The 'anti-racism' movement is sowing deeper division

So by implication we should discard this rather apt graphic merely because you dislike some of the authors positions...?

What are you on about gays for sorry? But you approve of using the terms racist/homophobic/transphobic/anti-semitic etc. as general slurs.. not as something to describe unacceptable behaviour? At least you're honest on that count, if nothing else.
Complaining about what "struggle"? Lamenting people using words, traditionally reserved for rather heinous behaviour, on anyone and everyone they don't agree with is hardly to do with a struggle.
I note you didn't answer the question though, do you believe that anyone who isnt actively walking around down with a placard demanding the head of so called "racists" is, in fact, a racist themselves? Because so far you seem to be arguing that rather amusing position.

This is a really disappointing thread to see. The anti-racism movements including BLM is the most important civil rights movement of our time. It stands for equal rights for minorities who still to this day face extreme discrimination and have to fight for survival day to day.

I don't understand how anyone but a deep seated racist could be opposed to anti-racism or BLM, it's literally there in the title.

I think a lot of this pushback is down to white people feeling their privilege and special status in society is under attack. We need more government intervention to mandate anti-racism, equity and diversity training and education in schools, workplaces and other avenues of life, such as hospitals and in the media.

I'm not sure you can compare this to MLK and co.? This isnt an issue of keeping blacks under a jack boot but one of not purging libraries/universities/schools/public spaces and so on of things that dont meet the current orthodoxy of activists.
I would ask you to reread the actual article as it went somewhat further than just the bit on museums and libraries.
Or are you of the opinion as well that anyone not actively banging the gong for "anti racism" is, in fact, actually a racist - and a violent one at that apparently?
Either way, aside from taking umbrage with the Spectator itself can you actually deny anything in the article? From actually having read it, there isnt anything overly 'scary' in it nor does the author actually portray anything as particularly scary, as opposed to odious that is.

What is this inequity and suppression that is being perpetuated sorry? White power is hardly being preached in schools now is it? Although the idea that schools should be teaching Kenyan history over British history is mildly entertaining, not least because the quality of British history taught is so abysmal.
I am all for the darker bits of British history being taught, the ravages of the Indian sub-continent, the butchery in Malaya and so on. Then again, this current round of 'anti racism' is not actually anything to do with anti racism itself, it is front and center about Africans and last time i checked both our history and that of the world was somewhat more extensive than merely that continent. I would ask you what makes that particular regions history more relevant than that of Asia, Europe, Oceania and so on?

Either way, on the highlighted bit, how exactly is calling anyone who doesnt actively side with you a "violent racist" not divisive?

I'm not sure you can compare this to MLK and co.? This isnt an issue of keeping blacks under a jack boot.....

In this context, it's understandable that many people are confused. But professional politicians and journalists don't have that excuse. When the ilk of The Spectator claim that "BLM" are antisemitic, are calling for the defunding of the police, are Marxist revolutionaries, etc etc, they are deliberately conflating the various strands of the #BLM movement. As I said in my reply to @Napp, it's a pattern that's been used before. Those in power don't want to be disturbed. Scare tactics are just part of the arsenal.

The tragedy is that this is literally what it is.

Besides the killing of Black people, you surely don't need to have the over-representation of Black people living in in poverty, poor housing, unemployment spelt out? Or is it that you can't see the connection between this and the way the canonical history of Britain has underplayed slavery, colonial oppression etc? If so, just look at the "Windrush" scandal, and the fact that UK taxpayers didn't stop paying "compensation" bonds to the descendants of slave owners for the "heinous" act of obliging them to stop owning people until 2015.

The Spectator article is an opinion piece, written by someone paid money to spout opinions congenial to the editorial of the Spectator. It contains nothing of substance. I actually know stuff about the British Museum and its review of its collections, so can refute his scare-mongering. Since I haven't read any of the books he has excerpted a few words from, I can't comment on them with any authority, and I'm not paid to spout ill-informed opinions.

Err.... so because I point out that the meaning of a word like "anti-semitic" will change over time, I must be an anti-semite? Or believe you are? This post is just not serious.

What 'killing' of them exactly? Are you trying to talk about America or Britiain or just selectively jumping between them whenever it suits you? Britain hardly has a problem with 'killing black people'.
So you're trying to tar todays populace for the actions of those a couple of centuries ago? What?


So anything you dont agree with is "paid for rubbish" and "ill informed opinions". Might one enquire as to why your opinion trumps his? Equally, why are you focussing on one extremely specific bit of the article to attempt to rubbish the lot. Again, i note, that you have completely skipped over the main point in this article and refuse to address it...

What on earth are you talking about ? You seem to be being deliberately dishonest in interpreting what i said given i in no way shape or form said anything close to this.



Once again, and i cant believe i have to actually type this again, do you believe that people who do not actively bang the drum against 'racism' in the streets are "violent racists" - which is what this article is about. Despite your attempts to jump down a rabbithole on blm completely ignoring the fact that africans are not the only minority that has been hard done by. I am curious about your fixation though? One could almost call it discriminatory to others, at least by the logic employed by the people described here

Again, what scare tactics? BLM is quite clear in what it stands for...
And why are you talking only of BLM? The article is somewhat broader..

"Britain hardly has a problem with 'killing black people'."

Black people account for 3% of the UK population, but 8% of deaths in police custody. It's an average of 21 deaths a year. Police are much more likely to use violent methods of restraint on Black people than others. Personally, I think that's a "problem".

"you're trying to tar todays populace for the actions of those a couple of centuries ago?"

