The streaming platform HBO Max withdraw "temporarily" gone with the wind. The film is deemed " racist ". It was the same with Birth of a nation Griffith. The question is whether we also need to remove the book from libraries. The Mask and the pen, last Sunday, they were all pathetic (except for a single critical), panicked at the idea of pretending to be racists : they have all managed to "find the racist" the book of Margaret Mitchell. In short, this is called in any case, in bulk, a number of considerations.
1. The real evil is not racism. The France is not more racist than another country, it is probably a lot less ; France and the United States are countries where there is racism, this is not a country racist. The real evil, the real cancer, it is fear. The fear of pretending to be a racist. Everything that happens in this moment is to read in terms of fear. We have entered into a corporate panic. We have entered the era of the funk. We have been afraid of the yellow Vests, we have been afraid of the Covid-19, we now scared of the protesters are black.
2. The one who is afraid to pass for a racist may be in effect. at least is it not very clear vis-à-vis itself. This is what he betrays in his panic, as if he was afraid of somehow being " outed ". Give guarantees of its non-racism is a bad sign. It is having doubts about his own racism. It's like someone who would be more polite, more considerate, with a Black than with another. The gallantry excessive, for example, is a kind of misogyny. This is not to deny that there is racism, because there a. You can also be white, and place this struggle at the forefront of his concerns ; but this is doubtful, is to want at all costs to show his certificate of anti-racism to the police of the time.
3. I remember Pierre Desproges, writing : "When a Black person says that White is an idiot, it is said that the White is an idiot. When a White person says that a Black man is stupid, you said that White is a racist. "It was in 1985. And it is to meditate in 2020.
Read also 30 years of the death of Desproges : "The moral is the enemy of absolute humour"
4. Thus, the decision of HBO, is it really the decision of the White not net by excellence. anyone who wants to be more royalist than the king. The one who, to not be accused of racism, takes the lead. I have almost the same contempt for the racist than to the one who is afraid to pass for such. Both are cowards ; the two are bastards, and both are weak, and the two have a very poor conception of what is, what must be, of what should be humanity.
Vivien Leigh and Clark Gable in gone with the wind (1939).
5. Let's look at the governments. in France in Particular, where the means to mix, either in the ministers or in the street, and the case of Floyd with the case Traoré. Castaner takes action against Chauvinism. But Chauvin is a police officer american. The government does not give in only to the pressures of the street French, it yields to the pressures of the american road. This settled, we can only rejoice that the socket on the neck is forbidden – but that is not the issue ; the issue is one of opportunism paniquard. The problem is to give in by fear. By excessive weakness. Yet, the weakness just creates one thing : hatred.
Read also FOG – The racialisme, this "good" racism of the left
6. Give in to the crowd of Blacks that claim, it is not sure of itself. The reasoning made on the individual can be done on a government. This is not because the crowd is black that the crowd is right. Because the question is there : a crowd of black is first a number, or a color ? Hit a Black because he is black, it is racism. But giving in to Blacks because they are Black, to me this is the very definition of racism. Allow Black a banned demonstration because it is a manifestation of black, it is racism. The racism anti-Black. Be more wicked with a Black than with a White, it is racism, anti-Black ; to be more nice with a Black than with a White one, it is still racism anti-Black. The racism lies in the mere fact of distinguishing between a color, to " see " the color. The racialisme is already racism.
7. HBO has it wrong. Because there are several layers of history here, blended into. The novel gone with the wind was written in 1936, the movie from 1939. 1936 and 1939 are times racist. These are dates that are racist that address the issue of slavery. A time racist treats the year 1861 with the tropisms that are his own. A time that deals poorly Blacks have a movie in which we see the slaves, that is to say, Blacks are ill-treated. The historical presentation of the North and the South is idealized and flawed. Of course. It is beyond doubt. But the pull out of the public view is typically a decision of White. In addition, it does not request a film, even historic, address history. It is not a document. What would it do ? Invent the machine to go back in time and stop the shooting ? What people don't understand is that gone with the wind is not a document of 1861, but a paper – valuable – on 1939. For the sake of 1861, that is to say, to 2020, it eradicates 1939, are subtracted from the history of cinema, that is to say, of the story short, the prejudices of 1939, who also, like the slave trade, are a witness.
Read also Controversy blackfaces : "actor no longer has the right to play the other"
8. In 1940, we awarded eight oscars, to gone with the wind, the film Selznick, despite his racism. In 1940, it is even possible that attribuât eight oscars the film for its racism. The most likely hypothesis is that they attributed these eight oscars for the film, because the manner in which the question black was treated in the film, echoing the doxa of 1940. Today, a movie would obviously eight oscars for reasons that are symmetrically opposite. I dare say it is not better. On one side, a vision full of prejudices ; of the other, a vision, full of resentment. That Blacks want revenge for centuries of horror, it is very good ; they intend to revenge, no. The contrast is to be reimbursed ; the revenge is to charge the other. The White of 2020 are not responsible for the oscars awarded to a movie by the Whites of 1940. Not more than Whites in 1940 were responsible for the slavery of 1861.
also Read " am I Going to ask the white man of today to be responsible for the slavers of the Seventeenth century ? "
It is necessary to call in any emergency, to prevent the hygienics history. Yes, there was a time when, in Spirou, were published each week the adventures of Blondin et Cirage. Blondin was a small blond and Waxing, a small Black. Yes, fortunately, this is no longer possible : but to erase the fact that it was is a fluke. We do not clean the history. One does not make the household in the events of the past as we clean up the dining room, wanting to eradicate the mites. Prejudice is a part of the story, and not only they are part of it, but they are ; they are sometimes the scenery, and sometimes the engine. Subtract this film, it is removed, such as a surgeon, what today appears to us as a melanoma, what once was considered a pretty beauty spot.
also Read "If Schœlcher is controversial in Martinique, Césaire is for the same reason,"
We can't draw from the past, to make the biopsy with the knowledge of today, which we think is insulting the present. The only insult that we inflict on mankind, that is, to manipulate its heritage, it is to sanitize its memory, it is to clean up its history. We want to eradicate all viruses, inventing a world of antiseptic, dedicated to a future nice, installed on a past revisited, which, henceforth, will likely appeal to everyone. HBO insult 2020 on the grounds that 1940 insult 1861. This is the way of the Blacks – but on the head.
9. Gone with the wind is a fiction about 1860. But it is a document about 1940.
