No, your point is not obvious. See if you can form an argument free of ideological talking points. Specifics would be nice. No rumor or innuendo, just easily observable (preferably objective) facts and logical conclusions. I'll wait.
Congrats to Trump for his various black friends, but you don't have to be intentionally racist in order to perpetuate inequality, eg. unequal treatment by law enforcement & judicial systems.
All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing: repairing racial injustice in either of our countries will take political will, entailing expenditure of effort & resources. Plenty of people from all backgrounds make the mistake of thinking that by refusing to acknowledge it, it will go away but that's just wishful thinking.
Here in the States, it's been in place and vastly improved since the passage and enforcement of various Civil Rights Acts.
Good men have not been doing nothing! [Pardon my double negative, but it's needed here.
I'm old enough (age 68) to remember what things were like here before 1964: separate bathrooms and water fountains ("coloreds only"), no service at lunch counters and many whites-only restaurants, no eating with white employers even at even home tables, prohibition of mixed-race marriages -- and on and on I could go.
As for unequal treatment by law enforcement & judicial systems, that happens a lot to white people who don't have the bucks to get a good attorney.
Glad to see you! I understand Mother England is now suffering worsening effects from the China Virus. If so, I'm very sorry to hear it. Hope you and your family are weathering the storm to good effect? Do stay well.
A question, whihh I hope you will not regard as offensive:
Does it never occur to so-called "Progressives, " that the "INEQUALITY" on which the Left incessantly harps exists primarily BECAUSE human beings are NOT in any way EQUAL?
I do feel compelled to add, however, that in my worldview we DO we each other every courtesy and considration at all times, and we should make it a practice to be as kind and generous as possible to everyone who crosses our path.
In THAT regard we should consider ourselves as equals.
What I, personally, DESPISE and refuse to be constrained by is the odious thing clled POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. I see it as corrupt system of rigidly enforced, weaponized hypocrisy that has done great harm to Western Civilization, since it virtually forbids HONESTY in any attempt to hold a discussion about things that truly matter.
So then, according to Jez (and the leftist mentality), if I admit to having black friends, then I’m a racist. If I claim to have no black friends, then I am a racist. If I admit to having friends without labeling them according to skin color, I’m a racist. On the other hand, if I direct accusations of racism toward others, whether factual or a wild assed guess, then I am not a racist ... but probably a progressive. Redefines logic. My question is this: if you cannot see a man or woman without also noticing their skin color, are you a racist?
As for inequality, answer: what group of people values education least (based on secondary dropout rates), commits more crime as a percentage of their overall population, and has an incarceration rate three times the percentage of their overall population? Be careful how you answer, or you might reveal yourself as a racist. I can’t speak for the United Kingdom, but here in America, social equality means of opportunity, not outcomes. Society pays for public education ... a pretty hefty sum here in the USA. Is it then society’s fault if Joe Citizen chooses to drop out of secondary, can’t find a job, decides to sell drugs, murders a cohort, and ends up before the bench? Should Joe not have to live with his poor decisions?
As for racial injustice, what do you mean specifically, and where? I hardly think that “good people” living in Illinois have much to say about apartheid in South Africa. Now, of course, there remains a question of justice when the British government shipped thousands of blacks to England from their Caribbean and African territories at a time when returning Englishmen war veterans couldn’t find a job. Was that also “racial injustice? How have our British cousins fixed the lingering effects of that abomination in cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, and London?
Neither above video, nor claiming to have black friends, proves one to be or not be a racist. Larger point is that Trump's racism or lack of is unimportant compared to whether his administration sustains institutional racism.
As for inequality, does the USA provide equality of opportunity to all demographics? Be careful how you answer...
I've never lived in Liverpool or Birmingham, but I'm not aware of any lingering effects. Do you know about the Windrush scandal? Notice how everyone agrees the government's treatment of that generation of immigrants is deplorable. Nobody, not even Farage or Tommy Robinson is backing up the govt over it. btw, I don't know of any period in British history with a lower unemployment rate than the 1950, so I disagree that verterans couldn't find jobs, quite the opposite: more vacancies than people to fill them, hence the immigration drive!
@AoW: things improved since 1960, but would you deny that there is now a sense of complacency? A lot of the comentary on this blog is from the point of view that racial issues are not urgent, it's a solved problem that would melt away if we would just stop acknowledging it. You don't have to be a bad person to think that, just a normal human with normal attention biasses. Most people know but much fewer understand emotionally that someone else's experience of the world does not necessarily mirror our own.
Franco: not an offensive question, and I am certainly not in favour of total equality. But maybe we can agree that a system which artificially exaggerated inequalities and entrenches disadvantage down generational lines is not preferable to a system which does not do those things. We probably disagree about whether laissez-faire capitalism qualifies as such a system, and certainly about whether we can (must?) improve upon it, but so-be-it.
Jez, Please take a few moments to read what happened with one of my 4th grade students because his head had been filled with the victimology of systemic racism. This happened back in 1981-1983. CS wanted more than equal treatment; viewed himself as entitled. Pffft!
I have never -- and will never -- allow entitlement or reparations to happen in my classroom. One might say that I run my classroom -- and my personal life -- based on equality of treatment. No "brownie points" from me. Period. Full stop.
There are many others like CS, and it's a dead end path, IMO.
So, is there an attitude of complacency these days? If so, it is a normal reaction because "enough is never enough." Again, pffffft!
PS: BTW, CS isn't a one-off among my students (or former students).
I agree it is a normal reaction (see what I said about normal humans harboring normal biasses), but it isn't a helpful one. And neither is that boys entitlement helpful either -- you dealt with him very well, but of course none of what you said to him would be a satisfying response to the real victim of police brutality. It's when we try to treat both cases (say, CS and Rodney King for examples) the same way that I believe is complacent. I'm not saying there isn't any bathwater that can be usefully thrown out, but let's not be indifferent to the babies that go along with them.
Jez, Well, police brutality happens to us white bread, too.
Some years ago, my husband got slammed around by a police officer. I don't know what the officer's problem was, but he retired a few weeks later.
We didn't file a complaint, but I did call the officer's supervisor to tell him what happened to a 35+ years citizen of this county. The officer apparently admitted that there was no provocation.
As for notorious cases of police brutality, it is most unhelpful to race relations to riot and burn down businesses.
I'd have filed a complaint, same as I would for a common assault. I don't know what your reasons were for not filing one, but I hope it wasn't any variation of "there's no point, they won't listen because we belong to whatever combination of minority groups applies" -- because that would suck. That's not a choice, that's denied agency which is anathema to my understanding of Western society.
As for riots, well ideally issues would be raised politely, carefully considered, and answered practically, throughly and with appropriate speed. What we do when that doesn't happen is surely left to the conscience of the individual church-goer, but I would expect that, at the very least, the "polite" part would get dropped after enough time. If we didn't want the demonstations to escalate, surely it was most unhelpful to meet even the most benign protests with indignant dismissal. If you box a large enough group into a corner, some fraction of them are inevitably going to fight back. And of course violence (even just the prospect of violence) attracts thugs whatever the ostensible cause. It should never have been allowed to reach this stage; doing so was a deliberate choice imo, one which tells us more about Trump and his attitude to racism and political expediency, than the originally posted video does imo.
Jez, We didn't file a report because (1) the fine was only $40 for my husband's offense, and (2) we'd been through so much damn paperwork with my husband's brain surgery 4 months prior (vestibular schwannoma.
I do know about Windrush. Do you? The Windrush programs began in 1948 and went through the 1970s. I will speak only of the ten-year period beginning in 1948, but as a backdrop, surely you do realize how badly Nazi bombs destroyed huge sections of British cities. Surely you realize that 43,000 civilians lost their lives in those bombings, and another 140,000 people were critically wounded.
I’m sure you appreciate the cost and effort taken to rebuild those cities. Bombed out businesses generally do not hire staff —that accounts for some of the unemployment. Understand, too, that the British people remained on war rationing until around 1955. Beyond the civilian dead and wounded, the British people suffered mightily for 15 years (beginning in 1939). One would think that the Parliament would develop policies that at least acknowledged the suffering endured by civilians and its appreciation for the sacrifices made by the 2.9 million war veterans, among whom more than 300,000 died and another (nearly) 400,000 received serious wounds.
There were few jobs for returning veterans. Destroyed businesses don’t hire staff, remember? In that environment, government irrationally decided in 1948 to import labor. Returning war veterans could not find jobs at a decent wage, because employers (who were struggling to get back on their feet) were happy to hire blacks at half the labor cost of white workers. In those circumstances, you can (or should) understand how labor unions made race an issue. I must ask you, was this (a) fair treatment of British citizens, who having endured 15 years of hell, only wanted to get their lives back to normal, who only wanted a fair wage in exchange for their labor, (b) fair treatment of returning war veterans, (c) fair treatment of people uprooted from their home countries and placed within a hostile environment?
You can only “disagree” that veterans could not find jobs if you don’t fully understand the labor history of the period. “More vacancies than people to fill them” is utter bullshit. Employers simply didn’t want to pay whites what they needed to survive in the post-war world. Imported blacks, had to work for half pay ... they were stuck in a very unfriendly environment. Ignoring those deported back to their home countries, how many do you think voluntarily returned to their home countries? Finally, Jez ... if there was plenty of work in England/Scotland/Wales, why did nearly a million Brits migrate to Australia under the Ten Pound Pom program?
If you are unaware of the racial discord in Liverpool and Birmingham, then do some research into your black communities at these locations —and please do that before you begin criticizing the US about “racial inequality.” Neither of our two countries have made wise decisions in the past, and the consequence of these poor decisions in years past continue to plague our societies today. I am disappointed by your lack of knowledge of what really happened in the UK between 1939-1958.
But do you know about the windrush scandal, the much more recent story about the Home Office (when Teresa May was Home Secretary) demanding that the Windrush generation of immigrants possess papers which the government itself had shredded in around 2009?
It's sweet of you to enter into so much detail about why unemployment should have been as high as you claim, but I think we should establish the facts before getting bogged down in interpretation. Your high unemployment claim surprised me because it runs counter to all the 1st-hand recollections I've listened to over the years, and it runs counter to the figures I (very quickly) summoned from the internet. I'm not an economist or an historian, but I believe you are wrong; I could easily be mistaken, but it'll take more than a condescending attitude to persuade me -- not *much* more, I would be greatful for just one reference.
But I'm not sure your explanations make complete sense anyway. Surely loss of man-power would restrict the supply of labour, and surely all the damage meant there was plenty of work cleaning it up and rebuilding (largely funded by American loans, of course), and fewer people to do it.
But to answer your questions a) It's not cool to loose out on work to cheap immigrant labour, but we disagree about whether that was happening in the 1950s. Aside from that, I think the British public wanted the reconstruction work to happen at pace. Whatever their feelings about black neighbours, I don't know that they would have preferred to delay that reconstruction work. But yes, I'm completely in favour of paying immigrants the full amount and punishing unscrupulous employers who take advantage of them. b) the British war effort deployed regiments from all over the Empire, so don't overlook that many of them were veterans too. c) of course that wasn't fair, but but Britain was a colonial power at the time, so that's par for the course. I think a very strong case can be made that migration to Britain was badly mis-sold to the colonial subjects it was aimed towards. d) plenty of reasons for Brits to migrate to Australia: warmer weather, more space, sick of Europe turning Fascist seemingly every 20 years etc. I'm not aware (not that I would be, not a historian) that it was motivated by unemployment at home. That migration flow was sustained over 30 years, so it's not particularly associated with the immediate post-war period.
Finally, I don't know how you got the impression that my remarks about American racial discord were somehow predicated on my own country's record in this area. I don't see what that has to do with it. I trust Johnson and his inner circle even less on race than I do Trump.
OFF-TOPIC-BIT VITALLY IMPORTANT: IIF YOU REALLY WANTTO KNOW HOW THOROUGHLY ROTTEN, CORRUPT AND DEPRAVED THE LEFT IS TAKE A GOOD LO:NG LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING
REPORTED BY A LEFTIST AT WYD:
Amy Coney Barrett Not the Goody-Two-Shoes She Pretends to Be
Political Wire
by Taegan Goddard
Souces have told us this highly touted paragon of virtue, began her career at age eight in a New Orleans whorhouse where her virginity was sold repeatedly to lecherous old men till the child could no longer suppress her extreme eagerness to be penetrated vaginally, anally and orally by mature men with large penises.
By age ten she was was rolling naked on the floor, foaming at the mouth, frigging herself begging for the Grand Slam –– a dick in her pussy, one up her ass, and one down her throat. For this little Amy would receive five-hundred dollars per session all of which wound up in the pockets of the Parish Priests who acted as her pimps after they'd broken her in to the joys of whoredom.
Lttle Amy's dirt poor parents gladly helped arrange for these transactions in exchange for receiving fifteen percent of the action.
Business almost doubled at the bordello after Amy's little sister was brought intlo the act –– first for threesomes, and eventually to entertain a many as seven randy ol gentlemen at a time.
It nearly broke the hearts of both Coney Girls when they had to be told they'd grown too mature –– and too jaded –– to continue as a Special Attraction.
It was said all over the State of Louisiana that nobody ever loved their work more than the Coney Sisters.
RESPONSE:
September 28, 2020 at 11:21 AM
RUMPELSTILTSKIN said
WELL DING DONG! THAT IS TRULY SHOCKING.
A PHONY BITCH LIKE THAT WILL NEVER BE SEATED ON THE HIGH COURT, THANK GAIA. WE'RE SAVED! ACB IS FINISHED.
The only thing obvious about YOU, Canardo, is your compulsive drive to be an unrepentant irritant, a troublemaker and persistent defender of the indefensible.
NO MATTER HOW LONG I LIVE I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHY ANY DECENT PERSON PUTS UP WITH YOUR INCESSANT FLOOD OF IRKSOME VERBAL VOMIT.
IT'S NEITHER INFORMATIVE, ENLIGHTENiNG OR AMUSING.
I fully expect to be reprimanded for this –– as usual –– and possibly even DELETED, but frankly I DON'T CARE.
Pictures and videos of someone with a host of ppl of color, or even helping them get ahead are no more dispositive of someone's racism than pictures of a liberal with his conservative friends or vice versa.
Justice Scalia's longtime friendship with RBG does not change the fact that he was a strong conservative. Donald Trump's photos/friendship with minorities does not, by itself prove he is not racist.
It's the "I can't be racist, I've got a black right here" argument.
Don't you realize that you've made a highly insulting comment by using a FALSE equivalent, Dave?
Whether youare aware of it or not, your comment, a stated. implies that being "A Strong Conservative" is the moral equivalent of being a (GASP!) "Racist."
WHAT I RESENT MOST ABOUT LEFTISTS IS THEIR INFERNAL OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DRIVE ALWAYS TO FIND SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
You remid me of a quip one of New England friends made many years ago:
"LIBERALS?" she asked somewhat derisively, "THEY'D BITCH ABOUT THE HOLLYHOCKS APPEARING IN THE SPRING."
I still chuckle every time I think of that, because, even though she meant it to be funny, it's just SO TRUE.
Dave reminds me of someone I knew years ago who was constantly impressed with his own insightfulness. He was one of those “no improvement needed” fellows who, while perfectly willing to criticize others, lacked the gift of introspection. He, like Dave, knew a lot about everything; he just didn’t know how he knew everything. It must have been a special gift of the gods.
I see no reason for US membership in the UN ... that's true. But as Ed Bonderenka stated above 9:19, if anyone is lacking in substance, its you. But hey, make yourself feel good. That's okay. We began talking about the Central Park Five and you resort to talking trash about me and Warren. Nice try though--for an Alinskyite.
Dave strikes me as one of those "reasonable" guys. He and Ducky make a pair of good cop/bad cop leftists. The answer to his comment is that proof of Donald's non-racism (and how would you prove a negative?) is his long time association with "people of color" and the accolades and association they have given him over the years. That is ignored by Dave's comment. But to the woke or the left (both) any white is guilty of racism. White Privilege. Whatever.
@ Mustang: So I've gathered. :^| Some people act indignant when you throw a brick through their rhetorical tropes, some get belligerent, and a few go into a type of willful incognisance and act like it didn't happen.
Except it's not a new idea. We've been talking about it since the 60s, and of course it was happening long before we started talking about it. For further explanation and concrete examples, I recommend the Lawrence report (where I first read about it) into london police racism in the 90s.
Imposing a penalty for being hateful doesn't remove the hatred, it only makes it a bit more expensive. And it probably makes it worse. The problem is that there are times when hatred becomes useful. You don't send men into combat with them loving their enemy. You can't kill a man unless he's trying to kill you, which is a condition of raw hatred. Anyone who goes into combat with less than that is going to wind up dead.
You're walking down the street in some inner-city area (although, I don't know why a reasonable person would do that) when someone accosts you. Self-defense is (always) justified, but the method of self-defense may not be. If you shoot someone who threatens you with a pencil eraser, you're probably going to go directly to jail. If you shoot someone who threatens you with a knife, that's another matter (albeit not without some legal costs). No one should be carrying a firearm who isn't prepared to use it; and to use a firearm, in the very instant that you pull the trigger, you are either in fear of (or hate) the bastard who's threatening you, or you've just accidentally pulled the trigger. Otherwise, this threatening person will take your firearm away from you, kill you, kill your wife or girlfriend, all your kids, and the family pet —lots of pain, no gain.
Are there persons of color whom I cannot stand? Most assuredly, but it is not their skin color ... it is their character I cannot abide. That isn't hate. It's a reasoned judgment. We're allowed to have reasoned judgments.
Institutional racism exists throughout history to the present day. There was a time when persons of color were either refused access to certain occupations or those hired but segregated. It was and continues to be an abomination. I include "affirmative action," which discriminates against anyone who is not a person of color or belongs to any other "minority" group (including historic minorities or those of mere situational convenience). American court records are replete with such cases. I do not doubt that such conditions/circumstances will continue to exist for as long as we look at someone and see their skin color as a primary frame of reference rather than seeing them as another human being. Personally, I wouldn't hire anyone whose appearance would cause my granny to have a heart attack, such as the moron who has "F You" tattooed on their foreheads, a bronze disk inserted into their lower lip, or a bone piercing through their nose. That isn't institutional racism; it's institutional anti-moron-ism —which is still legal.
Mustang, We're allowed to have reasoned judgments.
So far. But I see that right being eroded.
I had to laugh out loud when I read this (and I agree, too):
Personally, I wouldn't hire anyone whose appearance would cause my granny to have a heart attack, such as the moron who has "F You" tattooed on their foreheads, a bronze disk inserted into their lower lip, or a bone piercing through their nose.
Thank goodness my homeschool students don't do such stupid, disfiguring things!
@Ducky: I am aware of the Central Park Five case, generally. I am not aware that Trump played any substantial role in the arrest, trial, or conviction of the defendants. Koch was mayor, not Trumps. I do wonder, though, how a case in 1989, long reversed, the defendants compensated with over $41 million, is relevant to anything in 2020. There have been a lot of injustices in our long history. Is Trump responsible for all of them, or is that simply where your head is?
Why do I have to look it up? You give a reference that doesn't strike an immediate response. Then you ask us to figure out what you mean. I don't have the interest. If you presented the case here, I would read that.
@jez. "Except it's not a new idea." No one said it was a new idea. It's the same old Marxist "class struggle" BS, repackaged and polished up, replacing class struggle with racism. BLM is quite open about it.
Let's entertain the idea of institutional racism for a moment: how would you tackle it in a way which couldn't remind a paranoid anti-communist of marxism?
Jez, Warren is not paranoid in any regard. Take my word for it. You would do well to heed his wise words. Try to step away from and beyond your own confirmation bias, and look at the evidence before you.
Jez, Really? I'm referring to this comment you made a bit above, and the comment seems to be a reply addressed to Warren:
Let's entertain the idea of institutional racism for a moment: how would you tackle it in a way which couldn't remind a paranoid anti-communist of marxism?
Those reactions apply to direct personal racism (especially when they occur rarely enough that they don't wear you down), but are not relevant to institutional racism as in the latter case there's no individual to sass and/or the institution is too large to ignore: you can't keep your mouth shut and get off the police force at the next stop, you're stuck with them. I invited you to entertain the idea, as I expect you will continue to resist it indefinitely. But, here's that Lawrence report I recommended a couple of days ago: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf
And my purpose for introducing the paranoid character is that the form of response I'm asking for is not just non-Marxist, but unambiguosly so. What would that look like?
Whenever there is an organizational leader that harbors and broadcasts prejudices in any form (race, gender, sexual orientation), there will be a tendency among some (not all) within that organization to mimic those biases. It is utterly foolish, of course, but if we acknowledge individual prejudices, then we must —as an extension of that— acknowledge the existence of institutional biases as well. The Lawrence Report dates to 1999. I am unable to speak with any degree of authority on conditions in the UK, beyond my personal relationship with my British family. I have never heard anyone in my British family make an untoward remark about any minority group or person of color. I personally know a retired Chief Constable. He has never mentioned systematic ill-treatment of minorities. He has never made an improper remark about anyone in my presence. I cannot say with certitude that he doesn’t go out at 2 a.m. for the purpose of hassling minorities, but I doubt it.
With all that said, there is a remedy. It is that we raise our children to see people rather than skin colors or ethnic origins, and if we must judge them, then do so based on something more substantial than skin color. It does not advance this methodology, however, when government policy has the same effect of beating people on the head to achieve government’s goals. In my judgment, in its attempt to stamp out social bias, it resorts to the same strategies used in communicating institutional prejudice —AND, as illustrated by Warren, employs a double standard in its application. We should, by now, recognize that government policy has not only been counter-productive, it has made matters worse. It sets a dangerous precedent within “free” societies to limit freedom whenever it suits government’s purposes. Edicts from on high do not change human behavior, but good parenting can.
So, rather than threatening people with jail time for expressing an unpopular point of view, labeling it “hate speech,” I say let assholes demonstrate to others that they are just that. We are never going to have a utopian society. If we are going to be a tolerant society, then what that means is that we must be tolerant to those whose views we abhor —and maybe even especially of those whose views we deplore.
Mustang, Edicts from on high do not change human behavior, but good parenting can.
Yes, there is the key.
My grandmother (1898-1981), born and lived in the hills of East Tennessee until she was in her mid-40s, was, by my lights, a racist. For example, every time that a black person appeared on her tiny b&w TV set, she got up and changed the channel; she lived in before-remote days, and getting up to change that channel was a hardship. But she did it every time till her dying day.
My grandmother refused any black doctor or black nurse to tend to her.
My grandmother never sat down to table with our maid, who most often prepared the meals.
And yet.
And yet.
I never heard my grandmother utter the word nigger. Never! Not even in her senile years.
More significantly, my grandmother paid the Social Security wages for the maid. Very few people paid those wages for those maids -- including the liberal who lived just across the road.
Most significantly, when our long-retired black maid Aunt Hattie, who must have been in her 90s, got cancer, she called my grandmother, who tended to her with her own two hands: stinky puke, stinky barf, stinky crap, etc. My grandmother tended Aunt Hattie day and night until Aunt Hattie's grandson could get here from Alabama to take her home to die. And when the grandson arrived, I watched my grandmother press $500 into his hand. $500 was the equivalent of her retirement check + Social Security Retirement.
I witnessed all of the above with my own two eyes.
When I asked my grandmother how she reconciled her views about blacks, she said only this for me to ponder: "Aunt Hattie is family."
That's a really important story, which speaks to the abstract point I've been trying to make about how good people can sustain racist outcomes. I fear that Warren and Mustang believe that as long as you refrain from burning crosses in your coloured neighbour's garden while chanting the n-word, then racism has been averted. Sorry, it's more insidious than that. The whole point of the Lawrence report (do flick through it, it'll help us at least be clear that we're talking about the same thing) is how police racism exists apart from individual officers intentionally harassing black people.
@ jez I read through the report. I must admit that quite a bit of it was supposition gleaned far after the report was made so it was far too long and I was forced to skim through a lot of it.
Now let's look at several other incidents that I find far more troubling. They involve several cases of child grooming and prostitution that your police forces and their superiors decided to ignore until public outcry forced their hand. let's start with Oxford child sex abuse ring Which seems to have started in 1998 and which wasn't acted upon until 2011 with more investigation in 2015.
Then there was, the Huddersfield grooming, 20 men were convicted of more than 120 offenses against 15 girls between 2004 and 2011. Hard to believe that the police didn't know anything about it and it's totally unclear when the investigation started.
The last one I'll cite is Rochdale child sex abuse ring although there were others. Nine men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offenses including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child in May 2012. In March 2015, the Greater Manchester Police seems to have been forced to apologize for its failure to investigate the allegations more thoroughly between 2008–10.
First, it shows an unwillingness of your police to investigate anything that is racially or culturally "sensitive".
Second, it would seem that a lot of your police force are just typical bureaucratic place holders only interested in "serving" by doing as little as possible until their retirement and they avoid confrontation or notoriety with their superiors so as not to endanger their pension. They are just not interested in actually providing any kind of public service. Of course there are notable exceptions such as the former Detective Constable who was investigating the grooming gangs, Margaret Oliver, resigned in 2012 in disgust of the handling of the cases by the police force and spoke out as a whistleblower.
Third, there is a definite racial and cultural overtone to all of these cases as almost all of those involved in these crimes are British Pakistani men which make up only about 1% of your total population.
My opinion, you don't have a institutional racism problem, you have a bureaucratic problem exacerbated by a quasi-Socialist Government where the scum floats to the top.
I definitely only skimmed it too. I think it has to be long to support its claims: but that is what "proof" (which you asked for) looks like.
As to the grooming cases, I recently wrote this about it. Those points are relevant: you shouldn't ignore class, in particular the victims' class: this goes much further to explain police apathy than the racial narrative IMO. The Pakistani gangs didn't invent our disdain for that class of girl, that was already ingrained. 100% not shifting blame, but they were exploiting an existing blind spot. We should punish them, but we should also attend to our blind spot. Pakistanis might be more inclined to form criminal networks, but I'm not sure that Asians commit a disproportionate amount of underage sex offences. From 8% (last census, 2011) of the population, Asians made up 4% (govt data from 2014) of such offenders.
Qualified agreement with all your numbered points: 1) yes, I think that's a common individual tendency which would require carefully crafted policies to overcome at the instituional level. 2) Agree completely. 3) yes, but "only" in the gang aspect of it. Taking child sex offences as a whole, I think indiginous Brits are responsible for their share (maybe slightly more) of it. Scare quotes for "only", because I'm confused about the moral significance of that networking aspect. It doesn't feel unimportant, but it also feels like the dominant issue should be the actual rapes.
Now I imagine these cases were brought to your attention by one or more of the increasingly popular political movements advancing anti-immigrant or anti-muslim agendas. I find these movements' frequent reference to grooming gangs highly disingenuous, because they are completely devoted to panicing about immigration but seem indifferent recalibrating our attitude towards that vulnerable class of girl. In my judgement, the latter is the vastly more productive response: while the attitude persists that girls from that class are likely to be wild, hedonistic, self-destructive and unreliable, they remain excellent targets for grooming, be it from gangs or individuals.
At 10/3/2020 at 9:16 AM EDT, Jez wrote: I fear that Warren and Mustang believe that as long as you refrain from burning crosses in your oloured neighbor’s garden while chanting the n-word, then racism has been averted.
The comment is so far beyond the pale that it almost doesn’t deserve a response, and yet it does illustrate the gulf that separates our points of view. On the one hand, if I do any of those things, then I’m an overt racist, and if I don’t do any of those things, then I’m a covert racist. What, then, remains? Should someone stand Warren and I against the wall to relieve us of our ingrained racism? How racist would that be? And, of course, this was after I already opined that if we do harbor biases, we should base them on character, not skin color.
Jez claims that institutional racism not only exists —but is pervasive. He argues the Critical Race Theory, which if one reads carefully and steps over all its silly clichés, is a Marxist treatise explaining how to divide and conquer western society. Speaking of insidious. Brainwashing the CRT has been going on long enough now to show up in 21st Century dialogue as a proven fact. I’m not saying that there are no worthwhile points to consider; I am saying that it is a theory predicated on inflexible political agenda by eggheads whose only practical experience in life is academia. I will add that I do not object to such conversations, as it is man’s nature to constantly evaluate society with the goal of improving it. I do object to the assumption that CRT is the only explanation that makes sense in multi-cultural environments, within which there must always be a minority population.
I do agree that institutional racism exists but disagree (to a point) that it is pervasive. If people harbor racial or ethnic biases, then there must be some degree of institutional biases because all our institutions are human constructs. Note that I emphasize “people” ... which must include people of color whose foundational point of view is also racist. To illustrate this point, neither Warren or myself have suggested that because Jez is a person of color, he must in some way empathize with machete wielding terrorists in Sierra Leone or the gun-toting drug dealers in Chicago ... and yet, he feels comfortable with offering the suggestion that we are covert racists.
But even if we confine our biases to character, we must still acknowledge that race and ethnicity will play a part because every ethnic group has its own set of values, morés or folkways that govern generally acceptable behavior. What is generally acceptable to or tolerated within black communities may be intolerable within Sikh communities, and the fact is that Sikh’s will always judge others according to their own general view of propriety. I do not believe that multicultural societies will ever rid themselves contentious issues any more than white Californians will ever become uncritical of white Texans. There is no utopia. We should focus our energies on strategies that make society less contentious, things that we can actually accomplish, rather than wasting our time on things that will never change. A leopard cannot be separated from its spots.
@ jez, The citation is quite explicit: "British Pakistani men which make up only about 1% of your total population." not Asian, as Brits use the term. Also, you seem to be blaming the victims for the crimes committed against them. It still doesn't absolve your Police of their lackadaisical attitude as it speaks of an institutional problem. Is it racism or the far deeper problem of unaccountably. As to where I first heard of the grooming and prostition, that would be the BBC or one of its affiliates.
I will add this, I agree with Mustang. My first reaction to your comment was outrage. In my case I could assume it might be fair if you misinterpreted my comments directed @ Ducky and Dave, my point being that is impossible to prove a negative.--i.e. that you are not racist, in this case--, I really don't care what you think of me but Mustang is a friend and you have no idea of his intellectual depth or his humanity. He is a leader of men and and is "literally" a published historian of accomplishment and a world traveler and educator. Also, he is a retired US Marine Corp, Colonel, a "Mustang" that rose through the enlisted ranks to commissioned officer. As such, he has a far deeper view of the world than you could imagine. You would do well to heed his words.
I hope you will re-read my comment in the spirit it was intended (playful hyperbole) -- perhaps you don't know me well enough to pick up on my tone. My literal meaning could be stated "Warren and Mustang sometimes write as if they believe that overt racism is the only racism, or the only racism worth addressing."
I'm trying to talk about institutional racism. I believe it is possible for a system to exhibit racist tendencies despite being manned entirely by people who are not racist. Not talking about racist individuals keeping their beliefs on the down-low, and I'm not talking about unconscious bias either (not just now, anyway; and no judgement to people who harbour unconscious biasses, which is 100% of everyone). This is different from your idea about system-level bias arising from the individual bias of each member of that system (although it is important to remember that systems are composed of people -- I'm not rejecting your point, just adding to it). For example, I think the policemen, judges, juries and penal officers need not be racist in order to enforce laws and sentencing guidelines etc. that disproportionately penalize one group. And vice versa, a well-written law can frustrate the racist intention of a bad apple policeman or maliscious juror. The human basis of these systems is important and should not be overlooked, but if we are to irradicate institutional racism (assuming we want to!), it is necessary to address that institution's culture and rules, not just the individuals.
I believe I have nowhere suggested that anyone here is a covert racist. I can see you are fixated on the idea that I am trying to trick you into admiting to overt or covert racism or something of that sort, but I don't see how it has anything to do with any of my remarks. I've no interest in castigating anyone here. Is there some way we can talk about these issues together without getting triggered?
It's an interesting point about groups judging each other by their own standards. It occurs to me that you can keep subdividing almost indefinitely. Not my area, but I bet there are rivalries between various black communities and Sikh sects; closer to home we are all-too-familiar with often bloody clashes between denominations of Christianity and Islam. And you can keep going (divisions within Anglicanism or within Shia) on and on... sub-dividing groups as finely as you like, until you realise that what we're really seeing is that individual variation within a group is not necessarily smaller than variation between groups. Antagonistic as our personal online interraction has often is, I'm sure I'd get on better with you than I do with a decent percentage of my immediate neighbours, or ethnic group, or people with a similar education background, or whatever group it is you think I'm supposed to have more in common with than American Republicans or Sikhs.
@AoW: "evidence-based?" I liked Mustang's comment too, but I'm not seeing that -- maybe it's covert evidence ;)
@warren: British Pakistani is a subset of Asian. I assert that I am not victim-blaming, please explain how you think I have done that.
I accept I misjudged the tone on my comment, which I did not wish to cause outrage. It was mostly a response to your comment that "you [jez] haven't convinced me [institutional racism] exists" which suggests that you think that intentional individual racism is the whole story. Mustang doesn't need you to defend him, I like him already -- although if he would cool it with putting so many words in my mouth it would be easier for me to heed his. ;) BTW is "mustang" a military term for that type of officer? I assumed he was named after the car (I love mustangs).
@ jez: " I assert that I am not victim-blaming, please explain how you think I have done that." Very well.
"In my judgement, the latter is the vastly more productive response: while the attitude persists that girls from that class are likely to be wild, hedonistic, self-destructive and unreliable, they remain excellent targets for grooming, be it from gangs or individuals."
Your tone sounds dismissive. Try not using the passive phrasing. "while the attitude" should have been more specific about who's attitude, which you put at the end of the phrase. Properly it should of read "the attitude of gangs and some individuals is that..." Which is active voice. You can look up Active and passive voice for explanation and examples. Read it to yourself and you'll see what I mean.
@AOW, Help me here if I don't have that correct.
@jez, British Pakistani is a subset of Asian.
Yes I know. The citation is "British Pakistani Men" a particular subset of Asian which would account for the 1%
"BTW is "mustang" a military term for that type of officer? Yes but not "officially". Used most commonly in the US Navy and USMC. You could say it's a slang term but in no way derogatory. The term far outdated the car and refers to an unbroken wild horse. Not to be confused with a Maverick.
I should clarify: the persistent attitude I'm talking about is prevalent throughout society, not just the police and the perps, not just some people, but practically everyone. Btw your example is still passive. Active would be "society in general holds the attitude that these girls are self destructive etc. It is the prevalence of this attitude that makes pedophiles choose them as targets." Notice I had to split the idea into more sentences -- I think too many ideas per sentence was the real issue. Clarity gets exponentially harder with with sentence length! However unclear that sentence was, I was unmistakably advocating for "recalibrating our attitude towards that vulnerable class of girl". I still don't see how you managed to interpret that as victim-blaming.
Re Pakistani men, I agreed with you that they are more likely to be involved in a network. But looking at the child sex crime statistics (I couldn't find a finer demographic breakdown than just Asian), either they commit the same amount of sex crime (just in gangs), or non-pakistani Asians commit a lot less sex crime than general pop to bring the overall numbers for Asians down. Which do you think sounds more plausible.
Technically, the grammar and style problem is overuse of linking verbs, an overuse which sucks all the life out of writing -- just as Passive Voice does (Passive also uses "being" verbs, i.e., is, are, was, were). See Excessive Use of Linking Verbs. Worth reading.
Overuse of linking verbs also makes writing tend toward the nonspecific.
Don't forget "laziness" -- I didn't look very hard.
I do not understand why scientific papers are required to be written in the passive voice. It is habit forming. But these voices and verbs do have their place: imagine rewriting a clear statement of a constant truth such as "5 is greater than 3" to avoid them. It only makes it more awkward, doesn't it? The form of that sentence would be familiar to someone who reads the same technical material as I do. To anyone outside my niche, I can see that the whole thing is unwieldy and difficult to parse. Shorter sentences are easier to parse almost automatically.
Jez, I do not understand why scientific papers are required to be written in the passive voice.
Poor teaching!
A few of my former students -- I teach Advanced High School Composition -- have gone on to instruct science and business people to write better. Unfortunately, that circle is quite small because I teach small groups (4-10, usually).
And both the whites and blacks would have shunned you.
I saw the latter as late as 1983 here. A black father left his wife and son to get a "blacker" wife. I had the boy in my class, and you've already read about CS I think.
I'm sure in Britain too, in 1960. As I get older and reflect on that period, I wonder how much my parents shielded me from. It may have helped that we lived in a fairly quiet semi-rural area.
@ jez: "I assert that I am not victim-blaming, please explain how you think I have done that." I could see where that might bother you, let me apologize.
Let me be a little clearer. Think of it as cautionary, reverse the racial and class distinctions. If you were "white" and the girls were considered "black", you would have been called a racist and a victim blamer.
I do not understand British class distinctions even though I administrated a British message board for over two years.
Movement through "classes" --here--, is fluid and for the most part economical. A person can rise through their situation through a number of actions and also fall. That is why you see the lunatic ravings of the "Never Trumpers", they have lost their place as the "Mandarins" of the "ruling elite".
You may not be aware; at the time of the US Civil Rights law, carve outs and quotas, were given to "Negros", in government jobs, private industry and higher education. Laws were passed that effectively removed the duty of the States to provide "Pubic Assistance" and created another bureaucratic Federal, Welfare system that seemed to always spend 80% of it's funding on the bureaucracy proper (itself). Many took advantage of the system but many only took advantage of the Welfare payments, food stamps (free food) subsidized housing (actually free for most) and free medical care which forced doctors to accept only partial payment for their service, and never took advantage of the other opportunities. So it continues to this day.
What have the consequences been: We have blacks and Latinos and smaller ethnicities that have self-segregated subsisting on Government subsidies (not to mention the illegal emigrants). They begrudge those that have more than they. In effect, they have become the spoiled pets --pawns-- of one of the oldest political games.
I can trace that game back to the decline of the Roman Empire when the masses were provided bread and circuses. Why would these masses be concerned about Marxist or Socialist polices when everything they have is already provided by the State? They can only believe they will get even more largess from an even larger State.
It's far easier to believe they don't have everything they want because of institutional racism than it is the fault of their own shortfalls and opportunities they passed over.
You pose that some (Government?) action could alleviate the problem that you call institutional racism. What would that look like?
