I thought it read well. It is an obelad of trunces, and thought was given to it.
Race report: 'UK not deliberately rigged against ethnic minorities'
- Thread starter Skunkworks
- Start date
I thought it read well. It is an obelad of trunces, and thought was given to it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Thats easy for you to say.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...k-face-paint-for-blue-over-concerns-of-racism
Are smurfs up in arms, Morris men blueing up in preference to black. Joking aside it is a reasonable compromise to avoid offence and looks quite good.
Are smurfs up in arms, Morris men blueing up in preference to black. Joking aside it is a reasonable compromise to avoid offence and looks quite good.
why should they have to change though just because some morons aren't capable of realising what racism is?
what next censor all photos of the coal miners from the past because they be black facing it up?
soldiers no longer allowed to use camo on their face?
That reminds me of the Ali G sketch were he went to the coal mines in Wales and saw the pictures of the miners on the walls and asked something like "why is it that all the brothers are sent down here?"
We're living in some real dumb times.
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2018
- Posts
- 13,316
Yes that is where we are heading.
white goods are racist because they are for the white man and a sign of racial repression and the white mans superiority.
you went white as a sheet? damn son you racist, you were so terrified the colour drained from your face? damn son don't even go there
I think there's even a backlash, the old "How dare you say what I think is wrong" and would strengthen people's views and might even turn those that would only have mild unconscious bias into something more surface level.
It's like what Canada tried with C-16 and now you have a whole section of people who agreed with Jordan Peterson and took a stand. Making hate-crime bills just creates more division, racism should always be tackled socially through education. Not throwing people in prison for what they think
Permabanned
- Joined
- 5 Apr 2006
- Posts
- 7,704
So why do Morris Dancers paint their faces?
Yes that is where we are heading.
It's not substantially different to the morris dancers example and it follows logically from the belief that context is irrelevant, a belief which is a crucial part of the idea. So why would it be treated differently?
We're heading for much worse. Whenever an ideology of authoritarianism and irrational prejudices has enough power, things are always very bad.
A relevant question, but only to people who aren't "progressive". Ignoring context and everything else to do with reality is a crucial part of the "progressive" ideology.
I don't know the answer. My guess is that it's traditional and done for that reason. As archaeologists are overly prone to saying, it's ceremonial/ritual
That would apply today regardless of the original reason, whatever that was.A quick look online gives the result that nobody really knows the original reason and people are making speculative backformed etymologies and attaching explanations to them. Which is as reliable as it sounds. We don't even know when morris dancing started or why.
it tells you in the news article and it dates back to the 1400s
seems the first africans werent in london until the 16th century from a quick google
People migrated from Africa to England further back than that. No way of knowing how many or where most of them lived in England, but I'd expect some to go to London as it was by far the biggest city in England back then, several times the size of anywhere else.
A while back I watched an interesting series on applying modern forensic anthropology to historical remains to see what could be found out. "History Cold Case". One episode was on the remains of a person found when a medieval friary graveyard was uncovered during building work in Ipswich. They'd initially been pencilled in as probably someone from Africa south of the Sahara, which attracted interest because there was little if any contact between there and Britain back then. The Sahara is a major natural barrier. As it turned out, the initial assessment was wrong and they were from Africa north of the Sahara. They died in the 13th century and had been living in England, probably in Ipswich, for a fair few years before their death.
There are probably some details online...
...here's a good one, written by the head of the forensic anthropology team. It's in the Daily Mail, but it was written by the head of the forensic anthropology team. If you blot out everything else on the page, it's fine. Dear me, that "newpaper" is dreadful. But they didn't write this article.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/science...rong-jaw-bad--So-doing-Ipswich-year-1190.html
So maybe they died in the late 12th century rather than the 13th as I remembered. But a fair bit earlier than the 16th century.
Some christians in north Africa in those days might well have wanted to move to a christian country. Especially if they had converted from islam, which meant they'd be killed if they stayed where they were. A lot of ships went to and from England. So there was probably some amount of migration. As far as I know, the 16th century was when it became something people cared about. Prior to then, it was probably very small scale and the immigrants probably wholly integrated and became English so nobody cared.