Wednesday, December 31, 2008

White People: The Standard Reference Of Measure Used By White Liberals

"Why does this guy talk about "White Liberals" so frequent?"
Because their antics are so easy to see through. That's why.

I have already documented how, during the 2008 US elections the standard question was "Will White folks vote for 'the Black guy' when he is speaking to 'their best interests' ". The question that was never asked by this same media is 'How is it Black people can vote to the tune of 96% for the party which already has nearly all of the elected seats over their communities and yet they continue to have fundamental grievances about their own districts......while coveting the areas where the candidates that they keep rejecting for ideological reasons? Can the Black voter overcome his ideological bigotry?". Functionally the cry of "We have been left behind and marginalized as THEY have moved away, taking the economy with them" is not a call for them to return. It is a call for THEIR MONEY to return while the prevailing ideological and economic policy of those with grievance become the prevailing system. Few people with such a perspective will see their state of "being on their own with the right to promote which ever system they choose" as a challenge to actually adopt a set of economic and social systems that can endure the test of being the system which sets the standard of living in the district.

Failing this they maintain their political focus OUTWARD rather than INWARD, keying upon more organic development to relieve the dependency upon their adversaries.

This challenge is not going to be put forth despite the fact that it is screaming to be asked.

The latest piece of media which triggered my latest barrage against the White Liberal is a piece from Link TV (a progressive channel - that is also one of my favorite channels by the way) called "All White In Barking". Barking seems to be a city in England just outside of London.

View Larger Map

The documentary focused upon the impact of significant immigration of foreign nationals into this small town outside of London. The key focus was upon the views of the White natives and their reaction to the increasing diversity that was happening within their small community.
Most of the White folks that were featured expressed trepidation over the displacement that they have suffered as they are bombarded with new cultures, new foods, that threat of crime (real or perceived) and, of course the threat of miscegenation.

As the camera focuses on the Whites who are resistant to the vast changes taking place the investigative style of the film maker paints them as "intolerance racists" - not the type that would go out and firebomb the houses of their African neighbors but the type that would rather them not be there. "Why can't they change their clothing to more Western styles?" - asks the one White man. He was the most plain spoken of the native residents. He told of all human's natural preference to live among "their own kind". Interestingly enough his daughter has a child by a Black Nigerian. He accepts his mixed grandson but hates the father. His reservations over his daughter's mixed relationships was because he doesn't believe that mixed relationships work. His hatred of the Nigerian came when he began to control and then beat his daughter. (If this is not "judge a man by the content of his character" - then what is?)

The story focused as well on the foods and how each group has their own preferences. The Whites questioned the types of animal parts that the Africans consumed as well as the smells that were generated when they did cook. One couple, in a bit of cultural exchange was seen eating dinner with their Nigerian neighbors. They were gracious and ate the food. Later on they said that they did not like the food and it was not as flavorful as they would have expected.

Let me be clear - I am not pointing to some grand malicious agenda as set forth by the White Liberals who seek to document the impact of rampant change within such communities. I actually like these type of documentaries as they expose what is really going on in the greater world. At the same time to paint the indigenous people and their culture as intolerant as they resist changes that tend to erode their own position in their own country is massively unfair. These people were not slaughtering their new neighbors as is the case in many of their home countries. (Note this includes Albanians and other European nations in conflict, not just Africans) .
The narrative of these type of documentaries seemingly always focuses on the incumbent White populations and the need for them to change their ways. Why is it that few of these documentaries make note of the nations which are net destinations for "emigrants" versus nations who's conditions provoke masses of their people to become "immigrants" into other nations?

From a pure numbers stand point - the people leaving their home countries for more opportunity are but a small fraction of the total population of their own people. In fixing the fundamental problems of their home nation more people will be exposed to the fleeting concept called "opportunity".

Some will ask of me "Why does a Black man argue on behalf of the 'White perspective'? ". The is not what I am doing. I am working to focus on the bigger picture - THE IMPORTANCE OF CULTURE in a given location. Clearly the destination nation has constructed an environment that is attractive to those who seek to come there to live. Why is it that we never see the argument put forth by various progressives to DISTILL the key attributes which the immigrants are appealed to in their new lands and then work to systematically implement these favorable attributes into the home country?

It appears to me that the greatest amount of intolerance to change and progress forward will be found in the home country. Many people would attempt to fight to retain their native culture........just like the WHITE FOLKS who are painted negatively for their resistance are doing.

Which position, IN FACT, is the more "Pro-Black Interest" position then?
Which, in turn, is the more "White Supremacist" position, regardless of that which is on the surface?
Do some people even believe that the African nations can CHANGE to afford the masses a better life?

I choose to focus on the more comprehensive challenge that is present.....that few want to talk about.

No comments: