So You're About To Become A Minority

HE don't like the British,he has an inferiority complex based on the fact that his country is really nothing to write home about,except of course the Australian Army who are top notch.

he tried to join once but was turned down because he failed the physical!

FROM A Global perspective,  we honky-tonk whitey's [including us 'fruit salad' hybridised varieties..] have  always  been in a minority...

THE World population is what by now ~  7.3 billion, maybe ?

JUST over half are either Asian, or part-Asian (like many of those in Idia, Pakistan, Eastern Russia, and the 'First Nations' of North and South America..).

NEGROES ~ i.e. those of obviously African backgrounds, including Aborigines, Maoris and Pacific islanders, make up just over 40% ~ and before the end of this century will have passed the Asiatic types in total numbers, thanks to their higher birth rates and decreasing 'mortality' rates...

THAT LEAVES far less than a billion Caucasians walking this planet, and with the ever-increasing inbreeding, outbreeding and cross-breeeding with other varietal types among this singular human species of ours, this is an ever-shrinking minority (well under 10%)..

Somewhat like the US Republican Party in principle !  

God, you are so intelligent you make my eyes bleed with your never ending problem solving,why aren't you lecturing in a well known uni;?

Nemesis wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, not wishing to engage in an IDS (infinite didge spiral), I'll move off to more interesting threads.  Before I go, I want to leave you with this last thought:


Man...you get yourself it the worst predicaments.

You mean in other words Pol Pot you can offer nothing of substance because it is clear you are uneducated.

Is this what the British education system produces?  


What is the mean drop-out age over there?

Our education system has been dumbed down considerably by the previous labour govt over their 13 years in office.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I agree with most of your points, but again what is poor is when some as seen here defend racism against whites and words which are clearly racist against whites.
You either stand against all racism, or then it is only selctive racism and thus very hypocritical.

I don't think it's that simple, though. I'd agree if I thought all types of racism are equally bad, but in most cases, minorities can't affect members of the majority the way the majority can affect minorities. There's an imbalance of power that I think has to be taken into consideration or at least acknowledged.

Precisely! A point one would only know if one had lived in a racist society. The problem with Brits is they have never experienced anything like racism...hence they have only a one-dimensional understanding of it.

It's like having a cake with no cake...only frosting and decoration.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

You mean in other words Pol Pot you can offer nothing of substance because it is clear you are uneducated.

Is this what the British education system produces?  

What is the mean drop-out age over there?

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill,whatever the UK schooling failings are,they are incomparable to the US school shootings that plague your country.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

I don't think it's that simple, though. I'd agree if I thought all types of racism are equally bad, but in most cases, minorities can't affect members of the majority the way the majority can affect minorities. There's an imbalance of power that I think has to be taken into consideration or at least acknowledged.

Precisely!  A point one would only know if one had lived in a racist society.  The problem with Brits is they have never experienced anything like racism...hence they have only a one-dimensional understanding of it.

It's like having a cake with no cake...only frosting and decoration.

Clearly Quill you have a different interpretation of racism to many of us in the UK.I've tried to work out the reasoning of your comments in this thread & conclude you have a very narrow understanding & view of racism.

I think you are either over simplifying racism or over complicating it.And I can't decide which....Probably,you are over complicating it & that in turn causes you to misunderstand racism.

My wife does that sometimes,she complicates things for no good reason & does it out of habit...I think.

For example,in the past,I have been called a fucking white bastard by a black bloke.He meant it when he said it & I perceived it as a racist attack....And that is quite simply what it is,a racist attack.

But somehow,you will negate the racism aspect of the attack because I am white.That's daft reasoning Quill.

Shady,i am devastated , Quill don't like us, sob sob] [that's not "son of a bitch"]

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Is this what the British education system produces?  

What is the mean drop-out age over there?

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill,whatever the UK schooling failings are,they are incomparable to the US school shootings that plague your country.

Of course they are incomparable. Is a golden retreiver a duck-billed platypus?

I was talking about the British education system. You are just looking for some garbage to toss. That's how one loses the plot.

But one thing in your answers generally, reveals that the British are too self-satisfied. Too little self-awareness makes Johnny a very dull boy.

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Brit would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding. It could be about anything...take guns, racism, any of a host of things that really concern y'all over there...but you never take the time to learn. Christ! It's like I'm talking to my brother's kids!

Ahh...well, the RW of American is following right behind. (Those are the one's actually living with the guns and racist ideas.)

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

You mean in other words Pol Pot you can offer nothing of substance because it is clear you are uneducated.

Is this what the British education system produces?  

What is the mean drop-out age over there?

Still upset it seems that you failed to understand slavery or that racism against whites exist.


This is what American schools produce:

For some reason a certain poster does not think these groups must exist:

• 1.1 Nation of Islam
  
• 1.2 Nation of Yahweh
  
• 1.3 New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense
  
• 1.4 The Israelite Church of God in Jesus Christ
  
• 1.5 Tribu Ka, Génération Kémi Séba
  
• 1.6 United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors
  

Quill, if you get your head a bit further up your own arse you might be able to disappear completely...

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill,whatever the UK schooling failings are,they are incomparable to the US school shootings that plague your country.

Of course they are incomparable.  Is a golden retreiver a duck-billed platypus?

I was talking about the British education system.  You are just looking for some garbage to toss.  That's how one loses the plot.

But one thing in your answers generally, reveals that the British are too self-satisfied.  Too little self-awareness makes Johnny a very dull boy.

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Brit would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding.  It could be about anything...take guns, racism, any of a host of things that really concern y'all over there...but you never take the time to learn.  Christ!  It's like I'm talking to my brother's kids!

Ahh...well, the RW of American is following right behind.  (Those are the one's actually living with the guns and racist ideas.)

So you have just basically insulted all posters on here who are British.

Interesting to know and really no point furthering engaging you in any further debates really, of which Ben does not seem to be that way thank goodness.

I hope you apologise for such a poor outburst which has utterly no merit.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:

Good afternoon Quill.

Quill,whatever the UK schooling failings are,they are incomparable to the US school shootings that plague your country.

Of course they are incomparable.  Is a golden retreiver a duck-billed platypus?

I was talking about the British education system.  You are just looking for some garbage to toss.  That's how one loses the plot.

But one thing in your answers generally, reveals that the British are too self-satisfied.  Too little self-awareness makes Johnny a very dull boy.

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Brit would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding.  It could be about anything...take guns, racism, any of a host of things that really concern y'all over there...but you never take the time to learn.  Christ!  It's like I'm talking to my brother's kids!

Ahh...well, the RW of American is following right behind.  (Those are the one's actually living with the guns and racist ideas.)

Mmmmm.Riiight. So if you disagree with someones point of view,you put up the old duck billed platypus smokescreen.

Not only has American culture caused the school shootings but the American education system has as well.Albeit in a roundabout way.That's because the so called positives of firearms ownership & the right to bear arms is taught & promoted in your schools.

Strip all the psychology away which attempts to explain why the shootings happen & we are left with the bare facts.Your teachers encourage the use of firearms in many of your schools.

Shady wrote:Clearly Quill you have a different interpretation of racism to many of us in the UK.I've tried to work out the reasoning of your comments in this thread & conclude you have a very narrow understanding & view of racism.

Actually, to the contrary, I have been arguing that the British need to widen their view of the idea of racism.  So far just didge has attempted to define it, and he has only come up with a two-line definition of ‘bigotry’.  But at least he understands the conversation.

You have often criticized me for bringing only ‘book-learning’ to the table.  Well, here’s where I turn the table on you…it is obvious you Brits have only a primary-school understanding of racism.  Even the way you talk about it shows you have only read textbooks on the subject.  Y’all would be babes in the American south, with all the tricks they pull.  Even as we watch all these news stories about cop-shootings, and how they get away with it, you have no ideological milieu in which to fit the story.  Y’all haven’t lived it.

Shady wrote:I think you are either over simplifying racism or over complicating it.And I can't decide which....Probably,you are over complicating it & that in turn causes you to misunderstand racism.

My wife does that sometimes,she complicates things for no good reason & does it out of habit...I think.

You are lost because you haven’t lived it.  It’s not complicated.  It’s just got more life and substance to it than you realize.  There are subtleties and nuances that you miss completely.  Your wife obviously has some instinct that you do not, so listen to her.  She’s not a challenge; she’s helping you.

Shady wrote:For example,in the past,I have been called a fucking white bastard by a black bloke.He meant it when he said it & I perceived it as a racist attack....And that is quite simply what it is,a racist attack.

But somehow,you will negate the racism aspect of the attack because I am white.That's daft reasoning Quill.

It’s not that you are white, Shady.  It’s that you are living with white presumptions.  Were you in this country you would be worse off, but you would be saved because there is always a white cop to beat up a black man who confronts you (a white).  

Look at George Zimmerman…need I say more?  Officer Darren Wilson, in Ferguson, MO?  Officer Mike Slager in South Carolina?  

Let’s go wider: look at the statistics that show blacks at 13% of the population, yet they are nearly 50% of the prison population—that’s a statistic that whites cause.  Or wider still: Republicans even admit that they support voter suppression in black neighborhoods.  Racism is everywhere...you just have to look.

I have no idea about the relationship you have with your black bloke in England.  But I’ve certainly got plenty of possibilities I’ve learned from watching over here.

Finally, one of the most frustrating things to hear is: Racism didn’t play a part.  You hear that from whites a lot because they want to shut off the discussion.    But , as Henry Hampton says, “If you're black in America, race is a factor in your life. Start with that assumption.”  The reason you haven’t recognized it, is because of denial like that.  You don’t want to see it as racist…so you flip the picture and call yourself the victim.  It’s all right there in front of you, if you only took the time.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:Clearly Quill you have a different interpretation of racism to many of us in the UK.I've tried to work out the reasoning of your comments in this thread & conclude you have a very narrow understanding & view of racism.

Actually, to the contrary, I have been arguing that the British need to widen their view of the idea of racism.  So far just didge has attempted to define it, and he has only come up with a two-line definition of ‘bigotry’.  But at least he understands the conversation.

You have often criticized me for bringing only ‘book-learning’ to the table.  Well, here’s where I turn the table on you…it is obvious you Brits have only a primary-school understanding of racism.  Even the way you talk about it shows you have only read textbooks on the subject.  Y’all would be babes in the American south, with all the tricks they pull.  Even as we watch all these news stories about cop-shootings, and how they get away with it, you have no ideological milieu in which to fit the story.  Y’all haven’t lived it.

Shady wrote:I think you are either over simplifying racism or over complicating it.And I can't decide which....Probably,you are over complicating it & that in turn causes you to misunderstand racism.

My wife does that sometimes,she complicates things for no good reason & does it out of habit...I think.

You are lost because you haven’t lived it.  It’s not complicated.  It’s just got more life and substance to it than you realize.  There are subtleties and nuances that you miss completely.  Your wife obviously has some instinct that you do not, so listen to her.  She’s not a challenge; she’s helping you.

Shady wrote:For example,in the past,I have been called a fucking white bastard by a black bloke.He meant it when he said it & I perceived it as a racist attack....And that is quite simply what it is,a racist attack.

But somehow,you will negate the racism aspect of the attack because I am white.That's daft reasoning Quill.

It’s not that you are white, Shady.  It’s that you are living with white presumptions.  Were you in this country you would be worse off, but you would be saved because there is always a white cop to beat up a black man who confronts you (a white).  

Look at George Zimmerman…need I say more?  Officer Darren Wilson, in Ferguson, MO?  Officer Mike Slager in South Carolina?  

Let’s go wider: look at the statistics that show blacks at 13% of the population, yet they are nearly 50% of the prison population—that’s a statistic that whites cause.  Or wider still: Republicans even admit that they support voter suppression in black neighborhoods.  Racism is everywhere...you just have to look.

I have no idea about the relationship you have with your black bloke in England.  But I’ve certainly got plenty of possibilities I’ve learned from watching over here.

Finally, one of the most frustrating things to hear is: Racism didn’t play a part.  You hear that from whites a lot because they want to shut off the discussion.    But , as Henry Hampton says, “If you're black in America, race is a factor in your life. Start with that assumption.”  The reason you haven’t recognized it, is because of denial like that.  You don’t want to see it as racist…so you flip the picture and call yourself the victim.  It’s all right there in front of you, if you only took the time.

Quill I've off now as I want to watch the evening news but I will get back to you.But I have time to say one quick thing in response to your reply...........You don't half complicate the simplest of things.

See you later.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course they are incomparable.  Is a golden retreiver a duck-billed platypus?

I was talking about the British education system.  You are just looking for some garbage to toss.  That's how one loses the plot.

But one thing in your answers generally, reveals that the British are too self-satisfied.  Too little self-awareness makes Johnny a very dull boy.

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Brit would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding.  It could be about anything...take guns, racism, any of a host of things that really concern y'all over there...but you never take the time to learn.  Christ!  It's like I'm talking to my brother's kids!

Ahh...well, the RW of American is following right behind.  (Those are the one's actually living with the guns and racist ideas.)

Mmmmm.Riiight. So if you disagree with someones point of view,you put up the old duck billed platypus smokescreen.

The point being that you are deliberately avoiding the picture, and the tale it tells.

Shady wrote:Not only has American culture caused the school shootings but the American education system has as well.Albeit in a roundabout way.That's because the so called positives of firearms ownership & the right to bear arms is taught & promoted  in your schools.

Strip all the psychology away which attempts to explain why the shootings happen & we are left with the bare facts.Your teachers encourage the use of firearms in many of your schools.

Alright, you are hurt by my (legitimate) criticisms of the UK education system.  You want to strike back.  So you change the subject to "school shootings" in the hope that you can stop the hurt I have been pasting you with over British education.

I criticize British education because the Brits come up with some of the most absurd, and ill-informed ideas of public and political issues possible.  Hence: where does this shit come from?  But, my point is neither "school shootings" nor British education, but racism.

Your one-dimensional understanding of racism lacks body and fullness.  That's because you haven't lived racism.  Didge has come up with a line-and-a-half definition that was borrowed from some textbook definition of 'bigotry'.  But racism isn't precisely bigotry, nor is it indeed a line-and-a-half.  It's a whole lifetime if you are a black in the US.  You can't take pages of books and substitute them for years of life.  I realize how you wish to 'uncomplicate' things, but you can't throw the baby out with the bath.

So let's stay on one topic.  This one is racism.  I will gladly talk to you about gun control and RW fanaticism on another thread.  Let's not avoid this topic by jumping to a more opportune subject.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:


Mmmmm.Riiight. So if you disagree with someones point of view,you put up the old duck billed platypus smokescreen.

The point being that you are deliberately avoiding the picture, and the tale it tells.

Shady wrote:Not only has American culture caused the school shootings but the American education system has as well.Albeit in a roundabout way.That's because the so called positives of firearms ownership & the right to bear arms is taught & promoted  in your schools.

Strip all the psychology away which attempts to explain why the shootings happen & we are left with the bare facts.Your teachers encourage the use of firearms in many of your schools.

Alright, you are hurt by my (legitimate) criticisms of the UK education system.  You want to strike back.  So you change the subject to "school shootings" in the hope that you can stop the hurt I have been pasting you with over British education.

I criticize British education because the Brits come up with some of the most absurd, and ill-informed ideas of public and political issues possible.  Hence: where does this shit come from?  But, my point is neither "school shootings" nor British education, but racism.

Your one-dimensional understanding of racism lacks body and fullness.  That's because you haven't lived racism.  Didge has come up with a line-and-a-half definition that was borrowed from some textbook definition of 'bigotry'.  But racism isn't precisely bigotry, nor is it indeed a line-and-a-half.  It's a whole lifetime if you are a black in the US.  You can't take pages of books and substitute them for years of life.  I realize how you wish to 'uncomplicate' things, but you can't throw the baby out with the bath.

So let's stay on one topic.  This one is racism.  I will gladly talk to you about gun control and RW fanaticism on another thread.  Let's not avoid this topic by jumping to a more opportune subject.

So basically,you want the conversation to proceed along your lines & within your rules exclusively.And you'll criticize any point of view that deviates from your agenda........You sound like Didge.

Unfortunately for you,it doesn't work like that & points of view & differing opinions from other posters including me,which you may deem invalid are considered valid by others........It's called debate.

And Quill you haven't hurt my feelings about the UK education system,I am simply giving an alternative point of view.

........I thought it was possible to actually debate with you.Am I wrong?.......

You appear unable to link the school shootings with your education system.Well maybe that's because the use of violence is high in the American psyche & that violent includes the casual & lethal use of firearms with no real thought of the consequences.

Americans use of ultra & unnecessary violence is well known throughout the world & one of the best places to address that problem is within the American school classroom.

Finally,your comments about Brits not understanding racism are a joke.

Here's an example of anti white racism...


Bahar Mustafa, the Welfare and Diversity officer for Goldsmiths Students’ Union, must have a strong sense of irony. You’d have to, to run an ‘anti-racism’ event which states that ‘if you’re a man and/or white PLEASE DON’T COME. As the student publication the Tab reports, the event claims to be ‘challenging the white-centric culture of occupations’, ‘diversifying our curriculum’ and building a ‘cross campus campaign that puts liberation at the heart of the movement...

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/04/white-people-have-now-been-banned-from-an-anti-racism-event-at-a-british-university/




And here's another one...


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2070562/Muslim-girl-gang-kicked-Rhea-Page-head-yelling-kill-white-slag-FREED.html


The somalian cvnts were allowed to walk free from court...



The high level of blacks in prison in America is down to The fact that they have committed high levels of crime.

That is entirely their own choices and their own fault.

Their are plenty of successful black people in America too who chose to study/work hard and achieve And not to commit crime.

Stop making excuses.

All you have shown is one case of girls getting away with a racist attack, where the same can be done for whites committing racist attacks.

Do you want me to show you this?

Do you also wanty to see how whites actually get off far more than minorities on sentencing.


The most common outcome for a white criminal was a community sentence; for Black, Asian and Chinese offenders it was custody. The statistics are broken down by types of crime, ruling out the possibility that black defendants might be being proportionally found guilty of more serious offences.
Disturbingly, in every year studied, a higher proportion of white defendants had previous convictions – which would normally result in a greater number of prosecutions and harsher sentences. But this does not appear to be the case.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/courts-are-biased-against-blacks-with-white-offenders-less-likely-to-be-jailed-for-similar-crimes-says-official-report-8959804.html


Again all racism is wrong but you need to check where the real disparity is.

I have shown two very clear cases of anti white racism.

Tommy Monk wrote:I have shown two very clear cases of anti white racism.

You showed racism does happen to whites, nobody disputed this except Quill.

What you tried to show poorly with the second link is as if many Muslims get off violence, when the opposite is true.
Have you seen how many Muslims are in jail?
Which backs up what my link said.
You need to show balance when you post about racism.

I showed two clear cases of anti white racism.

Shady wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Precisely!  A point one would only know if one had lived in a racist society.  The problem with Brits is they have never experienced anything like racism...hence they have only a one-dimensional understanding of it.

It's like having a cake with no cake...only frosting and decoration.

Clearly Quill you have a different interpretation of racism to many of us in the UK.I've tried to work out the reasoning of your comments in this thread & conclude you have a very narrow understanding & view of racism.

I think you are either over simplifying racism or over complicating it.And I can't decide which....Probably,you are over complicating it & that in turn causes you to misunderstand racism.

My wife does that sometimes,she complicates things for no good reason & does it out of habit...I think.

For example,in the past,I have been called a fucking white bastard by a black bloke.He meant it when he said it & I perceived it as a racist attack....And that is quite simply what it is,a racist attack.

But somehow,you will negate the racism aspect of the attack because I am white.That's daft reasoning Quill.

I think they do have a different idea in the US, at least on this forum. I've seen others say that black people can't be racist against white people because they are in a minority, and that does appear to be what Ben is saying.

In the UK there is at least an attempt to apply the race laws to everyone, regardless of majorities or whatever. If a white person is racially abused by a black person, it doesn't really matter that there are more white people in the country than black people.

However, there are some concessions to minorities in the UK. We have a Black Police Association but not a White Police Association - that would be frowned upon.

Tommy Monk wrote:I showed two clear cases of anti white racism.

There is no such thing. There is anti white hostility, but that has nothing to do with racism. "There is no such thing as race, but there is such a thing as racism." That is because race is purely an ideology, and has no reality. It is the collective response to race, racism, that is real.

An ideology presupposes a pattern...a history...to give it meaning. Without that, it's just an invention. You could call anything racist, without meaning...like: paying taxes is racism. Waiting at a red light is racism. Mowing the lawn is racism. Call anything racism...without a basis in fact, it has no meaning.

Whites would love to co-op the term. Remember when Richard Nixon co-opted the peace symbol? But of course...he's white.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:I showed two clear cases of anti white racism.

There is no such thing.  There is anti white hostility, but that has nothing to do with racism.  "There is no such thing as race, but there is such a thing as racism."  That is because race is purely an ideology, and has no reality.  It is the collective response to race, racism, that is real.

An ideology presupposes a pattern...a history...to give it meaning.  Without that, it's just an invention.  You could call anything racist, without meaning...like: paying taxes is racism.  Waiting at a red light is racism.  Mowing the lawn is racism.  Call anything racism...without a basis in fact, it has no meaning.

Whites would love to co-op the term.  Remember when Richard Nixon co-opted the peace symbol?  But of course...he's white.

There you go. You've just confirmed what I said - you at least do not believe that white people can be the victims of racism. Do you think that's the case where white people are in a minority?

What do you mean there is no such thing?



You are deluded mate!

Raggamuffin wrote:I think they do have a different idea in the US, at least on this forum. I've seen others say that black people can't be racist against white people because they are in a minority, and that does appear to be what Ben is saying.

I do in fact think that there can be racism, black to white…but usually on an individual level. Then, we usually speak of hostility, not racism. A black man might be angry at whites because of his personal history with them. But it requires a history—some kind of real life experience—to give it meaning.

When we speak usually of racism, we generally mean it in cultural terms. Culturally, there can be white on black racism because that ideology is out there in the culture. By contrast, there is no cultural black on white racism. That’s because it never happened on a cultural level.

There have been textbooks written on the American South, or the Missouri Compromise, or the Dred Scott case, etc., but there has been no textbook written on ‘Joe doesn’t like Sam’. There are a trillion reasons why Joe might not like Sam that have nothing to do with race...none of them a single, cohesive history.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

I agree with most of your points, but again what is poor is when some as seen here defend racism against whites and words which are clearly racist against whites.
You either stand against all racism, or then it is only selctive racism and thus very hypocritical.

I don't think it's that simple, though. I'd agree if I thought all types of racism are equally bad, but in most cases, minorities can't affect members of the majority the way the majority can affect minorities. There's an imbalance of power that I think has to be taken into consideration or at least acknowledged.

Isn't the idea not to have "majorities" or "minorities" based on the colour of someone's skin? If you have major problems in the US with racial differences, I think it's because you keep going on about them.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I think they do have a different idea in the US, at least on this forum. I've seen others say that black people can't be racist against white people because they are in a minority, and that does appear to be what Ben is saying.

I do in fact think that there can be racism, black to white…but usually on an individual level.  Then, we usually speak of hostility, not racism.  A black man might be angry at whites because of his personal history with them.  But it requires a history—some kind of real life experience—to give it meaning.

When we speak usually of racism, we generally mean it in cultural terms.  Culturally, there can be white on black racism because that ideology is out there in the culture.  By contrast, there is no cultural black on white racism.  That’s because it never happened on a cultural level.  

There have been textbooks written on the American South, or the Missouri Compromise, or the Dred Scott case, etc., but there has been no textbook written on ‘Joe doesn’t like Sam’.  There are a trillion reasons why Joe might not like Sam that have nothing to do with race...none of them a single, cohesive history.

I used to read a forum populated mainly by black people, and the way most of them spoke about white people was appalling. I suppose you would call that hostility, but in most cases they had no reason to be hostile to their white coworkers, or neighbours, or whotever, other than the fact that they don't like anyone who's white. You wouldn't call that racism?

Tommy Monk wrote:What do you mean there is no such thing?

You are deluded mate!

No...you are impatient.

What I mean is what I've been saying all along. There is no history. As I've said above, there can be such a thing as racism in one persons dislike or disapproval of another, but that is on an individual level and we perceive it as hostility.

Racism is generally cultural, but expressed in a thousand little individual actions. You can call every act of racism hostime, but you can't call every act of hostility racism, There has to be a cultural aspect...a history.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:What do you mean there is no such thing?

You are deluded mate!

No...you are impatient.

What I mean is what I've been saying all along.  There is no history.  As I've said above, there can be such a thing as racism in one persons dislike or disapproval of another, but that is on an individual level and we perceive it as hostility.

Racism is generally cultural, but expressed in a thousand little individual actions.  You can call every act of racism hostime, but you can't call every act of hostility racism,  There has to be a cultural aspect...a history.

So you're saying that if a white person is hostile to black people, that's racist because they used to have black slaves in the US? If a black person is hostile to white people, that can't be racist because there weren't white slaves? Are you further suggesting that the black person is quite right to be hostile to white people because of the slavery thing?

At what point do you stop using history as a method of making some people into "victims"?

All completely ignoring the fact that it was blacks and Muslims who enslaved other blacks and sold them on...


And that none of The blacks in America today have ever been slaves, and huge numbers never had any family history of slavery and arrived freely way after slavery had been abolished.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I do in fact think that there can be racism, black to white…but usually on an individual level.  Then, we usually speak of hostility, not racism.  A black man might be angry at whites because of his personal history with them.  But it requires a history—some kind of real life experience—to give it meaning.

When we speak usually of racism, we generally mean it in cultural terms.  Culturally, there can be white on black racism because that ideology is out there in the culture.  By contrast, there is no cultural black on white racism.  That’s because it never happened on a cultural level.  

There have been textbooks written on the American South, or the Missouri Compromise, or the Dred Scott case, etc., but there has been no textbook written on ‘Joe doesn’t like Sam’.  There are a trillion reasons why Joe might not like Sam that have nothing to do with race...none of them a single, cohesive history.

I used to read a forum populated mainly by black people, and the way most of them spoke about white people was appalling. I suppose you would call that hostility, but in most cases they had no reason to be hostile to their white coworkers, or neighbours, or whotever, other than the fact that they don't like anyone who's white. You wouldn't call that racism?

As I said, racism is hostile, but not all hostility is racism.

But I'll meet you half-way: your example of Jet or Ebony magazine probably would qualify as racism. But here we have to get into the question of Justice.  What whites did to blacks is unquestionably evil.  The opinions of black people of whites, in response, is not so much evil, as justified under the circumstances.

I used to use an example in my lectures when people would argue that blacks don't want to fraternize with whites (black separatism): If you were invited to a party and on the evening in question you and your spouse came, and the hostess took you aside and said...'Well yes, we invited you, but we never actually expected you to come!'...would you want to come back?

Tommy Monk wrote:All completely ignoring the fact that it was blacks and Muslims who enslaved other blacks and sold them on...

That's a different history, tommy.  But, in it's microcosm, yes it could present another example of injustice.

Tommy Monk wrote:And that none of The blacks in America today have ever been slaves, and huge numbers never had any family history of slavery and arrived freely way after slavery had been abolished.

But the blacks today are feeling the present effects of past slavery or discrimination.  That is this history, and it is quite real.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I used to read a forum populated mainly by black people, and the way most of them spoke about white people was appalling. I suppose you would call that hostility, but in most cases they had no reason to be hostile to their white coworkers, or neighbours, or whotever, other than the fact that they don't like anyone who's white. You wouldn't call that racism?

As I said, racism is hostile, but not all hostility is racism.

But I'll meet you haf-way: your example of Jet or Ebony magazine probably would constitute racism. But here we have to get into the arena of Justice.  What whites did to blacks is unquestionably evil.  The opinions of black people of whites, in response, is not so much evil, as justified under the circumstances.

I used to use an example in my lectures when people would argue that blacks don't want to fraternize with whites (black separatism): If you were invited to a party and on the evening in question you came, and the hostess said...'Well yes, we invited you, but we never expected you to come!'...would you want to come back?

But the particular white people who did those things to particular black people are not the same as the people around today, so do you not think that by focussing on this historical behaviour you're just keeping the hostility going? If a black person is hostile to a coworker simply because they are white, that's not really fair on that coworker is it? In the UK, that would not be tolerated if that hostility became bullying based on skin colour, and yes, it would be called racism.

That forum I mentioned - even the forum admin had to step in to stop the abuse towards the few white members, which was to their credit. Do you consider that even though white people were in a minority on that particular forum, the black members could not be racist towards them?

Nemesis wrote:

Whites will never be allowed to own land in Zimbabwe, that country’s president Robert Mugabe has announced, adding that the few remaining white farmers still there “must go.”

Mugabe’s latest racist anti-white outburst has of course been met with complete silence by the liberals in the west, who always lose no opportunity to crow about so-called “white racism” at every opportunity.

http://newobserveronline.com/no-land-for-whites-in-zimbabwe-says-mugabe-but-no-condemnation-for-this-racism/

Yes, as I said to Tommy, that's another example, with a story of its own.

That said, I would bet that much of what goes down in Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, to refresh us, is not unrelated to what whites did to blacks originally. See my post to Raggs on black separatism.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:

Whites will never be allowed to own land in Zimbabwe, that country’s president Robert Mugabe has announced, adding that the few remaining white farmers still there “must go.”

Mugabe’s latest racist anti-white outburst has of course been met with complete silence by the liberals in the west, who always lose no opportunity to crow about so-called “white racism” at every opportunity.

http://newobserveronline.com/no-land-for-whites-in-zimbabwe-says-mugabe-but-no-condemnation-for-this-racism/

Yes, as I said to Tommy, that's another example, with a story of its own.

That said, I would bet that much of what goes down in Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, to refresh us, is not unrelated to what whites did to blacks originally.  See my post to Raggs on black separatism.

The particular white people or white people in general?

I think your ideas are quite dangerous and divisive actually. You actually lecture people about this kind of thing?

Blacks today in America are feeling the hostility towards their high and violent crime rates and their gang style behaviour and general bad attitude...

So what about a white person who was once treated badly by a black person? Is that white person then entitled to treat all black people badly in return?

That's basically what you're saying Quill - that because one white person did something bad to a black person, that entitles black people to mistreat all white people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

As I said, racism is hostile, but not all hostility is racism.

But I'll meet you haf-way: your example of Jet or Ebony magazine probably would constitute racism. But here we have to get into the arena of Justice.  What whites did to blacks is unquestionably evil.  The opinions of black people of whites, in response, is not so much evil, as justified under the circumstances.

I used to use an example in my lectures when people would argue that blacks don't want to fraternize with whites (black separatism): If you were invited to a party and on the evening in question you came, and the hostess said...'Well yes, we invited you, but we never expected you to come!'...would you want to come back?

But the particular white people who did those things to particular black people are not the same as the people around today, so do you not think that by focussing on this historical behaviour you're just keeping the hostility going? If a black person is hostile to a coworker simply because they are white, that's not really fair on that coworker is it? In the UK, that would not be tolerated if that hostility became bullying based on skin colour, and yes, it would be called racism.

That's where you are wrong.  That's why, in this country, we speak of present effects/perpetuation of past discrimination.  See, eg, http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=cklawreview  Blacks face this every day.  You just recognize, in your example, the hostility toward whites because you are white.

Raggamuffin wrote:That forum I mentioned - even the forum admin had to step in to stop the abuse towards the few white members, which was to their credit. Do you consider that even though white people were in a minority on that particular forum, the black members could not be racist towards them?

I can understand when interpersonal hostility heats up, it can be ugly.  Nevertheless, consider the question of Justice, in the equation.

Tommy Monk wrote:
Blacks today in America are feeling the hostility towards their high and violent crime rates and their gang style behaviour and general bad attitude...

Conditions created by whites...present effects of past discrimination.

Believe me, liberals are trying to solve these problems.  RW'ers don't want to solve them.  They would prefer more prisons and more wars.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

But the particular white people who did those things to particular black people are not the same as the people around today, so do you not think that by focussing on this historical behaviour you're just keeping the hostility going? If a black person is hostile to a coworker simply because they are white, that's not really fair on that coworker is it? In the UK, that would not be tolerated if that hostility became bullying based on skin colour, and yes, it would be called racism.

That's where you are wrong.  That's why, in this country, we speak of present effects/perpetuation of past discrimination.  See, eg, http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2262&context=cklawreview  Blacks face this every day.  You just recognize in your example because you are white.

Raggamuffin wrote:That forum I mentioned - even the forum admin had to step in to stop the abuse towards the few white members, which was to their credit. Do you consider that even though white people were in a minority on that particular forum, the black members could not be racist towards them?

I can understand when interpersonal hostility heats up, it can be ugly.  Nevertheless, consider the question of Justice, in the equation.

So you think that a black person is entitled to call me all the names under the sun, tell me to hang myself from a tree, etc, just because somewhere in the US at some point someone with black skin was mistreated? How is that justice?

It's no wonder you have an ongoing problem over there. You are telling black people that they are victims, even if they're not. You're telling that they're entitled to mistreat white people just because they're white.

Perhaps in the UK people are treated more as individuals rather than as a number.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:
Blacks today in America are feeling the hostility towards their high and violent crime rates and their gang style behaviour and general bad attitude...

Conditions created by whites...present effects of past discrimination.

Believe me, liberals are trying to solve these problems.  RW'ers don't want to solve them.  They would prefer more prisons and more wars.

Do these liberals tell black people that they're quite right to feel aggrieved and hate white people then?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Conditions created by whites...present effects of past discrimination.

Believe me, liberals are trying to solve these problems.  RW'ers don't want to solve them.  They would prefer more prisons and more wars.

Do these liberals tell black people that they're quite right to feel aggrieved and hate white people then?

No, they don't speak down to anyone. What they try to do is counter any present barriers to black people and equal opportunity, and promote education and economic achievement as the way into the mainstream of American prosperity and happiness.

Of course, the Republican Congress opposes them every step of the way. But the main population of Americans are for helping black people. Look at the uproar over these police killings of black men...those are the patterns (present effects of past discrimination) that the right-thinking liberals are trying to correct.

Rags one of the best ways to understand the issue in America is by watching this great teacher.

It is worth watching to understand:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Do these liberals tell black people that they're quite right to feel aggrieved and hate white people then?

No, they don't speak down to anyone.  What they try to do is counter any present barriers to black people and equal opportunity, and promote education and economic achievement as the way into the mainstream of American prosperity and happiness.

Of course, the Republican Congress opposes them every step of the way.  But the main population of Americans are for helping black people.  Look at the uproar over these police killings of black men...those are the patterns (present effects of past discrimination) that the right-thinking liberals are trying to correct.

I'll just point out that prosperity doesn't necessarily lead to happiness, but hey ...

So do you think that the problems of a black person are all down to "white privilege" and history, or do you concede that they might have something to do with the attitude of the black person? For example, what is stopping a black person trying hard at school? I mean, they're not forbidden to attend school are they?

Ragggamuffin wrote:So you think that a black person is entitled to call me all the names under the sun, tell me to hang myself from a tree, etc, just because somewhere in the US at some point someone with black skin was mistreated? How is that justice?

Whatever the incident or circumstance, if it is related to racism it is a present effect of past discrimination. Crime, poverty, hostility…treat it intelligently…scientifically. Look for the causes and try to correct them.

Raggamuffin wrote:It's no wonder you have an ongoing problem over there. You are telling black people that they are victims, even if they're not. You're telling that they're entitled to mistreat white people just because they're white.

Perhaps in the UK people are treated more as individuals rather than as a number.

I believe the UK is sticking its collective head in the sand. If it does not learn lessons that are already being taught elsewhere, such as the US, well…it will remain uneducated, with all that such entails in terms of poverty and failure.

The UK is already past its apex. That means that it doesn’t have the wide latitude for error that goes with being a dominant power. Where the UK goes from here—elder statesman or poor street sweeper—will depend on choices made right now, here today.