<!--QuoteBegin-dhu+Nov 6 2008, 05:33 AM-->QUOTE(dhu @ Nov 6 2008, 05:33 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-acharya+Nov 5 2008, 07:35 AM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(acharya @ Nov 5 2008, 07:35 AM)<!--QuoteEBegin--><b>Obamaâs âRace Speechâ as Neoslave Narrative</b>[right][snapback]89774[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->Actually, the Obama phenomenon is a case study in the genesis of Prophetism. The <b>monotheistic messiah always advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project.</b>[right][snapback]89810[/snapback][/right]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->Tangentially related perhaps.
There were (American) people referring to Obama's election as him being the first 'black' president. This is both untrue and shows how nothing's ulimately changed in the US.
The man's bi-ethnic (or to use a deprecated term, bi-racial). But America's colour parlance is about black and white (and, when they remember the native Americans, the 'coloured'). The definition of 'black' in AmeriKKKa has its closest correspondence in what the nazis of Germany later created with their 'Aryan Paragraph. If any don't know: the Oryan Paragraph was that any German (christian) who had any Jewish grandparent or was it great grandparent was Jewish, non-Oryan and hence untermensch/subhuman. The Amerikkkan 1 Drop Rule holds that if a person had a drop of African ancestry (usually translated as I think 1/8th African) they were 'black'. It barred them from a lot of rights in the past, and of course brought along all the social stigma associated with being black in a slavers' world.
While no one is literally black or literally white, in America's terms it does not mean African or European either, since Obama's ancestry would then be African-European. So when they say that bi-ethnic Obama is 'black', Americans are still actually subscribing to the nazi Oryan Paragraph - what am I saying, of course I mean the racist One Drop Rule. As a Hindu (or any non-American) looking in, I find the American mindset vastly intriguing. So much loaded terminology, so many alien and unnatural concepts, so many layers upon layers of christoconditioning, that even when they think they are now much more open-minded, they aren't really.
Now back to Dhu's statement: "Actually, the Obama phenomenon is a case study in the genesis of Prophetism. The monotheistic messiah always advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project."
The dialogue between America's 'blacks' and 'whites' is fascinating in this respect too, that while the 'whites' are still continuing the same monolgue as their christo ancestors, the response of the 'blacks' actually doesn't in any way represent their African ancestors. My mother told me after watching the news of the American election that Colin Powell apparently went 'teary-eyed' when Obama made it as president. The Republican was moved that he lived to see a 'black' man be president. It's a very superficial identification on his (and many other Americans') part: only the exterior is taken into consideration, even though Obama is supposed to be a Democrat and therefore is expected to have some objectives that are in conflict with Republican Powell's. Powell's response to Obama being president is an example of the other half/part of the same christodialogue as that of the christomasters. People like to make a lot of Obama's candidacy and election on the grounds of his exterior, and that it supposedly implies what he represents. Their view is very skewed: it's not a representative of/speaker for Africa or of African traditions (or of any remnants thereof in America) that has ascended to this rank, it is only a 'colour' that has ascended. And it is oddly enough for his *colour*, that others of African origin in America like Colin Powell are glad (that is because identification with mere colour has replaced identification with their origins/natural traditions). Yet inside Obama may be anything (democrat, republican, or leftist even - but all are western christian WASPCyness). Even if he deviates from his predecessors, if he lives/thinks in the same box, he will not move outside it but just shift within it. So how does he represent anything more than the existing American ideals and status quo? How does he represent Africa or Africans (which are supposedly other connotations for 'black')?
Only the heathen does. And only heathens are interested. See, for instance, how the traditional Greeks - the Hellenes of ysee.gr - took the trouble of devoting a page on their site to how christianism is destroying Africa. They care about African identity - since only traditional African identity is African. Similarly it is Hindus who are standing up for other Natural Traditionalists' identity and continued existence, even as we stand for our own.
