Telegraph article: Pupils at prestigious public school will receive lessons in 'white privilege'

[Pe.A]

Sorry - you lost me with the four Yorkshiremen - what does it mean?

Monty Python - "Eeee, we were so poor we used to ..." etc.

Ta- maybe should have googled it...

[rockfreak]

I don't understand why Loringa is projecting me as spending all my time among middle class students. There has always been a proportion of middle class students at rock gigs, but in my experience outweighed by the working classes (as far as one is ever able to tell). My nocturnal experiences over the years took in the Scene, Flamingo, Marquee and 100 Club, along with the Hammersmith Odeon (as then was) and the Rainbow (as then was). And later in the days of pub rock and punk, the Hope and Anchor in Islington, the Roxy and the Vortex. A mixed bag of venues and indeed of audiences. I've got a mild case of tinnitus to show for it.

[scrub]

As for the 'comfort zone', what bl**dy comfort zone? What the hell is that meant to mean...?

Sorry, I assumed this was a commonly understood term. A comfort zone is a situation which requires minimal effort to sustain, and where the same, minimal input, yields the same results. Sometimes referred to as a rut.

If you've worked with reformed alcoholics or trained with body builders you'll hear some variation on the phrases "if do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got" and/or "development ends in satisfaction".

Either way, progression, improvement, development, growth, call it what you will, only occurs when you leave the warm embrace of that zone and try something new.

[Pe.A]

As for the 'comfort zone', what bl**dy comfort zone? What the hell is that meant to mean...?

Sorry, I assumed this was a commonly understood term. A comfort zone is a situation which requires minimal effort to sustain, and where the same, minimal input, yields the same results. Sometimes referred to as a rut.

If you've worked with reformed alcoholics or trained with body builders you'll hear some variation on the phrases "if do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got" and/or "development ends in satisfaction".

Either way, progression, improvement, development, growth, call it what you will, only occurs when you leave the warm embrace of that zone and try something new.

Hmmm....ok...

I was asking in reference to the term 'white privilege'...

[Pe.A]

I don't understand why Loringa is projecting me as spending all my time among middle class students. There has always been a proportion of middle class students at rock gigs, but in my experience outweighed by the working classes (as far as one is ever able to tell). My nocturnal experiences over the years took in the Scene, Flamingo, Marquee and 100 Club, along with the Hammersmith Odeon (as then was) and the Rainbow (as then was). And later in the days of pub rock and punk, the Hope and Anchor in Islington, the Roxy and the Vortex. A mixed bag of venues and indeed of audiences. I've got a mild case of tinnitus to show for it.

Judging by the general reputation of those venues, there wouldn't have been that many people from minority backgrounds in there, I'm sure...

[Pe.A]

Interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

[loringa]

Interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

Interesting indeed. I probably subscribe to the basic premise of Critical Race Theory in that, unintentionally at least, the laws and culture of a country such as the UK derive from its history which, despite regular injections, welcome or otherwise, of fresh DNA from various invaders, was largely 'white' until we started to see the migrations of the post-war era. As such, the laws favoured, or discriminated against, the people for whom they were made, the overwhelming majority of whom were white.

It may be worth considering that what has happened, however imperfectly, with the civil rights movement in the United States, and both social movements and legislation to ensure a better understanding of incomers in places like UK and France, in an attempt to understand people whose religion and skin colour is different, is probably the first time in history, possibly since the Roman Empire at least, that this has happened. From an historical perspective I cannot think of any culture that doesn't (or didn't) distrust and feel superior to those it saw as different and this is probably as widespread outside Western Europe as it is within it.

I am all for Christ's Hospital attempting to understand what is meant by white privilege and why it matters. I benefit from it every day, either covertly or overtly. I will never be stopped and searched because of the colour of my skin unless there is a deliberate attempt to over-compensate, which I sense is unlikely. When I open my mouth to speak to someone in authority, the default setting is that I will be trusted and taken seriously. I accept that this partly down to 'class' I sound educated (and white) but is much more about in-built perceptions of me and who I am. Understanding white privilege is all about helping people to see things from a different perspective and understand that what some of us take for granted simply isn't by other members of our society - keep up the good work I say.

[sejintenej]

It's in the eye of the beholder. My question about other forms of perceived 'privilege' concerned where exactly the parameters of privilege start and end. This topic always seems to polarise between white and black. Do certain minorities have privilege with regards to other minorities? Is there a privilege ladder, so to speak? How exactly does it work? I just think the term white privilege is ugly, clumsy and short sighted, at the very least.

Surely names can differentiate even if carried down many generations. Butchers - up to their necks in blood (what about that knife attack last night? One I notice here from time to time; navigators were paddies (unconnected with the famous Henry the Navigator) who dug tunnels, trenches and the like before fighting over a quart of ale; funny that they were all sons of or in their parlance "O'........ "I'm sure CH OBs avoid that toil but ....

For me, in a lot of cases, differences in class/education is more defining. I can remember reading an article years ago where a financial services worker (from a minority background was asked whether he thought there was a glass ceiling for people from minority backgrounds - his answer always stuck with me: "It's not what you look like that makes a difference, it's what you sound like" )

Yes. Another terrible fault of CH. I can copy the accent of someone in Lofoten and mislead a local "Henry Higgins" but in English apparently I have not entirely lost that hoity toity accent CH engrained in me and has plagued my life.. For me I have not forgotten the hours trying to learn to say a specific letter combination in upper crust propa loike. I am sure those from Glasgow, Newcastle, Wales etc went through the same hell. Our advantage is that we are not noticed until we open our mouths.

[Pe.A]

Interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

Interesting indeed. I probably subscribe to the basic premise of Critical Race Theory in that, unintentionally at least, the laws and culture of a country such as the UK derive from its history which, despite regular injections, welcome or otherwise, of fresh DNA from various invaders, was largely 'white' until we started to see the migrations of the post-war era. As such, the laws favoured, or discriminated against, the people for whom they were made, the overwhelming majority of whom were white.

Sorry - i am going to have to take this piecemeal...

Which laws in the UK have been specifically anti-'non-white'...?

[Pe.A]

Interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

It may be worth considering that what has happened, however imperfectly, with the civil rights movement in the United States, and both social movements and legislation to ensure a better understanding of incomers in places like UK and France, in an attempt to understand people whose religion and skin colour is different, is probably the first time in history, possibly since the Roman Empire at least, that this has happened. From an historical perspective I cannot think of any culture that doesn't (or didn't) distrust and feel superior to those it saw as different and this is probably as widespread outside Western Europe as it is within it.

You are absolutely correct - but how would you suggest a "better understanding of incomers in [white-majority countries], in an attempt to understand people whose religion and skin colour is different" can be attained...?

For me, i would extend the history syllabus to include non-European history. For example, if one studies medieval history, one will learn about the Norman Conquest, Charlemagne, Crusades etc, which is fair enough. Why not include African empires, Indian empires, Caliphate, Mongols, Chinese and Japanese history etc etc?

In a similar vein, why not introduce a subject like Anthropology, which as the name suggests is the study of human populations and variation?

If people are knowledgeable about other people who look and sound different, they are more likely to understand and appreciate differences and instead focus more on commonalities, instead of viewing people who look differently as complete 'others' unworthy of comparative levels of respect and understanding, which is the foundation of racism and subsequent discrimination.

One other advantage of extending the focus of the history syllabus would be that people would have a more rounded understanding of historical figures and their statues and be les likely to want to tear them down. Just sayin...

[Pe.A]

Interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

I am all for Christ's Hospital attempting to understand what is meant by white privilege and why it matters. I benefit from it every day, either covertly or overtly. I will never be stopped and searched because of the colour of my skin unless there is a deliberate attempt to over-compensate, which I sense is unlikely.

No, children should be educated, not indoctrinated - there's a difference.

Quite apart from the fact of, when talking about 'white', what does that mean exactly? What are the parameters? I say this as someone, who while of European extraction, could easily pass as, and have been mistaken many a time for things like Turkish, Arab, Jew, Kurdish, Iranian and Afghan etc etc.

[Pe.A]

Interesting...

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

I am all for Christ's Hospital attempting to understand what is meant by white privilege and why it matters. I benefit from it every day, either covertly or overtly. I will never be stopped and searched because of the colour of my skin unless there is a deliberate attempt to over-compensate, which I sense is unlikely. When I open my mouth to speak to someone in authority, the default setting is that I will be trusted and taken seriously. I accept that this partly down to 'class' I sound educated (and white) but is much more about in-built perceptions of me and who I am. Understanding white privilege is all about helping people to see things from a different perspective and understand that what some of us take for granted simply isn't by other members of our society - keep up the good work I say.

But if your life took a turn for the worst, you were homeless on the streets, with obvious drug and alcohol problem and looked and smelt like sh*t, i doubt that would be the case, whatever your accent.

As for the last part, i referred to a solution in a previous post. The term white privilege is a very ugly, lazy, clumsy and short sighted term. It should NOT be being taught in schools. Educate, don't indoctrinate.

[loringa]

Interesting...
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/w ... d=msedgntp

Interesting indeed. I probably subscribe to the basic premise of Critical Race Theory in that, unintentionally at least, the laws and culture of a country such as the UK derive from its history which, despite regular injections, welcome or otherwise, of fresh DNA from various invaders, was largely 'white' until we started to see the migrations of the post-war era. As such, the laws favoured, or discriminated against, the people for whom they were made, the overwhelming majority of whom were white.

Sorry - i am going to have to take this piecemeal...
Which laws in the UK have been specifically anti-'non-white'...?

For example the blasphemy laws (repealed in 2008) which were written for a Christian society. They simply didn't take other faiths into account. Have a quick scan of this if you need any further details: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/l ... 5/9506.htm. They were not written to be discriminatory I am sure (despite their blood-soaked history) but by only recognising Christianity they were discriminatory against all other religions, the majority of whose adherents are non-White.

Even within Christianity, Roman Catholics were debarred by law for many years from many state and Government functions from marrying into the Royal Family to holding a commission in the Armed Forces. Okay, this is religious discrimination and not specifically to do with the colour of one's skin precisely but discrimination against the Irish was widespread (and legal) for centuries. I would argue that, as a result of their Catholicism, the Irish (specifically the so-called Black Irish) were discriminated against right up to the fifties.

My point is simply that the laws of any nation are written for the people who comprise that nation which in the United Kingdom was, until recently, overwhelmingly White, Anglican and heterosexual. Intentionally or not these people were the ones who were best protected by these laws. I've mentioned the Catholics above so we are talking post-reformation but we can go back to the thirteenth century when King Edward I banned Jews from usury (1275) and then expelled them from England in 1290 to see how the laws of our land discriminate against minorities. An Anglo-Saxon peasant in medieval England had more protection under the law than a third generation Jewish doctor.

[sejintenej]

Loringa. Reading your post you seem to be opening the country open to a non-violent (initially) takeover by a foreign culture / nation. I would cite the demands for Islamic law courts to rule in the north. Next it will be the chopping off of hands etc.

When I live in a foreign country (which I have done on several occasions) I acknowledge that I am bound by their laws. Otherwise the British on the Costa del Sol would be justified in demanding that English law be enforced there in opposition to Spanish law,

[loringa]

Loringa. Reading your post you seem to be opening the country open to a non-violent (initially) takeover by a foreign culture / nation.

No, I am not. I am simply making the point that the laws are written to serve the people of a country, any country. We now have approximately 13% of our population of 66 million who are what are collectively known as BAME. This makes a difference and the laws of our land need to serve their needs as much as ours (if we are going to get into this them and us approach). The blasphemy laws are an excellent example; how can it be sensible or fair to have a law that penalises blasphemy against the Christian interpretation of God and not the Jewish or Islamic or, indeed, any others? It didn't, and it was repealed. This was both fair and very sensible, reflecting a society that is both increasingly secular and includes people from a wide range of cultures and backgrounds. Society changes and so does its laws, arguably a great many more in in your lifetime than in mine! Think of the death sentence, abortion, homosexuality, equal marriage etc, etc. This is a good thing and not a takeover by someone else.