← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · kminta
Thread ID: 5130 | Posts: 12 | Started: 2003-02-21
2003-02-21 00:24 | User Profile
A shorter version of this article will appear in the February 24, 2003 edition of [url=http://www.amconmag.com/]The American Conservative[/url]. Here, Mrs. Wright discusses black success in the past and how learned helplessness remains the central problem of Black America. To make a long story short, so long as blacks continue to cling to self-defeating attitudes and believe that "Da white man be evil an he tryin' to keep da brotherman down," the vast majority of blacks will never be anything more in American society than criminals and thugs.
The Dual Mind of Black America
How blacks continue to sabotage themselves
By Elizabeth Wright
In his second book, Authentically Black: Essays for the Black Silent Majority, John McWhorter goes further with his candid discussions on how many blacks, through self-defeating behavior, undermine their own ability to achieve. His work joins other studies that have helped to create a kind of genre for re-thinking aspects of the civil rights movement and exposing the excesses and abuses that have exemplified so much of the post-civil rights period.
Drawing from a theme introduced by W.E.B. Du Bois of a "double consciousness" shared by blacks, McWhorter offers a new interpretation. A great many blacks, he claims, while privately taking responsibility for improving their lives, will, in public, dutifully take on the "mantle of victimhood." Such blacks feel obligated to propagate the notion that black people cannot rise without the assistance of whites. Thus, it becomes an imperative to downplay the improving conditions for blacks, to insure that whites do not abandon the black cause. Maintaining an aggrieved public presence to remind whites of their "duty" is coupled with the task of spreading the message that the only barrier to black advancement is white racism.
Even the black who knows through is own personal experience that his progress is not fettered by whites assumes that whites are keeping other blacks down. This "Janus-faced double consciousness," claims McWhorter, where one reality is lived privately, while its opposite is promoted in public, has become a kind of affirmation of "authentic" blackness. This "authentic" black understands that all black success is accidental and just a fluke. He places no value on achievement in mainstream society, for to do so would be selling out.
While exposing the role that the post-civil rights leadership has played in compounding the already existing sense of victimhood among blacks, McWhorter also acknowledges a sad truth. That is, "sitting at the core of the African-American soul," is the belief that blacks are inferior to whites. He correctly views this disposition as the initiator of much of the vituperation directed toward whites. In this self-defensive mindset, it is comforting to believe that the continuing "racism" of whites prevents any upward social or economic movement.
McWhorter claims that for many ordinary blacks, this sense of inferiority is a deepseated problem and they are not being dishonest about their perception of racial barriers, no matter how incorrect that perception might be. Those blacks in prominent leadership positions, however, are fully conscious of the cynical political ploys they engage in when they rail against the system, charging it with "institutionalized racism." Their sole purpose is to play on the weaknesses of the vulnerable black masses.
Much of this book is a criticism of that tendency among blacks to keep whites locked into problems that should rightly be the purview of blacks. McWhorter says, "[W]hites have gone about as far as they will; the rest of the job is ours." Yet, after this revelation of what is basically a psychological problem among blacks ("this private sense of inadequacy"), which one would think should be dealt with by blacks themselves, McWhorter proclaims whites still somehow responsible for taking proper actions to help mitigate this self-defeating strain. "Whether or not that defeatism is appropriate or healthy, it's there," he declares. When exasperated whites call for whining blacks to "knock it off" (in McWhorter's words), whites should instead recognize that blacks "will require more 'goosing,' than, say, most immigrant groups." ["Goosing," by this definition, meaning spurring or encouraging.]
Despite McWhorter's persistent disparagement of blacks who would keep whites "on the hook," and culpable for past, present, and future black problems, he engages in the customary practice of offering prescriptions for whites to follow. We are given a line-up of social programs that he views as detrimental to black progress, and which, therefore, should be of concern to whites. For example, he urges whites not to sponsor an open-ended welfare program "that pays black women to have illegitimate children." Whites should not "dragoon underqualified blacks into positions beyond their abilities." And whites should not lower standards to accommodate blacks. Such approaches to solutions, claims McWhorter, deny blacks the opportunity to learn "how to compete." Competition among blacks is viewed as an obvious good that whites should help to reinforce.
Every one of the policies specified by McWhorter, and which he designates as negative, are vigorously supported by black politicians and civil rights leaders. Yet, for some reason, it is incumbent upon whites to navigate around the wills of blacks' chosen leaders and do what's "best for blacks." In spite of the desires of the intrepid and audacious Maxine Waters, John Conyers or Kweisi Mfume, one wonders? "In encouraging black self-sufficiency," claims McWhorter, whites are "off the hook." And "whites who give us the opportunity to stand on our own two feet are off the hook." Might one ask the obvious question of why whites are more responsible for helping blacks attain self-sufficiency than those who supposedly represent black interests in the first place and daily fight for the special privileges that McWhorter maligns?
Although his laundry list of whites' obligations to the well-being of blacks tends to be considerably shorter than, say, one drawn up by Jesse Jackson, it is a list, nevertheless. It seems clear that if whites fail to possess the prescience necessary to understand what blacks "truly need," or if, heaven forbid, whites simply don't give a damn about those needs, they remain on Professor McWhorter's "hook."
While giving the shaft to the historians of Afrocentric fantasies, who teach that just about nothing in the world was invented until an African conceived it, McWhorter does a fine job of outlining the "missing" history of American blacks. This is the story of ordinary people who used their common sense to create an economic base normal to the development of other ethnic groups. This history of the successful businesses forged by blacks during those years, which were supposedly the "worst of times," has never been of any interest to the civil rights charlatans since it cannot be used in the service of perpetuating victimhood.
On the contrary, it shows what was possible in terms of achievement, even for freedmen, long before slavery officially ended. The fact of blacks' successful entrepreneurial history is problematic for those who teach that blacks encountered restrictions, at all times and in all places, on their ability to achieve and prosper. A pioneer in the study of black business is Professor Juliet Walker of the University of Illinois, who explains why blacks were able to utilize their talents in the same ways that were normal to other Americans, in spite of the discrimination they faced: "It was the very sanctity of private property in American life and thought that allowed blacks, slave and free, to participate in the antebellum economy as entrepreneurs."
Although nascent and growing in this early period, the entrepreneurial spirit peaked and is evidenced in the thousands of businesses that were created in the North and South beginning in the late 19th century. This impressive creation of enterprises, though hobbled by the 1930s Depression, pressed on through the 1940s and, in some cases, right into the 1950s. We learn from McWhorter that wherever a black business district sprouted and thrived, the community was economically stable and self-reliant.
He offers a descriptive example of one of these black "entrepreneurial enclaves," Chicago's "Bronzeville." As Chicago industrialized in the late 19th century, blacks migrated from the South, eventually populating a stretch of blocks on the south side. Here began what was to turn into one of the most prosperous of black communities. By 1917, over 700 stores and firms had been established. Businessmen bought tracts of real estate on which they constructed buildings to house banks, life insurance companies, manufacturing firms, newspaper headquarters, and fraternal societies. There were doctors, lawyers, school teachers, and other professionals. There were theaters, several hotels, with the Hotel Brookmont billed as "The Finest Colored Hotel in the World." McWhorter describes Bronzeville as a "thriving civic community," where the leading churches, such as Olivet Baptist, with a membership of 10,000, focused on community uplift, with special attention paid to servicing the new arrivals from the South. Oscar Michaux's film production company, that pioneered in movies starring black actors and actresses, was based in Bronzeville.
The primary purpose of Issues & Views, which I began in 1985, is to tell some of this remarkable story and to profile these ordinary yet special people. [See When We Were Colored.] The spirit that built Bronzeville also built other black enclaves, including districts in Durham, Birmingham, Nashville, Norfolk and Tulsa. Over the years, outstanding businessmen like Harlem realtor Philip Payton, Philadelphia banker Richard R. Wright, and S.B. Fuller, who founded his first of many companies in Louisiana during the Depression, provided jobs for countless numbers of blacks.
No one would deny the real limitations to expansion placed upon these businesses by legal factors (every region was different), but within the parameters in which they could operate, a great many blacks were able to leave legacies. This is a history worth celebrating and none of it is buried. Over all these decades, any NAACP functionary could easily have collected this data with the aim of inspiring blacks to pick up where these industrious entrepreneurs left off. McWhorter calls the loss of the knowledge of these achievements, the "gap in our historical memory." For today's unworthy black leaders, history of this kind becomes interesting only when there is a sad tale attached to it, as in the case of Tulsa, where, in 1921, the successful black business district was razed during riots instigated by whites. Yet, the part of the Tulsa story that is ignored by those who bask in the details of the tragedy as "proof" of the white man's perfidy, is equally sad.
After the residents had recovered from the shock of the riots, with grit and determination, and because they did not want to be defeated, blacks rebuilt the business district. Some claim that the newly refurbished district was even more impressive than its predecessor. We learn from University of Texas social historian John Sibley Butler that the second death of the district came at the hands of blacks themselves. "In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the enterprises of the once proud district began to suffer because blacks won the right to spend their money freely anywhere in Tulsa." This loss of a consumer base, which also spelled the loss of capital, and the later intrusion of urban renewal, effectively put an end to the blossoming revival. Throughout the country this became a pattern in one town and city after another. As the clamor for integration escalated, money ceased to circulate in black communities, which guaranteed swift and sure economic decline.
An important reason why the general history of this black success is shunted aside is obvious -- there must never be a hint that there were some advantages to segregation.
John McWhorter by no means hints at such an heretical idea. In fact, much to the contrary, his world is one that is moving beyond the restricting racial confines of mere integration. It is clear from several glowing passages sprinkled throughout the book (and in his recent comments to a Salon.com interviewer) that in his ideal world, racial progress is confirmed when hearing ebonics spoken by young white women, wrapped around such words as "dude" and "bitch," or overhearing the friendly banter of Filipino teenagers as they call one another "negro." Progress is a deracinated amalgam of peoples, who accept the "endless waves of miscegenation" and the inevitable hybridism (his word). Progress is celebrating how black whites are becoming. McWhorter exults, "We're inside of them and most of them don't even know it anymore. This is harmony in the best sense of the term." No doubt, in McWhorter's world, there is no room for ruling this a rather debased harmony.
Returning to his key discussion, McWhorter offers scorn for those in academia who would lower the bar of admission in their quest for "diversity." He intones, "White guilt is a dangerous and addictive drug," in addition to being "a craven, disingenuous and destructive canard" that is antithetical to black excellence. He also takes on Afrocentrists like Randall Robinson, who call for American blacks to find their identity and cultural base in Africa, a vast continent of hundreds of disparate regions where over a thousand languages are spoken, with which blacks have no familiarity at all. In his book, The Debt: What America Owes to Blacks, Robinson tells of his chagrin when, at a college commencement ceremony, a young black woman at the podium closed her talk with "Thank you," and repeated the words in German, French and Italian. This display of Eurocentrism angered Robinson, who suggested that she should have spoken in the African languages of Swahili, Chichewa and Wolof. Claiming that this woman's heritage was as richly Western as African, McWhorter writes, " In fact, given that no slaves were brought to America who spoke Swahili or Chichewa, learning them would no more return her to her roots than learning European languages."
On the subject of reparations, dear to the heart of Robinson, whose book is considered by reparations advocates to be the definitive text on the subject, McWhorter claims that blacks already have reparations. They're called welfare, set-asides, affirmative action, college grants, etc.
It should be made clear that McWhorter is against Affirmative Action only in education, because he believes that lowering educational standards creates a disincentive for blacks to do the hard work of preparing themselves to succeed in their future occupations. Although for much of his book, one could get the impression that he supports a universal ban on Affirmative Action and special preferences in principle, such is not the case. He offers a sketch of what might be his plan for reparations. In an imaginary case where two candidates were "equally qualified," he would, " . . . propose that Affirmative Action policies . . . be imposed in businesses where subtle racism can still slow promotion." And, he continues, "If it were 1966, I would have universities practice racial preferences as well . . . for the sake of a greater good." But today, he claims, such an approach is "outdated."
Prior to this clarification of his position, while reading his many statements of opposition to current Affirmative Action policies, I had wondered if McWhorter had any objections to these biased laws on the basis of their inherent unfairness. I soon got the message that the only negative in all these attempts to accommodate blacks rests in what he perceives to be the damaging effects of such policies. "Is it good for the blacks?" he seems to be silently asking on every page.
Does the Constitution and the protections of individual rights, that the Founders tried to provide, enter into his opposition to these government-sponsored laws? No, he does not care about the constitutional implications of university policies that might reject qualified non-blacks like Jennifer Gratz and Barbara Grutter, as in the case of the University of Michigan. These policies should be done away simply because at this point in time they are holding blacks back and, therefore, have no further utilitarian value. They are irrelevant, not because of the harm they might do to others, that is, non-black citizens, but only because they are "outdated" in whatever benefits they might provide blacks. Furthermore, when blacks are let in under the bar, whites will get to wondering if blacks are as sharp as they are. Although constitutional arguments might be "valid," he relents, it is pointless to raise them in the presence of today's young blacks, for whom the Founding Fathers are looked upon as little more than slaveholders. He appears to see little or no prospect for any deviation from these narrowly held views.
From McWhorter's perspective, whites are not expected to express dissident opinions on race, or show disrespect for what he calls the "civil rights revolution." And, from statements made in the book and elsewhere, he more than implies that he sees nothing wrong with punishments for some forms of verbal dissent. In that Salon.com interview, he expresses delight over the changes in the social climate, " . . . even if it just means you can't say certain things in public, that is progress." Well, yes, if you call the stifling of free speech "progress." He writes, as if in agreement, "For most whites today, to be called a racist is as horrifying a prospect as being pegged as a witch was in Colonial America." He goes on to compliment whites for having "recast" their vision of blacks. Of course, for those whites who have not recast their vision to the satisfaction of people like McWhorter, public ostracism, loss of employment and possible jail time awaits.
To demonstrate the progress that blacks have made in their quest for parity, McWhorter writes, " . . . [W]hite people regularly lose their jobs for even calling us dirty names." Yes, and sometimes they are even incarcerated for it -- a possibility that was never to happen in this land of the First Amendment. Here are some more gems from the freedom-loving McWhorter: "Nothing chills most of today's thinking white people to their bones more than the notion that they might be racist." And, " . . . [T]he mere expression of racist sentiments is socially condemned and often legally actionable."
From these sentiments, one wonders if McWhorter cheers whenever a municipality or state passes yet another "hate crimes" bill. [See What's so special about "hate crimes?"] If so, he probably will be especially pleased when the entire country is subjected to these outrageously unconstitutional laws, which might happen soon, compliments of the Supreme Court. Perhaps he is pleased that the precedent has already been set where citizens have been jailed for merely saying a word considered disparaging to racial groups and likely to "hurt" someone's feelings.
According to McWhorter, carrying on the "civil rights revolution" must still be foremost and at the top of every legislator's agenda in the land. Woe be to that council member, whose constituency insists that he concentrate on priorities other than the "needs" of blacks. Any legislator who fails to give top priority to the ongoing "revolution" is "not fit" to serve in a legislative body.
In this book, McWhorter takes on a lot of hot button issues and with each one he makes his case without flinching. What makes this book of value is his forthright analysis of the self-defeating attitudes and behavior that continue to hobble a great many blacks. His inside knowledge and candor make this a necessary book to add to the growing library of works that deal with this particular aspect of America's enduring entanglement with race.
February 2003
Copyright é 2003 Issues & Views
[url=http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect/5000/article/2098]http://www.issues-views.com/index.php/sect...00/article/2098[/url]
2003-02-21 01:03 | User Profile
Most blacks are nothing more than thugs and quota tokens. "Blame whitey" is not a self-defeating attitude, it's a strategy to get a free ride. For example, when blacks are pushing for utterly indefensible slavery reparations, it does them no harm but it gives them a chance of tens of thousands of dollars each (give them a million each if they agreed to go back to Africa and not come back). Playing the victim already gives blacks billions of dollars every year -- hardly anything I'd call self-defeating.
In the case of those blacks being trampled after a black club refused to close, white authorities will probably settle for a few million. Once again, hardly anything self-defeating about blaming whitey.
Do you really expect me to believe that blacks can't touch white academic performance because blacks are too busy blaming whites to do their homework?
