There’s a powerful scene in “Bamboozled,” Spike Lee’s most difficult and underappreciated movie, in which the street-actor characters played by Savion Glover and Tommy Davidson, having been recruited into a scheme that involves staging a deliberately outrageous, racist pilot for a TV show, find themselves in the dressing room applying blackface. The camera lingers as the cork burns and the grease paint is prepared, and pulls back to show us the characters as they see themselves in the mirror, watching their natural brown hues turn to a shiny, oily black.
Blackface was both insult and injury. Used by white actors, it offered literal cover for the most offensive caricature; used by black actors, it represented a negation of oneself that was demanded to earn a living as a performer, and worse, the prerequisite of dehumanization in order to represent those portrayed as one’s own community, one’s own self. More than any law or repressive policy, it sent the message that black people were simply not human.
Over the weekend, I was shown a tube of grease paint of a make used back in the blackface heyday. A small, banal object, yet one invested with so much and so troubling a meaning. Well it turns out that just a couple of days earlier, the British daily The Independent ran this front-page image in honor of its “Africa issue” with half of the day’s revenues to help fight AIDS on the continent. The depiction is of Kate Moss, the decidedly non-black British fashion model and alleged onetime cocaine/heroin fiend, not only blackened but Blackened — bigger lips, thicker brows, fleshier cheeks. “NOT A FASHION STATEMENT,” the headline blares, while an inset on the sidebar promises a poster of the image inside.
Here’s a British term: BOLLOCKS! That’s also the view of Sunny from Asians in Media and Pickled Politics, our sister-from-another-mother site from across the pond, who puts it succinctly:
Could they not find a black model to represent Africa?
A particularly typical example of liberal guilt “we-feel-sorry-for-you” racism. You see they would have liked to to put a black model on the front but she just would not have sold as many copies. So they used a druggie.
It would have been better for the Indy to not even bother.
Hannah Pool in The Guardian has more:
You can just imagine the meeting. “Let’s do an Africa issue,” says Well Meaning Executive Number 1. “Great, who shall we get on the cover? Iman? Naomi?” asks WME 2. “Nah … too obvious. I know, how about Kate Moss? Let’s make her look African!” Cue much back-slapping at their own cleverness, followed by, perhaps, a lunch of jollof rice and curried goat to seal the deal. (…)
What exactly is this picture of Moss-as-African-woman supposed to portray? I suppose it is meant to be subversive, but what does it say about race today when a quality newspaper decides that its readers will only relate to Africa through a blacked-up white model rather than a real-life black woman? What does it say about the fight against HIV/Aids if that is the only way to make us care? And, as a black woman (born that way), what does this trick say about me?
Pool describes several other instances of “blacking up” in British entertainment and media today, noting that there’s something of a trend in this direction going on. It seems that the backlash against “political correctness” is such, in the UK at least, that any outrage is acceptable or even desirable, as if basic anti-racism were some kind of tendentious, dogmatic ideology:
Why has it become OK for people to black up? “People feel free to play with this stuff because they are operating in an environment where the criticism of being politically correct allows you to do what you want,” says academic Paul Gilroy. “The threat of being labelled politically correct creates an environment where we are scared to voice our objections.” Given the context, the Kate Moss picture is “empty nihilism,” he says.
Though we’ve long had our own backlash against “PC” here in the United States, the prospect of a prominent white actor or model appearing in actual or virtual blackface is, I’d venture to say, more remote. But other communities — whether ethnic, religious, regional — that have not achieved a certain degree of recognition and respect in the US should see this as a cautionary tale. The urge to appropriate, marginalize, and trivialize, with an amazing level of ignorance and insouciance, is apparently built into the workings of our consumer society. Ah, them crazy whitefolks, what will they come up with next?
hm. i find it tasteless as well, and i don’t consider myself PC in the least on racial questions. there are many points of disagreemant between you (siddartha) & i on how we get to the same end point, but that’s another thread.
razib_the_atheist,
“there are many points of disagreemant between you (siddartha) & i “
That should be “and me”
I think this was the point they were trying to make.
I’m not sure blackface has a universl connotation of racism, it may be just an american thing, but I could be wrong. As much as I love to call out bleeding hearts on racism, I think they were just trying to show solidarity. Plus, many–and more than a few Mutineers–have bemoaned “white standards of beauty,” so having a white person look more black may very well serve to subvert this standard.
I have to agree with Manju on this [did I just say that? ;)]. I think that the intention of the picture was subversive – even provocative – in order to draw the readers attention to the issue in a new way.
