University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions

by Guest Sat Sep 28, 2019 1:25 pm

Edinburgh University has been slated for hosting an event where white people will be banned from asking questions - which has been described as 'blatantly racist'.

A Q&A event - Resisting Whiteness 2019 - will bar Caucasian guests from speaking from the floor.

There will also be two 'safe spaces' - one of which white people are banned from entering.

University bosses have 'raised concerns' about aspects of the event.

The event will take place on Saturday at the prestigious university, with the intention of 'amplifying the voices of people of colour' and giving 'people of colour a platform to talk'.

The all-day event costs up to £20 to attend, and will be held at the Pleasance Theatre.

A blurb says: 'We will therefore not be giving the microphone to white people during the Q&As, not because we don't think white people have anything to offer to the discussion, but because we want to amplify the voices of people of colour.

'If you are a white person with a question, please share it with a member of the committee or our speakers after the panel discussion.'

And it explains why white people have been barred from one of the 'safe spaces' - for people to retreat if they feel 'overwhelmed/overstimulated or uncomfortable'.

It said: 'The Braid room is a safe space for only people of colour, and the Cheviot room is available for anyone who needs it.'

Anti-racism campaigner Jane McColl, 42, of Glasgow said: 'This event is blatantly racist.

'It sets back the battle to achieve equality and fairness by decades, all because of the actions of a tiny group of extremists, whose perverse sense of logic has led them to belittle white people, not by who they are as individuals, by merely because of their skin colour.

'Imagine if this event was called 'Resisting Blackness' and non-white people were told they could not ask questions, nor access a room because they were the 'wrong' colour.'

A spokesman for the University of Edinburgh said: 'Tackling racism is an important topic for debate and the University is supportive of events addressing this issue.

'However, we are an organisation that places great value on issues around equality and voice.

'Consequently the University has met with the event organisers to ensure the event is compliant with our values.

'We have expressed our concerns to them about certain aspects of the format of the event and they are revising their 'safe space' policy for the conference as a result.'

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7513201/Edinburgh-University-accused-racism-conference-white-people-ask-questions.html

by nicko Sat Sep 28, 2019 2:24 pm

If anything was Racist, you can't get more Racist than that !But of cause the Left Wing wankers can't see anything wrong with it !!

by Guest Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:08 pm

nicko wrote:If anything was Racist, you can't get more Racist than that !But of cause the Left Wing wankers can't see anything wrong with it !!

+1 mate, but the left on here will do as always.

1) Fail to condemn this racism
2) Down play this
3) Make excuses
4) Claim "its only a few"

by Original Quill Sat Sep 28, 2019 5:22 pm

It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh. University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions 2190311264

University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions 2190311264

Maybe I'd rather be with them...they have better parties, more expensive booze, and more money to spend. University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions 3893789544

University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions 3893789544

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Sep 29, 2019 11:26 am

Original Quill wrote:It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh.

Maybe I'd rather be with them...they have better parties, more expensive booze, and more money to spend.

Surely you're not suggesting that all the white students at Edinburgh University are privileged, are you Quill?

If the news coverage is correct - and it is based on direct quotes from the conference organisers - then the event is outrageously and almost proudly racist. In fact I suggest that the words used might even constitute "hate crime" under the present law as they clearly suggest that a so-called "safe space" has been made necessary for exclusive use by "persons of colour" because they might be intimidated and even threatened by the presence of white students.

And the university's official reaction is the most mealy-mouthed humbug I have heard in my life (sorry for pinching your soundbite, Boris!).

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:57 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh.

Maybe I'd rather be with them...they have better parties, more expensive booze, and more money to spend.

Surely you're not suggesting that all the white students at Edinburgh University are privileged, are you Quill?

Unfortunately, all whites are privileged over the way we have treated people of color over the past 400 years. They are not royalty. Nor are they necessarily even wealthy. But even the worst of the lot are better off than the way we treat persons of color.

Fred M. wrote:If the news coverage is correct - and it is based on direct quotes from the conference organisers - then the event is outrageously and almost proudly racist. In fact I suggest that the words used might even constitute "hate crime" under the present law as they clearly suggest that a so-called "safe space" has been made necessary for exclusive use by "persons of colour" because they might be intimidated and even threatened by the presence of white students.

It's not a 'hate crime' until it's a crime. Then, it would have to be done with the express purpose of invidious discrimination. I suspect that this program at the University of Edinburgh is being done with some more practical purpose, such as: "the intention of 'amplifying the voices of people of colour' and giving 'people of colour a platform to talk'".

A mixed white/black population has the effect of shouting down discussions about/by blacks and their experience. To Black Lives Matter the whites dismiss the existence of racism, by glibly retorting: All lives matter. Why, even on this board a year or two ago, a couple of Texans actually claimed that racism is ended in America; then Charlottesville happened, and they grew silent. We even have a Supreme Court that invalidated parts of the voting rights law, claiming there is no more racism in voting in the US...despite the open voter suppression going on.

Only when blacks are allowed to discuss their experiences uninhibitedly, does the real picture come out. Blacks, alone, can tell about the black experience. Whites know nothing about that experience, and worse, shout down the black voices. The white shout-downs, and shrugs of disinterest--the very things we are seeing here--create an atmosphere in which real accounts cannot be told, or heard. I suspect that such a "platform", and not invidious discrimination, is the real purpose of this format at the University of Edinburgh.

An example of actual intentional discrimination would be the Augusta National Golf Club, in Augusta GA--where the Masters is held--which still excludes blacks from their membership. What are they trying to accomplish...except actual racism?

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:34 pm

by gelico Sun Sep 29, 2019 5:45 pm

Original Quill wrote:It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh.

it's racist and so are you

implying that no person of colour could be privileged in any way, its just a white thing in your mind

no person of colour ever had well off parents
no person of colour ever had private schooling
certainly no person of colour could ever become an MP
and the thought of ever having a person of colour as Mayor of London is absurd

your mental attitude towards people of colour is actually quite disgusting quill

Rolling Eyes

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:51 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh.

it's racist and so are you

implying that no person of colour could be privileged in any way, its just a white thing in your mind

no person of colour ever had well off parents
no person of colour ever had private schooling
certainly no person of colour could ever become an MP
and the thought of ever having a person of colour as Mayor of London is absurd

your mental attitude towards people of colour is actually quite disgusting quill

You are not even dealing with the points that I raised. You cannot generalize from specifics. You are just going off a host of platitudes and suppositions you learned in 4th grade.

But I might add, your response is precisely why black people need to get away to discuss things among themselves. The fact is, gels, that in your world people of color are 2nd class citizens. That’s a fact, not opinion. You will deny it til the cows come home, but you are part of the other tribe. That's precisely why blacks need some alone time.

The fact that you label it "disgusting" is most illustrative. That lends a moral character to the discussion, which (again) is what people of color constantly confront. Here you are--a member of the other tribe--telling people of color that their views and arguments are "disgusting". It's that twisted white view, delivered with the strong moral attitude, that discourages and dissuades people of color from speaking out. Why bother, when it's just going to result in antagonism?

Your myopic and intolerant view is precisely the superficial, non-introspective view of whites, which intrudes on the serious discussions that blacks want, and need to have. Hence, the University of Edinburgh approach.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Sep 29, 2019 6:55 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Surely you're not suggesting that all the white students at Edinburgh University are privileged, are you Quill?

Unfortunately, all whites are privileged over the way we have treated people of color over the past 400 years. They are not royalty. Nor are they necessarily even wealthy. But even the worst of the lot are better off than the way we treat persons of color.

Romans were treating my Brigante tribe forebears as actual untermensch and fit only for slavery a couple of thousand years ago. We have moved on. It is hardly our fault that your Mississippi redneck lynch mobs have failed to move on over the past four centuries.

Fred M. wrote:If the news coverage is correct - and it is based on direct quotes from the conference organisers - then the event is outrageously and almost proudly racist. In fact I suggest that the words used might even constitute "hate crime" under the present law as they clearly suggest that a so-called "safe space" has been made necessary for exclusive use by "persons of colour" because they might be intimidated and even threatened by the presence of white students.

It's not a 'hate crime' until it's a crime. Then, it would have to be done with the express purpose of invidious discrimination. (UK law, as I understand it, does not permit any discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnicity and/or religious belief. Edinburgh is (at present at least) in the UK) I suspect that this program at the University of Edinburgh is being done with some more practical purpose, such as: "the intention of 'amplifying the voices of people of colour' and giving 'people of colour a platform to talk'". (And, if at the expense of similar rights and considerations for every other legitimate grouping, very thin ice on which to skate a legal areument in support).

A mixed white/black population has the effect of shouting down discussions about/by blacks and their experience. To Black Lives Matter the whites dismiss the existence of racism, by glibly retorting: All lives matter. Why, even on this board a year or two ago, a couple of Texans actually claimed that racism is ended in America; then Charlottesville happened, and they grew silent. We even have a Supreme Court that invalidated parts of the voting rights law, claiming there is no more racism in voting in the US...despite the open voter suppression going on. (Again, may I respectfully point out that Edinburgh ain't in the USA, nor is likely to be unless Scotland decides to break away from the rest of the UK and become your 51st state.)

Only when blacks are allowed to discuss their experiences uninhibitedly, does the real picture come out. Blacks, alone, can tell about the black experience. Whites know nothing about that experience, and worse, shout down the black voices. The white shout-downs, and shrugs of disinterest--the very things we are seeing here--create an atmosphere in which real accounts cannot be told, or heard. I suspect that such a "platform", and not invidious discrimination, is the real purpose of this format at the University of Edinburgh. (It may well be, but it is still, in my humble opinion, overtly discriminate so far as our laws are concerned.)

