Le "noir et blanc" ou le paradoxe anti-raciste

Vous avez souvent vu ces images, par exemple, de chat noir et chat blanc lovés sur un coussin,

ou ces représentations en noir et blanc d'être humains stylisés, bien délimités par les "couleurs" noire et blanche.

Ces peintures en noir et blanc, faites de taches, ronds et points. De mains et de pieds. De têtes.

Ces photographies en noir et blanc, qui nient la couleur, la nature, pour représenter les deux extrêmes chromatiques, ces couleurs qui n'en sont pas:
le noir (absence de couleur)
et le blanc (toutes les couleurs du prisme ensemble).

N'est-il pas paradoxal que les couleurs de base de la théorie des races, soient aussi celles de l'anti-racisme "marketing", celui de l'image, de l'apparence lissée, moderne, artistique, de la simplicité explicative,

ou

de l'explication simpliste ?

Combattre le racisme par le racisme... 
Se rassurer dans la limite de nos possibilités ? de notre volonté ?
Rester prostrés aux confins de la simplicité ?

Comment le noir et le blanc, le blanc et le noir, pourraient-ils nous libérer de la pensée raciale, alors qu'ils en sont les paradigmes même ?

Comment espérer sortir des races en les assénant et les assumant encore plus clairement ?
Ou obscurément ?

Comment dire ensuite, qu'il n'y a ni noir, ni blanc, que des êtres de chair, de peau, d'yeux, de cheveux, de couleurs aussi variées qu'il y a de gènes ?

Comment dire ensuite, "non, tu te trompes, ils te trompent, je ne suis pas noir, je ne suis pas blanc, je suis pas noire, je ne suis pas blanche" ?

Face à la puissance de l'image manipulatrice.
Face à la manipulation de l'image toute puissante.
Face à l'imagination puissante de l'image.

Mélanine. 
Du beige claire au brun foncé.
                                                   Du bleu clair au brun foncé.
                                                                                                   Du blond clair au noir.

Ni noir, ni blanc. Ni blanc, ni noir. Ni blanche, ni noire. Ni noire, ni blanche.

image trouvée sur une page web d'un collège

Pourquoi pas le rouge et le jaune ? Parce qu'ils ont compris.
Parce que le racisme n'a qu'un but, maintenir le blanc. Le noir.

Il faut réaffirmer notre être. Etre nous. Humanité.
Pas raffermir leur pensée.

A racist cake by Makode Linde

This "thing", if not disgust, might bring discussion among people who know what they are talking about. 

That is the problem. What about those, (like the people in the room) who don't know a thing ?

Here is my take on this... 

It seems to me that Africans have been objectified enough so that one doesn't have to add another layer of it (in the form of cake and distasteful charcoal chocolate glazing). 

This is obviously not offensive to the "whites" in the room, they are obviously not laughing out of "embarrassment".

If only they could leave Sarah Baartman alone... Even after 150 years, they won't let her soul rest.

Also, it is yet another misconception from the west (even though the artist is "black") to think that excision is practiced only in Africa (as if it was something "reserved" for the black woman's body). It is also practiced in other countries. The art piece and artist may have as a goal to denounce excision, but in the end the accused will be the “black” man/ African / Muslim man (as always).

His performance deliberately concentrates racist representations... To "provoke", they say.

Sarah Baartman is the archetype of the African women being used, exploited, dissected, "eaten" up by white society at "tea time", for entertainment.

It is quite obvious, and if it is not, then it is part of the analysis of that art object... there obviously are references to other objects, and in that very case, the "Afromantics" the artist refers to cannot be without the very "character" of Sarah Baartman... the "invented" African woman at the period during which race-ism became racism and romanticism was at its peak. She was not representative of the average African woman and yet she became “her” in the eyes of Europeans.

Cuvier (a French naturalist) and others had her put in different jars, in particular her genitalia. As you preserve vegetables. Or herbs. Or medicine. As if they hoped that somehow they could later on get some kind of aphrodisiac out of it. It was already gravitating around the "private" (how private, right ?!) parts of the African woman.

It is still. To "preserve" it -they say-, again (African female genitals are very precious to the white man it seems). But now they are invited to eat it and they do...

The confusion and disturbance around this piece of "art" comes from the confusion it contains in itself.

It certainly hasn't achieve anything as far as female genital mutilation or racism. As yet.

Let's just hope discussions around it will bring up real arguments, discussions and elements of history that will not be dismissed with a "no repentance" 

instead of will to learn and take responsibility in the present.


I am not sure that most light-skinned people "can" (that is have enough knowledge and will, because "white" societies haven't taught them how to) really grasp what behind this. It is not going to be "a piece of cake", for sure, to turn around centuries of racist ideology with a such a piece of cake.