Turn on thread page Beta

what would happen if people had a white or caucasian society at a university watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I would generally oppose Lawz' opinions () buuut this highlights something worrying I think:

    Law to Segregate Omaha Schools Divides Nebraska
    A black state senator there has been "a driving force behind a measure passed by the Legislature on Thursday and signed into law by the governor that calls for dividing the Omaha public schools into three racially identifiable districts, one largely black, one white and one mostly Hispanic."

    "My intent is not to have an exclusionary system, but we, meaning black people, whose children make up the vast majority of the student population, would control."

    ...the last bit seems fair enough, sorta, but bringing back segregation? meh
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Capital punishment was brought back by popular demand, so it's thoroughly logical, in a kind of morbid, warped sense, for segregation to follow suit. The conclusion will be the reintroduction of slavery and the regression of America back to its pre-Civil War state.

    Although to be fair, this is Nebraska we're talking about.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I dont see how geography alters the use of the word really

    How about - Judeo-Christian culture? That better?



    I agree that you could be more precise than to use the term "black" or white... but it would probably be something along the lines of:

    "Societies that are largely caucasian" culture.
    Yes, there are certainly societies that are largely caucasian and vice versa. But why attach a race label to it? As clearly shown in ths thread, it only provokes misinterpretation and it is totally irrelevant anyway. There is no such thing as 'white' culture, that is a culture which all caucasian people share. Likewise for black people, although, as with any sub-culture, black people have historically been confined to their own race in the West, and thus a sub culture emerged. There is no equivalent 'white' culture.

    To use the term 'white' culture, is ultimately, useless and only promotes exclusionism. So to summarise everything against the idea of discrimnation against whites:

    1. Whites are already in the majority and you are arguing that we in fact live in a white culture anyway. Therefore there is no need for additional representation in the student body.

    2. The 'black' socieities are not exclusively black. There are aimed at untiing certain cultures which are in the minority in England. Much the same as a Welsh society, Yorkshire Society etc.

    3. There is at least some distinction between the use of the words 'black' and 'white' culture. Black culture was formed around the basis that blacks were oppressed into their own community, unlike whites, and thus a sub culture ('black culture') emerged though it s not exclusively racial. Think of the blues or jazz movements in America for example.

    'White' culture in terms of a common culture to white people is clearly a false term in this context and is only used to attack the misconception that there is double standards.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    To use the term 'white' culture, is ultimately, useless and only promotes exclusionism. So to summarise everything against the idea of discrimnation against whites:

    1. Whites are already in the majority and you are arguing that we in fact live in a white culture anyway. Therefore there is no need for additional representation in the student body.
    However this is not always the case in the west, in certain cities, or in certain areas of certain cities.

    Take Detroit, the white population is only 12.3%

    Yet the same issues apply there, and the same responses and attitudes exist there, despite a white minority, and a black majority (81.2%)

    The same is true in entire states, and if you want to move to this country there are plenty of neighbourhoods and regions where the white is a minority.

    Have these people not been "confined to their own race" in as much aa way as the blacks whose sub-culture you recognise?

    2. The 'black' socieities are not exclusively black. There are aimed at untiing certain cultures which are in the minority in England. Much the same as a Welsh society, Yorkshire Society etc.
    For minorities see my point above, as for exclusivity, yes, some are exclusive, and only black.

    The black policemans association (I know it's not a university association, but it's to make a point) has refused entrance to a white applicant, and was backed in this move.

    Why the white applicant wanted to join I do not know, but the fact is he was refused.

    3. There is at least some distinction between the use of the words 'black' and 'white' culture. Black culture was formed around the basis that blacks were oppressed into their own community, unlike whites, and thus a sub culture ('black culture') emerged though it s not exclusively racial.
    Again this is not universally true, not all blacks have been opressed, not all whites have been free from discrimination.

    The irish used to be classed as black at one stage in the not to distant history (I know, go figure :rolleyes: ) so these are not hard and fast rules.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    However this is not always the case in the west, in certain cities, or in certain areas of certain cities.

    Take Detroit, the white population is only 12.3%

    Yet the same issues apply there, and the same responses and attitudes exist there, despite a white minority, and a black majority (81.2%)

    The same is true in entire states, and if you want to move to this country there are plenty of neighbourhoods and regions where the white is a minority.
    Yes but the country itself is as Lawz would define it a 'white culture' and thus the racial concentration of a certain area is coincidental. Detroit itself doesn't adopt totally different cultural values because of the racial profiling of its populace. Regardless, the populace is 'American' and to be an American citizen is to adopt American cultural values.

    Have these people not been "confined to their own race" in as much aa way as the blacks whose sub-culture you recognise?
    No, not at all. They have not been systematically oppressed from education, healthcare and any other number of basic civil rights. They merely live in a neighborhood where there are more black people than white, hardly a comparison. Race here is incidental.

    For minorities see my point above, as for exclusivity, yes, some are exclusive, and only black.

    The black policemans association (I know it's not a university association, but it's to make a point) has refused entrance to a white applicant, and was backed in this move.

    Why the white applicant wanted to join I do not know, but the fact is he was refused.
    That is certainly a good example in highlighting a double standard but I don't know anything about it. Could you provide a link? I'll pre-empt this by saying if this is an American thing then once again refer to my other posts about the difference between racial attitudes in America. However if this is in Britian, definitely post more info, it sounds like a good example.

    Again this is not universally true, not all blacks have been opressed, not all whites have been free from discrimination.

    The irish used to be classed as black at one stage in the not to distant history (I know, go figure :rolleyes: ) so these are not hard and fast rules.
    Of course not. But you cnnot really deny the history of systematic oppression of black people in the West on the basis of a few individuals. Why bother even debating the point that black people were oppressed? I don't really see what using an Irish comparison has to do with anything but it would be a good example of cultural pride emerging from oppression in the same way the that it has in the black community.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Yes but the country itself is as Lawz would define it a 'white culture' and thus the racial concentration of a certain area is coincidental.
    Although it's not coincidental when it relates to other races?

    "Black culture was formed around the basis that blacks were oppressed into their own community"

    Detroit itself doesn't adopt totally different cultural values because of the racial profiling of its populace.
    Yes it does.

    Have you ever visited?

    No, not at all. They have not been systematically oppressed from education, healthcare and any other number of basic civil rights.
    Excuse me?

    This is not strictly true.

    Blacks are currently not opressed from education, and in certain parts of the west have never been, the same is true with healthcare etc.

    If you are talking about less funding then that can be applied to both white and black, and also more funding can be applied to black also.

    So why does it only count when we apply it to people of one race, and not another?

    They merely live in a neighborhood where there are more black people than white, hardly a comparison. Race here is incidental.
    How is it hardly a comparisson, show me the differences that are applicable purely to one race, and not to another?

    That is certainly a good example in highlighting a double standard but I don't know anything about it. Could you provide a link? I'll pre-empt this by saying if this is an American thing then once again refer to my other posts about the difference between racial attitudes in America. However if this is in Britian, definitely post more info, it sounds like a good example.
    No, it's a British thing, I'll try and find a link for you, although the story originally came to me from offline, but I'm sure it's somewhere in the BBC, or some other news sites, archives.

    It's not the only example though (and this goes across races).

    Of course not. But you cnnot really deny the history of systematic oppression of black people in the West on the basis of a few individuals.
    A few?

    Actually the majority have not been opressed.

    Quick factoid that I picked up not to long ago, there are more black people in America today that are not directly descended from slaves, that are, and quick factoid number two, the civil rights movement mainly related to segregation in certain states in America, quick factoid number three, a black man first held political office in one of those states immediately after the American civil war, so it's not as clean cut as we are taught today, and quick factoid number four, even if you could relate the civil rights movements to all of America, a large proportion of immigrants have moved to America sicne then.

    It is not a majority who have been oppressed.

    Leaving the west and bringing it to this country alone, our Race relations act was introduced in 1976 when our non-indigenous ethnic population was half of what it was today, and not everyone was racist before the act came in.

    Those who had to make the struggle were a minority, that is not to detract from the struggles they had to make, but in the same way neither should we exagerate it, or apply it to people who were not involved.

    Let us also not forget the minorities of whites, and other races, who have had to make similar struggles.

    Why should one race be singled out?

    Why bother even debating the point that black people were oppressed?
    Because black people were not, some black people were.

    Why even bother trying to argue this is not the case?

    I don't really see what using an Irish comparison has to do with anything.
    Because it shows that the scenarios you put forward as racially exclusive was not racially exclusive, and can be applied to people of different races, ergo it is relevent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not going to reply to every sentence you've written because you're basically arguing that black people weren't oppressed in America which is just not an argument worth having. When I said black people were oppressed into their own communities, I didn't mean literal shanty towns. I meant the fact that they were excluded from mainstream white society led to the formation of their own subculture. It wasn't a culture based on their skin colour, it was a social situation they were forced into. It's the same as any other sub culture like the Irish, working class etc etc. But because the race label is attached people assume it's a case of double standards.

    I know you're trying to catch me contradicting myself but it's simply not worth trying to discredit my debate by twisting my words when you could be disputing my actual argument. I've been repeating myself for several pages because of this style of debating and it is useless.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    I'm not going to reply to every sentence you've written because you're basically arguing that black people weren't oppressed in America which is just not an argument worth having. When I said black people were oppressed into their own communities, I didn't mean literal shanty towns. I meant the fact that they were excluded from mainstream white society led to the formation of their own subculture. It wasn't a culture based on their skin colour, it was a social situation they were forced into. It's the same as any other sub culture like the Irish, working class etc etc. But because the race label is attached people assume it's a case of double standards.

    I know you're trying to catch me contradicting myself but it's simply not worth trying to discredit my debate by twisting my words when you could be disputing my actual argument. I've been repeating myself for several pages because of this style of debating and it is useless.
    THAT is PRECISLEY what Lawz does every time( that'll be his lawyer training), and its precisely what Vienna always does too, and it seems that Bedford has adopted that style of debate- where they don't argue against the main points, and the point you are making with your words, they just quibble over the sentence structure, or take the debate off somewhere else. Then you have to debate the new points, which then leads o points from that point....and the original debate gets left. But at least it gets left where they could no longer add anymore. You trounced them.

    It won't be long before Bedford comes back shouting "fool" and "idiot" and "pile of worthlessness", to make us all chuckle.


    He is denying that black people were oppressed? How odd. He should go and make regular visits to Irving; i'm sure they'd agree on so many points of history.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    THAT is PRECISLEY what Lawz does every time( that'll be his lawyer training), and its precisely what Vienna always does too, and it seems that Bedford has adopted that style of debate- where they don't argue against the main points, and the point you are making with your words, they just quibble over the sentence structure, or take the debate off somewhere else.
    What utter rubbsih. I go through the post systematically and address all of the points made. TO say I "don't argue against the main points" is just idoicy.

    Anyway - to be compared to Vienna is an honour seeing as people have regularaly voted her as the best debator on here. That you find it hard to cope with her or my style is evidence not of the deficiency of THAT, but perhaps of something else?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    You trounced them.
    Oh I do love this constant mutual felatio between you two. Actually I take that back - it seems to be constantly one way ... :rolleyes:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Yes, there are certainly societies that are largely caucasian and vice versa. But why attach a race label to it?


    Why not? Perhaps it is the best way to describe it succinctly?

    (Original post by Laika)
    As clearly shown in this thread, it only provokes misinterpretation and it is totally irrelevant anyway.


    Perhaps it would - but that is part of the double standard IMO. That people take it to be racist or exclusionist but when in a "black society" if there is one, will be taken to be cultural...

    (Original post by Laika)
    There is no such thing as 'white' culture, that is a culture which all caucasian people share.


    We've had this debate. Though I don’t think my points were addressed really.

    (Original post by Laika)
    Likewise for black people, although, as with any sub-culture, black people have historically been confined to their own race in the West, and thus a sub culture emerged. There is no equivalent 'white' culture.


    What is a sub-culture and what makes one over a "culture"?

    (Original post by Laika)
    To use the term 'white' culture, is ultimately, useless


    I disagree it is useless. It fulfils a descriptive term and it does precisely this.

    (Original post by Laika)
    and only promotes exclusionism.


    Indeed - but one could say the same of "black culture" or "black history month" or "black frats" - they are all exclusive - I would quite like to remove race from it altogether.

    (Original post by Laika)
    1. Whites are already in the majority and you are arguing that we in fact live in a white culture anyway. Therefore there is no need for additional representation in the student body.


    I think that that ignores a very important point made.

    Your point seems to be that as whites are in a majority, there is no reason for them to form a sub-culture, or congregate together.

    However, that is not the case in many parts of the UK or US. One of your main justifications or explanations for the fact that blacks or other groups have grouped together applies to these communities of whites. I don’t really see that it is relevant that within a particular artificial political boundary, on the whole, they are in the majority. The important point is their day to day life.

    [quote=Laika]2. The 'black' socieities are not exclusively black. There are aimed at untiing certain cultures which are in the minority in England. Much the same as a Welsh society, Yorkshire Society etc.[/quote[

    Perhaps. So they would aim to unite people who may be in no way similar simply because they are not in the majority?

    (Original post by Laika)
    3. There is at least some distinction between the use of the words 'black' and 'white' culture. Black culture was formed around the basis that blacks were oppressed into their own community, unlike whites, and thus a sub culture ('black culture') emerged though it s not exclusively racial. Think of the blues or jazz movements in
    (Original post by Laika)
    America for example.


    I dont really agree. I understand what you are getting at, but the fact is that "Black" applies not only to those who were "oppressed" but actually include people who have never historically experienced anything of the sort, not to mention the fact that they often include people who aren't even originally form Africa itself.

    (Original post by Laika)
    'White' culture in terms of a common culture to white people is clearly a false term in this context and is only used to attack the misconception that there is double standards.


    Obviously I disagree. It is an entirely meaningful term, and given the countries that exist in this world where whites are in the majority, there are CLEARLY common bonds of culture.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    I'm not going to reply to every sentence you've written because you're basically arguing that black people weren't oppressed in America which is just not an argument worth having.
    If you read my post that is not what I am saying at all, not even close to it, I am saying that not ALL black people have been oppressed, which is a fact, and that some people of other races have been oppressed, therefore to use some mythical stereotype of an oppressed people is not a valid argument.

    When I said black people were oppressed into their own communities, I didn't mean literal shanty towns. I meant the fact that they were excluded from mainstream white society led to the formation of their own subculture.
    I know exactly what you meant, I merely showed that this was not a universal truth, far from it, and could also be applied to all other races.

    It wasn't a culture based on their skin colour, it was a social situation they were forced into. It's the same as any other sub culture like the Irish, working class etc etc.
    Exactly, it is not race specific.

    But because the race label is attached people assume it's a case of double standards.
    Because it is, you are attaching the race label to something that is not universal to a specific race, and then denying that label to another group who can claim similar antecedents, ergo it's a double standard.

    I know you're trying to catch me contradicting myself
    I'm not, I'm showing facts.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    He is denying that black people were oppressed?
    Show me where I state that every black person was not oppressed?

    All you do is lie and talk crap.

    We saw that last time, when you proved yourself to be a complete idiot, and then continually lied, and your posts got smaller and smaller until they eventually dissapeared in the relisation that you had made a complete idiot of yourself.

    There was not even an attempt for you to honestly admit you were wrong, instead we see you back here spinning bull**** again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Indeed - but one could say the same of "black culture" or "black history month" or "black frats" - they are all exclusive - I would quite like to remove race from it altogether.

    Obviously I disagree. It is an entirely meaningful term, and given the countries that exist in this world where whites are in the majority, there are CLEARLY common bonds of culture.
    Well I do not agree with you that grouping together cultures with predominantly white populations as 'white cultures' is relevant. What role does skin colour play in the formation of such a culture? In Britain white and culture are 2 seperate terms as far as I am concerned. Using 'black' as a cultural label is misleading, but it's certainly more understandable given the circumstances, which I have already extensively pointed out.

    What I do find unusual is that you seek to eradicate the use of race in terms of cultural significance altogether when it comes to 'black' societies and groups, and think it is foolish to group different cultures together under a 'black' banner. However you go on to say that it is totally reasonable to group all societies with 'white' as the majority race under one banner, when clearly there are significant differences within that banner. Why the double standard?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Using 'black' as a cultural label is misleading, but it's certainly more understandable given the circumstances, which I have already extensively pointed out.
    And was shown to be circumstances that were not universal, and could be applied to all races.

    What I do find unusual is that you seek to eradicate the use of race in terms of cultural significance altogether when it comes to 'black' societies and groups, and think it is foolish to group different cultures together under a 'black' banner. However you go on to say that it is totally reasonable to group all societies with 'white' as the majority race under one banner, when clearly there are significant differences within that banner. Why the double standard?
    I feel you missunderstand him, IMO he is saying if you have black, you should also have white, but he would ultimately prefer neither.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    .
    What on earth are you arguing? I'm not saying that black people are the only oppressed group ever. Far from it. But black people in America were oppressed, forced into slavery, denied access to civil rights, because of their skin colour and social attitudes towards that. Yes that is a racial factor. Other races have been oppressed throughout history yes, but does that render this example irrelevant? It's not a mythical stereotype, it's historical fact.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    I feel you missunderstand him, IMO he is saying if you have black, you should also have white, but he would ultimately prefer neither.
    Sums it up very well actually.

    Personally I dont think EITHER are helpful, but I dont see the difference between the two really.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Paul Bedford)
    And was shown to be circumstances that were not universal, and could be applied to all races.
    Please refer me to evidence as to when white people were denied access to civil rights and treated as inferior because of their skin colour in Britain or America.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    You see, my problem with this main debate is that what purpose would a 'White Society' serve? Of course, there is white culture...its just that in Universities each element of culture has its seperate society. Which makes sense really.

    What purpose does any kind of 'Black' society serve? Laika, i believe you've hit the nail on the head, but haven't thought about it in too much depth. Is not black sub-culture largely a product of exclusion, segregation and suppression? If it is, is it really healthy to allow it to continue? Lets face it. Had their been no slavery, would we have a 'black history' month? Probably not. All events like this seem to serve one purpose: pouring salt into old wounds. By constantly kicking up the past, by constantly reminding black people of the horrendous crimes commited against their ancestors and by constantly trying to make white people feel guilty for crimes they did not personally commit, they are making sure racism will never die.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)

    What purpose does any kind of 'Black' society serve? Laika, i believe you've hit the nail on the head, but haven't thought about it in too much depth. Is not black sub-culture largely a product of exclusion, segregation and suppression? If it is, is it really healthy to allow it to continue? Lets face it. Had their been no slavery, would we have a 'black history' month? Probably not. All events like this seem to serve one purpose: pouring salt into old wounds. By constantly kicking up the past, by constantly reminding black people of the horrendous crimes commited against their ancestors and by constantly trying to make white people feel guilty for crimes they did not personally commit, they are making sure racism will never die.
    It does reinforce that history but it's not really possible to just get rid of that culture now. Whatever the culture's roots, it is firmly engrained and it's not possible to change overnight, nor should people be forced to. The idea of 'Black History Month' is merely to remember past mistakes and celebrate the advances we have made, and though for some it may promote ill feeling, if we were to stop recognising 'black' culture and history because of its roots then that would only be another form of exclusionism. Should we not have a Holocaust Memorial Day or commemorate the anniversary of the end of the World Wars? They are all terrible events but are there to remind future generations of the discrimination and conflict of the past and to show that society has attempted to move on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andronicus Comnenus)
    You see, my problem with this main debate is that what purpose would a 'White Society' serve? Of course, there is white culture...its just that in Universities each element of culture has its seperate society. Which makes sense really.

    What purpose does any kind of 'Black' society serve? Laika, i believe you've hit the nail on the head, but haven't thought about it in too much depth. Is not black sub-culture largely a product of exclusion, segregation and suppression? If it is, is it really healthy to allow it to continue? Lets face it. Had their been no slavery, would we have a 'black history' month? Probably not. All events like this seem to serve one purpose: pouring salt into old wounds. By constantly kicking up the past, by constantly reminding black people of the horrendous crimes commited against their ancestors and by constantly trying to make white people feel guilty for crimes they did not personally commit, they are making sure racism will never die.

    I can see what you are saying too. But the validation for "celebrating" for want of a better word, with black history is that "dragging it up" ensures nothing like it can happen again- supposedly. Like Auscwitz- the constant reminders of the past mean we, each new generation- learn from the past. Why do they teach British history in schools? Black history isn't just about slavery. Think of it as a curriculum, in much the same way that British history is taught in school. Only once a year instead of all year round.
 
 
 

3,836

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.