The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Woman stamped to death by 13 year old

Scroll to see replies

Original post by klarriel
i guess i'm a lost cause then, but i don't see why a bunch of definitions constructed years ago by white men should define how we think of society, all of these definitions infer that the person enacting the racism must have the power and privilege to do so, something which society does not offer many minority groups



okay, just you seemed to allude to the fact that it was because they were black, don't see why you needed to say it if it wasn't violent and it wasn't anything to do with them being black.


"a bunch of definitions constructed years ago by white men" Definitions are updated on a regular basis. The Oxford Dictionary is published by the Oxford University Press, which has likely had a black person in the publishing team, although I cannot back this up with a source. Just as I can't provide a source for there being only whites on the team.

He asked for a violent crime involving a white victim and a black attacker. He did not say that it had to be due to racism.
Original post by ARTPOPHEARTSTOP


No because you can not be racist to a white person, the definition of racism - prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. This means, racism is when intolerance in government laws, attitudes and ideals of a society are ingrained in a culture to the point where patterns of discrimination towards a certain race are institutionalized as normal which DOES NOT happen to white people as they are in all ways the racial superior in western societies because of racism! So no this is not and could not be a racist attack!


You just quoted the definition yet you fail to comprehend what is says.
Original post by klarriel
i guess i'm a lost cause then, but i don't see why a bunch of definitions constructed years ago by white men should define how we think of society, all of these definitions infer that the person enacting the racism must have the power and privilege to do so, something which society does not offer many minority groups



okay, just you seemed to allude to the fact that it was because they were black, don't see why you needed to say it if it wasn't violent and it wasn't anything to do with them being black.

Thats a racist comment, that the official definition of a word doesn't matter just because a white man wrote it.

You do not need power or privilege to commit racism, if a group of black people killed say, the Queen because they hate white people, it would still be a racist act, despite her being perhaps the most privileged person in the country.
Original post by klarriel
--



You do realise your false definition of racism "power + privilege" was also constructed by white men? By white Jewish Marxists to be specific.
Institutional racism is bad, yes. The racism that means that a certain portion of white people are privileged compared to ethnic minorities in this society; it exists in places, and it is very bad. It could be argued that it is "extra" bad, because it is institutional and therefore affects a high number of people compared to other types of racism.

This type of racism doesn't really exist against white people (in this country), that is true. But this is not the only form of racism. Individual racism is an issue too, and this exists against people of all races. You certainly can be racist against a white person in this country. If you believe that your race is superior, are prejudice, discriminatory or antagonistic against another race (even if that race is white people), then you are racist.
Original post by HandmadeTurnip
In most African countries, positions of power are mostly filled by black Africans, similar to how they're mostly filled by white British people here in the UK. In Uganda, for example, South Asians (who are an ethnic minority) experience a significant amount of discrimination. Applying what you said about the UK to Uganda would suggest that South Asians can't be racist towards black Ugandans. In India, however, the positions of power are mostly filled by Indians and black Africans are the ethnic minority, suggesting black Africans can't be racist towards Indians. I would argue that whether or not a person is racist is solely dependent on their thoughts and beliefs, but your argument would have it dependent on location and context as well, which seems odd to me.

White people in Zimbabwe, who make up about 0.22% of the population, have experienced a surge in violence in recent years. The government has even openly encouraged black Zimbabweans not to lease land to white farmers and for white people to leave the country. If that doesn't fit your definition of racism, I don't know what would.


I just think that if you live in a society where your privilege is instilled into everyday life, you cannot be discriminated against because in the end you are still going to be better off, despite what people may say to you. also to your first sentence, it depends what you class as most powerful, in this day and age some people may say its the richest, and last year 8/10 of the richest men in africa were white

white people inherently and universally have the most privilege . this is just a fact. think about it this way. on 7th January 2015, 12 people were killed in France in the Charlie Hebdo attack. politicians and civilians showed up in their thousands to stand in solidarity with the victims. coverage went on for weeks. on the same day, the culmination of the Boko Haram attack on the Nigerian town of Baga killed an estimatied 2000 people, and it was hardly given one night on the news.
Original post by klarriel
hmm well i see where you're coming from, but i'm not just basing my argument on the definition. however, i think we should also look beyond the simple blanket definition the oxford dictionary gives us. since the time it was constructed, our understanding of the world and society has deepened and evolved. in any other context, it would work, but with a minority group against white people it just doesn't, simply because of the fact that white people aren't hindered in society based on the colour of their skin. they hold the power and the privilege. no matter what a black or asian person, or any member of an ethnic minority, says, white people will still be the ones in the powerful positions, getting the better jobs, the more money, lower sentences, they are still the ones that don't have to live in a world where there is the potential that they could get shot just because of the colour of their skin.

I completely agree with your underlying view - in western society, white people have more opportunities, are much more politically represented, etc. I also agree that this widespread phenomenon is deeply rooted in racism and is probably the biggest problem caused by racism that still lingers today.

However, the actual point you made is that it is impossible, by definition, for white people to fall victim to racist attacks. By both the dictionary definition and the definition that is generally used and accepted today, this is patently false.

(Just a quick point: saying 'since the time it was constructed, our understanding of the world and society has deepened and evolved' hardly justifies changing the definitions of words as you please. I couldn't just use that as a reason to change the definition of 'dog' to 'large, fire-breathing elephant', for example. The key point is that the general day-to-day usage of the word shifts with society's views and understanding and its new usage then becomes accepted - this process has not happened with the word 'racism'.)
Original post by tom_thumb2000
What you fail to point out was that land was stolen in the first place.

The Land Reform Programme has already resettled over half a million Zimbabweans. A further 100,000 are to be resettled on commercial farms. The prospect for the year 2015 is that food production is set to double. People who were once landless and living in poverty are now supporting themselves and growing their own.

This was achieved as Britain,US,World Bank and the IMF embarked on a campaign of economic destabilisation to wreck the Zimbabwean economy.
Also the fact of the matter is record although 95% of the white farmers have received notice to quit the land, all have received compensation. In point of fact, the new law passed by the Zimbabwe Parliament addresses the issue of some farmers having as many as 20 farms, some of which they have left to rot, while Africans are left with nothing.


True, but does that justify the intimidation and violence that many are experiencing?

As for food production doubling and people being able to support themselves, where are you getting this information from? In 2013, the agricultural industry was struggling to meet demand and the government was being forced to import thousands of tonnes of crops to feed people. That's quite a change from pre-Land Reform figures when Zimbabwe was considered an agricultural powerhouse and was a net exporter of crops. Also, in 2013, 85% of the population was unemployed, 49% malnourished and 83% living on less than $2 a day.

It's also worth noting that while many of the white land owners could afford to lose their farms and setup new businesses or emigrate, their poorer, less educated white workers could not. Many of them are now unable to find work and live in poverty.
Original post by klarriel
I just think that if you live in a society where your privilege is instilled into everyday life, you cannot be discriminated against because in the end you are still going to be better off, despite what people may say to you. also to your first sentence, it depends what you class as most powerful, in this day and age some people may say its the richest, and last year 8/10 of the richest men in africa were white

white people inherently and universally have the most privilege . this is just a fact. think about it this way. on 7th January 2015, 12 people were killed in France in the Charlie Hebdo attack. politicians and civilians showed up in their thousands to stand in solidarity with the victims. coverage went on for weeks. on the same day, the culmination of the Boko Haram attack on the Nigerian town of Baga killed an estimatied 2000 people, and it was hardly given one night on the news.


I'm really sorry, I've tried to resist saying anything about all your previous posts, but this post betrays just how unbelievably poor your critical reasoning skills are. Woe betide anyone who bothers trying to argue with you - it would be a complete waste of time.
Original post by Ndella
I knew this kind of thing would be posted by you. White genocide does not exist.


Even if it did you admit it so your point is invalid.
Original post by klarriel
I just think that if you live in a society where your privilege is instilled into everyday life, you cannot be discriminated against because in the end you are still going to be better off, despite what people may say to you. also to your first sentence, it depends what you class as most powerful, in this day and age some people may say its the richest, and last year 8/10 of the richest men in africa were white

white people inherently and universally have the most privilege . this is just a fact. think about it this way. on 7th January 2015, 12 people were killed in France in the Charlie Hebdo attack. politicians and civilians showed up in their thousands to stand in solidarity with the victims. coverage went on for weeks. on the same day, the culmination of the Boko Haram attack on the Nigerian town of Baga killed an estimatied 2000 people, and it was hardly given one night on the news.


That is because the Charlie Hebdo attacks were a lot more relevant to the people where these news publishers are stationed. It has nothing to do with skin colour.
Original post by 1inaMillion
You could bet if she had been black and him white, racial motivation would have been the headline in every newspaper running the story.

Possible race hate crime or something to that effect. There is a huge unreported underbelly of race hate crimes against whites, yet we get 'Black man stopped from getting on train in Paris' making global headlines. We have mass systemic racially/secterian motivated peadophile rings operating with near impunity throughout the UK.......but Jimmy Saville is headline news.


Do you have any evidence to back up this statement?? Have you witnessed such crimes yourself? Have you ever thought that perhaps the opposite occurs most? (i.e. racially aggravated attacks against blacks). I honestly can't see how there could be a HUGE number of crimes committed against whites, certainly not more than against an ethnic minority anyway, especially when whites outnumber them in the UK.

