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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
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?
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?
Oo..er...Missus!
Now where's Jack W when you need him?
I do miss Jack.
Yes would be nice to see him back, hope he is well.
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?
Yes.
So long as we also agree not to deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism.
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.
A comment in that twatter feed reminds me that the Adam Smith Institute wanted the UK Gmt to build a new settlement [edit] for the Honkers folk on the West of Scotland or similar back in 1989.
You know what, the death of George Floyd has had no personal impact on me. None. That he was killed in a criminal act looks pretty clear and the system should take care of that in the USA. If it shines a light on how US policing is done badly, good for them.
I just listened to an interview on Talksport and the host talked about 'our white privilege'. This idea that I am privileged, that millions of white people are privileged by dint of their colour at birth. You know what, no, I'm not buying that. You are essentially condemning an entire race by accident of birth, just as you condemn other entire races to bias by their colour at birth.
Its this sweeping bullshit that appears occasionally, worst of all from guilt ridden white people, as if white people should apologise or feel guilty. I have no desire or wish to prove or virtue signal that I am not racist, I suspect there are millions like me. There are millions of white people in this country who are disadvantaged too. The idea that whitey will never understand, no matter what changes will always hang around because it suits some people, its a stick. Race is not an arbiter of empathy, people are.
If some communities seem to do less well we have to ask why, sure, but don't give me some shit that my colour means that I have all the luck. We don't know people's stories, we do not know their background.
And this term. BAME thrown about as if its a all together mass of anyone who is not white. The idea that they all are in this catch all. Its like saying the Indian British community is the same as the Pakistani or Bangladeshi community.
Once the message cross from illustrating how certain communities have additional challenges in society, especially when it is espoused by the right on white people, will turn large numbers of people off. Then those people who switch off will get get the blame for not understanding. If you want the most extensive change, you bring people with you, not tell them they are at fault.
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.
You know what, the death of George Floyd has had no personal impact on me. None. That he was killed in a criminal act looks pretty clear and the system should take care of that in the USA. If it shines a light on how US policing is done badly, good for them.
I just listened to an interview on Talksport and the host talked about 'our white privilege'. This idea that I am privileged, that millions of white people are privileged by dint of their colour at birth. You know what, no, I'm not buying that. You are essentially condemning an entire race by accident of birth, just as you condemn other entire races to bias by their colour at birth.
Its this sweeping bullshit that appears occasionally, worst of all from guilt ridden white people, as if white people should apologise or feel guilty. I have no desire or wish to prove or virtue signal that I am not racist, I suspect there are millions like me. There are millions of white people in this country who are disadvantaged too. The idea that whitey will never understand, no matter what changes will always hang around because it suits some people, its a stick. Race is not an arbiter of empathy, people are.
If some communities seem to do less well we have to ask why, sure, but don't give me some shit that my colour means that I have all the luck. We don't know people's stories, we do not know their background.
And this term. BAME thrown about as if its a all together mass of anyone who is not white. The idea that they all are in this catch all. Its like saying the Indian British community is the same as the Pakistani or Bangladeshi community.
Once the message cross from illustrating how certain communities have additional challenges in society, especially when it is espoused by the right on white people, will turn large numbers of people off. Then those people who switch off will get get the blame for not understanding. If you want the most extensive change, you bring people with you, not tell them they are at fault.
Killed in a criminal act implies he was committing a crime - don't you mean killed by a criminal act.
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
A while back there was an article by a gentleman from the US in a UK paper (Guardian?) who, when in Africa, asked for a taxi at his hotel. He was very offended when the bellhop called out "Taxi for the white man".
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
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.
We can indeed drill down on 'white advantage" and create a more granular set of terms.
Perhaps take a pause first though. I'm sensing real benefit to scrapping "privilege" and going with "advantage" in terms of replacing heat with light in the debate.
So for now 'white advantage' is a winner, I feel. Let's not junk it at this point.
And again, just to stress, all it means is that a white person is less likely than others to face racial discrimination in England.
It does NOT mean that all or most white people are living the life of riley.
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.
Morgan is the hypocrite; attacked Barry Gardiner for going to the BLM protest whilst simultaenously patting his son on the back for doing so. Staggering
Rudy Guliani ripped him to shreds last week on GMB - Morgan had to resort to pretending RG had sworn to try and gain some moral high ground. If you ever feel like you want to feel sorry for Morgan, give it a watch
You know what, the death of George Floyd has had no personal impact on me. None. That he was killed in a criminal act looks pretty clear and the system should take care of that in the USA. If it shines a light on how US policing is done badly, good for them.
I just listened to an interview on Talksport and the host talked about 'our white privilege'. This idea that I am privileged, that millions of white people are privileged by dint of their colour at birth. You know what, no, I'm not buying that. You are essentially condemning an entire race by accident of birth, just as you condemn other entire races to bias by their colour at birth.
Its this sweeping bullshit that appears occasionally, worst of all from guilt ridden white people, as if white people should apologise or feel guilty. I have no desire or wish to prove or virtue signal that I am not racist, I suspect there are millions like me. There are millions of white people in this country who are disadvantaged too. The idea that whitey will never understand, no matter what changes will always hang around because it suits some people, its a stick. Race is not an arbiter of empathy, people are.
If some communities seem to do less well we have to ask why, sure, but don't give me some shit that my colour means that I have all the luck. We don't know people's stories, we do not know their background.
And this term. BAME thrown about as if its a all together mass of anyone who is not white. The idea that they all are in this catch all. Its like saying the Indian British community is the same as the Pakistani or Bangladeshi community.
Once the message cross from illustrating how certain communities have additional challenges in society, especially when it is espoused by the right on white people, will turn large numbers of people off. Then those people who switch off will get get the blame for not understanding. If you want the most extensive change, you bring people with you, not tell them they are at fault.
Killed in a criminal act implies he was committing a crime - don't you mean killed by a criminal act.
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?
"People of the same skin color are not a monolith?"
Did she? I thought she had kept quiet over Cummings.
She did keep quiet. Reportedly she said "He's never been interested in my opinion until today, why should he be interested now?"
Is Domonic a racist?
Patel and Javid seem to dislike him.
No Blacks in his Cabinet
Kwasi Kwarteng attends cabinet although he isn’t a full member.
From what I know of Cummings, he isn’t racist.
However, he is a liar, a bully, a weak character and very arrogant, so it is entirely understandable that regardless of their race those who know him dislike him.
"If you are not black, surely you can imagine how it might feel to walk down streets named after slaveowners"
Or in the case of the US, to live in a country where the capital city Washington and the leading world city New York are both named after slaveowners, and where images of slaveowners are printed on $1, $2, $20, $50, and $100 bills.
The idea that needs to be got into heads that don't already have it is that slavery is a crime against humanity. No buts.
Edit: "All of this, you will note, postdated the abolition of slavery." Abolition In the British empire, formally, yes, but not in China itself where slavery was banned in 1910; nor in many other parts of the world, e.g. Brazil 1888, Saudi Arabia 1962.
"If you are not black, surely you can imagine how it might feel to walk down streets named after slaveowners"
Or in the case of the US, to live in a country where the capital city Washington and the leading world city New York are both named after slaveowners, and where images of slaveowners are printed on $1, $2, $20, $50, and $100 bills.
The idea that needs to be got into heads that don't already have it is that slavery is a crime against humanity. No buts.
When the statues controversy was at its height, I seriously pissed off some Yanks by suggesting the key difference between Washington and Lee was that Lee was a good general.
However, when I reflected on it, I was being unfair. Lee freed his slaves.* Washington only let them go when he died without heirs.
*Yes, I know he had to under the terms of his father in law’s will. But that’s not the point.
I have no particular position on Trans rights one way or another. I have known some Trans people over the years so do have some acquaintance with the issues. It is just that those issues do not impact on me in any discernable way, on either side.
I anticipate that's JK Rowling (amongst others) would see that as an example of male advantage or privilege. She would be correct to do so.
White advantage/privilege is the same experience. The ability to ignore an issue is the privilege. The same is very much true for class privilege too, and in many ways that is and always has been the big issue in Britain. In all ethnic groups school achievement is worse for those on free school meals, but worst* of all for white boys.
* travellers do worse still, but class is the big issue there too.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites and in any case it was ages ago and all involved are long dead. It does little to enlighten us on the subject of race relations in the UK today and so for heaven's sake let sleeping dogs lie.
Mr. 1983, that would involve some sort of personal agency rather than state provision, though...
Mr. Surrey, how far do you carry that, though? Julius Caesar and Augustus both had slaves. Would you advocate we rename the calendar?
Dr. Foxy, travellers might do better if they didn't occasionally pop into school for a term or so then vanish for a couple of years. That isn't a schooling problem, that's a lifestyle choice by the parents. (We had occasional gypsy pupils at my school who had this pattern of attendance).
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
As I said earlier, in my experience the most vocal whitesplainers are usually young left liberals. They usually have a preconceived notion of what I should feel about a situation as a non-white person and going against that either makes me a race traitor or provokes an extremely patronising "oh you just don't understand". Personally I prefer the former reaction.
On the left right divide I find the right to be more overtly racist towards people who are not white, but overall those are people who are a product of their upbringing and just don't know anything else. Usually those minds can be easily changed once they come into contact with people not of their colour and not the stereotype depicted in the Mail. On the left there is as much racism but it's far more insidious as I described above, the left have their own set of stereotypes of all non-whites being this overtly virtuous group who have all been hard done by and need their help to get anywhere in life and any achievements we have are not our own. Of the two I'm much more likely to change the mind of a Daily Mail reading, BNP voting fascist than I am a Guardian reading liberal on race and both of their opinions on race are as bad as each other.
Personally, I think race relations in the UK are better than they have ever been. There is a record level of interracial marriage, there are more black people in employment than ever before (virus notwithstanding) and younger black people should find their path easier now that my generation has cleared the way for them in the same way my parents generation did for Asian people in the UK.
I'm really worried that these demonstrations are losing the peace we've carefully constructed in the last 20 years. Lots of my Asian friends and family are disillusioned with them already. I've been broadly supportive of the calls for reform of the police but ultimately anything beyond that is on the individual to make their own way in the world.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites...
Not really true. Building and working in cotton mills, shipbuilding and therefore digging coal and ore, merchant shipping and tea and sugar trade employed a lot of British people in Britain. As did the manufacture of chains and shackles.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
A while back there was an article by a gentleman from the US in a UK paper (Guardian?) who, when in Africa, asked for a taxi at his hotel. He was very offended when the bellhop called out "Taxi for the white man".
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
Mzungu is a fairly neutral term. Perhaps like gringo in Latin America it can be used derisively, but generally not.
And yes, I have known non-white people being called mzungu too on the basis of nationality.
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
Yes. The Collaborators. Did you read the Applebaum article? I can link it if you haven't. It's really good on this point.
Mr. Surrey, how far do you carry that, though? Julius Caesar and Augustus both had slaves. Would you advocate we rename the calendar?
I wouldn't be against it. Interestingly it once happened too in France at the same time that Phrygian caps were all the rage. That said, I am not sure whether there is any part of the world nowadays where one can distinguish between descendants of ancient Roman free people and those whom ancient Rome enslaved.
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
A while back there was an article by a gentleman from the US in a UK paper (Guardian?) who, when in Africa, asked for a taxi at his hotel. He was very offended when the bellhop called out "Taxi for the white man".
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
Mzungu is a fairly neutral term. Perhaps like gringo in Latin America it can be used derisively, but generally not.
And yes, I have known non-white people being called mzungu too on the basis of nationality.
