Matt Walsh on the Celebration of Villains like Alfred Kinsey and the Women Warrior Slavers of Dahomey

Yeah, I know, it’s Matt Walsh, one of the major figures in popular Republican propaganda. The great commenters on this blog have warned me about reblogging material from the right, as I shouldn’t let myself become a mouthpiece for them and they never reciprocate. Helen Pluckrose, a left-wing critic of the postmodern ideologies of Queer and Critical Race Theory and Postcolonial Studies wrote a piece for James Lindsay’s New Discourses calling for the right to stop demonising the left and recognise that much of the work refuting these highly damaging ideologies was actually being done by leftists. She’s absolutely right. But yes, Walsh is still using it to take swipes at the left. And the Lotus Eaters have put up a piece about how ‘Socialists Are Terrible People’. The thumbnail to the video shows Hasan Piker, who is an obnoxious pratt. There was a clip of him on one of the right-wing channels raving about the ‘glorious Muslim enslavement of Whites’.

But I feel I have to put up videos like this one from Walsh because they are tackling important issues which I don’t see being done from the left. Or at least, not the mainstream British left. In this video Walsh attacks the way traditional western heroes, who were often people with very serious flaws, are being removed and replaced with people who are villains, but suit the ideology now being pushed. He gives two examples. One is the erection of a statue to sexologist Alfred Kinsey at Indiana University, where already a building or a wing has been named after him. The other is the film The Woman King, about a female general in the corps of women warriors, the Amazons, of Dahomey. This soldier, Nasicka, leads the resistance to the French invasion of her homeland.

Walsh points out that Kinsey was paedophile, who paid child rapists as his informants. He was convinced that children and babies were sexual beings. One of the tables in his Report on Sexuality of the Human Male, or whatever it was called, records the sexual responses of children from 5 months to 15 years old. This was based on information supplied to him, and which he paid for, by child rapists. For Walsh, this utterly invalidates everything Kinsey has ever done, and definitely means he should not be celebrated. I find it hard to disagree with the latter statement.

As for the women warriors of Dahomey, Walsh discusses how the critics are raving about the film because it ticks all the boxes – women warriors and Black Africans, who represented as fighting for their freedom against the evil Whites. He invents two quotes from critics supposedly saying that it made them ashamed to be White and having White children as an example of the excesses the critic’s praises nearly reach. In fact, Dahomey was a state geared to war and the enslavement of other Africans. Captured slaves were either put on plantations to grow food for the army, or were sold to outsiders, including Europeans. The Amazons were part of that slavery war machine, but the film grotesquely portrays them as abolitionists. If the slaves weren’t sold, they were killed. Walsh cites the Encyclopaedia Britannica about Dahomey, but the same facts can be found in any number of other, mainstream, standard histories of Africa. He is also right when he says that the British fought a war against Dahomey to stop them slaving. Again, totally true. Uncovered Editions published a collection of the British government papers about the war in 2001 as King Guezo of Dahomey, 1850-52: The Abolition of Slavery in West Africa. And the Dahomeyans did massacre or hold mass human sacrifices of unsold slaves. Sometime in the 19th century they massacred 300 of them, which shocked Europeans, including seasoned explorers like Captain Denham. Denham told a British parliamentary inquiry that the mass murder was especially shocking, given the advances these civilisations had made in most of the arts of civilisation. Which to me shows that Denham, while seeing western civilisation as superior, did not regard west Africans as uncivilised savages.

Walsh mentions that Hollywood frequently takes liberties with history but regards this glamorisation of an African slave state as particularly grotesque. It is as if a film rewrote history to show the Confederacy as the heroes fighting against slavery. Again, true. I can see why the film is being widely praised coming as it does after BLM and the new denunciations of White supremacy, racism and imperialism. I’m very much aware the reality behind many traditional western heroes is far different from the legend. Folk heroes like Dick Turpin and the western gunfighters were brutal thugs. And I’m also aware of the old newspaper maxim about the heroes of the Old West – if there’s a difference between fact and legend, print the legend. But equally, if there are two choices, two causes or individuals equally as bad, you’re quite entitled to choose neither. Just because Hitler was a monster doesn’t mean that you have to support Stalin.

And so just because western imperialism was responsible for some monstrous evils, you don’t have to glamorise and celebrate Black imperialist, slaving monsters.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

13 Responses to “Matt Walsh on the Celebration of Villains like Alfred Kinsey and the Women Warrior Slavers of Dahomey”

  1. Brian Burden Says:

    Problematic. Kinsey was a pioneer in “sexology”. If we expunge him we leave a gap in the record. Information here provides interesting bases for discussion.

    • beastrabban Says:

      Yes, he deserves to be recognised as a founding a figure, and not to become an ‘unperson’.

      • Brian Burden Says:

        Roughly contemporary with Kinsey was Eustace Chesser, who in 1959 or thereabouts, caused a sensation with a book entitled Is Chastity Outmoded? Chesser was due to debate this at the Oxford Union in the early sixties, but backed out at the last moment, doing us all a good turn, since the great A.S.Neill of Summerhill agreed to take his place. Opposing him was Lord Pakenham, later to become Lord Longford of anti-porn fame. Neill won the argument hands down, but the majority, in an all-male audience, voted for Pakenham!

  2. Mark Pattie Says:

    I guess Matt Walsh is probably the sort of right-wing Republican who doesn’t want *any* sex education taught in school, whereas I am quite happy for schools to teach about LGBT issues to GCSE-age high-school students- but not really to younger children beyond the basic “Some kids might have 2 Mums or 2 Dads” level. Speaking of Republican assholes, have you heard about (I apologise in advance for the language!) F*cker Carlson claiming that Britain “brought language…civilisation” to India. That is racist bullsheet of the highest order that even Simon Webb wouldn’t come out with. True, we introduced the railways to India (but I suspect they would have had them by 1880 anyway even if we hadn’t done a Putin and illegally invaded)- but has he never heard of the Mughal Empire? Or of the fact that so-called “Arabic” numbers are an Indian invention? All in all, that is massively hypocritical coming from a man whose ancestors probably illegally stole land off a different sort of “Indian”- i.e. Native American Indians.

    • beastrabban Says:

      I think your ideas about when LGBTQ issues should be taught to students are just common sense. As for the sections of the right that would like to ban sex education in schools full stop, one of the loudest over here is Peter Hitchens. His reason for doing this is that the Hungarian Communist government introduced sex education as a way of destroying traditional Christian morality and the breaking the authority of the children’s parents. Which is probably true in the Communist context, but not an argument in the democratic west for keeping children dangerously ignorant. And then there are Conservatives like Thomas Sowell who want sex education banned because they believe it encourages sexual activity. Not in my experience. I found the cold, clinical descriptions of sex in the school textbooks to be a massive antaphrodisiac and a complete turn-off.

    • beastrabban Says:

      I’ve heard of Tucker Carlson and got the generel idea he was an immense moron. Claiming that the British introduced language and culture is one of the daftest things I’ve heard come from the American right. It’s right up there with Dubya saying that the French have no word for ‘entrepreneurship’. Regarding the Indian railways, I understood that they were built by the Parsees, the Indian Zoroastrians, during the British empire. I don’t think Simon Webb would claim that we civilised India because he has far too much respect for Asian intelligence. He follows the Bell Curve in seeing Asians as more intelligent than Whites.

      • Mark Pattie Says:

        Further to my previous points, does Tucker Carlson not even realise that English and Hindi are in fact related languages (albeit in a very roundabout way)? Also, I believe the first Asian Conservative MP was a Parsi- Dadavbhai Naroji, elected way back in 1892, although I believe there was a mixed-race Conservative MP elected in 1832.
        This is the chap I mean:

      • Mark Pattie Says:

        It wasn’t the British who really put a stop to the evil practice of Sati, it was the campaigns of a Bengali Brahmin named Raja Ram Mohan Roy in about the 1820s or so- therefore refuting utterly Carlson’s complete garbage. I’m more in favour of the Government paying reparations toward those still alive who were affected by Partition- esp. in light of the recent devastating floods in Pakistan.

      • Brian Burden Says:

        Much of the bloodshed at partition was down to the mismanagement of Governor General Louis Mountbatten. Perhaps, since Indian independance was a Labour policy of which he disapproved, he just didn’t bother.

      • beastrabban Says:

        I’ve read various versions of the story of partition. One is that Mountbatten messed it up, but he had little option as Labour had set the timetable. I’ve also heard different contradictor stories about the Muslims or the Hindus pushing for partition against the wishes of the other side, and that they pushed Mountbatten into making disastrous decisions.

      • beastrabban Says:

        I’ve heard that, Mark. There’s also a painting of Raja Roy in Bristol’s Museum and Art Gallery as I think he was resident here in Bristol at one point.

  3. Brian Burden Says:

    Google and history. I wanted to check on A.S.Neill at the Oxford Union, which I now think occurred during my first term in Autumn 1959, so I googled “A.S.Neill at the Oxford Union”. No relevant references at all. So far as google is concerned, the OU address never happened!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: