Friday, September 18, 2015

Black people can't be racist

Or so I have been told already numerous times by people who believe the nonsense they read on places like Gawker, Jezebel and other blogs and social media accounts of social justice warriors. But is this really true? Let's have a look at the dictionary definition first:

Dictionary definition

Let's look first at the Oxford Dictionaries definition of racism:
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races
From the dictionary definition alone, it seems that there is nothing that precludes black people from being or acting racist. This has not prevented all kind of social justice warriors to come up with various redefinitions of the term, redefinitions specifically tailored to suit their agenda. Some are living in denial of the basic fact that they are redefining the definition, some are not.

Redefinition fail #1

One of the more hilarious discussions I have had with a person claiming black people can not be racist, revolved around the following tenet: black people can not be racist because they are the minority. There are two things wrong with this:

  1. black people are the majority in some countries and have performed their own ethnic cleansing, think for example Idi Amin and the expulsion of Asians from Uganda.
  2. according to that definition, the white minority of South Africa under Apartheid was not racist.

These people could NOT have been racist due to being a minority, or so I've been told
This led the person to revise his own definition to one that is more in line with one used by social justice warriors and that does not use the distinction majority/minority. Let's look at two of these more common redefinitions.

Redefinition fail #2

A somewhat more clever redefinition (sometimes social justice warriors admit they change the dictionary definition, claiming it is wrong) of racism introduces the element of institutional power. The argument goes that white people enjoy a preferential treatment by institutions like the police and the justice system. Let's have a look at an example at a social justice warrior's Tumblr:

no, they cannot. there is an inherent logical fallacy in your argument that will never make it true. however, white people can be discrimated against. discrimination is different from racism.
let’s start from the beginning. your first step is to accept that “a hatred or intolerance of another race” is not the definition of racism. the dictionary is wrong. get over it.
racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal. if you keep this in mind, you’ll understand that reverse racism doesn’t- and can’t- exist.
There is an element of truth in this. Black people are getting harsher sentences than white people for similar crimes and there seems to be a difference in the number of cases of police brutality when it concerns white or black offenders. A correction however does need to be applied due to other reasons: it seems reasonable to assume white people can afford a better defense lawyer for example and the number of black criminals is often higher than the number of white criminals, adjusting for racial make up that is.

The biggest problem with this redefinition is that "patterns of discrimination towards a certain race" by government and other institutions are actually outlawed in many countries including the US (14th Amendment to be specific). As a matter of fact, despite this, the only real institutionalized race based actions that are (pseudo) legal these days are affirmative action programs. When you point this blatant hypocrisy out to social justice warriors, they will say that these kind of programs only level the playing field (if they are nice) or that white people are given a taste of their own medicine and merely complain of losing their "privilege" (if they are not nice, usually the latter). Often accompanied with GIFs such as the world's tiniest violin or image variations of white tears.

Nice GIF though
Nevertheless, the point remains that institutionalized racism hardly exists and there are only minor arguments pro and contra this point. On top of that, it is most likely that even in a future where white people become a minority and these very institutions will be majority non white populated, white people will still have lower sentences for similar crimes and lower amount of police brutality due to previously mentioned reasons. As such, this redefinition is a fail.

Redefinition fail #3

Another more clever redefinition of racism introduces the element of power dynamics in general:

there is another saying “racism (or sexism) = prejudice + power. poc (people of color) can be prejudiced against white people. but they can never have power, i.e. a whole system of structured support that backs them. white people often don’t understand how much power they have. just one white person has more power to do actual harm to a black person than one hundred black people do to that white person. a white person can kill a black person without any consequences, while if the situation was reversed you can bet the killer wouldn’t see the outside of a prison cell for a long, long time.
when white people complain about reverse racism, they are not complaining about losing their rights. what they are complaining about is losing their privilege. white people can never call someone else racist against them because that ‘someone else’ does not have the power to oppress them. the person has the power to be hurt feelings.but not to oppress.
that is the key difference. when a poc is mean to you, they are just being mean to you. their entire society is not actively discriminating against and oppressing you. their society is not one where it is difficult for them to not be racist against you.
This definition is again arbitrary and shows a staggering amount of victimhood and persecution complex. White people can't just shoot black people on the street anyhow without consequences, this is an oversimplification and a gross exaggeration. At most white police officers have a chance of getting away with this when independent cameras are not around. Black people can hold positions of power and can discriminate against white subordinates. Black people are routinely calling e.g. Latino bosses that discriminate against black subordinates racist, yet Latinos don't have magical "power structures" watching over them. And when a group of black people gang up on one or two white people, I wonder why these white people never use their mythical powers in self defense.

Racist white guy uses his powers of oppression to discriminate against a black man's foot

A nice video explaining this

Paul Joseph Watson of Prison Planet made a nice video on this topic when MTV aired their version of the "Black people can't be racist" trope. You should really check it out, he can be quite funny and really point out the bullshit.

God DOES hate fags

And fags too bitches.
Now let's get something clear from the start: as an atheist I have an issue with religion, not with homosexuality.

That being said, I also have an issue with people getting upset when some Christians (labeled "bible thumpers", "bible bashers", "christian fundamentalists") dare to utter the notion that God hates fags. Does God really hate fags? Let's see:

Old Testament

Lev 18:22 You must not have sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman; it is a detestable act.
Lev 20:13 If a man has sexual intercourse with a male as one has sexual intercourse with a woman, the two of them have committed an abomination. They must be put to death; their blood guilt is on themselves.
Some will cite Sodom and Gomorrah stuff, but that never explicitly detailed homosexuality. So it is quite clear that God declares homosexuality as a disgusting act, an abomination punishable by DEATH.

Jehova, God and Allah ALL approve killing gay men

New Testament

Now wait a minute, "christians" who are tolerant about homosexuality will say: Jesus is all about forgiveness and a "love thy neighbor", "hate the sin, not the sinner" kind of guy. While true, Jesus would still have thought of homosexuality as a sin, considering: Matthew 5:17 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them". This means exactly what it says and means that Leviticus is still relevant. Now some may argue with stuff like: yeah, but that pork eating stuff changed. Well sure it changed, more proof your religion sucks and contains internal contradictions. It doesn't prove your best imaginary buddy God magically became okay with homosexuality.

While Jesus indeed said nothing explicitly about homosexuality, let's see what is otherwise relevant in the New Testament about homosexuality:

Rom 1:24-32 (24) Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts to impurity, to dishonor their bodies among themselves. (25) They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshiped and served the creation rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. (26) For this reason God gave them over to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged the natural sexual relations for unnatural ones, (27) and likewise the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed in their passions for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. (28) And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what should not be done. (29) They are filled with every kind of unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness, malice. They are rife with envy, murder, strife, deceit, hostility. They are gossips, (30) slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, contrivers of all sorts of evil, disobedient to parents, (31) senseless, covenant-breakers, heartless, ruthless. (32) Although they fully know God’s righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but also approve of those who practice them. 
1 Cor. 6:9-11 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived! The sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, passive homosexual partners, practicing homosexuals, (10) thieves, the greedy, drunkards, the verbally abusive, and swindlers will not inherit the kingdom of God. (11) Some of you once lived this way. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 
1 Tim. 1:8-15 But we know that the law is good if someone uses it legitimately, (9) realizing that law is not intended for a righteous person, but for lawless and rebellious people, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, (10) sexually immoral people, practicing homosexuals, kidnappers, liars, perjurers — in fact, for any who live contrary to sound teaching. (11) This accords with the glorious gospel of the blessed God that was entrusted to me. (12) I am grateful to the one who has strengthened me, Christ Jesus our Lord, because he considered me faithful in putting me into ministry, (13) even though I was formerly a blasphemer and a persecutor, and an arrogant man. But I was treated with mercy because I acted ignorantly in unbelief, (14) and our Lord’s grace was abundant, bringing faith and love in Christ Jesus. (15) This saying is trustworthy and deserves full acceptance: “Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” — and I am the worst of them!
Yup: after Jesus came along, homosexuality is still a sin, gays still deserve to die and still will not inherit the kingdom of God. Calling people bible thumpers, bible bashers and christian fundamentalists does NOT change the truth, which is that:

  1. the christian imaginary sky fairy very much hates gay people
  2. the "christians" who do not think homosexuality is a sin deserving of death, are total hypocrites.

Recommended deity for the LGBT crowd rejecting atheism 

Saturday, September 12, 2015

When black Americans do cultural appropriation: from cradle to grave (3)

On Lipstick Alley, a website by black women (just kidding, look up who owns that site) for black women, there has been some serious discussion about whether black Americans can appropriate African culture, as detailed in installments 1 and 2. It seems that this heated discussion on whether black Americans can appropriate from black Africans might just come to a speedy end. Apparently the original author causing the controversy has a white boyfriend and isn't even from an African country, whereas one of the clowns in the original image causing the fuss IS from an African country and IS a true "social justice activist" (my favorite kind of people). Gazi Kodzo is apparently big on Tumblr and YouTube where you can watch his deluded gay pitched voice ramblings (culturally appropriated from Chris Tucker in the Fifth Element) about decolonization and whatever other delusions you can think of, such as being offended Kendrick Lamar is not with a darkskinned black woman. You should visit both his Tumblr and YouTube if you want to laugh at stupid.

I still only see clowns in proper attire

Original author criticized on LSA for "her" hair,  if you know what I mean

I'm glad that this is cleared up and we can now all move along and worry about other issues, such as: OMG, Chris Tucker's character in Fifth Element exists in real life.

When black Americans do cultural appropriation: from cradle to grave (2)

On Lipstick Alley, a website by black women (just kidding, look up who owns that site) for black women, there has been some serious discussion about whether black Americans can appropriate African culture, as detailed in my previous post. In this second installment, I wish to address a follow up thread entitled "Black Americans Wearing African Clothing Is NOT Cultural Appropriation", after an article mentioned in the original post.

As already mentioned in the cliff's notes in the first installment: when faced with internal division in the black community, it can often help to blame whitey for all your problems and call for unity. This is exactly what is happening in the original post:

Over 400 years ago, many of us were torn from the shores of our homelands in Africa. We were beaten for speaking our languages, shunned for our skin, raped, murdered and brutalized. Some of us tossed ourselves over the sides of ships in order to see freedom through death. We have witnessed our family members hanging from trees. We have survived a horror like no other and still have the unmitigated gall to walk around in 2015 with our tribal print and paint. Our ancestors are somewhere smiling.
The original post also creates a new definition of cultural appropriation, as "social justice activist" are good with words. They like to create newspeak words and twist the meaning of old well known words, just to fit their agenda. Let's look what is going on, here is an excerpt of the original post:

Cultural appropriation is when a dominant culture takes, claims and establishes itself the creator of the cultural heritage and artifacts of a minority and or marginalized culture thereby erasing the history of the marginalized culture.
We see the addition of the word "dominant". I gave the definition of appropriation in my first instalment, you can look in the dictionary for yourself: there is no mentioning of the word "dominant" anywhere. Black people use the same trick when accused asian and black people are accused of racism: they can be called bigoted, but not racist, as they are not the majority or not dominant. This is an artificial construction to absolve oneself of guilt. You can find many social activists who truly believe this artificial wordplay nonsense, creating a very strong self delusion.

