To Christians, Muslims and Jews are going to hell. To Muslims, Christians and Jews are going to hell. To Jews, Christians and Muslims are going to hell. And all of these people follow the same frickin' god! So, basically, it appears that everyone is going to hell....while they all think they are going to heaven! Hell is going to be darn full of people who expected to go to heaven, lemme tell ya.
Thursday, November 5, 2015
Monday, October 26, 2015
Is Winnipeg's Comedy Scene Too Male And White?
I read an article/opinion peice today in The Uniter, a paper put out by the University of Winnipeg. Lovely paper, I like what they do. And the article I read was quite well done and interesting indeed.
It was called "Funny Men", written by Tess Gauthier. In it, she argues, based on going to the regular comedy showcase at the Park Theatre, the Winnipeg's comedy scene is too male, and too white. Now, I'm getting older. In fact, I appear to be turning into a middle aged white man, the enemy of everything and everyone. And, I guess I'm growing more and more cynical of university kids and the whole liberal attacks on not enough diversity. Don't get me wrong, I am very liberal. And I am pro-diversity. In fact, in Winnipeg's comedy scene, I always hope to see diversity. The more the merrier from across the spectrum, I say. No matter what your religion, your race, your skin colour, your ethnic background, your gender, your sexuality or what have you, I hope that the comedy scene, in general, everywhere, would be a place where everyone can come together, laugh and have fun.
It's long been a complaint that comedy has been very male dominated in general. Ya, okay. Is it because it's an old boys club where women aren't welcome? Well, anyone who is making it that way is a jerk. Don't make it that way. There is and should be room for all. If you are a promoter, a fellow comedian, an audience member, or what have you, help support those from diverse backgrounds feel welcome and appreciated.
At the same time, if you want to see more women on stage, and you are a woman, get on stage! Make it happen! Make the diversity happen! Is it hard? Damn right it is. Comedy is not easy, no matter who you are and who is doing it. And you might run across jerks who say or do stupid things, either because their egos are out of wack, or they are sexist, racist, what have you. But that cannot stop you. You must keep going. It is hard. Ya. That doesn't mean it's impossible. Make it happen. Don't just say "Hey, the scene is too white and too male". Help make it so that it isn't. Ya, I can understand that it might be harder for women, as either a perceived concern or an actual concern. I can't speak for women, as I am not a women.
Now, it is argued in the piece that it is hard for women, kind of for the same reason it is often hard for women in many other fields...families. And I think that's why a lot of comedians of all stripes get out of comedy once they start having families. For touring comics, it's a lot of time on the road, and that is hard. So, it thins the herd.
In the end, however, I take a certain amount of offence to the article. I think the author, although a good writer, completely overlooked a large swath of the Winnipeg comedy scene in her assessment of it. I think she ignored much of the diversity, looked at a small portion of the Winnipeg scene and too quickly came up with a judgement that corresponds with a generalized idea of the world of comedy as a whole. Was she trying to actually report on a problem in Winnipeg comedy, or did she have a preconceived notion and tailor an article to fit it? I almost feel it is the latter.
Dig deeper, Tess. You are a good writer. The diversity is there, even if it's not perfect. Dig, come out to some of the others shows and events, see who is performing. As a native AND gay local comedian said, the diversity is there...it's the visibility. Help by promoting and highlighting the diverse range of comedians in the scene. Help show the diversity. And, heck, help by grabbing the mic and getting on stage and adding to the diversity!
It was called "Funny Men", written by Tess Gauthier. In it, she argues, based on going to the regular comedy showcase at the Park Theatre, the Winnipeg's comedy scene is too male, and too white. Now, I'm getting older. In fact, I appear to be turning into a middle aged white man, the enemy of everything and everyone. And, I guess I'm growing more and more cynical of university kids and the whole liberal attacks on not enough diversity. Don't get me wrong, I am very liberal. And I am pro-diversity. In fact, in Winnipeg's comedy scene, I always hope to see diversity. The more the merrier from across the spectrum, I say. No matter what your religion, your race, your skin colour, your ethnic background, your gender, your sexuality or what have you, I hope that the comedy scene, in general, everywhere, would be a place where everyone can come together, laugh and have fun.
