Read more.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Commission on Race & Ethnic Disparities
- Thread starter BobKowalski
- Start date
Yes you are right about this. But you are wrong as to WHO they were trying not to offend.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.
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.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.
ha ha ha
Fair enough. That was actually funny. Top marks for a Leftie.
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'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.
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.
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.People just need to accept that slavery is part of 'white'' history and not keep pushing it away as black history.
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.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,634
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.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.
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.
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
. 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
"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.
I'm With Stupid
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 6 May 2013
- Messages
- 20,634
No-one said it was. I was talking about British involvement in the transatlantic slave trade, obviously. Hence why I mentioned William Wilberforce."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.
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?
Newman Noggs
Well-Known Member
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 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.