NEWS

Can Only Whites be Racist?

August 24, 2008
Dr Bhaskar Dasgupta

I talked about how Indians in South Africa can be seen to be racist. But here is something curious and not much has been discussed about this aspect. I quote some worrying findings. (More factoids from here and here)

  • Some 29 per cent of people surveyed think public sector workers discriminate against them in favour of other ethnic groups.
  • And many believe they have been passed over for promotion or a job because of the colour of their skin.
  • Seven per cent of white people questioned thought they had failed to win a promotion because of their race, up from three per cent in 2003.
  • And the study reveals that ethnic groups living in the UK feel stronger ties to the country than native whites.
  • Researchers found that whites also felt less able that other ethnic groups to influence decisions affecting the country or their local area. And many believe racial prejudice is on the rise, in stark contrast with other races.
  • The survey found that 29 per cent of white people expect to be treated worse than other groups by at least eight of the public services including police, prisons, courts, Crown Prosecution Service and local housing organisations.
  • One in six white Britons feel only a slight sense of belonging to the nation. Whites also now feel less able than other ethnic groups to influence decisions affecting their local area and the country as a whole.
  • Forty one per cent of black African, 36 per cent of Bangladeshi and 35 per cent of Indian people feel they have a say in decisions affecting Britain, compared to 19 per cent of white people.
  • The proportion of members of ethnic minority groups who expected to face discrimination from one of the eight bodies fell from 38 per cent in 2001 to 34 per cent. But it remains higher than for white people in many categories, particularly the police.
  • Whites identified council housing departments or housing associations as the most likely to discriminate against them.
  • Overall, 84 per cent of people felt they belonged strongly to the country, including 45 per cent who said they belonged very strongly. However, nine out of ten Pakistani and Indian people said they felt a strong sense of belonging, compared to 84 per cent of whites.

Each and every statistic is worrying. If the criterion was replaced, for example, white with black or brown, the headlines would be screaming. But in this case they are not. Curiously, this story was buried and not much discussion about it has happened. But I think that is wrong. The white population of this country is saying something to the grand political parties and senior intelligentsia and they are not listening. Read the comments on this site to see what some people are saying.

See the commonality? In the South African case, the Indian intelligentsia in charge of the schools wanted more cohesion and integration, but the parents do not want to integrate. However, nobody is screaming about racism to them. But here whites are complaining about reverse discrimination and again nobody is talking about it.

People are not talking about this and they are not considering why this is the case. Why are immigrants being given privileges that local citizens are not receiving ? And even if that is not the actual case, people do think so and perceive it as such. So there is a communications problem. Mind you, knowing the spectacular idiots who are in the government, I very much doubt that they will be able to do anything about this. Despite that silly minister Hazel Blears commissioning this survey, I very much doubt anything will come out of it. I mean, it is not even on her own site.

I find this deeply worrying. Perhaps more transparency in hiring, housing allocation and other aspects will help remove this deep seated fear amongst the " whites" of the country. The fear exists, it needs to be addressed quickly.

Technorati Tags: Affirmative Action,Racism,United Kingdom

Dr. Bhaskar Dasgupta works in the city of London in various capacities in the financial sector. He has worked and travelled widely around the world. The articles in here relate to his current studies and are strictly his opinion and do not reflect the position of his past or current employer(s). If you do want to blame somebody, then blame my sister and editor, she is responsible for everything, the ideas, the writing, the quotes, the drive, the israeli-palestinian crisis, global warming, the ozone layer depletion and the argentinian debt crisis.
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

#1
Sanjay
August 24, 2008
01:45 AM

Look at the rampant caste-baiting in India. Clearly, some communities and ideologies can survive only on racism.

#2
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2008
07:36 AM

BD, I am not sure this issue has to do exactly with racism. I think it has to do with what happens to a population when they have previously had a fairly homogenous national identity and then things begin to shift.

So yes, while I think that any ethnic group is more than capable of racism, I do not think that what is happening in the UK is because minority groups there are discriminating against whites. I think it has more to do with something else you talked about... that the majority group always gets antsy when help is given to other groups. when they see jobs going to others and housing allocations also, they think their way of life is being threatened. it's actually a natural response. and if the economy is bad or those people are not well off, the reaction is stronger. it's not ideal, but it's the reality of what happens.

#3
commonsense
August 24, 2008
10:52 AM

i was going to respond, but ss snatched those words right out of my mouth :)

#4
Guido
August 24, 2008
11:59 AM

BD,

I would also agree that it's natural for the majority to resist changes in the status quo. But when reverse discrimination is legislated (as in the US) that puts another angle on the debate.

Legal discrimination against whites in America exists in the form of anti-discriminatory laws passed during the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Proponents contend the statutes are still required and the opposition argues the laws are outdated and needlessly discriminate.

At some point in the changing demographics, the laws must be rescinded to keep the playing field level. The very reason they were initially enacted.

Ciao, Guido

#5
smallsquirrel
August 24, 2008
02:00 PM

guido... yes but "affirmative action" is sadly a necessary evil. the playing field is nowhere near yet level, because in many places where minorities live their receive less than substandard education. when you begin with life with that kind of handicap, then you are stunted from the get-go. it is not reverse discrimination, it is simply a stop-gap. the problem is that the US goverment is not solving the issue that is creating the problem in the first place.

#6
commonsense
August 24, 2008
06:11 PM

Guido:

""Legal discrimination against whites in America exists in the form of anti-discriminatory laws passed during the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.""

???? More than enough empirical survey data to question the assumption that blacks have a level playing field. Some blacks have moved out of their miserable economic conditions, but it is a very miniscule proportion. I could point to some links, but others must do their homework sometimes.

#7
bob
August 24, 2008
08:59 PM

not surprising about racism in the UK when the third highest ranking police officer in the London Metro is suing Scotland Yard for discrimination...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080822.wbritsuit0822/BNStory/International/home

#8
Guido
August 25, 2008
06:15 AM

SS

I agree the playing field is still uneven. "Why" is an issue on the front burner with no resolution in sight.

However, affirmative action clearly grants special treatment to some individuals over others on the basis of characteristics; in this instance race. Subject matter experts argue over semantics:

"Reverse discrimination is an elusive term that is used to describe policies or acts that benefit a historically economically disadvantaged group (e.g. women, blacks, Hispanics, the disabled, people over 40 years of age, etc). Most academic and expert opponents of preferential policies that favor historically-discriminated groups, such as Carl Cohen, would avoid the term "reverse discrimination" on the grounds that "discrimination is discrimination" and that the label "reverse" is a misnomer (a point that experts on both sides of the issue generally agree with). Groups such as the American Civil Rights Institute, run by Ward Connerly, have opted for the more legally precise terms "race preference", "gender preference," or "preferential treatment" generally, since these terms are contained and defined within existing civil rights law, such as the 1964 Civil Rights Act."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

It may be justified according to some, but at the end of the day it is discrimination.

Ciao, Guido

#9
Guido
August 25, 2008
06:58 AM

CS,

This is becoming tedious.

Please reread my posts. I never said, implied, or inferred that the playing field is currently level.

If you can't take my comments at face value, then do everyone a favor and ignore them.

Ciao, Guido

#10
commonsense
August 25, 2008
11:13 AM

Guido:

""Legal discrimination against whites in America exists in the form of anti-discriminatory laws passed during the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.""

#9; ok, agree you said nothing about a "level playing field", although the concept is implicated in the discussion, as it is also brought up by SS.

ammended comment then: the civil rights movement ended the legal discrimination against the blacks but, in my view, these laws did not institute a new regime of "legal discrimination against whites in America". At least, the latter argument is difficult, but not impossible to sustain, unless there is a semblance of a level playing field.

#11
kerty
August 25, 2008
11:49 AM

Guido.

Reverse discrimination, discrimination, anti-discrimination etc implies that level playing field does not exist for a group of people. That is an unmistakable meaning of discrimination.

You may take a position as to who does not enjoy the level playing field and who is being discriminated. Your line of arguments suggests that whites in America do not enjoy the level playing field due to civil rights and affirmative action meant to create level-playing field for non-white minorities. One can accuse that line of thinking to be supemacist and racist because it asserts that no other non-while racial group should have level playing field equal to that of whites and any attempt to create one should be opposed as anti-white discrimination.

#12
Guido
August 25, 2008
01:23 PM

CS

Agree, the movement sought to stop locally sanctioned discrimination in the form or racism.
Post #8: "However, affirmative action clearly grants special treatment to some individuals over others on the basis of characteristics; in this instance race." That is by definition discrimination; regardless of my view, your view, or the playing field. That is my point.

Ciao, Guido

#13
Guido
August 25, 2008
01:25 PM

Kerty,

I don't know any kinder way to say this, but if you arrived here:

"You may take a position as to who does not enjoy the level playing field and who is being discriminated. Your line of arguments suggests that whites in America do not enjoy the level playing field due to civil rights and affirmative action meant to create level-playing field for non-white minorities. One can accuse that line of thinking to be supemacist and racist because it asserts that no other non-while racial group should have level playing field equal to that of whites and any attempt to create one should be opposed as anti-white discrimination."

From here:

"I would also agree that it's natural for the majority to resist changes in the status quo. But when reverse discrimination is legislated (as in the US) that puts another angle on the debate.

Legal discrimination against whites in America exists in the form of anti-discriminatory laws passed during the civil rights movement in the 60s and 70s.

Proponents contend the statutes are still required and the opposition argues the laws are outdated and needlessly discriminate.

At some point in the changing demographics, the laws must be rescinded to keep the playing field level. The very reason they were initially enacted."

Then I sincerely offer the same advice previously suggested in post #9.

Ciao, Guido

#14
Ruvy
August 25, 2008
02:55 PM

bd wrote the following at the end of his article expressing concern over how disempowered whites feel in Britain:

People are not talking about this and they are not considering why this is the case. Why are immigrants being given privileges that local citizens are not receiving ? And even if that is not the actual case, people do think so and perceive it as such. So there is a communications problem. Mind you, knowing the spectacular idiots who are in the government, I very much doubt that they will be able to do anything about this.
.........................................
I find this deeply worrying. Perhaps more transparency in hiring, housing allocation and other aspects will help remove this deep seated fear amongst the " whites" of the country. The fear exists, it needs to be addressed quickly.


Nobody here has addressed this at all. Let's try. The following article does not have the same focus as bd's but it addresses the same basic issues. And perhaps the intro to it in the e-mail I got gives the reason for his concern.

From my in-box:

Judges will soon find that granting 'special rights' to Muslims generates and fuels a 'backlash'...And ordinary citizens will perceive themselves to be the 'underdogs'...and that Muslims are not entitled to 'special rights' just for being Muslim: (Underdogs generally find a way to take action against perceived injustices. Also the non-muslim Christians and Jews will begin to notice how 'silent' the so-called "moderate" muslims are in not condemning Islamic Jihadist terrorist tactics. And with this, they will notice that their Islamic neighbors are not very neighborly.

From British Submission by Douglas Stone in FrontPageMagagazine.com

Welcome to Britain today.

Another recent outrage involves special handling of a traffic violation. Seems that a Muslim driver was stopped by police while speeding between two homes in the north of England. When he appeared in court, he explained his high speed - over twice the speed limit - was necessary to accommodate his two wives. His explanation was accepted, and he was allowed to keep his license.

That comes fast - very fast - on the heels of a decision by the British government to grant full spousal benefits to multiple wives. It won't affect more than an estimated 1,000 individuals. And it mercifully won't affect the indigenous Christian, Hindu or Jewish population, as traditional bigamy laws apply. Britons may rest easy, as it will only cover multiple wives married in a jurisdiction that practices Sharia law, such as Pakistan or Saudi Arabia.

These are not isolated instances; there are a myriad more: Swimming periods at pools restricted to Muslims only; the establishment of a BBC Arabic language station staffed by Arab broadcasters and managers with track records of being anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-Western; the refusal of female Muslim medical students to wash their arms as that practice might reveal the forbidden flesh between wrist and elbow; an attempt by a national union of university lecturers to call for a boycott of Israeli academics; and, a local Council ban on pig-themed toys, porcelain figures and calendars on workers' desks because it might offend Muslims.

No comment from the Home Office or No. 10 Downing Street. No comment from the government, because it has been their policy to appease Britain's large Muslim population in response to menacing behavior up to and including the bomb outrages of July 7, 2005.

It's no coincidence that Muslims constitute a substantial portion of the Labour Party's electoral support in London and in much of its heartland in northern England. In the expected close election for Parliament that will be held by mid-2010, an increasing Muslim population may be the difference between victory and defeat for the Labourites.

But Labour's bien pensant hardly needs convincing. Like most on the left today, they fancy themselves champions of the underdog and the oppressed, and sympathy for Islam, and Arab and Muslim causes fits neatly into their intellectual program. Along with America and Israel-bashing, it goes to the very heart of how liberals view themselves and, more important, how they wish to be viewed by others. It supplies them with the appearance of a self-abnegation that is supposed to relieve their Western, middle-class guilt with a cleansing humility but is nothing but moral exhibitionism; and, as always, involves other people's money, other people's freedom, and other people's comfort - never or very rarely their own.

A classic of political correctness run amok, wonderful as a burlesque if it weren't slowly undermining Britain's way of life and its will to oppose extreme Islamism.

Worse is that acceding to this nonsense gives Islamofascists confidence that they are on the winning side of history. That if they just shout a little louder and push a little harder, they may expect more of the same that becomes increasingly normative until it convinces the longer-settled among the UK's population that they have no power to stop, let alone reverse, the process.


Cheers!
Ruvy - from his roost in the Samarian mountains of Israel

#15
Man Singh
URL
August 25, 2008
03:15 PM

In almost all muslim countries of middle east, racism is legalised. They have different rates of salary based on passport.

A welder carrying Indian , pakistani or bangla desi passport will get lesser salary then welder carrying Phillippine or Thai Passport.

European, American passport will ensure 3 times salary for doing same work.

Nobody can speak against this legalsied racism due to terror of Govts.

In India yes remanant elemnts of landlords appointed by foreign invaders along with greedy priests are still practising cast discrimination. Though such acts are isolated incidents due to strcit laws in place. It is nothing compare to legalsied racism in Muslim countries. From Malaysia to Algeria to Iraq this legalised racism is in place where they openly favour Muslims in all areas of social life.

Even in India, Government is giving subsidy woth of millions of dollros, building Haz houses in Major cities , building separate haz terminals on all international airports, subsidised air tickets are being offered to jerusalam nazreth and mecca. medical teams are being appointed for free.

Opposite to that when theere is Kumbh mela or any other Hindu pilgrimage separate mela Tax is imposed, bus tickets are increased and ..

As such racism is very much present even in India as well.

#16
Man Singh
URL
August 25, 2008
03:15 PM

In almost all muslim countries of middle east, racism is legalised. They have different rates of salary based on passport.

A welder carrying Indian , pakistani or bangla desi passport will get lesser salary then welder carrying Phillippine or Thai Passport.

European, American passport will ensure 3 times salary for doing same work.

Nobody can speak against this legalsied racism due to terror of Govts.

In India yes remanant elemnts of landlords appointed by foreign invaders along with greedy priests are still practising cast discrimination. Though such acts are isolated incidents due to strcit laws in place. It is nothing compare to legalsied racism in Muslim countries. From Malaysia to Algeria to Iraq this legalised racism is in place where they openly favour Muslims in all areas of social life.

Even in India, Government is giving subsidy woth of millions of dollros, building Haz houses in Major cities , building separate haz terminals on all international airports, subsidised air tickets are being offered to jerusalam nazreth and mecca. medical teams are being appointed for free.

Opposite to that when theere is Kumbh mela or any other Hindu pilgrimage separate mela Tax is imposed, bus tickets are increased and ..

As such racism is very much present even in India as well.

#17
smallsquirrel
August 25, 2008
03:16 PM

ruvy, why must we turn this thread, which has the potential of constructive dialog, into islam-bashing?

let's not... and not even say we did.

#18
kerty
August 25, 2008
03:34 PM

Guido

"I never said, implied, or inferred that the playing field is currently level"

Than what is your point? Why are you presenting arguments of reverse discrimination and questioning affirmative actions and civil right laws?

"Proponents contend the statutes are still required and the opposition argues the laws are outdated and needlessly discriminate"

What is your position? Are you a proponent or opponent? Being an opponent implies that level playing field exists between white and non-whites, and therefore, any attempt to create level-playing field by laws amounts to reverse discrimination against whites.

"At some point in the changing demographics, the laws must be rescinded to keep the playing field level"

Has demographics changed to that point yet? Has that point reached by now where laws meant to create level playing field can be rescinded? Do you have some other approach in mind whereby level playing field can be created without discriminating any group - and if there is such an alternative approach that can be proven to work, would you care to articulate it? Otherwise, opposition to creating level playing field among people of diverse racial background would invite charges of being supremacist and racist, and they would fit like a perfect glove.

#19
Man Singh
URL
August 25, 2008
03:34 PM

SS # 17

Does discussion about cast discrimination can be branded as `Hindu Bashing'?

Does discussion about slave trading can be branded as `cristian bashing'?

Then how come discusison about socil ills in Muslim societies like Jehad and Ziziya on non muslims can be branded as `Islamic bashing'?

every community has its own positives and negatives. If social ills of all communities can be openly discussed here, why not social ills of muslim societies?

Why discussion on muslim societies' weaknesses is immediately branded as `islamic bashing'?

Do you want our muslim borthers and sisters to remain unconsious about their social problems or you consider them untouchables and not worth discussing here and leave them isolated?

Or you feel terrorised inside your heart that `Muslims may feel offended' and may blast another city somewhere and our communist freinds will justify their crime against humanity by saying `becase something was written about them in DC website, they blasted the city'

hey it was DC responsible for this blast and not the innocent Jehadis.

#20
Ruvy
August 25, 2008
03:38 PM

Smallsquirrel,

I'm not bashing Moslems. I haven't expressed an opinion at all here. I attempted to display why the author of this article is concerned about whites feeling disempowered in the United Kingdom.

If it scares you, well it should. The same bashing of Moslems can be turned against you - for various reasons. But pretending that this possibility isn't there under the lame excuse of avoiding bashing Moslems - sticking your head into the sand, in other words - only exposes your derierre. Not a wise move, madame.

There are some very unpleasant realities that European regimes refuse to face in its devil's deal with the cheap, mostly Moslem, labor it imports to do the shit work. The no-go zones, the slums, the gang rapes, the riots. The white majority, silenced by the PC press in Europe, expresses its point of view elsewhere. It is only a question of time until European whites will decide that kicking the shit out of the resident Moslems is the appropriate path to take. People will swallow only so much vomit forced down their throats by limp-wristed PC types and the "intellectual" goons they employ.

#21
Guido
August 25, 2008
04:24 PM

Kerty,

""I never said, implied, or inferred that the playing field is currently level" Than what is your point?"

See post # 12

"Why are you presenting arguments of reverse discrimination and questioning affirmative actions and civil right laws?"

I'm not.

"What is your position? Are you a proponent or opponent?"

I didn't state my position.

Has demographics changed to that point yet?

See post #8, Opening statement.

Has that point reached by now where laws meant to create level playing field can be rescinded?

See post #8, Opening statement.

"Do you have some other approach in mind whereby level playing field can be created without discriminating any group - and if there is such an alternative approach that can be proven to work, would you care to articulate it?"

No.

"Otherwise, opposition to creating level playing field among people of diverse racial background would invite charges of being supremacist and racist, and they would fit like a perfect glove."

Agree.

My apologies to everyone who is suffering through this.

Ciao, Guido

#22
kerty
August 25, 2008
04:59 PM

Guido

""However, affirmative action clearly grants special treatment to some individuals over others on the basis of characteristics; in this instance race." That is by definition discrimination; regardless of my view, your view, or the playing field. That is my point"

There is no kinder way to say this, but you have just spellt out racism 101. You have essentially done the following:

1) De-recognize the level-playing field. That means there is no need to remedy or redress something that does not exist. It means - either both whites and non-whites enjoy same level playing field, and therefore there is nothing to remedy and redress, or that white and non-whites have earned their respective playing fields, and one should maintain hands-off status quo. In either case, need for civil rights and affirmative action are de-legitimized and therefore, they exist only for racist reverse discrimination and preferential treatment based on race.

2)De-link the very rationale behind affirmative action. Affirmative action exists because lack of level playing field exists among races which it tries to correct by offering preferential treatment to disadvantaged races. Special treatment would be on the basis of race if race is the reason for not enjoying the level playing field. If people are falling behind because of their race, that is what would be used as a criteria for basing the affirmative action. Now to argue that affirmative action is bad because it is based on race, and because it creates discriminatory playing field for dominant race etc are intellectually dishonest arguments meant only to show case supremacism and racism of dominant race.

These lines of tactics are often seen among supremacist conservatives where vocal opponents of racism are branded as racists because of their constant focus on race and racial minorities - where practicing racism is not racism, but pointing out racism is branded as racism, where practicing discrimination is not discrimination, but redressing discrimination thru affirmative/civil rights action becomes discrimination, where having discriminatory level playing field is not discrimination, but redressing it is considered discrimination.

I got your point.

#23
Guido
August 25, 2008
05:18 PM

Kerty,

Are you serious?! What fucking planet are you from?

Ciao, Guido

#24
commonsense
August 25, 2008
05:19 PM

Guido:


""However, affirmative action clearly grants special treatment to some individuals over others on the basis of characteristics; in this instance race." That is by definition discrimination; regardless of my view, your view, or the playing field. That is my point"

This is not even silly. I do agree that you are indeed not at all naive but know exactly the kind of agenda you are endorsing, an agenda that I need not spell out because you will accuse me then of interpreting your cranial activity when I have not seen sign of any such activity, beyond reflexively parroting the dominant ideology that I thought had died and was buried with Storm Thurmond and his noxious views on race and racism.

Storm Thurmond:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond

#25
commonsense
August 25, 2008
05:20 PM

Guido,

And now you have our permission to scream "anti-americansim" at those who disagree with you. It's not even tiresome...

#26
Guido
August 25, 2008
05:40 PM

CS,

Trust me, I am not screaming...but I cannot stop laughing. This is truly surreal to say the least.

Ciao, Guido

#27
commonsense
August 25, 2008
05:41 PM

Guido:

""Kerty,

Are you serious?! What fucking planet are you from?""

Guido, you're the one who needs to get serious, seriously. I struggle to restrain myself from indulging in my usual smart-ass asides and multiple-liners, in deference to the new and more cautious comments policy.

#28
commonsense
August 25, 2008
05:47 PM

Guido:

""CS,

Trust me...""

I thought I could until I encountered this quotable quote of a gem:

1. ""However, affirmative action clearly grants special treatment to some individuals over others on the basis of characteristics; in this instance race." That is by definition discrimination; regardless of my view, your view, or the playing field. That is my point"

When you are done with the laughing, think ("cranial activity") about why exactly it is impossible to take your point seriously without introducing the concept of a "level playing field".





#29
smallsquirrel
August 25, 2008
06:07 PM

Man Singh.. um, no I just did not want to turn this into another "the jews versus the muslims" futile debate. no need to get all righteous on me. jeez... get over yourself please! I simply said that we should stick to the topic at hand.

ruvy... see above.

common, funny you keep misspelling Strom as Storm. LOL

#30
Ruvy
August 25, 2008
06:57 PM

smallsquirrel,

YOUR topic entirely ignores that last paragraph of bd's.... YOUR topic is the product of liberal guilt that takes for granted discrimination of one kind of another as a necessity.

Let's repeat bd's last paragraph for you. At least he has the sense not to stick his head in the sand.

People are not talking about this and they are not considering why this is the case. Why are immigrants being given privileges that local citizens are not receiving? And even if that is not the actual case, people do think so and perceive it as such. So there is a communications problem. Mind you, knowing the spectacular idiots who are in the government, I very much doubt that they will be able to do anything about this.
.........................................
I find this deeply worrying. Perhaps more transparency in hiring, housing allocation and other aspects will help remove this deep seated fear amongst the "whites" of the country. The fear exists, it needs to be addressed quickly.


The author realizes the threat that white resentment poses to him, as well as to the Desi minority in the UK. The topic at hand, if I might be so bold as to remind you, is the disempowerment, perceived or otherwise, of whites in the UK. The underlying topic is the possible reaction of whites in the UK if their feelings of disempowerment, perceived or otherwise, are not recognized.

YOU are wandering off to talk about how whites in the States should just suck it up as reverse discrimination screws them over. And Guido, Commonsense, and Kerty are fighting over semantics and other such nonsense like level playing fields, golf courses, bogeys and the like. Anybody for golf?

Having escaped such shit, I have no opinion on the matter.

It's all nice to discuss, if your are of a mind to, but if you want to be picky about what the comments are all about, racism in the United States and the reverse discrimination employed to attempt to remedy the prior inequities there has little or nothing to do with bd's topic at all.

Further, young lady, I have not mentioned Arabs versus Jews either. That issue is not really germane to the subject - except that some of the qualifying points for Arabs running the kiss Moslem asshole courses in the UK are hating Jews and Israel.

Frankly the way the British establishment is kissing up to Moslem ass reminds me of one of the tales in Chaucer where a guy thinks he's kissing his "beloved" - only to find that he's being farted at by his "beloved's" boyfriend - a tale taken from medieval stories from Italy - Decameron of Boccaccio I believe. Man, you Italians can be raunchy!

Anyway, moving right along here, stuff like this can generate a violent reaction among Brits forced to suffer it by a "politically correct" government whose official radio station, the BBC, has announcers who cannot bring themselves to say the most frequent perpetrators of female genital mutilation are Moslems.

No, dear, I'm not bashing anybody at all. I heard that broadcast myself when I was still living the States and picking up the BBC at 04:00 in the morning as I got dressed to go to work; and realized then that the BBC had no balls at all. Its attitudes are symptomatic of People are not talking about this and they are not considering why this is the case.

This is directly related to bd's topic.

Have a pleasant evening.

Ruvy

#31
commonsense
August 25, 2008
07:06 PM

SS,

Yup, Strom it is! :)

#32
Man Singh
URL
August 25, 2008
08:25 PM

SS #29

You are pretty reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.

usually people all over the world are scared of saying even a single about Muslim societies though they freely highlight the weaknesses of other communities and this later part is good. Critical analysis always providd an opportunity for introspection and further improvement in this imperfect world.

I agree with your advise.

#33
kerty
August 25, 2008
09:06 PM

Ruvy

You are assuming that what BD has written and emphasized is the last word on this issue. Your worries about feeling of white disempowerment in UK is no different from Guido's worries about reverse discrimination against whites in UK - it often gets labeled as xenophobia when other races exhibit similar insucutiries and worries.

People in UK have an obligation to make sure that UK repudiates its colonial traits and those traits never rise back to power again to persecute the world, just as people in USA have an obligation to repudiate racism and slavery and make sure they never raise their ugly head ever again. That often leads to radical and aggressive posturing, belligerent insensitivity to whites, in your face attitude of getting even for centuries of injustices and persecution - but that is always a very miniscule minority - one can overlook it when it offsets and nullifies similar miniscule minority at the opposite end of spectrum, thereby allowing moderate middle to chart a constructive middle course.

#34
kerty
August 25, 2008
09:24 PM

Oops. Typo. The sentence in #33 first para should read 'Your worries about feeling of white disempowerment in UK is no different from Guido's worries about reverse discrimination against whites in USA'

#35
Ruvy
August 26, 2008
02:53 AM

Kerty,

You are assuming that what BD has written and emphasized is the last word on this issue.

No. Not at all. Bur bd is an unusually astute observer of events - particularly events in the country he lives in. This is true even though at times I have disagreed with him strongly. It is rare to see him so immediate in his wording. There are no flippant comments about piquant salt spicing up this essay at all....

Stuff like that catches my attention.

I have no worries on this issue. I do not live in either Europe or America (anymore) and the issues that bd addresses and the related issues that you and Guido have been arguing over do not concern me anymore. Put bluntly, it ain't my problem.

But, looking at his essay, I have attempted to give an example of why bd's concern is so immediate. I'd prefer to hear from him that I am wrong - and would of course prefer to hear from him that I have erred. He has been silent up until now.

#36
Guido
August 26, 2008
03:59 AM

BD,

The benign comments in my first post are intended as is sans any hidden meaning or agenda. I'm sorry they were misinterpreted and detracted from your original premise. That was not my intention.

To the two prolific critics accusing me of being a racist...what can I say? Thanks for the laugh.

Ciao, Guido

#37
bd
August 26, 2008
10:48 AM

I am travelling on holiday so am not able to provide as much justice to this board as it should.

But let me be clear, the issue of white dis-engagement exists. And it is showing up in the ever increasing vote counts of the BNP, a white racist party.

Say what you want about White Imperialism of the 19th and 20th century, the whites of the 21st century are not very happy.

Europe is well known for turning on its minorities, for the past hundreds of years. Whether you are talking about hugenots or the jews, the blacks or the whites.

Kerty, talking about obligation is one thing, actually taking it up is another thing. What you are saying might be right, but how does that matter? You saw the statistics. What do you think will be the reaction if you went into a poor white neighbourhood and said that the minority housing issue is ok because of what the white colonial ancestors did 200 years ago? Doesnt work and will not work and is showing that it is not working.

Race riots are bubbling away and will explode any time soon

#38
smallsquirrel
August 26, 2008
11:43 AM

BD, point well made.

#39
Ruvy
August 26, 2008
12:35 PM

I'm guessing that your post on train travel in India was part of the holiday traveling. Enjoy your holiday and visits with friends and family.

Such time is precious. I tell myself that I have no reason to go to the States for a visit, but reading your post on going home forces me to realize that I only have so much time to visit with my aging sister and father-in-law....

While I'm not that familiar with the specific issues of this particular article dealing with white disempowerment in the UK, the feeling I got from you - the feeling of a Jew waiting for a pogrom to start - came through loud and clear.

Best regards,
Ruvy

#40
kerty
August 26, 2008
02:26 PM

BD

"Say what you want about White Imperialism of the 19th and 20th century, the whites of the 21st century are not very happy"

It is about not letting it happen again in the 21st century and shaping present day realities accordingly and pro-actively. There is nothing that can stop certain ideas from gaining mainstream and seat of power, and it would not matter if it is 21st century or 22nd, that the only thing that can nip them in the bud is harsh realities shaped to pre-empt them. It does not matter if some people are happy about it or not. Karma has its own dynamics.

#41
smallsquirrel
August 26, 2008
02:53 PM

"It does not matter if some people are happy about it or not. Karma has its own dynamics. "

well kerty, that is a very um, minimalistic way to view how things work. in order to avoid cyclic retribution, methinks that policy needs to be a wee bit broader.

and you do need to take into account that while some policies are needed, that the white people who are poor in the UK are in the same boat, yet do not have the same help. so there are 2 sides to every coin. you only like to see one side.

#42
bd
August 26, 2008
11:36 PM

kerty

When talking about colonialism and imperialism, one has to have a long memory. After all, almost every group and nation can and has been accused of imperialism. How about Genghis Khan, the man with the greatest spread of his genes? Now that's imperial sowing of the seeds. What about the Greeks who extended their empire? Or the Aztecs? Or Sher Shah Suri? Or You name it? To what extent will one draw the line?

and as one can see, the sheer weight of white liberal guilt is creating a very big problem while trying to atone for a historical big problem.

And yours truly and his progeny, given the colour of the skin, will be caught up in it. (yes, Ruvy, i hear you).

Nobody is seeing the elephant in the room. ONE OUT OF THREE persons think that there is discrimination by the government in favour of ethnic minorities. Now if that isnt a huge and significant part of british society thinking this, I dont know what is.

And the government is doing sweet sod all to do anything about it.

Now, Kerty, here's a thought for you, if the whites do decide do to do a pogrom, what will the world do? lets see what they did when rwanda, delhi, gujarat, sudan and and and happened? Karma? piffle. this happens because people either do not see it or see it and ignore it. In this case, both seem to be happening.

#43
kerty
August 27, 2008
01:48 AM

BD

"ONE OUT OF THREE persons think that there is discrimination by the government in favor of ethnic minorities."

That is a mis-perception created by Media and propaganda. It reminds me of a parody of a small town media in arch conservative Utah - that reported that population of Blacks in the town doubled in just 5 years. What actually had happened was one black family had moved in from out of town and so there were now two Black families in the town! Racism is reduced to creating twisted perceptions rather than progroms.

The point is twisted perceptions can be created, and such perceptions often do not represent reality but the mindset of the media and its agenda. Its agenda is reduced to creating twisted perceptions rather than progroms. Democracy can channel it into constructive directions.

Compared to UK, USA is light years ahead in its liberal and inclusive attitudes, and yet, one can find 1 in 3 whites in USA subscribing to anti-minority redneck conservative politics. In America, their anti-minority politics has succeeded in dismentling few welfare programs, and toughening Immigration procedures and policies, and in a way, restored some balance in government I suspect, same things would happen in UK - Anti-minority resentment will force UK to streamline its cradle-to-grave welfare state which in a post-colonial era can no longer be sustained by looting the world or taxing the rich.

Pakistan/Bangladesh are UK's babies, having mothered them - and the rule is, if you break it, you own it. Why Pakis act like they are UK's 'jamai', pampered VIPs, and UK their care taker guardian angel. Appeasment of Jehadis and taliban comes with a price tag. Americans found that out hard way, and so will UK likewise.

I think talk of anti-minority progroms in UK is alarmist fear-mongering. If skirmishes happen even on small scale, it would be taken as a sign of resurgent white supremacism and colonial ambitions - they will act as smoke-detector to alert the world and create counter chain reaction that can nip the ambitions. Besides, democracies have the uncanny ability to moderate the extreme instincts of people and channel them into constructive directions. I also have to discount your definition of progroms since you included incidents in India as progroms. No serious observer would do that.

#44
Ruvy
August 27, 2008
03:27 AM

I also have to discount your definition of pogroms since you included incidents in India as pogroms. No serious observer would do that.

The classic case of the dog refusing to smell his own feces. Capital mistake, Kerty! Also, the "democracy" beset with riots and pogroms is not likely to stay "democratic" - a knight in shining armor is likely to appear, and the mob will embrace him/her. This already happened once in India, and could happen again. Unstable democracies are not an Indian problem exclusively - glance across the border at Pakistan. But I digress.

Try and understand this, Kerty. Bd seemed to have been in favor of the discriminatory programs that disempower whites in the UK - until very recently. But seeing the danger that he himself could encounter, not to mention his fellow Desis in the UK, he has decided to eschew his support of the disaster that white liberal guilt has produced there. Looking at the other side of the shilling doesn't make him so delighted with the coin in his hand.

The other side of that shilling is what my comment #14 was all about - a look at the BNP website. will give an even clearer picture of it. The BNP is not a bunch of isolated crazies in the UK. They get serious results in council and constituency elections there. And they have no use for folks who are not "Anglo-Saxon" by their lights. And Dr. Dasgupta, educated professional that he is, is smart enough to understand that he is not one of the Anglo-Saxons - even though he may be a loyal British citizen, a good rate-payer who votes regularly, and does all the things that good British citizens are expected to do.

Hence his article - a well written piece grounded in good sense.

#45
commonsense
August 27, 2008
10:30 AM

Guido:

""To the two prolific critics accusing me of being a racist...what can I say? Thanks for the laugh.""

BD is discussing UK, and Guido is generalizing to discuss USA without injecting historical context (not CON-text) and legacy. When Guido claims this as a universal law so to speak:

""However, affirmative action clearly grants special treatment to some individuals over others on the basis of characteristics; in this instance race." That is by definition discrimination; regardless of my view, your view, or the playing field. That is my point"

He forgets that slavery at home, segregation, jim crow laws, lynchings, laws against inter-racial marriages, cotton plantations, separate schools etc. etc. DID NOT HAPPEN in the UK, but in modern times, ONLY in the "indispensable nation" first, and provided the model that was later emulated and fine-tuned in South Africa. To say the civil rights and positive discrimination in the US are "anti-white" is to wilfully ignore the differences between the two cases. Slavery had been banned by Britain quite some time back and in any case, there are no people who lived in Britain under segregation etc. etc.

First I thought Guido was accused me of thinking that he was naive; I changed my mind about that. Now I do believe that he is naive by coming up with a one-size fits all statement; either that or he is wilfully ignoring a lot of context.



#46
kerty
August 27, 2008
11:02 AM

Ruvy

"the "democracy" beset with riots and pogroms is not likely to stay "democratic" - a knight in shining armor is likely to appear, and the mob will embrace him/her."

Do you seriously think it is likely to happen in UK, USA or India? Just because it can happen somewhere, does not mean it will happen in UK or India. Yes they would happen where state ideologies are wedded to jehad, crusades, totalitarianism, theocracies, dictatorships - can UK become one of them because of racial anger? Not really. We are talking about mature democracies, not unstable democracies. Mature democracies are not that easy to subvert or dismantle and one can sniff out a party or ideology from miles away especially if they have any extreme ambitions. In America, KKK has been there longer than BNP and nobody gives a hoot what it thinks - people may get attracted to them for a while but soon drop out when they realize the hopeless futility. One can't give in to their agenda or submit to them just because they are mad or have strong opinions.

To be considered as progrom - there has to be mass killings, it has to be pre-meditated, carried out over a significant period of time, aimed to kill significant percentage or number of people belonging to a target group, carried out by those in power thru government. One can't brand spontaneous and short-lived outbursts of people in the streets that kill hardly few as progroms. As long as people have democratic, non-confrontational, peaceful or less violent alternatives to relieve their anxieties, frustrations and grievances against each other, progroms can be preempted.

This already happened once in India, and could happen again. Unstable democracies are not an Indian problem exclusively - glance across the border at Pakistan. But I digress.

#47
commonsense
August 27, 2008
11:16 AM

similar sentiments (as in the UK) in Australia too...Pauline Hanson etc. but these folks, like the BNP will always be a fringe group, creating a lot of nuisance for sure and sometimes violence too. the world is changing and most are getting used to it or will get used to it.

#48
kerty
August 27, 2008
11:24 AM

Ruvy

..reposted with correction

"the "democracy" beset with riots and pogroms is not likely to stay "democratic" - a knight in shining armor is likely to appear, and the mob will embrace him/her."

Do you seriously think it is likely to happen in UK, USA or India? Just because it can happen somewhere, does not mean it will happen in UK or India. Yes they would happen where state ideologies are wedded to jehad, crusades, totalitarianism, theocracies, dictatorships - can UK become one of them because of racial anger? Not really. We are talking about mature democracies, not unstable democracies. Mature democracies are not that easy to subvert or dismantle and one can sniff out a party or ideology from miles away especially if they have any extreme ambitions. In America, KKK has been there longer than BNP and nobody gives a hoot what it thinks - people may get attracted to them for a while but soon drop out when they realize the hopeless futility. One can't give in to their agenda or submit to them just because they are mad or have strong opinions.

To be considered as progrom - there has to be mass killings, it has to be pre-meditated, carried out over a significant period of time, aimed to kill significant percentage or number of people belonging to a target group, carried out by those in power thru government. One can't brand spontaneous and short-lived outbursts of people in the streets that kill hardly few as progroms. As long as people have democratic, non-confrontational, peaceful or less violent alternatives to relieve their anxieties, frustrations and grievances against each other, progroms can be preempted.

#49
Ruvy
August 27, 2008
12:06 PM

Kerty,

I'm sorry.

Your examples from the United States are rather faulty. For a number of years, Louisiana was a de facto dictatorship. As for India, it did become a dictatorship for a time under the late Indira Gandhi.

The differences between the Ku Klux Klan and the BNP are considerable. Let's just take one to make the point. The Ku Klux Klan was a very significant political power in the southern United States, the former Confederacy, for many decades, well into the 20th (Christian) Century. In fact, in many ways, it was the power in much of the former Confederacy. Politicians who ran afoul of it were branded "nigger-lover", driven out of town, horsewhipped or hung. Forty-five years ago, it was the KKK that harassed and murdered off civil rights workers in the former Confederacy and the FBI, which kept careful tabs on Martin Luther King Jr. did little against the KKK.

The leaders of the BNP only wish they had the power the KKK had 100 years back. By comparison, they are a bunch of well mannered gentlemen and ladies playing croquet - for now. As for the former Confederacy, for many decades, democracy there was an empty phrase, applying to richer whites alone.

It is only recently that non-whites are exist with
not too much fear of organizations like the KKK or the Posse Comitatus.

To be considered as pogrom - there has to be mass killings, it has to be pre-meditated, carried out over a significant period of time, aimed to kill significant percentage or number of people belonging to a target group, carried out by those in power thru government. One can't brand spontaneous and short-lived outbursts of people in the streets that kill hardly few as pogroms.

Says who? Wikipedia? A lot they know.

As for pogroms, they can last an afternoon, a day or a week. The point is that homes, lives and livelihoods are ruined, women are raped, and people are killed. Pogroms can and do take place in so-called democracies as well as in dictatorships. There is no "pogrom authority" to decide what and what isn't a pogrom. The standards you lay down in your comment are as divorced from reality as the claim that the moon is made from green cheese. It is true that the term originated in government sponsored "demonstrations" against Jews in the Russian Empire. But in the century since Kishinev, Odessa and other cities in Russia were plagued by these "demonstrations" the meaning has expanded considerably to take in various forms of communal violence. In Poland, all you had to hear in a bar was HEP HEP - Hierusalema Est Perdita - from drunken peasants - and you knew to board up the house and get everyone to safety. A pogrom was coming.

All of the possibilities you raise as ridiculous questions - the UK becoming a dictatorship, the US becoming a dictatorship or Europe generally succumbing to a dictatorship - are distinct possibilities.

But the issue that bd uneasily approaches in his essay - the possibility of white led race riots in the UK - does not need a dictatorship to occur. All it needs is a weak willed government that is unwilling to apply the law equally to its citizens. That condition already exists.

#50
kerty
August 27, 2008
01:32 PM

Ruvy

"For a number of years, Louisiana was a de facto dictatorship."

I don't know if Lousiana ever was a nation. But much water has flown since the days of confederacy and slavery. Yes, all that you allege was possible in the past and best way not let it repeat is to not give into it.


"As for India, it did become a dictatorship for a time under the late Indira Gandhi."

And same India defeated it with democratic means. She must not be a good dictator for allowing democracy to defeat her. The truth is she could undermine only some of the institutions of democracy and not all, and whatever she could not undermine was able to undo her dictatorship. That is the resilience of democracy.

"As for pogroms, they can last an afternoon, a day or a week. The point is that homes, lives and livelihoods are ruined, women are raped, and people are killed."

That can happen in any any crime, any riot, and communal confrontation, any conflict, any war. Classifying something as murders, crimes, rapes, riots, genocides, holocausts, wars etc and using these terms loosely, interchangibly or any which way one would like for maximizing propaganda impact, essentially desensetizes and trivializes them.

"There is no "pogrom authority" to decide what and what isn't a pogrom."

When a person says something, it has to create credibility. There are no authorities to certify use of terminologies and labels, but if someone misuses a term contrary to its popular usage, than the person's claims would lose credibility, and when a particular term is repeatedly misused, than the term itself would lose credibility and a sting attached to it. That is why Jews are quick to oppose misuse of terms like Holocaust when applied to any casualties of any political conflicts or to jewish treatment of Arabs.

BD's approach is to give in to fear and xenophobia, surrender to supremacism, submit at the mention of a threat of violence. If there are irregularities and malpractices in how UK government implements its policies, people in UK have access to political means to correct them in a democratic manner. All they have to do is to make a strong case based on facts and not fear or xenophobia to attract majority to their views.

#51
Anamika
August 27, 2008
01:39 PM

"As for India, it did become a dictatorship for a time under the late Indira Gandhi."

For 18 months! With MASSIVE civil protest and opposition which led to the RESTORATION of democracy, the very first defeat of the Congress party, AND set the ball rolling for Indian democracy to mature to a multi-party, federal, decentralised system.

IF you DONT know what you're talking about, I suggest you go do some research.

#52
Anamika
August 27, 2008
01:50 PM

bd: I am not doubting the issues and or statistics you have highlighted but to go towards projecting race riots (or pogroms) seems a bit Sun/Daily Mail-ish. Its the kind of prognosis thats printed and declares that x percent of British Muslims "support suicide bombings." Its fear mongering yellow, fleet street stuff at its best.

Yes, BNP exists and has gained ground in electoral politics. But so has the SNP up in Scotland and they may be nationalists but hardly racists.

Your projections remind me of the political commentary that predicted ethnic cleansing, genocide and so forth of Muslims IF EVER the BJP gained power. We know that hasn't happened.

The fact remains that most FUNCTIONING democracies moderate themselves, with even the most extremist parties moving to centralist positions once in power. And there is ample evidence from histories across the world for this. And you do seem to ignore that not only is UK one of the world's oldest democracies, but one with very deeply entrenched political culture.

I really look forward to your pieces, but this one seems soooo off the mark fear-mongering style that I really wondered....

Hope you are enjoying travels home.

#53
Ruvy
August 27, 2008
02:17 PM

Anamika,

Finally you have piped up! Considering that you live in London (or its suburbs), I was wondering when we would see you speak out.

Yes, there were massive demonstrations in India under Indira's brief dictatorship, but it was a dictatorship nonetheless.

I was polite enough not to tell Kerty what you have just told me, but he has spent far more bandwidth demonstrating his own lack of knowledge.

Most of the rest of these remarks deals with Kerty's comment, but you should take it in as well.

Kerty,

I do know what the hell I'm talking about, unfortunately. My father, may he rest in peace, (and many others) told me about pogroms in Poland and Russia, so I have an uncomfortable familiarity with them. I lived in a country with the power of the Ku Klux Klan, and the Posse Comitatus, I saw what they did, and thankfully witnessed the decline of both groups in my lifetime. And I do understand the difference between the BNP and the KKK. When you see "strange fruit" hanging from the trees in the UK, Anamika, you will see the BNP take on the cast of the KKK. For your sake, I hope this is something you never witness.

It suffices for me that an Indian who has witnessed communal violence in his native land speaks of the riots in Gujarat and elsewhere as pogroms. I, an ignorant foreigner from a "shallow" culture, need not go further than he.

When a person says something, it has to create credibility. There are no authorities to certify use of terminologies and labels, but if someone misuses a term contrary to its popular usage, than the person's claims would lose credibility, and when a particular term is repeatedly misused, than the term itself would lose credibility and a sting attached to it. That is why Jews are quick to oppose misuse of terms like Holocaust when applied to any casualties of any political conflicts or to Jewish treatment of Arabs.

We are in violent agreement here, Kerty. Arabs and their apologists world wide have bee trying to stick terms like "Nazi" and "apartheid" and other lies on my people, so that they can engineer the dehumanization and extermination of us here in Israel and elsewhere.

But the term "pogrom" has expanded beyond its original meaning of "government sponsored demonstration of Russian peasants to murder off Jews in Russia".

I don't think bd is being xenophobic at all. He, an immigrant to the UK, is aware of the term "Paki-bashing" and while it is not found on the BMP web-site, the simmering hatred of disempowered whites in the UK may bring about a resurrection of this evil practice. As a potential victim of this, he is being prudent.

If only that Jews in Europe and America showed his good sense.

#54
Ruvy
August 27, 2008
02:27 PM

Anamika,

I didn't see your comment to bd when typing up my own just now. For your sake, I hope that bd is indeed being too worried. But the Jew in me who has seen too many things go wrong in his own lifetime sympathizes with him. Given that you both live in the UK, you both are far more familiar with facts on the ground than I. So, I'll bow out here, and let you discuss this with the vacationing author of the article....

Have a pleasant evening,
Ruvy

#55
commonsense
August 27, 2008
06:03 PM

That incorrigible anti-racist, anti-imperialist and dispenser of love and warmth, Sir V. S. Naipaul (referred to as "Sir Nightfall" by the poet Derek Walcott), once uncharacteristically wrote a series of articles emapathizing with and defending the die-hard red-necks of the deep south in the US. Poor rednecks, losing their sense of unquestioned power and privlege to uppity blacks and migrants. My heart goes out to them.

#56
commonsense
August 27, 2008
06:08 PM

Ruvy:

"...But the Jew in me who has seen too many things go wrong in his own lifetime sympathizes with him..."

I had almost forgotten what your religious beliefs were. Thanks for reminding us. And the relevance of your religious beliefs to the discussion at hand is?

(Editors, I am not baiting, but pushing the soap-box in his direction. The new editorial policies do make commonsense, but also contribute to a blander DC)

#57
Ruvy
August 27, 2008
08:35 PM

CS,

And the relevance of your religious beliefs to the discussion at hand is?

It's not the relevance of my religious beliefs - they do not enter into any of this. But the understanding gained from a (Jewish) history of 2,000 years of persecution is rather relevant. So you can keep the soap-box. I've said what I've had to say on this thread.

#58
commonsense
August 27, 2008
08:51 PM

Dear (Persecuted for 2,000 years) Ruvy:

Whatever you may feel about highly paid professional athletes who act like prima donnas, if you are a man (or a woman or okama-san), it's almost impossible not to feel some sort of empathy for them if a speeding ball slams into their lower groin region.

#59
Chandra
August 27, 2008
11:17 PM


I think one has to read the daily mail to know how persecuted the white community in Britain feel. Paxman's recent comments on White middle aged media folks is another eye opener. I am sure politically correct institutions do everything possible to get more minorities in. However, in the private sector I work in, I met 2 asians amongst the more than 100 odd people I met, that surely does not sound overwhelming.

#60
Chandra
August 27, 2008
11:22 PM

On the second point about Indians being racist. No debate is required at all. We are racist. Look at how well we treat North easterners and Africans. For heavensake, we donot even treat our dark skinned people properly. It is sad but true. The worse thing is that unlike many other things in our society, attitudes are not even changing. Only a few people are politically correct (particularly in urban India).

#61
bd
August 28, 2008
09:57 AM

Anamika

you are a social scientist. Here's an experiment for you.

1. take the survey results given above
2. survey the public policy and political reactions to those survey results
3. cross correlate with other similar survey results relating to say poverty or gender discrimination

what's the anticipated result?

scaremongering? i think not.

#62
bd
August 28, 2008
10:27 AM

and in any case, this is a democracy. A very large proportion of a democratic society is saying something. But nothing is happening. That's what's worrying.

Saying that they had it coming or what have you does not solve the problem.

Look at this thread, fairly typical, I am afraid. We have a problem, nobody argues with that. But nobody is talking about what to do with that problem? Saying that the problem does not exist doesnt help, saying that the problem is justified doesnt help.

I am not sure of the solutions, I gave some ideas at the end...

I was reading the USA Today newspaper today. And a full page spread was given over to the fact that white america thinks that brown illegal immigrants are taking public services. not good.

Plus lets not forget that in the UK, we have had race riots. We addressed some bits after the brixton riots and we landed with the met police being branded as institutionally racist.

We had the bradford riots and well social and political policies were placed. But not much has been seen or worked on the basis of looking at white issues....

daily mail/sun headline? Sure, why not? what's wrong with a daily mail/sun headline? after all, I presume you are talking about the largest selling newspapers in the uk... :) I wouldnt ignore them, they can and have reflected society's choices..

#63
commonsense
August 28, 2008
11:13 AM

BD,

It is important to pay some attention to what a lot of people are saying, but it does not necessarily mean that whatever those perceptions happen to be, are necessarily true.

In the US, it was routinely argued in many media outlets, something to the effect that "soon, due to immigration 'we' (whites) will soon become a minority in our own land". Well, is there a law that stipulates a particular quota of ethnicities? In the past yes, although unstated, but via immigration quotas, obstacles etc.

As Anamika points out, in mature (and sometimes even immature!) democracies, there are hiccups, concerns, even riots, but some reasonable accomodation eventually works out. A stellar example is Canada, despite its many problems. And which society does not have problems.

While "whites" may have the perception of being discriminated, this does not mean that this perception may not me a misperception. There is a rational, democratic way of dealing with this issue and then there's the tabloid/BNP/KKK approach.

#64
smallsquirrel
August 28, 2008
01:14 PM

well in this case, as in most, perception is what counts. it is the PERCEPTION of an issue that has created a problem. and so whether or not the perception is true, the problem now exists and needs to be solved.

#65
commonsense
August 28, 2008
05:49 PM

SS,

I don't disagree. But I did say:

""There is a rational, democratic way of dealing with this issue and then there's the tabloid/BNP/KKK approach.""

Hitler and most germans of his time were also caught up with certain perceptions that were not true...they dealt with these perceptions in an undemocratic manner to say the least..

#66
bd
October 3, 2008
07:29 AM

Commonsense and Anamika

Somebody else who seems to echo what I said here.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/03/localgovernment.localelections08

you might want to see the numbers that the author quotes. The situation is even more dire than I thought.

#67
Ruvy
URL
October 3, 2008
08:16 AM

bd,

I read this article you linked to and saw what it said - and what it refused to say. Some of the comments were even more pointed, and give a clear idea of the problem that the author refused to talk about. For example this one:

If the big parties aren't representing issues which affect the core of voters, then, like all good markets, they'll shop elsewhere. Sadly, due to the political cowardice displayed by NuLab and the Tories in addressing issues around immigration and multiculturalism, a lot of people of all backgrounds are disaffected.

Many won't vote for the BNP out of principle (I'd rather slice my own sack off), but plenty will not feel that way, especially in a time of financial crisis and if they feel that their views are not being represented by the political parties, then they'll turn to a party which says what they want to hear.

In the old days the Left would have provided a bulwark and siphoned off many disaffected votes but now most working people see the Left as being more concerned with identity politics (ie buying select groups off) and what's going on in Kashmir/Palestine etc than giving a flying one about the UK working class (in all its glorious forms/religions/races), mainly because the Left is no longer represented BY working people but by middle class socialists who want to tell people how they should live their lives in an almost (paradoxically) fascistic manner.

The SWP and its ilk are as much to blame for the rise of the BNP as the mainstream parties, if not moreso, as they've abandoned the working class in favour of trendy internationalism.


And this one:

Then there is concern among some over rising immigration and the changing face of Britain.

Undersatement of the year

The BNP itself has had a facelift. It has publicly diluted its policies to appear more moderate and mainstream and it has adopted increasingly sophisticated campaign techniques

Wow- just like "New" Labour - new Labour but same old socialist nonsense, same old commies sitting on the benches, same economic destruction

The BNP is articulating the concerns, grievances and even prejudices of these forgotten voters. It provides them with a sense of belonging, an articulation of their own frustration - even a new white identity.

Well someone has to, seeing as Labour has done everything in its power to destroy British culture and indigenous identity.


And finally, most importantly:

The rise of the BNP is because they aren't allowed to actually express their policies in public forum for fear of arrest. If they did everyone would be able to see how abhorrent they were. All that is left of their message is the same anodyne bullshit pedalled by the other (supposedly) credible parties. Seriously, cover the logo at the top of the page and one of their newsletters could easily have come from the local Conservative candidate circa. 2000.

#68
bd
URL
October 4, 2008
02:14 AM

Indeed, Ruvy. I see a bigger problem.

This is such a strange problem that nobody wishes to see it or talk about it. At all. Because if they do, they will have to admit their own faults for being hoisted by their own petard. And you know something? I see echo's (not fully), in when majorities of this ilk want to establish and protect their rights. Demanding minority rights for additional resources seems to be fine and dandy but demanding majority rights of just parity (as is in the case in India, Israel, Saudi Arabia, USA, etc.) seems to go down like a lead balloon.

When the majority is taken for granted, as I see in India, they tend to react bit badly. I dont like it, but I understand it because nobody listened to them when they were asking politely. Like now. The white majority is asking politely for its concerns to be listened to. And the political parties are not listening. If they do not listen, then switzerland and austria and other places will start happening more and more. Coupled with a severe economic recession, it will become worse.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/8151)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.






Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!