Turn on thread page Beta

Will Britain ever have a 'non-white' leader? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by technik)
    do you think being white automatically gains you a "high profile"?
    I don't know - do you?

    Let's have a look at the political spectrum in Britain for a start and judge whether being white has given politicians in these countries a 'high profile'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Exactly! But do you think that a non-white person who had not had the advantage of having a high profile in politics would be elected as leader if they are obviously of a much higher calibre to lead than a white person?
    It seems to me that non-Whites, if reasnobly competent, would probably nowadays be more likely to get voted to the PM position than a White person of similar calibre; given the number of people who give non-whites sympathy votes having exaggurated the extent of racism in society and the number of people who would vote for the person simply because they are non-White.
    Lammy has surely got such an advantage! The man is a moron, and a silly minority have billed him as the next PM simply because he is black.

    PMs need to be voted PURELY because of their skill at doing the job; nothing else. I honestly think that extensive discussion of issues like this is damaging to the selection of PMs as it brings in race as an issue when it really should not be an issue at all; whether it be pro-White or anti-White.


    You can't possibly say how long it will be before a non-White person happens to step up to the challenge, rise through the ranks and eventually contend for PM; predicitions like it will not happen in the next 50years are meaningless...

    Saying things like look at the political spectrum of Britain are also completely meaningless. Given the low number of non-Whites in the country, and particularly the low proportion among older generations of whom prominent politicians tend to be it is not surprising simply numerically that there are less non-whites in poltics. Then factor in that non-whites have a lower average educational attainment in general because of higher levels of deprivation because of being less established in society and differing numbers of people that go into politics and you will probably see that such criticisms of racism in politicls are likely completely misguided.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    PMs need to be voted PURELY because of their skill at doing the job; nothing else. I honestly think that extensive discussion of issues like this is damaging to the selection of PMs as it brings in race as an issue when it really should not be an issue at all; whether it be pro-White or anti-White.
    Very well said
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Sleep)
    It seems to me that non-Whites, if reasnobly competent, would probably nowadays be more likely to get voted to the PM position than a White person of similar calibre; given the number of people who give non-whites sympathy votes having exaggurated the extent of racism in society and the number of people who would vote for the person simply because they are non-White.
    Lammy has surely got such an advantage! The man is a moron, and a silly minority have billed him as the next PM simply because he is black.

    PMs need to be voted PURELY because of their skill at doing the job; nothing else. I honestly think that extensive discussion of issues like this is damaging to the selection of PMs as it brings in race as an issue when it really should not be an issue at all; whether it be pro-White or anti-White.


    You can't possibly say how long it will be before a non-White person happens to step up to the challenge, rise through the ranks and eventually contend for PM; predicitions like it will not happen in the next 50years are meaningless...

    Saying things like look at the political spectrum of Britain are also completely meaningless. Given the low number of non-Whites in the country, and particularly the low proportion among older generations of whom prominent politicians tend to be it is not surprising simply numerically that there are less non-whites in poltics. Then factor in that non-whites have a lower average educational attainment in general because of higher levels of deprivation because of being less established in society and differing numbers of people that go into politics and you will probably see that such criticisms of racism in politicls are likely completely misguided.
    I thank you for your contribution and respect your opinions.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Yes i most certainly am, multicultrualism is the new racism. Though i doubt you will agree as i see that in your profile you have Rhodes' quote that says 'Remember that you are an englishmen, and have consequently won the first prize in the lottery of life", which is dubious to say the least.

    As i have said before everyone knows we are different, but why must racial difference be an issue? People arn't born racist, they learn it and talking about race in all forms merely perpetuates it. What does it matter if we have a certain number of black MPs etc? They cant do the job better just because their black, just like they cant do it any worse because their black. You however are on the same side of the spectrum as 'nasty' racists, as you see colour and make it an issue
    I like the fact you can make these sweeping generalisations without any knowledge other than what was quite a disposable quote. Which I shall explain, I think that the attitude of superiority is quite funny, but as a cultural factor is one that needs to be taken into account when dealing with history. Also it was more related to the quote underneath, "sport is war without guns." and in terms of winning the lottery, it was meant in a distinctly sporting sense.

    And I don't think talking about race makes us racist. And any leader of Britain would be picked on merit, I think the thread got a bit of track there, because no one was suggesting initally that someone should be elected just because of their skin colour, the question was about whether we would have a non-white leader. There was no hidden malice or racist agenda or even multicultuarist agenda there. It was just a question.

    I think what has happened here is you have assumed something about multi-culturalism and then applied it to everyone that doesn't think origins should be overtaken by the host cultural. Someone can be Black and proud, or of Bangledeshi origin and proud of it and stil be British, colour isn't a bar to that and we aren't making it an issue, its just something that is there and makes life so much more interesting,
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    QUOTE]I like the fact you can make these sweeping generalisations[/QUOTE]

    On the whole generalisatons are good, they are the essence of reason.


    I accept it was a qestion, but its implications are to feed racism. To even address race is to give it the breating space for racism to survive.


    I think what has happened here is you have assumed something about multi-culturalism and then applied it to everyone that doesn't think origins should be overtaken by the host cultural.
    People should choose culture based on its asthetic appeal not because one was born in say Italy and therefore love Italian culture. If Japanese culture is more appealing, admire that.

    Someone can be Black and proud, or of Bangledeshi origin and proud
    True they can, but they shouldn't. They should be proud of their individual achievements not those of another group, a collective - namely their racial ancestors.

    of it and stil be British,
    Multiculturalism holds that an individuals self worth is found in the collective, the tribe, the race. Its not, its found in each individual. This is not to say people cant admire different cultures, far from it, im a great admirer of both Italian art and Russian classical music. The difference is not allowing cultures to dictate who we are.


    colour isn't a bar to that and we aren't making it an issue,
    Not making it an issue? Your question was will the UK ever has a none-white PM. You'd find it difficult to make colour more of an issue!

    its just something that is there and makes life so much more interesting,[/
    Its there, but i dont see how someone being black and someone being white makes life more interesting. I think what people do and say and believe makes life interesting.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Multiculturalism holds that an individuals self worth is found in the collective, the tribe, the race. Its not, its found in each individual. This is not to say people cant admire different cultures, far from it, im a great admirer of both Italian art and Russian classical music.
    And I really like Bangledeshi food and West Indian cricket. I don't think multi culturalsim as I perceive it says that you can only be proud of something because it is collective experience. But it is the only idea that gives them the choice. In the philosphy you promote, people don't get a chance to be accept their heritage. And I don't think it is about denying who you are, that isn't part of it. Its about allowing people if they wish to embrace that part of their cultural. Obviously not to the detriment of others and within reason.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=rachaelmarie][QUOTE]Multiculturalism holds that an individuals self worth is found in the collective, the tribe, the race. Its not, its found in each individual. This is not to say people cant admire different cultures, far from it, im a great admirer of both Italian art and Russian classical music.[QUOTE]


    I don't think multi culturalsim as I perceive it says that you can only be proud of something because it is collective experience.
    Multiculturalism says be proud of your roots and those of other cultures should accept others cultures as having equal worth. The former point is wrong, be proud of your culture because its intrinscially good, not because its party of your 'heritage'. If you beleive its not intrinscially good reject it. By saying be proud because its your heritiage, multiculturalists advocate collectivism.


    But it is the only idea that gives them the choice.
    No, individualism is the only idea that gives people a choice.

    In the philosphy you promote, people don't get a chance to be accept their heritage.
    Nonsence. People can accpet their heritiage if they wish but should so for the right reasons, not because they happen to be born in a country with a specfic culture. To do so it to promote narrow mindedness.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    By saying be proud because its your heritiage, multiculturalists advocate collectivism.
    I don't think multi culturalsim as I perceive it says that you can only be proud of something because it is collective experience.


    Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rachaelmarie)
    Isn't that pretty much the same thing?
    Multiculturalism promote collectivism because it says be proud of your culture because its your culture. How do you decide if its your culture? By your race. Thats collectivism. Individualism says be proud of a culture because such a decision is based on rational choice.
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.