What is self-defeating is idolizing RAP "artists", abusing drugs, being pro-crime, and other elements of black and lowclass culture. But, even this may not be self-defeating if it is the top level they're capible of raising to. The history of every country and all of world history indicates that this is the best blacks can do without whites doing more to compel them to be more civilized. Whites have neglected this duty and that is why crime is far higher now than half-a-century ago.
2003-02-21 01:48 | User Profile
I think another issue about this that must be brought to the table is the role of White liberals, who I believe have done more harm to our society than anyone else. Yes, for every Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton or some other smug Black there is a White liberal who is even more dangerous because instead of bringing the Black higher, he is bringing the White down.
Take, for instance, Jane Eliott, foundress of her own creation called "Blue Eyed". An educator, Eliott uses a system of superiority/inferiority with regards to eye color. The gist of it is that in a situation, children identified with having "blue" eyes are given certain privileges while those having "brown" eyes do not. This is in reality a pathetic attempt to explain differences. Eliott should have also taken into consideration the number of Whites with gray and green eyes. Also, Whites have brown eyes as well.
Among the corral of White liberals, I use that term loosely because a great many of them are Jewish, and also, female. Jewess Susan Sontag referred to Whites as a "cancer" on civilization, and a Jewess "feminist scholar" named Susan Gubar, explains the popularization of "wiggerhood" among Whites and how it relates to Black "hip-hop" culture. Jew Noel Ignatiev, a Harvard professor, has also publicly denounced Whites.
The problem that also arises is that Whites ignore the fact that they are being insulted in facets of society. The White youth embrace hideous trends of Media-induced "Generation X", where they are supposed to be filled with angst and alienation, and then there are those who are "wiggers", who dress, talk, and act like Black "hip-hop" devotees.
Our society embraces and encourages "hip-hop" culture entirely. Anything that is detected as traditionally "White" must be eradicated and/or changed to fit the standards of diversity-hungry NWO. Aside from "hip-hop", we are also hit with "Latin" culture, due to our current immigration situation. When cries and whines about "lack of Hispanics" is heard, what do we do?? Create Ricky Martin and now, J-Lo. For the record: Latin singer Selena's death marked the beginning the of the infusion of "Latin" culture to America permanently. After her death, the Media showered the public with stories about how she was going to become America's biggest singing sensation. Prior to her death, I new nothing about her, and I doubt anyone outside of Latin music did.
Little by little, Whites are beginning to realize they are being tied to a leash. With the emergence of White nationalist action, particularly in Maine, the Establishment is responding by suppressing whichever ones they can easily get (they have succeeded with David Duke, Christina Greenwood, and Matt Hale).
White genocide is a reality and some Whites are beginning to see that as such.
2003-02-21 04:07 | User Profile
**then there are those who are "wiggers", who dress, talk, and act like Black "hip-hop" devotees. ** More and more, as Carolontheweb would suggest I should, I'm thinking to actually address these young idiots, and ask them just WHY THE HELL they are turning their backs on their own white heritage, and emulating the heritage of a DIFFERENT culture that values and denigrates VERY different things than our precious white culture does! That does NOT seem to value achievement and success and civilization!
But then I'd be outed as a racist, and we work away from the house everyday, and I'd rather NOT become such a target yet... I'll continue to work on my friends... :(
2003-02-21 11:20 | User Profile
What America Owes to Blacks, Robinson tells of his chagrin when, at a college commencement ceremony, a young black woman at the podium closed her talk with "Thank you," and repeated the words in German, French and Italian. This display of Eurocentrism angered Robinson, who suggested that she should have spoken in the African languages of Swahili, Chichewa and Wolof. Claiming that this woman's heritage was as richly Western as African, McWhorter writes, " In fact, given that no slaves were brought to America who spoke Swahili or Chichewa, learning them would no more return her to her roots than learning European languages."
McWhorter is wildly off base here. Even if the imported slaves were not Swahili or Chichew speakers those languages are still a thousand times more relevant Negro heritage than French or German. Negroes should be encouraged to take some racial pride in African heritage; surely this is a healthier track than enmeshing themselves into a White culture where they can never belong?
