L’Oréal (1909- ) started out selling safe hair dye in Paris and is now the world’s largest cosmetics company, selling beauty in a box. The founder’s daughter, Liliane Bettencourt, is still alive and is the richest woman in the world, if not in all of human history.
L’Oreal sells hair colouring, hair wash, hair relaxers, make-up, perfume, skin lighteners, etc. They own Maybelline, Lancôme, Garnier, Helena Rubinstein, among others. They bought the Black-owned SoftSheen (Dark and Lovely) and Carol’s Daughter. Some of what L’Oreal makes is sold under the names of Ralph Lauren, Giorgio Armani and Yves Saint Laurent.
Last week they made the news twice: First for hiring Munroe Bergdorf, their first transgender model, as the “face of modern diversity” – and then for firing her by week’s end for having spoken out against racism!
Bergdorf, in the wake of the Charlottesville riot, wrote a three-part Facebook post about structural racism.
Facebook took down her post as hate speech – while leaving up the racist and transphobic comments about her.
The Daily Mail got a copy and printed the worst-sounding bits with little to no context. For example:
“Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.
“Because most of ya’ll don’t even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour. Your entire existence is drenched in racism. From micro-aggressions to terrorism, you guys built the blueprint for this s***. […]
“Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth… then we can talk.”
Her mother is both White and a Daily Mail reader! (Her father is Jamaican.)
On Twitter people said things like:
dear @Loreal
you drop this racist or we #boycottloreal
PS:white people are your biggest market.Can you afford to lose us over this lunatic?
L’Oreal talked to her about it but would not listen to her. They fired her:
“L’Oréal champions diversity. Comments by Munroe Bergdorf are at odds with our values and so we have decided to end our partnership with her.”
Bergdorf:
“I expected more from L’Oréal. But they appear to only care about brand. It speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the campaign.”
On top of that, she says there are:
“the death threats, threats of rape, threats of assault, people telling me to kill myself, the general bombardment and fear that something else will happen”
She says, “The split between support and hatred has been about 50/50.”
L’Oreal values: L’Oreal is the same company that ran an ad showing Beyonce with suspiciously light skin. And which still sells stuff like White Perfect with “advanced Melano-Block TM to control production of melanin.” And which wanted only White women to sell Garnier’s Fructis Style hair wash. And which would not give back land to a Holocaust survivor, land that the Nazis had taken from her. And whose founder supported the burning of synagogues.
– Abagond, 2017.
Sources: mainly Google Images, Daily Mail, Guardian, BuzzFeed, Channel 4, NPR, Wikipedia.
See also:
- White fragility / the r-word
- Charlottesville riot
- racism
- transgender
- melanin
- skin lightening
- good hair
- That Beyonce L’Oreal ad
534
The L’Oréal corporation wanted to appear woke and inclusive by using Munroe Bergdorf the transgender model who is also a person of color. But when Munroe Bergdorf spoke about social justice issues in regards to racism and violence of whites against black people she told no lies. White people don’t like being called out on the racism and white privilege. The L’Oreal corporation couldn’t wait to fire Munroe Bergdorf because she spoke her truth. Such is the way in the era of 45 and the white normative.
LikeLiked by 2 people
>
LikeLike
“Facebook took down her post as hate speech – while leaving up the racist and transphobic comments about her.”
One of many reasons I detest Facebook.
Black people have been complaining about Facebook censorship for a long time. ProPublica wrote an article about Facebook censorship that began with this paragraph:
https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-hate-speech-censorship-internal-documents-algorithms
Further adding insult to injury:
“Users whose posts are removed are not usually told what rule they have broken, and they cannot generally appeal Facebook’s decision. Appeals are currently only available to people whose profile, group or page is removed.”
In the pretzel logic world of Facebook, “All White people are racist…” is far more offensive and damaging than “kill all ‘radicalized’ Muslims”.
Go figure.
LikeLike
“Big brands are willing to profit from black women without standing up for them.” – Munroe Bergdorf in response to L’Oreal terminating her/him or whatever that thing is.
What’s the big deal? Haven’t slave masters always demanded their slaves to speak only when spoken to and to not be a smart *ss and to shut the hell up while they rake in piles of money due to slave labor (that’s you Bergdorf)?
“L’Oréal champions diversity. Comments by Munroe Bergdorf are at odds with our values and so we have decided to end our partnership with her.” – L’Oreal, in response to Munroe Bergdorf
Well, what do we have here and what values are we referring to, … L’Oreal? Is it the traditional value of white slave masters indulging in the continuum of promoting a castrated, weak, non-threatening, effeminate Black man at the expense of denigrating the entire Black race in Amerika? GTFOH!
Personally, I find Munroe Bergdorf to not only be hideous, but deeply disgusting as well!
LikeLike
This site reminds me of a conversation at home. We set around the table discussing all the wrong, agreeing with each other; however, not ever reaching out to anyone who can make any change.
More than three quarters of the blacks live separated from the whites with no real chance of any constructive conversation about the race problem.
Most of the comments on this site are proof that white people either hate black people or do not give black people a chance. The desire to separate from the whites is expressed; yet, no real solution is presented.
In the south- east the blacks live separate from the whites and do not get any positions of power. And when a black does work with the whites it is not long before that person is accused of being an Uncle Tom or they are so controversial they get nothing done.
More progress would be made if more effort was made to give training in usable skills for the people. We need electricians, carpenters, roofers, and many other skills that could be learned if we did encourage such training. It is almost impossible to find a skilled black working in the black community.
There will never be reparation in the form that most people think of reparation. No one is going to give anyone some fixed amount of money, so blacks need to stop waiting for the money. They (both poor blacks and whites) have been offered education, food, support with heating and many other things which are in effect reparation. Since blacks already live in separate districts. It is almost like they own the area they live in.
They have mayors of cities, police chiefs in some cities and members of the town councils. They could have City Managers if they would train for the positions, except when a black is successful at that job the whites hire them to work in the white communities. In fact, one of the big problems with blacks is when they are successful at their endeavor they get hired by the white and they move away from the black community to where the big money is. And lo and behold they soon forget the problems that are discussed on Abagond.
LikeLike
”Once white people begin to admit that their race is the most violent and oppressive force of nature on Earth…”
As it was said by an expert anthropologist (killed on a wake of Russian nationalism in early 2000s), ‘any judgement of a person based on persons ethnicity [or race] is a form of natzism [or racism]’. And what Bergdorf said seems to be a clear manifestation of a race category / group identity.
Moreover, any judgement upon a personal qualities based upon the person’s group identity (gender, sex, age, religion, etc.) is just as wrong as any logical fallacy can be, since a category-based judgement is ruled by a category, while a particular person should be regarded, even within a ‘categorial frame’, as a construct of many categorial features.
Because Bergdorf is a transgender whose parents were White (on the maternal side) and a Jamaican (on the paternal side), the speech could also be read as a speech against female dominance on the , which, in turn, migcht suggest that Bergdorf was experiencing a role conflict between the gender role of ‘a white woman’ and an original body form of a ‘Jamaican man’.
LikeLike
I agree with A Russian Nagpo here.
Maybe some people will oppose it, but texts like “Should I allow thousands of people of color to be destroyed so that the Whites can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to the West out of desperation?” are flat out inciting hatred.
LikeLike
“Should I allow thousands of people of color to be destroyed so that the Whites can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to the West out of desperation?” are flat out inciting hatred. – Jeff Elberfeld
Really, … “inciting hatred,” … and if so, HOW SO? Feel free to further express yourself!
LikeLiked by 2 people
she got her perm kit today (not l’oreal), and some hair too, ugh what happened to her nappy kinky whatever hair
LikeLiked by 1 person
Blakksage,
I am curious on how that quote is inciting hate myself.
LikeLike
@SharinaIr & blakksage
¿May I ask you what induced your interest in the hate technologies?
LikeLike
“Should I allow thousands of people of color to be destroyed so that the Whites can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to the West out of desperation?” are flat out inciting hatred. – Jeff Elberfeld
@Jeff Elberfeld, I believe your quote above to be a “Freudian Slip.” Whereby, your unconscious thoughts involuntarily rushed to the forefront prior to you having the opportunity to censor it. This in turn, exposed your true opinion of what you generally think of Black people. In other words, you see nothing wrong with the continued exploitation and suffering of minorities, so long as whites are able to profit immensely from their back breaking toil, from generation to generation and give mere lip service in regards to solving old social issues.
Also, packaged within this quote, is a level of cognitive dissonance here that undeniably paints you as a Liberal. Personally, I do not think of such people. It is of my personal opinion that Liberals are nothing but wolves in sheep clothing. I don’t give a darn about Conservatives either, but at least in most instances, they’ll give you their honest opinion regarding Black people, which is usually negative.
Personally, I’m much rather deal with an adversary in which I’m certain about his position as opposed someone who pretends to be my friend and conceals his true motive or identity. At least with the former, I’m able to position myself and therefore better defend myself if necessary.
I am not a Psychiatrist, nor a Psychologist, however, I studied Psychology long enough to recognize and know when I’m dealing with a ravenous wolf, even if the perpetrator did a superb job at masking or disguising their true identity.
Thanks Jeff, I know who you are now!
LikeLiked by 1 person
blakksage, May I ask you what induced your interest in the hate technologies? – A Russian Nagpo
First and foremost, what in the world is “hate technologies?”
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo
What in h*’ll are you talking about? Either you will answer the question or deflect but I don’t have time for the games and b.s..
LikeLike
So anything that isn’t telling whites they are doing a good job is inciting hate? Truth is hate? Okay.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@blakksage
In a case you haven’t read this article on this blog
LikeLike
@SharinaIr
‘Either you will answer the question or deflect but I don’t have time for the games and b.s..’
Or shall not answer the question nor deflict. Because I don’t like your tone, chances are that there will be no answer to your question.
LikeLike
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/island-barbuda-literally-water-hurricane-irma-article-1.3475281
LikeLike
In response to Jeff Elberfeld and Russian Nagopo responding that the statement by Munroe Bergdorf is inciting hatred is typical of ignorant and tone def whites with blind spots about racism and violence aimed at black people. I still remember Elberfeld’s response to me some time ago on the Jane Elliott thread, when I posted that Jane Elliott was a great ally and there needed to be more of her. Elberfeld’s
response was quite telling of who he is. So him and Russian Nagapo can go kick rocks and hug a pet monkey.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Sharinalr & blakksage: Tone def whites with blind spots who want to play games and pretend to be obtuse can’t handle the truth. White fragility and whiteness never ceases to amaze me.
LikeLiked by 2 people
A Russian Nagpo
What response you get from me will always be what you bring to the table. Stupid question then watch as I get annoyed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Mary Burrell
Exactly. He want to tone police she he knew he had no answer other the his fragile ego.
LikeLike
@SharinaIr
So, first you suppose I’m dumb, and then you ask for the elucidation? Are you really beleive this attitude of yours being a reasonable approach, eh?
LikeLike
‘Tone def whites with blind spots who want to play games and pretend to be obtuse can’t handle the truth. White fragility and whiteness never ceases to amaze me’
This is what I define as ‘black racist judgement’ (not to be confused with French negritude judgement or Malcolm X-style nationalism judgement, because it’s counterproductive) and a race-based ‘hate communication’.
Certainly, any evaluative judgement made by a person whose core values are ‘experience’ and ‘evidentiality’ speaks more about a judging persons than about a person judged).
[don’t try to flame me; I’ve survived the Russian 90s and a flame more serious than this opposite of sticks-n-stones 🙂 ]
LikeLike
@Sharinalr
Man, I don’t know you and your words don’t afflict my worldly status here whatsoever, so enjoy all the freedom to express yourself as you like 🙂
LikeLike
v8driver
¿Why do you refer to Elberfeld as to ‘she’?
LikeLike
@A Russian Nagpo
I am going to assume you are having a reading comprehension issue. My first comment was not to you or about you. It was to blakksage regarding the comment Jeff made. You decided to ask me a question. I gave you to chance to either elaborate or deflect, but what I was not going to do was deal with the BS.
Secondly, what in my response said you were dumb? The question was stupid and had nothing to do with what I said. That is not an indication of what I think of you. I don’t know you.
Lastly, If my words have no affect on you then why would you respond to my comment, not even pertaining to you, with a question that was irrelevant. I have been here longer than you and ran into people just like you or worse. Have a seat.
LikeLike
@Sharinalr
‘I am going to assume you are having a reading comprehension issue’ is just another way to say ‘u r dumb’. This is the answer to both your 1st and 2nd.
LikeLike
A Russian Nagpo
Yet according to you my first comment was calling you dumb. Not only did I not use the term dumb, but the word I did use was followed by question. So you lost the faux argument you tried to start up.
Secondly a person can have reading comprehension issue and not be dumb. This typically happens when an individual is so upset about something they misread what was said in effort to respond.
Now unless you are Jeff or have a response to my original question then you can take your hurt feelings to the corner. You did all this just to deflect from a question you had no answer to. Now my advice to you is to read that comment policy before you little behaviors turn into something that will result in a bye bye.
LikeLike
In response to this post, I am glad she said it. White people don’t want to be held accountable and that is primarily why what she said bothered them.
However, the way she explained it in an interview was pretty sloppy. I would not say all whites are racist, though I get how she came to that. I would say more so all benefit from the system. In response to her many whites proved that they would rather ignore it than take action to fight it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Is there really something as a “safe hair dye”?
