quota-based affirmative action as “racist”, I certainly don’t mean that I have no arguments against it. I mean that iI believe it to be based in large part on the assumption that blacks and other minorities are inferior, because they cannot be expected to achieve to the level of their potential without special hand-outs from Big Massa. Thus they are implicitly assumed to be inherently inferior to, say, Chinese people, who suffer from many of the same disadvantages as blacks, but are rarely considered for inclusion in affirmative action quota plans. Some might say it is just the opposite.
Those who know me are many. Those who understand me are few.
My apologies for taking sooooo long to getting around to this, you with the face. Let’s hope my responses are worth the wait.
So far you and I are in perfect agreement, including the fact that my definition of “racist” is rather restrictive.
This is a good point, I think you’re absolutely right to question that. My own take is that racial and ethnic biases inspire a greater array of negative emotional responses than gender bias, sexual orientation-bias and religious bias. Of these particular biases, racial bias has the most flagrant history of provoking extremism – acts of open hatred, violence, humiliation and discrimination. This is in part because extremism was American government-sactioned and socially acceptable for so many centuries. The only other biases I can think of in this country that are as flagrant, discriminatory and pervasive are two you haven’t mentioned – biases against felons and the generationally poor. (Which, interestingly enough, have blacks disporportionately represented, too. Hmm.)
There are many people who won’t ACT on extremist behavior but will exhibit or harbor a lot of condescending, prejudiced and bigoted racial attitudes. This people are alternately predjudiced and bigots. They are different mindsets than racists, who are intolerant, hateful, violent, exploitive, etc.
Anyway – I suspect that the more a particular bias is subject to “acceptable” extremism, the more prejudice and bigotry that bias also tends to have.
FWIW, I suspect the term “anti-Semitic” is probably just as overused as “racist” and some behaviors — but, not being Jewish (despite my having the middle name Moshe) I haven’t made a practice of investigating that hunch in depth yet.
No, you’re not imagining things. I don’t know if it makes sense intellectually, but see my theory of Government Sanctioned Hate and Socially Acceptable Extremism for my explanation why racial bias has a different standard.
Technically, I don’t think homophobe is a term reserved exclusively for sexual-orientation extremism. “Gay basher” is. Racist IS an extreme term that in recent years is used increasingly for even prejudical acts of racial bias. The racial equivalent of homophobe is “racial bigot.”
Gotta keep those labels straight.
BTW, the most frustrating thing about my life right now is not being online 24/7 to immedately respond to points like this, YWTF. I don’t ever want you to get the feeling I’m ducking your posts, because I find my thinking on some matters being made more focussed and sharper by our dialogues.
I agree that your theory probably has a lot to do with why diagnosing racism doesn’t seem to follow the same guidelines for diagnosing other prejudices. People have been brought up to believe that racism took the form of slavery, Jim Crow, and the KKK, because these type of things are what helped defined the black experience in this country. So they are led to believe that “a racist” is someone who dons a white rob at night, eats black babies for breakfast, and lives in the Deep South. This idea is soothing to someone deeply invested in the idea that racism basically is a thing of the past, because there are few people out there who are in the Stormfront Klan.
But I also think some of it has to do with whites and non-whites for the most part inhabiting different worlds. Gender is different than race in this respect. A woman dealing with sexism most likely has a husband, a brother, a son, or a father that she is close to. Through these relationships she is able to share her perspectives and they are able to see and hear her side of things without the automatic impulse to cast judgement on her, and by this process they learn to see how certain attitudes are sexist, even if they aren’t overtly oppressive. It’s harder to rationalize away harmful ideas when you’re able to see their impact on a loved one. Blacks, whites, and other groups, however, may mingle in the worksphere, but there’s still a lot of segregation associated with our social interactions. This means that when blacks report experiencing racism, whites are quick to assume the black person is mistaken or is making a mountain out of a mole, because their experiences tell them that racism went out of style in 1968 and what remains is nothing to shed any tears over so therefore it must not really count as racism. This also means that black people are more apt to distrust whites and see racism in their motives where there are none.
I’ve seen gay bashing and homophobia used interchangably, just as I’ve seen bigot used interchangably with racist. Honestly, I think you’re probably the only person I’ve seen who splits hairs like this. To me, connotation wise, if I had to pick which one sounds the most extreme I’d actually say “bigot”. A bigot hates and usually with much vehemence. But you don’t have to hate to be racist.
I’m glad. Although we often disagree, I enjoy our talks as well.
I agree with them! Flagrant and overt acts of racism like the kind expoused by the Klan are largely a thing of the past in America. Most people thinks that signals an end to racism, but since we’re basically about one maybe two generations away from common flagrant acts of racism, I know those bastards are out there somewhere. I was reading a biography about George Washington Carver last night, and reading how a caravan of 60 carloads of Klansmen rode through Tuskegee’s campus in the 1920s with shotguns and in full uniform to protest the fact that a black doctor was quietly working as an equal to the white doctors on staff in the hospital there. The blacks on campus were rightfully terrified by the intimidation and eventually the white doctors left (Ironically Klan threats spurred the largest black operated hospital in the South.) But a Klan march TODAY would never happen without the willing violent retaliation by many blacks and the condemnation of millions of all colors.
I don’t find this notion soothing. As someone who’s been the target of racist violence in the past, and in each time out of the blue, to me it just tends to reinforce the idea that much of this kind overt racism has been driven underground by popular condemnation. Racists, bigots and prejudiced people are still very much with us, and in somewhat lesser numbers than in the past. I insist on seeing and treating them as essentially different kinds of people, with different potential dangers to me. If anybody white calls me a nigger, that’s an excellent indicator I’m either dealing with a bigot or a racist; someone who either has an uninformed, fearful/hateful negative opinion of black people (bigot) or someone who has a supremacist view of blacks and has been coached to react violently in a confrontation with blacks (racist). Now I can deal with a bigot easily-- experience has shown me they’re mostly deeply prejudiced loudmouths, and fearful ones at that – I firmly believe that in most cases a white bigot isn’t actually out to harm me physically, although they may well be in a position to make my workplace environment unpleasant. But the very nature of a white supremacist means I have to watch my back. Hell, a black racist might think I’m being too accomodating and conciliatory and want to hurt me, too-- just like whites were beaten for helping the Freedom Riders.
This is spooky because I was going to make a point VERY similar to this but I thought I was getting too long-winded. Gender and religious prejudices are somewhat less extreme than they have in the past because there is more exposure and interaction with them. Sexual orientation issues are far more common. Racial interaction in America outside of urban areas remains isolationist and in some places extremely so.
I split hairs like a chef dicing onions. Well, I’m a purist. Some definitions I just plain don’t like because I’m convinced they conflate other word meanings at are essentially already fixed. I think “bigot” only sounds worse because (culturally) we don’t use it much anymore. Bigotry is just a fixed prejudice. I agree the average bigot sounds hateful, but looking at bigots stereotypically, they’re mostly mouth anyway. Racism is clearly the more extreme behavior because it involves belief in a doctrine that expouses hate and justifies violence and killing to maintain racial superiority. Even worse than racism are xenophobia and ethnic cleansing: one describes a societal reaction to other races, which could involve many millions, the other describes a government policy that justifies genocidal pogoms like in contemporary Iraq and WWII Europe.
We “often” disagree? Really? I thought we usually disagreed about my racial bias/prejudiced/bigot/racist thing.
Enjoyed your exchange, ywtf and Askia. I would differ with you, Askia, on the point about bigots being less dangerous than racists.
The reality, as you noted, is that we rarely encounter situations where someone is going to take us out James Byrd-style. If I encounter a straight up racist wanting to kill me, I’m having a really, really bad day and am likely somewhere far from where I usually hang out. But what if I run out of gas and can’t get a lift to the next gas station? What if I’m having a seizure, and someone walking past is freaked out by the sight of a Black guy crumpled on the ground and walks away doing nothing? I think the results of bigotry can have some pretty damaging effects as well, including death.
Not to go too deep into it, but in the James Byrd lynching, two of the murderers were straight-up, White supremacist, Aryan Nation Nazi assholes who had connections from prison. The third guy was a ne’er do well with no such history. What if he told his compadres to chill the fuck out, leave this guy alone, or basically anything before these subhumans chained another human being to a truck and dragged him to death, until he was decapitated? We’ll never know. But I find the third guy just as responsible, perhaps more so because he didn’t do shit to intervene. And it might have been “hey, you’re going to get sent to jail, this ain’t worth it.” Same with one of the evil bastards involved in the Matthew Shepard murder.
Yeah they are. Not only are the flagrant types still alive, but so are the less flagrant and the less-less flagrant and the less-less-less flagrant, if you follow me. I have the view that racism exists on a spectrum. The Byrd type of offenses are on the far right. Hurling racial epithets when angry or drunk (Michael Richards’ style) is somewhere in the middle.
And on the far left you have the softer stuff which is harder to put your finger on and is fairly easy to rationalize away or attribute to something else if you are predisposed to seeing racism as only being the death-murder-mahem type of thing. Is the guy who proclaims matter-of-factly “Black women are unattractive” being racist or he is just being heavy-handed with his generalized preferences? Was classism at work when the whole Katrina mess went down? Or was it racism? If Elian had been a black kid from Haiti instead of a white Cuban…and so and so forth.
It’s in this realm of things where I find that a lot of white people are quick to dismiss the likelihood the racism is at play. It’s in this realm of things where the reflexic defensiveness most frequently finds a way to annoy the crap out of me. If you can accept that classism may have had something to do with some of the stuff that went wrong during Katrina, for example, then why is it so damn inconceivable that racism was at work, too? I mean, I’m not asking anyone to agree that every time something racially questionable turns up, then it has to be racist. But it’s the quick way the idea is so often dismissed without any good reason that I find frustrating.
But I don’t expect anyone but a bigot to kill someone for being the wrong race. Some bigots are all talk. But some bigots decide to do more than just talk. Some bigots have fat people. Some bigots hate blacks. I define a bigot by what they believe, not by how they act. To distinguish between a racial bigot and a racist really makes no intellectual sense to me, not matter how much I try to square it.
I suddenly have an urge to draw a vin diagram for some reason.
I’ve always wondered where do you see Jim Crow in all of this. Now we know that the “separate but equal” doctrine was actually not equal in practice, but would you lable the principle of mandatory segregation racist? It doesn’t seem violent and I’m sure that most white people back in the day would have been the first to tell you they didn’t hate “their colored people”. Would you object to calling Jim Crow racist in principle? I’m curious to hear your opinion on this.
This disagreement that you and I have about the importance of semantics effects not only how we both talk about racism; it also reflects the different ways we view racism. So its not just one point of difference. But you’re right, dude. “Often” is an overstatement.
Interesting points, **Hippy. ** But in your examples the bigot is not actively doing anything threatening, they’re just refusing to help. I guess with me, though, eternal optimist that I am, I keep thinking that all things being equal, a bigot’s deep prejudice isn’t necessarily going to outright override their basic humanity to help someone in genuine need, even if they are of another race.
I agree that anyone who accompanies the perpetrators stands around and does nothing is just as morally and ethically culpable as the people who carry out the assault/killings – especially if they don’t cooperate with investigating authorities. Legally, it’s pretty much how much you can sway the jury. I say: nail the fuckers to the wall.
I agree with that, too. I call that spectrum “racial bias.” To the left is ethnocentrism; on the far right, bigotry, racism, xenophobia. Any resemblance to the behavioral norms of people of the American political spectrum is a complete coincidence.
Mostly agreed.
I think we can all agree that death-murder-mayhem type stuff can rather quickly be attributed to racism without too much problem. But some of the softer stuff is so much more insidious you have to look at other factors before you slap a “racist” label on the whole event. Katrina is an excellent example of that. The AP photo captions of the black “looters” and the white “salvagers” is a good, relatively isolated example of racial prejudice. The condemnation of the desperate flood victims who fired guns at helicopters so they could be rescued being called “snipers” and refused any help is another example of prejudice and maybe classist bigotry. The hysterical accusations of mostly unfounded reports of widespread rapes and armed gangs of black men can be attributed to racist rumormongering. When you look at all these different prejudiced examples together a very strong pattern emerges that suggests that bigotry, racism and classism of all sorts were at work.
Well, I’m halfway in agreement.
When people say there’s no racism involved at all, and if they are the type to think of extreme violent behavior as “racism” they are correct. But my own definition of racism does allow for discrimination, humiliation and threatening epithets to be considered racist, too. I think what you’re saying when some people say that’;s not racist they are often asserting there’s nothing racially biased about the situation, and I agree that’s (generally) out-and-out bull. I think racial prejudice and bigotry, along with classism and discrimination do enough damage without it being conflated with racism. Much racial prejudice and bigotry in this country is deeply unconscious. Racism is very, very flagrant.
Example: there was a prominent jury consultant who once interviewed a white woman potential juror on matters of racial prejudice for an upcoming trial, and the woman hotly protested that she didn’t think she was prejudiced, that as a child in the 1930s her mother would often send her out into the barn in the mornings to give food to the black migrant workers who took shelter there in the night. The jury consultant asked her the follow up question: what would your mother done if those migrant workers were white? Suddenly the woman was aware of her own (very unconscious) racial bias: the underlying behavior was indeed helpful – to feed the hungrey migrant workers – but she suddenly realized that she and her family would have gone to greater lengths to comfort and feed a white family in distress than a black one. A racist would have already known that.