The adoption of African customs can only further underline the very real differences between races and hasten re-segregation. At very least Afrocentrism generates a better self-image than gangsterism and hip-hop.
2003-02-21 14:39 | User Profile
Has anyone seen "Antwone Fischer", Denzel Washington's directorial debut?
Talk about dual messages.
This autobiographical tale concerns a young protaganist, the eponymous Antwone Fischer, who is a US Navy Seaman. Antwone probes his troubled childhood with the help of caring Navy psychiatrist Denzel Washington to discover the roots of his emotional troubles.
Antwone learns that he was born to a mentally ill mother who birthed him in prison. His natural father was murdered shorty after his birth, and he was placed with a black foster family, a preacher and his wife. The wife was a tyrant, constantly calling little Antwone the "n" word and favouring her other ward, a light skinned mulatto boy. She subjected little Antwone to horrific abuse - I'll spare you the details. Also, there is an adult female cousin who sexually abuses him beginning at the age of six. Anyway, Antwone grows up into a very talented but angry young man who's always getting into fights and who can't have a relationship with a very pretty young mulatto girl. He's always messing up and about to be booted from the Navy, but under Denzel's loving but firm guidance he's sent off on a journey of self-discovery about the roots of his alienation.
It turns out that the reason for all his problems is a sort of "post traumatic stress" disorder for American blacks - they're dealing with the effects of slavery that has echoed down the generations. The cruel, child-abusing step mother and her sex fiend relative are all just in their own diseases, the results of slavery. Same with his drug addicted mother and the slum dwelling relatives of his father, who was murdered in a knife fight over some nonsense.
Okay, I wasn't terribly surprised by all that peecee answer, but there were currents in the opposite direction, too.
One of Antwone's more successful black shipmates who hangs out with a white friend says something to the effect that "hey, Antwone, slavery was bad but these ain't slave times. The sky's the limit now." Something like that, which touches off a fight. Antwone takes a swing at this much more balanced and successful sailor for saying that (in front of his white friend, for good effect) - clearly underscoring how wrong Antwone was for persisting in his own anger. At least, that's how I took it.
Denzel's character also went in opposite directions. On the one hand there was a strong undercurrent of rah-rah American flag waving patriotism, as if to say we're all just Americans now so get over it, and Denzel seemed to support all of this. He was a ranking medical officer, after all. But on the other hand Denzel presents to Antwone for his birthday the collected works of the rabid black nationalist, Marcus Garvey. Antwone's cute little mulatto girlfriend was very much in the "rah-rah" flag waving camp - her father was a decorated Vietnam vet and she wore her uniform with pride.
Like Antwone, Denzel Washington is dealing with his own inability to form relationships, especially with his wife, an extremely light skinned mulatto beauty. He has a disfunctional family, too, as evidenced by their performance and Thanksgiving dinner (a nice ironic touch, actually).
The film is far from great but I think it's worth a look if only as an illustration of the deep ambivalence black Americans seem to feel about America. They love it and are proud to serve in the American military, yet they hate it and see military service as being in league with the oppressor. They want to forget about the past and integrate into the mainstream, but then again they're black nationalists and want to live separately. They waive the flag, yet they see the flag as a symbol of their oppression. They love black women, but they only want the light-skinned and they don't feel comfortable about that. Their families and communities are mired in poverty, drug addiciton, alcoholism, child abuse, sexual abuse, rape and murder, yet somehow it isn't their fault. Or it is their fault. Or whose fault is it, anyway?
It struck me as a portrait of confusion.
I'm a Denzel fan so for that reason only I give it "one and a half thumbs up."
Walter
2003-02-21 15:00 | User Profile
Dear Walter
Would you please explain why any white man, not to mention a WN, would want to see this movie? It sounds gawdawful.
And I thought Gold diggers of 1933 was my all time worst.
Did Denzel steal Oprah's formula? You know the procedure. Poor black girl, sexually abused, f'd up family. Change the sex to a yute, hire Denzel to play a navy shrink -everybody knows that psychiatry is the negro science no stretch there - you got a winner.
Is it in Blockbuster yet? Won't be long.
2003-02-21 23:05 | User Profile
**The film is far from great but I think it's worth a look if only as an illustration of the deep ambivalence black Americans seem to feel about America. They love it and are proud to serve in the American military, yet they hate it and see military service as being in league with the oppressor. They want to forget about the past and integrate into the mainstream, but then again they're black nationalists and want to live separately. They waive the flag, yet they see the flag as a symbol of their oppression. They love black women, but they only want the light-skinned and they don't feel comfortable about that. Their families and communities are mired in poverty, drug addiciton, alcoholism, child abuse, sexual abuse, rape and murder, yet somehow it isn't their fault. Or it is their fault. Or whose fault is it, anyway?
It struck me as a portrait of confusion.**
Deep down inside, nigras know they're inferior both intellectually & culturally. This makes them hate themselves - and, of course, us. Hence the constant inner turmoil. They see that America is in many ways still a great country, one that dominates the world, and they're sort of proud of whatever small part they play in it. On the other hand, they know that it's really Whitey's creation, so they hate it.
Note that 'Twone came out around the same time as TTT and sank like log in a stopped-up Cabrini Green crapper.
2003-02-24 10:35 | User Profile
Originally posted by eric von zipper@Feb 21 2003, 15:00 ** Dear Walter
Would you please explain why any white man, not to mention a WN, would want to see this movie? It sounds gawdawful.
**
It's worth a look under the "know thine enemy" rubric. It's an interesting window on the weirdness of black racial thinking.
**Did Denzel steal Oprah's formula? You know the procedure. Poor black girl, sexually abused, f'd up family. Change the sex to a yute, hire Denzel to play a navy shrink -everybody knows that psychiatry is the negro science no stretch there - you got a winner. **
Well, the author of the screenplay is really this same Antwone Fischer, so I guess he stole the formula. Actually, Oprah just stole the formula from Alice Walker, author of the not-so-bad "Color Purple."
Is it in Blockbuster yet? Won't be long.
I don't know. I watched it at a theater one day when I was very, very bored and had some time to kill.
Actually, now that I think about it I see you're right.
I'm going to downgrade my rating to "one less-than-enthusiastic thumb up!"
Walter
2003-02-24 13:21 | User Profile
na Gaeil is gile: The adoption of African customs can only further underline the very real differences between races and hasten re-segregation. At very least Afrocentrism generates a better self-image than gangsterism and hip-hop. That would be the lovely heritage and "African customs" of Mugabe and Idi Amin?! Hutus and Tutsis? Necklacing and slavery? There is NOTHING in African customs that leads to resegregation -- only to more criminal behaviour here in OUR white country! The only African customs I would like to see is migration BACK to Africa! :angry:
2003-02-24 14:24 | User Profile
Originally posted by Avalanche@Feb 24 2003, 07:21 > na Gaeil is gile: The adoption of African customs can only further underline the very real differences between races and hasten re-segregation. At very least Afrocentrism generates a better self-image than gangsterism and hip-hop. That would be the lovely heritage and "African customs" of Mugabe and Idi Amin?! Hutus and Tutsis? Necklacing and slavery? There is NOTHING in African customs that leads to resegregation -- only to more criminal behaviour here in OUR white country! The only African customs I would like to see is migration BACK to Africa! :angry:
Yawn. Being angry all the time isn't going to get us anywhere, we are all well aware of African limitations and failures. However if White Nationalism is to even remotely approach any of its goals dialogue with the other races is essential. We are playing with a very limited hand and Black Nationalism is at least aiming for similar ends.
2003-02-24 17:19 | User Profile
Originally posted by Happy Hacker@Feb 20 2003, 20:03 ** Most blacks are nothing more than thugs and quota tokens. **
And their "music" really sucks too. Rap music makes the Sex Pistols sound like Bach. I checked in on the Grammy Awards last night (under the "know thy enemy" rule) and the black performers and award presenters are such a pathetic display of idiocy....not to mention Sean "p diddy" Combs gushing sexy compliments to White Kim Catrall. These sex obessed imbiciles revel in moronic bravado which is accepted like religious doctrine by 95% of the black race. I hear 50 year old black women say "yo, ja rule is my negro!"
Blacks are keeping blacks down with a gruesome and degenerate hip hop culture. Sorry. I reallydo think black people can do better than that.