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.
I think ‘celebrate’ is a bit too strong. Acknowledge and respect successes - after acknowledgement and respect are key to the heart of the matter.
Re: FAO Raggs.
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 11:05 am
by Tichtheid
Random1 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 10:24 am
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!
There are certainly some incidents of aggressive, conscious structural or institutional racism, the Hostile Environment is an examples of that. The targeting of young black youths by the Met in gang profiling whilst there are gangs with all racial backgrounds is another.
However there are also other, possibly unconscious, unwitting forms of racism, as per the Wendy Williams quote '“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."'
It's not a binary choice between one and the other, I already said in this thread that the outcomes for black men in particular in the criminal justice system is worse than for their white counterparts, as per a report I linked to earlier, however it did not show overt or obvious racism, despite the outcomes being seemingly dependent on race.
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.
Biffer wrote: ↑Wed Mar 31, 2021 3:49 pm
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.
Random1 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 01, 2021 9:06 pm
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.
The Lammy report is more political and resorts to feelings and claims of misunderstandings. It states stuff like "the courts do not deliver any discriminatory verdicts but it should have more BAME Magistrates just because".
It ignores the fact trends in the UK and overwhelmingly social economic and multiple minorities do better than the English counter parts when all other factors are level. It also suggests positive discrimination, despite the fact all studies show positive discrimination barely ahs any effect on racial differences in society. I'm sure the Swell report will have flaws, but it's pretty heavily evidence driven. the fact most criticism claiming it was wrong came out before the report was published says a lot about the lack of evidence and rationality there is in the criticism of it.
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.
The Lammy report is more political and resorts to feelings and claims of misunderstandings. It states stuff like "the courts do not deliver any discriminatory verdicts but it should have more BAME Magistrates just because".
It ignores the fact trends in the UK and overwhelmingly social economic and multiple minorities do better than the English counter parts when all other factors are level. It also suggests positive discrimination, despite the fact all studies show positive discrimination barely ahs any effect on racial differences in society. I'm sure the Swell report will have flaws, but it's pretty heavily evidence driven. the fact most criticism claiming it was wrong came out before the report was published says a lot about the lack of evidence and rationality there is in the criticism of it.
Never read and never will read either report but let's not pretend this wasn't a political report. It got exactly the result to commissioners wanted as the people running it have been writing what they found in the press for years. At least David Cameron and Theresa May gave someone who wasn't obviously going to agree with them in David Lammy to run the report. And it is worth noting Boris Johnsons ethnic minorities advisor quit over how overtly political this report was. So maybe hold off on saying Lammy politicised his and this report is pure objectivity. Because it clearly is not.
I agree with you that socio economic factors play more heavily in the UK and low income white kids are also screwed. Wonder when the guys who commissioned the report will get around to fixing that.
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.
The Lammy report is more political and resorts to feelings and claims of misunderstandings. It states stuff like "the courts do not deliver any discriminatory verdicts but it should have more BAME Magistrates just because".
It ignores the fact trends in the UK and overwhelmingly social economic and multiple minorities do better than the English counter parts when all other factors are level. It also suggests positive discrimination, despite the fact all studies show positive discrimination barely ahs any effect on racial differences in society. I'm sure the Swell report will have flaws, but it's pretty heavily evidence driven. the fact most criticism claiming it was wrong came out before the report was published says a lot about the lack of evidence and rationality there is in the criticism of it.
Never read and never will read either report but let's not pretend this wasn't a political report. It got exactly the result to commissioners wanted as the people running it have been writing what they found in the press for years. At least David Cameron and Theresa May gave someone who wasn't obviously going to agree with them in David Lammy to run the report. And it is worth noting Boris Johnsons ethnic minorities advisor quit over how overtly political this report was. So maybe hold off on saying Lammy politicised his and this report is pure objectivity. Because it clearly is not.
I agree with you that socio economic factors play more heavily in the UK and low income white kids are also screwed. Wonder when the guys who commissioned the report will get around to fixing that.
I gave one example of how Lammy's report made inexplicable and evidence less recommendations of things that must be done, despite the fact there is no evidence for it. This is the guy who said live on TV he hasn't seen a police officers while a police officer literally stands in the same frame. When Lammy's report literally makes conclusions against the actual evidence it's telling. So yeah it's political because it reinforces the writers frequently politicized opinions on the issue which aren't born out by the facts. But you wouldn't know that because as you've just stated you don't read these reports. More criticism by someone who isn't evaluating the actual evidence.
Tony Sewell meanwhile is a son of a Jamaican immigrant who went to Jamaica to teach and runs a charity to seek out and support future STEM workers from disadvantaged communities who don't get those opportunities, he also wrote for the Voice, he isn't a politician like Lammy. Why exactly is he going to claim the trends in society are not down to institutionalized racism if the evidence is there? The narrative it's the government is rubbish, as shown by the fact these criticisms came by people who haven't even read the report . Politically this is far more independent than the Lammy report.
Johnson's minorities didn't quit over this report. He was planning to quit in February. But just because some one is a minorities advisor that doesn't make them someone who follows evidence and fact. As the report points out the evidence and data shows minorities are not being discriminated against, many actually succeed and there is racism in society in other ways.
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.
It's how I read it too.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 3:09 pm
by Torquemada 1420
Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:44 am
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.
Relativism is rarely a good benchmark. And actually is likely to result in the reverse. "Hey, the Met hates n*ggers but is nowhere near as bad as the NYPD. Let's celebrate. And do nothing further until the NYPD is less racist than the Met".
The Lammy report is more political and resorts to feelings and claims of misunderstandings. It states stuff like "the courts do not deliver any discriminatory verdicts but it should have more BAME Magistrates just because".
It ignores the fact trends in the UK and overwhelmingly social economic and multiple minorities do better than the English counter parts when all other factors are level. It also suggests positive discrimination, despite the fact all studies show positive discrimination barely ahs any effect on racial differences in society. I'm sure the Swell report will have flaws, but it's pretty heavily evidence driven. the fact most criticism claiming it was wrong came out before the report was published says a lot about the lack of evidence and rationality there is in the criticism of it.
Never read and never will read either report but let's not pretend this wasn't a political report. It got exactly the result to commissioners wanted as the people running it have been writing what they found in the press for years. At least David Cameron and Theresa May gave someone who wasn't obviously going to agree with them in David Lammy to run the report. And it is worth noting Boris Johnsons ethnic minorities advisor quit over how overtly political this report was. So maybe hold off on saying Lammy politicised his and this report is pure objectivity. Because it clearly is not.
I agree with you that socio economic factors play more heavily in the UK and low income white kids are also screwed. Wonder when the guys who commissioned the report will get around to fixing that.
I gave one example of how Lammy's report made inexplicable and evidence less recommendations of things that must be done, despite the fact there is no evidence for it. This is the guy who said live on TV he hasn't seen a police officers while a police officer literally stands in the same frame. When Lammy's report literally makes conclusions against the actual evidence it's telling. So yeah it's political because it reinforces the writers frequently politicized opinions on the issue which aren't born out by the facts. But you wouldn't know that because as you've just stated you don't read these reports. More criticism by someone who isn't evaluating the actual evidence.
Tony Sewell meanwhile is a son of a Jamaican immigrant who went to Jamaica to teach and runs a charity to seek out and support future STEM workers from disadvantaged communities who don't get those opportunities, he also wrote for the Voice, he isn't a politician like Lammy. Why exactly is he going to claim the trends in society are not down to institutionalized racism if the evidence is there? The narrative it's the government is rubbish, as shown by the fact these criticisms came by people who haven't even read the report . Politically this is far more independent than the Lammy report.
Johnson's minorities didn't quit over this report. He was planning to quit in February. But just because some one is a minorities advisor that doesn't make them someone who follows evidence and fact. As the report points out the evidence and data shows minorities are not being discriminated against, many actually succeed and there is racism in society in other ways.
Yes his quitting is just coincidenctal timing. If you believe that no wonder you believe the independence of this. I have a boat to sell too, if you're interested.
I believe Sewell believes the conclusion he came to. Just as I believe Lammy did. Just as I believe nobody does or will ever know how racist a country is or is not. Any report into this is totally pointless. Nobody ever changes things.
Lammy isn't just a politician btw. He's also a Harvard educated kid from a single parent household who became a practicing barrister in the UK and US. His professional experience is undeniable that he knows about the law and judicial system far better than most...
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Fri Apr 02, 2021 4:14 pm
by Random1
Whilst I was searching for my exchange with tichtheid, I saw a video I posted and watched it to remind myself of the content.
Anyone that has found this thread interesting, I would strongly recommend watching it. Neeps, even you may like it, as it gives new labour a poke in the eye in places.
For anyone outside of the uk, the reason it’s such an interesting piece, is that it is a reflection on the successes and failures of new labour’s equality agenda. It is written and presented by Trevor Phillips, who was the architect of much of the equality law and policy that is currently in place in the Uk.
I know it’s an hour, but it’s such a good investment of time, that I’ve just watched it all again.
Edit - apologies I promoted Trevor to knight of the realm, where he’s merely an OBE.
Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:44 am
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.
Relativism is rarely a good benchmark. And actually is likely to result in the reverse. "Hey, the Met hates n*ggers but is nowhere near as bad as the NYPD. Let's celebrate. And do nothing further until the NYPD is less racist than the Met".
Hugo wrote: ↑Fri Apr 02, 2021 9:44 am
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.
Relativism is rarely a good benchmark. And actually is likely to result in the reverse. "Hey, the Met hates n*ggers but is nowhere near as bad as the NYPD. Let's celebrate. And do nothing further until the NYPD is less racist than the Met".
Which is what absolutely no one is saying.
You have a remarkable knack for this, Torq
Much as I hate to agree with Torq, all he’s done is put an extreme example of why relativism is a poor measure in this area. And it is.
Relativism is rarely a good benchmark. And actually is likely to result in the reverse. "Hey, the Met hates n*ggers but is nowhere near as bad as the NYPD. Let's celebrate. And do nothing further until the NYPD is less racist than the Met".
Which is what absolutely no one is saying.
You have a remarkable knack for this, Torq
Much as I hate to agree with Torq, all he’s done is put an extreme example of why relativism is a poor measure in this area. And it is.
Relativism is not a problem in culture change. It is an important tool.
Ideologues believing in absolutes are the way to ruin, even when the ideology can be seen as morally pure.
George Orwell spent a lifetime exploring this matter.
Much as I hate to agree with Torq, all he’s done is put an extreme example of why relativism is a poor measure in this area. And it is.
Relativism is not a problem in culture change. It is an important tool.
Ideologues believing in absolutes are the way to ruin, even when the ideology can be seen as morally pure.
George Orwell spent a lifetime exploring this matter.
Not sure what you're meaning to be honest. Basic point here is saying 'I'm less racist than him' doesn't necessarily mean you're doing well in this area.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2021 9:56 pm
by notfatcat
Nothing wrong in comparing things, finding where you rank, establishing the norm.
Much as I hate to agree with Torq, all he’s done is put an extreme example of why relativism is a poor measure in this area. And it is.
Relativism is not a problem in culture change. It is an important tool.
Ideologues believing in absolutes are the way to ruin, even when the ideology can be seen as morally pure.
George Orwell spent a lifetime exploring this matter.
Not sure what you're meaning to be honest. Basic point here is saying 'I'm less racist than him' doesn't necessarily mean you're doing well in this area.
What I’m saying is that most change happens through small steps, especially legislative driven change.
One of the misunderstandings in terms of the law is that, really, it just provides a reset new platform from which to operate.
That’s why relativism is a useful measure/tool in law driven culture change.
Ultimately, small steps in the right direction should be encouraged. It’s the same as any leadership. By all means, stand there and moan and criticise that we aren’t good enough compared to the ideal, but don’t expect to have a happy team (or country when it comes to Politics with a big P)
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good as Voltaire would say.
The important thing is that inspired incremental change is almost always more impactful compared to dictated rapid change.
Don’t get me wrong, checks and balances, and the occasional legal intervention are critical to the process, but that’s why English common law, with its ‘precedence’ methodology is so powerful. Onwards. Sometimes slowly and imperfectly, but onwards.
Relativism is not a problem in culture change. It is an important tool.
Ideologues believing in absolutes are the way to ruin, even when the ideology can be seen as morally pure.
George Orwell spent a lifetime exploring this matter.
Not sure what you're meaning to be honest. Basic point here is saying 'I'm less racist than him' doesn't necessarily mean you're doing well in this area.
What I’m saying is that most change happens through small steps, especially legislative driven change.
One of the misunderstandings in terms of the law is that, really, it just provides a reset new platform from which to operate.
That’s why relativism is a useful measure/tool in law driven culture change.
Ultimately, small steps in the right direction should be encouraged. It’s the same as any leadership. By all means, stand there and moan and criticise that we aren’t good enough compared to the ideal, but don’t expect to have a happy team (or country when it comes to Politics with a big P)
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good as Voltaire would say.
The important thing is that inspired incremental change is almost always more impactful compared to dictated rapid change.
Don’t get me wrong, checks and balances, and the occasional legal intervention are critical to the process, but that’s why English common law, with its ‘precedence’ methodology is so powerful. Onwards. Sometimes slowly and imperfectly, but onwards.
But the problem is, you get people like the previous poster, who thinks it means there’s a ‘norm’ for racism.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:17 pm
by Tichtheid
@Random1, may I ask you a question?
Why don't you want to accept the premise that there is such a thing as White Privilege?
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:26 pm
by notfatcat
But the problem is, you get people like the previous poster, who thinks it means there’s a ‘norm’ for racism.
You don't think it's useful to look at what the norm is, or measure how good or bad or successful or unsuccessful things are when it comes to racism?
Not sure what you're meaning to be honest. Basic point here is saying 'I'm less racist than him' doesn't necessarily mean you're doing well in this area.
What I’m saying is that most change happens through small steps, especially legislative driven change.
One of the misunderstandings in terms of the law is that, really, it just provides a reset new platform from which to operate.
That’s why relativism is a useful measure/tool in law driven culture change.
Ultimately, small steps in the right direction should be encouraged. It’s the same as any leadership. By all means, stand there and moan and criticise that we aren’t good enough compared to the ideal, but don’t expect to have a happy team (or country when it comes to Politics with a big P)
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good as Voltaire would say.
The important thing is that inspired incremental change is almost always more impactful compared to dictated rapid change.
Don’t get me wrong, checks and balances, and the occasional legal intervention are critical to the process, but that’s why English common law, with its ‘precedence’ methodology is so powerful. Onwards. Sometimes slowly and imperfectly, but onwards.
But the problem is, you get people like the previous poster, who thinks it means there’s a ‘norm’ for racism.
You referring to Paddington?
If so, I believe him when he says he didn’t mean it that way. Tbf, I didn’t read it that way anyway, but can see others have.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:11 am
by Random1
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:17 pm
@Random1, may I ask you a question?
Why don't you want to accept the premise that there is such a thing as White Privilege?
1- attributing something to people solely based on the colour of their skin is racist. I don’t like racism, in any form and this stinks of it for me.
2- it is a divisive concept, and I don’t believe it is useful for sorting racism out.
3- the data doesn’t support it. The evidence for it is a mixture of subjective lived experience stuff and stats that just don’t stand up when analysed. That’s why the report released last week has gone down like a cold cup of sick, as the stats are decent quality and based on ONS stuff.
The only thing that I’ve seen that gives me a pause for thought on item 3 is the nyt piece you posted.
Now, if they did that in the Uk, and the same thing was proven, I’d reconsider. I do think the US has a particular race issue, and I don’t like extrapolations across the pond - we aren’t the same as the US.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:17 pm
@Random1, may I ask you a question?
Why don't you want to accept the premise that there is such a thing as White Privilege?
1- attributing something to people solely based on the colour of their skin is racist. I don’t like racism, in any form and this stinks of it for me.
2- it is a divisive concept, and I don’t believe it is useful for sorting racism out.
3- the data doesn’t support it. The evidence for it is a mixture of subjective lived experience stuff and stats that just don’t stand up when analysed. That’s why the report released last week has gone down like a cold cup of sick, as the stats are decent quality and based on ONS stuff.
The only thing that I’ve seen that gives me a pause for thought on item 3 is the nyt piece you posted.
Now, if they did that in the Uk, and the same thing was proven, I’d reconsider. I do think the US has a particular race issue, and I don’t like extrapolations across the pond - we aren’t the same as the US.
No, the professional organisations who have published their arguments against the report have done so with robust data and pointed out the the report ignored many points that showed that structural racism exists.
I'll ask again, why don't you want to accept the concept of White Privilege?
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:42 am
by Tichtheid
Or if if I can put it another way;
How does it hurt you to acknowledge that there is such a thing as White Privilege?
What do you lose from it being a thing?
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:50 am
by notfatcat
What does anyone gain from it being a thing? Rather, what does society gain from it being a thing - who benefits and how? Where did the term come from and why?
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:58 am
by Tichtheid
notfatcat wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:50 am
What does anyone gain from it being a thing? Rather, what does society gain from it being a thing - who benefits and how? Where did the term come from and why?
Society gains from shining a light on the dark places, it can show where there are areas where we need to improve.
That is the whole point of the the "White Privilege" idea, it's not about starting conflict, it's about ending conflict.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:09 am
by notfatcat
I'm not buying it. I want to know specifically how it's a benefit with some sort of proof or evidence from impartial studies, and studies which have also looked at any negative impacts of it.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:16 am
by Tichtheid
over to the left is a guy standing there saying he has been been the subject of institutional racism, the handcuffs and stop and searches are my evidence.
on the right is a guy saying "I'm not buying it. I want to know specifically how it's a benefit with some sort of proof or evidence from impartial studies, and studies which have also looked at any negative impacts of it."
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:39 am
by notfatcat
Oh well, case closed.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:40 am
by notfatcat
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:16 am
over to the left is a guy standing there saying he has been been the subject of institutional racism, the handcuffs and stop and searches are my evidence.
on the right is a guy saying "I'm not buying it. I want to know specifically how it's a benefit with some sort of proof or evidence from impartial studies, and studies which have also looked at any negative impacts of it."
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:16 am
over to the left is a guy standing there saying he has been been the subject of institutional racism, the handcuffs and stop and searches are my evidence.
on the right is a guy saying "I'm not buying it. I want to know specifically how it's a benefit with some sort of proof or evidence from impartial studies, and studies which have also looked at any negative impacts of it."
Just quoting this to ensure it stays here.
Just as as an aside and this is a genuine question;
Why do you want to ensure that stays here?
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:02 am
by Line6 HXFX
I think English supremacist ideas based on notions of Anglo Saxonism is key to understanding racism in the UK.
Interesting conversation Maajid Nawaz had with a lovely English guy last week, when this English guy (bold as brass, just as you like) insisted that Maajid wasn't English or British (even though he was born here), but his ethnic race was Pakistani.
This bloke couldn't understand that
A)Pakistan was created in 1947....so how the f'k is it a ethnic race?
B) That he was equating Englishness and Britishness with being White Anglo Saxon (even though he couldn't bring himself to say it). and completely ignoring all other races like Celtic in the UK..
For the last 15 to 20 years the beeb and the whole UK media allowed Jeremy Clarkson, and his mates (like Katie Hopkins etc) to eviscerate anyone not Anglo Saxon and Middle Class.
If even one of the targets of this abuse dared phone in and complain, this whole target group would get slaughtered by the right wing press for months or even years after, for being fragile, having no sense of humour and not having the inteligence, wit, or self awareness to get the joke and be amused by it...as only Middle Class Anglo Saxons have this ability etc.
So not only did these non Anglo Saxon middle class groups have to suffer the initial insult..which was always just dark and generally fucking disgusting, they would be ridiculed for not being as bright, funny as the Anglo middle classes. This trick was done to belittle basically everyone on the planet not Anglo and Middle Class.
Whole media careers were created using it.
We have a Prime Minister known for it.
