Post by thesunbeast on Apr 3, 2016 15:59:59 GMT -5
This is a post about racism in pro wrestling. But to do that, I'm going to have to go on a rant about culture first. Since pro wrestling will be discussed, I thought this section would be best, but if not, then moderators can move it to what they feel is the appropriate place, if that's how it works.
I've been meaning to make this thread for a long time. I don't really mean to wait until the day before/day of Wrestlemania, but I've been busy having a busy life, but now is as good of a time as any.
Let me state first and foremost for the record, I am truly a non racist, in other words, I don't believe that one race is superior to another. I don't even like using the terms "black", "white" ect, to describe someone's skin, because it only shows that a person has a black and white way of thinking. I don't like limiting race discussions to black and white it's beyond black and white, but there exists too much invalid narrative involving black and white. With that said, I am not someone who says they aren't racist simply because of not hating someone of another race or skin color despite still believing that one were superior to another, so for the sake of clarity I think some terms need to be reasonably defined. I say reasonably, because there are those who will define things, including the dictionary, that I find unreasonable. For example, the differences between bigotry, racism, and discrimination. I roll my eyes when I hear of those who speak of "ending racism", as long as a human being sits in their bedroom with a single solitary thought in their head that one race may be superior to another today, a racist thought exists in the world and there's nothing you can do about it as much as you couldn't do anything about the existence of an ant genocide taking place under the inconsiderate foot of a lumberjack construction worker walking the streets of Rhode Island. What the person means is that they're trying to end the influence of racial discrimination.
Bigotry: Believing that you know something about someone, that you don't, based off of something completely superficial. This truly covers all bases. I'm sick of reading in the dictionary that bigotry is about being "intolerant", or even worse, being about "hatred". Ancient white supremacists used to hold their black subordinates in cages along with their pet monkeys believing them to be more monkey-like than human, but, of course, they still loved their pet black people they same way they loved their pet monkeys. It leads to absurd conclusions to state that these people aren't bigoted for not hating, nevertheless one who believes someone should more simply know their role in life based off of their skin color, despite being rather fond of them. All forms of bigotry are equally destructive.
Now, If you think you know something about someone, but it isn't based off of anything superficial, you are still not a bigot. Let me explain. If you think, that, in general that men are physically stronger than women, this is not a bigoted thing to believe, as although, you believe that you know something about someone that you may or may not be right on, it is not based off of anything superficial, as their exists other pieces of knowledge and data explaining this phenomenon other than the superficiality of a gender's genitals alone. Bigotry is believing that you know something about someone, that you don't, based off of something completely superficial. Racism, sexism, antisemitism, ect, are all forms of bigotry.
Racism: The belief that one race is superior to another. Racism is a form of bigotry because believing that one race is superior to another, itself, requires one to believe that they know something about someone that they don't, based of off something completely superficial (in this case one's skin color) seeing as there is no reasonable information, knowledge, or data, that justifies that.
Discrimination: Denying a service (not a favor!), but that can be anything. Rejecting someone from a high IQ society can be described as discriminating. What I'm talking about is bigoted discrimination, a choice of words that I hardly ever hear, but one I find necessary.
Bigoted Discrimination: Denying a service (not a favor!) based off of bigotry. A person can have bigoted views, be it racism, sexism, ect, but it is not discrimination unless they are actually denying you some type of service. Now as I understand it, the types of discrimination in America for example that happen to be illegal are mainly public types of discrimination. If you are offering a general service that is already being offered to everyone, and you refuse it for one type of person based off of bigotry, that's discrimination. You refused a service based off of bigotry. Now here's where some people may get confused. If you're offering a general service that is already being offered to everyone, and someone asks for you to modify your service to cater specifically to them, you can refuse that without it being discrimination. The person asked for a favor, not a service, and you can oblige if you want, but if you don't, it's not discrimination. If a black person goes to Mcdonalds and asks for a big mac, but requests that you carve the word "black" into the burger, if you say "no", that is not discrimination, sorry. If a black person walks into a toy store and wants to purchase any one of the many superman toys that are being sold, but requests that you paint one of them black before selling it to him because he feels that it's unfair, and you say "no", that is still not discrimination, sorry. Those things are favors that are being refused, not services that are being refused.
Prejudice: Having biased views. People, publications, and dictionaries, unfortunately, use bigotry and prejudice interchangeably. "Not being prejudiced" is the bigot's defense. Just because you aren't biased, that doesn't mean you don't think you know something about someone that you don't based off of something completely superficial, let alone, the thing you believe being a superficial superiority complex.
So before getting into the problems of racism in pro wrestling, let's quickly get to the bottom of the racism problems in society first.
Let me state for the record, I am 50% black, 50% white, and 100% intelligent (On both black and white sides I have some Native American and European). No one can tell me a darned thing about perceived racial preconceptions, as if I'm ignorant based off of experience.
Some individual black supremacist will say to a white person that he is owed something because the black person doesn't have the same power to hold down a white person with racism using the establishment at an institutional level as much as a white person does, and thus, conclude that a black person can never be a racist. This is not only misinformed, but downright silly. let me explain.