One of the reasons I appreciate Alastair's piece today is that it doesn't veer into telling people how they should think or feel about race issues. It really is well done. Writers from the Guardian could learn a thing or two from 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 is indeed a very poor choice of word.
I have dropped it. No point getting backs up more than I do already.
"If you are not black, surely you can imagine how it might feel to walk down streets named after slaveowners"
Or in the case of the US, to live in a country where the capital city Washington and the leading world city New York are both named after slaveowners, and where images of slaveowners are printed on $1, $2, $20, $50, and $100 bills.
The idea that needs to be got into heads that don't already have it is that slavery is a crime against humanity. No buts.
Edit: "All of this, you will note, postdated the abolition of slavery." Abolition In the British empire, formally, yes, but not in China itself where slavery was banned in 1910; nor in many other parts of the world, e.g. Brazil 1888, Saudi Arabia 1962.
I went to see Hamilton last year, and an excellent multicultural show it was. Nonetheless, like Black Panther it left me a little discombobulated. Yes, it is interesting and revolutionary to have such a fresh perspective, but ultimately it left me dissatisfied. Both were fitting a black experience to a white narrative, rather than anything more.
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.
Morgan is the hypocrite; attacked Barry Gardiner for going to the BLM protest whilst simultaenously patting his son on the back for doing so. Staggering
Rudy Guliani ripped him to shreds last week on GMB - Morgan had to resort to pretending RG had sworn to try and gain some moral high ground. If you ever feel like you want to feel sorry for Morgan, give it a watch
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
A while back there was an article by a gentleman from the US in a UK paper (Guardian?) who, when in Africa, asked for a taxi at his hotel. He was very offended when the bellhop called out "Taxi for the white man".
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
Mzungu is a fairly neutral term. Perhaps like gringo in Latin America it can be used derisively, but generally not.
And yes, I have known non-white people being called mzungu too on the basis of nationality.
wazungu if people (plural).
Of course.
One of my favourite East African words is wabenzi (the people of Mercedes). It is beautifully apposite for the corrupt elite.
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
A while back there was an article by a gentleman from the US in a UK paper (Guardian?) who, when in Africa, asked for a taxi at his hotel. He was very offended when the bellhop called out "Taxi for the white man".
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
Mzungu is a fairly neutral term. Perhaps like gringo in Latin America it can be used derisively, but generally not.
And yes, I have known non-white people being called mzungu too on the basis of nationality.
wazungu if people (plural).
Of course.
One of my favourite East African words is wabenzi (the people of Mercedes). It is beautifully apposite for the corrupt elite.
I was told that in recent times the people of Zimbabwe called them the Kompressor Class.
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'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.
Which is where we came in - Colonialism.
You can bet there is not a lot of white privilege in the Congo , or Nigeria , Iran , etc , etc.
There very much was at one time, and within living memory too.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
A while back there was an article by a gentleman from the US in a UK paper (Guardian?) who, when in Africa, asked for a taxi at his hotel. He was very offended when the bellhop called out "Taxi for the white man".
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
Mzungu is a fairly neutral term. Perhaps like gringo in Latin America it can be used derisively, but generally not.
And yes, I have known non-white people being called mzungu too on the basis of nationality.
wazungu if people (plural).
Of course.
One of my favourite East African words is wabenzi (the people of Mercedes). It is beautifully apposite for the corrupt elite.
I hope they have a more brutal word for “people of BMW”.
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.
Morgan is the hypocrite; attacked Barry Gardiner for going to the BLM protest whilst simultaenously patting his son on the back for doing so. Staggering
Rudy Guliani ripped him to shreds last week on GMB - Morgan had to resort to pretending RG had sworn to try and gain some moral high ground. If you ever feel like you want to feel sorry for Morgan, give it a watch
How many people did Cummings place at risk?
How many people did Gardiner place at risk?
Was Gardiner in quarantine at the time?
Because if he wasn’t, technically the answers are ‘the whole of County Durham’ and ‘himself,’ respectively.
You know what, the death of George Floyd has had no personal impact on me. None. That he was killed in a criminal act looks pretty clear and the system should take care of that in the USA. If it shines a light on how US policing is done badly, good for them.
I just listened to an interview on Talksport and the host talked about 'our white privilege'. This idea that I am privileged, that millions of white people are privileged by dint of their colour at birth. You know what, no, I'm not buying that. You are essentially condemning an entire race by accident of birth, just as you condemn other entire races to bias by their colour at birth.
Its this sweeping bullshit that appears occasionally, worst of all from guilt ridden white people, as if white people should apologise or feel guilty. I have no desire or wish to prove or virtue signal that I am not racist, I suspect there are millions like me. There are millions of white people in this country who are disadvantaged too. The idea that whitey will never understand, no matter what changes will always hang around because it suits some people, its a stick. Race is not an arbiter of empathy, people are.
If some communities seem to do less well we have to ask why, sure, but don't give me some shit that my colour means that I have all the luck. We don't know people's stories, we do not know their background.
And this term. BAME thrown about as if its a all together mass of anyone who is not white. The idea that they all are in this catch all. Its like saying the Indian British community is the same as the Pakistani or Bangladeshi community.
Once the message cross from illustrating how certain communities have additional challenges in society, especially when it is espoused by the right on white people, will turn large numbers of people off. Then those people who switch off will get get the blame for not understanding. If you want the most extensive change, you bring people with you, not tell them they are at fault.
Killed in a criminal act implies he was committing a crime - don't you mean killed by a criminal act.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites...
Not really true. Building and working in cotton mills, shipbuilding and therefore digging coal and ore, merchant shipping and tea and sugar trade employed a lot of British people in Britain. As did the manufacture of chains and shackles.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
Well I think it's patently untrue obviously. So, yes. And one could expand and elaborate at great length.
But I wish to offer a different observation -
This site is full of posters with a good knowledge of history, modern and ancient, far more than I have. Many are the posts that tease out interesting insights into our world here today from things that occurred long long ago. It's great. I love it.
Yet when it comes to the (large and obvious!) racist legacy of the Colonialism we practiced not that long ago in the grand scheme of things? - well the thirst for historical understanding seems curiously to have been slaked in many cases.
Morris. Casino. Sean. Richard. Alan. Apols for omissions.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites...
Not really true. Building and working in cotton mills, shipbuilding and therefore digging coal and ore, merchant shipping and tea and sugar trade employed a lot of British people in Britain. As did the manufacture of chains and shackles.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
Nobody had a great life working in cotton mills or mining or shipbuilding except the bosses and the owners. They were slaves as well.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites...
Not really true. Building and working in cotton mills, shipbuilding and therefore digging coal and ore, merchant shipping and tea and sugar trade employed a lot of British people in Britain. As did the manufacture of chains and shackles.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
"If you are not black, surely you can imagine how it might feel to walk down streets named after slaveowners"
Or in the case of the US, to live in a country where the capital city Washington and the leading world city New York are both named after slaveowners, and where images of slaveowners are printed on $1, $2, $20, $50, and $100 bills.
The idea that needs to be got into heads that don't already have it is that slavery is a crime against humanity. No buts.
Edit: "All of this, you will note, postdated the abolition of slavery." Abolition In the British empire, formally, yes, but not in China itself where slavery was banned in 1910; nor in many other parts of the world, e.g. Brazil 1888, Saudi Arabia 1962.
That is a load of bollox, next you will be saying we need to start slagging off Crusaders, Vikings, or some other crap from hundreds or thousands of years ago. Get a life.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites...
Not really true. Building and working in cotton mills, shipbuilding and therefore digging coal and ore, merchant shipping and tea and sugar trade employed a lot of British people in Britain. As did the manufacture of chains and shackles.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
Well I think it's patently untrue obviously. So, yes. And one could expand and elaborate at great length.
But I wish to offer a different observation -
This site is full of posters with a good knowledge of history, modern and ancient, far more than I have. Many are the posts that tease out interesting insights into our world here today from things that occurred long long ago. It's great. I love it.
Yet when it comes to the (large and obvious!) racist legacy of the Colonialism we practiced not that long ago in the grand scheme of things? - well the thirst for historical understanding seems curiously to have been slaked in many cases.
Morris. Casino. Sean. Richard. Alan. Apols for omissions.
You guys know what I'm talking about, don't you?
Yet you prefer to talk in terms in white advantage rather than black disadvantage.
Why is that ?
Perhaps because it allows a continual criticism of society without ever reducing the disadvantage black people may suffer ?
Let me suggest that it suits the culture war aims of some that black people continue to be disadvantaged.
Now I don't think that applies to you but is it a view you could subconsciously tolerate in others ?
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.
Morgan is the hypocrite; attacked Barry Gardiner for going to the BLM protest whilst simultaenously patting his son on the back for doing so. Staggering
Rudy Guliani ripped him to shreds last week on GMB - Morgan had to resort to pretending RG had sworn to try and gain some moral high ground. If you ever feel like you want to feel sorry for Morgan, give it a watch
How many people did Cummings place at risk?
How many people did Gardiner place at risk?
Was Gardiner in quarantine at the time?
Because if he wasn’t, technically the answers are ‘the whole of County Durham’ and ‘himself,’ respectively.
ISTM that the actual Cummings risk was his returning to his workplace after bcoming symptomatic; the trip to Durham was as risk free as a walk in the park with his household.
Gardiner attended a crowd of 5000 (?) after a -ve test, then went to the Houses of Parliament. His risk is picking it up then transferring it aiui.
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.
Morgan is the hypocrite; attacked Barry Gardiner for going to the BLM protest whilst simultaenously patting his son on the back for doing so. Staggering
Rudy Guliani ripped him to shreds last week on GMB - Morgan had to resort to pretending RG had sworn to try and gain some moral high ground. If you ever feel like you want to feel sorry for Morgan, give it a watch
How many people did Cummings place at risk?
How many people did Gardiner place at risk?
Was Gardiner in quarantine at the time?
Because if he wasn’t, technically the answers are ‘the whole of County Durham’ and ‘himself,’ respectively.
ISTM that the actual Cummings risk was his returning to his workplace after bcoming symptomatic; the trip to Durham was as risk free as a walk in the park with his household.
Gardiner attended a crowd of 5000 (?) after a -ve test, then went to the Houses of Parliament. His risk is picking it up then transferring it aiui.
No. He went back to work when his *wife* was symptomatic. The trip to Durham was the following day when he thought he was developing symptoms as well.
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.
They'd do well to take a very serious rain-check.
British Empire colonialism benefited only a tiny minority of whites...
Not really true. Building and working in cotton mills, shipbuilding and therefore digging coal and ore, merchant shipping and tea and sugar trade employed a lot of British people in Britain. As did the manufacture of chains and shackles.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
Well I think it's patently untrue obviously. So, yes. And one could expand and elaborate at great length.
But I wish to offer a different observation -
This site is full of posters with a good knowledge of history, modern and ancient, far more than I have. Many are the posts that tease out interesting insights into our world here today from things that occurred long long ago. It's great. I love it.
Yet when it comes to the (large and obvious!) racist legacy of the Colonialism we practiced not that long ago in the grand scheme of things? - well the thirst for historical understanding seems curiously to have been slaked in many cases.
Morris. Casino. Sean. Richard. Alan. Apols for omissions.
You guys know what I'm talking about, don't you?
Yet you prefer to talk in terms in white advantage rather than black disadvantage.
Why is that ?
Perhaps because it allows a continual criticism of society without ever reducing the disadvantage black people may suffer ?
Let me suggest that it suits the culture war aims of some that black people continue to be disadvantaged.
Now I don't think that applies to you but is it a view you could subconsciously tolerate in others ?
I'm happy to use either term, depending on the context.
To answer your other question. Yes. It is a view I might be subconsciously tolerating in others. But it would be subconsciously.
Comments
So long as we also agree not to deny the enduring racist legacy of our colonialism.
Deal?
https://www.adamsmith.org/research/mcqtechd4hyayp16xl2ahqx5l1w8w1
Of course, the advantages were deemed to be so great that they wouldn't dream of doing that now.
I just listened to an interview on Talksport and the host talked about 'our white privilege'. This idea that I am privileged, that millions of white people are privileged by dint of their colour at birth. You know what, no, I'm not buying that. You are essentially condemning an entire race by accident of birth, just as you condemn other entire races to bias by their colour at birth.
Its this sweeping bullshit that appears occasionally, worst of all from guilt ridden white people, as if white people should apologise or feel guilty. I have no desire or wish to prove or virtue signal that I am not racist, I suspect there are millions like me. There are millions of white people in this country who are disadvantaged too. The idea that whitey will never understand, no matter what changes will always hang around because it suits some people, its a stick. Race is not an arbiter of empathy, people are.
If some communities seem to do less well we have to ask why, sure, but don't give me some shit that my colour means that I have all the luck. We don't know people's stories, we do not know their background.
And this term. BAME thrown about as if its a all together mass of anyone who is not white. The idea that they all are in this catch all. Its like saying the Indian British community is the same as the Pakistani or Bangladeshi community.
Once the message cross from illustrating how certain communities have additional challenges in society, especially when it is espoused by the right on white people, will turn large numbers of people off. Then those people who switch off will get get the blame for not understanding. If you want the most extensive change, you bring people with you, not tell them they are at fault.
Even now, travelling with a white skin in Africa and Asia is travelling with a protective forcefield in terms of officialdom. Not without some disadvantageous commercial interest, but certainly being the mzungu is quite a privileged status.
En español - 16
Patel and Javid seem to dislike him.
No Blacks in his Cabinet
The American gentlemen was of African origin himself.
The article was actually quite measured - he went into a walk through history to try and understand why some people in Africa saw things that way
Perhaps take a pause first though. I'm sensing real benefit to scrapping "privilege" and going with "advantage" in terms of replacing heat with light in the debate.
So for now 'white advantage' is a winner, I feel. Let's not junk it at this point.
And again, just to stress, all it means is that a white person is less likely than others to face racial discrimination in England.
It does NOT mean that all or most white people are living the life of riley.
Rudy Guliani ripped him to shreds last week on GMB - Morgan had to resort to pretending RG had sworn to try and gain some moral high ground. If you ever feel like you want to feel sorry for Morgan, give it a watch
https://twitter.com/Levance_/status/1268079843004026880
From what I know of Cummings, he isn’t racist.
However, he is a liar, a bully, a weak character and very arrogant, so it is entirely understandable that regardless of their race those who know him dislike him.
There's a Roe Deer grazing in the field behind our house right now. Gorgeous sight.
Or in the case of the US, to live in a country where the capital city Washington and the leading world city New York are both named after slaveowners, and where images of slaveowners are printed on $1, $2, $20, $50, and $100 bills.
The idea that needs to be got into heads that don't already have it is that slavery is a crime against humanity. No buts.
Edit: "All of this, you will note, postdated the abolition of slavery." Abolition In the British empire, formally, yes, but not in China itself where slavery was banned in 1910; nor in many other parts of the world, e.g. Brazil 1888, Saudi Arabia 1962.
Then last month, I was driving past Shugborough when one sprang out a few yards in front of me. All I could do not to smash headlong into it.
Very pleased I saw it though. Even more pleased that, having been to Barnard Castle,* my eyesight is fine and I saw it in time to stop!
*Not recently.
However, when I reflected on it, I was being unfair. Lee freed his slaves.* Washington only let them go when he died without heirs.
*Yes, I know he had to under the terms of his father in law’s will. But that’s not the point.
I anticipate that's JK Rowling (amongst others) would see that as an example of male advantage or privilege. She would be correct to do so.
White advantage/privilege is the same experience. The ability to ignore an issue is the privilege. The same is very much true for class privilege too, and in many ways that is and always has been the big issue in Britain. In all ethnic groups school achievement is worse for those on free school meals, but worst* of all for white boys.
* travellers do worse still, but class is the big issue there too.
Am I getting it? Am I in that head of yours?
Mr. Surrey, how far do you carry that, though? Julius Caesar and Augustus both had slaves. Would you advocate we rename the calendar?
Dr. Foxy, travellers might do better if they didn't occasionally pop into school for a term or so then vanish for a couple of years. That isn't a schooling problem, that's a lifestyle choice by the parents. (We had occasional gypsy pupils at my school who had this pattern of attendance).
On the left right divide I find the right to be more overtly racist towards people who are not white, but overall those are people who are a product of their upbringing and just don't know anything else. Usually those minds can be easily changed once they come into contact with people not of their colour and not the stereotype depicted in the Mail. On the left there is as much racism but it's far more insidious as I described above, the left have their own set of stereotypes of all non-whites being this overtly virtuous group who have all been hard done by and need their help to get anywhere in life and any achievements we have are not our own. Of the two I'm much more likely to change the mind of a Daily Mail reading, BNP voting fascist than I am a Guardian reading liberal on race and both of their opinions on race are as bad as each other.
Personally, I think race relations in the UK are better than they have ever been. There is a record level of interracial marriage, there are more black people in employment than ever before (virus notwithstanding) and younger black people should find their path easier now that my generation has cleared the way for them in the same way my parents generation did for Asian people in the UK.
I'm really worried that these demonstrations are losing the peace we've carefully constructed in the last 20 years. Lots of my Asian friends and family are disillusioned with them already. I've been broadly supportive of the calls for reform of the police but ultimately anything beyond that is on the individual to make their own way in the world.
ETA and arsenic mined in Cornwall was shipped to the plantations to kill the boll weevils on cotton trees, so poisoning both Cornish peasants and African slaves.
And yes, I have known non-white people being called mzungu too on the basis of nationality.
And here's a "woke" treat for you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piFQ4AZHosI
Mr. Surrey, it happened many times, one of the most silly being when Commodus gave himself twelve names and renamed every month after himself.
How many people did Gardiner place at risk?
One of my favourite East African words is wabenzi (the people of Mercedes). It is beautifully apposite for the corrupt elite.
Because if he wasn’t, technically the answers are ‘the whole of County Durham’ and ‘himself,’ respectively.
But I wish to offer a different observation -
This site is full of posters with a good knowledge of history, modern and ancient, far more than I have. Many are the posts that tease out interesting insights into our world here today from things that occurred long long ago. It's great. I love it.
Yet when it comes to the (large and obvious!) racist legacy of the Colonialism we practiced not that long ago in the grand scheme of things? - well the thirst for historical understanding seems curiously to have been slaked in many cases.
Morris. Casino. Sean. Richard. Alan. Apols for omissions.
You guys know what I'm talking about, don't you?
https://twitter.com/BBCNews/status/1269574979680702470?s=20
Edit - quickly spoofed:
https://twitter.com/mbooton/status/1269600914932989956?s=20
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1202137
Why is that ?
Perhaps because it allows a continual criticism of society without ever reducing the disadvantage black people may suffer ?
Let me suggest that it suits the culture war aims of some that black people continue to be disadvantaged.
Now I don't think that applies to you but is it a view you could subconsciously tolerate in others ?
NEW THREAD
Gardiner attended a crowd of 5000 (?) after a -ve test, then went to the Houses of Parliament. His risk is picking it up then transferring it aiui.
To answer your other question. Yes. It is a view I might be subconsciously tolerating in others. But it would be subconsciously.