“Yes I am the chief and y’all just the Indians” proclaims runaway slave master.

Get off my dick and tell your bitch to come here because I totally care what young celebrities say and do, even if they are mutanoid, Caucasoid, white cave bitches…

A RAPPER from Mullumbimby who has become a star in the United States has unwittingly sparked outrage there over her use of terms seen as racist.

This has raised questions here over how sensitive young Australians are to other cultures.

Former model, 21-year-old Iggy Azalea, whose real name is Amethyst Kelly, was signed by Interscope Records after fans flocked to her rap videos on YouTube but has been accused of rapping racist lyrics for the second time in a few weeks.

In February she released a song called DRUGS in which she referred to herself as a “runaway slave master” that some Americans found offensive, including rising rap star Azealia Banks who accused her of “trivialising” black culture.

Iggy rapped into more hot water this week with the lyrics: “Yes I am the chief and y’all just the indians”.

Southern Cross University Associate Professor in Cultural Studies Dr Baden Offord said we often use racist language unknowingly.

“It’s good to air these issues because racism is often something that we tend to shy away from, [b]ut it exists in our language and in all of our institutions,” Prof Offord said.

“We live in a society where we frequently say: ‘I’m not a racist, but…’ and we need to acknowledge that we do make mistakes, offend people and hurt them and of course not always intentionally[“].

He said creative artists and performers question, challenge and play with meaning but they “do have responsibilities to society and they aren’t ever outside scrutiny”.

Iggy apologised for the “runaway slave master” lyrics earlier this month.

In other news…

News Ltd website breached race law
, Ben Butler, The Age, March 29, 2012:

NEWS Limited breached racial discrimination laws by publishing on its Perthnow website “utterly offensive” reader comments that attacked four Aboriginal boys killed after crashing a stolen car, a court has found.

It is the second time in six months that the embattled media giant has been found in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act over material it has published about Aborigines.

In comments cleared by a News Limited moderator and published on Perthnow readers said the “young boys” were “criminal trash”, “scum” who should be used as “land fill” and would have continued a life of crime if they “had not been killed in the course of their criminal activities”. The boys were aged 15, 11, 10 and 17 at the time of the crash in June 2008.

Federal Court judge Michael Barker ordered News subsidiary Nationwide News to remove the comments and pay the mother of three of the boys damages of $12000.

About @ndy

I live in Melbourne, Australia. I like anarchy. I don't like nazis. I enjoy eating pizza and drinking beer. I barrack for the greatest football team on Earth: Collingwood Magpies. The 2018 premiership's a cakewalk for the good old Collingwood.
This entry was posted in !nataS, History, Media, Music, Sex & Sexuality, State / Politics, That's Capitalism! and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to “Yes I am the chief and y’all just the Indians” proclaims runaway slave master.

  1. I think people should be more offended at that pantomime American accent she’s rocking. Or the fact she has no flow.

    I could rant about how hip hop is ruined now, but I’ve got more important old man things to do. Like go down the laundrette and eat pickled onions and drink stout and shout unintelligibly at people who walk in.

  2. @ndy says:

    Since you asked for my opinion I’ll give it: you should do a rap w a fake Armenian accent about Containerized Laundry Flow$. I predict it will be hip hop’s salvation.

  3. SELBY says:

    Getting a bit close to the edge with that Armenian reference, Andy. Best to avoid identifying race, country, culture etc. That way one doesn’t attract the attention of the Race Overlords. In fact you ought to delete the whole article. We just don’t go there any more, not until we’ve got rid of the whites completely! When everyone’s blended then it will be safe. Actually no it won’t – all the blending will achieve is White disappearance, all the other races will still be existing, but they probably won’t get so worked up about race then so maybe you can identify Armenians…in the future! You could start penning the article now – featuring Armenians! l guess you could include some references to the disappeared White race, as long as you’re sufficiently damning.

  4. @ndy says:

    I always imagined that The Armenians were a nationality, not a race. I will write to The Race Overlords to seek clarification on this point.

  5. SELBY says:

    [Caucasian]/Indo-European with the [Caucasian] getting the upper hand shall we say. Victim mentality prevails but probably with good reason, Jews are afflicted with the victim mentality too. It’s useful for short-term advantage but does tend to drag the group down over time and is very psychologically damaging. Note recent Orthodox Jews demonstrating in Israel wearing Holocaust-reminding garb and insignia. Doesn’t really aid the group’s cause. Definitely cannot be discussed in Europe without attracting threat of jail time.

  6. @ndy says:

    A few things.

    1. Have you ever wondered why ‘Caucasian’ has come to be considered synonymous w White?

    2. Your comment appears to be completely unrelated to the post.

    3. Are Jews human beings? If so, then they experience human emotions: this is not a front-page story.

    4. The thing with the ultra-Othodox Jews using the Holocaust to protest was obv v controversial, esp within Israel. So what?

    5. The Holocaust is constantly discussed in Europe. Again, huh?

  7. SELBY says:

    In reverse order:
    5. The holocaust cannot be discussed anywhere.
    4. The holocaust cannot be discussed anywhere – except by Jews.
    3. Jews are probably human but this isn’t relevant.
    2. Your blog is one great big post and touches on many subjects – in no particular order.
    1.Caucasian was a term used by the Romans to describe whites from beyond the limes[?], so as to distinguish them from non-white barbarians.

  8. @ndy says:

    5. The holocaust cannot be discussed anywhere.
    4. The holocaust cannot be discussed anywhere – except by Jews.

    Transparent nonsense. The Holocaust is discussed in the media, in schools, among the public, at museums and Universities, conferences and meetings, regularly and routinely. One example, taken at random: ‘To stay or go? Jews in Europe in the immediate aftermath of the Holocaust’, Conference at the German Historical Institute in Warsaw, 5-7 December 2011.

    3. Jews are probably human but this isn’t relevant.

    Probably? I see. Whether you’re a loon or not, the point remains: Jews, like non-Jews, experience emotional and psychological states; this fact is not news-worthy.

    2. Your blog is one great big post and touches on many subjects – in no particular order.

    No, it’s not. In reality, it consists of well over 3,000 posts, arranged in chronological order, classified into several dozen categories, and frequently tagged with more specific labels. In this case, the post concerns an Australian-born rapper named Iggy Azalea, and some minor controversy which arose in the US over two of her lyrics (both of which appear in the title). The second item I have quoted concerns the potential consequences for media outlets in posting racist batshit. I leave it to others to join the dots.

    1.Caucasian was a term used by the Romans to describe whites from beyond the limes[?], so as to distinguish them from non-white barbarians.

    Really? Johann Friedrich Blumenbach was a Roman? Huh. I thought he was born in Gotha and worked in Göttingen. And I’m pretty sure that Romans in the 1800s had more specific ways of describing people from outside of their city.

    You do realise that not everything is eternal, yeah?

  9. Aussie says:

    The more I bring my attention to racism, the more I start to think racism = paranoia and paranoia = all kinds of shit. Shelby is the second person I’ve seen on this blog try to justify a point by talking about “white disappearance”. If people don’t start taking notice of the crap they think about I’m going to start getting paranoid about human disappearance.

  10. Derek's Driver, Derek says:

    I like the certainty with which Selby speaks. Also the all-caps name. Adds real conviction to the nonsense.

    Come to think of it, wasn’t “Selby” the talking dog in a series of children’s books? The fact he’s got it together enough to read slackbastard at all is pretty astonishing, @ndy.

  11. @ndy says:

    Talking dog? PU$$Y!

  12. craw says:

    Caucasus – from Scythian kroy-khasis “ice-shining, white with snow”.
    The word caucasian is a broad term and doesnt [necessarily] mean white, though the Scythian meaning is interesting and adds to uncertainty. There are many Roman references to the “caucasus” region but thus far into my reading l havent found any that mention white skinned people from that area, though they may well exist. The Romans discriminated against non Roman peoples more on the basis of their lack of civilisation than on skin colour or racial characteristics. The Romans looked down on the German barbarians even though the latter had pale skin and blue eyes.
    The US census uses the term white, not caucasian. In terms of nomenclature the word caucasian does not have broad usage.
    This particular post by esteemed blog host Andy has a central theme revolving around race and or racism. Powerful, thrusting Andy wants any criticism based on race, sex or religion banned. Andy contends that though he isnt in favour of limiting our freedoms sometimes it just has to be so. A problem with this kind of approach is that any diminution of our freedoms tends to strengthen the state, making the state ever more powerful. Either you go for freedom or you go for more control, you cant have both.

  13. @ndy says:

    The meaning of the term ‘Caucasian’ is obviously dependent upon its context. As Nell Irvin Painter discusses in her book The History of White People (see link to video above), the term came to be associated with ‘White’ courtesy of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach and more widely adopted during the course of the 19th and 20th Cs.

    In contemporary Russia, ‘Caucasians’ are an ethnic minority preyed upon by White Russian neo-Nazis; in the contemporary United States, as well as Australia and elsewhere in the Anglosphere, the term is routinely used to describe people with white skin: “The offender is described as a Caucasian male with brown hair and a hooded jumper” (AUS); “Heatlie is described as a 34-year-old Caucasian male, five-foot-seven, 170 pounds, with blonde hair and blue eyes” (USA); “Benson is described as a 5-foot 8-inch Caucasian male weighing approximately 200 pounds with short brown hair and brown eyes” (CAN); “The victim was playing with friends in the vicinity of Sale High School when a Caucasian male in his mid-teens began to circle around them on a mountain bike” (UK). Whatever the current composition of the US Census (and in this context it’s changed over time, which fact Painter also examines in her book), the term ‘Caucasian’ is obviously still widely used, especially for identificatory purposes, and in official discourse.

    Otherwise:

    I’ve got no idea why you think I want “any criticism based on race, sex or religion banned”, or even precisely what that means. Nor do I contend that ‘though I’m not in favour of limiting our freedoms sometimes it just has to be so’ — again, whatever exactly that is meant to mean.

  14. craw says:

    I would think that you are into big government and state ism and more and more laws outlawing criticism based on culture or race or sex or even political outlook because you constantly disparage people who dont approve of islam, or people who dont want Australia to become a third world colony or people who call other people niggers or any other term that is now forbidden – apparently criticising anyone based on race or culture or religion or sex is just about the worst thing imageinable.
    Speaking of which when was the last time you attacked your cousin with an axe and a machete? You didnt – because you wouldnt and yet we are constantly told we must make allowances for (and accept) the worst possible behaviour from non whites – because they are non white. You might wonder when will the special status we have to confer on non whites come to an end? The answer is when there arent any whites left in the country. That is when it will end because these countless hordes of dysfunctional and barely functioning non whites will at that point have no one to blame for their useless behaviour and their even more retarded cultures.

  15. @ndy says:

    OK.

    To begin with, there’s: a) what you think and then there’s; b) reality.

    You might like to compare the two.

    So, otoh, you think that I’m “into big government and state ism” (and so on and so forth); otoh, there’s what I’ve written on my blog.

    Q. Where do I advocate Big Government or “state ism”?
    A. Nowhere. In fact, I’m an anarchist. Hence I oppose both the state and capitalism and seek to create a classless, non-hierarchical society; one in which an egalitarian social order is maintained without recourse to government.

    Further, you claim that I “constantly disparage people who dont approve of islam, or people who dont want Australia to become a third world colony or people who call other people niggers or any other term that is now forbidden”.

    Again, this is simply false.

    Thus I don’t disparage people who disapprove of Islam. Rather, I draw attention to and advocate opposing some few groups — such as the ADL — which seek to utilise anti-Muslim feeling / public hysteria over Islam in order to propagate a reactionary politics. In reality, I’m an atheist, and make no secret of the fact. The same general considerations applies to your fears of Australia becoming a Third World colony. In reality, the living conditions of people residing in Australia are dependent not upon maintaining a particular racial or ethnic composition but rather the extent to which workers can organise collectively to assert their class interests. Racist doctrines, like other forms of irrational prejudice, undermine class solidarity.

    With regards the term ‘nigger’: yes, this is typically abusive and I would prefer it if people didn’t engage in racial abuse. However, you’re conflating racist abuse with the discussion of ‘race or culture or religion or sex’. In reality, it’s perfectly possible to discuss race and culture and religion and sex without abusing others or using the term ‘nigger’: you should try it some time.

    Speaking of which when was the last time you attacked your cousin with an axe and a machete? You didnt – because you wouldnt and yet we are constantly told we must make allowances for (and accept) the worst possible behaviour from non whites – because they are non white. You might wonder when will the special status we have to confer on non whites come to an end? The answer is when there arent any whites left in the country. That is when it will end because these countless hordes of dysfunctional and barely functioning non whites will at that point have no one to blame for their useless behaviour and their even more retarded cultures.

    Right.

    So.

    Presumably, you mean to refer to the fact that in March AFL footballer Liam Jurrah was charged with assault. In which case, two things. One, in reality, the situation in Yuendumu is quite complex. Two, the relationship between Jurrah’s alleged assault and my own relationship to violence is extremely tenuous. That is, WTF? does one have to do with the other? Nothing, really, other than, perhaps, to underline the fact that events cannot be understood outside of their contexts and that those inclined to will leap upon such events to proclaim them as evidence of some fundamental disjunction between black savagery and white civilization.

    Complete nonsense, of course, as is your commentary in general.

  16. craw says:

    You are White. You didn’t attack your cousin with a machete. You weren’t going to attack your cousin with a machete – ever. You don’t do things like that. Most White people don’t. Non-whites have a predilection for doing things that you, a White, wouldn’t do, yet you advocate a classless presumably race-unconcious society. A problem with that is that many of the non-Whites don’t and won’t behave in a “civilised” and co-operative fashion, meaning your goal is unobtainable BECAUSE you (like many other modern guys) are in favour of flooding the White countries with non-Whites and once they get their numbers up they are not going to co-operate. Quite possibly you even welcome the possibility that Whites will one day be a minority group in countries such as Australia. Many of your political ilk do look forward to that day – l have heard them say it. It’s okay, we won’t call it White genocide, we will call it cultural re-orientation or diversity facilitation. Social engineering can be okay as long as the right people are calling the shots.

    You can’t work out who the real enemy is, so you attack White nationalists, or rather the most boorish proponents of White nationalism. I’m okay with that however when the Whites are a minority here in Australia and the place goes to shit so called “anarchists” will be the first group to be got rid of by the one party state – just as they were the first group to be got rid of in the USSR.

    Your “anarchism” requires you to be “race oblivious”, yet not once have I seen you criticise non-Whites. It’s a selective form of “race blindness” you subscribe to.

    As far as offensive language being offensive goes – yes offensive language can offend, so what? But who is to say what is and isn’t offensive and in any case it’s a one-way street as far as offence goes – conservatives are allowed the privilege of being offended. Every special law and new program governments put in place makes the state more powerful. Socialists like Abbot and Gillid and Boohoo Bayloo and all the rest of our political elite will be happy about that, if anarchists are happy about that I respectfully suggest they are not anarchists. And the enactment of “special laws” to protect and advance non-White minorities is a great big way of saying non-Whites are racially inferior, which is the ultimate no-no statement.

    Your version of anarchism sounds like it has been kidnapped by cultural Marxism.

    You keep goin’ after the pretend enemy and you let the real enemy off the hook – and we are all goin’ down, not that that is your fault.

    Here’s a teaser for you – who started World War 2?

  17. Derek's Machete-Sharpener and Hunstman, Derek says:

    I’ve been held up at knifepoint and beaten up by whites more often than people of any other race. Know why? Because whites are just as violent as non-whites. Duh.

    I figured it out in fact. Of the people who have ever physically assaulted me (with apparent intent to harm), 96% were white and 4% were non-white.

  18. Derek's Friend, Derek says:

    And while it’s on my mind, we all know that World War 2 was started by the Cornish.

  19. Lumpen says:

    The most interesting thing about that comment was the dedication to rolling out the usual tropes. Scare quotes! Racists aren’t the racists, anarchists are the real racists but racism isn’t bad! So-called anarchists being so-called because they are not real anarchists so don’t listen to them about anarchy! Whites as the oppressed majority of a powerful yet inferior racial minority through treacherous white proxies! The only other common one that was left out was the old ‘self-proclaimed anarchists’.

    “Cultural Marxism” is the new(ish) fiction that Marxists have captured crucial social institutions to push a particular agenda toxic to whites, and that this explains why the far right remain isolated from popular discourse. Presumably this is how Craw is connecting legislative approaches to multiculturalism to Marxism and, for reasons only apparent to Craw, anarchism and this blog. The failure of the far right (in Australia) is due to the eclipse of potentially popular parts of their platforms by the policies of the major parties and their own hilarious ineptitude. Your fear of being treated like you think other minorities should be treated has been noted.

    FWIW, anarchists tend to critique the society they live in over others and, being Australia, it’s impossible to remove this from a discourse around race, especially the privileging of whites. White supremacists and the far right (only just) get a guernsey for these reasons. That and their tendency to threaten and occasionally make good with their threats. Not for fantasy reasons like being hypnotised by Islams or whatever.

