Jump to content

Racism Part two


Demitri_C

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

and Goodnight.

This is kind of the crux of it, isn't it. But the good news is each and every person reading this has some agency here. You can choose to focus on the legacies of this country's imperial past, and the structural racism faced by BAME people across the country, including the hugely disproportionate fatality rate they have experienced from this pandemic. Or, I guess, you can choose to focus on bellyaching over some media rights holders cutting some racial epithets from a 45 year old sitcom. Tomorrow's newspapers and breakfast shows and radio phone-ins will push you towards the latter, but you can choose differently.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Really? Your life chances in this country are based on money, not ethnicity. I don’t know how to saying any clearer than that. 

I don’t think the two are mutually exclusive. 
 

Is a lot of money enough to get you over some barriers that exist because of race? Absolutely. I’d agree with that 100%
 

But to deny those barriers exist is barmy, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Really? Your life chances in this country are based on money, not ethnicity. I don’t know how to saying any clearer than that. 

An Indian Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer does suggest there is some truth in that. Unless Indians have it easier than other ethnic minorities? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Awol said:

Really? Your life chances in this country are based on money, not ethnicity. I don’t know how to saying any clearer than that. 

Its both 

But your chance to earn more money is demonstrably based on your skin colour 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vive_La_Villa said:

An Indian Secretary of State and Chancellor of the Exchequer does suggest there is some truth in that. Unless Indians have it easier than other ethnic minorities? 

But nobody is saying that this country is so racist that no BAME person can ever be a success. 
 

Opportunities exist for everyone, but if you can’t see that they’re harder to come by for some people than others then I think it’s naive. 

Edited by Stevo985
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

Its both 

But your chance to earn more money is demonstrably based on your skin colour 

This is true and hopefully this whole movement will signal the start of significant change. We all know it’s a going to a take a very long time though.  As barriers come down people of all skin colours need to make sure the opportunities presented are taken.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

But nobody is saying that this country is so racist that no BAME person can ever be a success. 
 

Opportunities exist for everyone, but if you can’t see that they’re harder to come by for some people than others then I think it’s naive. 
 

Money can certainly solve it, but the ability to come by money can be hindered by race as well. 

Believe it or not I’ve actually heard this be said by people close to me. Along with the only way to make money is by crime (sounds better in a different language).

It’s the wrong attitude to have and infuriates me when close mates have said it.

I agree with your post though.  Nobody can deny there are barriers, especially the higher up you go. 

Edited by Vive_La_Villa
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vive_La_Villa said:

Believe it or not I’ve actually heard this he said by people close to me. Along with the only way to make money is by crime (sounds better in a different language).

It’s the wrong attitude to have and infuriates me when close mates have said it.

I agree with your post though.  Nobody can deny there are barriers, especially the higher up you go. 

If anything the fact that having an Indian chancellor is so notable kinda highlights the lack of diversity in top government positions historically 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

If anything the fact that having an Indian chancellor is so notable kinda highlights the lack of diversity in top government positions historically 

It does. But it can also be a positive sign of barriers being broken down. Although for Indians the UK is way behind America and Canada in terms of top government positions. 

The situation is a lot more complex for the black community. For some reason Indians or ‘Asians’ seem to be getting a lot more opportunities.   Apart from in football that is. That’s where Asians don’t seem to get a chance. Either that or they are just shit.

Edited by Vive_La_Villa
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

This is kind of the crux of it, isn't it. But the good news is each and every person reading this has some agency here. You can choose to focus on the legacies of this country's imperial past, and the structural racism faced by BAME people across the country, including the hugely disproportionate fatality rate they have experienced from this pandemic. Or, I guess, you can choose to focus on bellyaching over some media rights holders cutting some racial epithets from a 45 year old sitcom. Tomorrow's newspapers and breakfast shows and radio phone-ins will push you towards the latter, but you can choose differently.

Or a slab of stone being defaced or dismantled. It's quite telling where people's priorities lie when you look at what they complain about.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Keyblade said:

Black people get to decide if they can use it and also whether or not they're offended by it tbh.

What about if it doesnt offend many of them but a small minority then what? You appease a small few?

I have a lot of black friends as i went to a school that was predominantly black. Most that i have spoken with found little Britain absolutely hilarous and not offended at all. Same with bo selecta. 

So there is the problem its offesnive tk say and not others

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, villa4europe said:

Its both 

But your chance to earn more money is demonstrably based on your skin colour 

Do you have evidence to back this statement up? Or is that a observation from your personal experience?

Edited by Demitri_C
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For a start there isn't an 'Indian' Chancellor or an 'Indian' home Secretary. There's a pair of clearings in the woods but that's a different argument. To label them as being 'indian' is lazy and the kind of casual racism that allows the mind to label and therefore presuppose and judge others. They are not Indian and we should be careful to avoid falling into that trap.

on the wider statue point there is a dividing line between sensible decisions based on overt racism, and and those that lived with racism as part of the world the inhabited. I do not believe Sir Francis Drake was a racist for example despite his undoubted ties to slavery. Without doubt he was a 'wrong un' in 21st century morality but the overall nub of his existence was that of a pirate. our history is more accurate relating to him now than the buccaneering cavalier he has sometimes be painted out to be. As a pirate he would rob, loot, kill, and steel at a time others were doing it. It was the de rigeur essence of the 16th century naval existence. People and lives to him were secondary to hi life as a pirate. he wasn't part of the slave trade, he was part of the pirate world where anything and anything went. He should be recognised on those levels and we as a country still haven't got to grips with how we made our wealth and that is a question for us to look at.

Drake's statue shouldn't be taken down because of racism because there is no evidence to suggest that he was. he was hated by the Spanish for what he did to them demonstrating he was what he was. Someone who was driven by the value of  trinkets, not the colour of someone's skin.

So those that want to take down statues need to have a proper reasoned idea for doing so and most people would back them on it. But they shouldn't be doing it just because of a link to slavery or for killing during warfare. Drake, Nelson, Gladstone for instance. Otherwise they will start to lose the debate and it will descend to the white noise of debating why our war heroes shouldn't be honoured, or how it is that 'can't say nuffink nowadays' and the moment will be lost.

Churchill i would find if harder to defend. Great as a wartime leader, but a horrible racist.

Edited by peterw
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Demitri_C said:

Do you have evidence to back this statement up? Or is that a observation from your personal experience?

There are plenty of studies which back this up. Have a look at these from the UK, Australia and Sweden all finding the same conclusion.

UK:

Quote

They sent around 3,200 fake job applications for both manual and non-manual jobs - including chefs, shop assistants, accountants and software engineers - in response to adverts on a popular recruitment site between November 2016 and December 2017.

All of the fictitious candidates were British citizens, or had moved to the UK by the age of six, and had identical CVs, covering letters and years of experience.

The only thing that they changed was the applicant's name, which they based on their ethnic background.

While 24% of white British applicants received a call back from UK employers, only 15% of ethnic minority applicants did.

Compared to White British applicants, people of: 

  • Pakistani heritage had to make 70% more applications
  • Nigerian and South Asian heritage 80% more applications
  • Middle Eastern and north African heritage 90% more applications

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46927417

Australia:

Quote

A 2015 study by ANU found applicants with Chinese, Middle Eastern and Indigenous sounding names were far less likely to get called for an interview.

It's an annoying — and infuriating — reason to miss out on a job

https://www.abc.net.au/life/should-you-change-your-name-to-get-a-job/10882358
 

Sweden:

Quote

Researchers have found that job applicants with Swedish sounding names are 50 percent more likely to be called back for an interview than people with Arabic names, based on a randomly generated experiment with CV and cover letters.

https://www.thelocal.se/20130405/47164
 

This is just one aspect of systemic racism which leads to increased poverty amongst certain ethnic groups. This studies have been done over and over again in countries around the world and keep coming to the same conclusions, yet nothing much changes.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest that you have to find examples and stats to back up your argument baffles me. Surely anyone, everyone, accepts that systemic racism is everywhere and not just in the heads of agitators?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There are plenty of studies which back this up. Have a look at these from the UK, Australia and Sweden all finding the same conclusion.

UK:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46927417

Australia:

https://www.abc.net.au/life/should-you-change-your-name-to-get-a-job/10882358
 

Sweden:

https://www.thelocal.se/20130405/47164
 

This is just one aspect of systemic racism which leads to increased poverty amongst certain ethnic groups. This studies have been done over and over again in countries around the world and keep coming to the same conclusions, yet nothing much changes.

I've seen this in practice in the UK in educational institutions since the 80's. What's most infuriating about this is that the people who are subconsciously choosing Martin Smith ahead of Javid Singh seems wholly unaware of this when you point it out to them. 

To quote Dave - it is racist whether or not it feels racist. The only way to change this behaviour is to reprogram several hundred years of social programming. I don't necessarily agree that we need to remove TV-shows and be taking down statues but I think there needs to be a lot more racial warnings ahead of TV-shows, plaques and addenda added to our history lessons.

Edited by magnkarl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, peterw said:

To be honest that you have to find examples and stats to back up your argument baffles me. Surely anyone, everyone, accepts that systemic racism is everywhere and not just in the heads of agitators?

Thats how i see it

6 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

There are plenty of studies which back this up. Have a look at these from the UK, Australia and Sweden all finding the same conclusion.

UK:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-46927417

Australia:

https://www.abc.net.au/life/should-you-change-your-name-to-get-a-job/10882358
 

Sweden:

https://www.thelocal.se/20130405/47164
 

This is just one aspect of systemic racism which leads to increased poverty amongst certain ethnic groups. This studies have been done over and over again in countries around the world and keep coming to the same conclusions, yet nothing much changes.

At the same time i can only go on my work place but a lot of the senior managers, matrons etc are black. So i feel we have come a long way to where we were.  Is it perfect? No but i feel it should also be recognised how far we have come and that seems to not be acknowledged that often 🙂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â