Mushe
10-04-2020, 03:31 AM
The first assignment was to watch a Sudan Nigger's Ted Talk from 2009 titled "The Danger of A Single Story" by Chim(p)amanda Adichie
Secondly, we were assigned to write a response. Mine was:
When Chimamanda Adichie talks about "the danger of a single story", Chimamanda Adichie is referring to an anecdotal & subjective cultural phenomena in which a single story or expectation can lead to a gross stereotypical misrepresentation of an entire culture, country, or race. After emigrating from Nigeria to Drexel University (USA) Chimamanda Adichie was underestimated and pitied due to her nation of origin, Africa. and upon arrival, she felt felt that the majority of Westerners have a common conception that all native African people are impoverished and/or illiterate - which is untrue. Chimamanda Adichie, as does any other moralistic-thinking human being, views the idea of "the single story" as problematic because it reduces an entirety of humans from a particular region or group into one singular and defining stereotype, based upon a single story which cannot possibly apply to all people from a said particular region or group, contemporarily.
Ironically, during an interview from 2016 (at mark 02:57 in the video) ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eloHoAvArCo&ab_channel=BBCNewsnight Chimamanda Adichie is quoted stating "If you're a white man, you don't get to define what racism is". Such a statement appears, in my opinion, as racially exclusionist and rejectionist (racist) and nullifies any/all accreditation she has informally received since her Ted Talk in October of 2009.
Regardless, her virtuous story is still redeemable for it's remembrance of the fact that stereotypes and generalizations aren't all encompassing of any whole group of people.
-Nigger Professor's Marxist and Anti-white Response:
you make some really good points in your post. Regarding Adichie’s statement that the white man does not get to define racism, this statement is no different than a feminist saying men do not get to define sexism. When a group is benefitting from an unjust system, they should not unilaterally define the terms on which it is to be addressed. For years those in power have done just that. For those who want to be allies to marginalized groups who give voices of dissent to such power structures we can do so by using cultural relativity to try see what they are saying through their eyes, or by walking a mile in their shoes. Adichie gets at the heart of this very issue when she says when a story begins (I am paraphrasing) with white settlers talking about Native Americans attacking their homesteads which they valiantly defend and ignore the earlier part of this story that these settlers took their land and imposed their will on this same community, the story is very different story.
My response to that was:
Western Europeans settling on the completely unclaimed & uncharted eastern coast of North America seeking religious & financial freedom from British rule are a very different story than the Spaniard "conquistadors" whom forcibly spread the Spanish language, Christianity, and disease throughout South America which precipitated into contemporary "mestizos" whom didn't exist among the original Puritan settlers of the original colonies of the east coast settlements. Russian people are European and considered "white" although they had little to no influence towards colonialism in the Americas. Are they not able to define racism either? I think they can. Based upon the Bolshevik holocaust (genocide) of an estimated 60+ million Orthodox Christian Russians during the Bolshevik Revolution, which is completely excluded from educational curriculum worldwide - for a reason - since all White countries are being inflitraded by Marxist, Communist, anti-white psychological subversion for the sole purpose of financially dominating the world: equating to the most "equal" slavery in which the NEW WORLD ORDER DESIRES.
And look what we have these nigger teachers preaching during week 1 of a cultural anthropology course...
Secondly, we were assigned to write a response. Mine was:
When Chimamanda Adichie talks about "the danger of a single story", Chimamanda Adichie is referring to an anecdotal & subjective cultural phenomena in which a single story or expectation can lead to a gross stereotypical misrepresentation of an entire culture, country, or race. After emigrating from Nigeria to Drexel University (USA) Chimamanda Adichie was underestimated and pitied due to her nation of origin, Africa. and upon arrival, she felt felt that the majority of Westerners have a common conception that all native African people are impoverished and/or illiterate - which is untrue. Chimamanda Adichie, as does any other moralistic-thinking human being, views the idea of "the single story" as problematic because it reduces an entirety of humans from a particular region or group into one singular and defining stereotype, based upon a single story which cannot possibly apply to all people from a said particular region or group, contemporarily.
Ironically, during an interview from 2016 (at mark 02:57 in the video) ---> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eloHoAvArCo&ab_channel=BBCNewsnight Chimamanda Adichie is quoted stating "If you're a white man, you don't get to define what racism is". Such a statement appears, in my opinion, as racially exclusionist and rejectionist (racist) and nullifies any/all accreditation she has informally received since her Ted Talk in October of 2009.
Regardless, her virtuous story is still redeemable for it's remembrance of the fact that stereotypes and generalizations aren't all encompassing of any whole group of people.
-Nigger Professor's Marxist and Anti-white Response:
you make some really good points in your post. Regarding Adichie’s statement that the white man does not get to define racism, this statement is no different than a feminist saying men do not get to define sexism. When a group is benefitting from an unjust system, they should not unilaterally define the terms on which it is to be addressed. For years those in power have done just that. For those who want to be allies to marginalized groups who give voices of dissent to such power structures we can do so by using cultural relativity to try see what they are saying through their eyes, or by walking a mile in their shoes. Adichie gets at the heart of this very issue when she says when a story begins (I am paraphrasing) with white settlers talking about Native Americans attacking their homesteads which they valiantly defend and ignore the earlier part of this story that these settlers took their land and imposed their will on this same community, the story is very different story.
My response to that was:
Western Europeans settling on the completely unclaimed & uncharted eastern coast of North America seeking religious & financial freedom from British rule are a very different story than the Spaniard "conquistadors" whom forcibly spread the Spanish language, Christianity, and disease throughout South America which precipitated into contemporary "mestizos" whom didn't exist among the original Puritan settlers of the original colonies of the east coast settlements. Russian people are European and considered "white" although they had little to no influence towards colonialism in the Americas. Are they not able to define racism either? I think they can. Based upon the Bolshevik holocaust (genocide) of an estimated 60+ million Orthodox Christian Russians during the Bolshevik Revolution, which is completely excluded from educational curriculum worldwide - for a reason - since all White countries are being inflitraded by Marxist, Communist, anti-white psychological subversion for the sole purpose of financially dominating the world: equating to the most "equal" slavery in which the NEW WORLD ORDER DESIRES.
And look what we have these nigger teachers preaching during week 1 of a cultural anthropology course...