Saturday 19 April 2008

The hoary old stereotype sold to us as "New"

It's the same image we see over and over again in magazines, in TV adverts and in so many different situations, the mixed race couple which is always, always, always a black male and a white female (BM/WF), but almost never the other way round. I wonder why.

Frequently they will go out of their way to pick the blackest man they can find, and pair him with the blondest woman, so they are clearly making a statement, but it is the same one they have been making for almost two generations

Incredibly they still attempt to portray it as somehow, fashionable, trendy and new. NEW? Give me a break! The BM/WF combo is becoming almost the oldest racial stereotype in the book, it has been around for decades, and is probably older than a lot of the people reading this blog (it is older than the one writing it). Lets not forget that it was Sidney Pottier who was taken home for dinner in 1967, not Dorothy Dandridge, and that was deliberate.

Yet still the young and impressionable fall for it. Young girls are not genetically more stupid and easily led than young boys, but it is they who tend to end up as women living in poverty as single mothers raising a disproportionately high number of mixed race children, if they have not suffered an even worse fate.

I am sure anyone living in Britain has seen the series of adverts encouraging people to become teachers, including the one with the white girl holding hands with a black boy, with the commentary which says something to the effect that children are free thinking beings who don't think the way they are supposed to think. What a joke, what a lie! by snogging a black man the poor deluded little twit is doing exactly what her teachers, the TV and the magazines she reads have been telling her what to do and what to think.

The wannabe opinion formers have been trying to sell this hoary old combo as modern and cutting edge for over 40 years now. When they first started Enoch Powell was still thought of as a potential future Prime minister, TV came in two channels, both black and white, Ronnie and Reggie ran the East End and Vesta beef curry was considered exotic and sophisticated, surely there comes a point when something ceases to be innovative and becomes a failed and discredited dogma.

However, this dogma only preaches a single orthodoxy, and in all those years, the number of instances where the unending bombardment of images of interracial sex appearing in the media have included a white man and a black woman have been negligible. In fact I suspect that most of us would be hard pressed to think of a handful, other than those involving poor old Boris Becker

So why is this? Why does it only go one way?, if interracial sex is a good thing, why is it so seldom promoted between black women and white men, and why is that on those rare occasions where an ad agency generated mixed race couples is made up of a white man and a black woman they are invariably selling organic tomatoes or lounge furniture, never anything romantic, or, perish the thought, erotic.

Why is that, and what is the difference?

After some consideration I have come to the conclusion that there are at least two main reasons why the cheerleaders for interracial coupling are so much fonder of the black man/white woman combo than they are of the virtual taboo of depicting interaction between black women and white men.

Firstly, the PC brigade view BM/WF images as “provocative”, they know that pictures of white women with black men, piss off quite a number of white men, which, from the perspective of the PC marketeers is just fine, in fact they probably view pissing off white men to be a bonus. However, by the same token, pictures of black women with white men really piss off black men, (I mean REALLY) and no guardian of the multicoloured flame would ever intentionally piss off a black person.

More importantly, any public acknowledgement that blacks or Asian men might object to “their” women mixing with other races, would not support the cause of diversity, so why risk it?.

Objections from white men can be easily dismissed as “more evil white racism”, and even sighted as a reason why race mixing should be encouraged. Objections from blacks or Asians, however, could not be dismissed in the same manner, without admitting that, what they call racism, exists in all communities, not just amongst those nasty whites.

The cowardice of our enemies is exposed by the fact that they seek to provoke only safe white discomfort, but not the more dangerous kind. The Single Muslim dating site used to be promoted by an advert featuring a grinning Asian man and a smug looking white woman in a hijab. I imagine the ad agency trendsetter who came up with that idea considered it to be brave and provocative, however, it was not that brave.

Imagine the howls of fury they would have provoked from amongst the ranks of the bearded and perpetually offended had the advert featured an Asian woman and a white male convert to Islam?. Now that would be brave and provocative, it would also be educational.

Again, as in so much else, what is presented as “diversity” is no such thing, it is a new set of rules, and those rules only go one way. A mixed race society is supposed to be the panacea for the alleged evils of racism, but whenever a torch is shone too brightly on the xenophobia and racism within the non-white community, it is invariably far more violent, bigoted and visceral than that exhibited by the whites. As the multicultural marketeers have not yet resolved that dilemma, they choose not shine their torches on it or provoke unwanted displays of real life diversity.

A second reason behind the favoured race and gender stereotypes is, I believe, a darker one, with its roots in a sexism and racism, the full implications of which those promoting it may not even fully understand, or at least they would deny it if confronted with it. However, at its heart it symbolises invasion.

Over the centuries, invading armies have habitually sought to possess, ravage and despoil the enemy's womenfolk, as a means of humiliating and breaking an adversary or celebrating a victory over him. This may sound far fetched, but just look around at the various conflicts which are happening at the moment, such as in Sudan, Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo, in all of these horrors the invading armies invariably target the indigenous tribe's womenfolk. Rape has become a weapon of war, however, it is not just the act of rape which makes it such and effective and popular weapon, it is the psychology behind it which is so devastating.

I am not suggesting that all depictions of interracial sex is meant to symbolise rape, as such, the symbolism is more subtle than that. However, it amounts to something very similar to the manner in which armies use the subjugation of their enemies' woman as a means of achieving their war aims, and its motives are not dissimilar.

