Is the White Male Under Attack?

[caryn4freedom]

A friend recently turned me onto the book: "Attack on the White Male and the Weakening of America" by Dr. DeFelice. I feel this book is an essential read for the young men who aren't aware that they are having the tables turned so far around on them, and are being painted by the rest of the country as rich, bigoted, over-privileged a-holes, and that their rights are slowly being stripped away. I am simply floored by DeFelice's straightforward, honest discussion with the young white man he is trying to reach.
The topic of reverse discrimination has been an extremely controversial and difficult to debate. Many of us have heard whispers here and there about the injustices that affirmative action laws have done to non-minority groups, when quite honestly, there should be a roar. Why is this?
Fear. The liberal media has taken to calling anyone who might call for ACTUAL color-blind equal opportunity as racist and bigoted, or those who disapprove of more qualified men being passed over for promotions in place of women, just to meet quota, as misogynists. There seems no ability to sit down and have a logical debate about the effectiveness of these laws. The minorities in favor use irrelevant emotional arguments and anyone who points it out is written off as a bigot.
Let me point out that anyone who is alive today to have seen the remnants of slavery was not old enough at the time to have actually owned slaves. As a white female whose American lineage can be traced as far back as the time of the revolution, I can honestly say there is a good chance that someone in my ancestry had a part in slavery. And yet I certainly don’t give my racially mixed family members more chores to do when they visit my home! My sons don’t have a racist bone in their body, and their girlfriends are very intelligent, strong willed young women.
Seeing as the only strong argument I ever hear in favor of affirmative action is due to all of the harm “we” have caused minorities, why is it my sons, who have never done anything to harm these groups, are being passed over for scholarships while their half-Hispanic cousin has a free ride to college? My nephew is no dummy, but neither are my boys. They have all been at about the same level of ability, grades, and extracurricular activities, yet because of the color of their skin, I have to go into debt to give them an opportunity to succeed in life. Then entering the workforce, they have to contend with racial quotas. Author Dr. DeFelice mentions in his book, “Attack on the White Male and the Weakening of America”, that colleges consistently hold “diversity days” and fail to invite white males!
I truly dream of a world where I am not asked my racial background on every legal document I sign. I dream of a world where competition and greater skill choose our leaders for tomorrow, and not the amount of melanin in our skin or the nature of our genitals.
Discrimination is wrong. To try to make right the injustices done to minorities by doing injustices to people of a majority is ridiculous, and someone needs to stand up for the white male and demand freedom from discrimination. Women outnumber men. And minority groups, when combined into one, outnumber whites. If all of the minority groups get together and fight for this legalized discrimination, who becomes the minority? Now who can't speak up for fear of attack??

[spookymulder93]

The Times are A Changin


LOL.

[Alexander III]

I think the more pressing question is the racism the 21st century society, unrightly thrusts upon gingers. It is simple terrible, they are abused and misused and no one is willing to protect them from the savageries committed to them due to their gingerness. It is time to end ginger racism, just because they don't have souls doesn't mean they aren't people...

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=caryn4freedom;949848 [/QUOTE]

carin4freedom,

You are up against something that has become a virtual religion in Europe and the USA since 1945 and that is self-righteousness, a force which, although seen in mankind for centuries, gained a lot of ground during the 19th century and today appears to be all pervasive. What you are witnessing is the self-inflicted end of western civilisation. The East is waiting in the wings.

[OrphanPip]

1) You're attacking a straw man, the arguments supporting affirmative action, as it is called in the US, are not based on the harm done to minorities in the past. It arises from the fact that people still believe there are institutional barriers which make it less likely for an equally qualified person of a minority group to achieve a job. Last time I looked around, women were still being payed much less than men on average, as are racial minorities with respect to white people. It has nothing to do with righting injustices of the past, but righting the injustices of today.

2) Attempting to paint affirmative action as "reverse racism" is merely a political smear tactic.

3) Just the idea that slavery was the last time African Americans were wronged is laughable.

[spookymulder93]

I think the more pressing question is the racism the 21st century society, unrightly thrusts upon gingers. It is simple terrible, they are abused and misused and no one is willing to protect them from the savageries committed to them due to their gingerness. It is time to end ginger racism, just because they don't have souls doesn't mean they aren't people...

Now I have to go and watch South Park.

[Desolation]

If you're a wingnut who thinks that the "liberal media" is trying to break into your house at night and drill holes into your brain to make you serve a NWO, then I could see how you might think that white men have it rough in America.

:patriot:

And for the record, yes, I do wish that there were as many scholarships open to me as there are to black people...Oh wait, there are, and I'm more likely, as a white male, to get them. I've just never taken the time to actually look for them instead of complaining about those 2 or 3 scholarships that are only open to black people. Silly me.

[DanielBenoit]

{edit} I do not come on these forums to hear {edit} about how the white male is under attack. Nonsense. Go tell that to every gay, Hispanic, black man or woman living in America today. Racism is not dead and it cannot be ignored in todays society just because we've made some leaps in progress.

Secondly, I would like to kindly ask the original poster if she will kindly give us a statistic of the number of cases of workplace discrimination against white males compared to say. . .black women. Just wondering. . .

Anyhow, this thread should be closed. It's subject is nonsense and is bound to compel some hurtful arguments. Besides, discusison of current politics is not allowed.

[Alexander III]

I say leave the thread open as a tribute to Mankind's Satyre

[BienvenuJDC]

I agree that social injustices toward the white male is getting out of hand. I don't see this as a political issue at all. It is the discussion of a book about the social order of society. I can't see why this thread should be closed at all.

[Emil Miller]

{edit}
The minorities in favor use irrelevant emotional arguments and anyone who points it out is written off as a bigot.

I'm afraid that the above quote from the original post has proven her point.

[DanielBenoit]

{edit}

The minorities in favor use irrelevant emotional arguments and anyone who points it out is written off as a bigot.

I'm afraid that the above quote from the original post has proven her point.

Pleease, do you sincerely believe that the average white American male faces more discrimination in this country (I refer to the U.S.) than the average racial or sexual minority? Honestly, do you believe that?

EDIT: Seeing as you're from England I'll pose the same question in regards to your homeland, and even though I know little about race relations there, I'm sure that they're not radically different from the U.S.

[BienvenuJDC]

Pleease, do you sincerely believe that the average white American male faces more discrimination in this country (I refer to the U.S.) than the average racial or sexual minority? Honestly, do you believe that?

EDIT: Seeing as you're from England I'll pose the same question in regards to your homeland, and even though I know little about race relations there, I'm sure that they're not radically different from the U.S.

Yes, I do. Not comparable to the racial injustices from the 1960s, but yes, there are just as many social injustices for the white man today as the black man (etc) today, but now they are supported by societal establishments.

Do you realize that there are many jobs awarded to minorities (simply because they are a minority)? Have you ever heard of Minority Owned Businesses (and Woman Owned Businesses)? They have preference over those that are owned by white males. So, in answer to your question...yes, yes, I do.

Furthermore, minorities are awarded extra points in the Civil Servant tests because they are black. These are not the only examples.

[DanielBenoit]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;950092]

Yes, I do. Not comparable to the racial injustices from the 1960s, but yes, there are just as many social injustices for the white man today as the black man (etc) today, but now they are supported by societal establishments.

Do you realize that there are many jobs awarded to minorities (simply because they are a minority)? Have you ever heard of Minority Owned Businesses (and Woman Owned Businesses)? They have preference over those that are owned by white males. So, in answer to your question...yes, yes, I do.

Furthermore, minorities are awarded extra points in the Civil Servant tests because they are black. These are not the only examples.

Please provide me some statistics or links I would be very happy to see them.

According to Bendick and Egan Economic Consultants, in a study conducted on candidates applying as a waiter/waitress at upscale Manhattan resturaunts, these were the results in regards to the white applicants and the black applicants, some percentages are insignificant and some are very significant:

http://workexposed.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/recruiting-discrmination.png

You may also find this rather interesting coming from a Gallup poll taken in 2005:

The charges were broken down on the following bases of discrimination (note that percentages add up to more than 100% because multiple bases are often alleged in a single charge filing):


Race discrimination accounted for about 36% of all charges, following a historical trend.
Within the context of race filings, 82.5% of charges were brought by African Americans, with Asian/Pacific Islanders filing only 3% -- a sharp contrast with the 30% of Asians employees who responding to the Gallup survey that they perceived discrimination on-the-job.
Sex discrimination accounted for 31% of all charges, with the majority of filings by women.
Retaliation accounted for 24% of Title VII charges, and about 29% of all charges.
National Origin accounted for about 11% of all charges, with 50% filed by Hispanics.

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-8-05.cfm


Also, here are the Hate Crime statistics taken by the FBI for 2008: http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/incidents.html


Racial bias
In 2008, law enforcement agencies reported that 4,704 offenses among single-bias hate crime incidents were racially motivated. Of these offenses:

72.6 percent were motivated by anti-black bias.
17.3 percent stemmed from anti-white bias.
5.5 percent were a result of bias against groups of individuals consisting of more than one race (anti-multiple races, group).
3.4 percent resulted from anti-Asian/Pacific Islander bias.
1.3 percent were motivated by anti-American Indian/Alaskan Native bias. (Based on Table 1.)

Btw, as far as Minority or Woman Owned Businesses go. . .what in the world is wrong with that? What is wrong with a black CEO or a woman CEO? Are you implying that a business owned by blacks or women is more likely to discriminate against white male workers than businesses owned by white males?

Here is the webstie for the MBDA and nowhere does it talk about discriminating against whites. It is merely an organization to help and assist minority-owned businesses (say. . .a small business owned by a Hispanic family?).

http://www.mbda.gov/

[Emil Miller]

Pleease, do you sincerely believe that the average white American male faces more discrimination in this country (I refer to the U.S.) than the average racial or sexual minority? Honestly, do you believe that?

EDIT: Seeing as you're from England I'll pose the same question in regards to your homeland, and even though I know little about race relations there, I'm sure that they're not radically different from the U.S.

I don't know about the average white male in the US but, as Dr. DeFelice points out in his book, there are certainly cases of anti-white discrimination in the USA. As far as the UK is concerned, it would seem that a very similar situation prevails; after all, 'liberalism' is 'liberalism' wherever it raises its head.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't know about the average white male in the US but, as Dr. DeFelice points out in his book, there are certainly cases of anti-white discrimination in the USA. As far as the UK is concerned, it would seem that a very similar situation prevails; after all, 'liberalism' is 'liberalism' wherever it raises its head.

Nonsense. What does this have to do with liberals? It's been liberals who have been fighting workplace discrimination ever since the Civil Rights era. But none of that, as the mere mention of political party or stance is enough to endanger this thread.

And yes of course there are cases of anti-white discrimination, there will always be cases of anti-any race discrimination as long as we live in a free and diverse country. It's a bad symptom of democracy and something that we cannot entirely be rid of, but can still try our best to discourage and decrease.

But if you look at the statistics, to call the white male "under attack" by minorities is an absurdity.

[BienvenuJDC]

[QUOTE=BienvenuJDC;950096]
Btw, as far as Minority or Woman Owned Businesses go. . .what in the world is wrong with that? What is wrong with a black CEO or a woman CEO? Are you implying that a business owned by blacks or women is more likely to discriminate against white male workers than businesses owned by white males?

Here is the webstie for the MBDA and nowhere does it talk about discriminating against whites. It is merely an organization to help and assist minority-owned businesses (say. . .a small business owned by a Hispanic family?).



There is requirement for certain jobs to use Minority/Woman Owned Businesses. That is racism. no matter how you paint it, it is racism. Whenever you prefer or discriminate against based on race, it is racism. I don't have statistics, I have experienced it personally. I have read the specs for projects with language that blatantly giving preference to minorities. And have been subject to losing jobs for the same reason. Companies even go under because they don't have the jobs.

[dafydd manton]

But, is it in the minority?

[papayahed]

I call this the old white guy syndrome. I believe it isn't what minorites themselves are doing it's just that fact that we are growing and gaining higher positions. In a lot of businesses it used to be called "the good old boy" network. A white guy would walk into a boardroom and see himself sitting there. He knew the ettiquette and it was comfortable. Today that guy walks into a boardroom and there are people that look different, ettiquette has changed (no more lunches at the strip club) and it takes a little getting used too. I just think white guys were so used to ruling the nest and now that the nest is looking a little they feel their place is being attacked when in actuality it's the same as it was except the players look different.

[BienvenuJDC]

I call this the old white guy syndrome. I believe it isn't what minorites themselves are doing it's just that fact that we are growing and gaining higher positions. In a lot of businesses it used to be called "the good old boy" network. A white guy would walk into a boardroom and see himself sitting there. He knew the ettiquette and it was comfortable. Today that guy walks into a boardroom and there are people that look different, ettiquette has changed (no more lunches at the strip club) and it takes a little getting used too. I just think white guys were so used to ruling the nest and now that the nest is looking a little they feel their place is being attacked when in actuality it's the same as it was except the players look different.

That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing when one gets preferential treatment (or discrimination) based on race, gender, or color. If there was ever a time that a set of construction specs required or even encouraged using businesses that were own/operated by whites or males, there would be lawsuits flying quicker than no one's business. If there was ever an employment test that gave special points to a white/male (based on gender/color), it would be in the courtroom.

Today's equality is not Equal.

[Emil Miller]

Nonsense.
But if you look at the statistics, to call the white male "under attack" by minorities is an absurdity.

Well, as Dr. DeFelice points out, when the minorities gang up, they become the majority and, at that point, the white male does become under attack.

[DanielBenoit]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;950107]

There is requirement for certain jobs to use Minority/Woman Owned Businesses.

Please provide me with any sort of government website that says that. Thank you :)


That is racism. no matter how you paint it, it is racism. Whenever you prefer or discriminate against based on race, it is racism. I don't have statistics, I have experienced it personally. I have read the specs for projects with language that blatantly giving preference to minorities. And have been subject to losing jobs for the same reason. Companies even go under because they don't have the jobs.

As for personal experience, I cannot argue for or against that as I was not involved in the situation. If you truly believe that you were discriminated against because of your race then do indeed file a lawsuit. Just because of the unjust practices of a particular individual company it does not mean that the policies of our government are at fault or that there is some kind of conspiracy amongst minorities to discriminate against whites.



That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing when one gets preferential treatment (or discrimination) based on race, gender, or color. If there was ever a time that a set of construction specs required or even encouraged using businesses that were own/operated by whites or males, there would be lawsuits flying quicker than no one's business. If there was ever an employment test that gave special points to a white/male (based on gender/color), it would be in the courtroom.

Please provide me with evidence of these "special points". And btw, papayahead's post the most sensible I've read in this entire thread. This perception that white males are being discriminated against like never before is merely a result of the times changing. Just as an example, hate crimes against whites have in fact decreased rather significantly since 1995 (both tables are provided by the FBI):

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html


Well, as Dr. DeFelice points out, when the minorities gang up, they become the majority and, at that point, the white male does become under attack.

Minorities "gang up"? Really? Please explain what you are implying or saying, because from what I am receiving what you are implying is very offensive: Do you seriously mean to say that whenever blacks are the majority in the workplace that they will "gang up" on the single white guy there? [I]That is prejudice.

[BienvenuJDC]

Please provide me with any sort of government website that says that. Thank you :)

I read it on a set of specs that the company that I work for is bidding on. Therefore I cannot tell you what project it is because of confidentiality, but it happens all the time. Just because the media isn't publicizing statistics on it does mean that it isn't happening. Back in the 60s, the majority of people rejected the idea of blacks being discriminated against. Just like people today reject the idea that white males are being discriminated against today. You can be open-minded, or you can be like those individuals back in the 60s.


As for personal experience, I cannot argue for or against that as I was not involved in the situation. If you truly believe that you were discriminated against because of your race then do indeed file a lawsuit. Just because of the unjust practices of a particular individual company it does not mean that the policies of our government are at fault or that there is some kind of conspiracy amongst minorities to discriminate against whites.

I can't file any lawsuit. I merely worked for a company who experienced this. It's the system...(and currently is legal), but it's wrong. Not everything is solved by filing a lawsuit.

[papayahed]

That is not what we are discussing.


{Edit} I'm giving my opinion on why old white guys feel mistreated.

[Scheherazade]

So, the white female is safe?

Thank Heavens for that!

[DanielBenoit]

Btw, a few of the posters on here have been making their points by referring to a certain Dr. DeFelice (author of the book described in the OP's post), but apparently he is an M.D. in medicine and not any sort of educated expert on sociology or race relations. His social opinions hold about just as much authority as Pauline Kael's would on theoretical physics.

http://www.fimdefelice.org/bio.html

Here's an interesting article on his medical theories:

http://www.fimdefelice.org/clippings/clip.donquixote.html


I read it on a set of specs that the company that I work for is bidding on. Therefore I cannot tell you what project it is because of confidentiality, but it happens all the time. Just because the media isn't publicizing statistics on it does mean that it isn't happening. Back in the 60s, the majority of people rejected the idea of blacks being discriminated against. Just like people today reject the idea that white males are being discriminated against today. You can be open-minded, or you can be like those individuals back in the 60s.

Back in the 60's people had great reason to believe that blacks were discriminated against due to the almost universal uprising of African-Americans against those injustices. We have no reason to believe today that white males are being discriminated against constantly on a regular basis by minorities. None. The statistics I provided were all from either governmental organizations or independent nonpartisan organizations (i.e. the Gallup poll, which has been used for decades and is almost universally regarded as a valid source of statistics and information).

[papayahed]

So, the white female is safe?

Thank Heavens for that!

I have issues with them too.

[Delta40]

Old strategy this. white males typically scapegoat minorities for what they can't handle. its called crying to mama

[dafydd manton]

(Tee Hee!)

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;950129][QUOTE=BienvenuJDC;950120] Minorities "gang[ing] up"? Really? Please explain what you are implying or saying, because from what I am receiving what you are implying is very offensive: Do you seriously mean to say that whenever blacks are the majority in the workplace that they will "gang up" on the single white guy there? [I]That is prejudice

That was not what I meant in the first place, I meant that when all minorities get together, then the white man will be in the minority and, by your own inference, will be discriminated against because he is a minority.
Secondly, if you don't believe that blacks will gang up against a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education, as opposed to the liberal pap you, and countless others, have been fed for the last four or five decades. Rascism, Shmacism, grow up and get real. It's late and I'm going to bed now but I will deal firmly with any further liberal nonsense in the morning.

Pleasant dreams.

[DanielBenoit]

Old strategy this. white males typically scapegoat minorities for what they can't handle. its called crying to mama

That is indeed not an exaggeration. As I have shown in previous posts, variables such as hate crimes against whites have decreased significantly in the past 15 years. It is because of the current state of the economy that it is socially predictable that certain groups will try to blame their problems on minorities. (I hate using Nazi Germany examples, but that is what Germany did in reaction to the deep economic depression they found themselves in after WWI. They scapegoated the Jewish people as greedy capitalists who had stolen all of their money.)



That was not what I meant in the first place, I meant that when all minorities get together, then the white man will be in the minority and, by your own inference, will be discriminated against because he is a minority.
Secondly, if you don't believe that blacks will gang up a gainst a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education, as opposed to the liberal pap you ,and countless others, have been fed for the last four or five decades. Rascism, Shmacism grow up and get real.

Yeah let's go back to those good old days fifty years ago when we got things like this:

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/race_lynching.jpg

http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/images/2008/01/21/birminghamalabamafirehose1963.jpg

http://www.sezin.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/whites-only.jpg

Oh those good old days! So much less liberal.


if you don't believe that blacks will gang up a gainst a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education,

I don't think it is me who needs an education. I am nothing up shocked and appalled that you would say such an ignorant thing about blacks. They're humans too you know! You have insulted every single black man or women alive and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Scheherazade]

R e m i n d e r

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you do not like your views to be challenged or questioned, please refrain from sharing them with other on a public forum.

Posts containing political and/or inflammatory/personal remarks will be deleted without further notice.

[Hurricane]

Warning, the following post is a bit rambling.

I think "affirmative action" does a disservice to everybody, especially those it's meant to "help," but it's been overblown and misrepresented, as has this whole concept of "white male victimization." For the record, I think giving a hiring advantage or "extra points" to a minority/female is wrong, but I also think it's been overblown. I'll find stats and post them later.

Some institutions get wrapped around the axle about appearing diverse (for an example, see every college or university's promotional pamphlets...) and might try to purposely skew the numbers, but I don't know that it really makes a huge difference in the end if they get accepted because of the automatically negative attention they get.

I'm a white female (though a drunk guy thought I was Hispanic once), and I know that I get perceived differently than my classmates and friends because I'm a girl, and that it's usually negative. I've had people tell me, to my face, "You only got in here because you're a female."
Thanks. Maybe it was because I was a four year varsity athlete, two year team captain, involved in student government, stage manager for school productions, and consistent honor student who got outstanding recommendations and rockin' SAT scores(among other things)?
But, because there's a perception that there's some sort of diversity quota, people assume I'm here because I'm a girl (my school's only about 20% female) and that I'm otherwise incompetent, fat, and dumb.
Same, or worse, goes for my friends that are non-white, and all the white dudes complain about how they're "victimized."

Does it matter if you get the job or get into a prestigious college because you're Black/Hispanic/Asian/whatever if all of your co-workers go behind your back and say "Oh, he only got the job because of ____" and you're immediately presumed incompetent just because of the color of your skin or your gender? Have these people who complain about victimization considered that maybe there's just more and more competent and better educated minorities/females out there now than there were even twenty or thirty years ago?
It's not that hard to get into college, or even to get into a good college. Maybe work harder and whine less?

[OrphanPip]

That was not what I meant in the first place, I meant that when all minorities get together, then the white man will be in the minority and, by your own inference, will be discriminated against because he is a minority.
Secondly, if you don't believe that blacks will gang up against a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education, as opposed to the liberal pap you, and countless others, have been fed for the last four or five decades. Rascism, Shmacism, grow up and get real. It's late and I'm going to bed now but I will deal firmly with any further liberal nonsense in the morning.

Pleasant dreams.

With the population of white people being around 75% in the US, and 81% in the UK, that would be quite the achievement by the minorities if they could manage to defy reality and become the majority.

The fact of the matter is that statistically, there is still an institutional barrier against minority groups. The attempt to play victim is merely fear mongering and ridiculous.

Edit: I'll believe the white man is being disfavored when it can actually be shown that white men are still not making more money, getting the best jobs, and continuing to prosper. If the system is discriminating against whites, it's not doing it right.

[Hurricane]

With the population of white people being around 75% in the US, and 81% in the UK, that would be quite the achievement by the minorities if they could manage to defy reality and become the majority.

The fact of the matter is that statistically, there is still an institutional barrier against minority groups. The attempt to play victim is merely fear mongering and ridiculous.

Edit: I'll believe the white man is being disfavored when it can actually be shown that white men are still not making more money, getting the best jobs, and continuing to prosper. If the system is discriminating against whites, it's not doing it right.

For what it's worth, though whites represent about 66% of the US population now, we're supposed to get "outnumbered" by 2042 or so and be a minority, assuming that the birth rates by race (i.e., minorities generally having more children than whites) continue.*
But, I think this is not the end of the American way/world that some people seem to think this is because:

1: This assumes that everything will continue the way it is for the next thirty years, without accounting for better sex ed/access to birth control/cultural and economic change/whatever else.
2: Whites would be a minority, but probably the largest one. There might be more "minorities" total, but whites are still predicted to be about 46% of the population or, in other words, the biggest minority. America would be less white, but more white than any other single demographic.
3: It assumes that somehow all the minorities would gang up and beat on white people or enslave them or something. Maybe I'm naive, but I kinda doubt that, especially after another 30+ years of hopefully improving race relations. So what, white people aren't going to be the majority anymore.



*Numbers from 2008 Report by US Census Bureau!

[OrphanPip]

People often make those drastic predictions of overwhelming birth rates amongst minorities, but research shows that the children of immigrants have birthrates identical to others in their income bracket. So, people who extrapolate those birthrates are a little out of line.

I got the 75% from the 2008 census too, the difference in our numbers is because mine don't count Hispanics as non-white:

http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-context=dt&-ds_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G00_&-CONTEXT=dt&-mt_name=ACS_2008_1YR_G2000_B02001&-tree_id=306&-redoLog=false&-all_geo_types=N&-currentselections=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02001&-geo_id=01000US&-search_results=01000US&-format=&-_lang=en

[Hurricane]

Yeah, roger that. I just find it funny when I hear people freak out about the de-whitenizing of the US when it's probably not going to happen that way.

[The Atheist]

Yes, I do. Not comparable to the racial injustices from the 1960s, but yes, there are just as many social injustices for the white man today as the black man (etc) today, but now they are supported by societal establishments.

Do you realize that there are many jobs awarded to minorities (simply because they are a minority)? Have you ever heard of Minority Owned Businesses (and Woman Owned Businesses)? They have preference over those that are owned by white males. So, in answer to your question...yes, yes, I do.

Furthermore, minorities are awarded extra points in the Civil Servant tests because they are black. These are not the only examples.

Wow. This is outrageous, and as already noted, not supported by actual evidence, or anything like that.

Current US unemployment rate is 8.7%
Current US unemployment rate for black Americans is 16.3%

Damn those minorities taking our jobs!



So, the white female is safe?

Thank Heavens for that!

Define "safe".

;)

[BienvenuJDC]

Wow. This is outrageous, and as already noted, not supported by actual evidence, or anything like that.

Current US unemployment rate is 8.7%
Current US unemployment rate for black Americans is 16.3%

Damn those minorities taking our jobs!


It would be good if you actually had a clue what I was talking about, but since you want to jest, you missed it. I had NO reference to EMPLOYMENT. I was talking about businesses (especially construction trades) trying to win bids. You obviously missed that.

[The Atheist]

It would be good if you actually had a clue what I was talking about, but since you want to jest, you missed it. I had NO reference to EMPLOYMENT. I was talking about businesses (especially construction trades) trying to win bids. You obviously missed that.

No, I did see it, but if it were true, it would be reflected in unemployment.

[BienvenuJDC]

Yeah let's go back to those good old days fifty years ago when we got things like this:


No one denies that these things occurred, but that is not what is being disputed. The term "liberal" is neither good or bad, but the extent of the ideology is the issue. But the issue at hand is what is occurring now.


No, I did see it, but if it were true, it would be reflected in unemployment.

No...it wouldn't, but I'm not going to try to argue that point with you.

[The Comedian]

As usual, both sides here have a pretty good baseline point. The effects of America's (and I can only speak for us) historical race/sexism haven't all dissipated. They're still around causing problems. And many laws and social trends are helping to alleviate those historical wounds.

It's also true that the white man is everyone's *******. And some of the legal and social measures taken to fix the historical wounds seem pretty hypocritical because, well, they are.

Quick story: I was on a screening committee for an English professor position at my college. We ended up hiring a white woman, but one of the members of the committee said that she "tried like hell" to get "some color up here" (I work in a rural college). And later one of the uppity-ups said that next time we should hire a less-qualified minority and "teach him/her up" so that we can "get some more diversity".

I gulped. And kept my yap shut.

I'm not using my story here to justify the baloney of a liberal media conspiracy. . . .just that the pendulum of racial preferences ticks and tocks these days. Ticks and tocks.

[stlukesguild]

I think "affirmative action" does a disservice to everybody, especially those it's meant to "help," but it's been overblown and misrepresented, as has this whole concept of "white male victimization." For the record, I think giving a hiring advantage or "extra points" to a minority/female is wrong, but I also think it's been overblown. I'll find stats and post them later.

Some institutions get wrapped around the axle about appearing diverse (for an example, see every college or university's promotional pamphlets...) and might try to purposely skew the numbers, but I don't know that it really makes a huge difference in the end if they get accepted because of the automatically negative attention they get.

I agree that "affirmative action" does a disservice to all concerned and is essentially institutionalized racism... the Orwellian terminology be damned. It is simply part of the misguided attempts by some to change the past, rather than focus on the present and the future. We get the same crap in education with the efforts to promote falsified history in the belief that this will change things. I'm not interested in seeking out documentation of the racism involved in "affirmative action" but yes it does exist. Recently there was the info released by a disgruntled college employee that documented the fact that prospective Asian students needed to score well above Black, Hispanic... and White students because the college felt there were far too many Asian students in comparison to their percentage within the overall population. In my own school district there have been repeated efforts to establish a quota where a set percentage of all construction contracts must be awarded to minority-owned businesses regardless of who makes the best bid or is the best qualified.

Having said this... I work in a school district that services students who are predominantly minority. Seeing the lives and the obstacles that these students face there is no way to suggest that racism is dead or that white America is losing... for there is no way these kids are "winning." There are any number of issues that come into play... from the memory of slavery, the lack of a supportive community and family, generational poverty exasperated by the Welfare state, drugs, alcohol, etc... One thing we all might do well to recognize is the psychology behind motivation. America has benefited more than is ever recognized from immigration (in spite of the stupidity of conservative efforts to curtail immigration). When one considers just what is entailed in abandoning one's homeland, language, customs, etc... and traveling to a new nation one recognizes the motivation that already exists with most immigrants. Thus it is not surprising that these same outsiders rapidly assimilate and move up in American society... often starting their own businesses... stressing the importance of education to the children. This is not the reality of Black Americans... most of whom trace their heritage to forced slavery followed by generations of institutionalized racism... Jim Crow laws... etc...

Again... I feel "affirmative action" is totally misguided... and only increases racial tensions and hatreds. What I do believe, however, is that the nation owes it to every child living in poverty... in the Black and Hispanic urban schools and in white Appalachia... to invest far more in education... in early childhood development, in after-school programs, in offering day-care to working parents, in giving students enrichment experiences (trips to the museums, zoos, colleges, etc...) than they currently do to assure every child has an equal opportunity.

[SleepyWitch]

Yes, I do. Not comparable to the racial injustices from the 1960s, but yes, there are just as many social injustices for the white man today as the black man (etc) today, but now they are supported by societal establishments.



What's the problem then? If there are just as many problems for each of them, no one is being discriminated against.

[Propter W.]

"De white man is de mule uh de world"

Poor, poor white man... how badly you are oppressed. Will someone please stand up for your rights?

[Emil Miller]

That is indeed not an exaggeration. As I have shown in previous posts, variables such as hate crimes against whites have decreased significantly in the past 15 years. It is because of the current state of the economy that it is socially predictable that certain groups will try to blame their problems on minorities. (I hate using Nazi Germany examples, but that is what Germany did in reaction to the deep economic depression they found themselves in after WWI. They scapegoated the Jewish people as greedy capitalists who had stolen all of their money.)



Yeah let's go back to those good old days fifty years ago when we got things like this:

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/race_lynching.jpg

http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/images/2008/01/21/birminghamalabamafirehose1963.jpg

http://www.sezin.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/whites-only.jpg

Oh those good old days! So much less liberal.



I don't think it is me who needs an education. I am nothing up shocked and appalled that you would say such an ignorant thing about blacks. They're humans too you know! You have insulted every single black man or women alive and you should be ashamed of yourself.

Just in case you didn't know. I suggest you follow the associated links where you will find plenty of other examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRqLVjOuSWQ

[Propter W.]

Just in case you didn't know. I suggest you follow the associated links where you will find plenty of other examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRqLVjOuSWQ

What exactly is your point?

[Emil Miller]

What exactly is your point? Find examples of what? Of crimes?


You know full well what the point is but I will spell it out for you.

Examples of blacks killing whites. As opposed the the reverse shown in in the pictures submitted by DanielBenoit.

[Hurricane]

Inflammatory accounts of an isolated incident=not evidence. According to the 1999 FBI statistics on hate crimes, violence perpetrated by whites (1 in 45) against blacks was nearly 28 times more likely than violence perpetrated by blacks against whites (1 in 1254).
In 2008, the FBI found that not only were Hate Crimes as a whole on the rise (up 2% to 7,7.83), crimes against blacks increased 8% over the previous year to 2,876. Blacks were also the target of 72% of race-based crimes.*

Is the point that a heinous crime didn't get covered properly on the news? Yeah, what happened to those kids really sucks. But considering all involved were convicted (one sentenced to death, two to life in prison without parole, one to 18 years who was not involved in a lot of the crime and one to 53 years who gave evidence) and there was extensive coverage of it locally, I really don't think this is what you're looking for.*2
There was also no indication that the crime was racially motivated or anything other than violence for the sake of violence. It began as a carjacking. Assuming that a violent event occurred solely because the victims were white and the perpetrators were black is dangerous territory.

Does every murder need to be published on the national news? Hell no.
There are some really brutal crimes, targeted against people of all races, not just whites or blacks, that go unloved by the media. Some really bad crimes go down less than fifteen minutes from my house that never get covered outside of Worcester County or Massachusetts.
Heard of Alex F. Scesny? No? He was a serial killer active in my home county who raped and murdered several prostitutes. Pretty bad, but only covered locally.
You may have heard of Darlene Haynes, an 8 month pregnant woman who was murdered for the purpose of stealing her fetus (!!!), but coverage of that event on the national scale was also fairly light, mostly tabloid or small blurbs.
The point is, so many people get murdered for so many reasons things that are pretty bad get ignored because the news wants to focus on other things.
The idea that every single mass media outlet conspired to not cover something is ludicrous. It just got overlooked.


Examples of blacks killing whites. As opposed the the reverse shown in in the pictures submitted by DanielBenoit.


...And a completely different scenario. Daniel posted pictures of organized violence perpetrated against blacks by a large number of people (hell, a community) that was racially motivated. You posted a video of some fat guy complaining about two murders that were not necessarily racially motivated (see above) or perpetrated by a large, semi-organized mob.

*Personally, I don't like using the Hate Crimes Stats since the concept of a "hate" crime seems a little silly and a whole host of other reasons. But here, since it's showing an increasing trend compared to previous statistics, I'll use it.


*2:http://www.knoxnews.com/news/news/local/channon-christian-christopher-newsom-murders/

Anyway, I'm off to go watch some football (GO NAVY BEAT EVERYBODY).

[Propter W.]

You know full well what the point is but I will spell it out for you.

Examples of blacks killing whites. As opposed the the reverse shown in in the pictures submitted by DanielBenoit.


What you see in that picture are lynchings of black people. Thousands of black people (and white people who aided black people) were lynched. Punishment for those crimes was very unusual. Generally, the perpetrators were not even arrested. These crimes are mentioned in one breathe with Jim Crow laws and segregation. One reason why black people were being murdered was to dissuade them from voting.

How can you compare a random but extreme act of violence to that?

[BienvenuJDC]

What you see in that picture are lynchings of black people. Thousands of black people (and white people who aided black people) were lynched. Punishment for those crimes was very unusual. Generally, the perpetrators were not even arrested. These crimes are mentioned in one breathe with Jim Crow laws and segregation. One reason why black people were being murdered was to dissuade them from voting.

How can you compare a random but extreme act of violence to that?

Black Panthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=pyv&ad=3265020430&kw=black%20panthers)

Yes, I can agree that the sins of the past were wrong. The point of this thread is that such things against the white male have begun. Do we have to have murders against whites occur before we do anything? Well, they have begun.

Hate Crimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vUoeDUajx0)

Hate Crimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4cKlJEkpI&feature=related)

[Emil Miller]

What you see in that picture are lynchings of black people. Thousands of black people (and white people who aided black people) were lynched. Punishment for those crimes was very unusual. Generally, the perpetrators were not even arrested. These crimes are mentioned in one breathe with Jim Crow laws and segregation. One reason why black people were being murdered was to dissuade them from voting.

How can you compare a random but extreme act of violence to that?

Black crimes against whites are not random acts of violence, they are well-documented for those who are interested. I can give you two examples from personal experience, so you can spare to me the bleeding heart stories about how hard done by they are or were. At least you live in a country where people can openly speak out against blacks attacking whites. FOR THE MOMENT!

[Propter W.]

Black crimes against whites are not random acts of violence, they are well-documented for those who are interested. I can give you two examples from personal experience, so you can spare to me the bleeding heart stories about how hard done by they are or were. At least you live in a country where people can openly speak out against blacks attacking whites. FOR THE MOMENT!

If you can show me the documentation that proves that these 'black crimes' are racially motivated and connected by a larger sentiment of black supremacy, please do.

You don't know where I live, what I can say or what colour my skin has.

[DanielBenoit]

First I would like to direct everyone to Hurricanes wonderful post above, which pretty much would've been my reply to Mr. Brian Bean.


I think "affirmative action" does a disservice to everybody, especially those it's meant to "help," but it's been overblown and misrepresented, as has this whole concept of "white male victimization." For the record, I think giving a hiring advantage or "extra points" to a minority/female is wrong, but I also think it's been overblown. I'll find stats and post them later.

Some institutions get wrapped around the axle about appearing diverse (for an example, see every college or university's promotional pamphlets...) and might try to purposely skew the numbers, but I don't know that it really makes a huge difference in the end if they get accepted because of the automatically negative attention they get.

I agree that "affirmative action" does a disservice to all concerned and is essentially institutionalized racism... the Orwellian terminology be damned. It is simply part of the misguided attempts by some to change the past, rather than focus on the present and the future. We get the same crap in education with the efforts to promote falsified history in the belief that this will change things. I'm not interested in seeking out documentation of the racism involved in "affirmative action" but yes it does exist. Recently there was the info released by a disgruntled college employee that documented the fact that prospective Asian students needed to score well above Black, Hispanic... and White students because the college felt there were far too many Asian students in comparison to their percentage within the overall population. In my own school district there have been repeated efforts to establish a quota where a set percentage of all construction contracts must be awarded to minority-owned businesses regardless of who makes the best bid or is the best qualified.

Having said this... I work in a school district that services students who are predominantly minority. Seeing the lives and the obstacles that these students face there is no way to suggest that racism is dead or that white America is losing... for there is no way these kids are "winning." There are any number of issues that come into play... from the memory of slavery, the lack of a supportive community and family, generational poverty exasperated by the Welfare state, drugs, alcohol, etc... One thing we all might do well to recognize is the psychology behind motivation. America has benefited more than is ever recognized from immigration (in spite of the stupidity of conservative efforts to curtail immigration). When one considers just what is entailed in abandoning one's homeland, language, customs, etc... and traveling to a new nation one recognizes the motivation that already exists with most immigrants. Thus it is not surprising that these same outsiders rapidly assimilate and move up in American society... often starting their own businesses... stressing the importance of education to the children. This is not the reality of Black Americans... most of whom trace their heritage to forced slavery followed by generations of institutionalized racism... Jim Crow laws... etc...

Again... I feel "affirmative action" is totally misguided... and only increases racial tensions and hatreds. What I do believe, however, is that the nation owes it to every child living in poverty... in the Black and Hispanic urban schools and in white Appalachia... to invest far more in education... in early childhood development, in after-school programs, in offering day-care to working parents, in giving students enrichment experiences (trips to the museums, zoos, colleges, etc...) than they currently do to assure every child has an equal opportunity.

Oh thank God! A page of excellent rational points ala Hurricane, OrphanPip and SLG. I am not involved enough in the debate over affirmative action in order to take a standpoint, but I think that it is useful in pointing out that the policy was started by Kennedy in order to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin". This is what we want in the long run.

And thank you SLG for giving us your personal experience. I think it is quite hard for regular white Americans to truly understand the Hispanic or black American experience. Most just want to look away and judge from 100 miles away.


Just in case you didn't know. I suggest you follow the associated links where you will find plenty of other examples.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRqLVjOuSWQ

Michael Savage! Wonderful!

Just to establish his supreme legitimacy on this matter, I would love to give the folks some great quotes:

On Autism: "A fraud, a racket. ... I'll tell you what autism is. In 99 percent of the cases, it's a brat who hasn't been told to cut the act out. That's what autism is. What do you mean they scream and they're silent? They don't have a father around to tell them, 'Don't act like a moron. You'll get nowhere in life. Stop acting like a putz. Straighten up. Act like a man. Don't sit there crying and screaming, idiot.' "

On immigrants from Africa: "There's the new America for you. Bring them in by the millions. Bring in 10 million more from Africa. Bring them in with AIDS. Show how multicultural you are. They can't reason, but bring them in with a machete in their head. Go ahead. Bring them in with machetes in their mind."

On Muslims: "Oh, there's a billion of them." I said, "So, kill 100 million of them, then there'll be 900 million of them." I mean, would you rather die—would you rather us die than them?"

"I think these people need to be forcibly converted to Christianity.". . .."It's the only thing that can probably turn them into human beings."

On the Catholic Church: "The institution is rotten from the top to the bottom." [He also called Catholics "greedy pigs".]

On LGBT rights: "The children's minds are being raped by the homosexual mafia!"

It's also worth noting that our friend Michael has been banned from the U.K.



Black crimes against whites are not random acts of violence, they are well-documented for those who are interested. I can give you two examples from personal experience, so you can spare to me the bleeding heart stories about how hard done by they are or were. At least you live in a country where people can openly speak out against blacks attacking whites. FOR THE MOMENT!

You know what. . .you're right! It's so weird how none of my black friends haven't ganged up on me yet, or how my mother hasn't been ganged up on after working for three years in a predominately black school. I'll have to call her and check up on her.




Black Panthers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGbKHyGuHU&feature=pyv&ad=3265020430&kw=black%20panthers)

Yes, I can agree that the sins of the past were wrong. The point of this thread is that such things against the white male have begun. Do we have to have murders against whites occur before we do anything? Well, they have begun.

Hate Crimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vUoeDUajx0)

Hate Crimes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp4cKlJEkpI&feature=related)

As Hurricane said before, these are isolated incidents. Of course hate crimes occur against whites! Have you not been reading hate crime stats I've been providing you? The only problem is that hate crimes against blacks is significantly larger. Please go back to my other posts and once again examine the stats provided by the FBI.

Also, it's kinda weird, considering all of this discrimination against whites being on the rise that hate crimes against white folks has decreased significantly in the past 15 years.

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hatecm.htm#bias

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2008/data/table_01.html

[BienvenuJDC]

You know what. . .you're right! It's so weird how none of my black friends haven't ganged up on me yet, or how my mother hasn't been ganged up on after working for three years in a predominately black school. I'll have to call her and check up on her.

hmmmm....not all black people are bad, and not all white people are either...that proves nothing.

[DanielBenoit]

hmmmm....not all black people are bad, and not all white people are either...that proves nothing.

That was in regards to a series of Brian's posts starting with this gem two pages back:



Secondly, if you don't believe that blacks will gang up against a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education, as opposed to the liberal pap you, and countless others, have been fed for the last four or five decades. Rascism, Shmacism, grow up and get real. It's late and I'm going to bed now but I will deal firmly with any further liberal nonsense in the morning.


Btw, please check out my post above you which I finished editing after you posted yours.

[Emil Miller]

If you can show me the documentation that proves that these 'black crimes' are racially motivated and connected by a larger sentiment of black supremacy, please do.

You don't know where I live, what I can say or what colour my skin has.

Can you prove that they weren't, forget 'black supremacy' there is no such thing and never will be, it's merely a case of race hatred. I don't care where you live or whether you are black or white. As I mentioned above, I have had personal experience of an anti-white attack by blacks; as have many other white people in London and elsewhere in the UK as is regularly reported by the media. Moreover, as I have had cause to say previously on this forum, one ounce of personal experience is worth a ton of statistics.
To return to the original post, I have read extracts from the book concerned and it conforms to what, unfortunately is happening in the UK as well as the USA; there is definitely government sponsored discrimination against whites.
If those who are the cause of this discrimination think that everyone is going to let them foist it onto the public without dissent, they had better think again.

[DanielBenoit]

Can you prove that they weren't, forget 'black supremacy' there is no such thing and never will be, it's merely a case of race
hatred.

Ummm, so every crime committed against whites by blacks will always be a case of race hatred?



I don't care where you live or whether you are black or white. As I mentioned above, I have had personal experience of an anti-white attack by blacks; as have many other white people in London and elsewhere in the UK as is regularly reported by the media.

So from a case in which you were unfortunately attacked by a black individual, you are going to judge the current state of an entire race?



Moreover, as I have had cause to say previously on this forum, one ounce of personal experience is worth a ton of statistics.

Ha! No it's not. Statistics are thousands of collected and documented personal experiences. I could just as well argue that every black individual will be friendly to you, based on my own personal experience. Using 'personal experience' on the scale of judging the masses is ridiculous because you can't generalize numbers of people that range within the millions just based off of one or two experiences you've had.



To return to the original post, I have read extracts from the book concerned and it conforms to what, unfortunately is happening in the UK as well as the USA; there is definitely government sponsored discrimination against whites.
If those who are the cause of this discrimination think that everyone is going to let them foist it onto the public without dissent, they had better think again.

Please just provide me some evidence of this and I will be happy, if it is so "definitely" why is it that according to every single poll taken that unemployment for black Americans is higher than that of white folks, why is it that there are far far more cases of discrimination against blacks in the workplace than against whites (please see my previous posts for links that are from government websites and not youtube), why is it that there are still more than twice the amount of hate crimes committed against blacks than whites (again, I refer to my previous posts). Please please please explain this all to me. Is it some kind of government conspiracy in fixing these stats to be. . . ."anti-white"? Are all blacks in on it too in trying to carry out a full-fledged attack on the white race? What is going on, please explain.

[Propter W.]

Can you prove that they weren't, forget 'black supremacy' there is no such thing and never will be, it's merely a case of race hatred. I don't care where you live or whether you are black or white. As I mentioned above, I have had personal experience of an anti-white attack by blacks; as have many other white people in London and elsewhere in the UK as is regularly reported by the media. Moreover, as I have had cause to say previously on this forum, one ounce of personal experience is worth a ton of statistics.
To return to the original post, I have read extracts from the book concerned and it conforms to what, unfortunately is happening in the UK as well as the USA; there is definitely government sponsored discrimination against whites.
If those who are the cause of this discrimination think that everyone is going to let them foist it onto the public without dissent, they had better think again.

You compared the cases, you should be able to back up your claim, not me.

If you want to talk about personal experiences, I've got hundreds. I'm confronted with racism every week, if not more frequently. I can tell you that racism is very much alive among white people and black people alike. But racism is not exactly the issue here, although of course it is connected.

I'm not exactly a fan of affirmative action, but to speak out against it in the name of equality is absolutely absurd. The sole reason affirmative action exists is because of the glaring discrimination against black people (and other minorities) and women. Two wrongs don't make a right, I agree. But in my opinion, the focus should be on the wrong that has lead to the other wrong. You're doing it backwards and I'm not timid enough to not suggest that you're doing so out of negrophobia, racism or xenophobia.

[Emil Miller]

Ummm, so every crime committed against whites by blacks will always be a case of race hatred?



So from a case in which you were unfortunately attacked by a black individual, you are going to judge the current state of an entire race?


Ha! No it's not. Statistics are thousands of collected and documented personal experiences. I could just as well argue that every black individual will be friendly to you, based on my own personal experience. Using 'personal experience' on the scale of judging the masses is ridiculous because you can't generalize numbers of people that range within the millions just based off of one or two experiences you've had.



Please just provide me some evidence of this and I will be happy, if it is so "definitely" why is it that according to every single poll taken that unemployment for black Americans is higher than that of white folks, why is it that there are far far more cases of discrimination against blacks in the workplace than against whites (please see my previous posts for links that are from government websites and not youtube), why is it that there are still more than twice the amount of hate crimes committed against blacks than whites (again, I refer to my previous posts). Please please please explain this all to me. Is it some kind of government conspiracy in fixing these stats to be. . . ."anti-white"? Are all blacks in on it too in trying to carry out a full-fledged attack on the white race? What is going on, please explain.


There were in fact two instances and they seldom attack singly and, given the vast number of simliar reported cases, anyone might draw the conclusion that it is endemic among blacks

With reference to your second paragraph, I refer to my previous statement above.


I will gladly explain what is going on, although the USA's case is somewhat different from that of the UK in that the US was left with a huge black population after the Civil War whereas the UK needlessly and stupidly imported its own after 1945.
In both cases, however, it became necessary to assimilate them into the majority white population and this was achieved by a massive and extended programme of racial engineering that, as this thread all too vividly shows, continues to this day. It's simply that some of us know what is and has been going on while many seem to think that it just happened that way. However, while enforced racial integration may have been unavoidable in the case of the USA, that was not the case in the UK and it is hardly surprising that many people don't like it

[Propter W.]

There were in fact two instances and they seldom attack singly and, given the vast number of simliar reported cases, anyone might draw the conclusion that it is endemic among blacks

With reference to your second paragraph, I refer to my previous statement above.


I will gladly explain what is going on, although the USA's case is somewhat different from that of the UK in that the US was left with a huge black population after the Civil War whereas the UK needlessly and stupidly imported its own after 1945.
In both cases, however, it became necessary to assimilate them into the majority white population and this was achieved by a massive and extended programme of racial engineering that, as this thread all too vividly shows, continues to this day. It's simply that some of us know what is and has been going on while many seem to think that it just happened that way. However, while enforced racial integration may have been unavoidable in the case of the USA, that was not the case in the UK and it is hardly surprising that many people don't like it

You forgot to answer the following questions:

1) Why is it that according to every single poll taken that unemployment for black Americans is higher than that of white folks?

2) Why is it that there are far far more cases of discrimination against blacks in the workplace than against whites?

3) Why is it that there are still more than twice the amount of hate crimes committed against blacks than whites?

[dafydd manton]

How much better would it be if we, the supposedly educated, resolved to stop wasting our time trying to show who is the hardest done by, but resolved instead to accept our differences, to enjoy the differences, and to try our best to live in harmony with each other, regardless of race, colour,creed, religion................. To embrace any cultural variations, rather than fruitlessly argue about them. Idealistic? No, not at all. It can be done, it has been......................

[Emil Miller]

You forgot to answer the following questions:

1) Why is it that according to every single poll taken that unemployment for black Americans is higher than that of white folks?

2) Why is it that there are far far more cases of discrimination against blacks in the workplace than against whites?

3) Why is it that there are still more than twice the amount of hate crimes committed against blacks than whites?

I have just read your introduction to this forum and I quote:

"I like to argue, which is something that I want to change."

However, despite this admission, I will answer as follows:

1. Probably because blacks are less employable than others.

2. Is it discrimination or simply the answer to your first question coming into play?

3. Proportionality needs to be applied, in which case I would think it most unlikely.

I also noticed that you have reached the grand old age of 23, similar to those who have taken the same view on this thread. Perhaps a little more experience would not be amiss in assessing this particular subject. You might be interested to know that, at your age, I held similar views until the passage of time taught me otherwise.

[Propter W.]

I have just read your introduction to this forum and I quote:

"I like to argue, which is something that I want to change."

However, despite this admission, I will answer as follows:

1. Probably because blacks are less employable than others.

2. Is it discrimination or simply the answer to your first question coming into play?

3. Proportionality needs to be applied, in which case I would think it most unlikely.

I also noticed that you have reached the grand old age of 23, similar to those who have taken the same view on this thread. Perhaps a little more experience would not be amiss in assessing this particular subject. You might be interested to know that, at your age, I held similar views until the passage of time taught me otherwise.


1. When we look at the history of the US we see that first black people were considered less than human (that's even in the US Constitution) afterwards discrimination against black people and unequal treatment of black people was institutionalised (Jim Crow, segregation)... I think it's more probable that racism is still rampant in the US and elsewhere.

But even if blacks were less employable, one should ask why that's the case. The most probable answer is that all this racism, discrimination and inequality has lead to a poorer black population. Poverty and a lack of education are closely related, especially in the US where tuition fees are extremely high. So in order to get more 'employable' black people, it would only be fair to right the wrongs of the past one way to do this is affirmative action.

No, I'm not interested in what views you held when you were 23. I'm interested in your current views, which seem quite racist.

[Emil Miller]

If being against the passing of discriminatory laws against whites is being racist, then I'm racist.
And as Dr. Johnson was wont to say...."there's an end on it."

[Delta40]

Everyone has their own truth, which is and always will be, relative.

[Emil Miller]

Everyone has their own truth, which is and always will be, relative.

Agreed.

[OrphanPip]

I also noticed that you have reached the grand old age of 23, similar to those who have taken the same view on this thread. Perhaps a little more experience would not be amiss in assessing this particular subject. You might be interested to know that, at your age, I held similar views until the passage of time taught me otherwise.

Oh swell, Brian, I suppose I should look forward to being an angry old bigot at your age. I grew up in working class neighbourhoods that were around 70/30 white and black, and the gangs have always been white in my neighbourhood. Biker gangs and Irish mafia were the criminal groups I grew up around, I never had anything to fear from black people. Clearly, since twice in your life black people were mean to you, then there is widespread systemic anti-white racism. Moreover, recourse to hearsay, like that of well known bigot Mike Savage, does little to convince me. I find it astounding, that you can claim anti-white racism is so widespread when I have not encountered it once in near 23 years, and I've been around a lot of black people.

Hell, I've had first hand experience of anti-English sentiment from the French, numerous cases of homophobia, and general assholish behavior, but I have yet to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime. Moreover, I've only ever been mugged once in my life, and that was by a ginger. I suppose that gives me reason to believe the gingers are out to get us brunets.


Everyone has their own truth, which is and always will be, relative.

I call bull****, you either have evidence of claims you make or you don't. When you make a claim of mass anti-white discrimination, this is something that can be empirically examined, it should have an effect on employment, hate crimes, and other markers of racial strife.

[Delta40]

to quote Alan How:

facts do not speak for themselves, but it is the network of relations in which facts are embedded that produces explanatory significance and this is something different to statistical or empirical significance.

[OrphanPip]

to quote Alan How:

facts do not speak for themselves, but it is the network of relations in which facts are embedded that produces explanatory significance and this is something different to statistical or empirical significance.

Which is different from taking an entirely nihilistic standpoint. Sometimes, empirical data is open to interpretation, but one should be able to reason why said interpretation is valid. Challenging an interpretation of data is different than denying the existence of the data, or contradicting the data outright.

Edit: Which is to say, just because there can be more than one reasonable viewpoint, does not mean all views are equally reasonable.

[DanielBenoit]

There were in fact two instances and they seldom attack singly and, given the vast number of simliar reported cases, anyone might draw the conclusion that it is endemic among blacks

An endemic?! Really? It's so weird how every-singe white person I know has never been attacked, harassed or are even lacking of jobs because of blacks.



I will gladly explain what is going on, although the USA's case is somewhat different from that of the UK in that the US was left with a huge black population after the Civil War whereas the UK needlessly and stupidly imported its own after 1945.
In both cases, however, it became necessary to assimilate them into the majority white population and this was achieved by a massive and extended programme of racial engineering that, as this thread all too vividly shows, continues to this day. It's simply that some of us know what is and has been going on while many seem to think that it just happened that way. However, while enforced racial integration may have been unavoidable in the case of the USA, that was not the case in the UK and it is hardly surprising that many people don't like it

Yeah racial integration, black people and white people living together, yeah that really sucks :rollseyes:




However, despite this admission, I will answer as follows:

1. Probably because blacks are less employable than others.

Yeah, so thinks every racist employer who turns down a perfectly competent black man. Give me evidence that as a whole, induviduals of African descent are lesser-qualified workers. Because historically and statistically, blacks are discriminated against because of the very views you hold.


If being against the passing of discriminatory laws against whites is being racist, then I'm racist.
And as Dr. Johnson was wont to say...."there's an end on it."

Thanks for finally admitting it at least.


Oh swell, Brian, I suppose I should look forward to being an angry old bigot at your age. I grew up in working class neighbourhoods that were around 70/30 white and black, and the gangs have always been white in my neighbourhood. Biker gangs and Irish mafia were the criminal groups I grew up around, I never had anything to fear from black people. Clearly, since twice in your life black people were mean to you, then there is widespread systemic anti-white racism. Moreover, recourse to hearsay, like that of well known bigot Mike Savage, does little to convince me. I find it astounding, that you can claim anti-white racism is so widespread when I have not encountered it once in near 23 years, and I've been around a lot of black people.

Hell, I've had first hand experience of anti-English sentiment from the French, numerous cases of homophobia, and general assholish behavior, but I have yet to be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime. Moreover, I've only ever been mugged once in my life, and that was by a ginger. I suppose that gives me reason to believe the gingers are out to get us brunets.


Well said brother! :hurray:



I call bull****, you either have evidence of claims you make or you don't. When you make a claim of mass anti-white discrimination, this is something that can be empirically examined, it should have an effect on employment, hate crimes, and other markers of racial strife.

Exactly. In matter such as this, which can be examined within a closed empirical system on such a collective scale, there is indeed a true and a false.

[Delta40]

Sometimes, empirical data is open to interpretation, but one should be able to reason why said interpretation is valid. Challenging an interpretation of data is different than denying the existence of the data, or contradicting the data outright.
.

you certainly can study why empirical data has the interpretation it does -which only brings us back to relativity - sociologcial contexts, which is the really interesting study here. to apply empirical data as a black and white be all and end all is erroneous since as humans we are subjective and not objective and the subjectivity and contextuality of our social lives cannot be discounted as if we lived in a vacuum. we don't and never will.

[OrphanPip]

you certainly can study why empirical data has the interpretation it does -which only brings us back to relativity - sociologcial contexts, which is the really interesting study here. to apply empirical data as a black and white be all and end all is erroneous since as humans we are subjective and not objective and the subjectivity and contextuality of our social lives cannot be discounted as if we lived in a vacuum. we don't and never will.

So, I suppose that's a justification for credulity to any asinine idea?

Not the point, of course data has to be interpreted, but the interpretation must be defended, and to hold hearsay and circumstantial evidence as equivalent to empirical data is not justifiable.

There are numerous valid responses to the empirical data, you could argue that it is not accurate for X or Y reason, your argument may be valid or just conjecture. However, to simply say, "well I've personally experienced otherwise," is not a reliable reason to find the empirical data lacking.

To reiterate, just because there are possibly more than one reasonable way to view something does not make all views automatically reasonable.

Edit: In the typical postmodernist track, one would attempt to deconstruct the validity of any idea simply to present an asinine subjective politically driven view. On this I'm in agreement with most of the political right, postmodernism is bunk and always will be bunk.

[DanielBenoit]

you certainly can study why empirical data has the interpretation it does -which only brings us back to relativity - sociologcial contexts, which is the really interesting study here. to apply empirical data as a black and white be all and end all is erroneous since as humans we are subjective and not objective and the subjectivity and contextuality of our social lives cannot be discounted as if we lived in a vacuum. we don't and never will.

I agree completely. But as I said, within closed systems of contextuality in which we can rely on by empirical or statistical data. Like Pip said; there may be relative interpretations to the data, but to deny the existence or validity of the data, or to just outright ignore it completely is contradictory to the logical context of the logical system that has been created (i.e. the logic of this thread's exchanging arguments).

And yes, I agree that humans are subjective (as any self-conscious creature is), which is why the validity of 'personal experience' is irrelevant on a large, almost global scale. Just because Brian had some bad experiences with blacks or because I've had some good ones, none of it is enough to account for the numbers which at least are able to form a systematic objectivity (that is, objectivity within the system we are arguing in, not some kind of naturalistic objectivity.) Social matters concern collectives of subjectivities, and these subjectivities can indeed be objectively measured.

[BienvenuJDC]

Oh swell, Brian, I suppose I should look forward to being an angry old bigot at your age.

:confused5:

Brian, I'm sorry that you are being personally attacked. It seems that the original poster was right. If you try to stand up and point out issues of injustice that you personally experience and see around you, you will most definitely be called names. It is a shame that one cannot speak their mind without being chastised.

[OrphanPip]

:confused5:

Brian, I'm sorry that you are being personally attacked. It seems that the original poster was right. If you try to stand up and point out issues of injustice that you personally experience and see around you, you will most definitely be called names. It is a shame that one cannot speak their mind without being chastised.

Speak their mind? Apparently you missed the point that I was being deliberately inflammatory because of Brian's *******ish attempts to demean the opinions of others on the basis of their age.

[Delta40]

I agree in principal - certainly about collectives but how or why should the micro accept the macro when it so contradicts their own truth? At the end of the day, quantitative and qualitative date do not equate to walking a mile in another man's shoes, which is what individuals care about and since we no longer operate under collective feudal systems but rather live an individualistic lifestyle where the onus of responsibility is dumped on each person rather than societal institutions, why would collective research have any real meaning?

[OrphanPip]

I agree in principal - certainly about collectives but how or why should the micro accept the macro when it so contradicts their own truth? At the end of the day, quantitative and qualitative date do not equate to walking a mile in another man's shoes, which is what individuals care about and since we no longer operate under collective feudal systems but rather live an individualistic lifestyle where the onus of responsibility is dumped on each person rather than societal institutions, why would collective research have any real meaning?

Because wishing something were true doesn't make it so. How exactly would you propose we make reliable decisions on anything if all that mattered was the superstitions of individuals. Research should have meaning to anyone rational enough to realize that their personal experience is not necessarily universally valid, nor is human intuition a reliable way to gauge increasingly complex phenomena.

[DanielBenoit]

I agree in principal - certainly about collectives but how or why should the micro accept the macro when it so contradicts their own truth? At the end of the day, quantitative and qualitative date do not equate to walking a mile in another man's shoes, which is what individuals care about and since we no longer operate under collective feudal systems but rather live an individualistic lifestyle where the onus of responsibility is dumped on each person rather than societal institutions, why would collective research have any real meaning?

It has real meaning because we are judging collectives of induviduals (in this case it is black people). The whole is nothing more than the parts co-existing and those parts will indeed contradict each other at times being so vast. This goes all the way to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem. The global society is indeed emerging as a single system, and there will be vast varieties of micro-subjectivities contradicting each other. Which is why it is important to understand the macro as a series of statistics constituting the millions, indeed billions of micro-subjectivities. People who consider their own subjectivity to outrule every single other one is indeed, especially in todays world, a feat of extreme arrogance.

The argument of this thread has been whether or not the white male is being more often discriminated and physically attacked. This has been proven to be completely untrue by the statistics I have provided twice. It has also been proven that blacks are still victim to hate crimes more than twice that of whites. Every instance in these percentages are not just a mere number, they are little yet highly significant capsules of personal experience.

[Delta40]

Because wishing something were true doesn't make it so. How exactly would you propose we make reliable decisions on anything if all that mattered was the superstitions of individuals. Research should have meaning to anyone rational enough to realize that their personal experience is not necessarily universally valid, nor is human intuition a reliable way to gauge increasingly complex phenomena.


you can wish all you like if it will make you feel better and if your real life experience is nothing more than individual superstition, so be it. Other people don't feel that way about their personal truth, values and opinions because to do so is to discount the validity of the individual whose experience is in direct contradiction to statistical data. research should have meaning but it should never be definitive, which means that individuals who form conclusive opinions based on their own selective research (that which sits well with their own bias) are in danger of becoming entrenched in heir own dogma

[DanielBenoit]

you can wish all you like if it will make you feel better and if your real life experience is nothing more than individual superstition, so be it. Other people don't feel that way about their personal truth, values and opinions because to do so is to discount the validity of the individual whose experience is in direct contradiction to statistical data. research should have meaning but it should never be definitive, which means that individuals who form conclusive opinions based on their own selective research (that which sits well with their own bias) are in danger of becoming entrenched in heir own dogma

In this case, every significant statistic I have provided (except one concerning interviews at the very begining of this thread) has come from either the FBI or another governmental source. If anyone should have legitamate knowledge on the numbers of these matters, it should be the ones who have the oversight into all of the discrimination cases filed or of all of the yearly hate crimes on record.

Again, the question at stake is whether or not whites are more discriminated against than blacks, and if cases of discrimination agaisnt whites have increased and it is definitive that from the data taken between the years 1995 and 2008 by the FBI, that that is false.

Btw, people should be able to regard the microcality of their personal experience (i.g. I was attacked by a black man and I understand that that man is one in millions.) to the macroality (i.g. there are more cases of black men being attacked because of their race, than white men)

[OrphanPip]

you can wish all you like if it will make you feel better and if your real life experience is nothing more than individual superstition, so be it. Other people don't feel that way about their personal truth, values and opinions because to do so is to discount the validity of the individual whose experience is in direct contradiction to statistical data. research should have meaning but it should never be definitive, which means that individuals who form conclusive opinions based on their own selective research (that which sits well with their own bias) are in danger of becoming entrenched in heir own dogma

Nonsense, when it comes to making decisions that effect other people's lives, it is irresponsible to just flip our hands up in the air and leave things up to personal delusion.

Also, I have not made conclusive opinions off the basis of selective research, I'm quite open to people providing research that says otherwise, I do not however accept hearsay as worthwhile evidence. All I'm seeing here is a whole load of sophistry, nothing significant at all. You're attempting to redirect the argument away from the fact that personal subjective experiences are virtually meaningless for defending opinions about larger issues that can be empirically investigated, to attempting to discredit research as being absolute truth. No one has claimed research is absolute truth, all I have claimed is that arguments based on large empirical studies are more reliable than hearsay, and that reasoned arguments with evidential support are more reliable than outright conjecture.

[Emil Miller]

:confused5:

Brian, I'm sorry that you are being personally attacked. It seems that the original poster was right. If you try to stand up and point out issues of injustice that you personally experience and see around you, you will most definitely be called names. It is a shame that one cannot speak their mind without being chastised.

Haha, thanks Bienvenu but that is part of the charm of being on LitNet. It's not often I find myself quoting the bible, but in this case the most appropriate words would appear to be, given the obvious youth of the interlocutors, ...'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...'

[The Atheist]

...given the obvious youth of the interlocutors, ...

Gosh, I haven't been called youthful for decades!

[Emil Miller]

Gosh, I haven't been called youthful for decades!

Ok, I'll make an exception in your case.:biggrin5:

[DanielBenoit]

Haha, thanks Bienvenu but that is part of the charm of being on LitNet. It's not often I find myself quoting the bible, but in this case the most appropriate words would appear to be, given the obvious youth of the interlocutors, ...'Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings...'

It's this kind of ageism that just discredits you even more. How about instead of resorting to personal pokes at our ages, why not make a rational argument, which I have not seen at all coming from you throughout this whole thread. Just conspiratorial and racist rantings and a Michael Savage youtube video.

[BienvenuJDC]

It's this kind of ageism that just discredits you even more. How about instead of resorting to personal pokes at our ages, why not make a rational argument, which I have not seen at all coming from you throughout this whole thread. Just conspiratorial and racist rantings and a Michael Savage youtube video.

There is a very real consideration in looking at one's age and experiences. It is not to put down one's age. There is no doubt in my mind that I have much more understanding about real life, now that I have experienced so many things. I used to know so much about parenting and marriage before I was married and a parent. Now I realize how much I DIDN'T know. If you think that maturity and understanding doesn't come with age, then that further proves the point.

[DanielBenoit]

There is a very real consideration in looking at one's age and experiences. It is not to put down one's age. There is no doubt in my mind that I have much more understanding about real life, now that I have experienced so many things. I used to know so much about parenting and marriage before I was married and a parent. Now I realize how much I DIDN'T know. If you think that maturity and understanding doesn't come with age, then that further proves the point.

Of course and I'm not saying that experience and maturity is useless. That said, it is pure dirty politics (rhetoric in this context) when one demeans and discredits peoples opinions on the basis of their age. Why not regarding our arguments head-on without throwing in weak personal jabs like age. Funny, how long this thread is, and yet not a single person has regarded the hard statistics Hurricane and I have provided. 90% of this thread has been pure empty rhetoric.

Also, in socially scientific issues such as this, one must but ones own personal subjectivity and indeed experience at side when regards to the facts as I have explained elaborately earlier. In arguing evolution, one does not say "well most of the scientists I've encountered seem to be utterly irrational people." What we are arguing here is social science and things like experience cannot be regarded because there are so many vast numbers of different perceptives and experiences. Yes, it would be rational to say that anti-white sentiments do indeed exist within the country, but to say that anti-white sentiment is widespread, especially amongst the government and black people, is ridiculous without regards to hard data.

Saying that the arguments presented on this thread have been 'out of the mouths of babes and sucklings' is totally pretentious, demeaning and just a plain irrational avoidance of the matter-at-hand.

[BienvenuJDC]

Also, in socially scientific issues such as this, one must but ones own personal subjectivity and indeed experience at side when regards to the facts as I have explained elaborately earlier. In arguing evolution, one does not say "well most of the scientists I've encountered seem to be utterly irrational people." What we are arguing here is social science and things like experience cannot be regarded because there are so many vast numbers of different perceptives and experiences. Yes, it would be rational to say that anti-white sentiments do indeed exist within the country, but to say that anti-white sentiment is widespread, especially amongst the government and black people, is ridiculous without regards to hard data.

Do you think that there were loads of "Studies" to reflect upon in the 1940's-1960's, to show that blacks were being discriminated against? I doubt that our societal establishments had put very much effort into researching the reality of the prejudices against blacks (AT THAT TIME). If it wasn't for pioneers speaking out like MLK and Roda Parks to wake people up, we would never had made the strides that we have. Well, you may be right that we don't have the studies right now, but just because the research has not been funded doesn't mean that the "personal experiences" are not widespread. There IS a liberal media that is NOT covering societal issues equally...that is not just a conspiracy theory. Until a few speak up about their "personal superstitions" and "personal delusions" nothing will get heard. If find it rather despicable that there are so quickly to issue personal attacks, especially those who want others to be "open-minded".

[DanielBenoit]

Do you think that there were loads of "Studies" to reflect upon in the 1940's-1960's, to show that blacks were being discriminated against? I doubt that our societal establishments had put very much effort into researching the reality of the prejudices against blacks (AT THAT TIME). If it wasn't for pioneers speaking out like MLK and Roda Parks to wake people up, we would never had made the strides that we have. Well, you may be right that we don't have the studies right now, but just because the research has not been funded doesn't mean that the "personal experiences" are not widespread. There IS a liberal media that is NOT covering societal issues equally...that is not just a conspiracy theory. Until a few speak up about their "personal superstitions" and "personal delusions" nothing will get heard. If find it rather despicable that there are so quickly to issue personal attacks, especially those who want others to be "open-minded".

Yes and it is unfortunate that there were no governmental studies being made about prejudice against blacks (though, ironically, there were plenty of liberal ones). But this prejudice was hardly disputed really. When there's "Whites Only" signs at every public area and the n-word is used most often to describe black Americans and plenty of them were being strung up and lynched to death because of their skin, the existence of prejudice was hardly disputable. The only question was whether or not if it was right. I don't think anybody back then believed in some kind of conspiracy that was happening against blacks, it was right there out in the open and acknowledged by both sides; one side just happened to think it was right, while the other thought it was wrong.

And pleeease, liberal media conspiracy? Weird how the owners of all of the major news outlets (MSNBC, CNN, Fox) are all owned by white males. Funny that if they were indeed in on all of this anti-white news broadcasting, they must certainly have some psychological issues in regards to their race.

Btw, must I say it again? The statistics provided come straight from the FBI and other government organizations, not media news outlets. But if you indeed think that the FBI and the judicial system that keeps these records are in fact in on it too, then it is impossible to argue with you in terms of reality, especially in considering that a majority of people working in the government are. . . . old white males.

[Desolation]

There is a very real consideration in looking at one's age and experiences. It is not to put down one's age. There is no doubt in my mind that I have much more understanding about real life, now that I have experienced so many things. I used to know so much about parenting and marriage before I was married and a parent. Now I realize how much I DIDN'T know. If you think that maturity and understanding doesn't come with age, then that further proves the point.
I don't mean to butt in to this argument, but it seems that the point you are making (ignoring the age aspect) is that people here would have different views if they personally experienced discrimination based on their skin color?

Seems like a fair point, but I don't agree. I'm only 20, but I grew up in Los Angeles, California, in a neighborhood in which whites were the minority. Everybody there hates white people, even the Jews, and I have experienced discrimination. I gotten beaten up and made fun of at schools for being a white man, I've been given subpar services at restaurants for being a "gringo," I've been told that I'm inherently evil by the children of former Black Panthers, and I had a friend who wasn't allowed to hang out with me because I was white. Despite all this, you still can not convince me that there's a mass conspiracy against white people, or that the white man has it rough compared to other racial groups. The fact that I've been victimized a few times in my lifetime doesn't mean **** in the grand scheme of things, or on any sort of macro level. My personal experience is vastly trumped by actual statistics.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't mean to butt in to this argument, but it seems that the point you are making (ignoring the age aspect) is that people here would have different views if they personally experienced discrimination based on their skin color?

Seems like a fair point, but I don't agree. I'm only 20, but I grew up in Los Angeles, California, in a neighborhood in which whites were the minority. Everybody there hates white people, even the Jews, and I have experienced discrimination. I gotten beaten up and made fun of at schools for being a white man, I've been given subpar services at restaurants for being a "gringo," I've been told that I'm inherently evil by the children of former Black Panthers, and I had a friend who wasn't allowed to hang out with me because I was white. Despite all this, you still can not convince me that there's a mass conspiracy against white people, or that the white man has it rough compared to other racial groups. The fact that I've been victimized a few times in my lifetime doesn't mean **** in the grand scheme of things, or on any sort of macro level. My personal experience is vastly trumped by actual statistics.

Sir you are truly a mature and perceptive man. Truly. I can just instinctively feel that some after your experience would immedietly judge every single minority group as against them.

On another note: I think that this particular hostility towards white people by some blacks is what one could call the Shylock-effect if you will: racism bates more racism. I am sure that I would be more likely to face more discrimination against a black individual from a low-income neighborhood, than vice-versa. This is the result of class struggle. Would that make him/her a bad person? Not particuarly. After experiencing so much prejudice, we must understand that a minority group is bound to react. Unfortunately, they react with counter-prejudice. It's human nature.

Of course racial tension overall has eased dramatically in the past decades, but it can still be found in low-income areas, not because of intrinsic racism within black Americans, but because of economic and social frustrations arising not only out of racial tension, but out of class struggle. It is unavoidable that those at the lower end of the rope will be surrounded by more racial tension, and as has been the unfortunate fact here in America and elsewhere, it is black Americans with low incomes. It was this way in Europe for hundreds of years with the Jews as well. This is a result of the factors of not only prejudiced societies, but hierarchical societies as well.

In the end what does this say for the anti-white conspiracy? Nothing. I can just about guarantee you that every group of peoples in ever society in history that were fed the short end of the stick were indeed 'hardened' by the sins committed against them. To quote the flawed Shylock, "The villainy you teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction." And this is indeed the sad fact of post-colonial society in the wake of thousands of years of prejudice and slavery. It is not anti-white sentiment, it is disillusionment. Wounds do not heal easily and indeed it is a unfortunate fact the the black American still faces prejudice today, just less of it. As long as there's prejudice, there will always be this reactionary hostility. The white man is not under attack, in fact, it is the unperceptive white man who fails to understand the experience of minorities today.

[The Atheist]

If you think that maturity and understanding doesn't come with age, then that further proves the point.

This is nonsense.

The age of people that believe in things like astrology or young earth creation destroy your point entirely, because if age increased understanding, nobody over the age of 11 would begin to accept such irrational things.

When I look at people who claim that Noah's flood was real, or that the earth was created ~6016 years ago, or that dowsing for water really works, I find that the young believers are merely listening to what their elders and allegedly wisers are saying.

There is no "wiser"; there those who can think critically and those who cannot.

[billl]

Not to mention those "older people" who might have no *experience* of a minority best friend, or a minority boss, or a minority giving advice or aid.

[Scheherazade]

F i n a l__ W a r n i n g

Please do not personalise your arguments.

If you find yourself unable to discuss the topic at hand (rather than each other),

please refrain from taking part in the discussion.

[Emil Miller]

it is pure dirty politics (rhetoric in this context) when one demeans and discredits peoples opinions on the basis of their age.



especially in considering that a majority of people working in the government are. . . . old white males.

It would appear that righteous indignation is undermining your position.

[Delta40]

The fact that I've been victimized a few times in my lifetime doesn't mean **** in the grand scheme of things, or on any sort of macro level. My personal experience is vastly trumped by actual statistics.

I don't disagree with your outlook. However, a large proportion of people, learned or otherwise use past experience as a primary guiding beacon and seldom look to empirical data since they trust in their own integrity. this means, good and bad experiences create a living, real, tangible truth which cannot be easily invalidated by pure statistics - especially when they contradict our first-hand knowledge. While we discuss empirical research at a collective level - mass statistics over subjectivity, it is worthwhile noting that such research has yet to arrive at a single conclusion which is collectively agreed upon.

[The Atheist]

It would appear that righteous indignation is undermining your position.

Not really.

It's an emotive subject, and when confronted by what seems to me to be an unfair attack, an emotional response is reasonable.

One thing is quite stark in this thread - all of the "evidence" in favour of the proposition that white men are under attack is anecdotal.

There isn't a single shred of hard evidence, which really does lead me to wonder whether racism is so institutionalised that people believe these kind of things without ever thinking about it.

We had a classic case recently when a radical Maori Member of Parliament stated that he would uncomfortable with his daughter dating a white boy.

There are racists on every side of the fence, but until I see "coloured" organisations like Stormfront, the KKK and various other race-hate groups vocally supporting the demise of white men, I find it hard to accept that there are more than usual quotient of extremists on any side.

In NZ, we have an enormous number of criminal black gangs and violence is endemic in some parts. Of all the violence, I have yet to see a case of a white man being attacked physically - and that's despite hundreds of cases of coloured people attacking other coloured people, simply for being in the wrong gang.

It is the same in USA, where tha vast majority of "race" crime is commited against members of one's own race.

[Emil Miller]

I don't disagree with your outlook. However, a large proportion of people, learned or otherwise use past experience as a primary guiding beacon and seldom look to empirical data since they trust in their own integrity. this means, good and bad experiences create a living, real, tangible truth which cannot be easily invalidated by pure statistics - especially when they contradict our first-hand knowledge. While we discuss empirical research at a collective level - mass statistics over subjectivity, it is worthwhile noting that such research has yet to arrive at a single conclusion which is collectively agreed upon.

Thank you for encapsulating the argument in a nutshell.

[Delta40]

Thank you for encapsulating the argument in a nutshell.

My pleasure Brian.

[billl]

For example, I knew a woman from Colombia who thought that she was allergic to snow (upon her first encounter with it). It made her nose run.

[TheFifthElement]

The argument of this thread has been whether or not the white male is being more often discriminated and physically attacked. This has been proven to be completely untrue by the statistics I have provided twice. It has also been proven that blacks are still victim to hate crimes more than twice that of whites. Every instance in these percentages are not just a mere number, they are little yet highly significant capsules of personal experience.

Your example may be true of the US, Daniel, but I doubt it is true universally. Your statistics are unlikely to hold true in Saudi Arabia, for example ;) Neither is it true for the UK, where the population is 92% white. One might argue that 'white' being the dominant 'race' is in the privileged position of being immune to racial hatred by means of their dominant position, except in certain very individual circumstances, and to a certain extent your example would be flawed for the UK simply by means of demographic as the racial hatred is more likely to be against 'brown' ( persons of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin or descent) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=267 than against 'black' though it appears true to say that racial minorities are more likely to be victim of racial crime than their white counterparts. But it goes much further than that. The statement that UK is 92% white is misleading because 'white' is a blanket statement for a much more varied demographic. Because in Europe there is a great freedom of movement between EU member states. So in UK, for example, there may be racism against the white man, because that particular white man is white Polish, or white Romanian. It may well be that white Poles are statistically more prone to racial attack in UK, but because we lump them in with all 'white' people that statistic is lost. And there is a difference between someone who is white English and white Scottish or white Northern Irish or Welsh. And it goes even further than that. So, for example, someone might be discriminated against because they are white Geordie or white Scouser because they don't have a BBC accent and people, quite wrongly, have a certain perception of people from those regions. They are still white, but to say as a blanket statement that as a result of being white they are less prone to racial discrimination is patently untrue. It is much more subtle than that. And that doesn't mean to say that it is not true that racial minorities are not more likely to suffer racial attack than the indiginous population (if there is such a thing these days). The statistics certainly seem to indicate that there is a problem, but what they don't give us are the subtleties or the reasons, for those you need to dig deeper. So, for example, it may be that hate crime is more common against minority groups or it may be that the minority groups are more likely to report hate crime and that such crimes are more likely to be taken seriously by the police if reported by a black person than a white person. Just to give a similar example of where statistics are simply the tip of the iceberg, take this report which makes for quite interesting reading: http://www.justice.gov.uk/stats-race-criminal-justice-system-07-08-revised.pdf and I'll quote a passage here:


For British Nationals, the proportion of Black prisoners relative to the population was 6.8 per 1,000 population compared to 1.3 per 1,000 for White persons. Similarly there were more people from Mixed ethnic backgrounds in prison per head of population (3.7 per 1,000) than White people. In contrast, people from Chinese or Other ethnic backgrounds had the lowest rate of imprisonment with a rate of 0.5 per 1,000 population. The rate for people from Asian groups was higher than for White persons but lower than that for the Mixed or Black groups at 1.8 per 1,000 population.

Among adult sentenced prisoners, 67% of the Black offenders, 60% of Asian offenders, 59% of Mixed ethnicity offenders and 47% of the Chinese or Other ethnicity offenders were serving a sentence of four years or more compared with 54% White adult sentenced offenders.
which tells us that there is a greater proportion of black prisoners, per head of population, than white prisoners. Does this mean that blacks have a greater tendency towards offending behaviour, which is one interpretation, or does this tell us that blacks are more likely to be living in poverty (which is a key driver of criminal behaviour), targeted by the police and more likely to receive a severe sentence than their white compatriots? Both could be true, and neither could be true. The number is disturbing, actually I found the whole report a little disturbing, but in itself it doesn't tell me what's really happening, or what's the right thing to do to change it.

Of course the only way to defeat racism, or any other 'ism', for that matter is to stop putting people into groups and stop considering people as a group entity. So you do not battle racism by arguing that blacks are more discriminated against whites, because this argument inherently relies on the idea of a group experience which in itself becomes a cultivator of isms. Because people who are white then feel the need to defend themselves as a group even though they do not really share a group experience. And so it goes on. And when it comes down to it isms are just an expression of power, the idea that 'I have power over you due to circumstances over which you have no control and can therefore do nothing about'. It is an excuse, rather than a reason. If we are to break it, we must all start to think in terms of the individual, rather than the group, and we must all think in terms of what we can and can't control individually. Until we break the group mentality, this will just go on and on and on and on. Ad infinitum. And it is right that we should have laws which make it illegal to deny someone opportunities on the basis of race, sex, religious or sexual persuasion. But those laws should be applied universally, so it should be equally illegal to deny someone an opportunity because they are a white male as it is to deny someone an opportunity because they are a black female. Only by taking race entirely out of consideration do you have a hope of achieving true equality.

And I think it's worth quoting Dafydd's statement here, which I think is important and true:

How much better would it be if we, the supposedly educated, resolved to stop wasting our time trying to show who is the hardest done by, but resolved instead to accept our differences, to enjoy the differences, and to try our best to live in harmony with each other, regardless of race, colour,creed, religion................. To embrace any cultural variations, rather than fruitlessly argue about them. Idealistic? No, not at all. It can be done, it has been......................

[Propter W.]

I don't disagree with your outlook. However, a large proportion of people, learned or otherwise use past experience as a primary guiding beacon and seldom look to empirical data since they trust in their own integrity. this means, good and bad experiences create a living, real, tangible truth which cannot be easily invalidated by pure statistics - especially when they contradict our first-hand knowledge. While we discuss empirical research at a collective level - mass statistics over subjectivity, it is worthwhile noting that such research has yet to arrive at a single conclusion which is collectively agreed upon.

Basing your view of an entire race on a few incidents and refusing to look at the overwhelming evidence contrary to your experience might be called integrity by some, but, in my very humble opinion, it fits the description of ignorance more accurately.

Using your own limited experience to formalute a general theory could be described as being prejudiced and narrow-minded. Prejudice is indeed hard to destroy, despite the evidence.

An example: I lived abroad, somewhere in Eastern Europe, and in my building there were living 20 other students. They were all British nationals, without exception. They were all, without exception, Asian in appearance and they were all, without exception, extremely nice. Other than that, I've only met two other British people. They were white. They were both, without exception, extremely drunk.

Should I disregard the empirical evidence, or should I simple form a living tangible, real truth and trust my 'integrity' and say: 'the majority of the British people are Asian in appearance, they are all very nice and friendly. Lovely roommates. All of the British people study medicine abroad. Great Britain has a white minority. They are loud and obnoxious and always drunk.

Now, of course, this is ridiculous... but somehow when you use this type of "guiding beacon" to support racist and prejudiced views, it's acceptable?

[Emil Miller]

white.
Should I disregard the empirical evidence, or should I simple form a living tangible, real truth and trust my 'integrity' and say: 'the majority of the British people are Asian in appearance, they are all very nice and friendly. Lovely roommates. All of the British people study medicine abroad. Great Britain has a white minority. They are loud and obnoxious and always drunk.



Well if you are saying, should I trust to my experience rather than someone who has an axe to grind and waving a sheet of statistics, I would say it would be silly, and in certain circumstances downright dangerous, to do otherwise.

[Delta40]

Should I disregard the empirical evidence, or should I simple form a living tangible, real truth and trust my 'integrity' and say: 'the majority of the British people are Asian in appearance, they are all very nice and friendly. Lovely roommates. All of the British people study medicine abroad. Great Britain has a white minority. They are loud and obnoxious and always drunk.

Now, of course, this is ridiculous... but somehow when you use this type of "guiding beacon" to support racist and prejudiced views, it's acceptable?


Whether we agree or not, a racist person is just as likely to employ the same formula as a non-racist. I'm confident a KKK member and a pacifist both use their living tangible truths and subsequently reinforce them in their everyday lives. Call it ignorance if you like - terminology is also relative.

It isn't for me to say whether you should form a negative or positive view of people based on your own integrity - you are the best person to answer this.

[Propter W.]

Whether we agree or not, a racist person is just as likely to employ the same formula as a non-racist. I'm confident a KKK member and a pacifist both use their living tangible truths and subsequently reinforce them in their everyday lives. Call it ignorance if you like - terminology is also relative.

It isn't for me to say whether you should form a negative or positive view of people based on your own integrity - you are the best person to answer this.

I'm not asking whether the view I formed of British people is negative or positive. I'm asking you is it accurate?

[Delta40]

I'm not asking whether the view I formed of British people is negative or positive. I'm asking you is it accurate?

Isn't that up to you decide?

[papayahed]

Erm, don't you guys realize the difference between common sense and making sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people?

For example, I'm walking home at night. I see a group of kids hanging out in an alley. Do I go down that alley? Hell No. Do I assume that all kids like to hang out in alleys and are up to no good? Hell No.

[Delta40]

Erm, don't you guys realize the difference between common sense and making sweeping generalizations about an entire group of people?

For example, I'm walking home at night. I see a group of kids hanging out in an alley. Do I go down that alley? Hell No. Do I assume that all kids like to hang out in alleys and are up to no good? Hell No.

lol. I think all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles!

[Emil Miller]

lol. I think all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles!

:biggrin5:

[OrphanPip]

Whether we agree or not, a racist person is just as likely to employ the same formula as a non-racist. I'm confident a KKK member and a pacifist both use their living tangible truths and subsequently reinforce them in their everyday lives. Call it ignorance if you like - terminology is also relative.

It isn't for me to say whether you should form a negative or positive view of people based on your own integrity - you are the best person to answer this.

{edit}

Personal "truths" are irrelevant, the willingness to use hearsay and other such anecdotal evidence as a justification for public policy should be offensive to anyone with a lick of sense. If your beliefs are accurate you should be able to find evidence to support them that is convincing, I could think of no worse way to make a decision than relying on the personal delusions of individuals. Willing something doesn't make ones view more accurate, simply because it is "more accurate for you" {edit}. Imagine if we allowed such thinking to be used in courtrooms. More people have been falsely convicted off the basis of eye-witness testimony than any other form of evidence, that should tell us something about how reliable personal truths are.

[Propter W.]

Isn't that up to you decide?

Is it?

OK, then yes, you do think that's accurate.

[DanielBenoit]

It would appear that righteous indignation is undermining your position.

And there you go quoting me out of context!



Btw, must I say it again? The statistics provided come straight from the FBI and other government organizations, not media news outlets. But if you indeed think that the FBI and the judicial system that keeps these records are in fact in on it too, then it is impossible to argue with you in terms of reality, especially in considering that a majority of people working in the government are. . . . old white males.

I was referring to the fact that if there indeed was some kind of anti-white anti-male conspiracy going on, then it would seem quite strange that the great majority of the individuals perpetrating this were indeed older white males.

Stop quoting me out of context for you own rhetorical benefit and stop evading the matter at hand.



Your example may be true of the US, Daniel, but I doubt it is true universally. Your statistics are unlikely to hold true in Saudi Arabia, for example ;) Neither is it true for the UK, where the population is 92% white. One might argue that 'white' being the dominant 'race' is in the privileged position of being immune to racial hatred by means of their dominant position, except in certain very individual circumstances, and to a certain extent your example would be flawed for the UK simply by means of demographic as the racial hatred is more likely to be against 'brown' ( persons of Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin or descent) http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=267 than against 'black' though it appears true to say that racial minorities are more likely to be victim of racial crime than their white counterparts.

Indeed you are right, I've for the most part been referring to the U.S. in most of my posts.



But it goes much further than that. The statement that UK is 92% white is misleading because 'white' is a blanket statement for a much more varied demographic. Because in Europe there is a great freedom of movement between EU member states. So in UK, for example, there may be racism against the white man, because that particular white man is white Polish, or white Romanian. It may well be that white Poles are statistically more prone to racial attack in UK, but because we lump them in with all 'white' people that statistic is lost. And there is a difference between someone who is white English and white Scottish or white Northern Irish or Welsh. And it goes even further than that. So, for example, someone might be discriminated against because they are white Geordie or white Scouser because they don't have a BBC accent and people, quite wrongly, have a certain perception of people from those regions. They are still white, but to say as a blanket statement that as a result of being white they are less prone to racial discrimination is patently untrue. It is much more subtle than that. And that doesn't mean to say that it is not true that racial minorities are not more likely to suffer racial attack than the indiginous population (if there is such a thing these days). The statistics certainly seem to indicate that there is a problem, but what they don't give us are the subtleties or the reasons, for those you need to dig deeper. So, for example, it may be that hate crime is more common against minority groups or it may be that the minority groups are more likely to report hate crime and that such crimes are more likely to be taken seriously by the police if reported by a black person than a white person. Just to give a similar example of where statistics are simply the tip of the iceberg, take this report which makes for quite interesting reading: http://www.justice.gov.uk/stats-race-criminal-justice-system-07-08-revised.pdf and I'll quote a passage here:


which tells us that there is a greater proportion of black prisoners, per head of population, than white prisoners. Does this mean that blacks have a greater tendency towards offending behaviour, which is one interpretation, or does this tell us that blacks are more likely to be living in poverty (which is a key driver of criminal behaviour), targeted by the police and more likely to receive a severe sentence than their white compatriots? Both could be true, and neither could be true. The number is disturbing, actually I found the whole report a little disturbing, but in itself it doesn't tell me what's really happening, or what's the right thing to do to change it.

Of course the only way to defeat racism, or any other 'ism', for that matter is to stop putting people into groups and stop considering people as a group entity. So you do not battle racism by arguing that blacks are more discriminated against whites, because this argument inherently relies on the idea of a group experience which in itself becomes a cultivator of isms. Because people who are white then feel the need to defend themselves as a group even though they do not really share a group experience. And so it goes on. And when it comes down to it isms are just an expression of power, the idea that 'I have power over you due to circumstances over which you have no control and can therefore do nothing about'. It is an excuse, rather than a reason. If we are to break it, we must all start to think in terms of the individual, rather than the group, and we must all think in terms of what we can and can't control individually. Until we break the group mentality, this will just go on and on and on and on. Ad infinitum. And it is right that we should have laws which make it illegal to deny someone opportunities on the basis of race, sex, religious or sexual persuasion. But those laws should be applied universally, so it should be equally illegal to deny someone an opportunity because they are a white male as it is to deny someone an opportunity because they are a black female. Only by taking race entirely out of consideration do you have a hope of achieving true equality.

Yes, I do indeed agree. The only problem is that, here in America at least, black Americans and other minorities (esp Hispanics) cannot avoid being labeled as a part of their 'group'. I bold-faced your wonderful sentence up there because I think your idea of 'group-experience' goes head-on into what race really seems to mean in some countries (again I am really only speaking of America). People laugh at the idea of 'white culture' or are confused by it, which is completely right. The white race for the most part of modern history has in the West lived very comfortably without needing to really identify themselves as 'white'. This legacy continues on to this very day in which not only is the white race the majority in many Western countries, but they also have the comfort of not being labeled as 'White' because they are the majority. And in a majority of whites, the minorities inherit an unavoidable 'label' or 'identity' because of their perceived difference. The clearest track of this can be seen in African-American history in which as a result of being a segregated people, their own culture started to emerge and indeed the idea of 'African-American culture' still goes on today as a result of that inheritance. It is not racist, it is merely the result of a people who were at one point strangers in a strange land (not to mention they were enslaved).

All and all, my point here is that I agree with you Fifth, I just think that at this current point in history, labels are unavoidable because prejudice still exists.


Well if you are saying, should I trust to my experience rather than someone who has an axe to grind and waving a sheet of statistics, I would say it would be silly, and in certain circumstances downright dangerous, to do otherwise.

Yeah I really have an axe to grind when I link you stats from the FBI and you just ignore them and dismiss them as 'liberal media' or as 'coming from the mouths of babes and sucklings'. Yeah I have an axe to grind.


However, a large proportion of people, learned or otherwise use past experience as a primary guiding beacon and seldom look to empirical data since they trust in their own integrity. this means, good and bad experiences create a living, real, tangible truth which cannot be easily invalidated by pure statistics - especially when they contradict our first-hand knowledge.

But the problem is that people are taking their own subjectivity as absolute truth. To expand on papayahead's example; let's say a judge had in the past been attacked by a bunch of teenage kids in an alleyway. Now let's say that she was judging a case in which a group of teenage kids were being accused for assault on a women in an alleyway. Should she use her own personal experience and judge 'well if it happened to me, it most likely happened to this women,' or should she judge the case at hand and leave aside personal biases or experience. She can use her professional experience, but her personal experience should not be taken into hard consideration because every persons experience is different in different cases. (Maybe in this case the victim mistook the kids as the men who had in fact attacked her. Maybe the kids weren't even in that particular alleyway.)

[papayahed]

lol. I think all poodles are dogs but not all dogs are poodles!

I'm trying hard to figure out the meaning and all I can come up with is that you agree with me.

[OrphanPip]

I think this thread is well overdue for some Chris Rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui6-Wc0PDc4

[Emil Miller]

Nobody has mentioned a conspiracy theory except yourself, presumably in order to fudge the issue. Here's what BienvenueJDC had to say;

There IS a liberal media that is NOT covering societal issues equally...that is not just a conspiracy theory.

It is a known fact that so-called 'affirmative action' has been initiated by the US and UK governments. Of course it's very sad, which was implicit in your post, that the people who control the media that broadcast this fact are all old white men, but that doesn't alter the fact that such legislation is discriminatory. Several people have already pointed out that such legislation may be right in principal but is wrong in practice because it only heightens tensions. No foot-stamping or waving of statistics, from the FBI or anyone else, will ever convince me that a mealy-mouthed phrase such as 'affirmative action' is acceptable when what it really means is anti-white discrimination. I am not too familiar with the US media but, if England is anything to go by, there is definitely a very heavy bias towards black issues in certain areas such as our main broadcasting outlet the BBC. This flies in the face of its charter which explicitly forbids it from taking sides in social matters but as the liberals have taken over the programming department of the BBC, the once most trusted broadcasting system in the world is now merely a mouthpiece for your point of view; despite the fact that it is paid for by a licence fee levied on all users of the service. I do not doubt that there are similar broadcasting systems in the US who similarly cannot be trusted to present the news objectively. Hence Bienvenue's statement about societal issues not being treated evenly.

[DanielBenoit]

I think this thread is well overdue for some Chris Rock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui6-Wc0PDc4

Love Chris Rock! :smilielol5:

Though I think many will unfortunately misinterpret Chris's ironic and satirical humor.

I think one particular quote from that video can well describe my feeling about this thread:

"Tired of this ****, tired, tired, tired!"

[TheFifthElement]

All and all, my point here is that I agree with you Fifth, I just think that at this current point in history, labels are unavoidable because prejudice still exists.

At the same time you could argue that prejudice exists because there are labels. But perhaps that is just semantics. Essentially I think we agree. The sad thing is that I can't envisage a point where prejudice, in some form, does not exist because ultimately it is all about power and resources. In UK I've seen a greater degree of racism towards people of eastern European origin, because there has been an influx of what is perceived as 'economic migrants' following the expansion of the EU, and there's been a lot of talk about immigration since the economic downturn which is a trend you'll probably see occurring back through history as, I think, you've already mentioned (which is bizarre as curtailing immigration doesn't stop Polish people from coming to Britain, which is what most people are moaning about. Many people, it seems, don't understand the difference between immigrants and migrants). And you'll get racism in areas where there's a large Pakistani or Bangladeshi population, often because these are deprived areas (which may indicate that it is more difficult for people of those backgrounds to get a well paid job, although this is not universally true. Most of my GPs have been of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin) and the perception is that these 'immigrants' (many of which are not immigrants but 3rd or 4th generation Britons of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin) are taking jobs which should rightfully go to 'white' people. So there is pressure, and because there is pressure people look for scapegoats and angles which give them a better chance of accessing jobs/money. It is all about resource. And as long as resources are inequitably divided, and under pressure, it will continue.


I am not too familiar with the US media but, if England is anything to go by, there is definitely a very heavy bias towards black issues in certain areas such as our main broadcasting outlet the BBC.
Que? I don't know what version of the BBC you're watching Brian (I thought it was none, as I was sure you'd said before you don't watch TV) but I have certainly not perceived any preferential treatment towards 'black issues' by the BBC (such as?) and I'll confess to watching the BBC generally quite a lot (especially BBC4 where they've had some great documentaries about writers recently). But let's sample tonight's schedule and see how 'black issue' biased it is:

BBC1: The One Show; Eastenders; Holby City; Motorway Cops; BBC News; My Story (documentary about a BBC writing contest); La Bamba.

BBC2: Climbing Great Buildings; Coast; The Great British Bake Off; The Big School Lottery; Mercury Music Prize 2010; Newsnight.

BBC3: Total Wipeout; Underage and Pregnant; Snog Marry Avoid; Don't Tell the Bride; Eastenders (isn't once enough, ugh!); Ideal (a sitcom about a drug dealer, or something).

BBC4: The Sky at Night; Liz Smith's Summer Cruise; Eddie Waring: My Rugby League; The Game that Got Away (about rugby); Challenge Cup Classic (also rugby).

So I'll accept 'utter rubbish' as fair criticism but I don't see any leaning towards 'black issues' there. Unless you're referring to some sort of bun disaster in the Great British Bake Off, or the general colour of the sky in the Sky at Night (let's face it, even white people can't understand a word Patrick Moore says ;) )then I'm not seeing it. And the news covered the economic downturn (for a change), government cuts (for a change), strikes in France affecting travel for Britons (for a change!), some crazy people with a giant leylandii that eclipses their entire house, the discovery of an abandoned dead baby and Wayne Rooney banging some prostitute. Not really any 'black issues' there either. And it's fairly typical viewing for a Tuesday night.

[Emil Miller]

At the same time you could argue that prejudice exists because there are labels. But perhaps that is just semantics. Essentially I think we agree. The sad thing is that I can't envisage a point where prejudice, in some form, does not exist because ultimately it is all about power and resources. In UK I've seen a greater degree of racism towards people of eastern European origin, because there has been an influx of what is perceived as 'economic migrants' following the expansion of the EU, and there's been a lot of talk about immigration since the economic downturn which is a trend you'll probably see occurring back through history as, I think, you've already mentioned (which is bizarre as curtailing immigration doesn't stop Polish people from coming to Britain, which is what most people are moaning about. Many people, it seems, don't understand the difference between immigrants and migrants). And you'll get racism in areas where there's a large Pakistani or Bangladeshi population, often because these are deprived areas (which may indicate that it is more difficult for people of those backgrounds to get a well paid job, although this is not universally true. Most of my GPs have been of Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi origin) and the perception is that these 'immigrants' (many of which are not immigrants but 3rd or 4th generation Britons of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin) are taking jobs which should rightfully go to 'white' people. So there is pressure, and because there is pressure people look for scapegoats and angles which give them a better chance of accessing jobs/money. It is all about resource. And as long as resources are inequitably divided, and under pressure, it will continue.


Que? I don't know what version of the BBC you're watching Brian (I thought it was none, as I was sure you'd said before you don't watch TV) but I have certainly not perceived any preferential treatment towards 'black issues' by the BBC (such as?) and I'll confess to watching the BBC generally quite a lot (especially BBC4 where they've had some great documentaries about writers recently). But let's sample tonight's schedule and see how 'black issue' biased it is:

BBC1: The One Show; Eastenders; Holby City; Motorway Cops; BBC News; My Story (documentary about a BBC writing contest); La Bamba.

BBC2: Climbing Great Buildings; Coast; The Great British Bake Off; The Big School Lottery; Mercury Music Prize 2010; Newsnight.

BBC3: Total Wipeout; Underage and Pregnant; Snog Marry Avoid; Don't Tell the Bride; Eastenders (isn't once enough, ugh!); Ideal (a sitcom about a drug dealer, or something).

BBC4: The Sky at Night; Liz Smith's Summer Cruise; Eddie Waring: My Rugby League; The Game that Got Away (about rugby); Challenge Cup Classic (also rugby).

So I'll accept 'utter rubbish' as fair criticism but I don't see any leaning towards 'black issues' there. Unless you're referring to some sort of bun disaster in the Great British Bake Off, or the general colour of the sky in the Sky at Night (let's face it, even white people can't understand a word Patrick Moore says ;) )then I'm not seeing it. And the news covered the economic downturn (for a change), government cuts (for a change), strikes in France affecting travel for Britons (for a change!), some crazy people with a giant leylandii that eclipses their entire house, the discovery of an abandoned dead baby and Wayne Rooney banging some prostitute. Not really any 'black issues' there either. And it's fairly typical viewing for a Tuesday night.

I'm sorry, I should have made it clear that I was speaking of BBC radio. You are right, I stopped watching all television many months ago.

[DanielBenoit]

Nobody has mentioned a conspiracy theory except yourself, presumably in order to fudge the issue. Here's what BienvenueJDC had to say;

There IS a liberal media that is NOT covering societal issues equally...that is not just a conspiracy theory.

But conspiracy theory is just the proper way to describe it! As FifthElement has pointed out in the case of the UK's media, where exactly is this 'black bias'?



It is a known fact that so-called 'affirmative action' has been initiated by the US and UK governments. Of course it's very sad, which was implicit in your post, that the people who control the media that broadcast this fact are all old white men, but that doesn't alter the fact that such legislation is discriminatory. Several people have already pointed out that such legislation may be right in principal but is wrong in practice because it only heightens tensions.

I have not been arguing about affirmative action, at least in these past few pages. The issue at hand is whether or not white males are indeed discriminated as much or more than other minorities. I do indeed have some problems with Affirmative Action as it is today (not as JFK founded it), and while I think its ends are in the right, its means are not helping solve the problem and may indeed be worsening it. But please, provide me with some legitimate evidence that affirmative action has indeed, in the long run, effected the white population to the point that one can say that they are "under attack" or facing as much discrimination as minorities do.



No foot-stamping or waving of statistics, from the FBI or anyone else, will ever convince me that a mealy-mouthed phrase such as 'affirmative action' is acceptable when what it really means is anti-white discrimination.

Again, when did I ever go about defending affirmative action? I think I only mentioned it once in regards to SLG's post. Please do not assume things about me.

The statistics in question were provided so as to illustrate the invalidity of the thesis of this thread which is; that the white male is "under attack" and facing just as much discrimination as other minorities. You have yet acknowledge them in the context in which I was providing them. This has nothing to do with affirmative action, which may be, to your suprise, is not an anti-white policy on behest of the government, unless you prove to me otherwise.



I am not too familiar with the US media but, if England is anything to go by, there is definitely a very heavy bias towards black issues in certain areas such as our main broadcasting outlet the BBC. This flies in the face of its charter which explicitly forbids it from taking sides in social matters but as the liberals have taken over the programming department of the BBC, the once most trusted broadcasting system in the world is now merely a mouthpiece for your point of view; despite the fact that it is paid for by a licence fee levied on all users of the service. I do not doubt that there are similar broadcasting systems in the US who similarly cannot be trusted to present the news objectively. Hence Bienvenue's statement about societal issues not being treated evenly.

Really? Explicity forbidden? Idk know about the BBC, but last I looked, here in the US, Fox News was still the highest rated "news" network.

Also, I would like to ask you; please present me with some direct examples of this "anti-white" broadcasting in the media. I would love to see it.

[The Atheist]

It's ok now - the argument's over.

It is still women who are under attack:

(do not read if you are of a delicate disposition)

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/the-crimewave-that-shames-the-world-2072201.html

[Emil Miller]

But conspiracy theory is just the proper way to describe it! As FifthElement has pointed out in the case of the UK's media, where exactly is this 'black bias'?



I have not been arguing about affirmative action, at least in these past few pages. The issue at hand is whether or not white males are indeed discriminated as much or more than other minorities. I do indeed have some problems with Affirmative Action as it is today (not as JFK founded it), and while I think its ends are in the right, its means are not helping solve the problem and may indeed be worsening it. But please, provide me with some legitimate evidence that affirmative action has indeed, in the long run, effected the white population to the point that one can say that they are "under attack" or facing as much discrimination as minorities do.



Again, when did I ever go about defending affirmative action? I think I only mentioned it once in regards to SLG's post. Please do not assume things about me.

The statistics in question were provided so as to illustrate the invalidity of the thesis of this thread which is; that the white male is "under attack" and facing just as much discrimination as other minorities. You have yet acknowledge them in the context in which I was providing them. This has nothing to do with affirmative action, which may be, to your suprise, is not an anti-white policy on behest of the government, unless you prove to me otherwise.



Really? Explicity forbidden? Idk know about the BBC, but last I looked, here in the US, Fox News was still the highest rated "news" network.

Also, I would like to ask you; please present me with some direct examples of this "anti-white" broadcasting in the media. I would love to see it.



The BBC has operated since its creation in 1927 under a Royal Charter as a public corporation. The Charter decreed that the BBC's views be entirely independent of any private or governmental influence. It is thereby required to be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners.

I have just discovered that our most recent socialist government has changed the charter. Spot the difference? To help you, I have highlighted the relevant changes.

A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:

Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

[BienvenuJDC]

The BBC has operated since its creation in 1927 under a Royal Charter as a public corporation. The Charter decreed that the BBC's views be entirely independent of any private or governmental influence. It is thereby required to be free from both political and commercial influence and answer only to its viewers and listeners.

I have just discovered that our most recent socialist government has changed the charter. Spot the difference? To help you, I have highlighted the relevant changes.

A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:

Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

Hmmm...were the "pigs" painting the sign again? Sounds a bit Orwellian...

[Emil Miller]

Hmmm...were the "pigs" painting the sign again? Sounds a bit Orwellian...

You are right. It's no coincidence that Orwell was employed by the BBC during WWII, but those were exceptional circumstances.

[OrphanPip]

I'm pretty sure the second highlighted portion is merely a reference to BBC international broadcasting. The BBC broadcasts in the US, Canada, Australia, and several other countries around the world. Moreover, this clearly benefits the UK by promoting their cultural influence beyond their borders.

Personally, being the rabid homosexual atheist socialist I am, the only news channel I watch is Al Jazeera. :rolleyes:

[DanielBenoit]

A number of important changes were made in the latest Charter to the Corporation's management and purpose:

Abolition of the Board of Governors, and their replacement by the BBC Trust.
A redefinition of the BBC's "public services" (which are considered its prime function):
Sustaining citizenship and civil society;
Promoting education and learning;
Stimulating creativity and cultural excellence;
Representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities;
Bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK; Helping to deliver to the public the benefit of emerging communications technologies and services, and taking a leading role in the switchover to digital television.
The BBC must display at least one of the following characteristics in all content: high quality, originality, innovation, to be challenging and to be engaging.
The BBC must demonstrate that it provides public value in all of its major activities.

Whoaaa, that's some pretty radical anti-white extremist policies. Damn, I should've known beforehand that the BBC's new policies were destroying our moral decorum of our society and media. :shocked:

[BienvenuJDC]

Whoaaa, that's some pretty radical anti-white extremist policies. Damn, I should've known beforehand that the BBC's new policies were destroying our moral decorum of our society and media. :shocked:

Maybe you should read Animal Farm (again if you already have)... the changes are always subtle. But it seems that any argument presented will be met with disregard. I've been called an extremist for a while now. It really means nothing anymore.

[DanielBenoit]

Maybe you should read Animal Farm (again if you already have)... the changes are always subtle. But it seems that any argument presented will be met with disregard. I've been called an extremist for a while now. It really means nothing anymore.

I indeed have read Animal Farm and I indeed do understand Orwell's brilliant insight into how language is manipulated in order to virtually control minds. But that does not justify one accusing the BBC of whatever terrible thing you are accusing it of for harmless policies such as. . . . promoting education and learning? :confused5:

Maybe I'm not using my magnifying glass well enough, or maybe my semantic deconstrucation isn't practical enough, but please explain to me the 'Orwellian' significance behind the BBC's new policies so as to make it as sinister as some kind of communist propaganda system.

Also, I was asking Brian to display for me the so called 'pro-black' biases in the media. I was a little disappointed with what he gave me :(

Say whatever you like about the UK media, liberalized or not, I don't care. The issue at hand is in regards to the racial bias the media has been accused by Brian of having.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;951249]... promoting education and learning? :confused5:QUOTE]


Might I suggest that you re-read 1984? In which the concepts of Newspeak and doublethink are introduced. If you don't know already, Orwell used his wartime propaganda work at the BBC as the model for Big Brother's broadcasting system. Whatever the satirical intent, there is more than a little truth in the observation.
Having given up watching television, which largely consists of rubbish, I spend quite a lot of time listening to the BBCs radio output. Presumably on account of 'affirmative action', there are an increasing number non-white presenters and a plethora of programmes about Africa, usually concentrating on social problems. Other minorities are disproportionately catered for and, if one isn't, the BBC programmers will soon find it and, no matter how small the minority, it will receive plenty of coverage.
There are also an ever increasing number of 'standup comedians' who are not only unfunny but whose 'jokes' are practically all anti-establishment.
One really has to have experienced the BBC over a number of years to understand the extent of its decline. As I have pointed out, the new charter gives them the opportunity to ditch objectivity and apply the subjective approach. {edit}So now the BBC, the socialists and the minorities are happy; leaving those who don't fall into those categories having to increasingly switch off what used to be a fine sevice.

[Propter W.]

Might I suggest that you re-read 1984? In which the concepts of Newspeak and doublethink are introduced.

Language does not define our thoughts or our understanding of the world. Newspeak is an example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. True, language can marginally influence thought, but certainly not in the way Orwell suggested. 1984 is a work of fiction, not a work on linguistic relativity.

Besides, it's a very big (and unsubstantiated) jump to say that "Sustaining citizenship and civil society, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK is an anti-white policy.

And are you seriously saying unfunny anti-establishment stand-up comedians is a sign that whites are being discriminated against?

To suggest that the decline of the media (and I'm not merely talking about the BBC) is due to anti-white policies is absolutely ridiculous and in fact not based on anything except your racial prejudices and delusions.

[Emil Miller]

Language does not define our thoughts or our understanding of the world. Newspeak is an example of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. True, language can marginally influence thought, but certainly not in the way Orwell suggested. 1984 is a work of fiction, not a work on linguistic relativity.

Besides, it's a very big (and unsubstantiated) jump to say that "Sustaining citizenship and civil society, representing the UK, its nations, regions and communities and bringing the UK to the world and the world to the UK is an anti-white policy.

And are you seriously saying unfunny anti-establishment stand-up comedians is a sign that whites are being discriminated against?

To suggest that the decline of the media (and I'm not merely talking about the BBC) is due to anti-white policies is absolutely ridiculous and in fact not based on anything except your racial prejudices and delusions.

1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.

2. I don't know if you listen regularly to the BBC's 'flagship' channel, Radio4, but they are disproportionately pro-black if not anti-white.

3. I am not saying that unfunny stand-up comedians are directly promoting anti-white discrimination but they are promoting socialism, which has already initiated anti-white discrimination through the previous Socialist government's 'positive discrimination' policies.

4. I'm not suggesting that anti-white policies are the cause of the BBC's decline ( I don't speak for other broadcasters ) but I am suggesting that the socialist slant of much of what is broadcast since the creation of its new charter in 2006, has discredited its claim to impartiality and compromised the variety of programmes at the listener's disposal.

[papayahed]

1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.


2. I don't know if you listen regularly to the BBC's 'flagship' channel, Radio4, but they are disproportionately pro-black if not anti-white.

3. I am not saying that unfunny stand-up comedians are directly promoting anti-white discrimination but they are promoting socialism, which has already initiated anti-white discrimination through the previous Socialist government's 'positive discrimination' policies.

4. I'm not suggesting that anti-white policies are the cause of the BBC's decline ( I don't speak for other broadcasters ) but I am suggesting that the socialist slant of much of what is broadcast since the creation of its new charter in 2006, has discredited its claim to impartiality and compromised the variety of programmes at the listener's disposal.

When I read this post I can't help but think of my original post in this thread.

Times change and money talks. Why in the world would a media company, that is in business to make money, knowingly be anti-white? Why alienate their largest group of customers?

Could it possibly be that they realize that they can also capture other listeners/viewers by adding programming geared towards minorities? Doesn't it make more sense that it is based on profits then a conspiracy to bring down their largest customer base?

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.

[Emil Miller]

When I read this post I can't help but think of my original post in this thread.

Times change and money talks. Why in the world would a media company, that is in business to make money, knowingly be anti-white? Why alienate their largest group of customers?

Could it possibly be that they realize that they can also capture other listeners/viewers by adding programming geared towards minorities? Doesn't it make more sense that it is based on profits then a conspiracy to bring down their largest customer base?

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.


I should explain that the BBC isn't a privately owned business. It is a public corporation and is funded primarily by the license fee that is charged to public users. It doesn't have share holders like an ordinary company and is answerable to the British government through members of a trust.
There is no conspiracy as such but liberal bias has been increasing to such an extent that it is a standing joke in the UK that you can't get a job with the BBC unless you are from a minority or read the UK's leading socialist newspaper. To give you a fuller picture of the machinations that take place within the corporation would involve entering into the realm of politics and I have already been edited by the moderators on this thread.
If you are really interested, you could try reading my book which covers this subject in some detail.

[Propter W.]

1. I think George Orwell probably knew more about the usage and abusage of language in relation to propaganda than yourself.

Based on what exactly?

Anyway, Newspeak does not work like Orwell thought. Language does not define thought, nor does restricting vocabulary or language diminish thought. Newspeak is a classic example of linguistic determinism. If you claim Newspeak is a valid theory then this is what you have to accept:

If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.

Reducing the meaning of "free" so that it can only be used in sentences like "the dog is free from lice" in no way eliminates the concept of freedom nor does it prevent anyone from understanding that concept. Keep with the times{EDIT}. Things, including linguistic theories, have changed since the 40s.

As for the rest of your post: {EDIT} "How is it possible black people are allowed to present things on TV these days? You won't see any black presenters on prime time, though...

Also, could you explain a radio programme can be "pro-black" and "anti-white"? They've got a bunch of Black Panthers presenting no doubt? Saying the whities are a lower race, right?

Anyway, I'm off... That is, if I can survive another day in this world where the white man is so terribly, terribly oppressed.

[Scheherazade]

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.I think Papaya makes an excellent point here.

To me, it feels like this is nothing more than "the new baby" syndrome. Once a new baby arrives in the family, the older siblings do not get the attention they used to and start complaining that they are unfairly treated.

The white man, being used to have the bigger and better cut of everything, now cannot accept the fact that they do not get the opportunities they once used to be given by default and, gasp, need to work hard and compete to have the things they desire.

[Haunted]

I had worked at a place where all the upper management in my group are WASPs. They have names like Harrington, Coburn and they are handsome and spiffy. They are go getters, very intelligent, personable, charismatic. I loved working with them. Then the place had to make cutbacks. They cut one of the WASPs among some non WASPs in other groups. The top guy who cut the WASP in my group, well, he himself is a WASP. No reverse discrimination here, it's all economics.

There are indeed federal grants programs that favor minorities, including women. There is a company owned by several women, it's the biggest of that type of business in the region, I can bet on it that they benefited from these programs. It's noteworthy though, 99% of the employees in this woman run company are men. Mostly white male.

From what I witnessed there is definitely reverse discrimination in America, that happened to some of my very close friends. For instance, they lower scores for minority groups so they can get into universities as well as compete in the workforce and get jobs. And as a result qualified people are passed over for jobs they are more qualified for, and the ones that are already on the job have to pick up the slack. I personally think it's reprehensible. That said, the field I work in, they don't give a damn about affirmative action. They do hire minorities, but they quit on their own or they are let go for lack of performance. It is not an environment for everyone. So it always remains a predominantly white industry. On the other hand, they won't hesitate to hire anyone, black or purple, if they have the right talent and personality to make their business succeed.

[DanielBenoit]

[QUOTE]
Having given up watching television, which largely consists of rubbish, I spend quite a lot of time listening to the BBCs radio output. Presumably on account of 'affirmative action', there are an increasing number non-white presenters and a plethora of programmes about Africa, usually concentrating on social problems. Other minorities are disproportionately catered for and, if one isn't, the BBC programmers will soon find it and, no matter how small the minority, it will receive plenty of coverage.

Well considering the ongoing situations that are going on in the rest of the world where *gasp* non-white people live, I would hard-pressed to call any news organization actual "news" if it were not covering them.

And, omg, more non-white presenters! Omg! We are not living in the 50's anymore and the white male is no longer dominating TV. Totally anti-white!! :rolleyes5:



There are also an ever increasing number of 'standup comedians' who are not only unfunny but whose 'jokes' are practically all anti-establishment.
One really has to have experienced the BBC over a number of years to understand the extent of its decline. As I have pointed out, the new charter gives them the opportunity to ditch objectivity and apply the subjective approach. {edit}So now the BBC, the socialists and the minorities are happy; leaving those who don't fall into those categories having to increasingly switch off what used to be a fine sevice.

May it be because this guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCmfEWDU7pQ), among others decided to take a stand for their freedom to say whatever the hell they want and now today. . . . .comedians can. . . .:eek6:. . . .say whatever the hell they want. Damn minorities and socialists!!!!!



3. I am not saying that unfunny stand-up comedians are directly promoting anti-white discrimination but they are promoting socialism, which has already initiated anti-white discrimination through the previous Socialist government's 'positive discrimination' policies.

So. . . the comedians are the socialist governments propagandists, right? Also, please provide me with any mainstream stand-up comedian of the last 20 years and show me their 'promoting of socialism'.


I think Papaya makes an excellent point here.

To me, it feels like this is nothing more than "the new baby" syndrome. Once a new baby arrives in the family, the older siblings do not get the attention they used to and start complaining that they are unfairly treated.

The white man, being used to have the bigger and better cut of everything, now cannot accept the fact that they do not get the opportunities they once used to be given by default and, gasp, need to work hard and compete to have the things they desire.


When I read this post I can't help but think of my original post in this thread.

Times change and money talks. Why in the world would a media company, that is in business to make money, knowingly be anti-white? Why alienate their largest group of customers?

Could it possibly be that they realize that they can also capture other listeners/viewers by adding programming geared towards minorities? Doesn't it make more sense that it is based on profits then a conspiracy to bring down their largest customer base?

I'll say it again. 30 years ago white men looked at TV, radio , and the board room and they saw people like them. Today they look around and there's different people. Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.


I could not agree more. The two most logical posts hitherto. :patriot:

I just want to quote papaya's beautiful final two sentences once more:


Does that mean those people are anti-white? No, it means those people are pro-themelves and making a decent living for themselves and their familes.

This is completely true for almost every average working minority out there. From my own experience, and from many others, the average black American, Hispanic, Asian-American, etc. just want to make a decent living for themselves and their families. They truly could care less about terrorizing the white man's radio.

[Emil Miller]

QUOTE=Propter W.;951485]Based on what exactly?

Based on Orwell's years working in a BBC propaganda unit and I am not exactly surprised that you seem to think you know more about Newspeak than the man who invented it


Anyway, Newspeak does not work like Orwell thought. Language does not define thought, nor does restricting vocabulary or language diminish thought. Newspeak is a classic example of linguistic determinism. If you claim Newspeak is a valid theory then this is what you have to accept:

If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be inapable of perceiving that which the term describes.

Non-applicable as the language used in 1984 was English, even in it's perverted form.

Reducing the meaning of "free" so that it can only be used in sentences like "the dog is free from lice" in no way eliminates the concept of freedom nor does it prevent anyone from understanding that concept. Keep with the times{EDIT}. Things, including linguistic theories, have changed since the 40s.

Have they really? How about 'Positive Action' = Anti-white discrimination?

As for the rest of your post: {EDIT} "How is it possible black people are allowed to present things on TV these days? You won't see any black presenters on prime time, though...

You obviously don't watch British television.

Also, could you explain a radio programme can be "pro-black" and "anti-white"? They've got a bunch of Black Panthers presenting no doubt? Saying the whities are a lower race, right?

It's pro-black by dealing with black issues which many white people are simply not interested in. Black Panthers? Don't make me laugh.

Anyway, I'm off... That is, if I can survive another day in this world where the white man is so terribly, terribly oppressed.[/QUOTE]

The white man isn't terribly oppressed but he is becoming increasingly depressed by self-righteous one-worlders who are either too young or too foolish to understand human nature and, consequently, don't know how much trouble they are storing up for themselves.

[Scheherazade]

The white man isn't terribly oppressed but he is becoming increasingly depressed by self-righteous one-worlders who are either too young or too foolish to understand human nature and, consequently, don't know how much trouble they are storing up for themselves.I find this a very poor and lacking point of view: labeling anyone who does not agree with you or subscribe to your philosophy "...either too young or too foolish to understand human nature".

I think rather than sticking with rigid philosophies, we all need to take a step back and consider other possible explanations.

Not every white man is out there to get a minority member; not every black man is aiming to get what the white man has; not every bullying or violentt incident on a different group is racially motivated.

[OrphanPip]

I had worked at a place where all the upper management in my group are WASPs. They have names like Harrington, Coburn and they are handsome and spiffy. They are go getters, very intelligent, personable, charismatic. I loved working with them. Then the place had to make cutbacks. They cut one of the WASPs among some non WASPs in other groups. The top guy who cut the WASP in my group, well, he himself is a WASP. No reverse discrimination here, it's all economics.


Yes, I have a mostly WASP background, and WASP still control most of the business in North America. You can go to the village where my family settled when they came from England 220 years ago to take control of seized land from French colonist and see the nice streets that bare my ancestor's names.

I'm quite confident I was given more opportunities by virtue of being white. However you want to cut it, short of government bureaucratic jobs and large companies that want to promote diversity for marketing reasons, white people aren't just more likely to get a job when equally qualified, but more likely to get an interview even.

I went form a working class high school with a fairly diverse student body to the top ranked private college in the province, minorities disappeared I had practically no black people in my classes at that point. By the time I got to university, I think there was one black person in my program of around 100 students.

The system continues to fail to assure equal opportunity for minorities, and I'm comfortable with these measures to fix this issue. Our society as a whole will be better off as a result, nothing is gained from fostering an embittered underclass.

[Emil Miller]

I find this a very poor and lacking point of view: labeling anyone who does not agree with you or subscribe to your philosophy "...either too young or too foolish to understand human nature".

I think rather than sticking with rigid philosophies, we all need to take a step back and consider other possible explanations.

Not every white man is out there to get a minority member; not every black man is aiming to get what the white man has; not every bullying or violentt incident on a different group is racially motivated.

I don't want to be rude to you Scheherazade, after all, you have been very fair to me throughout my time on Litnet, but I really do believe that if people don't learn from years of experience, it isn't very smart. I'm not talking about the youngsters on here, those of us who have been there and done that don't need any lessons from them and, in any case, there is a certain amount of fun to be had in winding them up. Nonetheless, it is my considered belief that liberal sentiment is making a rod for its own and everyone else's back. There is no truer saying than 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' I only hope that you are not around when the proverbial hits the fan.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't want to be rude to you Scheherazade, after all, you have been very fair to me throughout my time on Litnet, but I really do believe that if people don't learn from years of experience, it isn't a very smart. I'm not talking about the youngsters on here, those of us who have been there and done that don't need any lessons from them and, in any case, there is a certain amount of fun to be had in winding them up. Nonetheless, it is my considered belief that liberal sentiment is making a rod for its own and everyone else's back. There is no truer saying than 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions.' I only hope that you are not around when the proverbial hits the fan.

Of course, so anyone under the age you happen to be at now are useless in teaching or convincing you of anything. How open-minded.

No matter how old you get, you can never stop learning, and it is my belief and hope that I will be learning something new and changing my mind every day until the day I die.

I just find it unfortunate that age has all of a sudden become the defining factor in an argument, despite the fact that you know none of us or our backgrounds.

[caryn4freedom]

[QUOTE=BienvenuJDC;950120]


Minorities "gang up"? Really? Please explain what you are implying or saying, because from what I am receiving what you are implying is very offensive: Do you seriously mean to say that whenever blacks are the majority in the workplace that they will "gang up" on the single white guy there? [I]That is prejudice.

Honestly, Daniel, Where in the constitution does it say you have a right never to be offended?

And I don't believe that is what he meant, and I know that it's not what I or Dr. DeFelice meant. Minority groups have activist groups and societies with lobbyists. So do women. White men do not. (Not for these kinds of issues anyway) In the political atmosphere of today, the only white men who have any say in anything are already in power and are pedaling to their constituents the same as they always have. Most politicians truly do not see color. They see votes, and votes=power, and politicians love power. The easiest way to sway a voter is to evoke strong emotion. Unfortunately, what sounds good and seems good-- isn't always truly good. It's easy to get amped up about the issues because there are a lot of injustices in this country's history to draw upon. But Feelings aren't Facts. And what seems fair isn't always fair. I know that with my children, I have to be consistent. I can't have different rules for each child or different criteria.

Besides, is anyone else offended by the idea that minorities "need" lower test standards or a leg up? The implication of many of the laws that Dr. DeFelice is so strongly against, is that minorities are somehow substandard in their abilities. Many of the absurdities are pointed out in the book, and I would urge anyone to read it. Its not even 150 pages. You could have it done in an evening, and then we can truly discuss what the book is about.


That is indeed not an exaggeration. As I have shown in previous posts, variables such as hate crimes against whites have decreased significantly in the past 15 years. It is because of the current state of the economy that it is socially predictable that certain groups will try to blame their problems on minorities. (I hate using Nazi Germany examples, but that is what Germany did in reaction to the deep economic depression they found themselves in after WWI. They scapegoated the Jewish people as greedy capitalists who had stolen all of their money.)



Yeah let's go back to those good old days fifty years ago when we got things like this:

http://www.psywar.org/psywar/images/race_lynching.jpg

http://www.downshoredrift.com/downshoredrift/images/2008/01/21/birminghamalabamafirehose1963.jpg

http://www.sezin.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/whites-only.jpg

Oh those good old days! So much less liberal.



I don't think it is me who needs an education. I am nothing up shocked and appalled that you would say such an ignorant thing about blacks. They're humans too you know! You have insulted every single black man or women alive and you should be ashamed of yourself.


ARE YOU SERIOUS!???
First, you quote Delta, who said something along the line of "White Men Typically..."

How would you react to ANY statement I made that began with "Black Men Typically...."

Just the idea that white men are all the same. And what's with the pictures of the hanged men? What does the fact that there were some white *******S. No A LOT OF WHITE *******S, have to do with the rest of the white population??? There happen to be a lot of black *******s in the world too, but I'm sure you would agree that it would be wrong to, oh, say, pull over black drivers because some of them sell drugs.
You make my argument for me. DISCRIMINATION IS DISGUSTING, WRONG AND EVIL. People are PEOPLE. People have free will. They have their own personalities. I don't think the amount of melanin in a person's skin should EVER determine ANY political decisions.
YOU ARE THE ONE ACTING LIKE A RACIST.
I simply want to point out that white men aren't all bad and that there are other, BETTER ways to promote an attitude of equality in this country than by separating people into groups and quotas.

Ps. When white men in politics were first fighting to have the black man freed, the opposition would spread story after story of how black men had committed violent acts or raped white women. The news media at that time had the typical housewife horrified of black men, who raised her children to be equally so. Using that picture is like using the same emotional illogical tactics they used to keep black men in chains.

It is not okay to blame the many for the actions of the few.

[DanielBenoit]

[QUOTE=DanielBenoit;950129]

Honestly, Daniel, Where in the constitution does it say you have a right never to be offended?

And I don't believe that is what he meant, and I know that it's not what I or Dr. DeFelice meant. Minority groups have activist groups and societies with lobbyists. So do women. White men do not. (Not for these kinds of issues anyway) In the political atmosphere of today, the only white men who have any say in anything are already in power and are pedaling to their constituents the same as they always have. Most politicians truly do not see color. They see votes, and votes=power, and politicians love power. The easiest way to sway a voter is to evoke strong emotion. Unfortunately, what sounds good and seems good-- isn't always truly good. It's easy to get amped up about the issues because there are a lot of injustices in this country's history to draw upon. But Feelings aren't Facts. And what seems fair isn't always fair. I know that with my children, I have to be consistent. I can't have different rules for each child or different criteria.

Besides, is anyone else offended by the idea that minorities "need" lower test standards or a leg up? The implication of many of the laws that Dr. DeFelice is so strongly against, is that minorities are somehow substandard in their abilities. Many of the absurdities are pointed out in the book, and I would urge anyone to read it. Its not even 150 pages. You could have it done in an evening, and then we can truly discuss what the book is about.

White males are a majority and have been a majority in the West for decades. They have not developed any kind of "identity" because for many centuries, the world was in their minds composed of "citizens" and "semi-citizens/slaves". Maybe you should read my post about a page back on why white males are not a "group" in the sense that African-Americans are because of the lack of a need for historical and cultural "group-experience" (FifthElement's coinage).

And btw, when did I bring up the constitution? Brian has the right to say whatever he wants. The point I made was that what he said was morally wrong no legally.


ARE YOU SERIOUS!???
First, you quote Delta, who said something along the line of "White Men Typically..."

How would you react to ANY statement I made that began with "Black Men Typically...."

Well that was Delta's statement and it's her job to defend it. That said, white racist males have indeed scapegoated minorities for what they can't handle. And a good deal of white males in the past have been racist. As I said in the same paragraph; in times of economic or social uncertainty of any kind, there is always a scapegoat group.



And what's with the pictures of the hanged men? What does the fact that there were some white *******S. No A LOT OF WHITE *******S, have to do with the rest of the white population??? There happen to be a lot of black *******s in the world too, but I'm sure you would agree that it would be wrong to, oh, say, pull over black drivers because some of them sell drugs.
You make my argument for me. DISCRIMINATION IS DISGUSTING, WRONG AND EVIL. People are PEOPLE. People have free will. They have their own personalities. I don't think the amount of melanin in a person's skin should EVER determine ANY political decisions.

First of all, the pictures were an elaborated response to Brian, who said, "[I]f you don't believe that blacks will gang up a gainst a single white guy, you are in serious need of an some real education." He also mentioned how less liberal we were fifty years ago. I was beyond disguisted by his comments and decided to post some examples of how less liberal we were fifty years ago. More or less, the pictures were to counter his racist statement that a group of blacks would just looove to "gang up" against a single white guy, I illustrated more than a few instances of whites "ganging up" on a single (or two) black guys. If you didn't get the sarcasm of "Oh those good old days! So much less liberal!" then that is your problem.



YOU ARE THE ONE ACTING LIKE A RACIST.
I simply want to point out that white men aren't all bad and that there are other, BETTER ways to promote an attitude of equality in this country than by separating people into groups and quotas.

Please explain to me how i am acting like a racist? I'm afraid you have not read my posts correctly. I have never said that anti-white discrimination is right, as a matter of fact, my entire argument has been throughout this thread that anti-white discrimination doesn't exist, at least not on the scale of discrimination of minorities. I would suggest that you read the posts made by papayahead and Scheherazade, as they illustrate without any sort of rhetoric, my point, short and sweetly.



Ps. When white men in politics were first fighting to have the black man freed, the opposition would spread story after story of how black men had committed violent acts or raped white women. The news media at that time had the typical housewife horrified of black men, who raised her children to be equally so. Using that picture is like using the same emotional illogical tactics they used to keep black men in chains.

So you're saying that what the "news media" (there really wasn't one back then as we would see it today) did back then are doing the same thing except it's towards white folks now? Please present some evidence of this.



It is not okay to blame the many for the actions of the few.

Again, I think you need to read this thread again. Idk where you're getting this.

[Emil Miller]

Of course, so anyone under the age you happen to be at now are useless in teaching or convincing you of anything. How open-minded.

Well, when did you ever hear of a 23-year-old person having the temerity to teach somebody far in advance of his years. Unless he was some kind of genius; which, of course, most young men of that age think they are.

[Hurricane]

Age =/= Maturity.

Just saying.

[Scheherazade]

I don't want to be rude to you Scheherazade, after all, you have been very fair to me throughout my time on Litnet, but I really do believe that if people don't learn from years of experience, it isn't very smart. Since you are the one who brought the age into this discussion, I would like to point out that I consider myself mature enough to be able to carry on a discussion without resorting to rudeness and I sincerely do hope that the same thing is true for you.

Isn't it possible that a smart person has experienced and, hence, learnt different things from their experience? Why is the assumption that if they are "smart", their experience and conclusions should be in line with yours?
Well, when did you ever hear of a 23-year-old person having the temerity to teach somebody far in advance of his years. Unless he was some kind of genius; which, of course, most young men of that age think they are.I started teaching at the age of 24 and among my students were a group of bank managers whose average age was twice mine. (Then again, It is a truth universally acknowledged that I am a genius!)


Age =/= Maturity.

Just saying.What's more, Maturity > Age.

I am sure there are people out there who have experienced the kind of things and learnt life lessons I could not even begin to imagine despite being younger.

[Emil Miller]

Age =/= Maturity.

Just saying.

You are merely stating the obvious but, of course, say what you like anyway providing it is within the LitNet rules.

[BienvenuJDC]

That said, white racist males have indeed scapegoated minorities for what they can't handle. And a good deal of white males in the past have been racist. As I said in the same paragraph; in times of economic or social uncertainty of any kind, there is always a scapegoat group.


Do you have statistical research that proves that "white males" scapegoat minorities for things that they cannot handle? Because that is a very racist and biased statement. People of ALL races have used other races to blame their problems on. I can say the same thing about minorities, but I don't chose to because I think that it's a racist remark.

[Hurricane]

Of course, so anyone under the age you happen to be at now are useless in teaching or convincing you of anything. How open-minded.

Well, when did you ever hear of a 23-year-old person having the temerity to teach somebody far in advance of his years. Unless he was some kind of genius; which, of course, most young men of that age think they are.

Actually, this happens all the time in the military. Snot-nosed 21 year old 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign having authority over and sometimes instructing a Gunnery Sergeant or Chief twice his or her's age is...uh...half the job of a 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign.

Assuming that someone, regardless of age, experience, or whatever, has nothing to teach you is one of the most arrogant and disrespectful things possible.

[Emil Miller]

Since you are the one who brought the age into this discussion, I would like to point out that I consider myself mature enough to be able to carry on a discussion without resorting to rudeness and I sincerely do hope that the same thing is true for you.

Naturally.


Isn't it possible that a smart person has experienced and, hence, learnt different things from their experience? Why is the assumption that if they are "smart", their experience and conclusions should be in line with yours?I started teaching at the age of 24 and among my students were a group of bank managers whose average age was twice mine. (Then again, It is a truth universally acknowledged that I am a genius!)

I don't know what you teach, but your bank managers would have been unlikley to have enrolled in a course that involved their learning about 'positive discrimination'. Although, given the kind of social engineering that the UK has been subjected to for some time, perhaps they did.


What's more, Maturity > Age.

I am sure there are people out there who have experienced the kind of things and learnt life lessons I could not even begin to imagine despite being younger.

Of course, but they are more likely to be the exception than the rule.

[BienvenuJDC]

Actually, this happens all the time in the military. Snot-nosed 21 year old 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign having authority over and sometimes instructing a Gunnery Sergeant or Chief twice his or her's age is...uh...half the job of a 2nd Lieutenant/Ensign.

Assuming that someone, regardless of age, experience, or whatever, has nothing to teach you is one of the most arrogant and disrespectful things possible.

I don't think that your statement accurately assesses the issue at hand. It is easy to make exaggerated statements to take the focus off of what really transpired.

[DanielBenoit]

Do you have statistical research that proves that "white males" scapegoat minorities for things that they cannot handle? Because that is a very racist and biased statement. People of ALL races have used other races to blame their problems on. I can say the same thing about minorities, but I don't chose to because I think that it's a racist remark.

Lol, you ask for statistical research but disregard it when it is given :goof:

I corrected my previous statement of a few pages back in that post by saying that white racist males scapegoat minorities. History has proven this with my example of post-WWI depression Germany. I don't think any logical person will dispute that racists do indeed scapegoat people.

It must also be given a regards to the common history of the West. Whites have always been the majority throughout the modern history of Europe and they have unfortunately been the perpetrators of racism (not as a result of being white, but just for being human and having the evil instincts we can have when a group of people are in absolute power). Throughout history Jews, blacks, foriegners have been scapegoated for peoples problems.

Just some examples:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/Freedman's_bureau.jpg

(sorry, the picture is too big to post here)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Immigrants1888.jpg

Just to make it clear: The above painting depicts the American citizen's jobs being "stolen" by newly-arrived immigrants.



I don't think that your statement accurately assesses the issue at hand. It is easy to make exaggerated statements to take the focus off of what really transpired.

Please explain how so :)

[The Atheist]

Age.

Pope Ratzinger is 83 years old and leads a billion Catholics.

{edit}

William Pitt was Prime Minister of Britain and led the greatest Empire ever at the tender age of 24.

Joan of Arc was a legend at 15 and executed at 19.

People who assume age has any bearing whatsoever on wisdom, intelligence or ability are merely being dishonest with themselves.

[DanielBenoit]

People who assume age has any bearing whatsoever on wisdom, intelligence or ability are merely being dishonest with themselves.

Though if it did have bearing, Rimbaud would sure be one poor poet :lol:

[BienvenuJDC]

I corrected my previous statement of a few pages back in that post by saying that white racist males scapegoat minorities.

Fine. Black racist males (and females) use the white community as a scapegoat for their shortcomings.

Yeah....that's a no brainer!!

[DanielBenoit]

Fine. Black racist males (and females) use the white community as a scapegoat for their shortcomings.

Yeah....that's a no brainer!!

It's funny how I'm defending a statement that Delta originally posted. But anyway, the very context that comment was originally in was in fact just my agreement with Delta when she referred to the arguments made as "[an] old strategy". I agreed in the context that most recently conservative commentators have been throwing around the talking point that the white male is becoming the "minority" in this country, as has been argued in this thread. In light of the statistics and evidence, I call this either a rhetorical point by conservatives in order to criticize liberalism or a more subconscious admittance of their own discomfort with the growing presence of minorities on, as papaya said, the "TV, radio , and the board room". It is indeed scapegoating when one speaks of the increasingly pro-black bias in the media without evidence to back it up, and even evidence to the contrary in regards to the supposed "anti-white" discrimination increase. Until you prove the numbers wrong, it is scapegoating.

Oh and btw, it is indeed a no-brainer that a racist black male would most likely scapegoat the "white community". It's kinda a part of what racism is.

[BienvenuJDC]

Until you prove the numbers wrong, it is scapegoating.


I don't agree with that statement, and I'm not going to just let you get away with it. Truth is not based upon someone's ability to document it.

[DanielBenoit]

I don't agree with that statement, and I'm not going to just let you get away with it. Truth is not based upon someone's ability to document it.

Truth is not based on one's disagreement either. Please provide me with evidence that speaks against my own (the links are there, go look at them) or provide me with thorough reason as to why the evidence is invalid or if there is another more accurate epistemological basis for finding out the truths of current social science that extends beyond pure reason (Kantian transcendence perhaps? :confused5:)

[Propter W.]

Based on Orwell's years working in a BBC propaganda unit

In my right hand I'm holding a bag with 50 coins. You know nothing about the bag in my left hand. Which bag holds the most coins?


and I am not exactly surprised that you seem to think you know more about Newspeak than the man who invented it

Once again, step by step:

Newspeak is a language used in a work of fiction. This language was devised in order to control thought. The assumption is that if the vocabulary is restricted, thoughts not in line with IngSoc would be literally unthinkable.

This concept, that language shapes or defines thought, is called linguistic determinism. Newspeak is an example of strong linguistic determinism. Psycholinguists have been testing this hypothesis for decades now. The general consensus is that a strong form of linguistic determinism is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

The claim that Newspeak would work and limit or restrict thought is at best unsubstantiated. I think you won't find any linguists who'd argue that the concept of Newspeak, like Orwell described it, is a realistic one.


If a certain term that exists in language A does not exist in language B, speakers of B would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.

Non-applicable as the language used in 1984 was English, even in it's perverted form.

Of course it's applicable:

If a certain term that exists in Oldspeak does not exist in Newspeak, speakers of Newspeak would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.


It's pro-black by dealing with black issues which many white people are simply not interested in. Black Panthers? Don't make me laugh.

And this is based again on what? How can you know what interests many white people? I bet I can find lots of white people in this very thread who are interested in these "black issues".

Again, you retort with unsubstantiated claims.

[papayahed]

Truth is not based upon someone's ability to document it.

Since when?

[Basil]

Since when?

Since truth was replaced with:

truthiness: a "truth" that a person claims to know intuitively from the gut without regard to evidence, logic, intellectual examination, or facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[BienvenuJDC]

I'm just saying that there are some things that are true, but no one has set out to document them. There also is much documentation that is biased and false. I wish I had the resources to document and "prove", but I don't have those resources. Therefore, sometimes it is the one with the most money who gets to "document" their version of truth...which is no truth at all.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Propter W.;951994]In my right hand I'm holding a bag with 50 coins. You know nothing about the bag in my left hand. Which bag holds the most coins?

It's of no consequence.

Once again, step by step:

Newspeak is a language used in a work of fiction. This language was devised in order to control thought. The assumption is that if the vocabulary is restricted, thoughts not in line with IngSoc would be literally unthinkable.

If that were true, then the other means of suppression that Orwell mentions in 1984 would not be necessary


This concept, that language shapes or defines thought, is called linguistic determinism. Newspeak is an example of strong linguistic determinism. Psycholinguists have been testing this hypothesis for decades now. The general consensus is that a strong form of linguistic determinism is highly unlikely, if not impossible.

I don't think that countries would have spent money setting up costly propaganda units if they believed that language doesn't shape thought,or that Newspapers would bother to print editorials or that companies would pay large sums of money to try shape our thinking on whether we should buy their product as opposed somebody elses.

The claim that Newspeak would work and limit or restrict thought is at best unsubstantiated. I think you won't find any linguists who'd argue that the concept of Newspeak, like Orwell described it, is a realistic one.

In which case, you should refer them to the above

Of course it's applicable:

If a certain term that exists in Oldspeak does not exist in Newspeak, speakers of Newspeak would be incapable of perceiving that which the term describes.

It does exist in Newspeak but in a convoluted form


And this is based again on what? How can you know what interests many white people? I bet I can find lots of white people in this very thread who are interested in these "black issues".

Again, you retort with unsubstantiated claims.

I don't know if you have ever lived in England but I do. I have known very many people over a very long time and black issues seldom ,if ever, come into everyday conversation. Therefore, it's reasonable to assume that they are not interested; otherwise they would have mentioned them.
I'm sure that you could find people on this thread who are interested but they are hardly a representative sample.[QUOTE] .....

[DanielBenoit]

I'm just saying that there are some things that are true, but no one has set out to document them.

Then how can you go about judging them to be true, unless you have other forms of evidence?



There also is much documentation that is biased and false.

Please point out the biases in my evidence/links. I'm starting to fear that nobody's even bothered to look at them.



I wish I had the resources to document and "prove", but I don't have those resources. Therefore, sometimes it is the one with the most money who gets to "document" their version of truth...which is no truth at all.

Yeah I'm just rolling around in money here. And how did you come to that conclusion that evidence I provided is just my version of truth when you haven't even put in the effort to logically prove it to be invalid!

But then again. .. truthiness trumps all.

[The Atheist]

I'm just saying that there are some things that are true, but no one has set out to document them.

What papayead said, in spades.


There also is much documentation that is biased and false.

That's why we look at multiple pieces of evidence, not just one, or worse, looking at personal anecdotal evidence only.


I wish I had the resources to document and "prove", but I don't have those resources. Therefore, sometimes it is the one with the most money who gets to "document" their version of truth...which is no truth at all.

So, according to that premise, the one with the most money in the media, must be non-white men and women.

Funny, last time I looked, pretty nearly every media company was owned by a white bloke.

Brian's Auty Beeb is a rare exception - a public service with some presence, but as their own [white male] chairman pointed out last month, it is in danger of being squashed by BSkyB, which is Murdoch or one of the other white blokes' company.

Despite the BBC's excellence, let's check out Brian's contention that it's being used as a tool for the dilution of the power of white men, who have controlled the world for the past twenty centuries:

You keep mentioning "the BBC", although I see you got as far as BBC4 as the main problem.

BBC4 claims a "reach" of 10 million listeners at an average of 12.3 hours per week. (http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php)

Note that is the BBC's own figures.

I can't find any age demographics for it easily, but I'll guess that it shares with the almost-identical RNZ National program, an older age group listener as its main audience.

Also, the "reach" figure is entirely misleading, because that is everyone who is within listening distance of a BBC4 radio program during the week. How many people actually listen, and care about what is being said on radio in 2010?

Regardless of whether there is a bias on BBC4, I suggest that basing your argument on what happens on talk radio is little better than if I base my argument on talkback radio, in which case I would present white men as xenophobic racists who are frightened by anyone non-white.


The claim that Newspeak would work and limit or restrict thought is at best unsubstantiated. I think you won't find any linguists who'd argue that the concept of Newspeak, like Orwell described it, is a realistic one.

I've found it's more psychologists than linguists that are contra-Orwell on linguistic determinism.

I remain unconvinced. Certainly, I agree that removal of the language will not restrict the thought, but if the individual is only capable of feeling and not communicating, the result would be the same.

[Emil Miller]

Brian's Auty Beeb is a rare exception - a public service with some presence, but as their own [white male] chairman pointed out last month, it is in danger of being squashed by BSkyB, which is Murdoch or one of the other white blokes' company.

Despite the BBC's excellence, let's check out Brian's contention that it's being used as a tool for the dilution of the power of white men, who have controlled the world for the past twenty centuries:

You keep mentioning "the BBC", although I see you got as far as BBC4 as the main problem.

BBC4 claims a "reach" of 10 million listeners at an average of 12.3 hours per week. (http://www.rajar.co.uk/listening/quarterly_listening.php)

Note that is the BBC's own figures.

I can't find any age demographics for it easily, but I'll guess that it shares with the almost-identical RNZ National program, an older age group listener as its main audience.

Also, the "reach" figure is entirely misleading, because that is everyone who is within listening distance of a BBC4 radio program during the week. How many people actually listen, and care about what is being said on radio in 2010?

Regardless of whether there is a bias on BBC4, I suggest that basing your argument on what happens on talk radio is little better than if I base my argument on talkback radio, in which case I would present white men as xenophobic racists who are frightened by anyone non-white..


Of course the chairman would say that, the BBC has been in trouble in recent years through it's attempt to influence government policy. Its current precept is guaraunteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government.
You would be wrong to imagine that the BBC relies solely on Radio4 for its audience, the BBC runs a number of other channels and also broadcasts on its World Service, so its reach is much greater than the 10 million stated.
I don't listen to the World Service but if, as on Radio 4 which is also primarily a news and current affairs outlet, there isn't a liberal bias to it's reporting, I would be surprised to say the least.
There's not a lot of choice between Rupert Murdoch's Sky and the BBC but if I had to choose between dumbing down and indoctrination I think I'd prefer former. After all, Murdoch's main interest is increasing his wealth whereas the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not.
Bienvenue used the word Orwellian to describe the changes to the BBC's charter. It is a charter that only a naif would take at face value and it is a fitting description given that Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC and saw the danger of it's extension into post-war Britain.
As for white men controlling the world for the past twenty centuries, they might have continued to do so had they not fouled their own nest. It won't be black men that will control the world, however, it will be the Chinese; I'll settle for that.

[The Atheist]

You would be wrong to imagine that the BBC relies solely on Radio4 for its audience, the BBC runs a number of other channels and also broadcasts on its World Service, so its reach is much greater than the 10 million stated.

I wasn't limiting the Beeb to 4 at all, but given your own comments regarding 4, its status as a talk station and the only non-commercial arm, it is the one that matters by far the most.

The reach is a grossly overstated way of looking at actual listeners.

[DanielBenoit]

the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not. [QUOTE]

Call me a nutty liberal optimist, but I like to believe in that sometimes.

[QUOTE]
As for white men controlling the world for the past twenty centuries, they might have continued to do so had they not fouled their own nest. It won't be black men that will control the world, however, it will be the Chinese; I'll settle for that.

Ummm, maybe it's because the white race has discovered, with the rest of the developed world, that no race should "control" the world and that we should all own ourselves. It weren't so happy times when the white man ruled the world for everybody else.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=Brian Bean;952196]
the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not. [QUOTE]

Call me a nutty liberal optimist, but I like to believe in that sometimes.



Ummm, maybe it's because the white race has discovered, with the rest of the developed world, that no race should "control" the world and that we should all own ourselves. It weren't so happy times when the white man ruled the world for everybody else.

Glad to oblige: You're a nutty liberal optimist. :D

[TheFifthElement]

Of course the chairman would say that, the BBC has been in trouble in recent years through it's attempt to influence government policy. Its current precept is guaraunteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government.
You would be wrong to imagine that the BBC relies solely on Radio4 for its audience, the BBC runs a number of other channels and also broadcasts on its World Service, so its reach is much greater than the 10 million stated.
I don't listen to the World Service but if, as on Radio 4 which is also primarily a news and current affairs outlet, there isn't a liberal bias to it's reporting, I would be surprised to say the least.
There's not a lot of choice between Rupert Murdoch's Sky and the BBC but if I had to choose between dumbing down and indoctrination I think I'd prefer former. After all, Murdoch's main interest is increasing his wealth whereas the BBC are trying to convince its listeners that all men are brothers whether its audience believe it or not.
Bienvenue used the word Orwellian to describe the changes to the BBC's charter. It is a charter that only a naif would take at face value and it is a fitting description given that Orwell worked on propaganda for the BBC and saw the danger of it's extension into post-war Britain.

Brian, I am beginning to think that one of us is living in an alternate reality as the version of the BBC that you experience and the version I experience appear to bear little relationship to each other.

Firstly, we have already established that you do not watch TV and through examination of a single night's scheduling of the BBC television channels there is no apparent evidence of a bias towards 'black issues'. So I think it is fair to say, unless you can show evidence to the contrary, that there is no apparent bias towards 'black issues' in the BBC television schedule. And perhaps it is, in some way, now a 'socialist' activity to bake, or learn about the coastline, and perhaps it is rampant liberalism that brings us Dragon's Den but if that's the case, I'm not seeing it.

As regards Radio 4, well I don't listen to it and I'm not about to start, but, again, having looked at the scheduling information I'm a little mystified as to where the 'black bias' lies in The Archers or Women's Hour or Yesterday in Parliament or Gardeners Question Time all of which are regular features. Neither can I see that there is a significant bias towards black presenters - however perhaps you can enlighten me on that front?

Perhaps it might be helpful if you could articulate what it is that you perceive to be the 'black issues' which are being given excessive attention by the BBC? It may be that we have a basic difference in interpretation on this point. It would also be helpful if you could be a little clearer on whether the issue is around 'black' bias, 'liberal' bias or 'socialist' bias as through your various posts you have swung from one to the other depending on who you are answering and I'm not entirely convinced that you're clear on that point either, other than that it's a conspiracy and it's nothing to do with conservatism. Clearly someone is to blame, and it's not the people you agree with.

I have to say that I find most of your commentary on the BBC charter to be somewhat disingenuous. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, owned by the public and accountable to the public which is why the government of the time is involved in the renewal of the Royal Charter. The changes to the charter which you highlighted in your post 122 are both innocuous and open to interpretation by the BBC. I note that you, quite significantly, omitted to mention the following part of the charter:



23.General dutiesIn exercising all its functions, the Trust must act in the public interest and, in particular,
it must—
(a)represent the interests of licence fee payers;
(b)secure that the independence of the BBC is maintained;
(c)carefully and appropriately assess the views of licence fee payers;
(d)exercise rigorous stewardship of public money;
(e)have regard to the competitive impact of the BBC’s activities on the wider market;
and(f)ensure that the BBC observes high standards of openness and transparency.
BBC Charter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.txt)
and you also omitted to mention that the major controversy over the last change to the Charter was around the dissolution of the BBC Board of Directors and its replacement with the BBC Trust. It is right that this change should be debated, I am not sure of the purpose for this myself, but it is not the underlying requirement of the BBC to be accountable to the public and provide public service broadcasting that is or was at at issue.

Contrary to your statement in the post I quoted above, the BBC Charter does not expire in 2016 because "Its current precept is guaraunteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government". In fact the charter always lasts for 10 years and is reviewed every 10 years regardless of whether it is a Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Monster Raving Loony Party government. It was last renewed in 2006, which is when the Labour government made the changes, and prior to that it was renewed in 1996, and 1986 and so on back to 1946 when BBC television services were resumed following the end of WWII.

Neither is it contraversial that the government in power at the time of review makes changes to the Charter. If changes had not been made to the Charter we would still, in UK, only have the BBC. It was a change to the Charter which permitted competition in television broadcasting, and a further change in the Charter which permitted competition in radio broadcasting, albeit that this came much later. In addition, whenever the Charter comes up for renewal there is also a process of public consulation, which enables the owners (us) to have a say in what we want from the BBC. In fact, that facility is always there. Here are some examples:
Editorial guidelines (https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/departments/bbc/consultation-on-the-bbc-editorial-guidelines/consultation/consult_view)
BBc Radio 3, BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 7 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/bbc-radio-3-bbc-radio-4-bbc-radio-7/consultation/consult_view)

I don't disagree that there has been some slippage in the objectivity of the BBC in recent years. I have seen more evidence of partisan reporting in the news and a creeping tendancy towards sensationalisation. It is right that this should be debated and, where found to be occurring, should be stopped. Such debates work only if based on fact and evidence, not interpretation. I've seen nothing in your argument beyond interpretation. You have provided no substantive evidence of bias in any shape or form. On that basis it is very hard to take your argument seriously, which is a shame as you may have a point but the way you articulate it doesn't encourage me to give it any credence.

And, yes, the programming is frequently poor, or perhaps it is just that those programmes don't interest me? Who knows. But does this translate into an organised and deliberate policy to undermine the white man? I don't think so.

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;952481]Brian, I am beginning to think that one of us is living in an alternate reality as the version of the BBC that you experience and the version I experience appear to bear little relationship to each other.

So it would seem.

Firstly, we have already established that you do not watch TV and through examination of a single night's scheduling of the BBC television channels there is no apparent evidence of a bias towards 'black issues'. So I think it is fair to say, unless you can show evidence to the contrary, that there is no apparent bias towards 'black issues' in the BBC television schedule. And perhaps it is, in some way, now a 'socialist' activity to bake, or learn about the coastline, and perhaps it is rampant liberalism that brings us Dragon's Den but if that's the case, I'm not seeing it.

Well, as I have said, I am speaking here of BBC radio.


As regards Radio 4, well I don't listen to it and I'm not about to start, but, again, having looked at the scheduling information I'm a little mystified as to where the 'black bias' lies in The Archers or Women's Hour or Yesterday in Parliament or Gardeners Question Time all of which are regular features. Neither can I see that there is a significant bias towards black presenters - however perhaps you can enlighten me on that front?

I don't listen to Woman's Hour although I believe that some men do. I did however catch part of a programme on which the presenter and another woman were talking about actors who played James Bond. The presenter said she would like to see a black man playing the part.
Nevertheless, apart from those programmes you have selected, I switched on today to a programme called Journey of a Lifetime, in which a reporter went to Dubai. It wasn't about Dubai, however, but it concerned immigrant workers from the sub-continent who have lost their jobs in Dubai's recession. There was a constant comparison of glittering buildings, well-tended lawns etc. with the hovels that the workers lived and interviews with them about the poverty they are suffering. This is familiar fare from the BBC, as in From Our Own Correspondent which, apart from occasional comments on non-social aspects of a location, gives the BBC a chance to revel in the poorest parts of the world's population with similar intent. A good example of liberal/left bias was the programme that was ostensibly about the closure of a US air base in England, in which the reporter, apropos of nothing that had been said before, pointed out that a former black US serviceman who had served at the base was now awaiting execution for a murder committed in the US and how wrong it was that such a sentence could be passed. Needless to say, I stopped listening to that particular programme some time ago. Apart from anything else, I like to make my own mind up as to whether murderers should be executed.
As for non-white presenters, their names tell one whether they are likely to be white even if their diction doesn't .There is, however, one particular West Indian man whose attempt to speak BBC English is hilarious.

Perhaps it might be helpful if you could articulate what it is that you perceive to be the 'black issues' which are being given excessive attention by the BBC? It may be that we have a basic difference in interpretation on this point. It would also be helpful if you could be a little clearer on whether the issue is around 'black' bias, 'liberal' bias or 'socialist' bias as through your various posts you have swung from one to the other depending on who you are answering and I'm not entirely convinced that you're clear on that point either, other than that it's a conspiracy and it's nothing to do with conservatism. Clearly someone is to blame, and it's not the people you agree with.

Yes, it's difficult to maintain continuity in multiple posts but,collectively,the issues are all three and can best be summarized under the title of liberalism.

I have to say that I find most of your commentary on the BBC charter to be somewhat disingenuous. The BBC is a public service broadcaster, owned by the public and accountable to the public which is why the government of the time is involved in the renewal of the Royal Charter. The changes to the charter which you highlighted in your post 122 are both innocuous and open to interpretation by the BBC. I note that you, quite significantly, omitted to mention the following part of the charter:

You have just made my point. They are indeed open to interpretation by the BBC and especially by the programme 'controllers'.

BBC Charter (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/about/how_we_govern/charter.txt)
and you also omitted to mention that the major controversy over the last change to the Charter was around the dissolution of the BBC Board of Directors and its replacement with the BBC Trust. It is right that this change should be debated, I am not sure of the purpose for this myself, but it is not the underlying requirement of the BBC to be accountable to the public and provide public service broadcasting that is or was at at issue.

I did so deliberately because the circumstances surrounding the dissolution of the Board and its replacement with the Trust were political and had already been edited by the moderator in a previous post on this thread.

Contrary to your statement in the post I quoted above, the BBC Charter does not expire in 2016 because "Its current precept is guaranteed only until 2016; a decision taken by the last Labour government". In fact the charter always lasts for 10 years and is reviewed every 10 years regardless of whether it is a Labour, Liberal, Conservative or Monster Raving Loony Party government. It was last renewed in 2006, which is when the Labour government made the changes, and prior to that it was renewed in 1996, and 1986 and so on back to 1946 when BBC television services were resumed following the end of WWII.

I agree, but it was renewed with a warning that it might not be financed by the license fee beyond that time, which would call into question its continuance as a public service broadcaster.

Neither is it controversial that the government in power at the time of review makes changes to the Charter. If changes had not been made to the Charter we would still, in UK, only have the BBC. It was a change to the Charter which permitted competition in television broadcasting, and a further change in the Charter which permitted competition in radio broadcasting, albeit that this came much later. In addition, whenever the Charter comes up for renewal there is also a process of public consultation, which enables the owners (us) to have a say in what we want from the BBC. In fact, that facility is always there. Here are some examples:
Editorial guidelines (https://consultations.external.bbc.co.uk/departments/bbc/consultation-on-the-bbc-editorial-guidelines/consultation/consult_view)
BBc Radio 3, BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 7 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/consultations/departments/bbc/bbc-radio-3-bbc-radio-4-bbc-radio-7/consultation/consult_view)

Of course, but the changes you mention are of a technical nature that would have had to be made in any event. Public consultation cannot stop liberal bias once the charter has been given Royal assent. Strangely, I cannot find a copy of the BBC's original charter which I was able to access easily some years ago as part of my research for Pro Bono Publico, but I can assure you that its strictures were very different to those of the most recent version.

I don't disagree that there has been some slippage in the objectivity of the BBC in recent years. I have seen more evidence of partisan reporting in the news and a creeping tendancy towards sensationalisation. It is right that this should be debated and, where found to be occurring, should be stopped. Such debates work only if based on fact and evidence, not interpretation. I've seen nothing in your argument beyond interpretation. You have provided no substantive evidence of bias in any shape or form. On that basis it is very hard to take your argument seriously, which is a shame as you may have a point but the way you articulate it doesn't encourage me to give it any credence.

Perhaps this will help you to take my argument seriously:

BBC report damns its ‘culture of bias’ Richard Brooks and Dipesh Gadher

THE BBC is institutionally biased, an official report will conclude this week. The year-long investigation, commissioned by the BBC, has found the corporation particularly partial in its treatment of single-issue politics such as climate change, poverty, race and religion.

It concludes that the bias has extended across drama, comedy and entertainment, with the corporation pandering to politically motivated celebrities and trendy causes.

You can read the rest of the report by googling Bias in the BBC, where you will find masses of articles on the subject. As I have mentioned elsewhere on this thread, the culpability of the BBC in this regard is a standing joke in the UK.

And, yes, the programming is frequently poor, or perhaps it is just that those programmes don't interest me? Who knows. But does this translate into an organised and deliberate policy to undermine the white man? I don't think so

The answer to your final question is no it doesn't but it is certainly a deliberate policy to promote internationalism. Leon Trotsky has been dead for 70 years but his spirit still haunts the BBC. [QUOTE]

[The Atheist]

... I'm a little mystified as to where the 'black bias' lies in The Archers ...

:smilielol5:

Wins the thread!

[DanielBenoit]

Brian: News is news. If some pastor in Florida wants to burn the Qu'ran on 9/11, whether of not the stations agree with him, they will report it because it will capture the public's attention and promote higher ratings.

Just because a news station may be reporting say. . . a skinhead riot, does that make them an advocate of skinheads, or having a skinhead-bias?

If a famous celebrity is speaking at a communist rally, the news will cover it, not to promote communist sympathies, but just because it is a famous celebrity and is controversial. It's how news works.

[Emil Miller]

:smilielol5:

Wins the thread!

Do you mean there isn't ? It's only a matter of time though.:nod:

[DanielBenoit]

Indeed, before you know it, they'll start having Lil' Wayne play the opening theme to Days of our Lives.

[OrphanPip]

Indeed, before you know it, they'll start having Lil' Wayne play the opening theme to Days of our Lives.

I'm sure the 6 elderly ladies who still watch Days of our Lives will be mortified.

[TheFifthElement]

[I]I don't listen to Woman's Hour although I believe that some men do. I did however catch part of a programme on which the presenter and another woman were talking about actors who played James Bond. The presenter said she would like to see a black man playing the part.
Shocking. That's almost as mad as having a white man play Gandhi.

Come on Brian, surely you can do better than a radio programme about Dubai (black, much?), and a three year old article from the Times referring to a 'damning report' which was so damning that no one else even wrote about it? Fundamentally I don't disagree that there are issues with objectivity in the BBC. It swings both ways, depending on the issue. They tend to come a cropper as much with religious and foreign affairs issues as anything else. It begs the question whether there is, or ever can be, unbiased reporting of human affairs. Probably not. But that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is about whether there is a deliberate attack on white men. You have said that the BBC is an example of this attack because the BBC increasingly promotes and reports 'pro-black' issues, and that this means:


It's pro-black by dealing with black issues which many white people are simply not interested in.

From what you've posted you haven't established this. What you've established is that these 'black issues' are of interest to both 'black' people, probably 'brown' people and white liberals and/or socialists and probably 'internationlists's and whatever 'ist' you think of next to throw into the mix. By your own definition this means that it would be an issue that 'many white people would be interested in' (given than in UK the majority vote shows a liberal/socialist majority). It fails your own test.


the culpability of the BBC in this regard is a standing joke in the UK.
Perhaps that 'standing joke' hasn't quite reached the North yet. Perhaps we've been distracted by the constant stream of liberal, pro-black, socialist propaganda propogated by Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing and Top Gear.


Yes, it's difficult to maintain continuity in multiple posts but,collectively,the issues are all three and can best be summarized under the title of liberalism.
Yes, I've noticed that you have difficulties maintaining a consistent argument. I've also noticed that you use the term 'liberalism' quite liberally, and it generally seems to mean whatever you don't agree with. But socialism, liberalism, internationalist and pro-blackism are all very different things, you can't lump them under the one title however much you might like to.


Leon Trotsky has been dead for 70 years but his spirit still haunts the BBC.
Well, Trotsky may have risen from the dead and be running the BBC but you can content yourself with this: at least he was white ;)

[Emil Miller]

[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;953138]Shocking. That's almost as mad as having a white man play Gandhi.

Yes I thought that too, but then we all know where Richard Attenborough is coming from don't we? Or do we?

Come on Brian, surely you can do better than a radio programme about Dubai (black, much?), and a three year old article from the Times referring to a 'damning report' which was so damning that no one else even wrote about it? Fundamentally I don't disagree that there are issues with objectivity in the BBC. It swings both ways, depending on the issue. They tend to come a cropper as much with religious and foreign affairs issues as anything else. It begs the question whether there is, or ever can be, unbiased reporting of human affairs. Probably not. But that's not really what this thread is about. This thread is about whether there is a deliberate attack on white men. You have said that the BBC is an example of this attack because the BBC increasingly promotes and reports 'pro-black' issues, and that this means:

If the BBC was biased to that extent 3 years ago, it's likely to be even more biased now. I think that when the BBC read it they probably binned it. Would you like me to post more examples from Google?


From what you've posted you haven't established this. What you've established is that these 'black issues' are of interest to both 'black' people, probably 'brown' people and white liberals and/or socialists and probably 'internationlists's and whatever 'ist' you think of next to throw into the mix. By your own definition this means that it would be an issue that 'many white people would be interested in' (given than in UK the majority vote shows a liberal/socialist majority). It fails your own test.

May I remind you that a large proportion of that majority happen to be those you mention minus the white liberals and/or socialists.

Perhaps that 'standing joke' hasn't quite reached the North yet. Perhaps we've been distracted by the constant stream of liberal, pro-black, socialist propaganda propogated by Eastenders, Strictly Come Dancing and Top Gear.

I refer you to the report mentioned previously. It is inconceivable that it is wrong in its conclusions when the BBC commissioned it themselves.

Yes, I've noticed that you have difficulties maintaining a consistent argument. I've also noticed that you use the term 'liberalism' quite liberally, and it generally seems to mean whatever you don't agree with. But socialism, liberalism, internationalist and pro-blackism are all very different things, you can't lump them under the one title however much you might like to.

One needs only a basic knowledge of politics to recognise that they are all strands of the same mindset.

Well, Trotsky may have risen from the dead and be running the BBC but you can content yourself with this: at least he was white

And to think that when I was in my early twenties he was one of my heroes, but I grew out of it as most young men do. Which makes me wonder what it is about those people who haven't. Arrested development perhaps? [QUOTE]

[DanielBenoit]

[QUOTE=TheFifthElement;953138]

One needs only a basic knowledge of politics to recognise that they are all strands of the same mindset.

Actually, no. I would think that one with a little more than a basic knowledge of politics will know of the many different versions of socialism, liberalism (hell, liberalism back in Adam Smith's day would be considered today's libertarianism), and internationalism. The U.N. is an internationalist organization, would you call it a 'socialist' one as well? Is every liberal a socialist? Just because both are on the Left does that mean they are one and the same? If they are, then I assume that every conservative is a fascist. I think just a little knowledge of early Soviet Russia will show you that everyone had a different idea of what 'socialism' was.



And to think that when I was in my early twenties he was one of my heroes, but I grew out of it a most young men do. Which makes me wonder what it is about those people who haven't. Arrested development perhaps?

Yeah, there sure are a ton of outspoken Trotskyites on this thread :rolleyes:

[tonywalt]

Very few white males would trade in their ethinicity for another ethinicity.

It is what it is.

We could get into a big long discussion defining ethnicity, but that would only detract from the above reality.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Thinking the white man is a persecuted minority analogous to blacks, gays, Muslims, or any other actual minority is a delusional, laughable proposition. Unfortunately, it seems to be gaining ground among certain political bases, and will only serve to widen the gulf in already strained race relations.

P.S. I wish people would learn how to quote correctly. It's making this thread exceedingly difficult to read.

[tonywalt]

I am a small minority in the Caribbean and can state without hesitation that my colour carries currency, everywhere and everyday.

So, either way it works beneficially for this group. Countries like Trinidad have a 1 percent white minority (give or take) and it's almost automatically landing into upper middle class- just by virtue of Network.

I rarely complain. Its' a helluva a club and the membership has no fees.

[Emil Miller]

Lucky for you. Enjoy it and never feel guilty about it.

[tonywalt]

I sometimes think of my ancestors sitting on the wide verandhah in the cool of the evening gazing over the sweeping Caribbean cane fields The fields are a fading green, but they produce Gold. Succulent Gold.

Perhaps they were with other members of the Plantocracy discussing matters of merchant trade and some idle gossip. The wine is flowing, newly imported from France with tidy profits from the sweet juice that Europe and America enjoyed.

Happy Friday!

[Buh4Bee]

Don't fly!