Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just an idea but wouldn't the best way to eliminate racism be to not teach kids about racism? They are 4 / 5 years old all playing together in the playground with no problems then one day someone comes in to school and tells them that they are all different from eachother and belong to different groups based on skin colour, that one race was better than another. Suddenly now half the class have the idea that they are better or different from the other half and exclude others based on skin... kids are mean enough as it is and will use this new information as ammunition and some will grow up with this idea never leaving their head. Dunno, just a thought? Maybe talking about it is the better way but who knows really?" I hear this pov but I think racism is learned. In society There’s things I’d argue are subtle reinforces of racist ideas. But I think most importantly kids also learn racism from home. Someone has to challenge it. Schools see racism happen there and they have to challenge it. (More than they currently do imo) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just an idea but wouldn't the best way to eliminate racism be to not teach kids about racism? They are 4 / 5 years old all playing together in the playground with no problems then one day someone comes in to school and tells them that they are all different from eachother and belong to different groups based on skin colour, that one race was better than another. Suddenly now half the class have the idea that they are better or different from the other half and exclude others based on skin... kids are mean enough as it is and will use this new information as ammunition and some will grow up with this idea never leaving their head. Dunno, just a thought? Maybe talking about it is the better way but who knows really?" I don't think it's people coming into school and telling them that. I think it's more the parents, other family members, others in the community, etc that feed them concepts, say things that are overheard, etc and then are reinforced when they are older with all of the above, along with memes, online stuff, public figures, political commentators, etc, etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just an idea but wouldn't the best way to eliminate racism be to not teach kids about racism? They are 4 / 5 years old all playing together in the playground with no problems then one day someone comes in to school and tells them that they are all different from eachother and belong to different groups based on skin colour, that one race was better than another. Suddenly now half the class have the idea that they are better or different from the other half and exclude others based on skin... kids are mean enough as it is and will use this new information as ammunition and some will grow up with this idea never leaving their head. Dunno, just a thought? Maybe talking about it is the better way but who knows really?" It's not the school that does that. Home/society plays the biggest part. Bias training is what's needed as studies show even the kids of color show bias traits against poc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My kids went to school in Aylesbury. At Christmas non Christian children were taught about it and had a Christmas dinner. At Eid, non Muslim kids were taught about it and the families brought food in and the same as Hanukkah. The kids loved it Educate the younger generations is the way ahead and hopefully they will help educate their parents and grandparents " So important to teach kids about other cultures and to respect that! Especially in communities where it’s relevant | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Racism is passed down. I grew up in the 70s and it was all over the TV and my gran hated anybody of colour.... except our neighbours from Jamaica, because they were 'alright'. I married a mixed race woman, and my kids are mixed race. I like to think the link is getting broken, but maybe that's just my view "Things are without a shadow of a doubt better in so many ways. Not sure there but so much better | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
 turns out she got on with them ever so well and they used to bring her curry dishes round | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember my nan having a meltdown because Indians were moving in next door and she thought the whole street would smell of curry turns out she got on with them ever so well and they used to bring her curry dishes round "If I could smell curry from next door I’d be fucking chuffed. I love the smell of seasoned food. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I remember my nan having a meltdown because Indians were moving in next door and she thought the whole street would smell of curry turns out she got on with them ever so well and they used to bring her curry dishes round
If I could smell curry from next door I’d be fucking chuffed. I love the smell of seasoned food. "Straight up. They had a beautiful wedding in their garden once too, me and me nan watched it out the window  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. " It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to." National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 . It's my opinion that discrimination/racism from every side is never going away | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Just an idea but wouldn't the best way to eliminate racism be to not teach kids about racism? They are 4 / 5 years old all playing together in the playground with no problems then one day someone comes in to school and tells them that they are all different from eachother and belong to different groups based on skin colour, that one race was better than another. Suddenly now half the class have the idea that they are better or different from the other half and exclude others based on skin... kids are mean enough as it is and will use this new information as ammunition and some will grow up with this idea never leaving their head. Dunno, just a thought? Maybe talking about it is the better way but who knows really? I hear this pov but I think racism is learned. In society There’s things I’d argue are subtle reinforces of racist ideas. But I think most importantly kids also learn racism from home. Someone has to challenge it. Schools see racism happen there and they have to challenge it. (More than they currently do imo)" Exactly. Would be reckless to wait till we know they've encountered racism before countering it. In any event, the kids may well have experienced racism before this person speaks to them. I think my kid was in approx year 3 when he casually mentioned that other kids had started saying that one of the kids in his class smelled of chocolate. We don't know where the idea came from. Also, I think it's simplistic to say that all discrimination is learnt. Throughout history people have formed groups, defined themselves relative to other groups and put the others down as a way of seeming stronger. It's probably natural. We're now overcoming that, which is great, but it's a continuing project. Ignoring the issue doesn't solve it. Finally, a lot of culture is based on ethnicity. Differences can be a positive force for creativity. As if by chance (referring to the OP), I'm loving the klezmer I'm listening to right now. Would I love it were my ancestors not from that part of the world? Who knows. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad " Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. " Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance" Is it the ultimate sin of the universe, virtue signalling? They're signalling that their wealth is a virtue? We should burn them down as a consequence, right? (/sarcasm) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance" Once again - They don’t symbolise anything. That’s why they should just have a tiny plaque explaining things for those who are interested, and not make it the whole focus of their properties. Literally everything in the world is financed by someone - do you want to turn your home into a museum of your workplace? Combined with a deep dive into the history of your mortgage provider? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance" I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. " Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. " I (personally) find history a hot issue, because my family were sadly amongst those involved in those past incidents - and not on the rich side. However, my family and many others of our heritage now want to move on from that. My grandparents and their parents before them worked hard to provide a better life and forge their own identity away from being a victim. And I try and continue to do the same. It’s quite hurtful and irritating for people to want to continually bring up the past, and act like those things still carry the same importance now. Within the last few years I’ve noticed people have been a lot more patronising and condescending towards me. It’s like they see me as “different” in a way that I hadn’t experienced prior to this - and it’s because constant dragging up up history and old imbalances. I’ve literally had people apologise to me for historical things that have nothing to do with either myself or them. People think they’re doing good deeds - but they’re actually taking us backwards. Most of these things were recognised and resolved years ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly." What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways?" Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. " I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly." “History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of reference, our identities, and our aspirations.” - James Baldwin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided "The (in)famous quote applied to indigenous Australians and/or the Maori was "smoothing the pillow of a dying race". New Zealand's European settlement I know less about, but Britain declared Australia an uninhabited land when they settled, which was overturned in 1992 (!). Indigenous Australian were declared human for the purposes of constitutional/ federal law in 1967: before that they were under flora and fauna. (I talk about Australia because I know it, indigenous Canadians probably also want a word, and probably others besides) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. " There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. " That’s for poc, Jewish people, disabled people, women, the LGBTQ+ community and others. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. " The acts of the past reverberate in the present - the trauma and lack of trust, the disenfranchisement, it doesn't just disappear the moment a law is changed or a particularly egregious perpetrator is caught. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This week I have had the chance to think about antisemitism/ anti Jewish racism. Done a lot of thinking about allyship and supporting other minoritised groups. We all have such different fights that we’re fighting. Does discrimination affect your life? How often do you think about change and making the world a better safer place? (If you don’t like me talking about race you can always block me and ignore me x)" Yes, racial discrimination has affected my life on several occasions, but part of being a grown up is dealing with it and understanding that it's a small minority and not letting it become an obsession. Unfortunately the world has shits in it and they come in many forms and good intuition and common sense means you can for the most part avoid them. K | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. “History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of reference, our identities, and our aspirations.” - James Baldwin" Nice quote, thank you. I think every sensible person knows that our symbols are always more than just symbols. That's what symbols mean. And the force of a work of art is from what it represents, consciously or unconsciously. When I see Richard the Lionheart's statue outside the Houses of Parliament it resonates. That's largely because of the history and imagery that goes with it. Does that mean it should be taken down? I don't know. But we can't just the issue under the carpet. As it will remain sticking up, and trip us up every so often. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop " It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. " It doesn’t impact you the way it did those in the past. Don’t pretend it does. Move forward and continue to try and make a positive change. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. It doesn’t impact you the way it did those in the past. Don’t pretend it does. Move forward and continue to try and make a positive change. " Not pretending it does. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" "Just don’t comment Rex. Honestly it’s in the OP. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"
Just don’t comment Rex. Honestly it’s in the OP. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
" I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. “History, as nearly no one seems to know, is not merely something to be read. And it does not refer merely, or even principally, to the past. On the contrary, the great force of history comes from the fact that we carry it within us, are unconsciously controlled by it in many ways, and history is literally present in all that we do. It could scarcely be otherwise, since it is to history that we owe our frames of reference, our identities, and our aspirations.” - James Baldwin Nice quote, thank you. I think every sensible person knows that our symbols are always more than just symbols. That's what symbols mean. And the force of a work of art is from what it represents, consciously or unconsciously. When I see Richard the Lionheart's statue outside the Houses of Parliament it resonates. That's largely because of the history and imagery that goes with it. Does that mean it should be taken down? I don't know. But we can't just the issue under the carpet. As it will remain sticking up, and trip us up every so often. " I don’t know how I feel about taking things down. But I know how I feel about celebrating racists. I think there’s got to be a way of acknowledging people were horrible and not celebrating them. I don’t think we’ve grasped that in this country unfortunately | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. The acts of the past reverberate in the present - the trauma and lack of trust, the disenfranchisement, it doesn't just disappear the moment a law is changed or a particularly egregious perpetrator is caught." You get it, Swing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided "I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided
I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance. "People assume that the history they get taught in school is accurate. The history that is "suitable for children" by whitewashing all the really awful shit, or at least the awful shit perpetrated against "the other". The history that is approved by politicians, who of course have their own fucking agenda. (I remember meeting a keynote speaker - a politician - at an academic history conference once, and his whole thing was how he "saved history" by - my interpretation - making the jingoistic and bland version of school history compulsory up to 16) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided
I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance. "I remember sightseeing in Tunisia. The guide explained how, all those centuries ago, the locals had welcomed the Arabs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided
I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance.
I remember sightseeing in Tunisia. The guide explained how, all those centuries ago, the locals had welcomed the Arabs. "I took a pic of an old school textbook that said word for word: ‘When the European settlers arrived, they needed land to live on. The First Nations peoples agreed to move to different areas to make room for the new settlements.’ That was in a textbook. I still have the pic on my Facebook I just checked  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided
I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance.
I remember sightseeing in Tunisia. The guide explained how, all those centuries ago, the locals had welcomed the Arabs.
I took a pic of an old school textbook that said word for word: ‘When the European settlers arrived, they needed land to live on. The First Nations peoples agreed to move to different areas to make room for the new settlements.’ That was in a textbook. I still have the pic on my Facebook I just checked "The Europeans were exploring just because they wanted to find out about the world, not at all for money or power. When Britain landed in their new home in New South Wales, there were indigenous people there, who suffered a lot of disease coincidentally around the time of their arrival and died a bunch for mysterious reasons that didn't really have much to do with British soldiers and their guns. The British tried so hard to take care of indigenous people and had the very best in mind when they took babies from mother's arms for generations and sent them off to camps where they learned English and Christianity. Afghan people and their camels were brought in to explore the desert and that was probably consensual maybe. The British colonists were very worried that the Chinese were stealing their culture and were the only successful people during the gold rush, so it was entirely understandable to point out that they were a disgusting yellow fog coming out from under the bed to contaminate you. The White Australia Policy, barring everyone not from north-western Europe from Australia (Australia's first law!) was a totally reasonable response to that fear. yup yup | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not talking about racism doesn't stop racism. Not being racist stops racism. Some US States are trying to ban teaching about sl@very, whilst purging voters rolls and gerrymandering voting districts to essentially disenfranchise black voters. Massive racism, trying not to talk about it. Doesn't work." If I don’t talk about an issue and ignore it then it surely doesn’t exist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided
I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance.
I remember sightseeing in Tunisia. The guide explained how, all those centuries ago, the locals had welcomed the Arabs.
I took a pic of an old school textbook that said word for word: ‘When the European settlers arrived, they needed land to live on. The First Nations peoples agreed to move to different areas to make room for the new settlements.’ That was in a textbook. I still have the pic on my Facebook I just checked
The Europeans were exploring just because they wanted to find out about the world, not at all for money or power.
When Britain landed in their new home in New South Wales, there were indigenous people there, who suffered a lot of disease coincidentally around the time of their arrival and died a bunch for mysterious reasons that didn't really have much to do with British soldiers and their guns.
The British tried so hard to take care of indigenous people and had the very best in mind when they took babies from mother's arms for generations and sent them off to camps where they learned English and Christianity.
Afghan people and their camels were brought in to explore the desert and that was probably consensual maybe.
The British colonists were very worried that the Chinese were stealing their culture and were the only successful people during the gold rush, so it was entirely understandable to point out that they were a disgusting yellow fog coming out from under the bed to contaminate you. The White Australia Policy, barring everyone not from north-western Europe from Australia (Australia's first law!) was a totally reasonable response to that fear.
yup yup"Basically we took up the white mans burden as Kipling says and they went and saved the world. #respect. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not talking about racism doesn't stop racism. Not being racist stops racism. Some US States are trying to ban teaching about sl@very, whilst purging voters rolls and gerrymandering voting districts to essentially disenfranchise black voters. Massive racism, trying not to talk about it. Doesn't work. If I don’t talk about an issue and ignore it then it surely doesn’t exist "We need to remember the real racism. Making white children face reality, or teaching accurately about their ancestors (some of whom might still be alive). If we don't hurt their feelings, the problems disappear! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The attacks on the National Trust as woke because they wanted to acknowledge the sources of the UK's historical wealth. It’s less do do with acknowledging things. It’s more about how and when they do it. We’re living in a society where we’re beaten over the head with overly serious messaging all of the time. You know what sometimes I just want to go to a stately home and enjoy it. Put a tiny plaque in a corner if they want, but they need to be careful as to not turn their estates into symbols of whatever past deeds they are loosely tied to. National Trust properties*are* symbols of everything that brought them to where they are now. Good and bad Despite you saying so, no they are not symbols of everything that bought them there. They’re architecture, grounds, land etc that’s nicely designed and appreciated by others. They might be homes. They might be parks. They could be old religious grounds. Whatever. Those things are their primary purpose. The multitude of people involved in designing building and creating these things certainly were not at all thinking about anything other than making beautiful environments. For the most part they were not built with the thought of “hey let’s make this park a tribute to human trafficking” or “this mansion is here to represent the boer war” etc. Whether they were thinking about it or not (and I believe architects very much take into account what a building symbolises) many of the stately homes were built to signal the wealth of the person providing the finance I think it's interesting that history is the hot issue. Those who don't learn history are doomed to repeat it. Those who do learn history are doomed to facepalm repeatedly. What the hell do people think the British Empire was all about? Cricket and Railways? Bringing light, humanity, and civilisation to savages who didn't have a culture to be destroyed anyway. I remember my friends dad being extremely confused because the 'natives' didn't want to live in the houses they'd so kindly provided
I remember at uni someone said to a lecturer that the people in Africa didn’t exactly resist. And that is pretty much how poorly understanding of empire is. Same with the Holocaust. People don’t think that there was resistance.
I remember sightseeing in Tunisia. The guide explained how, all those centuries ago, the locals had welcomed the Arabs.
I took a pic of an old school textbook that said word for word: ‘When the European settlers arrived, they needed land to live on. The First Nations peoples agreed to move to different areas to make room for the new settlements.’ That was in a textbook. I still have the pic on my Facebook I just checked
The Europeans were exploring just because they wanted to find out about the world, not at all for money or power.
When Britain landed in their new home in New South Wales, there were indigenous people there, who suffered a lot of disease coincidentally around the time of their arrival and died a bunch for mysterious reasons that didn't really have much to do with British soldiers and their guns.
The British tried so hard to take care of indigenous people and had the very best in mind when they took babies from mother's arms for generations and sent them off to camps where they learned English and Christianity.
Afghan people and their camels were brought in to explore the desert and that was probably consensual maybe.
The British colonists were very worried that the Chinese were stealing their culture and were the only successful people during the gold rush, so it was entirely understandable to point out that they were a disgusting yellow fog coming out from under the bed to contaminate you. The White Australia Policy, barring everyone not from north-western Europe from Australia (Australia's first law!) was a totally reasonable response to that fear.
yup yup
Basically we took up the white mans burden as Kipling says and they went and saved the world. #respect. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. " Pickle, you started this conversation to be about race. People have focused in on history, why is that. I only cited it as one example of race and modern society. Does the past make people uncomfortable? Does it show current society in a less favourable light? Other reasons......... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. Pickle, you started this conversation to be about race. People have focused in on history, why is that. I only cited it as one example of race and modern society. Does the past make people uncomfortable? Does it show current society in a less favourable light? Other reasons........." I started this thread actually welcoming discussion about all forms of discrimination people experience, you know? And about allyship too maybe. In answer to the history stuff I don’t know why people hate talking about history, I assume mostly it’s discomfort. Sometimes I’m sure it is also not understanding how it’s relevant to today and relationships and experiences today. But generally I think people think that dwelling on the past is the same as acknowledging the role of the past and they think it stops progress. I’d argue that there can be no social progression towards equality with our current collective understanding of the role of the past. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not talking about racism doesn't stop racism. Not being racist stops racism. Some US States are trying to ban teaching about sl@very, whilst purging voters rolls and gerrymandering voting districts to essentially disenfranchise black voters. Massive racism, trying not to talk about it. Doesn't work. If I don’t talk about an issue and ignore it then it surely doesn’t exist
We need to remember the real racism. Making white children face reality, or teaching accurately about their ancestors (some of whom might still be alive). If we don't hurt their feelings, the problems disappear!"‘Real racism’ Is my fave. ‘Racism Is losing its meaning!!!’ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. Pickle, you started this conversation to be about race. People have focused in on history, why is that. I only cited it as one example of race and modern society. Does the past make people uncomfortable? Does it show current society in a less favourable light? Other reasons......... I started this thread actually welcoming discussion about all forms of discrimination people experience, you know? And about allyship too maybe. In answer to the history stuff I don’t know why people hate talking about history, I assume mostly it’s discomfort. Sometimes I’m sure it is also not understanding how it’s relevant to today and relationships and experiences today. But generally I think people think that dwelling on the past is the same as acknowledging the role of the past and they think it stops progress. I’d argue that there can be no social progression towards equality with our current collective understanding of the role of the past. " History is a tool of the powerful to continue to push their message, whatever that might be. Maybe if we acknowledge it, we can better understand why there are certain interactions between cultural groups and begin to do the work to heal. (I'm thinking of imprisonment rates of indigenous Australians - yes, a thing I know quite a bit about - and the highly disproportionate rates of deaths in custody that there was a royal commission about 30 odd years ago and fuck all has been done about it. Indigenous Australians - see above re mothers and babies and other stuff besides - have damn good reasons to be suspicious of authority, intergenerational trauma, unique health problems exacerbated by colonialism, etc. Imagine all the money we'd save by not locking blackfellas* up for trivial shit and working from where they are) * An indigenous Australian term for indigenous Australian, not just a man. "Whitefella" also exists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. Pickle, you started this conversation to be about race. People have focused in on history, why is that. I only cited it as one example of race and modern society. Does the past make people uncomfortable? Does it show current society in a less favourable light? Other reasons......... I started this thread actually welcoming discussion about all forms of discrimination people experience, you know? And about allyship too maybe. In answer to the history stuff I don’t know why people hate talking about history, I assume mostly it’s discomfort. Sometimes I’m sure it is also not understanding how it’s relevant to today and relationships and experiences today. But generally I think people think that dwelling on the past is the same as acknowledging the role of the past and they think it stops progress. I’d argue that there can be no social progression towards equality with our current collective understanding of the role of the past. History is a tool of the powerful to continue to push their message, whatever that might be. Maybe if we acknowledge it, we can better understand why there are certain interactions between cultural groups and begin to do the work to heal. (I'm thinking of imprisonment rates of indigenous Australians - yes, a thing I know quite a bit about - and the highly disproportionate rates of deaths in custody that there was a royal commission about 30 odd years ago and fuck all has been done about it. Indigenous Australians - see above re mothers and babies and other stuff besides - have damn good reasons to be suspicious of authority, intergenerational trauma, unique health problems exacerbated by colonialism, etc. Imagine all the money we'd save by not locking blackfellas* up for trivial shit and working from where they are) * An indigenous Australian term for indigenous Australian, not just a man. "Whitefella" also exists." History is a great way to learn lessons and continue to do well. But there’s a flip side, history can also be used to imprison yourself in old thoughts and ideologies. It’s a careful balancing act and it’s certainly not something that should be continuously carried around when it’s not needed (imo). If you view everything through the lens of the past, you start seeing a warped sense of reality. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. Pickle, you started this conversation to be about race. People have focused in on history, why is that. I only cited it as one example of race and modern society. Does the past make people uncomfortable? Does it show current society in a less favourable light? Other reasons......... I started this thread actually welcoming discussion about all forms of discrimination people experience, you know? And about allyship too maybe. In answer to the history stuff I don’t know why people hate talking about history, I assume mostly it’s discomfort. Sometimes I’m sure it is also not understanding how it’s relevant to today and relationships and experiences today. But generally I think people think that dwelling on the past is the same as acknowledging the role of the past and they think it stops progress. I’d argue that there can be no social progression towards equality with our current collective understanding of the role of the past. History is a tool of the powerful to continue to push their message, whatever that might be. Maybe if we acknowledge it, we can better understand why there are certain interactions between cultural groups and begin to do the work to heal. (I'm thinking of imprisonment rates of indigenous Australians - yes, a thing I know quite a bit about - and the highly disproportionate rates of deaths in custody that there was a royal commission about 30 odd years ago and fuck all has been done about it. Indigenous Australians - see above re mothers and babies and other stuff besides - have damn good reasons to be suspicious of authority, intergenerational trauma, unique health problems exacerbated by colonialism, etc. Imagine all the money we'd save by not locking blackfellas* up for trivial shit and working from where they are) * An indigenous Australian term for indigenous Australian, not just a man. "Whitefella" also exists. History is a great way to learn lessons and continue to do well. But there’s a flip side, history can also be used to imprison yourself in old thoughts and ideologies. It’s a careful balancing act and it’s certainly not something that should be continuously carried around when it’s not needed (imo). If you view everything through the lens of the past, you start seeing a warped sense of reality." Sorry didn’t mean to glaze over your point about Australians. I fully agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm white so I don't feel attacked for my race, but, as a teenager in a racially diverse Secondary modern school there were some boys who caught my eye who I wouldn't date, because their parents wouldn't have allowed them to bring a white girl into the house/family, and I didn't want a secret relationship that wouldn't go anywhere; even at that age."  I hear that. My family I know always expected me to end up with a Black woman (and tbf i did too) and I think they were tough on my gf at first because she’s not Black.
What about gender? Has that impacted you. I know I said race in the title but I’m generally interested in discrimination | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"History lives within us. The historical experiences of people that look like me are relevant to the everyday present lives of Pele that look like me. That’s an unfortunate and unavoidable fact. It impacts the weight of language and the power relations etc. so much more. Living in the past might seem annoying when minorities communities do it but it’s extremely relevant. There’s a difference between history being a part of you vs continually dragging that past into the present and trapping ourselves in a loop It’s not dragging it up when it still impacts your present reality. And it will continue to if you just try and bury it and ignore its impact on relations in the present. There’s been nothing to undo the past and its impact on the experiences of people these days. It has to be brought up for people to even understand the present. Pickle, you started this conversation to be about race. People have focused in on history, why is that. I only cited it as one example of race and modern society. Does the past make people uncomfortable? Does it show current society in a less favourable light? Other reasons......... I started this thread actually welcoming discussion about all forms of discrimination people experience, you know? And about allyship too maybe. In answer to the history stuff I don’t know why people hate talking about history, I assume mostly it’s discomfort. Sometimes I’m sure it is also not understanding how it’s relevant to today and relationships and experiences today. But generally I think people think that dwelling on the past is the same as acknowledging the role of the past and they think it stops progress. I’d argue that there can be no social progression towards equality with our current collective understanding of the role of the past. History is a tool of the powerful to continue to push their message, whatever that might be. Maybe if we acknowledge it, we can better understand why there are certain interactions between cultural groups and begin to do the work to heal. (I'm thinking of imprisonment rates of indigenous Australians - yes, a thing I know quite a bit about - and the highly disproportionate rates of deaths in custody that there was a royal commission about 30 odd years ago and fuck all has been done about it. Indigenous Australians - see above re mothers and babies and other stuff besides - have damn good reasons to be suspicious of authority, intergenerational trauma, unique health problems exacerbated by colonialism, etc. Imagine all the money we'd save by not locking blackfellas* up for trivial shit and working from where they are) * An indigenous Australian term for indigenous Australian, not just a man. "Whitefella" also exists. History is a great way to learn lessons and continue to do well. But there’s a flip side, history can also be used to imprison yourself in old thoughts and ideologies. It’s a careful balancing act and it’s certainly not something that should be continuously carried around when it’s not needed (imo). If you view everything through the lens of the past, you start seeing a warped sense of reality." So, what would you do about the fact that indigenous Australians are disproportionately imprisoned and killed in custody, including for things that rarely get people of other ethnicities arrested? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Historically, everyone has used their power over different races, creeds and cultures, for profit and gain. It's still happening and people are still suffering. I don't believe that we're doing a good job of educating children, because the parents and other family members hand down their prejudices. I fight my fight and hope I'm winning. " You’re a god egg. I like eggs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm white so I don't feel attacked for my race, but, as a teenager in a racially diverse Secondary modern school there were some boys who caught my eye who I wouldn't date, because their parents wouldn't have allowed them to bring a white girl into the house/family, and I didn't want a secret relationship that wouldn't go anywhere; even at that age. I hear that. My family I know always expected me to end up with a Black woman (and tbf i did too) and I think they were tough on my gf at first because she’s not Black.
What about gender? Has that impacted you. I know I said race in the title but I’m generally interested in discrimination"My parents couldn't have cared less who I married, and would rather I had married someone like you than the man I did marry. Thankfully, I was part one of very few families who didn't have racist parents. I won't pretend though that none of my family aren't racist, because other influences affected them. I've put all of my brother in laws in their place a few times when something about race comes out of their mouths. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Historically, everyone has used their power over different races, creeds and cultures, for profit and gain. It's still happening and people are still suffering. I don't believe that we're doing a good job of educating children, because the parents and other family members hand down their prejudices. I fight my fight and hope I'm winning. You’re a god egg. I like eggs. " I'm not quite a God, Pickle  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife." Is there? Their body their choices surely | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have a question. How can a white person be an effective ally without becoming a white saviour? " Who even knows. I think white saviours are clearly people that make the work (the anti racism) about them and about their image. Genuine allyship, I think for any allyship, is about the people you support, uplifting them and their voices, supporting their resistance rather than making it about you and centering people not impacted by the issues they’re fighting against. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely" Not you | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" " I mean that's cool and all, but that's not the way humans behave, and we need to respond to the realities and consequences of human behaviour. Whether that's between people with real differences, or it's between the people Cool Kid Callum has deemed cool and not cool. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" " surprised you’re the first to say that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have a question. How can a white person be an effective ally without becoming a white saviour? " Standing up for people when they aren’t in the room. That’s the most important one, because I get the feeling that’s when most discrimination happens. Then second would be standing up for others or speaking up when you encounter something inappropriate. There’s things that are safe for you to say and do, that wouldn’t be acceptable for someone like me. For example, if people make racist comments to me in public, I know from experience that if I speak back it will escalate, or I’ll look like the aggressor. So I choose to stay silent. At times like that I wish a non-minority person would defend me and speak on my behalf - because I know they are in a much safer and better position than I am to deal with it. I think those two things more than enough to be supportive | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have a question. How can a white person be an effective ally without becoming a white saviour? Who even knows. I think white saviours are clearly people that make the work (the anti racism) about them and about their image. Genuine allyship, I think for any allyship, is about the people you support, uplifting them and their voices, supporting their resistance rather than making it about you and centering people not impacted by the issues they’re fighting against. " I'd always defer on this issue, but I'd say, as someone who's accused of it, to look to the intentions of the people doing the accusing. Sometimes these accusations are made in bad faith to try to get the conversation to stop. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll always stand behind that BE got to the finish line first. If they hadn't somebody else would have and that power would have been used to their advantage regardless of the race or religion of those in power. People are people. People have committed vile and atrocious acts to other tribes of same and different origins of race, religion, and beliefs since before homo sapiens were a thing. We are just now, well (very and extremely slowly), over the past ~100 years as a society realizing that part of our nature as humans does not need to be the dominant side. " My main issue is that lots of the myths and white supremacy that was central to empire and its expansion is not something that I think we can say for certain another group would’ve done. For example sl*very existed before the sl*ve trade but the uniqueness of racial sl*very and sl*very justified by white supremacy is not the same as the sl*very amongst tribes in Africa. And I think it’s important we acknowledge that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Historically, everyone has used their power over different races, creeds and cultures, for profit and gain. It's still happening and people are still suffering. I don't believe that we're doing a good job of educating children, because the parents and other family members hand down their prejudices. I fight my fight and hope I'm winning. You’re a god egg. I like eggs. I'm not quite a God, Pickle " fuck | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'll always stand behind that BE got to the finish line first. If they hadn't somebody else would have and that power would have been used to their advantage regardless of the race or religion of those in power. People are people. People have committed vile and atrocious acts to other tribes of same and different origins of race, religion, and beliefs since before homo sapiens were a thing. We are just now, well (very and extremely slowly), over the past ~100 years as a society realizing that part of our nature as humans does not need to be the dominant side. My main issue is that lots of the myths and white supremacy that was central to empire and its expansion is not something that I think we can say for certain another group would’ve done. For example sl*very existed before the sl*ve trade but the uniqueness of racial sl*very and sl*very justified by white supremacy is not the same as the sl*very amongst tribes in Africa. And I think it’s important we acknowledge that" The more modern and global (humans as property) trade was much more brutal than historical parallels too. It was uniquely horrific. But history (again!) makes it seem like the opposite was true, because, dunno, white fragility or something. Or (Australia again!) during BLM the then Australian prime minister said there was no (humans as property) in Australia and oh hell no open a proper history book, dipshit. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. " I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely" Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" I (personally) find history a hot issue, because my family were sadly amongst those involved in those past incidents - and not on the rich side. However, my family and many others of our heritage now want to move on from that. My grandparents and their parents before them worked hard to provide a better life and forge their own identity away from being a victim. And I try and continue to do the same. It’s quite hurtful and irritating for people to want to continually bring up the past, and act like those things still carry the same importance now. Within the last few years I’ve noticed people have been a lot more patronising and condescending towards me. It’s like they see me as “different” in a way that I hadn’t experienced prior to this - and it’s because constant dragging up up history and old imbalances. I’ve literally had people apologise to me for historical things that have nothing to do with either myself or them. People think they’re doing good deeds - but they’re actually taking us backwards. Most of these things were recognised and resolved years ago." This ^^ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. " I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" " That is right. I was also going to say the same thing too | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" That is right. I was also going to say the same thing too "yeah and all lives matter | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire." I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. " I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. " It was definitely xenophobia. And deliberate to support the atrocious behaviour of the British in Ireland as a whole. So much of prejudice is very deliberate such as making owned people in the US officially count as 3/5s of a person. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" That is right. I was also going to say the same thing too
yeah and all lives matter"Yes. I have also done a thread about it, a long time ago as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right?" What is your solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. It was definitely xenophobia. And deliberate to support the atrocious behaviour of the British in Ireland as a whole. So much of prejudice is very deliberate such as making owned people in the US officially count as 3/5s of a person." I think it originated in racism, but as time has gone on the idea of the in group or the out group has changed. Sectarianism and colonialism too. (Perhaps I'm talking about the history of Ireland as a whole, not just northern Ireland) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why)" Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why) Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. " Pickle has a Dream... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why) Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. " don't mind me, I'm taking notes... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? What is your solution?" Recognise it for what it is. Realise that race is a political construct and that you can't make assumptions about people based on how much melanin they have in their skin anymore than I can make accurate assumptions about you because you happen to be called Tom or that your nose is a certain size. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why) Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. don't mind me, I'm taking notes..." kehinde Andrews has written a lot about them. He’s amazing I’ve seen him speak a few times | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" That is right. I was also going to say the same thing too
yeah and all lives matterYes. I have also done a thread about it, a long time ago as well "I have now bumped up that thread as well that I did back then | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why) Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. don't mind me, I'm taking notes... kehinde Andrews has written a lot about them. He’s amazing I’ve seen him speak a few times" Thank you for adding to my workload. I think. lol | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Not sure if it counts as Racism, granted its discrimination but being born in Northern Ireland in the 90's you got taught and exposed to some crazy shit. Just treat people how you would treat you're own family, that what I now believe and try to do. I think this is a really important experience that especially in England we don’t learn enough about in school. I think it would be fascinating to teach people from England about the differences (right or wrong) in popular history between England and other countries. And even "the stuff they didn't tell you in school" sort of thing. The remnants of the sun never setting on the empire. I think outside of GCSE and A level curriculum there’s enough freedom for teachers to include some things in their KS3 stuff but would they? Is it appropriate? Would they rather focus on preparing knowledge for GCSE etc. I think that would be a massive political football tbh. For better or worse, if I were to do it, I'd take it out of school. Community enrichment, adult education, sort of thing. ... lol leave it with me I have a crazy idea (why am I like this. why) Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. " This is kind of interesting to me and may be off topic a tad. But why would kids want to go to extra lessons? The majority won't want to go and the ones who do you're kind of preaching to the converted. Been talking about this recently, but with regards to Welsh and the Welsh language. We're finding that it's activities that include use of Welsh or that it's packaged in a non Welsh way engages more people regardless of ability to speak Welsh, which means you get better outreach. And isn't that that changes future generations rather than it being an only Welsh thing? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. This is kind of interesting to me and may be off topic a tad. But why would kids want to go to extra lessons? The majority won't want to go and the ones who do you're kind of preaching to the converted. Been talking about this recently, but with regards to Welsh and the Welsh language. We're finding that it's activities that include use of Welsh or that it's packaged in a non Welsh way engages more people regardless of ability to speak Welsh, which means you get better outreach. And isn't that that changes future generations rather than it being an only Welsh thing? " I think my view on it is that Saturday schools can be fun. You can make them fun and they don’t have to replicate usual educational settings nor does learning have to replicate that. Plenty of different ways to teach that aren’t classroom based or focused on writing or anything like that. kids get to meet and engage with other kids similar to them. These don’t have to be long either. 2 hours a week on a Saturday morning could work. Running trips. Etc etc. and ultimately, for better or for worse, parents are huge factor in this. Making these things come with actress to healthy foods and things like that help and promote better learning. I thing in the ways I’m thinking in terms of Black supplementary education I think there’s plenty of ways to reach hard Rip engage kids. I mean youth clubs should logically not be able to help the kids at risk but they do. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. This is kind of interesting to me and may be off topic a tad. But why would kids want to go to extra lessons? The majority won't want to go and the ones who do you're kind of preaching to the converted. Been talking about this recently, but with regards to Welsh and the Welsh language. We're finding that it's activities that include use of Welsh or that it's packaged in a non Welsh way engages more people regardless of ability to speak Welsh, which means you get better outreach. And isn't that that changes future generations rather than it being an only Welsh thing? I think my view on it is that Saturday schools can be fun. You can make them fun and they don’t have to replicate usual educational settings nor does learning have to replicate that. Plenty of different ways to teach that aren’t classroom based or focused on writing or anything like that. kids get to meet and engage with other kids similar to them. These don’t have to be long either. 2 hours a week on a Saturday morning could work. Running trips. Etc etc. and ultimately, for better or for worse, parents are huge factor in this. Making these things come with actress to healthy foods and things like that help and promote better learning. I thing in the ways I’m thinking in terms of Black supplementary education I think there’s plenty of ways to reach hard Rip engage kids. I mean youth clubs should logically not be able to help the kids at risk but they do. " Outreach is hugely important too and that would be I guess how you’d get to some kids you think might more want to access the service but may benefit from it | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have experienced discrimination in isolated ways. Whilst those experiences have actually led to me being assaulted. I'd still say that is categorically different to being a member of a minority group (or being perceived to be), within a society. My daughter however has experienced it in profound ways and on an institutional level, where it was systematically covered up by her school and the local authority, until someone broke ranks and spoke out about it. Who then got fired for it. Not officially of course - there's always plausible deniability. Sadly that person was the only black person involved in the case. She said to me, I am not having it, it goes right to the top, they can stick their job up their batty: my liccle sister needs to see there's some justice I'll show her. Her act of courage changed my daughter's life. I think what needs to change is that discrimination is a social taboo. That it is perceived to be some archaic problem we solved a couple of decades ago when we created a few laws."
Big love. Thanks for sharing these experiences. And I agree we need to not keep thinking we solved issues of discrimination ages ago. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I have experienced discrimination in isolated ways. Whilst those experiences have actually led to me being assaulted. I'd still say that is categorically different to being a member of a minority group (or being perceived to be), within a society. My daughter however has experienced it in profound ways and on an institutional level, where it was systematically covered up by her school and the local authority, until someone broke ranks and spoke out about it. Who then got fired for it. Not officially of course - there's always plausible deniability. Sadly that person was the only black person involved in the case. She said to me, I am not having it, it goes right to the top, they can stick their job up their batty: my liccle sister needs to see there's some justice I'll show her. Her act of courage changed my daughter's life. I think what needs to change is that discrimination is a social taboo. That it is perceived to be some archaic problem we solved a couple of decades ago when we created a few laws.
Big love. Thanks for sharing these experiences. And I agree we need to not keep thinking we solved issues of discrimination ages ago. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. This is kind of interesting to me and may be off topic a tad. But why would kids want to go to extra lessons? The majority won't want to go and the ones who do you're kind of preaching to the converted. Been talking about this recently, but with regards to Welsh and the Welsh language. We're finding that it's activities that include use of Welsh or that it's packaged in a non Welsh way engages more people regardless of ability to speak Welsh, which means you get better outreach. And isn't that that changes future generations rather than it being an only Welsh thing? I think my view on it is that Saturday schools can be fun. You can make them fun and they don’t have to replicate usual educational settings nor does learning have to replicate that. Plenty of different ways to teach that aren’t classroom based or focused on writing or anything like that. kids get to meet and engage with other kids similar to them. These don’t have to be long either. 2 hours a week on a Saturday morning could work. Running trips. Etc etc. and ultimately, for better or for worse, parents are huge factor in this. Making these things come with actress to healthy foods and things like that help and promote better learning. I thing in the ways I’m thinking in terms of Black supplementary education I think there’s plenty of ways to reach hard Rip engage kids. I mean youth clubs should logically not be able to help the kids at risk but they do. " I hear you, just think realistically it's a difficult thing. You should see how much I race about on weekends, to get my kids to football and rugby etc. And I think that's kind of what I was badly explaining, footy with your mates or Saturday school, I know what the choice would be in my household. There is definitely a lack of youth clubs compared to my youth and I don't think it's good for kids or their community. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Better parenting would solve a lot of problems to be honest. How many issues are caused by poverty stricken single parent families?" Agree on parenting. One thing I say often is that good allies don’t raise bigot children. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" That is right. I was also going to say the same thing too
yeah and all lives matterYes. I have also done a thread about it, a long time ago as well "And you missed the point why I mentioned it shag. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bring back Black supplementary schools. It’s actually a dream of mine to be able to bring back Black supplementary schools that have a focus on histories not taught in schools as well as core subjects ofc. This is kind of interesting to me and may be off topic a tad. But why would kids want to go to extra lessons? The majority won't want to go and the ones who do you're kind of preaching to the converted. Been talking about this recently, but with regards to Welsh and the Welsh language. We're finding that it's activities that include use of Welsh or that it's packaged in a non Welsh way engages more people regardless of ability to speak Welsh, which means you get better outreach. And isn't that that changes future generations rather than it being an only Welsh thing? I think my view on it is that Saturday schools can be fun. You can make them fun and they don’t have to replicate usual educational settings nor does learning have to replicate that. Plenty of different ways to teach that aren’t classroom based or focused on writing or anything like that. kids get to meet and engage with other kids similar to them. These don’t have to be long either. 2 hours a week on a Saturday morning could work. Running trips. Etc etc. and ultimately, for better or for worse, parents are huge factor in this. Making these things come with actress to healthy foods and things like that help and promote better learning. I thing in the ways I’m thinking in terms of Black supplementary education I think there’s plenty of ways to reach hard Rip engage kids. I mean youth clubs should logically not be able to help the kids at risk but they do. I hear you, just think realistically it's a difficult thing. You should see how much I race about on weekends, to get my kids to football and rugby etc. And I think that's kind of what I was badly explaining, footy with your mates or Saturday school, I know what the choice would be in my household. There is definitely a lack of youth clubs compared to my youth and I don't think it's good for kids or their community. " It’s hard in a modern era. Especially in a child centred era. But it’s possible. My grandad ran Saturday schools that I went to. They weren’t fun and I hated them but I went and it helped massively with my grades. I think there’s balance to be found. And I think it’s a provision that needs to be funded so that it can largely be free to those that can’t afford it that may need it. Being able to include sports could help? Might make it a longer commitment though. But kids are into different things and if parents can’t afford clubs, free provisions are good in Lots of ways. Totally get your experience though and I think with the Welsh thing i totally get you. But I think it’s a needed thing and you can certainly get things like that going. Can bring communities together, teach oral histories and add a heritage element to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only one race so far "the human race" That is right. I was also going to say the same thing too
yeah and all lives matterYes. I have also done a thread about it, a long time ago as well
And you missed the point why I mentioned it shag.
"I see and yes. I might of done that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I think this topic affects my life on way too many occasions. Some I know about and others I'm completely oblivious to. I'm normally a quiet individual who generally doesn't like confrontation so used to try my best to ignore certain nonsense that was thrown at me and various people around me. But as you grow older and wiser you learn to stand up for yourself more and that ignoring systemic problems is probably the worst stance you can take. Racism is a way of life. It is taught from a young age. Its a brainwashing system by the state and institutional. Parents play their part in this embarrassing system bc their condition has already been conditioned before by their parents and so on. Any attempts to break that cycle will be met by resistance. You see it everyday in media and how people conduct themselves in public. I think for some people if issues of racism and discrimination in general doesn't affect them they tend to minimise these things and encourage everyone to ignore and move forward. This is not only dangerous but actually futile in solving anything but delaying change. The best way to challenge racism, discrimination and anti semiticism is to educate, practice that education and learn from history. Not attack those who are trying to educate, highlight issues or voicing their grievances. Have a nice day people. "My daughter educates me. She's wonderful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife." I did it once but things got turned upside down and the thread turned against me. Although I have seen it go the other way too. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"T.E.A.M!!!!!!!!! Together Everyone Achieves More " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"T.E.A.M!!!!!!!!! Together Everyone Achieves More
" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thread" you did? we barely scratched the surface. but yes some interesting posts. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife." I ask this simply out of curiosity as we don't engage in any fetishism of people due to race or any other characteristic, but for every profile I see where a couple are asking specifically for black men to meet them, I also see a profile of a black guy offering his services to couples who hold that particular interest. I'm just curious as to whether you hold any particular negative view on black guys offering their services specifically for those couples or for black guys who have a fetish for white cuckold couples? Do you see that any differently to how you see white couples specifically wanting black guys? Also, what of they are only looking for black guys because that is who the lady is most attracted to? Does that make a difference? Again, not disputing what you say, just curious as to whether you hold the same views when the scenario is reversed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thread you did? we barely scratched the surface. but yes some interesting posts." Yeah but I didn’t look and see any of the usual flagrant comments. Nice. I won’t be leaving today. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thread you did? we barely scratched the surface. but yes some interesting posts. Yeah but I didn’t look and see any of the usual flagrant comments. Nice. I won’t be leaving today. " You will not leave | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thread you did? we barely scratched the surface. but yes some interesting posts. Yeah but I didn’t look and see any of the usual flagrant comments. Nice. I won’t be leaving today. You will not leave "I’m not fuckin leavin | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thread you did? we barely scratched the surface. but yes some interesting posts. Yeah but I didn’t look and see any of the usual flagrant comments. Nice. I won’t be leaving today. You will not leave
I’m not fuckin leavin " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? What is your solution? Recognise it for what it is. Realise that race is a political construct and that you can't make assumptions about people based on how much melanin they have in their skin anymore than I can make accurate assumptions about you because you happen to be called Tom or that your nose is a certain size." So should a white woman feel guilty or bad for wanting to have sex with a black or Chinese male... ? Let's not put guilt on choice here please | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? What is your solution? Recognise it for what it is. Realise that race is a political construct and that you can't make assumptions about people based on how much melanin they have in their skin anymore than I can make accurate assumptions about you because you happen to be called Tom or that your nose is a certain size. So should a white woman feel guilty or bad for wanting to have sex with a black or Chinese male... ? Let's not put guilt on choice here please" If she’s fetishising she should. And the difference between fetishising and genuine attraction should be fairly obvious. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve thoroughly enjoyed this thread you did? we barely scratched the surface. but yes some interesting posts. Yeah but I didn’t look and see any of the usual flagrant comments. Nice. I won’t be leaving today. You will not leave
I’m not fuckin leavin " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Well Tom will let the others put the shame and guilt on a person who is at liberty to have consensual sex with whoever she chooses... Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? What is your solution? Recognise it for what it is. Realise that race is a political construct and that you can't make assumptions about people based on how much melanin they have in their skin anymore than I can make accurate assumptions about you because you happen to be called Tom or that your nose is a certain size. So should a white woman feel guilty or bad for wanting to have sex with a black or Chinese male... ? Let's not put guilt on choice here please If she’s fetishising she should. And the difference between fetishising and genuine attraction should be fairly obvious. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right?" So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. " I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. " https://sexualhealthalliance.com/nymphomedia-blog/no-not-the-broadcasting-company-a-brief-history-of-black-mens-hypersexualization | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other'" I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other'" So should this type of sex be stopped in case somebody is offended | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other." I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This week I have had the chance to think about antisemitism/ anti Jewish racism. Done a lot of thinking about allyship and supporting other minoritised groups. We all have such different fights that we’re fighting. Does discrimination affect your life? How often do you think about change and making the world a better safer place? (If you don’t like me talking about race you can always block me and ignore me x)" I think discrimination affects everyones life. Some really significantly. I think a lot of the folks who make most noise about it, seem to do the least. People change when they are paid to or have something to benefit them. All the rest of it is wishful thinking. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. " Yeah the contexts aren’t the same. It’s like why white chicks is not the same as Blackface. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down." OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic...." Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic...." Don't forget the Romans and the Barbary Pirates... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history?" And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history?" You are making yourself look foolish now... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.." Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool" Of course the Roman sla ves had it easy being thrown to the lions or forced into gladiatorial combat.... Whatever did the Romans do for us eh ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool" I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on " A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? " Have a good un Swing have fun,be good.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? Have a good un Swing have fun,be good.. " Yes, very convincing. Well done. but what about the whites indeed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes me so sad. I watched the Pianist last night , it’s hard to believe humans can do this , but then we saw it again in Rwanda. I actually see sexism, racism and tribalism in post colonial Africa far worse than UK. Surprising here in the Middle East women are treated much better and there’s hardly any racism as 95% of people are immigrants I’m glad you’re thinking about helping . My advice is do it, get hands on If I didn’t have 3 daughters I probably wouldn’t have done any of what I did over that last 20 years in Roma communities, Africa , Kurdistan, but I wanted them to know all about the world and help fix it. " If you're not seeing racism in the Middle East, then you're going about with your eyes shut. Immigrant workers from the Indian subcontinent are definitely treated as third class citizens and the attitude of some of our ME students to teachers of Pakistani and Indian ethnicity is abhorrent. I am TOLD (not asked) by students to change their group, which plainly, I refuse to do. Women in most ME countries do not have the right to make decisions on their own, without a male guardian and so I wouldn't consider that to be very enlightened. Again, we have female students who do not want to go back or who have no license over their own lives and remain controlled (and sometimes abused) by male guardians here in the UK. With regards to racism in general, I try to be an ally. I am assumed to be 100% white British (I am not) so I don't experience it myself. I know that makes me very fortunate so I try to use my privilege for good. We educate our children and try to do the same with our students. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? Have a good un Swing have fun,be good.. Yes, very convincing. Well done. but what about the whites indeed "Reaesrch Chattel Slav£ry, get on Google scholar there's loads on there, and find out the origins of such terminology like BBC and why they were formed. Till then I'm out. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? Have a good un Swing have fun,be good.. Yes, very convincing. Well done. but what about the whites indeed
Reaesrch Chattel Slav£ry, get on Google scholar there's loads on there, and find out the origins of such terminology like BBC and why they were formed. Till then I'm out. "Which is what your argument is based upon... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes me so sad. I watched the Pianist last night , it’s hard to believe humans can do this , but then we saw it again in Rwanda. I actually see sexism, racism and tribalism in post colonial Africa far worse than UK. Surprising here in the Middle East women are treated much better and there’s hardly any racism as 95% of people are immigrants I’m glad you’re thinking about helping . My advice is do it, get hands on If I didn’t have 3 daughters I probably wouldn’t have done any of what I did over that last 20 years in Roma communities, Africa , Kurdistan, but I wanted them to know all about the world and help fix it. If you're not seeing racism in the Middle East, then you're going about with your eyes shut. Immigrant workers from the Indian subcontinent are definitely treated as third class citizens and the attitude of some of our ME students to teachers of Pakistani and Indian ethnicity is abhorrent. I am TOLD (not asked) by students to change their group, which plainly, I refuse to do. Women in most ME countries do not have the right to make decisions on their own, without a male guardian and so I wouldn't consider that to be very enlightened. Again, we have female students who do not want to go back or who have no license over their own lives and remain controlled (and sometimes abused) by male guardians here in the UK. With regards to racism in general, I try to be an ally. I am assumed to be 100% white British (I am not) so I don't experience it myself. I know that makes me very fortunate so I try to use my privilege for good. We educate our children and try to do the same with our students. " You again ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on " I thought it was about strong black men, with large penises being virile and doing a better job of satisfying the woman than her partner could. Plus the contrast of the skin colours of two naked bodies. I've had black men remark on the contrast of my skin with theirs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? Have a good un Swing have fun,be good.. Yes, very convincing. Well done. but what about the whites indeed
Reaesrch Chattel Slav£ry, get on Google scholar there's loads on there, and find out the origins of such terminology like BBC and why they were formed. Till then I'm out. "It's cute you assume I'm not aware. Be out. Dismantle white supremacy | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It makes me so sad. I watched the Pianist last night , it’s hard to believe humans can do this , but then we saw it again in Rwanda. I actually see sexism, racism and tribalism in post colonial Africa far worse than UK. Surprising here in the Middle East women are treated much better and there’s hardly any racism as 95% of people are immigrants I’m glad you’re thinking about helping . My advice is do it, get hands on If I didn’t have 3 daughters I probably wouldn’t have done any of what I did over that last 20 years in Roma communities, Africa , Kurdistan, but I wanted them to know all about the world and help fix it. If you're not seeing racism in the Middle East, then you're going about with your eyes shut. Immigrant workers from the Indian subcontinent are definitely treated as third class citizens and the attitude of some of our ME students to teachers of Pakistani and Indian ethnicity is abhorrent. I am TOLD (not asked) by students to change their group, which plainly, I refuse to do. Women in most ME countries do not have the right to make decisions on their own, without a male guardian and so I wouldn't consider that to be very enlightened. Again, we have female students who do not want to go back or who have no license over their own lives and remain controlled (and sometimes abused) by male guardians here in the UK. With regards to racism in general, I try to be an ally. I am assumed to be 100% white British (I am not) so I don't experience it myself. I know that makes me very fortunate so I try to use my privilege for good. We educate our children and try to do the same with our students. You again ?" Yes. Unfortunately encountering certain other posters. Good day to you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I try to call out fetishism of black men but it tends to fall on deaf ears. They don't think there is anything wrong with wanting to get a black man to screw their wife. Is there? Their body their choices surely Yes but underlying it is the hypersexualisation of especially black men and women which IS racist. The whole loathsome BBC thing. It would be as weird as a man saying he wants to see his wife screwed only by men called Tom because everyone knows that all Toms have massive cocks. Stupid right? So is hypersexualisation only limited to black men? I find it intresting you only define black men, what about those black women who clearly state and seek out BWC, is that not hypersexulisation of white men?. BBC is loathsome therefore it stands to reason the team BWC is just as loathsome. But BWC isn't mentioned. I'm not saying that this is never the case, but there's quite often a different power differential across society. Plus the BBC thing has historical roots that are... pretty unpleasant based on protecting the womenfolk from the 'other' I agree that often there is a power imbalance, which is society's making, of how society has been.. Not saying its right, we have to do more as a more modern society to address that power imbalance, but that raises so many issues in itself. My personal stance is you can't acknowledge one without the other. I don't think it's right that we need to acknowledge white men in this instance. They were mostly the perpetrators of this moral panic. I mean sure, for the sense of completeness, other stuff happens too, but it's a bit like "all lives matter" as a response to disproportionate law enforcement violence against *non white people*. Yeah, ok, some white people want to be included - but it's not your turn, sit down. OK so your discounting the massive trade in people that the Moors, the Saracen's, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Mongels, the Egyptians built the Pyramids through forced labour as did the Mayans, and every other race of people took that part in some form of Sl#very over the course of history. That also caused a moral Panic.... Moral panics have happened about all sorts of things over the years. I'm talking about one very specific moral panic. (Maybe more than one. Indigenous Australians were subject to similar, although - I haven't gone looking - I don't know if they get the same fetish today) As noted earlier, the trans-Atlantic people trade was different in scale and brutality to the other exchanges over history, and to say "well what about those other kinds" plays into problematic rhetoric. Plus I'm not sure what ethnic minorities being traded has to do with your original point, which is about BWC - presumably the fetish of a cultural majority? Without seeing how these things relate, it seems like throwing shit at the wall to try to discredit the argument that BBC fetish has a particularly problematic history? And this is why I generally don't get involved in threads of this sort, as you raised a point of moral panic and spoke of perpetrators which I responded to. But as soon as some one brings a differing view point, heels get dug in and a stance is a stance... Have a great day.. Oh, so you don't know the difference between "moral panic" as a sociological concept and the moral panic leading to the fetishisation of BBC, and you either don't know or don't appreciate the history, and somehow this is my fault? cool cool I fully understand thr difference between a moral Panic and sociological stance. I also understand that fetishisation of BBC is based historically in Chattel Sl£very. To justify abhorrent acts of cruelty and subjection of the blacks by the whites... I understand more than I let on A moral panic is a sociological phenomenon. You are equating the existence of any of this category with this specific moral panic. It's a bit like saying, yes I saw you today, because I saw a man. You are a man, but you are not all men. BBC arises, historically, from "a" moral panic. The term moral panic arises from Stan Cohen's description of the mods and rockers. The BBC moral panic has nothing to do with mods or rockers. If you understand more than you let on, why do you think that a modern fetish coming out of the owning of people and the way they were painted as subhuman and able to "take" white women has anything to do with the owning of people in the past? Have a good un Swing have fun,be good.. Yes, very convincing. Well done. but what about the whites indeed
Reaesrch Chattel Slav£ry, get on Google scholar there's loads on there, and find out the origins of such terminology like BBC and why they were formed. Till then I'm out.
It's cute you assume I'm not aware.
Be out. Dismantle white supremacy" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well, this has turned out exactly as I expected " Saw it coming a mile away did you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
