Welcome to the unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum - for discussing everything CH/Old Blue related. All pupils, parents, families, staff, Old Blues and anyone else related to CH are welcome to browse the boards, register and contribute.
sejintenej wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:06 pm
If so why all the complaints about "All Lives Matter"? It is that to which I object. BLM specifies black lives; why not ALM?
This gets to the very heart of the matter. Of course all lives matter but white lives already matter; that is the direct consequence of white privilege and I have happily benefited from this all my life. The problem remains that black people have suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination simply on the grounds of their skin colour whereas white people just do not, at least not in the US, UK and the rest of Europe. Perhaps one might expand the statement Black Lives Matter to 'Black Lives Matter just as much as white lives so please stop discriminating against black people solely on the colour of their skin'.
Movements such as BLM are required right up to the point that Black people cease being discriminated against because their skin is a different colour.
sejintenej wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:06 pm
If so why all the complaints about "All Lives Matter"? It is that to which I object. BLM specifies black lives; why not ALM?
This gets to the very heart of the matter. Of course all lives matter but white lives already matter; that is the direct consequence of white privilege and I have happily benefited from this all my life. The problem remains that black people have suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination simply on the grounds of their skin colour whereas white people just do not, at least not in the US, UK and the rest of Europe. Perhaps one might expand the statement Black Lives Matter to 'Black Lives Matter just as much as white lives so please stop discriminating against black people solely on the colour of their skin'.
I am not sure it is actual discrimination but I was thinking of some series where white people are at least disliked by whites:
against the Dutch in general; they buy houses in south west France but when they come they bring everything including big bags of potatoes and do not spend a sou locally
Parisians; when tourists in the south west; I don't know the French for snooty b**g**s (my wife would not allow a pillow dictionary)
Belgians - not the best of drivers as they change lanes without signalling and whilst they are being passed. (Oh, and their French is different)
Allegedly of Snowbirds - Canadians and US from the east coast; they bring a clean shirt and a C bill to Florida for the winter and don't change either
British - on holiday where I lived for a while for blocking the roads, packing the beaches, leaving litter and not speaking understandable English; Mr Jones of Prep A was known to be one of those.
You do not need a different colour to be disliked - just different behaviour or language. When blacks stop disliking or even become "uncle Toms" then they are more likely to be accepted.
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
sejintenej wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:06 pm
If so why all the complaints about "All Lives Matter"? It is that to which I object. BLM specifies black lives; why not ALM?
This gets to the very heart of the matter. Of course all lives matter but white lives already matter; that is the direct consequence of white privilege and I have happily benefited from this all my life. The problem remains that black people have suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination simply on the grounds of their skin colour whereas white people just do not, at least not in the US, UK and the rest of Europe. Perhaps one might expand the statement Black Lives Matter to 'Black Lives Matter just as much as white lives so please stop discriminating against black people solely on the colour of their skin'.
Movements such as BLM are required right up to the point that Black people cease being discriminated against because their skin is a different colour.
sejintenej wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:06 pm
If so why all the complaints about "All Lives Matter"? It is that to which I object. BLM specifies black lives; why not ALM?
This gets to the very heart of the matter. Of course all lives matter but white lives already matter; that is the direct consequence of white privilege and I have happily benefited from this all my life. The problem remains that black people have suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination simply on the grounds of their skin colour whereas white people just do not, at least not in the US, UK and the rest of Europe. Perhaps one might expand the statement Black Lives Matter to 'Black Lives Matter just as much as white lives so please stop discriminating against black people solely on the colour of their skin'.
I am not sure it is actual discrimination but I was thinking of some series where white people are at least disliked by whites:
against the Dutch in general; they buy houses in south west France but when they come they bring everything including big bags of potatoes and do not spend a sou locally
Parisians; when tourists in the south west; I don't know the French for snooty b**g**s (my wife would not allow a pillow dictionary)
Belgians - not the best of drivers as they change lanes without signalling and whilst they are being passed. (Oh, and their French is different)
Allegedly of Snowbirds - Canadians and US from the east coast; they bring a clean shirt and a C bill to Florida for the winter and don't change either
British - on holiday where I lived for a while for blocking the roads, packing the beaches, leaving litter and not speaking understandable English; Mr Jones of Prep A was known to be one of those.
Yes, people can make generalizations about others. It's not nice. But that is not systemic racism. Please do not conflate the two.
You do not need a different colour to be disliked - just different behaviour or language. When blacks stop disliking or even become "uncle Toms" then they are more likely to be accepted.
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here, but regardless of intent, invoking the Uncle Tom imagery is inherently problematic and racist. You claim that when Black people become subservient to white's they are more likely to be accepted. But, in fact, they are not accepted as equal human beings with equal rights but are just tolerated. The Jim Crow era was based on Black folks knowing their place - anyone who stepped out of line and questioned the status quo was likely to be in trouble. Do you not think it is problematic that white people might like Black folks who do accept their subservience to whites and dislike those who don't?
Graham Slater
Maine B 1990 - 1993, Thorn A 1993 -1997
sejintenej wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:06 pm
If so why all the complaints about "All Lives Matter"? It is that to which I object. BLM specifies black lives; why not ALM?
This gets to the very heart of the matter. Of course all lives matter but white lives already matter; that is the direct consequence of white privilege and I have happily benefited from this all my life. The problem remains that black people have suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination simply on the grounds of their skin colour whereas white people just do not, at least not in the US, UK and the rest of Europe. Perhaps one might expand the statement Black Lives Matter to 'Black Lives Matter just as much as white lives so please stop discriminating against black people solely on the colour of their skin'.
Movements such as BLM are required right up to the point that Black people cease being discriminated against because their skin is a different colour.
Do you mean an exclusive "European" privilege, or a lighter skin privilege in general - where does the middle ground in the colour spectrum come into it? (I'm from a European background, but could pass for, and have been mistaken many a time, for Turkish, Arab and Iranian.)
sejintenej wrote: ↑Mon Jul 20, 2020 2:06 pm
If so why all the complaints about "All Lives Matter"? It is that to which I object. BLM specifies black lives; why not ALM?
This gets to the very heart of the matter. Of course all lives matter but white lives already matter; that is the direct consequence of white privilege and I have happily benefited from this all my life. The problem remains that black people have suffered, and continue to suffer, discrimination simply on the grounds of their skin colour whereas white people just do not, at least not in the US, UK and the rest of Europe. Perhaps one might expand the statement Black Lives Matter to 'Black Lives Matter just as much as white lives so please stop discriminating against black people solely on the colour of their skin'.
Movements such as BLM are required right up to the point that Black people cease being discriminated against because their skin is a different colour.
Do you mean an exclusive "European" privilege, or a lighter skin privilege in general - where does the middle ground in the colour spectrum come into it? (I'm from a European background, but could pass for, and have been mistaken many a time, for Turkish, Arab and Iranian.)
There is a term for what you are getting at and it's colourism. It can result in light-skinned Black people being treated better than dark-skinned Black people and it can lead to darker-complected whites folks being treated worse than their light-skinned counterparts. It's a form of bias - and a terrible one - but its not racism because it does not involve the systemic oppression of a class of people.
This leads to a clarification of a point from one of your responses above regarding the apparent discrepancies between ethnic / geopolitical classes of Black folks in the UK. I think you said that Nigerians tend to perform better on some metrics than other Black folks. In terms of most measures of impacts of racist policies, data tend to come less from immigrant populations (that is, those who immigrated within the last couple of generations) and more at established populations - for example, African Americans within the US and British African-Caribbeans within the UK. These are groups of people who have lived in the country for many generations and so, for want of a better term, are equilibrated to society. It is here that you tend to find the issues I mentioned earlier. For example, Brixton was settled by African-Caribbean folks in the 40s and 50s as the British government sought overseas workers but subsequently received little investment leading to increased crime and a cycle of decline. This inevitably led to low housing costs relative to the rest of London and an influx of white people who, in turn, attracted investment in new shops/ facilities etc and increased costs of housing. Thus, White London sees regeneration but Black locals get gentrification that drives them out. And that is how structural racism continues unabated - because the "benefits" outweigh the negatives -- at least in the eyes of the white majority.
Graham Slater
Maine B 1990 - 1993, Thorn A 1993 -1997
I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make here, but regardless of intent, invoking the Uncle Tom imagery is inherently problematic and racist.
No - by definition it's not racist - the term Uncle Tom is one used by one black person against another black person - in the same way as in the UK the term coconut is used to criticise Black and Asian people who are viewed as having become too 'white' in their speech, mannerisms etc etc....by some other Black and Asian people
No - by definition it's not racist - the term Uncle Tom is one used by one black person against another black person - in the same way as in the UK the term coconut is used to criticise Black and Asian people who are viewed as having become too 'white' in their speech, mannerisms etc etc....by some other Black and Asian people
it's a term that I would not recommend any white person use.
Not paying to read it. I can't imagine it's a term that a white person, or other non-black person would use it though in a derogatory way. It's an intra-group slur...hence not racist, in and of itself
No - by definition it's not racist - the term Uncle Tom is one used by one black person against another black person - in the same way as in the UK the term coconut is used to criticise Black and Asian people who are viewed as having become too 'white' in their speech, mannerisms etc etc....by some other Black and Asian people
Wrong attribution; I had never even heard this use of the word "coconut"
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
An Afghan, an Albanian, an Algerian, an American, an Andorran, an Angolan, an Antiguans, an Argentine, an Armenian, an Australian, an Austrian, an Azerbaijani, a Bahamian, a Bahraini, a Bangladeshi, a Barbadian, a Barbudans, a Batswanan, a Belarusian, a Belgian, a Belizean, a Beninese, a Bhutanese, a Bolivian, a Bosnian, a Brazilian, a Bruneian, a Bulgarian, a Burkinabe, a Burmese, a Burundian, a Cambodian, a Cameroonian, a Canadian, a Cape Verdean, a Central African, a Chadian, a Chilean, a Chinese, a Colombian, a Comoran, a Congolese, a Costa Rican, a Croatian, a Cuban, a Cypriot, a Czech, a Dane, a Djibouti, a Dominican, a Dutchman, an East Timorese, an Ecuadorean, an Egyptian, an Emirian, an Englishman, an Equatorial Guinean, an Eritrean, an Estonian, an Ethiopian, a Fijian, a Filipino, a Finn, a Frenchman, a Gabonese, a Gambian, a Georgian, a German, a Ghanaian, a Greek, a Grenadian, a Guatemalan, a Guinea-Bissauan, a Guinean, a Guyanese, a Haitian, a Herzegovinian, a Honduran, a Hungarian, an I-Kiribati, an Icelander, an Indian, an Indonesian, an Iranian, an Iraqi, an Irishman, an Israeli, an Italian, an Ivorian, a Jamaican, a Japanese, a Jordanian, a Kazakhstani, a Kenyan, a Kittian and Nevisian, a Kuwaiti, a Kyrgyz, a Laotian, a Latvian, a Lebanese, a Liberian, a Libyan, a Liechtensteiner, a Lithuanian, a Luxembourger, a Macedonian, a Malagasy, a Malawian, a Malaysian, a Maldivan, a Malian, a Maltese, a Marshallese, a Mauritanian, a Mauritian, a Mexican, a Micronesian, a Moldovan, a Monacan, a Mongolian, a Moroccan, a Mosotho, a Motswana, a Mozambican, a Namibian, a Nauruan, a Nepalese, a New Zealander, a Nicaraguan, a Nigerian, a Nigerien, a North Korean, a Northern Irishman, a Norwegian, an Omani, a Pakistani, a Palauan, a Palestinian, a Panamanian, a Papua New Guinean, a Paraguayan, a Peruvian, a Pole, a Portuguese, a Qatari, a Romanian, a Russian, a Rwandan, a Saint Lucian, a Salvadoran, a Samoan, a San Marinese, a Sao Tomean, a Saudi, a Scotsman, a Senegalese, a Serbian, a Seychellois, a Sierra Leonean, a Singaporean, a Slovakian, a Slovenian, a Solomon Islander, a Somali, a South African, a South Korean, a Spaniard, a Sri Lankan, a Sudanese, a Surinamer, a Swazi, a Swede, a Swiss, a Syrian, a Tajik, a Tanzanian, a Togolese, a Tongan, a Trinidadian or Tobagonian, a Tunisian, a Turk, a Tuvaluan, a Ugandan, a Ukrainian, a Uruguayan, a Uzbekistani, a Venezuelan, a Vietnamese, a Welshman, a Yemenite, a Zambian and a Zimbabwean
all walk into a bar.
The doorman stops them and says “sorry I can’t let you in without a Thai...”
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!
I am sure that sentinenej thinks that he is very amusing, but having been in the Army for 32 years the vast majority of those remarks just do not ring true. For a start the heading is 'military;' which implies Army, so all those referring to ships, submarines, flying, etc can be disregarded. Secondly, in the Army the subject has to sit in front of his Commanding Officer and read the report, and many of those comments are so rude and offensive that I doubt any CO would have the nerve to face his subject. Thirdly, on behalf of all those Army officers who have served their country loyally for many years, a fair number of whom have either given their lives or suffered various physical and mental wounds, I would like to thank Mr Brown for his unstinted support and hope, for his sake, that none of his superior's reports on him are ever made public.
David
dsm wrote: ↑Sun Sep 20, 2020 10:26 am
This is a joke section, David, tongue in cheek and all that. Don't take it to heart.
Thanks. Even I thought that last one was scraping the barrel - I didn't write this or the majority. David has this bee in his bonnet about me which results in laughter and belly aches.
I DO appreciate what the armed forces do for our nation. My father was torpedoed in WWI and was decorated for bravery and service in WWII. My brother, a gunner in 101 squadron, died over Germany in WWII. Two uncles died in Atlantic convoys in WWII.
Instead of 22 years as a ground pounder I was probably closer to the other two services - teaching one and being brought up close to the other. I spent (coincidentally) the same period of time living in places rated by the CIA as being the most dangerous in the world at the time. That was just part of my contribution to Britain's Balance of Payments
Yes, went through several riots - one anti Britain, one anti my employer, one anti-whites, and in Milan they were trying to destroy a bank! (Oh, I physically walked through them with one in Sao Paulo the worst.) Suffered? well, I have tropical diseases for life, and the riot noise affects my hearing. Of course those places breed thugs - had several run-ins and survived, though I wonder about the fatherhood chances of one geezer
Oh, David. My understanding is that the army tries to keep soldiers reasonably safe and periods in conflict are limited. In one job I did for about 15 years we had over 40 killed in six weeks worldwide - and that was peacetime. Training? Well, at a major centre the trainers were prohibited under health and safety from ever doing what we were actually doing and (it didn't happen when I went through the course) some trainees had to be taken to hospital..
As to the latest I was never closer to the army that the CH CCF. As to the CO sitting in front of the victim I will repeat an actual WWII Navy story. Any negative report must be shown to the subject before being sent upstairs. Of course there has to be a resourceful way around that and in this specific case the report read "I have seen this officer sober"
What happens if a politician drowns in a river? That is pollution.
What happens if all of them drown? That is solution!!!