Keep in mind that I'm an amateur historian --which consists of writing and publishing "white papers" for smaller blogs and message boards-- and I am intimately aware of programs that affect the poor and disadvantaged having over 9 years of social work including personal contacts and tracking through that period. And having been the facilitator on a "Dioceseson Commission on "Social Justice". --I will tell you the conclusions of that commission if you wish.-- It was accepted and implemented by the Bishop.
Human beings are animals too,(everyone), if you make a pet of an animal, it will forget or never know how to take care of itself, (food and shelter, everything.)
In other words, I'm not giving you short shrift, this is something I've studied in some detail and taking in the human condition.
We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion: 1. Any use of profanity or abusive language 2. Off topic comments and spam 3. Use of personal invective
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.
Tell it to the Central Park Five.
ReplyDeleteHi attitude is quite different if you aren't a celebrity.
What is your point, Ducky? I'm sure you have one. Or not.
ReplyDeleteAnd Joe Biden? Well, ...Biden says ‘some black woman was able to stack grocery shelves’ so he could lockdown.
ReplyDeleteIt must be one of those leftist things; Biden is even less coherent than Ducky.
DeleteMy point is obvious. If it furthers his interests he takes the photo-op while his minions are lapping up BS stories about his largesse.
ReplyDeleteNo, your point is not obvious. See if you can form an argument free of ideological talking points. Specifics would be nice. No rumor or innuendo, just easily observable (preferably objective) facts and logical conclusions. I'll wait.
ReplyDeleteAre you familiar with the Central Park Five case where he showed his colors?
ReplyDeleteCongrats to Trump for his various black friends, but you don't have to be intentionally racist in order to perpetuate inequality, eg. unequal treatment by law enforcement & judicial systems.
ReplyDeleteAll that is needed for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing: repairing racial injustice in either of our countries will take political will, entailing expenditure of effort & resources. Plenty of people from all backgrounds make the mistake of thinking that by refusing to acknowledge it, it will go away but that's just wishful thinking.
Jez,
DeletePolitical will?
Here in the States, it's been in place and vastly improved since the passage and enforcement of various Civil Rights Acts.
Good men have not been doing nothing! [Pardon my double negative, but it's needed here.
I'm old enough (age 68) to remember what things were like here before 1964: separate bathrooms and water fountains ("coloreds only"), no service at lunch counters and many whites-only restaurants, no eating with white employers even at even home tables, prohibition of mixed-race marriages -- and on and on I could go.
As for unequal treatment by law enforcement & judicial systems, that happens a lot to white people who don't have the bucks to get a good attorney.
Hi, Jez,
DeleteGlad to see you! I understand Mother England is now suffering worsening effects from the China Virus. If so, I'm very sorry to hear it. Hope you and your family are weathering the storm to good effect? Do stay well.
A question, whihh I hope you will not regard as offensive:
Does it never occur to so-called "Progressives, " that the "INEQUALITY" on which the Left incessantly harps exists primarily BECAUSE human beings are NOT in any way EQUAL?
I do feel compelled to add, however, that in my worldview we DO we each other every courtesy and considration at all times, and we should make it a practice to be as kind and generous as possible to everyone who crosses our path.
In THAT regard we should consider ourselves as equals.
What I, personally, DESPISE and refuse to be constrained by is the odious thing clled POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. I see it as corrupt system of rigidly enforced, weaponized hypocrisy that has done great harm to Western Civilization, since it virtually forbids HONESTY in any attempt to hold a discussion about things that truly matter.
So then, according to Jez (and the leftist mentality), if I admit to having black friends, then I’m a racist. If I claim to have no black friends, then I am a racist. If I admit to having friends without labeling them according to skin color, I’m a racist. On the other hand, if I direct accusations of racism toward others, whether factual or a wild assed guess, then I am not a racist ... but probably a progressive. Redefines logic. My question is this: if you cannot see a man or woman without also noticing their skin color, are you a racist?
DeleteAs for inequality, answer: what group of people values education least (based on secondary dropout rates), commits more crime as a percentage of their overall population, and has an incarceration rate three times the percentage of their overall population? Be careful how you answer, or you might reveal yourself as a racist. I can’t speak for the United Kingdom, but here in America, social equality means of opportunity, not outcomes. Society pays for public education ... a pretty hefty sum here in the USA. Is it then society’s fault if Joe Citizen chooses to drop out of secondary, can’t find a job, decides to sell drugs, murders a cohort, and ends up before the bench? Should Joe not have to live with his poor decisions?
As for racial injustice, what do you mean specifically, and where? I hardly think that “good people” living in Illinois have much to say about apartheid in South Africa. Now, of course, there remains a question of justice when the British government shipped thousands of blacks to England from their Caribbean and African territories at a time when returning Englishmen war veterans couldn’t find a job. Was that also “racial injustice? How have our British cousins fixed the lingering effects of that abomination in cities like Birmingham, Liverpool, and London?
I'm interested in the answer to that.
DeleteNeither above video, nor claiming to have black friends, proves one to be or not be a racist. Larger point is that Trump's racism or lack of is unimportant compared to whether his administration sustains institutional racism.
DeleteAs for inequality, does the USA provide equality of opportunity to all demographics? Be careful how you answer...
I've never lived in Liverpool or Birmingham, but I'm not aware of any lingering effects. Do you know about the Windrush scandal? Notice how everyone agrees the government's treatment of that generation of immigrants is deplorable. Nobody, not even Farage or Tommy Robinson is backing up the govt over it.
btw, I don't know of any period in British history with a lower unemployment rate than the 1950, so I disagree that verterans couldn't find jobs, quite the opposite: more vacancies than people to fill them, hence the immigration drive!
@AoW: things improved since 1960, but would you deny that there is now a sense of complacency? A lot of the comentary on this blog is from the point of view that racial issues are not urgent, it's a solved problem that would melt away if we would just stop acknowledging it.
DeleteYou don't have to be a bad person to think that, just a normal human with normal attention biasses. Most people know but much fewer understand emotionally that someone else's experience of the world does not necessarily mirror our own.
Franco: not an offensive question, and I am certainly not in favour of total equality. But maybe we can agree that a system which artificially exaggerated inequalities and entrenches disadvantage down generational lines is not preferable to a system which does not do those things. We probably disagree about whether laissez-faire capitalism qualifies as such a system, and certainly about whether we can (must?) improve upon it, but so-be-it.
DeleteJez,
DeletePlease take a few moments to read what happened with one of my 4th grade students because his head had been filled with the victimology of systemic racism. This happened back in 1981-1983. CS wanted more than equal treatment; viewed himself as entitled. Pffft!
I have never -- and will never -- allow entitlement or reparations to happen in my classroom. One might say that I run my classroom -- and my personal life -- based on equality of treatment. No "brownie points" from me. Period. Full stop.
There are many others like CS, and it's a dead end path, IMO.
So, is there an attitude of complacency these days? If so, it is a normal reaction because "enough is never enough." Again, pffffft!
PS: BTW, CS isn't a one-off among my students (or former students).
I agree it is a normal reaction (see what I said about normal humans harboring normal biasses), but it isn't a helpful one. And neither is that boys entitlement helpful either -- you dealt with him very well, but of course none of what you said to him would be a satisfying response to the real victim of police brutality. It's when we try to treat both cases (say, CS and Rodney King for examples) the same way that I believe is complacent. I'm not saying there isn't any bathwater that can be usefully thrown out, but let's not be indifferent to the babies that go along with them.
DeleteJez,
DeleteWell, police brutality happens to us white bread, too.
Some years ago, my husband got slammed around by a police officer. I don't know what the officer's problem was, but he retired a few weeks later.
We didn't file a complaint, but I did call the officer's supervisor to tell him what happened to a 35+ years citizen of this county. The officer apparently admitted that there was no provocation.
As for notorious cases of police brutality, it is most unhelpful to race relations to riot and burn down businesses.
I'd have filed a complaint, same as I would for a common assault. I don't know what your reasons were for not filing one, but I hope it wasn't any variation of "there's no point, they won't listen because we belong to whatever combination of minority groups applies" -- because that would suck. That's not a choice, that's denied agency which is anathema to my understanding of Western society.
DeleteAs for riots, well ideally issues would be raised politely, carefully considered, and answered practically, throughly and with appropriate speed. What we do when that doesn't happen is surely left to the conscience of the individual church-goer, but I would expect that, at the very least, the "polite" part would get dropped after enough time. If we didn't want the demonstations to escalate, surely it was most unhelpful to meet even the most benign protests with indignant dismissal. If you box a large enough group into a corner, some fraction of them are inevitably going to fight back. And of course violence (even just the prospect of violence) attracts thugs whatever the ostensible cause. It should never have been allowed to reach this stage; doing so was a deliberate choice imo, one which tells us more about Trump and his attitude to racism and political expediency, than the originally posted video does imo.
Jez,
DeleteWe didn't file a report because (1) the fine was only $40 for my husband's offense, and (2) we'd been through so much damn paperwork with my husband's brain surgery 4 months prior (vestibular schwannoma.
@ Jez 2:58 AM
DeleteI do know about Windrush. Do you? The Windrush programs began in 1948 and went through the 1970s. I will speak only of the ten-year period beginning in 1948, but as a backdrop, surely you do realize how badly Nazi bombs destroyed huge sections of British cities. Surely you realize that 43,000 civilians lost their lives in those bombings, and another 140,000 people were critically wounded.
I’m sure you appreciate the cost and effort taken to rebuild those cities. Bombed out businesses generally do not hire staff —that accounts for some of the unemployment. Understand, too, that the British people remained on war rationing until around 1955. Beyond the civilian dead and wounded, the British people suffered mightily for 15 years (beginning in 1939). One would think that the Parliament would develop policies that at least acknowledged the suffering endured by civilians and its appreciation for the sacrifices made by the 2.9 million war veterans, among whom more than 300,000 died and another (nearly) 400,000 received serious wounds.
There were few jobs for returning veterans. Destroyed businesses don’t hire staff, remember? In that environment, government irrationally decided in 1948 to import labor. Returning war veterans could not find jobs at a decent wage, because employers (who were struggling to get back on their feet) were happy to hire blacks at half the labor cost of white workers. In those circumstances, you can (or should) understand how labor unions made race an issue. I must ask you, was this (a) fair treatment of British citizens, who having endured 15 years of hell, only wanted to get their lives back to normal, who only wanted a fair wage in exchange for their labor, (b) fair treatment of returning war veterans, (c) fair treatment of people uprooted from their home countries and placed within a hostile environment?
You can only “disagree” that veterans could not find jobs if you don’t fully understand the labor history of the period. “More vacancies than people to fill them” is utter bullshit. Employers simply didn’t want to pay whites what they needed to survive in the post-war world. Imported blacks, had to work for half pay ... they were stuck in a very unfriendly environment. Ignoring those deported back to their home countries, how many do you think voluntarily returned to their home countries? Finally, Jez ... if there was plenty of work in England/Scotland/Wales, why did nearly a million Brits migrate to Australia under the Ten Pound Pom program?
If you are unaware of the racial discord in Liverpool and Birmingham, then do some research into your black communities at these locations —and please do that before you begin criticizing the US about “racial inequality.” Neither of our two countries have made wise decisions in the past, and the consequence of these poor decisions in years past continue to plague our societies today. I am disappointed by your lack of knowledge of what really happened in the UK between 1939-1958.
But do you know about the windrush scandal, the much more recent story about the Home Office (when Teresa May was Home Secretary) demanding that the Windrush generation of immigrants possess papers which the government itself had shredded in around 2009?
DeleteIt's sweet of you to enter into so much detail about why unemployment should have been as high as you claim, but I think we should establish the facts before getting bogged down in interpretation. Your high unemployment claim surprised me because it runs counter to all the 1st-hand recollections I've listened to over the years, and it runs counter to the figures I (very quickly) summoned from the internet. I'm not an economist or an historian, but I believe you are wrong; I could easily be mistaken, but it'll take more than a condescending attitude to persuade me -- not *much* more, I would be greatful for just one reference.
But I'm not sure your explanations make complete sense anyway. Surely loss of man-power would restrict the supply of labour, and surely all the damage meant there was plenty of work cleaning it up and rebuilding (largely funded by American loans, of course), and fewer people to do it.
But to answer your questions
a) It's not cool to loose out on work to cheap immigrant labour, but we disagree about whether that was happening in the 1950s. Aside from that, I think the British public wanted the reconstruction work to happen at pace. Whatever their feelings about black neighbours, I don't know that they would have preferred to delay that reconstruction work. But yes, I'm completely in favour of paying immigrants the full amount and punishing unscrupulous employers who take advantage of them.
b) the British war effort deployed regiments from all over the Empire, so don't overlook that many of them were veterans too.
c) of course that wasn't fair, but but Britain was a colonial power at the time, so that's par for the course. I think a very strong case can be made that migration to Britain was badly mis-sold to the colonial subjects it was aimed towards.
d) plenty of reasons for Brits to migrate to Australia: warmer weather, more space, sick of Europe turning Fascist seemingly every 20 years etc. I'm not aware (not that I would be, not a historian) that it was motivated by unemployment at home. That migration flow was sustained over 30 years, so it's not particularly associated with the immediate post-war period.
Finally, I don't know how you got the impression that my remarks about American racial discord were somehow predicated on my own country's record in this area. I don't see what that has to do with it. I trust Johnson and his inner circle even less on race than I do Trump.
OFF-TOPIC-BIT VITALLY IMPORTANT: IIF YOU REALLY WANTTO KNOW HOW THOROUGHLY ROTTEN, CORRUPT AND DEPRAVED THE LEFT IS TAKE A GOOD LO:NG LOOK AT THE FOLLOWING
ReplyDeleteREPORTED BY A LEFTIST AT WYD:
Amy Coney Barrett Not the Goody-Two-Shoes She Pretends to Be
Political Wire
by Taegan Goddard
Souces have told us this highly touted paragon of virtue, began her career at age eight in a New Orleans whorhouse where her virginity was sold repeatedly to lecherous old men till the child could no longer suppress her extreme eagerness to be penetrated vaginally, anally and orally by mature men with large penises.
By age ten she was was rolling naked on the floor, foaming at the mouth, frigging herself begging for the Grand Slam –– a dick in her pussy, one up her ass, and one down her throat. For this little Amy would receive five-hundred dollars per session all of which wound up in the pockets of the Parish Priests who acted as her pimps after they'd broken her in to the joys of whoredom.
Lttle Amy's dirt poor parents gladly helped arrange for these transactions in exchange for receiving fifteen percent of the action.
Business almost doubled at the bordello after Amy's little sister was brought intlo the act –– first for threesomes, and eventually to entertain a many as seven randy ol gentlemen at a time.
It nearly broke the hearts of both Coney Girls when they had to be told they'd grown too mature –– and too jaded –– to continue as a Special Attraction.
It was said all over the State of Louisiana that nobody ever loved their work more than the Coney Sisters.
RESPONSE:
September 28, 2020 at 11:21 AM
RUMPELSTILTSKIN said
WELL DING DONG! THAT IS TRULY SHOCKING.
A PHONY BITCH LIKE THAT WILL NEVER BE SEATED ON THE HIGH COURT, THANK GAIA. WE'RE SAVED! ACB IS FINISHED.
Franco,
DeleteThat piece by Goddard must be one for members only at Political Wire. I can't find it on the main page of the site.
An acerbic satire.
The only thing obvious about YOU, Canardo, is your compulsive drive to be an unrepentant irritant, a troublemaker and persistent defender of the indefensible.
ReplyDeleteNO MATTER HOW LONG I LIVE I WILL NEVER UNDERSTAND WHY ANY DECENT PERSON PUTS UP WITH YOUR INCESSANT FLOOD OF IRKSOME VERBAL VOMIT.
IT'S NEITHER INFORMATIVE, ENLIGHTENiNG OR AMUSING.
I fully expect to be reprimanded for this –– as usual –– and possibly even DELETED, but frankly I DON'T CARE.
Pictures and videos of someone with a host of ppl of color, or even helping them get ahead are no more dispositive of someone's racism than pictures of a liberal with his conservative friends or vice versa.
ReplyDeleteJustice Scalia's longtime friendship with RBG does not change the fact that he was a strong conservative. Donald Trump's photos/friendship with minorities does not, by itself prove he is not racist.
It's the "I can't be racist, I've got a black right here" argument.
Don't you realize that you've made a highly insulting comment by using a FALSE equivalent, Dave?
DeleteWhether youare aware of it or not, your comment, a stated. implies that being "A Strong Conservative" is the moral equivalent of being a (GASP!) "Racist."
WHAT I RESENT MOST ABOUT LEFTISTS IS THEIR INFERNAL OBSESSIVE-COMPULSIVE DRIVE ALWAYS TO FIND SOMETHING TO COMPLAIN ABOUT.
You remid me of a quip one of New England friends made many years ago:
"LIBERALS?" she asked somewhat derisively, "THEY'D BITCH ABOUT THE HOLLYHOCKS APPEARING IN THE SPRING."
I still chuckle every time I think of that, because, even though she meant it to be funny, it's just SO TRUE.
Dave reminds me of someone I knew years ago who was constantly impressed with his own insightfulness. He was one of those “no improvement needed” fellows who, while perfectly willing to criticize others, lacked the gift of introspection. He, like Dave, knew a lot about everything; he just didn’t know how he knew everything. It must have been a special gift of the gods.
DeleteMustang,
DeleteMultiple up votes! You are spot on.
FreeThinke and mustang are just jealous that they weren't photographed with Mike Tyson.
DeleteSubstantive as always, Warren.
DeleteYou and mustang must have quite a following at the local John Birch meetings.
I see no reason for US membership in the UN ... that's true. But as Ed Bonderenka stated above 9:19, if anyone is lacking in substance, its you. But hey, make yourself feel good. That's okay. We began talking about the Central Park Five and you resort to talking trash about me and Warren. Nice try though--for an Alinskyite.
Delete@ Mustang:
DeleteThat's all he has, "duck," slander and smear.
Dave strikes me as one of those "reasonable" guys.
DeleteHe and Ducky make a pair of good cop/bad cop leftists.
The answer to his comment is that proof of Donald's non-racism (and how would you prove a negative?) is his long time association with "people of color" and the accolades and association they have given him over the years.
That is ignored by Dave's comment.
But to the woke or the left (both) any white is guilty of racism. White Privilege. Whatever.
@ Warren: I thought you knew ... Dave is really the leftist social justice crusader, Cricketman.
Delete@ Mustang:
DeleteSo I've gathered. :^|
Some people act indignant when you throw a brick through their rhetorical tropes, some get belligerent, and a few go into a type of willful incognisance and act like it didn't happen.
Except it's not a new idea. We've been talking about it since the 60s, and of course it was happening long before we started talking about it. For further explanation and concrete examples, I recommend the Lawrence report (where I first read about it) into london police racism in the 90s.
DeleteImposing a penalty for being hateful doesn't remove the hatred, it only makes it a bit more expensive. And it probably makes it worse. The problem is that there are times when hatred becomes useful. You don't send men into combat with them loving their enemy. You can't kill a man unless he's trying to kill you, which is a condition of raw hatred. Anyone who goes into combat with less than that is going to wind up dead.
