Simon Mayo's guests on his afternoon R5 show are a perfect cross-section of received liberal opinion. An impressive performance yesterday, by two people discussing Shakespeare and his relevance to young people. In passing they touched on theories that Shakespeare was black or an aristocrat.
"I'd rather he was black than posh" opined one of the guests.
The guests being those (hideously white) horny-handed sons of toil Chris Grace, with thirty years in television (doubtless as an engineer) and currently director of the Shakespeare Schools Festival, and one Crispin Bonham-Carter, Helena's cousin, luvvie and member of the well-known family of peasants.
Well, Of Course We Will, Emma…
20 hours ago
16 comments:
hi! i like you site! Keep so! look at my home pages:
Tamilsex Women Photos - xnxx - Freeones - Tamilsex com - 89.com
I think that the first comment was the most incisive I've ever seen on this, or any, blog. I trust you'll be adding those, no doubt excellent, sites to your blogroll, Laban.
On a serious point, it does seem that one of the favoured pastimes of white liberals is speculating that great figures in British and European history belonged to some sort of "oppressed minority group". Since so little is known about Shakespeare, he is one of their favoured targets. I had previously heard it said that he was, variously, Jewish, Catholic, or gay. I've never heard black before, but why not? I've also read that the Black Prince was actually black, and that Mozart was too, while Columbus was Jewish. There are probably more examples out there. The common theme in these cases seems to be that there is very little or no evidence for the asserted fact. At the same time, PC leftists treat it as gospel truth. I recall a Peter Tatchell article in the Guardian listing Shakespeare among gay writers, without a hint that there was any possibility that he was not, in fact, gay.
I suppose trying to prove that various great figures in European history were other than white heterosexual men fits the liberal worldview, in which white heterosexual men can only do evil. Of course, if I were to try and assert that, say, Rabindranath Tagore, was in fact white, I would be labelled a racist, and accused of trying to deprive an ethnic group of its heritage.
Shilpa Shetty is really Chinese and a Buddhist. She just "passes" for Indian. Tony Blair is actually black, but whited up. Cherie Blair is actually a Mexican indigene. She was born British, but something happened during that rebirthing ceremony in Cancun.
Good post, Fulham Reactionary. I am sick to death of having my heritage stolen from me by vicious, spiteful,toxic lefties.
By the way, did anyone notice the raving racism in hhis comment? The guest who said he'd rather Shakespeare had been black than posh? Ermmmmmm ... the assumption being that two are mutually exclusive?
There are some very fine, very rich, very posh black folks in Louisiana. I would say that concert pianist Condoleezza Rice, ex rector of Stanford University and now American Secretary of state, is pretty posh. I believe her father was a successful lawyer. I think US Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is rather posh. And black.
I realise that we are talking about different times, but this lefty commentator doesn't see black people as achievers, does he? It doesn't suit his patronising view of the world, does it? Hoist with his own petard. There is so much pleasure in typing that sentence.
In addition, there are people who are considered black who could just as well be considered white. Obama, for instance. He was raised by his mother, who was white, yet no one would think to refer to him as white. I think we should, though, just for fun.
Similarly with half-white performers Halle Berry, Alicia Keys and Prince.
Couldn't be bothered to RTFA, but from what you quote, it sounds like he thinks black and posh are mutually exclusive? It also sounds like black is in his mind a lesser evil. What a jackass.
Wait, maybe in Britain black and posh really are mutually exclusive? EWWWW! Er, sorry... But...
P Froward - I made your point above at 3:54. If you read previous comments, you wouldn't look so foolish racing in to make your killer point that had already been made two hours previously.
verity:
I'd missed the implicit racist attitude in the "I'd rather he was black than posh" comment.
Actually, there is a quite high level of this kind of 'black = poor, uneducated, lower class' racism among the liberal left. I recall an article by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown arguing that Adam Afriye (black MP for Windsor), was not properly black because he was rich. And people like Clarence Thomas, who you mentioned, are subjected to a degree of vitriol from liberals that they don't dole out to Antonin Scalia, for example. It's almost as if they feel that any black person who fails to be poor, resentful, and left-wing has failed to live up (or down) to their benevolent liberal ideal.
I think it's because liberals want blacks to be oppressed, so that they, the liberals, can rescue the poor black people, and in so doing demonstrate their anti-racist credentials.
Absolutely,Fulham Reactionary. They think successful and well-bred black people are 'uppity'.
I once drew up at a traffic light in Houston. In the next lane, there was a top of the line BMW. It was driven by a black woman - she was wearing a nice suit, so I assume she was in business or a profession. Anyway, the light changed, and she was first off, and I saw her personalised licence plate on the back of her car: UPPITY NIGGER. I caught the eye of the man driving next to me, and we both laughed in admiration.
But for sure, to the left, which is truly racist because they have specific roles for specific races, black people have to be oppressed and grateful for the help of the 'inclusive' souls.
Successful, not to say very rich (except if they came by their money in the entertainment or sports plantations), black people are an offence against the natural order to the socialist mindset. Black entertainers are OK for some reason.
Another thing is, most of these people are so inferior, they need someone to feel better than. It must be infuriating to see a designated victim group prospering without them.
Anyway, that's the first thing that caught my eye in Laban's post. The implicit racism in the statement.
Didn't this all start with Pink Floyd, three fourths of whom are aristocrats? While Liverpuddlians had to sing in brothels to be recognised, the sons of the elite just asked daddy for a cheque to cover expenses. No wonder they had more expensive gear than any other band at that time, 'All in all just another brick in the Wall'.
No, Bruce, it didn't start around the time a pop group became popular. It started around the 1920s with people like Bertrand Russell and the tribe of Mitfords and their ilk.
I think the claims of certain Liverpudlain mopheads to be 'working class heroes' is also somewhat spurious.
John, Paul & George - all relitively middle class (OK not by Pink Floyd standards), all went from school to art college and thence onto playing in a band. The rest, as they say, is history.
And the working class bit? Well Im not aware that any of them held down jobs on the docks, in a factory or even waiting tables or something.
Nothing wrong with being middle class, anonimo. Did they ever claim to be working class boys?
(Nothing wrong with being working class, either. Although, I am glad to say that the Brits, like the Americans, are basically all middle class today and have middle class aspirations.) Besides, today, we don't say "working class" any more. We have adopted the American 'blue collar' - which I honestly think is better. 'Working class' sounds like something you can't escape from. 'Blue collar' sounds like something you could be promoted from.
Thanks for pointing me to the Mitfords, never took notice of them before. Fascinating.
Nothing wrong with being middle class, anonimo. Did they ever claim to be working class boys?
I'd say yes. The maketing definitely made much of the fact they were "ordinary" lads. John Lennon in particular went out of his way to claim a working class background and I'd say McCartney wasn't too far behind.
By contrast, Harrison and Starr were more genuinely working class but made less of it.
The Rolling STones had even less claim.
However, I wouldn't make too much of this since the spirit of the sixties was class mobility.
BBC liberal sh*te as per usual. An attempt to make high culture relevant to the "BME" "communities." This rubbish is the sort of thing which makes my life difficult on a daily basis.
Post a Comment