You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Diversity Schmeristy
November 23 2024 7.08pm

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Diversity Schmeristy

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 12 of 22 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

  

derben Flag 17 May 15 8.52pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 May 2015 8.29pm

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 6.28pm

Quote pefwin at 17 May 2015 6.08pm

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 10.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 May 2015 9.27am

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.21pm

Quote npn at 14 May 2015 4.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 May 2015 3.59pm

Quote eagles2011 at 14 May 2015 3.35pm

Quote rednblue4eva at 14 May 2015 3.28pm

She said: "These are in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves - it's a way of reclaiming the power from the trauma many of us experience as queers, women, people of colour, who are on the receiving end of racism, misogyny and homophobia daily."

So it's OK for her to use the word "queers"


"it is not possible for ethnic minority women to be racist or sexist"

And I expect that applies to homophobic as well

It is, although she's paraphrasing Johnson 1997, who made an valid argument that given the historical context of oppression of minority groups, they should be considered somewhat more valid in their prejudice of the majority - having been on the receiving end.

Of course, Johnson was referring to a generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and before (and in the USA) - when concepts such as **** Bashing and gay bashing were considered acceptable past times.

Johnson believed that we should forgive such prejudice against the majority - and that as such, talking about such prejudice was a means of deflecting by those who provided tacit support of prejudice, away from the true argument, the experience of prejudice of those minority groups (which was often violent, physical, persistant and socially exclusive).

Of course Johnson also believed such prejudice was wrong, but understandable, given the society of the times. Certainly not all factions agreed. Chuck D of Public Enemy openly criticized the use of the phrase nigga by rappers arguing that it reduced the struggle of anti-racism, by creating a stereotype that was ultimately an anti-black propaganda.

Of course if you're actually attending university, which has actively recruited you as a spokesperson and advocate for a minority group, and funded that position - You do have to question just exactly how oppressed you are.

But there are still plenty of very stupid narrow minded bigots out there. Sadly, they exist on both sides of the fence.


Would be interesting to see that applied to Zimbabwe, where whites are both a minority and oppressed.

In Zimbabwe, for instance, is it impossible for a white person to be racist?

And what about South Africa, where foreign business owners are currently being attacked (black on black) - I realise that's more xenophobic than racist, but some of it can be tribal (not sure if that constitutes a race)

Johnson didn't say that prejudice against a majority isn't for instance racist, he just said that you can see where it comes from. The difference is this woman is saying her prejudice doesn't even qualify as prejudice, claiming that it's impossible for her to be sexist or racist.

Using Johnson's attitude it would be understandable for white people in Zimbabwe to be prejudiced, but it would still be racist.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.


The left/libs couldn't care less if white people are oppressed in Zimbabwe - they probably think there is not enough it, or at least that they deserve it.


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.31am)

This post tells me two things:

1 I am not a leftie - I actually find that quite offensive.

2 You don't know much about Southern African politics.

Compare the hushed silence of the left to the excesses of the current southern African regimes to the cacophony of the left to the excesses of the former regimes in the region.


What daily excesses are these then? Inform us. I say 'daily ' because that's how apartheid was foisted upon the native population.

What is comparable today? Examples, please.

So, because the current South African government does not shoot dead striking workers every day, such a repressive act is not worthy of censure?
Certainly Mugabe's oppression is foisted upon the native population, both black and white, on a daily basis - as Zimbabwe slides back towards the Stone Age.

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 17 May 15 9.09pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Yes - and Mugabe's terror and corruption has been anything but ignored by the 'lefty' media here over the years. In fact, it was daily headline news in Tsvangiri days and the Matebeland massacres were well documented.

The right-wing new outlets however.......can't remember them (The Daily Mail) being too bothered.

 

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 17 May 15 9.34pm

Even Peter Tatchell (hardly a swivel-eyed right-winger) agrees with me.
[Link]

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
TheJudge Flag 17 May 15 9.43pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 May 2015 7.31pm

A daft evasive straw man argument on your part.
What exactly are my prejudices ?

I'll tell you. My prejudice is against culture, religion and anti social behavior that does not benefit our society and one that takes us backward instead of forward to a more enlightened state.
In this context, multi culture as an ideology facilitates the problems we face. but if all culture was free of prejudice, it would be of little consequence.
The simple fact is that imported cultures are often running counter to liberal progressive thinking. You cannot just simply defend the principal of multi culture in a blanket fashion if some of those cultures promote a moral standpoint that is completely opposite to other liberal principles.
It is the kind of muddled bulls*** that we have come to expect from holier than though socialist/liberal bleeding hearts, who think they have the moral high ground on everything and believe that allows them to have flexible morality as and when it suits them.


....................................................

You are a true sage....not

But,today you can call me man of straw,flexible morality and any other nonsense you like!

Liverpool 1-Palace 3. Peace and love to all, you included....

Edited by legaleagle (16 May 2015 7.33pm)

What a feeble swerve. The truth hurts eh !

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
Kermit8 Flag Hevon 17 May 15 9.44pm Send a Private Message to Kermit8 Add Kermit8 as a friend

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 9.34pm

Even Peter Tatchell (hardly a swivel-eyed right-winger) agrees with me.
[Link]


There's still a lot of positivity about multi-culturalism in that piece. Glad you are finally mellowing in your own age. You and Tatchell bedfellows? Who'd have thought that?

Not quite sure what it all has to do with our little discussion about Southern African States though.

 

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 17 May 15 10.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 May 2015 9.44pm

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 9.34pm

Even Peter Tatchell (hardly a swivel-eyed right-winger) agrees with me.
[Link]


There's still a lot of positivity about multi-culturalism in that piece. Glad you are finally mellowing in your own age. You and Tatchell bedfellows? Who'd have thought that?

Not quite sure what it all has to do with our little discussion about Southern African States though.

I would have thought it is bleeding obvious what it has to do with our little discussion about southern African states. To quote just one small part of Tatchell's excellent analysis: Mugabe's regime has massacred more black Africans that South Africa's evil apartheid dictatorship. But in contrast to the huge and highly successful anti-apartheid movement, there is no significant western solidarity campaign to support the Zimbabwean struggle for democracy, human rights and social justice. Why not?"


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.15pm)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
legaleagle Flag 17 May 15 11.53pm

Quote TheJudge at 17 May 2015 9.43pm

Quote legaleagle at 16 May 2015 7.31pm

A daft evasive straw man argument on your part.
What exactly are my prejudices ?

I'll tell you. My prejudice is against culture, religion and anti social behavior that does not benefit our society and one that takes us backward instead of forward to a more enlightened state.
In this context, multi culture as an ideology facilitates the problems we face. but if all culture was free of prejudice, it would be of little consequence.
The simple fact is that imported cultures are often running counter to liberal progressive thinking. You cannot just simply defend the principal of multi culture in a blanket fashion if some of those cultures promote a moral standpoint that is completely opposite to other liberal principles.
It is the kind of muddled bulls*** that we have come to expect from holier than though socialist/liberal bleeding hearts, who think they have the moral high ground on everything and believe that allows them to have flexible morality as and when it suits them.


....................................................

You are a true sage....not

But,today you can call me man of straw,flexible morality and any other nonsense you like!

Liverpool 1-Palace 3. Peace and love to all, you included....

Edited by legaleagle (16 May 2015 7.33pm)

What a feeble swerve. The truth hurts eh !

Shows how much of a dedicated fan you are, perhaps...

Your "truth" hurts about as much as being swiped by a feather

Real truth is,just bored of posting back substantively against your own particular individual brand of tunnel-visioned, mean-minded,ill-concealed spleen towards those of a different culture to yourself, and your invariable swerving of any topic towards the evil posed by any following the muslim faith, coupled with your inherent dislike of mixing between cultures.Your on line views really give me the creeps and I'm not surprised the BBS banned you..

If you think that counts as "the truth" hurting,no problem, if it makes you happy

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 May 15 9.33am

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 10.01pm

Quote Kermit8 at 17 May 2015 9.44pm

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 9.34pm

Even Peter Tatchell (hardly a swivel-eyed right-winger) agrees with me.
[Link]


There's still a lot of positivity about multi-culturalism in that piece. Glad you are finally mellowing in your own age. You and Tatchell bedfellows? Who'd have thought that?

Not quite sure what it all has to do with our little discussion about Southern African States though.

I would have thought it is bleeding obvious what it has to do with our little discussion about southern African states. To quote just one small part of Tatchell's excellent analysis: Mugabe's regime has massacred more black Africans that South Africa's evil apartheid dictatorship. But in contrast to the huge and highly successful anti-apartheid movement, there is no significant western solidarity campaign to support the Zimbabwean struggle for democracy, human rights and social justice. Why not?"


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.15pm)

There hasn't really been much of a significant resistance movement to support. Tsvangirai garnered quite a lot of support in the west with regards to opposition to Mugabe, but ultimately lost the election and ultimately stood by what I suspect were clearly rigged elections.

With South Africa, the ANC garnered a lot of support in the West on the basis of a lot of exiles here, notably including a number of white south Africans, who had opposed apartheid, as well as blacks. That allowed a movement to build that had an basis in South Africa and Internationally. But that movement was by no means initially sweeping, large or popular until the later 70s and early 80s.

It also had a international icon to rally behind, the imprisonment of Nelson Mandela.

But its worth bearing in mind that British support was largely for the ANC (which had a communist background, that tied it into a larger international movement and structure), groups like the IFP.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 May 15 9.39am

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 10.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 May 2015 9.27am

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.21pm

Quote npn at 14 May 2015 4.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 May 2015 3.59pm

Quote eagles2011 at 14 May 2015 3.35pm

Quote rednblue4eva at 14 May 2015 3.28pm

She said: "These are in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves - it's a way of reclaiming the power from the trauma many of us experience as queers, women, people of colour, who are on the receiving end of racism, misogyny and homophobia daily."

So it's OK for her to use the word "queers"


"it is not possible for ethnic minority women to be racist or sexist"

And I expect that applies to homophobic as well

It is, although she's paraphrasing Johnson 1997, who made an valid argument that given the historical context of oppression of minority groups, they should be considered somewhat more valid in their prejudice of the majority - having been on the receiving end.

Of course, Johnson was referring to a generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and before (and in the USA) - when concepts such as **** Bashing and gay bashing were considered acceptable past times.

Johnson believed that we should forgive such prejudice against the majority - and that as such, talking about such prejudice was a means of deflecting by those who provided tacit support of prejudice, away from the true argument, the experience of prejudice of those minority groups (which was often violent, physical, persistant and socially exclusive).

Of course Johnson also believed such prejudice was wrong, but understandable, given the society of the times. Certainly not all factions agreed. Chuck D of Public Enemy openly criticized the use of the phrase nigga by rappers arguing that it reduced the struggle of anti-racism, by creating a stereotype that was ultimately an anti-black propaganda.

Of course if you're actually attending university, which has actively recruited you as a spokesperson and advocate for a minority group, and funded that position - You do have to question just exactly how oppressed you are.

But there are still plenty of very stupid narrow minded bigots out there. Sadly, they exist on both sides of the fence.


Would be interesting to see that applied to Zimbabwe, where whites are both a minority and oppressed.

In Zimbabwe, for instance, is it impossible for a white person to be racist?

And what about South Africa, where foreign business owners are currently being attacked (black on black) - I realise that's more xenophobic than racist, but some of it can be tribal (not sure if that constitutes a race)

Johnson didn't say that prejudice against a majority isn't for instance racist, he just said that you can see where it comes from. The difference is this woman is saying her prejudice doesn't even qualify as prejudice, claiming that it's impossible for her to be sexist or racist.

Using Johnson's attitude it would be understandable for white people in Zimbabwe to be prejudiced, but it would still be racist.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.


The left/libs couldn't care less if white people are oppressed in Zimbabwe - they probably think there is not enough it, or at least that they deserve it.


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.31am)

They care, they just don't hear about it that much. I wouldn't say they deserve it, but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking. The failure of Rhodesia lies entirely upon its own embracing of a racially motivated policy, that ultimately led to the rise of Mugabe and revolution, as that remained the only real option for real change and inclusion for the majority of the nation.

Unsurprisingly, this ultimately led to the persecution of the whites, and any dissenters, which is the failure of the revolutionary movement to truly achieve revolution, than simply change the name of the oppressor.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
derben Flag 18 May 15 9.43am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 May 2015 9.39am

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 10.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 May 2015 9.27am

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.21pm

Quote npn at 14 May 2015 4.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 May 2015 3.59pm

Quote eagles2011 at 14 May 2015 3.35pm

Quote rednblue4eva at 14 May 2015 3.28pm

She said: "These are in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves - it's a way of reclaiming the power from the trauma many of us experience as queers, women, people of colour, who are on the receiving end of racism, misogyny and homophobia daily."

So it's OK for her to use the word "queers"


"it is not possible for ethnic minority women to be racist or sexist"

And I expect that applies to homophobic as well

It is, although she's paraphrasing Johnson 1997, who made an valid argument that given the historical context of oppression of minority groups, they should be considered somewhat more valid in their prejudice of the majority - having been on the receiving end.

Of course, Johnson was referring to a generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and before (and in the USA) - when concepts such as **** Bashing and gay bashing were considered acceptable past times.

Johnson believed that we should forgive such prejudice against the majority - and that as such, talking about such prejudice was a means of deflecting by those who provided tacit support of prejudice, away from the true argument, the experience of prejudice of those minority groups (which was often violent, physical, persistant and socially exclusive).

Of course Johnson also believed such prejudice was wrong, but understandable, given the society of the times. Certainly not all factions agreed. Chuck D of Public Enemy openly criticized the use of the phrase nigga by rappers arguing that it reduced the struggle of anti-racism, by creating a stereotype that was ultimately an anti-black propaganda.

Of course if you're actually attending university, which has actively recruited you as a spokesperson and advocate for a minority group, and funded that position - You do have to question just exactly how oppressed you are.

But there are still plenty of very stupid narrow minded bigots out there. Sadly, they exist on both sides of the fence.


Would be interesting to see that applied to Zimbabwe, where whites are both a minority and oppressed.

In Zimbabwe, for instance, is it impossible for a white person to be racist?

And what about South Africa, where foreign business owners are currently being attacked (black on black) - I realise that's more xenophobic than racist, but some of it can be tribal (not sure if that constitutes a race)

Johnson didn't say that prejudice against a majority isn't for instance racist, he just said that you can see where it comes from. The difference is this woman is saying her prejudice doesn't even qualify as prejudice, claiming that it's impossible for her to be sexist or racist.

Using Johnson's attitude it would be understandable for white people in Zimbabwe to be prejudiced, but it would still be racist.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.


The left/libs couldn't care less if white people are oppressed in Zimbabwe - they probably think there is not enough it, or at least that they deserve it.


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.31am)

They care, they just don't hear about it that much. I wouldn't say they deserve it, but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking. The failure of Rhodesia lies entirely upon its own embracing of a racially motivated policy, that ultimately led to the rise of Mugabe and revolution, as that remained the only real option for real change and inclusion for the majority of the nation.

Unsurprisingly, this ultimately led to the persecution of the whites, and any dissenters, which is the failure of the revolutionary movement to truly achieve revolution, than simply change the name of the oppressor.


"I wouldn't say they deserve it", then you go on to say they deserve it - LOL.

Mugabe didn't have a revolution, he used then abused the democratic electoral system that Britain facilitated when the Smith regime fell.

"but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking."
I'll let Tatchell answer this:
How can today's generation of [English] people be held responsible for what their forebears did 200 years ago in the days of Empire? Such infantilising nonsense is increasingly a feature of left-wing discourse.

Edited by derben (18 May 2015 10.10am)

 
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 May 15 12.50pm

Quote derben at 18 May 2015 9.43am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 May 2015 9.39am

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 10.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 May 2015 9.27am

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.21pm

Quote npn at 14 May 2015 4.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 May 2015 3.59pm

Quote eagles2011 at 14 May 2015 3.35pm

Quote rednblue4eva at 14 May 2015 3.28pm

She said: "These are in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves - it's a way of reclaiming the power from the trauma many of us experience as queers, women, people of colour, who are on the receiving end of racism, misogyny and homophobia daily."

So it's OK for her to use the word "queers"


"it is not possible for ethnic minority women to be racist or sexist"

And I expect that applies to homophobic as well

It is, although she's paraphrasing Johnson 1997, who made an valid argument that given the historical context of oppression of minority groups, they should be considered somewhat more valid in their prejudice of the majority - having been on the receiving end.

Of course, Johnson was referring to a generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and before (and in the USA) - when concepts such as **** Bashing and gay bashing were considered acceptable past times.

Johnson believed that we should forgive such prejudice against the majority - and that as such, talking about such prejudice was a means of deflecting by those who provided tacit support of prejudice, away from the true argument, the experience of prejudice of those minority groups (which was often violent, physical, persistant and socially exclusive).

Of course Johnson also believed such prejudice was wrong, but understandable, given the society of the times. Certainly not all factions agreed. Chuck D of Public Enemy openly criticized the use of the phrase nigga by rappers arguing that it reduced the struggle of anti-racism, by creating a stereotype that was ultimately an anti-black propaganda.

Of course if you're actually attending university, which has actively recruited you as a spokesperson and advocate for a minority group, and funded that position - You do have to question just exactly how oppressed you are.

But there are still plenty of very stupid narrow minded bigots out there. Sadly, they exist on both sides of the fence.


Would be interesting to see that applied to Zimbabwe, where whites are both a minority and oppressed.

In Zimbabwe, for instance, is it impossible for a white person to be racist?

And what about South Africa, where foreign business owners are currently being attacked (black on black) - I realise that's more xenophobic than racist, but some of it can be tribal (not sure if that constitutes a race)

Johnson didn't say that prejudice against a majority isn't for instance racist, he just said that you can see where it comes from. The difference is this woman is saying her prejudice doesn't even qualify as prejudice, claiming that it's impossible for her to be sexist or racist.

Using Johnson's attitude it would be understandable for white people in Zimbabwe to be prejudiced, but it would still be racist.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.


The left/libs couldn't care less if white people are oppressed in Zimbabwe - they probably think there is not enough it, or at least that they deserve it.


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.31am)

They care, they just don't hear about it that much. I wouldn't say they deserve it, but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking. The failure of Rhodesia lies entirely upon its own embracing of a racially motivated policy, that ultimately led to the rise of Mugabe and revolution, as that remained the only real option for real change and inclusion for the majority of the nation.

Unsurprisingly, this ultimately led to the persecution of the whites, and any dissenters, which is the failure of the revolutionary movement to truly achieve revolution, than simply change the name of the oppressor.


"I wouldn't say they deserve it", then you go on to say they deserve it - LOL.

Mugabe didn't have a revolution, he used then abused the democratic electoral system that Britain facilitated when the Smith regime fell.

"but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking."
I'll let Tatchell answer this:
How can today's generation of [English] people be held responsible for what their forebears did 200 years ago in the days of Empire? Such infantilising nonsense is increasingly a feature of left-wing discourse.

Edited by derben (18 May 2015 10.10am)

I said they were complicit in the situation, not that they deserved it - Just imagining that history doesn't exist isn't a realistic prospect.

Also the situation in Zimbabwe also isn't 200 years ago, its an event of our lifetimes (certainly mine - I was 9 when Mugabe came to power). The specific decision to maintain minority rule directly led to the armed conflict and ultimately the rise of Mugabe and Zimbabwe.

Comparing it to slavery, where none of those responsible are no longer alive is entirely baseless premise.


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply
jamiemartin721 Flag Reading 18 May 15 12.55pm

Quote derben at 18 May 2015 9.43am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 18 May 2015 9.39am

Quote derben at 17 May 2015 10.30am

Quote jamiemartin721 at 17 May 2015 9.27am

Quote imbored at 14 May 2015 6.21pm

Quote npn at 14 May 2015 4.24pm

Quote jamiemartin721 at 14 May 2015 3.59pm

Quote eagles2011 at 14 May 2015 3.35pm

Quote rednblue4eva at 14 May 2015 3.28pm

She said: "These are in-jokes and ways that many people in the queer feminist community express ourselves - it's a way of reclaiming the power from the trauma many of us experience as queers, women, people of colour, who are on the receiving end of racism, misogyny and homophobia daily."

So it's OK for her to use the word "queers"


"it is not possible for ethnic minority women to be racist or sexist"

And I expect that applies to homophobic as well

It is, although she's paraphrasing Johnson 1997, who made an valid argument that given the historical context of oppression of minority groups, they should be considered somewhat more valid in their prejudice of the majority - having been on the receiving end.

Of course, Johnson was referring to a generation that grew up in the 70s and 80s, and before (and in the USA) - when concepts such as **** Bashing and gay bashing were considered acceptable past times.

Johnson believed that we should forgive such prejudice against the majority - and that as such, talking about such prejudice was a means of deflecting by those who provided tacit support of prejudice, away from the true argument, the experience of prejudice of those minority groups (which was often violent, physical, persistant and socially exclusive).

Of course Johnson also believed such prejudice was wrong, but understandable, given the society of the times. Certainly not all factions agreed. Chuck D of Public Enemy openly criticized the use of the phrase nigga by rappers arguing that it reduced the struggle of anti-racism, by creating a stereotype that was ultimately an anti-black propaganda.

Of course if you're actually attending university, which has actively recruited you as a spokesperson and advocate for a minority group, and funded that position - You do have to question just exactly how oppressed you are.

But there are still plenty of very stupid narrow minded bigots out there. Sadly, they exist on both sides of the fence.


Would be interesting to see that applied to Zimbabwe, where whites are both a minority and oppressed.

In Zimbabwe, for instance, is it impossible for a white person to be racist?

And what about South Africa, where foreign business owners are currently being attacked (black on black) - I realise that's more xenophobic than racist, but some of it can be tribal (not sure if that constitutes a race)

Johnson didn't say that prejudice against a majority isn't for instance racist, he just said that you can see where it comes from. The difference is this woman is saying her prejudice doesn't even qualify as prejudice, claiming that it's impossible for her to be sexist or racist.

Using Johnson's attitude it would be understandable for white people in Zimbabwe to be prejudiced, but it would still be racist.

That's kind of what I was trying to say.


The left/libs couldn't care less if white people are oppressed in Zimbabwe - they probably think there is not enough it, or at least that they deserve it.


Edited by derben (17 May 2015 10.31am)

They care, they just don't hear about it that much. I wouldn't say they deserve it, but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking. The failure of Rhodesia lies entirely upon its own embracing of a racially motivated policy, that ultimately led to the rise of Mugabe and revolution, as that remained the only real option for real change and inclusion for the majority of the nation.

Unsurprisingly, this ultimately led to the persecution of the whites, and any dissenters, which is the failure of the revolutionary movement to truly achieve revolution, than simply change the name of the oppressor.


"I wouldn't say they deserve it", then you go on to say they deserve it - LOL.

Mugabe didn't have a revolution, he used then abused the democratic electoral system that Britain facilitated when the Smith regime fell.

"but that they're not entirely blameless in the situation that's led to their oppression, historically speaking."
I'll let Tatchell answer this:
How can today's generation of [English] people be held responsible for what their forebears did 200 years ago in the days of Empire? Such infantilising nonsense is increasingly a feature of left-wing discourse.

Edited by derben (18 May 2015 10.10am)

The existence of Mugabe's ZANU and Nkomos ZPAU guerilla militants are the factions were revolutionary movements that essentially forced the end of Minority rule and had been operating in Rhodesia. Without the presence of ZANU there would be no power basis for Mugabe to 'win the 1980' election (largely through the use of terror).


 

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]
Alert Alert a moderator to this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 12 of 22 < 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Diversity Schmeristy