29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will gain the right to live and work unrestricted in our country

This is one of those annoying Americanisms where a words definition has changed its meanings so much as to me its almost nonsense now.

Eg: Cultural racism. Using the word makes little sense to me as much as me saying I'm a coffee racist cos i don't like white coffee as much as black. Cat racist, i don't like Ginger cats.

Like the whole "Ecosystem" usage in the Google/Apple devices arena, god that winds me up so much.

just my irrelevant 2p

I'd call you all a bunch of Xenophobes on varying levels, im not sure why you are so bothered and why you don't do something about it in the real world, rather than preach to a majority of privileged, well educated socially mobile people that read this forum.

As i get older i can understand your point of views more, but as i get older i can more understand the type of people you are also.
 
Last edited:
dirtychinchilla said:
This cretin, mehuk, may not be racist, be he is incredibly offensive.

He also judges people based on their nationality. I don't know what to call that, but it is entirely ridiculous, once again, as if they took him as a sample of the whole UK, which would be incredibly embarrassing.

What the hell are you talking about, pure blood?! No one's blood is pure, you sound like a ******* cracker. I can't believe you'd defend him, bitslice.
Click to expand...

Look at his writing style, spelling and sentence construction.

He's always going to be from the class that 'hates' foreigners.
 
All that matters is that we are all supposed to be in a democracy and all the polls suggest that the public overwhelmingly do not support the current immigration polices and they're being ignored and told to put up with it as its good for them.
 
I think the fact that the guy keeps talking about "Pure English" in a country which comprises of three different countries says enough..

You know, there is also Scotland and Northern Ireland.. not just "England", so your "Pure English" stuff is mostly irrelevant. There's a high chance you have other nationalities in your family already.

This is all to the crazy guy above.
 
My Bulgarian 'oo-er is studying for a PhD in Japan and then plans to come to the UK to make a valid contribution to the world of genetics...I suppose just the fact that she's Bulgarian means she will just be another cankerous stain on our society?
 
Efour said:
post
Click to expand...
I didn't know it was an Americanism, I thought I just made it up last night whilst trying to work out a better way of describing these things. Odd that the topic always revolves around the same strident five words or so when almost none of them describe anybody any more.

'Xenophobe' sounds awfully earnest, but as a topic that doesn't affect me at all I can only get enthused about it because it is irritating and I suspect damaging to English culture. You have a point that such topics are pointless and probably the more damaging element of socity is our own apathy and selfishness. We are now pretty much devoid of traditions and are no more special than selling hamburgers in Disneyworld.

What do you suggest I do about this in the real world? (Assuming I care enough to be interested)
Immigration is inevitable/profitable and politicians are lying when they say they will change this, you can't sent British people back to their parent's countries and Islamic culture is about as open to change as the Dalek master race. There is perhaps the existing apartheid between living in the country and living in a city toilet, but politicians think the countryside is for building bigger toilets on and continuing to import all our food from somewhere else.

krooton said:
Cross-racial breeding is the opposite of inbreeding :p
Click to expand...
No, I meant races other than say ours, and the inbreeding of those. Resulting in common nose and eye shapes. Curious that inbreeding on such a scale to produce a recognisable feature hasn't also produced some other long standing defect, other than the blood thing that affects only africans.
Someone said it was only the arrival of the motorbus that stopped the inbreeding of our own villages (except in Norfolk of course)
 
Last edited:
As long as its only pure English genetics and she only contributes professionally and not genetically because kids must be pure English

Well all thank her in the future
 
bitslice said:
Racism is always associated with race, black people supposedly being less capable than whites, but this seems redundant while a black man is president of America.
Click to expand...


In a couple of senses, describing Obama as black is racist. The trivial one is that his colour shouldn't matter, but I accept that everyone has a colour of some type. More importantly, he is exactly as white as his is black: he has equal numbers of black and white ancestors back at least three generations, AFAIK. So why is he black, not white? It is exactly as accurate to call him white.To describe him as black means that, at least subconsciously, you buy into the "one drop" theory of race.

Please note that this is not an attack, but an observation on all those that use "black" to describe Obama.
 
Meridian said:
In a couple of senses, describing Obama as black is racist. The trivial one is that his colour shouldn't matter, but I accept that everyone has a colour of some type. More importantly, he is exactly as white as his is black: he has equal numbers of black and white ancestors back at least three generations, AFAIK. So why is he black, not white? It is exactly as accurate to call him white.To describe him as black means that, at least subconsciously, you buy into the "one drop" theory of race.
Click to expand...

Or perhaps it is because he is black (as a colour, not a race).

Whatever his ancestry, most people will therefore group him as "black" and that is where the significance of him as president is. If he had the same ancestry, but white skin, you can bet very few would care about his negro heritage.

Most people don't give a damn about genetics and looking under the surface. "Say what you see."
 
The UK has yet to have a black prime minister as white people are seen as the elites in society. I mean look at America, it has taken over 220 years for a black to get into power. Our governments are racist to their core, what chance does the rest of the population have.
 
Meridian said:
In a couple of senses, describing Obama as black is racist. The trivial one is that his colour shouldn't matter, but I accept that everyone has a colour of some type. More importantly, he is exactly as white as his is black: he has equal numbers of black and white ancestors back at least three generations, AFAIK. So why is he black, not white? It is exactly as accurate to call him white.To describe him as black means that, at least subconsciously, you buy into the "one drop" theory of race.

Please note that this is not an attack, but an observation on all those that use "black" to describe Obama.
Click to expand...

cause he looks black it's not "one drop" theory it's just that when a black parent and a white parent have a child the kid has dark skin.

Do you say a person who has blond hair is brunette because they have brunette ancestors? Because that's basically the same, it's skin colour no different to hair colour aside from being more difficult to change.
 
OnLY_WaY_MeffiN said:
The UK has yet to have a black prime minister as white people are seen as the elites in society. I mean look at America, it has taken over 220 years for a black to get into power. Our governments are racist to their core, what chance does the rest of the population have.
Click to expand...



Errr, Diane Abbott is possibly the most racist politician there is in the uk and she's black.

we haven't had a black PM because a black person has not been able to persuade the population and a party they would be best for the job yet, not racism. given that non whites make up such a small percentage of the uk population it's not really surprising that one hasn't risen to the top of government yet based on statistics alone.


we've had a woman PM ages ago but America has not, does that mean America is sexist to the core but Britain is not?
 
Tefal said:
cause he looks black it's not "one drop" theory it's just that when a black parent and a white parent have a child the kid has dark skin.

Do you say a person who has blond hair is brunette because they have brunette ancestors? Because that's basically the same, it's skin colour no different to hair colour aside from being more difficult to change.
Click to expand...



To the first: his skin is pretty much half way between mother (white) and father (black). So why are you saying his skin is black? Because your phrasing sounds like you really buy into One Drop. At least as far as skin shade it concerned. Exactly how pale has a "white" person got to be before you accept that they are white? What if two black parents have a white child, as happens on rare occasions? Is that child white? Or just a pale negro? If they became US president, would you call them a black president?

To the second: this is called arguing by analogy. It's meaningless, because hair colour is completely different to race.
 
You were the one who brought up going back several generations so it's valid. Barack Obama looks like what I would call a black man, therefore describing him as black is completely valid.

In your white child example I would describe that child as white, because they are.

I suppose if you choose to read far too much into how somebody decides if a person is black then you could get yourself worked up about different race theories, but it's often not that complicated.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom