Wow. This is both terrifying and intriguing as a line of inquiry regarding the rationale used by aggressors for separating "men" from "women and children," especially when invoking this distinction is intended to incite fear and a thirst for vengeance in the general public. I have thought before about this tactic of focusing on "women and children" - those people who are culturally assumed to be 1) helpless and vulnerable, and therefore more likely to invoke both the the sympathy and the collective moral outrage of strangers, and 2) the property of those in power, and therefore more likely to invoke a false sense of personal affront to the collective "owners" of those actually or allegedly attacked. Adding in the awareness you are reflecting on here, of how cultural attitudes and assumptions about Black males (whether cast as "children" or "rapists") are twisted and distorted to serve the dominant narrative, adds a horrific level of complexity to this systematized dehumanization that makes all the more clear (though it was already plenty clear) that this is really about the use of, rather than concern for or protection of, all BIPOC within white-sypremacist countries, as dehumanized props in whatever story serves the purpose of those with the power to frame and guide the narrative. White men are seen as either fierce and noble protectors, whose violent aggression is excused by invoking the poor, victimized white women and children, or they are victims themselves, who have been robbed of the women and children who belonged to them. Meanwhile Black men are not men - not even human - but rapists, so dangerous that their justified execution both excuses and distracts from the harm also caused to Black women and children - white ownership of (or at the very least, control over) whom can then be further justified by white patriarchy, due to the assumed lack of any suitable Black men to take on the role as "owners" of their women and children. It seems like an inevitable further horrible step in this strategy of defining then, that interracial sexual encounters that resulted in offspring would be deemed much more vile, by white supremacist and patriarchal standards, when the mother is white because the child unquestionably comes from that mother and is considered tainted, and came into being without the consent or control of any white man. Whereas if the father is white, he gets to make a decision whether or not to claim ownership of a racially mixed child. A Black man fathering a child with a white woman is viewed as an act of predation, while a white man fathering a child with a Black woman is viewed as, at worst, an unfortunate side effect of the white man exercising his god-given right to make whatever use he sees fit of the people who are seen to exist for that very purpose. Thank you for reviewing this book, as it seems a necessary next step on exploring the complex consequences of intersecting white supremacy, colonialism/imperialusm, and patriarchy.
Wow. This is both terrifying and intriguing as a line of inquiry regarding the rationale used by aggressors for separating "men" from "women and children," especially when invoking this distinction is intended to incite fear and a thirst for vengeance in the general public. I have thought before about this tactic of focusing on "women and children" - those people who are culturally assumed to be 1) helpless and vulnerable, and therefore more likely to invoke both the the sympathy and the collective moral outrage of strangers, and 2) the property of those in power, and therefore more likely to invoke a false sense of personal affront to the collective "owners" of those actually or allegedly attacked. Adding in the awareness you are reflecting on here, of how cultural attitudes and assumptions about Black males (whether cast as "children" or "rapists") are twisted and distorted to serve the dominant narrative, adds a horrific level of complexity to this systematized dehumanization that makes all the more clear (though it was already plenty clear) that this is really about the use of, rather than concern for or protection of, all BIPOC within white-sypremacist countries, as dehumanized props in whatever story serves the purpose of those with the power to frame and guide the narrative. White men are seen as either fierce and noble protectors, whose violent aggression is excused by invoking the poor, victimized white women and children, or they are victims themselves, who have been robbed of the women and children who belonged to them. Meanwhile Black men are not men - not even human - but rapists, so dangerous that their justified execution both excuses and distracts from the harm also caused to Black women and children - white ownership of (or at the very least, control over) whom can then be further justified by white patriarchy, due to the assumed lack of any suitable Black men to take on the role as "owners" of their women and children. It seems like an inevitable further horrible step in this strategy of defining then, that interracial sexual encounters that resulted in offspring would be deemed much more vile, by white supremacist and patriarchal standards, when the mother is white because the child unquestionably comes from that mother and is considered tainted, and came into being without the consent or control of any white man. Whereas if the father is white, he gets to make a decision whether or not to claim ownership of a racially mixed child. A Black man fathering a child with a white woman is viewed as an act of predation, while a white man fathering a child with a Black woman is viewed as, at worst, an unfortunate side effect of the white man exercising his god-given right to make whatever use he sees fit of the people who are seen to exist for that very purpose. Thank you for reviewing this book, as it seems a necessary next step on exploring the complex consequences of intersecting white supremacy, colonialism/imperialusm, and patriarchy.