I haven't yet viewed the whole film, just the excerpts posted on the website.
Some of you have indicated that you've seen the whole film, and I think I will have to make it a point to order this film and watch it, though I am aware that, much as I am interested in the vital subject matter, I shy away from watching it because I sense that I will see and hear a lot of things that will annoy or exasperate me. I know the kinds of things that people tend to say on this subject, and I know how much of it is just rhetoric and parroting of propaganda, and I'm way over my limit on that kind of thing. So in one sense I am avoiding watching this, but I don't doubt, based on Johnson's review and on other reports that it is a good documentary, and probably a very useful tool in getting people to think about these issues which are generally not examined honestly.
Big books like Wilmot Robertson’s The Dispossessed Majority may well be the last word on these matters. But what is the first word? How do we begin the conversation? We live in an increasingly post-literate society, so for most people books are not the place to start, big books especially.
This is why I highly recommend Craig Bodeker’s masterful 58 minute documentary A Conversation about Race. It is an ideal first step on the road to racial awakening.''
Apparently, Craig Bodeker took the wise approach of trying to get people to define racism and to give concrete examples of it in everyday life. This draws forth some examples which illustrate the rather elastic definition of 'racism' as it is used by most black people. And most White people seem to passively allow blacks to define racism for them, and to accept their free-and-easy definitions.
Because of the vagueness of the definitions, Bodeker asked for concrete examples of racism in day to day life. Again, the answers are astonishing. Whites excoriated themselves as racist for noticing the existence of blacks and drawing generalizations about them based on experience. In short, for whites, racism is simply race-consciousness.
For blacks, however, day to day racism seems largely to be a form of self-consciousness, i.e., feeling conspicuous and out of place in white society. Blacks complained about whites staring at them, being overly friendly and solicitous, giving them compliments, not laughing at their jokes (although some blacks would probably describe laughing at their jokes as racist too), and being afraid of them (because of black criminality). That’s it. No slurs, no lynchings, just feeling self-conscious.''
When a newspaper article appears decrying 'racism' and its ubiquitous evil, it is this kind of vaguely-defined thing, seemingly, that they are writing about. We can all give examples of ridiculous 'racism' allegations by nonwhites; some of the complaints are quite laughable, but always treated with grim condemnation by the media, with no sense of proportion. For example, we've read stories of people accusing dogs of racism, in the case of a dog who barks 'only at black people', or the example of toddlers being described as 'racist' if they say 'yuk' to an exotic food. We've heard that sending a gift of a watermelon is a racist attack. In the UK golliwog dolls are 'racist', and a man was accused of 'revving his car engine in a racist manner.'
But I agree with reviewer Johnson: it's news to me that Whites being 'overly friendly and solicitous' is considered racist. I mean, this is an example of damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't.
Frankly, several of Bodeker’s black informants seem to have chips on their shoulders, i.e., pre-existing grievances against whites that cause them to view even innocuous white behavior in a jaundiced manner. One might even say they have prejudices against whites.
Second, who are these overly friendly and solicitous whites who make blacks feel so self-conscious? Do these whites think of themselves as racists or as anti-racists? I would lay odds that 99 percent are liberal anti-racists, who think that simply by going out of their way to be nice they can charm sullen blacks into acting like white people, absolve themselves of the sin of racism, and demonstrate their good faith and intentions. It is ironic that such liberal solicitousness is the primary example of day to day racism cited by Bodeker’s black informants.''
Actually I think I've described such over-friendly behavior by Whites toward blacks as 'racist' but it's racist in favor of blacks. Have you ever been in a checkout line in a retail store, where the checker is a White person (usually female, but it could be a man, also) who becomes obsequiously friendly, chatty, and jolly with a black customer ahead of you? And then you see the same gushy, fawning checker turn cool and sullen when dealing with another White. Yes, this is racism in action, but it's pro-black racism, and lots of Whites practice it. I agree with the reviewer who says that chances are good that these people are liberal Whites trying hard to appear non-racist, and/or to appear hip and cool by cozying up to blacks and often using black slang and mannerisms, especially in the case of a younger person. Personally I find this contemptible, and it's unfortunately not uncommon.
