It used to be we argued a man’s propensity for violence, criminality, lunacy, based on his physiognomy and that perspective of ‘telling what someone is by how they look’ hasn’t left us as much as it should have. As much as we may want to quantify ‘belonging’ using race, it’s immediately challenging when we get clear exceptions to the stereotype of what we ‘perceive’ as solid racial identifiers, and that’s happening more and more as we become more homogenized and universal. It is worth pointing out, few of us come from one racial lineage, few, aside ironically the Nazis, have ever put a ‘number’ on the quota of DNA we need to possess to ‘belong’ to a single group (Native Americans and Jews define based on blood quota but they also accept people into their groups who do not possess this specific blood quota, through marriage and religious conversion). When white people (identified as people with white skin) appropriate ‘white guilt’ they can be argued to be patronizing the experiences of the non-white on behalf of whom they experience guilt. She’s not politically correct and maybe that’s not such a bad thing in some regards, although how far we can take this, is still up for debate.

Let’s pick this apart some.Ĭandace Owens in her book Blackout: How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation makes some points that really question what we assume. Yet in some ways, the same argument is being used. Many would agree with the first two examples, and be offended by the last two. Obviously, her rhetoric has caused a mixed response. These people are just ‘playing pretend’ and as such, it’s not real. Share on WhatsApp Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Telegram Share on Reddit Share on EmailĪ discussion by Candice Louisa Daquin based on reading Candace Owens’ book Blackout: How Black America Can Make Its Second Escape from the Democrat Plantation

Candace owens book blackout