It's long been a complaint that comedy has been very male dominated in general. Ya, okay. Is it because it's an old boys club where women aren't welcome? Well, anyone who is making it that way is a jerk. Don't make it that way. There is and should be room for all. If you are a promoter, a fellow comedian, an audience member, or what have you, help support those from diverse backgrounds feel welcome and appreciated.
At the same time, if you want to see more women on stage, and you are a woman, get on stage! Make it happen! Make the diversity happen! Is it hard? Damn right it is. Comedy is not easy, no matter who you are and who is doing it. And you might run across jerks who say or do stupid things, either because their egos are out of wack, or they are sexist, racist, what have you. But that cannot stop you. You must keep going. It is hard. Ya. That doesn't mean it's impossible. Make it happen. Don't just say "Hey, the scene is too white and too male". Help make it so that it isn't. Ya, I can understand that it might be harder for women, as either a perceived concern or an actual concern. I can't speak for women, as I am not a women.
Now, it is argued in the piece that it is hard for women, kind of for the same reason it is often hard for women in many other fields...families. And I think that's why a lot of comedians of all stripes get out of comedy once they start having families. For touring comics, it's a lot of time on the road, and that is hard. So, it thins the herd.
In the end, however, I take a certain amount of offence to the article. I think the author, although a good writer, completely overlooked a large swath of the Winnipeg comedy scene in her assessment of it. I think she ignored much of the diversity, looked at a small portion of the Winnipeg scene and too quickly came up with a judgement that corresponds with a generalized idea of the world of comedy as a whole. Was she trying to actually report on a problem in Winnipeg comedy, or did she have a preconceived notion and tailor an article to fit it? I almost feel it is the latter.
Dig deeper, Tess. You are a good writer. The diversity is there, even if it's not perfect. Dig, come out to some of the others shows and events, see who is performing. As a native AND gay local comedian said, the diversity is there...it's the visibility. Help by promoting and highlighting the diverse range of comedians in the scene. Help show the diversity. And, heck, help by grabbing the mic and getting on stage and adding to the diversity!
Saturday, September 19, 2015
Refugee Crisis: Where is the Middle Ground?
When it comes to the current refugee crisis, I have concerns. Here is the deal. There seems to be two deeply entrenched, and very polarized opinions on how the refugee crisis should be handled. There is the "Let everyone in, and help all the refugees, no borders, no controls!" and there is the "Let no one in! Screw the refugees!". Where is the middle ground of empathy and compassion, but prudence, law and order??
No. You can't just let people flow through an unprotected border. Why? Many reasons. Security is one. To not know who is or isn't in a country doesn't seem prudent in the slightest. Now, many of the refugees who are showing up at the border of countries like Croatia and Hungary aren't interested in staying in these countries. We know they want to make it to Western European countries like Germany. Many of the refugees merely want to pass through. Well, ya, that's reasonable. But, it's also wise and prudent to have an understanding of who it is that is flooding into the country and whether they are staying or just passing through. It's wise to know what they might have on them. It's wise to know about any illness they may have. It's wise to know what countries people originate from. It's wise to know who is travelling with whom and what their reason is. These, as far as I am concerned, are common sense questions. This is important information to ensure the safety and well being of all involved. There is nothing wrong with trying to get this information. And to get this information people have to go through proper, official channels.
Many have argued that these are refugees who are fleeing from war who are looking for a better life, so let them through. Ya, most of them are, there is no doubt about that, and they do deserve to live better than they have been living and they do need help. No question there. But, does this mean law and order should be abandoned within Europe? There is anger that borders have been closed. But, have they really? Yes, there are borders areas where fences are going up. Does this mean that refugees aren't being allowed in? No, not necessarily. It means that they are being funnelled into legal channels. What has been stopped is the open border areas where people can just flow through anywhere, unimpeded, unquestioned.
This is prudence. This ensures the welfare of the people already living within a country. Is it frustrating for migrants who are wanting to get to more affluent Western European countries? Yes. But, should law and order be abandoned because they are frustrated? I argue that no, it isn't. Now closing up borders also comes with a heavy responsibility to those closing the borders. It is important now for people to be processed quickly and efficiently. It is important not to have people languish in camps. It is important to keep the process moving. But equally important that there is a process.
Now, when I look at the countries facing the brunt of this crisis at the moment I see a common theme: Poverty. Unfortunately, at the moment, less affluent countries like Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Greece are facing an influx of thousands upon thousands of people that they have to deal with on limited resources. They don't have the infrastructure or systems in place to deal with this. And, they also don't have the cash. And there seems to be little patience being shown for these countries. There are heavy expectations on them to deal with the crisis with seeming little support in actually dealing with it.
But, this polarization must end, between two sides that are far apart and both out of touch. We cannot ignore the plight of many of these people and we should be helping. But at the same time, we must be prudent about how we handle the situation. It cannot be a free for all. There must be controls. There must be law and order. And we must all understand that this is what is needed. There is a middle ground of desire to help, empathy and compassion while being wise and doing this in a way that is orderly and safe.
No. You can't just let people flow through an unprotected border. Why? Many reasons. Security is one. To not know who is or isn't in a country doesn't seem prudent in the slightest. Now, many of the refugees who are showing up at the border of countries like Croatia and Hungary aren't interested in staying in these countries. We know they want to make it to Western European countries like Germany. Many of the refugees merely want to pass through. Well, ya, that's reasonable. But, it's also wise and prudent to have an understanding of who it is that is flooding into the country and whether they are staying or just passing through. It's wise to know what they might have on them. It's wise to know about any illness they may have. It's wise to know what countries people originate from. It's wise to know who is travelling with whom and what their reason is. These, as far as I am concerned, are common sense questions. This is important information to ensure the safety and well being of all involved. There is nothing wrong with trying to get this information. And to get this information people have to go through proper, official channels.
Many have argued that these are refugees who are fleeing from war who are looking for a better life, so let them through. Ya, most of them are, there is no doubt about that, and they do deserve to live better than they have been living and they do need help. No question there. But, does this mean law and order should be abandoned within Europe? There is anger that borders have been closed. But, have they really? Yes, there are borders areas where fences are going up. Does this mean that refugees aren't being allowed in? No, not necessarily. It means that they are being funnelled into legal channels. What has been stopped is the open border areas where people can just flow through anywhere, unimpeded, unquestioned.
This is prudence. This ensures the welfare of the people already living within a country. Is it frustrating for migrants who are wanting to get to more affluent Western European countries? Yes. But, should law and order be abandoned because they are frustrated? I argue that no, it isn't. Now closing up borders also comes with a heavy responsibility to those closing the borders. It is important now for people to be processed quickly and efficiently. It is important not to have people languish in camps. It is important to keep the process moving. But equally important that there is a process.
Now, when I look at the countries facing the brunt of this crisis at the moment I see a common theme: Poverty. Unfortunately, at the moment, less affluent countries like Hungary, Croatia, Serbia, Greece are facing an influx of thousands upon thousands of people that they have to deal with on limited resources. They don't have the infrastructure or systems in place to deal with this. And, they also don't have the cash. And there seems to be little patience being shown for these countries. There are heavy expectations on them to deal with the crisis with seeming little support in actually dealing with it.
But, this polarization must end, between two sides that are far apart and both out of touch. We cannot ignore the plight of many of these people and we should be helping. But at the same time, we must be prudent about how we handle the situation. It cannot be a free for all. There must be controls. There must be law and order. And we must all understand that this is what is needed. There is a middle ground of desire to help, empathy and compassion while being wise and doing this in a way that is orderly and safe.
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Racism in Canada/Racism in the US
[NOTE: I began this story a while ago, but never got around to finishing it.]
Yesterday, while so many were focused on the racist slayings in the states, hundreds of First Nations members gathered at the Manitoba Legislature to hear an apology for the 60's scoop, with many tearful stories being told. I saw very little of that on my timeline. Isn't this a sort of racism? Being more focused on race relations in another country than race relations in our own?
It isn't that I am calling everyone a racist. I don't think anyone posting is. I think they are all concerned about an important issue. But, I do find it interesting how we, in Canada, in general, are more tuned in to race relations in the US, and seem to feel more outrage over it, then race relations here in Canada. I wouldn't even blame the media. One of the problems is that so much of our news sources are from the US. So, we get far more info about the US than Canada. But the CBC covered the 60's scoop extensively. Unfortunately, I think more Canadians will watch CNN over CBC. Why?
It just appears that, in Canada, we are a bit clued out to the realities that face First Nations people here, and are more tuned in with the injustices happening to groups other places in the world. We need to change this. There are people struggling right here in Canada. Colonization has not been kind to them. They have suffered and continue to suffer under our noses. And yet we ignore it. Is it harder to look at ourselves in the mirror and see what has happened here than to look at what is going on elsewhere and condemn it? That could be part of it. Is US news that much more dramatic and attention getting? Possibly.
We have to stop stumbling around blind about the realities that face First Nations people within our own borders. We need to pay attention to the news here, see the blatant racism and the abuse and start acting on it. We need to look at ourselves. It's not that we should ignore the rest of the world. We just have to include us into the greater picture.
Yesterday, while so many were focused on the racist slayings in the states, hundreds of First Nations members gathered at the Manitoba Legislature to hear an apology for the 60's scoop, with many tearful stories being told. I saw very little of that on my timeline. Isn't this a sort of racism? Being more focused on race relations in another country than race relations in our own?
It isn't that I am calling everyone a racist. I don't think anyone posting is. I think they are all concerned about an important issue. But, I do find it interesting how we, in Canada, in general, are more tuned in to race relations in the US, and seem to feel more outrage over it, then race relations here in Canada. I wouldn't even blame the media. One of the problems is that so much of our news sources are from the US. So, we get far more info about the US than Canada. But the CBC covered the 60's scoop extensively. Unfortunately, I think more Canadians will watch CNN over CBC. Why?
It just appears that, in Canada, we are a bit clued out to the realities that face First Nations people here, and are more tuned in with the injustices happening to groups other places in the world. We need to change this. There are people struggling right here in Canada. Colonization has not been kind to them. They have suffered and continue to suffer under our noses. And yet we ignore it. Is it harder to look at ourselves in the mirror and see what has happened here than to look at what is going on elsewhere and condemn it? That could be part of it. Is US news that much more dramatic and attention getting? Possibly.
We have to stop stumbling around blind about the realities that face First Nations people within our own borders. We need to pay attention to the news here, see the blatant racism and the abuse and start acting on it. We need to look at ourselves. It's not that we should ignore the rest of the world. We just have to include us into the greater picture.
Thursday, June 25, 2015
Why Pressure on Mo Ansar is Important.
I promise, this will be my last Mo Ansar post for a while. Honestly, he is one of my favourite subjects, because I find him so bizarrely fascinating. Here is an absolute fraud (documented over and over), who has invented a persona, trying to worm his way into being some grand community leader for Muslims, wanting his face on any TV screen he can find, screaming "ISLAMOPHOBIA!!!!!" all along the way.
I'm tired of professional victims like Mo. You want to know why there might be tensions between communities? Look no farther than Mo. While he talks about unity and diversity, he also calls almost anyone he can "Islamophobic". He is obsessed with Islamophobia to the point where he has rendered the term pretty much useless, although it was never a good term to begin with. And, the fact that he is doing this while being a complete fraud is a bit too much to bear.
So, why should people keep pressuring Mo? I don't see all of those who tweet about Mo as being trolls (twitter is Mo's main platform above any other for spreading the word of Mo, and he has a good amount of critics who keep on top of him). Some are. But, as someone who has decided he wants to thrust himself into the public eye with such vim and vigour, he has now put himself into a position where he must be held accountable for what he does and says. He wanted his position, and now he must deal with his position.
Like much of what he does, he wants the glory but not have to actually work for it. Defending ones statements in a logical, reasoned way, being held accountable for wrong doings and fraudulent statements, etc goes part in parcel with wanting the fame and recognition. And he definitely fails on this end, acting like a child in the face of criticism as opposed to handling it with any amount of grace and dignity. He cannot handle the criticism or the being held to accountability. That is not Mo's thing. Mo can only handle praise and agreement with him. He can't handle disagreement or criticism.
People like Jeremy Duns have done an excellent job in his criticizing of Mo (perfect example, right here in his blog post) and holding him to a level of account, despite the fact Mo refuses to be held accountable for being the fraud he is. And this pressure is valuable. It is important to have a counter voice to Mo's, someone who is in tune with Mo's ways and can provide the information that Mo leaves out, or completely distorts.
A public figure of any sort needs to be held accountable. If a guy wants to parade himself around as some kind of a noble, wise community leader, wants to be on national television, radio and in newspapers, dispensing his views which usually involve him telling everyone how Islamophobic they are, how horrible Britain and the US are for almost everything, saying that Muslims were in America 500 years before Columbus, trying to represent a religion with a self appointed voice of authority, etc, then this man MUST be held accountable. It is not a matter of should he or shouldn't he. It is a matter of must be. No matter how much he would like his critics to go away, not only won't they, but they must not go away. They must keep on him. They must counter him. They must continue to hold him accountable for his statements and actions.
I'm tired of professional victims like Mo. You want to know why there might be tensions between communities? Look no farther than Mo. While he talks about unity and diversity, he also calls almost anyone he can "Islamophobic". He is obsessed with Islamophobia to the point where he has rendered the term pretty much useless, although it was never a good term to begin with. And, the fact that he is doing this while being a complete fraud is a bit too much to bear.
So, why should people keep pressuring Mo? I don't see all of those who tweet about Mo as being trolls (twitter is Mo's main platform above any other for spreading the word of Mo, and he has a good amount of critics who keep on top of him). Some are. But, as someone who has decided he wants to thrust himself into the public eye with such vim and vigour, he has now put himself into a position where he must be held accountable for what he does and says. He wanted his position, and now he must deal with his position.
Like much of what he does, he wants the glory but not have to actually work for it. Defending ones statements in a logical, reasoned way, being held accountable for wrong doings and fraudulent statements, etc goes part in parcel with wanting the fame and recognition. And he definitely fails on this end, acting like a child in the face of criticism as opposed to handling it with any amount of grace and dignity. He cannot handle the criticism or the being held to accountability. That is not Mo's thing. Mo can only handle praise and agreement with him. He can't handle disagreement or criticism.
People like Jeremy Duns have done an excellent job in his criticizing of Mo (perfect example, right here in his blog post) and holding him to a level of account, despite the fact Mo refuses to be held accountable for being the fraud he is. And this pressure is valuable. It is important to have a counter voice to Mo's, someone who is in tune with Mo's ways and can provide the information that Mo leaves out, or completely distorts.
A public figure of any sort needs to be held accountable. If a guy wants to parade himself around as some kind of a noble, wise community leader, wants to be on national television, radio and in newspapers, dispensing his views which usually involve him telling everyone how Islamophobic they are, how horrible Britain and the US are for almost everything, saying that Muslims were in America 500 years before Columbus, trying to represent a religion with a self appointed voice of authority, etc, then this man MUST be held accountable. It is not a matter of should he or shouldn't he. It is a matter of must be. No matter how much he would like his critics to go away, not only won't they, but they must not go away. They must keep on him. They must counter him. They must continue to hold him accountable for his statements and actions.
Wednesday, June 24, 2015
Did Tesco Destroy Ramadan?
