Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Considering there are many areas that are 98+ % white, i wonder who is persecuting the white people there. I could imagine that within an area that has a large non-white population there could be racism towards white, i think that is totally unjustified and is downright wrong, racist abuse etc is wrong whoever commits it.

    Overall though i could never see being white as a disadvantage in the UK. Virtually all mps and high flying company bosses are white. Whites make a massive majority so it is hardly going to be hard fitting into that majority or atleast being seen to fit in. A white interviewer isn't going to have any preconceptions about the white person in front of them, the white restaurent owner isn't going to worry that they're a thief.

    Imagine a black guy going for a job and the interviewer was necessarily benevolent or that other guy seven three. Of course they wouldn't say "no your black", but i find it hard to imagine that they'd truly give the person a fair go.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    I just explained how. By economically leeching India dry britain benefitted, which it has built on for further economic growth :wtf: Not that difficult a concept.

    And yeah, i'm not here by choice but i'm using the opportunities i'm provided and will one day return


    First paragraph. We will never know, can not change history so we would never know. So where would India be now without the Empire. I can see arguments for better and for worse tbh. You got to remember though, back then just as many English families were exploited in the sense of coal mines and the workhouses. So please do not feel to hard done by.

    Second paragraph. Not out of choice ok, but that evil conoial power offers you so much opportunity. Moral dilemma hey.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by mrst269)
    First paragraph. We will never know, can not change history so we would never know. So where would India be now without the Empire. I can see arguments for better and for worse tbh. You got to remember though, back then just as many English families were exploited in the sense of coal mines and the workhouses. So please do not feel to hard done by.

    Second paragraph. Not out of choice ok, but that evil conoial power offers you so much opportunity. Moral dilemma hey.
    Yes but there's a difference; the people who exploited the workers were eventually taxed. However, there was no "returning" of exploited growth, just a hundred and fifty years of institutional theft.

    Not really opportunity as such. My mum pays 25k a year in taxes and i'll have to pay the full university fees while recieving no buraries and i'll be lucky to get a student loan, that's 70k; if not for that reason alone, we deserve all of what we get, if not more.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    Overall though i could never see being white as a disadvantage in the UK. Virtually all mps and high flying company bosses are white. Whites make a massive majority so it is hardly going to be hard fitting into that majority or atleast being seen to fit in. A white interviewer isn't going to have any preconceptions about the white person in front of them, the white restaurent owner isn't going to worry that they're a thief.
    The fact that "virtually all MPs and high flying company bosses are white" means nothing. It's not even a race issue (as much as certain people would like it to be). MPs are almost all white because they, usually, come from affluent backgrounds, and communities which, incidentally, are white. This isn't a race issue, it simply arises from the fact that the segregated communities driven by state-endorsed multiculturalism are less affluent, unable to send their children to the best schools, unable to set up businesses etc. The political elite don't represent the white populace. Plus, the richest man in the United Kingdom, Lakschmi Mittal, is an Indian.

    (Original post by George231086)
    Imagine a black guy going for a job and the interviewer was necessarily benevolent or that other guy seven three. Of course they wouldn't say "no your black", but i find it hard to imagine that they'd truly give the person a fair go.
    If they showed the right credentials, and didn't present any culturally undesirable traits, then skin colour wouldn't matter for me. I'd much rather employ a black man who fulfils the credentials, has adapted to British customs, and wears a suit, than a stereotypical "Wigga"/chav any day.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    People denouncing the white collective on the grounds of the actions of a political and social elite in the 19th century are usually the types who bemoan people for criticising Islam, because there are only a very small minority of extremists. Hypocrisy at its best.
    What about people that herald the white collective on the grounds of the actions of a political and social elite? Most supremacists love to take credit for white achievements when in all probability their ancestors were farmers or factory workers.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrst269)
    The last points I could not give a **** about. No offence like.

    What I want to know this you have come across by hating this country and obviously wanted your independence (and rightly so ). Yet now you have your independent country. Why not live there? . Somthing that you screamed and shouted for so long for. Only asking as you have come across to me hating this country, yet like many still live here.

    As you brought it up mind how has Britain and my lifestyle of today benifted from events 150 years ago at the sake of your ancestors?.
    what a stupid argument. cos moving to different continents is really that easy. the point the person your arguing is probably trying to make is that it would be easier to live in an independant india if it wasn't colonised and raped of its resources by an imperial britain. and britain has benefitted greatly from events of 150 years ago. The use of soldiers from all the colonial nations (who hardly ever get recognition come remembrance day) who helped during WW2, the british bullying China into buying opium despite the fact it was destroying their populace, companies such as barclays who profited off the slave trade
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    What about people that herald the white collective on the grounds of the actions of a political and social elite? Most supremacists love to take credit for white achievements when in all probability their ancestors were farmers or factory workers.
    The main difference here is between state-governed specific actions, and trends. Sometimes the political and social elite are given a grounding by the populace, but things like imperialism were not. They were entirely governed by ideologically-governed state legislation. Things like patriotism, however, are universal, and are bottom-up trends, rather than top-down impositions. If you could point out exactly what "achievements" you mean then I'd be able to develop.

    Edit: I'm not a "supremacist" anyway, and I'm not the sort of person who'd say "whites are better than blacks because all blacks have invented is the blowpipe". I'm not quite sure what your point is.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The fact that "virtually all MPs and high flying company bosses are white" means nothing. It's not even a race issue (as much as certain people would like it to be). MPs are almost all white because they, usually, come from affluent backgrounds, which, incidentally, are white. This isn't a race issue, it simply arises from the fact that the segregated communities driven by state-endorsed multiculturalism are less affluent, unable to send their children to the best schools, unable to set up businesses etc. The political elite don't represent the white populace. Plus, the richest man in the United Kingdom, Lakschmi Mittal, is an Indian.



    If they showed the right credentials, and didn't present any culturally undesirable traits, then skin colour wouldn't matter for me. I'd much rather employ a black man who fulfils the credentials, has adapted to British customs, and wears a suit, than a stereotypical "Wigga"/chav any day.
    How can anybody claim that white males are persecuted when they occupy virtually all top positions? I'm not saying racism is the reason white males occupy these positions, i'm saying the absense of racism against white males is why they are able to occupy these positions. If they were persecuted, they'd be prevented from getting to the top.

    I really cannot see how being a white male would be a disadvantage in the UK. I think racism against whites probably does occur in areas where there are large numbers of another race, but in general most areas are massively white. I know people who hadn't seen a real black person until their 20s and this isn't that uncommon. In my school there were probably 5 blacks and 10 asians in total. It's laughable to suggest there was some kind of campaign of persecution against all the whites there and that they'll never get good jobs simply because they are white.

    At the train stations the majority of people commuting into london in suits are white males. They don't seem to have had any trouble.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    The main difference here is between state-governed specific actions, and trends. Sometimes the political and social elite are given a grounding by the populace, but things like imperialism were not. They were entirely governed by ideologically-governed state legislation. Things like patriotism, however, are universal, and are bottom-up trends, rather than top-down impositions. If you could point out exactly what "achievements" you mean then I'd be able to develop.

    Edit: I'm not a "supremacist" anyway, and I'm not the sort of person who'd say "whites are better than blacks because all blacks have invented is the blowpipe". I'm not quite sure what your point is.
    I just thought it was interesting that you gave responsibility for the negative actions of white countries in the past, as viewed by some, to a few people rather than whole population.

    I'm glad you've made that edit. Many people love to claim the invention of the loom, the mechanics of Newton etc etc as evidence of their superiority over every non white in the world. When in all likelihood their ancestors were virtually slaves anyway. We have lots of Americans who love to shout superiority when some of their ancestors may have been indentured servants. They've done well afterward, but only due to investment from the outside.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If you are white, male and from southern england certainly.

    Basically its because the above group are uncool. Nothing to do with exploitation or any of that ********. Polite restraint, reserve and carefully considered judgement are no longer in vogue.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by George231086)
    How can anybody claim that white males are persecuted when they occupy virtually all top positions? I'm not saying racism is the reason white males occupy these positions, i'm saying the absense of racism against white males is why they are able to occupy these positions. If they were persecuted, they'd be prevented from getting to the top.

    I really cannot see how being a white male would be a disadvantage in the UK. I think racism against whites probably does occur in areas where there are large numbers of another race, but in general most areas are massively white. I know people who hadn't seen a real black person until their 20s and this isn't that uncommon. In my school there were probably 5 blacks and 10 asians in total. It's laughable to suggest there was some kind of campaign of persecution against all the whites there and that they'll never get good jobs simply because they are white.

    At the train stations the majority of people commuting into london in suits are white males. They don't seem to have had any trouble.
    Again, you're making it out as though it's a racial issue. It's not a racial issue, it's an economic issue. Those "white men in suits", "white MPs" etc. on the whole, grew up in affluent white middle-class backgrounds. If a black person grew up in this environment then it would be fair to say that they'd also have, at least the opportunity to hit such heights. It is downright unfair to hold this victim mentality and say that because people from the poor black community are unable to become rich, that it's the white man's fault for not employing them. This is exactly the sort of mentality that leads to positive discrimination and "reverse racism".

    And, again, considering this is a class issue, the vast bulk of whites who claim they're being persecuted are not from white middle-class areas, where MPs and the "white men in suits on the train to London" are from. They're factory workers in Northern inner cities who feel their jobs are under threat due to the heavy influx of the Third World's cheapest labour, and feel unable to talk about this threat through fear of being reprimanded as being a "racist". What you're simply doing by picking out the top-end of society, and making the connection that these people are white, is looking at extremities and ignoring white people who aren't MPs or businessmen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    It is downright unfair to hold this victim mentality and say that because people from the poor black community are unable to become rich, that it's the white man's fault for not employing them. This is exactly the sort of mentality that leads to positive discrimination and "reverse racism".
    Positive discrimination.. Arggh!
    That's pretty much all i have to say.
    However, on the subject, i don't feel white males are persecuted at all but i do think that our government is far too 'politically correct' in all racial aspects and i get incredibly frustrated when St.Georges day marches are cancelled on the grounds that they are racist and people are told to take flags down for similar reasons. It's pathetic, unwanted and increases racial divides!
    On the other hand, i think the majority of ethnic minority groups would be perfectly happy for English/White/indigenous/whatever you want us to call us to celebrate our heritage and culture and religious beliefs, etc. I just think our country is governed by a bunch of ******* who want to apologise for being white and British.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    Again, you're making it out as though it's a racial issue. It's not a racial issue, it's an economic issue. Those "white men in suits", "white MPs" etc. on the whole, grew up in affluent white middle-class backgrounds. If a black person grew up in this environment then it would be fair to say that they'd also have, at least the opportunity to hit such heights. It is downright unfair to hold this victim mentality and say that because people from the poor black community are unable to become rich, that it's the white man's fault for not employing them. This is exactly the sort of mentality that leads to positive discrimination and reverse racism.

    And, again, considering this is a class issue, the vast bulk of whites who claim they're being persecuted are not from white middle-class areas, where MPs and the "white men in suits on the train to London" are from. They're factory workers in the North who feel their jobs are under threat due to the heavy influx of the Third World's cheapest labour, and feel they're unable to talk about this threat through fear of being reprimanded as being a "racist".
    I'm not the one claiming that white males are persecuted or am i holding a "victim mentality" about black people. I am simply pointing to the fact that many white males seem to have no trouble getting to where they want to be. I think that claiming white males are persecuted is ridiculous. Being born a white male in the UK is incredibly unlikely to be a disadvantage. Even if there was mass positive discrimination for the less than 10% of non-whites, there would still be 90% of whites who could do whatever they like. I'm not advocating positive discrimination, i'm just simply highlighting the stupidity in a white male feeling that he'll never get a job because all the jobs are given to non-whites. Sometimes it is easier to blame positive discrimination than admit the other person was better.

    The factory workers losing their jobs to third world labour is old news, now they are losing their work to EU migrants, white people. Who wants all of this cheap labour? Other white males to work in their factories. So, i suppose you could argue white males are persecuting poorer white males by employing third world labour and foreign white males. I can understand why they'd be annoyed, but this is economics. If one isn't competitive then they'd be no jobs.

    Also, i don't think any factory worker is afraid of making their feelings known. I've heard the "they're taking our jobs" countless times, against foreign whites aswell as non-whites. I can understand the sentiment, but i'd hardly call the situation persecution against white males, it's persecution against poor white males by rich white males. It isn't a race issue, but is held as one by the white males that have a victim mentality as you put it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Sure, why not. There's an agenda for everything. I'm not going to go any deeper because this is TSR, enough said.

    I do get a good laugh out of hearing of SPLC's latest excuse to bash Whites.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Nope, but your country has benefitted massively from all those activities at the detriment of other peoples.

    Just get over yourself already. Is being *****ed at really that much of a deal? Considering the wealth that was effectively stolen, people just want an opportunity to vent frustration at the sad state of their countries which is a large part the result of "white man imperialism".
    I'm sorry? Why do I need to get over myself? All I said was that your argument was terrible, which it is. Besides, the whole slavery thing is a load of bull anyway; who do you think sold the slaves to the rich white men? Other rich white men? No, it was black slave traders. If you're going to attempt to blame entire countries for sins of the past, you better start by looking at the source.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Elementric)
    I'm sorry? Why do I need to get over myself? All I said was that your argument was terrible, which it is. Besides, the whole slavery thing is a load of bull anyway; who do you think sold the slaves to the rich white men? Other rich white men? No, it was black slave traders. If you're going to attempt to blame entire countries for sins of the past, you better start by looking at the source.
    :rolleyes: WHY is my argument terrible? You saying it so doesn't make it so.

    The reason you should get over yourself is because a few minutes of being *****ed at for the faults of the past is no comparison to the obscene wealth accrued by your nations at the expense of others. Would you rather the native peoples demanded their wealth returned to them? Get over yourself!

    No actually, it was usually arab slave traders, but that doesn't make any difference; the slave trade was labour exploitation of labour from other countries, slaves who were treated horrifically, and whose original countries were eventually occupied and exploited for resources anyway :rolleyes: .
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    :rolleyes: WHY is my argument terrible? You saying it so doesn't make it so.

    The reason you should get over yourself is because a few minutes of being *****ed at for the faults of the past is no comparison to the obscene wealth accrued by your nations at the expense of others. Would you rather the native peoples demanded their wealth returned to them? Get over yourself!

    No actually, it was usually arab slave traders, but that doesn't make any difference; the slave trade was labour exploitation of labour from other countries, slaves who were treated horrifically, and whose original countries were eventually occupied and exploited for resources anyway :rolleyes: .
    I told you why in my first post.
    I am not my nation, our current nation is not our nation 150 years ago, this is complete and utter ********. I'm sorry but if you don't understand that I am not responsible for the actions of people that died before I was born, you are a moron.
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Elementric)
    I told you why in my first post.
    I am not my nation, our current nation is not our nation 150 years ago, this is complete and utter ********. I'm sorry but if you don't understand that I am not responsible for the actions of people that died before I was born, you are a moron.
    Learn to form a reasoned argument without resorting to childish insults. It'll help you immensely.

    You are not your nation but you benefit from the wealth of your nation. Your nation is not the one 150 years ago but the wealth exploited then helps you today, in the form of accrued progress, growth. I'm sorry but if you don't understand that while you are not responsible, your nation WAS and you benefit from the exploitation of the past, then you are simply incapable of understanding a simple point.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Learn to form a reasoned argument without resorting to childish insults. It'll help you immensely.

    You are not your nation but you benefit from the wealth of your nation. Your nation is not the one 150 years ago but the wealth exploited then helps you today, in the form of accrued progress, growth. I'm sorry but if you don't understand that while you are not responsible, your nation WAS and you benefit from the exploitation of the past, then you are simply incapable of understanding a simple point.
    I already did, yet you ignored it. My point stands.

    It is irrelevant though!
    Offline

    10
    (Original post by Elementric)
    I already did, yet you ignored it. My point stands.

    It is irrelevant though!
    Elementric]I've never enslaved anyone / committed genocide / exploited the globe, yet I have been *****ed at once in a while.

    Your point sucks ass.
    If this is what you are referring to, i DID infact refer to it, and have time and again. YOU might not have done it but YOU and your COUNTRYMEN benefit from it.


    And no, it's very relevant. And you saying it isn't doesn't make it any less so.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

3,104

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
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.