Kola Boof Speaks: Race & Beauty In America

I was challenged by a white Professor and a White student (separately) at Cornell College in IOWA to explain my "comments" about BEAUTY in America.....and how these STANDARDS effect black women and the black community.

The WHITE STAFF and I were in total disagreement, but I think you will truly appreciate reading this.

Here is what I said by Speaker Phone--my statement was Pre-written:
_______________________

First of all...just like "race"--"beauty" is a social construct.

But COLOR is not a social construct.

Therefore, before you can understand "beauty"....you must understand "status" and the fact that STATUS...overrules beauty.

For instance, no matter how beautiful the lips are on Lauryn Hill and Angela Bassett....those lips gain STATUS once you put them on Angelina Jolie.

No matter how magnificent and superior Phyllis Yvonne Stickney's rear end is...a smaller version of her rear end is celebrated and gains STATUS once you attach it to Jennifer Lopez.

No matter how lovely the "tan" is on Jennifer Beales....that tan aquires STATUS once it appears on a white woman, and is especially valuable....because it's TEMPORARY on a white woman and does not pass into the womb to color the child.

The White-skinned beauty of JAPANESE...is given STATUS and considered superior...although the dark-skinned KOREAN and THAI are in actuality...far more beautiful and better built. Still, STATUS overrules Beauty.

In communities of Color---Whiteness alone often makes a woman beautiful, no matter how FAT she is, no matter how many teeth are missing or PLAIN she is---whiteness itself is beauty, because it carries the ultimate STATUS.

That's Number one.

Toni Morrison said that a "Paradise" or a "Utopia" can only be made into such by defining those things which are to be excluded--therefore making it a paradise.

Those in charge, with power and who rule are the architects deciding exactly what the paradise will be, which is why a very dark skinned black woman in EUROPE is considered beautiful, desirable and "visible" in media.....while the opposite is true in the United States, because of rigid STATUS perimeters that must adhere to the history and goals of the country.

As a pre-concept related to the outcome of this opinion, please note that "sexism" cannot dominate a society unless the majority of the citizens (both male and female) are...sexist. Both the father and the mother reinforce, through daily living, the tenets of "sexism", passing it into the children as "acculturation"---thereby making it a mode of thought that is normal, where as the idea of "equality" between sexes is given lip service but is not truly considered...normal. And that is because, most people on both sides are sexists. Not just men. The religions and churches and the Bible itself back up the sexist ideology of the society and confirms that the systematic structures of Patriarchy are not just correct---but are "natural".

Man is to be valued and his humanity is protected....Woman, while loved emotionally, is expendable and her humanity is recognized only as a subtext for his birth.

Everyone in the society, male and female, supports this ideology because it's "natural order."

Ditto for White Supremacist Ideology.

America is a nation that originally was supposed to be a "paradise/utopia" for White Europeans and was founded and built on slavery--an institution that was justified through very strict principles of White Supremacist Ideology. Black African slaves were brought here and deemed to be only 3/5ths of a human being.

A single drop of their blood has the power to compromise whiteness....and because of this, and because White men greatly enjoyed the freedom of being able to rape their property (just as any man would, including the Africans who do the same thing to slaves), the Whites realized that they would have to create a STANDARD by which Whiteness would always be PRO-CREATED and PROTECTED under the normative tenet of "purity". For more on that, just read the Dictionary Definition for Black (evil/ugly) and then read the Dictionary Definition for White (good/clean).

This is why, regardless of Sexism, "White Supremacy" benefits White Females just as much (in fact, more) than it benefits White Males.

And THE REASON...that White Supremacy benefits White Females more is because in order for a White Male to be born...he can only do it from a White Female.

People of color, however, can be born from any female (although, Authentic Black People going by the Pre-Colonial African standard, cannot be born from a Non-African tribe).

So this genetic fact forces the White Male to elevate the White Female as the World Standard for Pro-Creation.....because out of her comes....(A) White Males, (B) White Acculturation of all those who born from her, including coloreds.....which in turn, because of the genetic weakness of White Blood, sets her as the ultimate White Power STATUS symbol, being motherseed of the White Race and its only way into existence.

As well.....MARRIAGE and HAVING A MAN....is the highest STATUS for all races of females, for without it----the sexist societies worldwide consider them to be "deformed", and therefore, when a White woman marries out of her race---she is trading one STATUS for another STATUS.

On the other side of the Spectrum is The Black Man...who has been conquered and dominated by the White Man (both Arab and European) for so many centuries that the Black Man now has no memory of his worth or beauty---purely as himself. He has been acculturated by his masters and lives in a world where he has very, very little power---except over the Black Women (who create him) and the Black Children (who come from him).

Because COLOR is not a social construct----but race is---the Blacker the Black Man's Skin, the more Authentic he is.....then.....the less STATUS he has in a world that agrees that "Whiteness" is normal and superior and more HUMAN than all others.

**Beauty is the second social construct (after race)....it backs up White Supremacy (and this is worldwide, because in Arab Nations, those Orange Skinned Arabs are classified on their identification cards as "White"--the same for Japanese and Chinese and Brazilians and Argentinians and Mexicans. EVERY SOCIETY...has a White Elite at the top that calls itself "White").

If you go to a Black Nation in Africa...and especially visit Black Americans and West Indians...you will find that a "Mulatto" mixed Status Symbol has been created to sit at the TOP of those various people to represent their version of "Whiteness", "the Elite". While the Very darkest charcoal and Blue Black blacks----the Authentic blacks----are relegated to the bottom rung and "disallowed" as the Representative Face to be presented to the world, because the darker they are----the less STATUS they have and the less HUMAN they are considered.

This is the reason why Black Men will pass over a Beautiful Chocolate Skinned Black Woman to marry an Unattractive, Fat White Woman or an Ugly "High Yellow" Black Woman....because....the lighter the woman's skin is, the lighter the man's children will come out and the more STATUS he will aquire through the woman's Whiteness (regardless of what color she is). No matter how beautiful a very black skinned woman is---her beauty has no STATUS, because her beauty only creates more blackness.

Let's use this example:

Vivica Fox is considered a dark skinned woman in America. But if you put her next to Phyllis Yvonne Stickney, Vivica is suddenly 8 shades lighter and has less Africoid facial features. She, therefore, becomes the woman considered more desirable---because she has more STATUS. Or think of Cicely Tyson's beauty...then think of Diahann Carroll's beauty, and although I personally find Cicely's African beauty exquisite and superior....Americans will find the lighter brown skin and European features/hairstyles of Diahann Carroll to carry more "STATUS".

But then add Halle Berry, who is Bi-racial and much lighter than Diahann Carroll or Vivica Fox and has straight hair and facial features that are even less black.....and now she has more STATUS.

The Color Paradigm is leveled almost exclusively towards the WOMEN in the Black and Latino and Asian races----because the men rule the societies and the men do the choosing, contrary to the claims of Matriarchy.

And let me just say that if Matriarchy were really and truly a reality in Africa...then we would not have to get our vaginas infibulated just to be "marriagable". The real truth is that Black women do not rule Black Communities, for if they did, then the power of Colorism would be greatly---greatly reduced.

The men are usually exempt from the Colorist Caste System (notice that most Black Male Sex Symbols are chocolate and brown with nappy African hair and clearly Black Features---and both the very dark skinned Male and the light skinned Male are DESIRED and considered VALUABLE by the black community). On the other hand, the Dark Skinned Black Woman (the mother of the race and the authentic origin of the race) is almost never embraced as the standard of beauty or desirability and is the Least Valued image in the black community....and this is mainly because she is the one who makes black people BLACK in the first place. It is her womb, genes and especially--her acculturation----that TAKES AWAY the people's STATUS by making them "truly black".

Therefore, a Mulatto or Bi-racial mixed FEMALE is risen as the Standard of Beauty---because she makes the black people LESS BLACK and gives them STATUS by giving them lighter skin, watered down facial features and a straighter texture of hair. She helps to bring "whiteness" to the group....and for this, they appoint her over their real mother.

A White Woman can make them even Whiter....thereby delivering even more STATUS.

These same exact dynamics are used in Latin cultures, Asian cultures...worldwide. In other words, women are not seeking a "common goal"--that's bullshit. What women are trying to seek is the worldwide Hollywood Goal that they have internalized from more than a century of film, magazine and literary images. Please notice that before the advent of Silent Films....women were prized for being very round, full figured and brunette......and most people had very LOCAL ideals about what was beautiful, their conclusions reached by their own cultural tastes and traditions and mostly...by their desire to see their own looks reproduced in the offspring of their kind. Which, in actuality, is what real beauty might be.

But the Hollywood beauty standard is dictated now to the PLANET via MEDIA. Mass Media. Which has become the most powerful weapon that America has to charm, solicit and influence the rest of the world in its quest for dominance and survival.

