Drexel professor "ironically" promotes 'white genocide'

[Tahar Joblis]

Drexel should obviously fire him, that seems like the smart, reasonable decision.

"Associate professor" means he probably has tenure, which would mean he's basically untouchable when it comes to being fired for being politically disagreeable. This is for perfectly good reasons.

The smart, reasonable decision by Drexel, respecting that, is to point that out, say that Drexel doesn't endorse systematic massacre of white people, and move on. The smart reasonable decision by him is to stop shitting out things like that, which might sound virtuously snarky to his buddies, but come off as somewhere in the range from "crass" to "hateful" otherwise.

Especially considering the way he doubled down by pulling out a definite act of actual genocide aimed at whites on the basis of whiteness. If you want a teachable moment on the phrase "white genocide," you don't double down by endorsing what you see as the exceptional historical case that deserves the label; you explain that it largely refers to something else.

[Bakery Hill]

He should probs stop being an attention seeking wanker.

[Minzerland II]

What did the children sow that got them killed?

It's groups as a whole. Nonetheless, I'm uninterested in debating the actions of slaves fighting for freedom over a hundred years ago. Ciccariello-Maher has full rights to academic freedom.

Collective Guilt is absolute bullshit, yo.

[Bakery Hill]

What did the children sow that got them killed?

It's groups as a whole. Nonetheless, I'm uninterested in debating the actions of slaves fighting for freedom over a hundred years ago. Ciccariello-Maher has full rights to academic freedom.

wtf happened to your name?

[Minzerland II]

It's groups as a whole. Nonetheless, I'm uninterested in debating the actions of slaves fighting for freedom over a hundred years ago. Ciccariello-Maher has full rights to academic freedom.

wtf happened to your name?

New function in settings: you can alter capitalisation.

[I didnt vote for Trump]

I don't give a shit if they get offended, I give a shit when you give their conspiracy theories enormous amounts of ammunition, this increases their scope, power and influence.



Well, no, that was an entirely avoidable statement. He could have said it was good when Haitian slaves rebelled in general - even if some of the subsequent atrocities were unnecessary and unjustifiable, instead of specifically saying it was good when white people (which includes women & children) were fucking massacred.



If a professor said that it was a good thing when Ghenghis Khan massacred Chinese people - there would absolutely be outrage.

This is mocking alt right conspiracy theories. If that "gives them ammunition" then so be it.

As an actual person of colour, I find it deeply disturbing that "so be it" is such a common reaction to suggestions that more wanton anger and hatred will be directed towards us. Seeing as you clearly have my best interests at heart, when do you think it will be that you won't have to provoke people into perpetuating racism? I'd really like to know

[Arumbia67]

He shouldn't be fired for this, free speech is one of the most important civil liberty's. I'd bet my left arm he'd be sending out resumes if he called for black genocide though. "It was so much fun when former confederate soldiers went rampaging through the streets of Wilmington, killing former slaves, destroying the only news paper owned by a black man, and forcing the cities minority population to run for their lives". Doesn't have the same ring to it does it?

[Aelex]

1.The Valois could not claim Imperial territory. Also, Valentina Visconti was the second child of Gian Galeazzo (plus, a female child), hence, outside any inheritance claim also because of the birth of Gian Maria.
2.At least two instances of ethnical cleansing and atrocities (at Rocca d'Arazzo and at Annone).

1. Tcha, tcha, tcha. The Valois had every right to claim Imperial territory when it was their by right. Anyway, no matter how weak a claim is, it can still be legitimately pressed when the current holder is weaker than said claim.
2. What you call "ethnic cleansing and atrocities", I call storming a castle and putting down a rebellion.

Damn! Too many white flags! We can't cope with them!

You need to relearn your history my friend, the glorious "Immaculé semé de lys d'or" wouldn't be utilized officially before the Bourbons came to power. :^)
Anyway, as an Italian, are you really sure you want to go into a dick measuring contest of whose military history is the best?
Because, you might end up switching side even before we're finished.

[Aelex]

When it comes at the expense of liberated slaves who are being asked to foot the bill of the destruction of a murderous plantation economy as well as the cost of all their individual freedoms? Yeah it's pretty horrible. Glad you agree.

Well, it was their choice. Either they payed and kept their liberty or didn't and get reenslaved to pay for the damages they caused.
They went with the first willingly.

They invested in slaves and a plantation economy that ran on an engine of human misery, and who rebelled and won their own freedom. You'll have to forgive me if I'm not too eager to pay back those planters.

