h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

>>accusations of racism are a big thing to make, and I am sure you didn't mean anyone posting on here, as would be slander and against the house rules.<<

It's entirely possible to critique what someone says as racist without calling the person themselves racist. I doubt that pointing out racism in an argument is slander nor against the house rules (depending of course on how one did it).

Personally I think everyone that was raised in a racist society (which is pretty much everyone here) has racism in them to come degree. One of the biggest blocks to dealing effectively with racism is when people, especially white people, get defensive against the possibility of being called racist. It stops the conversation dead. If I can't analyse comments or arguments in terms of how I understand racism then how can we communicate about what racism actually is?


*

Can someone please re-explain what the the thin white line is as we don't have that here and I didn't properly understand it when it was first raised.

>>>
Edward,
I haven't gone through the whole thread to find examples but found this one example in the first few posts I read. This certainly sounds like an attack on white people in this country to me.
.
"And in white societies what that actually means is letting others have their culture on the side as long as everyone knows that white people are in charge and the non white people behave like white people".
<<< (Strangely)

You know I had a feeling it was going to be me



I'd like to put my comment back in context:

>>
>>
If society is to be a melting pot, like a well constructed recipe, the ingredients need to be different, add something to the taste, but not be so different that any impart a distinct over-arching flavour.
<< (novo)

Many people are agin the meltingpot idea. It tends to want to create homogenised culture rather than valuing diversity. And in white societies what it actually means is letting others have their culture on the side as long as everyone knows that white people are in charge and the non-whites behave like white people.

There is no reason that many cultures cannot exist alongside and within each other, allowing peoples their diversity. The things that stops this from working are fear, poverty, disenfranchisement, racism.
<< (kea)


I can't really see how that is an attack on white people I did frame what I said somewhat strongly, but it's more an observation of how white societies try to be 'good' (culturally sensitive) at the same time as maintaining their race priviledge.

The melting pot idea is that we all become one people and one culture. Hence the word homogenised.

And as for the other sentence: "And in white societies what that actually means is letting others have their culture on the side as long as everyone knows that white people are in charge and the non white people behave like white people".

Isn't this exactly what some people here are proposing? - that muslims can live here as long as they behave more like anglos, and that anglos, being the dominant culture, get to stay in charge (meaning we have to get muslims under control before there are enough of them to change the culture fundamentally).

I really do fail to see how this is an attack on white people? Isn't it just an observation of what some white people want?


Strangely, if you personally feel attacked by what I said, can you say why?

I'm also curious as to where else you see white people being attacked?

I get frustrated that the term "racist" is actively used by some to stigmatise and browbeat others into silence. Everyone, everywhere at every time has been brought up with racism, (to continue Kea's point). Putting your family first is a form of racism. Putting the needs of your community ahead of anothers is a form of racism. The term has narrowed somewhat to describe attitudes determined by racial characteristics, but the underlying principle remains.

If you choose to put a £ into a local charity tin as opposed to an African Aid tin, that is a racist act.

Racism is about putting yourself, your family, your community or your country first, ahead of and to the detriment of others. As a human instinct, it is what has helped the human race survive and evolve. We are now at a point in our society where we have matured to the point of being able to control our emotions and to see beyond superficial differences, but it doesn't stop our baser instincts. The actions of a sizeable minority are forcing us to confront those instincts.

A highly visible group in our society are agitating that our culture be changed to accomodate alien values. The entire philosophy of Islam is based upon "us & them". They celebrate their assumed superiority and decry our society. Their actions in fact are racist in principle. And yet, our liberal traditions force us to continually question ourselves and speculate that somehow we have brought this upon ourselves. When figures of 600,000 dead Iraqis are put forward, the instant reaction is to blame ourselves, without for a moment considering that the vast majority of these casualties are the result of Muslims killing Muslims.
Such is the racism of Muslims in the UK that they do not for a second consider criticising their own faith, but shift the blame onto others.

