Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Johnoco

Racial Harmony

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

All lives matter coop!

Indeed they do. I do feel the laws need to be tougher against ALL forms of hatred than currently. It seems you can get away with saying almost anything on social media and nothing is done sadly.

Edited by Lounge Room Lizard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

just learning about what happened during indian independence, these people were THE SAME RACE jeeeeeeeezz - what hope is there for anyone?


the grass may be greener on the other side of the fence but the crows are just as black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, gingerjon said:

Most people are decent. Racism and racist acts are rising.

There's no contradiction there.

I was actually being bit disingenuous there and not entirely serious but since you mention it, if definitions stretch and we now class almost every argument/confrontation as racist, then clearly the number of incidents will rise.

Like hate crime, when the definition means anything to anyone it's hard to differentiate between racism and race hatred and general arguing/disagreement.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By and large the vast majority of people in this country rub along together just fine, getting on with their lives with a live and let live attitude. There are a very small (proportionally) number of extremists of all different races who unfortunately set the agenda due to our sensationalistic media.

People use the statistics as evidence of rising racism, but I'm with Johnoco on this that "hate crime" has kind of lost its perspective. Things that aren't really driven by hate are now categorised as such if someone takes offence. I think the rise in "hate crime" is sad, but mainly because it is a reflection of a society that is becoming more and more over-sensitive and over-protective. From parents who won't let their kids go out and scrape their knees to people who get offended by pretty innocuous things.

The original question was will there ever be racial harmony ? The answer is no. How can there be ? To have that there'd need to be complete societal harmony which hasn't and never will exist. People will always find something to be in conflict about regardless of their race, religion or nationality. 

 

  • Like 1

I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No wonder recorded hate crime is rising, this, from the Met Police website -  (my highlights)

 

What Is Hate Crime

A hate crime is when someone commits a crime against you because of your disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other difference.

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

(So does that mean if a Chinese man is walking down the street and an Englishman pinches his wallet and runs off, that's a 'normal' crime.  But if the Chinese mans aunty Mabel, who didn't witness the crime and lives 100 miles away, 'believes' it was motivated by hate, then it is classed as a hate crime???  Or even to a silly extent, if a man with a ginger moustache is robbed, if someone else thinks the robber picked on the man because, with his ginger moustache he was 'different, then that is classed as a hate crime??)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, graveyard johnny said:

just learning about what happened during indian independence, these people were THE SAME RACE jeeeeeeeezz - what hope is there for anyone?

India has about the same number of ethnic groups and languages as Europe does. Add in a bunch of different religions, massive disparities in wealth, food & water shortages and a colonial power (us) that wasn't above a bit of divide and conquer when necessary, it's amazing the place has been as peaceful as it has.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, JonM said:

India has about the same number of ethnic groups and languages as Europe does. Add in a bunch of different religions, massive disparities in wealth, food & water shortages and a colonial power (us) that wasn't above a bit of divide and conquer when necessary, it's amazing the place has been as peaceful as it has.

words out of my mouth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are only two groups of people. People I like and people I don't like! Now for me to put INDIVIDUALS into either group I need to have spoken to them or seen their actions. That means the vast majority of humans I have no opinion on. I will continue to live my life by these rules. 


2014 Challenged Cup Winner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Johnoco said:

But the NF were there, ready and in place. All they had to do was vote for them? A cross in box? Why didn't they?

Maybe they just weren't that popular? And maybe more people actually opposed them than were for them?

BTW

If I ever find it, I have footage of a NF meeting in Bradford from 1979 somewhere on a memory stick. I was there (just kids throwing stones at them really) and the opposition was significant. It's a good piece of social history. If I ever find it you're welcome to see it.

I think there is room for a "resepctable" racist party to get about 13% of the vote in most western European countries.  If there is PR, this can make them a powerful king-maker.  With FPTP, it tends to keep them insignificant.  

Something that gives me hope for the future is how horrrific the default is.  Considering people of another tribe to be equally human took a great deal of time to develop.  It is obvious now, as it is true.  People do develop traditions that are learnt from history.  It turns out that accepting peoples' differences is the best way of living alongside them, even if it is annoying.

Racism varies dramatically across cultures and times. One irritiation I have with many progressives is they try and impose arguments that are progressive in the USA onto the UK.  that race is part of the reason for some why Anthony Joshua is the goodie and Tyson Fury the baddie would be bizarre in the USA.  The fact there are these differences though does show that the nature of the problem is not inevitable and innate, or it would express itself in the same way in all times and all places.

  • Like 1

"You clearly have never met Bob8 then, he's like a veritable Bryan Ferry of RL." - Johnoco 19 Jul 2014

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

I think there is room for a "resepctable" racist party to get about 13% of the vote in most western European countries.  If there is PR, this can make them a powerful king-maker.  With FPTP, it tends to keep them insignificant.  

Something that gives me hope for the future is how horrrific the default is.  Considering people of another tribe to be equally human took a great deal of time to develop.  It is obvious now, as it is true.  People do develop traditions that are learnt from history.  It turns out that accepting peoples' differences is the best way of living alongside them, even if it is annoying.

Racism varies dramatically across cultures and times. One irritiation I have with many progressives is they try and impose arguments that are progressive in the USA onto the UK.  that race is part of the reason for some why Anthony Joshua is the goodie and Tyson Fury the baddie would be bizarre in the USA.  The fact there are these differences though does show that the nature of the problem is not inevitable and innate, or it would express itself in the same way in all times and all places.

Good points.

On respectability, I'd say Moseley in the 30's was very respectable and 'famous' if you like. Yet still didn't garner that much support. I suppose my irritation is the constantly implied scenario that Britain is awash with racists and they're just waiting for the flare to go up.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Derwent said:

By and large the vast majority of people in this country rub along together just fine, getting on with their lives with a live and let live attitude. There are a very small (proportionally) number of extremists of all different races who unfortunately set the agenda due to our sensationalistic media.

People use the statistics as evidence of rising racism, but I'm with Johnoco on this that "hate crime" has kind of lost its perspective. Things that aren't really driven by hate are now categorised as such if someone takes offence. I think the rise in "hate crime" is sad, but mainly because it is a reflection of a society that is becoming more and more over-sensitive and over-protective. From parents who won't let their kids go out and scrape their knees to people who get offended by pretty innocuous things.

The original question was will there ever be racial harmony ? The answer is no. How can there be ? To have that there'd need to be complete societal harmony which hasn't and never will exist. People will always find something to be in conflict about regardless of their race, religion or nationality. 

 

easy to say if you are white.

Wonder what a uk citizen who belongs to a racial minority would make of your comment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Jasper said:

No wonder recorded hate crime is rising, this, from the Met Police website -  (my highlights)

 

What Is Hate Crime

A hate crime is when someone commits a crime against you because of your disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other difference.

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

(So does that mean if a Chinese man is walking down the street and an Englishman pinches his wallet and runs off, that's a 'normal' crime.  But if the Chinese mans aunty Mabel, who didn't witness the crime and lives 100 miles away, 'believes' it was motivated by hate, then it is classed as a hate crime???  Or even to a silly extent, if a man with a ginger moustache is robbed, if someone else thinks the robber picked on the man because, with his ginger moustache he was 'different, then that is classed as a hate crime??)

 

This sounds like a spoof but under that criteria is classified as such. It's pretty ludicrous and in the end trivialises serious crime that is actually carried out by hatred.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Derwent said:

The original question was will there ever be racial harmony ? The answer is no. How can there be ? To have that there'd need to be complete societal harmony which hasn't and never will exist. People will always find something to be in conflict about regardless of their race, religion or nationality. 

 

This is pretty much how I see it. There seems to be a common argument that if it wasn't for white people, everyone else would have lived in utopia and life would be cushty. But the evidence says otherwise.

People have always fought each other from the next settlement over the hill, to marauding invaders. Someone mentioned India in the thread and partition. While the British do have a lot to answer for in that case, does anyone think violence between Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs began with the Raj? It was going on for centuries.

Slavery too. Let's not play down the part played by British traders in this particular stain on humanity but why is it the Arabs get off so lightly here from black activists? They invented commercial slave trading, which the Europeans (Portuguese first) copied. But I never hear of them getting blamed for it.

Anyway, the point  is that if there were no white people, there would still be racism. And if everyone was 100% the same colour then they'd fall out over hair colour or nose size.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jasper said:

No wonder recorded hate crime is rising, this, from the Met Police website -  (my highlights)

 

What Is Hate Crime

A hate crime is when someone commits a crime against you because of your disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other difference.

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

(So does that mean if a Chinese man is walking down the street and an Englishman pinches his wallet and runs off, that's a 'normal' crime.  But if the Chinese mans aunty Mabel, who didn't witness the crime and lives 100 miles away, 'believes' it was motivated by hate, then it is classed as a hate crime???  Or even to a silly extent, if a man with a ginger moustache is robbed, if someone else thinks the robber picked on the man because, with his ginger moustache he was 'different, then that is classed as a hate crime??)

 

That is exactly the point I made earlier in the thread but my response was trashed, as usual!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jasper said:

No wonder recorded hate crime is rising, this, from the Met Police website -  (my highlights)

 

What Is Hate Crime

A hate crime is when someone commits a crime against you because of your disability, gender identity, race, sexual orientation, religion, or any other difference.

If someone commits a criminal offence and the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we class this as a ‘hate crime’. It means the offender can be charged for the crime itself and also their reasons for doing it.

If someone does something that isn’t a criminal offence but the victim, or anyone else, believes it was motivated by prejudice or hate, we would class this as a ‘hate incident’. Though what the perpetrator has done may not be against the law, their reasons for doing it are. This means it may be possible to charge them with an offence.

(So does that mean if a Chinese man is walking down the street and an Englishman pinches his wallet and runs off, that's a 'normal' crime.  But if the Chinese mans aunty Mabel, who didn't witness the crime and lives 100 miles away, 'believes' it was motivated by hate, then it is classed as a hate crime???  Or even to a silly extent, if a man with a ginger moustache is robbed, if someone else thinks the robber picked on the man because, with his ginger moustache he was 'different, then that is classed as a hate crime??)

 

Yeah, probably best we just assume that all recorded hate crimes fit to some very minor and laughable standard that you've just made up.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Yeah, probably best we just assume that all recorded hate crimes fit to some very minor and laughable standard that you've just made up.

It's pcgm that's what it is. People can't take a joke any more. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Johnoco said:

This is pretty much how I see it. There seems to be a common argument that if it wasn't for white people, everyone else would have lived in utopia and life would be cushty. But the evidence says otherwise.

People have always fought each other from the next settlement over the hill, to marauding invaders. Someone mentioned India in the thread and partition. While the British do have a lot to answer for in that case, does anyone think violence between Muslims and Hindus/Sikhs began with the Raj? It was going on for centuries.

Slavery too. Let's not play down the part played by British traders in this particular stain on humanity but why is it the Arabs get off so lightly here from black activists? They invented commercial slave trading, which the Europeans (Portuguese first) copied. But I never hear of them getting blamed for it.

Anyway, the point  is that if there were no white people, there would still be racism. And if everyone was 100% the same colour then they'd fall out over hair colour or nose size.

The thing that really cemented my view on how to define "racism" was the Rwandan genocides where I finally learned to understand that racism does not have to be built on the colour of anyone's skin, their hair colour, nose size or sky fairy worship.  Defining racism to be all about skin colour, especially just white on (insert other colour of skin) is wrong and misses the point.  Rwanda was all about xenophobic racial hatred stoked for political gain by one group of Africans against others, the culminating genocidal extermination was the ultimate expression of racist hatred.

The harder people try to put a hard defining line around "racism" to suit their particular subjective understanding of "racism", the less effective it actually is in defining the problem.  This is why I'm OK with things like the white Englishman in Aberdeen who won a racism case against a Scottish company for allowing anti-English abuse from his co-workers.

Bearing in mind my statement above about hard defining lines, here's my attempt to draw that line: are one or more people being unfairly discriminated against due to their cultural differences?  If yes, then it's racism.  The unfair bit is important as it allows legal discrimination, e.g. stopping certain cultural clothing or artefacts for genuine safety reasons.


"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ckn said:

The thing that really cemented my view on how to define "racism" was the Rwandan genocides where I finally learned to understand that racism does not have to be built on the colour of anyone's skin, their hair colour, nose size or sky fairy worship.  Defining racism to be all about skin colour, especially just white on (insert other colour of skin) is wrong and misses the point.  Rwanda was all about xenophobic racial hatred stoked for political gain by one group of Africans against others, the culminating genocidal extermination was the ultimate expression of racist hatred.

The harder people try to put a hard defining line around "racism" to suit their particular subjective understanding of "racism", the less effective it actually is in defining the problem.  This is why I'm OK with things like the white Englishman in Aberdeen who won a racism case against a Scottish company for allowing anti-English abuse from his co-workers.

Bearing in mind my statement above about hard defining lines, here's my attempt to draw that line: are one or more people being unfairly discriminated against due to their cultural differences?  If yes, then it's racism.  The unfair bit is important as it allows legal discrimination, e.g. stopping certain cultural clothing or artefacts for genuine safety reasons.

I agree, and I think that everyone who participates in this forum no matter what side of the political spectrum they are part of understands that racism is just that, no matter what direction it comes from.

But I would suggest that in this country a white person's experience of racism in the UK is radically different to that of a UK citizen of the UK who is from a racial minority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tongs ya bas said:

I agree, and I think that everyone who participates in this forum no matter what side of the political spectrum they are part of understands that racism is just that, no matter what direction it comes from.

But I would suggest that in this country a white person's experience of racism in the UK is radically different to that of a UK citizen of the UK who is from a racial minority.

I get your point, I really do, but racism is racism.  To say that, say black-on-white racism is in any way less wrong because of historical actions and perceptions than white-on-black racism is wrong.  Treat all racism the same otherwise you build resentment and unfairness into the system.

The Rotherham child abuse was a perfect example, because people did not want to be called racist they allowed racist abusers to get away with outrageous crimes despite clear evidence of those crimes, that has then allowed others who are racist against Asian Muslims to have their freedom to be racist themselves against the entire Asian Muslim culture.  A circle of hatred in all directions that was exacerbated by people trying to be non-racist therefore doing nothing.

Just treat everyone the same regardless of the history of racism towards their culture, skin colour or heritage.  If that means a few non-white people get over-precious about being treated the same as white people, or white people being outraged at being equated to immigrant brown people, then so be it.  You have to draw a line somewhere or you just build inequality into the system.

  • Like 4

"When in deadly danger, when beset by doubt; run in little circles, wave your arms and shout"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, gingerjon said:

Yeah, probably best we just assume that all recorded hate crimes fit to some very minor and laughable standard that you've just made up.

The 'laughable' standards are real enough, how's it his fault?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Johnoco said:

The 'laughable' standards are real enough, how's it his fault?

Perhaps you could give an example of when someone's distant aunt 100 miles away was able to get someone pointing a ginger moustache hauled up for a hate crime?

  • Like 1

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, ckn said:

I get your point, I really do, but racism is racism.  To say that, say black-on-white racism is in any way less wrong because of historical actions and perceptions than white-on-black racism is wrong.  Treat all racism the same otherwise you build resentment and unfairness into the system.

The Rotherham child abuse was a perfect example, because people did not want to be called racist they allowed racist abusers to get away with outrageous crimes despite clear evidence of those crimes, that has then allowed others who are racist against Asian Muslims to have their freedom to be racist themselves against the entire Asian Muslim culture.  A circle of hatred in all directions that was exacerbated by people trying to be non-racist therefore doing nothing.

Just treat everyone the same regardless of the history of racism towards their culture, skin colour or heritage.  If that means a few non-white people get over-precious about being treated the same as white people, or white people being outraged at being equated to immigrant brown people, then so be it.  You have to draw a line somewhere or you just build inequality into the system.

This is why the whole positive discrimination thing is wrong. Well intentioned I'm sure but somewhere along the line the drive for equality morphed into favouritism, which is very ironic. People who say they want equality often don't actually mean that, what they want is to be treated favourably.


I’m not prejudiced, I hate everybody equally

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Perhaps you could give an example of when someone's distant aunt 100 miles away was able to get someone pointing a ginger moustache hauled up for a hate crime?

I don't have to but if someone did indeed want to do that, they could. And it would all go on the hate crime stats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, ckn said:

I get your point, I really do, but racism is racism.  To say that, say black-on-white racism is in any way less wrong because of historical actions and perceptions than white-on-black racism is wrong.  Treat all racism the same otherwise you build resentment and unfairness into the system.

The Rotherham child abuse was a perfect example, because people did not want to be called racist they allowed racist abusers to get away with outrageous crimes despite clear evidence of those crimes, that has then allowed others who are racist against Asian Muslims to have their freedom to be racist themselves against the entire Asian Muslim culture.  A circle of hatred in all directions that was exacerbated by people trying to be non-racist therefore doing nothing.

Just treat everyone the same regardless of the history of racism towards their culture, skin colour or heritage.  If that means a few non-white people get over-precious about being treated the same as white people, or white people being outraged at being equated to immigrant brown people, then so be it.  You have to draw a line somewhere or you just build inequality into the system.

Your first para replicates what I said.

There were were several contributory factors at the heart of Rotherham, Rochdale, Keighley and the other scandals; complacency, a lack of respect for the victims because of who they were, and not wanting to seem 'racist'. The last one reveals an incredible lack of knowledge and training on behalf of the agencies concerned. 

If you are a white person in the UK the likelihood of being treated in a racist way is slim.

If you are a member of a racial minority the likelihood of encountering racism on a daily basis for the whole of your life is high. We can see this by looking at almost all representations of life in the UK, from anecdotal, to incidences of racial abuse, to the absence of racial minorities in higher education, the professions, the military, the police, and in the disproportionate treatment of racial minorities by the police: stop and search for example. 

We both know that 'racism is racism' and we have both said so. But the way that pans out is somewhat less even handed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Derwent said:

This is why the whole positive discrimination thing is wrong. Well intentioned I'm sure but somewhere along the line the drive for equality morphed into favouritism, which is very ironic. People who say they want equality often don't actually mean that, what they want is to be treated favourably.

It is nothing of the kind.

For a start there is no such thing as 'positive discrimination'.

What we have, or supposed to have is equality of opportunity. This is erroneously, and malevolently called positive discrimination.

Equality of opportunity doesn't just apply to racial minorities. It relates to gender: just look how women are under represented in many walks of life, and how their remuneration differs, disability, sexual orientation, age, and race.

It is about representation.

 

If a group of people apply for a job, who have comparable ability, qualifications, experience and personal qualities and one of the candidates is from an under represented group: who are you going to employ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...