"Black History Month shouldn't exist" - Black Actress Stacey Dash

[AlexanderLevi2 5,849]

9 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

So many of you can't see a blatant flaw in your arguments about black history month. We went over how if black history happened in America, then it's automatically American history. But the bigger issue is...RACE AND NATIONALITY ARE TWO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS.  Your race has nothing to do with your nationality - literally nothing. That's why terms like "African American" don't make sense. The African bit isn't a reference to the continent, it's a reference to their skin colour - we all know this. There's a huge black population in the UK, but they don't call themselves "African British." Nor do the blacks in any other country use a similar idea. It's just America that does this and it's no wonder there's so many problems regarding race over there when you consider that they use terms like this. Think about this - a black American who has never even been to Africa can call themselves African American with not a word of complaint. But if a white South African, who had lived in Africa for years, emmigrated to America and called themselves (rightfully) African American, they'd be dragged to the pits of hell for trying to appropriate blackness. Even though referring to themselves as nationality/nationality is completely correct. Also, there's various minorities in all countries, but there's no designated history months for them. And they're not up in arms about it. So, why does America? There's something distinctly wrong with the way America handles its race relations and the sad thing is, it doesn't even notice.

Also, there's something that's really getting my dander up about this whole lack of diversity at the Oscars thing. Its been made into an exclusively black issue. As is a lot of race debates - we stop using the word "minorities" or "other races" and just start saying "black," not realising that we're making the struggle exclusive. It's rarely discussed about how few ASIAN nominees and winners there are. Simple Song #3, sung by a South Korean, is one of the very few Asian nominee in the entire Oscars (the only noms they seem to get is in Foreign Language categories and there have hardly been many nominations for them in years before. Are Asians making a big deal out this? No. Because they know where the real problem is - Hollywood rarely gives roles to Asians and when they do, it's in negative roles, hardly the kind you'd want to nominate for the most prestigious acting awards. Therefore, the awards aren't to blame, it's Hollywood. A lot of Asians simply say they feel invisible because the media just doesn't want them to be depicted. But blacks have lots of representation across the board. Black millionaire actors, singers and so on are many and varied across the arts. They have presitigious awards specifically for them. They are the most powerful non-white group. And yet they are the ones complaining and complaining solely for their people at that, not complaining on behalf of other minorities too. Maybe if all non-whites joined together and stopped trying to just fight for one group, there'd be some change.

Everyone needs to read this, which is why I'm quoting it. It needs the repetition.

So many Americans have no idea of the racism against whites that goes on in other countries. This is because they only get taught about the American way of life, which is a far bigger problem than not focusing on black Americans. Because if you only learn about the ways in your own country, you'll be ignorant to foreign ways of life and thus, these countries won't like you. Why else does America have so many enemies and is always on terror alert? Ever wonder how the phrase "Everybody hates America" came about? Because the country, generally speaking, is overwhelmingly ignorant yet always thinks they know best.

My cousin lives in Bradford and can testify to this stuff. Living there has unfortunately made her racist towards Muslims, which always infuriates me because it's the most ironic thing - she has a degree in Islamic studies and so do I! She should know it's wrong, but she can't seem to stop painting all Muslims as bad now because of the atrocities that occur over there. It's sad and I hope when she eventually moves back to Scotland, she can gain some acceptance back.

It blows my mind how people don't define the word "equality" correctly. They seem to translate it as "better than." Equality is treating everyone the same, holding them to the same standards. That means that if you don't get your way, you can't blame it on discrimination, because everyone's being put on the same level. Equality at the Oscars would go like this: "Black actors will be nominated/win if they put out a genuinely good performance amongst the vast competition." It's not about: "We should give more noms to black people because they've been through struggle, even if we don't think they're as good as the rest of the competition" That's not equality, that's unfair corruption. Equality isn't about getting awards/praise/opportunities for being yourself or because of past struggles. It's about getting awards/praise/opportunities for being outstandingly intelligent, talented, brave, etc. regardless of race/gender/religion, etc. As a woman, I'd be so offended if I got an award because there needed to be more gender diversity at the ceremony and I'd be even more offended if I got offered money from the government due to being a woman and therefore being lower paid and all round poorer than a man. But when it comes to race, I don't know, so many non-whites seem to want to get accolades just because they've underrepresented or have a sad backstory. How on earth is making yourself out to be some sort of charity case who needs pity taken on going to improve lives of minorities and end racism? It just makes it worse.

Indeed, it is infuriating to see minorities use their past struggles as some sort of trump card to win an argument unfairly on their side when they realise they've run out of arguments or undermine white struggles or make whites be afraid of rooting for a white person at the fear of being called racist. The case of the oppressed superiority complex is strong.

Ummm. No one who fights for true equality thinks like this. Rather most of my friends who criticize the Oscars/media/society understand that people undermine minorities. Do you know why black actors do not get "talented" roles? Because society wants the white person to be the main role. How many American movies do you see have minorities as the lead role? Is that because white actors are more talented or because white actors are preferred?

BET, Billboard Women of the Year awards, LGBT awards are not to say that these people are better but to give them a platform because the general public does not award them or see their talent.

Also this, trump card/using past struggles/etc. argument is incredibly undermining someone who comes this experience. Do you know what it is like to be black in America? Or Asian? Or Latino? Stop defending the suppressor and listen to the suppressed. Race/sexuality/gender is still a big topic and something we NEED to talk about.

Reverse racism does not exist. However, there is such a thing as discrimination towards white people. But again, it is not suppressing the white ethnicity.

And white people in America are not a race. They are an ethnicity. Race is when a culture was forced to America (or other country) i.e. African Americans, Asians. And ethnicity is when a culture came here on their own will i.e. White America.

[VenusBlackStar 1,301]

47 minutes ago, AlexanderLevi2 said:

Ummm. No one who fights for true equality thinks like this. Rather most of my friends who criticize the Oscars/media/society understand that people undermine minorities. Do you know why black actors do not get "talented" roles? Because society wants the white person to be the main role. How many American movies do you see have minorities as the lead role? Is that because white actors are more talented or because white actors are preferred?

BET, Billboard Women of the Year awards, LGBT awards are not to say that these people are better but to give them a platform because the general public does not award them or see their talent.

Also this, trump card/using past struggles/etc. argument is incredibly undermining someone who comes this experience. Do you know what it is like to be black in America? Or Asian? Or Latino? Stop defending the suppressor and listen to the suppressed. Race/sexuality/gender is still a big topic and something we NEED to talk about.

Reverse racism does not exist. However, there is such a thing as discrimination towards white people. But again, it is not suppressing the white ethnicity.

And white people in America are not a race. They are an ethnicity. Race is when a culture was forced to America (or other country) i.e. African Americans, Asians. And ethnicity is when a culture came here on their own will i.e. White America.

This is VERY lovely. Thank you for this. I completely agree with your explanation on why we have these kinds of awards and why they have been and still are important to those groups of people.

I will add, however, a further distinction between race and ethnicity. Race, by definition, refers to the physical and genetic characteristics typically shared by large groups of people. For example, I'm biracial and exhibit qualities seen in white people and Asian people, mostly in skin tone and facial features. Ethnicity refers to the categories of people who share similar social/cultural/national experiences. Example: Part of my ethnic background includes Filipino because half of my family is Filipino, my Asian features are those of Filipino people, and it's a part of my identity.

Just thought I'd add that to your already wonderful post.

[Pablo 7,815]

I agree with most of this . I think a lot of people in Hollywood feel self-entitled to win awards and make a big deal out of them. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,891]

Just now, AlexanderLevi2 said:

Ummm. No one who fights for true equality thinks like this. Rather most of my friends who criticize the Oscars/media/society understand that people undermine minorities. Do you know why black actors do not get "talented" roles? Because society wants the white person to be the main role. How many American movies do you see have minorities as the lead role? Is that because white actors are more talented or because white actors are preferred?

BET, Billboard Women of the Year awards, LGBT awards are not to say that these people are better but to give them a platform because the general public does not award them or see their talent.

Also this, trump card/using past struggles/etc. argument is incredibly undermining someone who comes this experience. Do you know what it is like to be black in America? Or Asian? Or Latino? Stop defending the suppressor and listen to the suppressed. Race/sexuality/gender is still a big topic and something we NEED to talk about.

Reverse racism does not exist. However, there is such a thing as discrimination towards white people. But again, it is not suppressing the white ethnicity.

And white people in America are not a race. They are an ethnicity. Race is when a culture was forced to America (or other country) i.e. African Americans, Asians. And ethnicity is when a culture came here on their own will i.e. White America.

Exactly - there are plenty of people who misinterpret what equality means and they're unfortunately the ones with the loudest voices. The ones who believe in "true" equality, like me, know that it means putting everyone on the same level and having the respect not to pity them. The reasons behind why blacks (and Asians) struggle to get lead roles is indeed accurate, but it's not the full story. Not enough consideration is given for the time period and location in which some of these movies occur. You should only put a minority in if it makes sense to the story and if it's based on a true story, all the more. Let's look at the movies up for Best Picture. The Big Short is based on a true story of Wall Street bankers - obviously makes sense to have a white cast. Bridge of Spies involves a lawyer in 1957 and complexities with Russia - a white cast makes sense. Brooklyn is about an Irish girl who moves to NY in 1952 - white cast makes sense again. The Revenant is about frointeersmen in the 1800's - a white cast makes sense. Spotlight is based on a true story about a scandal at the Boston Globe - the people in it were white so a white cast makes sense. The Martian and Mad Max Fury Road have at least one black actor in them and Mad Max has multiple races in it. Room is the only one with a white cast for no reason. So, it's all about accuracy, 98% of the time. People get annoyed when a true story is too fictionalised yet we want more minorities in roles that don't even call for them. I'm sure you would be annoyed if there was a movie based on a true story concerning you and the race of your best friend was changed for diversity reasons. Movies should be accurate where possible and if that means keeping certain races out of the equation sometimes, so be it. And it should work both ways. If you're making a movie about Motown or the civil rights movement, black actors should naturally make up the majority. But if it's just a general movie we're talking about, yes, there needs to be more roles available to minorities and it shouldn't just be in movies that are strictly related to minority issues. By the way, I bet a lot of the people complaining didn't even watch most of the movies nominated or the individual performances. Maybe if they had, they'd understand a bit more. For example, I can say, without a shadow of a doubt that Jennifer Lawrence deserves all her acting nomninations - she's phenomenal, one of the best actresses I've ever seen. To see her talent get undermined because some people's faves didn't get nominated is insulting to her natural talent and hard work. It seems to be a trend now to undermine a white person's achievements. They didn't have to try as hard, they aren't all that good, they copied off better people, etc. It's infuritating.

I don't have a problem with having a specific platform for certain things but I think it should be based purely on talent and just giving merit to different genres. Genres of music have their own awards because it's good to get awarded by people who really know and are passionate about your genre and also because it just gives you more chances for awards in general, even if you don't win the main ones or the big ones. But I have a problem with awards being given to people purely for being the best out of an oppressed minority. I said yesterday that as a woman, I would prefer not to get an award because people took pity on me and wanted diversity in the winners. Judge me on my abilities, nothing else. And yes, put me up against men, put us all on the same level. Even if I lose, I'll know I was competing against the overall best, not a condensed, politically correct list. I'm genuinely intrigued as to why some oppressed people want to be treated with pity, like charity cases. There's no way discrimination's going to end with that attitude. More people need to realise that simply, you don't always make the cut and it has nothing to do with discrimination. You win some, you lose some, that's life, etc. Why is that never presented as an option for minorities? Hence, superiority complexes develop.

I do support minorities, always have. I've always listened to their voices. But because I approach racism as a realist and point out flaws and contradictions and things people didn't consider, they think I don't understand and am ignorant. Because I dare to think outside the bubble of how we're supposed to perceive oppression. I've noticed that it's extremely common for white people to be accused of things they blatantly don't believe in or are accused of missing the point because minorities simply refuse to entertain any other viewpoint that doesn't fit their perception. "You tried to make it all about you" is a frequent outcry. Sam Smith got that when he tweeted about how the racial abuse towards his friend upset him. Iggy Azalea got it when she responded to Macklemore's diss at her in his White Privilege song. In these cases, it was the outsiders who missed the point. I daresay they did so deliberately, to demonise the white person, even though their point was completely valid and they know it. Of course we need to talk about issues of race/gender/sexuality, but we need to start viewing them in a new light and be more respectful.

This is another misconception about racism - that racism and discrimination are two different things. Discrimination is an umbrella term that excapsulates all forms of nastiness for no reason, racism being one of them. In That's So Raven, the episode entitled True Colors, Raven finds out she has been refused employment in a store because the owner doesn't hire black people. In response to this, Eddie said "That's discrimination." I was surprised that they didn't use the word "racism" because they don't shy away from that word for the rest of the episode. But in this case, the word "discrimination" was used. I think that tells you that the words mean the same thing. I believe racism is discrimination against anyone for their skin colour. If a white person got refused a job because the black employer doesn't want white people, is that not racism? If a white person walks into an Asian only zone and gets raped and gets their throat slit, just for being white, (true story, submitted by a GGD user yesterday) is that not racism? Are we really going to discuss the semantics of racism?

What are you talking about? We're all races. I'm not just talking about whites in America, I mean all whites. White Americans originate in Europe, hence, white, hence, that's their race. Ethnicity has nothing to do with the definition you posted. It's defined by "the fact or state of belonging to a social group that has a common national or cultural tradition." Ethnicity is also an ideal way to describe mixed race people or Hispanics who aren't dark enough to be black or pale enough to be white (they aren't technically defined as a race - it's really only in the Americas that they're considered a race and in Europe we consider them white). I studied sociology at university, by the way.

[UDO 35]

On ‎1‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 7:24 AM, T3ARS said:

There is only one word for Stacey Dash, and  it starts with a C and rhymes with spoon.

 Everything that comes out of her mouth is so dumb. 

that word is a racial slur    black people call each other that word when one of them starts speaking the truth about black people. or, it don't even have to be true, but if black people say or do something that other black people perceive as being pro white or anti black, they call each other that word in a hateful way. and it was originally, and still is a word used by white people against blacks, similar to the N word.

[Fiona Apple 13,006]

Finally a smart person!

[Hexxx 2,244]

i disagree with her because if it wasn't a month of black history, then black children wouldn't know of their history. let's be real, are they really going to start putting black history books in schools and air classic black movies and documentaries on black heroes and discrimination of the black race? especially in the time we live in now where black minorities are shot and beaten for NOTHING!

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

On 23 January 2016 at 8:50 AM, StrawberryBlond said:

I do support minorities, always have. I've always listened to them. I believe racism is discrimination against anyone for their skin colour. If a white person got refused a job because the black employer doesn't want white people, is that not racism?

Okay first of all you're definitely the most delusional person on this site, there has never been a discussion where you've listened to the black point of view. You have this stance that your opinion and view trumps any person of colours opinion about racism. You've shown consistently that you don't care about the black experience and their stories and you always refuse to listen to their problems.

 

Secondly you don't get to decide what the definition of racism is, and if its true that you did study sociology like you claim, then you DEFINATELY wouldn't have THAT definition of racism which is so widely rejected throughout the sociology community. Either you didn't listen to your professor or you're a liar.

 

And Thirdly that scenario you gave as an example never happens on a large enough scale for it to matter lmao. try again

[StrawberryBlond 14,891]

Just now, ARTPOPdidntflop said:

Okay first of all you're definitely the most delusional person on this site, there has never been a discussion where you've listened to the black point of view. You have this stance that your opinion and view trumps any person of colours opinion about racism. You've shown consistently that you don't care about the black experience and their stories and you always refuse to listen to their problems.

 

Secondly you don't get to decide what the definition of racism is, and if its true that you did study sociology like you claim, then you DEFINATELY wouldn't have THAT definition of racism which is so widely rejected throughout the sociology community. Either you didn't listen to your professor or you're a liar.

 

And Thirdly that scenario you gave as an example never happens on a large enough scale for it to matter lmao. try again

Oh, look who's talking - the one who never seems to interpret anyone's argument correctly and leaves out important areas of the opposition's arguments because they either don't like reading something they don't agree with or are determined to deny any good points made because it'll make their stance look weak and ill-informed. But suffice to say you're not the only one round here who does that. At least when someone makes a good point round here, I acknowledge it and basically make a humbled "you got me there" response because arguments shouldn't be about winning - it's about compromising and finding the best solution, even if it's not the one you like. But you have such a big head that you can never see past your extremely narrow point of view regardless of what is put in front of you.

You clearly haven't read any of the other posts I make on this site. The ones where I've criticised racial stereotyping made by Miley, Taylor and Katy. The ones where I said the Anaconda video negatively stereotyped black women (and pointed out Nicki's other racist blunders towards blacks). Where I criticised Azealia's racism towards practically every race and ethnicity known to man. And a lot of other stuff that I can't remember. But I distinctly remember you showing up at times to refute my beliefs. You have always been overly defensive of blacks, especially Nicki and Azealia, even when they have been blatantly racist and everyone else notices it except you. You seem unable to believe that blacks can be racist and think up every excuse as to why they're not, even when they're being offensive to other blacks! You do realise that Azealia has lost so many of her fans because she insulted their race, right? I am perfectly open to listening to and taking on board the black's point of view...until they say something that is blatantly incorrect, stereotype other races negatively or start saying stuff about how only whites can be racist. Because then they are spreading untruths, spreading hate and doing it all under the guise of "I can't be racist because I'm black."

Actually, we can all contribute to what the definiton of racism means because it affects us all. We're all races, we'll decide on it together. Not all blacks believe in your narrow views, so you have some nerve saying that they all think the same as you. If I said all blacks thought the same, you'd have a field day, but when you do it, it's fine, and you don't even realise you're doing it! The definiton of racism is clear - it contains the word "race" at the beginning, followed by "ism"...simple. It's not called blackism or minorism or anything. A lot of these terms come from foreign languages, but this one doesn't, so there's no arguments about the definition of any foreign words. This new "definition" of racism only came into place a couple of years back, when social media blew up, putting narrow minded, pissed off people into one space where they could all network and they started dreaming up radical ideas and bizarre theories. And this was one of those theories - it took a word that had no double meanings, that was perfectly understandable, and infused a level of hatred and resentment into it. That its definition was made by white people, that the whole system of the dictionary was run by whites, so we shouldn't pay any attention to dictionary definitions anymore. And these people are the reason why racism will never end. As long as there's no tolerance or integration and everyone hates each other, there's no room for peace to flourish. Now, I'm a woman and a feminist - should I, and other women, be the only ones who are allowed to come up with a definition of sexism, then? No, we shouldn't, because sexism affects men too - it's not called womanism (that's misogyny, which is a whole different word and world), it's called sexism, meaning it affects both sexes, therefore, we can all pitch in to define it. Which shouldn't be hard, as the definition is staring us in the face, regardless of whether we like it or not. Racism is no different. And no, these definitions are not widely rejected within the sociology community. In your narrow, delusional mind, they are. But in the real world, good people believe that discrimination affects us all and it's all bad and should stop. If there's any university that tells you that discriminates against whites in its teachings, please tell me so I can spread the word that this university promotes racism and patronises an demonises its students.

And here we go, the racism checklist. It seems to be that you, and plenty of others, think that racism cannot exist unless it follows a rigid, robotic checklist that ticks all the boxes. The discriminator must be in a position of power and stand to gain something, the discrimination must be happening on a wide scale, the discriminated must stand to lose something from the discrimination. How dare you discuss the semantics of racism and all round hatred! This is a checklist of someone who is scrabbling for reasons to condone hatred, to condone dismissal of hatred. Let me get this straight - if it's not happening to large numbers, nothing should be done about it? Wow, if you apply this view to any other area of life, you'd be a really horrible person. For example...someone gets bullied at school, but because they're the only one in the school who's reported it, so no big deal and nothing's going to get done. If a man gets beaten up by a woman, on a grand scale, it's the other way round, so no big deal and nothing's going to get done. If a man gets raped, on a grand scale, that's extremely rare, so no big deal and nothing's going to get done. Do you disagree with these statements? If so, you'd be equally as opposed to whites being discriminated against by minorities. You are dismissing people's pain. Really take a minute to realise what you're condoning here.

And I notice that in the piece you quoted from me, you missed out an amazing point and something that is unquestionably racist - the introduction of white only zones in areas on the UK where any white entering will be killed. My degree is in religious studies, by the way, Islam being one of them, so I know what I'm talking about. My cousin lives in Bradford, the worst area in the UK for these zones, and she can testify to how terrifying it is. Here's an article about the beginnings of one of these zones in Bradford (it's from 2008, but my cousin can confirm it's like this and worse these days): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575402/I-feel-like-an-alien-in-my-home-town.html

 

 

[lego 44,165]

"An amazing point."   

That article says

"It's not so much fear of violence, rather that they feel a sense of not being welcome, of having nothing in common with the community here, and a feeling that no one would appreciate the interest should they show it."

Muslims are not a race, there are so many white British muslims so it's funny to say how these people in majority Asian areas would kill them only because they are white. When white nonmuslim brits move out in big numbers, because they think they have nothing in common with these muslims, they too contribute to ghettoisation of those areas. 

When the one you quoted and praised generalizes the whole race or nation, by labeling them all as potential sex offenders, he too contributes to ghettoisation and lack of integration, like any other xenophobe.

It's one thing to dislike them and refuse to go there because of your fears and stereotypes and another thing to claim every white person gets murdered there because of their race. 

Bradford is awful city to live in anyway, because of all the gangs and drug dealers and they're of all races. There are also only white zones where every darker person gets beaten or is killed, nice to leave that out. 

In Whitehawk suburb of Brighton there is also white-only, british-only zones where german students were beaten up and many other non-white or non-british people. Ignore all the EDL, neonazi scum at put all the blame on the Asians/Blacks/Muslims. 

[StrawberryBlond 14,891]

Just now, VampireHeart said:

"An amazing point."   

That article says

"It's not so much fear of violence, rather that they feel a sense of not being welcome, of having nothing in common with the community here, and a feeling that no one would appreciate the interest should they show it."

Muslims are not a race, there are so many white British muslims so it's funny to say how these people in majority Asian areas would kill them only because they are white. When white nonmuslim brits move out in big numbers, because they think they have nothing in common with these muslims, they too contribute to ghettoisation of those areas. 

When the one you quoted and praised generalizes the whole race or nation, by labeling them all as potential sex offenders, he too contributes to ghettoisation and lack of integration, like any other xenophobe.

It's one thing to dislike them and refuse to go there because of your fears and stereotypes and another thing to claim every white person gets murdered there because of their race. 

Bradford is awful city to live in anyway, because of all the gangs and drug dealers and they're of all races. There are also only white zones where every darker person gets beaten or is killed, nice to leave that out. 

In Whitehawk suburb of Brighton there is also white-only, british-only zones where german students were beaten up and many other non-white or non-british people. Ignore all the EDL, neonazi scum at put all the blame on the Asians/Blacks/Muslims. 

It is a good point - integration should be encouraged. No one should be made to feel alienated in the country they were born and raised in. Whites wouldn't be allowed to move to the Middle East and start flouting laws in the strictest of areas or cordoning off areas and making clear no Muslims should enter. So, why should Muslims come over here and do it to us? They have every right to move here but they must abide by our laws and integrate. They should be allowed mosques, just like all countries should have various places of worship, but apart from that, they should adapt to our way of life. As should anyone who moves to another country. It just seems to be that whites get criticised for moving abroad but not integrating, yet immigrants come here, don't integrate, but we don't complain because that's racist? Such double standards.

Yes, there are white Muslims but it's becoming clearer that in these specific areas, they only want Asian ones. We're talking Asian zones, not Muslim zones. Of course white non-Muslims would move out - wouldn't you if you felt you were being alienated more and more? It's a human reaction. I wouldn't even want to live in these areas even if I were an Asian Muslim - the thought of living in such a hate-filled area would be repellant. I'm white and I wouldn't want to live in a white only zone - why would I want to live alongside a bunch of racists?

The man talking in the article didn't say anything racist about the Muslims (it even said he was educated and had travelled to Muslim areas) - he just didn't like the lack of integration and being made to feel like he didn't belong in his own country. And he didn't say anything about them being sex offenders.

But white people have been murdered in these areas! This article was written back when these no go zones were starting out - years later, they're in full effect. And it's shocking that there is basically no information about them online. No wonder some people think they don't exist. You're not stereotyping if it's true in this specific instance.

Yes, of course, there's shady people of all races there, but the point is to talk about the non-white ones. Yes, of course any black person entering these zones would be attacked too - I only left it out because the subject was about white racism. Obviously an Asian only zone suggests that any non-Asian is not welcome, which covers every other race.

Of course white racism still persists elsewhere and I'm not condoning or denying that. But my argument was that racism against whites exists also. And it's statements like yours that get added in that make people want to dismiss the idea of white racism, because it's overthrown by the "traditional" whites being racist to non-whites underneath. That's the thing with trying to prove that oppression against whites exists - it's undercut every step of the way, usually by other whites. Sounds pretty racist to me.

[lego 44,165]

@StrawberryBlond I'm sorry, after reading your first paragraph, I can't help but think of all the crimes of British Empire in Indian subcontinent (among other places)

http://listverse.com/2014/02/04/10-evil-crimes-of-the-british-empire/

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/apr/23/british-empire-crimes-ignore-atrocities

http://m.timesofindia.com/world/uk/Britain-burnt-embarrassing-documents-of-colonial-crimes/articleshow/26591747.cms

 

So it's pretty ironic thing to say

"Whites wouldn't be allowed to move to the Middle East and start flouting laws in the strictest of areas or cordoning off areas and making clear no Muslims should enter.So, why should Muslims come over here and do it to us? They have every right to move here but they must abide by our laws and integrate."

 

I mean, these things were not so long ago, some of those people might still be alive. So we actually have the example from the past about the (British) whites' behaviour in the non-white areas of the world.

Not to mention the British involvement in Israel-Palestine conflict, drawing the borders in ME, creating recent wars in Iraq and Syria, still bombing the area and at the same time creating bigger refugee crisis.

 

[lego 44,165]

Also you're talking about second and/or third generation of Brits with South-Asian origin, they were also born and raised in Britain and it's their country too, despite of different religion or race. You have that "us" vs. "them" mentality, and that also contributes to lack of understanding on both sides. 

Btw I wasn't talking about the man from the article when I mentioned person who labels middle-easterners as sex offenders, I was talking about the person you quoted earlier in this thread, but nevermind.

[ARTPOPdidntflop 3,987]

7 hours ago, StrawberryBlond said:

Oh, look who's talking - the one who never seems to interpret anyone's argument correctly and leaves out important areas of the opposition's arguments because they either don't like reading something they don't agree with or are determined to deny any good points made because it'll make their stance look weak and ill-informed. But suffice to say you're not the only one round here who does that. At least when someone makes a good point round here, I acknowledge it and basically make a humbled "you got me there" response because arguments shouldn't be about winning - it's about compromising and finding the best solution, even if it's not the one you like. But you have such a big head that you can never see past your extremely narrow point of view regardless of what is put in front of you.

You clearly haven't read any of the other posts I make on this site. The ones where I've criticised racial stereotyping made by Miley, Taylor and Katy. The ones where I said the Anaconda video negatively stereotyped black women (and pointed out Nicki's other racist blunders towards blacks). Where I criticised Azealia's racism towards practically every race and ethnicity known to man. And a lot of other stuff that I can't remember. But I distinctly remember you showing up at times to refute my beliefs. You have always been overly defensive of blacks, especially Nicki and Azealia, even when they have been blatantly racist and everyone else notices it except you. You seem unable to believe that blacks can be racist and think up every excuse as to why they're not, even when they're being offensive to other blacks! You do realise that Azealia has lost so many of her fans because she insulted their race, right? I am perfectly open to listening to and taking on board the black's point of view...until they say something that is blatantly incorrect, stereotype other races negatively or start saying stuff about how only whites can be racist. Because then they are spreading untruths, spreading hate and doing it all under the guise of "I can't be racist because I'm black."

Actually, we can all contribute to what the definiton of racism means because it affects us all. We're all races, we'll decide on it together. Not all blacks believe in your narrow views, so you have some nerve saying that they all think the same as you. If I said all blacks thought the same, you'd have a field day, but when you do it, it's fine, and you don't even realise you're doing it! The definiton of racism is clear - it contains the word "race" at the beginning, followed by "ism"...simple. It's not called blackism or minorism or anything. A lot of these terms come from foreign languages, but this one doesn't, so there's no arguments about the definition of any foreign words. This new "definition" of racism only came into place a couple of years back, when social media blew up, putting narrow minded, pissed off people into one space where they could all network and they started dreaming up radical ideas and bizarre theories. And this was one of those theories - it took a word that had no double meanings, that was perfectly understandable, and infused a level of hatred and resentment into it. That its definition was made by white people, that the whole system of the dictionary was run by whites, so we shouldn't pay any attention to dictionary definitions anymore. And these people are the reason why racism will never end. As long as there's no tolerance or integration and everyone hates each other, there's no room for peace to flourish. Now, I'm a woman and a feminist - should I, and other women, be the only ones who are allowed to come up with a definition of sexism, then? No, we shouldn't, because sexism affects men too - it's not called womanism (that's misogyny, which is a whole different word and world), it's called sexism, meaning it affects both sexes, therefore, we can all pitch in to define it. Which shouldn't be hard, as the definition is staring us in the face, regardless of whether we like it or not. Racism is no different. And no, these definitions are not widely rejected within the sociology community. In your narrow, delusional mind, they are. But in the real world, good people believe that discrimination affects us all and it's all bad and should stop. If there's any university that tells you that discriminates against whites in its teachings, please tell me so I can spread the word that this university promotes racism and patronises an demonises its students.

And here we go, the racism checklist. It seems to be that you, and plenty of others, think that racism cannot exist unless it follows a rigid, robotic checklist that ticks all the boxes. The discriminator must be in a position of power and stand to gain something, the discrimination must be happening on a wide scale, the discriminated must stand to lose something from the discrimination. How dare you discuss the semantics of racism and all round hatred! This is a checklist of someone who is scrabbling for reasons to condone hatred, to condone dismissal of hatred. Let me get this straight - if it's not happening to large numbers, nothing should be done about it? Wow, if you apply this view to any other area of life, you'd be a really horrible person. For example...someone gets bullied at school, but because they're the only one in the school who's reported it, so no big deal and nothing's going to get done. If a man gets beaten up by a woman, on a grand scale, it's the other way round, so no big deal and nothing's going to get done. If a man gets raped, on a grand scale, that's extremely rare, so no big deal and nothing's going to get done. Do you disagree with these statements? If so, you'd be equally as opposed to whites being discriminated against by minorities. You are dismissing people's pain. Really take a minute to realise what you're condoning here.

And I notice that in the piece you quoted from me, you missed out an amazing point and something that is unquestionably racist - the introduction of white only zones in areas on the UK where any white entering will be killed. My degree is in religious studies, by the way, Islam being one of them, so I know what I'm talking about. My cousin lives in Bradford, the worst area in the UK for these zones, and she can testify to how terrifying it is. Here's an article about the beginnings of one of these zones in Bradford (it's from 2008, but my cousin can confirm it's like this and worse these days): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1575402/I-feel-like-an-alien-in-my-home-town.html

 

 

do you have a life outside of writing extremely long essays instead  of replying normally? like who has  time for this lmao  

 

[GawdGa 1,399]

nope NOPE NOPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

wrong, she is wrong

we need things like black history month and pride parades to remember the struggle that these minority groups had to go through to get to where we are today and to make sure it never goes back to how it used to be!!

smh