by Torraine Walker

https://moguldom.com/390926/opinion-the-black-boogeyman-lie/

A couple of my favorite parts of the piece...

"Chappelle is guilty of two major social crimes — challenging the self-image of those “good white folk” and refusing to submit to their censure. Specifically in “The Closer,” Chappelle teases out the truth that the power structure of American LGBTQ organizations is overwhelmingly white and male, and that other ethnic groups are able to achieve political gains faster than African Americans."

"Like Muhammad Ali and Colin Kaepernick before him, Dave Chappelle represents the “uppity negro” who refuses to bow to white psychological dominance and has enough money to ride out the consequences. In America, that has always been dangerous, but not just to white America. For the writer of the Vanity Fair piece, Dave Chappelle is a convenient hook on which to hang classic stereotypes and “big lies” about Black males. For a class of people paid to compromise on behalf of Black people, he represents an even bigger threat."

https://moguldom.com/390926/opinion-the-black-boogeyman-lie/

Torraine brought ACTUAL receipts, not "vibes" and unproven assertions in passive voice.

Here are some of the receipts:
1 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/339701884_Black_Misandry_and_the_Killing_of_Black_Boys_and_Men
2 https://assets.speakcdn.com/assets/2497/dv_in_the_black_community.pdf
3 https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr071.pdf
4 https://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/minorities
5 https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/nationaltrends

I know those won't matter to some of yall, as you're committed to perpetuating white supremacist lies about Black men and boys, but to the rest you, lets have a discussion!

shuffling tap dancing types...

They don't want anything too masculine and Black.

yes, a Black woman on here said this.

LOL who said that. I have a good idea lol

even if it did, the enemy will NEVER give a shit and dont care a fraction of what our culture claims they do

when I first saw the article, I was thinking the "Big Lie" was a reference to that "Trump Actually Won" shit. No, they were comparing a whole race/gender combo to Adolf Hitler.

That's when I realized that this POV not only was this beyond the point of parody, it was a full-blown grift.

Dave Chappelle is so far removed from the average Negro that using him as the example of "the average Negro" was ludicrous from jump. From a class perspective especially, but when you look at his upbringing it's very atypical.

the Lemieux piece really gave me "Black Boogeyman" vibes and it sucks so many Black people are taking notes from D.W. Griffith nowadays when all you need to do is ask: "why are reactionary views and behavior so popular with the public? Even when the person is Black?"

>when I first saw the article, I was thinking the "Big Lie"
>was a reference to that "Trump Actually Won" shit. No, they
>were comparing a whole race/gender combo to Adolf Hitler.
>
>That's when I realized that this POV not only was this beyond
>the point of parody, it was a full-blown grift.


I definitely agree with your sentiment. Yet with "grift" being defined as 'petty, small scale swindling", for Jamilah to throw this kind of rhetoric into a sea of Karens is much more egregious than that. Not only have we seen how they call for our deaths currently, but we know the history of Black men being lynched to protect a phantom white female purity. What people like Jamilah and Brittney Cooper are doing is absolutely diabolical.


>
>Dave Chappelle is so far removed from the average Negro that
>using him as the example of "the average Negro" was ludicrous
>from jump. From a class perspective especially, but when you
>look at his upbringing it's very atypical.


Facts


>the Lemieux piece really gave me "Black Boogeyman" vibes and
>it sucks so many Black people are taking notes from D.W.
>Griffith nowadays when all you need to do is ask: "why are
>reactionary views and behavior so popular with the public?
>Even when the person is Black?"


They know white supremacists want to hear them disparage Black men. That's white supremacy's favorite pasttime, so of course white supremacy gives them an outlet for it. That's exactly how they define success/progress, so knowing why a system of white supremacy rewards their behavoir won't stop them. They've already submitted to it. If they were truly honest, they'd just say that.

>They know white supremacists want to hear them disparage Black
>men. That's white supremacy's favorite pasttime, so of course
>white supremacy gives them an outlet for it. That's exactly
>how they define success/progress, so knowing why a system of
>white supremacy rewards their behavoir won't stop them.
>They've already submitted to it. If they were truly honest,
>they'd just say that.

when I read something like what Lemieux puts out, the first question I ask, is "what purpose does this serve?"

as in, why does one tie Dave Chappelle and other Black men who hold reactionary views as the standard bearer of Black men writ large? what does the "othering" of anyone serve to do? Make it acceptable to whichever audience that may receive it, to see these people as disposable.

We recognize this with any other group. Hell, when Dave is out there talking about trans people in the way he does on stage, we recognize it there. he hints ever so lightly at the racism of white people who are also gay or trans, but not as much at the class of those people who are doing the racism (i.e. they have the money, the social status, and thus the power to exert the racism).

Capitalism needs the Black boogeyman, as much as it needs the Black mule (often hoisted upon Black women) to justify the role Black people hold within US capitalism as the reserve army of labor, that is to say, to make sure that Black people exist so that capital can extract their work for the lowest price (which in some cases, if you think about mass incarceration, which strikes Black people the most disproportionately across gender, can be zero-cost).

The newest wrinkle, one that's been deployed constantly since the advent of Civil Rights legislation and the strategy of the powers that be to toss a few crumbs unto Black people so that they can move into the middle class (itself a whole conversation), is that Black people and other "representative" members of otherwise marginalized groups are used to be the ushers of this disposability.

That is to say, people like Lemieux, because they are Black, because they are women, because they appear progressive, are used by the ruling class to make people "undesirable"... to LIBERALS. "These people know what they're talking about, they're ____"

Fox News under a different flag. Dave Chappelle in a different body.

