Posts Tagged With: racism

I’d Rather Be Called “Boy” Than “Girl”: OJ Simpson, Women’s Rights, And Race

I’d rather be black than a woman.  I’m never going to apologize for that.  Until white women go around raping black men, I’m going to take the “it’s worse to be black than a woman” with a grain of salt.  The whole shaker, rather.   At least when you’re black, you don’t have to love someone from the group that oppresses you, the way women (most of whom are heterosexual) do.  You don’t have to be afraid of being raped, and you can at least go to “your side of the tracks” at the end of the day.  You enjoy the benefits of a bigger physical strength (probably socially-induced because of greater feeding and strength training) so you can be relatively safe if you’re a male.

I have written– at length- about the (seemingly) surprising tendency of liberals to be misogynists, often to an even larger extent than conservatives.  The OJ Simpson case is a sort of talking point about this matter.  Liberal men seem to hate women even more than conservative men.  At least, their ideologies are more destructive.  For all their talk about banding together to fight oppression along racial, religious, class, and sexuality lines, the fact that women are being abused is conspicuously absent.

During the OJ Simpson trial, one could turn on the TV and hear a lot about race, since Nicole Brown Simpson, OJ’s murdered wife, was white and OJ was black.  OJ was rich and famous and Nicole was not as much so, so we heard about class.  But how often did we hear about sex and gender?  Was not OJ a man and Nicole a woman?  Doesn’t gender and hatred of women fit (one might say “like a glove!”) into the topic of wife-beating?  If OJ was supposed to have beat his wife, does that not make it more likely he murdered her, too?  And if he had hateful views against females, doesn’t that mean it was more likely he beat her?  It doesn’t convict him, but is does shed needed light.

Andrea Dworkin speaks about the blatant evidence for OJ Simpson’s guilt:

Spectators of the trial who supported Simpson created a whole “all civilized people support Simpson because it would be racist not to” smokescreen to disguise the real reason they were supporting him: because he was being accused of harming their mortal enemy, a woman.  Racism suddenly becomes unfashionable when men find out they can bond with men of other races to the detriment of women.  This is not an accident, as in, “these men can’t help it, they aren’t educated about women’s rights!”  It is deliberate hatred of women for the sake of being women.

I have noticed the same thing in regard to the Emmett Till case.  Emmett Till was the black victim of a ghastly murder which was undertaken against him because he whistled in a sexual manner at a white woman.  He was not supposed to whistle at her because he was black, and people rightly protested the fact that blacks were treated worse than whites for committing the same wrong.  However, has anyone stopped to think why it took the murder of a sexual harasser to stir white men’s anger?  If Till hadn’t performed the ultimate bonding mechanism- sexual taunting of a woman- that binds men together (at least, the ones most societies deem “normal” men), would so many men have come to his help?

What if it was a woman who was harmed in a gender-specific manner, such as being raped by a white man, denied the right to an abortion, etc (as opposed to Rosa Parks, whose situation wasn’t particularly gender related)?  Would people be so quick to help her?  It seems the white men only cared about Emmett Till because, though not deserving of death, he did perform a misogynist act.  Race was just a very handy (because very subtle) smokescreen for covering up the fact that they were bonding with him over misogyny.

All the malestream media can report with regard to these two events is how racist both events were (obviously, race was much more involved in the Till case).  But what they refuse to report is that in both these situations, a woman was harmed, hurt, or abused in some way.  The malestream media, including history textbooks, do not side with Till and other black males because they are black and oppressed, but because they are not women.  Remember that.

Do I know OJ did it?  No.  Not the murder.  I don’t know.  I have not looked over the evidence.  However, I do know that there were elements other than race that influenced people’s view of the all-American “star”, whether or not people want to be honest enough to consider those.

Advertisements
Categories: Africans and African Americans, Articles In English, Conservatism/Liberalism, Famous, Murder, Race and Ethnicity, Radical Feminism, Rape and Harrassment, Violence and Abuse | Tags: , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Men, Monarchy, and Political Science

We’re all taught (at least in the US) that the American Revolution and the Enlightenment (the rediscovery of Classical/ancient Roman culture and science) were the most important and wonderful thing ever to happen in history and that we were all a bunch of savages before they occurred.

Monarchy, to our American mindset, is an irrational evil, a trip back to the old barbaric days when kings and queens could do whatever they wanted and squash the population and take all their money.  I definitely disagree with those kind of monarchs, and I don’t necessarily agree with monarchy itself.  But I’ve been wondering why men tend to hate it so much, specifically the Ron Paul libertarian, America robots that are gaining ground in the political scene.

These liberty-bots scream about how AWESOME “diim-moooocckk-rrraaa-sseeeeeeee!!!” is and it would seem to make sense, that people should live in freedom, but there is a darker side to their cries.  They seem to hate monarchy and want democracy or republic or whichever they want for the wrong reasons.

Look at what monarchy is: a system in which a family or person governs a country, often with special respect for local cultural beliefs and “subjective” opinions.  It is not a disembodied “system”, but is a structure in which a ruler has a close emotional and familial relationship with her or his subjects, as the parent of a country rather than an emotionally distant “just business” leader.  To men, it’s “illogical” to have monarchy, and the succession method of choosing the child of a ruler as the next ruler.

Yes, it would be illogical to claim the child of a ruler would necessarily be able to govern as well as its parent.  But maybe the goal of a monarchy isn’t merely to govern, but to establish a familial or culturally cherished entity as the top of a nation or group of people.

If someone has a different goal than you, that doesn’t mean they’re being illogical.  Men like to argue this way: if you are trying to reach goal B, and they are trying to reach goal A, they call your strategies and attempts to reach your goal “illogical”, because  you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, that way.

For example, if you are trying to reach Goal B, which is to establish a monarchy in order to establish a relationship with your people and put some culture in your government and keep up a beloved tradition, they say this is illogical……because you wouldn’t be able to reach their goal, goal A, which is to dispassionately govern the dry economic and military systems of the nation.

When they say, therefore, that you’re being “illogical”, what they really mean is that they don’t want to admit that maybe you have a different goal than they do, because they are too selfish to admit that someone doesn’t share theirs.  They purposely don’t want to admit that you even HAVE a different goal or opinion than they do, so they just say, “Humph!  That’s not the way to reach MY goal properly!”  Assholes.

Anyway, this is what men do in response to the monarchy question.  They refuse to admit that the cold, hard, mechanized job a government can do might not be the ONLY job it can do.  And they would NEVER admit that a governing body can do something integrated and complex like fulfill TWO functions at once, such as the economic/mechanical function AND the emotional/familial/cultural one!

(perhaps this is why little girls are so preoccupied with princesses- they like beauty, rules, culture, family, monarchy, protection, etc)

.

Ayn Rand’s Objectivism espouses individualism and enshrines capitalism and liberty as proper societal and governmental virtues.  She routinely used the word “savage” and mocked such “irrational” and small-town things as folk music, religion, spiritualism, tribal art, and naturalism.  She preferred to look at the skyscrapers instead of the stars.  She highly praised individualism and stressed that charity should NOT be seen as a moral necessity, but rather as a personal choice.

Ayn Rand, a woman, was born in the Soviet Union, a repressive totalitarian state, so we can forgive her for obsessing over these particular values since they were the opposite of the values she was oppressed under, and since her philosophy does have some rather good points.  But we cannot excuse the purposeful ignorance of the young, upstart white male crowd who use her philosophy to justify their selfish and anti-community behavior.

The Objectivists, the Ron Paul freaks, and the dimmocccraceeee loons are often in conflict with each other on nonessential issues, but they all subconsciously agree on one thing: the subjugation or ignoring of women.  Obstetrician Ron Paul is anti-abortion, and 89% of his donors were men.  The democracy loons are annoyed that Mommy government won’t let them do whatever they want.  Objectivism, though it believes in equality, isn’t able to integrate what women truly  need with its philosophy, which has holes in it that prevent the understanding of how oppression works.

Men, Ron Paul bots, and Objectivism support capitalism and anti-monarchist beliefs and all such “logical” masculine ideas.  Our Founding Fathers, whom they adore, were obsessed with instituting “freedom” from the “tyranny” of a “monster” that taxed his colony about %3.  What did they do once they won that “freedom”?  Because the people didn’t want to pay taxes, Washington squashed the Whiskey Rebellion with more troops than were used in the entire Revolutionary War!  “The King is dead; long live the King!” is always their battle cry.  It wasn’t about freedom for everyone.  It was about their freedom to dominate women, beat slaves, and indoctrinate children.

The reason they hate monarchy is because they are not in control.  They cannot manipulate the ruler of the country, the daddy- or, shudder, mommy- into giving them everyone else’s money and power.  In a democracy, they can trick the idiot population into voting itself into slavery, but with a monarchy, a sole figure is in charge who can stop their whims.  Worst of all, this figure might be a woman, who is going to really lord it over them and make them respect others.

Men are fine with laws against insulting Muslims and fear anyone trying to invade “the sanctity of the family” but they are allergic to laws about insulting your wife, hate speech, and sexism.  Just as they want “freedom” for George Washington to own slaves, they want “freedom” for Muslims to impose Sharia law on their families and communities, and freedom for a retarded inbred redneck to sexually molest his daughter.  They are hysterically opposed to the EU and the United Nations (unless they get to control it) because the EU (headed by a woman, I believe, Angela Merkel) is trying to control Europe “like Hitler” and impose extremely unfair rules against people pushing each other around (and they’re pro-Jewish!!!  Oh no!!)

.

.

Part of the opposition to monarchy, authority, and community is an opposition to the idea that the personal is the political.  Men don’t want the personal- women’s issues, their mothers, childhood rules, familiarity, emotion- to follow them into the political.  They don’t want to have to bother with the complaining women at home, so they set up politics as a tool to help them create their own man-spaces (the market, war, “freedom” in various issues, forcing women to stay home), and sometimes the political establishment itself isn’t only a tool for setting up these spaces, it IS those spaces!  (recall the Congressional showers, homosexual relations with male pages, baths and homosexuality in the Roman days, etc).

Men choose to see things in linear, unconnected terms.  Black and white, you might say.  This is why they refuse to admit that the personal is the political.  They refuse to understand that it’s not separate, but that the two concepts gradually blend into each other, the way white blends into black via gray.  But men choose to see things as simplistic so they can separate concepts when they want to ignore one or the other (like ignoring the personal).

Politics, to them, is NOT personal, but has to do with governing things, not people- money, military equipment, technology, legal structures.  Personal things like equality,  justice,  jobs, the arts, culture, are not considered “important”, even though they directly affect more people than dry legalistic matters do.  But even here they are hypocrites: they claim to want to focus only on these dry matters and ignore personal ones, yet they go and draft tons of laws that focus directly on the personal: laws allowing wife beating, laws about clothing and rape, laws allowing child abuse.  Not to mention the fact that when women come into politics, they act the same way towards them as they do at home, they act out their psychological hatred and fear of them, therefore THEY are the ones who are bringing their own personal feelings into politics.  Men are afraid women will enforce rules against their misbehavior, just they way they do at home.

 

“Masculine” men almost instinctively bristle at this mention of the word “misbehavior”- they recognize it as an admission that the personal is the political.  Words like “misbehavior”, “bad,” “deserve,”- it reminds them of home, of mother, or that umbilical leash they try to wriggle away from.  They don’t like this encroachment of the personal sphere into the political sphere.  “Oh, no!  I thought I got away from this!” they moan, when they realize their childish scheme to reject their mothers and their homes and the personal sphere predictably falls apart.

They had hoped the personal wouldn’t follow them into the political, and put up barriers- on female suffrage, birth control, working women-  to keep it at home, protected, enclosed- they are unsurprisingly upset when people, families, feelings, needs, wants, hopes, dreams, and the dreaded Feminine come to knock at the Capitol doors.  When they speak of “protection” of the family, we can conclude they can only mean their protection from the family.  Big strong men indeed.  Politics isn’t serious business for them, it’s just a boys’ club.   Not an important mechanism for ruling a society.  A boys’ club.  Repulsive.

 

Men oppose laws against speech because they dread the idea that the personal is the political, and vice versa. They hate the idea that the state is just an overgrown nanny who won’t let them pick on others. They see laws curtailing the exercise of speech, and they scowl “I thought I escaped that when I grew up and moved out of the house!!” because they resent the fact that “personal” rules- like rules against teasing, lying, etc- are encroaching on their “political” world, which they thought was a dood-haven protecting them from rules, fairness, and nagging mothers.

 

 

They need this dualistic, illogical, and unsustainable divide between personal and political because they don’t want their mothers creeping up into their space.

 

.

 

The obsession with capitalism versus communism is also due to personal psychological problems on the part of “masculine” men.  They start out as capitalists, confident in their own abilities to work and manipulate the market in their favor.  Then when they get older, maybe age 22, they realize what losers they are and become socialists or communists, because they think socialism and communism mean taking from the responsible and giving to the irresponsible.

 

But perhaps it’s just another dood-fit, and since they see capitalism as an authority figure, and they direct their anger at that.  Who knows, maybe in Soviet Russia naughty young boys, full of angst, saw communism as an authority and capitalism as rebellious!

 

They may see communism as a system to help the “little guy”; in this case, it helps the little guy get women, whom they want to see as objects.   They want the same right to women, as property, as the rich robber baron capitalists have.   They may go the opposite direction when they get the woman- they are now conservative because they don’t want anyone to take her now that he’s got her, just as rich people become capitalist conservatives now that they don’t want anyone taking their money.

,

But there’s always a thread of freedom in there, whether they’re capitalist or communist; there’s always this fear of themselves being governed.  This selfish mistrust of government shows up in pop culture as well.   Look at all the detective or murder movies out there:

 

The masculine, intelligent male always senses that the neighbor or the local butcher or the school teacher or some other seemingly innocuous citizen is some horrible terrorist or enemy, and needs to be taken out.  His crying nervous hysterical wife never believes him- oh, that deadweight, mission crushing bitch!

 

The wife, who tries to reason with her husband, to get him to see that the neighbor or barber or whoever is just a normal person, SHE is seen as the irrational one, the one who needs to wake up.  This is how patriarchy sees things: an enemy everywhere, and the more normal they act, the craftier their conspiracy must be.  They need to be killed.

 

Noooo, not by the cops or by a cooperative of citizens!  Mr/Mrs Villain needs to be killed by the lone male hero, whose spoilsport wife wants to wimpishly force him to make peace for no other reason than…well…than that she hates violence because she’s a wimp.

 

Of course, then comes the epiphany for Mrs Hero, when she finds out the conspiracy or whatever is true, and that the suspect in fact WAS the villain.  Now crying in fear and embarrassment, she learns the husband was right, and calls him, talks to him, hugs him, gives him makeup sex.  Maybe she even gets threatened or held hostage or perhaps killed by the enemy to teach her a little lesson about letting her evil pacifist feminine side take over.

 

Of course, the policemen are all pathetic and don’t believe the male hero, and neither do any female nurses or psychologists (if the hero gets committed)- the government and the community are not to be trusted.  This is how the movies, collaborating with patriarchy, make citizens afraid of each other, and put down women.

 

.

As we can see, the introduction of masculine philosophy into politics is dangerous and causes childish political behavior and mistrust of important laws and authority.

 

.

 

How much longer is it until men institute either a fascist state, or an anarchist Dionysian rape fest?

Categories: ...and the Arts, Articles In English, Liberty Doods, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

NiggerWalk: A Spoof

.

.

This article is a spoof of SlutWalk (whose LA branch was headed by a man, a former statutory rapist) and details why the protest tactic isn’t a good idea, by substituting the plight of enslaved African Americans for enslaved women to make a comparison.

It also mocks PIV centrism and heterosexual-normativity by asking why blacks must work on white fields, and why field work must be more harsh to the black than the white.

.

KEY: Nigger=Slut
black=woman
white=male
slave owner=male partner
field work=sex
forced onto a field=raped
trans-racial=transgendered
white skin=the penis

.

.

.

