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 |
| |||
(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 |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too?" We should aim to eliminate any racial discrimination. We should also not stoop to "whataboutism" on the topic. A decent article with the title ""But what about...?" The fundamental flaws of using 'whataboutism' when talking about race" might be interesting reading. Unfortunately the link is not permitted on the forum. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? We should aim to eliminate any racial discrimination. We should also not stoop to "whataboutism" on the topic. A decent article with the title ""But what about...?" The fundamental flaws of using 'whataboutism' when talking about race" might be interesting reading. Unfortunately the link is not permitted on the forum. " There is no 'whataboutism' - acknowledge that white is a race, and can therefore be racially discriminated against, and we'll talk. And not a moment before. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? We should aim to eliminate any racial discrimination. We should also not stoop to "whataboutism" on the topic. A decent article with the title ""But what about...?" The fundamental flaws of using 'whataboutism' when talking about race" might be interesting reading. Unfortunately the link is not permitted on the forum. There is no 'whataboutism' - acknowledge that white is a race, and can therefore be racially discriminated against, and we'll talk. And not a moment before." --------------------------- There was no suggestion by anybody that this isn't the case, you may as well distract the purpose of the thread by claiming amoebas suffer racial discrimination, it's irrelevant to being against racism. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good luck, OP... "I've strapped my big girl pants on. Although it's not obvious to look at me, because I have white skin, I am not entirely "Caucasian" or white British in my ancestry. That said, I've never once suffered any detriment or racial discrimination and I know it's because I am white. I am very aware that means I have certain privilege in British society and in many societies around the world. We work with international students, we are around people from across the globe on a daily basis and so I feel that our contribution is to foster harmonious relationships among people who might not always initially understand one another and who might hold prejudice or stereotypical ideas about others. We see lots of growth and development among our charges and we are constantly learning about different cultures, languages, religions and the challenges experienced by many of them. It's always our non-white students (including those from China and East Asia) who experience overt racism in British society. Our white skinned students do not report such issues. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good luck, OP...
I've strapped my big girl pants on.
Although it's not obvious to look at me, because I have white skin, I am not entirely "Caucasian" or white British in my ancestry. That said, I've never once suffered any detriment or racial discrimination and I know it's because I am white. I am very aware that means I have certain privilege in British society and in many societies around the world.
We work with international students, we are around people from across the globe on a daily basis and so I feel that our contribution is to foster harmonious relationships among people who might not always initially understand one another and who might hold prejudice or stereotypical ideas about others. We see lots of growth and development among our charges and we are constantly learning about different cultures, languages, religions and the challenges experienced by many of them. It's always our non-white students (including those from China and East Asia) who experience overt racism in British society. Our white skinned students do not report such issues. "Bravo to you. I think the distractors, deflectors and whatabouters have set a new PB on Fab for a race-based post - 6 minutes in from your original...  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Good luck, OP...
I've strapped my big girl pants on.
Although it's not obvious to look at me, because I have white skin, I am not entirely "Caucasian" or white British in my ancestry. That said, I've never once suffered any detriment or racial discrimination and I know it's because I am white. I am very aware that means I have certain privilege in British society and in many societies around the world.
We work with international students, we are around people from across the globe on a daily basis and so I feel that our contribution is to foster harmonious relationships among people who might not always initially understand one another and who might hold prejudice or stereotypical ideas about others. We see lots of growth and development among our charges and we are constantly learning about different cultures, languages, religions and the challenges experienced by many of them. It's always our non-white students (including those from China and East Asia) who experience overt racism in British society. Our white skinned students do not report such issues. "You're referring to 'in group preference' and it's universal to the entirety of the human race, around the world. Were I a white man living in a not white country, I'd be treated differently, that's reality. This phenomenon has been massively exploited by powerful forces in our society however to attack the West and it's white position, hence why I fully, actively oppose their usage of it, whatever pretty mask it tries to hide behind. And that mask rapidly slips the moment you ask whether or not white people can benefit from the schemes and ideas they propose. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too?" Do you ever get bored of this? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? Do you ever get bored of this?" Nope, my enthusiasm to oppose antiwhiteism and anglophobia will always equal that of those who push such evil sentiments | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? Do you ever get bored of this? Nope, my enthusiasm to oppose antiwhiteism and anglophobia will always equal that of those who push such evil sentiments "Nobody was being anti white though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? Do you ever get bored of this? Nope, my enthusiasm to oppose antiwhiteism and anglophobia will always equal that of those who push such evil sentiments "If that's what you got from the OP, then you are reading between lines that are not there. Try getting out of your own little box and see the world from other perspectives. It's honestly very informative. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? Do you ever get bored of this? Nope, my enthusiasm to oppose antiwhiteism and anglophobia will always equal that of those who push such evil sentiments
If that's what you got from the OP, then you are reading between lines that are not there. Try getting out of your own little box and see the world from other perspectives. It's honestly very informative. "Okay my apologies I was perhaps being a bit paranoid, if you could just set my mind at ease with a simple yes or no answer to the following question we'll move on? Can white people be racially discriminated against OP? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round " What makes you think that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much more to Racism than simply skin colour, the sheer weight of people that believe that sums it up is dissapointing. So much prejudice in this world including Isreal/Palestine makes a day or this OP post nothing more than virtue signalling." Why is it nothing more than virtue signaling? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too?" There is no such thing!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that?" I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!!" Did any thought go into that statement, at all? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today marks the 64th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre, in which 69 peaceful demonstrators in South Africa were killed, and many more injured. They were protesting against the apartheid laws in place at the time. In 1996, the UN General Assembly named this date as a day for ongoing global observance, calling upon the international community to work to eliminate racial discrimination. We all have a part to play in eliminating racism and discrimination and so let's think today of what our own role in that might look like. Solidarity to all "Solidarity to all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!! Did any thought go into that statement, at all?" Yes! There can be prejudice against white people but not racism! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much more to Racism than simply skin colour, the sheer weight of people that believe that sums it up is dissapointing. So much prejudice in this world including Isreal/Palestine makes a day or this OP post nothing more than virtue signalling. Why is it nothing more than virtue signaling?" It blatantly is, what do you see it as? What will it achieve, what will change? Be honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!! Did any thought go into that statement, at all? Yes! There can be prejudice against white people but not racism!" How is prejudice against a person based upon their race not racism? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!! Did any thought go into that statement, at all? Yes! There can be prejudice against white people but not racism!" You need to understand the meaning of Racism. It has no boundaries. You may mean colour prejudice but white people do suffer this is areas & country's predominantly different to white people locally. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again." Is that what she said, that she was offended how white the royal family is? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is so much more to Racism than simply skin colour, the sheer weight of people that believe that sums it up is dissapointing. So much prejudice in this world including Isreal/Palestine makes a day or this OP post nothing more than virtue signalling. Why is it nothing more than virtue signaling? It blatantly is, what do you see it as? What will it achieve, what will change? Be honest. " I think people being aware of the dangers of prejudice and racism, can only be a good thing. Just look at how less racist the younger generations are, for instance. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. Is that what she said, that she was offended how white the royal family is?" Her statement more specifically was her being offended by 'how white that balcony is' (referring to the royals together waving at the crowd), and I'm quite sure she wasn't referring to the paint. How does that make you feel? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. Is that what she said, that she was offended how white the royal family is? Her statement more specifically was her being offended by 'how white that balcony is' (referring to the royals together waving at the crowd), and I'm quite sure she wasn't referring to the paint. How does that make you feel?" Did she say she was offended by it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too?" This is the forum equivalent of going to a breast cancer charity event and demanding that they talk about skin cancer. Of course white people are discriminated against. But in our part of the world (western Europe) it's rare. Extremely rare when you compare it to the levels of discrimination levelled against black people. Trying to stop racism is a good thing, but let's put out the raging inferno before we worry about a few embers. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t." If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? This is the forum equivalent of going to a breast cancer charity event and demanding that they talk about skin cancer. " Nope, false equivalence fallacy, it's a breast cancer event, not skin cancer. This is a topic of race, in which we all have 'breasts' in this instance. Understand what's being said before you attempt to contradict it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you." Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? We should aim to eliminate any racial discrimination. We should also not stoop to "whataboutism" on the topic. A decent article with the title ""But what about...?" The fundamental flaws of using 'whataboutism' when talking about race" might be interesting reading. Unfortunately the link is not permitted on the forum. There is no 'whataboutism' - acknowledge that white is a race, and can therefore be racially discriminated against, and we'll talk. And not a moment before." I think its called positive discrimination | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you." What's being taken away from white people in order that those of a different race are more equal? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you." You are special in every kind of way and I genuinely appreciate you  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK?" Before you go down this route, know that the arguments you're most likely to attempt to make have been made many, many times before, and thoroughly rebutted just as many. Often by people more intelligent and better researched than myself of course, but that doesn't change the fact the base facts - the lineage of the white man in Britain dates back tens of thousands of years, and despite having been invaded multiple times during that period (only ever from other white nations), the main genetic make up of modern Britons remains for the most part unchanged. And Cheddar Man has been utterly, thoroughly debunked, that he ever had black skin was pure speculation seized upon by the media as fact, with no solid evidence to back it. So yeah, TLDR - indigenous Britons are, and have always been white. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. You are special in every kind of way and I genuinely appreciate you "Despite the notable absence of a rebuttal, that's at least nice to hear | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? We should aim to eliminate any racial discrimination. We should also not stoop to "whataboutism" on the topic. A decent article with the title ""But what about...?" The fundamental flaws of using 'whataboutism' when talking about race" might be interesting reading. Unfortunately the link is not permitted on the forum. There is no 'whataboutism' - acknowledge that white is a race, and can therefore be racially discriminated against, and we'll talk. And not a moment before. I think its called positive discrimination" The 'positive' is a small scoop of ice cream in a bowl of diahorea 'discrimination' | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Before you go down this route, know that the arguments you're most likely to attempt to make have been made many, many times before, and thoroughly rebutted just as many. Often by people more intelligent and better researched than myself of course, but that doesn't change the fact the base facts - the lineage of the white man in Britain dates back tens of thousands of years, and despite having been invaded multiple times during that period (only ever from other white nations), the main genetic make up of modern Britons remains for the most part unchanged. And Cheddar Man has been utterly, thoroughly debunked, that he ever had black skin was pure speculation seized upon by the media as fact, with no solid evidence to back it. So yeah, TLDR - indigenous Britons are, and have always been white." I’m not asking that, I’m asking who the indigenous peoples of the UK are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. Is that what she said, that she was offended how white the royal family is? Her statement more specifically was her being offended by 'how white that balcony is' (referring to the royals together waving at the crowd), and I'm quite sure she wasn't referring to the paint. How does that make you feel?" Did she say she was offended by it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. What's being taken away from white people in order that those of a different race are more equal?" DEI is a perfect example, you're more likely to get a job in this country if you're not white. This has been, and continues to be a hot topic in the national conversation not just in the UK but across the entirety of the West. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you." Which God, that bloke who some say was born in a very far away land? And what rights in your interpretation of the relevant book do you think you were given? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, ... " How far back do you go? Do you actually know your ancestry or just back as far as your great grandparents? Are Italians the same race as English? If so, are they indigenous to the UK? Even just using school history, you can see that the people of the UK have been influenced by other nationalities. Waves of Italians (They were called Romans then) and the people they brought with them. Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans, Irish. More recently, other western Europeans fleeing Hitler. Poles from further afield. Such people have been here for one or two generations or even thousands of years. Do they count as indigenous? What's the timeline cut off? "People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, .... " Let's say a black guy from Cameroon moved to the UK in 1920 (before you were even thought of) and accepts the level of racism he experiences. Fast forward to his obviously black grandchildren who live in a housing association property, work hard in a low paying job and receive Income Support (or whatever equivelant). They experience horrendous racism and want it to stop. As a remedy, they can't just 'up sticks' and move to a different country. They can't afford a summer holiday, let alone emigrating. That family have always paid taxes. Some of them have been in the UK longer than you. Some of them have been in the UKs armed forces, it's NHS, school governors. Why on earth don't they deserve the same living standards as other British people? "God given right ......" If God exists (clue: Doesn't!) then surely she would want all her miracle humans to be equally well looked after? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. Is that what she said, that she was offended how white the royal family is? Her statement more specifically was her being offended by 'how white that balcony is' (referring to the royals together waving at the crowd), and I'm quite sure she wasn't referring to the paint. How does that make you feel? Did she say she was offended by it?" I can see where you're going to try and steer this by taking a semantics approach, but yes she did, her comments highlighted that the royal family being white were a bad thing, something which she didn't like, and so was offended by. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"This is a topic of race, in which we all have 'breasts' in this instance." All humans of all races have breasts. I can see yours on your picture. We don't all have breasts 'in this instance' we all have breasts full stop. Sorry you couldn't follow my example. I'll try making it simpler in future. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you." Cheeky bit of ethnonationalism on a Thursday afternoon. Nice  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. Is that what she said, that she was offended how white the royal family is? Her statement more specifically was her being offended by 'how white that balcony is' (referring to the royals together waving at the crowd), and I'm quite sure she wasn't referring to the paint. How does that make you feel? Did she say she was offended by it? I can see where you're going to try and steer this by taking a semantics approach, but yes she did, her comments highlighted that the royal family being white were a bad thing, something which she didn't like, and so was offended by." She didn’t say she was offended about it, did she? What she said was “We’ve gone from the rich diversity of the Abbey to a terribly white balcony. I’m very struck by that,” No mention of being offended. It looks as though you were trying to find something to be offended by, if I’m honest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Before you go down this route, know that the arguments you're most likely to attempt to make have been made many, many times before, and thoroughly rebutted just as many. Often by people more intelligent and better researched than myself of course, but that doesn't change the fact the base facts - the lineage of the white man in Britain dates back tens of thousands of years, and despite having been invaded multiple times during that period (only ever from other white nations), the main genetic make up of modern Britons remains for the most part unchanged. And Cheddar Man has been utterly, thoroughly debunked, that he ever had black skin was pure speculation seized upon by the media as fact, with no solid evidence to back it. So yeah, TLDR - indigenous Britons are, and have always been white. I’m not asking that, I’m asking who the indigenous peoples of the UK are." Primarily the Welsh and the Cornish, the Irish celts that settled in Scotland (around the 5th century). Most “English” people have lineage back to angles (Netherlands) and Saxons (Germanic) which was then further diluted by the Normans (French). Truth is at some point a tribe from Europe crossed the land bridge onto this island and then the English Channel happened. Those European tribes likely originated in Eurasia., which likely originated in the Middle East which likely originated in Africa. Patriotism and racism seems a little tired when you trace the origin of our species | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!!" Eh??? That’s a ridiculous statement. My niece’s boyfriend is Eastern European. He’s white. They get so much racism. Good thread Mrs KC. I just couldn’t let that comment lie | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Despite the notable absence of a rebuttal, that's at least nice to hear "It would be pointless to engage in a discussion with you about this. The others are better, more patient people than I could ever lay claim to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Cheeky bit of ethnonationalism on a Thursday afternoon. Nice "I'm intrigued as to how those non-indigenous incomers are lowering my standard of living and opportunities. I figured it was capitalism myself  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How far back do you go? Do you actually know your ancestry or just back as far as your great grandparents? " Yep, nearly 1000 years in fact, right back to the Plantagenet line, someone in my family was very much into family trees. " God given right ...... If God exists (clue: Doesn't!) then surely she would want all her miracle humans to be equally well looked after? Gbat " I was going to entertain your diatribe about the Cameroonian, but then I read this and just...ugh. I'd have more luck trying to get blood from a stone than trying to speak reason to someone *this* ideologically warped  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Before you go down this route, know that the arguments you're most likely to attempt to make have been made many, many times before, and thoroughly rebutted just as many. Often by people more intelligent and better researched than myself of course, but that doesn't change the fact the base facts - the lineage of the white man in Britain dates back tens of thousands of years, and despite having been invaded multiple times during that period (only ever from other white nations), the main genetic make up of modern Britons remains for the most part unchanged. And Cheddar Man has been utterly, thoroughly debunked, that he ever had black skin was pure speculation seized upon by the media as fact, with no solid evidence to back it. So yeah, TLDR - indigenous Britons are, and have always been white. I’m not asking that, I’m asking who the indigenous peoples of the UK are. Primarily the Welsh and the Cornish, the Irish celts that settled in Scotland (around the 5th century). Most “English” people have lineage back to angles (Netherlands) and Saxons (Germanic) which was then further diluted by the Normans (French). Truth is at some point a tribe from Europe crossed the land bridge onto this island and then the English Channel happened. Those European tribes likely originated in Eurasia., which likely originated in the Middle East which likely originated in Africa. Patriotism and racism seems a little tired when you trace the origin of our species " To be fair, the Britons did survive to a certain extent in parts of Wales, Cornwall and Devon but most of those who weren’t killed in conflict moved to France. Which of course shows that if you don’t like it here because there are too many foreigners, you can go elsewhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my case it has been to bring up my child with an open heart towards people from different ethnicities." I like this x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Despite the notable absence of a rebuttal, that's at least nice to hear
It would be pointless to engage in a discussion with you about this. The others are better, more patient people than I could ever lay claim to "Nah just say what you think, I'd rather hear a genuine sentiment than continue to waste my time trying to chop through the forest of s that infest the garden of the white liberal minds? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? Do you ever get bored of this? Nope, my enthusiasm to oppose antiwhiteism and anglophobia will always equal that of those who push such evil sentiments
If that's what you got from the OP, then you are reading between lines that are not there. Try getting out of your own little box and see the world from other perspectives. It's honestly very informative.
Okay my apologies I was perhaps being a bit paranoid, if you could just set my mind at ease with a simple yes or no answer to the following question we'll move on?
Can white people be racially discriminated against OP?"I am not aware of any situation in the world whereby white people are or have been systematically discriminated against via the statute of a country, in the way black people were systemically discriminated against in apartheid South Africa or in the USA's Jim Crow laws. It's not impossible for white people to be on the receiving end of racial discrimination but it's not anywhere like the situation for non-white people in many societies. There are many examples throughout history of other forms of systematic racial discrimination, e.g. discrimination by imperial Japan against Korean and Chinese people. Many prejudices remain across the globe. However, here in the UK, we have plenty of evidence that there is systematic, endemic racism within the very fabric of our Establishment and that should be of concern to everyone. All of us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How far back do you go? Do you actually know your ancestry or just back as far as your great grandparents? Yep, nearly 1000 years in fact, right back to the Plantagenet line, someone in my family was very much into family trees. " So you’re not an indigenous Briton then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'd have more luck trying to get blood from a stone than trying to speak reason to someone *this* ideologically warped " Ah the old "there's no point in discussing this with you ..." argument. You took your time with that one. How come some of my stuff is portrayed as a diatribe? I don't think there was any bitterness displayed in my example (the one you swerved). Where's the warp??? Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How far back do you go? Do you actually know your ancestry or just back as far as your great grandparents? Yep, nearly 1000 years in fact, right back to the Plantagenet line, someone in my family was very much into family trees. God given right ...... If God exists (clue: Doesn't!) then surely she would want all her miracle humans to be equally well looked after? Gbat I was going to entertain your diatribe about the Cameroonian, but then I read this and just...ugh. I'd have more luck trying to get blood from a stone than trying to speak reason to someone *this* ideologically warped "This . Traced my family tree back to the time of ethelflaed first lady of the mercians. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My two cents is this: If you take the literal dictionary definition of racism, then all races/ethnicities can be subject to racism. I’m not sure how subjective that is as a view point personally. How that is experienced and expressed however is very different however. To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t." Absolutely, totally agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!! Eh??? That’s a ridiculous statement. My niece’s boyfriend is Eastern European. He’s white. They get so much racism. Good thread Mrs KC. I just couldn’t let that comment lie " I think those with white skin can also be, through a process of racialisation become excluded from whiteness- notably White Jewish people for example. But I think what you’re describing here sounds like xenophobia? I think whether you think white people can be victims of racism depends on your definition of racism. I think everyone can be a victim of racism on an individual level. But I think the wider context of living under a system of global white supremacy (not my own term) makes the experiences and consequences entirely different. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too?" You know, a simple acknowledgement that white people can be subject to racism and I'd have happily bowed out of this thread without a word more? Frustrating as it's been as always trying to argue with the left on here, I hope at least it's shone just a little more light for the forum readers who choose not to engage (and I don't blame you) onto just how much resentment there is toward the white indigenous population of the formerly 'Great' Britain, and furthered your understanding of why we continue to thunder down the tubes as a nation. As the roots wither, so does the tree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"How far back do you go? Do you actually know your ancestry or just back as far as your great grandparents? Yep, nearly 1000 years in fact, right back to the Plantagenet line, someone in my family was very much into family trees. God given right ...... If God exists (clue: Doesn't!) then surely she would want all her miracle humans to be equally well looked after? Gbat I was going to entertain your diatribe about the Cameroonian, but then I read this and just...ugh. I'd have more luck trying to get blood from a stone than trying to speak reason to someone *this* ideologically warped
This .
Traced my family tree back to the time of ethelflaed first lady of the mercians. "Ethelflaed the Anglo-Saxon? The Saxons were not native Britons, but never mind. These conversations serve to reinforce my feelings of not belonging. How do I send my approx 20% non-British bits back to "where they came from", considering not all of the 20% are of the same ethnic origins either? Tracing your family back to the Saxons doesn't make you any more British than me or anyone else. Also it's highly improbable that there are no more recent immigrants in your family tree, across the thousands that will have existed between Saxon times and now. My mother would be horrified to learn she has fairy recent Jewish ancestry, considering her horrendous attitude towards Jewish people  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Traced my family tree back to the time of ethelflaed first lady of the mercians. " So .... after the Romans and about the same era as all the vikings were raiding? I'm not sure if you and Reus are claiming that because you've both gone so far back in your family tree, then there surely couldn't be a 'branch' that came in subsequently from elsewhere. No one in that thousand odd years from elsewhere that's influenced your gene pool? That's of course also noting in Reus' case that the Plantagenets were a French family before they moved to Britain. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In my case it has been to bring up my child with an open heart towards people from different ethnicities." I have very much done this and in turn my eldest daughter has educated me. For a start we need to reclaim woke from the haters. I try to be as woke as possible. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Traced my family tree back to the time of ethelflaed first lady of the mercians. So .... after the Romans and about the same era as all the vikings were raiding? I'm not sure if you and Reus are claiming that because you've both gone so far back in your family tree, then there surely couldn't be a 'branch' that came in subsequently from elsewhere. No one in that thousand odd years from elsewhere that's influenced your gene pool? That's of course also noting in Reus' case that the Plantagenets were a French family before they moved to Britain. Gbat " Bloody French, coming over here and producing racists. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Traced my family tree back to the time of ethelflaed first lady of the mercians. So .... after the Romans and about the same era as all the vikings were raiding? I'm not sure if you and Reus are claiming that because you've both gone so far back in your family tree, then there surely couldn't be a 'branch' that came in subsequently from elsewhere. No one in that thousand odd years from elsewhere that's influenced your gene pool? That's of course also noting in Reus' case that the Plantagenets were a French family before they moved to Britain. Gbat " Do not get upset by what I said, that I can trace my family tree a millennium. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Bloody French, coming over here and producing racists." Almost as bad as the Beaker people.... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK?" Anglo Saxons, vikings and Romans | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You know, a simple acknowledgement that white people can be subject to racism and I'd have happily bowed out of this thread without a word more?" Read back. I acknowledged it ages ago. " .... shone just a little more light for the forum readers who choose not to engage (and I don't blame you) onto just how much resentment there is toward the white indigenous population of the formerly 'Great' Britain, and furthered your understanding of why we continue to thunder down the tubes as a nation." This sounds like you're claiming that those who choose not to join in will also share your skewed views. Let's remember that the OP was talking about a day to think about challenging racism. Which you then turned into a battle of the races. Many of the contributors are white British people, they don't resent other white British people, it's just that they are able to see past the issues you are stuck on. And let's not forget, the Great in Great Britain comes from it being the largest of the British Isles, not some rose tinted Brtittania ruling the waves. It means great as in Big, not great as in smashing, super duper. I don't think the size of the island is changing due to the ethnicity of its population. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? There is no such thing!! Eh??? That’s a ridiculous statement. My niece’s boyfriend is Eastern European. He’s white. They get so much racism. Good thread Mrs KC. I just couldn’t let that comment lie I think those with white skin can also be, through a process of racialisation become excluded from whiteness- notably White Jewish people for example. But I think what you’re describing here sounds like xenophobia? I think whether you think white people can be victims of racism depends on your definition of racism. I think everyone can be a victim of racism on an individual level. But I think the wider context of living under a system of global white supremacy (not my own term) makes the experiences and consequences entirely different. " x | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Anglo Saxons, vikings and Romans" And there's me thinking the Romans turned built some roads, walls and a few nice spas before heading back south. Disappointed the French didn't make the list. Or the picts. Obviously Scotland & Ireland were only inhabited by bears back then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Today marks the 64th anniversary of the Sharpeville Massacre, in which 69 peaceful demonstrators in South Africa were killed, and many more injured. They were protesting against the apartheid laws in place at the time. In 1996, the UN General Assembly named this date as a day for ongoing global observance, calling upon the international community to work to eliminate racial discrimination. We all have a part to play in eliminating racism and discrimination and so let's think today of what our own role in that might look like. Solidarity to all "Ironic that the ANC are more racist than the former government were, given that they didn’t like it….. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Do not get upset by what I said, that I can trace my family tree a millennium. " Upset? I'm not, I think it's great. Really interesting. My brother did this when he was alive, it's quite cool! It's really some achievement to get that far back. But I don't see how it contributes to what we've been talking about. I hope you're not upset thinking about whether or not I'm upset? Sorry for all the confusion. Gbat | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again." ------------------ As awful as that statement is it doesn't stop members of the Royal Family getting a job, or being celebrated by the public or having social doors open to them. The most insidious features of racism impact already disadvantaged groups disproportionately. It's easier to shrug it off from a position of power or influence, the massacre highlighted in the OP adequately demonstrates that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Anglo Saxons, vikings and Romans" --------------------------- But they were all immigrants, were these Isles only inhabited by pond life before then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow !! This thread is golden for showing you who's who on here. Very sad that some feel threatened by anti racism and have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants, being any race doesn't make you 'special' or 'chosen'by God. Do better " Trying to convince people on the forums that racism exists and is as bad as we say it is, is so hard that being on here has taught me that racism will never piss off. It has dug its claws into far too many people’s skin. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To add to that point, I think it’s important that when people try and undermine, because that’s what it is, the experiences of people of colour, when people of colour talk about their experiences, they play into a wider attitude of ‘your experiences aren’t that bad’. It’s not about an idea of victimhood or any of that shit. It’s about reality. And it’s about acknowledging the real experiences of people of colour with racism AND the consequences of that racism. But the sad reality is nobody is willing to do that. Nobody is willing to accept the idea that racism can exist beyond an individual level. And nobody is willing to accept that people of colour are more often the victims of racism and of racism with violent consequences. So we just have to ‘live our lives’ so say the people on fab to me. Not be bothered by it. "Well said | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Anglo Saxons, vikings and Romans" You’re funny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Remember the BLM days? Good times on here. Good times. " Lol !!!!!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. ------------------ As awful as that statement is it doesn't stop members of the Royal Family getting a job, or being celebrated by the public or having social doors open to them. The most insidious features of racism impact already disadvantaged groups disproportionately. It's easier to shrug it off from a position of power or influence, the massacre highlighted in the OP adequately demonstrates that." She never made such a statement though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Remember the BLM days? Good times on here. Good times. " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. ------------------ As awful as that statement is it doesn't stop members of the Royal Family getting a job, or being celebrated by the public or having social doors open to them. The most insidious features of racism impact already disadvantaged groups disproportionately. It's easier to shrug it off from a position of power or influence, the massacre highlighted in the OP adequately demonstrates that. She never made such a statement though." -------------------------- I don't doubt it, I was responding to the poster's claim at it's highest. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow !! This thread is golden for showing you who's who on here. Very sad that some feel threatened by anti racism and have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants, being any race doesn't make you 'special' or 'chosen'by God. Do better "  xx | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow !! This thread is golden for showing you who's who on here. Very sad that some feel threatened by anti racism and have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants, being any race doesn't make you 'special' or 'chosen'by God. Do better " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we really want to eliminate racism, there are three options: 1) we eliminate every race except one. 2) we eliminate all but two people (one male, one female) of each race. 3) we eliminate every person of every race. As I see it, that's the only way you could realistically completely remove racism from society. " So how about we just do everything we can to minimise it as much as possible? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Imagine derailing a thread about an objectively positive sentiment just because you want to insert a 'me too' despite having not been excluded in the first place. This thread is sweet with irony and ripe with actual racism. Ya hate to see it." Yep. It's unpleasant to see/read  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants" This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If we really want to eliminate racism, there are three options: 1) we eliminate every race except one. 2) we eliminate all but two people (one male, one female) of each race. 3) we eliminate every person of every race. As I see it, that's the only way you could realistically completely remove racism from society. So how about we just do everything we can to minimise it as much as possible?" I'm up for that in principle. It's a lot more realistic that getting rid of it all together. I do wonder what people can actually do to minimise it in the UK much more that it already is without getting a bit totalitarian though. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Before you go down this route, know that the arguments you're most likely to attempt to make have been made many, many times before, and thoroughly rebutted just as many. Often by people more intelligent and better researched than myself of course, but that doesn't change the fact the base facts - the lineage of the white man in Britain dates back tens of thousands of years, and despite having been invaded multiple times during that period (only ever from other white nations), the main genetic make up of modern Britons remains for the most part unchanged. And Cheddar Man has been utterly, thoroughly debunked, that he ever had black skin was pure speculation seized upon by the media as fact, with no solid evidence to back it. So yeah, TLDR - indigenous Britons are, and have always been white." But they are different races. White isn't a race. So why do Scotland (RACE: Scots and Picts). Ireland (RACE: Celts ) Want independence from England? (Race: Angles and Saxons) Vast majority of racism against white is from other whites. Just look at what the English have done to the Irish. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration." What narrative is this exactly | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration." This is laughable, it really is. Please do go and read actual British history, not just the version you like. If you think "the Romans" were all from Italy, you are ill informed. If you think that non-Europeans never came to the UK until the 20th century, you are ill informed. What's wrong with non-Europeans coming to the UK anyway? And are we suggesting all Europeans are of the same "race"?! Deary me. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. What narrative is this exactly " That would be the objective one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration."
Oh, wait - you're serious... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration." -------------------------- Britain is a small island, we didn't have a decent home grown pot to piss in, that's why we 'conquered' the world, effectively economic migrantion. At the 'height of our power', large areas of the word had been pillaged which contributed to the wealth of Britain, we didn't become successful solely by growing a few spuds in Lincolnshire. More recently immigration contributed significantly to the success of post war Britain but I guess you already know that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. What narrative is this exactly That would be the objective one "Said no historian ever.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. This is laughable, it really is. Please do go and read actual British history, not just the version you like. If you think "the Romans" were all from Italy, you are ill informed. If you think that non-Europeans never came to the UK until the 20th century, you are ill informed. What's wrong with non-Europeans coming to the UK anyway? And are we suggesting all Europeans are of the same "race"?! Deary me. " -------------------------- He's tying himself up in unattractive knots, hopefully he'll find a ball gag soon! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration." Romans built the roads. Normans built most of the castles. Agriculture and farming was introduced from the middle east. The months of the year are Greek. The numbers we use are Arabic in origin. Our law and medical terms are Greek/Latin in origin. Christianity originated in the middle east . Tea we drink comes from India. Yoga, meditation, acupuncture comes from India. Fish and chips was introduced by a Portuguese immigrant. I could go on, but hey don't let facts get in the way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. -------------------------- Britain is a small island, we didn't have a decent home grown pot to piss in, that's why we 'conquered' the world, effectively economic migrantion. At the 'height of our power', large areas of the word had been pillaged which contributed to the wealth of Britain, we didn't become successful solely by growing a few spuds in Lincolnshire. More recently immigration contributed significantly to the success of post war Britain but I guess you already know that." And "we" pillaged the spuds from the Andes! Spanish conquistadors brought the spuds to Europe and didn't reach Ireland and Britain until the late 16th or early 17th century. But we talk about potatoes like "we", the Brits and Irish bloody well invented them
Our "staple" food is an immigrant itself. And not a European one | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration.
Oh, wait - you're serious..."Clearly yes, and it's not hard to see why, given Britain has existed for considerably longer than since the end of WW2, and therefore has quite a bit of history before then, and the very recent phenomenon of mass migration which began to ramp up soon after? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration." Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration.
Oh, wait - you're serious...
Clearly yes, and it's not hard to see why, given Britain has existed for considerably longer than since the end of WW2, and therefore has quite a bit of history before then, and the very recent phenomenon of mass migration which began to ramp up soon after?"What date are you suggesting was the height of British power? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. This is laughable, it really is. Please do go and read actual British history, not just the version you like. If you think "the Romans" were all from Italy, you are ill informed. If you think that non-Europeans never came to the UK until the 20th century, you are ill informed. What's wrong with non-Europeans coming to the UK anyway? And are we suggesting all Europeans are of the same "race"?! Deary me. " The Europe we know now didn't exist then. Spain, Italy, Greece, Turkey Cyprus have more in common with North Africa and the Middle East. That's why it's called the Meditranian culture. By the way Europe is named after a African Queen - EUROPA | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again." That's not really true though is it? What she actually said was "We have gone from the rich diversity of the Abbey to a terribly white balcony." She's not saying she's offended, she's saying that there was stark difference between the Abbey and the balcony. Unsure where the racial slur is either? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Ah the era of 'my truth' now has 'my history'. What a time to be alive." It's quite astonishing the level to which objective facts and established and well-documented history can be denied nowadays. It's really is | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. -------------------------- Britain is a small island, we didn't have a decent home grown pot to piss in, that's why we 'conquered' the world, effectively economic migrantion. At the 'height of our power', large areas of the word had been pillaged which contributed to the wealth of Britain, we didn't become successful solely by growing a few spuds in Lincolnshire. More recently immigration contributed significantly to the success of post war Britain but I guess you already know that. And "we" pillaged the spuds from the Andes! Spanish conquistadors brought the spuds to Europe and didn't reach Ireland and Britain until the late 16th or early 17th century. But we talk about potatoes like "we", the Brits and Irish bloody well invented them
Our "staple" food is an immigrant itself. And not a European one " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration.
Oh, wait - you're serious...
Clearly yes, and it's not hard to see why, given Britain has existed for considerably longer than since the end of WW2, and therefore has quite a bit of history before then, and the very recent phenomenon of mass migration which began to ramp up soon after?
What date are you suggesting was the height of British power?"The Imperial heyday, of course. When of course no immigration was needed as they just conquered other countries and relied on foreigners and their resources that way. Playing forward. And I say that as a proud Brit, much as certain posters will find that uncomfortable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise." Stop it, you lot - coming in here with your historical facts and realities...
That Kool-Aid must taste something special... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. This is laughable, it really is. Please do go and read actual British history, not just the version you like. If you think "the Romans" were all from Italy, you are ill informed. If you think that non-Europeans never came to the UK until the 20th century, you are ill informed. What's wrong with non-Europeans coming to the UK anyway? And are we suggesting all Europeans are of the same "race"?! Deary me. " We all know why people draw the distinction between immigrants from Europe and from elsewhere, and it's not language... Hiding in plain sight. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration.
Oh, wait - you're serious...
Clearly yes, and it's not hard to see why, given Britain has existed for considerably longer than since the end of WW2, and therefore has quite a bit of history before then, and the very recent phenomenon of mass migration which began to ramp up soon after?
What date are you suggesting was the height of British power?
The Imperial heyday, of course. When of course no immigration was needed as they just conquered other countries and relied on foreigners and their resources that way. Playing forward.
And I say that as a proud Brit, much as certain posters will find that uncomfortable."I think a lot of "native" Brits would have preferred the time when we kept the exploitation of others at arms length/several weeks ship ride away. "Not in my back yard" and they pretend it doesn't exist | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Does this include racial discrimination against white people too? Do you ever get bored of this? Nope, my enthusiasm to oppose antiwhiteism and anglophobia will always equal that of those who push such evil sentiments "And we wonder why the devolved nations are talking about independence. I'm in the unusual position of being racially discriminated against because I'm a white person. No matter the ethnicity, people can be discriminated against and it's wrong in all its forms. We all live on the same rock floating in space. Watch out for the aliens.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. Stop it, you lot - coming in here with your historical facts and realities...
That Kool-Aid must taste something special..."I can only imagine how shit it tastes without all that Indian sugar | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. " I missed that bit. When was that discussed? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Romans built the roads. Normans built most of the castles. The months of the year are Greek. Our law and medical terms are Greek/Latin in origin. " The infrastructure is largely European then, gotcha
Not the people who were required to make that all work though
"The numbers we use are Arabic in origin." Indian actually, who the Arabs took them from. "Agriculture and farming was introduced from the middle east." Were most of human civilisation began, and in a region were the population was quite different to the Middle East of today, being more closely related to the people's of Eastern Europe. "Christianity originated in the middle east " Where it was rejected by the dominant Jewish faith, and later flourished in Europe, where it would form the moral foundations of the highest achieving societies to ever exist (please, feel free to reply with laughing emojis folks, whilst your using a computer which wouldn't exist without European breakthroughs in science, mathematics, technologies and industry). " Tea we drink comes from India." Meaning what, exactly - we couldn't have existed as a civilisation without this hot drink? " Fish and chips was introduced by a Portuguese immigrant." ANOTHER EUROPEAN?!
"I could go on, but hey don't let facts get in the way." No you should probably stop, these points are as you can see, a little flimsy? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. This is laughable, it really is. Please do go and read actual British history, not just the version you like. If you think "the Romans" were all from Italy, you are ill informed. If you think that non-Europeans never came to the UK until the 20th century, you are ill informed. What's wrong with non-Europeans coming to the UK anyway? And are we suggesting all Europeans are of the same "race"?! Deary me. We all know why people draw the distinction between immigrants from Europe and from elsewhere, and it's not language... Hiding in plain sight."
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration." Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. That's not really true though is it? What she actually said was "We have gone from the rich diversity of the Abbey to a terribly white balcony." She's not saying she's offended, she's saying that there was stark difference between the Abbey and the balcony. Unsure where the racial slur is either? " The use of the term 'terribly' implies something bad about it being fully of white people, even Myleen Klass, herself of mixed race sat next to her, looked visibly disgusted by the comment, as well she should have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways. "I think they're okay because they're 'EUROPEAN'. Which presumably means WHITE. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways. "Political divides aside, Ireland is part of the British Isles, and therefore British. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow some people are to over-invested, only came here for clunge n tits.... Mr " You accidentally clicked on the 'International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination' topic. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways. "No, but they're immigrants from Europe so are ok. The good immigrants. Keep up. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow some people are to over-invested, only came here for clunge n tits.... Mr You accidentally clicked on the 'International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination' topic. " Slow day at work what can I say Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways.
Political divides aside, Ireland is part of the British Isles, and therefore British."I think that they might disagree just as much as the Welsh and the Scottish. These were the first countries invaded and occupied by the English on their way to empire. But hey, you mentioned the other day that you're a disagreeable fellow by choice. Feel free to disagree. But you'll be arguing with yourself. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow some people are to over-invested, only came here for clunge n tits.... Mr You accidentally clicked on the 'International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination' topic. Slow day at work what can I say Mr " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. " There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Wow some people are to over-invested, only came here for clunge n tits.... Mr You accidentally clicked on the 'International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination' topic. Slow day at work what can I say Mr "It passed a few mins, before meds round Mr | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"In the U.K here it appears there is more racism against white folk from ethnic minorities than the other way round What makes you think that? I'm sure he has his own examples, but one that springs to mind was King Charles coronation, a black actress from Bridgerton said she was offended by how white the royal family was. A mainstream actress, on national television, racially slurred the monarchy in front of the whole country. Were a white person to have said such a thing in Africa they'd likely be imprisoned or worse, and certainly never work in TV again. That's not really true though is it? What she actually said was "We have gone from the rich diversity of the Abbey to a terribly white balcony." She's not saying she's offended, she's saying that there was stark difference between the Abbey and the balcony. Unsure where the racial slur is either? The use of the term 'terribly' implies something bad about it being fully of white people, even Myleen Klass, herself of mixed race sat next to her, looked visibly disgusted by the comment, as well she should have." Key word there implies. She may be a person who uses the word terribly a lot. So you've taken a sentence and let your own bias analyse it. That is in no way "evidence" of how white people endure racism. And where is the racial slur you mentioned? Because I really don't see it. Get angry about discrimination, but for goodness sake use proper examples. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways.
Political divides aside, Ireland is part of the British Isles, and therefore British.
I think that they might disagree just as much as the Welsh and the Scottish. These were the first countries invaded and occupied by the English on their way to empire.
But hey, you mentioned the other day that you're a disagreeable fellow by choice. Feel free to disagree. But you'll be arguing with yourself.
"War and conquest is a natural part of human history, I don't begrudge the French or Italians their history or right to be proud of themselves because they conquered my country, so why should the Celts be any different toward England? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda."Let's say your alternative history is correct. What is it you're concerned about? What is you'd like people to be educated about and why is it important? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda."It was one example. As I said the role immigration played in supporting national services (railways, health, postal services) cannot be denied (unless you wish to have a very selective view of history) which is understandable given that you are SOOOOOOO hard done by | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways.
I think they're okay because they're 'EUROPEAN'.
Which presumably means WHITE."Europeans of a largely compatible and shared historical and cultural heritage, the colour of their skin is irrelevant. But feel free to keep your opinions simple if you choose, nuance is difficult to understand I know | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways.
Political divides aside, Ireland is part of the British Isles, and therefore British.
I think that they might disagree just as much as the Welsh and the Scottish. These were the first countries invaded and occupied by the English on their way to empire.
But hey, you mentioned the other day that you're a disagreeable fellow by choice. Feel free to disagree. But you'll be arguing with yourself.
"And England didn't suppress the cultural identities of the Celtic nations, prevented use of their own language in court for example so people weren't given fair trials etc. So historically England totally didn't discriminate against white people | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda.
It was one example. As I said the role immigration played in supporting national services (railways, health, postal services) cannot be denied (unless you wish to have a very selective view of history) which is understandable given that you are SOOOOOOO hard done by "I'm getting the impression some people on this thread are the same people you read about who insist on only seeing white doctors... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed?" It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Quick, somebody tell the Irish they didn't dig the canals, build the railways and construct the motorways.
Political divides aside, Ireland is part of the British Isles, and therefore British.
I think that they might disagree just as much as the Welsh and the Scottish. These were the first countries invaded and occupied by the English on their way to empire.
But hey, you mentioned the other day that you're a disagreeable fellow by choice. Feel free to disagree. But you'll be arguing with yourself.
War and conquest is a natural part of human history, I don't begrudge the French or Italians their history or right to be proud of themselves because they conquered my country, so why should the Celts be any different toward England?"I don't know. Wait, perhaps because everyone doesn't think the same as you maybe? Read some history books. And read a variety as not everyone has the same opinion based on the same historical facts. But the authors don't shout each other down, they listen and debate. And there are many master debaters on fab. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. What's being taken away from white people in order that those of a different race are more equal?" Job opportunities. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"To someone who has typically had an advantage or not had to deal with limiting factors and barriers, the removal of certain rights or more to the point over people being given access to similar rights that level the playing field will feel unfair and discriminatory even though it clearly isn’t. If you're of the race indigenous to a land, in a society built by ancestors of your own race, you have every God given right to be offended when your standard of living and opportunities in that society are lowered to match those of the out group, this goes back to the 'in group preference' argument I made earlier. People who are non-indigenous to a country will suffer discrimination, it doesn't matter the race of the nation they have chosen to live in. They can weigh up the pros and cons and decide for themselves whether or not they can accept this and get on with it, but if not, you have the option of moving to a country where your race won't be a factor, you have NO right to expect the living standards of those historically of that country to be altered in order to accommodate you. Who are the indigenous peoples of the UK? Before you go down this route, know that the arguments you're most likely to attempt to make have been made many, many times before, and thoroughly rebutted just as many. Often by people more intelligent and better researched than myself of course, but that doesn't change the fact the base facts - the lineage of the white man in Britain dates back tens of thousands of years, and despite having been invaded multiple times during that period (only ever from other white nations), the main genetic make up of modern Britons remains for the most part unchanged. And Cheddar Man has been utterly, thoroughly debunked, that he ever had black skin was pure speculation seized upon by the media as fact, with no solid evidence to back it. So yeah, TLDR - indigenous Britons are, and have always been white. But they are different races. White isn't a race. So why do Scotland (RACE: Scots and Picts). Ireland (RACE: Celts ) Want independence from England? (Race: Angles and Saxons) Vast majority of racism against white is from other whites. Just look at what the English have done to the Irish." Or what the irish have done to English, Scottish, Welsh British. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's say your alternative history is correct. What is it you're concerned about? What is you'd like people to be educated about and why is it important?" It's not an alternative history, it's just history, the 'alternative' is the one with the most media backing behind it, for political reasons rather than to objectively educate those it's taught to into a better understanding of the past. What I'd like people to be taught about is the understanding that Britons are a unique people, with a unique history and genetic lineage hard fought for which deserves to be respected and preserved, and the constant, endless attacks on those things we're seeing today from the highest, most powerful reaches of society place that in jeopardy. Of what value are the actions we take today, if they can simply be discarded and destroyed by future generations? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. " Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda.
It was one example. As I said the role immigration played in supporting national services (railways, health, postal services) cannot be denied (unless you wish to have a very selective view of history) which is understandable given that you are SOOOOOOO hard done by
I'm getting the impression some people on this thread are the same people you read about who insist on only seeing white doctors..."And no doubt the same ones who say there's too many POC, non-heterosexuals and disabled people on the telly now...I've actually seen that here!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Of what value are the actions we take today, if they can simply be discarded and destroyed by future generations?" That's how progress works isn't it? We learn from our past. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda.
It was one example. As I said the role immigration played in supporting national services (railways, health, postal services) cannot be denied (unless you wish to have a very selective view of history) which is understandable given that you are SOOOOOOO hard done by
I'm getting the impression some people on this thread are the same people you read about who insist on only seeing white doctors...
And no doubt the same ones who say there's too many POC, non-heterosexuals and disabled people on the telly now...I've actually seen that here!!""Enough already. We let you have Lenny Henry but it's beyond a joke now..." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing." Fortunately I'm not the only one who advocates for Britain on here, but something I often notice, is the response toward others who do, there's often this strong feeling of, as the kids would say 'butthurt' in their tone? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Job opportunities. " That would be positive discrimination, which isn't allowed. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing." Not in the slightest but, youncan read what they right, listen to what they say and how they present and defend their position and piece by piece they present their point of view. For example, I can tell from both of your responses to be that you either looking to engage in or trying to provoke hostility either towards, or from me because you've made a character judgement based on my comment. Which is kind of ironic because, you're doing exactly what I did, drawing your own conclusion about me because of what I said but, rather than asking a good faith question, or trying to express your or understand my position, you've taken a confrontational attitude. I got that from two, one sentence comments and I'd bet good money I'm at least pretty damn close to the mark. So no. Not mind reading. Just, reading. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing. Fortunately I'm not the only one who advocates for Britain on here, but something I often notice, is the response toward others who do, there's often this strong feeling of, as the kids would say 'butthurt' in their tone?" I advocate for Britain. You just don't like the fact that people like me are also British, which is a different issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Let's say your alternative history is correct. What is it you're concerned about? What is you'd like people to be educated about and why is it important? It's not an alternative history, it's just history, the 'alternative' is the one with the most media backing behind it, for political reasons rather than to objectively educate those it's taught to into a better understanding of the past. What I'd like people to be taught about is the understanding that Britons are a unique people, with a unique history and genetic lineage hard fought for which deserves to be respected and preserved, and the constant, endless attacks on those things we're seeing today from the highest, most powerful reaches of society place that in jeopardy. Of what value are the actions we take today, if they can simply be discarded and destroyed by future generations?" A unique lineage? Next thing will be Britons were chosen by God. What's so unique about it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing. Fortunately I'm not the only one who advocates for Britain on here, but something I often notice, is the response toward others who do, there's often this strong feeling of, as the kids would say 'butthurt' in their tone?" I'm not advocating, defending or denigrating anyone. I'm justbasking questions about what I observe. There's an awful lot of 'butthurtedness' coming from both those speaking against and on favour of Britain. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing. Fortunately I'm not the only one who advocates for Britain on here, but something I often notice, is the response toward others who do, there's often this strong feeling of, as the kids would say 'butthurt' in their tone?" Don't kid yourself that you're somehow a better advocate for Britain than anybody else. I haven't heard the term butthurt before. Interesting you have. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"have clearly ignored or forgotten this country has and continues to be built and strengthened on the backs of immigrants This is the kind of BS that much of the modern anti-British narrative is built upon. At the height of it's power, Britain had never entertained a single migrant from outside of Europe, not one. Britons built Britain, not immigration. Many would say that the role of the Commonwealth in supporting and rebuilding post war Britain, notably the Windrush in the late 1940s, would suggest otherwise. There were something in the region of 400 people aboard the Empire Windrush, was that enough to rebuild an entire country?
Seriously, it's things like this which are why those like myself willing to correct others on their misassumptions, are often hated for it - take a moment to actually stop and think about the things you've so long believed without question, if you're being honest with yourself you'll feel awfully stupid for it.
Of course, a person of sufficient character would be able to get over that, and be glad that they're no longer quite so pinned down by propaganda.
It was one example. As I said the role immigration played in supporting national services (railways, health, postal services) cannot be denied (unless you wish to have a very selective view of history) which is understandable given that you are SOOOOOOO hard done by
I'm getting the impression some people on this thread are the same people you read about who insist on only seeing white doctors...
And no doubt the same ones who say there's too many POC, non-heterosexuals and disabled people on the telly now...I've actually seen that here!!
"Enough already. We let you have Lenny Henry but it's beyond a joke now...""Can we not have a girlie too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I do wonder why the UK, the English more specifically, and white people more broadly, seem to be regarded as the only people to have engaged in horrifying practices and racial discrimination, prejudice and oppression. Or more so, the only people who have ever acted oppressively or exploited others in general? Seems like a pretty ignorant and obviously ridiculous view of history. You have to be pretty divorced from reality to think along those lines. I missed that bit. When was that discussed? It's not been discussed but it's seems to be how these types of conversations are often presented and it certainly seems to be a not that uncommon attitude among people who want to be seen as being against prejudice. Oh - like you read people's minds kind of thing. Not in the slightest but, youncan read what they right, listen to what they say and how they present and defend their position and piece by piece they present their point of view. For example, I can tell from both of your responses to be that you either looking to engage in or trying to provoke hostility either towards, or from me because you've made a character judgement based on my comment. Which is kind of ironic because, you're doing exactly what I did, drawing your own conclusion about me because of what I said but, rather than asking a good faith question, or trying to express your or understand my position, you've taken a confrontational attitude. I got that from two, one sentence comments and I'd bet good money I'm at least pretty damn close to the mark. So no. Not mind reading. Just, reading." I asked the good faith question. It was the 'When was that discussed?' part. Then by your own admission not a single person had said any of the things you'd accused people of. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
