Three words: The Caste System..
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Things we won't say about race that are true
- Thread starter TomandJerry
- Start date
Three words: The Caste System..
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
Which bit of India?
The part where they got along for centuries? Or the part when they were left with a power vacuum, and the inevitable fallout occurs?
I'll assume you're talking about the worst ever humanitarian disaster - the partition. Was this an issue of immigration? It was the opposite wasn't it? It was an issue of migration. This segregation has resulted in nuclear proliferation and lots of general unpleasantness. The world might well be a better place if they had remained integrated and sorted their differences out.
So i think India, in general, is an argument for multi-racial societies.
Also it would seem to me that India could be used as an example of different tribes getting along together. Ashoka's later reign after his conversion to bhuddism for example. He is regarded to be one of the most exemplary rulers in world history.
Tribes will always fight other tribes and when integration of them occurs theres always going to be a certain amount of friction - blaming it on race does seem like an opinion formed by bigotry.
I don't think this is up for much debate amongst intelligent people to be honest, now talking about multi-culturalism is another matter...
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
Sorry, i don't follow your reply, i presume you misclicked to reply to me, or misread my post which is about immigration and multi-racial society.
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
we left them fighting and they still are fighting
and on another tact have you ever lived in Wales, north hates south, south hates north, and they nearly all hate the English.
Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
You including yourself in that statement?
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
if you mean have I ever lived in Wales ..........YES and the hatred of the English has to be seen
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
To our shame we did leave them fighting. This happens in power vacuums, i don't think it's a race issue, as their previous history shows. Widen the context to see the correlations.
I have spent time in north wales, i have in laws there. I'd like to think that 'some' hate the english, but all societies have bigots in them. Is this a race issue or a culture issue?
If i'm following your argument, you would seem to be suggesting that there is something in welsh peoples gene's that make them hate english. Which is obviously absurd. This debate shouldn't be about race.
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
then most of those bigots must have lived in Carmarthenshire then
just one example, the lady who lived next door to us 92 and slowly dying refused to see one of the Dr's in the local practise because he was born in England, he spoke perfect welsh and had a pronounced welsh accent.
I might be somewhat biased about him, as by sending my other half into to hospital as an emergency saved her life and when mentioned to the neighbour the answer was bhah it was luck
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
Lets not forget about the cottage burning. Not quite ethnic cleansing, but not made to feel welcome!
Link to 2009 beeb article.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_west/8408447.stm
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
OK heres a bit of research,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence
So are you going to admit you are wrong by asking the other poster to prove a negative? Oh and opinions are not formed in thn air or ignorance, usually misinformation. But agai I think you are trying to project your own prejudices. After all you are incapable of admiting your wrong.
Are you going to claim you are never wrong?.
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
Well done for reading up on something, keep going, we'll get there with you.
Mr Bridger
Sound of the suburbs
No, I mean you hating the English as a Welshman?
glasfryn
cleaning up cat sick
what in gods name makes you think I am a welshman?
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
So your not going to admit you are wrong then? a bit to fragile and insecure? I understand but try your best. Do you know what a type one and two errors are? Well never mind, now wheres that admission that your were wrong?
You dont wat a gathering crowd to follow you around laughing at you do you?
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
Oh dear i am pressing your buttons.
Just giving yourself enough rope to prove your ignorance again.
Read the quote above. 2 posts before you started with the tears on this thread. post #75
Secondly i wasn't asking the poster to prove a negative, read what i said again, link it if you like and we can go through it step by step. I let you off last time by not pointing out your lack of intelligence in realising this.
I will let you off your contradictory statement that highlights your lack of intelligence in your post above, i'll save that for your next childish jibe...
I think you're still crying because i pointed out your bigotry and ignorance, let it go...
Bless you.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Wow you really do have trouble learning dont you?
I thought I had explaied to you you are not smart enough to project onto me, the tears are all yours again.
Heres your post.
It's lovely that you have an opinion, i'm sure you've researched it well rather than plucking out of your arse. Got any data to back it up?
Noooo, thought not. Go back to your tiny little mind...
So you are asking someone for data to prove ALL multi-cultural/racial societies fail? Wouldn't it be easier to show ONE that hadn't.
Try to remember I am trying to educate you here on your poor debating style and not the issue at hand but keep going. You kow the other mistake you are making other than not admitting you were wrong?
Defending a weak/losing position. Thats 2 mistakes you have to admit to now if your not to insecure and fragile.
ThePompousPaladin
New member
- Apr 7, 2013
- 1,025
It's weird talking to you.
1st you just start being abusive, presumably i press your buttons like a piano...
2nd you say i never admit i'm wrong 2 posts after i had admitted i was wrong on something.
Then you start asking for a society that has different races in it that worked.
Well at least you're finally on topic rather than just childish personal attacks.
I'm not going to bother giving you a reply to your specific question, i'll let your ridiculous implication stand that no society that contains mixed races ever has worked.
It says much about your bigotry and ignorance.
Oh, and by the way in this thread, i have given an example of a society that was multi cultural that worked.
plink...
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,138
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-criminalisation-communities?CMP=share_btn_fb
Why shouldn’t we say things about race that are true, asked Trevor Phillips in a Channel 4 documentary broadcast last night. And who could possibly disagree? Facts are facts, after all, and suppressing them just suppresses debate.
Certainly, the former race chief’s stance has cemented influential friendships. The Daily Mail lauded him on Monday with a front page headline: “At last! A man who dares to tell truth about race”. Its columnist Richard Littlejohn called him “the bravest man in the universe”. On a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in this week, callers sang his praises. He’s right, they said: British people have become paralysed by a fear of being called racist.
Phillips is a significant voice on this issue: from 2003 he spent nine years as the head of Britain’s foremost race equality body – first the Commission for Racial Equality and then, after its abolition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. But he’s been a controversial figure too: he opposed multiculturalism, and later said that Britain was “sleepwalking to segregation”.
Trevor Phillips Facebook Twitter Pinterest
‘I don’t object to Trevor Phillips’s programme, or his right to make it. But his analysis ignores the environment into which these facts are projected.’ Photograph: Ken McKay/ITV/REX
Some of Phillips’ unsayable things are fairly mundane: “Irish people run the building trade”; “Indian women are more likely to be chemists”; “Indian and Chinese kids do best at school”. So what? But his crime-related observations are more controversial.
He talks to a former police chief who runs through a map of the capital, pointing out that in west London there are south Asian and Somali networks, who deal drugs and operate protection rackets; in east London crime within the Pakistani community has caused “a couple of very nasty murders”; in Hackney, there’s a Turkish influence to the heroin trade; and in central London there are Chinese sex traffickers and Romanian pickpockets.
I’m sure this is all true; but this one exchange highlights just why we need caution. Facts in themselves are neutral but their interpretation certainly isn’t. And while on their own facts cannot be racist, the way they are chosen certainly can be.
In effect, the police officer was merely pointing out where these communities live or work. And, yes, different ethnic groups will have different crimes – often due to their national history or culture – but that in no way means one ethnicity is inherently more criminal than another.
The police officer could equally have pointed to the City, and said that here white people commit banking fraud; or to Wapping, where they hack phones; or to Westminster, where they plot illegal wars.
The fact is, in all cases it’s just a small minority of any given group who are criminal. But the danger in all this is that if we keep repeating, and reporting, that Chinese do trafficking, or Turks trade in heroin, then in the absence of other information these entire ethnic groups can quickly become criminalised in the public perception.
This “ethnic profiling” is felt particularly sharply by Britain’s black population. Since the 1970s it has been reported that young black boys are more likely than other ethnic groups to commit street robbery. This is correct. But does this mean all young black men are criminals, or even most of them? Certainly not. Yet, as has been well recorded, black people are six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people.
When we hear about white criminality, we already have enough other information to be able to contextualise it
Less reported is the fact that in the overwhelming number of cases these stops produce no evidence and do not lead to arrest. So each year, because of one “fact”, thousands of innocent black people are put through the humiliation and inconvenience of a police search – simply because their skin colour makes them “look” like a criminal in the officers’ mind. Would Phillips wish the same common perceptions for Turkish, Chinese, Pakistani and Romanian people?
There is an infinite number of facts about any one ethnic group; so the issue isn’t whether certain facts are correct or not; but which facts are chosen.
If the only time Romanians are spoken of is when they pick pockets, or when they’re seen as unwanted migrants, then the public will end up with a totally skewed view of them. We’ll learn nothing about their history or why they came to Britain, or even get a decent idea of what they do here.
When we hear about white criminality, such as football hooliganism, lager louts or paedophile rings, we already have enough other information about white people to be able to contextualise this, so we don’t leap to conclusions, and we don’t have high-level discussions about a “crisis within whiteness”. But in the absence of counterbalancing stories, it’s all too easy to begin to build stereotypes about minority communities.
The strongest recent example of this has been the shocking revelations of sexual grooming by mainly Pakistani-origin men in several British cities, with thousands of young victims. Hundreds of men are implicated in these horrific crimes. Yet in Britain there are 1.2 million people of Pakistani heritage. The vile grooming gangs are a tiny proportion (far less than one in 1,000), yet the stories have led to all manner of discussions about what is wrong with Pakistanis in general. Or, even worse, what is wrong with their religion, Islam, which has still less connection to the issue. Said one Radio 5 Live caller: “They can’t have relationships with their own young ladies because it’s forbidden so they go after young white girls.” Presumably “they” means all Muslim or Pakistani men.
Victoria Climbie Facebook Twitter Pinterest
‘Phillips sees the death of Victoria Climbie as another example of PC-imposed silence creating a victim. Yet the evidence in this case was of a dysfunctional social services department.’ Photograph: PA
Tied in with the so-called suppression of facts is the implication that you can’t criticise black or Asian Brits – who, as a result, enjoy a kind of enhanced social status which can even give them immunity from the law. Thus emerges the myth that these gangs got away with it because people were scared to investigate for fear of being labelled racist. If officers across the country were really in fear of this, the stop and search figures would be inverted, with black and Asian people less likely to be stopped than white people. Why would it possibly be that in every other aspect of the criminal justice system the evidence is that black and Asian people are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and to receive a prison sentence than white people? Yet somehow, for these particularly grotesque crimes, Asians were given an easy ride. There’s been much conjecture on the possibility that “political correctness” prevented their crimes being detected, but absolutely no evidence.
As shown by Jimmy Savile, along with the many cases of sexual abuse at children’s homes, the police have never listened to children from vulnerable, often scarred, backgrounds, when they’ve gone to the police for help. Until recent years the police would rarely even believe adult women rape victims, no matter what their background.
Phillips sees the death of Victoria Climbié as another example of PC-imposed silence creating a victim. The eight-year-old Ivorian was murdered by her guardians after several social workers missed signs of her abuse. He says this was because she was black, and that her meek body language and signs of bruising on her body were seen as part of African custom and culture. Yet the evidence in this case was of a dysfunctional social services department that later failed a white child, Baby P, in similarly tragic circumstances.
Blaming the Rotherham abuse on a fear of being branded a racist is ludicrous
Hugh Muir
Hugh Muir Read more
The problem with introducing all these “facts” is the predominant tendency to racialise – to ascribe a racial meaning to an event in the absence of any other information. People in certain groups are said do things “because they’re black”; “because they’re Muslim”; “because they’re Asian”. It works for other nationalities too: think Irish, Polish or Greek.
So each statistic becomes a sign of total racial or cultural difference, wrapping up everyone in a particular community, rather than being just one of a multitude of facts concerning that group. And it works particularly strongly against minorities who are less known.
And when some communities are believed to be doing certain things and getting away with it, or being favoured by those in power at white people’s expense, it’s not long before a rightwing backlash starts to take hold. These grievances add fuel to the surge in support for Ukip, and before that aided the BNP.
Phillips will no doubt see this article as another attempt to shut down the debate. Actually, I don’t object to his programme, or his right to make it: in many ways it’s good to have a discussion on this. But his analysis ignores the environment into which these facts are projected, and the selectivity of those deciding which we get to hear. When I see a tabloid splash with the headline “White Crime Shock” I might be persuaded. Until then, I’d advise anyone that when they hear facts or truths reported about any particular community, they should immediately think of the many more facts we never get to hear.
Why shouldn’t we say things about race that are true, asked Trevor Phillips in a Channel 4 documentary broadcast last night. And who could possibly disagree? Facts are facts, after all, and suppressing them just suppresses debate.
Certainly, the former race chief’s stance has cemented influential friendships. The Daily Mail lauded him on Monday with a front page headline: “At last! A man who dares to tell truth about race”. Its columnist Richard Littlejohn called him “the bravest man in the universe”. On a BBC Radio 5 Live phone-in this week, callers sang his praises. He’s right, they said: British people have become paralysed by a fear of being called racist.
Phillips is a significant voice on this issue: from 2003 he spent nine years as the head of Britain’s foremost race equality body – first the Commission for Racial Equality and then, after its abolition, the Equality and Human Rights Commission. But he’s been a controversial figure too: he opposed multiculturalism, and later said that Britain was “sleepwalking to segregation”.
Trevor Phillips Facebook Twitter Pinterest
‘I don’t object to Trevor Phillips’s programme, or his right to make it. But his analysis ignores the environment into which these facts are projected.’ Photograph: Ken McKay/ITV/REX
Some of Phillips’ unsayable things are fairly mundane: “Irish people run the building trade”; “Indian women are more likely to be chemists”; “Indian and Chinese kids do best at school”. So what? But his crime-related observations are more controversial.
He talks to a former police chief who runs through a map of the capital, pointing out that in west London there are south Asian and Somali networks, who deal drugs and operate protection rackets; in east London crime within the Pakistani community has caused “a couple of very nasty murders”; in Hackney, there’s a Turkish influence to the heroin trade; and in central London there are Chinese sex traffickers and Romanian pickpockets.
I’m sure this is all true; but this one exchange highlights just why we need caution. Facts in themselves are neutral but their interpretation certainly isn’t. And while on their own facts cannot be racist, the way they are chosen certainly can be.
In effect, the police officer was merely pointing out where these communities live or work. And, yes, different ethnic groups will have different crimes – often due to their national history or culture – but that in no way means one ethnicity is inherently more criminal than another.
The police officer could equally have pointed to the City, and said that here white people commit banking fraud; or to Wapping, where they hack phones; or to Westminster, where they plot illegal wars.
The fact is, in all cases it’s just a small minority of any given group who are criminal. But the danger in all this is that if we keep repeating, and reporting, that Chinese do trafficking, or Turks trade in heroin, then in the absence of other information these entire ethnic groups can quickly become criminalised in the public perception.
This “ethnic profiling” is felt particularly sharply by Britain’s black population. Since the 1970s it has been reported that young black boys are more likely than other ethnic groups to commit street robbery. This is correct. But does this mean all young black men are criminals, or even most of them? Certainly not. Yet, as has been well recorded, black people are six times more likely to be stopped and searched by police than white people.
When we hear about white criminality, we already have enough other information to be able to contextualise it
Less reported is the fact that in the overwhelming number of cases these stops produce no evidence and do not lead to arrest. So each year, because of one “fact”, thousands of innocent black people are put through the humiliation and inconvenience of a police search – simply because their skin colour makes them “look” like a criminal in the officers’ mind. Would Phillips wish the same common perceptions for Turkish, Chinese, Pakistani and Romanian people?
There is an infinite number of facts about any one ethnic group; so the issue isn’t whether certain facts are correct or not; but which facts are chosen.
If the only time Romanians are spoken of is when they pick pockets, or when they’re seen as unwanted migrants, then the public will end up with a totally skewed view of them. We’ll learn nothing about their history or why they came to Britain, or even get a decent idea of what they do here.
When we hear about white criminality, such as football hooliganism, lager louts or paedophile rings, we already have enough other information about white people to be able to contextualise this, so we don’t leap to conclusions, and we don’t have high-level discussions about a “crisis within whiteness”. But in the absence of counterbalancing stories, it’s all too easy to begin to build stereotypes about minority communities.
The strongest recent example of this has been the shocking revelations of sexual grooming by mainly Pakistani-origin men in several British cities, with thousands of young victims. Hundreds of men are implicated in these horrific crimes. Yet in Britain there are 1.2 million people of Pakistani heritage. The vile grooming gangs are a tiny proportion (far less than one in 1,000), yet the stories have led to all manner of discussions about what is wrong with Pakistanis in general. Or, even worse, what is wrong with their religion, Islam, which has still less connection to the issue. Said one Radio 5 Live caller: “They can’t have relationships with their own young ladies because it’s forbidden so they go after young white girls.” Presumably “they” means all Muslim or Pakistani men.
Victoria Climbie Facebook Twitter Pinterest
‘Phillips sees the death of Victoria Climbie as another example of PC-imposed silence creating a victim. Yet the evidence in this case was of a dysfunctional social services department.’ Photograph: PA
Tied in with the so-called suppression of facts is the implication that you can’t criticise black or Asian Brits – who, as a result, enjoy a kind of enhanced social status which can even give them immunity from the law. Thus emerges the myth that these gangs got away with it because people were scared to investigate for fear of being labelled racist. If officers across the country were really in fear of this, the stop and search figures would be inverted, with black and Asian people less likely to be stopped than white people. Why would it possibly be that in every other aspect of the criminal justice system the evidence is that black and Asian people are more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted and to receive a prison sentence than white people? Yet somehow, for these particularly grotesque crimes, Asians were given an easy ride. There’s been much conjecture on the possibility that “political correctness” prevented their crimes being detected, but absolutely no evidence.
As shown by Jimmy Savile, along with the many cases of sexual abuse at children’s homes, the police have never listened to children from vulnerable, often scarred, backgrounds, when they’ve gone to the police for help. Until recent years the police would rarely even believe adult women rape victims, no matter what their background.
Phillips sees the death of Victoria Climbié as another example of PC-imposed silence creating a victim. The eight-year-old Ivorian was murdered by her guardians after several social workers missed signs of her abuse. He says this was because she was black, and that her meek body language and signs of bruising on her body were seen as part of African custom and culture. Yet the evidence in this case was of a dysfunctional social services department that later failed a white child, Baby P, in similarly tragic circumstances.
Blaming the Rotherham abuse on a fear of being branded a racist is ludicrous
Hugh Muir
Hugh Muir Read more
The problem with introducing all these “facts” is the predominant tendency to racialise – to ascribe a racial meaning to an event in the absence of any other information. People in certain groups are said do things “because they’re black”; “because they’re Muslim”; “because they’re Asian”. It works for other nationalities too: think Irish, Polish or Greek.
So each statistic becomes a sign of total racial or cultural difference, wrapping up everyone in a particular community, rather than being just one of a multitude of facts concerning that group. And it works particularly strongly against minorities who are less known.
And when some communities are believed to be doing certain things and getting away with it, or being favoured by those in power at white people’s expense, it’s not long before a rightwing backlash starts to take hold. These grievances add fuel to the surge in support for Ukip, and before that aided the BNP.
Phillips will no doubt see this article as another attempt to shut down the debate. Actually, I don’t object to his programme, or his right to make it: in many ways it’s good to have a discussion on this. But his analysis ignores the environment into which these facts are projected, and the selectivity of those deciding which we get to hear. When I see a tabloid splash with the headline “White Crime Shock” I might be persuaded. Until then, I’d advise anyone that when they hear facts or truths reported about any particular community, they should immediately think of the many more facts we never get to hear.
This is my point, on holiday in Barbados I was called boss and whitey ,had a bloke at work who was black and when given the sack bought out the race card ,I don't give a shit about being called whitey honkey ect ,I do think ethnic people are more racist than us brits .
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 17,138
Maybe you should think about why you don't mind being called whitey and honkey yet black people get really upset being called ****** and coon.