2005-10-21

Exterminate Whitey? The Final Solution

That's exactly what's being proposed by a professor of African Studies at the University of North Carolina.
Posted by at

5 comments:

Nadir said...

So it's okay for Bill Bennett to talk about killing black babies, but it's not okay for this doctor, whom no one has ever heard of before, to say that exterminating white people is the only solution to the problem?

"Hypocrisy is the greatest luxury." - Michael Franti

And for the record: I do not condone his comments or "killing whitey". But if Bill Bennett has the right to speculate about aborting all black babies, Kambon has the right to discuss exterminating white people.

What's the difference?

10:57 AM
Paul Hue said...

I maintain my claim that "race pride" is one of the main sources of human atrocities throughout history, and thus one of the absolute worst principles that a human can adopt. The whites who owned slaves used "race pride" to justify their activity, as did the blacks who owned slaves, made slaves out of previously non-slave blacks, and who sold them to white slave traders. All these people catagorized people according to "races", and then stratified those races. Hitler and Hirohito had "race pride", and we see what this justified in atrocities against Slavs, Jews, Chinese, Koreans, etc.

Most of these examples of "race pride" have several aweful concepts in common, including a theoretical justification, based on genuine historical grievences.

"Black nationalism," by whatever fervent and well-thought term Nadir, etc. insist on caling it, includes this charactoristic. Another charactoristic is the recollection of a mytical, false ancient history where a pure-race paradise existed, spoiled only by the intrusion of a brutal, evil "other" race, or races. These perspectives, when examined critically and open-mindedly, fall apart for a variety of reasons. One is definining "race", and then cataloging individuals according to these definitions. For example, would Nadir qualify as "black", given that he has white ancestors? How much "black" does a person need to qualify for this prefered catagory? How to ascertain and prove how much "black" each person has? How even to define this catagory? What people would hold the gold standard by which others would be measured for blackness?

Then there are the facts that demontrate the approximate equality of wickedness and suffering along the lineage of any group of people. For example, Nadir's birth certificate sir name declares a "European" name, most likely the result of one of Nadir's slave-owning honkey ancestors. But tracing that lineage far enough back, and we surely find that some of Nadir's honkey ancestors were raped, had their property stolen from them, were murdered, even enslaved, had their native languages and customs banned and replaced with those of conquering rapists/murders, and had opportunities denied them based on their "racial" assignment at various points in time. Most of the culprits inflicting inhumanity on Nadir's honkey ancestors were, of course, white. But some very well could have been invaders from Mongolia, Persia, Arabia, and even North Africa, all of whom had successful and long-term conquests of European peoples, including rape, murder, property confiscation, etc.

Then tracing his black ancestors, of course we encounter individuals who experianced these atrocities, at the hands of honkies. But go back further, and surely we find these same atrocities committed by other blacks. Which of the African customs that Nadir today worships or otherwise respects -- including the names that he has adopted -- were forced upon some of his black ancestors by other black ancestors?

Thus my conclusion that "All names are slave names, and all names are master names." Yes, Nadir's birth sirname relflects that of a slave owner and rapists; but it also reflects that of a person who was enslaved and raped. We may also just as confidently say the same of "Omawale" or any other sirname on the face of this earth.

Frankie Beverly was surely correct when he wrote, "We are one." We are one in sharing various ancient histories of enduring unwarrented and unjust suffering, high cultural achievement, and the infliction of unjust suffering as well.

I teach my daughter that "race pride" is a cruel and despicable concept, that she should take no "pride" in her "race". Instead, she should take pride in and ownershp of all the constructive achievements of the human race, from the Egyptian pyramids to the Indian invention of "zero" to the Arabic invention of digitized numbers to Irish step dancing and raucous, drunken behavior; it all belongs to her, equally. I also teach her that all these various peoples have committed great crimes against others, and have experianced AND OVERCOME great crimes committed against them. Further, I teach her that none of these peoples are so weak and pathetic that they cannot handle direct criticisms, or praise for other peoples.

Openmindedness is another principle that I teach, so Nadir is free to tell her that African drums somehow beat in her heart more so than the keys of an Austrian piano. And if that's the view that she takes, so be it, though along with that view will come debates with her daddy, who is so much more convincing and appealing than Nadr.

11:30 AM
Paul Hue said...

Nadir: Perhaps you should be the first student in our Reading Comprehension course. Bill Bennet did not advocated aborting black babies; to the contrary, he advocated against it. He stated a statistical fact, and argued against ends justifying means. He could have used a different fact, such as aborting all male babies or all babies born to unmarried moms, which would have also reduced the crime rate. He failed, however, to account for the poor reading comprehension abilities of the leftist anti-free speach crowd.

On somewhat of a side note, I oppose any efforts to fire or otherwise penalize the black Final Solution advocate. I advocate a society in which he should feel free to advocate killing white folks, though I also advocate a society in which he would get an earful from people of all races.

11:37 AM
Nadir said...

Paul,

Though I don't need to take a reading comprehension course, you certainly need to be placed in timeout in someone's kindergarten class. Your long, boring discourse on "race pride" is irrelevant in this discussion, and your inability to "play nice" demonstrates your immaturity and your lack of social skills.

I didn't say Bennett advocated killing black babies. I said, "So it's okay for Bill Bennett to TALK ABOUT killing black babies..." I read what Bill Bennett said, and I don't think "technically" that he said anything wrong. His remarks were insensitive and ill-timed. Just bad judgement.

Do his remarks make him racist? Not in and of themselves. Do my remarks show a lack of understanding regarding his remarks? Not at all. Your statement, however, shows that you ignored what I wrote and simply said what you wanted to say, creating some reason to attack me for changing my name from a European name (not a slave name) to an African name.

(I'll address that issue later, Paul. I know you can only digest so much at one time.)

Kambon's advocacy of "exterminating whitey" is about racism, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with "race pride".

His desire to develop this policy doesn't indicate that he feels particularly proud of his race (we assume it is African). In fact, I would argue that if he thinks exterminating all white people is the only answer for black people, then he has a rather poor opinion of the ability of blacks to withstand adversity.

His statement indicates that he feels whites are dangerous, and are an obstacle that must be eliminated. This fits the classic definition of racism.

In the remarks that are quoted, Kambon says, "the problem on the planet is white people." He doesn't say black folks or Asians or any other race is the solution. He clearly believes that white people are inferior or rather that "they are going to kill us."

He is not stating that blacks are the solution, but that they must develop a solution to "the whitey problem." This is exactly parallel to white discussions of "the negro problem" that exist even today.

Kambon's desire to exterminate white people is a sign of his racism. It has nothing to do with his African name. There are plenty of people (like me) who have African names, but have no desire to "kill the white people". It has nothing to do with his job in Africana studies. There are professors of African Studies who have white wives or husbands, and most of those teachers would not advocate killing white people.

Paul, Pride is not a negative emotion unless it becomes arrogance or a superiority complex. Now, I know you have problems understanding these things, so let me break it down like you're a six year old.

Here's a relevant example: Your brother, Tom, is proud of his intelligence and learning, and this is not a negative thing. He has a strong knowledge of many subjects, and can demonstrate that knowledge in writing or in conversation. Tom's pride is perceived by those around him as self-confidence.

Your attitude, however, that you are the intellectual superior of everyone you encounter, is a sign that you are a prick. You piss people off and make them use foul language when they are addressing you. Paul's arrogance is perceived as self-aggrandizement.

Therefore, pride has a positive connotation. Feelings of superiority have a negative connotation.

This is analogous to the difference between race pride and racism. Your being white has nothing to do with the fact that you are too stupid to understand that difference.

9:22 PM
Paul Hue said...

Nadir:

I never said that "pride" is bad, only that "racial pride" is bad. I have been very clear about the positiveness of being proud of your accomplishments; for example, Tom's pride in his intelectual development. I certainly hope that Tom is *NOT* proud to be white, Irish, or whatever catagory you assign him. I would like to know where in my writing you interpretted me to believe that "pride" itself is wrong; your failure to realize that I advocated pride in personal accomplishments indicates one of the following:
1) You forgot.
2) You didn't read those statements of mine made variously in these posts and previous emails.
3) You have a reading comprehenshion problem.

Your assumption that I have said anything against pride in general -- rather than racial pride in particular -- indicates either a reading comprehension problem on your part, or a typgraphical oversight on my part somewhere along the way, in which I issued a harrangue against "race pride" but forgot to type the word "race." Neither my memory nor my typing is perfect, and I would very much appreciate a citation from you wherein I disparaged "pride" in general. (I also disparage the sort of "pride" that my college student daughter has, which leaves her unemployed because she is too "proud" to work as a waiter or a cook, but I have a long public record of advocated personal achievement as desireable source of pride.)

As for your comments about Bill Bennett "talking about killing black babies" not indicating that you believe that he advocated this indicates not a reading comprhension problem on my part, but a writing problem on your part. You compared him "talking about killing black babies" with the other guy "advocating killing all whites", in terms of the two statements having at least similar (perhaps even equal; you are unclear here) moral value. Your dear reader must be forgiven for infering that you misread Bennett, or didn't read his full comments at all, since informed readers know that Bennett prefaced and followed his "killing black babies" statistic with his view that such a course would be wrong, using vigorous language. Informed readers also know that all of the initial press accounts omitted Bennett's qualifications, and that the indignant responses began with these incomplete accounts.

Thus you put your reader in the position of interpretting your comment (one's OK but not the other?) in one of a few ways:

1) You did not read Bennett's full comments;
2) You miscomprehended Bennett's full comments;
3) You do not undertand statistics and rhetoric;
4) You accurately understood Bennett's full comments, you understand statistics and rhetoric, and yet you consider Bennett's comments morally equivelent to the other guy's.

If you indeed have read his full comments, you undertstand statistics and rheteric, and you still view Bennett's comments as requiring appologies, retractions, and scorn, or that it indicates anti-black racism, then I afforded you more credit than I believe such a view desearves, and I switich my criticism of your view to that of unsound logic.

Finally, I can certainly understand how any reader of these posts could view me as possessing a sense of intellectual superiority and a storehouse of facts. However, I cannot imagine such an assessment not also applying to you and Tom, though in this case surely (your equating Bennett's comments to the guy who wants to exterminate crackers ("one's OK but not the other?") vs. my assessment: one is "OK" -- ie, not racist -- and the other is not), I doubt that an evaulation would find us equally guilty of a false sense of superiority.

11:58 AM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)