You Bother Me More Than Pat Robertson
75Kristi Watts CBN Co Anchor
Kristi Watts
What Bothered Me Most about the Pat Robertson Interview was Kristi Watts.
As a Black male, hearing the blasphemous statements made by Pat Robertson was in no way surprising or even disappointing. After all, history has proven him to be nothing short of a contradiction in Christianity. From his homo statements to his African aid going to develop his own diamond mine in Africa, Pat Robertson is what Pat Robertson is and nothing more. However, the actions of Kristi Watt left me just short of smashing my flat screen.
Those of you are unfamiliar with the name Kristi Watts, she is the woman of color seated just opposite Pat Robertson during his ridiculous statements concerning Haiti. Kristi Watts sits next to Pat Robertson with a half smiling, half stunned look about her. Yet by the end of the statement she is shaking her head in approval of the comments with little to no objection.
Watts: “Yes, sir massa, they be no way those Haitian negroes could have defeated Napoleons army without the help of da devul.”
Negro please! Is the money that good? Do you need the approval of whites that much? Are you so brainwashed by a corrupt religion that yo u actually believe that Satan was behind the Haitian slave revolt? Watts is not alone in her submissive nature towards things that most groups would immediately stand up against. Imagine the same scenario with a Jewish co anchor and Robertson spouting the following.
“You know the holocaust justifiably happened to the Jewish people because they nailed Jesus to the cross”.
Could one with even the most vivid imagination conjure up a thought of the co-host shaking his/her head in approval? No, I don’t think so. Pat Robertson would have found himself staring at the overhead lighting with his feet dangling in mid air. The new spineless black person, a product of suburban life has been pushed to the forefront of black issues in a way that negates the ongoing battle for equality and justice in this country. We are in a Post-Robertson society, I don’t think so and the house Negro is still alive and as passive as ever.
Watts choice to remain silent and leap in the lap of tom foolery only showed her for what she is ”African American”. The term coined as a passive acceptance of American culture designed to replace the reference Black American. For those of you who are not dark in color, let me take a moment to explain the difference between a Black American and an African American. Black Americans marched with King and Malcolm X when the confrontations were dangerous, African Americans stayed home or showed up after the National Guard was there to protect them. Black Americans believe in a capitalist system with a socialist agenda, African Americans believe in a capitalist system with a capitalist agenda. Black Americans enlist in the military to serve and protect a country that thinks they are all on welfare only to become African Americans after their indoctrination. Black Americans become combative when you call them divisive, while African Americans become passive and withdrawn. This is why the designation African American has never been completely accepted by the Black community and never will.
A Black American is just what the name says, Black and American but the African American encouraged by a period of Afro centric teachings claims Africa which does not claim them. If they are African please tell me the African nation that will allow them dual citizenship status. The truth is told as a Black American I hold a greater connection with those who suffer in Haiti than those who refuse to allow me home rights without a substantial monetary investment. After all we did come across on the same ships and many of us are probably from the same family tree.
The spineless, appeasers that lack any self respect or fortitude should be required from this day forward to wear a sign of designation to make their agenda perfectly clear.
CommentsLoading...
You couldn't be more correct. I actually believe that the term African American was devised to create an elite form of black person.
Great writing SOBF! An interesting take on PC too... I think Ms. Watts's problem may be simply that she is getting paid to look pretty and be nice, not to ask questions or confront stupidity. I think that's a problem that a lot of people in America have - our livelihood depends on going with the flow.
William I agree with your point. Money rules and character is optional. What a sorry life we have come to live.
ha ha ha excellent!but in her defense she was probably just as stunned as you, (she looked like a dear in the headlights) but didn't know what to do. i've learned that a persons opinion, is their opinion.as soon as someone says the devil "told" them to do something. you should know that they are not on a frequency accustomed to reason. you can argue all you want and when it is done the opinion remains the same. you could talk with old pat today. he would say the same thing.but "i do see your point"loved it !i just double checked yes he is the owner. she never had a chance!
Joe - While I understand your point of defense there is still a problem with her handling of the matter. It has been how many days now and we have not heard a peep out of her. I personally would have to stand up and shout from the mountain tops that I in no way endorse Robertson's thoughts and then search out new employment. Wow the thought of her child watching tapes of that broadcast ten years from now and asking "so Mom what did you do?" and her having to answer "NOTHING, I just kept working and doing my job."
She is a sellout and ignorant.
ha ha ha . . . whew! cold but true. maybe a contract doesn't allow her to say anything. i'm just looking for some benefit from a doubt for her. she couldn't have been for him. was it the job only (the money)that prevented her from saying something? i'm gonna start to dig and see what i can find on her.
i checked ! best i can see is . . . you are right. her defense is going to be "well i didn't say it" thats all. also there is a ti-raid(misspelled) going on now about what she said or didn't say! great article!
speaking of sellout just "what" is clarence thomas?
Clarence is just another African American doing what they do.
LOL LOL LOL. SOBF..I was writing on another site and wondered the same thing. What is wrong with her? Why is sitting like a dog waiting for a pat on the head from Massa Robertson? I think she is the second co-host of color. I'll bet its a PR move to make him seem legit and therefore not a racist...WRONG!
No truer statements were ever made, its a given that Roberton is an ignorant wretch who needs to shut his pie hole. Him and Rush Limbaugh are two knuckle dragging Neanderthal racist, who were shaved down, learn to walk upright and breath through the nose.
LOL LOL and Clarence is just that another African American -I absolutely love your definition of Black Americans and African Americans. This one is getting bookmarked... Kudos to you.
Blessings to you and all those in your household.
pmccray - thanks for the kudos. I plan to do an entire hub on the African American/Black American issue sometime in the near future.
What a great Hub! I learned so much about Black Americans here, and I appreciate it so much. Racism is an evil and when combined with right-wing so-called Christian mush is just an abomination. Robertson's comments on Haiti are simply evil. I don't believe in the Devil so I can't think the Devil amde him do it, but it was certainhly unkind and uncivilised.
Love and peace
Tony
Tony welcome aboard. I am happy that you find my hubs enlightening SOBF stands for Souls of Black Folks and I try to give insight into our actual experiences based on my life.
I have to stand and and clap till my hands are red. Beautiful! I could not agree with you more. American Indians are in the same light as this. We need more people in America like you. Thank you for this Hub. I am going to pass this on to anyone I can.
This hub is great. I don't watch the news anymore. I don't even have a television. Im not sure who this Watts woman is but if she was agreeing with anything Pat Robertson was saying, then all I can say is, "It must be gettin mighty comfortable up in the Big House". I can't wait to read the rest of your hubs.
Blacks have a long history of cheating and selling out their own people for a mere few coins.
I do agree with you regarding the phase "African American." It is not a proper group designation for those of African descent. Neither is Black American.
Marched with Malcolm X? I wasn't aware he did any marching... Quite a big talker, never wrote anything or did anything to benefit his people.
"Black Americans enlist in the military to serve and protect a country that thinks they are all on welfare only to become African Americans after their indoctrination."
A country does not think SOB, people do. Of course you're referring to white people in the above statement. Quite revealing.
S Leretseh
"I do agree with you regarding the phase "African American." It is not a proper group designation for those of African descent. Neither is Black American."
Would you like to expand on this thought?
Malcolm X never wrote anything or did anything to benefit his people.
I am sorry that you no knowlege of the Nation of Islams work under the leadership of Malcolm X in the black community. They have a long history of getting men off drugs, educating them, and teaching them to be fathers. I would rate that as a benefit to the black community. Malcolm X was also just as much of a influence in the passing of the civil rights act as MLK.
"A country does not think SOB, people do. Of course you're referring to white people in the above statement. Quite revealing."
I didn't think it was in anyway a hidden statement (LOL). You some how seem to imply that I should be ashamed of stating that the majority race within this country is the voice of this country.
African-American does not describe any people in particular. I can understand tho why it was invented (most likely by liberal whites … who have, historically, irrespective of black desires, always decided what is best for black America). In 1964, it was decided by the northern liberals that the black race was going to be merged (via the Compulsory Inclusionism law of 1964 - AKA Civil Rights Act) with the recognized Americans (white Christian males). A new group designation was invented to recognize this manifestation. Again, African American does not describe a people. There are races other than black African that hail from the continent of Africa, including people of European descent. As for your group designation “Black”, you are reducing those of African descent to simply a color.
I think “Negro” should be the proper group designation for the black race in America. How it became an anachronism, or even a pejorative term, I don’t know.
Malcolm X never did write anything. Never. He talked…and talked…and talked. He was a brash, tactless and unapologetic racist. And he was quite a contrast to King. Malcolm had some ideas that he “talked” about; about how blacks should be living separately; how white people (white people’s gov't) should give him a large bloc of money and he would the dispenser of it. Yes, he envisioned himself playing god. Again, quite a contrast to King, who wanted no authoritative role in the societal anomaly he wanted - and LBJ gave him. In other words, King wanted no position of accountability in the new Compulsory Inclusionism system.
Malcolm hated white people, and I think that is why he’s popular among blacks. As for the Nation of Islam today, at least they stand for something i.e. self sufficiency for blacks. I applaud them for that.
“Black Americans enlist in the military to serve and protect a country that thinks they are all on welfare only to become African Americans after their indoctrination.”
Why don’t you just say what you really mean? Why be cryptic? What you really mean is this: Black Americans enlist in the white man’s military. We serve his interest and protect him. But he thinks we’re all lazy; a bunch of worthless parasites. After we done serving in his military, we’ve been brainwashed - by white people - into being servile and acquiescent to white exploitation of black people in America. White people just want us to be - indoctrinate us into - their obedient little pets. All blacks should beware of the true and insidious hidden agenda of all white people.
Isn’t that what you really mean, SOBF?
Oh, and as for Ms. Watts, I think she’s just trying to earn a living. She goes largely unnoticed.
S Leretseh
You are correct about the designation of African-American, however your observation on the designation black contends that it somehow shares itself with Africa, it does not. It is the identifier of a people who because of a high level of melanin have a deeper shade of brown skin. This is not connected to Africa but to the entire world with the exception of Asia. Negro isolates black Americans to America which would be fine if not for the persecution of blacks across the world. Therefore black is a designation of unity with other people of color in other parts of the world. No Haitian of color would identify his/herself as Negro, nor would a Brazilian, Australian, or Barbadian person of color.
On Malcolm X, while I see that you have somewhat backed off your claim that he contributed nothing to the black community.
“As for the Nation of Islam today, at least they stand for something i.e. self sufficiency for blacks. I applaud them for that.”
These principles that you mentioned above have always been the teachings of the Nation of Islam. They were the teachings of Malcolm X. You seem to want him to be something that he wasn’t and never claimed to be, a writer. He was a minister and being a minister her did what ministers do best (talk) therefore he had no reason to author anything. His racist hatred of whites as you so call it was not hatred that just came upon him like a summer shower. It was birthed out of the brutality suffered by the black population in this country at the hands of the white community. Notice my reference to the word community because this is very important part of the equation. It would be understandable for one to not hold anger towards an entire race when injustices are put upon them by a single member of that race; however the injustices faced by blacks throughout this country’s history have been communal in nature. When a black child is murdered by a white assailant who is then arrested and brought to trial only to have a white jury find them innocent and white onlookers celebrate in resounding applause, human nature would create within the victims a level of anger and hatred towards the community that put upon them such a great injustice. These were common occurrences in the black community during this time. So should I renounce Malcolm X for being hostile and angry towards the white community? I think not.
Just to set the record straight, the civil rights act was actually a product of liberal republicans not the product democrats.
As far as your interpretation of my statement regarding blacks in the military, your preconceived notions are extremely incorrect. If you read my hubs you will find a consistent message regarding the responsibility blacks have towards blacks. The message was that blacks should not become passive in their blackness in order to make whites comfortable. The brainwashing is just that an indoctrination into a feeling of guilt and rebellion when questioning the white majority. It has nothing to do with distrusting people of another race but standing up for your own. Am I a racist for pointing out an obviously biased statement directed towards my race in a society where my race is society’s identifier?
While you see “SOBF hates white people” I see SOBF loves black people and one has nothing to do with the other. I respect individuals based on their actions while being protective of my race, if this is racist so be it.
Finally, Ms. Watts is just trying to earn a living, my concern is to what level she must compromise in order to pay the bills.
SOBF, I got a little long here, I hope you bear with me…
“Just to set the record straight, the civil rights act was actually a product of liberal republicans not the product democrats.”
This is an oversimplification SOBF. Actually, the Compulsory Inclusionism law (1964) became possible only when congressman Howard Smith (D) added the word “sex” to the bill. Once that word was added, every congressmen who opposed forced racial integration based on principle, now realized that coming elections’ opponents could claim he was opposed to female “progress.” Howard Smith, a staunch opponent of forced integration, his ploy to add females to the equation, to demonstrate the incredible folly of the bill, backfired.
Republicans were not against compulsory integration (southern democrats included) because of racial hatred; rather it was because it was a clear and disgraceful abuse of the legislative system their Found Fathers created. Further, forcing integration not only violated the status quo, it violated the historical structure of a society (the DMG Theorem). In other words, American society was not only consistent in structure with very society that existed in 1964, it was consistent in structure with every known society in recorded history (i.e. there is not ONE example in human history where two different races of males share the same power structure within ONE society - all societies in human history have been predicated on the DMG Theorem). And the structure should be altered because ONE subordinate male group in all of human history demands it? Ridiculous
So where does this leave the Negro male group in America in 1964? Using all of human history as a determinant here, this male group should have, over the previous 99 years, colonized a place in America’s vast unsettled lands. America’s Dominant Male Group (white, Christian males) owed the black race this land. The American Indians did it. Every tribe wanted to live separately. Not one claimed they had integration rights into white male society. They demanded and fought for their distinctness. But, curiously, an anomaly in all of human history, the black man did not seek to establish his own society. He colonized no land for his male group. He wanted what was already built, what was already working - micro level than macro level. Can’t blame him, but it’s cheating. He wanted nothing to do with providing for himself within the structure of his own male group. He wanted (then demanded) integration. But integrate with a people who - he claims - brutalize him on a daily basis? Who rape his women and kill his children? Who disrespects him everywhere he goes in America? Who oppresses and indoctrinates him into being servile? All this and the black man does sit-ins? He gets down on his knees and does pray-ins for integration rights? Makes absolutely no sense, does it SOBF? None at all.
Plessy was still the law of the land prior to 1964. White males had every legal right to maintain separation where and when they wanted it. Of course, so did the black man. White males NEVER tried to force their way into anything that was considered belonging to the black man (Pullman porter jobs, Negro baseball leagues, Negro colleges, newspapers, etc.).
I don’t want to get too long here. The true reality is that white Christian males had every historical right to seek to protect the structural integrity of their society - their occupational titles (status symbols) - from males who had no status in their male group; who would, as their numbers increased, disrupt and then destroy the very reason the male group created the status environment (the work place): to provide status and resources for his male group - what the DMG Theorem demands. So when you claim the black man suffered “injustices” prior to 1964, that claim falls on deft ears. Nonsense. Negro males had no historical right to invade the structure of another male group.
