Racism Part two

[bickster]

52 minutes ago, tonyh29 said:

I think he said that in a subsequent interview , which has an element of back peddling about it

it was 40 years ago , Neeson would have been 26 not 14 so whilst it was a different time I think by 26 he should have been old enough and educated enough  ...however , that said , I don't think there is a lot wrong in what he said  , the context wasn't him being a racist thug , the context was him regretting his behaviour / actions

Hollywood has forgiven far far worse so he'll ride this storm out

40 years ago the attitude to race issues from the general populace was wildly different. Hell, the police might even have helped him back then.

Still a daft thing to say to a journalist, though I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing

[Demitri_C]

If Denzel Washington said the same thing about a whites person would their be such a big storm? 

[Risso]

9 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

If Denzel Washington said the same thing about a whites person would their be such a big storm? 

Yes, I would think there would be. Probably even more so.

[chrisp65]

36 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

If Denzel Washington said the same thing about a whites person would their be such a big storm? 

I would bet my eyes that Trump would tweet something reckless and crass and offensive about it.

[peterms]

1 hour ago, Demitri_C said:

If Denzel Washington said the same thing about a whites person would their be such a big storm? 

There would certainly be a big storm, and people would be making the same points that seeking out someone of the same racial group as the attacker and looking for a chance to punish him is racist.

It would be a little different,  because there isn't the same backstory about black men raping white women as justification for widespread collective punishment, most notoriously in the south of the US.  So if Washington had said something like that people would have thought him racist and possibly disturbed, but they wouldn't see him as echoing that old and widspread racist trope.

[mjmooney]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

It would be a little different,  because there isn't the same backstory about black men raping white women as justification for widespread collective punishment, most notoriously in the south of the US. 

Which is ironic, because white men raping black women was practically a national sport during the slavery era. 

[villa4europe]

what barnes says actually makes a bit of sense for a change but **** me its naive from Neeson if thats how he meant it, theres no way he would ever escape the social media trial and anything he does now is just digging, i've seen people having a sexist pop at him now because in a TV interview talking about it he refers to the interviewer as "the lady journalist" 

i really really dont see the need for neeson to ever tell that story, the racism stuff aside its just not a subject that should you talk about in that forum and to tie it to a film promotional tour on the basis that its a revenge film is incredibly poor taste, horrific judgement by him all round

edit - the other thing that john barnes said which isnt on the other page is an attack on winston churchill, words to the effect of lets tear down the statue of that white supremacist and mass murderer while we are at it, i think thats the 3rd time this year already i've someone on TV having a pop at churchill, not sure if brexit is stirring up some churchill spirit right wing nonsense and some people are coming out with some painful truths that they dont like to teach us at school, seems strange that its causing debate now

Edited February 5, 2019 by villa4europe

[chrisp65]

8 hours ago, villa4europe said:

what barnes says actually makes a bit of sense for a change but **** me its naive from Neeson if thats how he meant it, theres no way he would ever escape the social media trial and anything he does now is just digging, i've seen people having a sexist pop at him now because in a TV interview talking about it he refers to the interviewer as "the lady journalist" 

i really really dont see the need for neeson to ever tell that story, the racism stuff aside its just not a subject that should you talk about in that forum and to tie it to a film promotional tour on the basis that its a revenge film is incredibly poor taste, horrific judgement by him all round

edit - the other thing that john barnes said which isnt on the other page is an attack on winston churchill, words to the effect of lets tear down the statue of that white supremacist and mass murderer while we are at it, i think thats the 3rd time this year already i've someone on TV having a pop at churchill, not sure if brexit is stirring up some churchill spirit right wing nonsense and some people are coming out with some painful truths that they dont like to teach us at school, seems strange that its causing debate now

 

The whole Neeson inner dialogue revealed to us all was a massive error. Whether it was genuine conversation that occurred to him, or whether he thought it was suitable material to plug a film, he was wrong. Should we all tell everyone what dark thoughts we had 30 or 40 years ago, which of our mum's friends we fancied? That time driving the car you contemplated a quick suicide? The shop robbery you didn't do? Really poor personal judgement.

But that doesn't make him a racist today.

Barnes talking about Churchill is interesting. He's not the universal hero around these parts. Plenty up the valleys with knowledge of history would argue against him being statue material. 

[sharkyvilla]

I'd say Churchill is still in credit, despite his racist views from back in the day.  The truth is unpleasant people are capable of doing some incredibly important jobs.

[Stevo985]

I'm not sure I even believe Neeson's story. Which makes it even weirder.

[lapal_fan]

Well this "news" was bought up at home and when I was playing playstation last night.. 

I think the main consensus is that he was a moron back in the day, he was a bigger moron for bringing it up as story, never mind to promote a new film (which I still don't know the name of ) but he's not a racist (anymore?).  

People saying his career is dead, when Mel Gibson is still producing films like Hacksaw Ridge (a great film btw) and appearing in Daddy's Home (with Will Ferrel/Mark Wahlberg (who went to prison for attempted murder I read this morning!?)) and I think Kevin Spacey is doing something (not sure though) - then he'll be fine.  

But again, what a dipstick saying that.. my word. 

Edit*

Holy shit Mark Wahlberg!  ;

In June 1986, Wahlberg and three friends chased after three black children while yelling "Kill the n****r, kill the n****r" and throwing rocks at them.^[13] The next day, Wahlberg and others followed a group of schoolchildren taking a field trip on a beach, yelled racial epithets at them, threw rocks at them and "summoned other white males who joined" in the harassment.^[13] In August 1986, civil action was filed against Wahlberg for violating the civil rights of his victims, and the case was later settled the next month.^[14][15][16]

In April 1988, Wahlberg approached a middle-aged Vietnamese man named Thanh Lam on the street and, using a large wooden stick, struck him in the head until he was knocked unconscious while calling him a "Vietnam **** shit". That same day, Wahlberg also attacked a second Vietnamese man named Hoa "Johnny" Trinh, punching him in the eye without provocation. According to court documents regarding these crimes, when Wahlberg was arrested later that night and returned to the scene of the first assault, he stated to police officers: "You don't have to let him identify me, I'll tell you now that's the mother-**** whose head I split open."^[17] Investigators also noted that Wahlberg "made numerous unsolicited racial statements about 'gooks' and 'slant-eyed gooks'".^[18][19]

  

Edited February 6, 2019 by lapal_fan

[Dr_Pangloss]

Seems like he's being 'honest' about a past event and past prejudices and talking about his disgust/ remorse for feeling that way, explaining the context and explaining why it was wrong to feel that way. I really don't see the issue here however I can see why it has gone down so badly in the current climate, which is utterly devoid of critical thinking, logic and any sort of emotional intelligence around these sorts of discussions.

Edited February 6, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss

[chrisp65]

3 hours ago, sharkyvilla said:

I'd say Churchill is still in credit, despite his racist views from back in the day.  The truth is unpleasant people are capable of doing some incredibly important jobs.

I'd whole heartedly agree with the second sentence.

With Churchill it wasn't just the casual racism, which was fairly 'normal' for the times he lived in. Not unlike 1960's Ireland I'd imagine.

It was also sending in troops to 'aid' the police to break up strikes or hunt down anarchists etc.. It's not always that easy to delve in to the stories, they tend to get whitewashed even where there are records. When he sent the cavalry (literally) in to Tonypandy to break up a riot, there were no reported injuries. But the 'riot' had finished the day before and had actually been aimed at a couple of specific individuals. But the cavalry were there anyway so why not charge around a bit. No injuries? If you reported to the company's private hospital, you'd be arrested and your family kicked out of the mine company house.

Even the siege of Sydney Street, he sent troops in to do the job of the police. Again, this was on the TV recently, but they failed to mention it was Churchill sending troops on to the streets and also slightly failed to mention the people eventually tried were released. If you got off in 1911, when the other side was basically Churchill and the army, I'm guessing the case was fairly flimsy. 

Lots of anecdotal stuff about Churchill, about the british army beheading 'terrorists' and about the army being used on the streets to 'help' private mine owners. Strangely, official records are a bit sketchy. 

But anyway, that's strayed way off topic.

[HanoiVillan]

We might need to mention the 2-3 million dead in the Bengal Famine here as well. 

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We might need to mention the 2-3 million dead in the Bengal Famine here as well. 

I'd say that was a dubious claim at best, there's plenty of evidence to the contrary

[tonyh29]

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

We might need to mention the 2-3 million dead in the Bengal Famine here as well. 

Churchill was no saint but the Bengal famine can't be pinned on him , that falsehood stemmed from some 2009 book  ... Martin Gilbert ( the foremost authority on Churchill ) gives a more accurate reflection on the period  , best summed up as "There is no evidence that Churchill wished any Indian to starve; on the contrary, he did his best to help them, amidst a war to the death. "

 

edit - or I could have just read Bicks post  before I replied

Edited February 6, 2019 by tonyh29

[Demitri_C]

Oh no Liam you have offended lily Allen that she felt the need to address you and sing about you in her gig last night. 

[The_Rev]

Churchill was no angel, I don't agree with the fact that the famine was engineered either but he was a colossal prick towards the authorities who were asking for help and the fact that there were daily feasts in the British Consulate in Calcutta while people were dying in the streets outside can never look good. 

[Stevo985]

I don't think what Neeson said was that bad in context.

But I also don't think it's ridiculous that people are offended by someone admitting they wanted to literally murder someone just because they were black.

[Demitri_C]

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

I don't think what Neeson said was that bad in context.

But I also don't think it's ridiculous that people are offended by someone admitting they wanted to literally murder someone just because they were black.

But he also said of they were Irish or another culture it would be the same.