To be fair, maybe some people are not aware that they are doing it; I wouldn't doubt that it is just a conditioned reflex or even an instinct these days, when we're so heavily propagandized to be pro-black and 'non-racist'. But in some cases the behavior appears very oily and very affected; maybe it's this unctuousness that blacks recognize and respond negatively to. In that case, I suppose I can't fault them completely; most people who are able to recognize phoniness and treacly sweetness don't appreciate it because it is transparent to many of us. Some people don't see through it; many of us do. I personally dislike condescension, and I suspect people who act saccharine-sweet.
It appears that Bodeker exposes the double standards that exist when judging the races; Whites are always supposed to share a collective guilt, while blacks and other nonwhites are to be judged strictly as individuals, and we are never supposed to 'stereotype' or profile them or treat them collectively, no matter how sensible and beneficial it often is to take group averages and generalities into account when having to make judgments about people.
But somehow, in my own experience of trying to point out double standards, most of the indoctrinated, PC masses cannot cross the line to acknowledging that these double standards are wrong; they can see that there are double standards, yet they justify even these as being simply 'fair' to minorities. We judged them too harshly in the past, we mistreated them, supposedly, and now it's part of making amends to cut them some slack and hold them to a low standard or no standard at all, while we pretend it's just being 'fair' and 'unbigoted.' Most people are not prepared, or are not able to see that we've merely created a greater injustice in the name of righting a past wrong.
Bodeker's film also exposes the dilemma of White survival, of how Whites can avoid dispossession if not outright extinction, while being unable to act or even think as a group, as a race, with distinct interests to protect. This is something I've tried to get across to people in real life, with varying degrees of success: if we are not even allowed to think of ourselves as a group, and as a group with our own needs and rights and interests, how can we defend ourselves and our territory and our heritage? How can we even guarantee our continued existence, if we are conditioned to behave in a constantly self-denying manner, yielding to others at the mere flourishing of the race card?
When Bodeker asked blacks about their displacement by immigrants from Mexico and Central America, however, their answers surprised me: “Send them back!” “Close the border, build a wall.” “They’re here bleeding our social services, using our hospitals, without contributing anything to our society.” “They come here and don’t even speak English. If we went to their country, we would have to adapt.” “Cinco Dos Adios. They’d be gone. No problem. They’d be gone. Oh Lawd!” Say what you like about black IQ, these attitudes indicate that blacks may be better adapted for survival than we are. As a friend who viewed the documentary with me quipped, “Maybe it won’t be so bad to have a black president after all!”
Well, to the friend being quoted in the paragraph above, I would say, 'think again!' It appears Obama is about to resurrect the amnesty bill that we thought had been interred. This 'black president' will not act to expel any invaders; it appears he is determined to render the existing majority a powerless minority -- payback time. And it appears to me that even though there is no love lost between blacks and Hispanics, they are willing to put aside their differences momentarily in the cause of dispossessing Whitey.
Can we do the same? Can we put aside the differences that divide us? If not, then there isn't much use in trying to rally people to consciousness of race. Knowing the score, knowing that we are in danger of being dispossessed and displaced if not eliminated (gradually or suddenly) should impel us to try to unite; our adversaries have that advantage over us.
As Johnson says in his review, I would be curious to see the raw interviews; are the people interviewed 'typical'? Were there any White people who showed glimmers of consciousness or independence of mind?
One more question; I wonder, if I, or any of the people I know, or any of you here, were interviewed for a documentary like this, would we feel free to express our views openly on camera, for public viewing? I know that many of us would heavily censor our opinions before a camera. Does this betray cowardice or prudence? Were the White people being interviewed fully honest?
Those are just questions that crossed my mind.
I expect I will have to see the film myself.