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

    • Not really since the first world war, and mainly in the sense then of 'getting a Blighty one' meaning a wound so serious you had to be sent home. I seriously doubt if one school child in 100 now would know what Blighty meant if the word was presented on its own with no context. 
    • 1 space available due to one of my clients moving.  Message me for more informations  🙂  
    • Why is the name a big of a red flag? Blighty is a common name for the UK whatever people might think.
    • The only election which counts is the General Election.  There is still strong resentment for fourteen year's of Conservative rule. They squeezed the working class's way to hard, then they squeezed the middle class, but somehow the upper class never got touched, funny that.   There is also new resentment for Labour because of the utter balls up they've made of things since coming to power nine months ago. The majority of the population (or at least those with an ounce of common sense) want these clowns out of office ASAP because they see the damage they are doing to UK plc. They squeezed the pensioners, then the farmers and then business. They made and broke promise after promise, or just didn't tell the truth or say what they where going to do, otherwise known as merely lying to get elected. Inflation may be falling but the cost of things in the shops and utility bills keep on rising, the direct opposite of what they promised. They will never be trusted once they are ousted from power in about four and a half years time.   Everything they do and touch causes further harm, led by three stooges, Rayner, Reeves and balls'less Starmer, who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. He still thinks he's a solicitor at the DPP. Rather than spending week upon week getting involved in international politics he needs to be sorting out the UK's issues, sadly he's not up to the job and nor are his Cabinet.  Society needs a mix of people with different skills to prosper, not more and more graduates who can't get jobs in what they studied in.   Reform is the current anti establishment party, which will hopefully wither away back to where it came from.  The Liberals and Greens, well what can you say apart from using them as another alternative vote of dissatisfaction, but neither will come to power.  The country seriously needs stability and a Government that stands up for and represents it's people, not what MP's want but what the constituencies want and need.  Government needs to become far more open and transparent, it needs to be seen to be doing its job, doing what MP's are elected to do,  working for the people in the constituencies, getting back to basic principles and rebuilding the trust which has been lost by successive party's immaterial of them being, red, blue, light blue, yellow, green or some other colour.     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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