[The Tyrant Lizard]

From my own point of view, I like watching comedy, what ever the colour of the comic's skin happens to be. But the fact is, when Eddie Murphy or Chris Rock or Chris Tucker, or any other prominent black comedian, makes white jokes -- and all of them do it -- I laugh at the jokes. They are funny. Why can't black people laugh at themselves? When a black comedian makes the black jokes, they find it funny as fuck, and so do I, but if awhite man does it, he gets cooked.

I realise that the Richards thing was different and more of a rant, but the basic inequality of the theme is true.

Why do black people continue to blame every body in the world for their misgivings?
I live in North West London and some of the ghetto 'black' areas are complete shit holes, and I'd not like to bring my kids up there; and from that point of view, I simpathise. But those particular areas were NOT ghetto's when the council first started moving the first generation immagrants in. The areas in question -- Wembley, Harlsden, Neasden, Stonebridge -- have declined with every passing decade, and they casn only have themselves to blame. The situations in these areas becomes worse and worse.

Why?

Is it because jobs are harder to get for immigrant black men that they are for white men, and thus quality of life has no where to go but down? Maybe, but why then, do asians from similar potless backgrounds not seem blighted by the same setbacks. The indians that were forcably removed from Uganda -- and act that destroyed the country's econamy -- and migrated to Great Britain were of working/lower class backgrounds. They have thrived in England. Is it because they were never slaves? Or because they were hard working and determined to make a better life for their children, rather than spend their lives blaming Idi Amin for ruining their futures? I don't know.

The fact is, I grew up in a council estate where whites were a minority. My social group was a massive mix of blacks, asians, whites, and a veriety of mixed race people. We were as kids, essentually colour blind. We all had the same chances in life. Some of us went for the job interviews, and some of us didn't. The guy who used to live next door to me -- we were best mates for years -- was a drug dealer by the age of thirteen. He was in jail by the age of twenty. Was it because his dad left his mum when he was a baby? Might of been. It happens that he's got a good job now and has sorted his life out -- at least I think he's cured of the crack, pretty sure he still drinks though -- but he still never sees the five kids he's had with the three women he used to beat. I suspect they'll be blaming my ancestors for their fialings in life, just like my old friend used to.

[Cougar]

When Tyrant Lizard syas:

"Is it because jobs are harder to get for immigrant black men that they are for white men, and thus quality of life has no where to go but down? Maybe, but why then, do asians from similar potless backgrounds not seem blighted by the same setbacks. The indians that were forcably removed from Uganda -- and act that destroyed the country's econamy -- and migrated to Great Britain were of working/lower class backgrounds. They have thrived in England. Is it because they were never slaves? Or because they were hard working and determined to make a better life for their children, rather than spend their lives blaming Idi Amin for ruining their futures? I don't know"

The format here is essentially a rhetorical question, you are asking this in a manner which comes across as it being a statement, the tone of this makes it look like you are trying to disguise what you believe to be true, in this case that the occupants of these areas are somehow lazier and less deserving than others, as a question. If this is not what you think then apologies, but it sure looks like you do.

I am again in total agreement with the Chavtastic Toblerone. I can't see how anyone who is white can not see the inherent bias that exists in the system, especially towards men. Of course this bias may be more pronounced towards a rich white guy in London compared to a poor farmer in Spain but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[Mentalist]

Cougar, on Apr 3 2009, 10:21 AM, said:

When Tyrant Lizard syas:

"Is it because jobs are harder to get for immigrant black men that they are for white men, and thus quality of life has no where to go but down? Maybe, but why then, do asians from similar potless backgrounds not seem blighted by the same setbacks. The indians that were forcably removed from Uganda -- and act that destroyed the country's econamy -- and migrated to Great Britain were of working/lower class backgrounds. They have thrived in England. Is it because they were never slaves? Or because they were hard working and determined to make a better life for their children, rather than spend their lives blaming Idi Amin for ruining their futures? I don't know"

The format here is essentially a rhetorical question, you are asking this in a manner which comes across as it being a statement, the tone of this makes it look like you are trying to disguise what you believe to be true, in this case that the occupants of these areas are somehow lazier and less deserving than others, as a question. If this is not what you think then apologies, but it sure looks like you do.

I am again in total agreement with the Chavtastic Toblerone. I can't see how anyone who is white can not see the inherent bias that exists in the system, especially towards men. Of course this bias may be more pronounced towards a rich white guy in London compared to a poor farmer in Spain but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Gothos, on Apr 3 2009, 04:57 AM, said:

Cougar, on Apr 2 2009, 11:39 PM, said:

Poland and Ireland both benfited from and continue to benefit from the fruits of colonialism and this is an inarguable fact.

interesting. care to elaborate then?

I'm very much with Gothos on this one.
I am completely unconvinced how Eastern Europe benefited from colonialism.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 03 April 2009 - 04:45 PM

[Cause]

I cant understand why so many white people are falling over themselves trying to justify pro-black policies. Does the world owe black people something? Yes! But black people need to wake up if they think the world is ever going to pay. You have to lift yourself up. Many other minorities have done it, do do it. Many black people have as well. Its going to take time.

Giviing black people preference is not I blieve helping them. Speaking for my own country I once read a joke that went as follows. South africa is like a cappucino. You have black at the bottom, covered in white foam with a sprinkiling of black above that. BEE is not helping the average black person. It is allowing a lucky few to become rich doing nothing. You must have a black person on your board. Fine no problem say the companies, they get a token black guy pay him and he sits their and does nothing. Worse its the same guy for multiple companies. They need a black guy and they found one. But what is he learning, what is he achieving, how is it helping black people in general? Does he I wonder feel pride or shame?

Also as is so often the case in my country it leads to corruption. Goverment ministers give theselves and their family members great jobs. Who in turn appoint their friends and family. It as I said helps a few and the poor idiot who lives in a shack still lives in a shack and every year he votes for the same goverment waiting his turn as they keep promising they will find a job for him.

[Macros]

APt hit the nail bang on the head.
I'm most definately a Xenophobe (if i'm interpreting the word properly, being to lazy to use dictionary dot com)
If I see a bunch of hoodies standing on a street corner giving bad manner out to regular folk, I feel total disgust no matter what colour they are. Street walking scum that need a good kick up the ass and thump round the head.
I Digress (oh my) Whether I have benefited from ill gotten gains by nature of the colour of my skin, which I had little to do with, and can not unless I'm wacko jacko rich, being put at a disadvantage because of it is racism, that can't be argued.
If I lost out on a job (I haven't, in case you were thinking this was bitterness) to someone less qualified and experienced than me because of my skin colour I would be livid. Not at the fortunate who got the job. Not at the unfortunate forced to hire a lesser qualified man. At the fucking ridiculous "quota" legislation that the government haws enforced.
Creating MORE inequality and divisions will not redress the past.
In times of financial strife (like now, very relevant, go Macros, the pro white Nazi) when people are crying out for jobs, and there's an abundance of over qualified people for every post, for an employer to have to pass loads of perfect candidates for an inferior subject (qualifications wise, not position in society or class, in an obviously hypothetical situation) purely because he has to have X number of ~insert prefered "race" here~ employed is obviously going to cause discontent among the spurned. They weren't beaten by the better candidate, they were put out by stupid govenrmental poilicies that have left their prospective employers at a theoretical loss.
A top black policeman said last year being PC made it very hard to cut down gang culture.
Cut that shit out. Please.
Political Correctness will send us all to the abyss.
Racism is bad.
Yes We Know.

But if its bad, make it bad across the board, this no longer involves kramers silly heckler rant.
When Chris rock makes his "cracker" jokes, boo him from the stage and haul him up as a god damned racist.
When a white man makes a racist joke, do the same.
When el gringo, sorry, the mexican (a joke, please ban me) makes a white ameroican joke, boo him.
When a tall man makes a joke about a midget, boo him
When a midget makes a joke about a tall man......


Legana Breed was right.
Humour is dead

[Obdigore]

MOD EDIT: this is obviously inflamatory and has been edited.

I have no problem with people who don't resort to, or reason based on, playing the race card, regardless of what color(colour for you english types) their skin might happen to be.

If what Kramer did is 'bad', then so is what Chris Rock or Carlos Mencia says at every show they go to. I don't care if you were slaves, or slave owners, three hundred years ago, what have you made of yourself today?

Why is it, if a black man calls another black man a nigger, it is a friendly greeting, but if I, as a white man, call a black man a nigger I am racist and in some parts of the city, would be shot for it?

Dont get me started on the current hiring quota's in the US, and why they should be abolished as they are no longer needed.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 03 April 2009 - 06:20 PM

[Aptorian]

Obdigore, on Apr 3 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

DELETED MOD EDIT

I have no problem with people who don't resort to, or reason based on, playing the race card, regardless of what color(colour for you english types) their skin might happen to be.

If what Kramer did is 'bad', then so is what Chris Rock or Carlos Mencia says at every show they go to. I don't care if you were slaves, or slave owners, three hundred years ago, what have you made of yourself today?

Why is it, if a black man calls another black man a nigger, it is a friendly greeting, but if I, as a white man, call a black man a nigger I am racist and in some parts of the city, would be shot for it?

Dont get me started on the current hiring quota's in the US, and why they should be abolished as they are no longer needed.

In comes Obdigore to throw gasoline on the bonfire.

Right on with those randomly thrown around derogatory epithetes there Obdi, way to prove a point...

Using the word Nigger about a black man you don't know is like me walking up to a random stranger and calling him a fucking douchebag. You can call your friends random swearwords if that's the tone you use in your cirkle of friends, but you cant just run around calling random people names or you'll get your head knocked off.

This post has been edited by Cougar: 03 April 2009 - 06:21 PM

[Obdigore]

Aptorian, on Apr 3 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

Obdigore, on Apr 3 2009, 07:49 PM, said:

DELETED MOD EDIT

I have no problem with people who don't resort to, or reason based on, playing the race card, regardless of what color(colour for you english types) their skin might happen to be.

If what Kramer did is 'bad', then so is what Chris Rock or Carlos Mencia says at every show they go to. I don't care if you were slaves, or slave owners, three hundred years ago, what have you made of yourself today?

Why is it, if a black man calls another black man a nigger, it is a friendly greeting, but if I, as a white man, call a black man a nigger I am racist and in some parts of the city, would be shot for it?

Dont get me started on the current hiring quota's in the US, and why they should be abolished as they are no longer needed.

In comes Obdigore to throw gasoline on the bonfire.

Right on with those randomly thrown around derogatory epithetes there Obdi, way to prove a point...

Using the word Nigger about a black man you don't know is like me walking up to a random stranger and calling him a fucking douchebag. You can call your friends random swearwords if that's the tone you use in your cirkle of friends, but you cant just run around calling random people names or you'll get your head knocked off.

Thats funny, random black guys do it to random black guys all the time.

So its only racist when a white guy says it? That makes all black people racist then.

Just because you don't like what I say does not make it false.

This post has been edited by Imperial Historian: 03 April 2009 - 06:28 PM

[Cougar]

OK well if we take Xenophobe in the broadest sense then I think we could stretch it to something like Apt's description. However, what Apt seems to be talking about is a rational fear or dislike of groups of potentially violent or anti-social individuals, Xenophobia would be essentially characterised by an irrational fear of foreigners or strangers. As SM is fond of saying "the other". The interesting thing here is why we have those perceptions, if everyday you are exposed to media which makes you believe you are far more likely to be assaulted by a black person then your fear may not be irrational. However, the problem here is where does that perception stem from, it is a fact that black people in Britain committ a disproportionately large amount of gun crime, however the only problem with this statement is if you interpret this as meaning "the reason is because blacks are somehow genetically or culturally pre-disposed, one and all, to committ violent crime. This is obviously ridiculous. The fact is that there is enough gun crime committed in places like Brazil by all races to show that the common factor is poverty. Now we also have white people in this country be born into poverty, the key difference is the opportunities that they are then afforded. The argument I would advance is that white people have greater advantages afforded them by the institutions.

[quote]I cant understand why so many white people are falling over themselves trying to justify pro-black policies[quote]

Why shouldn't I support policies and attitudes that I believe to be fair and entirely justified. It has nothing to do with the colour of my skin, I'm all for being fair to other humans I would never fall over myself to support anything I thought was wrong even if it was my mum or best friend advancing it never mind my own race. You are betraying here an attitude of sticking together with your own kind regardless of right or wrong which is the start of biggotry and racism which on the face of it seems reprehensible, I doubt you could possibly have meant this??

As for Eastern Europe and Ireland having benefitted from colonialism, I really don't want to write and essay, I'd have thought it was fairly obvious. Since colonialism really kicked off, say 600 years ago, wealth has flowed into GB, France, Portuagal, Spain and to a lesser extent other colonial powers. In the form of gold, diamonds, other commodities and through the ability to produce cheaply products which if you had to pay 'the going' wage you couldn't afford to import, this is especially true if you can buy black people for nothing to pick cotton for you and pay them nothing and breed a new generation of workers which you still own. Now nobody is saying that the main beneficiaries of this weren't the colonial powers themselves, but the knock on effect of the affluence of say Britain has passed into other countries in Europe. To use our cotton example, all countries in Europe benefitted from cheap cotton from American and then India. Allowing the populations to enjoy a better standard of living. This was not true in all the colonies and established a world order (the 3rd world split) which allows the affluent world to continue to exploit poorer countries. If you look at Poland etc as manufacturing bases for some of the more affluent countries in Europe then they are benefiting from the colonial wealth of the other nations. Also as part of the EU countries like Ireland have benefitted from schemes like the CAP which are also based on the vast wealth of countries like Britain and France. Even Germany, the loser in the great conflicts has benefitted from things like Marshall aid from the US which built it's wealth on colonialsim. This is a very facile version of it but does it make sense?

[Cougar]

Obdigore, keep it civil or get out. Using racist language except to discuss things is not allowed at all.

[Mentalist]

hmm
you see, not to sidetrack, but I disagree entirely.
Because as the matter of fact, cheap agricultural products form the New World, especially wheat in18-19th century undermined agriculturally-basedEastern Europe by robbing it off its main market for export, resulting in economic downturn, which in turn caused the escalation of the feudal system and increased hardships of the peasantry which made up the majority of population well into the 20th century.
Speaking about my home country (Ukraine), it does not benefit from the West-centerred system, because it is not part of the West.

likewise you'll have a hard time convining me that a place like Serbia benefitted from colonialism.

as far as "benefits" go, I'm willing to draw the line at Czech Republic, but anyhting east of that is questionable.

however' we are getting sidetracked.

[Slow Ben]

I dont have mucht to add to this, i think everyone has said something i agree with.

the only thing i have is i played college football with around 100 guys. appr. 50 of which were black. yes, they called each other "my nigger" all the time. But you know what? Me and my white friends were pretty damn good friends with some of the black guys and they couldnt care less if we called them "my nigger". We were good friends, they knew we didnt mean anything by it and they could give a shit if we said it. and in return they called us cracker, honkey, whitey, or whatever. Only in a negative context did it bother them. You every seen 2 black guys in an argument and they call each other nigger? Its not in a friendly way and it pisses the other one off.

Is it right or wrong? I dont know, i've never had to live as a black man and have no idea what they're life is like. do i think they overreact? Yes. do i think some things are blown way out of proportion? of course. but i dont think you can judge how someone reacts to something unless you've experienced it yourself, which we cant.

To stay on topic. Michael Richards wasnt expressing his freedom of speech or jokingly using words the same way a i've seen Chris Rock do it. He was being a racist and a douchebag.

This post has been edited by Slow Ben: 03 April 2009 - 06:45 PM

[Obdigore]

Cougar, on Apr 3 2009, 01:22 PM, said:

Obdigore, keep it civil or get out. Using racist language except to discuss things is not allowed at all.

I was being civil, but I will leave since you asked me to so nicely.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 03 April 2009 - 07:01 PM

[Macros]

The football analogy is a good one.
I have a lot of catholic friends, if they said the things they say to me to a random protestant, there would be outrage.
Likewise for my return statements to a random catholic.

But there in lies the problem. Highlighting these things everytime someone drops the n bomb or whatever, banning words, creating social divides by insisting on hiring quota policies WILL not make the problem go away. Laughter is the best medicine, because making something taboo or an issue only gives it more power. Reacting when someone insults you fuels them, they know they've pissed you off, hurt you, raised something that annoys you from your past.
The past ain't going to change, we have to move on (call me niave if you will) laughing at someone when they try to insult you takes the power from them altogether

[Assail]

Obdigore, on Apr 3 2009, 10:49 AM, said:

MOD EDIT: this is obviously inflamatory and has been edited.

I have no problem with people who don't resort to, or reason based on, playing the race card, regardless of what color(colour for you english types) their skin might happen to be.

If what Kramer did is 'bad', then so is what Chris Rock or Carlos Mencia says at every show they go to. I don't care if you were slaves, or slave owners, three hundred years ago, what have you made of yourself today?

Why is it, if a black man calls another black man a nigger, it is a friendly greeting, but if I, as a white man, call a black man a nigger I am racist and in some parts of the city, would be shot for it?

Dont get me started on the current hiring quota's in the US, and why they should be abolished as they are no longer needed.

Completely agree. If it is considered racist to use racial slurs and names against people, then set the pretense with your own people and stop it.

I mean come on now, whether it is in a joking manner, or a serious one, it does not justify using the word and then condemning others for the use, no matter the context of the use. If you don't want it used, then don't use it yourself. If you want people to take notice then you need to start with yourselves. I guarantee, the moment blacks stop calling each other 'nigger/nigga' then a lot of the non black folks are going to realize that it's not okay. But when you sit there and tell one person it's wrong and racist for them to use said words and then turn around and say it to your buddy, do you think the people you just reprimanded are going to say, "Sure okay man", or "No fuck that you damn hypocrite".

[Cougar]

No, I can't agree, words are only lent their meaning by context, if you are my best friend I can call you what I like as long as it's within the context of my relationship with you, that can be anyword, but the context of the word is defined by the understanding we have and the tone of your voice etc. If you had a good enough realtionship with someone they might be OK with you calling them nigger, fine. But don't expect to be able to use a word which is so inextricably linked with a history of violence, slavery and repression as you like.

If we use an example my friends who are Welsh frequently call me a Seis (sp?) and I call them Sheep shaggers, if I walked into a bar in Wales and someone called me a seis I'd have words with them, same as if I walked in and called them a sheep shagger unbiden and without context.

[stone monkey]

The hypocrisy argument is an interesting one. Part of the evolution of the use of offensive terminology has been the appropriation of these words for their own use by the communities about whom they had previously been used; witness gay men and lesbians' appropriation of the words "queer" (this one has even managed to make its way into academia in the form of "Queer Studies" when referiing to the study of LGBT cultural issues) and "dyke" respectively and, very obviously, the black community's appropriation of the word "nigger." The very fact that now it is possible to use these words in conversation with friends (very good friends, one would hope) of the particular community to which they refer, without offense, is entirely because of this. But it's not a Get Out Of Jail Free Card, you can still really piss people off doing this.

