Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin - Digital Segregationists

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 8, 2017 - Sargon of Akkad - Carl Benjamin

17:36

Digital Segregationists

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Almost a month ago, BBC News published a video called Is It Okay to Use Black Emojis and GIFs by writer Victoria Princewill.
	Ever said this?
	Or this?
	Nothing like a good reaction gif, right?
	But you've probably noticed the most popular ones of black people being dramatic.
	This is digital blackface.
	The like-to-dislike ratio in this video is actually rather impressive.
	Having only 184,000 views and 50,000 downvotes to 388 upvotes is an incredibly high amount of viewer interaction.
	In 2015 there was an unsuccessful campaign by social justice activists called Rhodes Must Fall.
	The movement originally began in South Africa at the University of Cape Town to remove the statue of Cecil Rhodes there and spread to Oxford because Rhodes was an Oxford graduate.
	Victoria Princewell also attended Oxford University and she wrote in The Guardian and The Independent regarding the Rhodes Must Fall movement.
	Specifically she made the accusation of racism at Oxford University.
	She informs us that she first heard of Rhodes Must Fall from an enthusiastic academic urging her to show her support.
	She claims the movement's intention was to decolonize education, framing it as a progressive step and an important one, distancing ourselves from the brutality and evil that was colonialism, and this is an action that is well overdue.
	She provides a few anecdotes about what is supposedly racism on Oxford University.
	A Black Rhodes scholar recently wrote an article about his minority experience at Oxbridge.
	It involved being repeatedly questioned while walking in the college grounds and being mistaken for a construction worker on many occasions.
	When I posted his article to my Facebook page, a former Oxford student of Mixed Heritage described an experience where she entered a student bar and was immediately dismissed as a potential employee, vying for a chance to serve the students of Oxford.
	It is simply assumed that this is because of race and Victoria accepts this at face value.
	She says, allow me to spell out clearly what these everyday experiences mean.
	They say repeatedly that Oxford is an institution that accepts a certain calibre of people and that black people are not intrinsically of that calibre.
	And I have to agree with her.
	Black people are not intrinsically of the calibre expected of Oxford and Cambridge universities.
	Of course, neither are white people.
	Oxford and Cambridge universities are elite universities and they cultivate a specific kind of culture and this culture is not merely predicated on race.
	She then introduces us to the concept of blackness and rather than defining what blackness is, she instead decides to tell us what it isn't.
	Blackness is not associated with intellect.
	More important, blackness is at odds with intellect.
	Blackness is associated with servitude and thus, upon entering predominantly white establishments, black people are expected to fit those very roles.
	This seems like an American import in my opinion.
	The United Kingdom does not have a history of racial slavery within its borders, so I believe that she is talking about an attitude that has come from elsewhere.
	And having not been to Oxford nor Cambridge universities, I unfortunately cannot comment on this aspect of the culture.
	Perhaps they do.
	But I am more interested in the concept of blackness itself.
	It seems that she is implying that blackness is the act of being black.
	I have heard the term used many times by social justice activists, although I have never heard it being defined, and I can only assume that that is what it means, because that is what it seems to be used as.
	She informs us that one of the Roads Must Fall campaigners stated, There is a violence to having to walk past the statue every day on the way to your lectures, and she accepts this premise by saying, But violence is not the only form of oppression.
	The trickle-down effect of imperialist culture, from its celebrated history to its quiet present, is more oppressive than its symbols.
	It's more oppressive because the subtlety of its prevalence garners plausible deniability, because unconscious bias and unthinking generalizations are harder to prove and explain.
	It is easier to dismantle something on the grounds that it is an evil in an environment where people strive to be good.
	It's much harder to tell people who strive to be good that their actions, thoughts, and intentions facilitate oppression.
	Victoria appears to believe that the imperialist history of Britain and the quote unconscious bias end quote of people at universities is a form of violence and oppression.
	Victoria does not explain to us how these experiences constitute prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or how the existence of a statue can be interpreted as being violent.
	Indeed, viewed through a different lens, these very statements alone might be interpreted as a display of Victoria's class privilege.
	She relates to us an anecdote of when she was in a class studying Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, claiming that the white students in the class declared the racism in Conrad's novel unworthy of discussion, and she decided that they thought unconscious bigotry was also unworthy of reflection.
	This is very interesting in the context of the Roads Must Fall campaign and the overt bigotry of her fellow activists, which apparently is also unworthy of discussion.
	This can be seen in the actions of one of her fellow activists, who was accused of whipping a student who was filming him.
	He denied the claim but said that he wished he'd whipped the white apartheid settler colonial sentiment out of the bastard.
	This student had later sparked further outrage by revealing he'd made a waitress cry white tears when he told her he would pay a tip when fellow white people returned South Africa's land to its black population.
	I mention this because this demonstrates an unquestionable bias against white people by these black students.
	But this is the underlying message of Victoria's worldview.
	It is racism for thee, but not for me.
	It is a worldview that explicitly advocates for a double standard, that black people should not be held to the same standards as white people when it comes to racial prejudice.
	And it is also a marvellous display of class privilege to show that one's primary interest in activism on their university campus is regarding a violent statue.
	This is the context in which Victoria approached her video to the BBC, one of presumed oppression based on her race and an apparent unawareness of her own class standing.
	Victoria appears to view the world entirely through the lens of race, which makes her ghastly lack of self-awareness regarding her own class privilege blatant and glaring.
	Simply listen to her accent.
	Blackface is when a non-black person uses makeup to blacken up.
	Mineral shows depicted black people in all sorts of negative ways.
	And this is Victoria's explanation of quote-unquote digital blackface.
	And digital blackface is the 21st century version of that.
	White people using GIFs to perform some kind of exaggerated blackness.
	Again, she uses the term blackness without explaining what blackness is, so I'm going to assume that she means the act of being black.
	But that is not why anyone uses these reaction GIFs.
	In fact, Victoria herself does not really seem to know how to link the two properly, in the way that she describes it as some kind of exaggerated blackness.
	I do not believe that people are usually using GIFs of black people reacting in the lens of race, as in the race of the person is not why the GIF is being used.
	This doesn't have any relevance to the lens of race, and she is trying to make it relevant, but doesn't know how to do it.
	It is some kind of exaggerated blackness because she cannot identify exactly how this is a form of minstrel show.
	And that's because it isn't.
	They were mocking, demeaning stereotypes, and they exaggerated black people's facial features and their expressions.
	The gifts that she showed in this video are not mocking, demeaning stereotypes of black people, nor are they caricatures.
	They are actual black people who are usually famous reacting in a certain way to express a particular type of emotion, usually on Facebook or Twitter, because expressing emotions via text is usually quite difficult.
	She doesn't even give us any evidence to suggest these are the most popular type of reaction gif.
	In my social media feed, they aren't.
	I think it's entirely possible that what she is seeing is her own tailored, progressive social media feed, with progressive people using black people perhaps through the lens of race deliberately and interpreting that as some kind of objective view of the world, when in fact it is entirely subjective and incidentally performed mostly in progressive communities.
	And even then, this is still not analogous to a minstrel show.
	And that's not all.
	Let's talk about white people using cockskinned emojis.
	This may well seem like the strangest thing to take exception with, but I'm afraid that Victoria appears to be a digital segregationist.
	White emojis and reaction GIFs for white people, black emojis and reaction gifts for black people.
	And her argument for segregation is as follows.
	This is a form of cultural appropriation.
	Paying little respect to someone else's culture and using it however you please.
	This is a huge leap and one that gives remarkable credence to the arguments of race realists.
	I don't agree that dark-skinned emojis are part of black culture or non-white culture or that white-skinned emojis are part of white culture either.
	I think these are not actually an act of cultural expression, at least not in and of themselves.
	But more importantly, I find the linkage between race and culture rather inaccurate, as expressed by Victoria herself being an upper-class English black woman who has clearly adopted the Oxbridge culture of the elite universities she attended, which would appear to disprove her own claims that race and culture are directly related.
	So using the term cultural appropriation for something that is not a part of black culture merely because it features an image of a black person is not accurate.
	I'm going to reverse her argument in the last section of the video, because she answers herself.
	She claims that...
	Now I'm not saying you have to be black to post these GIFs.
	Well, what I am saying is think about what you're doing.
	Ask yourself why you're always drawn for that GIF or that emoji.
	And that's not unreasonable.
	Most people probably find themselves drawn to a specific GIF or emoji because it expresses how they feel at the time.
	They are trying to use it to supplement a post they are making on social media with an appropriate emotional tenor.
	However, Victoria must view everything through the lens of race, and so she is actually prepared to tell people why they are using these GIFs and emojis.
	So what's wrong with white people posting these GIFs and using these emojis?
	Well, black people are not here for other people's entertainment.
	We're not symbols of excessive emotion.
	And we aren't here to make you look more sassy, more sexy, or more street.
	She believes that people often use these GIFs because they make them look more sassy, more sexy, or more street.
	But it is even more interesting that she will tell people that she's not saying that they shouldn't use them, but then provide an argument for why people shouldn't use them.
	And it is framed in language that implies possession of black people as chattel.
	Using an emoji or gif of a person does not in any way imply ownership or superiority or dominance or any other form of expression of power over that person.
	In fact, I think it can be reasonably inferred that the use of famous people in a reaction GIF is a form of homage, a way of paying respect and admiration for the person in the GIF being used.
	I do not believe that people use reaction GIFs of certain celebrities because they dislike or wish to oppress those celebrities.
	If such a thing is ever a consideration, I believe it is in fact the opposite, an admiration for the celebrity being used.
	But more importantly, it took nothing from the person in the GIF.
	There is no implication that black people are there for the entertainment of white people or any other reason that was given.
	So why is Victoria making this argument?
	What does she want to get out of it?
	And the answer is control.
	We don't want to be seen as having two-dimensional personalities.
	Let us decide for ourselves how we wish to be perceived.
	Let's explore that last statement.
	Let us decide for ourselves how we wish to be perceived.
	Anyone can decide how they wish to be perceived.
	However, there is simply no option to make other people perceive you in this way.
	People will perceive you in their own unique subjective way, and this cannot be controlled.
	Victoria wishes you to perceive her precisely how she perceives herself.
	And she claims that a way of making that desire come true is by forcing you to self-censor when using a certain kind of GIF on the internet.
	Needless to say, this is unjust and unwarranted control over literally everyone using social media.
	At least if Victoria got her way.
	Claiming that using GIFs of black people is akin to a minstrel show is not sufficient justification to be able to dictate to white people what gifts they can and cannot use.
	And it is particularly deceptive to set up this argument saying that I'm not trying to stop you from using these gifts, but here is a reason not to use these gifts.
	And all of this doesn't come down to her hurt feelings or any real perceivable oppression.
	It's just a friendly reminder that you are being a bigot.
	This is like an ideological mafia.
	There is no perceived harm.
	There is no particular reason that you have to do anything that she is asking, but if you don't, you will suffer negative consequences.
	So just think about why you're using that GIF.
	And maybe you should stick to using GIFs of your own race.
	You know, just to be on the safe side.
	So that's my view.
	But what do you think?
	Victoria, I think that you are saturated in class privilege.
	And this is so commonplace in your life that you don't even perceive this class privilege.
	And to explain the minor inconveniences in your life, you have adopted a racial lens, so that you can claim some kind of continuation and connection with the natives in Heart of Darkness.
	A connection with people with which you have nothing in common.
	A connection that is so superficial, the only thing you have to connect you with them is the colour of your skin.
	And I think that you are using this class privilege and this ideological weapon known as intersectionality to pontificate, berate and browbeat the lower class white people who did not have the privilege of the education that you enjoyed.
	They can't refute what you are saying.
	They don't even know why what they are doing is bad.
	And indeed, that is because what they are doing is not bad.
	I think that you should re-evaluate your life from the perspective of someone who doesn't view the entire world through a racial lens.

▲