There is a profound experiential and logical flaw to this piece. And it is the fact that there is no such thing as acceptable Blackness – which the author surely knows. Such a claim is misusing English to mean something else since acceptable, in this context, really means tolerable because non threatening. One cannot claim that one accepts the presence of a wild animal, which can kill, unless it is caged and one is outside the cage. To talk about others in terms of threat is to implicitly admit that one thinks of others in the negative – regardless of their behaviour – and that they should be caged and controlled. Thus, Whites here are not talking in terms of a contrast between threatening and worthwhile, They are talking in terms of threatening and non threatening. And it is Blacks' job to prove They are non threatening before Whites will even to pretend to find Blacks acceptable. Yet, Whites never say how anyone can prove a negative nor why Blacks have such an obligation that Whites do not. Nor do Whites demonstrate how Blacks can make Whites feel comfortable in Their presence when Blacks cannot change the source of White discomfort – skin colour. Blackness is never acceptable, it is merely conditionally tolerable.
The article itself makes this clear by claiming Blacks are required by Whites to conform to an impossible stereotype based on the fact that Blacks are judged by Whites as a group; Whites are judged by Whites as individuals. No White individual is to be considered as typical: Stereotypes of Whites are not allowed and so attempts are made to vigorously suppress any by Whites.
The concept of acceptable Blackness (when no similar concept exists for Whites) is that Blacks are not acceptable unless They do the impossible – eradicate White negrophobia by not reminding Whites of White prejudice. This, ultimately, is the goal of all White anti racism. The very fact that Whites require this of Blacks proves Blacks are not acceptable to Whites - and never could be. If Blacks were acceptable – as such – and if good Blacks were acceptable while bad Blacks were not, then why erect an extra behavioural hurdle for Blacks, over and above the usual ethical criteria for acceptance as being morally good?
This article answers this question by demonstrating that Whites are still terrified of Blacks and require Them not so much to conform to good ethical behaviour but to behaviour Whites will not find frightening. Yet, there is also no such thing as unacceptable Black behaviour since Whites regard all Black behaviour with suspicion. And Whites are suspicious for no better reason than the behaviour They fear is enacted by those with darker skins than Whites choose to find acceptable. The issue with Whites is not acceptability of behaviour, but the skin colour of the person exhibiting the behaviour. With Whites, behaviour is always a secondary consideration in Their ethical assessments of those who do not look like Them. If this were not the case, there would be no phenotypism and their attitudes and behaviour would judge bad people - not their skin colour.
By trying to make Blacks think there is such a thing as acceptable Black behaviour, Whites are still trying to control the behaviour of Blacks by distracting Them from the real fears of Whites – the alleged inferiority of Blacks. Whites wish to replace this genetic defamation with the absurd claim that Whites judge Blacks by Their behaviour - not Their skin colour. Whites wish to make this assertion regardless of the fact that all descriptions of Black behaviour are always prefaced with the qualifying adjective "Black" and the fact that there are no intolerant epithets not referring to skin colour. If the skin of the person judged is not the issue, then why mention it at all?
This Affirmative Action for Whites is all part of the current politically correct White culture of denial that seeks to blame Blacks for not being acceptable by saying that They must behave properly; that is, identically to Whites. But, since skin pigmentation is not affected by behaviour (nor is it biologically causative of any behaviour), Blacks can never actually come to be seen as White (or, indeed, fully human) - unless Whites renounce narrow-mindedness. This is, therefore, a means for Whites to continue in Their injustice while only appearing to accept Blacks as human; allowing Whites to indulge Their bigotry while vainly assuaging the resulting guilt. It fails in this because it still overtly singles Blacks out for differential treatment from Whites since the standard of acceptable behaviour is still different for Whites.
Whites neophobic fear of difference is behind all attempts to make everyone else the same, but flops because it requires an impossible to achieve perfection – much like Christianity. Since the behaviour of Whites and Their mores change over time, Blacks would be led by the nose by Whites - in perpetuity – and would then be obligated to copy every custom, attitude, practice, belief, etc of Whites. This would ensure Blacks never develop nor perpetuate Their own culture – the ultimate aim of such a practice. If Whites want Blacks to conform to White standards and to integrate, the only solution is for Whites to renounce intolerance, but this is precisely what Whites are being avoided here. It is harder than giving up smoking, drinking, or illegal drugs, but it can be done.
To buy into the dogmatism of acceptable Black behaviour is to buy the fanatic line of Whites completely. It is to become acceptable (really, tolerable) without ever really being accepted. Ultimately Whites - alone - want to decide what is acceptable and that fact alone makes the concept of acceptable Blackness fundamentally bigoted. This is an ethnic protection racket within which Blacks are required to pay Whites a "Racism Tax" in order not to be politically abused by Whites by becoming Uncle Toms – the latter being a form of self enslavement.
Article copyright © 2009 Frank TALKER. Permission granted to reproduce and distribute it in any format; provided that mention of the author’s Weblog (http://franktalker.blogspot.com/) is included: E-mail notification requested. All other rights reserved. Frank TALKER is also the author of Sweaty Socks: A Treatise on the Inevitability of Toe Jam in Hot Weather (East Cheam Press: Groper Books, 1997) and is University of Bullshit Professor Emeritus of Madeupology.
No comments:
Post a Comment