Ho I can forgive you. But that doesn't mean that their case wasn't in any way less just and their reparations in any way less deserved.

[Saiwania]

The massacre which used mass rape, in which a male general ordered that women who wouldn't submit to forced marriage with his men be killed.

When put into context, it was quite normal and to be expected. Haiti was the only country in world history at that point, which was founded as part of a successful slave rebellion and specifically ruled by Blacks and former slaves. There was a fear that if the Whites were allowed to leave, that they would lobby foreign powers to invade Haiti and reimpose the system of plantation slavery they had abolished.

Haiti's White population were in a no win situation and only select groups of them were spared of the ones that didn't manage to leave, after the great majority of Whites were already killed off as an act of political necessity and vengeance from Jean-Jacques Dessalines' perspective.

American slave owners in the southern states, would use what happened in Haiti to justify their continuation of slavery and brutality towards slaves. Unlike in Haiti, Whites were the predominate majority in the US south and back then, many thought nothing of casually having Blacks abused or lynched for any perceived slight. White supremacy was the law both de jure and de facto in US southern states. Only native Americans were regarded as even lesser beings, if not confined to a reservation.

[Zakuvia]

He shouldn't be fired for this, free speech is one of the most important civil liberty's.

I agree with the latter, but not with the former. Drexel isn't a public university, and even if it was, it's not in any colleges better interests to keep brazen bigots on their payroll. Well, unless you're Patriot 'University'. These colleges rely on admissions to stay afloat, and admissions tend to wane when they're aligned (rightly or wrongly) with hateful speech like this.

[Greed and Death]

Drexel should obviously fire him, that seems like the smart, reasonable decision.

"Associate professor" means he probably has tenure, which would mean he's basically untouchable when it comes to being fired for being politically disagreeable. This is for perfectly good reasons.

The smart, reasonable decision by Drexel, respecting that, is to point that out, say that Drexel doesn't endorse systematic massacre of white people, and move on. The smart reasonable decision by him is to stop shitting out things like that, which might sound virtuously snarky to his buddies, but come off as somewhere in the range from "crass" to "hateful" otherwise.

Especially considering the way he doubled down by pulling out a definite act of actual genocide aimed at whites on the basis of whiteness. If you want a teachable moment on the phrase "white genocide," you don't double down by endorsing what you see as the exceptional historical case that deserves the label; you explain that it largely refers to something else.

Depends on what is in the Tenure agreement.

Also there is the easy way to fire someone with tenure dig through their publications and find plagiarism, because when you publish that much you almost always accidental plagiarize.

It is how we got rid of Ward LeRoy Churchill.

[Minoa]

Social networks are places where it is so easy to make a fool of yourself, spread racial hatred, or even destroy your career. I don't even need a source for those.

[Hurdergaryp]

Social networks are places where it is so easy to make a fool of yourself, spread racial hatred, or even destroy your career. I don't even need a source for those.

First the machines made trolls of us all by granting us access to the internet, then they took over. Say what you want, but it's a good tactic.

[Hydesland]

The massacre which used mass rape, in which a male general ordered that women who wouldn't submit to forced marriage with his men be killed.

When put into context, it was quite normal and to be expected. Haiti was the only country in world history at that point, which was founded as part of a successful slave rebellion and specifically ruled by Blacks and former slaves. There was a fear that if the Whites were allowed to leave, that they would lobby foreign powers to invade Haiti and reimpose the system of plantation slavery they had abolished.

Haiti's White population were in a no win situation and only select groups of them were spared of the ones that didn't manage to leave, after the great majority of Whites were already killed off as an act of political necessity and vengeance from Jean-Jacques Dessalines' perspective.

American slave owners in the southern states, would use what happened in Haiti to justify their continuation of slavery and brutality towards slaves. Unlike in Haiti, Whites were the predominate majority in the US south and back then, many thought nothing of casually having Blacks abused or lynched for any perceived slight. White supremacy was the law both de jure and de facto in US southern states. Only native Americans were regarded as even lesser beings, if not confined to a reservation.

Yeah, none of that context remotely justifies the rape, torture and mass killing of women and children, including those sympathetic and friendly to the black population.

[Saiwania]

Yeah, none of that context remotely justifies the rape, torture and mass killing of women and children, including those sympathetic and friendly to the black population.

There were few to no Whites within Haiti which were friendly to the Black population, they were there as slave owners if not for colonial business or collaboration. Much of France's overseas wealth came from Haiti and the profit was contingent on the crops having extremely low labor costs to produce. Far from justifying it, the context is more useful for explaining the motives for why certain events came to pass. In any case, the revolutionaries wanted no tolerance for any remnants of the old Haiti that they overthrew.

[Hydesland]

There were few to no Whites within Haiti which were friendly to the Black population, they were there as slave owners if not for colonial business or collaboration.

First, this is a red herring, even if they weren't sympathetic, that does not justify rape, torture and indiscriminate killing of civilians, ever.

Secondly, you're simply wrong.

Far from justifying it, the context is more useful for explaining the motives for why certain events came to pass.

It's not useful in this debate, as it does nothing to lessen the severity of his tweet.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

Associate professor of politics and global studies at Drexel, George Ciccariello-Maher, decided to celebrate Christmas by deriding white people, as is a favoured passed time of many American social science professors these days. Except this time he decided to go no filter mode and just outright stated "all I want for Christmas is white genocide."
The professor went on to claim that he was merely mocking the idea of white genocide, which is in fact an imaginary concept, because white isn't a race. Except further confusion was added as he also applauded when "whites were massacred" during the Haitian Revolution:

(Image)

Regarding this massacre, wikipedia reminds us that "squads of soldiers moved from house to house, torturing and killing entire families.[5] Even whites who had been friendly and sympathetic to the black population were imprisoned and later killed.[6] ".

After the University makes a statement claiming that those tweets were utterly reprehensible, the professor responds that everyone is just lacking proper context, and that his obvious flamebait is completely fine because of what is, to most people, undisclosed and ambiguous said context - which doesn't really explain his Haiti tweet, and is a different defence to claiming that the white race simply doesn't exist.

What are your thoughts on this situation, how should Drexel university handle this matter?

Link with more neutral summary

Its fucked up but we all make fucked up failed fucked up jokes at times, he either should of worded it better or provided context

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

He shouldn't be fired for this, free speech is one of the most important civil liberty's. I'd bet my left arm he'd be sending out resumes if he called for black genocide though. "It was so much fun when former confederate soldiers went rampaging through the streets of Wilmington, killing former slaves, destroying the only news paper owned by a black man, and forcing the cities minority population to run for their lives". Doesn't have the same ring to it does it?

its sad though that you can get away with a minor punishment if you say it about a white guy but if you say it about a black man then Racism.

[Minoa]

Social networks are places where it is so easy to make a fool of yourself, spread racial hatred, or even destroy your career. I don't even need a source for those.

First the machines made trolls of us all by granting us access to the internet, then they took over. Say what you want, but it's a good tactic.

I wonder if you are thinking that all technology is a bad thing? I remember that in the 1970s and 1980s there were teens who were using phreaking boxes to game the telecommunications network to make free calls. But then there was also Ceefax/Oracle, which allowed us to check what programme was next even if we lost the Radio Times/TV Times.*

* It was only in March 1991 when both publications could list BBC and ITV programmes when broadcasting opened up to the competitive market.

[MERIZoC]

This is mocking alt right conspiracy theories. If that "gives them ammunition" then so be it.

As an actual person of colour, I find it deeply disturbing that "so be it" is such a common reaction to suggestions that more wanton anger and hatred will be directed towards us. Seeing as you clearly have my best interests at heart, when do you think it will be that you won't have to provoke people into perpetuating racism? I'd really like to know

What? Where on earth did I say that?

[Insaeldor]

This is something you say ironicly amount friends not something you say on a large and public platform. Of course this is all under the assumption that he is being satirical. I mean I tell my Jewish friends how Hitler did literally nothing wrong ironically all the time, but would never say that without context on twitter. For a professor you don't seem to command that much common sense.

[PaNTuXIa]

This is probably the maddest I've been in a long time. He isn't "ironically" saying it. He actually believes it. He said that the genocide of whites in Haiti was good, and unsurprisingly, he's a communist. How can the left say that Marxists haven't infiltrated our universities?

[Alvecia]

This is probably the maddest I've been in a long time. He isn't "ironically" saying it. He actually believes it. He said that the genocide of whites in Haiti was good, and unsurprisingly, he's a communist. How can the left say that Marxists haven't infiltrated our universities?

Because they haven't.

[PaNTuXIa]

This is probably the maddest I've been in a long time. He isn't "ironically" saying it. He actually believes it. He said that the genocide of whites in Haiti was good, and unsurprisingly, he's a communist. How can the left say that Marxists haven't infiltrated our universities?

Because they haven't.

nope
http://www.academia.org/self-identifyin ... rofessors/