::Since you've been stalking me, I wish to have as little contact with you as possible. Therefore, I'll answer just your second point. The source says: "Po pierwsze, mówimy zwykle "Murzyn". Obraz takich osób w Polsce jest brutalny. Myślimy o nich, że są głupi, brudni i że śmierdzą. Stąd powiedzonka typu: "śmierdzi jak z murzyńskiej chaty", "ciemno jak w dupie u Murzyna". Kojarzą się z zacofaniem, biedą, niewolnictwem. Możemy przecież powiedzieć o kimś, kogo wykorzystujemy, "to jest mój biały Murzyn". To wszystko negatywne konotacje.  
 ::He is not speaking about the image of an African. That's the subheading of the para (Co myślimy o Afrykanach?), not what he actually says, which is: "Po pierwsze, mówimy zwykle "Murzyn"" - "Firstly, we usually say "murzyn". When asked about Africans (presumably the reporters question, or a lazy sub-editor), the answer directly refers to the word Poles use - 'murzyn'. Therefore, everything which comes next ("The image of these people in Poland is brutal. We think they are stupid, dirty and stink. From this we get sayings of the following type: "it stinks as if it's from a murzyn hut", "it's as dark as in a murzyn's arse". It'sThey're associated with backwardness, poverty, slavery. We can after all describe someone we are using as, "this is my white murzyn". These are all negative connotations." Now, I've changed my original trans from "It's" to "They're" (my mistake), but the whole para is still clearly intended to be about the word 'murzyn' and it's connotations (hence mentioning its use in phrases). He's clearly not saying that it's just about Africans, since 'murzyn' doesn't even mean 'African' in Polish. The subheading was clearly sloppy journalism/the question he was asked. Both your edits are clearly looking at the heading, when it's the words of the interviewee which are relevant.