LikeLike
@ Sharinalr
The only things that whites want to hear from blacks is constant praise and affirmation of the white person’s inherent “goodness”. Just take a close look at what the average white person expects from their “black best friend” and you’ll get the picture.
Apparently L’Oreal wanted Munroe Bergdorf to be just outspoken enough to make the brand look good, but not too outspoken as to bring it controversy. $50 says they replace Bergdorf with a white lesbian or transgender female who knows how to toe the corporate line.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Mack Lyons and Sharinalr,
True. Diversity for whites means simply having a face different from the mainstream’s image of “normal” humans and expects them to be compliant and happy with not enough of a care to speak out about the realities of the world they navigate in. White people continue to be deathly frightened of the truth and for reasons pointed to white supremacy must be comforted at all levels. They must not think or feel about the problems faced by other people and be happy living in their own matrix.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@nagpo lol ‘she’ in most cases, here, unqualified, and bereft of context (sui generis) would refer to my wife, because she’s black. Most ppl would recognize that here? I thought my gravatar might put it over the tipping point, if ya had to guess. Lol.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@abagond
So have you done a Russian troll check lately? I really like your blog but I don’t understand why the comments are being clogged by people who want to attempt to explain racism to the very group of people who experience it on a daily basis. Honestly, if people say free speech allows you to speak in support of white supremacy, then it is also allows you to discuss an existing system based on white supremacy. People shouldn’t get offended by that. But then a murder always does get nervous when you get close the place he buried the bodies.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharinalr
“I would not say all whites are racist… I would say more so all benefit from the system. In response to her many whites proved that they would rather ignore it than take action to fight it.”
Agreed.
They only seem to take action when when one of their own is harmed by the system. Then yoga mat hypocrites come out by the thousands denouncing “White supremacy” and “racism”.
Moreover, at this point in time, “racism” is a word nearly drained of meaning. Various groups around the globe misuse the term to describe discrimination or oppression.
Also there are those who take special delight in declaring Black people “racist” without any thought about Black people’s lack of power to enforce a system of Black superiority and supremacy over other groups.
Bigotry, bias or prejudice are not the same as racism. Anger and rage are not the same as hatred. Simple-minded folk seem to not know the difference.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really, … “inciting hatred,” … and if so, HOW SO? Feel free to further express yourself!
Ok, let me express myself: I do not like generalisations at all, unless they are very obviously meant as a harmless joke.
All others are bad; especially if they use antagonizing rhetoric: then it is setting up people agaist eachother, which can have disastrous results. The one below, for example, is not OK:
The White Man is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him White and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
One cannot defend himself against the White Man. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense.
And so on. I’ll leave it to this now.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
Except you’ve changed the quote. It isn’t “White man” in the original. It’s “Jew”, and the quote is by Goebbels, a white supremacist.
If you’re going to give examples of speech you think incites hatred against white people, at least play fair and use examples that actually are about whites.
LikeLike
The quote in its entirety in Goebbels 1929 polemic:
http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/angrif03.htm
LikeLike
Where does one draw the line between “antagonizing rhetoric” and “speaking truth to power about injustice and oppression”?
Yes, Bergdorf probably shouldn’t have said “all whites” but look at it in context. She was responding to the Charlottesville protests where hate speech was given full rein, where a number of counterprotesters were injured and one was killed. She was speaking out of grief, frustration, and fear as much as anger.
LikeLike
omg it’s like reverse feminism? or something — i cannot grok that right now with the trans vibe– ableism, racism, lbgq* whatever, civil rights, and hair care all in one big package, i guess it’s a bit much for most ‘whites’ to process, let alone pick which is the most important view out of the ‘dogpile’ but that’s up to the receiver of the meme! my0.02 its imploding and also in a corporate sponsored setting maybe next time
LikeLike
after first review, strike the single quotes, ie too much for most whites to process vide supra ^
LikeLike
@Afrofem; Solitaire
Indeed. It was Goebbels. The first quote was of Adolf Hitler; from a rhetorical point of view, I saw hardly any difference between
“Should I allow thousands of German-blooded people to be destroyed so that the Jews can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to Bolshevism out of desperation?”
and
“Most of ya’ll don’t even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour.”
It is the same rhetoric, only the names of the peoples differ.. and you saw what happened: blakksage called me out for critizizing a Hitler-quote.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
If you’re going to give examples of speech you think incites hatred against white people, at least play fair and use examples that actually are about whites.
I never said in the comments anything about “hatred against WHITE people,” just about hatred-inciting speech. I merely flipped the script of the “If it would have been about Black people, would it then be racist?”
