Rioting in UK capital

[Errata]

Is this the philosophical argument that goes something like: green does not really exist; green is a term we use to distinguish a colour/object,

or

Are you genuinely suggesting that Turks and Indians have the same colour skin as a pale Englishman?


If it's the former: well done, I agree with you.

If it's the latter: I'm lost for words.

I don't even have the same skin color as my biological sister. She's stereotypical Irish. I'm more sallow. She about 6 shades lighter than me in the middle of winter. In the summer we tan up about the same.

Of course Turks don't have the same skin color as the average Englishman. Neither do Italians, Spaniards, Norwegians, or Russians but all of them are considered "white". According to my local chapter of the KKK, despite my fair skin, red/blond hair and green eyes, I am NOT white because I am Jewish.

Is it a matter of degrees with you? Because Albino Africans are whiter than you are. By quite a large margin. So are Swedes and Norwegians. How white does someone have to be in order to be white? What if my great great Grandmother was a Native American... am I still white? What If I tan really dark? Am I white during the winter months and something other during the summer? I assume Anglo Saxons are white under your rules. But what about Normans? Or Gauls? What about the Picti one of your island's founding races who were small and dark. Were they white?

Or is only people who look like you that are white? Or who speak your language, or who were born north of some parallel? More than half of Israelis came from Europe about 60 years ago. Are they white? Because they've browned up quite a bit in the intervening years. Or is it a purity of bloodline? Do you have the state of Alabama's old "one drop" rule where if there is any non white person in your bloodline ever, you are not white? Or are you more forgiving and have Tennessee's old definition of five generations of pure white blood.

I suspect you only consider "White Anglo Saxon Protestants" as white. And even if someone shares your coloring but is Muslim, or Jewish, or had a black great grandmother then they are undesirable as well.

If color matters, then all color matters. And you need to start ranking people according to their worth based on the shade of white that they are. And don't be a hypocrite like Hitler was and declare a standard you can't meet.

Is there a difference between a black man and a white man? Yes. The black man is in fact darker than the white man. That's it. It's a useful descriptive term if I'm setting up a friend on a blind date and I'm trying to describe the man she is going to meet. Other than that it's a worthless distinction. There is no behavior, no state of being, no tendency or stereotype that is solely in the purview of one or the other. There is no "Black people are..." unless it is "Black people are darker than white people. They are not dumber than white people, they are not less civilized, they are not less creative, they are not more prone to crime, or drugs, or tap dancing than white people. Nor are Muslims. Or Jews. Or Blue Fugates. Race is irrelevant. Culture is not.

[jason_c]

Well, perhaps you got a bit confused when you were replying, because what you posted appeared as a reply to my post, not to that preceding post, which was why it was difficult to see its relevance.

Not confused at all. Its simply a lack of knowledge on my part in how to multiquote.

Your post was part of the same discussion. Thats why I quoted it.

[caz]

I think it used to be called 'colour prejudice' when we saw the 'no blacks, no Irish, no gypsies, dogs welcome' notices in b&b and rooms to rent windows.

The terms change ('racism', 'travellers' and so on) but for a few people who are slower on the uptake than others, the society they wished we were all still a part of hasn't moved on much from the late fifties.

There are black, yellow, white and pink 'racists' (for want of a better term) who have never mixed well with anyone but those they perceive to be 'their own'. But worst of all are the red: the angry tomato-faced people, who would fall out with their own neighbour for breathing too loudly next door while they are trying to read their daily rag, silently mouthing all their own views as they leap indignantly off the page.

Mr Tomato Face must be hopping mad that so many of today's 'foreigners' look just like he does (but without the beer belly) and can only be scowled at and accused of taking all his jobs if and when they open their mouths and out comes a Polish or Lithuanian accent.

My daughter sent me this link, which should bring another scowl from the harrumph brigade, but a smile from everyone else.

Glass half full anyone?

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/h...-201108174205/

Love,

Caz
X

[harry]

Here in Australia,in the local paper,in readers letters,a woman returning,she says from holidaying in the city of Manchester UK,gives this following description.White people,black Africans,and Indians.She was of course refering to the people of that city,and in a lot of peoples minds,that is how it will always be.Not one mention of them being British.
In June of 1949 I sailed from Jamaica to England on the liner Georgic.Except for twelve servicemen,of whom I was one,and a few Australians,the rest,perhaps a thousand or so,were from the islands of Jamaica and Barbados.It is considered the first in a wave of people leaving those islands for the UK.All those leaving Jamaica were British subjects,born on British soil.They were leaving one part of Britain to live in another.Who profited from this?Shipping companies,who made millions.Who was spreading the propaganda that it was a far better life in UK? Shipping companies.On the other side of the world,in India,the same thing was happening.Who profited?Shipping companies.It was the first step in a chain of exploitation.
No wonder these people and their descendents are saying,enough.

[caz]

And you know 'these people' are saying "enough" - how?

You know 'these people' were involved in the recent rioting? Because of past 'exploitation'? Again, how?

[harry]

Caz,
I have contacts in UK.

[harry]

Caz,
I did say it was a chain of exploitation.It started long ago,it is continuing.You doubt it?

[caz]

I can neither doubt nor believe, Harry, with no way of knowing how you know. How many of the rioters have you had 'contact' with, directly or indirectly, to find out that their actions were the result of exploitation suffered by previous generations of their families?

Did you know that many, if not the majority of the homes, shops and businesses that were looted, damaged or torched during the recent riots were occupied, owned or managed by descendants of the very people you were talking about? If these were acts of revenge for previous exploitation, they were pretty mindless and didn't manage to target any of the people supposedly responsible.

Love,

Caz
X

[Magpie]

If these were acts of revenge for previous exploitation, they were pretty mindless and didn't manage to target any of the people supposedly responsible.

Love,

Caz
X

Do they ever, caz?

[harry]

I didn't say they were acts of revenge.I do not condone violence.Exploitation is real.Read your history books,and your newspapers.You do not need my sources.Travel through the cities of Britain,and seek your own.There are plenty.You will get it first hand.If you want to play name games,I'll accomodate you.Start with the Blair family of Gloucester,one of the cities involved.Then when you have done that,I'll give you more.

[harry]

Caz,
Nowhere in any of my posts,did I say I knew any of the rioters.Get your facts right.

[Limehouse]

Some of the sentences handed out have been quite ridiculous. A mother received a five month prison sentence for receiving a pair of stolen shorts! She has now been released.

Some rioters have got away with light sentences whilst others who were convicted of encouraging rioting on Facebook have been given four year sentences.

In my view - arsonists should serve a prison terms. Serious rioters should serve a community sentence (whilst tagged) during the day - helping to repair and replace what they destroyed. They should then be imprisoned at night to keep them off the streets and deprive them of their liberty for a while.

Sentencing should be consistent and address the offending behaviour. Punitive punishment with no attempt at addressing the attitude and behaviour achieves nothing and does not even help the victims.

[Robert]

"In light of your extremely antisocial behaviour, which outrages all standards of decency, all standards of morality, all canons of civilized behaviour, and in view of your total lack of remorse, and notwithstanding your youth, I must, regretfully but dutifully, and for the good of society - I must, I say, send you to prison for six years, in the hope that you will reflect on your behaviour and emerge a wiser and chastened specimen of humanity, and turn your back on the wickedness which has brought you before me here today."

That was an appallingly long sentence.

[jason_c]

I didn't say they were acts of revenge.I do not condone violence.Exploitation is real.Read your history books,and your newspapers.You do not need my sources.Travel through the cities of Britain,and seek your own.There are plenty.You will get it first hand.If you want to play name games,I'll accomodate you.Start with the Blair family of Gloucester,one of the cities involved.Then when you have done that,I'll give you more.

Your a lunatic.

[harry]

jason,
Thanks for your description.I always thought there was something wrong with me.Now,what are you?