No idea is too stupid or delusional for the kind of people who gravitate towards the BBC to embrace it. They are simply (in TS Eliot's words) "absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves". If you wanted to sum up in three letters why Britain is so out in front of the rest of the Western world in the 'wokeness' malaise, those three letters would be BBC. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/non-binary-sibling-is-entertaining
White Guilt and White Saviorism are the foundational dogma and sacred charge for the globalist progressive oligarchy.
Their goal is to couch and conceal any and all actions behind the smokescreen of Diversity, which means more or less: We will dispossess and impoverish you, flood your countries with foreigners, monitor all your words and thoughts—but only because we love black people so much and just want to protect them from harm! And only bigots disagree!
In the 21st century the White Man's Burden has been replaced by the White Woman's emotional burden, but the gist is the same: our ruling class wants to hog not just all the money but all the virtue, and wants to make people feel hateful and immoral even for disagreeing with them.
Everything they do is about maintaining, consolidating and extending their power and they honestly believe they have a divine right to engage in unlimited social engineering.
It's reverse colonization from woke America. Britain has to be a "land of immigrants" because that's the foundation myth of the woke U.S. Global Empire. Run as fast as you can from this poison if you know what's good for you.
"even if Cheddar Man did have dark skin, he was not related in any way to the people we refer to as “black” – namely Sub-Saharan Africans."
Just a slight quibble with this statement - Cheddar Man (Western Hunter-Gatherers) and Sub-Saharan Africans do share a common ancestor at some point in human history, so of course they are in some way related. However, Sub-Saharan Africans are not (in any way) descended from Western Hunter-Gatherers, whereas WHG are a "distinct ancestral component of modern Europeans".
Right. Another way of saying it is that Cheddar Man is no more related to Africans than the white-skinned (but brown-eyed and brown haired) Aryan Steppe People that wiped out and replaced the Cheddar Men. And then there was another another 3,000 years of substantial genetic evolution in the N. European population. So, no, Britons are not descended from black Africans (at least not any more so than any other modern non-Africans.)
Despite being ardent materialists and having a stranglehold on the scientific establishment the Left denies evolution and genetic ancestry in humans, and therefore claims Cheddar Man is black because "race is a social construct" and he may have had dark skin.
Julius Caesar would be surprised to hear it. This is the same diversity idiocy of the left which justifies casting black actors in roles which anthropologically speaking makes absolutely no sense...except to the woke sheeple who are creating an ancient world that only exists in their collective febrile imaginations.
I think the claim around the notion of "blackness" is innacurate in this article.
When we talk about "black" in this day and age we don't any longer mean "sub Saharan African" but the American definition of black, which is the 1 drop rule.
Everyone with a slight tan is now "black", even when they are quite clearly not so. Insane cases like that of Rachel Dolazel show the fine line between whiteness and memetic blackness.
And the trouble, then, is that the whole idea of "blackness" becomes a blank slate onto which ideologues can project their fantasies.
And this is why Cheddar man is so toxic in this conception. The man has a slight tan and this then is seized on to represent anyone who falls into the "1 drop catchment". This could be anyone now: Sub Saharan Africans, black Americans, Brazilians, anyone at all.
Other than my disagreement on the definition of "black" in the modern world, I think the article raises the absurdities of the BBC very well.
I think there is a convenient shifting, especially on the left, between people who are black and people who are Black. It allows them to have it both ways. I don't mind if we do come to have a linguistic distinction between the two concepts. I would only say that they can't sneak back to treating them as synonymous again.
You keep making the mistake there is logic or a desire to be consistent involved in the actions of the BBC et. alea. They use language as a bludgeon, not a tool to find solutions. I seriously doubt that many even deeply understand the semantics of their words. They act like neural networks, trained to increase the adverse reactions.
When someone blames you (or me) from being irrational, illogical, and/or inconsistent, we inspect our reasoning because we consider it shameful if those criticisms would be true. This is imho largely the success of the enlightenment, we used logic and consistency to create compromises. However, in a feminised society logic, rationality, and consistency have zero weight; its feelings that that are the primary currency.
It is worthwhile to keep being logical about such things, if only to provide a template for what a decent argument is. I do worry that folks like you will come to believe it will have the least influence on the BBC or the Guardian and its readers and become despondent when it doesn't. Be of good cheer.
No idea is too stupid or delusional for the kind of people who gravitate towards the BBC to embrace it. They are simply (in TS Eliot's words) "absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves". If you wanted to sum up in three letters why Britain is so out in front of the rest of the Western world in the 'wokeness' malaise, those three letters would be BBC. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/non-binary-sibling-is-entertaining
Superb TS Eliot quote.
Probably worth adding that the BBC is quite adept at various biases, not just its favourite 'woke' ones.
White Guilt and White Saviorism are the foundational dogma and sacred charge for the globalist progressive oligarchy.
Their goal is to couch and conceal any and all actions behind the smokescreen of Diversity, which means more or less: We will dispossess and impoverish you, flood your countries with foreigners, monitor all your words and thoughts—but only because we love black people so much and just want to protect them from harm! And only bigots disagree!
In the 21st century the White Man's Burden has been replaced by the White Woman's emotional burden, but the gist is the same: our ruling class wants to hog not just all the money but all the virtue, and wants to make people feel hateful and immoral even for disagreeing with them.
Everything they do is about maintaining, consolidating and extending their power and they honestly believe they have a divine right to engage in unlimited social engineering.
I consider the Woke agenda as an effort to destroy Western Civilization through divide and conquer with acts of societal disruption.
It's reverse colonization from woke America. Britain has to be a "land of immigrants" because that's the foundation myth of the woke U.S. Global Empire. Run as fast as you can from this poison if you know what's good for you.
I'll add this to my list of objections to leftishist social justice chatter under the heading 'It's racist'.
Talk about appropriating a race, culture, or ethnicity...that is what blacks are doing in Britain and elsewhere.
Terrific stuff. I like Noah Carl more and more.
"even if Cheddar Man did have dark skin, he was not related in any way to the people we refer to as “black” – namely Sub-Saharan Africans."
Just a slight quibble with this statement - Cheddar Man (Western Hunter-Gatherers) and Sub-Saharan Africans do share a common ancestor at some point in human history, so of course they are in some way related. However, Sub-Saharan Africans are not (in any way) descended from Western Hunter-Gatherers, whereas WHG are a "distinct ancestral component of modern Europeans".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Hunter-Gatherer
Right. Another way of saying it is that Cheddar Man is no more related to Africans than the white-skinned (but brown-eyed and brown haired) Aryan Steppe People that wiped out and replaced the Cheddar Men. And then there was another another 3,000 years of substantial genetic evolution in the N. European population. So, no, Britons are not descended from black Africans (at least not any more so than any other modern non-Africans.)
Despite being ardent materialists and having a stranglehold on the scientific establishment the Left denies evolution and genetic ancestry in humans, and therefore claims Cheddar Man is black because "race is a social construct" and he may have had dark skin.
Julius Caesar would be surprised to hear it. This is the same diversity idiocy of the left which justifies casting black actors in roles which anthropologically speaking makes absolutely no sense...except to the woke sheeple who are creating an ancient world that only exists in their collective febrile imaginations.
I think the claim around the notion of "blackness" is innacurate in this article.
When we talk about "black" in this day and age we don't any longer mean "sub Saharan African" but the American definition of black, which is the 1 drop rule.
Everyone with a slight tan is now "black", even when they are quite clearly not so. Insane cases like that of Rachel Dolazel show the fine line between whiteness and memetic blackness.
And the trouble, then, is that the whole idea of "blackness" becomes a blank slate onto which ideologues can project their fantasies.
And this is why Cheddar man is so toxic in this conception. The man has a slight tan and this then is seized on to represent anyone who falls into the "1 drop catchment". This could be anyone now: Sub Saharan Africans, black Americans, Brazilians, anyone at all.
Other than my disagreement on the definition of "black" in the modern world, I think the article raises the absurdities of the BBC very well.
I think there is a convenient shifting, especially on the left, between people who are black and people who are Black. It allows them to have it both ways. I don't mind if we do come to have a linguistic distinction between the two concepts. I would only say that they can't sneak back to treating them as synonymous again.
You keep making the mistake there is logic or a desire to be consistent involved in the actions of the BBC et. alea. They use language as a bludgeon, not a tool to find solutions. I seriously doubt that many even deeply understand the semantics of their words. They act like neural networks, trained to increase the adverse reactions.
When someone blames you (or me) from being irrational, illogical, and/or inconsistent, we inspect our reasoning because we consider it shameful if those criticisms would be true. This is imho largely the success of the enlightenment, we used logic and consistency to create compromises. However, in a feminised society logic, rationality, and consistency have zero weight; its feelings that that are the primary currency.
It is worthwhile to keep being logical about such things, if only to provide a template for what a decent argument is. I do worry that folks like you will come to believe it will have the least influence on the BBC or the Guardian and its readers and become despondent when it doesn't. Be of good cheer.
WE WUZ CHEDDA