postFriday, 30 November 2007

A Racist Was Here – or – Edward Carson Was Here

Racist bastards are everywhere.Do you want to learn more about our ill informed little visitor and perhaps a little about racism as well? Probably not - discovering how backwards the world is is really depressing.bloglog Yes, you are probably thinking, “But racists come here all the time" (see transformers comments). This is true but that’s usually in an anonymous capacity. A few days ago Edward Carson’s tiny little head appeared on our Bloglog. It’s not hard to guess how he found his way here.

I was catching up with the comments on an article at capetownnews.co.za when I came across Ed’s comments. Here is a disturbing extract:

In a perfect world, kaffirs would not be so resistant to civilisation; they would embrace it and become part of it, and in time would acquire some of the human characteristics that us whites take for granted. In a perfect world. It doesn’t take rocket science to realise that we live in an imperfect world. So my friend, put aside your utopianism and guilt associated with our inability to get the blacks to transcend their sub-human nature, and wake up to the real world.

Very poetic. For non-South African’s, the ‘k’ word he uses at the start of the quote is a derogatory word for a black person, similar to the ‘n’ word, but if you’ve heard it spoken in South Africa you would understand that it is a hell of a lot worse. After reading this comment, out of curiosity, I went to his site and he obviously followed the link from his Bloglog.

Anyway Mr. Carson is one of the few racists out there I’ve seen who is brave enough to put his real identity on the line. He peddles his Hitler babble on his blog which features the old South African flag in the title. I am fairly certain this guy thinks Lamborghini’s are sexy.

Anyway there are few positives to discuss about Ed (other than freedom of expression and the fact that he is open about his bigotry). And a list of negatives would be a far too time consuming list of the obvious.

Instead let me rather present to you a theory of racism. I would like to bring up the work of Geoff Lakoff and Mark Johnson , specifically Metaphors We Live By. This is a sort of misleading title since the book deals with metaphors and metonyms but Metaphors and Metonyms We Live By just doesn’t have the same ring to it.

Johnson and Lakoff believe that metaphor and metonym (along with their weaker versions simile and synecdoche)are important parts of our conceptual systems that guide our existence. Here’s a quote:

Metaphors have entailments through which they highlight and make coherent certain aspects of our experience. A given metaphor may be the only way to highlight and coherently organize exactly those aspects of our experience.

Metaphors may create realities for us, especially social realities.

Metonym, or more precisely synecdoche, proves to be particularly useful to help explain sheet wearing hoodlums such as Eddy. For those who can’t remember grade 11 English a Metonym is a relationship based on two things through association (ie. Referring to ‘the springboks’ to represent the South African Rugby team).

The weaker form, synecdoche, is when a part is taken for the whole, like when the stereotypical construction worker refers to a woman as “legs”. This particular form is what a lot of racists, and in particular Ed, do. For instance Ed groups all black people in the same category even though I highly doubt he has proof that this is the case for all black people.

So yes most of the violent crime in South Africa is being committed by blacks but it is not being committed by all the blacks. This is where Ed is having his problems - he is letting personal experience ("I did not have a gun. I did not believe in violence. I was not a ‘racist piece of shit’. But none of that could save me from black hatred and violence.") rather than logic guide his thoughts. If all black people were out there killing whites there would be no more white people left in South Africa.

In closing before people go off to Ed’s badly decorated blog just remember what Voltaire said, “I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.” Ed has the right to say what he wants (well technically in SA you can’t say hate speech) and we have the right to tell him that what he says is a load of crap. Oh and Ed if you read this why not write a post about Dina Rodrigues on your blog (oh and here is a little something you might find interesting).

8 comments:

Psychotic Cow said...

Well I suppose a person can say good for him for being open about it. As weird as that sounds. Nice post.

Anonymous said...

Ed is a daft Dick

Ed Carson said...

Well so what? I visited your blog out of curiosity. I didn't realise it was a no-go zone for me. You should have warned in advance, china. By the way, genius, I am not a neo-Nazi or a 'White nationalist', get your facts straight. Bye!

Rob Scott said...

Oh Ed, you are so strange. The blog is not a no go zone for you, where did you get that idea? As a subject I find you quite fascinating. I was simply pointing out to our readers who you are and what your deal is.

And by the way 'china' I never said you are a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist. I was simply making reference to all these positions while at the same time lumping them altogether, much like you do with black people.

This is why people don't like racism, Ed. Because they don't like to be lumped together with other people like this. At least lumping you together with white supremacists and neo-Nazis is based on the fact that you share similar views. You on the other hand lump all black people together based on similarities in pigmentation.

Ed Carson said...

Oh Ed, you are so strange. The blog is not a no go zone for you, where did you get that idea?
I see.. well, I had to make sure. Just yesterday I was told by a S.African blogger, a few hours after she had welcomed me to her blog and told me how nice I was, that I was not welcome to visit her blog anymore. Apparently, some people do not like 'fraternising' with racists like myself. Be careful, I might infect you and your blog with my racism. And no beetroot cures for that one, hey. :)

As a subject I find you quite fascinating. I was simply pointing out to our readers who you are and what your deal is.
I just found it odd and amusing at the same time that you would dedicate an entire post to me when I had not even dropped a comment.

And by the way 'china' I never said you are a neo-Nazi or a white nationalist. I was simply making reference to all these positions while at the same time lumping them altogether, much like you do with black people.
That makes no sense. I lump black people together not because of the colour of their skin per se, but because of the criminal behaviour and backwards mentality that nearly all of them exhibit (I do in fact place some Whites on the same level as blacks, and I do not deny that there can be some blacks who are not like the majority of blacks -- my point is about societies in general, not about individual cases). What have I got in common with KKK & co.? Answer is, nothing. Whatsoever.

