BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU POST ANYTHING CRITICAL OF THE WEST ON FACEBOOK



Click to see the censored post on David Bowie



"Interesting isn't it.  When it comes to Charlie Hebdo, the west is all 'likes' for freedom of speech.  But when it comes to systematic and rational critique of the West, you'll have to tread on eggshells around western appetites and their media powerhouses.  Especially if you stand out, in appearance or views, and aren’t white, or a Jew.


THE CENSURED ARTICLE

"David Bowie, like many of his ilk, is an ineffective rebuttal of the deficiencies in the west's socio-cultural-economic milieu, and hence became one of its enduring deficiencies as well as people confused it for an effective one.  He is an icon of how the people have been led to, and underdeveloped by the vision of just one person, or clan of popstars.  They are an opiate, or sedative, that serves a cathartic function of stress-relief to leading people to think that they can change society with a pied piper at the helm.

There is only so much a singer can do to change a society.  After all, the lyrical form is limited by its structure and can only go so far in supplying people a map out of the mess they've made out of their society.  And so, with the ascendence of western popstars as cultural icons, the potentials of the people, and especially the young, to be more than fans and consumers, was severely narrowed.

So many in the west confuse Bowie for a great artist.  They forget that he's more like a small sticky plaster on a gaping wound of western civilisation.  Pretty much insignificant and shallow when it comes to civilisations that had yet to adopt the ways of the white man.

You need to have western 'civilisation' before anything from Angry Birds to Bowie or the Beatles can be confused for adult fare or even make sense or be entertaining.  For instance,  if you love in Utopia, the idea of the rebel would not make sense.  Same thing here.  Much of western music makes sense only because it helps one make sense of western civilisation.  But it's intrinsic worth is another matter. (I realised thus upon analysing myself as to why I like western pop as much as I do, or why his death did indeed bother me)

That is why the BBC televised report I just saw showed a guy telling the reporter that this fella Bowie was proof that the UK was the 'most creative' in the world.  Man, the arrogance and cultural inbreeding of the white man is mind-boggling.   Childish fellas.

The death of the philosopher went in tandem with the reduction of the citizen to a mere and diminutive corporate and celeb-led consumer and fanboy/girl."

_____________________________________________________________


Facebook frowns upon any efforts to undermine western cultural hegemony.  Any efforts to insinuate that there is anything wrong, or biased about western trends and fashions, and especially if it is with regards to that which is popular in the west, might result in temporary blocks or permanent disabling of your account.

That, is one of the hidden manifestations of western Racism.

This is the 2nd time this has happened. The first time was when I had argued with some English posters on the English penchant for dog-walking as a compensation for not having warm and close relationships with people.   I had attempted to show that there are other forms of social relationships pursued in other cultures.  After quite a few vicious insults had been directed at my comments and person, with implications that they know better and hence need not consider how other cultures operated, I had put this reaction forth as a result of 'cultural inbreeding', which was logically and historically true.  Facebook stepped in at that point and removed the comment in The Guardian's Facebook page.  And, now a second time round, probably from my post on The Guardian

(I’m suspecting that it might actually be The Guardian newspaper themselves whom are initiating these removals and censures from Facebook.  This makes me recall another incident a couple of years back when I posted a comment beneath an article on The Guardian website itself by a Jewish woman who stated that Israel can not be a two nation state.  I had commented that there shouldn’t be any reason why the Jews and the Palestinians could not live together, and perhaps form a coalition government.  This comment was promptly removed by The Guardian because it went against the guidelines according to the Guardian.  I’m seeing a trend here.)

There are a few reasons for the need of critiques of the West from non-whites or/and people from other cultures.  One, people from any culture would always be accustomed to particular deficiencies within their culture that they have already compensated for.  Generally, only people from other cultures that do not share such deficiencies,  or whom have yet to compensate for it, will be able to identify these.

Secondly, for non-western people to see another non-western person critiquing the west would go some way in addressing whatever cultural self-esteem issues they suffer arising from the post-colonial psychological aftermath.  You can call it Post-Colonial Self-Diminutive Syndrome. ;)  And by ‘critique’, I mean ‘critique’, and not just some pointless insults or swearing.  That does nothing for the self-esteem of non-white peoples or inspire intelligent respect for their own cultures or potentials as intelligent human beings of as much or more cultural worth in quite a few respects.

Finally, if the west has positioned itself as the cultural determiner for the entire planet,  surely the people have a goddamn right to criticise the content of that which it puts out, or even racistly presents as the best that humanity can come up with.  I think Facebook, amongst others, are highly averse to both raw insults and highly analytical and effective critique of the west,  especially where it goes right down to the very core of that which the west presents as incontrovertible truth.  They may allow it some of the time, but not too often.  There may be some justification for censuring just gross insults without analysis, but to treat analysis in a similar manner because people find it ‘offensive’ is censorship in favour appetite, and in this post-colonial day and age, simply presents all that is western as immutable truth.

Interesting isn't it.  When it comes to Charlie Hebdo, the west is all 'likes' for freedom of speech.  But when it comes to systematic and rational critique of the West, you'll have to tread on eggshells around western appetites and their media powerhouses.  Especially if you stand out, in appearance or views, and aren’t white, or a Jew.

That’s racism.


Ed



0 thoughts:

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.

Blogger Template by Clairvo