Jim Crow is a white supremacist policy and historically extremely racist, with the force of arms of local, state and federal forces to enforce it. Enforcement and maintainance of Jim Crow laws was potentially very violent and frequently humiliating. As a grown man, my father hated taking his children to the circus because as a child in West Tennessee they made blacks use a seperate, rear entrance to get to the Big Top. He heard white kids laughing and pointing, “Look at the monkeys! Look at the monkeys!” and was looking around all excited until he realized they were talking about black patrons…
Voluntary racial separation (I don’t think there’s such thing as “voluntary segregation”) may or may not be racist, depending on the ideology of the group perpetuating it. Ethnic cultural celebrations are not, on the whole, racist. Malcolm X’s Nation of Islam was bigoted and increasingly racist in reaction to societal white supremacy of the 50s and 60s – but by the time he became El Hajj Malik El Shabazz and began the Organization of Afro-American Unity, while he still advocated a black only membership for that organization I can’t say the aims of OAU was racist in the sense that it was hateful, supremacist or advocated racial violence.
Askia, your quote:
‘Excluding the various black racial connotations, and to quote social humorist Richard Pryor, “Nigger is a word that is used to describe our own wretchedness.”’
And that would be wretchedness in terms of a dominating society, who caused the wretchedness. For those of us who are born a part of that society, and who see the real past force of causing that wretchedness, it’s plenty painful; I think a good thing, really, that’s the growth pain of a mentally healthy citizenship. Really, it was an extremely shitty thing to do, to subordinate others by rule of law to do our bidding, for a couple of centuries.
“Nigger” has that past Rule of Law quite well embroidered on what was once a well-enforced veil of reality. That word had the capacity to belittle people into non-human status, and allow horrific treatment to happen. That old tired idiot dichotomy still echoes. The N word gets called out, and tries to get the old force behind it, uh, well, even now.
I could go off on so many tangents here for discussion, but will limit it to the “wretchedness” discussion.
I think you’ve touched on why the concern about semantics is hard for me to sympathize with. Those who are quick to deny racism are 9 out of 10 times dismissing the idea that race is involved in any way. Their hangup is not that the wrong word is being used to describe something, even if they are operating under the guise of such; what they really are in denial about is racial bias and racial prejudice. If it was just a matter of wanting to limit racism to only the extreme forms, I would be witness to more people saying stuff like “I don’t think he’s racist, but I do think he’s prejudiced and that’s wrong.” But that’s rarely how it goes. Usually it’s more like “That’s not racist. I can think of plenty of other reasons why that might have happened. Unless you have video evidence and can read minds…” And then the conversation get stuck on debating whether an incident is racist rather discussing the effects these type of incidents have regardless of the words you use to describe it.
Yes, we know this is what you believe, Askia! Just remember that what is flagrant to one person ain’t always flagrant to another. I thought Richards’ performance was pretty damn flagrant, but others disagreed. So who’s right?
Well I’m afraid I’m going to shatter a couple of your illusions .
It may have escaped your notice but theres been quite alot of genocide going on in subSaharan Africa in recent years .
Black Africans far from being the gentle ,peace loving saints living in harmony with nature that Western ,white ,middle class liberals fondly imagine them to be whilst they’re enjoying a bit of cultural self flaggelation can often take their own particular brand of racism a lot further then our own crop of racists.
Not only were they committing mass murder on those guilty of being of the wrong tribe but they deliberately prolonged the individual deaths hacking off their victims limbs one by one with machetes as they encouraged them to beg for mercy before killing them anyway and LAUGHING while they did it .
Theres plenty of actual footage around and not too difficult to find, but for obvious reasons these shots weren’t used on Prime Time.
Black Africans are not and do not consider themselves to be one race just because they have the same skin colour and live on the same continent and to do so is in its self racism.
Except when theres some tourist dollars to be gained the Africans I have encountered on various parts of the continent feel no bond with "african"Americans and consider them to be westerners as different from them as Scotsmen.
Maybe there are millions who do feel a bond ,I’ve just never met them ,ever.
The whole wicked white man myth ,cause of all the worlds woes is starting to wear a bit thin , particulary as the people who preach it never seem to have been closer to Africa then a re run of “Roots”.
