The CharmerEssay Preview: The CharmerReport this essayThe CharmerThe Charmer is a very poorly written essay that had many mixed views and opinions. Gates describes Louis Farrakhan as a wealthy, black man who moved into Elijah Muhammads neo-Mediterranean house. Farrakhan seems to have many different views on the rights and lives of the black community. At one point in the story he talks about how white folks are now idealizing black faces and says that white supremacy is being challenged in so many ways and that gradually children are losing the idea of superiority. But then he goes to say that we need to outgrow the color and ethnic thing and see the oneness of humanity and approach divinity. He contradicts a lot of the things he says. Gates says that blacks often feel vulnerable to the changes of inauthenticity and of disloyalty to the race. Hes trying to say that blacks do not get the right recognition as the other races do and often feel singled out and disrespected. Farrakhan comes off to be very paranoid and thinks there is a conspiracy with everything from racial issues to the
Jewish bankers conspiring together to maximize their own wealth. He twists around the words of the people and uses propaganda to his advantage and it can also be seen as a psychological obsession. Farrakhan also states that he is not going to support anyone just because he is black but more so for the best interest of the people of the country. He goes from being a black rights activist to someone who thinks that color should not matter or have anything to do with the good of ones country. Farrakhan is compared to Malcolm X because they both used very tough ideology but wanted public acceptance in the white community and their own communities as well. Farrakhan has his priorities and views mixed up; he also contradicts many things that he says.
The Charmer can also be compared to Understanding Afro-centrism. Both essays jumped around too much and were very poorly written. The issue of race and beliefs were the main topic of the essays and they both had a lot to do with the rights of the black community. In Understanding Afro-centrism, Early talks about the meaning and formation of identity of the black American; he also states that African Americans do not get enough respect and credit that the whites and Europeans receive. In The Charmer, Gates main points are that blacks are not appreciated either and that they do not receive the same credit as most white people. Both stories are about black nationalism and pride and honor for ones race and background. In The Charmer, Gates
is a black nationalism. Black Americans are very much in a minority in the US and many have suffered from prejudice and racism for the past few decades, but not so much for the past 25 years. Both this and Gates’ commentary are of this nature and not just for a certain segment and because of their position. They do not seem to be very interesting in their own right. At the end of each essay, Gates points to the following points: “How should the American population view racism, bigotry and hate culture? Is it racist or not when racism or bigotry hits, whether in person or online? Is it not OK to insult someone at a club who is supposed to be a friend and partner? Is there some sort of “normal” inclusivity that can take you there? (If you disagree, stop reading and move on for a moment and ask yourself which of these topics you want to talk about) And how do we define racism, bigotry and hate culture? Are people, including many of our allies, feeling oppressed, afraid, rejected or exploited or have been subjected to unfair or unfair treatment because of their background or race? (A couple of of those things I’m sure are pretty typical of most people in the United Kingdom.) “But don’t we want to respect the basic concepts of racism, bigotry and hate culture? Does that not seem really appropriate? In order to answer this question, I think you can address several points. Firstly, white people and the culture they support are not racist or hate culture. (In fact, a recent post I wrote on this topic also made a few comments about how this applies to black racism.) You have an argument that white people are fundamentally racist and that they should be treated as separate from other cultures that have different systems of social order. In particular, this argument seems to give way to very common racist and prejudice stereotypes about people. (Which are now very common and are extremely common in Britain, with a strong white majority living in various parts of the country as well as in France, Sweden and other Scandinavian countries.) Why do white Europeans so often think that they should not be treated as different if they do not have the basic systems of order they support, including the concept of a common homelands, family, society and even history? And how do they reconcile that with white stereotypes about being “prejudiced” for their race, and then assume that they are so, too? (Or are they simply the kind of white individual who does not belong to a society and doesn’t even identify in the society that white people inhabit? Or is there something else at play here that blacks do not really believe in? Does that make sense? Or isn’t it all simply an adaptation to whites being so privileged now that they have an entire new system for self-regulation? It looks like you