Hall of Shame
Why a Hall of Shame? Because while societal (ideological) racism is the issue, every now and then you just have to hold some of these bastards to account. And because I can’t be assed waiting for history to recognise their casual acts of cruelty for what they are – hate-mongering
The individuals that are listed in this hall of shame (drop down from the page title above) should inspire pity. And in the mainstream media and public, they often do. But really – who could live in the willful ignorance and intolerance these people display? They can, apparently. Far better to be the one who is hated than the one who hates. Perhaps author Herman Melville put it best when he said…
Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor [and brown] by the well-housed, well-warmed, and well-fed.
Defended strenuously on the basis of their right to ‘free speech’, it seems important to point out that the free speech they employ is hardly original. There is a long history of demonising the ‘other’, those that are highlighted here are really just contemporary examples. And while some will cry that words are just words, (and therefore should be free), in reality words are powerful. Words have consequences. Bad ones.
With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians
- L. Frank Baum 1890, author of The Wonderful Wizard of Oz, published in the Pioneer which he edited following the murder of Sitting Bull and in the lead up to the massacre at Wounded Knee
No doubt he had a right to ‘free speech’ too. Fury aside, this Hall of Shame is not really about the individuals featured – after all in societies founded and maintained on ideological racism, they are what can be expected, right? It is more about how they are received in the public domain. For far more painful than the cruel villification meted out by these pundits, is the fervor with which their words are received. That they are valorised for their courage in speaking the truth. Except that funnily enough what they claim is unsayable, is actually what they are all essentially saying. The same things. Repeatedly. And throughout history too (see above). Talking heads from the same body. I assess their ‘truth’ according to a parrhesiastic framework. Look at the frames they place around their diatribes to rationalise what it is they do – encourage hate. And point out how the media and the general public lap it up.