Nope. I'm pointing out the systemic nature of racism, and how our history continues to reflect historical racism and disadvantage Black citizens today. For example, the assumption that the descendants of slave owners are owed compensation for the abolition of slavery - but the descendants of slaves are not - has been entrenched in government policy such that we were all paying these people in 2015. Other historical prejudices are similarly reflected in institutional practices - here's a Barnardo's account https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-systemic-racism-affects-young-people-uk

"why are you focussing on one extremely specific bit of the article to attempt to rubbish the lot."

"I actually know stuff about the British Museum and its review of its collections, so can refute his scare-mongering. Since I haven't read any of the books he has excerpted a few words from, I can't comment on them with any authority" Did that bit not appear on your screen?

The Spectator is a hard right rag, essentially the Daily Mail for the well to do racist.

How have you once again failed to address any of the points bar this wee side one about the British Museum or any of the questions put to you? It's almost as if either you cant fault the rest of the articles point (despite levelling various specious accusations at the author) or you agree with the people he's talking about in that all people are racist unless actively not.

As to your comment on blacks in jail, has it ever occurred to you that maybe they should just.. not commit said crimes? After all, that aspect is not in question. Whether they get a harsher deal out of the system or not might be but you don't deny that there is a problem with crime here, no?

Again, i'm curious as to why you think only blacks suffer racism? You havent been able to give a single point without referring to either blm or some other aspect of black people and the supposed raw deal they get. Do you just have some particular interest in blacks or do you think that the problems affecting other ethnic groups arent really worth mentioning here?

Either way, if you continue to actually answer any of the points and completely ignore the article i dont think we have anything else to discuss here do we?

"Britain hardly has a problem with 'killing black people'."

Black people account for 3% of the UK population, but 8% of deaths in police custody. It's an average of 21 deaths a year. Police are much more likely to use violent methods of restraint on Black people than others. Personally, I think that's a "problem".

"Britain hardly has a problem with 'killing black people'."

Black people account for 3% of the UK population, but 8% of deaths in police custody. It's an average of 21 deaths a year. Police are much more likely to use violent methods of restraint on Black people than others. Personally, I think that's a "problem".

"you're trying to tar todays populace for the actions of those a couple of centuries ago?"

Nope. I'm pointing out the systemic nature of racism, and how our history continues to reflect historical racism and disadvantage Black citizens today. For example, the assumption that the descendants of slave owners are owed compensation for the abolition of slavery - but the descendants of slaves are not - has been entrenched in government policy such that we were all paying these people in 2015. Other historical prejudices are similarly reflected in institutional practices - here's a Barnardo's account https://www.barnardos.org.uk/blog/how-systemic-racism-affects-young-people-uk

"why are you focussing on one extremely specific bit of the article to attempt to rubbish the lot."

"I actually know stuff about the British Museum and its review of its collections, so can refute his scare-mongering. Since I haven't read any of the books he has excerpted a few words from, I can't comment on them with any authority" Did that bit not appear on your screen?

black people make up 8% of deaths in police custody, but more than 10% of the people in police custody...

So we can take away two racial issues here..

If your black, your more likely to end up in custody
But
When in custody, black people are less likely to die at the hands of the police than white people

But by all means, post simple and misleading statistics all you like.

Black people make up 3% of the population yet commit 18% or the murders. Funny how you use statistics that only suit your loaded rhetoric.

I'm honestly surprised at your callousness. Really - you have no concerns that people die at the hands of the police, and that Black people are more than twice as likely to die as others? Not only that, but you assume that anyone taken into custody is guilty of a crime - and that their death is somehow deserved. Clearly, you don't understand the legal system, but more concerning are the attitudes you display. One can only hope this is a pose for social media rather than a reflection of your real thoughts and values.

In the rest of your post, you've just repeated the same specious whataboutery. Being concerned about anti-Black poverty does not disqualify me from being equally concerned about anti-Asian or anti-Romani racism (for example). Being concerned about the poverty experienced by Black people does not mean I'm not concerned about that experienced by White people. It's idiotic to suggest these are somehow mutually exclusive.

black people make up 8% of deaths in police custody, but more than 10% of the people in police custody...

So we can take away two racial issues here..

If your black, your more likely to end up in custody
But
When in custody, black people are less likely to die at the hands of the police than white people

But by all means, post simple and misleading statistics all you like.

Whoops I misread that as talking about the prison population. My mistake.
Either way, people don’t tend to find themselves in police cells for no reason or are you trying to put forth the risible accusation that the police are somehow out to get blacks? Note the stats put forward by fallen acorns. Perhaps if you took a broader view instead of lazily labelling everything irredeemably racist we could have a slightly more constructive conversation.
And no, I have no particular outrage at just black people dying at the hands of the police as opposed to anyone dying at the hands of the police. Any civilised person should be offended by police killings of anyone, not only specific ones based on race as you are apparently...
Pray tell what one ‘doesn’t understand’ about the system?

If whataboutery is your way of saying I asked you to talk about the article in the thread then I’m guilty I guess 🙄
You’re the one who is unable to address anything but black nominal sufferings, I am merely pointing out your apparent fixation and questioning it. It is you who are constitutionally incapable of answering a single question put to you, rebutting a single point but instead continuing to talk about blacks and the police - an irrelevent off topic discussion considering it has nothing to do with what the thread is about... if blacks have issues with british law enforcement and you feel strongly about it then make a thread instead of detailing this one.

The simple reason is that Black people are systematically discriminated against in daily life, denied opportunities afforded to whites and thus some in extreme desperation turn to petty crimes such as theft of food to feed themselves and their families. We need to bring in a law similar to that found in Seattle so people who commit these low level crimes are not punished. As OxFossil showed it is not safe for Black people to interact with the police as they face a high risk of death due to racism. This happens with frightening regularity in US AND UK.