Thursday, March 11, 2021

Sharon Osbourne and Sheryl Underwood on "The Talk": From Racism to Royalism

(Edited and Updated.)

I actually wrote Sharon an email, two days ago, a very nice email; only you can't reach her directly, so you could only write to her show, The Talk.

I made it clear to whomever received it that I did not want to appear to complain about her, because I love Sharon, and she has a right to her opinion, too.  I also made it clear that I just wanted to ask her if she'd consider viewing things from a different perspective, an aspect that I think she might have overlooked. 

I also explained that it may be in her best interest to clarify that she was not defending or agreeing with his opinions on Meghan, just his right to free speech, because I feared people were going to overlook that and lump her in with Piers' actual opinions on Meghan if she didn't.

I also said that I did NOT believe she was racist, but that because we all are a product of this culture and not black ourselves, it's important to check ourselves for implicit racial bias, and that we need to listen more to their experience if anything is going to improve.

I also explained why the skin color comment was racist (because it was in the context of Harry's title and security protocol), and then I said I would leave it to her cohosts on The Talk - specifically Sheryl Underwood, her close friend (who is black) - to better explain this to her. 

I must not have been the only one - because since that time, she HAS clarified, on the The Talk - twice - that she did NOT agree with his opinions about Meghan - she was only defending his right to his opinion in freedom of speech.

She also said that Piers should've stayed on the show rather than walking off, because it was no different than his criticism of Harry and Meghan for leaving.

Also, her coworkers and friends on The Talk did indeed try to explain to her the multitude of problems with Piers, not just his racial bias (and not just on Monday) - see the clip below.

However, she also said that she and Piers were raised as "Royalists" - and that there's "nothing wrong with that" - you defend the crown, you defend the Queen, without question.  That's just "how they and their generation were raised" and how Piers is. 

Record scratch - oh, dear - while there's nothing wrong with that in and of itself, you don't think always having to defend anything or anyone, without question or evaluation first, might be a problem?

Also, her coworkers and friends on The Talk did indeed try to explain to her the multitude of problems with Piers, not just his racial bias (and not just on Monday).

In the clip, Sheryl - again her very close friend - spoke to her.  She indicates that they had spoken privately a bit on the racial part, but left most of the discussion to on the show, so people could see how "real" conversations went.

This is the fullest clip of the show yesterday that I could find ...


 IMO, she very gently questioned Sharon, but was mostly doing exactly what she said - giving Sharon a chance to explain to people what she was supporting about Piers and what she wasn't, and let the viewers know, herself, as a black woman, that Sharon was NOT racist, and that Sharon herself admits that sometimes she doesn't know/needs to be educated on the black experience and why certain things are racist, that she's very willing to learn.

She also attempted to begin explaining to Sharon why, but Sharon interrupted.  She was getting very emotional and defensive, so they went on break.  Sharon then said she felt like she was "going to the electric chair?"


I think perhaps she meant from the public on social media rather than Sheryl - or else she meant she knew she was outnumbered because she already knew everyone else on The Talk disagreed with her.

Because as you can see for yourselves, no one on the show "attacked" her in the least; in fact, Sheryl said, several times, she did NOT think she was racist, she has never heard her say or do anything racist - and yet Sharon continued to say she felt 'attacked' and that they were calling her racist!

Then Sharon turned to Sheryl and said, "Don't you try to cry, because I'm the one that should be crying."


Erm - first of all, from what I could see, Sheryl wasn't even close to crying, it was Sharon that was getting emotional, raising her voice, and even cursing at one point saying, "I think we should stop this (BLEEP)." (then they went to break).

Secondly, even if Sheryl did want to cry, too, why wouldn't that be okay? 

Does only one person have the "right" to cry or-?

Unfortunately, I'm not sure telling Sheryl she doesn't have the right to cry, but she does, is going to help the perception of those who think she's racist, too - I think it will make it worse :/

* HOWEVER* -  despite how it may look, I could be wrong, but I actually don't think Sharon's outburst about "the right to cry" was coming from a "race place" (although we can't rule out implicit racial bias playing a role).

Instead, I think Sharon may have said that out of her dysfunctional-family background and mindset, in that there always HAS to be a "victim"  in every disagreement in dysfunctional families - and there can be only one victim.

Allow me to interpret the ways of my people who haven't had the benefit of being well-therapized, yet, being from an extremely dysfunctional family myself lol. 

I think she meant if anyone has the "right" to cry and be "the victim" of the "family," she's arguing that it should be her versus Sheryl (who, again, wasn't even close to crying or trying to play the victim?) - because there can be only one.

(Ya know, just like The Highlander; just as unnecessarily competitive and adventurous, but not nearly as empowering or as fun; after all, the top prize of this unnecessary competition is who receives the right to be the biggest victim lol).

***That is NOT to say there aren't scapegoat victims and abuse victims in extremely dysfunctional families (Meghan?), because there most certainly are***

But ... does there have to be a victim, and do we onlookers have to choose one?

Because I don't see any victims, in this situation.

However, I fear that Sharon ordering Sheryl not to cry, saying only she has the right to cry, is only going to worsen the perception from people saying she is racist, even if it didn't come from a racial place, it came from a dysfunctional-family mindset of always needing to have a victim :/

Also, do we have to have a formal "right" to cry, or can we just cry because this issue has disrupted our friendship, we care about each other very much, and we can't seem to resolve it - without anyone being "the victim?"

In fact, I think it's more than okay if they both want to cry, at this point.

This stuff runs deep and is painful on both sides, and when friends disagree on something so important to them, it's painful for both :(

The friendship can be salvaged, but it does change, at least in terms of closeness  - because these are deeply buried, close-to-the-heart, core values that are being disagreed upon.

Secondly, IMO, I don't think anyone 'attacked' anybody else - and Sheryl said repeatedly she knew her to NOT be racist, and yet Sharon continued to say they were, and she felt like she was being sent to the electric chair.

Thus, in my experience - which is extensive with people with extremely dysfunctional-family backgrounds (which is what I think most of this is coming from, with Sharon) - when people perceive they're being "attacked," though they clearly and objectively aren't,  it's actually an internal battle - they're battling their fear that the other side may be right/what they're saying is true - even if you present it with sugar on top ;) 

Thus, in the end, I was left thinking that though Sharon is NOT racist, there is a very clear block on the racial bias on this one.

IMO, I think Sharon's block, on this one, has less to do with racial issues and is more directly related to her dysfunctional-family background/mindset and her close personal friendship with Piers - she can't see him for who he really is, racist or not, nor this situation, objectively - and she doesn't want to - it's too scary for her psyche to consider. 

Remember, Sharon is admittedly the codependent spouse in a dysfunctional family, who "pretended" Ozzy's alcohol and drug use wasn't as bad as it was, and that he wasn't using again and cheating on her still, until the 2010s, when everybody else knew it and visibly could see it - not because she's stupid, Sharon is incredibly intelligent - but because she needed to believe that, because the alternative, and what she might lose, was too scary.

(Don't get me wrong, I love Ozzy, too, but by his own admission, all the pretending wasn't actually helping him, nor anyone around him.)

Likewise with Piers - although Ozzy and Piers are nothing alike - she refuses to see Piers for who he really is, because the alternative is too scary. Not only would she lose a valued friendship, but it would likely mean she'd become Piers' next target, considering what happened with Meghan.

Also, the idea that she may have enabled a monster, in Pierce's case, is just too threatening for her psyche to process - a common "ailment" with people from dysfunctional families, and why they continue to enable the dysfunction.

And we know that if you push someone in denial to see reality, they will only get angrier/play the victim - so it's best to just drop it with her, now, everybody ;)

Additionally, I think - like Amanda Kloots says at the end - that "Royalism" is playing a part, here - and I thought the same thing as Amanda when Sharon said it. It's really nearly the same as the blind, dysfunctional-family mindset.

In fact, accepting without question "the crown" - or any family or group system - is proof of a dysfunctional-family/group mindset.  

Because they make mistakes and have flaws, just like the rest of us do - and there's always room for self-improvement in us all. 

In fact, that's one of the things I love about the Queen - is that she has proven she DOES listen to feedback - but that's IF the information actually gets to her - it often has to go through the Palace first, even with her own family. 

For example, she started televising her Christmas message from home, allowing people into Buckingham Palace, and televising weddings, all because of feedback by one member of press (who wasn't vicious, but critical).  Or Michael Fagan breaking in just to have a talk with her about how bad things were for him - she listened to him and considered what he had to say.

However, like I said - IF the information or feedback never gets to her, she can't do anything (and sometimes she still can't do anything, according to monarchial law and palace rules).  

And sometimes, lets be honest, one of the Queen's flaws is even in some situations where she does receive the information and can do something, she drags her feet for too long to respond - i.e., she didn't step in when she should have (Aberfan, Diana, Meghan).

Regardless, neither Harry nor Meghan has criticized the Queen herself.

In fact, both Harry and Meghan specifically stated she had been wonderful to them, Meghan even telling a cute story about the Queen sharing a blanket with her, on a chilly night.

However, the rest of the royal family is not the Queen, and the monarchy is not Britain - they are separate entities.

The monarchy is not your territory or your possession; you do not own them and they do not actually belong to you.  They're also not inanimate objects or even a figment-of-your imagination idea.  They are very real human beings, in a very real family - but it is a separate family from you and yours - boundaries, people!

We're not communists or fascists - we're a democracy republic as Americans, and a constitutional monarchy with an elected parliament in Great Britain; therefore, it should be okay to give them feedback when they mess up - and I think they did mess up on this one.

I think they failed to step in and help defend and protect Meghan - and not just their privacy from hounding press and lies, like Diana, but Meghan and Archie's actual physical security, even after racist/nationalist threats.   

They didn't learn from Diana, the first go round, and here we are again - and worse, because she's American and half-black.

And Harry and Meghan say they literally begged them for help before they left.

And though Trump and the Queen are NOTHING alike, again, we see the same "cult" mindset of pretending, never criticizing, never even questioning their decisions, enabling bad behavior -  and it's not healthy - again, it's a symptom of a delusional, dysfunctional-family/group mindset. 

I also am getting very tired of the statement, "Well, that's just the way I was raised," as an excuse for everything.  

Look, I'm sure your parents were wonderful people, but they weren't perfect, they made mistakes, they're the product of our imperfect culture  - but you never questioned anything they said or did, even in your head?

I doubt that, but okay - but perhaps realize maybe the "way you were raised" works for you and your family and friends, but it doesn't work for a LOT of other people.

And not JUST people of color (and women), though people of color get the brunt of it - anyone who ever bucked Britain's conquest ownership for independence has been vilified and branded, whether they were eventually incorporated into the U.K. and crown or not.

This persists until today, and includes the Irish, Americans, Indigenous Tribes,  (East) Indians, Canadians, Australians, and even the Welsh and Scottish, though the latter two are now literally part of their own country lol!

In fact, though people of color get the brunt of it, many Britons still look down their noses to this day, to varying degrees and levels, at people from these places in superiority  - not because Britain is legitimately superior to any of them, but as a result of this colonial/imperial/conquest,  cultural-rot remnant, which no Briton dared question - and some still try to scapegoat these groups for all their problems. 

Now, look, Britons - I'm embarrassed about much of the crap we've done as Americans - but don't think for one second the world has forgotten that YOU are one of the world's original imperialists, up until the last century, and that you taught us how - we just unfortunately became better than you, our parents, at choke-hold/bullying imperialism! 

(Thanks for that, by the way.)  

Oh, and here's something your average Briton "royalist" likely doesn't know ...

As we know, all forms of slavery are greedy, immoral, evil abuses of wealth and power - and though there's plenty of blame to go around - the fact is, the French, Spanish, Portuguese, Dutch, German, and even Middle-Eastern countries gave at least a few legal rights to their slaves - i.e. able to buy their own freedom (which actually could end up in former slaves owning slaves, which is testament to greed and power abuse not being exclusive to white people - our socioeconomic system itself contributes to racism by with various justifications for power abuse/greed), legal marriage, legal protection from physical harm and theft, and Sundays off.

However - Britain was the first and only slave-trading/owning imperialist, colonizing country, prior to us, to give slaves absolutely no legal rights at all; in fact, Britain actually removed any and all prior legal rights for slaves, in territories that were previously owned by another country.

Additionally, Britain was the only country, prior to us, that made slavery a permanent situation that you couldn't buy your way out of.  This included automatic slavery to your children, your grandchildren, and all generations after you, would be born into slavery without hope for escape, unless your white master freed you. 

(The only exception in New Orleans was if you could trace your roots, on paper, back to European heritage when the British arrived - and very few could, despite clearly being biracial - so even freed slaves now went back into slavery, under British colonial rule and American government.)

So ... Congratulations! 

Aren't you proud of that legacy?

You may have abolished slavery before we did, but you win the prize for being the first and only imperialist country, prior to us, to legalize cruelty and permanent slavery to slaves, such that not even their children or grandchildren could hope for escape - and we followed suit!

Don't believe me? 

Well, you can go through and read the history of slavery law in each of those countries yourself - and by that, I mean histories that include photos of original documents regarding slavery from these countries

But a quicker option might be the history of New Orleans, who has been under French, Spanish, and British Colonial and American rule (which includes some mention of Dutch, German, Portuguese, and Italian slave-holding law, and a quick mention of Middle-Eastern slave-trade, helping to provide slaves for the above countries).

Choose your own source, but I would highly recommend the book I'm currently reading, "The World That Made New Orleans: From Spanish Silver to Congo Square," though there are many others - which includes actual photos of signed documents from these countries, as well as as quotes with references in cases where there were no surviving documents, but documents were referred to by local governors, magistrates, cabildo, and parishes. 

Slaves had at least a few legal rights under the Spanish and French, until British colonialism came to town, when Britain literally removed any and all legal protection for slaves and Native-Americans, in these territories, and we new Americans just kept it that way, until the Civil War. 

Also, if you think that British Colonial/American Protestants OR British Colonial/American Catholics treated slaves OR Native-Americans in New Orleans and Louisiana any better than they did each other, think again - and read the above book (among many others).

French Catholics treated them slightly better than Spanish Catholics, but both countries treated them somewhat better than either British Catholics OR British Protestants.

However, of the British Catholics and Protestants, though both took away all of the few legal rights they had for fear of  revolt - including congregating on Sunday at Congo Square for food, dance, selling their wares to buy their freedom, and music (again, fear of "frenzied" revolt) - at least British Catholics didn't outlaw private dance and music in their homes and private gatherings.

No, for that, we can thank Protestant groups such as British Puritans, the southern wings of British Anglican (today known as Episcopalians), Lutheran, Methodist, and Presbyterian churches - and and especially British Calvinists (later Baptists) - for banning African, Native American, and Spanish dance and drums from even private use in their homes in New Orleans.

This was because the Calvinists, especially, feared that  both dancing and drums would lead to "sexual temptation."   In fact, not just of themselves, but any white people who heard their drums (lol), considering their music "the devil's music" for not always praising God or Christ (which we also still see remnants of today ;)

However, as we know, the African and Spanish music and dance managed to still survive in New Orleans privately anyway - giving us Jazz, Blues, Latino/Cuban music, and eventually, rock and roll - but sadly, most of the Native American music was either incorporated into the above music, or lost, save for their drums :(

(So how about THAT, Sharon Osbourne - the same absurd religious colonial/imperial rules that once banned all secular music, dance, and artistic interpretation as "Satanic" for not praising God -  which you and your husband have so famously mocked and given the bird -  are cultural-rot remnants of the exact same regime you otherwise never question as a royalist.)

Oh, and let's not forget, in addition to all of these regimes trading and holding slaves, regardless of faith ...

The French vilified and mistreated their own colonists, the Spanish, the British, and any opposing faith or sect of Christianity that wasn't theirs, viewing them as uncivilized, inferior heathens.

The Spanish vilified and mistreated their own colonists, the French, the British, and any opposing faith or sect of Christianity that wasn't theirs, viewing them as uncivilized, inferior heathens.

The British vilified and mistreated their own colonists, the French, the Spanish, and any opposing faith or sect of Christianity that wasn't theirs, viewing them as uncivilized, inferior heathens.

But at least none of those groups were ever actual slaves, in the New World; at most, they were indentured servants (often criminals, prostitutes, or just plain poor). 

But we can see remnants of this absurd imperialistic superiority complex still today, we just keep finding or shifting to scapegoats and blame to different ethnic groups and back again.

In fact, the conflict will never end, unless we stop blaming ethnic scapegoats, start re-evaluating ourselves and this system, and finally just grow the eff up, already :)

Now, back to questioning what we need to believe about us and ours versus reality, let me tell you something else ...

 I was raised a charismatic evangelical - so believe me, I personally know how hard it is to question my beliefs and re-evaluate "how I was raised" - and if I can do it, anyone can - and I'm so glad I did, in the end!:)

As a teenager, that sect of faith not only wasn't working for me, but it didn't work for anyone around me :(

I hurt people with my faith, imagining I was righteously using my words in metaphor as a "sword" for Christ and my faith, rather than focusing on Christ's vision of outreach in his love and sacrifice.

However, the sword was never mine to swing in judgment to begin with - it was God's.

Using my faith as a weapon was not scripturally justified - it was NOT some kind of verbal Christian "jihad" in "defense" from "persecution" by "the world/ devil" - it was "offense" that I falsely justified.

Actually, more accurately, I was swinging it at my own insecurity in my own belief system - my fear of people who didn't believe every word in the bible like I did, without question, and what if I'm wrong?

And the truth is, those "persecuting" me and doing the most damage and abuse WERE the other white Christians around me! 

Thus, I began to question and evaluate not only myself, as a Christian, but whether our current Christian system really reflected Christ's own words and our faith - and I found neither myself, nor modern American Christianity - did.

And I think it's safe to say the same thing could and should be done for not only the monarchy, but for Britain itself AND the U.S. - does what we've condoned for centuries really uphold our values and what we claim we believe?

I can also tell you from personal experience that questioning and re-evaluating what you believe, critically thinking without squinting or making excuses,  actually makes your faith stronger, in the end - it revolutionizes your faith, your faith "evolves," if you will, towards enlightenment, and a better, stronger, secure faith that has been tried, tested, and adjusted :). 

I'm confident that God can handle your questions and doubt without getting angry with you :)

Likewise, humans in power should be able to handle your questions and doubt without anger - because there's nothing wrong with having those questions and doubt.

Whether it's the Queen, Trump, Biden, Congress, Parliament, your boss, your parents,  etc, whomever is in power over you should be able to handle your questions and doubt without getting angry (well, meaning our appropriate presentation of our doubt and questions helps lol). 

And with the exception of momentary defensiveness, if they can't ever handle your doubt and questions - then perhaps it's time for a re-evaluation of them or your perspective of them? 

Re-evaluation not only helps us learn where we were wrong or may have misunderstood, but we recognize that not everything is the way we first perceive it.

It's okay if you don't believe every word in the bible literally happened exactly that way - a lot has been taken out or mistranslated (or if you don't believe it at all, that's your choice and right).  It's okay that the Old Testament and New Testament contradict each other, and that even humans after Christ contradicted Christ.  

Because this reflects a slowly evolving culture - and yet the most important aspect, the love, sacrifice, and message of Christ still remains and supercedes all - despite all of the edits, omissions, mistranslations, and over-focus on other parts of the bible due to politics. 

Like the very clear evolution of civilization and culture from the Old Testament versus the New Testament, it is time that we evolve as a culture, too - more fully into Christ's vision - which he mentions repeatedly in his distinctly different message of love, compared to the rest of the bible - to include even others in the New Testament who sometimes even contradicted Christ (Paul) in favor of politics and OT law. 

It is also time we evolve past old colonial/imperial flaws in our governmental systems, that don't work and have never worked, except for a select few; flaws in our system that have held back, hurt, tortured, and even killed many, many other people based on race, faith, and gender - the remnants of which are alive and well today - and they continue to cause problems, over and over again -  and it's time we re-evaluate them. 

We don't have to throw the baby out with the bathwater, no - but it's not all or nothing?

The British and U.S. government - and the Queen herself - can't grow in understanding, we cannot evolve into a better society,  if we don't give them feedback, even criticize, right?  

Regardless, very disappointed in Sharon for not listening this time - and as I said, I think it's because she doesn't want to see her friend, Piers, for the nasty man he really is - racist or not.

I mean, who carries on with such viciousness and relentlessly tries to destroy the reputation of a person who, from your own admission, said and did nothing more than simply "ghosting" you without explanation - as a friend, mind you - three years ago, and has never said a bad word about YOU?

I don't agree with ghosting, actually, I think the other person will never know what they did wrong and they have to guess, it's a missed learning opportunity - but that doesn't mean you then relentlessly try to publicly destroy them for the next three years because they ghosted (abandoned?) you? I mean, that's creepy - bordering on stalker mentality.

Had she run all over the world trying to smear and destroy him, I'd understand more - but she didn't - she hasn't said a word (when three years later, I probably would've started defending myself from him - in fact, I have done that lol.)

Piers behavior towards her, simply because she ghosted him three years ago, is not normal and it's not healthy - and as I said, it actually borders on stalker mentality - because stalkers often viciously publicly trash someone, even try to engage others in bullying of that person, after feeling "abandoned."

Lastly, though Sharon has clarified that she doesn't agree with Piers' opinion of Meghan, I hope, after she's done emotionally reacting out of loyalty to Piers, that she thinks about this some more - because if anyone needed more defense, it wasn't Piers - it was Meghan :(

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.