An example of actual intentional discrimination would be the Augusta National Golf Club, in Augusta GA--where the Masters is held--which still excludes blacks from their membership. What are they trying to accomplish...except actual racism?

(Again, Augusta GA and Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, ain't in the same country and not subject to the same laws, or standards for that matter.)

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:30 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh.

it's racist and so are you

implying that no person of colour could be privileged in any way, its just a white thing in your mind

no person of colour ever had well off parents
no person of colour ever had private schooling
certainly no person of colour could ever become an MP
and the thought of ever having a person of colour as Mayor of London is absurd

your mental attitude towards people of colour is actually quite disgusting quill

Nail on the head

+1

by nicko Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:34 pm

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:05 pm

Fred M. wrote:Romans were treating my Brigante tribe forebears as actual untermensch and fit only for slavery a couple of thousand years ago. We have moved on. It is hardly our fault that your Mississippi redneck lynch mobs have failed to move on over the past four centuries.

These are different times. The Romans had their own world view, and a pattern of values therefrom. I doubt they even had a notion of equality, much less a notion of racial equality.

But this isn't an exclusively American problem. This is an international problem. When the first ships of Henry the Navigator sailed from Sagres and Lagos, down the coast of Africa, they made many remarkable discoveries of yet unseen animals, and peoples that they were unsure were even the same as themselves. Were they reasoning beings, or beasts of burden to be exploited? See, Daniel Boorstin, The Discoverers, Chapt. 22, “Beyond the Threatening Cape”, pp 165 ff.

Hence, racism was born. Many of those Portuguese explorers pleaded that these people were just like you and me. But others insisted they were like oxen, only quicker in training. What did they know…they had never seen them before. These latter shipped them off to Brazil, America and other places, for exploitation.

A lot of them were British, who had established colonies along the east coast of America. The British longer than others subscribed to the notion that these black-skinned beasts were beings to be exploited, just as nature was exploited to be mined, and fields of corn, cotton and tobacco grown. They were of ‘the world’ that John Locke meant, when he coined the phrase: Make the world your own.

Fast forward to today, and we see the vestiges of that early 14th-15th century awakening, still with us. We find it hard to embrace and join with these “other” creatures. In America they are the southerners; but in the UK you have them too. Some of us whites try to understand and overcome the pattern.

Working from the other side, many blacks also try to understand it from their viewpoint. Sometimes we need a little separation from “the other” so we can meet and talk about our unique perspectives. That’s all that is going on in the University of Edinburgh. It’s harmless, but some find if frightening.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:12 pm

Fred M. wrote:(UK law, as I understand it, does not permit any discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnicity and/or religious belief. Edinburgh is (at present at least) in the UK)

That refers to legal discrimination. It doesn't apply to private gatherings, as that would mean that people couldn't become married. After all, marriage is a form of discrimination against others, innit?

by gelico Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:17 pm

Original Quill wrote:
gelico wrote:

it's racist and so are you

implying that no person of colour could be privileged in any way, its just a white thing in your mind

no person of colour ever had well off parents
no person of colour ever had private schooling
certainly no person of colour could ever become an MP
and the thought of ever having a person of colour as Mayor of London is absurd

your mental attitude towards people of colour is actually quite disgusting quill

You are not even dealing with the points that I raised. You cannot generalize from specifics. You are just going off a host of platitudes and suppositions you learned in 4th grade.

But I might add, your response is precisely why black people need to get away to discuss things among themselves. The fact is, gels, that in your world people of color are 2nd class citizens. That’s a fact, not opinion. You will deny it til the cows come home, but you are part of the other tribe. That's precisely why blacks need some alone time.

The fact that you label it "disgusting" is most illustrative. That lends a moral character to the discussion, which (again) is what people of color constantly confront. Here you are--a member of the other tribe--telling people of color that their views and arguments are "disgusting". It's that twisted white view, delivered with the strong moral attitude, that discourages and dissuades people of color from speaking out. Why bother, when it's just going to result in antagonism?

Your myopic and intolerant view is precisely the superficial, non-introspective view of whites, which intrudes on the serious discussions that blacks want, and need to have. Hence, the University of Edinburgh approach.

Firstly you made no points, i was merely responding to your mindset which shows through quite clearly

it is that which i find disgusting. You are utterly determined to see people of colour as permanent oppressed victims in life. You pander to the perceived victimhood because that's what you're comfortable with (keep them down eh).

i'm not intolerant. i'm for equaliity and harmony and progress

clearly you're in favour of people of colour being victims, and also of segregation. not just a safe space but a white free safe space

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:18 pm

So funny. So quills argument is based on times in history
Fred rightly points out that Britons have been enslaved
Quill makes excuses for this and contradicts
He is living in the past and not able to move on from the past

The concept to segregate people and say who can speak based on their skin colour is pure racism. Quill is nothing more than a self loathing individual

You will only be able to solve racism when people stop dividing people by their skin colour and see each other as human beings. This event fails to do that and is a racist event in itself going off something that is a social construct and frames this biologically. Based on skin colour debating whiteness. Its inherantly racist and it shows how some of the left. The regressive left have lost touch with reality.

Yes we have to recognise wrongs from the past, but who is liable for them? How many more generations? Are Germans going to be libel for all time for the Holocaust? Of course not and hence it shows how thew regressive left never apply even their own warped logic universally,

The reality is this. No one single ethnic black group around today comes even close to the discrimination, suffering, genocide, persecution, hate, prejudice that jews have faced in history and different places. They are an ethnic group made up of people mainly from the middle east and yet in this situation, they would not be allowed to speak. What about the centuries of Irish persecution? They would not be allowed to speak, because again the left does not recognoise these groups, due to the colour of their skin.

Yes we have to help solve problems of racism,but this is simple creating more. Gelico is right when she says Quill is looking down on black people and placing them as perpetual victims. That is racist in itself and many would feel angered at his stance to look at them this way

This shows that the far left is inherantly racist as the Far right
Gelico was bang on the money as was Fred

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 8:29 pm

Here is a sobering thought for you.
In 1942, Jews made up 15.3 million of the world's population.
This month, it stands at 14.8 million Jews.
Its taken nearly 80 years and the Jews have still not recovered to the levels they had before the Holocaust.

University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions FT_15.02.04_JewsEurope200px

University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions FT_15.02.04_JewsEurope200px

This is why people like Quill are utterly clueless as again at this event they would not be allowed to speak and this is all in living memory. The slave trade was banned in the Uk in the 19th century, not in living memory

When people are denied a voice based on the colour of their skin
That is plain and simple racism
All should have a voice equally in society.
Though I am not surprised the racist regressive left in quill would defend this blatant racism

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:16 pm

Fred M. wrote:(Again, Augusta GA and Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, ain't in the same country and not subject to the same laws, or standards for that matter.)

But we're not talking about laws. We're talking about a Q & A event.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:18 pm

gelico wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

You are not even dealing with the points that I raised. You cannot generalize from specifics. You are just going off a host of platitudes and suppositions you learned in 4th grade.

But I might add, your response is precisely why black people need to get away to discuss things among themselves. The fact is, gels, that in your world people of color are 2nd class citizens. That’s a fact, not opinion. You will deny it til the cows come home, but you are part of the other tribe. That's precisely why blacks need some alone time.

The fact that you label it "disgusting" is most illustrative. That lends a moral character to the discussion, which (again) is what people of color constantly confront. Here you are--a member of the other tribe--telling people of color that their views and arguments are "disgusting". It's that twisted white view, delivered with the strong moral attitude, that discourages and dissuades people of color from speaking out. Why bother, when it's just going to result in antagonism?

Your myopic and intolerant view is precisely the superficial, non-introspective view of whites, which intrudes on the serious discussions that blacks want, and need to have. Hence, the University of Edinburgh approach.

Firstly you made no points, i was merely responding to your mindset which shows through quite clearly

it is that which i find disgusting. You are utterly determined to see people of colour as permanent oppressed victims in life. You pander to the perceived victimhood because that's what you're comfortable with (keep them down eh).

i'm not intolerant. i'm for equaliity and harmony and progress

clearly you're in favour of people of colour being victims, and also of segregation. not just a safe space but a white free safe space

You believe what you like. It's not going to change anything.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:22 pm

phil wrote:This is why people like Quill are utterly clueless as again at this event they would not be allowed to speak and this is all in living memory. The slave trade was banned in the Uk in the 19th century, not in living memory

But the slave trade was started by, and carried on by the British. The British were the biggest fans of slavery and the greatest beneficiaries. The vestiges of their enthusiastic efforts carried on until 1860, and have residual vestiges even up to the present day.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:24 pm

phil wrote:When people are denied a voice based on the colour of their skin
That is plain and simple racism

Yes it is. We've already covered that. But, it is remedial separation, not selfish.

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:29 pm

Utter ignorance again from quill. Slavery has been around since before the dawn of civilisation. The Romans and then later the Arabs engaged in a mass slave trade of the Africans. What nobody questions today. Is that where there is many descendents of the slaves in the US. Where is the sizeable population of descendents of slaves in the Middle East? Well its unlikely you will find many. As 90% died in transit and those that survived the arab slave trade transit. The males were castrated and any femals who got pregnant. Often had their children butchered at birth. The left is often silent on this slave trade which was far worse than the European slave trade.

The first Europeans to trade in African slaves was the Portuguese. Not the British. Being as the concept of being British did not exist at the time in the 15th century, when the Portuguese enslaved Africans.

There is nothing worse than someone so utterly ignorant of history, sporting the worst revisionist bull crap going.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:36 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred M. wrote:(UK law, as I understand it, does not permit any discrimination on the grounds of gender, ethnicity and/or religious belief. Edinburgh is (at present at least) in the UK)

That refers to legal discrimination. It doesn't apply to private gatherings, as that would mean that people couldn't become married. After all, marriage is a form of discrimination against others, innit?

A British university is considered to be an educational establishment, and is therefore subject to British law.

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:38 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

That refers to legal discrimination. It doesn't apply to private gatherings, as that would mean that people couldn't become married. After all, marriage is a form of discrimination against others, innit?

A British university is considered to be an educational establishment, and is therefore subject to British law.

+1 and what a mic drop lol

University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions Source

University of Edinburgh is accused of 'blatant racism' for hosting an equality conference where white people are BANNED from asking questions Source

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred M. wrote:(Again, Augusta GA and Edinburgh, the capital of Scotland, ain't in the same country and not subject to the same laws, or standards for that matter.)

But we're not talking about laws. We're talking about a Q & A event.

It could have been a "bingo session event"....it is still being held in a UK university and is still subject to UK legislation on discrimination.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:48 pm

phildidge wrote:Utter ignorance again from quill. Slavery has been around since before the dawn of civilisation. The Romans and then later the Arabs engaged in a mass slave trade of the Africans. What nobody questions today. Is that where there is many descendents of the slaves in the US. Where is the sizeable population of descendents of slaves in the Middle East? Well its unlikely you will find many. As 90% died in transit and those that survived the arab slave trade transit. The males were castrated and any femals who got pregnant. Often had their children butchered at birth. The left is often silent on this slave trade which was far worse than the European slave trade.

Are you arguing for legitimizing of slavery today? Or are you just building a grand whataboutism: What about the Romans; what about the Arabs; what about the Middle Easterners? Well, what about them? Sounds like you think that's OK, because everybody does it!

phildidge wrote:The first Europeans to trade in African slaves was the Portuguese. Not the British. Being as the concept of being British did not exist at the time in the 15th century. That only happened in the 18th century

There is nothing worse than someone so utterly ignorant of history, sporting the worst revisionist bull crap going.

The Portuguese were the first to discover the Ibo's of west Africa. And they also traded in slavery. But the British were the most enthusiastic slavers...just, not around home, tyvm. They used slaves to plunder resources from their overseas colonies. In America, we had the pleasure of witnessing these atrocities first hand.

There's nothing worse than someone so utterly lacking in morals, that he would try to justify slavery in this day and age.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:48 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:This is why people like Quill are utterly clueless as again at this event they would not be allowed to speak and this is all in living memory. The slave trade was banned in the Uk in the 19th century, not in living memory

But the slave trade was started by, and carried on by the British. The British were the biggest fans of slavery and the greatest beneficiaries. The vestiges of their enthusiastic efforts carried on until 1860, and have residual vestiges even up to the present day.

Nope....the Romans enslaved British tribesmen in the same way that they enslaved tribal races in other parts of Europe before coming here from Gaul.

And the most brutal slavers of all were the Muslims who colonised Africa and whose enforced "recruitment" and sale of people from what is now The Gambia and the former French colony of Senegal in West Africa was ended by sailors of the British Royal Naval West Africa Station based in Bathhurst (Now Banjul) following Acts of Parliament prompted by the 18th/19th century reformer and campaigner William Wilberforce.

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:55 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

But the slave trade was started by, and carried on by the British. The British were the biggest fans of slavery and the greatest beneficiaries. The vestiges of their enthusiastic efforts carried on until 1860, and have residual vestiges even up to the present day.

Nope....the Romans enslaved British tribesmen in the same way that they enslaved tribal races in other parts of Europe before coming here from Gaul.

And the most brutal slavers of all were the Muslims who colonised Africa and whose enforced "recruitment" and sale of people from what is now The Gambia and the former French colony of Senegal in West Africa was ended by sailors of the British Royal Naval West Africa Station based in Bathhurst (Now Banjul) following Acts of Parliament prompted by the 18th/19th century reformer and campaigner William Wilberforce.

So, Fred...just because slavery is so prevalent in history is no reason to argue for it today. As I said earlier, this is a different time, with a different set of values. We no longer--or should no longer--look at people of color as beasts of burden.

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 9:56 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phildidge wrote:Utter ignorance again from quill. Slavery has been around since before the dawn of civilisation. The Romans and then later the Arabs engaged in a mass slave trade of the Africans. What nobody questions today. Is that where there is many descendents of the slaves in the US. Where is the sizeable population of descendents of slaves in the Middle East? Well its unlikely you will find many. As 90% died in transit and those that survived the arab slave trade transit. The males were castrated and any femals who got pregnant. Often had their children butchered at birth. The left is often silent on this slave trade which was far worse than the European slave trade.

Are you arguing for legitimizing of slavery today? Or are you just building a grand whataboutism: What about the Romans; what about the Arabs; what about the Middle Easterners? Well, what about them? Sounds like you think that's OK, because everybody does it!

phildidge wrote:The first Europeans to trade in African slaves was the Portuguese. Not the British. Being as the concept of being British did not exist at the time in the 15th century. That only happened in the 18th century

There is nothing worse than someone so utterly ignorant of history, sporting the worst revisionist bull crap going.

The Portuguese were the first to discover the Ibo's of west Africa. And they also traded in slavery. But the British were the most enthusiastic slavers...just, not where they could see it, tyvm. They used slaves to plunder resources from their overseas colonies. In America, we had the pleasure of witnessing these atrocities first hand.

There's nothing worse than someone so utterly lacking in morals, that he would try to justify slavery in this day and age.

Can anyone else see from my views whether they think i am arguing in favour of the slave trade?

No only someone so mentally distubred would claim otherwise

I am pointing out that your view on being against slavery is only centered on certain European nations and not all the many nations that have endorsed slavery through history. For you to attempt poorly to turn this around is why I think you are the lying piece of scum.

YYou then invoke opinion around the British who I am not even defending buty your claim here is really utterly immature and not even based on history. Being as the most enthusiastic were the Spanish and Portuguese. You cannot even admit to being wrong when you claimed the British were the first. You instead attempt to turn this onto me. Hence again you are a lying low life scum bag.

You are an insult to the memory of those who suffered in the slave trade, because you would use this to make and back racism yourself as you are doing here. This is why I think you are one of the biggest ignorant racist wankers, i have ever had the misfortune to meet on a forum. I place you comparable to smelly in ignorance and racism

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:01 pm

phil wrote:Can anyone else see from my views whether they think i am arguing in favour of the slave trade?

Yes...I was wondering. You pose such a strong whataboutism regarding slavery, and whataboutism is a fallacy as argument. So that it appears as by the approval of such instances, you are arguing for slavery today.

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:04 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:Can anyone else see from my views whether they think i am arguing in favour of the slave trade?

Yes...I was wondering. You pose such a strong whataboutism regarding slavery, and whataboutism is a fallacy as argument. So that it appears as by the approval of such instances, you are arguing for slavery today.

How is it whataboutism when all slavery is wrong and i do not center on one single country over this as you do?

You know fuck all about history and use past wrong as a political weapon to endorse your own forms of racism.

I pointed out the many wrongs slavery and as seen you dont even utter a word of condemnation for the Arab slave trade.

What does that say about you?

You are just another regressive illiberal that suffers from ostrich parasitic syndrome

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:09 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred Moletrousers wrote:

Nope....the Romans enslaved British tribesmen in the same way that they enslaved tribal races in other parts of Europe before coming here from Gaul.

And the most brutal slavers of all were the Muslims who colonised Africa and whose enforced "recruitment" and sale of people from what is now The Gambia and the former French colony of Senegal in West Africa was ended by sailors of the British Royal Naval West Africa Station based in Bathhurst (Now Banjul) following Acts of Parliament prompted by the 18th/19th century reformer and campaigner William Wilberforce.

So, Fred...just because slavery is so prevalent in history is no reason to argue for it today. As I said earlier, this is a different time, with a different set of values. We no longer--or should no longer--look at people of color as beasts of burden.

I'm certainly not arguing for slavery, and frankly I know of no other British political party or entity - apart from a handful of ultra Right Neanderthal loonies - who are.

We live in a different time and adopt a different set of values just as you say....because we in this country have moved on. A long time ago. Your good ol' rye-drinkin' lynch mobs in the deep South need to catch up with us!

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:15 pm

phil wrote:I am pointing out that your view on being against slavery is only centered on certain European nations and not all the many nations that have endorsed slavery through history.

Yes, I was pointing that out to Fred a while ago. The centering on European nations, as you put it, happens to be the context of our history with slavery. So, as science says, narrow the focus and you find the relevance.

We don't need to talk about Roman, Greek or Arab slavery, because those examples have no part in our specific experience. They are examples of diversions. We are really concerned about what made us, and what made us sin so greatly.

The promotion of black African slavery is a part of our experience. Now we hone in on the problem. The slavers of Britain and Portugal are a part of our history.

You, Brits, did this. You participated in this world class sin. So it's entirely appropriate for you to stand up and participate in the remedial measures to end it. That's all that is going on in Edinburgh.

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:26 pm

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:I am pointing out that your view on being against slavery is only centered on certain European nations and not all the many nations that have endorsed slavery through history.

Yes, I was pointing that out to Fred a while ago. The centering on European nations, as you put it, happens to be the context of our history with slavery. So, as science says, narrow the focus and you find the relevance.

We don't need to talk about Roman, Greek or Arab slavery, because those examples have no part in our specific experience. They are examples of diversions. We are really concerned about what made us, and what made us sin so greatly.

The promotion of black African slavery is a part of our experience. Now we hone in on the problem. The slavers of Britain and Portugal are a part of our history.

You, Brits, did this. You participated in this world class sin. So it's entirely appropriate for you to stand up and participate in the remedial measures to end it. That's all that is going on in Edinburgh.

What? No blacks alive today have experince the European African slave trade. So by your own view on experince you render your point moot. The only slave trade that did continue into living experince was the Arab slave trade and yet you are not speaking about that what so ever

So the promotion of black slavery is not part of any experince any person alive today in the US or Europe has experience. What people have experinced is sex slave trades and trafiicking which involves all races.

So your notions are based living off only one aspect of the slavery of the past and you only center this on Europeans.

So no Brits alive today did this

So using this as a means to deny people a voice that played no part or could have played a part in this horrific crime in history is blatant racism. To deny them a voice to speak. As now you are denying them a voice off nothing they actually did, but what people did in the past. By your reasoning. You would have to deny every single ethnic groupo that has engaged in slavery through histpry. Which I might add, will include many ethnic african groups.

I mean are you suggesting that at a meeting of the holocaust no Germans and Romanians have a voice to speak based on living experince? Is that what you are suggesting? Of course not, you are simple invokling the worst kind of bullshit going

This is why your views are so stupid and irrational. You simple are trying and poorly I might add to allow racism to stand from being selective on points in history. To then condemn a racial group for this. To then champion racism to deny them the ability to speak. That condemns you as being racist

period

by Original Quill Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:30 pm

Fred M. wrote:We live in a different time and adopt a different set of values just as you say....because we in this country have moved on. A long time ago. Your good ol' rye-drinkin' lynch mobs in the deep South need to catch up with us!

Yes, it's the time of remedy. It's the time to make up for the past. And I know that southerners in the US are going to have to atone for their sins.

But Brits are not free from a part in it all. Y'all invented the economic system of slavery. Y'all reaped the fruits of that system. Y'all created the belief that people of color are inferior beings, whether it was a genuine belief at the time, or a massive reduction of cognitive dissonance today.

Now we are engaged in undoing all that. This is the age of remedy. Remedial efforts are often not popular, because after all who likes to clean the house after the party? But, if you are going to leave the mess and beer cans, and paper plates, etc., it builds and builds. So, either don't have parties like slavery, or learn to clean up after yourselves.

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:37 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Fred M. wrote:We live in a different time and adopt a different set of values just as you say....because we in this country have moved on. A long time ago. Your good ol' rye-drinkin' lynch mobs in the deep South need to catch up with us!

Yes, it's the time of remedy. It's the time to make up for the past. And I know that southerners in the US are going to have to atone for their sins.

But Brits are not free from a part in it all. Y'all invented the economic system of slavery. Y'all reaped the fruits of that system. Y'all created the belief that people of color are inferior beings, whether it was a genuine belief at the time, or a massive reduction of cognitive dissonance today.

Now we are engaged in undoing all that. This is the age of remedy. Remedial efforts are often not popular, because after all who likes to clean the house after the party? But, if you are going to leave the mess and beer cans, and paper plates, etc., it builds and builds. So, either don't have parties like slavery, or learn to clean up after yourselves.

Wrong........... the Sumerians invented the economic system of slavery

Hence your stand point to allow racism agains white British people is based off a falsehood

Its also utterly fucking ridiculous, that because something happened, which the British never invented, but later did themselves. You say this then makes for a guilt by association view point to racially deny people today to speak.

Hitler eat your heart out on that rracist load of crap you believe Quill

So your stand point is a fallacy from the start to center on one racial group

All you are doing is showing and approving of racism against white people

by Guest Sun Sep 29, 2019 10:42 pm

Anyway this is why I have little time for Quill anymore. He has turned into a complete illiberal racist extremist.

Night everyone

by Original Quill Mon Sep 30, 2019 12:08 am

by Fred Moletrousers Mon Sep 30, 2019 10:16 am

Original Quill wrote:
phil wrote:I am pointing out that your view on being against slavery is only centered on certain European nations and not all the many nations that have endorsed slavery through history.

Yes, I was pointing that out to Fred a while ago. The centering on European nations, as you put it, happens to be the context of our history with slavery. So, as science says, narrow the focus and you find the relevance.

We don't need to talk about Roman, Greek or Arab slavery, because those examples have no part in our specific experience. They are examples of diversions. We are really concerned about what made us, and what made us sin so greatly.

The promotion of black African slavery is a part of our experience. Now we hone in on the problem. The slavers of Britain and Portugal are a part of our history.

You, Brits, did this. You participated in this world class sin. So it's entirely appropriate for you to stand up and participate in the remedial measures to end it. That's all that is going on in Edinburgh.

Black African slavery is very much part of our "experience" too; politically, socially, morally and commercially. Are you seriously suggesting that no-platforming white students in such a prestigious university will do anything in the slightest to further the courses of either academic equality or social cohesion?

Words fail me.

by Original Quill Mon Sep 30, 2019 3:54 pm

Fred Moletrousers wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

Yes, I was pointing that out to Fred a while ago. The centering on European nations, as you put it, happens to be the context of our history with slavery. So, as science says, narrow the focus and you find the relevance.

We don't need to talk about Roman, Greek or Arab slavery, because those examples have no part in our specific experience. They are examples of diversions. We are really concerned about what made us, and what made us sin so greatly.

The promotion of black African slavery is a part of our experience. Now we hone in on the problem. The slavers of Britain and Portugal are a part of our history.

You, Brits, did this. You participated in this world class sin. So it's entirely appropriate for you to stand up and participate in the remedial measures to end it. That's all that is going on in Edinburgh.

Black African slavery is very much part of our "experience" too; politically, socially, morally and commercially. Are you seriously suggesting that no-platforming white students in such a prestigious university will do anything in the slightest to further the courses of either academic equality or social cohesion?

Words fail me.

Yes…words fail, but white intimidation never stops. Dimming white shout-downs has the cross-effect of bringing forth dialogue and opinion from people of color.

Let's face it...whites use their majority to try to intimidate as a tactic, just as you've seen on this thread. To a minority, schooled on police shake-downs, and even murder, and exclusion in housing, education, and even restaurants, and on and on and on, implicit is always the threat of jailing or physical violence for speaking truth to power.

The only time we ever hear the view of the black community, as a result, is when a black is brave enough to speak it on cable talk shows...and then, it's only on MSNBC, a safe harbor. Edinburgh University seems to have found a peaceable way to hear the black voice, without white shout-down and threat of physical reprisal.

by eddie Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:04 pm

It’s racist. Out and out racist.

And Quill, you are talking through your privileged white arse.

An by the way, what if you’re half white and half black? Do you get half the allotted time to speak? Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:11 pm

Original Quill wrote:It's clear discrimination, but of what? Leaving out the privileged doesn't seem that harsh.

Maybe I'd rather be with them...they have better parties, more expensive booze, and more money to spend.

It's clear discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, which is the definition of racism, straight out of the dictionary.

I figure the white working-class students there don't have the money for the kind of parties you're talking about, but let's forget about them and pretend that all white people are of the moneyed elite ...

What a shame -- a conference about racism could have been so much better if all voices were heard from.

by nicko Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:14 pm

Or Black Arse ?

by eddie Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:22 pm

nicko wrote:Or Black Arse ?

It is almost as though Quill thinks racism exists only if it’s a white person against any other colour.
It’s clear he doesn’t know the true definition of racism.

by Ben Reilly Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:26 pm

nicko wrote:Or Black Arse ?

I don't for one second think that Quill is black, he comes across as rather well-off, white and out of touch with what it's like to struggle to get by.

by Maddog Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:38 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
nicko wrote:Or Black Arse ?

I don't for one second think that Quill is black, he comes across as rather well-off, white and out of touch with what it's like to struggle to get by.

He's an arrogant prick.

And that's one of his good qualities.

But there is no way in hell he's a black man. I doubt he knows any black people.

by eddie Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:50 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
nicko wrote:Or Black Arse ?

I don't for one second think that Quill is black, he comes across as rather well-off, white and out of touch with what it's like to struggle to get by.

He's an arrogant prick.

And that's one of his good qualities.

But there is no way in hell he's a black man. I doubt he knows any black people.

It’s not that he’s arrogant it’s that he’s so far over to the side of “unracist” that he hates his own kind. He’s what black people in the UK call a “180”.

by Tommy Monk Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:50 pm

We all know who the real racists are... they are the ones who say we are all equal regardless of race/colour etc, but then do the shit that is in the OP...!

by Maddog Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:52 pm

eddie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

He's an arrogant prick.

And that's one of his good qualities.

But there is no way in hell he's a black man. I doubt he knows any black people.

It’s not that he’s arrogant it’s that he’s so far over to the side of “unracist” that he hates his own kind. He’s what black people in the UK call a “180”.

Nah, he looks down on people and likes to remind them of his education and station in life (which I find a bit suspect anyway).

by eddie Mon Sep 30, 2019 9:54 pm

Maddog wrote:
eddie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

He's an arrogant prick.

And that's one of his good qualities.

But there is no way in hell he's a black man. I doubt he knows any black people.

It’s not that he’s arrogant it’s that he’s so far over to the side of “unracist” that he hates his own kind. He’s what black people in the UK call a “180”.

Nah, he looks down on people and likes to remind them of his education and station in life (which I find a bit suspect anyway).

Well that’s your opinion and you’re entitled to it. I just think he doesn’t understand racism too well....it’s my main (and only) bone of contention with him tbh.

by Sponsored content