Then there is the quid pro quo aspect of the integration argument. That is, that the black males provided NO occupations for white males. NONE. He received (his females as well) a plethora of them. He gave none in return. (Not trying to be divisive here- simply the truth)
I’ll cover in my next Hub - America’s Ticking Time Bomb: Occupational Ranking male groups vs. Non-Occupational Ranking male groups - why the Negro male group supplicated for integration rights, built no cities, no industries and never sought to claim land in America to establish their own society - their own distinct identity. Again, I see this as a ticking time bomb here with your male group. White males must solve the problem (forced integration and forced multiculturalism) before it’s too late, before their entire occupational ranking system crumbles … from the onslaught of all these males (and their females) from the Arrested culture. (this is not an intelligence argument but a cultural one and based on Natural Law)
Finally, regarding “I love the black race” and “I respect individuals based on their actions” (i.e. white people must first prove they ain‘t racist), if a white male said that regarding his own people, he would be branded a racist, aand/or a white supremacist. A black man - you know- can get away with it. You are very clever with your words SOBF. You know just how far to push white sensibilities - not wanting to lose your audience. I read you very clearly.
S Leretseh
My current response will only address your claim or racially based claims of societal supremecy, due to a lack of time and also to save you from wasting time writing a hub based on a flawed theory.
Ancient Asians (Multiracial society) Ancient Egyptians (Multiracial Society) Middle Eastern (Multiracial Society). This list is provided to show your feeble attempt to reclassify ethnicity as race in order to make a claim of proprietary ownership for the white Christian (?) male. Race was never used as a classification of social, economic, or political status until Europeans had a need to find justification for a dedicated class of slaves. Your theory also fails as a Christian for your bible documents many multiracial societies.
With that said, I do agree that blacks should not have fought for integration; instead their mission should have been independence. I find it somewhat amusing that this was one of your complaints about Malcolm X. I believe the term you used was his desire to play God.
I have examined the historical structure of Asian societies and I have found not one example of a multi racial structure. Subordinate male groups may exist in a society (i.e. land claimed by the Dominate Male Group). That does not make the society multi racial. A society historically refers to claimed land by ONE people and where a social stratification system exists (a ranking system for the DMG); and where only its own members are allowed into that system (specifically its titles/status symbols).
Also, I have read Herodotus' description of the Ancient Egyptians, he describes a homogeneous, not multi racial, people - again, consistent with the Theorem.
If you have specific example(s), verifiable, of multi racial societies prior to 1964, I would like to know about it/them. Remember, what I'm looking for is a power structure shared by two or more different racial groups of males. If you have this information, please share it with me.
S Leretseh
I have to correct my mistep during my last post. I should not have refered to these societies as multiracial, the correct term would be multiethnic. The reason you will not find "multiracial" societies recorded anywhere in historic documents is because you are searching for a term that is new to society. History documents countless "multiethnic" societies which include the Roman Empire, Asia, Europe, Canada, and Africa.
From a historic point of view todays race equals yesterdays ethnicity.
The Haitian slave revolt was the murder of 40,000 whites, including women and children. Is that seriously something you want one of "your people" to condone? Oh that's right. Black people are violent. I forgot. Maybe Mrs. Watts blinded me.
anti-semite - I stand corrected. How could I be so thoughtless as to suggest that a "SLAVE" forced into labor, murdered, raped, and bread like cattle fight for their freedom. We all know that a black life in no way equates to that of a white one. Or that whites who travel the globe murdering peaceful people for economic gain are not violent people. We should have just remained victims of slavery while waiting for Jesus to save us all. Thanks for your astute observation.
Jim Bryan 2 years ago
I gotta say I agree with you about Ms Watts and the African American epitaph, SOBF.
I can't believe she just sat there and nodded like a j*ck*ss.
African American is not as inclusive as Black, especially since not all Black people are from Africa. To me the term seems sorta inherently racist--like assuming someone is Mexican just because they are Hispanic (when there are El Salvadorans, Hondurans, Dominicans, South Americans, etc).