Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Naturally it won't occur in all schools, but in schools where whites are the minority not only in the school but also the surrounding area, I have no doubt it occurs in such a way as the minorities may have faced at the beginning of mass immigration in the 1950's, before the liberal brainwashing of Britain began.
    :rofl:

    Go on, get out of here, you're not telling me ethnics school children are rioting and murdering white schoolkids.

    Not in a predominant non British ghetto it isn't. In a truly mixed area,which are few and far between but do exist, I have no doubt the more educated immigrants are able to adapt and fit in to both cultures,most likely like yourself. The anti-white feeling that stems through majority ethnic areas is far greater than the anti-immigrant feeling that stems through majority white areas.

    Well I do agree with you here, segregation and isolation serves nobody, white or non white.


    When mass immigration to the UK first occurred such racism from non whites would be hard to find, however many years on we are in a situation where white apologetics and liberal messages being directed solely at the white British population has resulted in the breeding of anti white messages in certain ghettos going unnoticed.
    Okay, so what? That wasn't the answer to the question, you're being very vague and non commital to your own arguments.



    I'm not debating that every migrant/child has a right to grow up without prejudice, however it cannot be argued that mass immigration and multicultural Britain has not been to your own advantage in life.
    Alright.

    And women's rights have benefited your mother.
    And decent pensions have benefited your grandparents
    And the welfare state has benefited most people.

    And so on, and so forth. Does that make your family and most people "biased"?

    But really, what is the relevance? Okay, so what? Yes you're right, without multiculturalism I probably wouldn't live in the UK. But without so many things that were done in the 20th century to make a fairer society, most people wouldn't be where they are today. It's really niether here nor there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :rofl:
    Go on, get out of here, you're not telling me ethnics school children are rioting and murdering white schoolkids.
    No, but I am sure they can be subject to racism and hatred due to a lack of integration and assimilation from the areas where the schools are located.

    (Original post by Democracy)
    Okay, so what? That wasn't the answer to the question, you're being very vague and non commital to your own arguments.
    I cannot provide you with facts and statistics concerning non white racism, as I am sure you are aware. The very nature of the current establishment and therefore racism statistics and research means that only ethnic minorities can be subject to racism,apparently. I instead offered you a logical arguement why non-white racism would be present in certain communities because anti-racism campaigns refuse to acknowledge it even exists.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    I cannot provide you with facts and statistics concerning non white racism, as I am sure you are aware. The very nature of the current establishment and therefore racism statistics and research means that only ethnic minorities can be subject to racism,apparently. I instead offered you a logical arguement why non-white racism would be present in certain communities because anti-racism campaigns refuse to acknowledge it even exists.
    And I told you that I neither condone that nor believe that it happens on such a scale that you make out.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I know you implied this was in jest, but you have made a very good point...
    Hardly. The notion that 'tolerance' is an inherently British value is one of the greatest lies ever conceived.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    And I told you that I neither condone that nor believe that it happens on such a scale that you make out.
    Ok. Well I also predict that it will get worse over time, so if you hear of more attacks on whites in ethnically populated areas in the future,despite the media not necessarily declaring them racist, my point will hold some more weight. We have not seen the end of this problem by any means.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yawn)
    I know you implied this was in jest, but you have made a very good point...
    thats ironically not very tolerant of you:awesome:
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Voluntas Mos Victum)
    Ok. Well I also predict that it will get worse over time, so if you hear of more attacks on whites in ethnically populated areas in the future,despite the media not necessarily declaring them racist, my point will hold some more weight. We have not seen the end of this problem by any means.
    Cool. And everytime it happens I will be just as angry and disgusted as I am when I hear of whites attacking non whites, or for that matter when I hear of any racially motivated attack regardless of the colour combinations involved
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Cool. And everytime it happens I will be just as angry and disgusted as I am when I hear of whites attacking non whites, or for that matter when I hear of any racially motivated attack regardless of the colour combinations involved
    Yes, but the problem is that whenever whites are attacked by non-whites it's never documented as a racist attack e.g. Ben Kinsella.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Hardly. The notion that 'tolerance' is an inherently British value is one of the greatest lies ever conceived.
    Didn't say it was an inherently British value, but it's a value that should be present in all liberal democracies (and is, to a greater or lesser extent, in most) so if we're talking about threats to "our" (and by "our" I mean us as citizens of a liberal democracy) values, then the BNP must rate pretty highly.

    However, liberalism demands that we tolerate those who express intolerant views provided that they do not act on these views.

    And the comment was in jest. There are some equally unpleasant homegrown values which I believe threaten our society. Not all the threats to our supposed "way of life" are external.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Yes, but the problem is that whenever whites are attacked by non-whites it's never documented as a racist attack e.g. Ben Kinsella.
    Out of interest, why do you think that was a racist attack? Is there any evidence? I'm curious :holmes:

    As far as I know, the poor chap was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    Out of interest, why do you think that was a racist attack? Is there any evidence? I'm curious :holmes:

    As far as I know, the poor chap was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    I think it was a rather poor choice of words actually. I don't necessarily think it was a racist attack (although there's always a possibility). The mere fact is, however, that were the situation reversed, any media perception of racist attack would never be ruled out. You probably wouldn't even question my suspicions of it being a racist attack were it the other way around. Kriss Donald is another example. Scottish 15-year old, kidnapped by a bunch of Pakistanis and "stabbed 13 times, castrated, had his tongue cut out, was doused with petrol, set on fire and left to die" (wikipedia) just because he was white. Everyone's heard of Stephen Lawrence and Antony Walker, yet hardly anybody's heard of Kriss Donald; mainly because the self-hating apologetic media only cares about racism committed by whites.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I think it was a rather poor choice of words actually. I don't necessarily think it was a racist attack (although there's always a possibility). The mere fact is, however, that were the situation reversed, any media perception of racist attack would never be ruled out. You probably wouldn't even question my suspicions of it being a racist attack were it the other way around. Kriss Donald is another example. Scottish 15-year old, kidnapped by a bunch of Pakistanis and "stabbed 13 times, castrated, had his tongue cut out, was doused with petrol, set on fire and left to die" (wikipedia) just because he was white. Everyone's heard of Stephen Lawrence and Antony Walker, yet hardly anybody's heard of Kriss Donald; mainly because the self-hating apologetic media only cares about racism committed by whites.
    Well I'd heard of him.

    I do take your point, it's less likely to be reported, though also bear in mind: it's less likely to occur.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Didn't say it was an inherently British value, but it's a value that should be present in all liberal democracies (and is, to a greater or lesser extent, in most) so if we're talking about threats to "our" (and by "our" I mean us as citizens of a liberal democracy) values, then the BNP must rate pretty highly.
    Pretty highly it may do, but it's ridiculous to base such a compatibility on something such as intolerance. When this turns into violence then it's different, but if mere 'tolerance' and 'intolerance' is the issue then I'm quite certain the nation would be empty. I understand it was in jest, but using that 'deportation' point for convenience, would you cite equal incompatibility with liberal democracy for the likes of the pretentiously intolerant Hitchens brothers, an Islamic community that voluntarily segregates itself, a white communtiy that voluntarily segregates itself, any social group that doesn't conform to any liberalist social experiment - even when taking into account, in my view, that 'intolerance' is simply a natural human attribute? Why must one form of intolerance be treated as more abhorrent than another on the mere grounds of a form of ideological legitimacy?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Pretty highly it may do, but it's ridiculous to base such a compatibility on something such as intolerance. When this turns into violence then it's different, but if mere 'tolerance' and 'intolerance' is the issue then I'm quite certain the nation would be empty. I understand it was in jest, but using that 'deportation' point for convenience, would you cite equal incompatibility with liberal democracy for the likes of the pretentiously intolerant Hitchens brothers, an Islamic community that voluntarily segregates itself, a white communtiy that voluntarily segregates itself, any social group that doesn't conform to any liberalist social experiment - even when taking into account, in my view, that 'intolerance' is simply a natural human attribute? Why must one form of intolerance be treated as more abhorrent than another on the mere grounds of a form of ideological legitimacy?
    Perhaps because the British National Party are advocating the deportation of those who don't conform to their notion of being ethnically British, and denying them rights as even citizens, and by virtue of their status as a political party, actively have a wish to put these ideas into action, they should be considered differently from people such as the Hitchens' who merely advocate intolerance via speech acts(though one could argue perhaps that they, by undermining the supposed fabric of Britain, in the same way a radical imam does, they might qualify).

    I don't believe intolerance is a natural human attribute, I believe intolerance can be aggravated by other factors, ignorance of other cultures or views, stresses on resources, politcal disputes and the like. But the idea that it is a "natural attribute" seems to me to both be factually incorrect, and even if it were correct, to commit the naturalistic fallacy, inferring from a human attribute that this attribute is automatically legitimate.

    As it happens, I'm not advocating the deportation of BNP members, the point was a joke. But I don't believe that the BNP speak for me as a (mostly) ethnically British person, and I consider their views as alien as I consider the views of radical imams. I will tolerate both, provided that neither convert their views into actions and actively harm others through deeds. The BNP seeking power could be seen as an example of this, but I don't think it's an urgent issue considering the vast improbability of them ever gaining power (and if they did, I'd seek asylum somewhere else).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I've stupidly read the whole thread, and all I can say is two things: 1) This is like any other BNP thread and 2) Everyone who disagrees with the BNP is not a bloody liberal. It's a specific group of people that ALWAYS does this, and it ALWAYS involves issues such as this. It's even worse in America I guess, ever read an Ann Coulter book? Honestly, it's boring us now. You can't blame the liberals for everything, it's rather childish to do so. I suggest the group of people that cannot help but spew the L-word out of their mouths every five seconds stop using it as an umbrella term for everyone who doesn't agree with them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Failed123)
    You can't blame the liberals for everything, it's rather childish to do so. I suggest the group of people that cannot help but spew the L-word out of their mouths every five seconds stop using it as an umbrella term for everyone who doesn't agree with them.
    it goes the other way too.
    not everyone who doesnt like mass immigration is a BNP supporter and a nazi who eats children
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 1721)
    it goes the other way too.
    not everyone who doesnt like mass immigration is a BNP supporter and a nazi who eats children
    Not to the same extent, it doesn't.

    Besides, this BNP tosh is just one example of this, and no, I'm not a liberal.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    Perhaps because the British National Party are advocating the deportation of those who don't conform to their notion of being ethnically British, and denying them rights as even citizens, and by virtue of their status as a political party, actively have a wish to put these ideas into action, they should be considered differently from people such as the Hitchens' who merely advocate intolerance via speech acts(though one could argue perhaps that they, by undermining the supposed fabric of Britain, in the same way a radical imam does, they might qualify).
    But this is not necessarily demonstrating a fundamental conflict with liberal democracy. Without a written constitution, an elected government is permitted to pass whatever laws they like - regardless of the potential infringement of rights (although I guess international conventions nullify this somewhat). It may conflict individualist libertarianism; but it's certainly no "sad" incompatibility with democracy, providing they're democratically elected. Plus, I don't believe the BNP policy is to deprive anyone of citizenship; they merely highlight the truth of the matter which is a distinction between ethnic nationality and civic nationality. Just as there are indigenous Britons there are indigenous Kenyans, indigenous Spaniards, indigenous Chinese etc. If I moved to Somalia, I'd never be ethnically Somalian, even if I had a Somalian passport. I just wouldn't consider myself to be a Somalian. They don't advocate forced deportation either (except illegals and bogus asylum seekers who should be deported regardless of what government's in power). Also, just as the BNP's apparent intolerance is one factor, how about the intolerance of segregated communities, the intolerance of the anti-BNP UAF who even condone violence (and create a victim mentality among the BNP). Even you will be intolerant of something. Are you incompatible with liberal democracy?

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    I don't believe intolerance is a natural human attribute, I believe intolerance can be aggravated by other factors, ignorance of other cultures or views, stresses on resources, politcal disputes and the like. But the idea that it is a "natural attribute" seems to me to both be factually incorrect, and even if it were correct, to commit the naturalistic fallacy, inferring from a human attribute that this attribute is automatically legitimate.
    I believe the one thing that defines all human beings is an inclination towards competition and personal expediency; with this there will always be opponents, and, in turn, intolerance. It's not so much a naturalistic fallacy considering it is simply the fallout of all our behaviour. There's no way it can be illegitimate.

    (Original post by Andy the Anarchist)
    As it happens, I'm not advocating the deportation of BNP members, the point was a joke. But I don't believe that the BNP speak for me as a (mostly) ethnically British person, and I consider their views as alien as I consider the views of radical imams. I will tolerate both, provided that neither convert their views into actions and actively harm others through deeds. The BNP seeking power could be seen as an example of this, but I don't think it's an urgent issue considering the vast improbability of them ever gaining power (and if they did, I'd seek asylum somewhere else).
    Hmm...I'd argue the feasibility of it would ultimately be dependent on the re-growth of nationalism on the continent really. LOL...a far-right domino effect.
    Offline

    14
    I agree with those who pointed out that it is more likely a problem of poverty rather than ethnicity. If there was a school with many well-educated ethnic minority students then I think the number of people who would take their children out of such a school would decrease significantly. Ethnicity is not the driving force behind the separation.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kolya)
    I agree with those who pointed out that it is more likely a problem of poverty rather than ethnicity. If there was a school with many well-educated ethnic minority students then I think the number of people who would take their children out of such a school would decrease significantly. Ethnicity is not the driving force behind the separation.
    How about a Gobineau/Rushton-esque view that the poverty and failing standards are the consequences of ethnicity? :o:
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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