White Supremacy is the root and stimulus of that weapon...because the vast majority of the world is colored, and therefore, the Whites must brainwash other races into valuiing and worshipping whiteness----so that they won't want to destroy it, but rather protect and covet it.

The One Drop Rule in America is proof of those fears...and as well....validity.

Increasingly, as more and more black men are now allowed to mate outside their race, there are many Black Women in America who are so dark skinned and African featured that they're not even considered women .....and I've met many, many extremely dark skinned African looking black women who have forced themselves to become lesbians---so that they can know love----and they are devastated by it, but NOBODY...and especially not Black People give a @#%$.

White and other races of Light Skinned Straight Haired women are well aware of these dynamics....and overwhelmingly support them....because this allows the low self-esteem in White and other races of Light Skinned women to be assauged and placated by the self-hatred of Black and other Dark races of men. It also gives these women a Surplus of available men, and because MARRIAGE and HAVING A MAN is the highest "STATUS" for a woman-----these women trade in their color status to attain the status of marriage/having a man. In general, White and other races of Light Skinned women do not care, truly, about black people---and especially don't care about black women---and delude themselves into noble, romanticized ideals of "true love", "the evil non-worthy black woman with attitude" and "opposites attracting". In other words, they support and protect the White Supremacist Beauty Aesthetic.....because it benefits and favors them.

In closing, let me just say:

Black Is Beautiful.

Kola Boof

kolaboof.com
Egungun, Egungun ni t'aiye ati jo! Ancestos, Ancestors come to earth and dance! "I'm sick of the war and the civilization that created it. Let's look to our dreams, and the magical; to the creations of the so-called primitive peoples for new inspirations." - Jaques Vache and Andre Breton "Capitalism is the astounding belief that the most wickedest of men will do the most wickedest of things for the greatest good of everyone." -John Maynard "You know that in our country there were even matriarchal societies where women were the most important element. On the Bijagos islands they had queens. They were not queens because they were the daughters of kings. They had queens succeeding queens. The religious leaders were women too..." -- Amilcar Cabral, Return to the Source, 1973
Original Post
quote:

First of all...just like "race"--"beauty" is a social construct.

But COLOR is not a social construct.

Therefore, before you can understand "beauty"....you must understand "status" and the fact that STATUS...overrules beauty.

White and other races of Light Skinned Straight Haired women are well aware of these dynamics....and overwhelmingly support them....because this allows the low self-esteem in White and other races of Light Skinned women to be assauged and placated by the self-hatred of Black and other Dark races of men. It also gives these women a Surplus of available men, and because MARRIAGE and HAVING A MAN is the highest "STATUS" for a woman-----these women trade in their color status to attain the status of marriage/having a man. In general, White and other races of Light Skinned women do not care, truly, about black people---and especially don't care about black women---and delude themselves into noble, romanticized ideals of "true love", "the evil non-worthy black woman with attitude" and "opposites attracting". In other words, they support and protect the White Supremacist Beauty Aesthetic.....because it benefits and favors them.


Sister Kola speaks volumes in her discussion about race and beauty in America. Her thorough discussion about the ways in which the White supremacist concept of whiteness has impacted people globally is reminiscent of the research done by Neely Fuller and Dr. Francis Welsing. I'm certain her analysis has been heavily influenced by Dr. Fuller's United Independent Compensatory Code. Thanks for sharing. Loved it!

What is Beauty?

Within a world dominated by White Supremacy it is vitally important for the white supremacists to spoon feed the "definition" of beauty to all people who live within the system of white supremacy. Whatever your "natural" inclination is for beauty, the white supremacy culture must interrupt that tendency to control what you see as beauty. In this way, your desire to "protect and preserve" beauty is diminished leaving no protection for those things that are natural and beautiful. It has been said "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder". This statement, if it is true has great significance for a world polluted by white supremacy. All person who desire natural beauty must be willing and capable of protecting that beauty, otherwise, what is the use of "Living"? Killing, murder, pollution, hatred, mistreatment, deception, are all examples of ugliness. What are your examples of beauty, and how far are you willing to go to protect that beauty?
-Dr. Francis Cress Welsing

"We now are in the 21st century. Recently, there has been an unraveling and an analysis of the core issue of the first global power system of mass oppression-- the power system of racism (white supremacy). Once the collective victim (non-white population) understands this fundamental issue, the ultimate organizing of all of the appropriate behaviors necessary to neutralize the great injustice of the white supremacy power system will only be a matter of time. The length of time required to neutralize global white supremacy will be inversely proportional to 1) the level of understanding of the phenomenon; plus 2) the evolution of self- and group-respect, the will, determination and discipline to practice the appropriate counter-racist behaviors--on the part of the non-white victims of white supremacy."
-Dr. Francis Cress Welsing

Fuller breaks down his idea of there being 3 basic types of people in the known universe, that being white people, non-whites and white supremacists/racists. In his explanation, white people are "people who classify themselves as 'white' and have been classified as 'white', accepted as 'white'... and who generally function as 'white' in all of the nine major areas of activity." He defined non-whites as "people who have been classified as 'non-white', and/or who generally function as 'non-white' in their relationship with each other..." Last, white supremacists/ racists are "people who classify themselves as 'white', and who generally function as 'white', and who practice racial subjugation (based on 'white'-'non-white', at any time, in any place, in any one, or more of the nine major areas of activity."

The 9 Areas of People Activity are (1)Economics, (2)Education, (3)Entertainment, (4)Labor, (5)Law, (6)Politics, (7)Religion, (8)Sex and (9)War

Dr. Neely Fuller

Attachments

Images (1)
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Oshun Auset:

This is the reason why Black Men will pass over a Beautiful Chocolate Skinned Black Woman to marry an Unattractive, Fat White Woman or an Ugly "High Yellow" Black Woman....because....the lighter the woman's skin is, the lighter the man's children will come out and the more STATUS he will aquire through the woman's Whiteness (regardless of what color she is). No matter how beautiful a very black skinned woman is---her beauty has no STATUS, because her beauty only creates more blackness.




It took me a while to realize and accept this........

Its a fact of life.....!

Good post!!
quote:
Originally posted by Kola Boof:
Those in charge, with power and who rule are the architects deciding exactly what the paradise will be, which is why a very dark skinned black woman in EUROPE is considered beautiful, desirable and "visible" in media.....while the opposite is true in the United States, because of rigid STATUS perimeters that must adhere to the history and goals of the country.



Europe's Love-Hate Relationship With Africa


If the concept of "whiteness" has influenced the world, and the goal of White Supremacy is to establish (and maintain) whiteness as THE standard of universal beauty, how do we account for Europe's (of all places) fascination with Black people? How do you account for Europeans', particularly those in the Fashion Industry, love for Native African models like Alek Wek?

Considering Europe is the place from which European-Americans come, one would expect for Europe to be the most racist place on the planet. But strangely enough, it is not. Whites in Europe are well known for their appreciation of African-Americans. Josephine Baker, for example, was one of many African-American entertainers who left America after discovering how much better Blacks were treated in Europe compared to the United States. So how can Fuller's United Independent Compensatory Code explain this?
Last edited {1}
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Kola Boof:
Those in charge, with power and who rule are the architects deciding exactly what the paradise will be, which is why a very dark skinned black woman in EUROPE is considered beautiful, desirable and "visible" in media.....while the opposite is true in the United States, because of rigid STATUS perimeters that must adhere to the history and goals of the country.



Europe's Love-Hate Relationship With Africa


If the concept of "whiteness" has influenced the world, and the goal of White Supremacy is to establish (and maintain) whiteness as THE standard of universal beauty, how do we account for Europe's (of all places) fascination with Black people? How do you account for Europeans', particularly those in the Fashion Industry, love for Native African models like Alek Wek?

Considering Europe is the place from which European-Americans come, one would expect for Europe to be the most racist place on the planet. But strangely enough, it is not. Whites in Europe are well known for their appreciation of African-Americans. Josephine Baker, for example, was one of many African-American entertainers who left America after discovering how much better Blacks were treated in Europe compared to the United States. So how can Fuller's United Independent Compensatory Code explain this?



That perspective, gives me cognitive dissonant reflux, everytime. Perhaps the 'appreciation', is more fetishstic(sp), than 'natural' appreciation, which I'm hesitant to understand.

I think of Europe's adoration of Grace Jones in the 1980's, and feeling something was 'off'. Not that Jones was'nt a beautiful woman (if not odd), but being that Europe, is the cradle of white supremacy, their appreciation suggests something deeper, more than a 'simple' appreciation of aesthetics. Makes me go, whaaa? For lots of reasons...
quote:
Originally posted by nayo:
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Kola Boof:
Those in charge, with power and who rule are the architects deciding exactly what the paradise will be, which is why a very dark skinned black woman in EUROPE is considered beautiful, desirable and "visible" in media.....while the opposite is true in the United States, because of rigid STATUS perimeters that must adhere to the history and goals of the country.



