Rioting in UK capital

[Fleetwood Mac]

Actually that is incorrect. Europeans, North Asians and Middle Easterners are Caucasian. So Saudi's are Caucasian, Turks are, Kazakhs, Egyptians, all white. The non white Muslims are the black Africans, making the non white Muslim population 50% at most.

Ha! Gotta love this post as it says so much about the current trend in denying difference to the point of making up any old ****. Not the Caucasian bit of course; I'm fully aware of this racial classification.

[Fleetwood Mac]

You mean that when I pointed out that you'd lied about what BBC journalists had said, you couldn't think of anything to say in reply?

No. I suggested you do your own homework re BBC journalists referring to it as a protest.

The reason our conversation ended is that you didn't reply to any of my questions and pulled the usual PC liberal card: "RACIST!"

To be frank, I didn't expect anything to the contrary.

As a political group, you're like robots capable only of one school of thought - usually nothing is fair; always it's some grand theory with no basis in reality.

[harry]

Chris,
You are what you want to be.I am white Anglo Saxen.I prefer to live among people of my own kind.This interpretation of colour,is not mine,it was given by the British government in regard to the people of Jamaica,who were at the time ,all British citizens.It is still used today.

Natalie,
I am white Caucasion.

Caz,
Too many people are afraid to state their attitudes publicly,but are quite prepared secretly to follow the lead of persons like Enoch Powell.

I served for a time in Jamaica,in the 1940's.I saw racial discrimination aplenty.I saw class distinction too.A good friend,a black Jamaican of my own age(21),yes I could make friends with them,once said to me,"As much as we are friends,if you get into a fight with a black Jamaican,and I am present,I will take his side regardless of who is in the right".I saw nothing wrong with that.

[Robert]

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.

[Chris]

No. I suggested you do your own homework re BBC journalists referring to it as a protest.

As a matter of fact, you initially offered to name the BBC journalists you claimed had "pontificat[ed] about how it's not their fault," but when asked for details you came out with the rubbish about "doing your own homework."

It's the easiest thing in the world to make up a lie on an Internet discussion board and then, when asked to back it up, to say "do your own homework." The unusual thing in this case was that the lie was so stupid and implausible that it was self evidently untrue. If a BBC journalist had really said such a thing, his photo would be adorning pub dartboards throughout the land ...

[jason_c]

As a matter of fact, you initially offered to name the BBC journalists you claimed had "pontificat[ed] about how it's not their fault," but when asked for details you came out with the rubbish about "doing your own homework."

It's the easiest thing in the world to make up a lie on an Internet discussion board and then, when asked to back it up, to say "do your own homework." The unusual thing in this case was that the lie was so stupid and implausible that it was self evidently untrue. If a BBC journalist had really said such a thing, his photo would be adorning pub dartboards throughout the land ...

Im quite sure the BBC were calling it a protest on Saturday night. How long this lasted I dont know.

[Errata]

Ha! Gotta love this post as it says so much about the current trend in denying difference to the point of making up any old ****. Not the Caucasian bit of course; I'm fully aware of this racial classification.

I keep reading this, and certainly I understand it as I am quite fluent in the English language, but it makes absolutely no sense.

As best I can figure, you are saying that I am denying that differences in race exist in the world, and making up stuff to defend that position. Except that I'm not making stuff up, because you recognize Caucasian as a racial classification.

right.

First of all, race no longer exists in modern sociology and anthropology. Mostly because it is far too difficult to classify. If you start classifying skin colors, then you have to classify types of skin color. And not just skin color but eye color and hair color. A dark black man is a different race than a light black man, but also a dark black man with blue or green eyes is a different race than a dark black man with brown eyes. Italians are a different race than Swedes, Swedes are a different race than Russians... it never ends.

The last universally accepted racial classifications were Caucazoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Mongoloid are what we consider to be Asians, Orientals, however you want to put it. Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, all Mongoloid. Negroid are black Africans. Classified by the language they speak, these are Zulu, San, Habesha, Swahili, Pygmy, etc. Everyone else is Caucazoid. North African, European, North Asian, Native Americans, South Americans, Caucasians.

Any other classification is considered an ethnicity. Which is not completely divorced from skin color, but not irrevocably tied to it either. Latino is an ethnicity. Not a race. Most cultures from Central and South America are considered Latino. Despite the fact that Argentinians and many Brazilians are "white", they are Latino cultures.

If you want to talk about race, you have three choices. If you want to talk about ethnicity, you have any number of choices, but they are not defined by skin color.

By the by, I NEVER deny that there are differences between people in this world. I think the fact that those differences exist is fantastic. I'm not a fan of all of them by any means, but nations with no influx of foreign cultures die a slow and boring death. Never mind the fact that I like Italian, Thai, and Middle Eastern food a LOT, and I wouldn't be able to eat it if they had never moved here. And it's not like British immigrants here aren't annoying ever. Everyone has their flaws. Every culture has it's problems.

But I would think that the country that leads the world in insurance claims for injuries sustained while running with one's hands in one's pockets wouldn't object to a few cultures moving in who while certainly not perfect, in fact have the sense god gave a hairbrush. I mean, evidently the "pure" British gene pool needs a little variety.

[Archaic]

Race Is An Outdated Social Construct

I agree with Robert. The concept of ‘race’ has no scientific basis. It’s merely an ill-defined and outdated social construct that is seized upon by people who are desperate to reinforce their own paradigm of “normalcy” and “superiority”.

American Anthropological Association: "The concept of race is a social and cultural construction. Race simply cannot be tested or proven scientifically. It is clear that human populations are not unambiguous, clearly demarcated, biologically distinct groups. The concept of `race' has no validity in the human species.

Race is a socially–defined concept that is used to categorize people according to their physical characteristics, and as such, a biologically meaningless category. It would be obvious by now that most people misuse the term "race," since the 'pure races' or genetically homogeneous human populations alluded to, do not exist, nor is there any valid evidence that they have ever existed.”

People who rely on the fuzzy concept of ‘race’ tend to create an “Us vs. Them” model in which they set themselves as the standard of ‘normalcy’, then choose their own definitions of ‘racial characteristics’ in order to self-identify with whatever human traits and quality they value. Qualities and traits they do not value are assigned to others.

Not surprisingly, racists nearly always identify their own perceived group as physically, culturally, socially, and morally superior to whomever they choose to identify as being different from themselves. How often does a racist say “I represent a morally, physically, socially, and culturally different and inferior type of human being?” But if you view humanity as a totem-pole, somebody’s got to be at the bottom.

Self-defined concepts of ‘race’ also function psychologically to assuage feelings of insecurity and to conveniently justify feelings of dislike, discomfort, envy or hatred directed toward those perceived to be in some way different from “Us”. This also permits “Them” to be scapegoated and blamed for whatever social, economic, political, or even moral ills beset society. This lets "Us" off the uncomfortable hook of having to admit that we share responsibility for those problems. From there it becomes easy to decide that "They" should be segregated, or deported, or enslaved, or even annihilated for “the good of” Society/Culture/State/Mankind.

Maybe the people who have such a compulsion to categorize human beings should consider augmenting their racial theories with an earlier system of human categorization based upon “The Four Humours”. Instead of just relying upon the rather vague categories of White, Black, Brown, Yellow, etc., they could further differentiate human beings by their preponderance of bodily fluids: Yellow Bile, Black Bile, Blood, and Phlegm.

Then we can all be neatly categorized as White/ Black/Brown/Yellow/Choleric/ Sanguine/Melancholy/Phlegmatic, and judged accordingly.

I've read the definitions of each Humour, but I'm having trouble deciding whether I'm Sanguine, Phelgmatic, or a blend of all four... Maybe someone else who knows me better can categorize me.

Best regards,
Archaic

[Fleetwood Mac]

Im quite sure the BBC were calling it a protest on Saturday night. How long this lasted I dont know.

They were terming it a protest 2 days after the initial 'protest'. And, there was an outcry followed by senior BBC officials rejecting the 'protest' tag.

[Fleetwood Mac]

I keep reading this, and certainly I understand it as I am quite fluent in the English language, but it makes absolutely no sense.

As best I can figure, you are saying that I am denying that differences in race exist in the world, and making up stuff to defend that position. Except that I'm not making stuff up, because you recognize Caucasian as a racial classification.

right.

First of all, race no longer exists in modern sociology and anthropology. Mostly because it is far too difficult to classify. If you start classifying skin colors, then you have to classify types of skin color. And not just skin color but eye color and hair color. A dark black man is a different race than a light black man, but also a dark black man with blue or green eyes is a different race than a dark black man with brown eyes. Italians are a different race than Swedes, Swedes are a different race than Russians... it never ends.

The last universally accepted racial classifications were Caucazoid, Mongoloid, and Negroid. Mongoloid are what we consider to be Asians, Orientals, however you want to put it. Japanese, Chinese, Vietnamese, Pacific Islanders, all Mongoloid. Negroid are black Africans. Classified by the language they speak, these are Zulu, San, Habesha, Swahili, Pygmy, etc. Everyone else is Caucazoid. North African, European, North Asian, Native Americans, South Americans, Caucasians.

Any other classification is considered an ethnicity. Which is not completely divorced from skin color, but not irrevocably tied to it either. Latino is an ethnicity. Not a race. Most cultures from Central and South America are considered Latino. Despite the fact that Argentinians and many Brazilians are "white", they are Latino cultures.

If you want to talk about race, you have three choices. If you want to talk about ethnicity, you have any number of choices, but they are not defined by skin color.

By the by, I NEVER deny that there are differences between people in this world. I think the fact that those differences exist is fantastic. I'm not a fan of all of them by any means, but nations with no influx of foreign cultures die a slow and boring death. Never mind the fact that I like Italian, Thai, and Middle Eastern food a LOT, and I wouldn't be able to eat it if they had never moved here. And it's not like British immigrants here aren't annoying ever. Everyone has their flaws. Every culture has it's problems.

But I would think that the country that leads the world in insurance claims for injuries sustained while running with one's hands in one's pockets wouldn't object to a few cultures moving in who while certainly not perfect, in fact have the sense god gave a hairbrush. I mean, evidently the "pure" British gene pool needs a little variety.

Long story short: a Turk is not white, while he can, quite conceivably, be Caucasian.

[Robert]

But would folks agree that "racial discrimination" is an outdated concept, except maybe between Caucasians, Negroes and Mongoloids? How can a Nigerian racially discriminate against a Kenyan, if they're both Negroes? Or a white briton against a Pakistani? Or a Chinese against a Thai?

Errata, you have Native Americans as Caucazoid. I thought they were Mongoloid.

[Chris]

Im quite sure the BBC were calling it a protest on Saturday night. How long this lasted I dont know.

How is that relevant to the post you were replying to? What Fleetwood Mac claimed was that BBC journalists "pontificat[ed] about how it's not their fault."

Did you hear any BBC journalists saying that it wasn't their fault? Did anyone hear any BBC journalists saying that it wasn't their fault?

[Errata]

Long story short: a Turk is not white, while he can, quite conceivably, be Caucasian.

Well what the hell is "white"? I mean, Victor Varnado is about as white as it gets, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. These color distinctions are meaningless, and repeatedly trying to make the distinction doesn't change that.

[Errata]

But would folks agree that "racial discrimination" is an outdated concept, except maybe between Caucasians, Negroes and Mongoloids? How can a Nigerian racially discriminate against a Kenyan, if they're both Negroes? Or a white briton against a Pakistani? Or a Chinese against a Thai?

Errata, you have Native Americans as Caucazoid. I thought they were Mongoloid.

They were. Now they're not. I have no idea how that came about, or if it will last, but as of now, they are Caucazoid.

I think the real irony is that race doesn't have to exist in order for there to be racial discrimination. The perception of different races does. A friend of mine got beaten within an inch of his life for being a Muslim. He isn't one. He's a Baptist, his grandparents were Copts from Egypt. He is a victim of religious discrimination without actually being a different religion from his assailants. Discrimination is almost never about who or what people actually are. It's about what others think they are.

[Fleetwood Mac]

Well what the hell is "white"? I mean, Victor Varnado is about as white as it gets, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you mean. These color distinctions are meaningless, and repeatedly trying to make the distinction doesn't change that.

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.