Turn on thread page Beta

BBC row as BNP member insults Ashley Cole on Radio 1 watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The BBC is facing demands for an investigation after allowing two leading BNP activists to make unchallenged 'racist' statements on a flagship news broadcast.

    The Newsbeat interview that caused a storm..

    Randle: Why is the idea of races mixing such a bad thing?

    Joey: If everybody integrated it would take away everybody's identity.

    Mark: I would be upset if there were no more giant pandas, I'd be upset if there were no more lions, if there were no more tigers, so equally I'd be upset if white people weren't here any more.

    Randle: But we're the same species, which makes it a bit different, doesn't it?

    Mark: You could say that but if all of a sudden there weren't any sparrows and there were only crows, I'd still be sad there weren't any sparrows.

    Randle: Can you understand that some people are happy to mix?

    Mark: No, I think people have been brainwashed. I think the media, the Government, have forced it down people's throats and they've indoctrinated people.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...hley-Cole.html
    It's well past time some sense was spoken publically on the subject of race. There are human sub-species as there are bird sub-species - which have evolved and adapted over thousands of years. If you mix a woodpecker with a hawk you get something that is half as good at pecking holes in trees and half as good at hunting - it destroys both.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    It's well past time some sense was spoken publically on the subject of race. There are human sub-species as there are bird sub-species which have evolved and adapted over thousands of years. If you mix a woodpecker with a hawk you get something that is half as good at pecking holes in trees and and half as good at hunting - it destroys both.
    You do realise that such thing as cross-breeding exists in farms all over the world which is the reason we get certain types of products!

    Plus, a human is a human. AFAIK there is no difference in the function of a white person compared to a black person. Both can do any job equally well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    It's well past time some sense was spoken publically on the subject of race. There are human sub-species as there are bird sub-species which have evolved and adapted over thousands of years. If you mix a woodpecker with a hawk you get something that is half as good at pecking holes in trees and and half as good at hunting - it destroys both.
    Human ethnic groups are not as diversely different as Hawks and Woodpeckers, things like muscle density, skin colour height and body fat percentage tend to differ as an average but it this a case for preserving "sub-species"?

    There is nothing inherently brilliant and unique in ethnic groups that needs to be preserved. What purpose does that serve other than to limit your choice of who you reproduce with?

    Let's not mix blondes and gingers, blonde genes are far too dominant and will destroy the gingers entirely, what will we do without them?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Randle: But we're the same species, which makes it a bit different, doesn't it?

    Mark: You could say that but if all of a sudden there weren't any sparrows and there were only crows, I'd still be sad there weren't any sparrows.
    ^ This just proves how idiotic the BNP are. Sparrows and Crows are still completely different species from different families in the animal kingdom - they certainly aren't a usable analogy for "mixed race" humans
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by n_251)
    Plus, a human is a human. AFAIK there is no difference in the function of a white person compared to a black person. Both can do any job equally well.
    Whites can't run as fast!
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    lmao, does Mark think birds are a species?! :p:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kickflip)
    I LOVE FASCISM
    So, kickflip, if you agree with these two morons you also agree that Hitler "wasn't all that bad"?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kickflip)
    It's well past time some sense was spoken publically on the subject of race. There are human sub-species as there are bird sub-species which have evolved and adapted over thousands of years. If you mix a woodpecker with a hawk you get something that is half as good at pecking holes in trees and and half as good at hunting - it destroys both.

    Go post that on the Daily Mail website. I'm sure you'll get much more support from the morons over there than anyone here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It's only Ashley Cole, so what's the big deal. He's a **** anyway. And doesn't Debbie Randle look eminently shaggable in that picture on the Daily Mail? :yep:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Playing devil's advocate here, but:

    Is this not just Darwinism in slow but clear effect? If the population of white people in the world drops to 7%, we must be the inferior sub-species, I guess.

    @The woodpecker/hawk comment: What you get is a mix, yes. You also get a bit of variety. There are still hawks, and there are still woodpeckers, and if the woodpeckerhawk is not a superior species then it will not survive (again, Darwinism) while the separate hawks and woodpeckers do.

    /Devils Advocate, begin truth:

    I can say right now that I am happy to mix with any race of people, and I have been glad to at every oppurtunity I have had. One of my best friends is half English half Jamaican, and another is of Pakistani decent but was born here. This has not occured via influence of the media or government. Music and cultural variety is also directly affected in a negative sense once you take away ethnic diversity. Then again, diminshing cultural variety is probably a desirable ultimatum of many BNP members - rid society of ways to express itself and you can control it all the more easily (refer to Farenheit 451, Bradbury).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    why do people vote for these fools.
    the guy sounds like a 12 year old kid on a science project, and also like an utter moron.
    And i expect hethinks he is a perfect model of the human race, lets all be like him!

    granted it would be a bit boring if everyone looked the same, but thats never going to happen, so STFU!
    if he wants to preserve the white race, he can marry a white woman, and have white babies, but im pretty sure the rest of us really dont care that much
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by milkytea)
    Playing devil's advocate here, but:

    Is this not just Darwinism in slow but clear effect? If the population of white people in the world drops to 7%, we must be the inferior sub-species, I guess.

    @The woodpecker/hawk comment: What you get is a mix, yes. You also get a bit of variety. There are still hawks, and there are still woodpeckers, and if the woodpeckerhawk is not a superior species then it will not survive (again, Darwinism) while the separate hawks and woodpeckers do.
    Just at your devil's advocate bit:

    I think that evolution of humans has been critically slowed if not completely stopped by social mores and values that are human, and not natural creations. As sentient and civilised creatures we control our own futures now and we all have enabled free will (through liberty) and choice (through liberty and democracy amongst other things). Granted we have instincts that stem from ancestors but to say that the survival of the fittest applies 100% to modern society is a fallacy.

    Take for example the enlightened approach we have towards the severely handicapped and how, in the past, they wouldn't have survived. Or how IVF treatments now allow those who wouldn't otherwise be able to pass on their genes, to have children. Also, consider any equality legislation based on sex, race, homosexuality, disability or religion. There are millions of examples that can be thought of where we act against the axiom of 'survival of the fittest'. I mean consider our social hierarchies now and how they have to be representative and how meritocracy has been supplanted by equal opportunities.

    All the above I mention with no prejudice by the way because it is accepted as the civilised way and does give humanity and people a chance at life regardless of their innate features and fancies. It just runs counter to 'evolution' or 'darwinism' as is commonly understood.

    Though one may argue we have evolved to such an extent that evolution is now in our control and that common good, survival and quality of life for all are now the mainstay of the human race rather than survival of only the fittest. Although vestiges of that do still survive.

    What do you think?

    TLDR?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    If my parents had moved to China prior to my birth, nobody would suggest I was ethnically Chinese just by being born there.

    Why the double standards with Europe?

    The analogy given in the interview was a very weak one, but that doesn't detract from my point.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I'm sorry what? Woodpeckers and hawks are completely different species. Humans are all the same species. Since when did melanin levels change the species? Are blue-eyed people a different race from brown eyed ones?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actually, I don't want this debate.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OneEyedYellowIdol)
    Just at your devil's advocate bit:

    I think that evolution of humans has been critically slowed if not completely stopped by social mores and values that are human, and not natural creations. As sentient and civilised creatures we control our own futures now and we all have enabled free will (through liberty) and choice (through liberty and democracy amongst other things). Granted we have instincts that stem from ancestors but to say that the survival of the fittest applies 100% to modern society is a fallacy.

    Take for example the enlightened approach we have towards the severely handicapped and how, in the past, they wouldn't have survived. Or how IVF treatments now allow those who wouldn't otherwise be able to pass on their genes, to have children. Also, consider any equality legislation based on sex, race, homosexuality, disability or religion. There are millions of examples that can be thought of where we act against the axiom of 'survival of the fittest'. I mean consider our social hierarchies now and how they have to be representative and how meritocracy has been supplanted by equal opportunities.

    All the above I mention with no prejudice by the way because it is accepted as the civilised way and does give humanity and people a chance at life regardless of their innate features and fancies. It just runs counter to 'evolution' or 'darwinism' as is commonly understood.

    Though one may argue we have evolved to such an extent that evolution is now in our control and that common good, survival and quality of life for all are now the mainstay of the human race rather than survival of only the fittest. Although vestiges of that do still survive.

    What do you think?

    TLDR?
    Those attitudes are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of evolution. Darwininism doesn't imply just letting people to sink or swim. Species which help each other are much more likely to survive. Humans would not have survived if they went round on their own as opposed to living in small communities. Most (all?) large mammals have evolved to help each other. Leaving people to sink is counter-evolutionary, not survival of the fittest.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Seriously? Ashley Cole was born in London. He is no less British than I am. If people want to mix, let them! Each to their own! If you're a white girl who happens to find black men more attractive than white men, then who are the BNP to tell her otherwise?

    Their entire argument seems to be predicated on saying that this "mixing" is uncontrollable and the white people will die out. But if white people marry white people and have white babies, then the line will continue. But if they want to be with someone who happens to be a different colour because they LOVE them and as far as I know we're still entitled to free will, then so be it!
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The Daily Mail are not happy.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emmielociraptor)
    Seriously? Ashley Cole was born in London. He is no less British than I am. If people want to mix, let them! Each to their own! If you're a white girl who happens to find black men more attractive than white men, then who are the BNP to tell her otherwise?

    Their entire argument seems to be predicated on saying that this "mixing" is uncontrollable and the white people will die out. But if white people marry white people and have white babies, then the line will continue. But if they want to be with someone who happens to be a different colour because they LOVE them and as far as I know we're still entitled to free will, then so be it!
    Cole is not ethnically British. At the very least he is mixed race. But he can never claim to be British, you can only truly be British by blood. This matters a lot. The guy was making a perfectly valid point.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Birds aren't a species! Any 11 year old could tell you that. That pretty much shows you how intelligent that Mark guy's comments are likely to be...
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: October 14, 2009
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
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.