In higher education, there is a virtual cottage industry of academics declaring everything from math to meritocracy to be forms of white supremacy and racism. Now, it appears romance will be added to the list. University of California Santa Barbara Black Studies Professor Sabrina Strings has written how romance promotes white supremacy and “global pigmentocracy.” In The End of Love: Racism, Sexism, and the Death of Romance, Strings recounts having “endured” her own bad relationships and maintains that “Romance is an old white cultural institution that began in the Middle Ages.” In an interview with The Current, Strings explains that “I am only one of the millions of Gen X-to-Gen Z women who have endured a seemingly endless array of miserable relationships with men.”
In viewing romance through her own lens, Strings comes up with distinctly different views of literature and famous relationships. For example, many people have read the story of Lancelot and Guinevere, a story of forbidden love that introduced disharmony and disaster to King Arthur’s Round Table. It is a story of love and eventual betrayal. It is both irresistible and irrational. Many accounts show Lancelot rescuing Guinevere and, torn by their mutual loyalty to King Arthur, the couple finally succumbs to the inexorable pull of love to each other. It is a tragedy of love and loyalty that leaves everyone in ruin. Arthur would die of wounds in the later battles, Guinevere would die in a convent, and Lancelot would, according to some accounts, die as a hermit. It is a powerful tale of how love can overwhelm all other considerations and shatter every other bond.
That is not exactly how Professor Strings sees it. She says that the tale is really about how a man of lower status is trying to secure greater power and prestige by seducing a higher class European Christian woman: “Love is very much about generosity but romance is very much about what you can get from somebody, especially if you’re a man who is social climbing.”
Professor Strings zeros in on the beauty and whiteness of Guinevere. She notes that the queen was viewed as irresistibly attractive and pale in complexion:
“We can easily recognize these features today as those representing the apex of whiteness, even though race did not exist at the time of Troyes’s writing. Nevertheless, to the extent that some of these representations occurred before the seventeenth century dawn of race science, they have what historians have called a ‘proto-racist’ bent. Indeed, scholars have shown that the preference for light skin, hair, and eyes existed prior to the advent of racism, and that these characteristics were co-opted by it and enlisted for the purpose of installing a global pigmentocracy.”
The “whitenesss” could also simply reflect the racial makeup of the historical characters as opposed to any “global pigmentocracy.” Yet, according to Professor Strings, romance is about “women who are not peak white or are ‘insufficiently white’ are subject deservedly to deceit, manipulation, assault and rape.”
Professor Strings previously wrote a 2019 book about how “fatphobia” is rooted in racism.
In today’s academic environment, there often seems a rush to racialize common practices, customs, or terminology. Publications clamor for such articles and discovering another hidden racist element in society can bring academic accolades. However, others have already staked out many areas such as mathematics, astrophysics, statistics, meritocracy, climate change, dieting, tipping, skiing, chess, and organized pantries. Most recently, the American Psychological Association declared that merit-based hiring may be racist. Even robots are now declared to be part of the supremacist menace because they are often made of white plastic.
The one thing that all your bad relationships have in common is you.
I think that the professor lacks a mirror.
She’s not named Ketanji. Or Kamala. Or Ilhan. She’s named Sabrina. Whoever named her was normal.
She had to learn to hate America and Western Civ.
Anonymous said: ” She’s named Sabrina. Whoever named her was normal.”
Unless, possibly, she was named after the mother witch character in the old “Bewitched” TV series. Quite a bit of barely hidden animosity toward the traditional male role (and the males typifying it) in that show, as I recall.
It is getting even harder to outcrazy crazy but it does pay well.
Olly…..so true……And she sure doesn’t have any trouble taking the white man’s money, does she?
Speaking of good books, I finished an audiobook this morning around 2:30 AM- Patient Zero by John Maberry. Fantastic! It is on sale for 99 cents at Chirp Audiobooks. Best dollar I ever spent! I went back and ordered the next two books in the series for the same price.
Back on topic,
Seems to me that in all of her failed relationships there was one common denominator and that was NOT the men she dated/lived with/whatever with – she may be surprised to learn it was HER all along.
Indeed
The French insist their troubadours invented courtly love one thousand years ago. Their poetry described women as beautiful and cruel mistresses (also as horses to be tamed and ridden). Europeans really like this love talk stuff (and the locker room stuff too).
It has been decades since I read his autobiography, but I seem to remember that Malcolm X preferred white women.
Or is my memory playing racist tricks on me?
We must admit that theoretically it is possible a more boring person could exist than those who claim everything they encounter is white supremacy. But laws of statistics suggest we’re unlikely to ever encounter one.
There are those Individuates that: Only Say Things That Benefit Them.
It’s a mechanism for gaining the ‘currency’ (both socio and economic) that paves their way through life.
This is Professor Sabrina Strings’ way of doing that. You either buy into it (give her the currency) or not (no sale).
Side Bar: Obliviously things are getting tighter in this economy. Your going to see a lot more of this rhetorical-peddling,
Sociologically and Economically – Sales are down. … Hence, Everyone is trying harder to make it.
AH-Hem – Even Jonathan has a new book out.
The End of Love: Racism, Sexism, and the Death of Romance,
Diversity, Sexism? Genderism, and friends with “benefits”
Keep women affordable, available, reusable, and taxable, and the “burden” of evidence aborted and sequestered for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress.
She’s just another narcissitic life-loser capitalizing on her failures. Her writing is a genre made famous by Hillary Clinton after the 2016 election.
Olly…..so true……And she sure doesn’t have any trouble taking the white man’s money, does she?
Professor Strings wrote a column in May 2020 in the New York Times “It’s not obesity. It’s slavery”. Seriously ? Well if that’s true, then it’s not global warming. It’s slavery. Or maybe it’s not high blood pressure. It’s slavery. Ms. Strings is stuck on the old Marxist Oppressor v. Oppressed mindset but in fairness Jonathan, is has served her well over her years in California Academe.
Maybe she should try seeking love instead of romance. It lasts a lot longer when you find it.
I would surmise in her personal life she checks some of the boxes. Racist certainly, wounded by relationships probably, unapproachable and egotistical, no doubt. Riding hellbent on a useless Social Justice type degree, where being a gadfly provocateur is the only way to success. Destined to be alone all her life.
She might try cats. Millions of lonely, bad personality-types go for that and it may help. I’m sure she accomplishes some of her goals by being a man-hater (especially white ones) and encouraging others to be miserable in life along with her.
“Romance is an old white cultural institution that began in the Middle Ages.”
Ms. Strings is looking for affirmative action love, where her expectations are satisfied by a court order.
It would take a court order for any sensible man to bed her.
Wuthering Heights
Jon, while your interest in film and story is laudable, your ventures into it seem to really struggle with coming to grips with the fact racism is an all pervading influence in our culture. We are a nation built on the back of slavery, misogyny, and the genocide and imprisonment of its original indigenous population. No amount of avoidance of that factual reality will make it go away…
But it’s also clear that you lean on this avoidance as a way to excite your base readership. Not an endearing trait and it makes you fully part of the problem.
“We are a nation built on the back of slavery, misogyny, and the genocide and imprisonment of its original indigenous population. No amount of avoidance of that factual reality will make it go away.”
Bull S***!
Ibid
You couldn’t make my point any clearer.
And you mine. I have abandoned attempts to engage in dialogue with those who only parrot the rubbish current among the woke. Nothing avails but ridicule. Go occupy some university president’s office and be sure to take a dump on his desk as reward for his encouraging the woke madness spreading like a lethal disease in the world.
At least you haven’t attacked Israel yet but I am confident that is coming…part of the insanity.
Impressive rant, snowflake.
Since the early sixties America was on a path to equality for all. With government sponsored programs and laws – among others including race-based admittance to institutions of higher learning and priority preferences for government contracts (contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers). Then along came Barack Hussein and Michele Obama, and we witnessed them in action with (1) the firearm incident in Boston involving a black professor (who taught Barack) and a white cop (who led the Boston Police Department’s race relations training program, (2) The Trevon Martin incident in Florida (the “victim” of a white Hispanic), and (3) the Ferguson Missouri riots (into which Obama and his “wingman” Attorney General Eric Holder launched a DOJ “investigation” of the Ferguson Police Department – which investigation which 12 months later was quietly closed with no charges filed. Recall Barack’s public statement that “America is an exceptional country … just like Germany considers itself an exceptional country” (ergo – America is not exceptional), and Michele’s statement upon Barack’s election that “For the first time in my life I’m proud of my country”. Without Barack and Michele, America would be sixteen years further down the path to a truly colorblind society
Yawn
“We are a nation built on the back of slavery, misogyny, and the genocide and imprisonment of its original indigenous population.”
Slavery has existed for all of human existance. It is near universal until the modern WEST first rejected it for itself and then sought to eradicate it globally. This nation is not built on slavery any more than any other.
In FACT it is less so. While Britain eliminates slavery before the US – that was somewhat easier for them as there was no slavery in England, only in their west indian colonies. Still the US was very early in eliminating slavery.
Legal slavery existed in much of the world at the time of the US civil war and was not eradicated until the late 20th century.
Illegal slavery continues to exist.
No the US is not built on the backs of slavery.
Misogyny is not different. Once Again this was eliminated in the west before elsewhere. Much of the world still has traditional roles for men and women. significant divergence is only in the West.
The neanderthals are gone – Genocide has been with us this the start of Homo sapiens.
The Chinese are actively trying to exterminate the Uighurs even today.
There are various ethnic groups accross the world that would exterminate their neighbors if the could.
The Hutu tried to exterminate the Tutsi in Rwanda.
But Genocide in the west ended a couple od centuries ago.
There really is no such thing as “original indigenous population”.
Regardless historically Tribes have conquered other tribes. Nations other nations,
Efforts to end war and conquest are very modern and originate in the WEST.
Put simply – with respect to your claims – they are universal throughout the entirety of human existance, and efforts to end them are very recent and originate int he West.
The West, the US is not uniquely evil. It is Uniquely the birth place of the END of evils that have been with humanity since its birth.
@John Say,
“ No the US is not built on the backs of slavery.”
Yes, it was. The U.S. economy relied on it for a long time. Especially in the less industrialized south.
Yes, the west got rid of slavery, but we didn’t get rid of it when the rest of the west did. That’s one reason why we had the civil war. The British ended the slave trade and that left slave owners in the U.S. without a source of labor that the wealthiest in the south relied on.
Legal slavery exists throughout much of the world is absolutely true. But, we have always been slow to follow the trend of ending it. In fact we resisted it for a long time. Spain ended slavery before we did. So did England. Then northern states followed. It was when the south still held out on the idea of slavery as necessary that problems cropped up. The attitudes and views of black people in the south persisted well into the 1970’s. This is why the south has the unfortunate stigmas associated with racism and the bigotry that still casts a shadow on the southern culture.
“The U.S. economy relied on it for a long time. Especially in the less industrialized south.”
I belkeive the Economy of the south was about 1/4 or less that of the North at the start of the war.
By the end it was about 1/30th the economy of the north had grown and that of the south diminished.
Nor was the economy of the sout entirely or even mostly based on slavery.
Absoletely there were a few rich plantation owners, alot of slaves, and a few people who worked for plantation owners – the the overwhelmining majority of shites in the south, did not own slaves, did not work for people who owned slaves and had little to do with slavery.
Separately – While Slavery has existed forever – it is a piss poor economic system.
The economy works on incentives. Slaves are driven by disincentives, not incentives.
Slave economies and communist economies share the same fundimental inefficiency – the incentive to be productive exists in significantly fewer people, and therefore slave and communist economies are less productive.
As Adam Smith noted 250 years ago.
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages
Systems with diminished positive incentives significantly under-perform those with.
At the time of the US revolution the southern economy was larger than the north
By the time of the Civil war the northern economy was much larger.
Slavery was not a significant contributor to the US economy – it was a negative factor.
The Germans enslaved jews and worked those they did not execute to death.
Stalin sent tens of millions to the Gulags, to slavery and ultimately to their death.
Mao did his own version of Stalin and Hitler.
In none of these coutries was slavery noteably productive.
Forcing people with no opportunity to get ahead to work leaves them focused on doing the least they can do and avoid punishment.
It focuses them on doing the worst job they can and avoid punishment.
If the US economy had rested on slavery – the war never would have occured and we would have slavery globally today.
“Yes, the west got rid of slavery, but we didn’t get rid of it when the rest of the west did.”
Quite shortly thereafter.
Slavery in Europe was a bit different from the US.
Europeans did NOT have slavery in their countries.
They had it in their colonies.
Many western nations did not end slavery in their colonies until after the US.
Regardless, the UK abolished slavery first – there was no slavery in England. There were only about 5000 blacks in all of England in 1800. BUT there were 4 times more english slaves in the west indies than in the US. And there were 3 times as many slaves in south america as north america – including the west indies (an as many affrican slaves in the mideast as the new world.
Slavery in the mideast lasted into the 20th century, slavery in south america lasted into the latter half of the 20th century.
Outside of the mideast – slavery was present in nearly all european colonies – both before colonization and long after it ended.
England ended slavery first, though conditions in the west indies were close to slavery for a long time after the end of slavery and most of the west indies is pretty poor even today.
Whether you left wing nuts like it or not slavery ended in the US quite painfully and very early.
Further the UK and US navies lead the world in the eradication of global slavery. Joined later by the french.
You seem to be very ignorant of history.
I would further note that The British administration of Ireland – lasting into the 20th century was indistinguishable from slavery.
Most of the irish people were bonded to their land – when a wealthy land owner – usually british died or sold their estate – the people came with it – listed on the bill of sale. A land owner could murder those who lived on his property without consequence.
While leaving the property you were bonded to was indistinguishable from slaves fleeing their plantations.
And conditions in Ireland were practically heaven compared to Russia and eastern europe.
There was very little unique to US slavery and what little was unique was better than much of the world.
“That’s one reason why we had the civil war.”
Please study some history – slavery was a factor in the Civil war – one of many.
“The British ended the slave trade and that left slave owners in the U.S. without a source of labor that the wealthiest in the south relied on.” again false or atleast inaccurate. The north americans slave trade was run by americans, british and dutch primarily, Goobally the spanish dominated.
The US ended slave trade in 1807 at the same time as the english and 7 years before the Dutch ended it officially and 2 decades before the dutch slave trade actually ended. The Spanish ended the slave trade a full decade after the US . Ending the slave trade actually made conditions for US slaves worse.
Nor did ending the slave trade end slavery anywhere.
“But, we have always been slow to follow the trend of ending it. In fact we resisted it for a long time.
“Spain ended slavery before we did. ”
Slavery in spanish colonies did not end until 1886 – 2 decades after the end of the US Civil War.
But in fact Legal slavery continued to exist in many former spanish colonies until late in the 20th century
No Spain was NOT a leader in the abolition of slavery.
“The attitudes and views of black people in the south persisted well into the 1970’s. ”
So what ? TGoday the most racist people in the US are the woke left – first because they are openly racist against working class whites.
But even more consequentially because their ideology is wrapped arround the low expectations of blacks.
If you think someone is your equal – you do not owe them bonus points.
“This is why the (southern Democrats” has the unfortunate stigmas associated with racism and the bigotry that still casts a shadow on the southern culture. The left likes to attack the so called Repubican southern strategy. Yet, democrats did not convert to republicans.
They were gradually replaced by republicans concurrent with the decline of southern racism.
You have a better than your average leftists understanding of the history of slavery – but that does not make it correct.
Again the US and England ended slave Trade first and concurrently.
Many european countries ended slavery within their mother country before the US – but Western Europe – as opposed to Spain and portugal never had significant chatel slavery in their country.
The only european nation that ended slavery in its colonies before the US ended slavery was England.
Contra your Claims The US was only behind the UK in completely ending slavery in its entire domain.
As a black woman it might be reflected that Strings speaks for all black women, but is that the case? Surely, there are many black women who enjoy long term romantic relationships with either white or non-white men. And when she a aligns black men with white men as also distancing themselves from black and “insufficiently white” women is she speaking of racism or is she now simply grumbling about male domination generally? It seems the well will never run dry when it comes to ways to blame most everything on white supremacy.
In the immortal words of John McEnroe, ” You can’t be serious” !! The left has full on lost its mind, but how so ?? My simple theory is: I think Chris Rufo is right, that critical theory, which is basically a racialized Marxist amalgam, is at the root of much if not all conceptual evil. The goal of Marxist ideology is revolution, so all analysis has to run the same gauntlet — it can’t merely explain, it has to shake things up along the lines of power struggles / oppressor vs oppressed. EG, you can’t analyze the Constitution without first undermining it as racist, colonialist, supremacist, etc., and from there tearing down a few statues. The poison inherent in such a worldview is apparent in political contexts, such as the anti-Semitic campus protests or open borders or cashless bail. When applied to far-flung notions such as romance, it reads like a self-parody, but such is the one-size-fits-all totalitarian mindset. Next up, the racism inherent in dogs and isometric exercise, each symbols of oppression.
The left has many problems, cheif among them is that it is fixated on destruction not creation.
No one is stopping Prof Strings from creating the stories she thinks we lack.
Instead she wishes to destroy what people over centuries sometimes milenia have decided they value.
This pattern is pretty much universal with the modern left.
She lives in Santa Barbara, the whitest town in California. She needs to go to Africa, plenty of single men there.
Most of the black radicals who can afford it seem to prefer to live in white communities. Guess they don’t really like blacks despite their posturing.