Next paragraph.
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Nov 9 2008, 11:28 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 9 2008, 11:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Obama phenomenon represents a veritable microcosm of the Monotheist Colonial Project. In short, the Monotheistic Messiah advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project. Due to sustained propaganda, most people associate Monotheistic phenomenon like Christianity and Communism with "revolutionary" thoughts; in fact, these "movements" serve to integrate divergent and fissiparous tendencies into the colonial "system". Such Monotheistic movements label the diversity of human traditions and cultures as deviances from the colonial norm and as impediments to "peace" (that is, to success of the colonial project) and then seek to homogeneize[?] these "problematic" cultures in their "own image". Part of the project involves co-opting symbols from the defeated culture as trophies - in the way that Americans parade their "respect" for the defeated "Native American" by donning the clothes of their victims (e.g., the chief's headdress). [[[such liberal appropriation phenomenon is notably absent in cultures like India and China]]] Indians should remember that whenever the Monotheists mention peace they are referring to the "peace of the graveyard" or the "peace of capitulation". Similarly, the oft-professed monotheist love for his downtrodden victim is similar to the "love" of the pedophile priest for the child victim or to the paternalistic nostalgia of a Kipling for the decontextualized and dehistoricized, and thus exoticized, "boy" Mowgli.
The "dialogue" between America's 'blacks' and 'whites' reflects this same dynamic of monotheistic colonialism; but while the 'whites' are continuing the same monologue as their Christian ancestors, the response of the 'blacks' actually doesn't in any way represent their *African* ancestors. Colin Powell apparently went 'teary-eyed' when Obama made it as president. The Republican was moved that he lived to see a 'black' man as president. But it was a very superficial identification on his part: only the exterior was taken into consideration. Powell's response is the expected response of a Christianized victim to the depredations of the Christian masters and as such does not represent the voice of confident African traditions. Similarly, it is not a representative of Africa or of African traditions that has ascended to the highest rank of President; rather, it is only a 'colour' (i.e. an exterior) that has ascended (or been allowed to ascend as a trophy "headdress" for whites). And, oddly enough, persons of African origin in America like Colin Powell are only glad for Obama's *color* (that is because identification with mere 'color' has replaced identification with their origins/natural traditions for blacks). Yet, inside Obama may be anything from the WASP ideological spectrum of republican, democrat, or leftist. Even if Obama deviates from his predecessors, he will still live with the "black" identity imparted to him in place of the African cultural identity. And he will, at most, just shift around within this "color" identity. So how does Obama represent anything more than the existing American ideals and status quo? How does Obama represent Africa or Africans (which are supposedly other connotations for 'black')?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Husky+Nov 9 2008, 11:28 AM-->QUOTE(Husky @ Nov 9 2008, 11:28 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->The Obama phenomenon represents a veritable microcosm of the Monotheist Colonial Project. In short, the Monotheistic Messiah advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project. Due to sustained propaganda, most people associate Monotheistic phenomenon like Christianity and Communism with "revolutionary" thoughts; in fact, these "movements" serve to integrate divergent and fissiparous tendencies into the colonial "system". Such Monotheistic movements label the diversity of human traditions and cultures as deviances from the colonial norm and as impediments to "peace" (that is, to success of the colonial project) and then seek to homogeneize[?] these "problematic" cultures in their "own image". Part of the project involves co-opting symbols from the defeated culture as trophies - in the way that Americans parade their "respect" for the defeated "Native American" by donning the clothes of their victims (e.g., the chief's headdress). [[[such liberal appropriation phenomenon is notably absent in cultures like India and China]]] Indians should remember that whenever the Monotheists mention peace they are referring to the "peace of the graveyard" or the "peace of capitulation". Similarly, the oft-professed monotheist love for his downtrodden victim is similar to the "love" of the pedophile priest for the child victim or to the paternalistic nostalgia of a Kipling for the decontextualized and dehistoricized, and thus exoticized, "boy" Mowgli.
The "dialogue" between America's 'blacks' and 'whites' reflects this same dynamic of monotheistic colonialism; but while the 'whites' are continuing the same monologue as their Christian ancestors, the response of the 'blacks' actually doesn't in any way represent their *African* ancestors. Colin Powell apparently went 'teary-eyed' when Obama made it as president. The Republican was moved that he lived to see a 'black' man as president. But it was a very superficial identification on his part: only the exterior was taken into consideration. Powell's response is the expected response of a Christianized victim to the depredations of the Christian masters and as such does not represent the voice of confident African traditions. Similarly, it is not a representative of Africa or of African traditions that has ascended to the highest rank of President; rather, it is only a 'colour' (i.e. an exterior) that has ascended (or been allowed to ascend as a trophy "headdress" for whites). And, oddly enough, persons of African origin in America like Colin Powell are only glad for Obama's *color* (that is because identification with mere 'color' has replaced identification with their origins/natural traditions for blacks). Yet, inside Obama may be anything from the WASP ideological spectrum of republican, democrat, or leftist. Even if Obama deviates from his predecessors, he will still live with the "black" identity imparted to him in place of the African cultural identity. And he will, at most, just shift around within this "color" identity. So how does Obama represent anything more than the existing American ideals and status quo? How does Obama represent Africa or Africans (which are supposedly other connotations for 'black')?<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->