Yep, that's racism!

by Original Quill Wed Apr 22, 2015 4:51 pm

First topic message reminder :

Since realizing how little our British members are aware of racism in the US, I thought I would put up a thread along the general lines of: Yep, that's what racism is like! Here's the first story: http://news.yahoo.com/town-residents-react-to-officer-exodus-after-election-of-first-female-black-mayor-193214641.html

Yahoo News wrote:Missouri town responds to officer exodus after election of black female mayor

A small city in Missouri caught national attention when roughly half of its employees resigned following the election of its first African-American female mayor.

Many news outlets and bloggers have speculated that racism and sexism drove the exodus in Parma, a city of about 700 near the Mississippi River; whereas several residents say other factors were at play.

Mayor Tyus Byrd, 40, who beat longtime incumbent Randall Ramsey, has not yet released a formal statement on the controversy, but did address it briefly after being sworn in last week.

“Moving forward, I’ll get with the board. I’ll speak here in a little bit,” she told KFVS-TV, “and we’ll talk and discuss those issues that have taken place today. And we’ll try to get things in order for the city.”

The local CBS affiliate reported that three full-time cops and two part-time cops — five of the city’s six officers — quit without notice. Several other officials, including the city attorney and city clerk, also resigned.

Nelvia Donaldson, an African-American alderman in Parma, thinks bigotry is behind the departures that followed Ramsey’s defeat, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reported.

“I think it’s about being a woman and being black,” she told the paper. “He (Ramsey) thought he had it in the bag.”

Rich Medley, a former assistant police chief, on the other hand, said to the Post-Dispatch that he resigned out of fear that he would not be allowed to do his job properly.

He said the town’s officers had several run-ins with members of Byrd’s family.

“Rather than put my life in danger more than I do now on a daily basis, I decided to walk away,” Medley said.

Ramsey told KFVS-TV that the departures were over “safety concerns,” but none of the resignation letters have been made public.

Parma resident Martha Miller, who campaigned for Byrd, does not think the resignations have to do with race, but she disagrees with how they happened.

“I think it’s pretty dirty they all quit without giving her a chance. But I don’t think they hurt the town any by quitting, because who needs six police for 740 people,” she told KFVS-TV.

“There was absolutely no racism that had anything to do with this,” Barry Aycock, a white former alderman, said to The Associated Press. “We had an election, it’s over, and we’re all supporting the new mayor and moving forward.”

Lisa Kirk, 58, who owns a convenience store in Parma, was surprised that the town even had six people on its police force.

“There was never police around in town,” she told the wire service. “We have no idea where the six officers worked or who they are. If they did work, I don’t know where they were.”

Kirk said her shop has been burglarized nine times over the past decade.

One thing’s for sure: Byrd has attracted a lot of supporters on social media since the story broke.

by Eilzel Thu Apr 23, 2015 3:41 pm

Quill mentioned Brits being privileged. Speaking as a Brit from a very much working class background I agreed. You then contended that fact and I have explained why I see that as the case. You have yet to show how average people in all those places I mentioned are not less privileged than the average Brit- you are instead picking on one small point on which fair enough I may have misread, but it was a small point. Well I apologise for that- so can you now explain how most Brits are in fact NOT privileged relative to the world at large?

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:11 pm

Eilzel wrote:Quill mentioned Brits being privileged. Speaking as a Brit from a very much working class background I agreed. You then contended that fact and I have explained why I see that as the case. You have yet to show how average people in all those places I mentioned are not less privileged than the average Brit- you are instead picking on one small point on which fair enough I may have misread, but it was a small point. Well I apologise for that- so can you now explain how most Brits are in fact NOT privileged relative to the world at large?

I queried your reasons for thinking that Brits are privileged. You were the one who gave those reasons, so clearly they were not small points to you. Here they are again, in case you can't remember them.

Nobody is saying British people don't work hard. He is saying that we are privileged by comparison to most other groups in history. And that's true. Today, a British person has access to more countries than most others by virtue of holding a British passport, enjoys one of the best health services in the world, are automatically able to speak the international language of business, English, and is automatically in larger end of global income. The average global income btw is around £6,000, compared to the British average of around £26,000.

How do you define "privilege" anyway? Do you mean lucky? Do you mean spoilt? Do you mean that a privileged person doesn't ever suffer?

by Eilzel Thu Apr 23, 2015 4:59 pm

I also listed safety from war, natural disasters and terrorism in a further post, along with high standards of education, healthcare, welfare and retirement as well as life expectancy compared to most other countries. Add those things to language, travel opportunities, healthcare, income and much fewer diseases, freedom of speech and civil liberties and outstanding equal rights and relative lack if poverty compared with most other countries as well.

By privileged I mean we (the average Brits) have better standards of living and much better opportunities both in our own nation and outside it than do average people from most other countries, by fortune of where we were born.

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:06 pm

Nothing we have not created ourselves...

Although there are lefties and Muslims among us who wish to change a few of the things you list...

by Eilzel Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:15 pm

Not the point monk, the point is it is a privilege to be born in a privilieged nation- something people should appreciate more often.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:27 pm

Eilzel wrote:Not the point monk, the point is it is a privilege to be born in a privilieged nation- something people should appreciate more often.

So what do you make of all these young people who complain about having years of debt to pay when they leave university, people on benefits who complain that they don't get enough, or people who complain that they can't get to see their doctor when they want to? Do you think they should quit moaning?

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:31 pm

The thing is that people in the UK won't compare themselves to people in other countries. If they compare their living standards to anyone else's, they'll compare it to others in the same country.

by Tommy Monk Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:42 pm

As I said, nothing we haven't created for ourselves, if only others had bothered too...

Some places are shit because the people there make it shit!

Their environment is a product of them and they are then a product of their environment.

by Raggamuffin Thu Apr 23, 2015 5:48 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:As I said, nothing we haven't created for ourselves, if only others had bothered too...

Some places are shit because the people there make it shit!

Their environment is a product of them and they are then a product of their environment.

I think the problem is with the word "privilege" because it implies that no effort has been made. Of course a baby can't make a difference, so in a sense they can be born in a "lucky" environment or not, but I do agree that most of the things which have been put forward as examples of "privilege" didn't just fall into people's laps.

by Guest Thu Apr 23, 2015 6:05 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:As I said, nothing we haven't created for ourselves, if only others had bothered too...

Some places are shit because the people there make it shit!

Their environment is a product of them and they are then a product of their environment.

You have created nothing yourself, you are the by-product of a system where collectively you are privileged into that system. You would not learn many things without that system all due to the innovations of only a few individuals. So you and everyone is privileged to have that system and off those before you

Some places have been left badly by colonialism where they still see the effects to this day, which will take as it did in the west where many people were not educated decades to resolve.

by veya_victaous Thu Apr 23, 2015 11:14 pm

Tommy Monk wrote:As I said, nothing we haven't created for ourselves, if only others had bothered too...

Some places are shit because the people there make it shit!

Their environment is a product of them and they are then a product of their environment.

lolz
he says from the nation sinking into sewerage since it has been stopped from raping colonies
Yep, that's racism! - Page 2 2981866455

where did the wealth come from to build those universities and infrastructure? stolen from someone else.
we are seeing nations come up now who are doing it with out the benefit of enslaving other nations.
the reason why you are slipping is that you have not been maintaining the investment in infrastructure once you had to pay yourselves.

Nemesis said it right, it will take generations to fix and a lot of you don't seem to realize that British colonial rorts were still running into the 1970's. it is not distant past, there are living natives were personally affected by the faults of the British empire. While it is true it is almost all the aristocracy's fault, you the people have not punished them for it.
Yep, that's racism! - Page 2 2794048296

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:08 am

All Quill appears to be saying is that here in the UK we don’t experience anything like the racism they experience in the USA where it is embedded into the very core of much of their society - particularly in the deep South. He has lived it and seen it closer than we have and I doubt many of us ever will and maybe that’s why he see’s it the way he does in that in the USA much of it is hostility towards whites rather than outright racism.

His views on British education may be a bit far-fetched but he is not alone in that. Even our own Tory leaders have told us (incorrectly) that education standards have plummeted over the last decade. We also had the Tesco boss saying that new employee’s coming to them have had to have further work done on them before they can be presented to their customers as the face of Tesco. Just how laughable is that given to what the executives have done to the Tesco business over the last year or so.

Quill has been around these boards for several years now and has seen many posters rip into the education standards here in the UK so maybe he has been heavily influenced by all that.

There is no excuse for racism and I have experienced that on this very board by a recently departed member who posted this...

Brasidas wrote wrote: Traitors normally tend to be Scots so this is no surprise.

That is the worst example of racism that I have seen written on this board and it was directed at me personally. There is absolutely no excuse for that - it’s downright insulting and coming from a UK citizen makes it even worse.

Sorry, but a campaign to demonise and marginalise a poster in the way it’s being done on here and branding this forum as a site which encourages racism is quite sad and pathetic really.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:12 am

It seems the left offer more excuse to where something is clearly discriminating and again fail to answer my points on this:

I shall pose the following to you, where it seems any on the left wish to excuse racism?

Now how would you feel if someone claim the following:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a woman would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Would you claim that was sexist or making a mountain out of a Molehill?

Of how about this:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Homosexual would have only the remotest, one-dimensional nderstanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Homophobic or making a mountain out of a molehill?

How about:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Nigerian would have only the remotest, one-dimensional nderstanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Now explain to me again how his views were not racist.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:15 am

Scot tend to be traitors is not as if all are based on he word tend. It certainly is demeaning and poor, but not specific to all Scots which is clear by the context. So I agree it is wrong.

What is also wrong is how posters here clearly cannot condemn things when done wrong by some on the left. That lacks decency and trying to show where others have done wrong does not excuse where Quill has done wrong.

It just shows how hypocritical people can be about racism and based on how I changed one word from his phrase to other examples and said by some other posters here, many here would be up in arms. That shows how some here are utterly biased, which is a shame

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:22 am

Nemesis wrote:Scot tend to be traitors is not as if all are based on he word tend. It certainly is demeaning and poor, but not specific to all Scots which is clear by the context. So I agree it is wrong.

What is also wrong is how posters here clearly cannot condemn things when done wrong by some on the left. That lacks decency and trying to show where others have done wrong does not excuse where Quill has done wrong.

It just shows how hypocritical people can be about racism and based on how I changed one word and it was said by some other posters, many here would be up in arms. That shows how some here are utterly biased, which is a shame

So bearing in mind what you have already posted on this site since you joined will you condemn that statement as a racist slur on the Scots and that the member who posted it is a racist?

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:25 am

Irn Bru wrote:
Nemesis wrote:Scot tend to be traitors is not as if all are based on he word tend. It certainly is demeaning and poor, but not specific to all Scots which is clear by the context. So I agree it is wrong.

What is also wrong is how posters here clearly cannot condemn things when done wrong by some on the left. That lacks decency and trying to show where others have done wrong does not excuse where Quill has done wrong.

It just shows how hypocritical people can be about racism and based on how I changed one word and it was said by some other posters, many here would be up in arms. That shows how some here are utterly biased, which is a shame

So bearing in mind what you have already posted on this site since you joined will you condemn that statement as a racist slur on the Scots and that the member who posted it is a racist?

Racism is inferior or superior which Quill based his view points on. His vies is that the Brits are inferior.

Some Scots being claimed to be traitors is not claiming they are inferior and would be xenophobic and not racist. It could also be the poster was just simply mistaken in regards to how many traitors he thought there was.

Do you see the difference?

So again are you going to continue to ignore my points?

I shall pose the following to you, where it seems any on the left wish to excuse racism?

Now how would you feel if someone claim the following:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a woman would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Would you claim that was sexist or making a mountain out of a Molehill?

Of how about this:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Homosexual would have only the remotest, one-dimensional nderstanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Homophobic or making a mountain out of a molehill?

How about:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Nigerian would have only the remotest, one-dimensional nderstanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Now explain to me again how his views were not racist.

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:37 am

No, I'm sorry but that post was directed at the Scots and my view that is a racial slur on them. And I haven't ignored you points at all because I gave my views on what Quill has said in my earlier post.

So do you condemn the words of the poster who bolted from here and put up that statement and accept that it is a racially aggravated slur on the Scots by stating quite clearly that as a nation Scots tend to be traitors?

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:40 am

Irn Bru wrote:No, I'm sorry but that post was directed at the Scots and my view that is a racial slur on them. And I haven't ignored you points at all because I gave my views on what Quill has said in my earlier post.

So do you condemn the words of the poster who bolted from here and put up that statement and accept that it is a racially aggravated slur on the Scots by stating quite clearly that as a nation Scots tend to be traitors?

I already condemned the xenophobic post a couple of posts back, did you not understand the first time?
It seems you are just dodging the points as I already did that and said it was wrong

I am sorry but you have a very bad habit where your questions are answered and you avoid those posed to you.

You have not answered these questions all you have poorly done is try to defend a very discriminating racist view of the Brits

I shall pose the following to you, where it seems any on the left wish to excuse racism?

Now how would you feel if someone claim the following:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a woman would have only the remotest, one-dimensional understanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Would you claim that was sexist or making a mountain out of a Molehill?

Of how about this:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Homosexual would have only the remotest, one-dimensional nderstanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Homophobic or making a mountain out of a molehill?

How about:

It is clear that Ben and I can have a conversation of which a Nigerian would have only the remotest, one-dimensional nderstanding. It could be about anything...

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!

Now explain to me again how his views were not racist.

_________________

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:47 am

So Quill's views are xenophobic and not racist then? And I have already posted my views on what Quill has posted and I get what he is saying.

And what I see here is you excusing racism with your attempts to claim that what the guy Brasidas wrote isn't. British, Scots - whats different?

by veya_victaous Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:53 am

Lost in the Mountains of the molehills

Yep, that's racism! - Page 2 Climbo

why are you so racist against Scots... the only traitorous thing they did was be forced into union with England confused

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:54 am

veya_victaous wrote:Lost in the Mountains of the molehills

why are you so racist against Scots... the only traitorous thing they did was be forced into union with England

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 12:55 am

Again:

Quill based his view points on.that the Brits are inferior.

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...

Remotest, one dimensional understanding on anything.
Inferior view point of Brits

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!
Brits have the intelligence level of children by this point, very racist and in fact icing on the cake.

racism

noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
"theories of racism"
prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

Some Scots being claimed to be traitors is not claiming they are inferior and would be xenophobic and not racist. It means there is either a dislike for the Scots or the post has the wrong information. It done to demean, it would be xenophobic. It could also be the poster was just simply mistaken in regards to how many traitors he thought there was. If done to demean it is wrong.

xenophobia

noun
dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries.

Do you see the difference?

Again you did not answer my questions and yet ask me more.

Either go and address each change of phrase and answer them and then come back to me with your answers.

I am not going to keep playing your games, it is thatsimple

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:01 am

Postman who called Andy Murray 'useless jock' is convicted of racism

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/8678475/Postman-who-called-Andy-Murray-useless-jock-is-convicted-of-racism.html

See that? The guy Didge called myself and some others as 'Jumped up' Jocks' and in the eyes of the law that is racist. So he is a racist and if you are now defending what Didge posted and what Brasidas posted than that makes you a racist as well plain and simple.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:08 am

So again you avoid answering the questions

You are not an honest or serious debater at all.

I will answer one point, if Jock is racist, then why do the Black Watch call themselves the Jocks and in fact many Scots call themselves this and even people call people they do not know Jocks as a term of endearment. We see the same with Paddy. So if you think just calling you a jock is racist, where is the view that Scots are inferior in just calling you a jock? If other things were said in combination of calling you Jock, it is possible to again be xenophobic and would be wrong.

So this is your last chance, at each turn I have answered your points and each time you have failed to answer mine

Choice is yours

Final chance

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:12 am

Final chance Laughing

In the eyes of the law it is racist and if you are defending what has been posted about the Scots then you clearly are a racist.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:18 am

No, he was convicted of two crimes, on their own, neither would have seen a conviction, plus the fact he targeted multiple victims, thus combination of factors led to his conviction which I guess ed you missed reading on

Anyway, you have had countless chances to answer my questions posed to you and again you prove I am right about some of the left being completely hypocritical on failing to condemn racism.

All you did was deflect about another poster avoiding the actual debate. I even answered and condemned these views also, and yet you still continued to avoid everything posed to you around his post being racist and the other similarities to other discrimination by changing one word.

As I say, it is clear you are not a very serious debating poster, as clearly can be seen

Thanks for your input, but again you failed to show my points were wrong.

All the best

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:21 am

Nemesis wrote:No, he was convicted of two crimes, on their own, neither would have seen a conviction, plus the fact he targeted multiple victims, thus combination of factors led to his conviction which I guess ed you missed reading on

Anyway, you have had countless chances to answer my questions posed to you and again you prove I am right about some of the left being completely hypocritical on failing to condemn racism.

All you did was deflect about another poster avoiding the actual debate. I even answered and condemned these views also, and yet you still continued to avoid everything posed to you around his post being racist and the other similarities to other discrimination by changing one word.

As I say, it is clear you are not a very serious debating poster, as clearly can be seen

Thanks for your input, but again you failed to show my points were wrong.

All the best

In the eyes of the law both Brasidas and Didge are racist and in defending them so are you.

So as that was my last chance what happens next?

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:27 am

The debate is over and calling someone a jock is not racist on its own. It certainly could be xenophobic if used to show dislike to Scots, but again if not used to make a view of the Scots being inferior it is not racist and it certainly would not be in the eyes of the law. It took other combination factors to make this case a conviction.

So again you you did not answer and really are not worth debating as seen. I hope in the future you learn how to actually engage in a debate and again recognise when Quill has been racist

It really shows how some of the left are dishonest, unable to be impartial and back people they like or those with similar views.

That is the worst kind of dishonesty

Anyhow, next time show some decorum when debating by answering points made to you, otherwise the next one will be over very quickly

Some sound advice for you

All the best

by Irn Bru Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:34 am

Nemesis wrote:The debate is over and calling someone a jock is not racist on its own. It certainly could be xenophobic is used to demean Scots, but again if not used to make a view of the Scots being inferior it is not racist and it certainly would not be in the eyes of the law. It took other combination factors to make this case a conviction.

So again you you did not answer and really are not worth debating as seen. I hope in the future you learn how to actually engage in a debate and again recognise when Quill has been racist

It really shows how some of the left are dishonest, unable to be impartial and back people they like or those with similar views.

That is the worst kind of dishonesty

Anyhow, next time show some decorum when debating by answering points made to you, otherwise the next one will be over very quickly

Some sound advice for you

All the best

Calling someone a Jock isn't racist but in the eyes of the law calling them a Jumped up Jock is racially aggravated language.

I don't actually agree with that but there you go - it's racist and both Didge and Brasisas knew that because I told them but they both still come out with this nonsense about the Scots tending to be traitors. That is downright insulting and racist in any language you want to dress it up in.

Don't make the mistake of defending that because if you do it puts you in the same boat as both of them.

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 1:51 am

Nemesis wrote:
Tommy Monk wrote:As I said, nothing we haven't created for ourselves, if only others had bothered too...

Some places are shit because the people there make it shit!

Their environment is a product of them and they are then a product of their environment.

You have created nothing yourself, you are the by-product of a system where collectively you are privileged into that system. You would not learn many things without that system all due to the innovations of only a few individuals. So you and everyone is privileged to have that system and off those before you

Some places have been left badly by colonialism where they still see the effects to this day, which will take as it did in the west where many people were not educated decades to resolve.

Very well said Nemesis, and that's the crux of what I've been saying the whole time here.

Rags, people may not compare themselves to others in other countries, but that doesn't change the fact they are privileged by comparison, I'm notbtalking about whether people 'feel' privileged or not. And of course relative to richer people they are not privileged, but the average person in Britain is still better placed than most in the world.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:35 am

Eilzel wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

You have created nothing yourself, you are the by-product of a system where collectively you are privileged into that system. You would not learn many things without that system all due to the innovations of only a few individuals. So you and everyone is privileged to have that system and off those before you

Some places have been left badly by colonialism where they still see the effects to this day, which will take as it did in the west where many people were not educated decades to resolve.

Very well said Nemesis, and that's the crux of what I've been saying the whole time here.

Rags, people may not compare themselves to others in other countries, but that doesn't change the fact they are privileged by comparison, I'm notbtalking about whether people 'feel' privileged or not. And of course relative to richer people they are not privileged, but the average person in Britain is still better placed than most in the world.

Would it be fair to say then that Americans are also privileged, and that includes black Americans? If you're going to say that a whole nation is privileged, you have to include every citizen.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:37 am

It's interesting that some people consider the Scots to be a race. Do those same people also think that the English are a race?

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:49 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:

Very well said Nemesis, and that's the crux of what I've been saying the whole time here.

Rags, people may not compare themselves to others in other countries, but that doesn't change the fact they are privileged by comparison, I'm notbtalking about whether people 'feel' privileged or not. And of course relative to richer people they are not privileged, but the average person in Britain is still better placed than most in the world.

Would it be fair to say then that Americans are also privileged, and that includes black Americans? If you're going to say that a whole nation is privileged, you have to include every citizen.

Hi Rags

African Americans are certainly privileged compared to many Africans.
African Americans however suffer from being disadvantaged in America so much so the level of disparity is greater than it was under South African Apartheid. This is why I stated yesterday we are the by-product of a system where collectively you are privileged into that system.We would be unable to learn many things without that system all due to the innovations of only a few individuals.

So we are all privileged, but.again there are also levels of privileged within a nation also, hence I thought this was the point you were making? If not, this was the point I was making yesterday in regard to a disparity of privilege in a society itself. Hence why there is levels of comparison of privilege and why you may feel privileged compared to say Africa, But you certainly would feel underprivileged within you own society. As groups of people are discriminated against in many cases from birth due to your skin colour. So in this case in society and within most, you have an inequality in regards to how privileged you are in society. You would be still privileged but to a far lesser agree than other.

Hope that helps explain

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:52 am

Exactly Nemesis- it is relative.

Rags, I have repeatedly used the terms 'most' and 'average' people when talking about privilige. And yes it would be fair to say Americans are privileged compared to people of most countries.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 6:56 am

Eilzel wrote:
Nemesis wrote:

You have created nothing yourself, you are the by-product of a system where collectively you are privileged into that system. You would not learn many things without that system all due to the innovations of only a few individuals. So you and everyone is privileged to have that system and off those before you

Some places have been left badly by colonialism where they still see the effects to this day, which will take as it did in the west where many people were not educated decades to resolve.

Very well said Nemesis, and that's the crux of what I've been saying the whole time here.

Rags, people may not compare themselves to others in other countries, but that doesn't change the fact they are privileged by comparison, I'm notbtalking about whether people 'feel' privileged or not. And of course relative to richer people they are not privileged, but the average person in Britain is still better placed than most in the world.

Morning Eilzel

And thanks

Again as explained above there is other ways to look at how privileged you are in a society. If you are from the very start, less privileged than other British citizens based on the colour of your skin/race, your gender, your sexuality, your disability etc. then people are not going to feel privileged in their own country where they face such discrimination and hate.
If you see what I mean?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:09 am

Eilzel wrote:Exactly Nemesis- it is relative.

Rags, I have repeatedly used the terms 'most' and 'average' people when talking about privilige. And yes it would be fair to say Americans are privileged compared to people of most countries.

So shouldn't black people in the US think of themselves as privileged compared to people in other countries? Perhaps you should tell them that.

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:11 am

I do. Feeling privileged is much different to being priviliged. It depends how you look at life.

I could say I'm a working class gay guy who didn'tbhave the same opportunities as millions of other English people. I come from a council estate on the outer edge of Greater Manchester where homophobia was once rife and so I impeded my own life by being in the closet for a very long time. I left college into a shitty jobs market in my local area and my first few jobs were lousy and although I've almost constantly worked I was unemployed for a couple of months at one point. I could look at all that and say I'm one of the least privileged guys I know...

But I don't. Because I've seem how other people live, in many places, both by reading and hearing about things elsewhere and by seeing how peoples lives are with my own eyes.

I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't working class in India, or gay in Iran or unemployed in Thailand- because then life would have been a heck of a lot more crap than I ever might have felt. I'm glad whenever I've need medical help it was either free or relatively cheap. I'm glad as an adult I was able to start and finish my degree with financial support when I needed it.

There are always various perspectives, but for the average Brit (or American) of they look at the bigger picture they have every reason to feel privileged- because they are.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:12 am

Irn Bru wrote:All Quill appears to be saying is that here in the UK we don’t experience anything like the racism they experience in the USA where it is embedded into the very core of much of their society - particularly in the deep South. He has lived it and seen it closer than we have and I doubt many of us ever will and maybe that’s why he see’s it the way he does in that in the USA much of it is hostility towards whites rather than outright racism.

His views on British education may be a bit far-fetched but he is not alone in that. Even our own Tory leaders have told us (incorrectly) that education standards have plummeted over the last decade. We also had the Tesco boss saying that new employee’s coming to them have had to have further work done on them before they can be presented to their customers as the face of Tesco. Just how laughable is that given to what the executives have done to the Tesco business over the last year or so.

Quill has been around these boards for several years now and has seen many posters rip into the education standards here in the UK so maybe he has been heavily influenced by all that.

There is no excuse for racism and I have experienced that on this very board by a recently departed member who posted this...

Brasidas wrote wrote: Traitors normally tend to be Scots so this is no surprise.

That is the worst example of racism that I have seen written on this board and it was directed at me personally. There is absolutely no excuse for that - it’s downright insulting and coming from a UK citizen makes it even worse.

Sorry, but a campaign to demonise and marginalise a poster in the way it’s being done on here and branding this forum as a site which encourages racism is quite sad and pathetic really.

It's all a bit patronising though - this desire to "educate" the British about racism in the US. Quill has a tendency to put a lot of things down to racism without knowing the facts. I notice he has not been back to this thread to discuss the story he posted at the beginning, and he has just assumed that the issue is racism. He assumed that the death of Trayvon Martin and the subsequent acquittal of George Zimmerman was down to racism, when it's clear that he didn't actually follow the trial or look at any of the evidence.

Of course some things can be put down to hostility, but to imply that black people can't be racist towards white people is just silly.

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:14 am

Rags, just because people are privileged doesn't mean they should be complacent- if there are still problems in a society they should be fixed. Black people in the USA might be more privileged than in poorer African countries but that doesn't mean things are perfect- problem with you it seems is everything is either black or white (expression there, not referring to colour)- when most matters are many shades of grey.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:15 am

Eilzel wrote:I do. Feeling privileged is much different to being priviliged. It depends how you look at life.

I could say I'm a working class gay guy who didn'tbhave the same opportunities as millions of other English people. I come from a council estate on the outer edge of Greater Manchester where homophobia was once rife and so I impeded my own life by being in the closet for a very long time. I left college into a shitty jobs market in my local area and my first few jobs were lousy and although I've almost constantly worked I was unemployed for a couple of months at one point. I could look at all that and say I'm one of the least privileged guys I know...

But I don't. Because I've seem how other people live, in many places, both by reading and hearing about things elsewhere and by seeing how peoples lives are with my own eyes.

I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't working class in India, or gay in Iran or unemployed in Thailand- because then life would have been a heck of a lot more crap than I ever might have felt. I'm glad whenever I've need medical help it was either free or relatively cheap. I'm glad as an adult I was able to start and finish my degree with financial support when I needed it.

There are always various perspectives, but for the average Brit (or American) of they look at the bigger picture they have every reason to feel privileged- because they are.

In what way did you not have the same opportunities as millions of other English people? You went to school didn't you? You had the opportunity to pay attention like anyone else. You had the opportunity to move to another area where there were more jobs. How can you say that British people have opportunities that people in other countries don't have, and then say that doesn't apply to yourself?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:17 am

Eilzel wrote:Rags, just because people are privileged doesn't mean they should be complacent- if there are still problems in a society they should be fixed. Black people in the USA might be more privileged than in poorer African countries but that doesn't mean things are perfect- problem with you it seems is everything is either black or white (expression there, not referring to colour)- when most matters are many shades of grey.

It's you who lumps everyone in one country together and calls them "privileged". I would say that you're the one who sees things as black or white. It's the likes of Quill who sees things that way too.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:18 am

Eilzel wrote:I do. Feeling privileged is much different to being priviliged. It depends how you look at life.

I could say I'm a working class gay guy who didn'tbhave the same opportunities as millions of other English people. I come from a council estate on the outer edge of Greater Manchester where homophobia was once rife and so I impeded my own life by being in the closet for a very long time. I left college into a shitty jobs market in my local area and my first few jobs were lousy and although I've almost constantly worked I was unemployed for a couple of months at one point. I could look at all that and say I'm one of the least privileged guys I know...

But I don't. Because I've seem how other people live, in many places, both by reading and hearing about things elsewhere and by seeing how peoples lives are with my own eyes.

I'm sure as hell glad I wasn't working class in India, or gay in Iran or unemployed in Thailand- because then life would have been a heck of a lot more crap than I ever might have felt. I'm glad whenever I've need medical help it was either free or relatively cheap. I'm glad as an adult I was able to start and finish my degree with financial support when I needed it.

There are always various perspectives, but for the average Brit (or American) of they look at the bigger picture they have every reason to feel privileged- because they are.

All well and good Eilzel and can see your point and have traveled myself seeing for myself real poverty.
But to some where others are advantaged over you, taking the full benefit of that privileged, then you again are not exactly going to feel privileged in your country compared to other groups. So everyone is going to feel more privileged than some places, but they certainly can feel unprivileged in their own society.

I agree though for the average Brit life is fairly good, we have it miles better than most.

by Guest Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:20 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Rags, just because people are privileged doesn't mean they should be complacent- if there are still problems in a society they should be fixed. Black people in the USA might be more privileged than in poorer African countries but that doesn't mean things are perfect- problem with you it seems is everything is either black or white (expression there, not referring to colour)- when most matters are many shades of grey.

It's you who lumps everyone in one country together and calls them "privileged". I would say that you're the one who sees things as black or white. It's the likes of Quill who sees things that way too.

The point is we are all privileged being born into this society than many others. This issue which I agree can make a person not feel privileged, is the levels of discrimination, which places groups of people at a distinct disadvantage.

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:37 am

Rags, in what part of that huge post did you miss me emphasizing that I am privileged compared to most- I mean come on the paragraph I expressed my personal 'disadvantages' was obviously an example of how one could 'feel' unprivileged even though they are- honestly its like you are deliberately failing to understand- would you prefer one sentence replies?

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:43 am

Rags would you like a dictionary definition of average and most?

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 7:56 am

Eilzel wrote:Rags, in what part of that huge post did you miss me emphasizing that I am privileged compared to most- I mean come on the paragraph I expressed my personal 'disadvantages' was obviously an example of how one could 'feel' unprivileged even though they are- honestly its like you are deliberately failing to understand- would you prefer one sentence replies?

It's not relevant that you feel privileged compared to most, you still said that you did not have the opportunities that others in England had.

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:09 am

In fact, I found it quite interesting that you consider being from a council estate makes you, at least in theory, under-privileged. Why do you think that?

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:22 am

Generally speaking schools on estates are not as high achieving as schools in more 'well to do' areas. This was the same at my school which had been under performing when I started there. My point is (and I can't believe I am having to spell this out), that all schools do not get the same results, with under performing schools on council estates performing among the lowest of all. Do you disagree?

Now before you get all pent up on that- I STILL VALUE THE EDUCATION I GOT- because it remains the case that it was still a good education and as a British institution still far ahead of what a child from a working class Burmese background might expect (for example).

And again, I do not see myself as under-privileged, what part of that is so hard to get through that skull of yours?

I see myself as very privileged by most standards- by chance of being British. If you don't realize that by now it is clear you are simply not paying attention.

I wont say more yet- it is apparent that over long posts get you all dizzy and confused...

by Raggamuffin Fri Apr 24, 2015 8:49 am

Eilzel wrote:Generally speaking schools on estates are not as high achieving as schools in more 'well to do' areas. This was the same at my school which had been under performing when I started there. My point is (and I can't believe I am having to spell this out), that all schools do not get the same results, with under performing schools on council estates performing among the lowest of all. Do you disagree?

Now before you get all pent up on that- I STILL VALUE THE EDUCATION I GOT- because it remains the case that it was still a good education and as a British institution still far ahead of what a child from a working class Burmese background might expect (for example).

And again, I do not see myself as under-privileged, what part of that is so hard to get through that skull of yours?

I see myself as very privileged by most standards- by chance of being British. If you don't realize that by now it is clear you are simply not paying attention.

I wont say more yet- it is apparent that over long posts get you all dizzy and confused...

There's no need to be defensive and rude.

In reality, the word "privileged" is meaningless because there will always be someone more or less "privileged" than you, and most people don't sit there thinking that they are privileged just because they managed to get an appointment with a doctor, or because they went to school.

It's interesting that you talk about schools as being high achieving or not, rather than the pupils. What is stopping a pupil at a school on a council estate doing their homework or paying attention? One can talk about the quality of the teaching of course, but teaching is only part of it - the rest of it is up to the pupils to read, learn, and decide that they want to do well at school. In any case, the fact that one lives on a council estate doesn't necessarily mean that the school is. I went to a school many miles from where I lived.

So is it just the schooling issue which you think makes people from council estates under-privileged?

Council estates are just places with houses, the same as anywhere else. In fact, one could say that the inhabitants are more "privileged" than others since they pay less rent than others, and were allowed to buy their houses at a discount, which other tenants can't do.

by Eilzel Fri Apr 24, 2015 9:17 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
Eilzel wrote:Generally speaking schools on estates are not as high achieving as schools in more 'well to do' areas. This was the same at my school which had been under performing when I started there. My point is (and I can't believe I am having to spell this out), that all schools do not get the same results, with under performing schools on council estates performing among the lowest of all. Do you disagree?

Now before you get all pent up on that- I STILL VALUE THE EDUCATION I GOT- because it remains the case that it was still a good education and as a British institution still far ahead of what a child from a working class Burmese background might expect (for example).

And again, I do not see myself as under-privileged, what part of that is so hard to get through that skull of yours?

I see myself as very privileged by most standards- by chance of being British. If you don't realize that by now it is clear you are simply not paying attention.

I wont say more yet- it is apparent that over long posts get you all dizzy and confused...

There's no need to be defensive and rude.

In reality, the word "privileged" is meaningless because there will always be someone more or less "privileged" than you, and most people don't sit there thinking that they are privileged just because they managed to get an appointment with a doctor, or because they went to school.

It's interesting that you talk about schools as being high achieving or not, rather than the pupils. What is stopping a pupil at a school on a council estate doing their homework or paying attention? One can talk about the quality of the teaching of course, but teaching is only part of it - the rest of it is up to the pupils to read, learn, and decide that they want to do well at school. In any case, the fact that one lives on a council estate doesn't necessarily mean that the school is. I went to a school many miles from where I lived.

So is it just the schooling issue which you think makes people from council estates under-privileged?

Council estates are just places with houses, the same as anywhere else. In fact, one could say that the inhabitants are more "privileged" than others since they pay less rent than others, and were allowed to buy their houses at a discount, which other tenants can't do.

I'm sorry for being rude, but you are almost deliberately misconstruing what I'm saying it seems and it is pretty annoying to be honest.

And for a variety of reasons some schools perform better than others- if you had or have children would you consider school performances when deciding where to send your child? Many would and there is a reason for that. Of course its down to the pupil but the quality of the teacher and their ability to control will factor in to the chances of a child being successful. I come from a good family, me, my siblings and cousins, all did well at school, but other children could be shits and sad though it many families on council estates are what are derogatorily referred to as 'underclass'- they disrupt and that also has an effect on how well others students perform. If you want to deny all this being the case then so be it.

Anyone, one last time- I see myself as privileged- you choose to ignore than because you want to go on a tangent. Let me ask you though, do you see yourself as privileged compared to most people in the world?

by Sponsored content