Black Lives Matter

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Are you saying that they don't know the motives of their own movements and that you know better?

All to often, in various instances, people just blindly latch onto comments by other people, without testing the truth and contradictions behind them.
Eg you can't go around making the ludicrous claims that because of White racism, that it's more dangerous to go out somewhere if you're black, or that more black people are being killed. How can it be White racism, when it's black people responsible for that violence? Just as in this case, you can't make the claim of racism, as 2 of the officers were not White, and one of them could easily have been the one whose actions may have caused the death(pressure on chest), or by chance been the one restraining the head(to avoid spitting?).



Just about everything is labelled as racist, therefore discrimination in favour of blacks must be imposed. How likely is it that nowadays that people Spielberg, Hitchcock, Scorsese, and so many other White male talents would have stood a chance? There are recent comments that certain TV series(eg Friends) would be more inclusive if made today. Why? Not unreasonable that 5 sets of White people would get together. Plenty of TV series, especially US ones, where the cast is almost exclusively Black, and uses certain words. Nobody bats an eyelid over that.


It is getting unbelievably sinister and scary, if you make the wrong comment, basically your career and life is over. Examples exist of where people have been bullied out, just because they don't support violence and thuggery.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

This is the first time that I've even started to move into the subject area of white privilege because it's a viscous area. It's very important however that we understand that the term 'white privilege' is not a synonym from racist.

So, as a bright person why don't you educate yourself? Start with the invisible backpack

Again, you're always trying with the snide little comments and insults.You really should stop, Your attempts at sneering at individuals whom you believe to be inferior to you detract from your articulate arguments

---------- Post added at 12:25 ---------- Previous post was at 12:23 ----------



You focus resources where the need is greatest. If you don't get that then I don't know how else to explain it to you.

---------- Post added at 12:30 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------



Can we stop agreeing on things please

On the Churchill side of things, The protestors reaction was completely over the top. HOWEVER Churchill has had racist statements attributed to him. & this is what i think the protestors latched onto (incorrectly)

You've just stated what I've stated, I'm just saying we don't need slogans that single out one group because then you start segregating people and it then fails to become equal.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

This is the first time that I've even started to move into the subject area of white privilege because it's a viscous area. It's very important however that we understand that the term 'white privilege' is not a synonym from racist.

So, as a bright person why don't you educate yourself? Start with the invisible backpack

The invisible knapsack. I haven’t read it but I have read articles on it. I have a good understanding of what white privilege is, but I don’t think me expressing an opinion on BLM is me exercising that privilege. In fact one of the points about white privilege is that we ( white people) don’t exercise it knowingly because it is inherent in our society.

Again, unfortunately the term white privilege, along with racist and other things have been hijacked and are then used not to encourage debating the issues that need debating but is used to shut down anyone with a contrary point of view.

Again, you're always trying with the snide little comments and insults.You really should stop, Your attempts at sneering at individuals whom you believe to be inferior to you detract from your articulate arguments

I don’t think that’s fair but you’re welcome to your opinion

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Pierre

The invisible knapsack. I haven’t read it but I have read articles on it. I have a good understanding of what white privilege is, but I don’t think me expressing an opinion on BLM is me exercising that privilege. In fact one of the points about white privilege is that we ( white people) don’t exercise it knowingly because it is inherent in our society.

Again, unfortunately the term white privilege, along with racist and other things have been hijacked and are then used not to encourage debating the issues that need debating but is used to shut down anyone with a contrary point of view.



I don’t think that’s fair but you’re welcome to your opinion

It's a good place to start, if you haven't (and you may already have) look into unconscious bias also..

So, we agree that white privilege fundamentally exists in the UK. Can we also agree that this has to change?

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Mythica

You've just stated what I've stated, I'm just saying we don't need slogans that single out one group because then you start segregating people and it then fails to become equal.

No, I haven't at all

Saying 'All lives matter' suggests that efforts should be spread equally. This is not what's needed right now.

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It's a good place to start, if you haven't (and you may already have) look into unconscious bias also..

So, we agree that white privilege fundamentally exists in the UK. Can we also agree that this has to change?

---------- Post added at 12:50 ---------- Previous post was at 12:49 ----------



No, I haven't at all

Saying 'All lives matter' suggests that efforts should be spread equally. This is not what's needed right now.

You did.

It suggests that all lives matter and that we are all equal which is what we should be striving for. It doesn't suggest that efforts should be spread equally.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Mick

The Slave Trader Statue of Edward Colston, should have been removed from Bristol a long time ago. That said, I do not agree with the vandalism that took place to remove it yesterday.

It needed to be removed by consent of the local Bristol people.

Those cretins who spray painted Winston Churchill's Memorial Statue in London by crossing out his name and then inserting with graffiti "was a racist", clearly need a lesson in history and on his victory of "the other guy", on beating Hitler, probably the most racist and fascist character, in human history.

But that "consent" would've been a result of bullying.


In Africa, slaves were taken by Black people. Slavery existed in Africa long before the White slave traders turned up. If anything it is the FACT that slavery existed before, that gave the White slave traders the idea in the first place. Not really much evidence around that time in White "western" societies of slavery, before visiting Africa.

In East Africa a slave trade was well established before the Europeans arrived on the scene. It was driven by the sultanates of the Middle East.
...
A number of different people -Arabs and Africans - were involved in supplying slaves from the interior, as well as transporting ivory.

In Africa there were a number of societies and kingdoms which kept slaves, before there was any regular commercial contact with Europeans, including the Asanti, the Kings of Bonny and Dahomey.

In the early 18th century, Kings of Dahomey (known today as Benin) became big players in the slave trade, waging a bitter war on their neighbours, resulting in the capture of 10,000, including another important slave trader, the King of Whydah. King Tegbesu made £250,000 a year selling people into slavery in 1750. King Gezo said in the 1840's he would do anything the British wanted him to do apart from giving up slave trade:

Indeed there remains a great deal of dispute over the figures for the Arab slave trade. One historian produced a total of 17 million slaves, but this is for a period spanning 13 centuries and encompassing trade in North Africa, the North East and South Africa.

A lot of white people were enslaved, mainly in Islamic countries/areas. The term "White slavery" is not a myth.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

All to often, in various instances, people just blindly latch onto comments by other people, without testing the truth and contradictions behind them.
Eg you can't go around making the ludicrous claims that because of White racism, that it's more dangerous to go out somewhere if you're black, or that more black people are being killed. How can it be White racism, when it's black people responsible for that violence? Just as in this case, you can't make the claim of racism, as 2 of the officers were not White, and one of them could easily have been the one whose actions may have caused the death(pressure on chest), or by chance been the one restraining the head(to avoid spitting?).



Just about everything is labelled as racist, therefore discrimination in favour of blacks must be imposed. How likely is it that nowadays that people Spielberg, Hitchcock, Scorsese, and so many other White male talents would have stood a chance? There are recent comments that certain TV series(eg Friends) would be more inclusive if made today. Why? Not unreasonable that 5 sets of White people would get together. Plenty of TV series, especially US ones, where the cast is almost exclusively Black, and uses certain words. Nobody bats an eyelid over that.


It is getting unbelievably sinister and scary, if you make the wrong comment, basically your career and life is over. Examples exist of where people have been bullied out, just because they don't support violence and thuggery.

I believe that you're confusing white privilege with racism. As before white privilege != racism.

I'm going to come back and write a longer reply, your post deserves it.

But there's a few initial points

1) We (and i mean this collectively) need to look at what causes Black on Black violence as Pierre and i were discussion earlier in the thread this is due to socio/economic reasons that are highly complex and need to be untangled.

2) So what if black people use words that white people shouldnt use. If you call your husband/wife 'strumpet' would you be happy for me to do the same? Of course you wouldn't because the relationship is different.

3) With hindsight several programs shouldn't have been made It aint half hot mum & mind your language are just two that i can think of, Fawlty Towers is up there as well. In the past few days Keith Lemon & David Walliams have come out and said they wouldn't make those programs now.

4) Change is scary, of that there's no doubt. but it will happen. History shows us continuously

Finally, why would anyone in their right mind support violence and thuggery ?

---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------

Originally Posted by Mythica

You did.

It suggests that all lives matter and that we are all equal which is what we should be striving for. It doesn't suggest that efforts should be spread equally.

Who needs protection and help where possible most right now?

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Finally, why would anyone in their right mind support violence and thuggery

It is a means to power and influence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqJ9IpWOYQA

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by nomadking

But that "consent" would've been a result of bullying.


In Africa, slaves were taken by Black people. Slavery existed in Africa long before the White slave traders turned up. If anything it is the FACT that slavery existed before, that gave the White slave traders the idea in the first place. Not really much evidence around that time in White "western" societies of slavery, before visiting Africa.
A lot of white people were enslaved, mainly in Islamic countries/areas. The term "White slavery" is not a myth.

Why would that consent have been a result of bullying?

What does it matter if slavery existed in Africa ? Do you think it somehow justifies Whites enslaving Blacks ?

[Mythica]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I believe that you're confusing white privilege with racism. As before white privilege != racism.

I'm going to come back and write a longer reply, your post deserves it.

But there's a few initial points

1) We (and i mean this collectively) need to look at what causes Black on Black violence as Pierre and i were discussion earlier in the thread this is due to socio/economic reasons that are highly complex and need to be untangled.

2) So what if black people use words that white people shouldnt use. If you call your husband/wife 'strumpet' would you be happy for me to do the same? Of course you wouldn't because the relationship is different.

3) With hindsight several programs shouldn't have been made It aint half hot mum & mind your language are just two that i can think of, Fawlty Towers is up there as well. In the past few days Keith Lemon & David Walliams have come out and said they wouldn't make those programs now.

4) Change is scary, of that there's no doubt. but it will happen. History shows us continuously

Finally, why would anyone in their right mind support violence and thuggery ?

---------- Post added at 13:08 ---------- Previous post was at 13:07 ----------



Who needs protection and help where possible most right now?

You're missing the point I'm making. We can give that help under the all lives matter slogan. Using a black lives matter slogan is just potentially segregating people more which is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by downquark1

If this is the criteria for historical displays there will be literally no history figure capable of being displayed in this nation. Not Churchhill, not Henry the 8th, not Tony Blair.

Please be very careful about the precedents that are going to be set here.

I submitted that Churchill was not without faults. which bare some relevance whilst not justifying the actions taken.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

It's a good place to start, if you haven't (and you may already have) look into unconscious bias also..

So, we agree that white privilege fundamentally exists in the UK. Can we also agree that this has to change?

Of course it exists, all across western society, I don’t think anyone has said otherwise have they?

The West is a predominately white culture, therefore society will reflect that along with other factors. Fear of the other, comfort with familiarity etc.

It has, and is changing, the problem is the change isn’t quick enough, it is generational, and in a country ( I don’t know the % for the western world) that is 90% white the society is inevitably going to be oriented towards that population. It has to be done subtlety or you risk the opposite effect that you are after.

There are plenty of poor disadvantaged white people, that may be asking where their white privilege is? And that is addressed and recognised in the invisible knapsack, and you have take them along with you too, if we’re going to get where we need to be.

To move away from white only images on tv and in shops for years more and more BAME faces have been on TV to change peoples perceptions of the demographic of the nation. I’ll guarantee you there are people in this country that have still never scene a black person in the flesh. But if aliens landed and watched adverts on the tv they’d be convinced the U.K. nuclear family is mixed race. My point being instead having a black family or a family of Chinese decent or Pakistani Muslim decent, they think oh we’ll just throw them all in the mix.

So yes, it has to change, it is changing, it will take a long time, longer than people want, you have to take everyone with you.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mythica

You're missing the point I'm making. We can give that help under the all lives matter slogan. Using a black lives matter slogan is just potentially segregating people more which is the exact opposite of what needs to be happening.

I'm not missing anything at all.

Using the slogan BLM highlights exactly where the focus of efforts needs to be. BLM does not segregate people nor does it imply that other lives matter less.

---------- Post added at 13:26 ---------- Previous post was at 13:18 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Of course it exists, all across western society, I don’t think anyone has said otherwise have they?

The West is a predominately white culture, therefore society will reflect that along with other factors. Fear of the other, comfort with familiarity etc.

It has, and is changing, the problem is the change isn’t quick enough, it is generational, and in a country ( I don’t know the % for the western world) that is 90% white the society is inevitably going to be oriented towards that population. It has to be done subtlety or you risk the opposite effect that you are after.

There are plenty of poor disadvantaged white people, that may be asking where their white privilege is? And that is addressed and recognised in the invisible knapsack, and you have take along with you too, if we’re going to get where we need to be.

To move away from white only images on tv and in shops for years more and more BAME faces have been on TV to change peoples perceptions of the demographic of the nation. I’ll guarantee you there are people in this country that have still never scene a black person in the flesh. But if aliens landed and watched adverts on the tv they’d be convinced the U.K. nuclear family is mixed race. My point being instead having a black family or a family of Chinese decent or Pakistani Muslim decent, they think oh we’ll just throw them all in the mix.

So yes, it has to change, it is changing, it will take a long time, longer than people want, you have to take everyone with you.

That, is a great post.


There's a significant amount of the population who would argue that white privilege doesn't exist. That message has to be drilled home and they have to understand it.

Your bolded part is perhaps one of the most often asked and also most mis construed components.

This change however, needs to be sped up where possible.

[pip08456]

It's not Pierre's bolded part, it's yours.

Good luck in drilling home white privilege into underprivileged white people.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

I submitted that Churchill was not without faults. which bare some relevance whilst not justifying the actions taken.

Indeed.

Also worth pointing out that this nation, having built so much on the profits of slavery, came to its collective senses, as a result of campaigning by its own people, and not only outlawed the practice but then actively sought its interdiction on the high seas via the Royal Navy.

I’m aware of contemporary complaints that the British government put a stop to it by paying off the slavers, and of the argument that it was somehow therefore just another example of rich men feeding money to other rich men, but this is exactly the sort of argument you get from people who don’t understand how to read history. Within the strictures of the time, it was a pragmatic solution and once done, it allowed this country to lead the world in efforts towards abolition.

Churchill, too, was a man of his time. So was Cecil Rhodes, whose statue at Oxford has been subject to ongoing demands for its removal. So, too, was Edward Colston, and for that matter Andrew Buchanan of Glasgow, who made a fortune from tobacco plantations in Virginia (and therefore, out of slave labour), and whose street in the city centre is now subject to demands it be re-named. Decrying any of these men merely as “racist” is ahistorical. Erasing any of them from memory or from history ensures future generations will be ignorant of history and ill-prepared for their own present. What is required is a proper understanding of context, not self-righteous iconoclasm.