The American christodialogue will put the Hellenes in the 'white' box - even though the Hellenes themselves do not play that game (they identify themselves as no more and no less than the ethnic Greeks=traditional Greeks, who follow their Gods and their Old Ways). Similarly, Hindus are seen by Americans as either coloured, black or oryan-dravidiods, even when our sense of our own identity is vastly different: we see ourselves as ethnic Indians, Hindus. Not in any colour terms. Like the Hellenes, we are not christians, so the christian black-white pastime is lost on us.
From tbe Hindu POV, since we don't get the whole 'black and white' dialogue and have learnt that an exterior match is no assurance (that is, we know that people who look Indian can be hyper anti-Hindus), Hindus don't really know <i>who</i> has ascended to presidency in America - what Obama's identity is. Because Hindus don't see it in the way Colin Powell sees this event. Some Hindus - those who still think that anyone who looks Indian and has a Hindu name 'must be' Hindu, even though they might actually be crypto instead - may see Obama as a person that marks the end of colonialism in the Americas. But they are naive, ignorant. American reality is very complex - very pedestrian and petty, but a muddle of predictable complexity (predictable if you know the values of the unknown variables).
I don't yet know whether the current president is but another one like Condoleeza Rice - an imperialist White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Catholic (WASPC) trapped in an African woman's body, since her exterior says nothing: in essentials, she coincides with the other male Vulcans of the Bush administration. (In case anyone wasn't too sure, 'Vulcans' is the term political analysts use for the imperialist members of the Bush administration 'War cabinet': Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rove, Armitage and a bunch of other WASPCy dudes.) And in this external-internal contradiction, both Powell and Rice fit the pattern of "advocating capitulation to the colonial power and normalizing any dissonance stemming from the colonial project" in their smaller way. <i>If</i> Obama is the same, then he would indeed be the "monotheistic messiah" of Dhu's statement, which would make him another WASPCy-facilitator on the inside though with the deceptive plumage of familiarity on the outside which is used to pacify and assure the dissenting crowd (people of African and Hispanic origin in the US and maybe even christianised native Americans). The combination of inside and outside is what would get the <i>rest</i> of America's hierarchy to willingly submit itself to the powers that be: the WASPCy order.
Similarly, don't know whether Obama is otherwise red (communist), black theology (the black half of western christodialogue), or whether he is something else. A note on black theology or black assertion or whatever it is called these days: the black-white dichotomy from either perspective is only a continuation of the christian worldview. The black side is the reactionary side to western christo imperialism and slavery. But both sides of the dialogue are invariably christian, both sides believe in the same fundamentals, they just have different views on who the antagonists and protagonists are (which is in a similar vein to the christodialogue of conflict which Dhu pointed out on the Real America and by extension Not Real America that the Christian Right of the US like Palin are into).
And since both the WASPCies and 'black theology' are playing by the same rules in their interaction, we know beforehand that the side which has been dealt the worst cards - the 'black' side - is going to lose when they insist on playing this game. That's because they have accepted the prescribed identity given them and are playing within the (christian) parameters defined for them. Most people of African origin in America are cultural orphans. They are either abused by the christos or they're raised to conform and then used to abuse others, just as the German nazis used some Jews to terrorise their own people.
American meltingpotism is strange, funny/laughable (in a morbid sense) and repugnant. It is also the death of all real identity. Their meltingpotism is the friendly term for brutal but subconscious assimilation into their christodialogue, after which people will be living on their (US' WASPCy) terms of existence, within their hierarchy, their rules of what is done and not done, their rules of what in the status-quo can be questioned and what can't be. If accepted, their manufactured identity is worse than a half-life or a life of shadows.
I shudder to think how christos and cryptos in India and their nursery in their 'Dalit theology' schools tend to effortlessly osmose into the christo black-white dialogue and no doubt see in Obama a 'black' president, instead of an American with bi-ethnic ancestry who may be fuelled by whatever motivations he may have. Christos in India heralding him as a sign that christianism is open-minded, that the christowest (which in this case is US in particular) is morally superior for electing a 'black' man is no more than self-delusion, when the very fact that they perceive him as 'black' - just as the Americans even today perceive him as 'black' - follows the American christian mindset and US' One Drop Rule. Alien <i>racist</i> thinking has entered into India, into Indian christians' mindset, even as they congratulate themselves on their (and US') supposed non-racism.
There were (American) people referring to Obama's election as him being the first 'black' president. This is both untrue and shows how nothing's ulimately changed in the US.
The man's bi-ethnic (or to use a deprecated term, bi-racial). But America's colour parlance is about black and white (and, when they remember the native Americans, the 'coloured'). The definition of 'black' in AmeriKKKa has its closest correspondence in what the nazis of Germany later created with their 'Aryan Paragraph. If any don't know: the Oryan Paragraph was that any German (christian) who had any Jewish grandparent or was it great grandparent was Jewish, non-Oryan and hence untermensch/subhuman. The Amerikkkan 1 Drop Rule holds that if a person had a drop of African ancestry (usually translated as I think 1/8th African) they were 'black'. It barred them from a lot of rights in the past, and of course brought along all the social stigma associated with being black in a slavers' world.
While no one is literally black or literally white, in America's terms it does not mean African or European either, since Obama's ancestry would then be African-European. So when they say that bi-ethnic Obama is 'black', Americans are still actually subscribing to the nazi Oryan Paragraph - what am I saying, of course I mean the racist One Drop Rule. As a Hindu (or any non-American) looking in, I find the American mindset vastly intriguing. So much loaded terminology, so many alien and unnatural concepts, so many layers upon layers of christoconditioning, that even when they think they are now much more open-minded, they aren't really.
Now back to Dhu's statement: "Actually, the Obama phenomenon is a case study in the genesis of Prophetism. The monotheistic messiah always advocates capitulation to the colonial power and normalizes any dissonance stemming from the colonial project."
The dialogue between America's 'blacks' and 'whites' is fascinating in this respect too, that while the 'whites' are still continuing the same monolgue as their christo ancestors, the response of the 'blacks' actually doesn't in any way represent their African ancestors. My mother told me after watching the news of the American election that Colin Powell apparently went 'teary-eyed' when Obama made it as president. The Republican was moved that he lived to see a 'black' man be president. It's a very superficial identification on his (and many other Americans') part: only the exterior is taken into consideration, even though Obama is supposed to be a Democrat and therefore is expected to have some objectives that are in conflict with Republican Powell's. Powell's response to Obama being president is an example of the other half/part of the same christodialogue as that of the christomasters. People like to make a lot of Obama's candidacy and election on the grounds of his exterior, and that it supposedly implies what he represents. Their view is very skewed: it's not a representative of/speaker for Africa or of African traditions (or of any remnants thereof in America) that has ascended to this rank, it is only a 'colour' that has ascended. And it is oddly enough for his *colour*, that others of African origin in America like Colin Powell are glad (that is because identification with mere colour has replaced identification with their origins/natural traditions). Yet inside Obama may be anything (democrat, republican, or leftist even - but all are western christian WASPCyness). Even if he deviates from his predecessors, if he lives/thinks in the same box, he will not move outside it but just shift within it. So how does he represent anything more than the existing American ideals and status quo? How does he represent Africa or Africans (which are supposedly other connotations for 'black')?
Only the heathen does. And only heathens are interested. See, for instance, how the traditional Greeks - the Hellenes of ysee.gr - took the trouble of devoting a page on their site to how christianism is destroying Africa. They care about African identity - since only traditional African identity is African. Similarly it is Hindus who are standing up for other Natural Traditionalists' identity and continued existence, even as we stand for our own.
The American christodialogue will put the Hellenes in the 'white' box - even though the Hellenes themselves do not play that game (they identify themselves as no more and no less than the ethnic Greeks=traditional Greeks, who follow their Gods and their Old Ways). Similarly, Hindus are seen by Americans as either coloured, black or oryan-dravidiods, even when our sense of our own identity is vastly different: we see ourselves as ethnic Indians, Hindus. Not in any colour terms. Like the Hellenes, we are not christians, so the christian black-white pastime is lost on us.
From tbe Hindu POV, since we don't get the whole 'black and white' dialogue and have learnt that an exterior match is no assurance (that is, we know that people who look Indian can be hyper anti-Hindus), Hindus don't really know <i>who</i> has ascended to presidency in America - what Obama's identity is. Because Hindus don't see it in the way Colin Powell sees this event. Some Hindus - those who still think that anyone who looks Indian and has a Hindu name 'must be' Hindu, even though they might actually be crypto instead - may see Obama as a person that marks the end of colonialism in the Americas. But they are naive, ignorant. American reality is very complex - very pedestrian and petty, but a muddle of predictable complexity (predictable if you know the values of the unknown variables).
I don't yet know whether the current president is but another one like Condoleeza Rice - an imperialist White Anglo-Saxon Protestant/Catholic (WASPC) trapped in an African woman's body, since her exterior says nothing: in essentials, she coincides with the other male Vulcans of the Bush administration. (In case anyone wasn't too sure, 'Vulcans' is the term political analysts use for the imperialist members of the Bush administration 'War cabinet': Rumsfeld, Rice, Powell, Cheney, Rove, Armitage and a bunch of other WASPCy dudes.) And in this external-internal contradiction, both Powell and Rice fit the pattern of "advocating capitulation to the colonial power and normalizing any dissonance stemming from the colonial project" in their smaller way. <i>If</i> Obama is the same, then he would indeed be the "monotheistic messiah" of Dhu's statement, which would make him another WASPCy-facilitator on the inside though with the deceptive plumage of familiarity on the outside which is used to pacify and assure the dissenting crowd (people of African and Hispanic origin in the US and maybe even christianised native Americans). The combination of inside and outside is what would get the <i>rest</i> of America's hierarchy to willingly submit itself to the powers that be: the WASPCy order.
Similarly, don't know whether Obama is otherwise red (communist), black theology (the black half of western christodialogue), or whether he is something else. A note on black theology or black assertion or whatever it is called these days: the black-white dichotomy from either perspective is only a continuation of the christian worldview. The black side is the reactionary side to western christo imperialism and slavery. But both sides of the dialogue are invariably christian, both sides believe in the same fundamentals, they just have different views on who the antagonists and protagonists are (which is in a similar vein to the christodialogue of conflict which Dhu pointed out on the Real America and by extension Not Real America that the Christian Right of the US like Palin are into).
And since both the WASPCies and 'black theology' are playing by the same rules in their interaction, we know beforehand that the side which has been dealt the worst cards - the 'black' side - is going to lose when they insist on playing this game. That's because they have accepted the prescribed identity given them and are playing within the (christian) parameters defined for them. Most people of African origin in America are cultural orphans. They are either abused by the christos or they're raised to conform and then used to abuse others, just as the German nazis used some Jews to terrorise their own people.
American meltingpotism is strange, funny/laughable (in a morbid sense) and repugnant. It is also the death of all real identity. Their meltingpotism is the friendly term for brutal but subconscious assimilation into their christodialogue, after which people will be living on their (US' WASPCy) terms of existence, within their hierarchy, their rules of what is done and not done, their rules of what in the status-quo can be questioned and what can't be. If accepted, their manufactured identity is worse than a half-life or a life of shadows.
I shudder to think how christos and cryptos in India and their nursery in their 'Dalit theology' schools tend to effortlessly osmose into the christo black-white dialogue and no doubt see in Obama a 'black' president, instead of an American with bi-ethnic ancestry who may be fuelled by whatever motivations he may have. Christos in India heralding him as a sign that christianism is open-minded, that the christowest (which in this case is US in particular) is morally superior for electing a 'black' man is no more than self-delusion, when the very fact that they perceive him as 'black' - just as the Americans even today perceive him as 'black' - follows the American christian mindset and US' One Drop Rule. Alien <i>racist</i> thinking has entered into India, into Indian christians' mindset, even as they congratulate themselves on their (and US') supposed non-racism.