Europe's Love-Hate Relationship With Africa


If the concept of "whiteness" has influenced the world, and the goal of White Supremacy is to establish (and maintain) whiteness as THE standard of universal beauty, how do we account for Europe's (of all places) fascination with Black people? How do you account for Europeans', particularly those in the Fashion Industry, love for Native African models like Alek Wek?

Considering Europe is the place from which European-Americans come, one would expect for Europe to be the most racist place on the planet. But strangely enough, it is not. Whites in Europe are well known for their appreciation of African-Americans. Josephine Baker, for example, was one of many African-American entertainers who left America after discovering how much better Blacks were treated in Europe compared to the United States. So how can Fuller's United Independent Compensatory Code explain this?



That perspective, gives me cognitive dissonant reflux, everytime. Perhaps the 'appreciation', is more fetishstic(sp), than 'natural' appreciation, which I'm hesitant to understand.

I think of Europe's adoration of Grace Jones in the 1980's, and feeling something was 'off'. Not that Jones was'nt a beautiful woman (if not odd), but being that Europe, is the cradle of white supremacy, their appreciation suggests something deeper, more than a 'simple' appreciation of aesthetics. Makes me go, whaaa? For lots of reasons...

IMO, the attraction is rooted in the signifying, displacement, projection or othering that is part of white supremacy. If one sets up these binaries of white/black, good/bad, chase/sexual and libidinous, saintly/sinner one will see this phenomenon of love/hate. Women of color have historically been portrayed as sexual, erotic, alluring, dark and mysterious as well as ugly, undesirable, and repulsive. The "other" both attracts and repells. It fascinates and terrifies.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
IMO, the attraction is rooted in the signifying, displacement, projection or othering that is part of white supremacy. If one sets up these binaries of white/black, good/bad, chase/sexual and libidinous, saintly/sinner one will see this phenomenon of love/hate. Women of color have historically been portrayed as sexual, erotic, alluring, dark and mysterious as well as ugly, undesirable, and repulsive. The "other" both attracts and repells. It fascinates and terrifies.


Sister Marimba Ani (1994), speaking on the collective hypocrisy exhibited by Europeans in Chapter one of her book Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Thought and Behavior believes hypocrisy is a "way of life" for Europeans. She would undoubtedly agree with the explanations you and Brother Nayo have provided.

Hypocrisy as a Way of Life
Marimba Ani


Within the nature of European culture there exists a statement of value or of "moral" behavior that has no meaning for the members of that culture. I call this the "rhetorical ethic;" it is of great importance for the understanding of the dynamics of the culture. The concepts of traditional European anthropology are inadequate to explain the phenomenon to which I am referring here, as it has no counterpart in the types of cultures to which anthropologists have generally directed their attention in the past. But with the concept of asili, which facilitates an ideological approach to the study of culture, the rhetorical ethic becomes visible; even compelling. It fits the logic of the European asili, assisting the culture in the achievement and maintenance of power. Without this interpretation certain manifestations within the verbal iconography of the culture appear to be inconsistent with its underlying ideological thrust. And that simply would not make sense. Let us see how the mechanism of the rhetorical ethic works.
The related distinction used traditionally in anthropology is stated in terms of "ideal culture" and "actual behavior" and is said to be characteristic of all cultures, thereby helping to confuse the issue of the uniqueness and problematical nature of European culture. The conventional distinction is illustrated in the following manner by the authors of a recently published anthropology textbook.

For example, an idealized belief, long cherished in America, is that all doctors are selfless, friendly people who chose medicine as their profession because they felt themselves "called" to serve humanity, and who have little interest in either the money or the prestige of their position. Of course, many physicians do not measure up to this ideal. Nevertheless, the continued success of television programs that portray the average American M.D. as a paragon of virtue indicates how deeply rooted in our collective psyche the ideal of the noble physician is.

This is a common misconception that has led to a mistaken view and superficial understanding of the nature of European (Euro- American) society. To refer to the images offered above as "ideal" is a misuse or at least a misleading use of the term "ideal." The projection and success of the image of the committed, altruistic doctor do not indicate that it is a "deeply rooted" ideal in the American psyche.

It is rather an indication of the fact that this is how Americans want to appear to others, most often to non-European peoples-their "objects.'' In this case it is the way that the doctor wants to appear to his patients, or ''objects,'' because this appearance works to his advantage. On the other hand, an image that projects him as a potential exploiter can lead to the possibility of malpractice suits and to the institutionalization of socialized medicine-neither of which is lucrative for him.