Still, given the issues you discuss above, I don’t know if this was done in the best taste.
Manju, the point is that if they wanted to show that we all have aids, they could have shown a group of people on the front page, rather than just Kate Moss, and instead of having a real black person on there, they decided to “blackface” her. And it’s offensive no matter what country you’re in because that’s not a real skin colour, it’s merely a literal depiction of “black” people.
i didn’t mean it literally, but as a way of saying “we are all african” or “we are all the same.” one and all.
I’m not sure blackface has a universl connotation of racism, it may be just an american thing, but I could be wrong. As much as I love to call out bleeding hearts on racism, I think they were just trying to show solidarity. Plus, many–and more than a few Mutineers–have bemoaned “white standards of beauty,” so having a white person look more black may very well serve to subvert this standard.
universal? well, check out black peter.
yep, their hearts were in the right place.
and yep, if white people talk about race no matter what they say there is a way to “take offense.” (e.g., put a black african woman on the cover and some might say, “well, are they saying that HIV is a ‘black disease’? why not universalize it.”
that is why i say that though i find it tasteless and racist, how i get to that position isn’t quite the same as others would say it was tasteless and racist.
You know, it is one thing if the cover is meant to be art, meant to be provocative, meant to be subversive or simply the vision of, well, an artist. But I don’t think that is what is going on here? Is it? It’s kinda weird. It’s really weird, actually. What was the point?
Plus, Ms Moss is responsible, more than any other woman, for popularizing the skinny jean. I forgive her nothing.
hmm. “not a fashion statement.” yet it says on their website that this special issue was guest-designed by giorgio armani. couldn’t find an explanation for their rationale for the cover, its symbolism etc. evidently they thought it was self-explanatory, but i agree with md, what is the point of that statement and how does it correlate to moss and digitally altering her to try and look more african? is there some sort of editor’s note in the issue itself explaining the reasoning behind the design?
Tru Dat. It’s a catch-22. Reminds me of the cosby show. when it first came out many bemoaned it as portraying blacks acting white in order to make them more palpable to americans. But of course, if you show a black acting black, then you’re steroetyping. there’s no way out.
but i see blackface goes beyond the US. next year, they should just paint naiomi white.
Wow I don’t know what to say. Speechless. What is the article about? There are so many people other than the obvious faces of AIDS in Africa that are suitable for the cover. If they wanted glam and Africa Waris Dirie would have been more appropriate!!
No, Manju, there is no way out. My heart bleeds for you.
Siddhartha, I know it’s safer to hide behind vagueness, but if you got something to say…spit it out.
There are sooooo many more images that could have been used for an “Africa Issue.” This extends even beyond choosing a black super model. Here’s an idea, why couldn’t they show the people they are trying to help by donating the day’s proceeds? Or how about you choose a picture that celebrates the colors and culture of the continent in order to show how AIDS is affecting that culture? At the very least, choose someone who, unlike Kate Moss, is actually attractive!!!!
Oh, I’ve already said what I have to say. If you don’t get it, you don’t get it.
I don’t see tasteless or racist, I see provocative art. The Guardian article (that is outraged by the potrait) asks rhetorically
what does it say about race today when a quality newspaper decides that its readers will only relate to Africa through a blacked-up white model rather than a real-life black woman?
Yes, what does it say? It says that African lives aren’t worth as much as European lives to Europeans. It says the same thing as all those interviews with white model and Tsunami survivor Petra Nemcova say. Tragedies don’t matter unless a pretty white woman is involved (see Natalee Holloway). It’s a good cover — it makes you think, intentionally or not.
It’s a good cover — it makes you think, intentionally or not.
sum thoughtz are unacceptable.
This has become a popular phrase. In this paradigm, there is no argument, no reasonable disagreement. Opponents simply “just don’t get it.” End of story. I first noticed it in regards to issues of sexual harrasment, but now I see my fellow right-wingers using it to describe opponents of the war on terror.
Ok, I heard somewhere else that they supposedly changed Kate Moss’ features too look more black and I must really not know what she looks like ’cause all I see is Kate Moss dunked in a bucket of paint. Lack of imagination perhaps?
Manju, I’m not buying the “we are the world” theory. [sarcastic wit] If they wanted that they could have gotten a horde of black models to put on the cover and made them wear “native dress” which would regressively immodest and attract more readers. [/sarcastic wit] Does that mean that this particular photo shoot was concocted in willful rascism? Doubtful. It was concocted in willful arrogance and that is just as deplorable.
I often blog about Indian films. I read a horde of filmi (and sociopolitical) blogs every day. Part of the reason I do that is because IÂ’d be full of crap if I thought I could write about cultural elements that IÂ’ve only peripherally embraced without (in a sense) inviting with those whose culture IÂ’m supposedly embracing to be a very visible part of that experience.
What else does that tell us about Georgio Armani and the whole Independent crew? They’re all for “helping” so long as they (non-Africans) can remain the visible and dominant force in the work being done.
Razib, if Armani called up a couple of the glamorous African models he has access to as a world-class designer and asked if he thought he should paint Kate Moss black or get an African model and they were like, “OMG! Painting Kate Moss black would totally represent Africa!” then he would be in the clear AND have an alibi wouldn’t he?
The subtitle is “The Africa Issue”. It’s not racist to say that AIDS has more than decimated the population there. It’s not racist to say that the population in Africa has dark skin. It’s striking to me that in spite of the other changes they made her hair is untouched. It shows they were well aware of the negative connotations of changing her skin color and didn’t want to push the envelope. [eg “bad/Afro” hair]- So much for subverting the standard of beauty.
ThatÂ’s stretching it donÂ’t you think? Hopefully enmasse we are not as hypocritical as that. If the people behind this cover really subscribed to the view that ‘we are all Africans’; Why does the African that represents all of us have to look like Kate?
This has become a popular phrase. In this paradigm, there is no argument, no reasonable disagreement. Opponents simply “just don’t get it.” End of story. I first noticed it in regards to issues of sexual harrasment, but now I see my fellow right-wingers using it to describe opponents of the war on terror.
you want to analyze. some people aren’t feeling it. end of story. and yeah, i think your analogy is right, speaking as someone who “conservative” on race and “liberal” on the war.
then he would be in the clear AND have an alibi wouldnÂ’t he?
he’s rich. rich people aren’t racist in public explicitly cuz it costs them money & time. when they are racist it is usually a “slip,” or cuz they are being patronizing, blah, blah, blah. people know the broad outlines of what to say and not to say about race. stuff like this happens because they are “not racist” by following a rule book, not by reflecting on the role of race in society.
The irony of that statement (with the benefit of bolding) speaks for itself.
What the cosby show did, was show that all black people in real life do not “act black” as you so kindly put it. That they span the gamut of human existence and experience, in addition to sharing commonality at being an ethnic community, and this ethnic community is not a natural community rather a forged one, in that each member has the collective historical experience of slavery, sanctioned discrimination, etc.. (Gospel, Jazz, Blues, Tap dancing, Hip Hop/Rap, breakdancing, etc. all have that historical collective as their foundation, and many of these elements were highlighted in the Cosby Show) It showed that Theo could want to be a rapper (something traditionally “black”) and still get nervous about asking a girl to a prom (something traditionally “white”)
“The irony of that statement (with the benefit of bolding) speaks for itself.”
the statement isn’t an irony, it is a recitation of the mixed response to the cosby show, and one of cosby’s stated reasons for starting thee how.
“What the cosby show did, was show that all black people in real life do not “act black” as you so kindly put it. That they span the gamut of human existence and experience, in addition to sharing commonality at being an ethnic community, and this ethnic community is not a natural community rather a forged one, in that each member has the collective historical experience of slavery, sanctioned discrimination, etc.. (Gospel, Jazz, Blues, Tap dancing, Hip Hop/Rap, breakdancing, etc. all have that historical collective as their foundation, and many of these elements were highlighted in the Cosby Show) It showed that Theo could want to be a rapper (something traditionally “black”) and still get nervous about asking a girl to a prom (something traditionally “white”)”
thanks for being the resident “blackologist.”
just to be precise HMF, i happen to agree with your whole paragraph. but so what? i can still imply that you have some bizarro-ass motivation.
I don’t think they were trying to represent ‘Africa’ on the cover. Yes, the objective was to highlight the plight of AIDS sufferers in Africa, but, they were trying to reach a British audience with this picture to get them involved. Kind of like a call to the Brits to start caring about the AIDS epidemic in Africa. In that sense they probably took someone that represents an average (save the supermodel looks, body, money, etc) Brit and ‘black-face’ her to show that we are all Africans. Yes, there are African-Brits (Is that the correct PC term?) but, they are not the average joe on the street. In a weird way of looking at this, it is kind of like soccer players exchanging jerseys after a match with their opponents. What better way to exchange jerseys here than to make an average Brit appear to be African.
