WATCH: Georgia graduation ceremony breaks down after principal rants about ‘all the black people’

The graduation ceremony at a private school in Stone Mountain, Georgia sank into disarray after the school’s principal and founder clashed with the audience, The Grio reported. Footage of the event at TNT Academy shows Nancy Gordeuk chiding crowd members after she mistakenly ended the ceremony before the valedictorian made his speech.






http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/watch-georgia-graduation-ceremony-breaks-down-after-principal-rants-about-all-the-black-people/

Imagine going into your attic and lifting a box, only to find a nest of roaches milling about. That's pretty much white trash South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Original Quill wrote:Imagine going into your attic and lifting a box, only to find a nest of roaches milling about.  That's pretty much white trash South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

That is in very poor taste Quill. You do not overcome racism by being racist.
Yes these states have problems with racists, which needs educating to show they are wrong, otherwise you create a bigger divide between people and never solve the problem

Nemesis wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Imagine going into your attic and lifting a box, only to find a nest of roaches milling about.  That's pretty much white trash South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

That is in very poor taste Quill. You do not overcome racism by being racist.
Yes these states have problems with racists, which needs educating to show they are wrong, otherwise you create a bigger divide between people and never solve the problem

Frankly, Nemesis I'm a little disappointed by that response.  What you are saying--by whatever means--is that the response to evil is to create certain Taboo subjects...there is racism out there, and OMG, we shouldn't talk about it any more!!  Perhaps this is the difference between the US and the UK, but we believe in freedom of speech precisely because it clears the air, not clouds it.

Europeans, by so completely missing the point, have lost the art of the fine line between hate, and identifying and reporting about hate.  It's throwing the baby out with the bath not to be able to say that the worst racists are in that little lower, right corner of the US.  Let's also avoid saying that bad people go into prisons.  Or indeed, that sick people go into hospitals.  OMG, it makes us sick criminals to even mention it.  

Because of a logical flaw known as bilateralism, we equate talking about evil with the evil itself.  If physicians did this, they could never treat cancer lest they be called a cancer themselves.  Going back to my own imagery, where we are unable to identify racism--because merely takling about it is too racist--allows the roach racism to fester and continue.  Yes, Europeans are aiding and abetting this kind of sickness by their laws prohibiting speaking about evil.  

Why do you think that Trayvon Martin died in that corner of the world?  Why did Walter Scott die in that corner of the world?  Both were black men, whom white men felt the need to murder in cold blood.  At least a part of it has to be laid on the doorstep of the community that doesn't want to talk about racism.  Because to be sure those white men are going to talk among themselves about how killing a black man is perfectly justified and wonderfully fulfilling...primarily because nobody from the outside is condemning them for doing that.

Now do you see how RWers in America coddle racism?  Of course it's evil, says the RWer, but then so must be the freedom to talk about it's evilness.  Let's use bilateralism to put good and evil in the same mixture.  Let's destroy our ability to do good, by equating it with bad.

Let's throw the baby out with the bath.

I was appalled by your response which was utterly racist. You defined people as trash by their skin colour and as if all white people there are racist. It is the worst kind of reverse racism you will find and does not achieve anything and makes you as bad as those who are racist in these states.

This has nothing to do with how you view the US an the UK, but how you make utterly poor remarks. Again you combat racism by showing it has no scientific bases and that it is an invention by humans to discriminate against others. By you being racist of which you are, by classing them as trash and white, you being as culpable and solve nothing.

Yes be critical of those who are racist and I will stand behind you 100%, but if as you did here an use racist rhetoric I will condemn you as I would them, it is that simple. You do not combat hate by being hateful. Its time you started to understand that Quill.

Original Quill wrote:Imagine going into your attic and lifting a box, only to find a nest of roaches milling about.  That's pretty much white trash South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Is the term "white trash" not considered to be racist over there? You wouldn't say "black trash" would you?

Nemesis wrote:I was appalled by your response which was utterly racist. You defined people as trash by their skin colour and as if all white people there are racist. It is the worst kind of reverse racism you will find and does not achieve anything and makes you as bad as those who are racist in these states.

This has nothing to do with how you view the US an the UK, but how you make utterly poor remarks. Again you combat racism by showing it has no scientific bases and that it is an invention by humans to discriminate against others. By you being racist of which you are, by classing them as trash and white, you being as culpable and solve nothing.

To the contrary, I defined people as trash by their racist attitudes.  This is the kind of deceitful twisting of logic that leads to the notion that we can't talk about anything evil.  In this case, it is the fallacy of bilateralism, the notion that everything has it's mirror image.  If we identify something as evil, then by the fallacy of bilateralism it's mirror image must be evil.  Thus, racism against blacks is evil, ergo any criticism against whites for their racism must be evil.

Nemesis wrote:Yes be critical of those who are racist and I will stand behind you 100%, but if as you did here an use racist rhetoric I will condemn you as I would them, it is that simple. You do not combat hate by being hateful. Its time you started to understand that Quill.

But didge, you are the racist.  You are trying to hide racism and racists (aiding and abetting?).  Take a look at how word games, such as your reverse-racism, works.  Look at one of the past masters, as he gave an interview to political scientist Alexander P. Lamis:

Wiki wrote:    Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry S. Dent, Sr. and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy] doesn't have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for [a conservative] to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.

   Lamis: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?

   Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "n---er, n---er."

Atwater is a former Republican aide and party chairman, and he is lecturing someone on how to get away with it. So you see how conservatives use abstractions--essentially, word games--in order to perpetuate the racism.  We see an act of racism--let's say a KKK gang hanging a black man (or Trayvon Martin or Walter Scott, same thing)--and we say, OMG that white trash gang just murdered that black man...that's racist!!  

And what I am hearing from you is, White trash??  OMG, how racist of you!  You can't say that.  So, do you see how you perpetuate racism?  You use bilateralism to abstract the subject up, and out of where the real problem lies: white racist men murdering a black man.  Now, according to you in your hermetically-sealed abstraction, it is reverse-racism for someone to even criticism a white for what is clearly a racist murder.

Smart...but this time I gotcha!

Sorry Quill, I do respect you loads, but on this areas you get it so wrong and badly so. To define people as white is classifying them as a race, which biologically does not exist. I speak out on all racism and by you defining whites from these states as trash is classing them as inferior, as bad as some of these people you define as white are in how they define black people. That is reverse racism and even more so from someone who claims to champion the cause of Black people who actually insult them by being racist yourself. There should have never needed to be any classification for humans other then the nation they are fro as citizens. It was because of racism that such classifications were invented.

You still fail to understand the fundamental problem of racism itself, because you are also classifying people by something that is a man made invention, races in humans. By you doing this you join those you define as trash, by also classifying them as something which biologically does not exist. Even worse you make all people you define as white in the states as trash, when I know for a fact there is people again you class as whites there that stand up to racism. You hold the poorest stereotypes which is where racism is formed in the first place. What you need to start to do is recognize that how you are going about combating racism, actually fuels it further making it only worse.

By the fact you are even claiming gotcha, I know my point has hit home and very hard on you. That you have to accept as a friend, I will not shy away from condemning you when you act as poorly here as you have done. This thread was to show in regards to the poor attitude and words of this head, which you then made worse by being racist yourself. Its no good quoting me what others say, when they just like you fail to understand the fundamental root cause of racism itself. I do not need nor require others to back me on what I say is true here, the fact that you do, shows how you doubt your own convictions.

That is a good place for you to start to look at why you are wrong here and on that I wish you luck

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Imagine going into your attic and lifting a box, only to find a nest of roaches milling about.  That's pretty much white trash South Carolina, Georgia and Florida.

Is the term "white trash" not considered to be racist over there? You wouldn't say "black trash" would you?

Of course we would. The emphasis is on the word 'trash'. Use of the modifier 'white' or 'black' is used merely to show which way the dirt is flying.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:


Is the term "white trash" not considered to be racist over there? You wouldn't say "black trash" would you?

Of course we would.  The emphasis is on the word 'trash'.  Use of the modifier 'white' or 'black' is used merely to show which way the dirt is flying.

OK. "Black trash" is not a term that would be used here, not without a huge fuss anyway. Then again, "white trash" is not a common expression here either.

Nemesis wrote:Sorry Quill, I do respect you loads, but on this areas you get it so wrong and badly so.

Unfortunately, you weren't schooled in logic. We used to get into these discussions among faculty when I was teaching at Rutgers University: students who concentrate on rote memorization of the subject, such that they cannot hear what they are saying about the subject. They are so dedicated to impressing their teachers about how they memorized detail, that they are lost when it comes to using that data in a single sentence.

You--in this case, and in most cases--so live by the mirror-image logic, that you cannot see its clear limitations. Mirror-image logic is implied in any bilateralist claim. It is a common argument form...so let's take a look.

Mirror-image logic is metaphor, only strictly in reverse. It suffers from the same impairment as all metaphor: it strips out detail. What part of the subject do you want to cherry-pick to make your point? Metaphors are abstractions; they leave as much out as they include.

In this case you want to hone in on the word 'white', but leave out the context of evil. When I say white racists are evil, you drop the word 'racist' and hone in on the fact that I singled out 'whites'. I did that because the evil flows from white toward blacks...but that's the part you cherry-pick out of the equation.

Speaking of trash...what we have been speaking of is the trash in logical thinking. Logic is a very simple subject, but it has a zillion different applications. It's like musical tone/perfect pitch: you either have it or you don't. Because of its many different appearances, you have to have an instinct when it arrives.

Unfortunately, one tends to lose that instinct when one goes to graduate school. One memorizes detail to the loss of thinking about detail. For example, in racial awareness classes at university, we learn this is white and that is black, but we forget who was doing what to whomever else. We forget that the problem we are studying is white people hang black people, and focus in on the equation of white to black. You have to balance facts with logic, and remember what you are saying.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Of course we would.  The emphasis is on the word 'trash'.  Use of the modifier 'white' or 'black' is used merely to show which way the dirt is flying.

OK. "Black trash" is not a term that would be used here, not without a huge fuss anyway. Then again, "white trash" is not a common expression here either.

That's because you (British) don't have the intense history of the subject.  You don't know where racism comes from, and you haven't experienced its effects.  Read the just posted message to Nemesis regarding having to be familiar with the facts and logic of the question.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK. "Black trash" is not a term that would be used here, not without a huge fuss anyway. Then again, "white trash" is not a common expression here either.

That's because you (British) don't have the intense history of the subject.  You don't know where racism comes from, and you haven't experienced its effects.  Read the just posted message to Nemesis regarding having to be familiar with the facts and logic of the question.

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:Sorry Quill, I do respect you loads, but on this areas you get it so wrong and badly so.

Unfortunately, you weren't schooled in logic.  We used to get into these discussions among faculty when I was teaching at Rutgers University: students who concentrate on rote memorization of the subject, such that they cannot hear what they are saying about the subject.  They are so dedicated to impressing their teachers about how they memorized detail, that they are lost when it comes to using that data in a single sentence.

You--in this case, and in most cases--so live by the mirror-image logic, that you cannot see its clear limitations.  Mirror-image logic is implied in any bilateralist claim.  It is a common argument form...so let's take a look.

Mirror-image logic is metaphor, only strictly in reverse.  It suffers from the same impairment as all metaphor: it strips out detail.  What part of the subject do you want to cherry-pick to make your point?  Metaphors are abstractions; they leave as much out as they include.  

In this case you want to hone in on the word 'white', but leave out the context of evil.  When I say white racists are evil, you drop the word 'racist' and hone in on the fact that I singled out 'whites'.  I did that because the evil flows from white toward blacks...but that's the part you cherry-pick out of the equation.

Speaking of trash...what we have been speaking of is the trash in logical thinking.  Logic is a very simple subject, but it has a zillion different applications.  It's like musical tone/perfect pitch: you either have it or you don't.  Because of its many different appearances, you have to have an instinct when it arrives.  

Unfortunately, one tends to lose that instinct when one goes to graduate school.  One memorizes detail to the loss of thinking about detail.  For example, in racial awareness classes at university, we learn this is white and that is black, but we forget who was doing what to whomever else.  We forget that the problem we are studying is white people hang black people, and focus in on the equation of white to black.  You have to balance facts with logic, and remember what you are saying.

Logic you say?
Sorry you just proved you have very little and I will prove this easily so with one very simple questions.
Is classing people white, something man made or biologically factual?

I know you will struggles to answer this and why, because you think with the same mentality of those you wish to fight against, the racists. You fail to understand you actual deal in the same racial language as those you claim to stand against. The reality is I stand against all racism, of which you are clearly a part of the problem. White people just do not exist biologically and yet you think they do and call them trash from certain states. That is racist in every sense of the word, because we know trash has little purpose, so you are claiming humans defined as white, even though their skill is not white are lesser humans to you. Not from any biological reason but from the same reasoning you are providing.
Taught.
They were taught racism, they were never born with racism, nobody is, they have to learn this and what you are doing here is learning off their racism to be as racist as they are, showing quite clearly you are not applying any logic here but making the most idiotic claims as other racists do. There is no logic in hate and you are showing hate to humans, which you define as white. You are inventing a reason to hate people in these states, because you share the same ignorance of inventing race classifications in humans. You wish to  claim something that does not exist, that humans based on their skin tone are inferior in these states, ignoring those with this skin tone that stand against racism

You are showing the worst side o your character here Quill, a person which I know you are in the wrong would admit, what they said was in poor taste and easily construed as racist and yet you try poorly to defend what you said. That makes you as bad as the racist, because you use the same lame poor defense, one of hate.

I have no need to say more, if you respect my friendship, then you will heed my words, but you have an issue, admitting you can be wrong. It takes a better person to admit they can be wrong and you will not lose any face from doing so, in fact you will gain far more respect.

My best wishes to you

Good evening Quill.

I trust you are well.

Quill you talk & sound like those loonie left nutjob politicians that have just been smashed here in the UK.

Watch out my sweet chicken as the same may happen to you over there soon.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

That's because you (British) don't have the intense history of the subject.  You don't know where racism comes from, and you haven't experienced its effects.  Read the just posted message to Nemesis regarding having to be familiar with the facts and logic of the question.

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

Not at all. That's very poor advice. What you suggest is to eliminate a very relevant term in the discussion. Eliminating language is a polite way of undercutting your competition, which is what you try to do in political argument.

'White trash' has a very specific meaning. In the slave-owning South of the US, there were two tiers of racist: the slave owners, who were the plantation owners, and the straw bosses (foremen or ramrods), generally Scots and Irish, hence their considerable influence in the Ohio River Vally and the Appalachian Mountains. They were known as rednecks because they rarely owned homes, and worked out in the sun most often. They were also known as 'crackers' because of their cracked corn diets.

They were no better than the slaves which they oversaw, though they generally assumed their superiority under slave laws. After all, they were white and slaves were black. When slavery was lifted, there was no longer a distinction under the law. Therefore, to continue to identify, as well as characterize them, the term 'white trash' came into being. The modern version is to call them 'trailer-park dwellers', because they still don't have a permanent home. Neither 'white trash' nor 'trailer park dwellers' are complimentary terms, but they serve a useful purpose in designating a category. After all, there is no law against words that specify the bad as well as the good we experience in life.

Once again, Republicans like Atwater would argue that if we can simply remove the word 'racism' from the language, we can carry on being racists and nobody will notice. Likewise, if we have no term for 'white trash' then it is a victory for racists because they can't be identified in our lexicon. It's another subliminal way that RWers try to steer the discussion away from racism, so that they can get on with their racism.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

Not at all.  That's very poor advice.  What you suggest is to eliminate a very relevant term in the discussion.  Eliminating language is a polite way of undercutting your competition, which is what you try to do in political argument.

'White trash' has a very specific meaning.  In the slave-owning South of the US, there were two tiers of racist: the slave owners, who were the plantation owners, and the straw bosses (foremen or ramrods), generally Scots and Irish, hence their considerable influence in the Ohio River Vally and the Appalachian Mountains.  They were known as rednecks because they rarely owned homes, and worked out in the sun most often.  They were also known as 'crackers' because of their cracked corn diets.

They were no better than the slaves which they oversaw, though they generally assumed their superiority under slave laws.  After all, they were white and slaves were black.  When slavery was lifted, there was no longer a distinction under the law.  Therefore, to continue to identify, as well as characterize them, the term 'white trash' came into being.  The modern version is to call them 'trailer-park dwellers', because they still don't have a permanent home.  Neither 'white trash' nor 'trailer park dwellers' are complimentary terms, but they serve a useful purpose in designating a category.  After all, there is no law against words that specify the bad as well as the good we experience in life.

Once again, Republicans like Atwater would argue that if we can simply remove the word 'racism' from the language, we can carry on being racists and nobody will notice.  Likewise, if we have no term for 'white trash' then it is a victory for racists because they can't be identified in our lexicon.  It's another subliminal way that RWers try to steer the discussion away from racism, so that they can get on with their racism.

It's very good advice because as soon as you use a term which is deemed by some to be racist, the whole discussion goes off topic. If that's what you want - well that's up to you.

Shady wrote:Good evening Quill.

I trust you are well.

Quill you talk & sound like those loonie left nutjob politicians that have just been smashed here in the UK.

Watch out my sweet chicken as the same may happen to you over there soon.

Hello Shady.  I've missed you gorgeous, where have you been?

Yes, I know that any thought deeper than a millimeter is difficult for RWers.  Lol.  But since the RW is anti-intellectual to begin with, I simply take it as a platform statement.

Happy days with your Tory government.  We look forward to you guys going to war against ISIL.  Make lots of noises and red glares in the sky, so we can see way over here.  We're the ones in the lawn chairs, sipping lemonade.  

Raggamuffin wrote:It's very good advice because as soon as you use a term which is deemed by some to be racist, the whole discussion goes off topic. If that's what you want - well that's up to you.

Always remember, political argument uses language as its medium. Read up above: that is the very argument made by Lee Atwater in that transcript I produced.

So now, here you are trying to remove some artillery pieces from the field. Ain't gonna happen as long it is a part of the ideas being expressed.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:It's very good advice because as soon as you use a term which is deemed by some to be racist, the whole discussion goes off topic. If that's what you want - well that's up to you.

Always remember, political argument uses language as its medium.  Read up above: that is the very argument made by Lee Atwater in that transcript I produced.

So now, here you are trying to remove some artillery pieces from the field.  Ain't gonna happen as long it is a part of the ideas being expressed.

Fine - I'll continue to pull you up for using racist expressions then.

Original Quill wrote:

Shady wrote:Good evening Quill.

I trust you are well.

Quill you talk & sound like those loonie left nutjob politicians that have just been smashed here in the UK.

Watch out my sweet chicken as the same may happen to you over there soon.

Hello Shady.  I've missed you gorgeous, where have you been?

Yes, I know that any thought deeper than a millimeter is difficult for RWers.  Lol.  But since the RW is anti-intellectual to begin with, I simply take it as a platform statement.

Happy days with your Tory government.  We look forward to you guys going to war against ISIL.  Make lots of noises and red glares in the sky, so we can see way over here.  We're the ones in the lawn chairs, sipping lemonade.  

Where have I been? Funny you should ask.I've been on a very quick visit to one of those hell holes made by you lot.

Quill,even though I voted for UKIP,I'm glad to see the loonie left parties of the UK have been smashed to pieces.It's a good feeling & maybe the UK can return to be a great nation again.And not a nation of brow beaten people who were too scared to say boo to a goose,out of fear of being branded a bigot etc by the loonie left.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Always remember, political argument uses language as its medium.  Read up above: that is the very argument made by Lee Atwater in that transcript I produced.

So now, here you are trying to remove some artillery pieces from the field.  Ain't gonna happen as long it is a part of the ideas being expressed.

Fine - I'll continue to pull you up for using racist expressions then.

Of course you will. And I don't mind in the least. Every time you raise the point, it is an opportunity for me to refute your ideas and drive home my own.

Keep in mind I make a living by writing. Practice makes perfect. Lol ta...

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Fine - I'll continue to pull you up for using racist expressions then.

Of course you will.  And I don't mind in the least.  Every time you raise the point, it is an opportunity for me to refute your ideas and drive home my own.

Keep in mind I make a living by writing.  Practice makes perfect. Lol ta...

I'm fond of attention to detail - it makes me money.

Shady wrote:Quill,even though I voted for UKIP,I'm glad to see the loonie left parties of the UK have been smashed to pieces.It's a good feeling & maybe the UK can return to be a great nation again.And not a nation of brow beaten people who were too scared to say boo to a goose,out of fear of being branded a bigot etc by the loonie left.

Shady my friend, in politics there is the party and then there is sleeping.  

Let the RWers have their oil spills and wars and deficits; when we wake from our naps the people will be clamoring for us.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

OK. "Black trash" is not a term that would be used here, not without a huge fuss anyway. Then again, "white trash" is not a common expression here either.

That's because you (British) don't have the intense history of the subject.  You don't know where racism comes from, and you haven't experienced its effects.  Read the just posted message to Nemesis regarding having to be familiar with the facts and logic of the question.

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

You have white trash over there too, you just tend to call them chavs. Synonyms here include rednecks, trailer trash, hillbillies, etc.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

You have white trash over there too, you just tend to call them chavs. Synonyms here include rednecks, trailer trash, hillbillies, etc.

Chavs can be of any colour. We don't generally single out white people as being "trash", unlike in the US.

I thought you lot were trying to eradicate racism.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

You have white trash over there too, you just tend to call them chavs. Synonyms here include rednecks, trailer trash, hillbillies, etc.

Chavs can be of any colour. We don't generally single out white people as being "trash", unlike in the US.

I thought you lot were trying to eradicate racism.

It's not a racist term. These people are white trash:



These people aren't:



It's more of a classist term.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Chavs can be of any colour. We don't generally single out white people as being "trash", unlike in the US.

I thought you lot were trying to eradicate racism.

It's not a racist term. These people are white trash:



These people aren't:



It's more of a classist term.

Why not just "trash" then? Why distinguish between races? I don't think it's nice to call anyone trash by the way just because they're a different "class". It's behaviour which counts.

No wonder you have such bad issues over there.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

You have white trash over there too, you just tend to call them chavs. Synonyms here include rednecks, trailer trash, hillbillies, etc.

Chavs can be of any colour. We don't generally single out white people as being "trash", unlike in the US.

I thought you lot were trying to eradicate racism.

You are playing games with words.  Trash can be of any color, too.  That's why we specify 'white trash'.

No one was making a unilateral statement about whites.  The idea, if we go back far enough in history, is that blacks were assumed to be 'trash'.  That was the original nature of racism and the constant opinion of southern whites.  So, as things progressed, the world recognized that whites could be trash too, and the term 'white trash' was developed in contradistinction to racial expectations.

Blacks were considered as trash because of the poverty in which they were placed.  Progressive disliked the constant reference to black neighborhoods as trash heaps, so they would typically say, 'Whites can be trash too.'  Distilled down over time, this became the term 'white trash'. The only reason why the term 'white' is even used, is because on the other side southerners assumed that blacks were trash.

Quill,just wondering, are you black?

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Chavs can be of any colour. We don't generally single out white people as being "trash", unlike in the US.

I thought you lot were trying to eradicate racism.

You are playing games with words.  Trash can be of any color, too.  That's why we specify 'white trash'.

No one was making a unilateral statement about whites.  The idea, if we go back far enough in history, is that blacks were assumed to be 'trash'.  That was the original nature of racism and the constant opinion of southern whites.  So, as things progressed, the world recognized that whites could be trash too, and the term 'white trash' was developed in contradistinction to racial expectations.

Blacks were considered as trash because of the poverty in which they were placed.  Progressive disliked the constant reference to black neighborhoods as trash heaps, so they would typically say, 'Whites can be trash too.'  Distilled down over time, this became the term 'white trash'.

Why specify a colour at all?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Chavs can be of any colour. We don't generally single out white people as being "trash", unlike in the US.

I thought you lot were trying to eradicate racism.

You are playing games with words.  Trash can be of any color, too.  That's why we specify 'white trash'.

No one was making a unilateral statement about whites.  The idea, if we go back far enough in history, is that blacks were assumed to be 'trash'.  That was the original nature of racism and the constant opinion of southern whites.  So, as things progressed, the world recognized that whites could be trash too, and the term 'white trash' was developed in contradistinction to racial expectations.

Blacks were considered as trash because of the poverty in which they were placed.  Progressive disliked the constant reference to black neighborhoods as trash heaps, so they would typically say, 'Whites can be trash too.'  Distilled down over time, this became the term 'white trash'.

Why specify a colour at all?

Historically, poor people of other races would be called racial slurs.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why specify a colour at all?

Historically, poor people of other races would be called racial slurs.

So? Are you saying that some white people should be called trash because of what other people were called before?

Why do you want to keep it all going?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Why specify a colour at all?

Historically, poor people of other races would be called racial slurs.

So? Are you saying that some white people should be called trash because of what other people were called before?

Why do you want to keep it all going?

I can't fix America, Raggs.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So? Are you saying that some white people should be called trash because of what other people were called before?

Why do you want to keep it all going?

I can't fix America, Raggs.

You could start by not condoning the use of racial slurs.

Just to clarify -- white trash is primarily a term used by wealthier or more "sophisticated" white Americans, it's not used much by other races.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

You are playing games with words.  Trash can be of any color, too.  That's why we specify 'white trash'.

No one was making a unilateral statement about whites.  The idea, if we go back far enough in history, is that blacks were assumed to be 'trash'.  That was the original nature of racism and the constant opinion of southern whites.  So, as things progressed, the world recognized that whites could be trash too, and the term 'white trash' was developed in contradistinction to racial expectations.

Blacks were considered as trash because of the poverty in which they were placed.  Progressive disliked the constant reference to black neighborhoods as trash heaps, so they would typically say, 'Whites can be trash too.'  Distilled down over time, this became the term 'white trash'.

Why specify a colour at all?

That's a good question, if you think about it.  Color was specified by the original slave owners, and subsequently by post-Civil War southerners, segregationists and modern racists successively as history marched on.  The southerners would typically drive by black neighborhoods and say, 'Look at that trash'.  The southern racist was not talking about Asians or Anglos, he was talking about blacks.

So the choice to specify color was the white man's decision.  Only later did it come to light that whites could live in trash, too.  Among progressive whites, the term 'white trash' became a way to point out that it is not color, but the quality of the person: After all, whites can be trash too.

The use of such a term in the UK could land you in bother. I do think that sometimes there's too much fuss made about these things, but at least in the UK we have some kind of equality when it comes to racial slurs.

Raggamuffin wrote:The use of such a term in the UK could land you in bother. I do think that sometimes there's too much fuss made about these things, but at least in the UK we have some kind of equality when it comes to racial slurs.

I don't think that is quite true.  I have heard of many such slurs against blacks and Muslims, even in urbane London.  

Keep in mind that these slurs tend to go hand-in-hand with racist beliefs.  So really what we are talking about is a form of 'code' for the arguments we hear everyday on this and other websites.  We might not use the word, n---er...that is too obvious.  But we will hear discussion about welfare mothers...that's code for a black female with children.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:The use of such a term in the UK could land you in bother. I do think that sometimes there's too much fuss made about these things, but at least in the UK we have some kind of equality when it comes to racial slurs.

I don't think that is quite true.  I have heard of many such slurs against blacks and Muslims, even in urbane London.  

Keep in mind that these slurs tend to go hand-in-hand with racist beliefs.  So really what we are talking about is a form of 'code' for the arguments we hear everyday on this and other websites.  We might not use the word, n---er...that is too obvious.  But we will hear discussion about welfare mothers...that's code for a black female with children.

I mean that when it comes to the law in the UK, racial slurs against white people may well result in prosecution. You seem to think that there's no such thing as racism against white people.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

I don't think that is quite true.  I have heard of many such slurs against blacks and Muslims, even in urbane London.  

Keep in mind that these slurs tend to go hand-in-hand with racist beliefs.  So really what we are talking about is a form of 'code' for the arguments we hear everyday on this and other websites.  We might not use the word, n---er...that is too obvious.  But we will hear discussion about welfare mothers...that's code for a black female with children.

I mean that when it comes to the law in the UK, racial slurs against white people may well result in prosecution. You seem to think that there's no such thing as racism against white people.

Well, there is certainly no history of racism against white people in western civilization.  Whites have predominately been the über-race since Roman times.

Keep in mind that we don't have laws against freedom of speech in the US; we can't, it's a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  But another great difference is that we have a 500-year history of slavery and social ostracism of the black race, that you've never had.  The British are only beginning to have awareness of racial tensions with the Muslims, and specifically the Pakistanis in East London.  You Brits are virtual neophytes when it comes to dealing with it.

The problem with racism is not race, but people.  People develop ideologies over time, hence history is important.  In America, racism has been percolating for over 500-years.  We know all these code words, and we have grown up not only knowing their meaning, but having lived the times and felt the passions.  You can't just happen on a few words and extrapolate from that some egalitarian formula.  In fact, although egalitarianism is the tool, like a saw and wood it can't be removed from the material.  It has no meaning until you see it in action.

But y'all will learn.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I mean that when it comes to the law in the UK, racial slurs against white people may well result in prosecution. You seem to think that there's no such thing as racism against white people.

Well, there is certainly no history of racism against white people in western civilization.  Whites have predominately been the über-race since Roman times.

Keep in mind that we don't have laws against freedom of speech in the US; we can't, it's a violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution.  But another great difference is that we have a 500-year history of slavery and social ostracism of the black race, that you've never had.  The British are only beginning to have awareness of racial tensions with the Muslims, and specifically the Pakistanis in East London.  You Brits are virtual neophytes when it comes to dealing with it.

The problem with racism is not race, but people.  People develop ideologies over time, hence history is important.  In America, racism has been percolating for over 500-years.  We know all these code words, and we have grown up not only knowing their meaning, but having lived the times and felt the passions.  You can't just happen on a few words and extrapolate from that some egalitarian formula.  In fact, although egalitarianism is the tool, like a saw and wood it can't be removed from the material.  It has no meaning until you see it in action.

But y'all will learn.

I don't think that the UK is as concerned with negative history as you are. We are more concerned with what's happening today and the issue of equality for all, not just for people who might have had an ancestor who was badly treated. There is likely to be more fuss about racism towards a non-white person than towards a white person, but nevertheless, the law does protect white people against racism just as much it protects others.

Muslims are not a race by the way. The tensions in the UK arise mainly from the issues of Muslim extremism, the gobbiness of certain Muslim extremists, and the possibility of terrorist activity. I don't think most people here have an issue with Muslims generally. In fact, they probably don't know if someone is a Muslim or not, unless they ask.

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that the UK is as concerned with negative history as you are. We are more concerned with what's happening today and the issue of equality for all, not just for people who might have had an ancestor who was badly treated. There is likely to be more fuss about racism towards a non-white person than towards a white person, but nevertheless, the law does protect white people against racism just as much it protects others.

Well, we are all selfish to a degree.

Raggamuffin wrote:Muslims are not a race by the way. The tensions in the UK arise mainly from the issues of Muslim extremism, the gobbiness of certain Muslim extremists, and the possibility of terrorist activity. I don't think most people here have an issue with Muslims generally. In fact, they probably don't know if someone is a Muslim or not, unless they ask.

No, but Muslims are for the most part Middle Eastern, and Middle Easterners are a racial group.

The tensions in the UK are of your own making, and until you realize that, you will have to deal with your own “negative history.” The stage you are in is called ‘denial’.

Original Quill wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I don't think that the UK is as concerned with negative history as you are. We are more concerned with what's happening today and the issue of equality for all, not just for people who might have had an ancestor who was badly treated. There is likely to be more fuss about racism towards a non-white person than towards a white person, but nevertheless, the law does protect white people against racism just as much it protects others.

Well, we are all selfish to a degree.

Raggamuffin wrote:Muslims are not a race by the way. The tensions in the UK arise mainly from the issues of Muslim extremism, the gobbiness of certain Muslim extremists, and the possibility of terrorist activity. I don't think most people here have an issue with Muslims generally. In fact, they probably don't know if someone is a Muslim or not, unless they ask.

No, but Muslims are for the most part Middle Eastern, and Middle Easterners are a racial group.

The tensions in the UK are of your own making, and until you realize that, you will have to deal with your own “negative history.”  The stage you are in is called ‘denial’.

It's not as bad as you'd like it to be. As I said, ordinary people don't have a problem with ordinary Muslims. We got rid of one of the extremists - sent him over to you actually.

Original Quill wrote:

Nemesis wrote:


That is in very poor taste Quill. You do not overcome racism by being racist.
Yes these states have problems with racists, which needs educating to show they are wrong, otherwise you create a bigger divide between people and never solve the problem

Frankly, Nemesis I'm a little disappointed by that response.  What you are saying--by whatever means--is that the response to evil is to create certain Taboo subjects...there is racism out there, and OMG, we shouldn't talk about it any more!!  Perhaps this is the difference between the US and the UK, but we believe in freedom of speech precisely because it clears the air, not clouds it.

Europeans, by so completely missing the point, have lost the art of the fine line between hate, and identifying and reporting about hate.  It's throwing the baby out with the bath not to be able to say that the worst racists are in that little lower, right corner of the US.  Let's also avoid saying that bad people go into prisons.  Or indeed, that sick people go into hospitals.  OMG, it makes us sick criminals to even mention it.  

Because of a logical flaw known as bilateralism, we equate talking about evil with the evil itself.  If physicians did this, they could never treat cancer lest they be called a cancer themselves.  Going back to my own imagery, where we are unable to identify racism--because merely takling about it is too racist--allows the roach racism to fester and continue.  Yes, Europeans are aiding and abetting this kind of sickness by their laws prohibiting speaking about evil.  

Why do you think that Trayvon Martin died in that corner of the world?  Why did Walter Scott die in that corner of the world?  Both were black men, whom white men felt the need to murder in cold blood.  At least a part of it has to be laid on the doorstep of the community that doesn't want to talk about racism.  Because to be sure those white men are going to talk among themselves about how killing a black man is perfectly justified and wonderfully fulfilling...primarily because nobody from the outside is condemning them for doing that.

Now do you see how RWers in America coddle racism?  Of course it's evil, says the RWer, but then so must be the freedom to talk about it's evilness.  Let's use bilateralism to put good and evil in the same mixture.  Let's destroy our ability to do good, by equating it with bad.

Let's throw the baby out with the bath.

Trayvon Martin was not killed by a white person, and he was not killed in cold blood either.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to clarify -- white trash is primarily a term used by wealthier or more "sophisticated" white Americans, it's not used much by other races.

Just to clarify, you are talking utter shit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

The point is that some people might feel you are being racist by using the term "white trash". It's perhaps best if you avoid the term when conversing with British people.

You have white trash over there too, you just tend to call them chavs. Synonyms here include rednecks, trailer trash, hillbillies, etc.

Typical lefty defending a racist slur.
You do realise dumbo, the moment you define someone by the colour of their skin you are defining racially?

Raggamuffin wrote:The use of such a term in the UK could land you in bother. I do think that sometimes there's too much fuss made about these things, but at least in the UK we have some kind of equality when it comes to racial slurs.

Like I said, it's not really a racial slur. A black person would be far more likely to use the term "cracker" (to denote any white person), while it's the upper-class whites who typically call lower-class whites "white trash."

Nemesis wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:Just to clarify -- white trash is primarily a term used by wealthier or more "sophisticated" white Americans, it's not used much by other races.

Just to clarify, you are talking utter shit:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_trash

Just to read your own link for you:

"By 1855 the term had passed into common usage by upper-class whites, and was common usage among all Southerners, regardless of race, throughout the rest of the 19th century."