We also see the addition of other nonsense like "establishing itself the creator" and "erasing the history". The latter I will not even address as it is too ridiculous to even address, but the "establishing itself the creator" part deserves some addressing. This is a typical lie from black social justice activists: when they have for example picked on a little white girl (they like easy victims) for wearing cornrows, the argument goes that next time you know white people will claim they have invented cornrows. This is false because ... ah, screw it, it is too ridiculous to address too. There has rarely ever occurred such a thing.

So what are the reactions this time?

There are many reactions that are interesting, I will not post all but make a selection, you can read the thread yourself. If it is too long, skip to a summary below.

  • User Moionfire claims: I disagree. Just because you are of the same race or because you are marginalized doesn't mean you can't appropriate. Especially when what you are appropriating has a religious or sacred significance.
  • User Kiku falls for the bogus redefinition of cultural appropriation: How are blacks from the Diaspora erasing history, and establishing themselves as the creator??? I think you're confusing misinterpretation for appropriation. And like the article states, how do you know that the AA or other black person isn't aware of the sacred meaning!? Maye he's a babalao, or bonuman as we would call such a person in Suriname. Or are Diasporan blacks not able to possess sacred knowledge?
  • User MissMila claims: Okay so what's your opinion on black American girls wearing bindis, tattooing Arabic and Asian words on themselves and dying their hair blonde ? Are you going to tell me that's not cultural appropriation ?everyone is entitled to their own opinion but African and Black American culture is not the same. Never was and will never be
  • User madonnamia mocks Pan Africanism and dragging slavery into this argument: I can just imagine some of my family's reactions if I ever said this. The writer went left describing the slave trade as if we all lived through it. I hope the black Americans and the Africans work out the clothing issue.
  • User SaLiLi claims: They'd have to really detail what they're talking about. Yeah I think they're misusing the definition of cultural appropriation, but even if it were true what are AA's appropriating from Africans? If anything it happens the other way around and AA's aren't complaining. I've never seen any AA's walking around with tribal markings. That would look weird as fuk in the US and the are "African print" clothing you can buy online or sold in stored by Africans. So all this is hogposh...
  • User SaLiLi also claims: Even using their definition would be fine. I'll call AA's wearing African clothing appropriation if that's where they want to go, but are they going to stop appropriating AA's. Remember we don't say ANYTHING we they speak our slang, dress like us, imitate our music, etc.
  • User ErykahDandridge claims: Please elaborate and make sure you distinguish the difference between modern African culture and the African culture our ancestors were able to pass down to us...You know our African ancestors that were sold into slavery there this common misconception that everything was lost. Voodoo and hoodoo passed down, hair braiding passed down, the rhythm and beat of our music was passed down. A lot of African influences in our culture is OURS to claim because it came from our African Ancestors who were brought to America.
  • User itgurl_29 sure put a person claiming blonde hair is not exclusive to white people in her place (so plenty of down-votes from sourpusses): Blonde hair is not a marker of Blackness and to say so is disingenuous. Blonde hair is a marker of whiteness. Are there Blacks with naturally blonde hair? Yes. And those people are usually very mixed as well. The blonde comes from their European blonde, not their African blood. And to claim otherwise is ridiculous. Blonde hair is not a common trait amongst Black peoples around the world. There are as many whites with kinky hair as there are Blacks with blonde hair. There are Jews and Italians, and even Irish people, with tightly curled hair. So since white people can have tightly curled hair that behaves like ours, shouldn't we stop accusing whites of appropriating Blackness when they wear Black hairstyles? To claim Black people rocking blonde hair is not appropriation but whites wearing locs and braids is, is downright hypocritical.
  • User itgurl_29 also sees through the bullshit word games (somehow approved): Why is it that when Black people emulate the socially dominate culture, whites, it's called "assimilation". Yet when Africans emulate the socially dominate culture, Black Americans, you call it appropriation. Aren't they trying to assimilate and fit in just as Black Americans try to assimilate and fit in to the dominate white social structure?
  • User HeadsWillRoll doesn't see the bullshit: White people are the dominant group in your country. European culture is the dominant culture. White people are/were not oppressed for having blonde hair. You are a minority, making it assimilation. And, white people benefit from minorities conforming to their beauty standards (it's the beauty standard, regardless of whether that was your intention or not, I have nothing against it, though!).
  • User Kiku claims victimhood, persecution and a whole bunch of other nonsense:
When they take without acknowledging the source!!
As in, "Kylie Jenner is making cornrows cute", "MArc Jabobs created the "slick down baby hair trend" .
That's appropriation!

Did those white magazine acknowledge that black women where wearing their hair like that since God knows how long? Did they acknowledge that when bw were doing taht it was deemed "loud", "ghetto", inappropriate? Nope.
There's a difference

African Hip Hop artist are:
1. not claiming that they invented Hiphop
2. not the dominant culture power wise that's even able to lay such a claim

So what are we talking about? We have black people learning from one another, sharing their culture, music from Africa traveling all the way to the New World, trasnforming into something different IN SPITE OF ALL THE SHT, and then traveling back home. That's a beautiful thing. One that should be encouraged. Not demeaned due to some petty BS.
  • User itgurl_29 claims: Miley Cyrus wearing fake locs on an awards show doesn't take anything from any Black woman. Not a thing. Just like Beyonce/Nicki Minaj wearing blonde wigs does not take away anything from blonde white women. The whole cultural appropriation argument from Black folks has become bullshit. You can't do the exact same thing as someone else and then somehow claim it's ok for you to do it because by claiming victimhood.
  • User Mrs KangDaesung feels like accusing itgurl_29 of being white: I'm not mad, because I know the definition of cultural appropriation. You sitting there defending white people's blonde locks as if white people were persecuted and ridiculed for having blonde hair  I don't see white people losing job opportunities or being looked down upon simply for having blonde hair. You seriously don't know how stupid you look and sound trying to defend their appropriation of black culture. If only Condi didn't ban the usage of a gif. and a certain word I would've been called you said word.
  • User itgurl_29 claims in reaction: "Persecuted and ridiculed". Victim status. How does a white hippie wearing locs leave you or any other black person "persecuted and ridiculed"? Are yo actually claiming that Black people are losing jobs because Miley Cyrus wore fake locs on the MTV Video Awards? And I'm not "defending" white people. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who whine about so-called "cultural appropriation".
  • User MimiLuvs... claims (funny as my Ugandan ex-wife claimed the same supposedly "crazy" thing): Your comment reminds me of a time where an Ugandan man told me (and few others) that BAs are not a part of any Africa - based culture and we have American culture... which is derived from Africa - originated cultures. Yeah, we just stared at him like he was crazy as hell.
  • User itgurl_29 claims: I just cannot abide by the blatant hypocrisy. The same people buy into this so-called cultural appropriation nonsense are the very ones who were whining and crying about Idris Elba not being considered for the James Bond role, a white English character from a series of English novels written by a white Englishman. The hypocrisy, I swear. So white people can't twerk or wear locs, but black people can demand a story about a white man and written by a white man be recasted as Black or else it's racism? Again. Hypocrisy. You can't demand you be given space in someone else's culture and then cry foul when others want to partake in yours. The idea of "cultural appropriation" is bullshit across the board. But if you're gonna push that nonsense, then you had better be consistent.
  • User LagosGirl123 keeps it real: I didn't even bother to read this nonsense. I just came in here to say don't tell us (Africans and let's be real this only concerns West Africans) how to feel when about our cultures and communities. Black Americans posses social power 1) by being American and being privileged on the basis of being Westerners 2) by being part of the American global cultural hegemony - American culture is forced down everyone in the worlds throats every day, this means that black americans become the global representation for blackness + 'the black experience' across the world. Meaning that when Black Americans do misrepresent African history and culture it is extremely harmful. The unique prejudice African immigrants and refugees face (and yes it is unique prejudice this is why Africans face harsher treatment than black westerners) is only exacerbated when these misrepresentations happen. Not to mention it's fucking annoying and insulting. African Americans have a culture that their AFRICAN ancestors created and engaging with that is a way to pay homage to their ancestors, not messing with a culture and people they have no understanding of. Sorry if your feelings are hurt and feel free to groan me to hell but this is the truth and I'm not apologising for it.
  • User LUPITA NYONGO , queen of darkskin women, weighs in: I will say the outrage of African Americans surprises me, as black Americans in general tend to be very quiet during any global conversation of African current events, if they are even aware. They complain about being stolen, but allow themselves to remain ignorant. I mean if you are looking for a "connection", it goes further than wearing cute clothes. Start a conversation with those around you, puck up a book or a magazine you know. I mean, I kinda get wear the author of the original article is coming from because it seems like little more than a passing fashion trend for the people in question.
  • User Lady Sith claims: Write all the articles you want, post all the articles you want. It ain't your culture. And I will not hesitate to put you in your place, in here and off line. I don't fuck around with my culture and I will disgrace you over it. Learn some respect, cos we share skin color doesn't mean we are kin.
I end with the comment above because this provoked a comment using the GIF below, which summarizes the whole thread:

Cliff's notes please

Well, the GIF above summarizes it all in a single picture. To summarize: there are black people both Africa and America who appeal to black unity and that black Americans came from black Africans anyway, there are black people from Africa who claim black Americans generalize Africa as one continent, that unity is exaggerated, diversity is great and black Americans don't know nor care about non native cultural elements they are wearing (supposing this is necessary) and finally there are black people from America who claim Africans don't appreciate the struggles black Americans have made for civil rights and profit when they immigrate in the US (false as those struggles were largely made decades ago) and who point out that Africans also rap and use other cultural elements from America.

This is the same like last time. Similar like last time, all this is also whitey's fault according to some and victimhood and persecution complex is rife. Predictably, if you call out the hypocrisy of all of this, you'll be accused of being white on Lipstick Alley, which is an insult. The fact that being white is an insult, is by the way not racist, it is bigotry as black people are not the dominant race.

When black Americans do cultural appropriation: from cradle to grave (1)

On Lipstick Alley, a website by black women (just kidding, look up who owns that site) for black women, a particularly hilarious thread has sprung up. The full title of this gem is: Black America, please stop appropriating African clothing and tribal marks. Yes, that means everyone at Afropunk too. This has caused a number of high post count threads, some of which I'll report upon all the way up to the last part when this issue was buried when the blogger causing the controversy was exposed, which will be the last part of the installment.

What is "cultural appropriation" anyway?

Just look at the dictionary definition of "appropriate":
1.suitable or proper in the circumstances.
1. take (something) for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.
2. devote (money or assets) to a special purpose.
So it seems to mean taking (elements of) culture for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission.

How is the term "cultural appropriation" misused?

Social justice activist will use this term to deny white people the use of certain cultural elements. The part "typically without the owner's permission" is however completely forgotten about. Black people "own" neither rap, reggae, dreadlocks, cornrows or whatever. Just like white people don't own rock or heavy metal. You will not see white people whining about Lenny Kravitz is appropriating rock (social justice activists will tell you btw evil whitey "stole" this too).

The term is mostly misused by black people. Not all black people though. Black men are usually not insecure about themselves so you won't see them whine about Beckham sporting cornrows or Eminem doing rap. They know they can wear it better and rap as well or better. The only black men you see will see whining about "cultural appropriation" are insecure hotep types, probably still living with their parents. The misuse of the term seems almost exclusively limited to black women, possibly the most insecure species of humandkind on the planet. A white Australian girl starts to rap in a mediocre fashion and all of a sudden she needs to be destroyed in social media, there's cries of racism, petty insults (Igloo Australia, haha, how creative) and death is wished upon her. A white girl with natural thin lips wears cornrows, all of a sudden she needs to be edumacated by some "woke" girl that is half white (by the name Amandla, if you thought Igloo Australia was funny, real life is funnier) about the black "culture" she is appropriating. Hair is not "culture", although for black women hair sure has a special meaning, as evidenced in another item I did on when Beyoncé was criticized for wearing blonde hair.

Half white girl sure edumacated white girl about black "culture"

Get to the point, what's the current crap about?

Well, it seems black Americans have their chickens come home to roost, as apparently a certain article has taken offense at e.g. black Americans "appropriating" black African clothing and tribal marks.

Original image causing the whole fuss (they all do look like clowns to me)

But anyway, I digress. that's the original post. What are the reactions?
  • User Jigga claims: I believe black culture should be open to all black people.
  • User Ethereal Spirit claims: How is it appropriation when black Americans are primarily of Sub-saharan AFRICAN descent themselves?
  • User IMMORTAL claims while benefiting from her parents and grandparents and not doing jack herself: Africans can stop coming here and benefiting from the hard work American blacks put in for equal rights.
  • User ILLNaNa claims: I equate this behavior to the act of wearing Native American headdresses or Indian saris. We (blacks) do not get a pass for cultural appropriation.
  • User  ILLNaNa claims (massively downvoted for some reason, unlike previous comment): Why is it ok for non-Caribbean blacks to borrow parts of your culture but not white people? They're doing the same thing and neither of them identify with you.
  • User Bianacolum claims (not realizing nearly all "cultural appropriation" is contrived controversy): More contrived controversy to once again denigrate AAs while skirting the very real issue of confronting and stemming the wholesale exploitation and appropriation of American culture (read, AA culture) by ALL non-AA groups.
  • User ILLNaNa claims: Because people are blindly wearing tribal art on their faces, wearing fabrics that are not appropriate for the occasions, etc. It's one thing to KNOW your lineage and wear tribal art for a cultural event. But when you're just painting the ish on your face cuz you think it's cute, or when you make a corny headband out of kente cloth, you aren't using these cultural resources in the proper context and it's ridiculous. Just because we have black blood doesn't mean that we get to borrow from every black culture that ever existed.
  • User claims: This is such an interesting concept. But cultural appropriation seems limited to RACE and not nationality/culture. For example, if an Irish woman decided to braid her hair and wear a German outfit would not cause an outrage.And I find this piece to be tone deaf bc blacks in America did not choose to be displaced from our African culture. We were all on the continent being black and minding our business before our ancestors were captured.So instead of seeing it as appropriation the author should see it as an attempt to reclaim and recapture a culture that was stolen from us.
  • User DangerDay claims: I've actually been thinking alot about this recently, and I can agree with the article. I'm okay with them wearing our African prints, as long as they know about its history and not for appearing trendy, but I honestly feel like the majority of them wear it as the latter. The same would would apply to face paints too. But then again being some Africans will be okay with it and some won't.......
  • User Mimi Faust claims: So disgusting and vile. When AA wear African clothing and whatnot its not appropriating, I thought ppl knew this. We AA understand the struggle and history,were reclaiming what is our HISTORY that was snatched and forgotten. Completely different from Becky and Rachel wearing the stuff as a trend or to attract bm (you know they do that). 
  • User DCX claims: Tell Africa to stop rapping. Tell Africa to stop making house music.
  • User itgurl_29 claims: I see Black Americans are getting the whole "cultural appropriation" thing thrown back at us, huh? LOL, that's what happens when you want to be self-righteous. All the while Black Americans are whining about Miley Cyrus wearing dreads, we're wearing African head wraps that actually represent things we know NOTHING about. Oh, well. I love seeing high and mighty politically correct folks called out on their bullshit. This is what happens when you let tumblr logic overtake you.
  • User Plisskin claims: All 3 black people in the U.S who wear dashiki's need to stop wearing that shit and return it asap. We are offending our African "brothers" and "sisters". It is not our culture. And all Africans should stop appropriating AA culture. No more Jazz, Hip hop, break dancing, rock music, etc. Cool. Problem solved. End thread.
  • User milktree claims: I don't see what whites have to do with this. I've watched American media most of my life and I never thought negatively of AAs. Stop painting black people as this weak minded group, and whites "taught us." Some black people just don't want to come together because of their experiences with other groups of black people, and that's their right.
  • User Sugilite claims: So this is how white people feel when they get called out for cultural appropriation
  • User Baker Dandridge claims: Unfortunately some feel that we should avoid such challenging and eye-opening topics because the white man may be watching us.