Could they have placed an African model on the cover and achieved the same, maybe even better, results? Well, for one, we wouldn’t really be talking about this now would we? In a subversive kind of way they got people talking. Now hopefully people get beyond the controversy of the cover and actually see that the intentions were good, albiet a little mis-guided.
exactly. and some find this notion offensive, ie “acting white” not being authentically black. Uncle tom, brown sahib, etc. you take offensive to me saying “blacks acting black” as if i believe there is a black way to behave. there isn’t, i didn’t put “black” in quotes b/c i thought it was self evident.
but there’s no way out.
This is why comedy is so popular, it’s the only place an honest discussion of race can take place.
I saw another version of this same idea/campaign in another magazine. Two famous actors,I believe both white, splashed with brown paint so it covered their faces half way, and the splash perhaps looked vaguely like Africa? And it was again this idea of “we are all africa, and here is the unbelievably clever way we are going to show it.”
I even kind of get a little confused by the “when one of us has aids, we all have aids” ads, which is the same idea. It’s like ..well, no, that’s not true at all.
I’m hyper aware, today, of the important of empahsizing our interconnectedness with each other. But saying–“this person is incredibly important t me, this person is like my family, this person deserves the same regard and respect as the closest people in my life”–is not the same as saying this “person IS ME.” the first is subtle and compassionate, the second is jarring and disrespectful. Unfortunately the second is a lot easier to photograph.
well, no, that’s not true at all.
grrrl, wut duz “truth” have to do with anything? power is truth!
After earlier briefly mentioning The Independent cover photo in the Borat thread (#20) – it gets its own.
I don’t think it was the intention of The Independent to come across as racist, although that was the effect, to me anyway. But it seems to be unintentional, simply because the Wesrern press is so insular, it cannot fathom how such a picture will anger readers.
On Chappelle Show’s, Paul Mooney was reviewing films, and commenting on the idiocy of Hollywood when it comes to casting minorities, said about The Last Samurai, “Tom Cruise is The Last Samurai? Then here’s my next film. The Last Nigger in America, starring Tom Hanks.”
“the statement isn’t an irony, it is a recitation of the mixed response to the cosby show, and one of cosby’s stated reasons for starting thee how.”
I wasn’t referring to the criticism, I was referring to the “black acting black” part., I guess the light in the room refracted off a glass cup striking your monitors pixels in the exact location where this statement was “The irony of that statement (with the benefit of bolding) speaks for itself.” Happens all the time.
“thanks for being the resident “blackologist.””
Why can’t I have a female arch-enemy here? At least, that way people could assume we have the hots for each other
“Why can’t I have a female arch-enemy here? At least, that way people could assume we have the hots for each other”
why are you assuming that this forum is so heternormative? if your assumption reflects the tenor of these boards than that is a reflection of the moderators i suppose and their choice of posting material.
“exactly. and some find this notion offensive, ie “acting white” not being authentically black.”
Why the binary classification? And the major criticism levied has to do with the Cosby show’s lack of discussion about race, and race issues. Not that they aren’t “black” enough. When you take a family show for the most part deals with the problems of parenting, adolescence, usually ending on a positive note, with parents imparting positive values, etc.. and go on to state the show isn’t “black” enough, there is inherent racial bias in said context.
Why the binary classification?
white racists started it and black identitarians and white sensitarians help perpetuate it.
i.e., the rule of hypodescent applies to people of african ancestry. tiger woods, who is 1/4 black african ancestrally is a ‘black golfer.’ dean cain, who is 1/4 japanese ancestrally is not a ‘japanese actor’ (keanu reeves chinese ancestry does not make him a ‘chinese actor’).
“Could they have placed an African model on the cover and achieved the same, maybe even better, results? Well, for one, we wouldn’t really be talking about this now would we? In a subversive kind of way they got people talking. Now hopefully people get beyond the controversy of the cover and actually see that the intentions were good, albiet a little mis-guided.”
i think maybe that was the point, not any conscious racism (although unconscious maybe, maybe not). moss attracts attention both from detractors (due to her drug scandal) and worshippers in the fashion world/public who think she is the be all and end all of models. the photo was shot, at armani’s request – i guess he picked moss as well, by nick knight (who apparently features work by moss at his own studio), a famous fashion photographer apparently known for this “blackened” skin technique. the whole issue benefits bono’s Project Red, and i’m not sure how many would accuse bono of being a racist. in the end it just comes across like a lot of fashion photography and fashion shows – pretentious masquerading as something really meaningful. it’s just a celebrity-insiders project that in its own typically detached celebrity way will end up raising money for a good cause in the end.
