Replies

Thanks for the comments Morgana. I realize these same comments are made in the U.S. When you realize that Blacks came here as slaves and their human rights were abused, you can’t roll back that realization. It’s a fact, and one we need to come to terms with, and most people have.
When you look at the separate facilities and denial of services based on race and the terms people were referred to back then, it takes the wind out of my sails to use those terms.
I’m sure the original use of the “N” term derived from the origin of some individuals brought to the United States. At some point in time that term was used as a put down. And so today most people don’t use it. I don’t use it because it is very disrespectful. I elect not to use a number of other slang terms for this and other groups too. It just doesn’t add to the debate. It detracts.
Now, if some see this as just an expression of no value, that’s okay. They should realize though, that even people who share some of their views are going to totally dismiss their views, if they add in these terms.

BTW, it won’t be the NAACP and the ACLU who will stop these expressions. It will be the people these people want to influence, who will stop the use of these expressions. Anyone using those terms will simply be ignored by them.

Doughty One, thank you for your thoughts on this issue, to which I'd like to add my own.

It is probably no secret that I am one of the harshest critics of Black America on this forum. Yet amid all my stinging criticisms I have not only never had one word to say about skin color or alleged racial "characteristics"--I have never even uttered a word against "welfare" or "affirmative action." Shoot, I don't even take a position on reparations! All my verbal barrages are provoked by one, and only one thing: the longstanding and continuing alliance of Black America with irreligion and immorality which, after their own loyalty to G-d has brought them through so many terrible experiences, is in addition to everything else a stunning case of ingratitude.

It made sense for Blacks to be liberal Democrats in the Sixties, but one would have thought that the ever-more-radical social causes of liberalism would have drawn a line in the sand at some point before now. It has not. Not even "gay rights" has changed a thing. Black Americans remain the most absolutely enthusiastic members of the Left even now, and I see no sign of this reversing, whatever comfort we may find in an occasional exception. And while I would like to believe a still-religious Black majority is being misrepresented by a "self-appointed elite," I can only admit with great sadness that this does not seem to be the case at all. If it were, would not a morally/socially conservative Black politicians slip through the cracks occasionally? Yet there does not exist a single solitary Black politician--not matter how rural, how Southern, or how "sanctified"--who gives a flying flip about these moral issues and who doesn't march in lockstep with the "gay" members of the Grand Thetic Coalition.

There is something very sinister about this spectacle. One minute the moslems are attacking "whitey." Then the Mexicans attack "whitey." Then the Blacks attack "whitey." And finally wealthy white homosexuals (who consider themselves members of a non-white ethnic group) attack "whitey." And none of these groups ever get mad at each other. This simply makes no sense. It isn't normal. It isn't natural. The whole thing has a smell about it. In fact, there is only one thing in all my experience that compares to this phenomenon.

Back in the old "kayfabe" days before Vince McMahon Jr. Professional Wrestling was a demimonde all its own, scorned by all Right Thinking People but with a marvelous vitality and universitality. And it was based on what only exists (supposedly) in story books--the conflict between Absolute Good and Absolute Evil. And among either of these two large camps (especially the latter) their reigned a harmony that exists otherwise only on the contemporary Left and in scripts.

First the "Pearl Harbor Jap" would come out and claim to be the greatest wrestler in the world, that Japan was the world's greatest country, and that Americans were inferior. Then the "Hollywood Blond" would come out, claim to be the world's greatest wrestler, say Hollywood was superior, and that local talent was inferior. Then the Bad Texas Cowboy would come out, claim to be the world's greatest wrestler, say Texas is the greatest place on earth, and local wrestlers are inferior to Texans. Then the Big Bad Northern Yankee would come out, claim to be the world's greatest wrestler, and say Northerners were better than "Southern scum." And then finally the local "good ole boy" bully of the town would come out, claim to be the world's greatest wrestler, and though he was local, still earn the hatred of everyone present by his nefarious attitude and behavior.

And amidst all these people claiming to be the "greatest wrestler" and to represent the "greatest place," there was not a single shard of disharmony. Japan and the North knew only peace. Texas and Hollywood shared only respect. And never once did any two of the "world's greatest wrestler"'s ever feel compelled to prove it by feuding with someone else who claimed that title. Instead, each one of these "world's greatest wrestlers" feuded with a "babyface"--a local young kid who drank his milk, loved his Mama, and insisted that he wasn't that good.

Now I know that this comparison may be laughable at first look, but . . . listen, I'm not kidding here . . . it's the only similar situation I am aware of that parallels exactly the unbroken harmony among the Grand Alliance of the "Oppressed." Really, think about it . . . one minute the Secular Humanist Scientist is calling the redneck a superstitious savage, and the next an "indigenous" person is attacking the redneck for defiling his ancient wisdom with alien western science and rationalism . . . and the scientist and the "savage" never at any time quarrel with each other??? I'm sorry, but I'm smelling "kayfabe" all over this situation.

All one has to do is look at the "gay" activists who champion Blacks, Hispanics, and moslems to see this in full swing. What are the reactions of "gays" to Black fundamentalism, Hispanic ultratraditionalist Catholicism, to moslem "theocracy?" It is to bash more "rednecks." The more the Blacks, Hispanics, and moslems evince hostility to "gay rights" (always unorganized and never by the community leaders, you understand), the more wealthy white "gays" praise Blacks, Hispanics, and moslems and the more they froth and fulminate against "gun-toting Bible thumping rednecks." And if you don't believe me, go to any "gay" forum and see for yourself!

There are no two communities on earth more similar to each other, and more alienated from each other, than poor American Blacks and poor American rednecks. Both originated on this continent in the rural South. Their religion, their substandard dialects of English, their superstitions, their cuisine--they're all basically the same (granted, some historical evolution has occurred, but no more than between, say, the Irish and the Scots). And yet for all the four hundred years they have lived on this continent together they have always been played against each other--from the very beginning until this very day and, apparently, beyond into the infinite future.

There was a time when poor whites refused to recognize that poor rural Southern Blacks were merely their fellow "rednecks." They insisted that there was an indivisible gulf between the "two cultures." And there was a time, believe it or not, when white liberals claimed that this was not so, that both communities were essentially the same, and had been kept divided for the political interests of others.

Now look at how this situation has been reversed. Today it is the white liberal who insists that the poor rural Southern Black has absolutely nothing in common with those awful reactionary "neanderthals" among the poor whites. The white liberal is the one who, when presented with the commonalities of the two communities now insists that the similarity is only superficial, that poor ignorant whites or unredeemable monsters while inside every poor ignorant Black is a Profound Left Wing Intellectual waiting to get out. The white liberal celebrates the primitive, fundamentalist Protestantism of the poor Blacks (telling himself that they don't really believe that stuff, that's just how they encoded words of "social justice" so the poor redneck wouldn't understand what they were really saying) while condemning and holding in absolute and utter contempt the very same religion and the very same religious practices among poor Southern whites. The white liberal celebrates Anglo-Saxon obscenities in Black culture as a profound act of "protest" while he is sickened to his stomach by the same words uttered by poor whites. Poor whites who own guns are savages who must be disarmed while the gun culture of the ghetto is merely a revolution waiting to happen. The white liberal now spouts the same line that the racist redneck once spouted (and yes, unfortunately, still spouts): that the appearances are all superficial, that the profound differences are unbridgeable.

The white liberal has taken two identical communities and made them his angel and demon, excusing everything about Black "redneck" culture as being somehow something other than what it is, while turning the poor Southern white into something almost sub-human, unworthy of "liberation" (or even of human sympathy). And this sick, psychotic white liberal claims that he wants equality? This is laughable.

My apologies to Jim Goad and Dr. Thomas Sowell for "channeling" them, but when the spirit moves me I cannot but prophesy.

I wish wideawake were still here.