|
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.
~
~
~
~
~
Days like this I miss Sha Mecca
|
Printer-friendly copy 
Email this topic to a friend
General Discussion