Yes, Bergdorf probably shouldn’t have said “all whites” but look at it in context. She was responding to the Charlottesville protests where hate speech was given full rein, where a number of counterprotesters were injured and one was killed. She was speaking out of grief, frustration, and fear as much as anger.
But she DID say it. Even when Heather Heyer (the one killed by the nazis) was white (thus ‘racial violent,’ according to Bergdorf) too. I am still trying to figure out how I could justify such a gross accusation on people just based on their skin color, but until now, I can’t.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
Here’s the distinction I see:
“Most of ya’ll don’t even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of people of colour.”
This sentence does qualify with “most” rather than “all.”
It isn’t calling for anyone’s destruction.
Instead, what it says is that most white people will not acknowledge a basic historical truth that underlies the success of most modern white-dominate countries.
Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?
LikeLike
“Should I allow thousands of people of color to be destroyed so that the Whites can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to the West out of desperation?” are flat out inciting hatred. – Jeff Elberfeld (6.5.2017)
Reply/Inquiry – Really, … “inciting hatred,” … and if so, HOW SO? Feel free to further express yourself! (6.5.2017)
Ok, let me express myself: I do not like generalisations at all, unless they are very obviously meant as a harmless joke. – Jeff Eberfeld (6.11.2017)
Reply/Inquiry – Jeff, you took six days to respond to such an elementary question. But yet, you still failed to answer my original question of HOW SO, in response to your: “are flat out inciting hatred”, according to you, when someone essentially speaks the truth.
All others are bad; especially if they use antagonizing rhetoric: then it is setting up people agaist eachother, which can have disastrous results. The one below, for example, is not OK:
Reply/Inquiry – Jeff, I’m not interested in your personal opinion of what may or may not be construed as a generalized statement. However, I am interested in how stating the mere truth could be twisted as “inciting hatred” on your part?
The White Man is immunized against all dangers: one may call him a scoundrel, parasite, swindler, profiteer, it all runs off him like water off a raincoat. But call him White and you will be astonished at how he recoils, how injured he is, how he suddenly shrinks back: “I’ve been found out.”
Reply/Inquiry – Jeff, it appears that this statement is quite a clear self-description of yourself while looking in the mirror. Haven’t you recoiled after being exposed as someone other than what you’ve put forth thus far? Didn’t it take you six days to respond to a simple question? Haven’t you “shrink back” during those six days to ponder whether or not the REAL Jeff self identified himself through his own anecdotal post by stating: (perhaps) “I’ve been found out.”
Well, .. yes, you unmasked yourself and now, here you are attempting to recover through either deviation or simply deflect away from your original post. Well Jeff, it’s not working!
One cannot defend himself against the White Man. He attacks with lightning speed from his position of safety and uses his abilities to crush any attempt at defense. – Jeff Elberfeld 9.11.2017
Reply/Inquiry – Jeff, just so you’ll know, you are really showcasing your deep seated level of Liberal whiteness. By the way, five days to contemplate a response to a question posed isn’t what I’d personally consider to be “lightning speed” nor using your supposed” abilities to crush any attempt to defense” by simply ignoring the question either.
And so on. I’ll leave it to this now. – Jeff Elberfeld
Reply/Inquiry – Ok, fair enough, just “leave it to this (for) now”. Additionally, I highly suggest that pay a visit to your local Halloween store and purchase a new mask, because you are going to need it around here henceforth!
To me, your contempt for Black people and/or minorities rests at an astounding level through deception. However, no matter how latent your issues may be concerning the issues of race; your apparent Liberalism; you propensity to eschew central the question at hand, when one truly study voluntary your statements, you are nothing more than a fox that one shouldn’t ask to guard the chicken coop.
Selah! – All word(s) and/or statements enclosed in parenthesis are mine.
Dont’ attack the chicken coop
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
So what is the proper way to call out racism? What would YOU have written if you were in her shoes?
LikeLike
@Jeff
Where is the line drawn between hate speak and truth? What you quoted sounds more of Hitler’s imagined idea rather than an actual account of Jews. What Bergdof said is a reality. Whites have built their way of life off the backs of people of color. Calling truth hate speech is another way that white men try to downplay, hide, or dismiss the reality of their very existence.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Michelle
I do not know what it is about my blog that attracts people who say they are not Russian and yet keep talking about Russia.
Part of White racism is the belief that White people understand racism better than Black people. White people, after all, do not suffer from ENT:
LikeLike
This is why black people need to own the means of production. I’m saddened that black-owned companies would sell us out.
LikeLike
Sorry for not responding earlier, but it are some tough questions that are posed on me.
To start with Solitaire’s Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?
That is a difficult one, and I wonder if Bergdorf’s comment was meant solely for the US. After all, she was talking about people “as a race” and not about Americans in particular.
Maybe she meant the American Whites, but then she should have said that.
LikeLike
@ blakksage:
Jeff, you took six days to respond to such an elementary question.
Yes, and? You mean, I should ignore my family, friends and work, because someone who calls me a “ravenous wolf” needs a respons immediately?
Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
LikeLike
@abagond
So what is the proper way to call out racism? What would YOU have written if you were in her shoes?
It would be basically the same as Peter Spier wrote and illustrated in his 1980 book “People”: See for excerpts here: http://ruthie822.blogspot.nl/2010/06/people-by-peter-spier.html
LikeLike
@Solitaire and Jeff
“Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?”—That is true for the U.S. but it is also very true worldwide. Whites have build empires at the expense of people of color while enforcing the idea of whiteness.
@Jeff
So which flip flop is it? Either “Sorry for not responding earlier, but it are some tough questions that are posed on me” or “You mean, I should ignore my family, friends and work”. I get the feeling you had no real answer so used your family, friends, and work as a means to bypass that.
LikeLike
@Sharinalr
@Solitaire and Jeff
“Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?”—That is true for the U.S. but it is also very true worldwide. Whites have build empires at the expense of people of color while enforcing the idea of whiteness.
Like the Baltic states. Or Iceland. Or Switzerland.
@Jeff
So which flip flop is it? Either “Sorry for not responding earlier, but it are some tough questions that are posed on me” or “You mean, I should ignore my family, friends and work”. I get the feeling you had no real answer so used your family, friends, and work as a means to bypass that.
This is no flip-flop. The question “Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?” brings some new questions with it, like:
-What about White immigrants who came after slavery was abolished, and never lived in a state with Jim Crow-laws?
-The states which oppressed Blacks the most are the poorest states in the USA. Can we still speak of “building the US on the backs of people of color” when it was more like “parasitizing on Blacks,” where Whites in the South, unable to do something on their own, ended up poor when they lost their way to easy money?
-Is there anything I can add to this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFeoS41xe7w)?
So far for Solitaire’s question. On the other hand, if someone is complaining about the speed I answer his/her rude remarks, then I lose interest in discussing things with him/her.
LikeLike
@ blakksage:
“Jeff, you took six days to respond to such an elementary question.”
“Yes, and? You mean, I should ignore my family, friends and work, because someone who calls me a “ravenous wolf” needs a respons immediately? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.” (Sept. 22nd, 2017)
Jeff, you cannot have it both ways. How can you state on one hand: “Should I allow thousands of people of color to be destroyed so that the Whites can live and work in luxury while millions starve, falling victim to the West out of desperation?” are flat out inciting hatred.” – Jeff (6.5.2017),
… and on the other hand state almost three weeks later: “Yes, and? You mean, I should ignore my family, friends and work, because someone who calls me a “ravenous wolf” needs a respons immediately? Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.” (Sept. 22nd, 2017)
Well of course that’s the way it works here Jeff. You get labeled as something consistent with your behavior. And you do not get the opportunity to frame the conversation in a manner to deflect away from your original comment.
From what I can extrapolate from your comments, you don’t give a sh#t about the plight of people of color. You may continue to pretend all you want, but it’s not working and as you previously put it: “I’ve been found out.”
Yes, … you’ve been found out Jeff!
LikeLike
@Jeff
“Like the Baltic states. Or Iceland. Or Switzerland.”—Interesting you mention those. Nice examples.
“This is no flip-flop. The question “Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?” brings some new questions with it, like:”—Now we go into deflection. In the statement you quoted I simply pointed out that with solitaire you claimed to have not answered because of the questions not question posed. Notice the nice little s at the end of question indicating plural. You later told Blakkage it was because of family, friends, and work. So that is a flip-flop.
Now let us move on to the question at hand. You can’t even answer any of the questions posed regarding what makes what was said hate inciting.
1) What about White immigrants who came after slavery was abolished, and never lived in a state with Jim Crow-laws? 35 out 50 states had jim crow laws. Yet most states outside of the 35 still had racial laws on top of its deep rooted white supremacy. So said white immigrants got white treatment and if here long enough got white mindset too.
2)The states which oppressed Blacks the most are the poorest states in the USA. False. I don’t remember California being among the poorest stats, but I do remember it having a large legislation against people of color.
3) Can we still speak of “building the US on the backs of people of color” when it was more like “parasitizing on Blacks,” where Whites in the South, unable to do something on their own, ended up poor when they lost their way to easy money? Use what word you will because it still was at the expense of people of color. It still is a matter of whites not doing it on their own.
“On the other hand, if someone is complaining about the speed I answer his/her rude remarks, then I lose interest in discussing things with him/her.”—Nice way of avoiding answering the question.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
Peter Spier’s text is a picture book written for small children. Seriously, this is how you thought Bergdorf should approach the violent racism of adults? With gentle platitudes about “We look different but we are really the same?”
Serious question: why would talking to white adults about racism in this simplistic way be more effective, in your opinion?
If by “people of color” we are talking about all non-white races, then there is not a single state in the union — not a single country in the Americas — that is free of the blood of the native peoples.
The U.S. as a whole benefited from slavery, not just the South. The cotton and tobacco industries enriched the entire nation, pouring money into the federal coffers. And as Sharina’s pointed out already, states that didn’t have explicit Jim Crow laws were not free of racism. Those states often had very few black residents and took steps to keep things that way (such as sundown towns).
Europe benefited greatly from the expansion into the New World, as well as imperialist takeovers in Africa and Asia. Some European countries may have been less directly involved than others, but did they not still interact economically with the European nations that were knee-deep in blood money? Especially Switzerland with its famous banks.
I do understand these are hard questions. I’ve grappled with them myself.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
“The states which oppressed Blacks the most are the poorest states in the USA. Can we still speak of “building the US on the backs of people of color” when it was more like “parasitizing on Blacks,” where Whites in the South, unable to do something on their own, ended up poor when they lost their way to easy money?”
Those states also have the highest populations of black people, so the poverty rate includes a significant amount of black poverty as well. That complicates your premise.
The sharecropping system instituted in those states after the end of slavery can also be seen as parasitizing black people for white monetary gain.
LikeLike
Also, please keep in mind that slavery existed in the North throughout the colonial period and into the early Union. Massachusetts in particular built its wealth through the slave trade.
LikeLike
“What about White immigrants who came after slavery was abolished, and never lived in a state with Jim Crow-laws?”
LikeLike
“Is it not true that the U.S. was built on the backs, blood, and death of people of color?” An interesting statement.
When looking back to the population of the United States in the early part of the 1800s the south did have a large part of the wealth. There was no west past the Mississippi of any significant. Cotton was the significant economical commodity and the main labor force was the slave.
The west was opened to European immigrants after the Civil War. The founding of this nation saw large land grants given to individuals who could not show any reason why they owned the land.
The 13 original states Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia and Maryland were large southern states, while Delaware New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Connecticut were much smaller.
During that period of time and in the beginning both indentured servants and slavery were a part of the economic system. Did they actually become the backbone of the nation will never be resolved. One would have to see the removal of the Native American through death and force as a building block of this nation. And also the free gift of land to Europeans in the west.The Spanish development of California and Texas was also a part of the growth.
Certainly, after being given large land grants, success might not have been possible in the south east part of the United States without “free” labor.
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
I just finished watching the YouTube video you linked to upthread.
You said this in regards to the video: “Is there anything I can add to this”
My response: “Which side of the debate are you referring to: James Baldwin or William F. Buckley?”
LikeLike
@Solitaire:
My response: “Which side of the debate are you referring to: James Baldwin or William F. Buckley?”
In the end, the Cambridge Union Society took a vote on the proposition: “The American Dream is at the expense of the American negro.” The yays outpolled the nays 540-160. Do I need to say more about it?
Well, Maybe that Buckley launched a personal attack by stating that Baldwin had affected a “British accent.” The one who ran out of arguments in the debate, and thought he could win anyhow by launching a personal attack… well, he disqualified himself there.
LikeLike
Furthermore, do you really think that “We look different but we are really the same” is a worse message than “Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.”?
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
Furthermore, do you really think that “We look different but we are really the same” is a worse message than “Honestly I don’t have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people.”?
I never said it is a worse message. I think it is a very good message at a certain level and in certain contexts. But Abagond asked what you would have written in Bergdorf’s place to call out white racism, and I thought it somewhat odd that you responded with excerpts from a children’s picture book, as if adult whites are so sensitive, fragile, and backwards in racial issues that they must be treated the same as small children.
At some point, if racial injustices are to be rectified, white adults are going to have to grapple with the fact that over the last 500 years, the white race has committed incredible atrocities and continues to benefit unfairly from those atrocities.
In a book for children, matters get oversimplified. One of the excerpts from the book explained that some people are rich and others are poor. The drawing of the second group showed a Third World shantytown. But there was no examination of why such a large percentage of desperately poor people are non-whites. There was no discussion of colonialism, slavery, economic exploitation, the theft of land and resources.
What I hear in Bergdorf’s statement quoted above is: At that moment, she no longer had the energy to hold white people’s hand while reading to them from the simple children’s book with the pretty pictures and simplistic platitudes. She has done that and done that and done it some more, and she no longer had the energy, the emotional strength, to do it yet again. Instead, she wanted white adults to stop acting like ignorant children and own up to the racial injustices still prevalent throughout this world and start to do something to fix them.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@jeff e. well this is a tough one. regarding whites that migrated after reconstruction in the us, well just as every black person has a straight line to the diaspora, a learned oral, psycological, and, some would say psychic dependency or actual impact from slavery times, (every breath and thought and and idea that come up) it could be argued us whites that came ‘after all that’ have been schooled and steeped in the culture that created that situation and has not left yet. it is not something one as a reasonable white, can use to argue, trust me, i been tried.
and what to do? just start with calling people out on their bs if they say something stupid ignorant and racist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Jeff Elberfeld
“In the end, the Cambridge Union Society took a vote on the proposition: “The American Dream is at the expense of the American negro.” The yays outpolled the nays 540-160. Do I need to say more about it?”
Maybe you do need to say more about it, because I’m not sure I get your point. Did you bring this up as a “white people are basically good” argument? Or something else that I’m missing?
LikeLike
@Solitaire
I never said it is a worse message. I think it is a very good message at a certain level and in certain contexts. But Abagond asked what you would have written in Bergdorf’s place to call out white racism, and I thought it somewhat odd that you responded with excerpts from a children’s picture book, as if adult whites are so sensitive, fragile, and backwards in racial issues that they must be treated the same as small children.
Thank you for your clarification. Actually, Abagond asked me: “So what is the proper way to call out racism? What would YOU have written if you were in her shoes?”
Notice he didn’t mention the word “white.”
My usual talk to call out racism would be discussing on how all people are different, and that all people are individuals with their own history, world-vision, ideals and ideas, hobbies, social status etc.
This leads to the conclusion that it would be very stupid to believe that skin color is the most defining factor of someone’s personality. The phrase “you skin is white/yellow/red/brown/black, so that means that you [insert prejudice here]” is therefore one of the stupidest things one can say.
But I’ve said that so many times before, that I thought I would make it easy for myself, and let mr. Spier do the talking and illustrating, which would be more fun too.
LikeLike
@Solitaire
“Maybe you do need to say more about it, because I’m not sure I get your point. Did you bring this up as a “white people are basically good” argument? Or something else that I’m missing?”
No. I brought this up to show that an overwhelming majority saw that James Baldwin was right. Then who am I to keep on puzzling and searching the internet to see if I know it better?
LikeLike
@ Jeff Elberfeld
“Notice he didn’t mention the word ‘white.'”
True. But he did ask: “What would YOU have written if you were in her shoes?”
In context, Bergdorf’s statement was made in reaction to the white supremacists, white neo-Nazis, white KKK, and white members of the alt-right who in Charlottesville displayed their virulent racism against blacks and other non-whites. In context, therefore, I thought it was clear that when Abagond asked you what you would have said in her shoes, it was understood that the subject was white racism.
I may have misunderstood, of course. Perhaps if Abagond reads this, he’ll state for himself which way he meant it.
“This leads to the conclusion that it would be very stupid to believe that skin color is the most defining factor of someone’s personality. The phrase ‘you skin is white/yellow/red/brown/black, so that means that you [insert prejudice here]’ is therefore one of the stupidest things one can say.”
It is very stupid, yes. But I think it’s important to weigh the impact as well. Which issue is more urgent: that Bergdorf said “all whites” or that white supremacists armed with semi-automatic weapons marched in Charlottesville chanting racist and anti-Semitic slogans?
Bergdorf could have chosen her words more carefully. When she said “all whites,” I believe she was speaking about institutionalized, structural racism. It’s true she could have worded her statement more clearly to reflect that. But I don’t think she was saying that all white people are born racist simply due to the color of their skin.
Abagond has written about the belief or theory that it is impossible to grow up in a world surrounded by racism — in fact, built and maintained by racism — without becoming racist oneself. There are degrees to the amount of racism a child learns, and it is possible to consciously work on eliminating that learned racism. But it’s impossible to step entirely outside of the racist structure that surrounds us. We can learn to see that structure, work to change it, remove ourselves from it as much as possible. Yet while that racist structure remains, all white people are complicit in its maintenance.
LikeLike