Trendwatch: Racism


Howdy y’all! This is my friend Bosko and he’s gonna help me hip you guys to the latest Hollywood trend: intolerance!!

Bosko here is an ol’ cartoon from the twenties based on a “negro boy” who can sing and dance. If he looks familiar it’s because he’s basically this guy with smaller ears:


Anyway, Bosko is so on the verge because he’s a totally racist and offensive image! But these days you really can’t discriminate enough, what with Paris The N*gg*r-hatin’ socialite and middling celebs like KKKramer and even my beloved Isaiah Washington calling out the ethnicks and the gays like it’s going out of style. It’s not of course but you know; Hollywood does everything in excess.

So, how can you start 2007 in style? Simple, my dirty Mexican friend! Just watch for these hot new trends hitting the pop culture runway and you’ll sail into spring with the ease of a properly documented American.

1. Got any ethnicks in the friend circle? Great! Go offend them right now! Starlets are being very bold this season; using sloppy slurs and blind ignorance with wistful abandon. However, you can make this trend your own by simply being snide.

e.g. You: Hey Ming, it’s amazing you can see out of those eyes of yours! Are spying on someone or have you just been smoking the reefer?! Can I have a bus ticket, a bootleg DVD and some fry rice? Ha ha, you yellows fellows are so resourceful!

2. Take no responsibility for anything! People are common, ugly and stupid for a reason: They deserve it! Don’t get caught in the trap that many starlets du jour have fallen prey to. Next time Tai’quaneetya gives you sass while you’re slumming at the local Dennys you look her in beady little uneducated eye and you tell her the next time she’s in trouble just ask Daddy for a job at the firm. Some races just can’t get it together on their own.

3. Sensitivity is soooo 2003. I repeat sooooooo 2003. If Maria de Consuelos Frejoles y Arroz Banana can’t park your car properly just call over one of male hispanics. They’re as sharp as Vienna sausage but at least they know five more English words than the little woman.

So children, just remember these tips this season and you’re sure to set your town on fire — if those ingenious klansmen don’t get to it first, ha ha! Oh, and if you get in any trouble just say, “Happy Black History Month” as loud as you can. That usually calms them down.


Stay fab!


13 Responses to “Trendwatch: Racism”

  1. seneca Says:

    Thank you for the Paris Hilton photo!

  2. connykate Says:


  3. seneca Says:

    There’s a feminist blog wailing about all the Britney Spears photos, so, when I saw Paris Hilton, I just had to comment.

    I had not heard that Paris Hilton made racist remarks till I read your blog. I hope she didn’t mean it.

    Let’s discuss some things, if you want.

    I am a Democrat, always was, always will be, and a liberal at that.

    I sold my main company a year ago. My classiest salesman was black. My only outside consultant was black. My best technician was black.

    I admit that I knew they were black, but actually didn’t see them as black. They seemed to be just like me.

    As a non-religious, but as a cultural evolutionist, I am appalled at the black births out-of-wedlock. Without getting into cultural evolution, let me just say that a successful society demands the man-woman-child family.

    Is it racist to be appalled at this?

  4. connykate Says:

    um …

  5. connykate Says:

    Ok, you can be appalled at births out of wedlock but if you’re just upset about black births out of wedlock and not whites and other races (one of the biggest paternity battles in recent history concerns the late paleskin Anna Nicole Smith) then you are a racist.

    In this case you would be a racist because you demand differential treatment for an arbitrary reason – because the race of the perpetrators.

    Also, employing black labor does not absolve you of your racist tendencies (perhaps it may even reinforce them if we consider this country’s history with African labor).

    And Paris totally said that. That’s hot, eh?

  6. seneca Says:

    Wait a minute!

    Isn’t the black birth rate out-of-wedlock 70%, and the white 30%?

  7. connykate Says:

    In what world? Those are pretty convenient stats…

    You look like you’re trying to get a free pass to be a racist. If you’re racist, don’t look to me to legitimize it. Own that shit! Don’t be a backdoor bigot. If you really believe that black people are ruining the fabric of America, then proudly scream that from the mountain tops.

    But you’re not gonna get me to agree with you while you talk shit about my people. That’s not happening.

  8. seneca Says:

    I’m surprised that you are not aware of the statistics. Go to Table 20 at:

    and you will see tha the unmarried birth rate for whites is 24.5%, Hispanics is 46.4%, and blacks is

  9. seneca Says:

    I’m surprised that you are not aware of the statistics. Go to Table 20 at:

    and you will see tha the unmarried birth rate for whites is 24.5%, Hispanics is 46.4%, and blacks is 69.3%.

    My point is that cultural evolutionists predict that high unmarried birth rates predict dysfunctional societies that cannot successfully exist.

    I withdraw from your blog, as you are not interested in conversation, just in accusing one of “talking shit” in view of facts.

  10. connykate Says:

    Why would you be surprised that I don’t keep on birth rates of different American races? This isn’t

    Ok, maybe Conny was a little mean (although she does that very well) but come back and let’s chat some more.

    I see your statistics but I don’t see your point about cultural evolution. What exactly do you mean by that? How does unmarried birth rate directly contribute to a dysfunctional society?

    By that logic the third world would be swimming in wealth as marriage rates are much higher with families often producing more children. Places where child marriage and well, marriage in general are essential and often the most effective means for economic stability are still plagued by poverty, disease and low education rates amongst a host of other social maladies.

    Clearly, marriage has its undeniable benefits but marrying and producing children within wedlock will entirely revamp or strengthen a society and neither will the lack of children born within wedlock derail a society that is functioning well economically.

    Much of the contemporary literature that suggest solutions to poverty focus on microfinance, sustainable environmental resources, education and gender rights in the effort to solving third world problems. Why aren’t the issues of marriage and bastard children featured prominently in such arguments?

    Perhaps African-Americans have higher rates of birth out of wedlock. However, if your argument is that the decline of marriage and rise in childbirth directly contributes to an economic decline in society, then I totally disagree and I think even our most intuitive sense about the third and first worlds would support that.

  11. Styl Says:

    you’ve just championed all that I’m about, you’re my favorite bushgirl, reward yourself with some kola nut and incense

  12. seneca Says:

    You may post anything on my blog at any time. I deleted your recent post as I thought it better discussed here, and the few readers I get might wonder how we got so off-topic.

    I see many of my friends destroyed by prostitution, crack, and heroin. They are from dysfunctional, abusive families, often without fathers. Much of my blog is about them.

    I had not thought of your “wealth” argument. I’ll have to think about that. While those countries may not be wealthy, I don’t think that they have our personal destruction which is caused by drugs, and that destruction to me is related to the lack of a family unit.

    Cultural evolutionists demand a man-woman-child unit as a requirement put upon us by evolution. It is bred in us over millions of years and cannot be changed in a hundred years.

    One of the greatest crimes of slavery was the destruction of that family unit.

    One author states that, historically, when a society achieves a 30% out-of-wedlock birth rate, that society fails. America is at 34.8% according to Table 20.

    While we may be appearing to do well economically, I believe it’s only the top 2%.

    When I see the bottom 10%, they appear to me to be people destroyed by drugs and lack of a stable family unit. They never had an even chance. They had a chance, but not the same one as someone from a stable family.

    I am surrounded by wrecked lives, destroyed by drugs and very abusive families as children. These wrecks are breeding children who follow in their path.

    There’s a crackhead (Maggie) asleep just ten feet from where I’m typing. Her dad died of an overdose at age 22. Her mom beat the hell out of her all her childhood. Now Maggie herself has abandoned her four own children. I fear I know how her children will turn out.

    When I say lack of a family unit, I am DEFINITELY saying that drugs, alcohol, and abuse are part of that same lack of a unit, and these poor kids don’t have a chance.

  13. connykate Says:

    I don’t think anyone would disagree with this here:

    “When I say lack of a family unit, I am DEFINITELY saying that drugs, alcohol, and abuse are part of that same lack of a unit, and these poor kids don’t have a chance.”

    Especially given your extreme examples. Your earlier arguments led me to believe that unwed mothers and fathers are directly responsible for the demise of a society. However, if you are suggesting that births out of wedlock is behavior symptomatic of people who already engage in a host of destructive practices then I agree.

    Unmarried parents come in a range of incarnations and I think the statistics you quoted – this is just me talking here – reflect arbitrary and convenient standards set in place generations ago. Statistics and science in general is often manipulated to support prevailing social mores (see the mid-century Moynihan Report and much of the pseudoscience arguing for the use of blacks only as labor).

    I understand the need for a family unit but defining the only healthy family unit as one headed by a married couple is problematic. Even this MSN articles suggests there is and has been a change in the wind.

    Also, what do you mean by a failed society?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: