This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

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

we see afro carribian societys we see asian societys at most universitys and i understand this can be because they are minoritys.

Yet if you even attempted to set up a society like a white beer drinking society or whatever, that you'd be accused of racism or seculusion and it would definatly be banned.I'm not in favour of doing that but why shouldnt people be allowed.

Is white any more racist a term than black asian mixed race or anything else on this wonderful planet. would seeting up a society seculude people any more than these societys might do?

I sometimes feel their might be double standerds on the issue as well. the term community this and community that only leads to segeration.

what do you think

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Howard

Cluedo89

Interesting this. People always say "Yet if you even attempted to set up a society like a white beer drinking society or whatever, that you'd be accused of racism or seculusion and it would definatly be banned" And yet I don't think anybody has ever done it.

Perhaps someone should try it to remove the speculative nature of this question.

Reply 2

Amon.

something like this?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2008732,00.html

"A UNIVERSITY Christian Union has been suspended and had its bank account frozen after refusing to open its membership to people of all religions."

Reply 3

Lawz-

Of course people would complain.

Its an obvious example of numerous examples where double standards apply. Is it a big deal? Probably not - but equality of treatment should be more than just a phrase.

Like in the states - BET - Black Entertainment Television. If you were to have a white one - people would be up in arms. Of course, you do have Fox...

Reply 4

Howard

Amon.

Haha! Only in Britain! Nothing surprizes me at UK universities. Tosspots. :rolleyes:

Reply 5

Longshoredrift80

Lawz-

Like in the states - BET - Black Entertainment Television. If you were to have a white one - people would be up in arms.

Who's going to watch a station called WET? :biggrin:

Reply 6

Caribou

where IS the equality??? :confused:

Reply 7

Agent Smith

Well, the BBC has the Asian Network neatly counterbalanced by Radio 4, which is as near as anything to being the BBC White Network.

That example of a Christian Union is stupid in the extreme. The article also seems to suggest that there are people who regard the terms "men" and "women" as offensive. I wonder what Wittgenstein would say if he could witness the ongoing rape of the English language?

Of course, the intelligent thing to do for the Christians in question is to disaffiliate completely from anything remotely official and make the "Christian Union" a wholly student-run and -funded organisation. In theory at least, no-one will then be able to tell you to let in your quota of five and a half Muslims, a New Age guru and a monkey with an eyepatch. In enforcing this, the authorities are in the apparently paradoxical position of both stamping out discrimination (forcing a CU to admit non-Christians) AND discriminating (forbidding Christians to form religious groups).

I might add that the TSR Christian Society, I-Soc and J-Soc are all open to non-members of the respective religions. Nobody minds that, so far as I know, but the difference is that nobody forced that position on them.

Reply 8

WokSz

Amon.

wtf? - it's a christian union, why should other religions be involved? I mean if there was a Hindu society, I'm sure Christians would feel out of place.

Reply 9

Laika

To have a 'whites' society would be exclusionist in nature. We LIVE in a white majority, daily life is the white society. Turn on the TV and you'll see white reporters reporting white, British news and entertainment in the majority of cases. Minorities may wish to have their own group to bring eachother together and celebrate their minority culture. I'm sure in some cases this may extend to being exclusionist, but it's not a case of double standards in the majority of cases.

Reply 10

cottonmouth

Damn, this is bleak.

Groups at university are for specific interests, yeah?

You get some for minorities, who will share a lot of interests. You put a "white group" up, that isn't really a specific interest is it? Most of the bloody uni could join!

When they have "black" societies, it isn't about the skin colour. Its about black culture- they probably organise social events to rnb clubs, dinners at west-indian restaurants, festivals, etc etc. Whie people could join too if they wanted! The clubs are NOT ABOUT SKIN COLOUR!!!

Tell me, why would you have a "white" beer drinking club, where only whit epoeple can join, when this isn't the case for other clubs, which anyone can be a part of. A minority club wouldnt be allowed to stop white people from joining, why should there be a "white" beer drinking club?

Reply 11

trixx

In my university we have ethnic societies but it doesn't mean you have to be of a particular race to become a member. It's not some kind of niche thing. It's just a society set up to celebrate a certain culture. I'm black and I'm a member of the Chinese society. Nothing wrong with it. So I don't see anything wrong with a 'Caucasian' society as long as it membership wasn't restricted to caucasian people.
But then again I might just be talking jack.

Reply 12

Ferrus

Amon.

Ah yes, that was at my university. In fairness the issue is more complicated that it first appears. Firstly it's not the Christian Union, it was the Evangelical society - the Catholics, Methodists and Anglicans have their own. Secondly the issue was supposedly constitutional, that is they didn't open their membership to non-Christians and they didn't democratically elect their leaders (they used divine inspiration), so they were said to be in breach of Guild rules. The rucus deepened after BUECU threatened legal action against the Guild that had taken money donated to it, I belive they came to an agreement in the end.

Of course some suspect nefarious forces were at work. The Guild has different power bases, from the Tory-Debating Soc group, to the Labour-LGBT group, the latter who are chief supporters of the current President (Richard Angel). Certainly the viewed BUECU with disdain, and BUECU had paraded itself around a lot, becoming quite conspicuous at the university. Whether there was a delibrate plot I do not know, BUECU were however severly hectored at the Guild Council debates that dealt with this issue.

Reply 13

Kilgore Trout

Amon.

'Members claim the actions have been taken against them after they refused on religious grounds to make “politically correct” changes to their charitable constitution, including explicitly mentioning people who are lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered.'

All sides of the argument, please. You may disagree with anti-gay views from some Christians (and I do disagree immensely), but you can't make a group dedicated to Christians change itself fundamentally to recognise these groups of people that those Christians don't agree with. That is wrong.

And the 'white equality' issue is a bit odd. I can understand what you're all getting at, that if black people, minority religions etc. etc. are allowed to have their own private inclusive clubs then it should not be un-PC to have white/Christian groups doing the same thing. However, Mill's concept of the tyranny of the majority I think explains this, because the whole idea of forming minority inclusive clubs is to bring the minority together within the confines of a larger, more powerful majority. Binding a small, overpowered community together as a means of staying part of something, rather than being washed away into mainstream society, culture etc.. The majority (whites, Christians, etc.) don't need these inclusive groups, as they're already part of the majority, and therefore don't need to cope with being overpowered. It's not the majority's job to shield itself from the minority, but the minority's job to protect itself from the majority. Hence, it is PC for a minority club to not allow a member of the majority in, as it is protection of their culture and being, whereas it is un-PC for a majority club to not allow a member of the minority in, as that would be an unnecessary protection of the majority's interests. Having said that, the above article about the Christian society has nothing to do with this debate, as Christianity (I'm led to believe) is morally against 'lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered' people. Surely trying to make them include those people in their constitution is like trying to make them admit that their God is wrong?

I may have totally misunderstood that. In which case, I'm sorry for wasting your time.

Reply 14

ouijaouija

societies like these are created due to the fact they are a minority in number and many would argue, more oppressed.

The dominant 'white' are not.

Reply 15

Lawz-

Laika

That makes no sense.

The fact that whites may be in the majority in no way changes the fact that it is a double standard.

Further, in many parts of the country whites are NOT the majority. At some universities like the LSE for instance. To claim that the acceptability of such a society lives and dies on whether or not you are more numerous is rather inexplicable. One has nothing to do with the other.

Of course, as a minority there may be a greater DESIRE for it, but there is nothing more or less objectionable about having such societies or groupings simply because you are a majority.

In the West Indies for instance, where whites are very much in the minority, the notion of all white clubs, or groups, or organizations would seem absurd. People would object - DESPITE WHITES BEING A MINORITY. However there are many Indo and Afro-Caribbean societies etc. No one bats an eyelid.

I don’t see how anyone could possibly argue that that isn’t a double standard.

Reply 16

Lawz-

ouijaouija

societies like these are created due to the fact they are a minority in number and many would argue, more oppressed.

The dominant 'white' are not.

1. Ethnic societies exist regardless of whether or not its members have been oppressed.

2. White people in parts of the world are subject to racism and opression too. Prejudice is a human trait, not a white one.

Reply 17

ouijaouija

firstly, do people feel there is a need for one? There never is one because no1 wants one.

Reply 18

Lawz-

ouijaouija

firstly, do people feel there is a need for one? There never is one because no1 wants one.

Well there have been some such societies... but the point is more of a hypothetical on - ie:

is it right that IF whites decided to start such a society, TV Channel, club, whatever.... there would be vocal objections to it as racist?

Reply 19

poltroon

Laika

To have a 'whites' society would be exclusionist in nature.

Of course, this is inherent in the nature of any society (in this context).

Laika

We LIVE in a white majority, daily life is the white society. Turn on the TV and you'll see white reporters reporting white, British news and entertainment in the majority of cases.

Let us say, hypothetically, that rap is a music genre produced almost exclusively by Blacks. What if, then, for example, I wished to create a White rap music society. In this case, your reasoning that there is no need to create a White society because our experience of life is predominantly from a White perspective anyway would not hold true. Would this kind of society, then, be acceptable?