The all encompassing BNP thread - keep all crap in here.

Dolph said:
The big problem with BNP supporters seems to either a lack of knowledege about the party they support, or a deliberate attempt to decieve with regards to the party. The BNP constitution clearly shows that the party discriminates by skin colour, and yet many posters in this thread seem to not know this or be unwilling to admit this.

If it's a lack of knowledge, then people really need to be researching before they state their allegience, if they are attempting to decieve, well, I suppose they are fitting in with the party line since Griffin took over, but they have to accept that people will see through their deception and call it like it is.
Click to expand...

Maybe they're loyal members of the party and Nick Griffin has just taught them well. ;)
 
dirtydog said:
I don't think you are a stupid person so you must be trolling by continue to insist that it is just 'skin colour', and because it better suits your 'argument'. Your race is governed by birth, hence Michael Jackson is black (black not meaning skin colour but the race of peoples from Africa) and despite his 'skin colour' now being white, he is still black. I do not believe you are too stupid to understand this.
Click to expand...

You still haven't cleared up what you define as race.
 
dirtydog said:
I don't think you are a stupid person so you must be trolling by continue to insist that it is just 'skin colour', and because it better suits your 'argument'. Your race is governed by birth, hence Michael Jackson is black (black not meaning skin colour but the race of peoples from Africa) and despite his 'skin colour' now being white, he is still black. I do not believe you are too stupid to understand this.
Click to expand...

It's not trolling at all. There are various approaches to defining race, hence it's important to choose the relevant one to the discussion at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(classification_of_human_beings)

Most definitions of race give a variety of races within the same or similar skin colouration, which is to be expected (and indeed is acknowledged by the BNP in their consititution with their list of races that are eligable to join the party). The BNP do not discriminate on race, they discriminate on a componant of race, namely that of skin colour, this is again defined by their constitution. Pointing out this fact isn't trolling, it's being honest about the nature of their policy and their discrimination method.
 
Dolph said:
The BNP do not discriminate on race, they discriminate on a component of race, namely that of skin colour, this is again defined by their constitution.
Click to expand...
You are wrong. You choose to deliberately misinterpret their policy because you choose to believe that 'white' means 'skin colour' when it in fact means the white race.

You can keep saying the opposite, and I have no doubt that you will, in this thread and others, but you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people
White people is a term which usually refers to human beings characterized, at least in part, by the light pigmentation of their skin. However, rather than a straightforward description of skin color, the term white functions as a color terminology for race
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Monkey Puzzle said:
You still haven't cleared up what you define as race.
Click to expand...

I think the clue came from the thread in SC when given this list.

past 2 millennia mix of pagan and christian cultures, ancient Britons, Phoenicians, Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, Normans and all the traders that brought riches to these shores.
Click to expand...

dirtydog said:
All white. Not multiracial.
Click to expand...

He then tried to claim it wasn't about skin colour (if it wasn't, the makeup is multiracial), but then refused to define race again...
 
dirtydog said:
You are wrong. You choose to deliberately misinterpret their policy because you choose to believe that 'white' means 'skin colour' when it in fact means the white race.

You can keep saying the opposite, and I have no doubt that you will, in this thread and others, but you are wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_people
Click to expand...

There is no homogenous white race, unless your definition of race is exclusively skin colour based.

The BNP itself acknowledges this with it's list of racial groups who are allowed to join, they all share skin colour in common, but they are not a single race.
 
See my edit.

I think most people know what a white person is, and know it isn't just skin colour. 'White' is a colour terminology for race as the link describes.
 
Dolph said:
There is no homogenous white race, unless your definition of race is exclusively skin colour based.

The BNP itself acknowledges this with it's (sic) list of racial groups who are allowed to join, they all share skin colour in common, but they are not a single race.
Click to expand...

Skin colour skin colour skin colour.....

Yawn.

I'm done with this tedious rubbish for now :)
 
dirtydog said:
What is so wrong with including race (no, not skin colour - Michael Jackson is still a member of the black race) as one of the criteria to determine eligibilty for immigrants?

Does it not make sense to predominantly let in the same sort of people who are already here, in order that they are more likely to integrate well with the existing population? Not racist, just common sense isn't it? Something which has been sorely lacking in our immigration policy for a very long time.
Click to expand...

That is one of the most shockingly racists remarks I have read in a long, long time. :(

Two issues here:
1) Since when has race, or skin colour (or many other attributes), have anything to do with the ability of someone to integrate into a community.
2) What is this integration that you speak of? Is your white supremacist Aryan race of uniformly white skinned neo-Nazis so much more desirable than a multi-cultural and diverse society.
Personally, I much prefer the diverse mix of ethnicities we have in parts of Europe and the US. Nothing better than walking into china town in San Fran and then stepping into the Italian district across the road. Or the 14 nationalities that I work with in a lab of 18 people. And how well integrated are Londoners with Glaswegians, or parents with their children's social cliques, or Goths, Punks and skaters? It is human nature to diversify and create sub-communities, and this only becomes strong within a uniform population. School children form packs of friends for a very fundamental reason.
 
D.P. said:
Nothing better than walking into china town in San Fran and then stepping into the Italian district across the road. Or the 14 nationalities that I work with in a lab of 18 people.
Click to expand...

I do think we have a problem with foriegn social integration, I don't think immigration policies are the way to fix it though. I think an important part of what you said about the US is how all the communities integrate. Ask a black/white/asian/hispanic New Yorker and they'll always be a New Yorker first and black/white/asian/hispanic second. I think that's important and it doesn't happen here as much as it should.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I do think we have a problem with foriegn social integration, I don't think immigration policies are the way to fix it though. I think an important part of what you said about the US is how all the communities integrate. Ask a black/white/asian/hispanic New Yorker and they'll always be a New Yorker first and black/white/asian/hispanic second. I think that's important and it doesn't happen here as much as it should.
Click to expand...

That is a good point.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
I do think we have a problem with foriegn social integration, I don't think immigration policies are the way to fix it though. I think an important part of what you said about the US is how all the communities integrate. Ask a black/white/asian/hispanic New Yorker and they'll always be a New Yorker first and black/white/asian/hispanic second. I think that's important and it doesn't happen here as much as it should.
Click to expand...

Some areas have problems with social integration, but not all, and certainly not all immigrants have problems integrating, but I can agree that for those areas it certainly is a problem.

Like you say, the solution is not changing immigration policies, but in encouraging social cohesion in other ways.
 
If you let in people who are unwilling or unable to integrate, then no amount of encouragement will work. It is surely easier to select the most suitable people who are best going to integrate, rather than letting everyone come regardless of suitability, and then try to 'encourage' them to fit in. We've been doing the latter for decades and it has failed.
 
dirtydog said:
If you let in people who are unwilling or unable to integrate, then no amount of encouragement will work. It is surely easier to select the most suitable people who are best going to integrate, rather than letting everyone come regardless of suitability, and then try to 'encourage' them to fit in. We've been doing the latter for decades and it has failed.
Click to expand...

Then test for it, or did you have some other method of determining ability to integrate in mind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom