to think the Daily Mail are utter hypocrites for being upset at the article by Clarkson about Meghan Markle

[cakeorwine]

The Daily Mail has been obsessed with her. Repeated articles, columns, headlines - all having a go at them. Calling them treacherous.

And then - they get upset that Clarkson writes an awful column about what he wants to see happen to Meghan

Gosh - someone gets repeatedly targeted by the mainstream media and then the lead media outlet gets upset that a prominent commentator goes too far even for them.

What did they think would happen?

Morceaux

Jezebel isn’t racist?
Yes it is.

It's misogynistic, Jezebel is the Biblical archetype of the Bad Woman. She's portrayed as promiscuous.

Anyway please see below.

"The Jezebel is a stereotype used to refer to fair-skinned, slimmer, and lighter-eyed Black women, becoming hyper-sexualized by America and its media soon after the Mammy trope began its decline. Similar to the Sapphire, this trope was used as a justification for the harassment and assaults against Black women, as this painted them as inherently tempestuous and beguiling. The Jezebel presents as a slave construct, depicting Black women as "promiscuous" and "lustful". During slavery, lighter skinned women were seen as more worthy concubines to wealthy slave owners, whereas darker skinned women were more worthy for harsher labor such as field work. The Jezebel constructed a harmful perception of Black women that heavily contributed to their sexual and economic exploitation."

I am out for the day. If anyone wants to argue it they can find the own sources.

debbrianna · Today 08:04

Well, I've learned something! Thanks, that trope is new to me.

That was literally the point of the palace throwing M&H to the wolves wasn’t it? To distract media attention from the Paedo Prince. No wonder they are upset.

No, I don't think they are.

You can write critical, even mean-spirited things about a person, and then also think that writing about seeing that person assaulted is wrong.

I'm not sure how that isn't obvious.

You don't actually have a source here at all as far as I can see.

You don't actually have a source here at all as far as I can see

I just googled it, also never having heard of this connotation.

There's loads on line to back this post up.

www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/jezebel/index.htm

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0095798421997215

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33512297/

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotypes_of_African_Americans

Yes and no.

You can argue that a certain "type" has tended to be labeled a Jezebel, in certain times and places.

That does not mean the term or trope or sense of it is inherently connected to that tendency. That's the kind of leap that a lot of academics in certain less rigorous areas of study seem keen to make on a regular basis. There are truckloads of papers drawing these kinds of connections that get published by minor academics.

If a lot of people have never heard of said connection, there is usually a reason for that - something can't be simultaneously always communicating certain ideas and also those ideas are unknown to large numbers of people. If you have to go digging around to provide evidence there is a problem with the claim.

The idea of the Jezebel has been around for something like 2500 years, and it's widely refereed to in any culture influenced by Judaism and Christianity, across the globe. Most people when they hear it are thinking of the person depicted in the Bible, and her rather unsavoury personal qualities, because that is the source material. There is no academic source that is going to show that it is always a term with racial connotations.

If a lot of people have never heard of said connection, there is usually a reason for that

Usually in these instances it's because the connotations are much better know in the states.

Regardless, it's a derogatory term about women as 'temptress' which is perfectly well understood here.

Racism and misogyny in one. Hooray.

Paper who keeps writing negative articles about someone, who goes to the ends of the Earth to find someone to say something negative about someone is shocked that a commentator seems to have been radicalised in his hate.

How could that have happened?

And the delusion is real. And continues…

Prince Andrew’s behaviour ignored by some. Even on this thread and the countless other M&H threads, some pp have not chosen not to address counter arguments re. the fact that Prince Andrew’s behaviour was likely to have also stressed out the late Queen.

Now Jeremy Clarkson. No surprise that he would have said something like this about Meghan. He’s always been a hateful person. I hope he finally gets his comeuppance.

S I L E N C E

I'm afraid it does bring Camilla's conduct into question, that she chooses to be friends with Clarkson, who has talked very recently of their long standing friendship. You do judge people by the company they keep; look at the consequences for Andrew - you'd think the rest of them would have learned. Being friends with a misogynist, who had to pay out thousands in damages after a physical assault - not a good look 'Queen' Camilla
As with the rest of them she's only acting when she speaks as if she cares about us peasants, the gap between us and them is vast and it's quite a stretch to pretend something which is actually alien to her, the mask is bound to slip on a regular basis

It slipped bloody quickly after the death of Elizabeth II. More quickly than even I, a dyed-in-the-wool republican, could have anticipated.

It took Charles a matter of days for his petulance to come to the fore, and as for the race scandals they've been embroiled in, including those levelled from within the family - well, that escalated fast.

As for Andrew, that needs no further explanation - nor the fact that he was shielded, aided and abetted by his own mother. And that's without all the tax swindles, etc., (and yes, swindles is precisely what they are).

I wonder what exactly the Windsors will have to do for people to see them as the hideous, abusive, exploitative, bigoted, unpleasant element of the establishment they really are.

The royal family ....so desperately poor powerless and vulnerable
not

I always think this. Such a load of crap, honestly!

I wonder what exactly the Windsors will have to do for people to see them as the hideous, abusive, exploitative, bigoted, unpleasant element of the establishment they really are
I'm inclined to think that it only survived before because the queen always kept her gob shut, because we didn't really see behind the mask we didn't realise there was a mask, Megan can smell blood in the water and she's ready for a feeding frenzy 🦈

It’s like the word ‘uppity’; not an inherently racist word, but one that has historically been used in a racist context.

And you’re the person who specifically called for a poster to provide sources for the racialized use of the term. Once provided with sources, immediately flipping to ‘well, if you have to go digging around for sources’ is pretty cowardly.

Especially as they did that after I linked to 4 sources, one of which is Wikipedia

Now if they had complained about the integrity of the source, given Wikipedia isn't always the most accurate I would have understood which was why I provided a range of sources, but to complain that Wikipedia is 'digging around for sources' is a bit weak!

I like your comparison to uppity.

it's also about who it's applied to with some terms I think. The word angry isn't racist but referring to a black woman as an angry black woman is absolutely a racist trope and the fact that there is no academic source that is going to show that it is always a term with racial connotations doesn't make it any less racist.

And when was the last time a celebrity with the status of Meghan called a jezebel? The last one one used was with Kamala Harris. I think it is also strange for it to be referenced on this thread with the nature that it has. This is how racism hides in plain sight.

I had no idea jezebel was a racist term. I've literally never heard it used in that way, and as said there is a well-known news site aimed at women that is named after the term. I won't use it anymore.

Progress.

So Jeremy is apparently horrified at the hurt his article caused.
I have absolutely no doubt that he is, given it will hit him where it hurts, in his bank account. Still not one word about Andrew. Nothing except an abject apology from all concerned would or should be acceptable.

The Mail have several articles every day on Meghan and/or Harry. They claim they want H/M to go away, but make ££££ with their continual abusive articles. The last one I read was blaming Harry for his grandmother's death due to stress, but no mention of her self confessed paedophile son who paid out £10+ million to the child he had sex with. No-one should doubt that the Buckingham Palace and Kensington Palace courtiers leaked stories, some true, some lies. They had to do something as H/M were seen as more popular than the Wales', so they had to be brought down to earth. Anyone with a brain should have seen the M/H were a priceless addition to the Royal Family. At a time when Commonwealth countries are considering severing links, M/H would have been fantastic ambassadors. No matter how the Mail tries to see the Duchess of Wessex and her daughter to us, they will not eclipse M/H. Meghan is a talented speaker, has a natural affinity with people, as does Harry. The Wales' only stepped up their game when they saw what they perceived as a threat. Kate could have really helped Meghan adapt to life in the RF, but did the minimum, as she saw her as a threat. After Archie's birth, they didn't visit for a week and the Wales children didn't meet the new baby for 6 weeks - who does that to their brother? The Courtiers have claimed Meghan bullied her staff. Strange then, that not a single colleague from her working life on Suits, etc, have said one thing against her. You can bet your last pound that financial inducements have been offered to ex colleagues, but no-one has taken the money. Her school/college friends have not spoken out, her teachers have not said she was a diva. Anyone who speaks has just good things to say about her. So why is the British Press obsessed, is it just because she is black, who knows? They did the right thing leaving the UK, it's the RF and our loss..

I agree with 100% of your post @Murdoch1949 . I really think the people who can't see what is going on here are ardent monarchists - who can't countenance any criticism of their precious royals so have to make it M&H's fault - and/or have swallowed whole the scurrilous items in the tabloids. Btw for comparison I don't remember ever reading an article where the writer claimed to 'hate' Andrew or write anything remotely as vicious as Clarkson has about Meghan - despite Andrew's alleged crimes being far worse than anything M or H are accused of.

One thing that has brought it home to me is the fact that Camilla is a long standing friend of Jeremy Clarkson and was at the lunch with him and Piers Morgan, right before Clarkson's article was published. Presumably this is all with Charles' blessing. Who of us in normal families would want to have anything to do with individuals like this who had slagged off your family member in print? But this is evidently not a normal family.

So all this indicates a deal that has been made between the royals & the tabloid press - 'lay off us and in return you can write what you like about M&H, and we will stand by and cheer'. It is open season on M&H evidently, hence the lack of condemnation of Clarkson's article from the palace.