White privilege and other matters

[Random1]

The report says that the Windrush scandal was clearly discriminatory. But it also says there's no institutional racism. So does that mean that the report thinks that individuals at the Home Office at the time were racist? If not, where did the discrimination come from?

Presumably "Theresa May and Amber Rudd are massive racists" is the answer?

Another powerful speech by David Lammy:

Must admit I’ve only watched half of this. But it begins by him listing a bunch of people who have had horrible experiences, and then makes a huge leap that it’s because of race as if it’s fact or proof.

Utterly typical of what stands as evidence these days. Immediately off that list is the one with police taking selfie’s. They do that with white people too. Nothing to do with race. All to do with a shockingly disrespectful culture in the police.

Anecdotal lived experience does not constitute evidence.

[Tichtheid]

Where the fuck have you lot found the time to read a 200 page report?!

Oh. Wait a minute...

Lay people can read the report if they like, but unless they have particular knowledge or expertise it doesn't render them capable of agreeing or disagreeing with it, it only means they have read the report.

I'm more inclined to listen to, eg, The Runnymede Trust and others, professionals.

As an aside, when they publicly disagreed with the report they had a spike in racist abuse directed at their employees, who had to stop answering phones and reading emails

[Tichtheid]

Yeah, they’re slightly different beasts though aren’t they?

Anyone could become disabled tomorrow, and so there’s an increased empathy there. Plus disabled people can barely be called a minority anymore - a quick google shows 14.1m people in the Uk have some sort of disability, so everyone probably has a familial relationship with a disabled person.

On the guilt element; i think that’s largely because the disabled approach things in a different way to some other protected characteristics. They don’t get instantly offended about things, and actually introduce an incredible amount of humour into anyone having misconceptions. I find the same with the gay movement.

The reactions to anyone saying anything involving race are instant and many, it feels, are intended to impose shame on the person saying them. You only have to look at the original thread where I had the temerity to question white privilege. I had people instantly question my intelligence and put me on ignore.

One cunt even said I was a bimbo’s new log in!

It’s getting that way with trans.

I think if race and trans equality movements took it the same way as disability and gay movements do/did it, then I think there’d be a much higher quality debate and better empathy all around.

I'm actually astounded by this post.

Anyone could become "disabled" so there is "an increased empathy there", but no one* can suddenly find themselves inconveniently black, so there is less empathy for people who face racism?
*note the defining factor of the norm is being white in this case, being non-white is the deviation from the norm.


As for the rest, are you really saying that if black people just cheered up and had a laugh about racism, the way "the gays" do about homophobia, everything would be fine?

I’m so confused by your post - what I wrote is basic human behaviour.

If you have exposure to something and a vested interest in something, humans are more likely to show empathy. To be fair, that’s an opinion, that I haven’t researched, as I just assumed this was a universal truth - it never occurred to me that anyone wouldn’t agree.

On your second point about laughing at racism - to be very clear; racism or ableism etc is not funny.

However, the gay community, for example, have put non-gay people at ease and established boundaries through the use of humour.

Humour is an excellent way of exploring taboo subjects. Nigel Owens or Gareth Thomas are great examples of putting that in action. It’s also why role models are so important - it’s not just so that other gay people can see their sexuality isn’t a barrier to success (which is really important in and of itself). It also gets the rest of the population used to seeing and hearing things from people different from themselves, so there are fewer barriers. It’s a really nice positive feed back loop.

The interview between Nigel Owens and jiffy a week or two ago was a great example.

In race and trans, there is a really significant focus on language and taking offence at language - your asterisk is an example where you’re picking apart a piece of my language use. I genuinely don’t understand your point on the asterisk - of course white is the norm in my sentence, because it’s generally individuals in the white community who need to be less racist, as white people represent 80+% of the country. I thought we were on the same page there?

Ultimately we’re talking about culture change here, where we move to a Uk in which people are more accepting and empathetic towards people from different backgrounds and challenges.

Culture change only truly happens when a critical mass of people believe in the change. I’m just saying that it feels like gay people and disabled people have taken a different, more humourful, approach to achieving this compared to race and trans.

I’m not actually sure which method will end up being better in the long run. That’ll be for history to decide.

Edit; spelling.

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

[Random1]

I'm actually astounded by this post.

Anyone could become "disabled" so there is "an increased empathy there", but no one* can suddenly find themselves inconveniently black, so there is less empathy for people who face racism?
*note the defining factor of the norm is being white in this case, being non-white is the deviation from the norm.


As for the rest, are you really saying that if black people just cheered up and had a laugh about racism, the way "the gays" do about homophobia, everything would be fine?

I’m so confused by your post - what I wrote is basic human behaviour.

If you have exposure to something and a vested interest in something, humans are more likely to show empathy. To be fair, that’s an opinion, that I haven’t researched, as I just assumed this was a universal truth - it never occurred to me that anyone wouldn’t agree.

On your second point about laughing at racism - to be very clear; racism or ableism etc is not funny.

However, the gay community, for example, have put non-gay people at ease and established boundaries through the use of humour.

Humour is an excellent way of exploring taboo subjects. Nigel Owens or Gareth Thomas are great examples of putting that in action. It’s also why role models are so important - it’s not just so that other gay people can see their sexuality isn’t a barrier to success (which is really important in and of itself). It also gets the rest of the population used to seeing and hearing things from people different from themselves, so there are fewer barriers. It’s a really nice positive feed back loop.

The interview between Nigel Owens and jiffy a week or two ago was a great example.

In race and trans, there is a really significant focus on language and taking offence at language - your asterisk is an example where you’re picking apart a piece of my language use. I genuinely don’t understand your point on the asterisk - of course white is the norm in my sentence, because it’s generally individuals in the white community who need to be less racist, as white people represent 80+% of the country. I thought we were on the same page there?

Ultimately we’re talking about culture change here, where we move to a Uk in which people are more accepting and empathetic towards people from different backgrounds and challenges.

Culture change only truly happens when a critical mass of people believe in the change. I’m just saying that it feels like gay people and disabled people have taken a different, more humourful, approach to achieving this compared to race and trans.

I’m not actually sure which method will end up being better in the long run. That’ll be for history to decide.

Edit; spelling.

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

How would that work in practice though?

If everything from immigration, to health, to crime policy is inherently bigoted, as it’s written by the majority, then the impact assessment process is the only option isn’t it?

Unless you’re advocating that all policy be written by that minorities? And if so, which minorities you thinking?

[Random1]

Where the fuck have you lot found the time to read a 200 page report?!

Oh. Wait a minute...

Lay people can read the report if they like, but unless they have particular knowledge or expertise it doesn't render them capable of agreeing or disagreeing with it, it only means they have read the report.

I'm more inclined to listen to, eg, The Runnymede Trust and others, professionals.

As an aside, when they publicly disagreed with the report they had a spike in racist abuse directed at their employees, who had to stop answering phones and reading emails

My point was that there were some pretty strident views on show about a report that I doubt (m)any of us have read.

The usual ad hominem arguments emerged pretty quickly.

As for lay people not understanding it; I’m not convinced it’s that difficult a topic to wrap one’s head around.

[Tichtheid]

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

How would that work in practice though?

If everything from immigration, to health, to crime policy is inherently bigoted, as it’s written by the majority, then the impact assessment process is the only option isn’t it?

Unless you’re advocating that all policy be written by that minorities? And if so, which minorities you thinking?

It's not that difficult really, we don't say things like, "if only you were funny, you would be far more acceptable"

[Tichtheid]

Where the fuck have you lot found the time to read a 200 page report?!

Oh. Wait a minute...

Lay people can read the report if they like, but unless they have particular knowledge or expertise it doesn't render them capable of agreeing or disagreeing with it, it only means they have read the report.

I'm more inclined to listen to, eg, The Runnymede Trust and others, professionals.

As an aside, when they publicly disagreed with the report they had a spike in racist abuse directed at their employees, who had to stop answering phones and reading emails

My point was that there were some pretty strident views on show about a report that I doubt (m)any of us have read.

The usual ad hominem arguments emerged pretty quickly.

As for lay people not understanding it; I’m not convinced it’s that difficult a topic to wrap one’s head around.

Yet, seemingly it is.

[Random1]

Bit of an overview from one of the contributors here. From 28 mins

[Random1]

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

How would that work in practice though?

If everything from immigration, to health, to crime policy is inherently bigoted, as it’s written by the majority, then the impact assessment process is the only option isn’t it?

Unless you’re advocating that all policy be written by that minorities? And if so, which minorities you thinking?

It's not that difficult really, we don't say things like, "if only you were funny, you would be far more acceptable"

I’ve already said that that is precisely not what I’m saying.

Do you feel Nigel Owens is homophobic because he jokes about his sexuality?

[Tichtheid]

How would that work in practice though?

If everything from immigration, to health, to crime policy is inherently bigoted, as it’s written by the majority, then the impact assessment process is the only option isn’t it?

Unless you’re advocating that all policy be written by that minorities? And if so, which minorities you thinking?

It's not that difficult really, we don't say things like, "if only you were funny, you would be far more acceptable"

I’ve already said that that is precisely not what I’m saying.

I must have missed that, I honestly didn't read the part where you explicitly said that humour wasn't necessary because, well for whatever non-patronising reason it might not be necessary.

Do you feel Nigel Owens is homophobic because he jokes about his sexuality?

No, I have no idea what Nige thinks, but I would hazard a guess that his preference would be that it wasn't an issue in the slightest, that it wasn't something he had to joke about or talk about ever in order to placate bigotry.

It should be as important as the proportion of HBs to 4H pencils he had in his pencil case at school

[Tichtheid]

However, the gay community, for example, have put non-gay people at ease and established boundaries through the use of humour.

Humour is an excellent way of exploring taboo subjects. Nigel Owens or Gareth Thomas are great examples of putting that in action. It’s also why role models are so important - it’s not just so that other gay people can see their sexuality isn’t a barrier to success (which is really important in and of itself). It also gets the rest of the population used to seeing and hearing things from people different from themselves, so there are fewer barriers. It’s a really nice positive feed back loop.

The interview between Nigel Owens and jiffy a week or two ago was a great example.

It's only just over two years since Alfie was the victim of a homophobic attack, in Cardiff, where he'd captained his country on numerous occasions, with 100 caps to his name.

[Paddington Bear]

I'm actually astounded by this post.

Anyone could become "disabled" so there is "an increased empathy there", but no one* can suddenly find themselves inconveniently black, so there is less empathy for people who face racism?
*note the defining factor of the norm is being white in this case, being non-white is the deviation from the norm.


As for the rest, are you really saying that if black people just cheered up and had a laugh about racism, the way "the gays" do about homophobia, everything would be fine?

I’m so confused by your post - what I wrote is basic human behaviour.

If you have exposure to something and a vested interest in something, humans are more likely to show empathy. To be fair, that’s an opinion, that I haven’t researched, as I just assumed this was a universal truth - it never occurred to me that anyone wouldn’t agree.

On your second point about laughing at racism - to be very clear; racism or ableism etc is not funny.

However, the gay community, for example, have put non-gay people at ease and established boundaries through the use of humour.

Humour is an excellent way of exploring taboo subjects. Nigel Owens or Gareth Thomas are great examples of putting that in action. It’s also why role models are so important - it’s not just so that other gay people can see their sexuality isn’t a barrier to success (which is really important in and of itself). It also gets the rest of the population used to seeing and hearing things from people different from themselves, so there are fewer barriers. It’s a really nice positive feed back loop.

The interview between Nigel Owens and jiffy a week or two ago was a great example.

In race and trans, there is a really significant focus on language and taking offence at language - your asterisk is an example where you’re picking apart a piece of my language use. I genuinely don’t understand your point on the asterisk - of course white is the norm in my sentence, because it’s generally individuals in the white community who need to be less racist, as white people represent 80+% of the country. I thought we were on the same page there?

Ultimately we’re talking about culture change here, where we move to a Uk in which people are more accepting and empathetic towards people from different backgrounds and challenges.

Culture change only truly happens when a critical mass of people believe in the change. I’m just saying that it feels like gay people and disabled people have taken a different, more humourful, approach to achieving this compared to race and trans.

I’m not actually sure which method will end up being better in the long run. That’ll be for history to decide.

Edit; spelling.

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

The issue with this is that it assumes:
1) all white people think the same
2) all minority people have the same definitions of bigotry and discrimination

Neither are true.

We’re a democracy, set legal definitions and enforce them.

[Ymx]

How would that work in practice though?

If everything from immigration, to health, to crime policy is inherently bigoted, as it’s written by the majority, then the impact assessment process is the only option isn’t it?

Unless you’re advocating that all policy be written by that minorities? And if so, which minorities you thinking?

It's not that difficult really, we don't say things like, "if only you were funny, you would be far more acceptable"

I’ve already said that that is precisely not what I’m saying.

Do you feel Nigel Owens is homophobic because he jokes about his sexuality?

Hey. You don’t get the right to say what’s homophobic!

[Ymx]

Presumably "Theresa May and Amber Rudd are massive racists" is the answer?

Another powerful speech by David Lammy:

Must admit I’ve only watched half of this. But it begins by him listing a bunch of people who have had horrible experiences, and then makes a huge leap that it’s because of race as if it’s fact or proof.

Utterly typical of what stands as evidence these days. Immediately off that list is the one with police taking selfie’s. They do that with white people too. Nothing to do with race. All to do with a shockingly disrespectful culture in the police.

Anecdotal lived experience does not constitute evidence.

Isn’t that last part the key flaw with how white privileged has been inflated?

I mean the Harry and Megan Markle son not being a prince because he’s black. Nothing to do with the actual rules.

It’s her (Megan’s) lived experience therefore it’s a fact, therefore the queen is a racist.

QED.

[Slick]

I’m so confused by your post - what I wrote is basic human behaviour.

If you have exposure to something and a vested interest in something, humans are more likely to show empathy. To be fair, that’s an opinion, that I haven’t researched, as I just assumed this was a universal truth - it never occurred to me that anyone wouldn’t agree.

On your second point about laughing at racism - to be very clear; racism or ableism etc is not funny.

However, the gay community, for example, have put non-gay people at ease and established boundaries through the use of humour.

Humour is an excellent way of exploring taboo subjects. Nigel Owens or Gareth Thomas are great examples of putting that in action. It’s also why role models are so important - it’s not just so that other gay people can see their sexuality isn’t a barrier to success (which is really important in and of itself). It also gets the rest of the population used to seeing and hearing things from people different from themselves, so there are fewer barriers. It’s a really nice positive feed back loop.

The interview between Nigel Owens and jiffy a week or two ago was a great example.

In race and trans, there is a really significant focus on language and taking offence at language - your asterisk is an example where you’re picking apart a piece of my language use. I genuinely don’t understand your point on the asterisk - of course white is the norm in my sentence, because it’s generally individuals in the white community who need to be less racist, as white people represent 80+% of the country. I thought we were on the same page there?

Ultimately we’re talking about culture change here, where we move to a Uk in which people are more accepting and empathetic towards people from different backgrounds and challenges.

Culture change only truly happens when a critical mass of people believe in the change. I’m just saying that it feels like gay people and disabled people have taken a different, more humourful, approach to achieving this compared to race and trans.

I’m not actually sure which method will end up being better in the long run. That’ll be for history to decide.

Edit; spelling.

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

The issue with this is that it assumes:
1) all white people think the same
2) all minority people have the same definitions of bigotry and discrimination

Neither are true.

We’re a democracy, set legal definitions and enforce them.

Quite. It’s a completely nonsense statement with zero thought, looking for a clap.

By this reasoning rules and regulations are set by the smallest minority.

[Tichtheid]

It's completely inappropriate for people in the majority group to be setting parameters and criteria for the cessation of bigotry and discrimination.

The issue with this is that it assumes:
1) all white people think the same
2) all minority people have the same definitions of bigotry and discrimination

Neither are true.

We’re a democracy, set legal definitions and enforce them.

Quite. It’s a completely nonsense statement with zero thought, looking for a clap.

By this reasoning rules and regulations are set by the smallest minority.

No, I'm saying that the majority has no right to say "if only you were funny/more this that or the next thing - but it's at my whim- then you wouldn't be subjected to discrimination or bigotry, or at least you would be more acceptable to me".

[Calculon]

.

[Random1]

It's not that difficult really, we don't say things like, "if only you were funny, you would be far more acceptable"

I’ve already said that that is precisely not what I’m saying.

I must have missed that, I honestly didn't read the part where you explicitly said that humour wasn't necessary because, well for whatever non-patronising reason it might not be necessary.

Do you feel Nigel Owens is homophobic because he jokes about his sexuality?

No, I have no idea what Nige thinks, but I would hazard a guess that his preference would be that it wasn't an issue in the slightest, that it wasn't something he had to joke about or talk about ever in order to placate bigotry.

It should be as important as the proportion of HBs to 4H pencils he had in his pencil case at school

Ok, I’m not sure how you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said so drastically, I thought I was uncharacteristically concise!

Racism is not funny. Sexism, homophobia etc is not funny.

Racism, sexism and homophobia etc exists.

Many gay people (and disabled people) use humour to show how silly any phobia is.

This has, in my mind, been a successful tactic.

Hope that clarifies.

[Calculon]

Utterly typical of what stands as evidence these days. Immediately off that list is the one with police taking selfie’s. They do that with white people too. Nothing to do with race. All to do with a shockingly disrespectful culture in the police.

Anecdotal lived experience does not constitute evidence.

Isn’t that last part the key flaw with how white privileged has been inflated?

I mean the Harry and Megan Markle son not being a prince because he’s black. Nothing to do with the actual rules.

It’s her (Megan’s) lived experience therefore it’s a fact, therefore the queen is a racist.

QED.

Prince William's daughter wasn't meant to be a princess, but the queen changed the rule just before she was born. Edit: The Queen also changed the rule to allow his youngest son to be prince

[Paddington Bear]

The issue with this is that it assumes:
1) all white people think the same
2) all minority people have the same definitions of bigotry and discrimination

Neither are true.

We’re a democracy, set legal definitions and enforce them.

Quite. It’s a completely nonsense statement with zero thought, looking for a clap.

By this reasoning rules and regulations are set by the smallest minority.

No, I'm saying that the majority has no right to say "if only you were funny/more this that or the next thing - but it's at my whim- then you wouldn't be subjected to discrimination or bigotry, or at least you would be more acceptable to me".

Agree with that, but it has no relation to your first statement I replied to

[Tichtheid]

Quite. It’s a completely nonsense statement with zero thought, looking for a clap.

By this reasoning rules and regulations are set by the smallest minority.

No, I'm saying that the majority has no right to say "if only you were funny/more this that or the next thing - but it's at my whim- then you wouldn't be subjected to discrimination or bigotry, or at least you would be more acceptable to me".

Agree with that, but it has no relation to your first statement I replied to

If you read it in context with the post I was replying to, you'll find it was relevant.

[Tichtheid]

I’ve already said that that is precisely not what I’m saying.

I must have missed that, I honestly didn't read the part where you explicitly said that humour wasn't necessary because, well for whatever non-patronising reason it might not be necessary.

Do you feel Nigel Owens is homophobic because he jokes about his sexuality?

No, I have no idea what Nige thinks, but I would hazard a guess that his preference would be that it wasn't an issue in the slightest, that it wasn't something he had to joke about or talk about ever in order to placate bigotry.

It should be as important as the proportion of HBs to 4H pencils he had in his pencil case at school

Ok, I’m not sure how you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said so drastically, I thought I was uncharacteristically concise!

Racism is not funny. Sexism, homophobia etc is not funny.

Racism, sexism and homophobia etc exists.

Many gay people (and disabled people) use humour to show how silly any phobia is.

This has, in my mind, been a successful tactic.

Hope that clarifies.

Should all gay/"disabled"/minority of choice people become comedians in order to be treated as equals, or at least not be discriminated against or violently attacked?

Should this "acceptance" really be at the whim of the majority beholder?

[Calculon]

To push this another way - which Western Nations have a better situation than us on race?

The old "we are far from being the worst, go live in Russia if you don't like it" argument , eh?

Was more comparing us to France, Germany and Italy

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there". For the record, I don't think Britain is a particularly racist country and it might well be less racist than France, Italy etc. Personally, I don't put much stock in these racism surveys, but I don't have difficulty in believing that expressing racist views is less socially acceptable in Britain compared to many other Western countries. I had a number of good non white British friends when I lived there, all of them experienced racism. They didn't make it up, like Megan Markle is supposed to have done, and it didn't come from other ethnic minorities, it came from white English people. Would they have experienced less racism in another country where they are a small minority - I think unlikely.

[Random1]

I must have missed that, I honestly didn't read the part where you explicitly said that humour wasn't necessary because, well for whatever non-patronising reason it might not be necessary.





No, I have no idea what Nige thinks, but I would hazard a guess that his preference would be that it wasn't an issue in the slightest, that it wasn't something he had to joke about or talk about ever in order to placate bigotry.

It should be as important as the proportion of HBs to 4H pencils he had in his pencil case at school

Ok, I’m not sure how you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said so drastically, I thought I was uncharacteristically concise!

Racism is not funny. Sexism, homophobia etc is not funny.

Racism, sexism and homophobia etc exists.

Many gay people (and disabled people) use humour to show how silly any phobia is.

This has, in my mind, been a successful tactic.

Hope that clarifies.

Should all gay/"disabled"/minority of choice people become comedians in order to be treated as equals, or at least not be discriminated against or violently attacked?

Should this "acceptance" really be at the whim of the majority beholder?

No. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of their attitude/tactic for me.

But we’re talking about culture change here, where we’re trying to reduce the number of racists, ableists etc in society.

There are two tactics being employed in my view; gay and disabled people seem to use humour to explore differences and similarities.

Race and trans feel, to me, more likely to take the attitude you’re taking ie that I’m bordering on a bigoted point of view and that I’m being offensive - basically that I should be ashamed of myself.

The result is that I wouldn’t even have this conversation in public on race or trans. It would threaten my career and standing in society.

And I think that’s felt by many (again, just my view).

This leads to the topics just not being discussed, but also minds not being changed.

As I said above, I don’t know which tactic will end up more successful in the long run, but i think our goal is similar; to get to an egalitarian society.

[Random1]

The old "we are far from being the worst, go live in Russia if you don't like it" argument , eh?

Was more comparing us to France, Germany and Italy

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there". For the record, I don't think Britain is a particularly racist country and it might well be less racist than France, Italy etc. Personally, I don't put much stock in these racism surveys, but I don't have difficulty in believing that expressing racist views is less socially acceptable in Britain compared to many other Western countries. I had a number of good non white British friends when I lived there, all of them experienced racism. They didn't make it up, like Megan Markle is supposed to have done, and it didn't come from other ethnic minorities, it came from white English people. Would they have experienced less racism in another country where they are a small minority - I think unlikely.

Celebrating progress doesn’t mean we’ve reached the goal.

If anyone has led any significant number of people, you learn pretty quickly, that celebrating success along a journey is critical to actually getting to the destination.

Humans generally like being told they’re doing well. It encourages them to stay the path and increases likelihood of getting where we want.

That’s what I took from what you were saying Paddington - and I think it’s generally the theme I’ve been driving at too.

[Hugo]

The old "we are far from being the worst, go live in Russia if you don't like it" argument , eh?

Was more comparing us to France, Germany and Italy

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there".

Tbh I didn't read his comment that way - I think he was just earnestly asking how does our record compare to the types of continental, western European countries that are considered liberal and enlightened?

I think its a reasonable thing to ponder - I'm not sure there's a single country in the world that is an exemplar in race relations so why not look at Britain's record versus similar sized, geographical neighbours.

[Slick]

Was more comparing us to France, Germany and Italy

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there".

Tbh I didn't read his comment that way - I think he was just earnestly asking how does our record compare to the types of continental, western European countries that are considered liberal and enlightened?

I think its a reasonable thing to ponder - I'm not sure there's a single country in the world that is an exemplar in race relations so why not look at Britain's record versus similar sized, geographical neighbours.

Agree, it absolutely wasn’t what Paddington was saying and to try and frame it any other way is just a cheap shot

[Tichtheid]

Windrush campaigners alarmed by omissions of No 10 race report
As scandal is mentioned twice in 258 pages, some of those affected question government’s understanding of it

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ace-report

This part stood out for me

The report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities mentions Windrush, alongside Grenfell, in its foreword, as an instance “where ethnic minority communities have rightly felt let down”, but continues: “Outcomes such as these do not come about by design, and are certainly not deliberately targeted.”

However, an independent investigation into the causes of the Windrush scandal published last year, the Lessons Learned review, found that the Home Office had displayed “institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness” on race issues, “consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism”. The report’s author, Wendy Williams, also highlighted a lack of understanding among officials about the nature of racism, concluding: “There seems to be a misconception that racism is confined to decisions made with racist motivations … This is a misunderstanding of both the law and racism generally.”

[Random1]

Windrush campaigners alarmed by omissions of No 10 race report
As scandal is mentioned twice in 258 pages, some of those affected question government’s understanding of it

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ace-report

This part stood out for me

The report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities mentions Windrush, alongside Grenfell, in its foreword, as an instance “where ethnic minority communities have rightly felt let down”, but continues: “Outcomes such as these do not come about by design, and are certainly not deliberately targeted.”

However, an independent investigation into the causes of the Windrush scandal published last year, the Lessons Learned review, found that the Home Office had displayed “institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness” on race issues, “consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism”. The report’s author, Wendy Williams, also highlighted a lack of understanding among officials about the nature of racism, concluding: “There seems to be a misconception that racism is confined to decisions made with racist motivations … This is a misunderstanding of both the law and racism generally.”

But doesn’t that misalign with your thoughts earlier in the thread?

I thought you believed that the ruling class are actively racist. Racist people making racist decisions.

The quote above is actually pretty well consistent with my (and other’s) position ie that there isn’t intent to be racist in government, but there are racist outcomes due to majority focussed policy making.

[Tichtheid]

Ok, I’m not sure how you’ve misunderstood what I’ve said so drastically, I thought I was uncharacteristically concise!

Racism is not funny. Sexism, homophobia etc is not funny.

Racism, sexism and homophobia etc exists.

Many gay people (and disabled people) use humour to show how silly any phobia is.

This has, in my mind, been a successful tactic.

Hope that clarifies.

Should all gay/"disabled"/minority of choice people become comedians in order to be treated as equals, or at least not be discriminated against or violently attacked?

Should this "acceptance" really be at the whim of the majority beholder?

No. Everyone should be treated equally regardless of their attitude/tactic for me.

But we’re talking about culture change here, where we’re trying to reduce the number of racists, ableists etc in society.

There are two tactics being employed in my view; gay and disabled people seem to use humour to explore differences and similarities.

Race and trans feel, to me, more likely to take the attitude you’re taking ie that I’m bordering on a bigoted point of view and that I’m being offensive - basically that I should be ashamed of myself.

The result is that I wouldn’t even have this conversation in public on race or trans. It would threaten my career and standing in society.

And I think that’s felt by many (again, just my view).

This leads to the topics just not being discussed, but also minds not being changed.

As I said above, I don’t know which tactic will end up more successful in the long run, but i think our goal is similar; to get to an egalitarian society.

Much change comes through legislation, and what drives that legislation is organised protest, often coming from extreme frustration that spills out on to the streets - the Stonewall organisation is named after a riot that took place in Greenwich Village. The Race Relations Act came in the wake of riots and demonstrations in Notting Hill and action in Bristol. The Health and Safety at Work Act came after pressure from unions.

I'm very short of time, I'm supposed to be studying, I'll come back to this.

[Tichtheid]

Windrush campaigners alarmed by omissions of No 10 race report
As scandal is mentioned twice in 258 pages, some of those affected question government’s understanding of it

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ace-report

This part stood out for me

The report by the Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities mentions Windrush, alongside Grenfell, in its foreword, as an instance “where ethnic minority communities have rightly felt let down”, but continues: “Outcomes such as these do not come about by design, and are certainly not deliberately targeted.”

However, an independent investigation into the causes of the Windrush scandal published last year, the Lessons Learned review, found that the Home Office had displayed “institutional ignorance and thoughtlessness” on race issues, “consistent with some elements of the definition of institutional racism”. The report’s author, Wendy Williams, also highlighted a lack of understanding among officials about the nature of racism, concluding: “There seems to be a misconception that racism is confined to decisions made with racist motivations … This is a misunderstanding of both the law and racism generally.”

But doesn’t that misalign with your thoughts earlier in the thread?

I thought you believed that the ruling class are actively racist. Racist people making racist decisions.

The quote above is actually pretty well consistent with my (and other’s) position ie that there isn’t intent to be racist in government, but there are racist outcomes due to majority focussed policy making.

You'll have to point me to the quote where I say that.

[Ymx]

Bit of an overview from one of the contributors here. From 28 mins

Thanks for posting that.

It’s completely reasoned, logical and not even disputable. Compared to that Lammy “you tell xyz it’s not racism”.

It’s the lived experience of real statistics.

[I like neeps]

Bit of an overview from one of the contributors here. From 28 mins

Thanks for posting that.

It’s completely reasoned, logical and not even disputable. Compared to that Lammy “you tell xyz it’s not racism”.

It’s the lived experience of real statistics.

Lammy also has lived experience of the statistics though... And he also did a comprehensive review which did find racism in the UK justice system but was never acted upon. So your point doesn't really stand here.

We'll never know the real extent of the problem of racism in this country because someone will back up their opinion with their statistics and someone else will back up their experience with their statistics.

[Ymx]

I hadn’t realised there was such a disparity between black people from Caribbean and those from Africa.

[Biffer]

Was more comparing us to France, Germany and Italy

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there".

Tbh I didn't read his comment that way - I think he was just earnestly asking how does our record compare to the types of continental, western European countries that are considered liberal and enlightened?

I think its a reasonable thing to ponder - I'm not sure there's a single country in the world that is an exemplar in race relations so why not look at Britain's record versus similar sized, geographical neighbours.

Because it isn't a relative right or wrong. It's an absolute right or wrong. Comparing against other countries gives a measure of relative progress but being better than someone who is shit doesn't mean you're in a good position.

[Ymx]

The whole thing is such a BWAME game.

[Paddington Bear]

The old "we are far from being the worst, go live in Russia if you don't like it" argument , eh?

Was more comparing us to France, Germany and Italy

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there". For the record, I don't think Britain is a particularly racist country and it might well be less racist than France, Italy etc. Personally, I don't put much stock in these racism surveys, but I don't have difficulty in believing that expressing racist views is less socially acceptable in Britain compared to many other Western countries. I had a number of good non white British friends when I lived there, all of them experienced racism. They didn't make it up, like Megan Markle is supposed to have done, and it didn't come from other ethnic minorities, it came from white English people. Would they have experienced less racism in another country where they are a small minority - I think unlikely.

This is an exceptionally poor faith reading of what I said and is in no way what I meant.

[Hugo]

I'm sure you didn't mean it like that, but that argument has a whiff of the "if the upitty blacks don't like it here, they should try living in place X. See how far their complaining gets them there".

Tbh I didn't read his comment that way - I think he was just earnestly asking how does our record compare to the types of continental, western European countries that are considered liberal and enlightened?

I think its a reasonable thing to ponder - I'm not sure there's a single country in the world that is an exemplar in race relations so why not look at Britain's record versus similar sized, geographical neighbours.

Because it isn't a relative right or wrong. It's an absolute right or wrong. Comparing against other countries gives a measure of relative progress but being better than someone who is shit doesn't mean you're in a good position.

It might not mean you are in good position but you have to celebrate success where you find it otherwise the task of combating racism becomes thankless work that people would not commit to. Improving a society is a long and gradual process and if there are no triumphs along the way people lose faith and interest in the task at hand.

[Random1]

I’m confused.

I am effectively saying that I’m coming around to agreeing that it does exist from an outcomes perspective.

Caused by policy makers, in attempt to serve the majority, building in a systemic disadvantage for minorities - I’m not quite there yet, but I’m defo starting to understand things from that angle.

Your response suggests you think there is intent to disadvantage people due to race - that’s a whole different beast - absolutely nothing you’ve posted or written points to intent, just outcomes.

I don't think the structural racism is merely down to benign "unintended consequences", not in the light of Windrush deportations, denial of legal representations, the deliberate creation of a "hostile environment", a name chosen by government.

There was nothing benign about the current prime minister's racist remarks, they are a matter of public record, likewise the worst of the Brexit loons talking about being overrun by immigrants - remember Farage and the "Breaking Point" poster? That got a cooing reception from the press, which also battered on about judges being "traitors" for upholding the law.

The institutional racism that still exists in the Met, despite Macpherson, which was over 20 years ago btw, is not an unintended consequence.
The Grenfell Next of Kin group are demanding that the inquiry look at the race aspect of the tragedy, as well as the class issue.

There are a whole load of glass ceilings, incidents of overt racism and just too many coincidences to be explained away as unintended consequences, of which there may be some, but taken together with the more sinister aspects of government and other institutional policy plus a hostile media, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Sorry for the delay, been a busy boy, and I wanted to make sure my response wasn’t rushed. I’ve taken your sections in the bold below, and then my answers are in normal text.

I don't think the structural racism is merely down to benign "unintended consequences", not in the light of Windrush deportations, denial of legal representations, the deliberate creation of a "hostile environment", a name chosen by government.

I think the windrush scandal is a good example where racism is shown not to be a major factor in society; literally everyone beyond the home office was abhorred by the way they were treated. Even the daily mail was angry about it.

The windrush generation are as British as any of us - if even our right wing press agree with that, and we’re up in arms about their treatment, then that’s not a sign of a rampantly racist society for me.

The hostile environment is a classic example of the old maxim of setting simplistic numerical targets as being the way to ruin everything. The nonsense of controlling immigration based upon arbitrary numbers was and is a disgrace - and unfortunately it’s not uncommon in government - they also did it with universal credit, hospital building, nurse numbers, dementia tax, procurement etc etc. Government by numbers is always open to civil servants doing shitty things chasing their targets.

There was nothing benign about the current prime minister's racist remarks, they are a matter of public record, likewise the worst of the Brexit loons talking about being overrun by immigrants - remember Farage and the "Breaking Point" poster? That got a cooing reception from the press, which also battered on about judges being "traitors" for upholding the law.



Your point of highlighting the Brexit stuff on farage posters and judges being harassed
is such a good argument for my point rather than yours - both of these relate to trying to stop free movement of Europeans -largely white Europeans.

Where did their privilege go? Surely they’re better placed than our non-white brits due to their inherent privilege from your perspective?

Or is it that the majority in any system is generally protectionist and that race has fuck all to do with it?

The whole EU experience is a really good leveller.

The institutional racism that still exists in the Met, despite Macpherson, which was over 20 years ago btw, is not an unintended consequence.
The Grenfell Next of Kin group are demanding that the inquiry look at the race aspect of the tragedy, as well as the class issue.

Now this is where we have a decent level of agreement - the grenfell stuff has an interesting potential for a case study. There are plenty of privately owned blocks wrapped in ACM. So it may be possible to contrast the socio economic variable.

Is there a disproportionate number of non-whites in the privately owned blocks wrapped in acm? If there is, then that would be good evidence that it’s a race issue and not economic.

Suspect it won’t be the case though, as the choice of cladding had fuck all to do with race; it was a penny pinching attitude across the entire construction world, with yet another numerical target being at the heart of it. It’s called ‘value for money’ - which is the source of much ill across the country as it’s just a euphemism for ‘cheapest’

There are a whole load of glass ceilings, incidents of overt racism and just too many coincidences to be explained away as unintended consequences, of which there may be some, but taken together with the more sinister aspects of government and other institutional policy plus a hostile media, this doesn't paint a pretty picture.

Ultimately, just because a significant number of people believe something to be true, doesn’t make it true. Coincidences, even lots of them doesn’t make it true, otherwise all religions are true etc.

Proper evidence is required.

And again, this, for me at least, is about identifying the true challenge rather than getting side tracked into division

I genuinely think the only evidence base that is conclusive on societal inequality is that poverty and a lack of education are the things that drive inequalities. Let’s tackle that and stop focussing on skin colour.

It was this exchange tichtheid where I got the impression you were saying there was individual conscious racism driving structural racism.

To be fair, we didn’t unpack much of it, as I had to wind my neck in due to being completely wrong about the farage poster!

[Random1]

The whole thing is such a BWAME game.

See, humour. I already feel society is slightly less racist now