quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Mask:
Goodnight. I've had fun.

---

I'll be brief. You cannot really compare Britain and the US when examining racism. They two countries are very different, and have developed in completely separate directions after the US achieved its independence. The US has a history of slavery, Britain does not (except, perhaps, in Toxteth lol). This is the fundamanetal difference.

Looking at the situation in both countries today, one can possibly argue that Britain is more "racist" because there are few black people in the upper echelons of the establishment, while there are a number of black people in the equivalent positions in the US - high-powered politicians, high-ranking army officers, etc. In America there is Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice; here we have Paul Boateng and Trevor Phillips. Work it out for yourself, one may argue.

On the other hand in Britain organised racism - if it actually exists - is left in the hands of disparate groups of psychopaths - groups which even the likes of the BNP* are at pains trying to disassociate themselves with. However in the US, you can drive to places like Hayden Lake and watch bands of kooks spend the morning in "church" and the afternoon playing mock "hunt the nigger" games, before settling in the evening for communal cross-burning. It's six of one and half-dozen of the other, really.

As far as black identity and role models are concerned, Sabian did hit on a key point. Tupac, seen as a martyr by some, is more of a role model to many black kids than a responsible authority figure like Colin Powell. This is unfortunate, and is not helped by people adopting the sort of thinking BM voiced - namely, that Powell and his ilk are coffee-coloured dogsbodies serving their white masters.

*To add - Sabian - the BNP have zero chance of getting anywhere, due to the fact that in spite of adopting a few more cogent policies, their candidates are still out of work plumbers, lorry drivers and welders who support football teams from northern provincial towns. BM - the NRA is a pwerful lobby in the US, but they can hardly be classified as a "racist" organisation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mimolette:
Isn't this whole thread just cock?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
BM - the NRA is a pwerful lobby in the US, but they can hardly be classified as a "racist" organisation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
You cannot really compare Britain and the US when examining racism. They two countries are very different, and have developed in completely separate directions after the US achieved its independence. The US has a history of slavery, Britain does not (except, perhaps, in Toxteth lol). This is the fundamanetal difference.

---

You might like to read this.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Black Mask:
Snorton judges reality by the content of advertising. Telling.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by H1ppychick:
You might like to read this.

and this.

---

I was aware of the fact that shipping cities in England profited from the slave trade - hence my mention of Toxteth, a suburn of Liverpool, originally.

However, slavery was but a blip in British history; it happened, yes - but only in isolated areas like those mentioned. Cardiff. Bristol. Liverpool. It was never widespread - we never had slaves picking mushrooms in Norfolk or mining tin in Cornwall, for example. In the US, however, slavery was woven into the fabric of a society that was not even a century old, and it was from this that the polarised nature of American society began to develop as it did. From slavery grew segregation, something which was in place intil very recently. Indeed, it is still enforced at some high schools in the south.

Racism is just one symptom of people's basic inability to live peacefully with people. It will never go away, and will exist as long as there are people.

And another thing:

To judge one person from the actions of others is just the same racism that is so unfashionable these days.

The sad part is its unavoidability. People will continue to judge on appearance.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
However, slavery was but a blip in British history; it happened, yes - but only in isolated areas like those mentioned. Cardiff. Bristol.

---

The fundamental economics of some major cities were based not only on the trafficking of flesh itself but on dealing in the profits of their labours - sugar, cotton, coffee to name but three. Primarily sourced from the Indies from British plantations. I believe, though may be wrong, that it is partially from the Indies that the American plantation owners sourced their own labour, rather than directly from the British traders. In any event, slavery in the US probably wouldn't have happened to the extent that it did without British fingers in the pie.

Responsibility isn't a mere question of direct labour. It's all cause and effect. And whilst you might not have seen rank of imported slaves working the fields in Oxfordshire in the 16-1700s, the economy which drove the expansion of Empire was partially fuelled by the trade in human flesh, so yes, we were all slavers, albeit at a remove.

On a separate point, intolerance and bigotry isn't necessarily the function of regarding a section of society as less than human, human being taken to be a reflection of the self. It is also fuelled by resentment caused by the feeling that something which you thought was 'yours' was taken away from you and was never therefore really 'yours', the perception that someone else has it (unfairly) sweeter than you. I'm not an expert by any means, and I am fairly drunk, but from what I've heard/read, a lot of the UK's racial intolerance, towards blacks in particular, was a direct result of throwing open UK citizenship to the Caribbean Commonwealth, perhaps fuelled by guilt from our dark past in the slave trade (see, it all links through), hence Windrush, and 'they're taking our jobs/registering on our dole' etc, (the current version of which is the resentment towards asylum seekers).

quote:

---

Originally posted by H1ppychick:
The fundamental economics of some major cities were based not only on the trafficking of flesh itself but on dealing in the profits of their labours - sugar, cotton, coffee to name but three. Primarily sourced from the Indies from British plantations. I believe, though may be wrong, that it is partially from the Indies that the American plantation owners sourced their own labour, rather than directly from the British traders. In any event, slavery in the US probably wouldn't have happened to the extent that it did without British fingers in the pie.

---

Although I am aware of the salient points, this area is not my "plantation", so to speak - what you say makes sense, and I have no reason to argue with the most of the points you have outlined. I don't necessarily agree however that slavery in the US would not have been taken to the extent that it did "without British fingers in the pie"; slavery in the US continued long after the trade was ended in Britain, and it created a unique polarisation in American society which didn't happen in this country.

This polarisation of course was influential in leading to the US Civil War. The legacy of slavery spawned the bitter disputes over segregation which lasted well into the lifetimes of many of those on here, and after that the rather ridiculous restitution policies and "affirmative action" schemes.

Britain profited from the slave trade, and this is something that cannot be denied. However, America was born with it and into it, and for that reason the underlying web it spun has remained ingrained in the American psyche.

quote:

---

Responsibility isn't a mere question of direct labour. It's all cause and effect. And whilst you might not have seen rank of imported slaves working the fields in Oxfordshire in the 16-1700s, the economy which drove the expansion of Empire was partially fuelled by the trade in human flesh, so yes, we were all slavers, albeit at a remove.

---

Again, fair point. But it was, as you say, "at a remove". Whereas in the US it played a significant role in that country's early development.

quote:

---

On a separate point, intolerance and bigotry isn't necessarily the function of regarding a section of society as less than human, human being taken to be a reflection of the self. It is also fuelled by resentment caused by the feeling that something which you thought was 'yours' was taken away from you and was never therefore really 'yours', the perception that someone else has it (unfairly) sweeter than you.

I'm not an expert by any means, and I am fairly drunk, but from what I've heard/read, a lot of the UK's racial intolerance, towards blacks in particular, was a direct result of throwing open UK citizenship to the Caribbean Commonwealth, perhaps fuelled by guilt from our dark past in the slave trade (see, it all links through), hence Windrush, and 'they're taking our jobs/registering on our dole' etc, (the current version of which is the resentment towards asylum seekers).

---

I think it is a lot more complicated than this. Yes, there are still some boneheads in this country who continue to use the rather tiresome "they're talking our jobs/women/etc." mantra. However, I genuinely believe that the threat today is more real, particularly given the increase of foreign gangs, who have brought their own battles to the streets of Britain. When I complain about Turks, Kurds and Albanians coming over to Britain for example, I am not worried about them "stealing our women" - lol - I am concerned about the money laundering, drug trafficking and prostitution rackets that have seen something of an explosion since the arrival of these people. An Albanian "refugee" whose sole business is trading girls for the vice trade is a far cry from the hard-working Jamaicans and Barbadians who arrived here in the 1960s.

quote:

---

Not sure what point I'm making (did I mention that I was drunk?) but things are certainly not as cut and dried as you seem to be saying regarding levels of and reasons for 'institutional' or overt racism.

---

Yes, you did say you were drunk. Agreed, things are not cut and dried, not by a long shot. But compared to America - where this little sidetrack discussion began - we should be happy with the situation we have here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
He's also on their committee.

---

If you look, you'll find lots of cases where black people are members and activists in the NRA. I also found this interesting story where a NRA-backed militia, led by a black ex-marine, used force of arms to keep the local Klan out of their town.

1

2

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
Ironic, no?

---

Ironic? No.

My gripe here is that you have not acknowledged that there might be another side to this argument. You do have a valid point - one which I haven't actually disputed - in that there are many in the NRA who might hold nativist beliefs. However, there are a good many others who don't. If of course you choose to ignore the latter, you can quite easily get away with calling the entire organisation "racist".

In the massive privatised American prison system, inmates work for prison-industrial corporations like UNICOR, doing everything from customer service call-centre jobs for Microsoft to manufacturing for defence giant Lockheed-Martin.

Profits from such work pays for the prisons themselves and enriches the shareholders of the prisons. The prisoners are paid a pittance and have no labour rights. legislation on minimum wage, health and safety, and the right to organise unions does not apply.

Effective political lobbying also means that there are no restrictions on UNICOR's right to compete in the open marketplace, i.e. they are allowed to capitalise on their lower costs by pricing rivals using non-prison labour out of business.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lauren:
Not really. It's been contaminated.

---

O dear.

Let me explain. Slowly.

If we keep highlighting the fact that there are some people in the NRA who have nativist leanings, and at the same time refuse to acknowledge there might be another side to the debate, it is easy to pass off the idea that "the NRA is racist" to someone who is sitting outside the discussion.

In the same way, if one was to highlight the fact that there are peas in the soup, and refuse to acknowledge that there are pieces of ham in there (or worse still remove them), it is easy to pass off the soup as a vegetarian dish to someone who is sitting outside the kitchen.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stefanos:
.

[ 07 September 2003: Message edited by: Stefanos ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Production Unit A57293/G1:
Many would argue that slavery continues in the United States in a disguised form.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
O dear.

Let me explain. Slowly.

If we keep highlighting the fact that there are some people in the NRA who have nativist leanings, and at the same time refuse to acknowledge there might be another side to the debate, it is easy to pass off the idea that "the NRA is racist" to someone who is sitting outside the discussion.

In the same way, if one was to highlight the fact that there are peas in the soup, and refuse to acknowledge that there are pieces of ham in there (or worse still remove them), it is easy to pass off the soup as a vegetarian dish to someone who is sitting outside the kitchen.

It's really not that difficult to comprehend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
What's with the full stop, Steffi?

---

Because I can see myself getting into long posts trying to justify my point of view - and I don't have the time to do it justice right now...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samuelnorton:
In the same way, if one was to highlight the fact that there are peas in the soup, and refuse to acknowledge that there are pieces of ham in there (or worse still remove them), it is easy to pass off the soup as a vegetarian dish to someone who is sitting outside the kitchen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lauren:
Yeah... to qualify. To pass this soup off as "vegetarian" would be a lie. Just as, to pass off the NRA as uncontaminated by its racist elite would be a lie. You actually explained it, yourself, in your penultimate post.

---

As I clearly state in my exchange with Black Mask, I have not once attempted to suggest that the NRA is free of racist elements, but that it contains people from all sections of US society - white, black, NoI, nativist, whatever - whose sole aim is to promote their right to bear arms. In short, I was objecting to BM's ludicrous suggestion that the NRA is "racist".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lauren:
Why did you put my pseudonym in inverted commas?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lauren:
Why did you put my pseudonym in inverted commas?

---

Ah, you noticed. I'm just harking back to the time when you first appeared and jumped straight into a thread yabbering about your Jewishness. When I thought you were Ben. Are you Ben?

quote:

---

Anyway, I'd agree with Black Mask on this and he's provided ample reasons for the claim that overall, the NRA is racist, with those few black members being the exception(s) that proves the rule.

---

So it's a bit like the Metropolitan Police, then?

Racist?

Racist?

Racist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bamba:
Don't "pretend" you don't "know" Lauren. Your "show" "of" ignorance can't "fool" the infamous "Samuelnorton"! This sham "of" "a" persona "is" totally "SeeThru" and your "card" "is" "marked" mon ami"."

---