lol, that article was written by a wigger trying to push his propaganda.
On the one hand, it confirmed the racial prejudices of Western audiences, namely the Savage Olympics demonstrated "that the white man leads the races of the world, both physically and mentally."
however organizer William John McGee, head of a Smithsonian Institution division at the time, nevertheless concluded that the 1904 Savage Olympics "established in quantitative measure the inferiority of primitive peoples
wikipedia is full of these types of "totally neutral" tangents because 95% of the editors are wiggers
To me it's more a lesson in how the editorial concept of "neutrality" inevitably serves white power, because it results in writing that is afraid to add any valence to the obviously reprehensible. So you have passages like above, where "confirmed the racial prejudices of Western audiences" can be read either as "proved those prejudices to be true" or (correctly) as "confirmed those prejudices because it was a complete fraud designed to do exactly that."
It's hard to prove exactly what the intentions of the writer were without digging into their history, but it's very easy to prove that the results of pursuing "objective neutrality" always ensure that white supremacy has a seat on the board of editors, so to speak.
That reminds of this "performative impartiality" quote by NYT chief White House correspondent Peter Baker:
As reporters, our job is to observe, not participate, and so to that end, I don't belong to any political party, I don't belong to any non-journalism organization, I don't support any candidate, I don't give money to interest groups and I don't vote.
I try hard not to take strong positions on public issues even in private, much to the frustration of friends and family. For me, it's easier to stay out of the fray if I never make up my mind, even in the privacy of the kitchen or the voting booth, that one candidate is better than another, that one side is right and the other wrong.
His wife is also a reporter and she often reports on politics. If it's true that they don't discuss politics in the "privacy of the kitchen" - they are some kind of performative freaks. And if they do - he's just a liar.
I like the Pegagogy of the Oppressed and the writings of the Socialist Filmmaker colelctives in Berlin who basically say - what others did say, too - that as journalist and film maker you are a soldier in the war, the war for socialism of the working class. This means you have to be partial partial to the working class and the structures of society, else you are only a negative propagandist furthering the talking points of the capitalists, who print their own news e.g. Springer.
What I love about the WH press core is that most of them would surely proclaim that it's the principle of the thing that they take dictation and make no value judgments. And that's pretty funny because if the phrase is used accurately - it refers to a situation where the speaker loses something (very) important (like their job) by having principles.
But when the WH reporters say "I can't take a stand" - they can continue to be access journalists to continue their virtuous cycle of making progress in their job, getting on tv, selling their books, making progress in their job, etc...
It’s hard to prove exactly what the intentions of the writer were
no it's not
the repetitive emphasis on how "so and so totally legit scientist" actually "proved the primitive races were inferior to the white race" makes it extremely clear what the writer's intentions are.
Ultimately, the event was "poorly organized" and "plainly a shambles," however organizer William John McGee, head of a Smithsonian Institution division at the time, nevertheless concluded that the 1904 Savage Olympics "established in quantitative measure the inferiority of primitive peoples…in that coordination of mind and body which seems to mark the outcome of human development and measure the attainment of human excellence."[13]
I disagree. In the full context, once again one can read it multiple ways. One can read it the way you have, where McGee's "credentials" are emphasized, or you can read it in a way that emphasizes his obvious self-serving bias as the organizer of the disgusting spectacle. And the citation that the portion of the article points to is plainly left-wing as well.
Exhibition organizers hoped to demonstrate to the world that ethnic groups could be definitively ranked according to biological and cultural markers of civilization –– and that in this ranking, the United States came out on top. To accomplish this goal, they turned to a perhaps unusual tool: sports. Products and proponents of the masculine-coded, hyper-militaristic ideology of American imperialism, the Fair organizers believed that athletic competitions among the inhabitants of the “living exhibitions” could serve as a useful microcosm for testing the martial worth of a nation at the level of the individual (male) citizen.
But really that's my point: it doesn't even matter if the person who wrote that portion is a Nazi or not, because writing in a way that belies any sort of opinion, even one as basically acceptable as "white supremacy is bad and unscientific" is verboten on Wikipedia. And without being allowed to establish a moral standard as basic as that, most writing on Wikipedia will allow readers to interpret racists as correct if they have any such inclination.
"There's white people and there's wiggas, and the wiggas have got to go"
-Chris Rock
in reality, "wignat" is a term used to refer to the most far right sect of poltards, and it stems from the phrase "wigger nationalist". So I just call them wiggers.
lol, that article was written by a wigger trying to push his propaganda.
wikipedia is full of these types of "totally neutral" tangents because 95% of the editors are wiggers
To me it's more a lesson in how the editorial concept of "neutrality" inevitably serves white power, because it results in writing that is afraid to add any valence to the obviously reprehensible. So you have passages like above, where "confirmed the racial prejudices of Western audiences" can be read either as "proved those prejudices to be true" or (correctly) as "confirmed those prejudices because it was a complete fraud designed to do exactly that."
It's hard to prove exactly what the intentions of the writer were without digging into their history, but it's very easy to prove that the results of pursuing "objective neutrality" always ensure that white supremacy has a seat on the board of editors, so to speak.
That reminds of this "performative impartiality" quote by NYT chief White House correspondent Peter Baker:
His wife is also a reporter and she often reports on politics. If it's true that they don't discuss politics in the "privacy of the kitchen" - they are some kind of performative freaks. And if they do - he's just a liar.
I like the Pegagogy of the Oppressed and the writings of the Socialist Filmmaker colelctives in Berlin who basically say - what others did say, too - that as journalist and film maker you are a soldier in the war, the war for socialism of the working class. This means you have to be partial partial to the working class and the structures of society, else you are only a negative propagandist furthering the talking points of the capitalists, who print their own news e.g. Springer.
Ohh can you give more details on those Berlin filmmakers?
Wow, an honest-to-god, real-life NPC wojak
What I love about the WH press core is that most of them would surely proclaim that it's the principle of the thing that they take dictation and make no value judgments. And that's pretty funny because if the phrase is used accurately - it refers to a situation where the speaker loses something (very) important (like their job) by having principles.
But when the WH reporters say "I can't take a stand" - they can continue to be access journalists to continue their virtuous cycle of making progress in their job, getting on tv, selling their books, making progress in their job, etc...
that guy sounds mental
clear your mind, think nothing, be a good himbo
no it's not
the repetitive emphasis on how "so and so totally legit scientist" actually "proved the primitive races were inferior to the white race" makes it extremely clear what the writer's intentions are.
I disagree. In the full context, once again one can read it multiple ways. One can read it the way you have, where McGee's "credentials" are emphasized, or you can read it in a way that emphasizes his obvious self-serving bias as the organizer of the disgusting spectacle. And the citation that the portion of the article points to is plainly left-wing as well.
But really that's my point: it doesn't even matter if the person who wrote that portion is a Nazi or not, because writing in a way that belies any sort of opinion, even one as basically acceptable as "white supremacy is bad and unscientific" is verboten on Wikipedia. And without being allowed to establish a moral standard as basic as that, most writing on Wikipedia will allow readers to interpret racists as correct if they have any such inclination.
You make great points, I appreciate the wider analysis
Wigger?
"There's white people and there's wiggas, and the wiggas have got to go"
-Chris Rock
in reality, "wignat" is a term used to refer to the most far right sect of poltards, and it stems from the phrase "wigger nationalist". So I just call them wiggers.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Pretty sad that China is putting them in labor camps tho......
Is this why Fred Durst is becoming a meme?
"Uyghur Fred Durst" sounds like a fake Cumtown bit generated by an algorithm
the entire thing is just a pronunciation misunderstanding
also it's not racist because even they call themselves "wignats" :^)