Wednesday, January 09, 2019

The Abolition of Whiteness

The African American author below manages to make some sort of a rational case out of the Leftist hatred of whiteness.  He says that whites need to become self-conscious of being white.  Apparently that will make them more sympathetic to minorities and cause them to give minorities their money.  It's all very theoretical, however and seems doomed to have no influence on anyone

In 1997, American author and historian Noel Ignatiev delivered a speech at a conference in Berkeley, California. Throughout his talk, he made the case that the purpose of analyzing white identity is not merely to interpret it but to abolish it. This call for abolition was not for an adoption of color blindness. It was, counterintuitively, the exact opposite. White folks, he argued, must begin to actually see themselves as white. Richard Dyer, Professor of Film Studies at the University of Warwick, explains why in his essay, The Matter of Whiteness:

As long as race is something applied only to non-white peoples, as long as white people are not racially seen and named, they/we function as a human norm…The point of seeing the racing of whites is to dislodge them/us from the position of power, with all the inequities, oppression, privileges and sufferings in its train, dislodging them/us by undercutting the authority with which they/we speak and act in and on the world.

This subversion of whiteness is the only way for white folks to become visible to themselves. For how can they abolish an idol which they cannot see?

Religions are built on myths and rituals. To renounce the cult of white supremacy requires unlearning the myths that uphold it. The myth of American meritocracy. The myth that Black people’s problems are due to cultural pathology. The myth of reverse racism. The myth that having liberal politics or Black friends and relatives means you are free of idolatrous ways.

The core rituals, which give the idol of whiteness its legitimacy, must also be abandoned:

* Absolving white folks’ sins— past and present — via the legal system, print and digital media, literature and in general public discourse.

* Demonizing or disregarding the victims of the various forms of ceremonial white violence via the same channels.

This apostasy is what Ignatiev called being a “traitor to the white race.” It is to “nominally [classify] as white but” also “[defy] white rules so strenuously as to jeopardize his or her ability to draw upon the privileges of whiteness.”

What is necessary, then, is self-exile. For to challenge the very foundation of the imaginary construct known as the “white community” is to alienate one’s self from it. From this fission, Ignatiev says, can come the “building of a new human community.”

Since before the founding of the United States, there has always been a fear in the white body politic of retaliation of the enslaved. It is a rational fear for those, like Meccans in pre-Islamic Arabia, that live by the law of retaliation. We do not want revenge. Neither do we wish to be your saviors. We are, instead, calling you to the altar. We are calling you to abolish the idols erected in your heart. In Mecca, the Arabs’ chief idol was Hubal. Yours is whiteness. All the wealth, status and power you’ve accumulated in its false worship must be purified through almsgiving. That is, the economic, social and political capital you have must be used to advance the liberation struggles of all those who have suffered under white hegemony.

To be an abolitionist today is not only about destroying the modern day forms of slavery such as prisons and convict leasing, but also understanding that that work is tied to the vital labor of emancipating yourselves from the falsehood which veils you. It took lifetimes to build this chief idol and will take lifetimes to destroy it. It is a struggle you must pass on to your children and that they must pass on to theirs — just as we have had to do.

Shortly before his execution, the abolitionist John Brown said, “I have only a short time to live, only one death to die, and I will die fighting for this cause.”

So white folks, how are you living your lives? And in what state do you want to leave it?


Swiss woman is charged with assault after slapping Afghan migrant who kept groping her during New Year's Eve celebrations

A Swiss woman has been charged with assault after slapping an Afghan migrant who allegedly groped her during a New Year's Eve street party. The unnamed woman, 21, was said to have left the man with a broken nose when he reportedly groped her during a party at the City Hall in the Austrian capital Vienna.

After news of the charges against her were made public, a wealthy Swiss businessman has stepped in with an offer to pay the fine on her behalf. Former MP and bigwig of the conservative Swiss People's Party (SVP) Christoph Blocher was one of many that defended the actions of the 21-year-old woman.

Blocher, an industrialist and influential figure in Swiss politics despite his retirement, said: 'If the woman gets punished, I will gladly pay the fine.' He added: 'How should a woman defend herself otherwise if that is not allowed?'

Blocher admitted that he would have reacted in the same way if someone had tried to steal his wallet, for example.

Local media alleged that a 20-year-old Afghan suspect was part of a migrant gang who were allegedly assaulting women in the crowd during the New Year celebrations.

According to the Vienna Police, the Swiss woman reacted angrily when she was fondled by the migrant and smacked him full in the face. Witnesses called the police at 1.30am to report the incident.

At the same time, the suspect went to see cops on the square as he reportedly had a broken nose.

He was taken to hospital to be treated and a criminal charge for sexual harassment was filed against the 20-year-old Afghan, and a criminal complaint against the victim for GBH.

Under Austrian law, the police have a duty to file a criminal complaint when the alleged offence is of such severity that prosecutors have no choice but to pursue it.


Men 'face MORE discrimination than women'

Global study claims males receive the raw end of the deal with harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more deaths at work

Women are better off in more countries than men are, a new study has found. A method that assesses the forms of hardship and discrimination facing men and women has revealed males have it harder in 91 countries out of 134. Women were disadvantaged in only 43.

The study looked at 6.8 billion people around the world and scientists developed a new way of measuring gender inequality.

The UK, the US and Australia all discriminate against men more whereas Italy, Israel and China are harder environments for women, according to the study.

Researchers say this is due to men receiving harsher punishments for the same crime, compulsory military service and more occupational deaths than women.

The study was carried out by the University of Essex and the University of Missouri-Columbia and published in the journal Plos One.

Scientists created a database which deciphers a nation's discrimination called the Basic Index of Gender Inequality (BIGI).  The closer the BIGI score is to zero the greater the level of equality is in the country. Zero is a perfect score, indicating absolute parity between the genders - and Italy came the closest with a score of 0.00021. Slightly favouring males.

The top ranked nation to favour women over men is claimed to be Saudi Arabia, with a score of -0.001554.

If it is a negative number it indicates females are better off and if the BIGI score is positive it shows males are less discriminated against.

For example, Guatemala and Albania came in as the 17th and 18th ranked countries, respectively for equality and had a BIGI score a similar distance from zero. However, Guatemala is a better environment for men with a score of 0.012198 where as Albania is better for women - it scored -0.012889

The index is based on three factors: educational opportunities, healthy life expectancy and overall life satisfaction.

A measure called the Global Gender Gap Index has been used as the yardstick for analysing inequality since its inception in 2006.It became one of the most widely-used measures of national gender inequality, used by academics and policy makers across the world.  Researchers have recently grown wary of the index and claim it does not measure issues where men are at a disadvantage.

Professor Stoet also believes the complexity of the Global Gender Gap Index makes  it difficult to distinguish whether gender differences are the result of social inequalities or personal preference.

The simpler BIGI method, he says, is a much sounder alternative. He said: 'No existing measure of gender inequality fully captures the hardships that are disproportionately experienced by men in many countries and so they do not fully capture the extent to which any specific country is promoting the wellbeing of all its citizens.

'The BIGI provides a much simpler way of tackling gender inequality and it focuses on aspects of life that are directly relevant to all people.

'Used alongside other existing indicators, it provides additional and different information to give a more complete assessment of gender equality, making it easier for policy-makers to introduce changes to improve the quality of life for both men and women.'

Researchers found the most developed countries in the world come closest to achieving true gender equality but there was a slight advantage for women.

Inequality was more significant in the least developed countries, with Chad the lowest ranked nation. Women in these nations are at a more significant disadvantage than the men in the more developed nations where women have the edge. 

The authors of the research say the difficulties faced by women in developing regions is  predominantly due to fewer opportunities to get a good education.

There are an equal amount of nations with medium-level development that see men and women falling behind.

Researchers say men's disadvantage is largely due to a shorter healthy lifespan. 

Professor David Geary, from the Department of Psychological Sciences at the University of Missouri in the United States, added: 'We sought to correct the bias towards women's issues within existing measures and at the same time develop a simple measure that is useful in any country in the world, regardless of their level of economic development.'


Jeremy Clarkson: BBC won't give top jobs to men any more

The BBC is so determined to hand its top jobs to women that Nick Robinson’s audition for Question Time was “a waste of petrol”, according to Jeremy Clarkson. The former Top Gear presenter said “anyone who has got a scrotum” stands no chance of being hired by the corporation.

Clarkson no longer works for the BBC because he was sacked for punching a junior colleague during a tantrum over hotel catering. Nevertheless, he remains interested in his former employers and their efforts to redress the gender imbalance.

“Men now just don’t get jobs [at the BBC] at all. The new rap one is a woman as well, isn’t it?” he said in an apparent reference to Tiffany Calver, the first female presenter of Radio 1’s The Rap Show.

Last year, Cassian Harrison, editor of BBC Four, said that the era of “white, middle-aged and male” presenters “standing on a hill and telling you like it is” had passed.

Clarkson, 58, claimed such statements drove talent towards streaming services and said his first thought upon reading it was: “That’s Attenborough! That’s probably why he’s gone to Netflix.”

He went on: “Honestly, poor old Nick Robinson going for an interview for Question Time. What a waste of petrol that was. No chance he’s going to get it. “Anyone who has got a scrotum, forget it. They just aren’t giving jobs to men at the moment. There is an argument that it’s been all-men for a long time, so what’s wrong with it being all-women for some time? I get that. That’s fine.

“We just, as men, have to accept we’ve had it. Let’s just go down the bar.”

Robinson was the only man to audition for the Question Time job, on a shortlist that included Fiona Bruce, Kirsty Wark, Emily Maitlis and Samira Ahmed. Bruce got the job.

After being photographed arriving for the audition, Robinson claimed he “never expected to get the job” but said he would have “kicked myself” had he not tried.

It was announced in November that Sir David Attenborough is narrating a new natural history series for Netflix, Our Planet.

Clarkson and his former Top Gear colleagues, James May and Richard Hammond, now present The Grand Tour on Amazon Prime Video.

In a separate interview with Radio Times, Clarkson declared: “If I ran the BBC it would be better. I would make programmes for everybody, not just seven people in Islington. It’s become so up itself, suffocating the life out of everything in its nonsense need to be politically correct.”



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: