Skip to comments.Michelle Obama racism row—what’s it based on?
Posted on 12/08/2009 5:54:56 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
This recent BBC News header was typical of the news headlines worldwide on the story:
Michelle Obama racist image sparks Google apology
Apparently, the image referred to was a photograph of Mrs Obama that had been manipulated to give her the facial features of a monkey. I say apparently, because the mock-up photo no longer appears as the #1 ranking on Googles list of image search results for Michelle Obama.
It is very clear however from the news reports of the race row that in the last days that the picture was Google-accessible, it stirred many people. Such was the furore, Google executives issued an apology, even though they themselves were not responsible for the photo.
However, it seems theres a key part of the story that has been left unreportedat least, in the numerous mainstream media reports. Whats missing is an explanation of why likening Americas First Lady to an ape or monkey is considered racist.
After all, when the previous president of the United States, George W. Bush, was likened to a chimpanzee on various websites,[6,7] the mockery was never referred to as being racist in nature...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
For the record, this post is being posted in News/Activism by the express permission of Jim Robinson, founder and owner of Free Republic:
Debate on church doctrine and or threads on specific religious matters may be best posted in the religion forum, but the defense of religious freedom, especially against those who wish to deprive us of same belongs front and center on FR....They banned God and prayer and creationism from public schools and public places, but Ill be damned if theyre gonna ban Him or it from FR!
The mods are back to banishing Creation/ID posts Bloggers and Personal again.
Funny how Google never protected Bush or his family from horrible photos found on image searches.
It must be embarrassing to be both black and a “man.” Watching the vast majority of your peers dance around the pity tree. Occasionally I find myself wishing I were black so I could kick some ars where it needs to be kicked.
This is a looooong distance bashing of Darwin.
Whether you understand TToE or not, it is a further jump to say that racism is based on it than to say Nazism was a result of it.
It just doesn’t follow. Like with any science, TToE — and all sciences — can be used for good or evil.
Gee, it I wonder why that was?! We need to start a conservative search engine to start competing with all the libs who currently dominate the seach engine market!!!
I truly believe that Darwinism is inherently racist whether it is true or not. Of course, I don’t believe it is true, which makes it all the worse. But even if it were true, some races would have to be lower or less evolved than other races by definition.
They still don’t. All you have to do is google these as separate searches. The one for Bush has a section for “image results” a few entries down. The one for Chewy? No section like that.
Michelle Obama monkey
>>I truly believe that Darwinism is inherently racist whether it is true or not. Of course, I dont believe it is true, which makes it all the worse. But even if it were true, some races would have to be lower or less evolved than other races by definition.<<
You may believe it, but that don’t make it so. TToE is no more racist than a wrench or a telescope. It recognizes a diversity of traits but, other than stochastically moving the ball of the entire human race, makes no judgment on what we call “race.” In scientific terms, what we call “race” is a primarily a social concept, not a (natural) scientific one (although certain lineages do have unique features).
Like I said, this is an overreach.
>>In other words, when the media reports that monkey-like mock-up photos of Michelle Obama are racist, theyre tacitly highlighting societys long-held view, fuelled by evolution, that blacks are less evolved than whites. Of course the mainstream media dont dare put it so bluntlyits simply assumed<<
That is an assertion — there is no research behind it. Saying something don’t make it so. In this case, it is a total misapplication of two entire branches of science: anthropology and sociology.
It looks more to me that the author is the racist and assuming his/her conclusions are true for everyone else. This is called “projection” and is a bad thing.
At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla.
--Charles Darwin, Descent of Man, 1871
Because it is and its premise always has been:
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world." At the same time the anthropomorphous apes [i.e., blacks ed.], as Professor Schaffhausen has remarked, (Anthropological Review, April, 1867, p. 236) will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla."
(Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chap. vi)
"No rational man, cognizant of the facts, believes that the average Negro is the equal, still less the superior, of the white man.....it is simply incredible to think that.....he will be able to compete successfully with his bigger-brained and smaller-jawed rival, in a contest which is to be carried on by thoughts and not by bites."
(Thomas Huxley (aka Darwin's Bulldog"), 1871, Lay Sermons, addresses and reviews)
Precisely. I think the evos are uncomfortable with the whole evo-racism thing because they can’t disavow the racism, as it is built right into Darwin’s “theory.” So they try to make us feel guilty for pointing it out instead.
>>It all started with the founder of Darwinian evolution: <<
The Bible is filled with racism and a lot more vitriolic (and downright violent).
Look at these additional quotes from Descent:
“Their mental characteristics are likewise very distinct; chiefly as it would appear in their emotional, but partly in their intellectual faculties.”
“It may be doubted whether any character can be named which is distinctive of a race and is constant.”
“The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the “Beagle,” with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.”
“I was told before leaving England that after living in slave countries all my opinions would be altered; the only alteration I am aware of is forming a much higher estimate of the negro character. It is impossible to see a negro and not feel kindly towards him.”
For 1821 that was very enlightened indeed from a white man. The conclusion that there may be lineage would be based on observation.
The article also notes in passing some of what you are trying to say, but then they have to acknowledge the OVERT RACISM of virtually EVERY WHITE PERSON in Europe of that day. So ALL science advancements from that period (there were many) are also based in racism. Chemistry, physics, medicine — all steeped in racism.
And the assertion does not affect Darwin’s work nor TToE. As I said (and you ignored), there is no research behind the asserted conclusion about how people react and its linkage to TToE.