Context, as Cougar says, is absolutely everything in these matters; as it is with all uses of language. Whether you think you're being offensive or not means absolutely nothing to the person who is offended by what you've just said. The offensive capability of these words has not been diminished, they're still as offensive to the people they're used against as they ever were. What has changed is that there are now situations where the use of these terms is "allowable." The social etiquette for this is still fairly arcane, so my advice would generally be: don't. Especially if you're a member of a group that the term doesn't refer to, as that makes it easier for the listener to assume that you're simply choosing to be offensive, whether you mean to be or not...

This, of course, is all quite insanely post-modern when you think about it, but that's the world we live in. Meaning and intent are things in flux on a moment-to-moment basis, and the person who originates the text (or in this case the words) really has no say in how it's going to be interpreted...

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 03 April 2009 - 09:18 PM

[Cougar]

Mentalist, on Apr 3 2009, 07:30 PM, said:

hmm
you see, not to sidetrack, but I disagree entirely.
Because as the matter of fact, cheap agricultural products form the New World, especially wheat in18-19th century undermined agriculturally-basedEastern Europe by robbing it off its main market for export, resulting in economic downturn, which in turn caused the escalation of the feudal system and increased hardships of the peasantry which made up the majority of population well into the 20th century.
Speaking about my home country (Ukraine), it does not benefit from the West-centerred system, because it is not part of the West.

likewise you'll have a hard time convining me that a place like Serbia benefitted from colonialism.

as far as "benefits" go, I'm willing to draw the line at Czech Republic, but anyhting east of that is questionable.

however' we are getting sidetracked.

These are fair points and I can't possibly address the entire social history of every country however, the point is the position of each country now, the Ukraine may not be part of the West but it still enjoys a far superior standard of living to the overwhelming majority of the worlds population NOW, much of the East was forced to industrialise as you say to rid itself of a feudal system as late as the 1920s and 30s, one could argue the benefits of the power and wealth of GB and France were felt because they had blazed the trail of industrialisation which allowed places like Ukraine, Russia etc to industrialise quicker. It is of course a hugely complex argument and counter argument and in some ways it's an intractable position.

[Mentalist]

lol
it;s an argument you'd be hard-pressed to win, especially if you talked to someone in UA.

it's hard to convince someone the system ahs ben tailored for their benefit, in a country where minorities are immigrants who came by choice and have no former colonial relations, and who are an actual minority--as in, a few thousasnds compared to millions of natives.

don't get me wrong, i can see your point, but a direct argument to that would be "the Soviets indistrialized us, th West was an enemy" etc.

now, I'm not saying you are necessarily wrong, but it's just that it's very difficult for people like me, Gothos and Maccy to accept the fact that by virtue of birth we must accept this stigma, expecially considering that neither we, nor our familes have never actually benefitted from it.

I mean, why would gothos have to feel indebted to Africans, if Poland never was a colonial power, and never actually professed a "racist" attitude towards minorities, by the virtue of never being in contact with them in the first place.?

it's a hard sell that I must feel responsible for slavery by virtue of being white. not all whites are the same--bu this fact is alawys ignored. that's the problem with the concept of race.

[stone monkey]

I would argue that the point was not that anyone currently living feel responsible for the past institution of slavery, but that the continuing effects of that history be recognised as still having a bearing on the modern world.

To address the issue that Eastern Europe industrialised in response to the West's industrialisation: yes, this is true, but that first industrialisation, especially in the former Colonial Powers and the US, was driven by slavery. For instance; in the UK, the Industrial Revolution was paid for from the profits of the Triangular Trade and primarily came about to service it; and in the US the cotton plantations would have had no market of the necessary size to buy their produce had industrialisation not taken place. In a very real sense the institution of slavery can be considered a major contributor to the way the world is today.

It is, as has been said, a complicated issue dealing as it does with the ramifications of the global markets that came into being during the 18th and 19th centuries and still remain with us today.

[Edit: I'm really not sure how I remain sane whilst discussing this...]

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 03 April 2009 - 09:37 PM