In short, we may well have a racist society, but we have recognised this and put legislation in place to control it. But we have around 2 million of one group who believe in racism, encourage racism and act with racist intent.

"There is no reason that many cultures cannot exist alongside and within each other, allowing peoples their diversity. The things that stops this from working are fear, poverty, disenfranchisement, racism." (Kea, post 107)

"Amen! Well said!" (JCNSmith, post 108)

Kea, thanks for helping get this back into perspective. As a mechanical detail, when a thread gets this long, I think it would be helpful to mention a post number when citing earlier posts so it's easier to go back and look at the larger context.

I know there are many things we don't do well in the US, but one thing I think we do reasonably well is to allow an appreciation of individual contributing "ingredients" in our cultural melting pot, while also celebrating the resulting melange.

JCN, I generally try and use the reply button from the post I am quoting from or referring to, so you can use the 'this is a reply to this posting' button

"A highly visible group in our society are agitating that our culture be changed to accomodate alien values. The entire philosophy of Islam is based upon "us & them". They celebrate their assumed superiority and decry our society. Their actions in fact are racist in principle." (SWL, post 163)

Is that really true, do you think? Who was it who set out on the Crusades to deal with the 'infidels'? There certainly is a long history of animosity between Christians and Muslims, but it's not at all clear to me who should accept greater responsibility for that. Or for perpetuating it.

"JCN, I generally try and use the reply button from the post I am quoting from or referring to, so you can use the 'this is a reply to this posting' button "

Apologies for being dense, but is there a tutorial somewhere that explains this feature? I don't see a "this is a reply to this posting button." Sorry!

Indeed, charges of racism *are* a big thing, and I don't throw them around lightly. Happy to defend charges of slander. See you in court.

Alternately, you can always press the Yikes button and seek an adjudication. I'm happy for you to do that, and happy to bear the likely deletion of the post, even if it would negate an discussions of 'free speech.'


SWL: Well dug out. I didn't see them on the page you linked to, so I congratulate you on your research.

On the sponsors...on that .pdf, I'm afraid I can't find the link to the sponsors for that particular survey. Can you help me out? If memory serves, it was The Telegraph - but I might be mistaken. As an observation, YouGov have frequently been criticised as the psephologists of choice of the right. Certainly, their founder Stefan Shakespeare funds various right-of-centre thinktanks.

As to the detail...If I'd ever produced a survey like that, I'd have been sacked, pulled up in front of an ethics committee and lost my certification. They're asking yes/no questions on complicated issues; I could certainly come down on either side, depending how I thought they were meant to be interpreted. Plus they've used vague, value laden adjectives - generally more than one wrapped up in a question. And here are the control questions? Where is the cross-checking? And how did they design the sample? Is it random? Or stratified? And what developing or piloting process did they use to ensure the questions could be easily and correctly interpreted?...Or did they just make them up with some preconceptions in mind? And I could go on for longer about the sampling issue and statistical power, but I'd have to use symbols that don't work on h2g2.

Again...sincere thanks for digging up the questionnaire. At least it shows me that they're reported the results somewhat selectively. In fairness, their press release gives a far more positive slant on their 'findings' than you (or the meeja) have given them.

However...to give you the courtesy of my professional judgement (I'm assuming you wanted that and weren't just taking the piss ). The survey has a descriptive power of zero. For various reasons outlined above, it is impossible to draw reliable conclusions concerning the respondents' opinions.

It's a shame. Certainly there are lies, damned lies and statistics. This kind of thing gives opinion research a bad name.



So we can dismiss that survey and stop using it either to form opinions or support arguments, yeah?

We can't keep going back to the Crusades for justifications. Although if we did, you would see that the Crusades were in self-defence, seeking to reclaim land taken in conquest by Muslims.

But that's not really relevant. From a historical perspective, Islam had a dizzying rise at first, before a period of being beaten back. It rose again in the Middle Ages to be beaten back at Vienna. It then went into a long period of stagnation before crumbling into nation states with Western help.

The history that really affects us now kicked off in the 1950's in Egypt,when Nasser used extremist Muslims to aid his rise to power. Once in power he threw the extremists out of Egypt. They scattered to Saudi, Syria, Pakistan etc and started preaching their brand of Islamic hatred, further fuelled by a sense of injustice. That is the root of our troubles today. The lesson these fundamentalists learned was that they could never trust Western-Style politicians and that their brand of Islam could only succeed if imposed in totality, not piece-meal.

My working definition of racism: Forming negative discriminatory judgements or performing harmful actions against identifiable ethnic, national or cultural groups based on uninformed or irrational assumptions about their group characteristics.

I fail to see how the natural and positive act of putting one's family first fits into this. I fail to see how giving charitable support to the disadvantage, on the basis of their need rather than their ethnicity, is racist.

Neither, of course, is it racist to understand that people are different the world over. The issues are whether you celebrate that difference or use it as the basis for negative discrimination, and whether you realise that all humans are more alike than we are different.

And that's the basis on which I'm happy to defend myself against slander charges, with perticular reference to 'uninformed' and 'irrational'.

(actually - I've typed them and posted them in public place. That makes them libel, although in the legal jurisdiction I'm typing from it would be defamation).

>>I get frustrated that the term "racist" is actively used by some to stigmatise and browbeat others into silence.<<

Do you think that that is happening in this thread?

*

If you really believe what you just wrote about what racism is, then why not acknowledge yourself as racist?


>>
The term has narrowed somewhat to describe attitudes determined by racial characteristics, but the underlying principle remains.

If you choose to put a £ into a local charity tin as opposed to an African Aid tin, that is a racist act.

Racism is about putting yourself, your family, your community or your country first, ahead of and to the detriment of others.
<<

Actually I think it is you who has *broadened* the term, to the extent that it is almost meaningless.

Racism to me is the use of the priviledge that one has as a member of the dominant culture, on the basis that one's own ethnicity is best, to oppress other ethnicities.

There are 4 essential components there:

1. The racist has to have priviledge or power conferred by their ethnicity

2. They either consciously, or unconsciously, believe that their own people are inherently better than other ethnicities.

3. They use their priviledge to oppress the 'other', either actively or complicitly.

4. That priviledge is backed up by the collective power of the society they live in i.e. racism is not an individual act.

And at the basis of most of that is fear.

This is entirely different from people seeing to their own family's needs. Most people know how to attend to the needs of their family and community without oppressing others - this is how white people treat each other.

I think many white people participate in a kind of racism that they are unaware of. Obviously there are the out and out racists like the BNP. But far more concerning are the people not willing to look at their own attitudes and acknowledge that they get priviledge from being white that they are not willing to give up. I think it would be better if such people were honest about their racism.


>>
A highly visible group in our society are agitating that our culture be changed to accomodate alien values. The entire philosophy of Islam is based upon "us & them".
<<

Pot, kettle etc.

If you see them as having alien values you immediately so what you accuse them of ("us and them").


>>
They celebrate their assumed superiority and decry our society. Their actions in fact are racist in principle. And yet, our liberal traditions force us to continually question ourselves and speculate that somehow we have brought this upon ourselves. When figures of 600,000 dead Iraqis are put forward, the instant reaction is to blame ourselves, without for a moment considering that the vast majority of these casualties are the result of Muslims killing Muslims.

Such is the racism of Muslims in the UK that they do not for a second consider criticising their own faith, but shift the blame onto others.
<<

The fact that you see all Muslims as the same, holding the same views, and acting the same is a kind of cultural racism.

I'm not totally without sympathy for some of what you say. I agree that the UK has some serious problems to deal with in terms of culture. But the people you are talking about aren't immigrants are they? They're British born citizens yeah? They're your countrymen and women - or is that too difficult to contemplate. that they are also part of where you live?

One of the things I've been having trouble understanding from the antipodes is who you think the legitimate British are? Earlier in the thread, someone was talking about the English as if they were anglos. If the English are all white then what are all the non-white English people?


My own view is that one very important thing that needs to happen in the UK is that white people need to refind their own ethnic identity, they need to start talking to each other about what it is, what is good about it, what is not so good etc. When I hear how white people are feeling disenfranchised by loss of culture, I think - so remember WHO you are. This is the central crux of the dilemma for white people. On the one had they don't want to have to think about ethnicity, but on the other they are scared they are losing their own, and only just realisin that they have one. I think if they focussed more on themselves and what they want and need rather than trying to oppress other people they feel threatened by then they'd be feeling a lot less powerless.

I think it's totally unreasonable to expect to control who lives where so that white people can keep their neighbourhoods white. However if they are feeling threatened by lots of non-white people lving near them, then understanding that they are one of many ethnicities, instead of being the dominant one, may help them get along better.

Or are you really saying that you want white people to stay in control?

And still battering away at YouGov...

Of course, I'm deeply fortunate in having technical training in statistics, survey methods, etc. etc. But you don't even need that to set the bullshit detector twitching. All you need is not to suspend your basic critical faculties.

Let's assume, playing Devil's Avocado, that the results are wholly accurate and representative of the British Muslim community. That would make the job of the Security Servics a doddle, wouldn't it? All they'd have to do would be to walk up to anyone with a brown skin with a clipboard and ask 'Are you a supporter of terrorism?'. Some - what was it? - 6% to 20%, depending on how you interpret the results - would promptly reply 'Why, yes! As it happens I *do* wish to kill all infidels!'. They'd all be arrested. There'd be massive internment camps throughout the country.

But the Security Services seem to be having a harder time. Whenever the approach suspected Muslims and question them about their views - and my own anecdotal experience talking to Muslim friends bears this out - they almost always find that they abhor terrorism and see themselves as loyal British Muslim citizens. Well - they would say that, wouldn't they? And yet...these same people are quite happy to blab to YouGov?!! Oh, puhlease! Quick! Snap up those ladies you see on shopping streets trying to importune passers-by and send them out to be interrogators at Abu Ghraib, because whatever methods they're using seem to be a damn site more effective than waterboarding!

Any needles moving on the bullshit detectors yet?

>>> "JCN, I generally try and use the reply button from the post I am quoting from or referring to, so you can use the 'this is a reply to this posting' button " Apologies for being dense, but is there a tutorial somewhere that explains this feature? I don't see a "this is a reply to this posting button." Sorry! <<< What 'skin' are you viewing this page in? If it's alabaster (white background with turqiose details and black text) then the 'this is a reply to this posting' button is on the line below the posters name at the top of each post. If your page is in brunel (white background, black, green and yellow detail) then there is an explanation at the bottom of each page on interpreting the cross-shaped blobby things that are at the bootom right of each post. But it's a bit complicated (I never got the hang of it) so try having a look in alabaster. If your page is in classic (blue background, white text) it has the same cross-shaped blobby thing, at the top right of each post, but there is no explanation. The skin can be changed by changing it's name in the URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/alabaster/F135418?thread=3577992&post=42070892#p42070892 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F135418?thread=3577992&post=42070892#p42070892 http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/classic/F135418?thread=3577992&post=42070892#p42070892 Clear as mud?

JCN, I've just seen your other thread, so will repost there so we don't break the flow here

>>
We can't keep going back to the Crusades for justifications. Although if we did, you would see that the Crusades were in self-defence, seeking to reclaim land taken in conquest by Muslims.
<<

The English left their homeland and travelled halfway across a continent to defend themselves?

I hadn't realised the Muslims (whoever they are) had invaded the British Isles.

So racism is a form of oppression biased in favour of one group.

What's Positive Action then?

The Crusades were a defence of religion, called by the Popes to defend Christians under oppression.

The YouGov poll was an online poll. Interestingly, the Nazi Party had a huge membership but very few Germans professed to being Nazis after the war. Depends who is asking the questions I suppose

What the heck is the Muslim Community? On the one hand we recognise that they are all individuals but on the other they talk about an Ummah and act in defence of Muslims thousands of miles away. Are they British or Muslim? One would have thought they could comfortably be both, but the indications are otherwise.

Kea, your post 171 seems to imply that only members of a majority can be racist. Is this what you meant?

>>What's Positive Action then?

Are you meaning in the 'Affirmative Action' sense?

Of course, it's unlawful in the UK. Sadly that doesn't stop the myths about "See these [insert ethnic group of your choice] who come over here and get given free houses" and on, ad ignoramum.

I'm not sure that I wholly agree with the illegality - there's certainly a case for post-colonial reparation - but balanced against that there's the unfairness and hurt caused to those who fail to meet the favoured ethnic criteria.

What *does* happen in the UK - but not nearly enough - is a certain degree of social investment. Ethnic minorities suffer from greater levels of poverty and exclusion than the majority population. Allocating resources to the disadvantaged *of whatever ethnicity* to help pull them out of the mire is wholly laudable. You don't have to be a redistributative socialist to believe this (but it helps ). Enlightened self-interest alone tells you that it's far preferable to have an educated, healthy, employed, tax-paying population than an underclass with no stake in an orderly society. For various reasons, proportionally (but not numerically) more members of ethnic minorities are disadvantaged and require these resources.

And that, of course, is more-or-less cross-party policy. Anyone who disagrees is welcome to form their own party. And the best of British to you.

Does that answer the question?

>>
So racism is a form of oppression biased in favour of one group.

What's Positive Action then?
<<

You've missed out the bit where one group has substantially more power than the other and perceives the other as lesser and therefor deserving of discrimination. So in that context affirmative action is an attempt to redress the power imbalance that enables racism (or sexism etc).


>>
The Crusades were a defence of religion, called by the Popes to defend Christians under oppression.
<<

You said they were reclaiming land. I wasn't sure what you meant.


>>
Are they British or Muslim? One would have thought they could comfortably be both, but the indications are otherwise.
<<

What is British? Seriously I'd be interested to know what being British means to you (and any others that care to comment).



>>
Kea, your post 171 seems to imply that only members of a majority can be racist. Is this what you meant?
<<

It depends on the context. I think yes often it is the members of the majority, or at least members of the groups with the most power. Obviously it's possible for individuals of any ethnicity to hold prejudices or biases against anyone who is 'other'. But it's an entirely different kind of racism than that which is backed by institutional power.

So for instance, in NZ I don't think that Pakeha (UK and European descendants) can experience racism against them from Maori in the way that Maori do from Pakeha. Racism against Maori is socialised, institutional, legal, statutory in ways that most Pakeha can't even being to imagine, and are often in fact unaware of.


Most of what I understand about racism comes from attempts to address white racism. I know white racism because it's such an entrenched part of where I live. I don't really have too much to say about racism that exists between non-whites mainly because it's so far out of my experience. But in terms of white racist cultures, I think the idea of 'reverse racism' is a redherring.

>>The Crusades were a defence of religion, called by the Popes to defend Christians under oppression.

Away and read up about The Sack of Constantinople, dear. And then about the financial crisis in the Church around that era. And about how the Northern European nations moved into the power vacuum following the collapse of the Seleucid dynasty.

Ed, which sack of Constantinople would you like me to research? The 1204 event under the ill-fated fourth Crusade or the 1453 sacking by the Turks? I don't know anything about the Seleucids, so I will look into it if you feel it is relevant.

But whilst I do that, would you care to investigate dhimmitude?

Try not to be so patronising Ed. It doesn't strengthen your position any.