He’s not very perceptive for an historian, is he?

The young and people of colour are overwhelmingly supportive of Meghan Markle, perfectly able to recognise the racism within the campaign of tabloid harassment that helped to drive her and Harry into Californian exile.

Olusoga of course.

17 thoughts on “He’s not very perceptive for an historian, is he?”

  1. ’ Older people, the demographic super-served by the tabloid press, are far more likely to be both hostile to Markle and blithely dismissive of her racism accusations.’

    Because they’ve been around the block and recognise what she is. And what you are, Dave…

  2. Ask any young person if they think they are wiser than they were 5 years ago and usually they will say yes.

    They obviously seem to think that at some point (probably at whatever age they are at the time) the process stops.

  3. Olusoga has found his gig (claim everything is racist) and he has been milking it for years now. I can understand why he’d stick to it – seems to be pretty lucrative to him. I don’t understand those who continue to pay him for it though – once you’ve heard him once there’s no more conceivable value to hearing him again (assuming you even believed there to be any value in the first place)

  4. Exile?

    I haven’t been taking much interest in H&M, but I didn’t realise that things had got that bad.

  5. @Mal Reynolds:”…I don’t understand those who continue to pay him for it though…”

    It reflects either the attention span of Beeboids, or the speed with which they are promoted and replaced by new ingenue Beeboids. That’s yet another benefit of the unique way the BBC is funded.

  6. I’m not a distinguished blackademic like David Oingoboingo, but is it really true to say that the young and people of colour are overwhelmingly supportive of Meghan Markle?

    I doubt the vast majority of teenagers care very much since they’re busy with Sonic the Hedgehog and masturbating, and Mr Hanif at the corner shop probably doesn’t give a fuck about some millionaire infidel trollop and her ginger gimp.

    There’s obviously a market for sympathetically presenting Tart and Shart’s tales of the unexpected, but from my ignorant perspective it seems to be mostly confined to lonely fat black women in the US of States, blue checkholes on Twatter, and the Heat magazine readership. The reason most of their coverage is negative is because there’s a bigger market for slagging them off.

    what we might call “tabloid TV”, charged by Markle as being the source and the delivery system for much of that racism

    What is Oprah Winfrey if not tabloid TV?

    Black people make up 3% of the UK population

    Huh, why are British advertisers desperate to have me believe most married couples in Britain are black fellas snuggling up to blonde women then?

    journalists and editors feel entitled to make judgments about what is and what is not racism

    We should only allow professionally credentialed racism witch doctors to dance around the fire of intersectional social justice, sacrifice some locally sourced free-range organic vegan chickens, and then scientifically inform us that everything is RACIST.

    the marriage of Meghan Markle into the British royal family had the potential to be the greatest rebranding opportunity in marketing history; a once in a century opportunity to refresh their reputations and reach new young audiences.

    Sure, but Harry picked the wrong bird for that. A nice Christian Nigerian girl from a good family would’ve probably fitted in quite well, and we’d all have gotten rich off of emails from her many princely relatives.

    But it wouldn’t have done David’s race baiting career any good, and for that he must be thankful.

  7. I don’t understand those who continue to pay him for it though…

    It’s very simple. There’s a narrative that has to be maintained by the Establishment at all costs: White people bad, non-White people good. Left wing good, right wing bad.

    Once you understand that, many things about the media become clearer.

  8. British newspaper*, adjectives go before the damn nouns.
    There’s no such person called Meghan Markel, not unless I’ve missed the divorce announcement.

    *Well, it’s made out of paper, and occasionally contains news….

  9. “ the marriage of Meghan Markle into the British royal family had the potential to be the greatest rebranding opportunity in marketing history”

    Not when you are only marrying the third, fourth, fifth, now sixth in line to the throne. Give it another generation and Harry will be where Princess Anne is now, and Sparkles will be as significant in the Royal Family as Timothy Lawrence is now.

  10. @steve:

    “Huh, why are British advertisers desperate to have me believe most married couples in Britain are black fellas snuggling up to blonde women then?”

    To demoralise the native population. As for who’s behind this – ask Jonathan

  11. As for who’s behind this – ask Jonathan

    Lol. Buy me a drink first though….(p.s it’s the Quakers – see Murphy, Spud)

  12. @KyleT… Actually, it’s the ASA. It certainly used to be almost impossible to get a TV advert passed for transmission unless it was sufficiently “diverse” and I guess that things haven’t “improved”. Hence all the mixed-race couples.

  13. had the potential to be the greatest rebranding opportunity in marketing history

    Why would they want to though? The Guardian has a terrific opportunity to rebrand itself as the Volkischer Beobachter, why not do it?

  14. Olusoga lives a terrible life. He is just intelligent to know he is a token but entirely lacks the ability to escape it.

    The 13th commandment? ‘Thou shalt not become a token, tokenism is always found out.’

    And anyone familiar with Women knows exactly what Meghan Markle is. She is gonna take him for everything.

  15. D: Thought she’d already taken him for everything. Now she’s trying to take everyone else for everything too.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *