Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Susan L.M. Goldberg

Bio

July 15, 2014 - 7:00 am
YouTube Preview Image

Last week Sierra Mannie, a liberal arts major at The University of Mississippi, nervously stepped up to the mic on CNN to explain the angry op-ed she wrote for her student newspaper that wound up getting published in Time magazine. Entitled “Dear White Gays: Stop Stealing Black Female Culture“, Mannie’s fury turned her thinly-veiled export of classroom-based critical theory into a hot-button pop culture issue. Written in typical college-quality prose, the rage-fueled piece that begins with the line “I need some of you to cut it the hell out,” is unremarkable except for the fact that the author attempts to name a non-existent entity known as “black female culture.”

“There is no such thing as black female culture,” artist April Bey explains. What Mannie was actually referring to, according to Bey, is “ghetto culture,” a destructive ideology that has been appropriated by celebrities and is the subject of pop culture idolization.

According to The Urban Countercultureghetto culture is:

Characterized by escapism and materialism, this culture calls irresponsibility freedom, glorifies crime, violence, and hypersexuality, defies all authority, and acts as a coping mechanism for those who feel rejected by mainstream society and economy.

Ghetto culture doesn’t require an address in the ghetto, nor does it appeal solely to blacks:

…you clearly don’t have to live in the ghetto to ‘be’ ghetto; thanks to the entertainment industry, the gospel of the ghetto has been spread far and wide, promising fleshy satisfaction to all who would exchange civility for vulgarity and rebellion, and who will live for today instead of planning for tomorrow.

Most disturbingly, especially in light of Mannie’s rant, is the way ghetto culture treats women:

Because  prostitution is one major aspect of the criminal economy of inner cities, the relative degradation and abuse of women is a part of the culture that members of every walk of life can participate in.

Perhaps that is why Beyonce, cited within the article and pictured by Time, is used to bespeak the “black female culture” Mannie claims to defend. As Bey illustrated in her most recent exhibit #WhoDoYouWorship, Beyonce, often a subject of feminism’s own racial double standard, exemplifies ghetto culture’s “black female culture” disinformation campaign.

This is how ghetto culture’s “black female culture” disinformation campaign works:

Seed of Truth: Ghetto culture sexually objectifies black women.

Pack of Lies:  As Mannie’s argument illustrates, it is acceptable for black women and their audience to embrace and celebrate this objectification. They may even feel free to legitimize the abuse through the use of the term “black female culture”.

The Ultimate Goal is the glasnost (a strategy of glorification): The glorification of the ghetto culture’s “Ideal Black Woman”. The purveyors of ghetto culture market “black female culture” via the glorification of the Beyonce, the “Ideal Black Woman”. Hence Mannie took such offense at “outsiders” mocking the glorified identity.

When Mannie hammers away at the idea that “black people can’t have anything” therefore they need to hold tightly to “black female culture” she ends up defending the ghetto culture that hides its abuse and subjugation of black women behind a shield of Beyonces. In “breathing fire behind ugly stereotypes” spouted in college classrooms, Mannie became another Beyonce-worshipper. The most her article did was illustrate the fact that many American universities have become propaganda outlets for ghetto culture’s disinformation campaign against black women. The only reason this college student was published in Time magazine is because she obviously excels at being duped.

Susan L.M. Goldberg is a writer with a Master's in Radio, Television & Film and a PhD in Life who would be happy roaming the fields of Prince Edward Island with Anne of Green Gables, were it not for her strong belief in the axiom "all that is required for evil to prevail is for good women to do nothing." She prefers the career title "Renaissance Woman" and would happily be bar mates with Ann Coulter, Camille Paglia and Dorothy Parker. Her writing tends towards the intersection of culture, politics and faith with the interest in starting, not stopping the discussion. Follow her on Twitter @SLMGoldberg and @winegirlblog.
Top Rated Comments   
Everything old is new again. This path doesn't lead to happiness, or contentment, but rather their opposites. There is a book out there that explains all this, but it calls for self-restraint. That is as unpopular as it ever was, but leads to better places.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Zen thought for the day: If one likes to hang out with black people who act "white" but hates to hang around with white people who act "black" is one a racist?
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (13)
All Comments   (13)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
You are pretty intent on sprinkling this glasnost canard everywhere, aren't you? Has it become a fetish for you? Why are you marching in a jihad against anti-totalitarianism?

