Why Does The Guardian's CiF Persist With This "Race" Nonsense?

It seems like everyday now that there's some silly article talking about the persecution of minorities in Britain and whatnot (and this is coming from one who would be classed as coming from such).

We had the ridiculous persecution article (by a black guy) about how he'd feel relaxed going to a "black" country (his emphasis) than a "white" country (again, his emphasis). [Link: Oprah Winfrey's only misdemeanour was to travel and be black]

He talked about how he was gawked at in Croatia - like, dude, get a grip, please! Personally, I'm not sure I'd feel relaxed in any "black" country (presumably, he talks of African/Caribbean countries), yet he seems to say that he'd feel more relaxed simply because the people have the same skin colour as him. He even goes on further to say that he researches how diverse (as in racially diverse - I mean, this black guy's freaking racist, right?! :lol:

) his holiday destination is to see whether he'll be relaxed or not! (I've never heard so much nonsense in my life - Lord help us all!) :sigh:

These are the types of nonsense that the Guardian is now coming out with these days (probably not helped by the current Tory policy (Objective: be an even nastier Nasty Party) or UKIP party members being generally silly (e.g. "Bongo Bongo Land" :lol:

), not to mention the ridiculous articles suddenly proclaiming billionaire Oprah Winfrey as a noble hero (like the aforementioned ridiculously titled "Oprah Winfrey's only misdemeanour was to travel and be black" and the utterly ridiculous "Do you think your social circle is diverse enough?" - I wonder what the Guardian would have to say about me - a black guy who has mostly white, male friends; it'd probably throw them into great attacks of cognitive dissonance! I mean, I make friends based on their character and how compatible we are, not on their race for crying out loud! Could the Guardian get even more ridiculous than it's turning out to be?! The Telegraph's not much better - we had a ridiculous article on Saturday about the double Lotto rollover - I mean, are these "serious" newspapers turning into the Daily Mail or something?! Lord help us all!)

(edited 10 years ago)

Reply 1

Jareth

Well when it comes to race don't expect nothing but one sided claptrap from the Guardian. Anti-white racist tabloid, stopped reading it years ago.

Reply 2

thesabbath

The Grauniad is as white as newspapers get, then if there's a media-manufactured story about "racism" it always wheels out an opinion fluff-piece from a black, which is about as close as Graun readers like to get to the "diversity" they demand for everyone else.

Reply 3

FrogInABog

Largely because the Guardian has taken it upon itself to play the role of (what it sees as) protector of the poor and the downtrodden. The majority of its readership also enjoy thinking of themselves in this way, mostly because they enjoy a good bit of moral back-slapping of each other. Consequently, when there are no instances in the news of the downtrodden being, as it were, trodden down, the Guardian editorial team are forced to either exaggerate or fabricate something, simply so one of their writers can rant about it in CiF, and their readers are able to express their profound disgust with whoever they decide is to blame. Additionally, they know that doing this will really irk anyone who doesn't share their political opinions, so they can then enjoy sitting back and watching the steam pouring out of the ears of each and every Conservative voter who sees it. It's provocation more than anything, you see.

Reply 4

Chindits

Do people still take the Guardian seriously?

It's basically the left wing's version of the daily mail, with only marginally better standard of writing.

The bias is odious, the paper is odious,the agenda is odious.

Awful, awful paper. Only kept afloat through autotrader sales.

Reply 5

Hannibal Lecter

People say 'oh well CiF is a comment section, you can't judge the entire Guardian by it'. Well, the plain fact remains that the CiF articles are all chosen and vetted by the Guardian chiefs, even if their contributors are not Guardian employees.

Reply 6

Jareth

There was a program on C4 today where people try a 1949 style welfare system. Guardian decided to write an article on it and of course they had to bring up how the mother has a black kid.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/aug/06/single-mothers-denied-housing-benefits

All I see a lot of white women with black babies, yet you rarely ever seen any father around. The media heavily promotes race mixing of white people and we're taught that race shouldn't get in the way of love. If it is love then where are the fathers? why do very few of these relationships work? they get them pregnant and leave and do it on purpose. They should abort these kids.

White mother, black baby = single mother

Reply 7

Seb.

Original post by Jareth

All I see a lot of white women with black babies, yet you rarely ever seen any father around. The media heavily promotes race mixing of white people and we're taught that race shouldn't get in the way of love. If it is love then where are the fathers? why do very few of these relationships work? They get them pregnant and leave and do it on purpose. They should abort these kids.

White mother, black baby = single mother

You just went too far there. What you're claiming is true only to some extent. You're heavily generalising an awfully large group of people.
I'm a child of a black man and a white woman. Should I have been aborted, then? No.

A large portion of these relationships don't work is because of cultural differences, not because someone's skin is black. And no, race shouldn't get in the way of love. Because race is just skin colour.

Making assumptions about someone just because of someone's skin colour is utterly ridiculous and medieval. And frankly, it makes you look like a blithering idiot.

And by the way, if the father is black and the mother is white, the child will be only half white.