There appears to be a kerfuffle going on in the UK, although it is a low level one, where a customer spotted Smokey Bacon Pringles on a Ramadan Mubarak promotional display case in a Tesco store.
Now, the retailer has assured that the misplaced Pringles are now off of the display. But some people seem angry that Tesco would screw up so badly and promote Smokey Bacon Pringles as a Ramadan treat! This despite the fact there is no actual bacon in them. Perfectly halal. But, of course, it's the idea that matters.
Anyway, it would appear that the offending tubes of chips were found on the top shelf of the display. From the picture it appears that only about 5 or 6 tubes are there. So, I'm guessing this was a cheeky customer playing a prank as opposed to a major marketing error by Tesco. Yet, some of the news outlets that have reported it have made it out to sound like Tesco was deliberately marketing these deliciously bacony snacks directly to people who generally stay clear of bacon.
Well, the display stand used was provided by Pringles themselves and had a Ramadan Mubarak logo on it (the tubes of Pringles themselves did NOT). Now, it could have been an error by someone in the store, indeed, placing the wrong snacks on the display. But most likely it seems someone was probably playing a joke. It does not appear that Tesco OR Pringles OR anyone else is actually marketing Smokey Bacon Pringles to Muslims. But I guess trumping it up as a case of Tesco purposely wanting Muslims to buy Smokey Bacon Pringles makes it sound far more scandalous than it actually is.
Of course, this is all speculation. They haven't said that they are the ones who set it up as a marketing scheme. They admitted the Pringles were in the wrong place and fixed it. Of course Tesco isn't going to say "Some damn punk kids were playin' around with the Pringles again!". They fixed it, story over really. And no, I would say the number of people truly upset about this is low. And it is just a funny story. In fact, it's darn funny, if you really think about it. Delicious Smokey Bacon Pringles on a Ramadan display? HAHAHA! Oh, the hilarity! No? But, of course, the problem is, it now has me craving Smokey Bacon Pringles. Excuse me while I run to the store...and Ramadan Mubarak!
UPDATE:
I KNEW I should have checked in with my all time favourite Muslim commentator, Mo Ansar, on this! Of course he would have something to say about it. And boy, did he.
Now, the retailer has assured that the misplaced Pringles are now off of the display. But some people seem angry that Tesco would screw up so badly and promote Smokey Bacon Pringles as a Ramadan treat! This despite the fact there is no actual bacon in them. Perfectly halal. But, of course, it's the idea that matters.
Anyway, it would appear that the offending tubes of chips were found on the top shelf of the display. From the picture it appears that only about 5 or 6 tubes are there. So, I'm guessing this was a cheeky customer playing a prank as opposed to a major marketing error by Tesco. Yet, some of the news outlets that have reported it have made it out to sound like Tesco was deliberately marketing these deliciously bacony snacks directly to people who generally stay clear of bacon.
Well, the display stand used was provided by Pringles themselves and had a Ramadan Mubarak logo on it (the tubes of Pringles themselves did NOT). Now, it could have been an error by someone in the store, indeed, placing the wrong snacks on the display. But most likely it seems someone was probably playing a joke. It does not appear that Tesco OR Pringles OR anyone else is actually marketing Smokey Bacon Pringles to Muslims. But I guess trumping it up as a case of Tesco purposely wanting Muslims to buy Smokey Bacon Pringles makes it sound far more scandalous than it actually is.
Of course, this is all speculation. They haven't said that they are the ones who set it up as a marketing scheme. They admitted the Pringles were in the wrong place and fixed it. Of course Tesco isn't going to say "Some damn punk kids were playin' around with the Pringles again!". They fixed it, story over really. And no, I would say the number of people truly upset about this is low. And it is just a funny story. In fact, it's darn funny, if you really think about it. Delicious Smokey Bacon Pringles on a Ramadan display? HAHAHA! Oh, the hilarity! No? But, of course, the problem is, it now has me craving Smokey Bacon Pringles. Excuse me while I run to the store...and Ramadan Mubarak!
UPDATE:
I KNEW I should have checked in with my all time favourite Muslim commentator, Mo Ansar, on this! Of course he would have something to say about it. And boy, did he.
Wow, he's really gone overboard on this issue. What was most likely a bit of prank by someone has got Mo saying that there is some kind of massive systematic failure (what system, I don't know), and to make it worse, he uses the hashtag #MuslimLivesMatter, almost as if he is equating this rather humourous display with the killing of innocent unarmed African-American's in the US. He's gone over the top on this one! Who knew that Smokey Bacon Pringles placed on a display stand was that heinous of a crime? You would have to be a Mo Ansar to see it this way. I'm sure if it was up to Mo, and it was the type of society he would want it to be, he would have someone's hand chopped off for this. After all, he doesn't seem interested in condemning the cutting off of limbs as punishment...)
Friday, June 12, 2015
Rachel Dolezal and Mo Ansar: Two Peas in a Pod?
Ahhhh, Rachel Dolezal. What have you done? It has become big news that the leader of the NAACP in Spokane, Washington has been pretending to be "black" for something like 20 years. I'm not sure how one pretends to be black, or how an obviously white person can manage to pass as being black, but, who am I to question. Regardless, what she appears to have done is to create a complete fantasy world for herself. She has made up a persona and put herself out there as a great activist using this persona. Sound familiar?
To me, it sure does! The first person I thought of is, of course, my favourite persona inventor and outright liar, Mo Ansar. I have written about ol' Mo in the past. He is a character that I find most fascinating and can't help return to. One reason he is so fascinating is because of the fact that he is a fraudulent creation of his own mind, which is bizarre on many levels. Even when I look at Rachel Dolezal, I see a person who has done a lot of good in her role as a black women, despite the fact that she lied about being a black women. I cannot say the same about Mo Ansar, although he insists that he is doing great work as an activist and community leader.
So, what is at play with both of these people? Narcissism? Confusion? A pathological need to lie? A desire to be something that you aren't? Why would people such as these create these identities for themselves? It is bizarre. There is such a strong desire to be something, to connect with something that they are willing to pretend to be anything to make that connection. For Mo, becoming the Mo Ansar we know has definitely been done to get onto TV, get fame, get recognition, to have a community rally behind him. Is this what Rachel did as well? What was she hoping to achieve? And was it really worth it? In the end, it all appears to be crashing down and unravelling before her just as it did when Mo Ansar was exposed by so many journalists, writers and researchers. Mo has struggled to make his way back, trying to worm his way into any little crevice he can to regain his low level glory. Will we see Rachel do this as well? Or will she be content with letting this go now? Will she learn the lesson, reevaluate and come clean? Or will she continue to try to lie to everyone...including, most importantly, herself?
This is something that Mo failed to do. Even when being completely outed as a fraud, he could not come clean. He continued to lie and deceive and hasn't stopped to this day. He refuses to fess up and he refuses to learn, and then pretends to be a pious Muslim on top of that. He makes a mockery out of his own religion, attacks atheists and any one who he deems Islamophobic and just generally pisses people off. In that way, his persona is quite dangerous and is a black eye on activism. Now it's Rachel's turn. What route will she take? Will she come clean? Will she open up and work on her honesty? We can only hope.
Rachel Dolezal might be excellent in her work, unlike Mo Ansar. And if she is, I hope that she can continue doing good for people despite her lies. But if she can't be open and honest about who she is, her intentions, her goals, etc, then she stands no chance. She will continue to be dogged, not by anyone else, but by her own recklessness.
UPDATE:
Since writing this, Rachel Dolezal has only made things worse for herself by continuing to lie, continuing to insist that she "identifies" as black, etc. She has resigned from the NAACP. But she is still defiant. She isn't helping herself, that's for sure.