  20. @ndy says:

    @craw,

    To begin with,

    As you’ve passed over the following in silence, I reiterate:

    1. The use of the term ‘Caucasian’ as a synonym for White is not derived from Ancient Rome but instead developed in the wake of late 18th/early 19th C German scholar Johann Friedrich Blumenbach; the Romans knew the Germani (the peoples who lived east of the Rhine) by various names (Angrivarian to Marsian to Ubian);
    2. Whatever its merits as a descriptor, the term ‘Caucasian’ is in broad contemporary usage in the Anglosphere;
    3. The central theme of this post is Azalea’s rhymes, the response to it, and the use of racially-loaded terminology elsewhere in online media;
    4. Your assertion that I want “criticism based on race, sex or religion banned” is nonsensical, as is the idea that I am “into” Big Government or ‘disparage people who disapprove of Islam’;
    5. The use of the term ‘nigger’ or other abusive terminology is not necessary to a discussion of race or sex or religion and opposition to their use is not equivalent to nor does it necessarily imply either worship of the state or a desire for law reform.

    Certainly:

    6. You are in the habit of making unsupported assertions, illogical statements and poorly-constructed and unsound arguments.

    In response to your latest comment, your argument is as follows:

    A.

    Aborigines are prone to violence. A case in point is the alleged assault by Liam Jurrah on his cousin. In fact, a proclivity for what might otherwise be termed ‘anti-social’ violence is a characteristic of all non-White peoples.

    B.

    I am White. Therefore, I am not prone to violence, and would certainly know better than to attack a family member (such as my cousin Simon) with an axe or a machete.

    C.

    I also advocate anarchy. That is, the construction of a classless, non-hierarchical society. In this kind of a society, racial categorisations are rendered redundant.

    D.

    Because I fail to understand the truly violent nature of non-White peoples, and because I fail to exclude Them from my vision of The Good Society, it will inevitably fail.

    E.

    In fact, not only do I fail to recognise the danger to Australian society of non-Whites, I actually want Them to flood Our country. Unopposed, this flood will overwhelm Whites, and following the institution of a one-party state (a seeming inevitability, consequent upon the emergence of a non-White majority population), anarchists such as myself (including, presumably, non-White anarchists) will be targeted for elimination in a manner very similar to the Bolshevik regime’s repression of anarchists in the infant Communist empire.

    Fucking ponderous.

    To conclude:

    Yeah, I think White nationalism is daft. In fact, I think nationalism of most any stripe is objectionable. But then, y’know, that pretty much proceeds from my wider political beliefs. Otherwise — like the Australian anarchists of the late nineteenth century — I think racial antagonisms are politically divisive as well as unethical.

    I think the concept of ‘The Real Enemy’ is a li’l moar complicated than you imagine.

    It’s not my anarchism that prevents me from subscribing to your silly viewpoints, it’s the fact that I’m not ignorant or paranoid.

    I routinely criticise ‘non-Whites’, but not on their basis of their real or presumed racial categorisation.

    I’ve said very little about ‘offensive language’ but you presume to know much; so much that it’s simply tedious to correct your mis-formulations. Rather than rattle on about what you think I mean, I suggest you read what I write and use this to form the basis of your views — you may even like to refer to what I’ve written rather than rely upon your fertile imagination.

    Martin Jay hit the cultural Marxist nail on the head in his essay for Salmagundi; no doubt it sailed right over yours.

  21. Lumpen says:

    Tangentially related article on the conception of “people” and ethnicity under the Romans and in medieval Europe:

    It is almost impossible to prove that the person who wore or used these objects really was and felt Roman. Byzantine culture and its various provincial and barbarized derivatives penetrated all early medieval cultures; barbarian leaders especially used all kinds of Byzantine objects as symbols of prestige and luxury goods. But again, archaeology and literary history both mirror one of the fundamental conditions of early medieval ethnicity: the gentes could only define themselves vs the overwhelming reality of a polyethnic, late Roman state and civilization.

    Yeah, not heaps related but kind of interesting how the geography and history claimed by racists (terms like slavic, germanic, caucasian) was a lot more diffuse than you might expect and claims to the blood and soil reflect more contemporary political aspirations. Shocking, I know.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.