The fish Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 B) I didn't mean as in it was "okay" I was just using that as a figure of speech. Here's an example of what I mean; A friend of mine told me of an incident he had at school a few years back. A Pakistani guy was really insulting him, and I mean REALLY insulting him (it takes a lot to piss of my mate, believe me.) Anyways, a fight ensued and my mate got into serious trouble, his parents even had to come into the school to see the headmaster. However, the Pakistani kid just got a warning, and nothing happened to him. When my mate's parents asked why the Pakistani kid wasn't disciplined, the headmaster couldn't even answer them. Tbh, the Pakistani kid was just as much to blame as my mate was, probably more so, as he started it by provoking my mate so badly. This happens a lot, white people get done for racism and coloured people/Pakistanis get off the hook. This is less racism and more the school fearing that the "Pakistani community" would jump on them for being racists, which people are willing to do all too readily. I people are too twitchy when it comes to "taking offense", and too scared of "causing hurt and offense". In my opinion, if a member of a "community" is a little shit, then this should be pointed out to those responsible for his/her actions, without fear of being told that you are being racist by pointing this out. It's not racism, it's common sense.
mcj metroid Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 who the hell voted for no comment in fairness.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 who the hell voted for no comment in fairness. LOL.. And how the F can you be racist 'to an extent'? You are either racist or you're not...If we add the Yes answers with the partials and the 'no comments', we can see the demographics of these boards - its almost 50/50...o_O...And here I was believing into the whole 'racists are the small minority' trick.
Slaggis Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 LOL.. And how the F can you be racist 'to an extent'? You are either racist or you're not...If we add the Yes answers with the partials and the 'no comments', we can see the demographics of these boards - its almost 50/50...o_O...And here I was believing into the whole 'racists are the small minority' trick. To be fair, most have clicked that because of the immigration issue (quite a few people said thay had I think). Which to me isn't racism. It's just racism if you hate the people that are coming in because of the colour of their skin, not the fact you think there's to many people coming into the country.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 To be fair, most have clicked that because of the immigration issue (quite a few people said thay had I think). Which to me isn't racism. It's just racism if you hate the people that are coming in because of the colour of their skin, not the fact you think there's to many people coming into the country. If it is the immigration issues that has riled people up so much so as to agree that they are a bit racist, then yes, I think I think there is a bit of hatred aimed at the migrants - even though statistics only show Britain benefitting from them, this country will be going even more downhill without them, regardless of 'strains on public services'. This country depends on the over-taxation and over-priced education fees immigrants get. So I can't understand why people will be so pi$$ed at migrants other than from seeing their "Dirty, immigrant faces"...
Slaggis Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 If it is the immigration issues that has riled people up so much so as to agree that they are a bit racist, then yes, I think I think there is a bit of hatred aimed at the migrants - even though statistics only show Britain benefitting from them, this country will be going even more downhill without them, regardless of 'strains on public services'. This country depends on the over-taxation and over-priced education fees immigrants get. So I can't understand why people will be so pi$$ed at migrants other than from seeing their "Dirty, immigrant faces"... I think it's because of the media image of them taking up all our jobs, making their own communities and complaining this country should change for them. If the media repeats this enough, people start to believe it. Also the fact a few ( a minority, yes) have said they are offended by chrstmas lights and they should be taken down etc. It's, in most cases on this forum anyway, not racism. People are just a little...mis-informed?
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I think it's because of the media image of them taking up all our jobs, making their own communities and complaining this country should change for them. If the media repeats this enough, people start to believe it. Also the fact a few ( a minority, yes) have said they are offended by chrstmas lights and they should be taken down etc. It's, in most cases on this forum anyway, not racism. People are just a little...mis-informed? I agree...Its so sad that people easily fall under the spell of the media, so many weak minds. As for making their own communities I would say thats only natural - I see a lot of English people in Spain who can't even be arsed to learn the language, gather in their own pub-like gatherings with a St.George's flag proudly posted up somewhere.
Slaggis Posted October 29, 2007 Posted October 29, 2007 I agree...Its so sad that people easily fall under the spell of the media, so many weak minds. As for making their own communities I would say thats only natural - I see a lot of English people in Spain who can't even be arsed to learn the language, gather in their own pub-like gatherings with a St.George's flag proudly posted up somewhere. 100% agree with you there, I mention the whole spain/english thing to people when they mention how immigrants are doing that. It's completely hypocritical to say that when we are doing the same thing in another country.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 http://tojobs.ytmnd.com/ What episode was that?
AshMat Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Goobacks. I think there's another name too.. like Goobacks from the future or something.
Falcon_BlizZACK Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Goobacks. I think there's another name too.. like Goobacks from the future or something. Hahaha..Thanks, will try and view.
Domo Kun Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 Everyone who's said racist or 'partially racist' things (negative things about immigrants/I don't like black TV channels etc), which paper do you read/your family reads and which TV News do you most often watch? Those who hate racism and think black people are all individuals etc etc etc, which paper do you read? Which news channel do you watch? I'm half arab, half english, so obveously I'm not a fan of racism. I read the guardian and watch channel 4 news. I'm often disgusted, however, by the way channel 4 makes the middle east seem like such a backwards place. It's lovely, plan your next holiday for Syria everyone. Edit: Just read back a bit on some of the posts. Some are clearly not well informed. I've seen an awful lot of crazy anti islamic things. The thing that I was most taken back by is that Mikey said 'most muslims want to turn the UK into an Islamic State'. I don't want to insult you personally at all, but quite simply, the TV programme is wrong. Out of interest, how many muslims do you actually know personally? Of the many many many I know, not a single one wants the UK to change at all. Some may disagree with some of the things that happen in this country because it's forbidden by their religion, but that doesn't mean they would even think of telling people here what to do. People in the UK have problems with the way Iran and Saudi Arabia are run, but that's fair enough too. That's what freedom of speech is, surely. More than 99.99% of muslims in this country, I promise, think this country is great! Most have objections to the country's foreign policy, but that's fair enough, right? I'm pretty sure most white people in this country have the same problems. What I'm really trying to say, my main point, is don't 'other' them. Don't create a situation where it's 'us' and 'them', because that's completely fabricated in your (and the extremeists') mind. I promise, any false problems/misconceptions you have with them, they'll have with you, so do the good thing and be the first to accept them. I promise they'll accept you back
Chuck Posted November 1, 2007 Posted November 1, 2007 I would like to think im not. I have many black, oriental and middle eastern friends (especially from when i lived abroad). I think im mostly jelous of certain aspects of races, as black people are generally amazing at sports and are known to have large penie (plural of penis?) EDIT on the anti islamic note, extremist religions arnt doing any favours for the forgein commuinities who are living in western countries. It generalises middle easterners, in non educated minds, into terrorists. and whoever thought of joining the Iran demonstrations which included 'destroy britain', and the like, back when navy personal were captured and detained arnt doing any favours either.
antster1983 Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 As a person with a disability, I am deadset against any form of prejudice, racism included.
Paj! Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Watch Crash (the Oscar winning one). Then decide how racist you are.
MoogleViper Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Can anybody remember the "peaceful" protest that went on after the Danish cartoon of mohammed (or Allah I can't quite remember)? And can anyone remember the Irish (I think) guy who was handing out copies of the cartoon? Was that fair?
The fish Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 Can anybody remember the "peaceful" protest that went on after the Danish cartoon of mohammed (or Allah I can't quite remember)? And can anyone remember the Irish (I think) guy who was handing out copies of the cartoon? Was that fair? That's fine, in my view, especially as the cartoons weren't really offensive anyway. Only one was funny at all. 3 of the images where added by the Imam who took them to Egypt, and some misinformed powerful people in the Middle East acted like idiots, and told others that it was a single cartoonist (they were all by separate ones), and that the magazine was the responsibility of the Danish government, which was made easier as the idea of a free press is quite abstract to many people living in that area of the world.
jayseven Posted November 2, 2007 Posted November 2, 2007 I think that cartoon was a good example of mis-informed offence. I mean, if you take offence to something like that, you ought to look up the meaning behind the image, and verify what is being declared as "truth" by whoever it is that you respect enough to ignore your own idea of pursuing the truth. Yah.
Domo Kun Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 While the protests were hugely overblown, you guys aren't taking into account the cutural relativity of this. Those cartoons are offensive both because they depict Mahammed, and because they show him in a negative light. The level of offense caused doesn't translate into secular society. Also, there were so, so, so many peaceful protests, the violent ones were the ones you saw. Which protests are the media going to show in their papers, the violent ones, or the peaceful ones? Oh and the fish is right, because many countries (NOT ALL!) have state news in the middle east, blaming the government was a thing that stemed from ignorance. note that I'm seriously not justifying any of the violence that took place, I'm just trying to point out that I don't think you realise what those pictures actually meant to those people. I firmly belive that if people truly understand each other, they won't hate one another. In fact, right now at University, I'm doing an essay on why ethnic conflict starts. Most scolars I've looked up so far put it into people dividing themselves into groups. So, secular and religious, jewish and muslim, serb, croatian and bosnian. It's a 'we're not like them' mentality. Sadly, I've seen many members of this forum discussing how essentially, they don't understand other people and they're scared of their ways or they fear them for their inclusion into the UK's soceity. I'm scared this country's going backwards in terms of tollerence.
Maiky-NiSuTe Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 why hate some one else if your the one to hate? racists only hate other people because they cant get what they have. i just respect every one even if it is something i don't like.
jayseven Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 While the protests were hugely overblown, you guys aren't taking into account the cutural relativity of this. Those cartoons are offensive both because they depict Mahammed, and because they show him in a negative light. The level of offense caused doesn't translate into secular society. Also, there were so, so, so many peaceful protests, the violent ones were the ones you saw. Which protests are the media going to show in their papers, the violent ones, or the peaceful ones? Oh and the fish is right, because many countries (NOT ALL!) have state news in the middle east, blaming the government was a thing that stemed from ignorance. note that I'm seriously not justifying any of the violence that took place, I'm just trying to point out that I don't think you realise what those pictures actually meant to those people. I firmly belive that if people truly understand each other, they won't hate one another. In fact, right now at University, I'm doing an essay on why ethnic conflict starts. Most scolars I've looked up so far put it into people dividing themselves into groups. So, secular and religious, jewish and muslim, serb, croatian and bosnian. It's a 'we're not like them' mentality. Sadly, I've seen many members of this forum discussing how essentially, they don't understand other people and they're scared of their ways or they fear them for their inclusion into the UK's soceity. I'm scared this country's going backwards in terms of tollerence. You said that the level of offense does not translate - anything negative said of mohammed is blasphemous... and you talk of misunderstandings across cultures. This is a situation where both sides fail to understand how the other culture works. Which side is right? Which side takes precedent? Neither, of course. I like your idea of everyone understanding and respecting each other, but in truth it wouldn't stop offense if nobody is willing to compromise. And surely, in a multi-ethnical, multi-cultural world, compromise is essential for us all to get along?
The fish Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 While the protests were hugely overblown, you guys aren't taking into account the cutural relativity of this. Those cartoons are offensive both because they depict Mahammed, and because they show him in a negative light. The level of offense caused doesn't translate into secular society. Also, there were so, so, so many peaceful protests, the violent ones were the ones you saw. Which protests are the media going to show in their papers, the violent ones, or the peaceful ones? Oh and the fish is right, because many countries (NOT ALL!) have state news in the middle east, blaming the government was a thing that stemed from ignorance. I saw the ones in London, and they were peaceful. They also featured the wonderful banner baring the phrase "behead those who portray Islam as a violent religion". The protests were caused entirely by ignorance of the social culture in Denmark: a place where you can take the piss if you wish, and the press is not controlled by the government. However, most protesters (especially the ones in the Middle East) seemed to be under the impression that the Danish government was the blame. In fact, in one instance, an Austrian Embassy was attacked. Now that is ignorance. Oh, and I'd like some examples of countries in the Middle East in which there is a free press (not non-government press, but free press).
DomJcg Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 who the hell voted for no comment in fairness. i did, but then again, i only did it because of what you said =D
Domo Kun Posted November 3, 2007 Posted November 3, 2007 I saw the ones in London, and they were peaceful. They also featured the wonderful banner baring the phrase "behead those who portray Islam as a violent religion". The protests were caused entirely by ignorance of the social culture in Denmark: a place where you can take the piss if you wish, and the press is not controlled by the government. However, most protesters (especially the ones in the Middle East) seemed to be under the impression that the Danish government was the blame. In fact, in one instance, an Austrian Embassy was attacked. Now that is ignorance. Oh, and I'd like some examples of countries in the Middle East in which there is a free press (not non-government press, but free press). I'm not defending the protests like the ones you mentioned, I'm just saying there were an infinate number of peaceful protests that weren't covered because they don't make good headlines. Of course I think that banner and all the rest of it is disgusting. Countries in the middle east with free press? That's a hard one... Only Iran and Saudi Arabia have reeeally strict rules. If you're a reporter in Syria, Jordan, Oman, Kuwait, you can't just write anything, but there is a degree of autonomy. Mind you, according to Reporters Without Borders, Syria, Bahrain, Jordan, Egypt, North Africa minus Libya, Oman, the UAE, and Yemen have a similar level of press freedom to Brazil, Argentina, Mongolia, Mexico, Thailand, India, Turkey and many more so called liberal democracies. My point? It's not as bad as you think! I won't defend those who thought the Danish government was to blame for what happened, but it seemed to me to be a huge misunderstanding and a case of ignorance. Make what you will of it though. I have only one gripe with what you said, and that is you said that Denmark is a place where you 'can take the piss'. Although it's taking the piss to you and me, to some people, it's insulting beyond belief. I think that's the essential difference that both sides need to acknowledge. You said that the level of offense does not translate - anything negative said of mohammed is blasphemous... and you talk of misunderstandings across cultures. This is a situation where both sides fail to understand how the other culture works. Which side is right? Which side takes precedent? Neither, of course. I like your idea of everyone understanding and respecting each other, but in truth it wouldn't stop offense if nobody is willing to compromise. And surely, in a multi-ethnical, multi-cultural world, compromise is essential for us all to get along? I totally agree. I suppose I'm saying that even in an awful circumstance like the one over the cartoons, 'we' in the west should compromise and try to explain ourselves, instead of hating those who hate us. That would be a step forward, and even if we don't recieve a similar apology back, it's better than creating even more hatred. People need to apologise just to keep the peace, even if they don't think they've done anything wrong. I suppose after apology can come attempts to explain why you consider what you did acceptable. Also, the newspapers reaction was to show frighterning images of horrific protests, instead of trying to explain to their readers why people feel so strongly about this issue. Obveously trying to explain what was happening is preferable to hysteria. Which culture is right and takes precedent? I'd say neither too! It's easy to create a secular arguement against what happened, but it's also just as easy, if you're religious, to create a counter arguement. I'm not a religious person, but anti religious movements worry me. It's just dividing people into religious and secular, highlighting difference and understating similarities. I suppose with every conflict in which there is difference, people have to try to be the first to understand the other side. It's a pretty much eutopian, unrealistic idea, but we should at least try on a personal level. Right now, it seems to me no group of people are more misunderstood than muslims. If you're interested in what I'm saying, read Orientalism by Edward Said - It's a classic.
Recommended Posts