No, Rob, people do like to be lumped together with other people, that is what nationalism is all about, remember? And when blacks talk about black power (i.e. black supremacism/racism) they have chosen to be lumped together with the rest of blacks irrespective of their behaviour........ So I am only judging them by their own standards. And no, I share no views with neo-Nazis.

Rob Scott said...

Ed, firstly. The Internet is meant to be about freedom, so the person who banned you because you have a terrible opinion is just wrong. But maybe you should analyze when people start hating you and think hey maybe it’s something I’m putting out there.

Secondly, let me expand on my statement because you seem to have misinterpreted it. “Because they don't like to be lumped together with other people like this.” And by “like this” I was referring to lumping different positions or views together. And nationalism is often resisted when it is first installed. It is only after years of integration that national identities start to form and sometimes they just don’t. Remember India? They couldn’t make that work. Remember America in the 1860’s. So although nationalism works in some places it doesn’t in others it really depends on the different groups being lumped together.

Thirdly, according to you there is a , “criminal behavior and backwards mentality that nearly all” blacks exhibit. This sounds like you are trying to claim that this is an intrinsic property of black people (and I have never heard you arguing for a historically contextualized argument), thus you do share views with neo-Nazis. The very notion of racial inferiority/superiority is a tent pole of any kkk/Nazi cult.

And finally, black power groups are reactionary groups, and by reactionary I mean that they are a reaction to oppression. Think of it this way, pretend you had a child, who went to school and was picked on by every child there. They called your child stupid and ugly. Eventually your child believes it. The only way to fix this problem is to make her ‘un-believe’ it. This is what black power groups are about – highlighting black achievement to undo the cultural damage of oppression.

Ed Carson said...

She didn't ban me, at least I don't think she did. She told me not to visit her blog, let alone leave comments there. At any rate, her reaction was not sparked by anything I had said on *her* blog. My [two] comments on her blog were strictly apolitical. She got upset at what I had written on *my* blog. Ah well, to each their own, I suppose.

People (often) lump themselves together under the banner of a country (the flag, etc.) even when they have different, and even opposing positions and views. Nationalism is not a zero-sum game, except for black Africans (and their white cheerleaders) who believe that diversity in general (and diversity of opinion in particular) is a threat to society, or rather, to the ruler's/tribal chief's authority. Tribalism reigns supreme in black Africa. Secessionism has got nothing to do with how the country ought to be run. It has to do with who ought to rule the country, or some part of it anyway.

Historically contextualised argument? No my friend, black behaviour cannot be contextualised. If it can be, I have not heard any good argument in favour of contextualisation. I'm all ears. As for the KKK/neo-Nazi issue, I fail to see what your point is. KKK type people are a bunch of psychos who have in all probability never even met a black person (or a Jew for that matter) and have not experienced black behaviour 'on their skin'. We might appear to share views, but we have got no common ground from which our views stem/depart. None whatsoever.

As for your argument that 'black power' is a reaction to oppression, very well, suppose that it is. In which case, I would also be justified in advocating 'white power', as I have been oppressed and victimised by blacks. But apparently, I get to be judged by a different standard. Why? What is the difference between collective and individual oppression? Arguably, the latter is much worse, as you would be alone in your pain, and in your loneliness would be more prone to such ideas than would those who have the comfort of resorting to their 'group.' Bottom line is, you should either adopt the same standards for all, or no standards at all.

Rob Scott said...

“She told me not to visit her blog” – this is what I meant by ban.

“People (often) lump themselves together under the banner of a country (the flag, etc.)” – This is where you are wrong Ed, people seldom lump themselves together under the banner of one country. More often than not this grouping is forced upon (if not the majority) at least some of the people in the specific region that they live in.

“Historically contextualised argument? No my friend, black behaviour cannot be contextualised.” – Exactly my point you believe in white superiority based on intrinsic qualities and not historically contextualized theories. Which is what you have in common with the other mentioned white supremacists. I’ve had many debates online with said supremacists – maybe you should have a chat with some and you would realise your ideas are not as different as you think.
“I have been oppressed and victimised by blacks. But apparently, I get to be judged by a different standard. Why?” – Ed you seem to fall victim of “thinking in essences” (Roland Barthes) rather badly. You’re arguments are terribly tangled but let us try separate them a little for analysis.

Firstly, the oppression you have felt politically. Well this is what many white South African’s need to wake up to. In a race if a runner starts before his competitors what happens? The runner is returned to the start so he is equal once again with the rest of the runners. He does not take however many steps backwards towards the start line and in turn the remaining runners step the same amount of steps backwards. Why because this does not fix the problem of inequality. The false starter has to be treated by different standards in order for everyone to be treated equally.

Secondly, you talk about crime as if it is some big conspiracy against whites. Crime in South Africa oppresses and victimizes the whole country – white and black. Think about Lucky Dube, he definitely did not deserve what happened to him. I can guarantee Dube did more for racial equality and peace than you ever did and he was met with a far worse fate than what happened to you. Crime is colour blind. You need to stop thinking because most criminals are black most blacks are criminals. This inversion is not logical nor constructive. I guess we could blame the media for your distorted view of reality as crime in largely black areas is seldom reported in the major media but when white people are killed it gets the coverage.

“Bottom line is, you should either adopt the same standards for all, or no standards at all.” I think I clarified this previously but before you can adopt the same standards for all you need to make sure you have leveled the playing field. Also, a lecturer of mine always used to say, “Sometimes treating people equally means treating people differently.” Your line of thinking means that the handicapped should not be helped in society. After all why should Mr. Jones be treated differently and get a special ramp just because he is in a wheelchair. In society we have different standards for handicapped people to try help level the inequality between the physically able and the physically challenged. Bottom line – adopting the same standards for all is against the very notion of equality.

graphical counter