"If you tell a person the world hates them, eventually that person will hate the world."
I have no clue if I made this up or if it's been said by someone else before me but if it hasn't let me be the first to say it. The reason why this quote has been in my head is because MANY moons ago there was a very dark period in my life where I accepted that latter half of the quote; "eventually that person will hate the world.". It took me awhile to stop thinking like that and as I grew older and more educated, I learned that this is the beginning stages of a Persecution Complex, which will branch out into many other complexes. So why is this important ? Because I've noticed this trend in 2 forms of ideology that I've been studying recently and I think I've found a solid understanding of how to explain a persecution complex and how they relate to Feminism as well as certain forms of Afrocentric Extremism. So, let's get started;
So let's get started from the very beginning. THE THREAT NARRATIVE! For the sake of this article I'll forego speaking in specific terms and use generic specifications for now. The Threat Narrative is quite simple, it all begins with an actual or imagined slight against a specific group. In the case of Afrocentric Extremism, the slight is the slavery endured by African Americans in the late 17th Century, for Feminists the slight is the sexist attitudes of the 1950s and the traditional gender roles that many Feminist believe still persist today. Regardless of the nature of the slight (be it imagined or actual) the slight is always attributed to a specific group. Group A believes that Group B has wronged them in some way. Group A believes that every member of Group B holds to an AGENDA. This "Agenda" is a vague goal that every member of Group B is pursuing either consciously or subconsciously. Regardless of the race, class or social environment of Group B, they all are still pursuing this "Agenda". The "Agenda" transcends all other aspects of life for members of Group B and pursuit and accomplishment of this "Agenda" means disaster for Group A.
Members of Group B who seek to aide members of Group A are only doing so to pursue "The Agenda". In short members of Group B are abhorred to interact with Group A unless it caters to the pursuit of "The Agenda". Denial of "The Agenda" by any member of Group B is considered a lie and is only used as proof of "The Agenda's" existence. This is because as mentioned before "The Agenda" can be subconscious, and if a member of Group B denies "The Agenda" it's only because that person is unaware of their pursuit of it. Person B of Group B can only become aware of "The Agenda" once they've reached the upper echelon of those who consciously pursue "The Agenda". Members of Group B who consider themselves allies of Group A are still viewed with suspicion because while they may reject "The Agenda", their rejection of "The Agenda" cannot be a full rejection because they are still members of Group B.
Because of this Group B and Group A cannot engage in any interaction without Group A asserting that Group B is incapable of understanding Group A. Often times, Group A will assert that Group B can understand them and are actively choosing not to. On occasion, certain members of Group A will manage to have interaction with Group B and will attempt to explain Group B to Group A. Group A will immediately reject Person A and deny their membership of Group A, citing them as traitors, self-haters and buying into "The Agenda" established by Group B. Because of this, Group A deems prolonged interaction with Group B as hazardous and dangerous. Group B is cited as having resources to win members of Group A to their side, because Group A lacks these resources, they are highly suggestible to the efforts of Group B to get them to switch sides and aide their pursuit of "The Agenda".
Group A's imagine of Group A is although numerous and capable are likewise ill equipped to combat Group B. This is because of issues created by Group B that Group A now associate with their identity. Group B is accused for forcing an identity on Group A that Group A (unaware of the forcing) accepts as their own. Therefore certain members of Group A go against the forced identity and encourage other members of Group A to do the same. Person A of Group A claims to be aware of "The Agenda" and makes it their mission to fight it. However, "The Agenda" can only be fought in conscious terms and against those who are conscious of it, those who aren't conscious of it will deny it's existence, thus making the fight against "The Agenda" more difficult. Group B can only become against "The Agenda" if their pursuit of personal gain is effected by a member of Group A that is close to them (ie, family). This begins the problem of this mentality. Group A & Group B are not self contained entities and therefore interaction between the groups are necessary and unavoidable (barring extreme circumstances).
In the case of Feminism, Group B are Men and "The Agenda" is "The Patriarchy". In the case of Afrocentric Extremism, Group B are White People and "The Agenda" is The Oppression Of African Americans. While sexism and racism are undeniably planted in our culture it should be noted that neither ideology are specific to a single group as Feminist and Afrocentric Extremist would have you believe. Contrary to popular belief, Women and African Americans are capable of being just as and if not more sexist and racist then the very people they condemn. The reason why the belief that Women can't be sexist and African Americans can't be racist is because they've managed to alter the definition of the words so the actual meaning is not applicable to them. Their definition of the words "sexist" and "racist" share the common factor of only begin applicable to those in power, since African Americans and Women aren't in power they are incapable of being racist and sexist.
This is a fallacious argument as sexism and racism are defined as;
Neither definition includes any power dynamic to be shifted one way or the other. Feminists and Afrocentric Extremist deny their ability to be sexist and racist because admitting it would require them to admit that they are just as bad as the people they condemn. Because Feminists & Afrocentric Extremists seek to claim the moral high ground in any debate they engage in, recognizing their own hypocrisy would be to admit defeat. Any anger or vitriol that Feminist and Afrocentric expel onto Men and White people are deemed as somehow justified due to the real or imagined slight. And while Feminists and Afrocentric Extremists are not subjected to the conditions that sparked their outrage, their mentality causes them to believe that they are still living in those conditions.
The reason why they hold these beliefs to perpetuate the Threat Narrative that the opposing force are seeking to return Feminists and Afrocentric Extremists to previous conditions. This is "The Agenda". Feminists fear returning to "the kitchen" and Afrocentric Extremists fear returning to chains. The only problem with this Threat Narrative is that the system has arranged it's self in a fashion where the accomplishment of those goals would result in mutual destruction of both parties. This is unfolding in several ways. With Feminists, the perpetuation of abortion, unwed mothers, and the preponderance of female centric support systems are leading to a weakened male society, which is ultimately a physically unproductive society. For Afrocentric Extremist, their failure to recognize anything within the Black community as detrimental to The Black community will ultimately be the cause of their downfall. The common complaint I hear is the injection of narcotics within the Black community by White People and the high incarceration rates for African American drug abusers and dealers. While these things do pose problems for African Americans, the main point is the use of narcotics. Whether the White Man put the drugs in the community or not is NOT the issue, the issue is The Black community doesn't have to take them.
Afrocentric Extremist claim poor economic support for the Black community leaving young Black males no choice BUT to sell drugs in order to support themselves. This is a tactic used to shift the blame off the Black community unto White People for their lack of empathy and sympathy for the condition of Black males. If the crime of selling drugs is acknowledge by Afrocentric Extremists, the next tactic would be to cite that while the young Black male who sold drugs is being sentenced to time in prison, the actually drug manufacturers are not, and once again cite the unfairness of the system as another way of White People pursuing "The Agenda". This is once again ignoring the primary issue, the young Black Male is not forced in any physical sense to sell drugs, and considering this young Black Male comes from a poor community, the chances of him finding the kind of legal representation available to drug manufacturers is tenuous at best.
Ultimately, the Afrocentric Extremists argument boils to down this "While the problem is a problem, White people created the problem and that's the real problem.". Which is to ignore the problem completely. So what is the real problem? The problem with Afrocentric Extremists is complex and simple at the same time. The complex part is that Afrocentric Extremists seek to create an egalitarian view of African Americans within society while at the same time NOT viewing themselves in a egalitarian fashion. Primary example and I hate to use this BUT it is unfortunately STILL a prevalent argument within The Black Community;
A few weeks ago my Mother and I were discussing The Tawana Brawley Case. If you're unfamiliar with it I'll give you the cliffnotes. Tawana Brawley is a 15 year old African American Girl who was allegedly raped and left for dead by two White assailants. Al Sharpton got involved in the case and it was heavily publicized. Assistant District Attorney of Dutchess County Steven Pagones was accused as being one of the rapists by Sharpton and two other men. When a lack of evidence to corroborate her story was produced, it was clear that she may have been lying. Pagones effectively sued Sharpton and Brawley.
My mother did not take issue with Brawley possibly making up the accusations, my mother took an issue with Pagones being able to sue Brawley, as she was a minor at the time. It's obviously that I took issue with the accusation. Being accused of being a racist is bad enough, adding rapist to the mix is even worse. The burden of proof is laid on the one who makes the accusation, Brawley's Team could not produce evidence therefore Pagones could not be convicted. However Afrocentric Extremist will refuse to accept that possibility that Brawley made up the allegation and instead decry that Pagone's success is due in large part to a conspiracy to cover up evidence that would point to him as being guilty. I'd like to point out that I am NOT saying he is innocent, nor am I saying that Brawley made up the allegations, I am simply pointing out the mind set Afrocentric Extremists have when dealing with these situations.
My mother also expressed that there are several African American men in prison due to false rape allegations from White women. That maybe true, however the problem isn't Black or White, the problem is the mishandling of False Rape Allegations and in Pagones case it was handled well. If that doesn't suit you I can reference another case. In Detroit our previous Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick was found guilty of several criminal activities, my mother was very vocal about her outrage over Kwame's actions and was very active in rallying against him. However at the same time my mother is also outraged that White people are able to get away with the same crimes that Kwame has committed.
Again, the outrage is in the wrong place. I am outraged about crime period, I am outraged that there are people who get away with committing crimes regardless of race. However Afrocentric Extremists make race the central issue with recognizing that their emphasis isn't on the crime. An egalitarian is outraged about the crime not about perpetrator. After all there are plenty Caucasian criminals who have gotten arrested for White Collar crimes, Bernie Madoff as well as several members of The Enron Scandal. Not to mention in recent events Toronto Mayor Rob Ford has been in the news for a crack smoking scandal. But an Afrocentric Extremist ignores the crime and only sees race. And in those cases an Afrocentric Extremist will only argue that Bernie Madoff and the other examples I've listed were only arrested simply because they stole money from other White people and had their victims been African American, they would not have been arrested. Once again all of this is done in service of "The Agenda".
Afrocentric Extremists view any criticism of African Americans as a result of racism, which causes them to overlook legitimate issues within The Black community. Also this blanket cry of racism, much Feminists' blanket cry of rape ruin and reduce the legitimate concerns of ACTUAL racist incidents and rapes. Afrocentric Extremists and Feminists by convincing members of their respective groups (African Americans & Women) that White People & Men are pursuing an "Agenda", they have effectively generated a threat narrative that perpetuates the problem rather than addresses it. Daughters are turned against Fathers and Brothers, Husbands against Wives and a sense of anger is generated when interactions were previously peaceful.
If every Man is consciously or subconsciously seeking to oppress women and a woman has brother and father, it logically stands that they are also seeking to oppress women. If every White person is consciously or subconsciously seeking to oppress African Americans and an African American has good friends who are White, it logically stands that they are also seeking to oppress African Americans. NO MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE CAN BE HAD IF BOTH SIDES VIEW THE OTHER AS HAVING NEFARIOUS PURPOSES! This is why we as a society as a whole WILL NOT AND CANNOT ADVANCE as a people. Rather than allowing people for speaking for themselves we decided we are able to speak for them and all we hear is what we want to hear rather than what they're actually saying. Everything we hear and see are through the lens of "The Agenda", and therefore CANNOT be what they're actually saying. Worst of all, we use THE WORST examples to point to the rest of the group and declare that all members of that group are exactly like the previously mentioned example in one way or another.
I am not denying the existence of racists, I am NOT denying the existence of sexists, I am simply saying that to accuse EVERYONE of being one or the other is NOTHING SHORT OF INSANITY! And until we get pass this ideology, we'll never get anywhere. Sorry for the long article.
No comments:
Post a Comment