Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

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

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And to just reiterate, the gist was that westernised BRITISH black culture between african and caribbean people is more similar than the cultures of British and French people. Hence why the "black" societies- where celebrating music and other not-so deep, not so specific- set up by WESTERNISED BRITISH people- which they usually are- are okay to exist, and that a white society under THE SAME TERMS is nigh on impossible. Because the "white culture" is much too spread out across a massive range of what you lawz would define as a subculture UNDER the heading "white culture". "White culture" as you argued it would become much too vague a concept to be able to form a society in it.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    And to just reiterate, the gist was that westernised BRITISH black culture between african and caribbean people is more similar than the cultures of British and French people. Hence why the "black" societies- where celebrating music and other not-so deep, not so specific- set up by WESTERNISED BRITISH people- which they usually are- are okay to exist, and that a white society under THE SAME TERMS is nigh on impossible. Because the "white culture" is much too spread out across a massive range of what you lawz would define as a subculture UNDER the heading "white culture". "White culture" as you argued it would become much too vague a concept to be able to form a society in it.


    Any chance you’d like to address the PARTICULARLY? No?

    Anyway, to begin with:

    1. "Black societies" are not limited to people who are "British westernized" in actuality or indeed even Westernized.

    2. The societies are not limited to talking about or celebrating "British westernized" black culture or indeed even Westernized black culture

    3. African and West Indian blacks are not nearly as similar as you make out. Indeed, my Nigerian friends are nothing like my friends at home, even less so Somalis I know, and the couple of Ethiopians are so much less like West Indian blacks that a few white English kids associate more with my west Indian friends.

    4. Thirdly, there are a large number of white cultures that are very close to one another - the US, the UK, Canada, Holland, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand... the list can actually go on... Regardless, the notion that French and British cultures are so far removed when compared with British Somalis and British Guyanese that in the former case no society would be possible, whereas in the latter it makes perfect sense, is incredibly arbitrary.

    5. You are making a false comparison - you are comparing "Westernized British Black people" with "whites". That is in no way a fair contrast; A fair comparison would be "Westernized British Black people" and "Westernised British white people."

    What level of commonality is it that you require for a socity to be a coherent concept? You are saying “these guys are CLOSER together than THESE”. I disagree, but then so what? Why does that mean that one is ok and the other not? Where is your cut off and how are you determining it other than a bare intuitive hunch?

    Anyway, this is all irrelevant, as, as said, the societies do not so limit themselves, indeed they go further, and often include people of Asian descent also.

    As a side note you hide behind this concept that I am just being "pedantic".

    The fact of the matter is I was doing no such thing, I sincerely took your words at face value, because it was in no way unrealistic of me to think that you meant them to be interpreted in any other way.

    Not to mention the fact that you typed out a post that was SPECIFICALLY different to what you claim to have said. If you say PARTICULARLY, excuse me for thinking that you might just mean that. If you say "westernized black culture" there is no reason on God's green earth for me to think you were implying some other group by adding in another qualifier.

    You then persisted to claim you had posted an entirely different wording, and when I call you on it, you point the finger at pedant.

    Here's a tip - why not just type what you mean?

    Of COURSE one can go too far and be overly-pedantic - but that comes when you interpret a post in way you KNOW it was not intended. There was no basis whatsoever for me to believe your meaning was anything other than what you put onto the screen, so don’t blame me for your being inaccurate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)

    Any chance you’d like to address the PARTICULARLY? No?

    Anyway, to begin with:

    1. "Black societies" are not limited to people who are "British westernized" in actuality or indeed even Westernized.

    2. The societies are not limited to talking about or celebrating "British westernized" black culture or indeed even Westernized black culture

    3. African and West Indian blacks are not nearly as similar as you make out. Indeed, my Nigerian friends are nothing like my friends at home, even less so Somalis I know, and the couple of Ethiopians are so much less like West Indian blacks that a few white English kids associate more with my west Indian friends.

    4. Thirdly, there are a large number of white cultures that are very close to one another - the US, the UK, Canada, Holland, Scandinavia, Australia, New Zealand... the list can actually go on... Regardless, the notion that French and British cultures are so far removed when compared with British Somalis and British Guyanese that in the former case no society would be possible, whereas in the latter it makes perfect sense, is incredibly arbitrary.

    5. You are making a false comparison - you are comparing "Westernized British Black people" with "whites". That is in no way a fair contrast; A fair comparison would be "Westernized British Black people" and "Westernised British white people."

    What level of commonality is it that you require for a socity to be a coherent concept? You are saying “these guys are CLOSER together than THESE”. I disagree, but then so what? Why does that mean that one is ok and the other not? Where is your cut off and how are you determining it other than a bare intuitive hunch?

    Anyway, this is all irrelevant, as, as said, the societies do not so limit themselves, indeed they go further, and often include people of Asian descent also.

    As a side note you hide behind this concept that I am just being "pedantic".

    The fact of the matter is I was doing no such thing, I sincerely took your words at face value, because it was in no way unrealistic of me to think that you meant them to be interpreted in any other way.

    Not to mention the fact that you typed out a post that was SPECIFICALLY different to what you claim to have said. If you say PARTICULARLY, excuse me for thinking that you might just mean that. If you say "westernized black culture" there is no reason on God's green earth for me to think you were implying some other group by adding in another qualifier.

    You then persisted to claim you had posted an entirely different wording, and when I call you on it, you point the finger at pedant.

    Here's a tip - why not just type what you mean?

    Of COURSE one can go too far and be overly-pedantic - but that comes when you interpret a post in way you KNOW it was not intended. There was no basis whatsoever for me to believe your meaning was anything other than what you put onto the screen, so don’t blame me for your being inaccurate.
    I think you knew what i meant, but anyway, arguing that isn't anything to do with the debate, and boy am i tired of this attacking each other instead of being nice and just debating.

    I like how you use examples of your own friends to conclusively state that the cultures are so different. Your friends are what? 10 people, for the sake of argument. To neutralise what you have said, all i have to do is tell you that in my own experience, British blacks are more similar than white people from several different countries. But that is only my experience of course.

    And i'm glad you picked up on my use of "westernised british blacks" vs just "whites". The comparison isn't fair is it? And yet you argue for a "white" society composing of various "white subcultures" to balance the "double standard" when even you yourself can now see that the two don't directly go together. I have made it clear that, in fact, very explicitly clear, that when i say societies for "westernised british blacks"- i mean the socieites where the so-called cultural value of such socieites isn't that deep- they usually focus on things like music, "black" restaurants and such. I stated very clearly also, that when things do get more specific, then groups do tend to break down- and you get somali societies, or "african dance" societies. Only when the "culture" being celebrated is quite shallow do they manage to stay together as proper, organised socieities. Because as you say, when you delve deeper, you realise that they actually arent the same, only sharing skin colour as a commonality. Then there would be no need for a "black" society for black culture- there would be separate groups for the differences you say exist between different black people. Which is the same for white people and their differences- hence why there is no need for a "white" society that encompasses all of the various white cultures. Even black societies don't tend to do that! Unless, as i'll say again, the "culture" they are sharing is as simple as going to rnb clubs and eating at west-indian food outlets.

    Now, i can already hear you saying, but those groups, shallow though they are, exist, so why cant "white societies", and they can be just as shallow. But then i'd want you to explain what exactly the "white society" would do in a dominantly white culture, in this group. Go to indie clubs? Eat at fish n chip bars?Well, i like, no, i love, doing those things too. So why should it be a "white" society? I hear you say to that point, "well i like rnb too, so why should it be a black society, because in much the same way you'd feel excluded from a gruop named "white" though you like to do those things, white people can feel excluded from black ones though they like to do those things" To that, i refer back to points made about the usage of the words black and white to describe people. It is widely accpeted that "black" refers to the culture and ski colour- so white people can happily join the black societies, because they are about culture, as the name is able to express. "White" is used just for skin colour- and thus excludes non-whites, until it becomes used on the same manner as "black" is. Whether the uses are logical or whether you agree they should be used that way is neither here nor there- they just are in Britain, and America for that matter.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I think you knew what i meant, but anyway,


    There was no earthly reason I should. I tend to interpret people's meanings by what they write or say.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    arguing that isn't anything to do with the debate, and boy am i tired of this attacking each other instead of being nice and just debating.


    I don’t see how it was an attack on you.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I like how you use examples of your own friends to conclusively state that the cultures are so different.


    The way that you use nothing but a conclusory opinion and NO evidence whatsoever, even anecdotal?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Your friends are what? 10 people, for the sake of argument. To neutralise what you have said, all i have to do is tell you that in my own experience, British blacks are more similar than white people from several different countries. But that is only my experience of course.


    I would hazard a guess I know more West Indians than you, and CERTAINLY more than 10. I would also hazard a guess that I know a greater RANGE of Africans than you...

    All in all, I wasn’t presenting my experience as conclusive proof, but to counter your simple baseless contention that "they are more similar'.

    I don’t have a similar-o-metre, but what I have provided is far better than what you have - i.e. nothing.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    And i'm glad you picked up on my use of "westernised british blacks" vs just "whites". The comparison isn't fair is it? And yet you argue for a "white" society composing of various "white subcultures" to balance the "double standard" when even you yourself can now see that the two don't directly go together.


    You ignored the collateral point to that, which is a requirement of it - namely that the societies I am talking about do NOT limit themselves to "BRITISH, WESTERNIZED and BLACK" people. So you are comparing something completely different to myself.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I have made it clear that, in fact, very explicitly clear, that when i say societies for "westernised british blacks"- i mean the socieites where the so-called cultural value of such socieites isn't that deep- they usually focus on things like music, "black" restaurants and such.


    Good for you. I was debating on his thread before you showed up and I WASNT referring to such societies. No use trying to change it now to suit your argument.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I stated very clearly also, that when things do get more specific, then groups do tend to break down- and you get somali societies, or "african dance" societies.


    Yes. You get SOME - but you also get more monolithic societies and groups that take in a very disparate array of black people.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Only when the "culture" being celebrated is quite shallow do they manage to stay together as proper, organised socieities.


    That simply isn’t true, and as someone who hasn’t even BEEN to university yet, you have no real experience as a basis for that contention.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Because as you say, when you delve deeper, you realise that they actually arent the same, only sharing skin colour as a commonality.


    Not true either. Of course they have things in common.

    Anyway - they still manage to do it, so your contention that it cant work is proved false by empirical fact.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Then there would be no need for a "black" society for black culture- there would be separate groups for the differences you say exist between different black people. Which is the same for white people and their differences- hence why there is no need for a "white" society that encompasses all of the various white cultures. Even black societies don't tend to do that! Unless, as i'll say again, the "culture" they are sharing is as simple as going to rnb clubs and eating at west-indian food outlets.


    Again - wrong. But whatever. I like the way you slipped in "tend" so that you didn’t have to be absolute.

    Yes - most societies are more specific. Not all of them.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Now, i can already hear you saying, but those groups, shallow though they are, exist, so why cant "white societies", and they can be just as shallow.


    I am saying no such thing.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    It is widely accpeted that "black" refers to the culture and ski colour- so white people can happily join the black societies, because they are about culture, as the name is able to express.


    Ohhh - so this is another of those - don’t interpret it normally - read into the language to suit the argument things right?

    The thing is BLACK societies are DO include disparate groups, so it makes no sense to say that we should read black as "afro-Caribbean and African westernized British black"... I just don’t see your justification for that other than the fact that it suits you to interpret it that way.


    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Whether the uses are logical or whether you agree they should be used that way is neither here nor there- they just are in
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Britain, and America for that matter.


    They are - and they are not too... so some BLACK societies are not so delineated.


    Again - are you going to avoid the Particularly again or do ihave to keep reminding you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)

    There was no earthly reason I should. I tend to interpret people's meanings by what they write or say.



    I don’t see how it was an attack on you.



    The way that you use nothing but a conclusory opinion and NO evidence whatsoever, even anecdotal?



    I would hazard a guess I know more West Indians than you, and CERTAINLY more than 10. I would also hazard a guess that I know a greater RANGE of Africans than you...

    All in all, I wasn’t presenting my experience as conclusive proof, but to counter your simple baseless contention that "they are more similar'.

    I don’t have a similar-o-metre, but what I have provided is far better than what you have - i.e. nothing.



    You ignored the collateral point to that, which is a requirement of it - namely that the societies I am talking about do NOT limit themselves to "BRITISH, WESTERNIZED and BLACK" people. So you are comparing something completely different to myself.



    Good for you. I was debating on his thread before you showed up and I WASNT referring to such societies. No use trying to change it now to suit your argument.



    Yes. You get SOME - but you also get more monolithic societies and groups that take in a very disparate array of black people.



    That simply isn’t true, and as someone who hasn’t even BEEN to university yet, you have no real experience as a basis for that contention.



    Not true either. Of course they have things in common.

    Anyway - they still manage to do it, so your contention that it cant work is proved false by empirical fact.



    Again - wrong. But whatever. I like the way you slipped in "tend" so that you didn’t have to be absolute.

    Yes - most societies are more specific. Not all of them.



    I am saying no such thing.



    Ohhh - so this is another of those - don’t interpret it normally - read into the language to suit the argument things right?

    The thing is BLACK societies are DO include disparate groups, so it makes no sense to say that we should read black as "afro-Caribbean and African westernized British black"... I just don’t see your justification for that other than the fact that it suits you to interpret it that way.




    They are - and they are not too... so some BLACK societies are not so delineated.


    Again - are you going to avoid the Particularly again or do ihave to keep reminding you?
    Oh screw the particularly, we were supposed to have ended the pendanticism- after the particular comment, i reviewed and adapted what i said, and you accepted that, so why go back to when the argument wasn't quite how i wanted it? Stop being a coursework marker!

    You are basically saying then, that black societies at university shouldn't exist as they do, because of the disparity between different types of black person. Then why argue for a white society which would have the same disparate nature? Simply to balance things out? Its a weak argument to say that there should be a white society that has a range of white culutres just because here is a black one. And the main point about the black societies is that they exist because black people are a minority here. So its a starting point to finding people who you find to be similar at first. Of course, everyone is individual, and so are specific cultures. But again, black societies at many univerisities don't cater for specifics, do they? And no, i'm not at uni yet, but i know plenty of people who are. And i really doubt you know more west- indian people than i do- you may have lived in Trinidad, but then i've lived in the caribbean for extended periods of time, and half of my family are Jamaican! Whether you know a few more doesn't matter- we are both equally capable of talking on the matter. Though i say i know more about the cultures than you, being a literal part of the culture,and being surrounded on a family basis by members of the west indian culture. But again, lets not argue about things like this, because we don't really wan't to know about each others lives, do we?

    Yes, i'll agree you probably know more Africans than i do. But i can see it plainly that in Britain, it doesn't matter whether you are jamaican or african, its enough to just be black- hence the merger betwen the two groups when it comes to shallow culture. Which is wha the societies tend to cater for, unless they get more specific, when they'll break off into more refined groups.



    I also want to know whether you agree with me about the uses of the words "black" and "white", and whether you think those uses play a part in exclusion. All you said was basically that i can't prove it. Dont just swat it away though, what do you think about it? Because its the crux of the whole argument really isn't it? Whether there should be a society named"white" society, given that "white" is NOT used in the same context as "black" in mainstram society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Lets be honest - this argument has become so convoluted it barely even makes sense anymore.

    The main point is that we live in a 'white' society - therefore a society to represent this at University is unnecassary. Lawz' argument is that in some areas whites are the minority which is quite frankly not a very good argument at all.

    Isolated geographical areas don't constitute an overhaul of cultural values ('Tell that to the people of <insert areas with high ethnic minority population'>' - Lawz) and even if it did, to be an example of a double standard, the University would have to be located in such an area where the majority of the student body was composed of ethnic minorities. I don't know of any examples of this, and besides it would merely be nit-picking to place emphasis on this argument, because we regardless live in a 'white' society. (Lawz terminology, not mine.) Go to your local city centre. Walk down a street. Talk to your friends. Attend your University lectures. There's your white society, white values, language and culture. That is the reason why a white society at University would be foolish, but a society for an ethnic minority makes sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Another thing. ou say you showed up on the thread before me, and you weren't debating about such socieites (the ones i mentioned, the ones where it isn't that deep). This debate is between me and you, when i quote you, i ant answers to me, not for the benefit of the thread. Who cares whether you were debating other types of society in the beginning, i want you to address MY points. You just push them aside! The ones that do exist that i talk about- whether there are loads or not- what do you think of them, in relation to my posts as a whole?

    You said SOME are delineated, some aren't. Well, about the ones that aren't delineated. Which are they? What do they do? What activities are there? It would help your argument for a "white" society if you could give evidence of "black" societies that go deeper than the superficial, and yet don't break off into smaller groups. Because even i agree that that would be pointless, really. My only defence for it would be that its because blacks in general are the minority at a lot of universities. Looking of course at government stats on how many black are in higher ed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Lets be honest - this argument has become so convoluted it barely even makes sense anymore.

    The main point is that we live in a 'white' society - therefore a society to represent this at University is unnecassary. Lawz' argument is that in some areas whites are the minority which is quite frankly not a very good argument at all.

    Isolated geographical areas don't constitute an overhaul of cultural values ('Tell that to the people of <insert areas with high ethnic minority population'>' - Lawz) and even if it did, to be an example of a double standard, the University would have to be located in such an area where the majority of the student body was composed of ethnic minorities. I don't know of any examples of this, and besides it would merely be nit-picking to place emphasis on this argument, because we regardless live in a 'white' society. (Lawz terminology, not mine.) Go to your local city centre. Walk down a street. Talk to your friends. Attend your University lectures. There's your white society, white values, language and culture. That is the reason why a white society at University would be foolish, but a society for an ethnic minority makes sense.
    Added to that the point that even if there was a "white" society at a university, there are so many branches of completely different white cultures, it would be silly. Whereas societies for blacks in university pick up on BASIC black culture- music, food and the like. "White society" is much too vague, and if it celebrated the same things as a black society celebrates concerning their own culture, there would be no need to call it white, given that white could mean anything, whereas black- it's known what it stands for. Well, certainly in the case of many uni socs.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Oh screw the particularly, we were supposed to have ended the pendanticism- after the particular comment, i reviewed and adapted what i said, and you accepted that, so why go back to when the argument wasn't quite how i wanted it? Stop being a coursework marker!


    You have constantly accused me of not only pedant, but of deliberately twisting your words. My point is, in actuality, it is you chronic impression and expectation that I should read between your lines that is to blame rather than any purposeful distortion of meaning on my part.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    You are basically saying then, that black societies at university shouldn't exist as they do, because of the disparity between different types of black person. Then why argue for a white society which would have the same disparate nature? Simply to balance things out? Its a weak argument to say that there should be a white society that has a range of white culutres just because here is a black one.


    And pages and pages later you still don’t seem to understand what my argument is.

    My argument is simple:

    1. Societies or organisations that are expressly for one race nd to the exclusion of others are wrong
    2. Non-exclusionary groups that aim to celebrate and learn about cultures, whether they be entirely specific or more monolithic are fine with me.
    3. There are such black societies, and no one really complains (and quite rightly – there is nothing to complain about.
    4. However, if such white society were to be set up, there would be vocal opposition IMO, accusations of racism, divisiveness, and xenophobia, as really this thread has demonstrated quite well.

    Whether the argument YOU seem to say I am making is weak or not is not of concern to me. I am not making it.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    And the main point about the black societies is that they exist because black people are a minority here.


    And whites are minorities in some areas, and still, I see NO reason why you have to be <50% in order to have a society built around your culture. You really think that the day to day lives of white people necessarily involves full exposure to all the worthwhile aspects of their culture?

    What about to expose NON-whites to such culture?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    So its a starting point to finding people who you find to be similar at first. Of course, everyone is individual, and so are specific cultures. But again, black societies at many univerisities don't cater for specifics, do they? And no, i'm not at uni yet, but i know plenty of people who are. And i really doubt you know more west- indian people than i do- you may have lived in Trinidad, but then i've lived in the caribbean for extended periods of time, and half of my family are Jamaican!


    Mate – my entire family ARE west Indian, I lived there almost all my life, went to school there, and have my home there AND IN Barbados. Please spare me the notion that because you have spent a couple of years there you know more people than I do. I AM WEST INDIAN in the sense that I am from there, not in the sense that you are, which is to say your family is.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Whether you know a few more doesn't matter- we are both equally capable of talking on the matter. Though i say i know more about the cultures than you, being a literal part of the culture,and being surrounded on a family basis by members of the west indian culture.


    *******s. What makes you think I am not immersed in West Indian culture when my home and family LIVE THERE NOW? When I grew up there? You live in the UK and have for the vast majority of your life.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    But again, lets not argue about things like this, because we don't really wan't to know about each others lives, do we?


    If its relevant to your authority to speak on a matter, yes.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Yes, i'll agree you probably know more Africans than i do. But i can see it plainly that in
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Britain, it doesn't matter whether you are jamaican or african, its enough to just be black


    According to you. Not according to many Africans and West Indians. Indeed you should be well aware that there are often tensions between the groups.

    And what does “its enough just to be black” mean? That despite the truth, if you are black you are automatically similar?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    - hence the merger betwen the two groups when it comes to shallow culture. Which is wha the societies tend to cater for, unless they get more specific, when they'll break off into more refined groups.


    You aren’t even providing an argument. You are just giving your conclusion over and over – i.e. “they are very similar”. Mate, they simply are not. Compare a Jamaican to a Somali… they are NOT even nearly as similar as you make out.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I also want to know whether you agree with me about the uses of the words "black" and "white", and whether you think those uses play a part in exclusion. All you said was basically that i can't prove it. Dont just swat it away though, what do you think about it? Because its the crux of the whole argument really isn't it? Whether there should be a society named"white" society, given that "white" is NOT used in the same context as "black" in mainstram society.


    Well I said no such thing.

    Considering that black groups regularly include people simply on the basis of skin tone, and not in this limited way you use it, and considering that they often include Asians, or almost anything that isn’t white or Chinese, no. I don’t agree.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Added to that the point that even if there was a "white" society at a university, there are so many branches of completely different white cultures, it would be silly.
    GOOD LORD. Stop making the same point over and over and over again... I have already dealt with this, BLACK societies or groups contain JUST as disparate a group of people as white ones would.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Whereas societies for blacks in university pick up on BASIC black culture- music, food and the like. "White society" is much too vague, and if it celebrated the same things as a black society celebrates concerning their own culture, there would be no need to call it white, given that white could mean anything, whereas black- it's known what it stands for. Well, certainly in the case of many uni socs.
    Again - nice to know you have such first hand experience of university socieities.

    Why cant a white society pick up on BASIC white culture?

    YOU constantly ignore the fact that BASIC black culture is no more homogenous than BASIC WHITE culture.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Laika)
    Isolated geographical areas don't constitute an overhaul of cultural values ('Tell that to the people of <insert areas with high ethnic minority population'>' - Lawz) and even if it did, to be an example of a double standard, the University would have to be located in such an area where the majority of the student body was composed of ethnic minorities. I don't know of any examples of this, and besides it would merely be nit-picking to place emphasis on this argument, because we regardless live in a 'white' society. (Lawz terminology, not mine.) Go to your local city centre. Walk down a street. Talk to your friends. Attend your University lectures. There's your white society, white values, language and culture. That is the reason why a white society at University would be foolish, but a society for an ethnic minority makes sense.
    Its not a weak argument at all. Your saying it is doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is that people who live in areas where they are not in the majority, may well enjoy being part of a society that helps them experience aspects of their culture that they might not normally, or helps them enjoy something that is of common interest, or even exposes them to new things.

    I simply do not agree that because the majorty of people are white in the UK that suddenly a white society is redundant... it just has no basis. Since when was hading down toyour local shopping centre the totality of white culture? What about reading shakespeare? Listening to white inspired music such as rock or classical? What about trying foods from different caucasian cultures?

    Its simply not the case that a "WHite society" would necessarily mean sitting around doing all the things that peopl in the UK do everyday.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Another thing. ou say you showed up on the thread before me, and you weren't debating about such socieites (the ones i mentioned, the ones where it isn't that deep). This debate is between me and you, when i quote you, i ant answers to me, not for the benefit of the thread. Who cares whether you were debating other types of society in the beginning, i want you to address MY points. You just push them aside! The ones that do exist that i talk about- whether there are loads or not- what do you think of them, in relation to my posts as a whole?
    You are actually dellusional. Lakia, though I disagree with him as much as you, actually makes well reasoned posts. You make odd points in response to things I never said, and then accusing me of dodging the points.

    The relevance of the fact that I was here before you, is that I made my argument on a basis that predates your points. You cant then make retorts on an entirely different argument, one that I have never made. I dont care if you WANT ANSWERS... I am not about to debte a point that I never chose to argue in the first place.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)

    You have constantly accused me of not only pedant, but of deliberately twisting your words. My point is, in actuality, it is you chronic impression and expectation that I should read between your lines that is to blame rather than any purposeful distortion of meaning on my part.



    And pages and pages later you still don’t seem to understand what my argument is.

    My argument is simple:

    1. Societies or organisations that are expressly for one race nd to the exclusion of others are wrong
    2. Non-exclusionary groups that aim to celebrate and learn about cultures, whether they be entirely specific or more monolithic are fine with me.
    3. There are such black societies, and no one really complains (and quite rightly – there is nothing to complain about.
    4. However, if such white society were to be set up, there would be vocal opposition IMO, accusations of racism, divisiveness, and xenophobia, as really this thread has demonstrated quite well.

    Whether the argument YOU seem to say I am making is weak or not is not of concern to me. I am not making it.



    And whites are minorities in some areas, and still, I see NO reason why you have to be <50% in order to have a society built around your culture. You really think that the day to day lives of white people necessarily involves full exposure to all the worthwhile aspects of their culture?

    What about to expose NON-whites to such culture?



    Mate – my entire family ARE west Indian, I lived there almost all my life, went to school there, and have my home there AND IN Barbados. Please spare me the notion that because you have spent a couple of years there you know more people than I do. I AM WEST INDIAN in the sense that I am from there, not in the sense that you are, which is to say your family is.



    *******s. What makes you think I am not immersed in West Indian culture when my home and family LIVE THERE NOW? When I grew up there? You live in the UK and have for the vast majority of your life.



    If its relevant to your authority to speak on a matter, yes.



    According to you. Not according to many Africans and West Indians. Indeed you should be well aware that there are often tensions between the groups.

    And what does “its enough just to be black” mean? That despite the truth, if you are black you are automatically similar?



    You aren’t even providing an argument. You are just giving your conclusion over and over – i.e. “they are very similar”. Mate, they simply are not. Compare a Jamaican to a Somali… they are NOT even nearly as similar as you make out.



    Well I said no such thing.

    Considering that black groups regularly include people simply on the basis of skin tone, and not in this limited way you use it, and considering that they often include Asians, or almost anything that isn’t white or Chinese, no. I don’t agree.
    I agree entirely with Laika on the point about how your argument for a white society in a dominant white culture is weak. Simple no need for one to exist. Even if black people are VERY different- they are still all minorites- that is what binds them, that is their commonality. That is what justifies the need for minority societies. Yes, there are areas where there are a lot of minorities together. So what? Universities cater to the population of Britain, they aren't area specific. If a uni- open to anyone in Britain able to get in- happens to be in an area where there is a majority of minority people, that isn't a big enough excuse to say there should be a "white" society in that university, let alone all universities, where in the majority of cases, there is an overall majority of white people. Britain is majority white. The most you could argue for is a society for whites at universities where in the area, whites are the minority. I don't think that arguments stands in itself, but you are entitled to argue for it. What you can't really get people to believe, si that there should be white societies all over the country. A white society in Norwich uni? Sounds preposterous. A black society in an Nigerian university? Preposterous.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    GOOD LORD. Stop making the same point over and over and over again... I have already dealt with this, BLACK societies or groups contain JUST as disparate a group of people as white ones would.



    Again - nice to know you have such first hand experience of university socieities.

    Why cant a white society pick up on BASIC white culture?

    YOU constantly ignore the fact that BASIC black culture is no more homogenous than BASIC WHITE culture.
    i claim that the reason they aren't as disparate is because black people are a minority here- and THAT justifies the need for such a society, on a national level. I have gone further on another post- about universities and their locations in Britain having nothing really to do with anything, given that unis are open to the whole country, not just people in the area.

    Again, i can have an opinion about uni socieites without having gone to uni, just as you can have an opinion about how horrible Auchwitz, though you didn't experience it. Doesnt matter if you are in a better position to argue about uni societies- stop attacking me, and just attack the posts.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I agree entirely with Laika on the point about how your argument for a white society in a dominant white culture is weak. Simple no need for one to exist. Even if black people are VERY different- they are still all minorites- that is what binds them, that is their commonality.


    So essentially, if you share a characteristic with the majority of people, there is no point in a society that is built round aspects of that similarity?

    I see no reason for that to be true.

    Again - the notion that because we live in a white country, a society that is built around white cultures, the discussion, enjoyment of, and exposure to, is somehow pointless. We live in an English society and still study English or have English groups.

    We live in a predominantly Christian society, and yet have Christian societies...

    No complaint there.


    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    What you can't really get people to believe, si that there should be white societies all over the country. A white society in
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Norwich uni? Sounds preposterous. A black society in an Nigerian university? Preposterous.


    I have argued for no such thing.

    Are you putting words into my mouth AGAIN? It is getting very tirng indeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Its not a weak argument at all. Your saying it is doesn't change that. The fact of the matter is that people who live in areas where they are not in the majority, may well enjoy being part of a society that helps them experience aspects of their culture that they might not normally, or helps them enjoy something that is of common interest, or even exposes them to new things.

    I simply do not agree that because the majorty of people are white in the UK that suddenly a white society is redundant... it just has no basis. Since when was hading down toyour local shopping centre the totality of white culture? What about reading shakespeare? Listening to white inspired music such as rock or classical? What about trying foods from different caucasian cultures?

    Its simply not the case that a "WHite society" would necessarily mean sitting around doing all the things that peopl in the UK do everyday.
    I love Shakespeare. I love classical music. I adore rock and indie music. Why not have a literary society? A shakespeare one? A classical one?Food from Caucasian cultures? So that'd be going to French restaurants, then Greek, then British? Why a "white" one? When the word white is exclusive?

    as an aside, it can be HEAVILY debated about the origins of rock music, so to simply say it is white- inspired music is a best, naive.... But save that for a new thread, eh?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    i claim that the reason they aren't as disparate is because black people are a minority here- and THAT justifies the need for such a society, on a national level.


    Except that such societies are not on a national level.

    Anyway - that sentence made no sense. To say that because they are a minority they aren't as disparate in terms of culture is simply illogical. One is in no way related to another.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I have gone further on another post- about universities and their locations in Britain having nothing really to do with anything, given that unis are open to the whole country, not just people in the area.


    So a university that had <50% white people would mean it was ok?

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Again, i can have an opinion about uni socieites without having gone to uni, just as you can have an opinion about how horrible Auchwitz, though you didn't experience it.


    Indeed, but that's because I have read books on it, an studied it. If you had "studied" university societies in any depth at all I would be flabbergasted.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    Doesnt matter if you are in a better position to argue about uni societies- stop attacking me, and just attack the posts.


    To claim that you dont have the experience to make a claim is not an attack on you. Stop being so sensitive.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    I love Shakespeare. I love classical music. I adore rock and indie music. Why not have a literary society? A shakespeare one? A classical one?Food from Caucasian cultures? So that'd be going to French restaurants, then Greek, then British? Why a "white" one? When the word white is exclusive?


    Why not have a "jerk chicken and beef society" why not have a "RNB" society, why not have an "African history society"? Why not subdivide every aspect of "black culture" into smaller tidbits?

    There is nothing wrong with grouping together these things under the label "black", but there is when it is white?

    What makes you think "black" is not an exclusive word? Oh right , you seem to think it has some special meaning in this case outside of racial connotations.

    (Original post by cottonmouth)
    as an aside, it can be HEAVILY debated about the origins of rock music, so to simply say it is white- inspired music is a best, naive.... But save that for a new thread, eh?


    Rock has black influence to be sure. However the notion that deicide are inspired by black artists is a very tenuous link indeed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)

    So essentially, if you share a characteristic with the majority of people, there is no point in a society that is built round aspects of that similarity?

    I see no reason for that to be true.

    Again - the notion that because we live in a white country, a society that is built around white cultures, the discussion, enjoyment of, and exposure to, is somehow pointless. We live in an English society and still study English or have English groups.

    We live in a predominantly Christian society, and yet have Christian societies...

    No complaint there.




    I have argued for no such thing.

    Are you putting words into my mouth AGAIN? It is getting very tirng indeed.
    Not just a characteristic though is it Lawz? Its everything. As you just said, its a "white culture, built around white cultures". So why the need for a white society? We are dominated by the white society, as you have just made VERY plain.

    No, i'm not putting words into your mouth. I'm saying i thinkhaving a white society at Norwich would be silly. As would a black society in a small town nigerian university. And do you agree or disagree with that?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    I simply do not agree that because the majorty of people are white in the UK that suddenly a white society is redundant... it just has no basis. Since when was hading down toyour local shopping centre the totality of white culture? What about reading shakespeare? Listening to white inspired music such as rock or classical? What about trying foods from different caucasian cultures? Its simply not the case that a "WHite society" would necessarily mean sitting around doing all the things that peopl in the UK do everyday.
    And by the same principle I do not understand how living in an area where there is a large percentage of ethnic minorities makes you unable to read Shakespeare or listen to rock music? If you do not think day-to-day life and walking your local streets are a faucet of cultural experience then how does living among ethnic minorities change your cultural experience? Mainstream society is still British culture- access to media, education, literature - all based around white values. The only thing changed by living in an area with more ethnic minorities is that in itself. There won't be as many white people.

    I feel you are misinterpreting the actual 'black' socieities in question. They don't celebrate every variety of international 'black' culture. They are clearly there to cater to that specific culture unique to western blacks or to cater to a more specific national culture. Therefore the comparison to a 'white' society celebrating a variety of different white cultures is not quite right.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
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.