Rioting in UK capital

[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]

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]

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

[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.

[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.

[Chris]

Fleetwood Mac

Unless you're willing to explain what exactly you're alleging, and to provide evidence for your allegations, then it really is a waste of time trying to discuss anything with you.

Can you really not even tell us what day you are talking about? The Saturday, or another day?

And is it really unreasonable to ask you to provide us with some evidence for your assertions? I repeat, anyone can make up any lie, and then when challenged fall back on "find out for yourself using Google." What on earth is the point of trying to discuss anything on that basis?

[Fleetwood Mac]

It's extremely difficult to make sense of what you're saying.

You complained above that the BBC was "describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting."

That would be Saturday. Obviously on Saturday there was a protest against the shooting.

If you're referring to another day than Saturday, say so, and quote what you're claiming that the BBC said, preferably with a link.

Seems you're oblivious to the public outcry against the BBC on the back of the BBC continuing to call them protestors 2 days after the initial 'march' to the police station, as well as senior BBC officials having to do an about turn in public; which, I suppose, means I'm wasting my time talking to someone who's getting involved in a subject on which he knows little.

If you don't know then don't blather - that's the common approach. But, out of curiosity, do you always need a link to contribute to a conversation? Quick google and you'll find it, but it seems you're too lazy to do that.

Over and out.

[Chris]

The BBC were calling them 'protestors' 2 days after the initial 'protest'. Do you agree with the BBC's use of the word 'protestors' two days after the initial 'protest'?

It's extremely difficult to make sense of what you're saying.

You complained above that the BBC was "describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting."

That would be Saturday. Obviously on Saturday there was a protest against the shooting.

If you're referring to another day than Saturday, say so, and quote what you're claiming that the BBC said, preferably with a link.

[Fleetwood Mac]

The shooting was on Thursday. The protest in Tottenham was on Saturday. Your calculation of two days is correct.

The BBC were calling them 'protestors' 2 days after the initial 'protest'. Do you agree with the BBC's use of the word 'protestors' two days after the initial 'protest'?

[Chris]

Except they were describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting.

The shooting was on Thursday. The protest in Tottenham was on Saturday. Your calculation of two days is correct.

[Fleetwood Mac]

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.

And just for the record, what I had asked Fleetwood Mac to provide evidence for was the claim that BBC journalists had said that it wasn't the rioters' fault. Nothing to do with describing the riots as "protests." That was just another thing Fleetwood Mac substituted for his original claim, in order to make it sound less unreasonable. (Just like the substitution of "this isn't about race" for the wish that "the black sections of this country" would "*** off back to Africa or Jamaica.")

As for the BBC describing what happened in Tottenham on Saturday as a "protest," that's not surprising, because there was a protest in Tottenham on Saturday, about the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police. That's where the trouble started.

Except they were describing these out-and-out criminals as 'protestors' 2 days after the shooting.

Do you think looting and burning people's property is 'protest'?

And of course 'protest' suggests cause and effect.

[Celesta]

Hi Celesta

Well, as you go south in Europe people become more olive-skinned (some of them anyway). In Africa, the Kenyans etc on the east side aren't as black as the folk on the west side. In England, there are certain kinds of face which crop up in certain areas, though all the people are English. It's a very confused picture. The words "race," "racial" and "racist" are blunderbuss words and I wish all people, Left and Right, would stop using them except where definite genetic beliefs are concerned.

Hi Robert. Yes, I think you're right.

[Robert]

Hi Celesta

Well, as you go south in Europe people become more olive-skinned (some of them anyway). In Africa, the Kenyans etc on the east side aren't as black as the folk on the west side. In England, there are certain kinds of face which crop up in certain areas, though all the people are English. It's a very confused picture. The words "race," "racial" and "racist" are blunderbuss words and I wish all people, Left and Right, would stop using them except where definite genetic beliefs are concerned.

[Chris]

I was replying to the exact same frickin post that you were replying to.

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.

And just for the record, what I had asked Fleetwood Mac to provide evidence for was the claim that BBC journalists had said that it wasn't the rioters' fault. Nothing to do with describing the riots as "protests." That was just another thing Fleetwood Mac substituted for his original claim, in order to make it sound less unreasonable. (Just like the substitution of "this isn't about race" for the wish that "the black sections of this country" would "*** off back to Africa or Jamaica.")

As for the BBC describing what happened in Tottenham on Saturday as a "protest," that's not surprising, because there was a protest in Tottenham on Saturday, about the shooting of Mark Duggan by the police. That's where the trouble started.

[Celesta]

Pakistanis are Moslems but are not white. They are, however, Caucasian, as are Indians.

What is a race? Are the Celts a race? And if so, is it racial discrimination for a Welsh employer to turn down an Irish job applicant in favour of a Welsh one? One would think it impossible. Similarly, if Anglo-Saxons are a race then a British Anglo-Saxon cannot racially discriminate against a German in favour of a British A-S - it isn't logically possible.

On the other hand, if you only have Causasians, Negroes and Mongoloids, then a white British employer cannot racially discriminate against an Indian in favour of a white Briton, because it isn't logically possible.

"Race" is a more or less useless word.

True, Robert. Race has nothing to do with color and those people that you listed, Pakistanis and Indians are considered to be 'Causcasian'. Race and ethnicity are different. So called racial characteristics are generalized, but "racial" physical characteristics generally reflect environmental adaptations and regional trends and even these are superficial genetically.