So it was abuse... and then wait with twitching fingers.. and then massively abuse the people who complain about the abuse. Categorise them generally as "not one of us". Have a good ole Anglo Middle Class pile on, where they examine if these non Anglo, non middle class nations or groups even have a right to be.
The comments sections in papers and Twitter etc would take over would get so fucking racist, the initial insult was long forgotten, and three weeks into the anglo pile on when your Jeremy Clarkson's, Katie Hopkins would be long gone, it seemed every Anglo bigot in England would have a go..and it would hit quite eye watering peaks.
I never forget on Breakfast TV the comeback on the comfy couch was "and what do you say to people who say you have no sense of humour", this was after Clarkson (who is, by anyones estimation a right wing fucking goon show) suggested we should take all Union Leaders outside and shoot them in the back of the head.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sat Apr 03, 2021 10:17 pm
@Random1, may I ask you a question?
Why don't you want to accept the premise that there is such a thing as White Privilege?
1- attributing something to people solely based on the colour of their skin is racist. I don’t like racism, in any form and this stinks of it for me.
2- it is a divisive concept, and I don’t believe it is useful for sorting racism out.
3- the data doesn’t support it. The evidence for it is a mixture of subjective lived experience stuff and stats that just don’t stand up when analysed. That’s why the report released last week has gone down like a cold cup of sick, as the stats are decent quality and based on ONS stuff.
The only thing that I’ve seen that gives me a pause for thought on item 3 is the nyt piece you posted.
Now, if they did that in the Uk, and the same thing was proven, I’d reconsider. I do think the US has a particular race issue, and I don’t like extrapolations across the pond - we aren’t the same as the US.
No, the professional organisations who have published their arguments against the report have done so with robust data and pointed out the the report ignored many points that showed that structural racism exists.
I'll ask again, why don't you want to accept the concept of White Privilege?
If your reference to professional refutation is the likes of the Runnymede trust, then I’m less than impressed with what they’ve said.
Anyone that has done any statistical work would see through their response. It’s a very weak response to something that they’ve kicked off about.
What I’m saying is that most change happens through small steps, especially legislative driven change.
One of the misunderstandings in terms of the law is that, really, it just provides a reset new platform from which to operate.
That’s why relativism is a useful measure/tool in law driven culture change.
Ultimately, small steps in the right direction should be encouraged. It’s the same as any leadership. By all means, stand there and moan and criticise that we aren’t good enough compared to the ideal, but don’t expect to have a happy team (or country when it comes to Politics with a big P)
Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good as Voltaire would say.
The important thing is that inspired incremental change is almost always more impactful compared to dictated rapid change.
Don’t get me wrong, checks and balances, and the occasional legal intervention are critical to the process, but that’s why English common law, with its ‘precedence’ methodology is so powerful. Onwards. Sometimes slowly and imperfectly, but onwards.
But the problem is, you get people like the previous poster, who thinks it means there’s a ‘norm’ for racism.
You referring to Paddington?
If so, I believe him when he says he didn’t mean it that way. Tbf, I didn’t read it that way anyway, but can see others have.
No, notfatcat.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 7:53 am
by Random1
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 12:42 am
Or if if I can put it another way;
How does it hurt you to acknowledge that there is such a thing as White Privilege?
What do you lose from it being a thing?
That’s a sort of societal Pascal’s wager that I’d never considered before. I’m not religious either, as I don’t believe in things that aren’t supported by robust evidence. Perhaps I should just accept religion as it does me no harm?
Looking beyond that, to answer your second question; one thing that’s lost is my right to debate anything to do with race because of my colour.
One of the most insidious things about the concept is that it is an ad hominem argument on steroids, with consequences.
My opinion can be dismissed simply because I’m white.
And that’s where we get to the main issue I have (which I’ve already stated); it is a racist concept and will lead to deeper division in society.
Have you watched the Trevor Philips film? He goes into this in some detail.
Tichtheid wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 1:16 am
over to the left is a guy standing there saying he has been been the subject of institutional racism, the handcuffs and stop and searches are my evidence.
on the right is a guy saying "I'm not buying it. I want to know specifically how it's a benefit with some sort of proof or evidence from impartial studies, and studies which have also looked at any negative impacts of it."
Just quoting this to ensure it stays here.
Just as as an aside and this is a genuine question;
Why do you want to ensure that stays here?
Because I thought you might delete your post.
Re: White privilege and other matters
Posted: Sun Apr 04, 2021 8:53 am
by Sandstorm
Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:02 am
I think English supremacist ideas based on notions of Anglo Saxonism is key to understanding racism in the UK.
Interesting conversation Maajid Nawaz had with a lovely English guy last week, when this English guy (bold as brass, just as you like) insisted that Maajid wasn't English or British (even though he was born here), but his ethnic race was Pakistani.
This bloke couldn't understand that
A)Pakistan was created in 1947....so how the f'k is it a ethnic race?
B) That he was equating Englishness and Britishness with being White Anglo Saxon (even though he couldn't bring himself to say it). and completely ignoring all other races like Celtic in the UK..
For the last 15 to 20 years the beeb and the whole UK media allowed Jeremy Clarkson, and his mates (like Katie Hopkins etc) to eviscerate anyone not Anglo Saxon and Middle Class.
If even one of the targets of this abuse dared phone in and complain, this whole target group would get slaughtered by the right wing press for months or even years after, for being fragile, having no sense of humour and not having the inteligence, wit, or self awareness to get the joke and be amused by it...as only Middle Class Anglo Saxons have this ability etc.
So not only did these non Anglo Saxon middle class groups have to suffer the initial insult..which was always just dark and generally fucking disgusting, they would be ridiculed for not being as bright, funny as the Anglo middle classes. This trick was done to belittle basically everyone on the planet not Anglo and Middle Class.
Whole media careers were created using it.
We have a Prime Minister known for it.
So it was abuse... and then wait with twitching fingers.. and then massively abuse the people who complain about the abuse. Categorise them generally as "not one of us". Have a good ole Anglo Middle Class pile on, where they examine if these non Anglo, non middle class nations or groups even have a right to be.
The comments sections in papers and Twitter etc would take over would get so fucking racist, the initial insult was long forgotten, and three weeks into the anglo pile on when your Jeremy Clarkson's, Katie Hopkins would be long gone, it seemed every Anglo bigot in England would have a go..and it would hit quite eye watering peaks.
I never forget on Breakfast TV the comeback on the comfy couch was "and what do you say to people who say you have no sense of humour", this was after Clarkson (who is, by anyones estimation a right wing fucking goon show) suggested we should take all Union Leaders outside and shoot them in the back of the head.
Never read and never will read either report but let's not pretend this wasn't a political report. It got exactly the result to commissioners wanted as the people running it have been writing what they found in the press for years. At least David Cameron and Theresa May gave someone who wasn't obviously going to agree with them in David Lammy to run the report. And it is worth noting Boris Johnsons ethnic minorities advisor quit over how overtly political this report was. So maybe hold off on saying Lammy politicised his and this report is pure objectivity. Because it clearly is not.
I agree with you that socio economic factors play more heavily in the UK and low income white kids are also screwed. Wonder when the guys who commissioned the report will get around to fixing that.
I gave one example of how Lammy's report made inexplicable and evidence less recommendations of things that must be done, despite the fact there is no evidence for it. This is the guy who said live on TV he hasn't seen a police officers while a police officer literally stands in the same frame. When Lammy's report literally makes conclusions against the actual evidence it's telling. So yeah it's political because it reinforces the writers frequently politicized opinions on the issue which aren't born out by the facts. But you wouldn't know that because as you've just stated you don't read these reports. More criticism by someone who isn't evaluating the actual evidence.
Tony Sewell meanwhile is a son of a Jamaican immigrant who went to Jamaica to teach and runs a charity to seek out and support future STEM workers from disadvantaged communities who don't get those opportunities, he also wrote for the Voice, he isn't a politician like Lammy. Why exactly is he going to claim the trends in society are not down to institutionalized racism if the evidence is there? The narrative it's the government is rubbish, as shown by the fact these criticisms came by people who haven't even read the report . Politically this is far more independent than the Lammy report.
Johnson's minorities didn't quit over this report. He was planning to quit in February. But just because some one is a minorities advisor that doesn't make them someone who follows evidence and fact. As the report points out the evidence and data shows minorities are not being discriminated against, many actually succeed and there is racism in society in other ways.
Yes his quitting is just coincidenctal timing. If you believe that no wonder you believe the independence of this. I have a boat to sell too, if you're interested.
Of course, you're the expert who compares the Lammy and Swell reports and both politically motivated while having read neither. Don't act liek I'm the irrational one here.
I believe Sewell believes the conclusion he came to. Just as I believe Lammy did. Just as I believe nobody does or will ever know how racist a country is or is not. Any report into this is totally pointless. Nobody ever changes things.
They may both believe it. However as I pointed out, Lammy's just repeated hiw own beliefs in contrast to the actual evidence, often spouting conclusions and action points which contradicted his own factual findings.
Lammy isn't just a politician btw. He's also a Harvard educated kid from a single parent household who became a practicing barrister in the UK and US. His professional experience is undeniable that he knows about the law and judicial system far better than most...
And Blair was a highly educated lawyer from Oxford. Wanna claim Iraq was a perfectly justifiable and legal war?
Yes, and regardless of where he was educated he still produced a report that he ignores his own findings on racism in places. The Swell report doesn't claim there isn't racism in the UK, quite the opposite, especially where social media is concerned. But it highlights that institutional racisms as claimed has such a big barrier to holding people back isn't born out but he evidence, the simplest bit of evidence is ethnic minorities are more successful than "native whites" and it all fits social economic indicators rather than race.
Line6 HXFX wrote: ↑Sun Apr 04, 2021 4:02 am
I think English supremacist ideas based on notions of Anglo Saxonism is key to understanding racism in the UK.
Interesting conversation Maajid Nawaz had with a lovely English guy last week, when this English guy (bold as brass, just as you like) insisted that Maajid wasn't English or British (even though he was born here), but his ethnic race was Pakistani.
This bloke couldn't understand that
A)Pakistan was created in 1947....so how the f'k is it a ethnic race?
B) That he was equating Englishness and Britishness with being White Anglo Saxon (even though he couldn't bring himself to say it). and completely ignoring all other races like Celtic in the UK..
For the last 15 to 20 years the beeb and the whole UK media allowed Jeremy Clarkson, and his mates (like Katie Hopkins etc) to eviscerate anyone not Anglo Saxon and Middle Class.
If even one of the targets of this abuse dared phone in and complain, this whole target group would get slaughtered by the right wing press for months or even years after, for being fragile, having no sense of humour and not having the inteligence, wit, or self awareness to get the joke and be amused by it...as only Middle Class Anglo Saxons have this ability etc.
So not only did these non Anglo Saxon middle class groups have to suffer the initial insult..which was always just dark and generally fucking disgusting, they would be ridiculed for not being as bright, funny as the Anglo middle classes. This trick was done to belittle basically everyone on the planet not Anglo and Middle Class.
Whole media careers were created using it.
We have a Prime Minister known for it.
So it was abuse... and then wait with twitching fingers.. and then massively abuse the people who complain about the abuse. Categorise them generally as "not one of us". Have a good ole Anglo Middle Class pile on, where they examine if these non Anglo, non middle class nations or groups even have a right to be.
The comments sections in papers and Twitter etc would take over would get so fucking racist, the initial insult was long forgotten, and three weeks into the anglo pile on when your Jeremy Clarkson's, Katie Hopkins would be long gone, it seemed every Anglo bigot in England would have a go..and it would hit quite eye watering peaks.
I never forget on Breakfast TV the comeback on the comfy couch was "and what do you say to people who say you have no sense of humour", this was after Clarkson (who is, by anyones estimation a right wing fucking goon show) suggested we should take all Union Leaders outside and shoot them in the back of the head.
Decent post REFRY
Yeah, but it's not only racist English people who think of "English" as being an ethnic group as the caller does. I can't remember the figures but I saw the results of a survey where I think the majority of non white British people think of themselves as British rather than English, and that has to do with their perception of "English" as an ethnic group to which they do not belong.