The Fresh Prince of Bel Air did deal with these issues and people did appreciate it. Like when the boys got arrested for driving the father’s Mercedez because of the assumption that they had stolen it.
From Wiki:
“Woods’s father, Earl Woods, was a Vietnam War veteran and a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel, of mixed African American (50 percent), Chinese (25 percent) and Native American (25 percent) ancestry.”
With all your grandstanding about factual errors, you seem to make your fair share. Perhaps you might consider reducing your post rate to 400 posts/min? And my question pertained to the term “acting white” and “acting black” , nothing to do with hereditary traits, in the sense, that if someone acts too “white” they are not “black” enough.
“why are you assuming that this forum is so heternormative”
Gee, I don’t know.
“This makes Woods himself one-quarter Chinese, one-quarter Thai, one-quarter African, one-eighth Native American, and one-eighth Dutch.[4] “
Shit my bad, they were talking about his father, you got it.
HMF:
Coz was criticized (not by me) for not being black enough. It’s an arguemnt that goes beyond coz. “Authentic” black popular culture, in this world view, is identified with low culture. Coz was seen as more integrationist and pandering to whites, much like malcom X criticized MLK. Contrast the way Heathcliff spoke to the way say richard pryor does and you catch their drift. As I said, it goes way beyond coz, look at what newark major cory booker had to put up with. The former major, sharpe james, portrayed himself as authentically black…corruption and all.
So if you’re coz or booker and want to placate your critics all you have to do is act “black”. (i put it in quotes this time so you don’t interpret this as me saying there is a black way to behave). But guess what, you still have a problem, now your perpetuating negative steroetypes of blacks.
So that’s my point. There’s no way out.
i am fine with people cathing me in errors. happens all the time. the world is better for it 🙂
they should have used stills from this bollywood film instead: http://youtube.com/watch?v=nhzGesSusL8
Ah, them crazy whitefolks, what will they come up with next?
That’s what I always think when I see this kinda stuff. For some reason I was also reminded of when Time magazine’s artist darkened O.J. Simpson’s face on the mag. cover…apparently to make him look more sinister?
“Coz was criticized (not by me) for not being black enough. It’s an arguemnt that goes beyond coz. “Authentic” black popular culture, in this world view, is identified with low culture.”
Whoa whoa, I’m talking about the sociological function of a TV show, not a person. Bill Cosby and his personal views are another matter. Richard Pryor is a pure stand up comedian, Cosby started out this way, but branched into more mainstream forms of entertainment, ie TV. My point is, if we take the frame of reference of the TV show – the characters showed that being black isn’t necessaraily being “black” – and that doesn’t mean they’re being “white” , or “more white”
Cosby as a person however, I can see being criticized as pandering, vis a vis the statements he makes in the media, etc.
Malcolm’s criticism of MLK had to do with non-violence’s ineffectiveness in the US context, this is especially true towards the later years of his life, post Mecca. And the context is entirely different, there the primary concern was basic civil rights, the right to work, to attend school, etc…
What about the black UK angle? My understanding is that the great majority of blacks in the UK are from the Carribean, or has African immigration reduced their percentage? SES-wise, I believe the Afro-Carribeans are doing fairly well. Would Jai or other UK mutineers shed some light on the perceptions of black Britishers by the white British public?
HMF: I always thought Malcolm X was less likely to advocate violence and more, well, mellow, after visiting Mecca and seeing different races interacting as one cohesive group of Muslims? That’s how I remember reading the autobiography anyway….but it was 20 odd years ago when I read the book. Did I remember it so incorrectly all these years?
employment patterns by race. education by race. A2. Who is most affected by HIV/AIDS in the UK?:
Ethnicity:
In 2005, 7,208 reported HIV diagnoses were made in the UK. Among the 5,848 people whose ethnicity is known, 39% were white, 51% black-African, 3% black-Caribbean and 7% of other or mixed race.6
HIV infection in black Caribbeans in the United Kingdom:
“The rate of AIDS among black Caribbeans in the United Kingdom was known to be three times higher than in the majority white population nearly 10 years ago.2 The potential for heterosexual spread of HIV within BritainÂ’s black Caribbean community is well recognised because of the high risk of gonorrhoea and chlamydia in people from black Caribbean backgrounds3–7 and the facilitating effect of bacterial sexually transmitted infections on HIV transmission.8 It is, however, the absence of an HIV epidemic that has been remarked upon because of the paradox whereby black Caribbeans have the highest rates of bacterial sexually transmitted infections but black Africans in the United Kingdom bear the highest burden of HIV of any ethnic group with much lower rates of other sexually transmitted infections.9 The apparent lack of spread of HIV to black Caribbeans has been attributed to assortative (like with like) sexual mixing within ethnic groups.9
The extensive HIV epidemic among BritainÂ’s black African communities distracts attention from HIV in black Caribbeans. New HIV diagnoses in black Africans now exceed those in white people,10 although black Africans comprise only 0.8% of the population.11 By contrast, there were reassuringly few new HIV diagnoses in black Caribbeans in 2002 (table 1Go). We need to look at rates of infection, however, to put things in perspective. The rate of newly diagnosed HIV infections is 12 times higher in black Caribbeans than in the white population (table 1Go). This is about the same as the ethnic difference in gonorrhoea rates6 that has generated widespread alarm.1″
i was using coz as shorthand for the cosby show.
part of the NOI appeal was a rejection of white culture and an attempt to create a seperate black society, based not on the white mans values.
That’s my point too.
Kate Moss was a drug addict. Big deal. It’s not the moral flaw people are making it out to be.
As for the poster, it’s not as original as one might think. It simply fuses the concepts from two precursor campaigns.
One is Benetton’s Colors magazine, which made of tame racial “transgressions” a visual style that was firmly married to the flogging of over-priced polo shirts. It screamed “our society is hypocritical” while appealing to the only-mildly subversive tendencies of a segment of the middle-classes who in any case soon jettisoned Benetton for Ralph Lauren and, as that became passé, Lacoste.
The other is Gwyneth Paltrow’s recent and widely pilloried poster that showed her (without blackface- in fact with only a synechdochic stripe of color on her cheek) making the declaration, in all her peroxide glory, “I am African.” Sure you are, my sweet, sure you are.
Two fundamental cankers rot this whole trend. One is that Africa is faddish just at this moment, a subject that the New York Times addressed recently, from the Namibia-birthing Angelina Jolie (shut the whole nation down), to the ego-tripping U2 frontman, to the “genocide is uncool!” brigades of newly-hatched Darfur activists. Africa today, tomorrow Japanese animation or finger-transplants, the day after whatever catches the fancy of marketers and “consumer” focus-groups.
The other canker is that tying good causes to the capitalist project is as inevitable (in the current set-up) as it is doomed. That temptation to try to make some dough while transforming the world for better is hard to resist.
“I am African” or “I am Indian” or “I am a one-legged Chinese rice-farmer with explosive flatulence” means nothing, unless you really are those things. It’s a false “I am,” and all it really means is “I thank my lucky stars I’m not.”
Appropriation is only the tip of this iceberg.
The bulk of it, the unspeakable larger portion, is human greed and callousness, the willingness to dance on the misery of others, as part of the wide-range of entertainment options available. Where some good is actually done, it often has more to do with the do-gooder’s ego than anything else. For a nuanced (and controversial) take on this, see Zizek’s article on Bill Gates. Gates and Soros are simply (larger and more palatable) extensions of what waifish Kate’s up to here.
We need a new way of thinking about what we owe each others. We can’t assume that the market will create the necessary ethics, and neither can we assume that ethics ith a thurbub of London.
I recently talked to a billionaire venture capitalist genetics guy. He part-owns and runs a big drugs farm. “We can’t think about Africa,” he said to me, “no one can. The only drugs we can spend time and money developing are the ones that will pay for themselves. Unfortunately, Africans can’t make it worth my while to pump a few hundred million into a new therapy. My stock-holders would never go for it. That’s capitalism for you. And there isn’t a damn thing we can do about it.”
He was sorry for it, and so was I. The truth is that there’s no less a question mark hanging over my head than over his.
Okay thanks razib. UK blacks are obviously facing difficulties, so i was misinformed. damn.
“part of the NOI appeal was a rejection of white culture and an attempt to create a seperate black society, based not on the white mans values.”
And part of Malcolm’s transformation was rejection of and by the NOI, and forming the more global OAAU.
” I always thought Malcolm X was less likely to advocate violence and more, well, mellow, after visiting Mecca and seeing different races interacting as one cohesive group of Muslims?”
He never advocated violence. He advocated self defense. But after his first trip abroad, including the Hajj, he did reject many of the tenets purported to him by Elijah Muhammed, namely the all whites are devils, etc… But he still believed in defending oneself when pushed into a corner.