BREAKING: ABC cancels 'Roseanne' following tweet on Valerie Jarrett

[driftdiver]

Whats really funny is this ruined the first top rate show ABC has had in like 20 years.

[txradioguy]

Whats really funny is this ruined the first top rate show ABC has had in like 20 years.

@driftdiver

Between killing this show and Last Man Standing it's almost like they WANT to be in last place.


ESPN - "we've lost 7 million subscribers and $2billion in revenue in the last 3 years because of our liberal policies"

ABC - "hold my beer..."

[LauraTXNM]

"Let me see one of you adopt one of those ugly black babies."

-Ashutosh Ron Virmani-

http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/06/abortion-practitioner-refers-to-killing-ugly-black-babies/

Now he's awful.  Period.

[sneakypete]

Evolutionary comparisons (Darwinism) were really handy and readily embraced by colonial powers looking to justify the shabby treatment, enslavement, or exploitation of indigenous people.

Calling an enemy (like people who resist being exploited or enslaved) "animals" and otherwise de-humanizing them has likely gone on since the advent of warfare. By the ordinary logic, because they (whoever, not picking any group here, but talking in general) are considered less evolutionarily developed, the 'subhuman'/animal comparisons follow, with subjugation and a host of horrors. Either we view all people as people (mutually) or we don't.

If humans are evolved, well, it stands to reason that some will be more evolved  (advanced) than others. We readily attribute such to other genera, that it would apply to humans should logically follow.

If we are all God's creation, we stand on equal footing with the varied individual attributes, talents, and abilities He gave us.

So, blame Darwin....

@Smokin Joe

True. Look at all the flack Rudyard Kipling caught for his poem "The White Man's Burden". He wrote it about the US colonization of the Philippines,but I always heard it was about the white man's colonization of Africa when I was younger. Even back then history was being distorted for political gain.

Take up the White Man’s burden—

Send forth the best ye breed—

Go send your sons to exile

To serve your captives' need

To wait in heavy harness

On fluttered folk and wild—

Your new-caught, sullen peoples,

Half devil and half child

Take up the White Man’s burden

In patience to abide

To veil the threat of terror

And check the show of pride;

By open speech and simple

An hundred times made plain

To seek another’s profit

And work another’s gain

Take up the White Man’s burden—

And reap his old reward:

The blame of those ye better

The hate of those ye guard—

The cry of hosts ye humour

(Ah slowly) to the light:

"Why brought ye us from bondage,

“Our loved Egyptian night?”

Take up the White Man’s burden-

Have done with childish days-

The lightly proffered laurel,

The easy, ungrudged praise.

Comes now, to search your manhood

Through all the thankless years,

Cold-edged with dear-bought wisdom,

The judgment of your peers!

Did he nail the true price of colonization,or not?

[Sanguine]

And let's not forget the posters depicting Germans as pigs during WW-1. It's so common it's not really anything to get worked up over.

Why not go ahead and "speak" out loud the fact that everyone is dancing around and hoping nobody notices? Many Africans have faces that resemble those of apes physically,and when the white man first went to Africa,the Africans weren't evolved very far past the ape level culturally,either. Hell,in the 1960's the Simba tribe had a medicine man telling the men in his tribe to attack Stanleyville and take it from the white man without fear because he had cast a spell that made the white man's bullets harmless,and these dweebs believed it.

The Simbas were cooking and eating white people in the streets when the French Foreign Legion and the Belgian paratroopers jumped in to restore order,and then they suddenly heard their mamas calling and had to run back home. Facing the FFL and Belgian paratroopers wasn't as much fun as facing housewives and children.

I remember that incident very well because I was one of a couple hundred guys sitting out on the runway at Pope AFB for a couple of days,wearing civilian clothes and waiting to see if we were going to parachute in there ourselves. Once the UN decided to send in the FFL and the Belgians,we were released back to our normal duty.

Think about it,this was 1965,and these people still believed in magic spells that could make them bulletproof.

Here it is in the 21st Century,and in some parts of Africa men with AIDS are raping infants because some witch doctor told them it would cure their AIDS.

Are there blacks that are just as smart and industrious as any other human walking the earth? You bet your butt there are. There are many of them,but there are damn few in Africa,even today.

I thought you were trying to justify hook-nose caricatures of Jews.  Why did you switch to Africans? 

[Right_in_Virginia]

@driftdiver

Between killing this show and Last Man Standing it's almost like they WANT to be in last place.

ESPN - "we've lost 7 million subscribers and $2billion in revenue in the last 3 years because of our liberal policies"

ABC - "hold my beer..."

    

[LauraTXNM]

  R A C I S T ! ! !

I had no idea George Bush was black!!!

[LauraTXNM]

@Oceander
All the time, which is why I know when someone is deflecting.   

Integrity - its not just for kids any more.

@driftdiver, Who's deflecting?  Do you have an example of a late night host or The View host making a racist comment?

[jmyrlefuller]

Celebrities cannot stand to not be in the spotlight.

Maybe her show will be picked up on Netflix?

The same Netflix that just signed a deal with the Obamas that employed Valerie Jarrett?

 

Yeah, not gonna happen.

[sneakypete]

I agree.

Darwin's theory made racism academically acceptable and accepted in higher social circles.

The Progressives of the early 20th century (Woodrow Wilson, for one) were strongly Darwinist and hideously racist.

The fact that racism existed outside of academia is irrelevant.  Darwin made it official.

@musiclady   @Oceander

Let's get real,here. You can't blame this on Darwin. That's akin to blaming a witness for a murder. If Darwin and his theories hadn't existed,someone else would have invented them.

Flat out,it is human nature for a certain percentage of ANY population to exploit those around them in order to advance their own personal wealth and power.  You don't think the tribal chiefs in Africa were exploiting their own people in order to accumulate more personal wealth and power?

About the only culture I am aware of where this has never happened AFAIK,is with the Eskimos. Then again,what is the advantage to stealing more ice from your neighbors?

EVERY society/ethnicity/tribe does this. They even do it to each other if there are no outsiders available to screw over/enslave/cheat/murder.

The white man is just catching all the heat because he has been the most successful,and the reds,blacks,and browns are jealous.

[sneakypete]

Blacks are a protected class in America. Learn it, live it, love it.

@aligncare

Yup!

[Smokin Joe]

@Smokin Joe

True. Look at all the flack Rudyard Kipling caught for his poem "The White Man's Burden". He wrote it about the US colonization of the Philippines,but I always heard it was about the white man's colonization of Africa when I was younger. Even back then history was being distorted for political gain.

Did he nail the true price of colonization,or not?

Despite the other over/undertones of Star Trek, I always saw The Prime Directive as a way to avoid the responsibility for having disrupted the normal development of any sentient species. I saw that further as a metaphor for the burden/responsibility of colonizers for the societies they altered here on Earth. Kipling had it right, but honesty is seldom awarded, and most often reviled, even in retrospect.

[sneakypete]

Not in context.  Offensive, yes, but not in the same way that calling African Americans a monkey is offensive.

@Oceander

Why? What's so special about African whatevers that we must avoid ever offending one of them at all costs? If your ancestors came from Africa and that offends you,it is YOUR problem,not mine.

You obviously believe it to be an accurate observation or you wouldn't be in such a panic to shut it down. If it's not accurate,it will die a natural death.

[sneakypete]

I wonder if anyone else has noticed: if you put Roseanne Barr's hair atop Valerie Jarrett's head, Valerie Jarrett would look far more like Roseanne Barr than like anyone from Planet of the Apes.



 

@EasyAce

LOL! That had never occurred to me,but it is very true.

Besides,about the only things whiter appearing than VJ are snowballs. I could see it if she were as black as Whoopie Goldberg,but I am guessing that VJ has faced damn little discrimination since she was born,since she looks white and grew up in a wealthy and connected family.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Why? What's so special about African whatevers that we must avoid ever offending one of them at all costs? If your ancestors came from Africa and that offends you,it is YOUR problem,not mine.

You obviously believe it to be an accurate observation or you wouldn't be in such a panic to shut it down. If it's not accurate,it will die a natural death.

Why would I bother to answer when you clearly don’t want to understand?  Apparently, ostriches aren’t the only ones who stick their heads in the sand. 

[sneakypete]

I thought you were trying to justify hook-nose caricatures of Jews.  Why did you switch to Africans?

@Sanguine

First of all,I am not trying to justify anything. I'm not responsible for their noses. I just noticed them,I didn't design them.

Secondly,the conversation has shifted. Try to keep up.

[Smokin Joe]

But, Joe, European colonialism was a well established fact well before Charles Darwin was even born.

And, Darwin didn't "provide" anything, but observations.

Instead of just conquest, Darwin provided the scientific rationale for exploiting those 'lesser' indigenough peoples, who obviously were not as advanced. While you can say "advanced" is solely a technological thing, with Darwin, it became a measure of evolutionary development, with earlier and more basic forms defined as 'primitive' and  vice-versa. That which was most advanced was equated with the pinnacle of evolutionary development, that peak still seen in terms like "apex predator". Basically, it put forth the scientific rationale that somehow Europeans were more advanced human forms, reinforcing the mindsets put forth in works like Ackerman's Natural History, which I cited earlier.

It was the scientific reinforcement of existing prejudices which entrenched those prejudices and made them acceptable in polite society, and led to terms such as "gone native" to describe thos3e who departed from their home culture in any sense. Other terms which were perhaps less polite were used as well.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

First of all,I am not trying to justify anything. I'm not responsible for their noses. I just noticed them,I didn't design them.

Secondly,the conversation has shifted. Try to keep up.

Ah, I see.  When you can't answer the questions and are shown to be wrong, you just change the subject.  Got it.

[Smokin Joe]

No, you haven’t.   Not one of your posts reaches the same dehumanizing level that Roseanne’s comment hit.

Roseanne at least attributed half her heritage to someone ostensibly human, others made direct comparisons with Bush and a chimp. Which is more de-humanizing? 50% or 100%?

[sneakypete]

Why would I bother to answer when you clearly don’t want to understand?  Apparently, ostriches aren’t the only ones who stick their heads in the sand.

@Oceander

Ok,so you are operating from kneejerk reactions instead of reason.

Would it have killed you to admit that?

[Sanguine]

Instead of just conquest, Darwin provided the scientific rationale for exploiting those 'lesser' indigenough peoples, who obviously were not as advanced. While you can say "advanced" is solely a technological thing, with Darwin, it became a measure of evolutionary development, with earlier and more basic forms defined as 'primitive' and  vice-versa. That which was most advanced was equated with the pinnacle of evolutionary development, that peak still seen in terms like "apex predator". Basically, it put forth the scientific rationale that somehow Europeans were more advanced human forms, reinforcing the mindsets put forth in works like Ackerman's Natural History, which I cited earlier.

It was the scientific reinforcement of existing prejudices which entrenched those prejudices and made them acceptable in polite society, and led to terms such as "gone native" to describe thos3e who departed from their home culture in any sense. Other terms which were perhaps less polite were used as well.

OK, if we limit it to those very narrow terms, I can somewhat agree to that, with the caveat that all of that happened before and without Darwin and continued after publication of his book.

[sneakypete]

Ah, I see.  When you can't answer the questions and are shown to be wrong, you just change the subject.  Got it.

@Sanguine

You obviously have a very rich imagination.

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

You obviously have a very rich imagination.

Actually I do, however I find no need for it here.

[Oceander]

@Oceander

Ok,so you are operating from kneejerk reactions instead of reason.

Would it have killed you to admit that?

Like I said ....

[Smokin Joe]

OK, if we limit it to those very narrow terms, I can somewhat agree to that, with the caveat that all of that happened before and without Darwin and continued after publication of his book.

Conquest has been the way of humans since one had something the other wanted that they did not want to part with.

 Phrases like: 'Utilizing what those backward savages never would' became scientifically justifiable on another level when those 'backward savages' were considered evolutionarily inferior and thus less than human, therefore not deserving of the Rights and respect humans were. In effect, it laid philosophical/scientific groundwork for considering those targeted populations lesser beings or even as animals.

With science in hand, virtually any act against any "lesser" beings could be justified, from enslavement, to diamond and gold mining/exploitation, to the concentration camps. All that was necessary was to successfully define a group as lesser beings, to dehumanize them, and get people to consider them to be animals or subhumans, OR to claim they were robbing others of their 'rightful place/resources' in the natural order of things. Claiming to 'right that wrong' kept crematoria going for years in Eastern Europe, for just one example.

There is a fine line between the sort of demonization most populations embrace for an enemy in wartime and racism, and sometimes that line disappears when race becomes something easily defined by some social or physical differentiation. Otherwise, the line is between political or language groups, and any 'racial' element is more of a tribal fiction.  Essentially: assert 'They are not us', 'They are inferior to us', 'We rightfully deserve their resources, even if we have to kill them for it'. and virtually any war of aggression/conquest can be framed in those terms. Internal dissent seldom stands against such arguments framed with the scientific certainty that those who 'are not us' are 'our inferior', whether your little 'master race' really is or not.

Virtually all else in human conflict is defensive.