Not at all, I'm totally in agreement with what you've just said. I hate racism and have said several times it sadly still exists. That's my position and hasn't changed for decades. Now, any answer to what's a very simple question?
So he obviously believes what he's saying about discriminating based on skin colour ... ... or are you saying that he's just blindly read out a load of words. It wasnt simply a speech written by someone else, and besides, he's responsible for what he says isn't he, he's a role model. "It wasn't his words, but he did speak some of his own words as well, which was about uplifting his community," Eddie Hearn. "I said what I said and I will act to make change." Anthony Joshua.
What both of those things do is create division. The speech by Anthony Joshua, who has been given so much by this country, is an absolute disgrace. He was supported and funded to take part in the olympics. He then amassed a huge following from all over the country, 1000s upon 1000s of white people. He was then given sponsorship from businesses all over the country. After all that, he reads a speech telling people to avoid white peoples' shops. My support, as well as many others, is no longer with him. Why should I buy a ticket to his fight, when he wouldn't support a business of mine, purely based on my skin colour?
Yes, and not only that. You'll be all over Facebook, BBC news, receive death threats, be unemployable and have to apologise publicly.
And a Sunderland resident getting himself in the news and the courts for all the wrong reasons https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-53054141
He’s basically saying let’s create apartheid. Well go ahead mate, let’s see how happy “ your” people will end up being with your idea .
Tell you what, I'll nip down to London and protest against the BLM and maybe cause a bit of bother with the police. What shall I wear? Pass me my favourite pair of illouminous shorts so I wont get spotted!
It's racist and there's no argument. What he's saying is boycott white shops, disadvantage people based on skin colour and keep to 'your own kind' ... ... but take advantage of the system when it suits you, use the NHS, call the police if you're burgled and claim benefits and pensions. Absolute hypocrisy and bound, even designed, to create division.
If Joshua came out and said that the emotions got the better of him and apologised for saying something stupidly racist he might be able to fan the flames. If a white boxer said the equivalent? He would never box again.
Maybe (and I stress maybe) it's about time that the Government called out the shysters and made it be known that everyone is NOT equal. Why should those that break the law, by looting/vandalising be considered equal to those that don't? Why should those that breed like rabbits (whilst only claiming benefits and allow their offspring to act like feral cats) be considered equal to those that act responsibly and raise the children that they can afford to in a way that respects others and the law of the land? I could go on - I'm not aiming my comments at those of colour, but at the scratters (irrespective of race) who should be (in my mind) barred from any access to the benefits and considerations of living in a civilised society! I await the first "it's not their fault" reaction.
I don't agree with everything you say but there is a degree of common sense therein. My son's involved in the church and parishioners will sometimes complain to him that life isn't fair. He always says, 'Which idiot told you it's supposed to be?' The problem is that the argument for black people is that their woes are a result of prejudice. It sometimes appears ro be a convenient default response but, come on, it can't always be the case. There are lazy, workshy, criminally inclined black people and racists just as there are in every society. 'Only 1% of police officers are black because of prejudice' etc. Hmmm, could it be they don't fancy the job ... ... the police are currently running a big recruitment campaign using black/Asian/ etc actors/officers. So why aren't black people applying if there are so many prejudicially unemployed ... ... why are farmers flying in Romanian fruit & veg pickers? Is it that black people don't want either job because they don't think it fits in with their culture? That may be a daft suggestion but no one has yet given me a better one.
Racism, including institutional racism and inflammatory racist remarks are illegal. Due to the power structures that systemic racism maintains; political, economic and biological, it is often argued that black people having none of these advantages cannot -therefore be racist, as there is a constant struggle the against oppressive forces that institutionalised racism maintains. To many the very notion that a black person cannot be racist would be beyond absurd and ridiculous to most people, however I understand the black perspective -at least I think I do! ...and here lies one of the problems in these debates, in that there are fuzzy lines of varying greys, in particular when we examine the accepted values of the past. Personally, I think that this is an example of racism; whilst the wider environment continues to impose disadvantages here there is a mechanism to seek advantage through the selection of race; whilst there is an argument that such a structure is seeking to redress that imbalance -and therefore enable fairness/equality ...the call for division via racial selection makes me feel uneasy and it feels like the wrong shade of grey
I'm playing devils advocate here because i can understand what you're saying. In reference to the bolded part... From the way i read it you feel that you understand that if someone has been subjected to unfair treatment all their lives then it's understandable why they maintain solid views/opinions and react the way they do due to the constant struggle that they've had. Again, this only a query. If a white person (or any other ethnicity) was the victim of abuse their whole life does it therefore give them the right to be abusers themselves? We hear all the time of people who are aquitted of crimes for "diminished responsibilty" due to the way they were brought up, addiction to drugs, being a victim of abuse amongst others. At the end of the day what AJ has done is publicly encouraged rascism. As you say they are illegal, will he be charged? i think not. If Tyson fury had said only buy from white owned shops would he have been crucified in the media? I believe so and the BLM movement would probably be calling for him to be prosecuted. Rascism doesn't only go one way, but it would appear that some feel it does.
It wouldnt surprise me that, as a percentage, black folk are probably equally as racist to whites as whites are to black. The fact that whites do have more advantages, have the top jobs, by and large make the decisions etc etc means that white on black racism is more to the forefront of society whilst black on white racism probably happens more behind closed doors so to speak. When white on black racism makes the headlines then theres uproar, many of it justified, black on white racism? It's more likely swept under the carpet because its minority on majority racism. Nowadays its too easy to offend the minority, treading on egg shells. And I'm not just talking about black people, I'm talking about all minorities. Personally speaking, for example, I dont understand why a white man cant go to a fancy dress party dressed as Michael Jackson (circa 1983) if they want to. Can you explain to me why that would be offensive? I get the impression that it is the white folk being offended on the behalf of black folk that poke their head out of the trench alot of the time. Why people are apologising for dressing as black folk from decades ago baffles me. If a black comedian did a sketch, dressed as a white man, no outcry. And there shouldnt be either.............END OF RAMBLING.
Smug, I've been retired from the Police for 25 years and even then the Government were spending big bucks trying to recruit coloured people into the job and they're still at it today. the upshot is most don't want to do the job, they want to stand on the sidelines and criticise and claim to be the victim but aren't prepared to give it a go and change things from within. There is an Association of Black Police Officers within the force and has been for donkeys years, there isn't an Association for white police officers, why do this group need they're own association, I've never got my head round that one. I find most coloured people very self needy, especially with a black African background, that's not me being racist that's just me telling the truth imo.
1. This is hypothetical, I can think of no example where a white person would be disadvantaged in the same way, however if those conditions did exist it would racist and therefore wrong - I'm genuinely not certain what point you are trying to make here 2. As Auld fella has said, these conditions apply to a whole swathe of people in our society including many pit village communities, the disenfranchised -some of them, may end up addicted to alcohol or heroin because of bad life choices and others petty crime. Some may fall foul of the Law due to mental health problems caused by the stress of poverty or the an abusive adult or parent that has left devastating emotional scars - these things are race issues due to the fact that a larger proportion of ethnicities occupy that lower strata socioeconomic groups. They equally apply to all people in those groups and should attract equal concern Further, I feel proud that we live in a society where there is a humanitarian assessment relating to diminished responsibility and circumstances. Personally I've always been a fan of crime passionnel where you can bludgeon your wife and get away with it. (3) I also feel proud that we take these things into account and the rule of law can be racially and ethnically sensitive (4) Basically it does. Whether you agree with it or not, the interpretation of the law of the land is determined by academics who are responsible for the humanitarian standards we seek to maintain as a society and like it or not (and I may be wrong here) no arrest will be made because the charge of 'racism' can be challenged by appeal with a substantive argument. You can rant and rave all you like about all of this, but the dynamics of legality in this regard have been considered by some very able people. As I said earlier in the debate here on this thread ...we need to listen to the voices of those with a different viewpoint. We do not have to agree, but it would help if we could understand the way they see the world differently.
