When some years ago I moved to Acton, west London one of things I had to do was find a barber’s. As it happened there was one very near where I lived on the high street: walk in, extremely popular. The barbers and the clientele were exclusively black - mainly young men; indeed, so popular was it that it appeared also to function as an informal community centre. As a middle-aged white man, I thought this place is not for me. I just wouldn’t feel comfortable going there - and though, if I had, I would have hoped to have had a friendly welcome, I felt too nervous to put it to the test. Fortunately, for me there were plenty of other options nearby.
But this was for me a moment of revelation. The feeling I had experienced for the first time in my life, is almost certainly experienced by black people pretty much every day of their lives.
Fantastic article, btw. One of the very best that’s ever appeared on PB.
Sorry and all that, but I thought a Police Department was, generally speaking a Good Thing. Some individuals, especially in this situation, might be 'bad apples' but, to mix metaphors, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good idea.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
How does that grievance help you then? How does any grievance help you? If you were counselling the Grandson, would you suggest he continues to seek some sort of redress, or moves on with his life and makes his own pile? It's a total dead end.
V pleased to hear Bercow not happy about . his non peerage. Apparently he is a county standard tennis player and i read somewhere he duffed up Boris 6-0 6-0 6-0. ..not very charitable if true... how to win friends and influence people eh...
If the report that Framk Field is being ennobled is correct, I don't understand why Bercow was blocked, not because of any real or imagined faults of behaviour, but on the grounds that Corbyn had nominated a non-Labour candidate. Why is it then OK for the Government to nominate an ex-Labour independent, apart from mischief?
I say that as someone who quite likes Frank and I don't oppose his nomination. But either all party leaders should be able to nominate people outside their parties or none should.
Not wanting to have a sharp disagreement at this time on a Sunday, I am not aware that Field has an unresolved / incomplete investigation into his credibly alleged bullying of his own staff that he has suppressed by exploiting his own position.
Though I'll give you that Field has become quite bullying in his handling of witnesses, and more kneejerk in how he deals with evidence against his own view, in his Chairmanship of Select Committees in recent years.
Also not in argumentative mood! But we're told that Bercow wasn't blocked because of allegations about bullying, but because it was inappropriate for a Labour leader to nominate a non-Lanour person. I'm merely saying it's inconsistent with Frank being nominated.
Personally, I think it's a silly rule and all party leaders should be able to nominate anybody they like. If they choose to use a slot for someone who isn't a party hack, that's actually a good thing, not something to punish.
I thought that several Leaders had, over the years, nominated people who went straight to the cross-benches.
Yes quite normal David Alton former liberal nominated by ashdown
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
I think my dad's lesson on race applies here. Blaming that person isn't going to help your own situation, better to spend your energy on being success yourself.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
How does that grievance help you then? How does any grievance help you? If you were counselling the Grandson, would you suggest he continues to seek some sort of redress, or moves on with his life and makes his own pile? It's a total dead end.
I wouldn't say the grievance helps, but it exists and is understandable. I wouldn't say it's a choice that black people make to feel aggrieved by history
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
Yep, privilege is a term that makes people bristle - especially when so many white people, very reasonably, do not feel in any way privileged. But it is also a term that gets attention. Is it an advantage or a privilege not to be racially abused in the street or to be less likely to suffer from prejudice solely because of the colour of your skin? Either way, it is a fact of life.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
At the poorest end of British society, where people are fighting for jobs and state services, I doubt there is much advantage in being white.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
As other ethnic groups besides whites are advantaged, how about "black disadvantage"?
Sorry and all that, but I thought a Police Department was, generally speaking a Good Thing. Some individuals, especially in this situation, might be 'bad apples' but, to mix metaphors, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good idea.
If they are asking for something like replacing RUC with PSNI as happened in Northern Ireland, that makes sense. If they are asking for abolition of a policing its bonkers.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
How does that grievance help you then? How does any grievance help you? If you were counselling the Grandson, would you suggest he continues to seek some sort of redress, or moves on with his life and makes his own pile? It's a total dead end.
I wouldn't say the grievance helps, but it exists and is understandable. I wouldn't say it's a choice that black people make to feel aggrieved by history
You think black people have no choice but to feel aggrieved?
V pleased to hear Bercow not happy about . his non peerage. Apparently he is a county standard tennis player and i read somewhere he duffed up Boris 6-0 6-0 6-0. ..not very charitable if true... how to win friends and influence people eh...
If the report that Framk Field is being ennobled is correct, I don't understand why Bercow was blocked, not because of any real or imagined faults of behaviour, but on the grounds that Corbyn had nominated a non-Labour candidate. Why is it then OK for the Government to nominate an ex-Labour independent, apart from mischief?
I say that as someone who quite likes Frank and I don't oppose his nomination. But either all party leaders should be able to nominate people outside their parties or none should.
Not wanting to have a sharp disagreement at this time on a Sunday, I am not aware that Field has an unresolved / incomplete investigation into his credibly alleged bullying of his own staff that he has suppressed by exploiting his own position.
Though I'll give you that Field has become quite bullying in his handling of witnesses, and more kneejerk in how he deals with evidence against his own view, in his Chairmanship of Select Committees in recent years.
Also not in argumentative mood! But we're told that Bercow wasn't blocked because of allegations about bullying, but because it was inappropriate for a Labour leader to nominate a non-Lanour person. I'm merely saying it's inconsistent with Frank being nominated.
Personally, I think it's a silly rule and all party leaders should be able to nominate anybody they like. If they choose to use a slot for someone who isn't a party hack, that's actually a good thing, not something to punish.
I thought that several Leaders had, over the years, nominated people who went straight to the cross-benches.
Yes quite normal David Alton former liberal nominated by ashdown
Wikipedia says that Alton was nominated by John Major in his Dissolution Honours.
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Gallowgate, I hate to contradict you, and I have great respect for you, but a party that:
1) poses as anti-racist while being led by Jeremy Corbyn; 2) Fumes about tax and tax avoidance while having Ian Lavery in a senior position; 3) Criticises the Liberal Democrats for not respecting the result of a referendum while saying they would try and reverse it;
is not really demonstrating that they 'are not hypocrites.'
All political parties are of course hypocritical to some degree. This is because in a serious party when reality collides with ideology, reality wins. (This doesn't apply to the Republicans, but they forfeited the right to be considered a serious political party some time ago.)
But one of the key problems Starmer has to sort out if Labour is to stand any chance of returning to power in the medium term is that they appear to be one of the worst sets of hypocrites and chancers around.
Whereas it is not easy to dispute any of your points, they can be contextualised against the alternative. A party led by someone who has taken hypocrisy and chancery to a new dimension.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
"Advantage" is a less loaded term than privilege.
All things being equal, there's no doubt that life as a white person in a country were 85% are white, is going to be easier than life as a black person where 5% are black.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
White people experience discrimination all of the time in the UK. It is very rarely because of the colour of their skin, though.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
I think my dad's lesson on race applies here. Blaming that person isn't going to help your own situation, better to spend your energy on being success yourself.
My wife's grand-parents got cheated out of a substantial inheritance, but it would do no good to go against the descendants of the people who did the cheating.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
It's much better but still has the issue that it conflates all 57 million white people in this country into one huge blob. Within that there is a huge range from aristocrats and the wealthy who would have a lot of advantage down to the poorest who have very little. Another group which is generally white but has little advantage is travellers.
As an aside if white people have advantage and black people don't, what about mixed race people? Are they half-advantaged?
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
A thought provoking piece. The thoughts that it provoked in me, in no particular order are:
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
Yes he is - people just don't like to talk about it because it might be seen as racist.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
It is a sweeping statement, but in my experience largeiy accurate.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
I think my dad's lesson on race applies here. Blaming that person isn't going to help your own situation, better to spend your energy on being success yourself.
That's wholly positive in the sense of personal life management and aspiration. I'd liken it to something similar regarding class -
"Don't sit on your arse moaning about others having it easy, do your damndest to get up the ladder and join them."
Good advice. Which (imo) does not in any way lead logically to arguing that there is no such thing as class advantage or disadvantage.
These 2 things - micro personal motivation and macro sociopolitical understanding - are not coupled.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
Others have done it down thread, but the Rotherham sex abuse is an obvious example. One group valuing another group less because they are not the same.
A thought provoking piece. The thoughts that it provoked in me, in no particular order are:
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
Whitesplaining is white people using the term "well actually" when discussing race issues with non-whites. I've had it happen to me a lot, and usually it's younger lefty types that do it.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
It's much better but still has the issue that it conflates all 57 million white people in this country into one huge blob. Within that there is a huge range from aristocrats and the wealthy who would have a lot of advantage down to the poorest who have very little. Another group which is generally white but has little advantage is travellers.
As an aside if white people have advantage and black people don't, what about mixed race people? Are they half-advantaged?
I have two step-children, who are of mixed race. One of their unpleasant experiences as children, was being abused by both white and black people.
On the other hand, people of mixed race are one of the highest-earning groups in this country.
A thought provoking piece. The thoughts that it provoked in me, in no particular order are:
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
Whitesplaining is white people using the term "well actually" when discussing race issues with non-whites. I've had it happen to me a lot, and usually it's younger lefty types that do it.
I know. And I recognise the tendency, probably done it myself. I just find it a bit simplistic, like mansplaining.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
It is a sweeping statement, but in my experience largeiy accurate.
In most peoples experiences it is true, that does not make it true when you include the words almost never. I wouldnt argue with the following but it is not what was said:
MOST White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
How does that grievance help you then? How does any grievance help you? If you were counselling the Grandson, would you suggest he continues to seek some sort of redress, or moves on with his life and makes his own pile? It's a total dead end.
A good example of this is the Palestinians. They now have somewhere in the region of 5 million people who claim the right to return to Israel but it's never going to happen. The Palestinians hold on to their grievances but all the while things continuously seem to get worse for them.
My view is that painful though it would be the Palestinians should aim to get back as much territory as possibly and then have Gaza rejoin Egypt, and the West Bank Jordan. At least that way they could hopefully start to see some economic development.
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
Margaret Thatcher said that if Scots wanted independence all that was needed was for the SNP to win a majority of Scottish seats. Every time we meet a criterion, the goalposts are changed.
I wonder if it will now be followed by a bunch of almost exclusively male pale & stale posters seeking in their different ways - some by absurdly reductive simplification, some by convoluted whataboutery, some by outright head-in-sand denial - to downplay or deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism?
I'd want 1.01 on Betfair before I lumped on that possibility.
Well the best thing we stale and pale people can do is listen to their concerns without thinking they've just got a chip on their shoulder.
But these BLM protests haven't helped the cause at all, at risk of sounding like a 60s American talking about MLK. All I've seen on my Facebook is the small number of left wing friends I have uncritically singing its praise and the vast majority seemingly being pushed further to the right.
There's a PR downside to BLM activism here. I agree with that.
But my frustration is when people refuse to accept that there is an enduring racist legacy from colonialism. To me, this is an absurd denial of a palpable truth.
Which is a real shame. Because when it comes to discussing how serious racism is today in the UK, how it manifests, what (if anything) can and should be done about it, this is a conversation that necessarily involves many shades of opinion. The racism debate is really important and needs different perspectives. About the only perspective it doesn't need is the one which starts from "there is no racist legacy from colonialism so we don't need to think or talk about that at all." That kills it stone dead.
And, btw, I extend the same dim view to the other extreme of "everything that's wrong about race relations in the here and now is because of slavery and Empire." But we hear less of that on here than we do the denial. Or it seems we do anyway. Perhaps I am projecting or noticing one more than the other. This is possible.
Inclined to agree.
As I said yesterday, if your Grandad was had over financially by someone exploiting him in tough times, who then built a business on the back of the profit he made out of Gramps, when you see the Grandson in a swish apartment his Daddy bought him, you're entitled to be aggrieved, and expect some understanding of why you feel that way.
How does that grievance help you then? How does any grievance help you? If you were counselling the Grandson, would you suggest he continues to seek some sort of redress, or moves on with his life and makes his own pile? It's a total dead end.
I wouldn't say the grievance helps, but it exists and is understandable. I wouldn't say it's a choice that black people make to feel aggrieved by history
You think black people have no choice but to feel aggrieved?
By history.
I doubt many black people look at history and see much to smile about. I'm not saying they have to be aggrieved, but that white people should understand why they are if they are
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
As other ethnic groups besides whites are advantaged, how about "black disadvantage"?
That is subtly different. It frames a black c.f. 'WAME' narrative which to me rings less true than white c.f. BAME.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
Others have done it down thread, but the Rotherham sex abuse is an obvious example. One group valuing another group less because they are not the same.
The Rotherham sex abuse scandal was horrific, but the victims were not exclusively white. It is fair to say, though, that the white victims were subjected to horrible racial abuse.
Interesting conversation on here, I'd bet the majority of contributors live in almost exclusively white areas.
I don't.
In which case you're far more qualified to comment than those who live in the shires and provincial towns. I'm new here but it appears that very few have any idea what life is like at the bottom end of society, irrespective of colour
A thought provoking piece. The thoughts that it provoked in me, in no particular order are:
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
Whitesplaining is white people using the term "well actually" when discussing race issues with non-whites. I've had it happen to me a lot, and usually it's younger lefty types that do it.
I know. And I recognise the tendency, probably done it myself. I just find it a bit simplistic, like mansplaining.
I think it's the minimisation of non-white opinions and voices by white people that Alastair was trying to get at, which I think is an issue. At the same time there's a lot of non-white voices that are idiotic just as there are white voices that are and a society depends on people being able to challenge each other and having a open debate without anyone's opinion or voice being shut down.
Alastair is right to bring up whitesplaining as an issue, but he should also have noted that it is a term being used to shut down unpopular opinions as well. White working class people probably have a lot better handle on the issues facing non-whites than a young lefty liberal who is protesting today, but those are the voices being shut down at the moment by those liberals using terms like whitesplaining.
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
Margaret Thatcher said that if Scots wanted independence all that was needed was for the SNP to win a majority of Scottish seats. Every time we meet a criterion, the goalposts are changed.
I am not going to be stopped from criticising China for its barbarism now because of what English people (not even my ancestors) did 150 years ago.
British people.
Lucky you will never change the England = Britain mindset, it is deeply ingrained.
I always think its wrong to exclude Scotland and Wales when we talk about the Empire. It is wrong to take away both the credit and the blame for the Empire away from Scotland and Wales. For better or (and) worse, our countries built the world's largest Empire together, regardless of how people's feelings about it have now changed.
The first empire was built as England and lost as Britain.
Wrong, India, most of Africa, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Australia and New Zealand were only colonised by Britain after the Act of Union with Scotland in 1707.
Most of North America only came into British as opposed to French hands after the Seven years war in the mid 18th century too.
Ireland can be partly excluded as the Act of Union with Ireland only occurred in 1800 but Scotland and Wales have full responsibility for the British Empire along with England
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
Others have done it down thread, but the Rotherham sex abuse is an obvious example. One group valuing another group less because they are not the same.
The Rotherham sex abuse scandal was horrific, but the victims were not exclusively white. It is fair to say, though, that the white victims were subjected to horrible racial abuse.
Victims of police brutality in the US are not exclusively black but it would be absurd to say that there is no racial element to the policing.
It is clear that there was a belief by the perpetrators that some lives were less important because they were not in the same group as themselves.
Vote for Trump? These Republican Leaders Aren’t on the Bandwagon
Former President George W. Bush and Senator Mitt Romney won’t support Mr. Trump’s re-election, and other G.O.P. officials are mulling a vote for Joe Biden.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
That's certainly possible, but societies can also become more barbarous, as the experience of the Middle East has shown.
Future generations might be appalled by the fact that we allowed things like religious toleration or votes for women.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
Others have done it down thread, but the Rotherham sex abuse is an obvious example. One group valuing another group less because they are not the same.
The Rotherham sex abuse scandal was horrific, but the victims were not exclusively white. It is fair to say, though, that the white victims were subjected to horrible racial abuse.
Victims of police brutality in the US are not exclusively black but it would be absurd to say that there is no racial element to the policing.
It is clear that there was a belief by the perpetrators that some lives were less important because they were not in the same group as themselves.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
I bracket "almost never" with the "almost certainly" regularly used by those who wish to make an assumption sound like an nearly-evidenced assertion :-).
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
More to the point, HYUFD doesn't address the points that (a) the first precondition has already beem met for years and (b) the second only arose because voters in England (with some help from minority votes in Scotland and Wales) elected the MPs who implement that policy over Scotland.
My view is that painful though it would be the Palestinians should aim to get back as much territory as possibly and then have Gaza rejoin Egypt, and the West Bank Jordan. At least that way they could hopefully start to see some economic development.
Why the fuck would Jordan agree to that? That arrangement brought their country to verge of civil war and complete destruction last time until Black September.
Ditto Gaza and Egypt although not the same degree.
Jerusalem has changed hands many times in its history and will again. The Palestinians just have to wait for the end of the US hegemony.
A thought provoking piece. The thoughts that it provoked in me, in no particular order are:
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
Whitesplaining is white people using the term "well actually" when discussing race issues with non-whites. I've had it happen to me a lot, and usually it's younger lefty types that do it.
I know. And I recognise the tendency, probably done it myself. I just find it a bit simplistic, like mansplaining.
I think it's the minimisation of non-white opinions and voices by white people that Alastair was trying to get at, which I think is an issue. At the same time there's a lot of non-white voices that are idiotic just as there are white voices that are and a society depends on people being able to challenge each other and having a open debate without anyone's opinion or voice being shut down.
Alastair is right to bring up whitesplaining as an issue, but he should also have noted that it is a term being used to shut down unpopular opinions as well. White working class people probably have a lot better handle on the issues facing non-whites than a young lefty liberal who is protesting today, but those are the voices being shut down at the moment by those liberals using terms like whitesplaining.
I agree with that and it explains why I don't really like the term. Not everything that people say about race, discrimination or privilege is wrong just because the orator is white. It is an easy way to play the man (or woman or...you know what I mean) rather than the ball of what they are saying. As I said we must not be patronising but we must not be mute either and whitesplaining can be used to silence unpopular opinions.
Vote for Trump? These Republican Leaders Aren’t on the Bandwagon
Former President George W. Bush and Senator Mitt Romney won’t support Mr. Trump’s re-election, and other G.O.P. officials are mulling a vote for Joe Biden.
NYTimes
Bush Snr voted for Hillary in 2016, George W Bush did not vote in the Presidential election only for Republican candidates down ballot, Romney voted to impeach Trump so nothing new there really.
However interestingly of the former Republican nominees still alive only Bob Dole is not openly hostile to Trump (and John McCain despised Trump too of course and refused to invite him to his funeral)
Vote for Trump? These Republican Leaders Aren’t on the Bandwagon
Former President George W. Bush and Senator Mitt Romney won’t support Mr. Trump’s re-election, and other G.O.P. officials are mulling a vote for Joe Biden.
NYTimes
I sense 'own team' support for Trump crumbling. Could be an important factor for November.
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
More to the point, HYUFD doesn't address the points that (a) the first precondition has already beem met for years and (b) the second only arose because voters in England (with some help from minority votes in Scotland and Wales) elected the MPs who implement that policy over Scotland.
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
Others have done it down thread, but the Rotherham sex abuse is an obvious example. One group valuing another group less because they are not the same.
The Rotherham sex abuse scandal was horrific, but the victims were not exclusively white. It is fair to say, though, that the white victims were subjected to horrible racial abuse.
Victims of police brutality in the US are not exclusively black but it would be absurd to say that there is no racial element to the policing.
It is clear that there was a belief by the perpetrators that some lives were less important because they were not in the same group as themselves.
Just that little bit less human. The very essence of racism.
Vote for Trump? These Republican Leaders Aren’t on the Bandwagon
Former President George W. Bush and Senator Mitt Romney won’t support Mr. Trump’s re-election, and other G.O.P. officials are mulling a vote for Joe Biden.
NYTimes
I sense 'own team' support for Trump crumbling. Could be an important factor for November.
But you stay gloomy as discussed the other day.
The whole GOP establishment was anti Trump in 2016, they only bent the knee when he started winning. He could lose this year but if he does it won't be because of the never Trump Republicans, a species that exists solely within the pages of the Washington Post
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
What's the official tory definition of a "generation"?
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Personally I think it's likelier that things will go the other way.
The absurdity of eating an inferior diet because of guilt at being carnivorous will surely be seen as one of the grotesque extremities of early 21st century social mores - like swooning due to tight corsets and making holes in ones head to ease a headache.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Very good. And also very likely imo (that example).
Your other point - those at the bottom. It will not feel advantaged down there in any way shape or form, nevertheless my contention is that at all levels a black person will more likely face racial discrimination than a white one. Also worth noting that you are more likely to be in that struggling group if you are black.
So I do think that "white advantage" applies as an accurate and useful macro term.
Interesting conversation on here, I'd bet the majority of contributors live in almost exclusively white areas.
I don't.
In which case you're far more qualified to comment than those who live in the shires and provincial towns. I'm new here but it appears that very few have any idea what life is like at the bottom end of society, irrespective of colour
People at the bottom end of society mostly have more important things to do with their time than argue with strangers on the internet, I would imagine. I can hardly claim to be poor, but I do live in an inner London borough with a high level of poverty and a multiracial population. I also have three mixed race children so issues like racism perhaps are more personal to me than for many other white people, although I don't say that to minimise my own privilege as a white man.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Personally I think it's likelier that things will go the other way.
The absurdity of eating an inferior diet because of guilt at being carnivorous will surely be seen as one of the grotesque extremities of early 21st century social mores - like swooning due to tight corsets and making holes in ones head to ease a headache.
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
What's the official tory definition of a "generation"?
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
Margaret Thatcher said that if Scots wanted independence all that was needed was for the SNP to win a majority of Scottish seats. Every time we meet a criterion, the goalposts are changed.
Funny, I thought they had a vote on it
You halfwit, read what he posted and what Tories promised, though as a bunch of liars it was a certainty that it was only said as they never expected it to happen. After nearly losing the 2014 and shitting their pants they are terrified to give it another go.
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Starmer’s Scottish polling is critically important to British Nationalists like you. Without Labour, the Union falls.
It would be interesting to see what levels of support Scottish independence received in Scotland if there were any form of Labour-led minority governmnet in charge at Westminster. I doubt the SNP would ever reach any kind of agreement with Labour in Westminster, but I wonder how often the SNP would vote against them.
Yes, the paradox is that, short of UDI, it requires a Labour government in order for Sindyref3 to happen. Though if there was a Labour/SNP government in Westminster, such a referendum is less likely to result in Independence.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
That's certainly possible, but societies can also become more barbarous, as the experience of the Middle East has shown.
Future generations might be appalled by the fact that we allowed things like religious toleration or votes for women.
It's by no means certain that society will continue to move in a liberalising or "progressive" direction. There are already qualifications being placed on free speech, now, that there simply weren't 30 years ago.
We are very complacent (arrogant?) in assuming this will continue to be the case.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Personally I think it's likelier that things will go the other way.
The absurdity of eating an inferior diet because of guilt at being carnivorous will surely be seen as one of the grotesque extremities of early 21st century social mores - like swooning due to tight corsets and making holes in ones head to ease a headache.
The issue will be rendered moot as we will be able to instantaneously zap up a burger that is meat protein without any animal cruelty direct from the 2120 version of our smart phone.
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
What's the official tory definition of a "generation"?
Never
I prefer the poet’s words:
These truces with the infidels,'' he exclaimed, without caring how suddenly he interrupted the stately Templar, ``make an old man of me!''
``Go to, knave, how so?'' said Cedric, his features prepared to receive favourably the expected jest.
``Because,'' answered Wamba, ``I remember three of them in my day, each of which was to endure for the course of fifty years; so that, by computation, I must be at least a hundred and fifty years old.''
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
She's have been bound by Cabinet collective responsibility so not fair to single her out. Blame Cummings, for obliging Ministers to adopt the missionary position so as to protect his arse.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
It's much better but still has the issue that it conflates all 57 million white people in this country into one huge blob. Within that there is a huge range from aristocrats and the wealthy who would have a lot of advantage down to the poorest who have very little. Another group which is generally white but has little advantage is travellers.
As an aside if white people have advantage and black people don't, what about mixed race people? Are they half-advantaged?
The point is that at all levels on a like for like basis there is a white advantage over black in the sense that the black person is more likely to face racial discrimination.
But let's be clear. It does not mean that your average white working class bloke is more advantaged than Kwasi Kwarteng. Of course the reverse is the case. However he does enjoy white advantage over Kwasi in that Kwasi is more likely to face racial discrimination.
That's what I'm getting at. And it is surely true enough as a general statement to stand - notwithstanding interesting exceptions and talking points such as travelers and mixed race.
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
What's the official tory definition of a "generation"?
Never
I prefer the poet’s words:
These truces with the infidels,'' he exclaimed, without caring how suddenly he interrupted the stately Templar, ``make an old man of me!''
``Go to, knave, how so?'' said Cedric, his features prepared to receive favourably the expected jest.
``Because,'' answered Wamba, ``I remember three of them in my day, each of which was to endure for the course of fifty years; so that, by computation, I must be at least a hundred and fifty years old.''
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
That's certainly possible, but societies can also become more barbarous, as the experience of the Middle East has shown.
Future generations might be appalled by the fact that we allowed things like religious toleration or votes for women.
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
She's have been bound by Cabinet collective responsibility so not fair to single her out. Blame Cummings, for obliging Ministers to adopt the missionary position so as to protect his arse.
she could have grown a backbone and had some principles, Gove and Raab you expect to grovel on their slimy bellies
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
Margaret Thatcher said that if Scots wanted independence all that was needed was for the SNP to win a majority of Scottish seats. Every time we meet a criterion, the goalposts are changed.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
It's much better but still has the issue that it conflates all 57 million white people in this country into one huge blob. Within that there is a huge range from aristocrats and the wealthy who would have a lot of advantage down to the poorest who have very little. Another group which is generally white but has little advantage is travellers.
As an aside if white people have advantage and black people don't, what about mixed race people? Are they half-advantaged?
The point is that at all levels on a like for like basis there is a white advantage over black in the sense that the black person is more likely to face racial discrimination.
But let's be clear. It does not mean that your average white working class bloke is more advantaged than Kwasi Kwarteng. Of course the reverse is the case. However he does enjoy white advantage over Kwasi in that Kwasi is more likely to face racial discrimination.
That's what I'm getting at. And it is surely true enough as a general statement to stand - notwithstanding interesting exceptions and talking points such as travelers and mixed race.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Very good. And also very likely imo (that example).
Your other point - those at the bottom. It will not feel advantaged down there in any way shape or form, nevertheless my contention is that at all levels a black person will more likely face racial discrimination than a white one. Also worth noting that you are more likely to be in that struggling group if you are black.
So I do think that "white advantage" applies as an accurate and useful macro term.
It would be more appropriate to use the term 'black disadvantage' as the issue is about people being treated unfairly because of their race.
It also allows a more specific application between different racial groups - the black African situation is different to that of the Black Caribbean for example and the Indian and Chinese even more so. You could also apply it to a 'gypsy disadvantage' - another group which can suffer from negative racial stereotyping.
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Personally I think it's likelier that things will go the other way.
The absurdity of eating an inferior diet because of guilt at being carnivorous will surely be seen as one of the grotesque extremities of early 21st century social mores - like swooning due to tight corsets and making holes in ones head to ease a headache.
The issue will be rendered moot as we will be able to instantaneously zap up a burger that is meat protein without any animal cruelty direct from the 2120 version of our smart phone.
Unfortunately, I doubt that will be the case. It would be the case if meat was just a sack of protein, but it's not. It's a highly digestible and nutrient dense repository of minerals, vitamins, proteins and fats that we are developed to assimilate.
Furthermore, although us eating meat does involve killing animals, it should not involve cruelty during an animals lifetime. A cruelly treated animal isn't a healthy one to eat. One that's had a good life is.
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
What's the official tory definition of a "generation"?
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
She's have been bound by Cabinet collective responsibility so not fair to single her out. Blame Cummings, for obliging Ministers to adopt the missionary position so as to protect his arse.
Surely covering his arse would be doggy style not missionary?
This top Tory look is going down a treat I see, surge must be due.......... SNP at 54% in last three polls Opinium on 4th June, with don’t knows removed has this
Starmer's Westminster Scottish polling is irrelevant given the SNP are Labour's mini me at Westminster level and will put Starmer in office not Boris.
It is English and Welsh polling Starmer needs to worry about and there the Labour voteshare is up on 2019.
The Holyrood voteshare is far more relevant for all the unionist parties if they are to get a Unionist majority next year to block indyref2
Why is a unionist majority at Holyrood relevant when Boris is just going to crush any dissent with the Army anyway, apparently? What difference does it make?
As it means even if Starmer became PM in 2024 he also could ignore indyref2 given the SNP are not going to put the Tories in
Labour are unlikely to ignore indyref2 if there’s a nationalist majority with a clear mandate. Labour are not hypocrites unlike the Tories.
Yes but if there is a Unionist majority at Holyrood next year there would be no nationalist majority with a mandate.
That is the whole point
You are, yet again, confusing the SNP with the pro-independence parties. You are forgetting that there is already a pro-independence majority at Holyrood, which was there before and after your precious party manife3sto - which was rejected by the Scots massively.
And picking the fiddled voting system which favours your party in Scotland while ignoring the one in Westminster.
What are you arguing? That English voters should always, always, override Scots voters?
The Tories are in government at Westminster on a no indyref2 for a generation platform and without Westminster consent there can be no indyref2.
For indyref2 to occur within the next 5 years two things need to occur, first the SNP and Greens need to win another majority at Holyrood next year and second Labour needs to win the 2024 UK general election.
And I'm sure those five years would give you enough time to cobble together another insurmountable obstacle to indyref2 if the first two preconditions were met.
Margaret Thatcher said that if Scots wanted independence all that was needed was for the SNP to win a majority of Scottish seats. Every time we meet a criterion, the goalposts are changed.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
"Advantage" is a less loaded term than privilege.
All things being equal, there's no doubt that life as a white person in a country were 85% are white, is going to be easier than life as a black person where 5% are black.
There is just that prosaic fact, yes. But let's face it - life as a white person has very often been a whole lot easier too in many countries where they have been a minority.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
Those of us advocating for change need to be very careful in our use of language and I agree that "almost never" is wrong and misleading.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
I think you are very wrong on this.
If I am, explain why. There may be some occasions when white people have missed out on opportunities because of the colour of their skin, but I think "almost never" covers that.
You need to be very very careful in making points like this.
It's worth re-reading @GarethoftheVale2 's post from earlier today. It was excellent.
If we continue walking down this line of white culpability - when, in reality, it was a tiny minority of whites who benefited two hundred years ago who are either long dead or dispersed, and even their beneficiaries too - and make policy accordingly (including reparations or positive discrimination) then what you'll end up with is fuelling resentment amongst the bulk of white people and a British Trump (or worse) will be elected in 8, 12 or 15 years time that will make the present culture wars look like a picnic. You'll fan the flames of racial division in a way you couldn't believe.
It's interesting that it tends to be the well-educated, privileged, professional, liberal and well-off that always make these arguments, be it Polly Toynbee or Afua Hirsch. Without going all @Dura_Ace it's a mutual-masturbatory class jerk that actually has nothing to do with race.
The key point is Westminster consent is needed for indyref2 and the Tories believe the 55% No vote in 2014 stands as a 'once in a generation vote' as Salmond called it at the time, even if Labour do not
What's the official tory definition of a "generation"?
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
She's have been bound by Cabinet collective responsibility so not fair to single her out. Blame Cummings, for obliging Ministers to adopt the missionary position so as to protect his arse.
Surely covering his arse would be doggy style not missionary?
The goons that can barely provide housing for the people that already live here now want to build a city. Perhaps they could combine it with the orange brick road to NI à la Ponte Vecchio.
I haven't commented on these protests up to now but I feel that some sort of riposte is needed to this article.
What really irritates me about this notion of "white privilege" is that it implies that the ancestors of black people suffered horribly while the ancestors of white people all sat around drinking cups of tea like the cast of a Jane Austen novel,
The reality is that that the profits of Empire accrued to a very small group of people, while the ancestors of most white people had hard and difficult lives as well.
I have done a lot of genealogy of my own family that backs this up. One ancestor died in the workhouse while another was blinded in a mining accident. Another was transported to Australia for stealing a sheep. One ancestral couple had 9 of their 11 children die before adulthood. Diseases like typhus and cholera were rampant, while many women died in childbirth.
If you go to a poor white city like Stoke you won't find much white privilege there and I doubt they even had any to start with.
The reality is that slavery ended nearly 200 years ago in the British Empire and 150 years ago in the US. There is nobody alive today who can remember slavery. The Empire ended for the most part over 50 years ago. How long can you go on blaming the wrongs of the past for today's problems?
You mention the Chinese and the opium wars. It is interesting that despite this Chinese Britons have the highest rates of educational success of all ethnic groups? Why do you think this is?
It is also worth pointing out that many immigrants came from the subcontinent in the 60s and 70s and also suffered racism and colonialism and yet many of them have gone on to do very well for themselves financially. Again why do you think this is?
I would argue that wallowing in the past may nurture a sense of grievance but is unlikely to allow anyone to move forward.
White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse based on the colour of their skin. That should not be a privilege, but until you can say the same for black people it is.
Won't they? What about white people in the UK who fall on the wrong side of a corporate policy on diversity, or don't say quite the wrong thing, or get punished for something their wife or family have done?
What about white people who are European or Irish (non-English) ? What about those from council estates who have a unfashionable accent, who are characterised as "white trash", and not given opportunities or mentoring to succeed? What about the treatment of girls in care in Rotherham? What about white women or men who are dating (for example) a Muslim man or woman who hold very "traditional" views and are shunned by their families?
What about white people who might walk in the wrong part of a non-white neighbourhood, and be threatened?
You can say the incidence for black people is higher, and I'm sure it is, but to say White people almost never experience discrimination in the UK is totally incorrect.
White people experience discrimination all of the time in the UK. It is very rarely because of the colour of their skin, though.
It is far less common, but it does happen and shouldn't be dismissed.
Can't we all agree that reducing this to skin colour alone is hopelessly simplistic and risks leading to great injustice by design?
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
She's have been bound by Cabinet collective responsibility so not fair to single her out. Blame Cummings, for obliging Ministers to adopt the missionary position so as to protect his arse.
she could have grown a backbone and had some principles, Gove and Raab you expect to grovel on their slimy bellies
All this has a lot of 'the shifting moral zeitgeist' about it though. Before we get too pompous about our worthiness, it's worth remembering that future generations will see us as relative savages.
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
Very good. And also very likely imo (that example).
Your other point - those at the bottom. It will not feel advantaged down there in any way shape or form, nevertheless my contention is that at all levels a black person will more likely face racial discrimination than a white one. Also worth noting that you are more likely to be in that struggling group if you are black.
So I do think that "white advantage" applies as an accurate and useful macro term.
It would be more appropriate to use the term 'black disadvantage' as the issue is about people being treated unfairly because of their race.
It also allows a more specific application between different racial groups - the black African situation is different to that of the Black Caribbean for example and the Indian and Chinese even more so. You could also apply it to a 'gypsy disadvantage' - another group which can suffer from negative racial stereotyping.
That does not fit the woke profile, one hobby horse at a time. They like to pick and chose their causes carefully
A thought provoking piece. The thoughts that it provoked in me, in no particular order are:
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
Whitesplaining is white people using the term "well actually" when discussing race issues with non-whites. I've had it happen to me a lot, and usually it's younger lefty types that do it.
I'm picking up that many people do not like the term white privilege because most white people are not in absolute terms privileged.
How about "white advantage" as an alternative?
Term to describe the notion that however rich or poor they are a white person in England is far far less likely to suffer racial prejudice than a black one.
Gets rid of that "privilege" word which I sense is a turn-off with its misleading and inappropriate (for this issue) images of country houses and public schools and henley regattas etc etc.
It's much better but still has the issue that it conflates all 57 million white people in this country into one huge blob. Within that there is a huge range from aristocrats and the wealthy who would have a lot of advantage down to the poorest who have very little. Another group which is generally white but has little advantage is travellers.
As an aside if white people have advantage and black people don't, what about mixed race people? Are they half-advantaged?
Comments
Sorry and all that, but I thought a Police Department was, generally speaking a Good Thing. Some individuals, especially in this situation, might be 'bad apples' but, to mix metaphors, throwing the baby out with the bathwater is never a good idea.
All things being equal, there's no doubt that life as a white person in a country were 85% are white, is going to be easier than life as a black person where 5% are black.
As an aside if white people have advantage and black people don't, what about mixed race people? Are they half-advantaged?
People who have not suffered racial discrimination should be respectful and show humility in listening to the experience of those who have. Their experience is real, valid and beyond our ken.
We also need to show humility in our dealings with others. That does not mean accepting the Chinese genocide of the Uighers or failing to express our disapproval of racism in all its ugliness in the US. It means that we should recognise the planks in our own eye, not only historical but in the current day.
But humility is not deference or weakness. I believe our society genuinely aspires to be better and we are right to do so. We need to stand up for our principles at the same time as we acknowledge that we do not always achieve them.
Above all we need to avoid being patronising. This takes many forms from the person who excuses criminal conduct because of disadvantages undoubtedly suffered, to those who turned a blind eye in Rotherham. I am not sure I really like the term "whitesplaining" but I can see what Alastair is getting at.
"Don't sit on your arse moaning about others having it easy, do your damndest to get up the ladder and join them."
Good advice. Which (imo) does not in any way lead logically to arguing that there is no such thing as class advantage or disadvantage.
These 2 things - micro personal motivation and macro sociopolitical understanding - are not coupled.
Personal identity is all we have. Everything else can be taken away from us, so your sense of self really matters.
On the other hand, people of mixed race are one of the highest-earning groups in this country.
MOST White people in the UK will almost never experience discrimination or abuse *based on the colour of their skin*
My view is that painful though it would be the Palestinians should aim to get back as much territory as possibly and then have Gaza rejoin Egypt, and the West Bank Jordan. At least that way they could hopefully start to see some economic development.
https://twitter.com/2351onthelist/status/1269397729849020416?s=20
I doubt many black people look at history and see much to smile about. I'm not saying they have to be aggrieved, but that white people should understand why they are if they are
But, yes, food for thought.
Alastair is right to bring up whitesplaining as an issue, but he should also have noted that it is a term being used to shut down unpopular opinions as well. White working class people probably have a lot better handle on the issues facing non-whites than a young lefty liberal who is protesting today, but those are the voices being shut down at the moment by those liberals using terms like whitesplaining.
Most of North America only came into British as opposed to French hands after the Seven years war in the mid 18th century too.
Ireland can be partly excluded as the Act of Union with Ireland only occurred in 1800 but Scotland and Wales have full responsibility for the British Empire along with England
The example that springs to my mind is meat eating. The class of 2120 may well view the current debate on free range or chlorinated chicken as a version of "Gosh have you seen how badly so and so treats his slaves? They sleep in Aldi duvets, I buy mine their bedding from John Lewis"
https://youtu.be/uwz6B8BFkb4
It is clear that there was a belief by the perpetrators that some lives were less important because they were not in the same group as themselves.
Former President George W. Bush and Senator Mitt Romney won’t support Mr. Trump’s re-election, and other G.O.P. officials are mulling a vote for Joe Biden.
NYTimes
Future generations might be appalled by the fact that we allowed things like religious toleration or votes for women.
Ditto Gaza and Egypt although not the same degree.
Jerusalem has changed hands many times in its history and will again. The Palestinians just have to wait for the end of the US hegemony.
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
However interestingly of the former Republican nominees still alive only Bob Dole is not openly hostile to Trump (and John McCain despised Trump too of course and refused to invite him to his funeral)
But you stay gloomy as discussed the other day.
The absurdity of eating an inferior diet because of guilt at being carnivorous will surely be seen as one of the grotesque extremities of early 21st century social mores - like swooning due to tight corsets and making holes in ones head to ease a headache.
Your other point - those at the bottom. It will not feel advantaged down there in any way shape or form, nevertheless my contention is that at all levels a black person will more likely face racial discrimination than a white one. Also worth noting that you are more likely to be in that struggling group if you are black.
So I do think that "white advantage" applies as an accurate and useful macro term.
seems fair
We are very complacent (arrogant?) in assuming this will continue to be the case.
These truces with the infidels,'' he exclaimed,
without caring how suddenly he interrupted the
stately Templar, ``make an old man of me!''
``Go to, knave, how so?'' said Cedric, his features
prepared to receive favourably the expected
jest.
``Because,'' answered Wamba, ``I remember
three of them in my day, each of which was to endure
for the course of fifty years; so that, by computation,
I must be at least a hundred and fifty
years old.''
But let's be clear. It does not mean that your average white working class bloke is more advantaged than Kwasi Kwarteng. Of course the reverse is the case. However he does enjoy white advantage over Kwasi in that Kwasi is more likely to face racial discrimination.
That's what I'm getting at. And it is surely true enough as a general statement to stand - notwithstanding interesting exceptions and talking points such as travelers and mixed race.
But we really must not mention inconvenient facts
It also allows a more specific application between different racial groups - the black African situation is different to that of the Black Caribbean for example and the Indian and Chinese even more so. You could also apply it to a 'gypsy disadvantage' - another group which can suffer from negative racial stereotyping.
Furthermore, although us eating meat does involve killing animals, it should not involve cruelty during an animals lifetime. A cruelly treated animal isn't a healthy one to eat. One that's had a good life is.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
It's worth re-reading @GarethoftheVale2 's post from earlier today. It was excellent.
If we continue walking down this line of white culpability - when, in reality, it was a tiny minority of whites who benefited two hundred years ago who are either long dead or dispersed, and even their beneficiaries too - and make policy accordingly (including reparations or positive discrimination) then what you'll end up with is fuelling resentment amongst the bulk of white people and a British Trump (or worse) will be elected in 8, 12 or 15 years time that will make the present culture wars look like a picnic. You'll fan the flames of racial division in a way you couldn't believe.
It's interesting that it tends to be the well-educated, privileged, professional, liberal and well-off that always make these arguments, be it Polly Toynbee or Afua Hirsch. Without going all @Dura_Ace it's a mutual-masturbatory class jerk that actually has nothing to do with race.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
Now where's Jack W when you need him?
https://www.city-journal.org/brown-university-letter-racism
The writer is Afro Caribbean
https://twitter.com/DanielJHannan/status/1269607629640343552?s=20
Can't we all agree that reducing this to skin colour alone is hopelessly simplistic and risks leading to great injustice by design?