This is BILL COSBY shit.

And it doesn't have to be a Black woman. Damon Young and them did the same thing with the "White People of Black People".

when really all you need to say is "Some Black Men Are Reactionary. Others are violent. Some are both. Why is this?" Instead of doing the math, they want to do the propaganda.

None of this gets us closer to pushing the forces that cause the majority of Black suffering off the perch.

"Instead of doing the math, they want to do the propaganda"


Got damn.

I thought you were asking why white supremacist garbage is popular with the American public even when the white supremacist is Black.

That said, I think you've actually zoomed in with the camera, but I love it either way.


>>They know white supremacists want to hear them disparage
>Black
>>men. That's white supremacy's favorite pasttime, so of
>course
>>white supremacy gives them an outlet for it. That's exactly
>>how they define success/progress, so knowing why a system of
>>white supremacy rewards their behavoir won't stop them.
>>They've already submitted to it. If they were truly honest,
>>they'd just say that.
>
>when I read something like what Lemieux puts out, the first
>question I ask, is "what purpose does this serve?"
>
>as in, why does one tie Dave Chappelle and other Black men who
>hold reactionary views as the standard bearer of Black men
>writ large? what does the "othering" of anyone serve to do?
>Make it acceptable to whichever audience that may receive it,
>to see these people as disposable.
>
>We recognize this with any other group. Hell, when Dave is out
>there talking about trans people in the way he does on stage,
>we recognize it there. he hints ever so lightly at the racism
>of white people who are also gay or trans, but not as much at
>the class of those people who are doing the racism (i.e. they
>have the money, the social status, and thus the power to exert
>the racism).



I just want to insert a somewhat obvious point here.
No one can see it when it's about Black men. But everyone saw it when it was about trans people. Where you say they want people to view Black men as disposable, I'd say she's able to get away with something like this because America ALREADY insists (and has long insisted) on pathologizing Black men as disposable, deficient, immoral, violent, etc, and any proof otherwise is ignored. Not to be nitpicky, but I think that's an important distinction, only bc I find it important to focus on the goal of RWS and how people's actions are a reaction to it, either in resistance or submission. This also speaks to Torraine's point in the article that people like Lemieux are simply opportunists.



>Capitalism needs the Black boogeyman, as much as it needs the
>Black mule (often hoisted upon Black women) to justify the
>role Black people hold within US capitalism as the reserve
>army of labor, that is to say, to make sure that Black people
>exist so that capital can extract their work for the lowest
>price (which in some cases, if you think about mass
>incarceration, which strikes Black people the most
>disproportionately across gender, can be zero-cost).



Most definitely. More Black men being incarcerated in America than women incarcerated in the world is no accident.



>The newest wrinkle, one that's been deployed constantly since
>the advent of Civil Rights legislation and the strategy of the
>powers that be to toss a few crumbs unto Black people so that
>they can move into the middle class (itself a whole
>conversation), is that Black people and other "representative"
>members of otherwise marginalized groups are used to be the
>ushers of this disposability.
>
>That is to say, people like Lemieux, because they are Black,
>because they are women, because they appear progressive, are
>used by the ruling class to make people "undesirable"... to
>LIBERALS. "These people know what they're talking about,
>they're ____"
>
>Fox News under a different flag. Dave Chappelle in a different
>body.
>
>This is BILL COSBY shit.



I mostly agree here. The only thing I'd change is that RWS already decided who's undesirable, and they've only changed the faces they pick to present their message. As stated in the article, this message was being conveyed well before Griffith's Birth of a Nation... and as I was saying above, people like Lemieux and Cooper simply submitted. As you're saying, they're being used. I'd just say they're being used to push the message in a more deceptive and thus effective manner. I think we'd both agree that it's simply refined white supremacy.



>And it doesn't have to be a Black woman. Damon Young and them
>did the same thing with the "White People of Black People".



Facts.



>when really all you need to say is "Some Black Men Are
>Reactionary. Others are violent. Some are both. Why is this?"
>Instead of doing the math, they want to do the propaganda.
>



Let's not forget to add that some are neither of those. Some are just working class guys, trying to be better people and protect those they love. And great point about the math vs propaganda. The propaganda gets white approval whereas the math doesn't. Does Vanity Fair give her this same spot if she's explaining the context of the plight of Black men and boys, or stating that "patriarch" doesn't apply to a group who are "at the bottom of every metric determining quality of life"? Of course not. Massa ain't handing out no butter biscuits for that.


>None of this gets us closer to pushing the forces that cause
>the majority of Black suffering off the perch.


Major facts.

I agree.
This is legit race traitor shit.
And it's been going on too long

carry on.

d

"I don't speak to provoke. I speak because I think our time on Earth is short and each moment that we are not our truest selves, each moment we say what we do not mean because we imagine that is what somebody what's us to say, then we are wasting our time

was productive. Call it what you want.


Meanwhile jamillah's mentions getting lit up with black women telling her the article was Oppy.

ain't "black women".
They represent themselves only.
And it's bullshit for these talentless tenth-ass clowns to keep trying to use black women as cover for their tapdancing

all types of “how is a man gonna tell me what I am?”

all up and down the thread.

Here's a recent conversation between Black women that I enjoyed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MaA6D6MBh0

Your issue is that we listened to Jamilah and called her on her lies and regurgitation of white supremacist rhetoric. Unfortunately for you and her, part of being listened to is your BS being spotted.

feminists like susan brown miller built their whole shit on the black boogeyman myth