Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In the Stephen Lawrence enquiry, Sir William Macpherson described insitutional racism in the Met police as follows:


"the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin", which "can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behaviour, which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness, and racist stereotyping, which disadvantages minority ethnic people".


I don't think that's describing an organisation that needs a white police association to push white interests. In the absence of any justifcation I would not support it.


The BPA is there to help adddress discrimination, and to do it in away that strives for equality and fairness for all.


It is not pushing a black agenda - it's offering a balancing perspective in an organisation that needs the help.


You can't see that because all you can see is their skin colour.

Claudia Drezner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> The term white trash specifically focuses on a

> single race, then equates it with

> trash/rubbish/unwanted items. It would be equally

> racist to identify blacks with scum by saying

> 'black scum'.


Claudia, the term 'white trash' is never used in the way that you say it is. It is a derogatory term used to describe white people who live in trailer parks in America. The sterotype is that they are ill-educated and poor. Kind of how in Britain the word chav is used.

StraferJack Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I hate it when Sydenham gets tough with you

> BBW/CD, because then you come on here and piss

> vinegar everywhere again. Go huff and puff

> somewhere else


Very sorry SJ. Do you think CD has convinced anybody?

Racism is part of a spectrum of instinctive behaviours that underlie human evolution.


It prevented societies based on fierce inter-tribal hostility and cannibalism from disappearing in a self-destructive feeding frenzy. Our cannibal ancestors were able to eat neighbouring tribes because instinctive racism enabled them to draw a distinction between ?us? and ?them?.


It was a very successful survival strategy that made us what we are today. Evolution has yet to catch up with civilised, ethnically diverse societies.

Mick Mac Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Otta Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > She is the worst type of white trash.

>

>

> Racist......


BTW. I posted this on reading ottas post and without reading any posts in between. My immediate thought was that if the word white was replaced with black then the comment would automatically be considered racist.

I think that's an overly simplistic interpretation of what consititutes racism Mick Mac.


For example, we're all allowed to criticise our own families, but woe betide anyone else that does; or black people describing themselves usuing racially divisive words, or subcontinental people hailing each other as 'Paki'.


In this case the term white trash is being used in the sense of mutual shame, not as an attack on someone for their skin colour.


This is not saying there's one rule for white people and one rule for black people, it's just to highlight that racism depends on what the context is, who is using the term, and what the intent was.

Back to the old slavery thing.


The historical (and logical) interpretation of why there is 'white trash' but no 'black trash' is because a white person who was of distinctly lower class was particularly worthy of remark - whereas black people were not because (by nature of being black) they were already condemned as lower class.


The phrase took on a slightly different slant depending on who used it: used by whites it basically meant (to use language of the time "no better than a n*****") whereas used by blacks it meant "look, there's someone even we can look down on".


Thanks to Springer, Kyle etc the phrase has become widespread, popular, seemingly acceptable - apparently losing its racial element - but it's there all the same.

Fair enough. I admit I'd not thought of it so deeply. I will state quite strongly though that I don't watch Springer or Kyle!


I'm sorry for picking those words, what I basically meant was "nasty racist, uneducated, scum of the earth (who happens to be white)".

Just to add, that I can honestly not remember ever hearing q black person use this phrase (that is not to say they haven't, before someone provides video proof). I've only ever heard white people use it, in the same way that one might use "Chav". That is all that I meant.


Equally, if I was (unintentionally) racist towards this bint, I don't seem to give a shit.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I went to France recently and in the city I visited there were large billboards on the main streets urging people to stop their dogs from messing on the streets and in a little park a sign said something to the effect that this park was built for your enjoyment not as a dumping ground for dog mess. There were also big signs about not fly tipping. I wonder if councils are too worried about offending dog owners by making a fuss about this major problem. I was a dog owner for many years, got free bags from the council and there were even bins around then.
    • I was also woken by this. It happened in two bursts, which felt even more anti social.
    • Surprised at how many people take the 'oooh it's great it got approved, something is better than nothing' view. This is exactly Southwark council's approach, pandering to greedy developers for the absolute bare minimum of social and affordable housing. It's exactly why, under their leadership, only a fraction of social and affordable housing has been built in the borough - weirdly Mccash chose to highlight their own failures in his 'near unprecedented' (yet unbiased 😆) submission. All the objectors i have met support redevelopment, to benefit those in need of homes and the community - not change it forever. The council could and should be bolder, demand twice the social and affordable housing in these schemes, and not concede to 8 storeys of unneeded student bedsits. If it is a question of viability, publically disclose the business plan to prove how impossible it might be to turn a profit. Once the thing is built these sites can never be used for social or affordable housing. The council blows every opportunity, every time. Its pathetic. Developers admitted the scale was, in this instance, not required for viability. The student movements data seemed completely made up. The claim that 'students are taking up private rentals' was backed up with no data. There is empty student housing on denmark hill, needs to be fixed up but it's there already built. The council allows developers years to build cosy relationships with planners such that the final decision is a formality - substantiated objections are dismissed with wooly words and BS. Key meetings and consultations are scheduled deliberately to garner minimal engagement or objection. Local councillors, who we fund, ignore their constituents concerns. Those councillors that dare waiver in the predetermination are slapped down. Not very democratic. They've removed management and accountability by having no nomination agreement with any of the 'many london universities needing accommodation' - these direct lets MAKE MORE MONEY. A privately run firm will supposedly ensure everyone that those living there is actually a student and adheres to any conduct guidelines. There's no separation to residents - especially to ones on their own development. Could go on... We'll see how many of the 53 social/affordable units that we're all so happy to have approved actually get built. 
    • I am looking for 1 unit which is working for £50 cash. Thank you
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...