Although the balance of power may be more ambivalent in the Albion household, in general the act of sex between a man and a woman involves the submission of the female to the dominant male, which is why some feminists claim that, when it occurs in isolation from the affection and tenderness, which makes it an act of love, it becomes an expression of power, in which, in the symbolism at least, the man is the most powerful.

This, I think, is why the advocates of racial mixing are far less comfortable with the image a white male and a black woman, than they are with the reverse. What they are presenting is dominant blackness and submissive whiteness, and exploiting not only racial stereotypes but also gender in a manner which, as a woman, I actually find quite offensive.

However, the subliminal message is an offensive one, and it is meant to be. Why else are they so reluctant to present mixed race couples as anything other than a black male and a white female if they do not view it in terms of invasion and possession, which, as we know, they only approve of when it is blacks doing it to whites.

Make no mistake the promotion of interacial sex is an act of aggression, and is used as such by our media in the ongoing propaganda war against the integrity of our nation and our future as a race.


bernard said...

As usual you have your own inimitable style, Sarah. It's good 'copy' though, as they say in the trade.

By way of reference however, it would have been apposite to have mentioned that, in the real world, Black & White marriages and partnerships are notoriously unstable. The divorce rate is double that of conventional unions.
(Divorce among professional black boxers/white women, is almost 100%)
Also, the children of mixed marriages generally do poorly at school, and are frequently picked on by both 'sides' in the playground.

Jeff ( Va. Rebel ) said...

Very excellently worded post . You sure got a handle on that .
Aggression , dominance , extinction .
The white man isn't allowed to cry out against the dilution and destruction of his race .

As you state , look at the provoking and leading adverts and programs on TV . How social life is catered and encouraged to pursue interracial relations . There is indeed a program .

I remember the Sidney Pottier flic ( and no , I didn't see it when it first released ! ) ... that certainly pales in comparison to what is flooding entertainment industries today . Sodom and Gommorah times a 1000 .

The era I was raised in , not long ago and delightful to the senses , a mixed couple was shunned in open society . They were shamed . It still happened but certainly not to the extent of today . Like you said , it seems almost a goal for them to attain ... what has happened to the mindset of our women , particularly our youth ?

What has happened to our men , and our outrage ? What has become of our standards ? Why have we allowed conditions to get this putrid ? Why have we allowed the media manipulators to impose such an agenda , an agenda obvious to all who will look .

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Thanks for that alanorei, although it is a troubling prospect, it is the way things will go if we don't do something to stop it..

Once again, blogger is screwing up links, so I am re-posting the two in your message as Tiny URLs which some readers may find easier to access
Paul Broca's study
The BBC report

alanorei said...

Re: reposted links, many thanks, Sarah

I forgot to insert them with HTML tags. Will do so as and when I post any more.

Anonymous said...

Well written put my vague thoughts and feelings on the subject into words and now I can hope to argue the point later in class or at the pub. Thanks again and keep writing!

rerevisionist said...

I point out that American troops in Vietnam - and I've no doubt elsewhere - went on expeditions to rape Vietnamese women. Both black and white. This of course was and is suppressed by the shitawful scum running the BBC. Something similar happened in eastern Europe when Stalin [Jack Strawinski's favourite, remember] sent his hordes west near the end of WW2. Also Sudanese black troops did this in italy. Apparently the Japanese did this in China; however I am now so suspicious of WW2 atrocity stories that I have to wonder.

As regards the general thrust of your piece, Sarah, it sounds right to me. I can e.g. recall an example from that hospital thing which my ex used to watch - I couldn't stand it. Casualty. I've just remembered that some MP received flak for saying that mixed race people in liverpool were the children of white prostitutes there. True? False? Who knows - but the usual hacks were out screeching.

BTW I wonder if the instablity of mulattos is true? If so we're worrying unnecessarily, in part at least.

MrsJ said...

Interesting comment from alorenai - my cousin married a black man (they're now divorced) and all her three children have genetic eye problems, and another mixed race couple I know have a severely disabled son.

It's only two cases, but you have to wonder if all this talk of "hybrid vigour" is complete BS.

alanorei said...

Thanks, Mrs J

On another blog, I've encountered a black American female who appears to condone race-mixing.

In responding to her comments, I've asked her to identify one major nation in the history of the world that came about through race-mixing.

She never replied.

From a New Testament perspective, it's interesting that the final antichrist of Revelation 13 is described as a man of mixed race (brown, black, white, like a leopard).

To me, that's more than enough to warn against race-mixing.

Revisionist said...

A study from the USA which unfortunately doesn't separate out genes - it seems to include e.g. guns and early sex.

NB I have quite a massive library and looked through my 'race' section, including a book on 'Mixed Race Children' - and apart from inbreeding in Pakistanis and Jews, the whole subject seems to be taboo. I googled 'genetic counselling NHS' and there's some material, but not much that IU could find without a lot of burrowing.

Unknown said...

When I used to waste time arguing with black supremacist afrocentrists, they would not infrequently resort to trying to unnerve me (as a white male) by going on about white women sleeping with black men. It is definitely a power symbol, to black supremacist eyes. However I was able to mention the fact that the only mixed relationship in my extended family is the other way around. It doesn't bother me particularly but I could sense the black-power types squirming at the thought of a white man married to a black woman. (They don't have children, though, which is probably just as well, after what I read in the other comments).