Worth noting, that most of the foreign countries I've visited, its generally been an advantage being white and British, probably because you are assumed to be rich (and are by local standards) or good marriage prospects (see the first).

My friends in Vietnam live like kings doing jobs that here they'd struggle to make rent. When they cross over into Cambodia they get to live like gods.

A friend of mine works in South Korea, in a position well above his qualification, because having a white british guy as an executive carries prestige (he'd be paid more if he was American mind). Here, he'd be lucky to be a manager.

Even the police treat them as special. Its important to remember that in a lot of foreign countries, being White and European is a massive advantage (but its generally because you're rich by comparison).

That said, the same traits would get you murdered, robbed and buried somewhere discrete in certain parts of town, and certainly if you were say injured by a driver in Vietnam, there is a distinct possibility that they'd kill you, and take the jail time over the risk of having to pay you damages.

Edited by jamiemartin721 (04 Jun 2015 9.55am)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I hope these foreign oiks don't turn up to my member's club in Mayfair... they sound awful fellows.... I doubt they would know the etiquette at luncheon.

Our doorman 'Hodgkins' would give them short shrift!

Then why do people feel so passionately about immigration, or global warming, considering that both things are outside of their sphere of influence?

The anniversary of 9/11 is still a day of significant commemoration, not just in America but in Britain too. Yet more people have died in the Mediterranean already this year than died that day. So why is one seen as so more relevant and personal than the other? You're far more likely to drown than be killed by a terrorist, so the argument that it represents more of a threat to individual security is nonsense. Of course race plays a role in how people regard tragedy.

Edited by serial thriller (04 Jun 2015 11.25am)

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I don't think I elucidated what I was saying particularly well so I'll give it another go.

Let's take the first two examples: slavery in China, and bombing the middle east. Both are necessary conditions for the consumerist society we live in. Were Chinese workers paid a living wage, our iPhones would triple in price, while our bombing of Libya has resulted in the falling of the price of oil. Obviously both situations are complex - there are vested interests aside from ours which cause these atrocities to happen - but from a typical Briton's perspective, the result of Syrian or Chinese deaths is a more comfortable life for us.

So where does race fit in? When I say race is the justification for our tolerating these issues I mean this: Evidently we as a society tolerate circumstances abroad which involve intolerable oppression, violence and humiliation, because if we didn't tolerate them they wouldn't be occurring. We as a society have the collective economic and political power to reject these realities.

But to tolerate something we must have a justification for doing so, and that's where racism, I believe, plays a part. In terms of the Middle East, the national perception of Muslims as being radical zealots immediately opposes them to our perception of white westerners as being more rational, less superstitious and therefore more worthy of life. The example of the Chinese workers is a more insidious, implicit example of how we as a society denigrates the oriental as being culturally inferior to the west. Edward Said has done a lot of really interesting work on it, but all I'd say is this: were there slaves working in this country, or France, or even Poland, would our reaction to them be as ambivalent as it is towards Chinese workers? Clearly not.

Im not saying racism is the sole issue we face as a society, but I think you're kidding yourself if you don't think it plays a role in how we justify the immoralities which hold our society together.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I think this ignores the fact that 'critical analysis' rarely comes without subjectivity built into the summary.

Lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I'd say your attitudes towards drugs for example take this position. You appear very sure that you are right on this topic, yet the evidence base from around the world presents a very mixed picture.

In terms of morality I'd say my experience with the people I've met through life who held to a personal moral code have been quite positive. They tend to be far more content human beings and more useful for the wider society than those who treat the world and their actions within it akin to a selfish gene, Darwinian model.

As for 'forcing morality' onto others.....That itself is very subjective. Any law that exists can be viewed that say.

There are many laws out there that I don't personally agree with....The adoption of the word, 'marriage' to describe same sex unions being a recent example. But I accept this 'forced morality' because my belief in a need for a structured coherent society where the majority's viewpoint wins out is stronger.

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.55am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Of course it is.

Ok, lets test your logic. Is it sadder to you if your mother or father or child dies rather than a Libyan?

If so why?

Edited by Stirlingsays (04 Jun 2015 11.58am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)