Cliff's Notes please

There are black people both Africa and America who appeal to black unity and that black Americans came from black Africans anyway, there are black people from Africa who claim black Americans generalize Africa as one continent, that unity is exaggerated, diversity is great and black Americans don't know nor care about non native cultural elements they are wearing (supposing this is necessary) and finally there are black people from America who claim Africans don't appreciate the struggles black Americans have made for civil rights and profit when they immigrate in the US (false as those struggles were largely made decades ago) and who point out that Africans also rap and use other cultural elements from America.

With regards to white people, near universal approval is for when it is claimed this is all their fault (as always) for enslaving black Africans to America and "creating division" within the black community. An occasional person observes that this is how white people must feel when called out for cultural appropriation and another calls to close ranks because white people may be watching. That's right, I am watching you.

And I am watching too.

Monday, September 7, 2015

LSA and white parents adopting black children

I recently had an item on Jezebel and their covering of a white woman who sued a sperm bank for mistakenly giving her sperm of a black donor. The overwhelming and predictable response is that the woman was a racist and a horrible human being. Apparently it should come as normal to this woman to have a baby of ANY color and racial issues should be non existent.

But how do black women REALLY feel about this when they think white people are not reading along like on Jezebel? We can get a clue by reading the following thread on Lipstick Alley, a site by black women (just kidding, look up who owns that site) for black women, entitled: Why are SOME of you against white people adopting Black kids?.

The opinion on white people raising black children is overwhelmingly negative. Reasons are:
  • User msthaaaang claims: Because they cannot teach/warn them of the black experience seeing as they have no idea what it means it feels like to be black.
  • User Genesislinx claims: Cuz a lot of them have inherent prejudices and ignorance about black people that they pass on to their adopted children. Some of them also twisted ideas and perversions regarding black folks and people of color in general.
  • User RomanticRights claims: I'm not against it but i don't think it's ideal unless the white parents are fully aware of the black experience which it is a rarity.
  • User gesamtkunsTWERK  has the retarded opinion (some mixed race kids are named Kieran, a name chosen together by both parents): Because non-black people treat black children like a hot commodity and bring these children into hella racist families without blinking an eye. Just look at Romney's grandson. You can't tell me that family isn't anti-black as fuck. They named the child Kieran for goodness sake, which literally means "dark-skinned"/"black" in gaelic.
  •  User RUDE BOY claims: I honestly can't think of an answer because I'm 50/50 about it. While I think a child should be adopted by two loving parents regardless of their race, I also wonder about their upbringing in the sense that they may be completely white-washed from their own culture.
  • User Zephyr claims white people treat black children like pets: Because ive witnessed the abuse that non white children go through that are adopted by well off white families. White peoples treat non white children like puppies from the dog pound , they feel like they are doing the kids a favour by giving them a new home. I have a friend who was adopted by a rich white man as a gift to his wife. They are trulely sick, children are not pets or inanimate objects to be given as gifts!
  • User Baker Dandridge claims: I'm not againts whitee adopting black kids per se but I think the race issue is there whether we like it or not and some of the parents can be naive about this. They should be versed on racism and make a conscious effort to help their child navigate their black identity.
Now which comment actually got the most downvotes on Lipstick Alley? Surprise, surprise, that would be the comment that elaborates on Jezebel's hippie kumbaya message of "all you need for a child is love":
  • User texaco claims: This isn't rocket science folks. In order to raise a child into a reasonably well-adjusted adult. All you need is love. Now as for cultural development and all that super critical shit. There are options out there to get that done.
What can we learn from all of this? Women of all races on a forum like Jezebel will say all you need for a child is love and white parents raising a black child is no problem at all. Black women however, when thinking white people are not watching, will say a completely different thing in private (I think white women in private also don't believe their own politically correct hypocrite bullshit). Black women overwhelmingly side eye white parents raising a black child and think it either is a problem (up to "they'll be treated like pets") or might be a problem if the child doesn't get the "black experience". I don't know what exactly the latter means or what "feeling black" means, but I believe the child should be taught about victim-hood and racism. The white parents should tell the child of all the evils of white people.

As you can see, hypocrisy aplenty.

Refugee crisis nearing an end

Pope calls on every European parish to host one migrant family each - Yahoo News. Surely, if this request gets followed up by all the christian folks in Europe, the refugee crisis will be solved. Considering the number of Christians in Europe, all 23 million or so Syrians would easily find a new, safe home.

So far, the pope has decided to lead by example and commit to housing a grand total of two families underneath the gold plated ceilings of the Vatican. The end is in sight people.

Other religions are even more committed to solving this crisis: Saudi Arabia - self proclaimed guardian of Islam and keeper of the holiest sites - and neighboring Gulf States, are committing to housing zero refugees. The following illustration is doing the rounds in the media:

Spot the missing Syria neighbor. Where is Waldo Schlomo?

Curiously, the websites using this illustration make no mention whatsoever that the only (comparatively) safe country, DIRECTLY neighbouring Syria and the only real democracy in the Middle East, has also refused to take up Syrian refugees. I wonder why?

As an atheist, I am hugely impressed by the contributions that states proclaiming to be the guardians of their monotheistic religions (Vatican City: christianity, Saudi Arabia: islam, Israel: judaism) have made to solving this crisis. Really.

Sunday, September 6, 2015

Gawker and Syrian refugees

"Poor" immigrants celebrating their arrival in Greece by taking a selfie. My own phone is an old, inexpensive but functional Nokia.
Today Gawker has an article on Hungary allowing refugees headed for Germany to cross the border with Austria. The comments section is very predictable. Hungary is blasted for being evil and racist. All people who do not agree are racists and do not deserve to have their opinion heard. Free speech is and always will remain free speech, but hate speech needs to be outlawed. Hate speech is all speech that disagrees with free speech. The Minitruth of Gawker will see to it that the laws from 1984 are enforced today.

In this Orwellian world, apparently Islam has become a "race". Criticism of muslim immigrants is immediately dismissed as racism. The narrative is that Syrian refugees are poor people, only seeking for a better, safer life and no one should stand in their way. Is this really true?

Seeking a safer life

This is the first part of this nonsense. Syria is surrounded by lots of countries not ravaged by war. Some of those countries, like Saudi Arabia, wealthy muslim countries, do not even allow a single Syrian refugee. A muslim country like Turkey hosts over a million Syrian refugees, including the father of the famous dead toddler Aylan. According to naive do-gooders, Turkey was "not safe" for father Abdullah Kurdi because he is a Kurd. Of course this is utter nonsense, Abdullah Kurdi had a decent job in Turkey and went back all the way to Kobane, Syria to bury his dead son.

Abdullah Kurdi, burying his son in (supposedly?) unsafe Kobane, Syria

Countries like Hungary are safe too. Do they want asylum there? No, most do not. So what is this really about? This is about country shopping, shopping for the country that offers the most regarding either benefits or jobs, both of which at the expense of resources provided by the taxpayers of the invaded countries.

Seeking a better life

I surely must be racist or otherwise evil, because what person could have something against people seeking a better life? But is this really true? Do these people seek a better life? I am quite sure that economically speaking, their life will be better. But the life they really seek, is actually the same primitive life as in their native countries, with all the economic benefits of living in the west. Here are some videos of immigrants throwing away aid that is given to them, because it is not to their liking or not halal:

These are not isolated incidents. The reason life is horrible in Syria is because the people made it that way. These very same people are now coming here and are NOT going to change their ways, instead they will want US to adapt to them and accommodate to islamic traditions that will set us back centuries to the time of Mohammed. For us, the native people, a worse life is ahead.

No one should stand in their way

People on Gawker can say this easily, Americans do not have that many muslims living among them so many naive people swallow the xenophile propaganda that is put out. When you pay taxes in order to house these people, when your wage is affected because employers see these people as cheap labor and a means to either depress wages or limit their rise, when you REALLY have to live in an area these people live in like I do and see the lack of integration and mostly the adoption of the native ways, you realize that people should be doing something about this and this cannot go on endlessly. Not even the pro immigration do gooders will address how many is enough, ask them and IF they feel good enough to answer, they will claim resources are endless. They are not. Period.


The post on Gawker was shared on Jezebel. Jezebel is filled with naive women who hold delusions that there is such a thing as rape culture in the West. Jezebel has frequently focused on rape stories that have turned out to be false, like the UVA rape hoax and that silly mattress girl who got upset her boyfriend no longer wanted anal sex with her. Jezebel has exactly ONE story on the Rotherham scandal, YEARS after the scandal actually broke out. The reason for this is not difficult to find: it is the very same reason the Rotherham police kept it quiet: the all pervasive fear of being labeled racist. If people at Jezebel want to see REAL rape culture, here are muslim immigrants counter demonstrating a march against the grooming that occurred:

What can we learn from all this? Syrian immigrants do NOT seek a safer life, but the country that pleases their wallet the most. Muslim immigrants seek an ECONOMICALLY better life, but want to keep all their customs and their religion that have made their countries a hellhole and will turn our countries into hellholes too. Women on Jezebel are delusional hypocrites that would not know rape culture when they saw it right in front of their face. Here is their ultimate fate if they import muslims by the boatloads:

Saturday, September 5, 2015

Jezebel and racism (1): sperm bank mixed baby edition

Jezebel has an article on a woman suing sperm bank over biracial baby that has the lawsuit thrown out. Predictably, even though the woman is lesbian and hence should have a certain immunity from criticism on Jezebel, it is full of cries that this woman is racist.

Personally, as a father of two biracial children, I think this is not necessarily the case. Reasonable people expect their children to look like a mixture of both of them. My ex-wife though once remarked when pregnant that if she were to have a girl, she'd want her to be as dark as herself. I don't know how serious she was, but I think she was pretty serious. Delusional people like that are no exception, see one of my previous items: LSA on black men with white women (2): black woman seeking "chocolate children" with white man (how?).

The most annoying part of this is that the commentators of Jezebel are most likely predominantly white, giving the racial composition of the US. Nevertheless it is quite common to see "white tears" GIFs, which I suspect are not even posted by black people. And even if posted by a black person, no white person seems either mentally capable of understanding that such GIFs are racist or if one is aware, no one has the courage to call the poster out for it. I suspect most commentators are white women brainwashed into having a "white guilt" complex.

Anyway, regardless of the race of the commentators, I'd be willing to bet that if they were told in the hospital that they were to have a Down syndrome baby or a baby that is going to look nothing like either parent, the vast majority would be calling Planned Parenthood the very same day to make an appointment for an abortion.

What can we learn from all this? People like to cry racism a lot, especially white women have a penchant of being racially offended for someone of another race. It's called paternalism. Jezebel uses the term paternalism in conjunction with pig: . Perhaps it's time for the Jezebels to look into the mirror and see the hypocrite pig that you are.

EDIT: read my follow up article on what black women REALLY say on this topic when white women aren't around.

LSA and "cultural appropriation" (1): Beyoncé edition

Image credit: Daily Mail

Today women on Lipstick Alley are angry. Well, considering the (deserved?) reputation of black women, let's say the are extra angry. The reason for this is that some white people in the comments section of a Daily Mail article on Beyoncé's new haircut had the sheer audacity of suggesting that she is culturally appropriating white people's hair. While the commenters were most likely not seriously suggesting that Beyoncé is culturally appropritating white people's hair but merely mocking the outrage of black supremacists/social justice warriors/guilt ridden white women about Kylie Jenner's cornrows, this has become the topic of a 25+ page thread on LSA. Why so much of a fuss? Three reasons:


For white women it is just a thing that grows on your head and you can style. For black women, hair has special status. It is a culture, a way of life and a business. Something white people in Europe are completely unaware of, something I learned when visiting Virginia and seeing a black history calendar at my place of stay, is that the first American female self made millionaire was black. What did she owe her success to? Hair products. There is a Chris Rock documentary on the subject, for those that care.Black women are willing to spend small fortunes on weaves, braids, other people's hair (extensions) and all kinds of nasty chemical junk to "relax" (=straighten) their hair. In short: for black women, hair is a big deal.

Light skin

Beyoncé is one of the "queens" of LSA. The other queens are Rihanna and Lupita. While I bet most women on LSA are darkskin, it might come as a surprise to white people that two out of these three "queens" are lightskin. That's because women on LSA are color struck. They will heavily criticize black men who date white women and light skin black women. Yet they themselves often swoon over light skin black guys and half-castes like Jesse Williams. Every now and then there is a thread on LSA on whether there is such a thing as "light skin privilege", which tend to be very divisive and hence usually have many pages of comments.

In many African countries, bleaching is further a big thing. I learned this as I've been married and divorced to a black woman. While black people will blame white people (they always do anyway) for creating "euro centric" beauty standards and for making black people and asians hate themselves, this is largely bullshit. Here is why:

  1. As far as asians are concerned, cosmetics to whiten the face (often containing unhealthy lead) were used almost a thousand years before Commodore Perry ever set foot in Japan. Hell, even white people used that lead based shit more than a thousand years ago, which according to some contributed to the death of the Roman empire. The reasoning behind it, is that it allowed to mimick the wealthy who could stay indoors and hence be lighter. Currently, many white people ruin their skin tanning in the sun for the same reason: plane vacations to sunny countries were originally for the rich (now everyone can afford to sit on a cramped plane skybus to Ibiza or another sun filled shithole).
  2. As far as black people are concerned, even in Ethiopia, which was never colonized by white people (the Italians tried, but being Italian failed and miserably so) this whole light skin thing is a big thing and has been since forever. When I was passing through Ethiopia, I stayed with a black Kenyan man working for the UN. It was through him that I learned this stuff, which surprised me. He told me that the Ethiopians were very racist, that according to them in the Creation process people were like coffee beans (coffee is a big thing in Ethiopia, it is a major producer, look it up or look where your coffee comes from): white people had not been roasted enough, black people had been roasted too much and Ethiopians were just about perfect.

White people and colonialism may not have helped, but the usual blame whitey is nothing more but the usual oversimplification and usual blame game.In short, for black women light skin is a big deal, especially if white people dare comment Beyoncé looks pretty white/bleached.

Cultural appropriation

Cultural appropriation is nothing but a rather meaningless buzz word. The term is currently used as an excuse by insecure black women to tell white women not to do certain things considered black. David Beckham was not culturally appropriating cornrows, Kylie Jenner was. Eminem and Macklemore for example are not considered to culturally appropriate rap music, officially because "they rap from their own perspective". Unofficially I can tell you it is because black men aren't all that insecure. Iggy Azalea is culturally appropriating rap and Kylie Jenner is culturally appropriating cornrows because black women are insecure and fear white competitors for both music and men. Nothing more than that. Really.

When white people and saner black people (mostly men) will argue that wearing weaves, straightening hair or wearing blond extensions could also be considered "cultural appropriation", you will start to see a lot of bullshit excuses from black women. The usual excuses are:

  1. When black women do it, it is "cultural assimilation". This is again nothing but a meaningless term. The difference according to their concocted, twisted logic, is that black people are not the majority so they can't "appropriate". If you look however in any dictionary for the definition of appropriation, you will not see any mention of the words majority or minority. Hence it is quite clear that this is but a word game and pure hypocrisy, double standards.
  2. When black women do it, they don't claim that style as their own. It is claimed that when white people do cornrows for example, they "claim it as their own", "claim they invented it" or "claim it as something new". The first two are arguments not supported by any evidence. The third argument has a small amount of merit, sometimes it has occurred that some fashion magazine has mentioned cornrows as a new trend. This ignores that in those specific cases, it was neither claimed white people own it, invented it and that for white people specifically, it would be a new trend.
  3. White people do it too. Sure, you can find white women wearing extensions in order to make their own, natural hair, appear longer. It is indistinguishable from their own hair if well done. Sure, you can find white women dyeing their hair blond or red. Blond however is a color specific to white people (no, sun bleached aboriginal hair doesn't count), so for black people this is an unnatural color.
What can we learn from all this? That black women are very insecure, especially about their hair, and that there are many color struck black women, and ofcourse all of this is white people's fault. As always.