 

Last week in Harlem, local activists led by white black history professors Edwin A. Locke IV and Harry Whittlestone VII organized an event called NiggerWalk.  The event aims to teach black people they have the right to dress as slaves, lowlifes, and gangstas, and tells marchers and onlookers it’s fine to call black people nigger for dressing this way, as long as they respect the word and the person.  Newspapers cheered the open-mindedness of the two white professors for renouncing bigotry, especially since they used to coerce blacks to do work on their plantation fields and have now repented.

.

“We have the right to dress as stereotypical black caricatures and be respected for it!” says Tina Brown, an African American marcher who helped organize the event.  Cheers echo from the crowd, a lovely rainbow of supporters comprised of 50% whites, 35% blacks, and 15% white-born black-identified persons with chocolate colored paint on their faces.  “We have the right to work on the plantation of whoever we choose, and no one should disrespect us for it!” shouts Diana Harris, a black marcher, as a large group of white people behind her grin and enthusiastically show their support.  Along the sidewalks, dozens of white people have shuffled up near the street to watch the parade and show their support, many carrying signs that say “nigger” “I support niggers” “go niggers!” and “niggers can plow my field any time!” and others who applauded the marchers’ willingness to be open minded.  Some groups of people even had peculiar white hoods and robes.

.

From far and wide, people showed up to support African Americans’ right to work on any field they liked, on any plantation they chose, for any owner or overseer they wanted, and for their right to dress as slaves and demand people call them nigger with respect!  They also want to stop the practice of white people kidnapping blacks and forcing them to work on their fields.  The emphasis on choice, they say, on a black person’s choice of which field to work on, will stop this tragedy.

.

But not everyone was so well behaved.  A little controversy showed up in the form of the racist Black Liberation movement, who attacked the bewildered marchers with extremely angry QUESTIONS (we told you it was ugly!) about black-white relations.  Dawn Barnaby, an officer in the liberation group, chatted with protesters and reporters about what she subjectively, personally feels is the problem:

.
“The word ‘nigger’ was conceived as an offensive word, and this protest asks that people use that word to refer to people.  Also, it was intended to refer to a specific group of people, black persons, as a way to demean them because of their race.”

.

Our own white correspondent, Nicholas Reed, answered, “But white people can be called niggers as well.  How can you say the word is offensive only to blacks, or that it causes racism, if it is used against whites as well?”

.

.

“Mr. Reed, if you call a white person a nigger as an insult, are you not implying black people and blackness are negative things?”
“I-I’m not sure I understand what you mean.”
“If you were to call a human being a dog as an insult, would any sane person believe you were implying that being human was a shameful thing…or rather that being a dog is the shameful thing?”
“Well, okay! [chuckles]  That’s for you guys to decide.  What makes you think you can’t reclaim the word, change it into a good thing?”
“You can’t make other people respect you by making yourself less sensitive to a word.  And you can’t stop the forcible kidnappings that way.  Besides, if someone was called nigger in a racist manner, this will be a reminder to them of the pain they experienced, even if they know a word itself is just a word.”
“Ah. I see.  What else has bothered you about this protest?”
“It’s the emphasis on field work and on how black people can make their choices only along the lines of field work.  Do you wanna work on this field?  Do you wanna work on that field?  You mean you don’t wanna use these new tools that make it a lot more intense and fun for your owner?  That kind of stuff.”
“Oh, gee.  This must be a black thing because I’m not so sure a goofy white guy like me is going to know what would bother a black person!  I’m kidding, of course.”
“Well, it’s this whole field work-positive thing.  What if some black people don’t want to do field work?  What if they want to be lawyers and doctors and writers?”
“Isn’t it more natural to want to do field work? Everyone’s doing it!  Dr. William Bradfield, PHd, says that blacks who don’t want to do field work are unliberated, agriculturally-inexperienced, lazy, and prude.”
“Why black people?  What about white people who don’t like field work and plantations?”
“Well!- [chuckle]- whites naturally enjoy plantations and field work more than blacks.  That’s just evolution.”
“No, it’s because we make it so that blacks do the uncomfortable and painful aspects of field work- they’re always the ones out in the fields, they’re the ones who get overheated, whites are the ones who benefit from the setup since they’re always inside watching and overseeing the blacks’ activities.”
“A lot of scientists and church leaders would disagree with you there.  Besides, there’s the “white man’s burden” of having to take care of the black worker, of having to make sure they’re fed, directed to do the right kind of work, civilized….”

.

.

Reed and Barnaby went closer to the action so they could get more perspectives from the extremely open-minded and tolerant crowd:

.

“It’s your fault if you dress like slaves and make us think all blacks are supposed to be used as cheap labor!!” a white man with a mullet and a Re-elect Trent Lott shirt shouts to the crowd. “God-damn niggers!  Gonna force you to work in my fields one of these days.  You’re askin’ for it!”  He reassures the camera crews he’s just joking, but we thought the remark was a bit distasteful, if not anything to be worried about.

.

Josh Baker, a 20-year-old college student, was interviewed by Reed and Barnaby as well. “This movement is stupid.  Most whites keep their blacks dressed appropriately, not like slaves.  They want them to be respected by whites and they don’t want them running off and working on others’ plantations instead of their own.  Isn’t that a much more respectful way of handling the problem of blacks being captured and forced to work?  Blacks should know not to dress like slaves.  I mean, I’m a white.  I know how whites are.  We can’t help but want to have blacks work on our field.  It’s Darwinian evolutionary scientific survival genetico-biology, for Christ’s sake.  We’re not in control of it.”

.
Dawn Barnaby disagrees that it’s white nature to enslave blacks, and that whites cannot control their actions, but Josh stands firm:
“Blacks don’t know how bad whites can be.  How can they possibly know?  I can’t imagine how they could possibly be aware of it.  I mean, it’s our job to be in control and protect them from it.  Dress them right and shit.  And this is why it’s inappropriate for blacks to make the first move, for them to go out and choose which white person to work for.  Blacks should always wait for whites to make the first move, to invite them to their plantation.  That’s the traditional civilized way to do it, to keep blacks safe from white advances.  Because- and I know this offends you for some reason- whites all want you just for the work thing.”
“How on earth can having whites make the first move possibly make it safer for black people under those circumstances, then?  The circumstances of whites being so dangerous?” asks Barnaby.  “Never mind,” says Josh.  “This is why white people need to change,” Barnaby says.

.

Josh’s brother, Mark, has been listening to everything Josh and Barnaby have said, and agrees to be interviewed as well.

.

“We need to change?  We need to change??  Why?!  Who are you to say all whites are dangerous to black people!?” he shouts at her.  “Who told you that?  I can’t imagine where you heard THAT!  You must have made that up!  Are you some kind of anti-white bigot?  Why should I trust you on this issue, anyway.  You’re black.  You’re biased.  And probably a nigger.”   Barnaby looks at Reed, and asks him if he now understands why the reclaiming of the word ‘nigger’ won’t work.  (It’s okay.  We don’t get her point, either).  Mark continues, “I wouldn’t want my black to dress like a slave because then someone else would try to use them for their plantation.  And it embarrasses me to be associated with a nigger or slave.”  “Your black?” asks Barnaby.  “What? It’s just a phrase!” Mark replies.  “My black is supposed to work, all right, but only for me.”  “How is that liberating?”  “Shut up!”

.

Alex Jones, a white woman watching the march, believes whites should protect blacks from working for other whites.  “Other whites might force you to work for them, and they might make you do worse or more painful work.”  Her brother disagrees. “That harder work is liberating for blacks!  And hey, I can’t say we don’t enjoy having them work hard,” he says with a wink.

.

Also interviewed is Graham Hughes, 22, computer programming student, member of several socialist, anarchist, and Occupy groups, and collector of 80s rock music CDs and Japanese anime torture porn.  He looks over his glasses at Barnaby.

.

“Blacks naturally want to work for whites,” he says, smiling sarcastically. “Human nature.  It’s built into us.”
Barnaby questions him, “What about blacks who only want to work for other blacks?  Or whites who want to work for blacks?”
“That’s not how it goes,” Hughes says with a smile, “because humans evolved so blacks would work for whites.”
“We can’t work for other blacks?”
“You can work for other blacks.  Yup.  No one’s stopping you.  And it’s kind of exotic.  We whites enjoy watching that.  But isn’t it not very liberating to only work for each other and not for whites, too?  No variety?”
“Variety?  You want variety? Why not get other whites to work for you?  Or would that be unnatural too?”
“Whites don’t want to work for other whites.  That would be wrong, wouldn’t it?  Blacks work for us, sometimes more than one black.  That’s also evolutionarily important.  One white can oversee many blacks and get more work done.”
“But can’t one black choose to work for many different whites?  Wouldn’t that be just as useful a practice?  One black works for different whites, picks up different skills, gives their talents to whichever white overseer earns them the most…”
“Blacks don’t like working for more than one white.  Their brain chemistry makes them want to stay with only one white, while white brain chemistry makes them want to oversee more and more blacks.”
Barnaby barrages him with more questions.  “Why should it be that blacks do the tiresome and painful work and whites have the job of overseer?”
“Whites are stronger creatures.  They’re not meant to do passive work like taking dictation from higher authorities.  White skin is also stronger, that’s why our white nature is stronger.  It’s the symbol of whiteness, what makes us strong and white.”
“Then why does your skin burn in the sun and not ours?  Try taking the beating and sunburns black people do and see whose skin is stronger.”
“I don’t think so.  White nature is to be stronger.”
“No it certainly is not.”
“Well, stop fooling us then, by wearing those slave clothes and asking to be treated like a field hand.  You’re making us think you all want the same thing.”
Making you think?  How can I make you think something?  You have control over your own mind.  And how can you believe we all want the same thing if we’re all individuals?  How about the fact that slave and so-called nigger-style clothes are all that’s being sold at the stores in my size?”
“Lose weight.” He smiles again.
“Not everyone can do that.  And what about the fact that little black children are told to dress like slaves from the age of three, because of what they see on the TV?  Do you think they can escape that when they’re adults?”
“You have control over your own mind.” He winks.
“But what about the children who are watching TV shows that tell them to dress like slaves, find a nice white overseer, and flood their lives with thoughts of white people?  What if they work before they’re ready for it?”
“It’s liberating for children to work.  I don’t mind children working for me.  And aren’t they ‘all individuals’?” he smirks.
“No-well-you…that’s not what I meant.  Children at least should be protected.”
“Fine by me.  You’re right.”
“What do you mean I’m right?!”
“What’s the matter?  I said you were right,” he says, a smile coming onto his face
“You just said I was wrong before.”
“Well, I’m saying you’re right now. You win,” he smirks even more.
“Get that rude smirk of your face!”
“You seem a little psycho,” he says calmly, still smiling.

.

Since Barnaby was looking slightly irritated, we could see why Hughes thought she was mentally unstable as Negroes’ brains are more likely to lead to psychosis than whites’ non emotional ones (vive la difference!), though we do think Hughes was off the mark in his opinions.

.
Next, Barnaby teamed up with fellow Liberation member Bryan Thompson, an intelligent, well spoken man, but an odd conspiracy theorist who believes society is structured to benefit whites over blacks and thinks conscious racism and hate are the main cause of blacks’ problems, not simple ignorance about the nature of blacks, or totally accidental mis-education about race, and subconsciously ingrained social beliefs.

Like many other black liberationists, he is reluctant to assign responsibility to individual blacks for overreacting to perceived bigotry, such as the Timothy Waits case, in which a young black teen who was taunted for months on end about the death of his aunt and told daily by whites he was inferior, went on a rampage, actually striking other students with his fists who had participated in the taunting!

Thompson is a legal writer who helped found the highly radical organization Homeland for Africans (which preaches the importance of establishing a black-only, black-run nation for victims of perceived racism); he defended Waits in court, successfully keeping Waits out of mental counseling and temporary psychiatric confinement, in a decision experts were uneasy about, given the boy’s purposeful targeting of only white students in his attack, and the irrational mistrust he harbored for all white people (which would prove disastrous in his quest to find a suitable field to work on and a good overseer).

.

Although their beliefs are rejected by the vast majority of society, Barnaby and Thompson are a force to be reckoned with, and they are good conversationalists, despite their exotic beliefs.  Interviewing white-born black-identified marchers was an interesting expedition.  Approaching a group of activists, with brown paint smeared carefully on their faces and large pink lips drawn on with goopy lipliner, Barnaby and Thompson politely but firmly press one of their key issues: trans-racial criticism.

.

.

“Hello.  We’re really glad you’re here.  Look, we appreciate that you’re trying to support us, but don’t you think saying you’ve experienced the effects of racism is a little dishonest, and takes meaning away from the black persons who were born black, perceived as black, and treated as black since childhood?”  Thompson asks.
“No,” says LaDawnda Sparxx, trans-racial activist and chairwoman of the Blaque Nigguzz charity, which helps provide skin-dyeing and lip enlarging services for white children who feel they were born black inside.  “We feel that when- excuse me,” she interrupts, turning around and reapplying some black paint to her forehead, where a water droplet landed.  “We feel that blackness and whiteness are things a person can feel inside themselves, and that no one is fully white or black.  We think children who like rap music should be free to be who they are.”
Barnaby answers, “That sounds fair enough on some levels.  We all come in different skin colors, and some of us are half white and half black.  But don’t you think they can listen to rap without changing their body?  And don’t you think some persons are perceived and treated, from birth, to be black- and have suffered psychologically from the abuse?  How can you claim a child who was born white enough to escape daily racism has suffered in the same way as a child who was born with darker skin and called “nigger” everyday?”
“No one lays a claim on experience,” says Sparxx, as trans-racial supporters cheer, some holding signs that read, “black chick”, “nigger forever!”, and “once you go blaque, you don’t go back”.  “Who are you to determine who may become black and who may not?  If I have black skin now, how is that different from being born into that racism?  I can imagine what it would be like if I feel like it.”
“Some people have good imaginations and can empathize well.  But this empathy isn’t automatically guaranteed just because the person is mimicking the outward appearance of who they wish to become.”
“I know what it’s like to be black, and I know what it’s like to be white, so I know there’s a difference!”
“You know what it’s like to be white?  Good for you.  I wish I knew what it was like to be able to escape from racism on a whim like that!”
“You guys are bigots,” says Sparxx, and goes to set up the wooden stage for a black minstrel performance, in which white-born performers black their faces and mimic stereotypical black behaviors, in order to better appreciate the black community.  Barnaby and Thompson seem strangely uncomfortable with this, and go back to talk to Reed, who wraps up the interview and then bids them goodbye.

.

.

Despite inviting a bit of controversy, the presence of the two radicals didn’t disrupt the event to the point of chaos.  While Barnaby and Thompson claim to be tolerant, most people feel their stance is unenlightened, at best, and that welcoming trans-racial activists into the black liberation community will help boost numbers, if anything.  But the radicals have their own agenda, and there is no part in it for enlightening whites, who suffer from the exact same amount of hatred blacks do.

.
“We don’t want to educate them, we want to stop them,” they claim, forgetting that tolerance and forgiveness are the key.  “The media is controlling society and helping whites wage war against us,” they believe, failing to acknowledge that the totally and completely unconscious beliefs persons hold about blacks are to blame on the media, not whites.  Let us repeat: we should not blame whites, who are- we shall 100% spontaneously add- NOT controlling that media or society in ANY way.

.

NiggerWalk is an extremely important event that wants to allow blacks the right to dress as they choose, work for whichever owner and whatever plantation they choose, and save them from the horror of being disrespected when they make their choice, which will allow them the freedom to make even more wonderful field work choices.

.

“Niggers!  Pick my cotton!  That’s all you’re good for!!!” shouts a man in a car, then drives away.

 

.

We can’t help but wonder if people like Barnaby and Thompson aren’t somewhat responsible for this kind of attitude against NiggerWalk and blacks.  Perhaps if anyone deserves to be forced onto a field, it’s these two troublemakers.

Categories: Articles In English, PIV, Politics and Current Events, Radical Feminism, Sex | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.