Aside from not understanding that just because there exists some white supremacy at an institutional level doesn't magically mean that an individual white person for the sole sake of being white can somehow tap into this institutional mindset for his or her own personal gain (let alone heartlessly never use it to help someone else, like, a black person, for example), it also utterly confuses the difference between racism and discrimination, let alone is guilty of defining a person as a member of a group rather than as an individual and all of the baggage that comes with, like for example, the fallacy of division: Assuming what's true for the whole must be true for the part, just because it's true for the whole.
Institutions are established firstly by starting at an Individual level. I find it true that mainstream commercial white supremacist institutional discrimination is the only thing that exists on the white supremacists side that doesn't exist on the black supremacists side, but that's a lot of levels. Look at the levels: mainstream, commercial, institutional, discrimination (distinct from basic racism). That's a lot of levels that you have to travel through before finding something that exists on the white supremacists side that doesn't also exist of the black supremacists side. So yes, you might not find a ton of black people at the top of every societal institution that may want to exercise the ability to racially discriminate against people of different color that they happen to encounter, but this doesn't automatically nullify any individual discrimination, racism, or bigotry just because of also lacking some additional magical skill of selectively connecting to some grand body of an objective while also maintaining the impulse to use the connection for personal gain or convenience.
Now, the problem with racism in society is this: It's not the strength of white supremacism, it's not the strength of the KKK, it's not secret closed door meetings of white supremacists conspiring against black people. It's not any of those things by any other race as well either. What it is, is something far more suttle, but far bigger, and far more difficult to overcome, even though I believe that overcoming it is the final step to eradicating the destructive influence (not existence) of racial discrimination.
What it is, is that there were traditions that were created way back during white supremacist times, and eve though the hardcore racism is no where near what it once was, people have inadvertently stayed with those traditions, and those traditions have the same effect today, without anyone really being aware of it and/or it's impact. The worst of these traditions: White is being defined as "mainstream" while everything else (black, spanish, asian, arab, indian, native american,) is being defined as "alternative". This is promoted mostly my Hollywood, the media, commercial enterprise, the books, magazines, tv, ect. Mainstream pop culture does this and they don't even realize that they're doing it.
If you pay attention to Hollywood, for example, you'll find that it's extremely rare to see a movie with an all Asian cast that isn't a movie about being Asian, in some way. Sure, you'll have an Asian leading man in a mainstream movie with a mostly white cast, but if it's a mostly Asian cast itself, as opposed to one single Asian superstar who's so talented he can make miracles happen, then it's going to be presented as an "Asian movie" that's about being Asian somehow. If it's a mostly Spanish cast, it'll be a "Spanish movie". If the movie is a primarily black cast, it'll be a movie about the struggles of being black, or the ghetto/the hood, slavery, or black people struggling, somehow. It won't be doctors, or firefighters, or police, or teachers, ect. It'll be a "black movie", unfortunately. If the movie is about some mainstream principle, or about value, like love, friendship, betrayal, espionage, mystery,without any kind of a niche, it'll have a predominantly white cast.
Segregation still exists, but it exists still in the mind, the most powerful place it can exist, and it does so because of these images constantly being placed in people's minds. Churches are still self segregated. Think about that for a long while.
Now with all of that said, In reality, there's no such thing as "acting black" or "acting white". I've seen and heard people say "why are you reading a book? That's too white, go play basketball", now if you say that, then what is it that you're saying about black people? I've heard people use this exact reasoning about the way people talk, as if there's a black and white way to talk. Give me a break.
One of the worst things white supremacists did in the past wasn't killing their black slaves (as horrendous as that is, and I shouldn't even feel the need to clarify that), but rather, they defined all of the good things in life as theirs, as "white", and defined all of the bad things in life as everyone else's, as "black" for example. Proper English is not white, it's proper, and black people have equal right to claim clear, coherent, proper speech that everyone can understand as theirs just as much as anyone else. It was white supremacists who said "this is ours, you go and utilize some other lower standard". When a white supremacist tells a black person to go and sit at the back of the bus, the last thing you want to do is bedazzle the back of the bus and make it into some place to be proud to be. White supremacists of the past establishing that kind of a tradition of defining what's good in life as theirs and everyone else needing some other lower standard is actually worse than the murders that used to take place, because the murders were destroying the body, but the standard redefining is actually controlling and destroying the mind and controlling the soul, even into the future. Why are Churches still self segregated again?
So I don't believe that race relations in today's culture is properly defined as "white default" as I have heard suggested. The problem with that, is it assumes that proper English, for example, isn't really proper, it's just "white", and that certain types of slang isn't really less clear, it's just "black" and that the two are equally legitimate, and so the over emphasis on proper English is itself the injustice and that we need to allow more "urbanization" to even things out so that "black" and "white" are even. Not only does this incorrectly assume that white actually is suburban, and black actually is urban (an old white supremacist concept), but it emphasizes something as superficial as color and minimizes value. "No there's no right or wrong way to act, just black and white ways to act". The answer isn't emphasizing color and minimizing value, but rather, the answer is in emphasizing value and minimizing something as superficial as color. Noble language really is better than foul language, but that's OK to admit, because the two aren't "black" and "white" to begin with. It's not "white default", it's value default where white is wrongly defined as value and everything else as less.
I don't believe in the concept of "white privilege" as defined as white racists controlling culture and making life easier for white people as they would want to see it. No, but I do believe in "white privilege" as defined as society defining white as mainstream and everything else as alternative, even without realizing it's being done. What I mean is, a lot of black people, for example, are equally as guilty of defining white as mainstream and black as alternative as much as a lot of white people are, and may not realize it. Let me give an example: the N word.
Now I know that aside from the obvious that there are those who believe that a black person referring to another black person with a variation of the N word is deemed a "term of endearment", however, even running with that concept, you mean to tell me that it's perfectly rational for a dark skinned person to refer to another dark skinned person, that you don't even know, as a term of endearment, just because they have dark skin? This is just another way to define white as mainstream and black as alternative, I don't care what the term is, and so changing a term means nothing, as you end up with the same exact result. I understand fully well that not everyone who uses any variation of this word is racist, but it has this effect.
Which Brings me to Hulk Hogan.
Hulk Hogan made racist comments. He even referred to himself as racist in those comments. Not only that, but during an interview about that subject, when Hogan was asked if he "had grown up having a bias" (which is a phrase that people who assume racism = hate ignorantly use to describe that type of bigotry without the presence of hate) and Hogan actually replied that this would be fair to state. So, based off of the above definitions, Hogan actually admitted to growing up prejudiced.
Do I believe that Hulk Hogan is bigoted, racist, or prejudiced? No. let me explain.
Like so many others, Hogan isn't yet able to properly flesh out these concepts and doesn't have a coherent definition of any of these terms. He doesn't know that "bias" means prejudiced. We need to understand that what a person believes determines how a person acts. There's a very great yet not well known discipline called Praxeology, which I recommend people research.
There are four main reasons why a person says what they say. The first two are on the feeling side, and the second two are on the thinking side. They are as follows:
1) An emotional impulse reflecting how a person feels at the time they say it (impulsive feeling, not thinking).
2) An emotional impulse reflecting how a person has always felt all along (emotional confession).
3) A rational description of what a person is thinking (rational communication)
4) A rational description of what a person isn't really thinking (lying)
Since ultimately what you believe determines how you act, and since every singe person that Hogan has known that's willing to comments says that they've never seen any signs of racism from him (defined variously), shows that it's either reasons number One or Four.
Since I see no reason to believe that Hogan was lying about his racist thoughts/comments other than the premise that Hogan knew that he was being recorded but wanted to seem believable that he didn't know by saying a bunch of outrageous things (highly unlikely), I am only left with number one, which seems reasonable.
I conclude this: Hogan was in the middle of a Suicidal depression, his back was giving him unbearable pain, his wife had left him (they were still married but were already separated), his kids were grown and gone, and he arrived home one day to an empty house with lots of his money gone, and he spent two days sitting in his bathroom with a loaded gun, flirting with then idea of shooting himself in the mouth, eve going so far as rubbing the gun on his face and placing it in his mouth whispering to himself "just 3 more pounds of pressure" (referring to the gun trigger). All of this is described in Hogan's book. Thank God Laila Ali called Hogan while he was in the bathroom and invited him to a church that helped Hogan snap out of it. This was the time that Hogan embraced what some call the "Law Of Attraction" and Hogan says this has renewed his life.
So yes, this was an extremely dark place in Hogan's life. During this time it sounds to me that Hogan hated the whole world and hated being alive. Hogan was going to die committing suicide by shooting himself in the bathroom in his empty house. As Hogan was giving up on life, this was also the time that Hogan began multiple "infidelities" while separated from his wife, and when, ultimately, 3 of them were recorded. When a person is anywhere near that bottomed out, they will attack the world and be extremely vindictive just for the sake of being vindictive against anyone that they don't care about anymore, and will say the most vile things that they know how to say. I fully believe that Hogan, at this time in his life, just hated white, black, asian, spanish, gay, straight, male, female, or anyone else that he was about to leave behind on this earth. I'm sure he said lots of racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-religious, antisemitic, things. I've known way too many people who were women that got dumped by their boyfriends, and would then say "I hate all men, I'm the most sexist person here" or the like, when they didn't really think this at all. They just felt it at the time. They don't think they hate all men and are the most sexist person, no, they feel like they hate all men and are the most sexist person. You can't put too much stock into a person making decisions about how they are or what they'll do based strictly off of feeling, because sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't. That is an emotional impulse driven by trauma. I give Hogan the benefit of the doubt.
Which brings me to the WWE. Should I give the WWE the benefit of the doubt? Unfortunately, that's much more difficult. WWE has fallen into the trap of giving in to the whims of mainstream pop culture including all of it's very strong dangers, and even amplifies it in it's attempt to crawl up the hind end of the cesspool of the desire for mainstream acceptability.
Let me start off with a startling statistic: The biggest moment that a person can have in the WWE is to win a championship title inside the ring at Wrestlemania, especially the world title. That is when the "spotlight" is on you the most. Being in the ring is a spotlight, being at wrestlemania is a spotlight, and being in a title match is a spotlight. Although yes, you'll have considerable attention losing a title in the Ring (not backstage, like Hardcore title), and even more attention successfully defending a title in the ring at Wrestlemania, there's no attention like the attention of winning a title inside the ring at Wrestlemania. Wrestlemania is the biggest stage, the ring on the day is the biggest ring, and winning a title in that ring, on that day, is the biggest action of them all, with the world title being the biggest of the big. This is the ultimate attention, or "spotlight" in the WWE, and thus all of pro wrestling. thos who have done it should be honored at the privilege of being able to do that and live through the feeling and the experience of having done that.
Did you know that since the very beginning of Wrestlemania, Wrestlemania 1-31, not one single black person, male or female, has ever won a championship inside the ring at Wrestlemania? Has never had that feeling or privilege? Go ahead and review it. If we're talking about championship belts won inside the ring at Wrestlemania, then no, it has never happened.
Not the WWF title, not the WWE title, not the Undisputed title, not the WCW title, not the World heavyweight title, not the WWF tag team titles, not the WWE tag team titles, ot the WCW tag team titles, not the world tag team titles, not the Intercontinental title, not the US title, not the cruiserweight title, not the light heavyweight title, not the women's title, not the Diva's title, not the Million Dollar title, none.
They've successfully defended tites in the ring at Wrestlemania, they've lost titles in the ring at Wrestlemania, they've lost title shots in the ring at Wrestlemania, but they have never won a title, inside the ring, at Wrestlemania. The only two times that a person containing black ethnicity won a title at Wrestlemania were on two occasions.
1). Wrestlemania 16, Viscera briefly one the Hardcore title on the 15 minute hardcore battle royal by pinning Tazz outside on the floor. Viscera became the first ever black person to win a title at Wrestlemania in the year 2000.
2). Wrestlemania 18, Maven Won the Hardcore title in the parking lot.
And that's it. It took until the year 2000 for the WWE to believe that a black person was good enough to win a title at Wrestlemania so long as it's on cold cement, and, if Sasha Banks (who I assume is atleast part black being related to Snoop Dog, who I also assume is part black) wins the Diva's title in the ring tonight, then it would have taken WWE until 2016 to believe that a black person was good enough to win a title inside the ring at Wrestlemania.
Now Why is that?
Well if you look at it, WWE defines white as mainstream and black, asian, spanish, arab, as alternative. If you're Asian, then you'll be an "Asian" character, in other words, if another Asian comes along, you're also likely to be an "Asian" character, and thus, marketing wize, will be competing with the first one for that identity, and thus WWE will only have one Asian star at a time with the rest being mid-card or jobber, effectively creating an environment in WWE that if you're Asian, you'll likely to be held down. WWE is just getting over this now.
If you're black, your character will be based off of some stereotype of your blackness some how, or being hip and or urban. The vast majority of black stars in WWE over the last 20 years have been made to come out to either hip-hop music, or some type of music that personifies a stereotype of a black person for that time, at some point in their career. Your color will play into your character, causing all of them to have to compete with each other for identity.
R-Truth, hip-hop and dancing
Booker T, using "sucka" and breakdancing, racist storylines, ect.
Mark Henry, hip-hop music
Titus Oneil, hip-hop music
Darren Young, hip-hop music
Big E, hip-hop music, followed by stereotypical black gospel music and dancing. Sure, New day is
over, but what about their competition forced to compete with them?
Xavier Woods, PHD and stereotype of funk music and dancing followed by stereotypical black
gospel music and dancing
Kofi Kingston, being a Jamaican stereotype, followed by stereotypical black gospel music and dancing
Alisha Fox. Possibly the only exception. Although, she had that one theme that was very similar to
Nelly's "take off all your clothes" song. This just reeks of "Uh oh! Black Girl! Uh oh! It's getting
hot in here! Take off all your clothes! Uh oh! black girl!"
Cameron. The stereotype of 1970's black funk women
Naomi. The stereotype of 1970's black funk women who hits people with her butt.
Boadus Clay. Funk music and dancing
Ezekiel Jackson, hip hop
David Otunga, Harvard Law graduate and hip-hop/R and B
Orlando Jordan, hip-hop
Shelton Benjamin was given up on and just sattled with a "they hate me because I'm black" character
Then we have 3 time world Karate champion Earnest Miller singing and dancing
I honestly can't go on any more. If I were a wrestler head to WWE, I honestly would risk my whole career to try to become the first wrestler to never come out to hip-hop music or any racially stereotypical music or racially stereotypical character at all for my whole career. Even The Rock was a part of the Nation Of Domination, a stereotype of the Nation Of Islam, who later had 1970's era "black sploitation" style music, which the Rock's current theme is a modification of that.
I must conclude that this shows that WWE defines White as mainstream and black as "alternative", or a "niche". This really does worry me, because they way it seems right now, I really must conclude something that I've tried to avoid concluding for a long time. That is, if you're in WWE, and you're black, for example, you can be very successful as a "niche" as far as a "niche" can take you, and you can come out to your favorite hip-hop, funk, or "black-sploitation style music, do your favorite dances, speak your anti-white supremacist lines, and juke and jive, you can even be a lawyer character in WWE, so long as you also incorporate a few black stereotypes, and thus compete with everyone else who must incorporate a few black stereotypes, thus stifling most of them, but you're highly unlikely to be apart of non stereotypical mainstream entertainment, and you're highly unlikely to be an undead zombie, have a non race-specific romance, be a doctor, a patriot, or an intellectual savior of the unwashed masses, unless you're good enough to essentially make miracles happen.
I'm just trying to make a difference.
I've been meaning to make this thread for a long time. I don't really mean to wait until the day before/day of Wrestlemania, but I've been busy having a busy life, but now is as good of a time as any.
Let me state first and foremost for the record, I am truly a non racist, in other words, I don't believe that one race is superior to another. I don't even like using the terms "black", "white" ect, to describe someone's skin, because it only shows that a person has a black and white way of thinking. I don't like limiting race discussions to black and white it's beyond black and white, but there exists too much invalid narrative involving black and white. With that said, I am not someone who says they aren't racist simply because of not hating someone of another race or skin color despite still believing that one were superior to another, so for the sake of clarity I think some terms need to be reasonably defined. I say reasonably, because there are those who will define things, including the dictionary, that I find unreasonable. For example, the differences between bigotry, racism, and discrimination. I roll my eyes when I hear of those who speak of "ending racism", as long as a human being sits in their bedroom with a single solitary thought in their head that one race may be superior to another today, a racist thought exists in the world and there's nothing you can do about it as much as you couldn't do anything about the existence of an ant genocide taking place under the inconsiderate foot of a lumberjack construction worker walking the streets of Rhode Island. What the person means is that they're trying to end the influence of racial discrimination.
Bigotry: Believing that you know something about someone, that you don't, based off of something completely superficial. This truly covers all bases. I'm sick of reading in the dictionary that bigotry is about being "intolerant", or even worse, being about "hatred". Ancient white supremacists used to hold their black subordinates in cages along with their pet monkeys believing them to be more monkey-like than human, but, of course, they still loved their pet black people they same way they loved their pet monkeys. It leads to absurd conclusions to state that these people aren't bigoted for not hating, nevertheless one who believes someone should more simply know their role in life based off of their skin color, despite being rather fond of them. All forms of bigotry are equally destructive.
Now, If you think you know something about someone, but it isn't based off of anything superficial, you are still not a bigot. Let me explain. If you think, that, in general that men are physically stronger than women, this is not a bigoted thing to believe, as although, you believe that you know something about someone that you may or may not be right on, it is not based off of anything superficial, as their exists other pieces of knowledge and data explaining this phenomenon other than the superficiality of a gender's genitals alone. Bigotry is believing that you know something about someone, that you don't, based off of something completely superficial. Racism, sexism, antisemitism, ect, are all forms of bigotry.
Racism: The belief that one race is superior to another. Racism is a form of bigotry because believing that one race is superior to another, itself, requires one to believe that they know something about someone that they don't, based of off something completely superficial (in this case one's skin color) seeing as there is no reasonable information, knowledge, or data, that justifies that.
Discrimination: Denying a service (not a favor!), but that can be anything. Rejecting someone from a high IQ society can be described as discriminating. What I'm talking about is bigoted discrimination, a choice of words that I hardly ever hear, but one I find necessary.
Bigoted Discrimination: Denying a service (not a favor!) based off of bigotry. A person can have bigoted views, be it racism, sexism, ect, but it is not discrimination unless they are actually denying you some type of service. Now as I understand it, the types of discrimination in America for example that happen to be illegal are mainly public types of discrimination. If you are offering a general service that is already being offered to everyone, and you refuse it for one type of person based off of bigotry, that's discrimination. You refused a service based off of bigotry. Now here's where some people may get confused. If you're offering a general service that is already being offered to everyone, and someone asks for you to modify your service to cater specifically to them, you can refuse that without it being discrimination. The person asked for a favor, not a service, and you can oblige if you want, but if you don't, it's not discrimination. If a black person goes to Mcdonalds and asks for a big mac, but requests that you carve the word "black" into the burger, if you say "no", that is not discrimination, sorry. If a black person walks into a toy store and wants to purchase any one of the many superman toys that are being sold, but requests that you paint one of them black before selling it to him because he feels that it's unfair, and you say "no", that is still not discrimination, sorry. Those things are favors that are being refused, not services that are being refused.
Prejudice: Having biased views. People, publications, and dictionaries, unfortunately, use bigotry and prejudice interchangeably. "Not being prejudiced" is the bigot's defense. Just because you aren't biased, that doesn't mean you don't think you know something about someone that you don't based off of something completely superficial, let alone, the thing you believe being a superficial superiority complex.
So before getting into the problems of racism in pro wrestling, let's quickly get to the bottom of the racism problems in society first.
Let me state for the record, I am 50% black, 50% white, and 100% intelligent (On both black and white sides I have some Native American and European). No one can tell me a darned thing about perceived racial preconceptions, as if I'm ignorant based off of experience.
Some individual black supremacist will say to a white person that he is owed something because the black person doesn't have the same power to hold down a white person with racism using the establishment at an institutional level as much as a white person does, and thus, conclude that a black person can never be a racist. This is not only misinformed, but downright silly. let me explain.
Aside from not understanding that just because there exists some white supremacy at an institutional level doesn't magically mean that an individual white person for the sole sake of being white can somehow tap into this institutional mindset for his or her own personal gain (let alone heartlessly never use it to help someone else, like, a black person, for example), it also utterly confuses the difference between racism and discrimination, let alone is guilty of defining a person as a member of a group rather than as an individual and all of the baggage that comes with, like for example, the fallacy of division: Assuming what's true for the whole must be true for the part, just because it's true for the whole.
Institutions are established firstly by starting at an Individual level. I find it true that mainstream commercial white supremacist institutional discrimination is the only thing that exists on the white supremacists side that doesn't exist on the black supremacists side, but that's a lot of levels. Look at the levels: mainstream, commercial, institutional, discrimination (distinct from basic racism). That's a lot of levels that you have to travel through before finding something that exists on the white supremacists side that doesn't also exist of the black supremacists side. So yes, you might not find a ton of black people at the top of every societal institution that may want to exercise the ability to racially discriminate against people of different color that they happen to encounter, but this doesn't automatically nullify any individual discrimination, racism, or bigotry just because of also lacking some additional magical skill of selectively connecting to some grand body of an objective while also maintaining the impulse to use the connection for personal gain or convenience.
Now, the problem with racism in society is this: It's not the strength of white supremacism, it's not the strength of the KKK, it's not secret closed door meetings of white supremacists conspiring against black people. It's not any of those things by any other race as well either. What it is, is something far more suttle, but far bigger, and far more difficult to overcome, even though I believe that overcoming it is the final step to eradicating the destructive influence (not existence) of racial discrimination.
What it is, is that there were traditions that were created way back during white supremacist times, and eve though the hardcore racism is no where near what it once was, people have inadvertently stayed with those traditions, and those traditions have the same effect today, without anyone really being aware of it and/or it's impact. The worst of these traditions: White is being defined as "mainstream" while everything else (black, spanish, asian, arab, indian, native american,) is being defined as "alternative". This is promoted mostly my Hollywood, the media, commercial enterprise, the books, magazines, tv, ect. Mainstream pop culture does this and they don't even realize that they're doing it.
If you pay attention to Hollywood, for example, you'll find that it's extremely rare to see a movie with an all Asian cast that isn't a movie about being Asian, in some way. Sure, you'll have an Asian leading man in a mainstream movie with a mostly white cast, but if it's a mostly Asian cast itself, as opposed to one single Asian superstar who's so talented he can make miracles happen, then it's going to be presented as an "Asian movie" that's about being Asian somehow. If it's a mostly Spanish cast, it'll be a "Spanish movie". If the movie is a primarily black cast, it'll be a movie about the struggles of being black, or the ghetto/the hood, slavery, or black people struggling, somehow. It won't be doctors, or firefighters, or police, or teachers, ect. It'll be a "black movie", unfortunately. If the movie is about some mainstream principle, or about value, like love, friendship, betrayal, espionage, mystery,without any kind of a niche, it'll have a predominantly white cast.
Segregation still exists, but it exists still in the mind, the most powerful place it can exist, and it does so because of these images constantly being placed in people's minds. Churches are still self segregated. Think about that for a long while.
Now with all of that said, In reality, there's no such thing as "acting black" or "acting white". I've seen and heard people say "why are you reading a book? That's too white, go play basketball", now if you say that, then what is it that you're saying about black people? I've heard people use this exact reasoning about the way people talk, as if there's a black and white way to talk. Give me a break.
One of the worst things white supremacists did in the past wasn't killing their black slaves (as horrendous as that is, and I shouldn't even feel the need to clarify that), but rather, they defined all of the good things in life as theirs, as "white", and defined all of the bad things in life as everyone else's, as "black" for example. Proper English is not white, it's proper, and black people have equal right to claim clear, coherent, proper speech that everyone can understand as theirs just as much as anyone else. It was white supremacists who said "this is ours, you go and utilize some other lower standard". When a white supremacist tells a black person to go and sit at the back of the bus, the last thing you want to do is bedazzle the back of the bus and make it into some place to be proud to be. White supremacists of the past establishing that kind of a tradition of defining what's good in life as theirs and everyone else needing some other lower standard is actually worse than the murders that used to take place, because the murders were destroying the body, but the standard redefining is actually controlling and destroying the mind and controlling the soul, even into the future. Why are Churches still self segregated again?
So I don't believe that race relations in today's culture is properly defined as "white default" as I have heard suggested. The problem with that, is it assumes that proper English, for example, isn't really proper, it's just "white", and that certain types of slang isn't really less clear, it's just "black" and that the two are equally legitimate, and so the over emphasis on proper English is itself the injustice and that we need to allow more "urbanization" to even things out so that "black" and "white" are even. Not only does this incorrectly assume that white actually is suburban, and black actually is urban (an old white supremacist concept), but it emphasizes something as superficial as color and minimizes value. "No there's no right or wrong way to act, just black and white ways to act". The answer isn't emphasizing color and minimizing value, but rather, the answer is in emphasizing value and minimizing something as superficial as color. Noble language really is better than foul language, but that's OK to admit, because the two aren't "black" and "white" to begin with. It's not "white default", it's value default where white is wrongly defined as value and everything else as less.
I don't believe in the concept of "white privilege" as defined as white racists controlling culture and making life easier for white people as they would want to see it. No, but I do believe in "white privilege" as defined as society defining white as mainstream and everything else as alternative, even without realizing it's being done. What I mean is, a lot of black people, for example, are equally as guilty of defining white as mainstream and black as alternative as much as a lot of white people are, and may not realize it. Let me give an example: the N word.
Now I know that aside from the obvious that there are those who believe that a black person referring to another black person with a variation of the N word is deemed a "term of endearment", however, even running with that concept, you mean to tell me that it's perfectly rational for a dark skinned person to refer to another dark skinned person, that you don't even know, as a term of endearment, just because they have dark skin? This is just another way to define white as mainstream and black as alternative, I don't care what the term is, and so changing a term means nothing, as you end up with the same exact result. I understand fully well that not everyone who uses any variation of this word is racist, but it has this effect.
Which Brings me to Hulk Hogan.
Hulk Hogan made racist comments. He even referred to himself as racist in those comments. Not only that, but during an interview about that subject, when Hogan was asked if he "had grown up having a bias" (which is a phrase that people who assume racism = hate ignorantly use to describe that type of bigotry without the presence of hate) and Hogan actually replied that this would be fair to state. So, based off of the above definitions, Hogan actually admitted to growing up prejudiced.
Do I believe that Hulk Hogan is bigoted, racist, or prejudiced? No. let me explain.
Like so many others, Hogan isn't yet able to properly flesh out these concepts and doesn't have a coherent definition of any of these terms. He doesn't know that "bias" means prejudiced. We need to understand that what a person believes determines how a person acts. There's a very great yet not well known discipline called Praxeology, which I recommend people research.
There are four main reasons why a person says what they say. The first two are on the feeling side, and the second two are on the thinking side. They are as follows:
1) An emotional impulse reflecting how a person feels at the time they say it (impulsive feeling, not thinking).
2) An emotional impulse reflecting how a person has always felt all along (emotional confession).
3) A rational description of what a person is thinking (rational communication)
4) A rational description of what a person isn't really thinking (lying)
Since ultimately what you believe determines how you act, and since every singe person that Hogan has known that's willing to comments says that they've never seen any signs of racism from him (defined variously), shows that it's either reasons number One or Four.
Since I see no reason to believe that Hogan was lying about his racist thoughts/comments other than the premise that Hogan knew that he was being recorded but wanted to seem believable that he didn't know by saying a bunch of outrageous things (highly unlikely), I am only left with number one, which seems reasonable.
I conclude this: Hogan was in the middle of a Suicidal depression, his back was giving him unbearable pain, his wife had left him (they were still married but were already separated), his kids were grown and gone, and he arrived home one day to an empty house with lots of his money gone, and he spent two days sitting in his bathroom with a loaded gun, flirting with then idea of shooting himself in the mouth, eve going so far as rubbing the gun on his face and placing it in his mouth whispering to himself "just 3 more pounds of pressure" (referring to the gun trigger). All of this is described in Hogan's book. Thank God Laila Ali called Hogan while he was in the bathroom and invited him to a church that helped Hogan snap out of it. This was the time that Hogan embraced what some call the "Law Of Attraction" and Hogan says this has renewed his life.
So yes, this was an extremely dark place in Hogan's life. During this time it sounds to me that Hogan hated the whole world and hated being alive. Hogan was going to die committing suicide by shooting himself in the bathroom in his empty house. As Hogan was giving up on life, this was also the time that Hogan began multiple "infidelities" while separated from his wife, and when, ultimately, 3 of them were recorded. When a person is anywhere near that bottomed out, they will attack the world and be extremely vindictive just for the sake of being vindictive against anyone that they don't care about anymore, and will say the most vile things that they know how to say. I fully believe that Hogan, at this time in his life, just hated white, black, asian, spanish, gay, straight, male, female, or anyone else that he was about to leave behind on this earth. I'm sure he said lots of racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-religious, antisemitic, things. I've known way too many people who were women that got dumped by their boyfriends, and would then say "I hate all men, I'm the most sexist person here" or the like, when they didn't really think this at all. They just felt it at the time. They don't think they hate all men and are the most sexist person, no, they feel like they hate all men and are the most sexist person. You can't put too much stock into a person making decisions about how they are or what they'll do based strictly off of feeling, because sometimes you feel like a nut and sometimes you don't. That is an emotional impulse driven by trauma. I give Hogan the benefit of the doubt.
Which brings me to the WWE. Should I give the WWE the benefit of the doubt? Unfortunately, that's much more difficult. WWE has fallen into the trap of giving in to the whims of mainstream pop culture including all of it's very strong dangers, and even amplifies it in it's attempt to crawl up the hind end of the cesspool of the desire for mainstream acceptability.
Let me start off with a startling statistic: The biggest moment that a person can have in the WWE is to win a championship title inside the ring at Wrestlemania, especially the world title. That is when the "spotlight" is on you the most. Being in the ring is a spotlight, being at wrestlemania is a spotlight, and being in a title match is a spotlight. Although yes, you'll have considerable attention losing a title in the Ring (not backstage, like Hardcore title), and even more attention successfully defending a title in the ring at Wrestlemania, there's no attention like the attention of winning a title inside the ring at Wrestlemania. Wrestlemania is the biggest stage, the ring on the day is the biggest ring, and winning a title in that ring, on that day, is the biggest action of them all, with the world title being the biggest of the big. This is the ultimate attention, or "spotlight" in the WWE, and thus all of pro wrestling. thos who have done it should be honored at the privilege of being able to do that and live through the feeling and the experience of having done that.
Did you know that since the very beginning of Wrestlemania, Wrestlemania 1-31, not one single black person, male or female, has ever won a championship inside the ring at Wrestlemania? Has never had that feeling or privilege? Go ahead and review it. If we're talking about championship belts won inside the ring at Wrestlemania, then no, it has never happened.
Not the WWF title, not the WWE title, not the Undisputed title, not the WCW title, not the World heavyweight title, not the WWF tag team titles, not the WWE tag team titles, ot the WCW tag team titles, not the world tag team titles, not the Intercontinental title, not the US title, not the cruiserweight title, not the light heavyweight title, not the women's title, not the Diva's title, not the Million Dollar title, none.
They've successfully defended tites in the ring at Wrestlemania, they've lost titles in the ring at Wrestlemania, they've lost title shots in the ring at Wrestlemania, but they have never won a title, inside the ring, at Wrestlemania. The only two times that a person containing black ethnicity won a title at Wrestlemania were on two occasions.
1). Wrestlemania 16, Viscera briefly one the Hardcore title on the 15 minute hardcore battle royal by pinning Tazz outside on the floor. Viscera became the first ever black person to win a title at Wrestlemania in the year 2000.
2). Wrestlemania 18, Maven Won the Hardcore title in the parking lot.
And that's it. It took until the year 2000 for the WWE to believe that a black person was good enough to win a title at Wrestlemania so long as it's on cold cement, and, if Sasha Banks (who I assume is atleast part black being related to Snoop Dog, who I also assume is part black) wins the Diva's title in the ring tonight, then it would have taken WWE until 2016 to believe that a black person was good enough to win a title inside the ring at Wrestlemania.
Now Why is that?
Well if you look at it, WWE defines white as mainstream and black, asian, spanish, arab, as alternative. If you're Asian, then you'll be an "Asian" character, in other words, if another Asian comes along, you're also likely to be an "Asian" character, and thus, marketing wize, will be competing with the first one for that identity, and thus WWE will only have one Asian star at a time with the rest being mid-card or jobber, effectively creating an environment in WWE that if you're Asian, you'll likely to be held down. WWE is just getting over this now.
If you're black, your character will be based off of some stereotype of your blackness some how, or being hip and or urban. The vast majority of black stars in WWE over the last 20 years have been made to come out to either hip-hop music, or some type of music that personifies a stereotype of a black person for that time, at some point in their career. Your color will play into your character, causing all of them to have to compete with each other for identity.
R-Truth, hip-hop and dancing
Booker T, using "sucka" and breakdancing, racist storylines, ect.
Mark Henry, hip-hop music
Titus Oneil, hip-hop music
Darren Young, hip-hop music
Big E, hip-hop music, followed by stereotypical black gospel music and dancing. Sure, New day is
over, but what about their competition forced to compete with them?
Xavier Woods, PHD and stereotype of funk music and dancing followed by stereotypical black
gospel music and dancing
Kofi Kingston, being a Jamaican stereotype, followed by stereotypical black gospel music and dancing
Alisha Fox. Possibly the only exception. Although, she had that one theme that was very similar to
Nelly's "take off all your clothes" song. This just reeks of "Uh oh! Black Girl! Uh oh! It's getting
hot in here! Take off all your clothes! Uh oh! black girl!"
Cameron. The stereotype of 1970's black funk women
Naomi. The stereotype of 1970's black funk women who hits people with her butt.
Boadus Clay. Funk music and dancing
Ezekiel Jackson, hip hop
David Otunga, Harvard Law graduate and hip-hop/R and B
Orlando Jordan, hip-hop
Shelton Benjamin was given up on and just sattled with a "they hate me because I'm black" character
Then we have 3 time world Karate champion Earnest Miller singing and dancing
I honestly can't go on any more. If I were a wrestler head to WWE, I honestly would risk my whole career to try to become the first wrestler to never come out to hip-hop music or any racially stereotypical music or racially stereotypical character at all for my whole career. Even The Rock was a part of the Nation Of Domination, a stereotype of the Nation Of Islam, who later had 1970's era "black sploitation" style music, which the Rock's current theme is a modification of that.
I must conclude that this shows that WWE defines White as mainstream and black as "alternative", or a "niche". This really does worry me, because they way it seems right now, I really must conclude something that I've tried to avoid concluding for a long time. That is, if you're in WWE, and you're black, for example, you can be very successful as a "niche" as far as a "niche" can take you, and you can come out to your favorite hip-hop, funk, or "black-sploitation style music, do your favorite dances, speak your anti-white supremacist lines, and juke and jive, you can even be a lawyer character in WWE, so long as you also incorporate a few black stereotypes, and thus compete with everyone else who must incorporate a few black stereotypes, thus stifling most of them, but you're highly unlikely to be apart of non stereotypical mainstream entertainment, and you're highly unlikely to be an undead zombie, have a non race-specific romance, be a doctor, a patriot, or an intellectual savior of the unwashed masses, unless you're good enough to essentially make miracles happen.
I'm just trying to make a difference.
:format(webp)/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/61946227/Dqpaz_iVsAA04LW.0.jpg)