An ''ideal'' should be understood to be some thing that functions normatively and something that is emulated; that which has meaning for those who share it. It is the European experience that encourages the confounding of meaning and commitment with mere verbal expression. (It was within the incipient European experience that "rhetoric" came to be regarded as art.) In African culture words have power. The European mind is a political one and for this reason constantly aware of the political effect of words and images as they are used for the purposes of manipulation. By "political" I mean to indicate an ego that consistently experiences people as others; as representatives of interests defined differently and, therefore, as conflicting with this "ego." The individual is concerned, therefore, with the way in which his verbal expression and the image he projects can influence the behavior of those to whom he relates, be they patients (would-be consumers), neocolonial subjects, an opposing candidate for office, or an African selfdeterminist/nationalist. This is what is "deeply rooted" in the American mind-the psychology of "public relations," "salesmanship," and political strategy. It is in the Euro-American vernacular that the word "image" is used so frequently. To be concerned with one's image as opposed to one's self is a European characteristic.

To be aware of the strategical advantage of appearing to be altruistic when one is operating out of self-interest does not mean that altruism is a meaningful "ideal" in terms of one's value-system. It is, instead, an outgrowth of the propaganda that the Europeans have fed "non-European" peoples since they first sought to conquer them. Because they exported ("sold") this altruistic image so successfully, they have had to project themselves as adhering to this "ideal"; similarly, the projection of themselves or their motives in this way has been essential to the successful imposition of this "ethic" on others.

The basic principle to be kept in mind in order to understand this dynamic of European culture is that the major contributing factor to the success of European nationalism has been its projection as disinterested internationalism,

The use of "ideal" in the passage quoted above is simply an inad- equate concept for the ethnological analysis of European culture. Hoebel, in an earlier textbook, offers his version, which is similarly inadequate: "Ideal Culture consists of a people's verbally expressed standards and behavior." The examples that these anthropologists offer from other cultures to explicate the distinction between "ideal" and "actual" in no way represent the phenomenon in Western culture under consideration.

Hoebel describes "normative postulates or values" as "deep- lying assumptions about whether things or acts are good and to be sought after, or bad and to be rejected." This is precisely what the "rhetorical ethic" is not. Hoebel's definition can be used to get at the converse of the phenomenon I wish to describe. A "rhetorical ethic" is not a "deep-lying assumption." It is a superficial verbal expression that is not intended for assimilation by the members of the culture that produced it. The "rhetorical ethic," a European phenomenon, has been neglected in conventional ethnological theory, which has consistently offered concepts devoid of political significance.

Anthropologists talk about the gap in all cultures between thought and deed, between ideas and actions. The gap to which I am referring, however, is between verbal expression and belief or commitment; between what people say and what they do. Nowhere other than in European culture do words mean so little as indices of belief. It is this characteristic that is of concern here and this characteristic for which the concepts of traditional anthropology are inadequate to explain.

As a cultural trait it has, however, been described by others, particularly those who have been made victims of European cunning. Below an indigenous American describes European behavior:

They would make slaves of us if they could; but as they cannot, they kill us. There is no faith to be placed in their words.

They will say to an Indian, "My friend; my brother!" They will take him by the hand and, at the same moment destroy him.... Remember that this day I warned you to beware of such friends as these. I know the Long-Knives. They are not to be trusted.

It is an inherent characteristic of the culture that it prepares members of the culture to be able to act like friends toward those they regard as enemies; to be able to convince others that they have come to help when they, in fact, have come to destroy the others and their culture. That some may "believe" that they are actually doing good only makes them more dangerous, for they have swallowed their own rhetoric-perhaps a convenient self-delusion. Hypocritical behavior is sanctioned and rewarded in European culture. The rhetorical ethic helps to sanction it. European culture cannot be understood in terms of the dynamics of other cultures alone. It is a culture that breeds hypocrisy-in which hypocrisy is a supportive theme a standard of behavior. Its hypocritical nature is linked to the Platonic abstraction, to objectification, to the compartmentalization of the person and the denial of the emotional self. Below Havelock characteristically understands the case:

Another thing noticeable about them [pre-Platonic" Greeks] in this period is their capacity for direct action and sincere action and for direct and sincere expression of motive and desire. They almost entirely lack those slight hypocrisies without which our civilization does not seem to work.

The distinction and definitions that can lead to a better under- standing of the Europeans and their culture can only come from a perspective that is not one of European chauvinism; for it is the method of European chauvinism or cultural nationalism to conceal European interest. As I use it, "value" is only meaningful value; it is that which motivates behavior and is the origin of human commitment. Value determines what is imitated and preserved, what is selected for and encouraged. "Avowed values" on the other hand, which are merely professed, which find expression only verbally, which are not indicative of behavior, belong to what I have called the "rhetorical ethic."

The European rhetorical ethic is precisely that-purely rhetorical- and, as such, has its own origins as a creation for export; i.e., for the political, intercultural activity of the European. It is designed to create an image that will prevent others from successfully anticipating European behavior, and its objective is to encourage nonstrategic (i.e., naive, rather than successful) political behavior on the part of others. This is the same as "nonpolitical" behavior.) It is designed to sell, to dupe, to promote European nationalistic objectives. It "packages" European cultural imperialism in a wrapping that makes it appear more attractive, less harmful. None of these features represents what can culturally be referred to as an "ideal" in any sense. The rhetorical ethic is, therefore, not dysfunctional in European culture.

It does not generate nor reflect conflict in European ideology or belief-system; but it is, rather, necessary to the maintenance and projection of the utamaroho and performs a vital function in sustaining European cultural nationalism in the pursuit of its international objectives.

The rhetorical ethic is made possible by the fact that hypocrisy as a mode of behavior is a valued theme in European life; the same hypocritical behavior that its presence sanctions. Again, "value" refers to that which is encouraged and approved in a culture. European culture is constructed in such a way that successful survival within it discourages honesty and directness and encourages dishonesty and deceit-the ability to appear to be something other than what one is; to hide one's "self," one's motives and intent.

People who are duped by others and relate to a projected image are considered fools or "country bumpkins." Hypocrisy in this way becomes not a negative personality trait, not immoral or abnormal behavior, but it is both expected and cultivated. It is considered to be a crucial ingredient of "sophistication," a European goal. European intracultural, political behavior is based on hypocrisy-as are business relations, the advertising media, and most other areas of public, and social interaction. It is merely a manifestation of this theme when Americans claim that politicians are basically honest. The claim itself is hypocritical, and the public expects it to be so. We all know that the objective of commercial advertising is to convince us to buy products so that manufacturers can make large profits, but the slogans attempt to persuade us that the product is beneficial to our well being, as though the producer has our welfare at heart.

This hypocrisy touches the lives of every member of the culture in their dealings with one another, and yet it originates in part in the nature of their intercultural relationships. It is a part of the mechanism of European expansionism, All of these factors must go into the understanding of the rhetorical ethic and not an overly simplistic distinction between "ideal" and "actual" culture; perhaps a relevant distinction with regard to other cultures that create and are created by very different "cultural personalities." Let us look more closely at this "ethic" and see how it has functioned historically.
THANK YOU sista Kola for your elegant piece of truth I have searched for: i.e. http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/40070883/m/5721015704

Question - how do women like me offer balance in this unbalanced world? My meaning is, I do not find white men attractive at all, and yet, have the issues of what is refered to in my post. Plus, because of my skin coloring, I know I am looked at by beautiful darker skinned woman with such distain when with a man who is not white, as has been my past experiances (not dating now, just can't handle it). Have any advice on how to handle this one?
I think Sister Oshun will the best person to offer some great advice about this issue. Her topics are very helpful.
quote:
No matter how lovely the "tan" is on Jennifer Beales....that tan aquires STATUS once it appears on a white woman, and is especially valuable....because it's TEMPORARY on a white woman and does not pass into the womb to color the child.

Thank you Oshun Auset and Rowe for your posts. The above comment is certainly the most powerful - and distressing - expression I've encountered about the seeming paradox of European obsession with sun tanning.

.
quote:
Originally posted by kresge:
quote:
Originally posted by nayo:
quote:
Originally posted by Rowe:
quote:
Originally posted by Kola Boof:
Those in charge, with power and who rule are the architects deciding exactly what the paradise will be, which is why a very dark skinned black woman in EUROPE is considered beautiful, desirable and "visible" in media.....while the opposite is true in the United States, because of rigid STATUS perimeters that must adhere to the history and goals of the country.



Europe's Love-Hate Relationship With Africa


If the concept of "whiteness" has influenced the world, and the goal of White Supremacy is to establish (and maintain) whiteness as THE standard of universal beauty, how do we account for Europe's (of all places) fascination with Black people? How do you account for Europeans', particularly those in the Fashion Industry, love for Native African models like Alek Wek?

Considering Europe is the place from which European-Americans come, one would expect for Europe to be the most racist place on the planet. But strangely enough, it is not. Whites in Europe are well known for their appreciation of African-Americans. Josephine Baker, for example, was one of many African-American entertainers who left America after discovering how much better Blacks were treated in Europe compared to the United States. So how can Fuller's United Independent Compensatory Code explain this?



That perspective, gives me cognitive dissonant reflux, everytime. Perhaps the 'appreciation', is more fetishstic(sp), than 'natural' appreciation, which I'm hesitant to understand.

I think of Europe's adoration of Grace Jones in the 1980's, and feeling something was 'off'. Not that Jones was'nt a beautiful woman (if not odd), but being that Europe, is the cradle of white supremacy, their appreciation suggests something deeper, more than a 'simple' appreciation of aesthetics. Makes me go, whaaa? For lots of reasons...

IMO, the attraction is rooted in the signifying, displacement, projection or othering that is part of white supremacy. If one sets up these binaries of white/black, good/bad, chase/sexual and libidinous, saintly/sinner one will see this phenomenon of love/hate. Women of color have historically been portrayed as sexual, erotic, alluring, dark and mysterious as well as ugly, undesirable, and repulsive. The "other" both attracts and repells. It fascinates and terrifies.


Media driven White race Supremacy has always been popular.Suprise Suprise.

Its all about finding ways and means of exploiting African/Blacks how and when they want too,exploiting through music and Sports. I think it backfires abit when they don't have complete ownership of products and other things.
There could never be any positive reasons for pushing superiority,for any race.

I think people who want to see the same europid looks everywhere, and don't see anything wrong with it are a waste of time.Its better to stay away from that type of crew, not get completely caught up. Its better to bulid ones self rather than to fit in.
quote:
That perspective, gives me cognitive dissonant reflux, everytime. Perhaps the 'appreciation', is more fetishstic(sp), than 'natural' appreciation, which I'm hesitant to understand.

I think of Europe's adoration of Grace Jones in the 1980's, and feeling something was 'off'. Not that Jones was'nt a beautiful woman (if not odd), but being that Europe, is the cradle of white supremacy, their appreciation suggests something deeper, more than a 'simple' appreciation of aesthetics. Makes me go, whaaa? For lots of reasons...

I feel it's important to add here that Jones put out dynamite music, her cds, having seen her live, an equally dynamic and creative 'caberet' style performance. She was hugely popular over here for her MUSIC as well as her incredible beauty.

quote:
from Wikipedia:
For a brief time she was one of a few entertainers who could balance a recording and acting career simultaneously, and indeed her film roles and modelling work often overshadowed her musical output. Her strong visual presence extended to her stage work. Her performances were unique spectacles; she adopted various personas and wore outlandish costumes, particularly during her years with Goude. One memorable performance was at the Paradise Garage in 1985, wherein she collaborated with legendary visual artist Keith Haring for her costume. Haring also painted her body for the video to "I'm Not Perfect (But I'm Perfect for You)."


Name one performer who doesn't flaunt and maximise their looks. One refreshing difference for Grace Jones was she ACTUALLY WAS UNIQUE AND TALENTED UNLIKE THE ENDLESS MANUFACTURED MARKETING MODELS (girl or boy bands) than the USA spews out endlessly in the name of popular music. I dispute Jones' appeal was purely of fetish value for non-black audiences. I believe that she was able to grab people's attention worldwide and KEEP IT because she is so talented as well as beauty. And for once the world accepted a different 'representation' of beauty - powerful, unique, dynamic and uncompromising. Yeah to her!!

To quote wikipedia some more:
quote:
For a brief time she was one of a few entertainers who could balance a recording and acting career simultaneously, and indeed her film roles and modelling work often overshadowed her musical output. Her strong visual presence extended to her stage work. Her performances were unique spectacles; she adopted various personas and wore outlandish costumes, particularly during her years with Goude. One memorable performance was at the Paradise Garage in 1985, wherein she collaborated with legendary visual artist Keith Haring for her costume. Haring also painted her body for the video to "I'm Not Perfect (But I'm Perfect for You)."


quote:
Perhaps the 'appreciation', is more fetishstic(sp), than 'natural' appreciation, which I'm hesitant to understand.

that statement can apply equally to most 'sexualized' pictures of women... and they aren't all in porn magazines. And everyone in the celebrity/entertainment industry dabbles in sexualized imagery.

I realize you're talking more about the audience 'reception' than the projection of an artist's image... however I would like to comment that not everyone of european descent views beauty the same way, or on a fetish or superficial level. I just feel it downgrades some artists to point to fetishism as their main 'drawcard' when it isn't necessarily the mass viewpoint.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×