> the glasnost (a strategy of glorification)
Ms. Goldberg, stop with this lie already.
The first time around you had an excuse of ignorance, of unknowingly repeating Gen. Pacepa's nonsense. Not anymore. Now you are willingly misleading your readers. Shame on you.

Abolition (a strategy of glorification of slavery)
That is what you are doing.

A couple of points that I would like to explain below:
1) Why I keep fixating on this
2) How you are doing damage to both the causes you supposedly want to help, as well as yourself and PJMedia.

1a) Terminology is important. Subversion of language is one of the most important tools of political warfare. People calling themselves "liberals" could not be farther away from real, classic liberalism. The word "Palestinian" had been hijacked to mean something opposite from what it meant up until a few decades ago. To control the language is to win half the battle.

"Glasnost" means "openness within government". Period. Full stop. You can ask any native Russian speaker. Or anyone who has been even semi-conscious in the 80s. I know for a fact that there are some of them right here at PJMedia. The term "Glasnost" had nothing to do with the West. It had nothing to do with polishing the image of Gorbachev or any other Soviet leader.
It means solely "openness in government".

To state what Pacepa, through you, is stating, is to be completely, blatantly Orwellian. "War is Peace", "Ignorance is Strength", "Slavery is Freedom". Pacepa and you just added "Openness is Deceit" to the list. Congratulations.

1b) By parroting Pacepa's nonsense, you are slandering several generations of Soviet dissidents. Brave people who have done so much and sacrificed so much to bring Glasnost, Openness, Truth to their countrymen. People who fought an implacable and merciless system.
Neither you nor Pacepa, who was a big and menacing part of that system, are fit to shine their shoes, yet you somehow find it in yourself to denigrate their sacrifice by lying about their aims and their vision. Shame on you, Ms. Goldberg.

2a) I don't pretend to know the motivations of Gen. Pacepa. He is obviously an extremely smart and cunning man. One could not have climbed, -- entirely on merit, -- to the top of one of the most feared Secret Police agencies in the Soviet Block, while becoming a trusted advisor to one of the most ruthless dictators of the Evil Empire, in essense becoming Ceaușescu's Beria, without being an extraordinary man.
So, I can't begin to understand why he found it necessary to take an honorable and vitally important term "Glasnost" and build a boogieman out of it. Maybe it is his way to get revenge against his old Russian masters. Maybe it's something else. I don't know and I don't care.
I also find it hard to be surprised by him doing it. After all, it is the height of silliness to be offended by reading a lie in a book called "Disinformation".

I do know that to take a term that means "openness in government" and make it into its opposite, to be derided and despised, is an evil thing to do, and doubly so now, in the age of Obama.
Shame on you for doing so, Ms. Goldberg.

2b) Somehow, you managed to write a serviceable article, and then yo uhad to artificially insert this nonsense into it, totally out of context. Why do it?

In any case, I believe that you are doing the cause you advocate harm.
Anybody who knows the Russian language, or who remembers the 1980s, will read through your article and be jarred by this idiotic attack on the well-known and well-understood term. The question then immediately pops into the reader's mind: If she is lying about Glasnost, what else is she lying about?
I don't think that is what you are trying to achieve, Ms. Goldberg, but don't you see how a little lie begets a lot of mistrust?

2c) The same holds for this site in its entirety. The question in this context is, if this columnist is lying to me in such a shameless, easily provable way, what does it say about PJMedia as a whole?

So, to come back to the main point: Stop perpetuating Gen. Pacepa's disinformation, Ms. Goldberg. Just stop it.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Pacepa has about 50 footnotes per chapter.

I don't see even a single _attempt_ at a reference from you.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Upon a more somber reflection, I can see why you would demand references to counter Pacepa's claims. Hopefully, you are now satisfied.

In my defense, I would ask you to put yourself in my shoes:
Suppose you are somewhere in France, and some Mexican ex-slave trader turned Foreign Legionnaire starts talking about how in America the term "abolitionism" really means "an effort to embellish slavery for outside consumption".
Would you start searching for references to refute that claim, or would the sheer enormity of the orwellian absurdity seem so self-evident, that you would simply assume that anyone with an ability to perform an internet search or find an American to consult would realize the falseness of the claim? And that all you had to do was to point out the offensive idiocy of it?
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
I am a native Russian speaker who grew up in the USSR and lived there all my life until the early 90s. I lived through the Perestroika, and I was right there when Glasnost was first happening.
I don't need footnotes. Unlike Pacepa and Goldberg, I know the language they are so cavalierly talking about. And unlike Pacepa and Goldberg, I was right then, right there, in Moscow, in the middle of it.

But here is the (accurate, for a change) description in the English wiki: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glasnost

Here is the Russian one, in case you can read Russian: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C

Here is a collection of entries for this term in various Russian dictionaries: http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/lower/13974

Pacepa and Goldberg are lying about it for some weird reason, and I will continue to expose them.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Ghetto culture doesn’t require an address in the ghetto, nor does it appeal solely to blacks:

…you clearly don’t have to live in the ghetto to ‘be’ ghetto; thanks to the entertainment industry, the gospel of the ghetto has been spread far and wide, promising fleshy satisfaction to all who would exchange civility for vulgarity and rebellion, and who will live for today instead of planning for tomorrow."

And what is ghetto culture?

"Characterized by escapism and materialism, this culture calls irresponsibility freedom, glorifies crime, violence, and hypersexuality, defies all authority, ..."

The ghetto is the world of the faux Libertarian. It exists in a state of anarchy and the most important rights involve drugs, sex and material gratification. The violence you see in the ghetto is not internally criminal. It is the self enforcing mechanism for dealing with social and quasi-legal transgressions. If you see what the world made in the faux Libertarian image take a walk through your nearest inner city ghetto.



6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
The "black woman" tics which outraged writer Sierra Mannie strenuously objects to being "appropriated" by white homosexuals were in fact a series of behavior tics that were developed by black and white "sissy men" and drag queens and black and white prostitutes interacting with each other, somewhere between 80 and 125 years ago.

The term "gay" or "the gay life" is a 19th-century slang term for the non-respectable demimonde. At that time, the term encompassed actors and actresses, male and female prostitutes ("actors" and "prostitutes" often overlapped), bohemian artists, drug addicts, overt homosexuals, etc.

The term "gay" narrowed to mean the homosexual community by the mid-1930s, because actors and actresses and artists had by that time become relatively respectable---but the term "the life" or "in the life," which is derived from "the gay life" is still used by prostitutes today, and "In the Life" was the name that PBS chose for its gay-themed news show some years ago.

The old "Stash" record label, which reissued a number of 78rpm recordings of drug and sex songs, had on one of its albums a portion of an interview with one of Bessie Smith's aunts, who describes a visit to a "buffet flat," so named because there was a "buffet" of sexual delights available. The interviewer asks, "What was a buffet flat?" and she replies, "A buffet flat? Ain't nothin' but fagg*ts and bull-dykers---open house! Everything goes on in that place." The interviewer, clearly uncomfortable with this robust and non-euphemistic language, says, "So it was strictly a …gay place, was it?" "Oh, very gay!" replies the aunt. "Everything that was in the life."

Here we see the collision between a survival of the old 19th-century slang without self-consciousness, and the prissy pussyfooting of PC Leftist lingo---something that none of the people in the video atop this thread are aware of.

The old "gay life" demimonde, encompassing theatre and the world of prostitution as it did, was a connection/interaction point between black and white society. Whites in the '20s flocked to Harlem not only for sex across the color line but for same-sex sex; whites as well as blacks attended the drag balls at Harlem's famous Renaissance Ballroom. The outraged black student Sierra Mannie, the white gay apologist H. Allen Scott, and the black gay newsanchor Don Lemon are all ignorant of their own history.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Like everything having to do with people, it's more complicated than the Narrative would have us believe. It's not all cause and effect. And ultimately, I don't think any of it can be explained.

The documentary Walking with Cavemen depicted the (imaginary) leader of a family of Homo erectus who went around with an old crocodile fang clenched in his teeth (sort of cigarette- or toothpick-fashion). The narrator says the man is not sure why he does it. It just feels "right."

Last week, I read an article about a group of chimpanzees. The zoologist studying them reported that one female stuck a piece of grass in her ear and "wore" it there while she went about her activities. And pretty soon, other chimpanzees started imitating her, wearing bits of grass in their own ears. No reason - it just felt "right."

For "right," today, read "cool."

So...human fashion - human culture - in a nutshell. Monkey see, monkey do.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Maybe the plane was sucked into a back hole...wait, sorry...I'm getting my Don Lemon stupids mixed up.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Most disturbingly, especially in light of Mannie’s rant, is the way ghetto culture treats women:

Because prostitution is one major aspect of the criminal economy of inner cities, the relative degradation and abuse of women is a part of the culture that members of every walk of life can participate in."


Yes, and yet, people outside of the ghetto will adopt the language and mannerisms of this degraded (and degrading) culture, even to the point of adopting "pimping" as if it means something good.

It's disgusting.

6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Everything old is new again. This path doesn't lead to happiness, or contentment, but rather their opposites. There is a book out there that explains all this, but it calls for self-restraint. That is as unpopular as it ever was, but leads to better places.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Zen thought for the day: If one likes to hang out with black people who act "white" but hates to hang around with white people who act "black" is one a racist?
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
I don't like to hang around anyone who "acts black." Because in our culture, "acting black" means acting like the lowest black common denominator - the stereotypical ghetto-dweller. It's one thing to be born into it so that it's all you know. It's another to adopt it deliberately as some kind of pose or fashion statement. I don't know how we got to the point at which ONLY poor, ignorant, dysfunctional, rude, and entitled is "authentic" anything.

I remember "black power" from the 60s and 70s. Black people embraced their own culture, stopped trying to escape it (by "acting white"), etc. The larger culture tried to follow suit, more or less. That was good. But it was good only up to a point - the point I referred to above. It's like we (the larger culture, including black people) embraced ALL of it - not only the things that made black people as a group strong, unique, creative, and amazing, but also the things that made them as a group backward, weak, foolish, jealous, entitled, and dysfunctional. Then we went beyond merely embracing the dysfunctional - we made it the default identity for black people, while making the strong and healthy exceptional and "inauthentic."

I think a lot of this is due to liberals' insistence that we focus on "problems" and constantly work to "solve" them. Despite ample evidence of extreme diversity among black people and their life situations, we've been taught never to think "black" without immediately thinking "victim who lives in the ghetto."

Does that empower black people? Will it help us "solve" "racism" in America? Is it the truth? The whole truth? The most important part of the truth?

You tell me.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
Authenticity is a silly yardstick to use to measure a culture. We - by which I mean everyone, not just blacks - should measure any culture by what it accomplishes and whether it improves the culture. I'm at a loss to see anything positive about ghetto culture, particularly if it defends or even glorifies misogyny, illiteracy, out-of-wedlock children, parental irresponsibility, dependence on the state, etc. etc. Clinging to that kind of culture seems hopelessly destructive of black culture.

I fully accept black people as my equals but if those who are steeped in ghetto culture want to earn my respect, they will make a 180 degree turn in their attitudes so that they embrace respect for themselves and each other at the very least.
6 weeks ago
6 weeks ago Link To Comment
View All

One Trackback to “There is No Such Thing as “Black Female Culture””