Here's an impressive live performance from Within Temptation, playing "Hand of Sorrow" with a full live orchestra.
Friday, 28 November 2008
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Round-up
1. The Denver Police Department is relying on a social psychologist associated with theories on “racism without racists” for advice on whether it is doing everything possible to rid itself of racial and gender bias.
That tells you everything you need to know right there.
2. Check out this sob story at the Lancashire Evening Post. It concerns a man of mixed race who has apparently been so traumatised by racist abuse that he is scared of white people.
I rather suspect he's just a racist himself, and a liar.
That tells you everything you need to know right there.
2. Check out this sob story at the Lancashire Evening Post. It concerns a man of mixed race who has apparently been so traumatised by racist abuse that he is scared of white people.
I rather suspect he's just a racist himself, and a liar.
Wednesday, 26 November 2008
Tuesday, 25 November 2008
Round-up
1. Here is a hysterical piece comparing "Islamophobia" in the Netherlands to antisemitism. Firstly, if Geert Wilders is the epitome of "Islamophobia", then I say that label should be worn with honour. And secondly, when it comes to real antisemitism, real persecution...I suggest the author go and read some Andrew Bostom.
2. A group of black church leaders charged yesterday that racism is motivating efforts to remove Tony Branch, Jeffersonville High School's first African-American athletic director, from office.
As usual, there is no evidence.
2. A group of black church leaders charged yesterday that racism is motivating efforts to remove Tony Branch, Jeffersonville High School's first African-American athletic director, from office.
As usual, there is no evidence.
Monday, 24 November 2008
BNP's "Racist Leaflet"
Twelve British National Party activists have been arrested in Liverpool on suspicion of handing out racist leaflets claiming that "our people" are experiencing an "epidemic of racist violence, sexual exploitation and murder" by Muslims. The leaflet alleges the "average racist killer" is 40 times more likely to be from an ethnic minority than "a native Brit"; the Muslim community condones paedophilia; and the English are "relentlessly discriminated against by an institutionally hostile ruling class".
I am not a supporter of the BNP, but many of the points they are supposed to have made in this leaflet are not racist at all, but perfectly valid. It is certainly true that many Muslims are becoming increasingly hostile to the British way of life, and this manifests itself in the fact that 40% of British Muslims would like to see our legal system replaced with sharia law. Does the Muslim community "condone paedophilia"? I'd say so. And while there may be much exaggeration in the BNPs propaganda, it is also true that white victims of racism usually receive far less coverage that those from ethnic minorities.
I do repudiate the BNP, though, especially on this point: "The leaflet also features a photo-montage of white faces which it says are "the forgotten victims of anti-white racism" and asks "Who is next?" Included is Sharon Beshenivsky, a PC shot dead during a robbery by a Somalian man, Yusuf Jamma. It has never been suggested this was anything other than an criminal's attempt to evade arrest." This is absolutely right. The BNP makes some good points, but it is motivated by blind, unreasoning hatred, and thus it shoots itself in the foot when it could be doing so much more to raise awareness of genuine problems and media bias.
Friday, 21 November 2008
View To A Kill
For your Friday, here's a song from the new album by Northern Kings, an unbelievably brilliant and over-the-top metal cover of Duran Duran's "A View To A Kill".
Thursday, 20 November 2008
Round-up
1. An American Airlines flight attendant allegedly made racist comments toward a black Brazilian musician and federal police are investigating the case, authorities said Wednesday. Singer Dudo Nobre told local media that he and his family were flying from New York to Rio de Janeiro on Monday when a flight attendant referred to him as a "monkey" and made gestures like the animal.
2. RA Watch - Nope, this isn't quite RAW Watch, because the article, about Obama and the elections, does not say that "racism is alive and well in the world today", just that it is still "alive". Close enough.
2. RA Watch - Nope, this isn't quite RAW Watch, because the article, about Obama and the elections, does not say that "racism is alive and well in the world today", just that it is still "alive". Close enough.
An Addendum To the Recent Posts About Slavery
While I was discussing the differences between Western and Islamic views of slavery, I didn't want to leave out the role of black Africa itself in the slave trade - something else the media never talks about.
The slave trade among the West and the Islamic worlds could not have been fully developed without the Africans themselves offering slaves to them. The African powers entered into the slave trade entirely of their own accord. No opposition to slavery in principle ever came out of Africa. In fact, certain African chiefs actually sent delegates to the West to protest the abolition of slavery, because it was so profitable for them!
Just sayin...
The slave trade among the West and the Islamic worlds could not have been fully developed without the Africans themselves offering slaves to them. The African powers entered into the slave trade entirely of their own accord. No opposition to slavery in principle ever came out of Africa. In fact, certain African chiefs actually sent delegates to the West to protest the abolition of slavery, because it was so profitable for them!
Just sayin...
Wednesday, 19 November 2008
ISLAMIC SLAVERY
In the Islamic world, the story regarding slavery is very different to that of the West. There was no organised abolitionist movement at any time within the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, in modern Turkey, the abolition of slavery is not taught in the educational curriculum.
Muslims had an even greater hand in the African slave trade than did the West. It is estimated that around 11 million slaves were deported in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, between the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries, while Muslims are believed to have taken over 17 million Africans as slaves between the seventh and nineteenth centuries. Muslims dealing with black slaves were prone to racist attitudes that modern liberal thinkers tend to attribute exclusively to white Westerners. For example, the great Muslim thinker Ibn Khaldun (d.1406) wrote that blacks submitted willingly to slavery because they “have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals”.
Little known to the average Westerner is the history of the “hideous trade” in eunuch slaves from Africa in Muslim societies. Slaves from sub-Saharan Africa underwent dangerous and painful operations whereby their penis and testicles were completely removed. This operation often caused extensive hemorrhaging and urethral infection, and it is estimated that up to 90% of those castrated died as a result of it.
Even less well-known to the average Westerner is the enslavement of white Europeans and Americans by Arab Muslims. Between 1530 and 1780, there were at least one million white European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary coast. These white slaves were treated abysmally, often subjected to torture in order to force them to convert to Islam. One English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was captured in 1716, eventually succumbed to the intimidation after his torturer resorted to setting his flesh on fire on multiple occasions.
Interestingly, the Muslim rulers would often employ black slaves to oversee their white counterparts in their forced labour. The blacks were cruel and vicious, often beating the workers with cudgels and entertaining themselves by waking the Christian slaves at night, beating them, and forcing them to do more hard labour. These inhuman conditions were only lifted in 1816, not through Islamic reform but by British military force, with the total destruction of Algiers.
A major reason for the Islamic tolerance of slavery is that the Qur'an itself, like the Bible, takes the practice for granted. It even goes so far as to give Muslim men permission to have sex with slave girls: “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (4:24) The Prophet Muhammad himself is recorded to have owned around sixty slaves in his lifetime, and although Muslims are keen to point to a couple of examples in which he freed individual slaves, there is no evidence to suggest that he disapproved of slavery in principle. Muslims of future generations justified slavery with reference to Islamic theology, and as a result tended to take slaves from non-Muslim populations. The Muslim jurist al-Wanshirisi (d.1508), for example, said that slavery is an affliction against unbelievers, and a way of deliberately humiliating them for their infidelity.
Unlike Christianity, however, Islamic tradition never developed a pluralistic conception of the unity of mankind which could lead to the discarding of such a worldview, and the Qur'an contains a sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers that does not allow for the equal dignity and rights of all people in Muslim societies.
Thus it is not surprising that anti-slavery views did not resonate anywhere in the Islamic world until Western powers began to intervene. Slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until 1962, and Yemen and Oman in 1970. Although slavery was “officially” abolished in Mauritania in 1980, it nevertheless still goes on there. Niger did not ban slavery until 2004, although these laws are largely ignored and as many as a million people remain in bondage. There has also been a recrudescence of slavery in the Sudan since 1983.
CONCLUSIONS
The double standards of African reparations groups and white liberals are clear. There is no reason for Britain to be making grovelling apologies for the slave trade, when some of its greatest citizens are responsible for bringing about the end of that degrading traffic. Britain has already done more than enough to apologise to Africans.
It is also notable how no one is asking for an apology from Muslims for the cruelty of their ancestors, whose own slave trade brought suffering to more people and lasted longer, nor for the ongoing slavery in some Muslim countries. Furthermore, no whites are demanding reparations for the way their ancestors were treated centuries ago, not only by Arab Muslims but by blacks also.
It is time for Britain to say, “enough”. We must stand up and be proud of what we did to bring about the end of slavery, rather than apologising for things that we have already apologised for in the most sacrificial way possible. We must also demand that Muslims take responsibility for the crimes of their forefathers, and work to end the trafficking of slaves in their own countries in the modern era.
If they do not, innocent people will continue to suffer.
Muslims had an even greater hand in the African slave trade than did the West. It is estimated that around 11 million slaves were deported in the trans-Atlantic slave trade, between the sixteenth and the nineteenth centuries, while Muslims are believed to have taken over 17 million Africans as slaves between the seventh and nineteenth centuries. Muslims dealing with black slaves were prone to racist attitudes that modern liberal thinkers tend to attribute exclusively to white Westerners. For example, the great Muslim thinker Ibn Khaldun (d.1406) wrote that blacks submitted willingly to slavery because they “have little [that is essentially] human and have attributes that are quite similar to those of dumb animals”.
Little known to the average Westerner is the history of the “hideous trade” in eunuch slaves from Africa in Muslim societies. Slaves from sub-Saharan Africa underwent dangerous and painful operations whereby their penis and testicles were completely removed. This operation often caused extensive hemorrhaging and urethral infection, and it is estimated that up to 90% of those castrated died as a result of it.
Even less well-known to the average Westerner is the enslavement of white Europeans and Americans by Arab Muslims. Between 1530 and 1780, there were at least one million white European Christians enslaved by the Muslims of the Barbary coast. These white slaves were treated abysmally, often subjected to torture in order to force them to convert to Islam. One English slave, Thomas Pellow, who was captured in 1716, eventually succumbed to the intimidation after his torturer resorted to setting his flesh on fire on multiple occasions.
Interestingly, the Muslim rulers would often employ black slaves to oversee their white counterparts in their forced labour. The blacks were cruel and vicious, often beating the workers with cudgels and entertaining themselves by waking the Christian slaves at night, beating them, and forcing them to do more hard labour. These inhuman conditions were only lifted in 1816, not through Islamic reform but by British military force, with the total destruction of Algiers.
A major reason for the Islamic tolerance of slavery is that the Qur'an itself, like the Bible, takes the practice for granted. It even goes so far as to give Muslim men permission to have sex with slave girls: “And all married women (are forbidden unto you) save those (captives) whom your right hands possess.” (4:24) The Prophet Muhammad himself is recorded to have owned around sixty slaves in his lifetime, and although Muslims are keen to point to a couple of examples in which he freed individual slaves, there is no evidence to suggest that he disapproved of slavery in principle. Muslims of future generations justified slavery with reference to Islamic theology, and as a result tended to take slaves from non-Muslim populations. The Muslim jurist al-Wanshirisi (d.1508), for example, said that slavery is an affliction against unbelievers, and a way of deliberately humiliating them for their infidelity.
Unlike Christianity, however, Islamic tradition never developed a pluralistic conception of the unity of mankind which could lead to the discarding of such a worldview, and the Qur'an contains a sharp distinction between believers and unbelievers that does not allow for the equal dignity and rights of all people in Muslim societies.
Thus it is not surprising that anti-slavery views did not resonate anywhere in the Islamic world until Western powers began to intervene. Slavery was not abolished in Saudi Arabia until 1962, and Yemen and Oman in 1970. Although slavery was “officially” abolished in Mauritania in 1980, it nevertheless still goes on there. Niger did not ban slavery until 2004, although these laws are largely ignored and as many as a million people remain in bondage. There has also been a recrudescence of slavery in the Sudan since 1983.
CONCLUSIONS
The double standards of African reparations groups and white liberals are clear. There is no reason for Britain to be making grovelling apologies for the slave trade, when some of its greatest citizens are responsible for bringing about the end of that degrading traffic. Britain has already done more than enough to apologise to Africans.
It is also notable how no one is asking for an apology from Muslims for the cruelty of their ancestors, whose own slave trade brought suffering to more people and lasted longer, nor for the ongoing slavery in some Muslim countries. Furthermore, no whites are demanding reparations for the way their ancestors were treated centuries ago, not only by Arab Muslims but by blacks also.
It is time for Britain to say, “enough”. We must stand up and be proud of what we did to bring about the end of slavery, rather than apologising for things that we have already apologised for in the most sacrificial way possible. We must also demand that Muslims take responsibility for the crimes of their forefathers, and work to end the trafficking of slaves in their own countries in the modern era.
If they do not, innocent people will continue to suffer.
Tuesday, 18 November 2008
SLAVERY IN THE WEST
We certainly should not glorify slavery, and nor should we celebrate the role of Western countries such as Britain in participating in it. Slavery is an unethical, inhuman, degrading practice. But the West has already paid its penance for its past crimes – and it did so by being the first to push for abolition of slavery.
The roots of abolition go back to the ancient Greeks, who developed the conception of the unity of man, a common brotherhood that bound all human beings regardless of race or creed. Plato put forward the argument that one of mankind's biggest mistakes was to “divide humanity into two”, treating the Greeks as a separate class while “[a]ll other nations, although their number is unknown and they do not intermingle or share any common language, are called by the single term 'barbarian', and because of this one term it is supposed that they constitute a single class.” Aristotle saw mankind as one race, distinguished from other creatures by the power of reason: “[A]ll men by nature desire to know...the human race lives also by art and reasonings.” Cicero, who introduced Greek philosophy to the Romans, wrote:
“This creature which we call man, endowed with foresight and sagacity, complex, intelligent, equipped with memory, full of reason and understanding, has been created by the supreme deity with a certain distinctive status: out of all the species and varieties of living creatures he alone has a share in reason and thought, which is lacking in all the rest...Since therefore nothing is better than reason and reason exists in both man and god, reason is the first bond of unity between them...Therefore the whole universe must be seen as a single joint community of gods and men.”
There was even direct criticism of slavery during the era of the ancient Greeks. Alcidamas, the fourth-century rhetorician and Sophist, condemned the practice: “God has left all men free; nature has made no man a slave.” And although Aristotle is known to have said that some men are by nature slaves, he also recommended that slaves should eventually be emancipated.
Such views continued to be held in the West long after the Greeks, particularly among Christians, who absorbed Greek and Stoic ethics into their theology. Although it condones and never condemns slavery, the Bible also affirms the oneness of man before God: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) This attitude caused Christians to question the morality of slavery even as far back as the so-called Dark Ages. St. Isidore of Seville declared that “God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman.” In 649, Clovis II, king of the Franks, married a slave, who later began a campaign to halt slavery. The Catholic Church now honours her as St. Bathilda. And in the sixteenth century, a Spanish missionary and bishop named Bartolomé de Las Casas was instrumental in enacting a law prohibiting enslavement of the Indians.
These aren't simply the actions and assumptions of a few; they are part of the grand universalist tradition of the West, and have formed our culture, part of who we are as Brits, or Americans, or Europeans. In time, they would form the basis for the abolition of the slave trade.
The pioneering abolitionists William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson were British. They were supported in their efforts by influential writers such as William Cowper and Laurence Sterne. In America, there was William Lloyd Garrison, and even Abraham Lincoln, both of whom based their opposition to slavery on Biblical principles. Slavery was pronounced to be against the law in Scotland in 1776. English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham called the British colonies where slavery flourished “a disgrace and an outrage on humanity.”
The eighteenth century was the high tide of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but it also gave rise to the principles of freedom, equality and human rights, which were themselves derived from the ancient Greeks and found primarily in the West. Truly one of the greatest things about Western civilisation is its ability to engage in self-criticism: to subject even its most cherished beliefs and institutions to critical analysis and change. It was this willingness for self-criticism that led to the abolition of slavery, not just in the West, but throughout the world.
Tune in tomorrow to read my examination of the Islamic slave trade.
The roots of abolition go back to the ancient Greeks, who developed the conception of the unity of man, a common brotherhood that bound all human beings regardless of race or creed. Plato put forward the argument that one of mankind's biggest mistakes was to “divide humanity into two”, treating the Greeks as a separate class while “[a]ll other nations, although their number is unknown and they do not intermingle or share any common language, are called by the single term 'barbarian', and because of this one term it is supposed that they constitute a single class.” Aristotle saw mankind as one race, distinguished from other creatures by the power of reason: “[A]ll men by nature desire to know...the human race lives also by art and reasonings.” Cicero, who introduced Greek philosophy to the Romans, wrote:
“This creature which we call man, endowed with foresight and sagacity, complex, intelligent, equipped with memory, full of reason and understanding, has been created by the supreme deity with a certain distinctive status: out of all the species and varieties of living creatures he alone has a share in reason and thought, which is lacking in all the rest...Since therefore nothing is better than reason and reason exists in both man and god, reason is the first bond of unity between them...Therefore the whole universe must be seen as a single joint community of gods and men.”
There was even direct criticism of slavery during the era of the ancient Greeks. Alcidamas, the fourth-century rhetorician and Sophist, condemned the practice: “God has left all men free; nature has made no man a slave.” And although Aristotle is known to have said that some men are by nature slaves, he also recommended that slaves should eventually be emancipated.
Such views continued to be held in the West long after the Greeks, particularly among Christians, who absorbed Greek and Stoic ethics into their theology. Although it condones and never condemns slavery, the Bible also affirms the oneness of man before God: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28) This attitude caused Christians to question the morality of slavery even as far back as the so-called Dark Ages. St. Isidore of Seville declared that “God has made no difference between the soul of the slave and that of the freedman.” In 649, Clovis II, king of the Franks, married a slave, who later began a campaign to halt slavery. The Catholic Church now honours her as St. Bathilda. And in the sixteenth century, a Spanish missionary and bishop named Bartolomé de Las Casas was instrumental in enacting a law prohibiting enslavement of the Indians.
These aren't simply the actions and assumptions of a few; they are part of the grand universalist tradition of the West, and have formed our culture, part of who we are as Brits, or Americans, or Europeans. In time, they would form the basis for the abolition of the slave trade.
The pioneering abolitionists William Wilberforce and Thomas Clarkson were British. They were supported in their efforts by influential writers such as William Cowper and Laurence Sterne. In America, there was William Lloyd Garrison, and even Abraham Lincoln, both of whom based their opposition to slavery on Biblical principles. Slavery was pronounced to be against the law in Scotland in 1776. English philosopher and social reformer Jeremy Bentham called the British colonies where slavery flourished “a disgrace and an outrage on humanity.”
The eighteenth century was the high tide of the trans-Atlantic slave trade, but it also gave rise to the principles of freedom, equality and human rights, which were themselves derived from the ancient Greeks and found primarily in the West. Truly one of the greatest things about Western civilisation is its ability to engage in self-criticism: to subject even its most cherished beliefs and institutions to critical analysis and change. It was this willingness for self-criticism that led to the abolition of slavery, not just in the West, but throughout the world.
Tune in tomorrow to read my examination of the Islamic slave trade.
Oxford Rugby "Racists"
Four students pose glassy-eyed, blacked up and semi-naked in loincloths for an Africa themed party. The extreme political incorrectness of the picture will no doubt horrify the Oxford University authorities.
But why should it? Ethnic minorities are now given protection in this country (and others) that they don't need or deserve. "Blacking yourself up" is no more "racist" than going to a fancy dress party dressed as, say, a nurse or Spiderman is "offensive" towards nurses or Stan Lee. It simply cannot be racist to make yourself look like a person of another race, especially when you are at an AFRICA-THEMED PARTY!
But it's not like this protection is equal, either. As a commenter on the Daily Mail website points out, "In a recent movie, Eddie Murphy had his face whitened and played a white man. Isn't this racist? For goodness sake we should all grow up."
But it gets worse: at least two of the students are members of the university's under-21 rugby squad, which is already under investigation for alleged antisemitism after inviting players to bring "attractive Jewish girls" to a dinner last week.
Ah, yes: "Please bring along a fit Jewish girl. By the way, we hate Jews!"
Absurd.
Monday, 17 November 2008
SLAVERY IN ISLAM AND IN THE WEST: THE DOUBLE STANDARDS OF THE INTELLECTUAL ELITES
In 2006, Tony Blair expressed his “deep sorrow” over Britain's role in the slave trade. In an article for the New Nation newspaper, the then-prime minister said it had been a “profoundly shameful” affair in Britain's history.
But Blair's words angered some African groups, such as the Pan African Reparation Coalition – because he had not been fawning enough in his apology. “An apology is just the start – words mean nothing,” said a spokeswoman.
There are a number of double standards and misplaced priorities in this scenario. Is it really right that Britain – and the West in general – be singled out for the slave trade? And should it be necessary for Blair, or anyone else, to apologise for it at all?
The fact the mainstream media and groups such as the Pan African Reparation Coalition repeatedly ignore is that there was another slave trade which was just as shameful a blot on the history of the human race – that of Islamic slavery. Not only is this never mentioned, but the Islamic world has never been subjected to any worldwide condemnation or shame because of it.
My posts over the next couple of days are intended to redress the balance and provide the corrective to the current politically correct malaise, by examining and comparing the West and the Islamic world and their roles in the slave trade. In doing so, I hope to call attention to the neglected victims of a slave trade that no one condemns, as well to emphasise that the West has nothing to be ashamed of, and everything to be proud of.
Tune in tomorrow to read my examination of Western attitudes towards slavery.
But Blair's words angered some African groups, such as the Pan African Reparation Coalition – because he had not been fawning enough in his apology. “An apology is just the start – words mean nothing,” said a spokeswoman.
There are a number of double standards and misplaced priorities in this scenario. Is it really right that Britain – and the West in general – be singled out for the slave trade? And should it be necessary for Blair, or anyone else, to apologise for it at all?
The fact the mainstream media and groups such as the Pan African Reparation Coalition repeatedly ignore is that there was another slave trade which was just as shameful a blot on the history of the human race – that of Islamic slavery. Not only is this never mentioned, but the Islamic world has never been subjected to any worldwide condemnation or shame because of it.
My posts over the next couple of days are intended to redress the balance and provide the corrective to the current politically correct malaise, by examining and comparing the West and the Islamic world and their roles in the slave trade. In doing so, I hope to call attention to the neglected victims of a slave trade that no one condemns, as well to emphasise that the West has nothing to be ashamed of, and everything to be proud of.
Tune in tomorrow to read my examination of Western attitudes towards slavery.
Sunday, 16 November 2008
Reverse Racism?
The average earnings of black women in Britain are now higher than their white counterparts, according to government statistics. The Times says this is "a landmark social development that suggests the erosion of a long-standing racial barrier". What? Surely if you apply the same standards to this story that the media apply to other, more "conventional" racial stories, this is blatant racism, no? Don't we want black and white women to have EQUAL pay? Why is it that when white women are found (no doubt by researchers who already knew what they were going to find before they started) to earn more than black women, it's an example of the "institutional" (or even worse, "subtle") racism in British society, but when black women earn more than white it's actually touted as a good thing - the "erosion of a barrier"? It's totally wrong-headed.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Thursday, 13 November 2008
Round-up
1. Some US police officers are under investigation for allegedly posting racist remarks on their MySpace pages. There is no indication yet as to what the remarks were.
2. Two Muslim sisters who alleged that their London employer discriminated against them by transferring Jewish clients away to non-Muslim workers have won a £10m pay-out. The employer, however, maintained that the women's allegations were "an utter distortion of the facts." They added that the claimants "made all the decisions concerning allocation of clients [themselves], with full discretion and co coercion."
So it looks like the liars have succeeded in their intimidation tactics once again, then.
2. Two Muslim sisters who alleged that their London employer discriminated against them by transferring Jewish clients away to non-Muslim workers have won a £10m pay-out. The employer, however, maintained that the women's allegations were "an utter distortion of the facts." They added that the claimants "made all the decisions concerning allocation of clients [themselves], with full discretion and co coercion."
So it looks like the liars have succeeded in their intimidation tactics once again, then.
Wednesday, 12 November 2008
Round-up
1. Here is a good letter by a reader at The Times, castigating Sir Trevor Phillips for his comments that “If Barack Obama had lived here I would be very surprised if even somebody as brilliant as him would have been able to break through the institutional stranglehold on power within the Labour Party.” The author of the letter rightly takes him to task for his implication that British politics is somehow more institutionally racist than that of America.
2. Check out this piece at the Orion, the official newspaper of California State University: "Obama Presidency Uncovers Veiled Racism, Intolerance". It's more of that "veiled racism" stuff, which is just a pseudonym for "Racism is Alive and Well". As if anyone really found it shocking or surprising that there are some (and I emphasise the word SOME) racists in America.
This line also floored me:
America wants change.
Well, at least 53 percent of Americans want change. The rest want to continue repeating history and living in ignorance because apparently it's "blissful."
What a simplistic, insulting statement. Why did California State University think this was an acceptable academic standard for publication?
2. Check out this piece at the Orion, the official newspaper of California State University: "Obama Presidency Uncovers Veiled Racism, Intolerance". It's more of that "veiled racism" stuff, which is just a pseudonym for "Racism is Alive and Well". As if anyone really found it shocking or surprising that there are some (and I emphasise the word SOME) racists in America.
This line also floored me:
America wants change.
Well, at least 53 percent of Americans want change. The rest want to continue repeating history and living in ignorance because apparently it's "blissful."
What a simplistic, insulting statement. Why did California State University think this was an acceptable academic standard for publication?
Tuesday, 11 November 2008
Another BBC Broadcaster Loses Job - For Something that Had NOTHING To Do With The BBC
A BBC Radio presenter has been sacked following a "racist" call to a taxi firm, in which she requested a "non-Asian" driver. Sam Mason, who worked for BBC Bristol, told the operator that "a guy with a turban would freak her daughter out", insisting they send an English driver instead, because her daughter is "not used to Asians".
OK, obviously Mason's "request" is completely absurd. I believe her that it wasn't intended to be racist, but I certainly do think that her comments were ridiculous. What really disgusts me, however, is the sacking. This incident is absolutely NONE of the BBC's business. To sack her for an incident that (unlike the equally ludicrous Russell Brand/Jonathan Ross/Andrew Sachs incident) was not broadcast and did not even take place in BBC premises, is totally unethical. They would have a case if Mason had shown genuine signs of virulent racism, but to actually SACK her over this petty nonsense is a sign of just how far political correctness and Playing the Race Card have infected and poisoned our media institutions.
Spear Chuckers...
A proud spear chuckerJim Rosenthal has been forced to apologise to black Olympic javelin star Tessa Sanderson after describing her as a "spear chucker". The 60-year-old sports commentator was denounced as a 'racist' by critics. They bombarded Internet forums with angry messages, claiming that the phrase was insulting to ethnic minorities because of its supposed associations with "uncivilised" tribes.
The shocking thing is that he actually had to apologise to these cretins for a perfectly innocent comment. I sometimes wonder about the PC Left - why is it that they know so many derogatory words and phrases for black people in the first place? Something to ponder, innit?
Friday, 7 November 2008
Round-up
1. Lewis Hamilton has hit back at suggestions by F1 supremo Bernie Ecclestone that the abuse directed at the newly crowned champion was just 'a joke'.
I believe that SOME of it was just a joke. The guys with the blacked-up faces were certainly a joke, as one of the "perpetrators" admits, and was not racist. Hamilton has, however, also suffered a great deal of REAL racist abuse. That is not a joke, and should be condemned by Ecclestone.
2. Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's gaffe-prone Prime Minister, today found himself accused of racism after calling Barack Obama "suntanned". Mr Berlusconi said he had intended the remark as a compliment and those who failed to understand this were "imbeciles".
3. More potentially fabricated post-election anti-Obama "racist" incidents.
I believe that SOME of it was just a joke. The guys with the blacked-up faces were certainly a joke, as one of the "perpetrators" admits, and was not racist. Hamilton has, however, also suffered a great deal of REAL racist abuse. That is not a joke, and should be condemned by Ecclestone.
2. Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's gaffe-prone Prime Minister, today found himself accused of racism after calling Barack Obama "suntanned". Mr Berlusconi said he had intended the remark as a compliment and those who failed to understand this were "imbeciles".
3. More potentially fabricated post-election anti-Obama "racist" incidents.
Thursday, 6 November 2008
Racism? Really?
I noticed a couple of stories today regarding supposed racism against blacks, and I'm finding myself becoming ever more cynical in my old age.
Here's the first one: "For Joshua Watkins, and Ronald Harrison, racism on the University of Kentucky campus extends beyond isolated incidents — it is an ongoing problem at the school, they say. Watkins returned to his UK residence hall room last year and found "Die" and a racial epithet scrawled across his door. Three weeks into this semester, Harrison noticed a racial slur written on the wall of the bathroom in his residence hall. And last week, an effigy of President-Elect Barack Obama hung by a noose from a tree on UK's campus."
Here's the second one: "Officials at Gray-New Gloucester High School are investigating two incidents of racism that occured Wednesday in response to the election of Barack Obama as President. Early in the day one student reportedly stood up in class and made a racist remark about Obama - saying he shouldn't be President. That sparked a conversation later in the hallway between him and one of the school's black students, Zach White. Later on - White walked into the boys bathroom to find grafitti on the wall saying the same things about Obama."
One could argue that the second one demonstrates inappropriate behaviour, but the important point is whether it constitutes racism. One can disapprove of Obama's election without being motivated by racial prejudice. There is no sign in the article itself that this has anything to do with racism.
But if this WAS racist, the next question is: did it even happen? I have become a lot more skeptical recently because blacks seem to have the tendency to make things up in order to get sympathy. This skepticism is today applied to both these stories, which could both be untrue.
Of course, they may both be true, also. Time will tell, I suppose.
Here's the first one: "For Joshua Watkins, and Ronald Harrison, racism on the University of Kentucky campus extends beyond isolated incidents — it is an ongoing problem at the school, they say. Watkins returned to his UK residence hall room last year and found "Die" and a racial epithet scrawled across his door. Three weeks into this semester, Harrison noticed a racial slur written on the wall of the bathroom in his residence hall. And last week, an effigy of President-Elect Barack Obama hung by a noose from a tree on UK's campus."
Here's the second one: "Officials at Gray-New Gloucester High School are investigating two incidents of racism that occured Wednesday in response to the election of Barack Obama as President. Early in the day one student reportedly stood up in class and made a racist remark about Obama - saying he shouldn't be President. That sparked a conversation later in the hallway between him and one of the school's black students, Zach White. Later on - White walked into the boys bathroom to find grafitti on the wall saying the same things about Obama."
One could argue that the second one demonstrates inappropriate behaviour, but the important point is whether it constitutes racism. One can disapprove of Obama's election without being motivated by racial prejudice. There is no sign in the article itself that this has anything to do with racism.
But if this WAS racist, the next question is: did it even happen? I have become a lot more skeptical recently because blacks seem to have the tendency to make things up in order to get sympathy. This skepticism is today applied to both these stories, which could both be untrue.
Of course, they may both be true, also. Time will tell, I suppose.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
Enough Already
All right; so that Obama guy won at last. Does that mean we can now cast off the months and months of drivel we've had to put up with from the media about race? Pretty please?
Monday, 3 November 2008
Round-up
1. Italian soccer star Marco Materazzi today accepted substantial undisclosed damages over Daily Mail articles which said that he had used vile racist abuse to French captain Zinedine Zidane.
But...but...Why would the Daily Mail report negatively on "vile racist abuse"? I thought it hated all immigrants!
2. RAW Watch: Racism is Alive and Well in Pennsylvania
But...but...Why would the Daily Mail report negatively on "vile racist abuse"? I thought it hated all immigrants!
2. RAW Watch: Racism is Alive and Well in Pennsylvania
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)