Skip to main content

The fact that the white media once again has glorified a book that is the direct results of the impact of white supremacy on an erstwhile victim shows the bizarre nature of racism in America. A black journalist, Keith Richburg, wrote a book, Out of America, which is a sad testimony of an individual who is caught in the spiral of psychic pain produced by what i call "internal inferiorization."

Richburg sees Africans as his enemies and this is the beginning of his problem. From this vantage point there is nothing good that can be said about Africa or Africans. Reiterating the same political, social, and economc problems that have been articulated by many thoughtful commentators on the African scene, Richburg goes further to make the African condition his personal responsibility. One only has to think how this would play if the person who was condemning a society was a German, an Israeli, a Pole, a Briton, a Chinese, an Iraqi, or Japanese. Would other people really be so hard on the continent or people of their origin?
Wouldn't there at least be some sense of historical depth, some attempt to understand the basis of human actions? I think so but then the author of this venom book seeks to have another mission: the popularizing of the litany of evils in Africa. One could do this about any continent and indeed any nation, but what is the point?

Tragic: richburg has not written a meaningful book; he has written a book for the white mass market and because of that he is at once intent on explaining that he is happy to have had an ancestor on the slave ship. His intellectual position is duplicitous in that he does not identify with what he saw in Africa but at the same time calls into question the history made by African Americans. He neither likes continental Africans nor African Americans who are happy being of African origins. So if he does not identify with the continental Africans and hates the historical opposition of Africans in America against white supremacy, what are we to make of Mr. Richburg?

this is even a pattern even on this site here; but how can he feel superior to Africans whom he confronts in the rawness of their ordinariness when he does not confront the same ordinariness in either white or black Americans? I mean does Richburg understand anything at all about the historical events that unfolded right here on this land? Has he not been taught somewhere of the absolute slaughter of the indigenous people who fought to defend what was theirs? Does he know anything about the enslavement and murder of my people in Africa over a 250 year period and has he not learned about the Red Summer of 1919? Obviously not because had he understood something of the history of this country he would not have been so happy to declare that he was grateful that his ancestor was a slave.

this person is vile, wum....and the sad thing is that he writes for and was correspondent and Bureau Chief for the Washington Post ...Mr. Richburg only has to read his own newspaper and others to get a steady diet of African Americans in the United States killing each other at a phenomenal rate and often with callousness equal to what he saw among continental Africans. Yet he does not want to abdicate his position as an American despite the brutality that has been served up repeatedly on the richly endowed American table.

He writes the things he disliked during his "exile" to the land of his ancestors. Unlike even some white reporters who have lived and worked in Africa, Richburg sees nothing that grabs him and all that repels him. are we gonna get along. no wonder why Africans look at african-americans with a diiferent eye.

TRAGIC: wasted mind.
Original Post
I think this is an important and interesting point:
Keith Richburg makes two specific errors: Africans do not kill each other and Africans are not susceptible to political corruption. That is, his arguments tend to turn on these assumptions although he is clearly convinced that Africans have killed and have been corrupted to an extraordinary degree. But his pain, if one can call it that, when he sees the killing and the corruption is irreal. He denies to Africans what he gives to white Americans and Europeans: humanity.

Why should he expect that Africans given a set of social and political circumstances should be different from other humans? Had he beguiled himself in believing a racist lie that Africans were somehow better than Europeans or white Americans? The logic of his thinking is racist.

(My emphasis and paragraph separation)
Quote and review (partially listed in first post) as found on:

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.