Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities

mat said:
If this country didn't have a Race Problem would Boris Johnson be Prime Minister?
Click to expand...
When Johnson was the option for PM in the 2019 GE, the Tories gained fewer votes than the Green Party did (Tories 304,402 up on 2017; Greens 339,078). And in the 2017 GE it wasn’t Johnson that was voted in, he took over during the term.

I’d say a “race problem” has nothing to do with why Johnson is PM.
 
Ash with her Alternative Race Report...

‘I always find it funny when people accuse me of hating Britain. I mean, there's no other country on this earth capable of producing someone as obnoxious as me.’

 
Psychedelic Casual said:
When Johnson was the option for PM in the 2019 GE, the Tories gained fewer votes than the Green Party did (Tories 304,402 up on 2017; Greens 339,078). And in the 2017 GE it wasn’t Johnson that was voted in, he took over during the term.

I’d say a “race problem” has nothing to do with why Johnson is PM.
Click to expand...
He wouldn't be anywhere near the job if he was pulled up for his racist news coloumns if there wasn't a race issue.
 
BobKowalski said:
Ash with her Alternative Race Report...

‘I always find it funny when people accuse me of hating Britain. I mean, there's no other country on this earth capable of producing someone as obnoxious as me.’

Click to expand...

That's the line.

She's explained the issue in a simple way and happy to take the piss out of herself at the same time.
 
Psychedelic Casual said:
Just as there’s a history of white people being enslaved, as well as black people enslaving other black people. Slavery is a part of every races’ history.
Click to expand...
Well yeah, but those other examples of slavery are not part of our history. We should teach our history with slavery rather than Arabic slavery for the same reason that we teach about the kings and queens of England but not the emperors of China.

If nothing else, teaching about colonialism helps us recognise it when it's happening now. In popular culture, the image of the colonisation of India, for example, is still that Britain marched in there with a big army and took over, which of course isn't what happened. But that's why it's dangerous, because it means that when powerful countries sign exploitative trade deals with corrupt regimes, or fund large infrastructure projects in exchange for special access to natural resources, people don't see the parallels.
 
Guardian claiming that the ‘independent’ report was rewritten by Downing Street. This part from the article...

‘You can see that in the inconsistency of the ideas and data it presents and the conclusions it makes. That end product is the work of very different views.”

This was my first impression on the report when reading it (my post 31st March). I am still surprised that they allowed the report to be published when even in an initial skim read you could spot the inconsistencies.

www.theguardian.com

Downing Street rewrote ‘independent’ report on race, experts claim

Commissioners allege No 10 distorted their work on inequality, after conclusions played down institutional racism
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
 
BobKowalski said:
Guardian claiming that the ‘independent’ report was rewritten by Downing Street. This part from the article...

‘You can see that in the inconsistency of the ideas and data it presents and the conclusions it makes. That end product is the work of very different views.”

This was my first impression on the report when reading it (my post 31st March). I am still surprised that they allowed the report to be published when even in an initial skim read you could spot the inconsistencies.

www.theguardian.com

Downing Street rewrote ‘independent’ report on race, experts claim

Commissioners allege No 10 distorted their work on inequality, after conclusions played down institutional racism
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...

The fact that it was so obviously done together with other factors like quoting the alleged involvement of people who were never consulted just shows what an entire shit show is stinking out number 10. The contempt they show for everyone and everything is staggering.
 
BobKowalski said:
There are some good points in the report, yet the overriding impression is that it doesn’t want to offend anyone, specifically the powers that be. It ’softens’ everything or makes odd claims ie ‘we do not think the system is deliberately rigged against minorities‘ well, deliberately, no it isn’t, then talks about scio-economic backgrounds also being a factor (well, duh), yet then concludes ‘we take the reality of racism seriously and do not deny it is a real force in the UK’ having spent the previous paragraphs treating racism as a minor inconvenience.

Its tone is very apologetic. Perhaps that will serve it better in the long run than confrontational (I’m being generous, but you never know), yet the event that sparked the report was confrontational, namely BLM, which is interesting.

Requires a second read through later.
Click to expand...
Yes you are right about this. But you are wrong as to WHO they were trying not to offend.
 
bluethrunthru said:
Depends on your outlook and family experiences. If you are HK Chinese forced to flee or a Ugandan Asian who's family was booted out by Idi Amin your family background could have gone from well off to very poor on arrival here and as a result instead of enjoying the fruits of 100 years or more amassed wealth in your homeland you rock up here doing low paid work - most of the people behind this report and who welcomed it come from a background of accrued family wealth. If they fell on hard times they could rely on their peers and friends to get them back on their feet - a stranger in another country who looks and speaks differently to the people already there doesn't get that leg up.
Click to expand...
You should read the available literature on the above. You'd be duly shocked at what you find. If I have time next week, I'd send you some.
 
KPXBLN said:
There's far more bigots making a living from denying the reality of racism (and social class) in Britain than people making money from exaggerating it.
Click to expand...
I'd bet my mortgage you are wrong on this point. And I don't even leave in the UK. But the history is the same in most places.

There is far more money to be made race hustling than there is arguing the nuanced we are a far better place today than in 1950.
 
Ifwecouldjust....... said:
People just need to accept that slavery is part of 'white'' history and not keep pushing it away as black history.
Click to expand...
Slavery us part of human history. From Africa to the Middle East, to Europe and Asia, and hen on to the new world. Almost every known culture to man partook in the practice of slavery.

What is Unique about slavery is not that it was practiced. As almost every culture in every continent that had the power to subdue a smaller group. Did so and enslaved the smaller or vanquished nation.

What was unique about Slavery, was the group of people who first thought it unacceptable to enslave other humans. And then went ahead ( wrongly at the time but for the right reasons) and at great cost both in terms of human and financial, to impose this new found belief on the rest of the world.

I'd let y'all guess who those people were.
 
Dax777 said:
Slavery us part of human history. From Africa to the Middle East, to Europe and Asia, and hen on to the new world. Almost every known culture to man partook in the practice of slavery.

What is Unique about slavery is not that it was practiced. As almost every culture in every continent that had the power to subdue a smaller group. Did so and enslaved the smaller or vanquished nation.

What was unique about Slavery, was the group of people who first thought it unacceptable to enslave other humans. And then went ahead ( wrongly at the time but for the right reasons) and at great cost both in terms of human and financial, to impose this new found belief on the rest of the world.

I'd let y'all guess who those people were.
Click to expand...
But given what an intrinsic part of human history it is, it's strange that so many people would object to it being taught in schools. A syllabus about the slave trade would include William Wilberforce as much as anything else. But it seems to me that some people would only like William Wilberforce taught and not the few hundred years leading up to it.

In fact, there seems to be a problem in school history teaching more generally of teaching glorious moments out of context. I still couldn't really tell you what the Spanish armada was about, but I can tell you that we kicked their arses and even give a rough outline of the battle tactics used. History lessons are supposed to teach history, not national pride.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
. A syllabus about the slave trade would include William Wilberforce as much as anything else. But it seems to me that some people would only like William Wilberforce taught and not the few hundred years leading up to it
Click to expand...

"the few hundred years" ? You would need to go back millennia to the dawn of human interaction. Slave trading wasn't invented by white people.
 
Newman Noggs said:
"the few hundred years" ? You would need to go back millennia to the dawn of human interaction. Slave trading wasn't invented by white people.
Click to expand...
No-one said it was. I was talking about British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, obviously. Hence why I mentioned William Wilberforce.

Countries have been going to war for millennia, but there's a reason we teach our kids about William the conqueror and the War of the Roses, and not the Mongol invasion of China or the Mughal takeover of India. So given that you think slavery is such an important and intrinsic part of human history, you no doubt agree that it's important to be taught in some capacity in schools. So if you were in charge of teaching slavery to British kids in a British classroom, would you focus on British involvement in slavery, or would you perhaps choose Arabic slavery or maybe the Qin Dynasty?
 
I'm With Stupid said:
No-one said it was. I was talking about British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, obviously. Hence why I mentioned William Wilberforce.

Countries have been going to war for millennia, but there's a reason we teach our kids about William the conqueror and the War of the Roses, and not the Mongol invasion of China or the Mughal takeover of India. So given that you think slavery is such an important and intrinsic part of human history, you no doubt agree that it's important to be taught in some capacity in schools. So if you were in charge of teaching slavery to British kids in a British classroom, would you focus on British involvement in slavery, or would you perhaps choose Arabic slavery or maybe the Qin Dynasty?
Click to expand...

I don't think it's "such an important and intrinsic part of human history". You used the age old trick of using the word "intrinsic" adding "important" and then attributing both to me so that you could make an argument out of it.

When you say "teaching slavery" I'm not sure what you mean.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top