Also, the Paris train incidence was clearly racially motivated. They were chanting racist things. So, poor example.
Original post by klarriel
I just think that if you live in a society where your privilege is instilled into everyday life, you cannot be discriminated against because in the end you are still going to be better off, despite what people may say to you. also to your first sentence, it depends what you class as most powerful, in this day and age some people may say its the richest, and last year 8/10 of the richest men in africa were white

white people inherently and universally have the most privilege . this is just a fact. think about it this way. on 7th January 2015, 12 people were killed in France in the Charlie Hebdo attack. politicians and civilians showed up in their thousands to stand in solidarity with the victims. coverage went on for weeks. on the same day, the culmination of the Boko Haram attack on the Nigerian town of Baga killed an estimatied 2000 people, and it was hardly given one night on the news.


So if I were to be beaten up by a couple of black men because I was white, you would say what? That I had it coming because more racism occurs against black people?
Original post by EatAndRevise
"funny how when you can't think of anything to say you just go lol"
Please look at your next post.

You also "just go lol".


i think the one you're referring to is the one where i was mocking you a little bit
Original post by klarriel
I just think that if you live in a society where your privilege is instilled into everyday life, you cannot be discriminated against because in the end you are still going to be better off, despite what people may say to you. also to your first sentence, it depends what you class as most powerful, in this day and age some people may say its the richest, and last year 8/10 of the richest men in africa were white

white people inherently and universally have the most privilege . this is just a fact. think about it this way. on 7th January 2015, 12 people were killed in France in the Charlie Hebdo attack. politicians and civilians showed up in their thousands to stand in solidarity with the victims. coverage went on for weeks. on the same day, the culmination of the Boko Haram attack on the Nigerian town of Baga killed an estimatied 2000 people, and it was hardly given one night on the news.


You don't seem to be reading what I'm saying. We were talking about Indians and Ugandans, what have the number of rich white people in Africa got to do with it? I've also just given you an example of a country where white people categorically don't inherently have the most privilege.

I agree that the western media does discriminate based on race and many other things, it's terrible and needs to change. I don't see how this proves your point in any way though. You seem to be trying to convince me that racism practiced by whites exists, I know it does and no one's trying to say it doesn't. I don't see how that helps your argument that white people can't experience it themselves though.
Original post by klarriel
I just think that if you live in a society where your privilege is instilled into everyday life, you cannot be discriminated against because in the end you are still going to be better off, despite what people may say to you. also to your first sentence, it depends what you class as most powerful, in this day and age some people may say its the richest, and last year 8/10 of the richest men in africa were white

white people inherently and universally have the most privilege . this is just a fact. think about it this way. on 7th January 2015, 12 people were killed in France in the Charlie Hebdo attack. politicians and civilians showed up in their thousands to stand in solidarity with the victims. coverage went on for weeks. on the same day, the culmination of the Boko Haram attack on the Nigerian town of Baga killed an estimatied 2000 people, and it was hardly given one night on the news.



You sound very white. May i ask how much privilege you think you would receive if you went and moved to, say, China?

I'm just choosing China as a majority non-white country, but it could have been any country. What you think of as 'privilege' is just fact of being majority, but being majority doesn't mean you have power or are immune from discrimination. Are you saying if you moved to another country, and attacked a non-white local that it wouldn't be racism?

There are thousands of news stories every single day, and countries tend to focus on things which directly effect them. So, outside of Nigeria, how much attention do you think it should have received?

Do you think the massacre in Nigeria received much attention in South Korea, for example?

But, if you want my opinion, the ongoing massacres and enslavement of Christians in Nigeria is kept from Western news because the events are highly politically incorrect, and contradict the fantasist narratives about the world that the politically correct media so desperately tries to construct.

You as majority in the West don't even run most of your own media, i might add. Some privilege. haha
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by klarriel
i think the one you're referring to is the one where i was mocking you a little bit


No I was not referring to any sort of post where you were mocking me. I do find it hard to believe that you could mock me. If you go back and read the post after the one I quoted, you will see.
Original post by sdotd
no no no

it would be classed as a racist crime if a white person mugged a muslim person



They would need more evidence than just the defendant's and and victim's races to convict someone of a hate crime or racially motivated attack.

.
Not saying that no one has ever been beaten up for being white.
But there is not the same scale of 'white-phobia' that there is islamophobia in this country.
Most non-white people in the UK hold racist views. All they do is use any opportunity they have to call the media, government, businesses or your everyday white family racist. It's like they're on a constant mission to portray everybody white in a negative light - even when there is no evidence. It's clear to see they're obsessed with race and are highly ethnocentric and it's about time people realized their outright malice and call them out on it.
Original post by Babada Boopy
Thats a racist comment, that the official definition of a word doesn't matter just because a white man wrote it.

You do not need power or privilege to commit racism, if a group of black people killed say, the Queen because they hate white people, it would still be a racist act, despite her being perhaps the most privileged person in the country.


sorry, sometimes it just gets irritating when the world is governed by middle age/old white cishet men

no you don't need it, and privilege isn't just about being rich and having a lot of things and stuff like that, i have white privilege yet i'm not exactly well off. it is simply instilled into society for white people. racism is structural, not personal.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you