ex cathedra: (The) Article

Thursday, January 22, 2015

(The) Article

Ms Coulter chides Ms Maddow on her use of the article "the."

MSNBC's Maddow now rewriting instant replays | Human Events:

What a difference an article makes. The vs nothing.

Blacks vs The Blacks.

Referring to Blacks --which in our hypercorrect times is now kinda edgy-- is borderline tolerable, but to refer to "the Blacks" is a racist crime. Like Ross Perot's "you people."

When we --the Whites-- say "the Blacks", this is a heinous Othering of our African-American fellow-citizens and brothers and sisters. Well, we are not their brothers and sisters. They only refer to one another as brutha or sista. Not us. Hmmm.

Anyway, using Blacks without the article implies that this group is included in Us and we are working out some family problems.

Yeah, right.

Using "the Blacks" implies that they are somehow outsiders, not us, Others, even aliens. A group with interests and agendas not only competitive but hostile and aggressive toward us. (So?) Next step? Well, objectification, gasp!, dehumanization, death camps. Blah blah blah. Like all the ones George Bush had set up for the gays.

Truth is, "the Blacks" do not see "Whites", or as the code-switching Obamacenity in the White House likes to say, "White folks" as anything other than Other. Had you not noticed? But we are not allowed to return the favor.

Except here at ExC, where Othering continues apace.

Whether the Blacks like it or not.

---

'via Blog this'

2 comments:

OreamnosAmericanus said...: Unsure of your points.

Universals (all Blacks think alike, without exception) are very rare in life. Generalizations (what is mostly true most of the time) are the meat of daily life. Exceptions to the rule are, well, exceptions to the rule. But the aggregate impact of groups is not all that hard to discover. Take the LGBT thing. You and I may dissent from the party line, but the vast majority follow predictable viewpoints and have predictable results on the environment. So generalizations about LGBTs, for example, are quite valid.

As for the blogger and food for thought. What is there to think about?; 3:16 PM, January 23, 2015
OreamnosAmericanus said...: By the way:
http://usmalesf.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-you-white-supremacist.html; 12:46 PM, January 24, 2015

Post a Comment

Toward Our Future

What the sons of Europa need is a new religion: one that is as tribal, portable and survivalist as Judaism, as masculine, terrestrial and tough as Islam and as intellectually and aesthetically creative as Christianity...with a dose of the unflinching realism of the ancestral ways of the Greeks and Romans, Germans and Celts and Slavs..And for the larger Indo-European frame, something of the Indian capacity to combine an ultimate and philosophical realization of The One with a robustly mytho-poetic religion on-the-ground. Oh, and some of the psychological acumen of Buddhism.

Liberalism's Basic Flaw

Liberals believe that the chief role of the State is to force everyone to be equal, (ie, take vengeance on the successful). So when they are confronted with any group that they deem less well off than themselves, they are morally disarmed, completely and utterly. Any group that can achieve Victim Status is on their way to power and the (White) liberal's only job is to give them what they want, no matter how much that damages him. And nothing may ever be expected, much less demanded, of them in return. It's a recipe for suicide: no other outcome is possible.