Likewise, interactions with Mo's sock puppet's online only further muddy his waters as he continues to try and deflect, distract and dismiss the fact that he has been lying for years and is a fraud. He refuses to budge on the issue and attacks anyone who points out the truth. He seems to feel his being silenced in a McCarthy-esque way, playing the victim in all of this as usual, as opposed to the perpetrator of lies and fraudulent behaviour.
The arrogance of these two individuals make them liabilities to the causes they supposedly fight for. To continue to lie makes no sense, and only destroys what credibility they might have even further, yet neither seem to see this. How arrogant can you get? Or have they just brainwashed themselves to believe they are who they are, and instead of admitting their wrongs, they continue to pretend they are some kind of victim in this, as if they are martyrs to the cause. They are so dedicated to wanting to be victims that they will do anything to try and make themselves out to be victims.
To me, it sure does! The first person I thought of is, of course, my favourite persona inventor and outright liar, Mo Ansar. I have written about ol' Mo in the past. He is a character that I find most fascinating and can't help return to. One reason he is so fascinating is because of the fact that he is a fraudulent creation of his own mind, which is bizarre on many levels. Even when I look at Rachel Dolezal, I see a person who has done a lot of good in her role as a black women, despite the fact that she lied about being a black women. I cannot say the same about Mo Ansar, although he insists that he is doing great work as an activist and community leader.
So, what is at play with both of these people? Narcissism? Confusion? A pathological need to lie? A desire to be something that you aren't? Why would people such as these create these identities for themselves? It is bizarre. There is such a strong desire to be something, to connect with something that they are willing to pretend to be anything to make that connection. For Mo, becoming the Mo Ansar we know has definitely been done to get onto TV, get fame, get recognition, to have a community rally behind him. Is this what Rachel did as well? What was she hoping to achieve? And was it really worth it? In the end, it all appears to be crashing down and unravelling before her just as it did when Mo Ansar was exposed by so many journalists, writers and researchers. Mo has struggled to make his way back, trying to worm his way into any little crevice he can to regain his low level glory. Will we see Rachel do this as well? Or will she be content with letting this go now? Will she learn the lesson, reevaluate and come clean? Or will she continue to try to lie to everyone...including, most importantly, herself?
This is something that Mo failed to do. Even when being completely outed as a fraud, he could not come clean. He continued to lie and deceive and hasn't stopped to this day. He refuses to fess up and he refuses to learn, and then pretends to be a pious Muslim on top of that. He makes a mockery out of his own religion, attacks atheists and any one who he deems Islamophobic and just generally pisses people off. In that way, his persona is quite dangerous and is a black eye on activism. Now it's Rachel's turn. What route will she take? Will she come clean? Will she open up and work on her honesty? We can only hope.
Rachel Dolezal might be excellent in her work, unlike Mo Ansar. And if she is, I hope that she can continue doing good for people despite her lies. But if she can't be open and honest about who she is, her intentions, her goals, etc, then she stands no chance. She will continue to be dogged, not by anyone else, but by her own recklessness.
UPDATE:
Since writing this, Rachel Dolezal has only made things worse for herself by continuing to lie, continuing to insist that she "identifies" as black, etc. She has resigned from the NAACP. But she is still defiant. She isn't helping herself, that's for sure.
Likewise, interactions with Mo's sock puppet's online only further muddy his waters as he continues to try and deflect, distract and dismiss the fact that he has been lying for years and is a fraud. He refuses to budge on the issue and attacks anyone who points out the truth. He seems to feel his being silenced in a McCarthy-esque way, playing the victim in all of this as usual, as opposed to the perpetrator of lies and fraudulent behaviour.
The arrogance of these two individuals make them liabilities to the causes they supposedly fight for. To continue to lie makes no sense, and only destroys what credibility they might have even further, yet neither seem to see this. How arrogant can you get? Or have they just brainwashed themselves to believe they are who they are, and instead of admitting their wrongs, they continue to pretend they are some kind of victim in this, as if they are martyrs to the cause. They are so dedicated to wanting to be victims that they will do anything to try and make themselves out to be victims.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