DeleteYou're walking down the street in some inner-city area (although, I don't know why a reasonable person would do that) when someone accosts you. Self-defense is (always) justified, but the method of self-defense may not be. If you shoot someone who threatens you with a pencil eraser, you're probably going to go directly to jail. If you shoot someone who threatens you with a knife, that's another matter (albeit not without some legal costs). No one should be carrying a firearm who isn't prepared to use it; and to use a firearm, in the very instant that you pull the trigger, you are either in fear of (or hate) the bastard who's threatening you, or you've just accidentally pulled the trigger. Otherwise, this threatening person will take your firearm away from you, kill you, kill your wife or girlfriend, all your kids, and the family pet —lots of pain, no gain.
Are there persons of color whom I cannot stand? Most assuredly, but it is not their skin color ... it is their character I cannot abide. That isn't hate. It's a reasoned judgment. We're allowed to have reasoned judgments.
Institutional racism exists throughout history to the present day. There was a time when persons of color were either refused access to certain occupations or those hired but segregated. It was and continues to be an abomination. I include "affirmative action," which discriminates against anyone who is not a person of color or belongs to any other "minority" group (including historic minorities or those of mere situational convenience). American court records are replete with such cases. I do not doubt that such conditions/circumstances will continue to exist for as long as we look at someone and see their skin color as a primary frame of reference rather than seeing them as another human being. Personally, I wouldn't hire anyone whose appearance would cause my granny to have a heart attack, such as the moron who has "F You" tattooed on their foreheads, a bronze disk inserted into their lower lip, or a bone piercing through their nose. That isn't institutional racism; it's institutional anti-moron-ism —which is still legal.
Would be real nice to have equal protection under the law though, wouldn't it?
DeleteMustang,
DeleteWe're allowed to have reasoned judgments.
So far. But I see that right being eroded.
I had to laugh out loud when I read this (and I agree, too):
Personally, I wouldn't hire anyone whose appearance would cause my granny to have a heart attack, such as the moron who has "F You" tattooed on their foreheads, a bronze disk inserted into their lower lip, or a bone piercing through their nose.
Thank goodness my homeschool students don't do such stupid, disfiguring things!
@Ducky: I am aware of the Central Park Five case, generally. I am not aware that Trump played any substantial role in the arrest, trial, or conviction of the defendants. Koch was mayor, not Trumps. I do wonder, though, how a case in 1989, long reversed, the defendants compensated with over $41 million, is relevant to anything in 2020. There have been a lot of injustices in our long history. Is Trump responsible for all of them, or is that simply where your head is?
ReplyDelete@ Mustang, or is that simply where your head is?
ReplyDeleteYou know where his head is!
If you are't aware of Trump's role in the case you should look it up.
ReplyDeleteSubstantive as usual, Warren. You must be upset that you pay more in taxes than Trump.
Why would I be upset?
ReplyDeleteTaxation is theft and anyone that didn't make their liability to theft as low as possible is a moron.
Why do I have to look it up?
ReplyDeleteYou give a reference that doesn't strike an immediate response.
Then you ask us to figure out what you mean.
I don't have the interest.
If you presented the case here, I would read that.
@jez.
ReplyDelete"Except it's not a new idea."
No one said it was a new idea.
It's the same old Marxist "class struggle" BS, repackaged and polished up, replacing class struggle with racism.
BLM is quite open about it.
Let's entertain the idea of institutional racism for a moment: how would you tackle it in a way which couldn't remind a paranoid anti-communist of marxism?
DeleteJez,
DeleteWarren is not paranoid in any regard. Take my word for it. You would do well to heed his wise words. Try to step away from and beyond your own confirmation bias, and look at the evidence before you.
No one said Warren is paranoid.
DeleteJez,
DeleteReally? I'm referring to this comment you made a bit above, and the comment seems to be a reply addressed to Warren:
Let's entertain the idea of institutional racism for a moment: how would you tackle it in a way which couldn't remind a paranoid anti-communist of marxism?
It's a reply, but the paranoid anti-communist needn't be Warren himself.
DeleteThose reactions apply to direct personal racism (especially when they occur rarely enough that they don't wear you down), but are not relevant to institutional racism as in the latter case there's no individual to sass and/or the institution is too large to ignore: you can't keep your mouth shut and get off the police force at the next stop, you're stuck with them. I invited you to entertain the idea, as I expect you will continue to resist it indefinitely. But, here's that Lawrence report I recommended a couple of days ago: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277111/4262.pdf
DeleteAnd my purpose for introducing the paranoid character is that the form of response I'm asking for is not just non-Marxist, but unambiguosly so. What would that look like?
DeleteWhenever there is an organizational leader that harbors and broadcasts prejudices in any form (race, gender, sexual orientation), there will be a tendency among some (not all) within that organization to mimic those biases. It is utterly foolish, of course, but if we acknowledge individual prejudices, then we must —as an extension of that— acknowledge the existence of institutional biases as well. The Lawrence Report dates to 1999. I am unable to speak with any degree of authority on conditions in the UK, beyond my personal relationship with my British family. I have never heard anyone in my British family make an untoward remark about any minority group or person of color. I personally know a retired Chief Constable. He has never mentioned systematic ill-treatment of minorities. He has never made an improper remark about anyone in my presence. I cannot say with certitude that he doesn’t go out at 2 a.m. for the purpose of hassling minorities, but I doubt it.
DeleteWith all that said, there is a remedy. It is that we raise our children to see people rather than skin colors or ethnic origins, and if we must judge them, then do so based on something more substantial than skin color. It does not advance this methodology, however, when government policy has the same effect of beating people on the head to achieve government’s goals. In my judgment, in its attempt to stamp out social bias, it resorts to the same strategies used in communicating institutional prejudice —AND, as illustrated by Warren, employs a double standard in its application. We should, by now, recognize that government policy has not only been counter-productive, it has made matters worse. It sets a dangerous precedent within “free” societies to limit freedom whenever it suits government’s purposes. Edicts from on high do not change human behavior, but good parenting can.
So, rather than threatening people with jail time for expressing an unpopular point of view, labeling it “hate speech,” I say let assholes demonstrate to others that they are just that. We are never going to have a utopian society. If we are going to be a tolerant society, then what that means is that we must be tolerant to those whose views we abhor —and maybe even especially of those whose views we deplore.
Mustang,
DeleteEdicts from on high do not change human behavior, but good parenting can.
Yes, there is the key.
My grandmother (1898-1981), born and lived in the hills of East Tennessee until she was in her mid-40s, was, by my lights, a racist. For example, every time that a black person appeared on her tiny b&w TV set, she got up and changed the channel; she lived in before-remote days, and getting up to change that channel was a hardship. But she did it every time till her dying day.
My grandmother refused any black doctor or black nurse to tend to her.
My grandmother never sat down to table with our maid, who most often prepared the meals.
And yet.
And yet.
I never heard my grandmother utter the word nigger. Never! Not even in her senile years.
More significantly, my grandmother paid the Social Security wages for the maid. Very few people paid those wages for those maids -- including the liberal who lived just across the road.
Most significantly, when our long-retired black maid Aunt Hattie, who must have been in her 90s, got cancer, she called my grandmother, who tended to her with her own two hands: stinky puke, stinky barf, stinky crap, etc. My grandmother tended Aunt Hattie day and night until Aunt Hattie's grandson could get here from Alabama to take her home to die. And when the grandson arrived, I watched my grandmother press $500 into his hand. $500 was the equivalent of her retirement check + Social Security Retirement.
I witnessed all of the above with my own two eyes.
When I asked my grandmother how she reconciled her views about blacks, she said only this for me to ponder: "Aunt Hattie is family."
That's a really important story, which speaks to the abstract point I've been trying to make about how good people can sustain racist outcomes. I fear that Warren and Mustang believe that as long as you refrain from burning crosses in your coloured neighbour's garden while chanting the n-word, then racism has been averted. Sorry, it's more insidious than that. The whole point of the Lawrence report (do flick through it, it'll help us at least be clear that we're talking about the same thing) is how police racism exists apart from individual officers intentionally harassing black people.
Delete@ jez
DeleteI read through the report. I must admit that quite a bit of it was supposition gleaned far after the report was made so it was far too long and I was forced to skim through a lot of it.
Now let's look at several other incidents that I find far more troubling. They involve several cases of child grooming and prostitution that your police forces and their superiors decided to ignore until public outcry forced their hand. let's start with
Oxford child sex abuse ring Which seems to have started in 1998 and which wasn't acted upon until 2011 with more investigation in 2015.
Then there was, the Huddersfield grooming, 20 men were convicted of more than 120 offenses against 15 girls between 2004 and 2011. Hard to believe that the police didn't know anything about it and it's totally unclear when the investigation started.
The last one I'll cite is Rochdale child sex abuse ring although there were others.
Nine men were convicted of sex trafficking and other offenses including rape, trafficking girls for sex and conspiracy to engage in sexual activity with a child in May 2012. In March 2015, the Greater Manchester Police seems to have been forced to apologize for its failure to investigate the allegations more thoroughly between 2008–10.
First, it shows an unwillingness of your police to investigate anything that is racially or culturally "sensitive".
Second, it would seem that a lot of your police force are just typical bureaucratic place holders only interested in "serving" by doing as little as possible until their retirement and they avoid confrontation or notoriety with their superiors so as not to endanger their pension. They are just not interested in actually providing any kind of public service. Of course there are notable exceptions such as the former Detective Constable who was investigating the grooming gangs, Margaret Oliver, resigned in 2012 in disgust of the handling of the cases by the police force and spoke out as a whistleblower.
Third, there is a definite racial and cultural overtone to all of these cases as almost all of those involved in these crimes are British Pakistani men which make up only about 1% of your total population.
My opinion, you don't have a institutional racism problem, you have a bureaucratic problem exacerbated by a quasi-Socialist Government where the scum floats to the top.
Jez,
DeleteThat's a really important story, which speaks to the abstract point I've been trying to make about how good people can sustain racist outcomes.
Are you referring to my Aunt Hattie story?
I definitely only skimmed it too. I think it has to be long to support its claims: but that is what "proof" (which you asked for) looks like.
DeleteAs to the grooming cases, I recently wrote this about it. Those points are relevant: you shouldn't ignore class, in particular the victims' class: this goes much further to explain police apathy than the racial narrative IMO. The Pakistani gangs didn't invent our disdain for that class of girl, that was already ingrained. 100% not shifting blame, but they were exploiting an existing blind spot. We should punish them, but we should also attend to our blind spot.
Pakistanis might be more inclined to form criminal networks, but I'm not sure that Asians commit a disproportionate amount of underage sex offences. From 8% (last census, 2011) of the population, Asians made up 4% (govt data from 2014) of such offenders.
Qualified agreement with all your numbered points: 1) yes, I think that's a common individual tendency which would require carefully crafted policies to overcome at the instituional level. 2) Agree completely. 3) yes, but "only" in the gang aspect of it. Taking child sex offences as a whole, I think indiginous Brits are responsible for their share (maybe slightly more) of it. Scare quotes for "only", because I'm confused about the moral significance of that networking aspect. It doesn't feel unimportant, but it also feels like the dominant issue should be the actual rapes.
Now I imagine these cases were brought to your attention by one or more of the increasingly popular political movements advancing anti-immigrant or anti-muslim agendas. I find these movements' frequent reference to grooming gangs highly disingenuous, because they are completely devoted to panicing about immigration but seem indifferent recalibrating our attitude towards that vulnerable class of girl. In my judgement, the latter is the vastly more productive response: while the attitude persists that girls from that class are likely to be wild, hedonistic, self-destructive and unreliable, they remain excellent targets for grooming, be it from gangs or individuals.
@AoW: yes, thanks very much for sharing it.
DeleteAt 10/3/2020 at 9:16 AM EDT, Jez wrote: I fear that Warren and Mustang believe that as long as you refrain from burning crosses in your oloured neighbor’s garden while chanting the n-word, then racism has been averted.
DeleteThe comment is so far beyond the pale that it almost doesn’t deserve a response, and yet it does illustrate the gulf that separates our points of view. On the one hand, if I do any of those things, then I’m an overt racist, and if I don’t do any of those things, then I’m a covert racist. What, then, remains? Should someone stand Warren and I against the wall to relieve us of our ingrained racism? How racist would that be? And, of course, this was after I already opined that if we do harbor biases, we should base them on character, not skin color.
Jez claims that institutional racism not only exists —but is pervasive. He argues the Critical Race Theory, which if one reads carefully and steps over all its silly clichés, is a Marxist treatise explaining how to divide and conquer western society. Speaking of insidious. Brainwashing the CRT has been going on long enough now to show up in 21st Century dialogue as a proven fact. I’m not saying that there are no worthwhile points to consider; I am saying that it is a theory predicated on inflexible political agenda by eggheads whose only practical experience in life is academia. I will add that I do not object to such conversations, as it is man’s nature to constantly evaluate society with the goal of improving it. I do object to the assumption that CRT is the only explanation that makes sense in multi-cultural environments, within which there must always be a minority population.
I do agree that institutional racism exists but disagree (to a point) that it is pervasive. If people harbor racial or ethnic biases, then there must be some degree of institutional biases because all our institutions are human constructs. Note that I emphasize “people” ... which must include people of color whose foundational point of view is also racist. To illustrate this point, neither Warren or myself have suggested that because Jez is a person of color, he must in some way empathize with machete wielding terrorists in Sierra Leone or the gun-toting drug dealers in Chicago ... and yet, he feels comfortable with offering the suggestion that we are covert racists.
But even if we confine our biases to character, we must still acknowledge that race and ethnicity will play a part because every ethnic group has its own set of values, morés or folkways that govern generally acceptable behavior. What is generally acceptable to or tolerated within black communities may be intolerable within Sikh communities, and the fact is that Sikh’s will always judge others according to their own general view of propriety. I do not believe that multicultural societies will ever rid themselves contentious issues any more than white Californians will ever become uncritical of white Texans. There is no utopia. We should focus our energies on strategies that make society less contentious, things that we can actually accomplish, rather than wasting our time on things that will never change. A leopard cannot be separated from its spots.
Mustang,
DeleteMultiple up votes, my friend, for such an insightful and evidence-based comment.
@ jez, The citation is quite explicit:
Delete"British Pakistani men which make up only about 1% of your total population." not Asian, as Brits use the term.
Also, you seem to be blaming the victims for the crimes committed against them. It still doesn't absolve your Police of their lackadaisical attitude as it speaks of an institutional problem. Is it racism or the far deeper problem of unaccountably.
As to where I first heard of the grooming and prostition, that would be the BBC or one of its affiliates.
I will add this, I agree with Mustang. My first reaction to your comment was outrage. In my case I could assume it might be fair if you misinterpreted my comments directed @ Ducky and Dave, my point being that is impossible to prove a negative.--i.e. that you are not racist, in this case--, I really don't care what you think of me but Mustang is a friend and you have no idea of his intellectual depth or his humanity. He is a leader of men and and is "literally" a published historian of accomplishment and a world traveler and educator. Also, he is a retired US Marine Corp, Colonel, a "Mustang" that rose through the enlisted ranks to commissioned officer. As such, he has a far deeper view of the world than you could imagine. You would do well to heed his words.
I hope you will re-read my comment in the spirit it was intended (playful hyperbole) -- perhaps you don't know me well enough to pick up on my tone. My literal meaning could be stated "Warren and Mustang sometimes write as if they believe that overt racism is the only racism, or the only racism worth addressing."
DeleteI'm trying to talk about institutional racism. I believe it is possible for a system to exhibit racist tendencies despite being manned entirely by people who are not racist. Not talking about racist individuals keeping their beliefs on the down-low, and I'm not talking about unconscious bias either (not just now, anyway; and no judgement to people who harbour unconscious biasses, which is 100% of everyone). This is different from your idea about system-level bias arising from the individual bias of each member of that system (although it is important to remember that systems are composed of people -- I'm not rejecting your point, just adding to it). For example, I think the policemen, judges, juries and penal officers need not be racist in order to enforce laws and sentencing guidelines etc. that disproportionately penalize one group. And vice versa, a well-written law can frustrate the racist intention of a bad apple policeman or maliscious juror. The human basis of these systems is important and should not be overlooked, but if we are to irradicate institutional racism (assuming we want to!), it is necessary to address that institution's culture and rules, not just the individuals.
I believe I have nowhere suggested that anyone here is a covert racist. I can see you are fixated on the idea that I am trying to trick you into admiting to overt or covert racism or something of that sort, but I don't see how it has anything to do with any of my remarks. I've no interest in castigating anyone here. Is there some way we can talk about these issues together without getting triggered?
It's an interesting point about groups judging each other by their own standards. It occurs to me that you can keep subdividing almost indefinitely. Not my area, but I bet there are rivalries between various black communities and Sikh sects; closer to home we are all-too-familiar with often bloody clashes between denominations of Christianity and Islam. And you can keep going (divisions within Anglicanism or within Shia) on and on... sub-dividing groups as finely as you like, until you realise that what we're really seeing is that individual variation within a group is not necessarily smaller than variation between groups. Antagonistic as our personal online interraction has often is, I'm sure I'd get on better with you than I do with a decent percentage of my immediate neighbours, or ethnic group, or people with a similar education background, or whatever group it is you think I'm supposed to have more in common with than American Republicans or Sikhs.
@AoW: "evidence-based?" I liked Mustang's comment too, but I'm not seeing that -- maybe it's covert evidence ;)
@warren: British Pakistani is a subset of Asian. I assert that I am not victim-blaming, please explain how you think I have done that.
DeleteI accept I misjudged the tone on my comment, which I did not wish to cause outrage. It was mostly a response to your comment that "you [jez] haven't convinced me [institutional racism] exists" which suggests that you think that intentional individual racism is the whole story.
Mustang doesn't need you to defend him, I like him already -- although if he would cool it with putting so many words in my mouth it would be easier for me to heed his. ;) BTW is "mustang" a military term for that type of officer? I assumed he was named after the car (I love mustangs).
@ jez:
Delete" I assert that I am not victim-blaming, please explain how you think I have done that."
Very well.
"In my judgement, the latter is the vastly more productive response: while the attitude persists that girls from that class are likely to be wild, hedonistic, self-destructive and unreliable, they remain excellent targets for grooming, be it from gangs or individuals."
Your tone sounds dismissive. Try not using the passive phrasing. "while the attitude" should have been more specific about who's attitude, which you put at the end of the phrase. Properly it should of read "the attitude of gangs and some individuals is that..." Which is active voice. You can look up Active and passive voice for explanation and examples.
Read it to yourself and you'll see what I mean.
@AOW, Help me here if I don't have that correct.
@jez, British Pakistani is a subset of Asian.
Yes I know. The citation is "British Pakistani Men" a particular subset of Asian which would account for the 1%
"BTW is "mustang" a military term for that type of officer?
Yes but not "officially". Used most commonly in the US Navy and USMC. You could say it's a slang term but in no way derogatory. The term far outdated the car and refers to an unbroken wild horse. Not to be confused with a Maverick.
I should clarify: the persistent attitude I'm talking about is prevalent throughout society, not just the police and the perps, not just some people, but practically everyone.
DeleteBtw your example is still passive. Active would be "society in general holds the attitude that these girls are self destructive etc. It is the prevalence of this attitude that makes pedophiles choose them as targets."
Notice I had to split the idea into more sentences -- I think too many ideas per sentence was the real issue. Clarity gets exponentially harder with with sentence length!
However unclear that sentence was, I was unmistakably advocating for "recalibrating our attitude towards that vulnerable class of girl". I still don't see how you managed to interpret that as victim-blaming.
Re Pakistani men, I agreed with you that they are more likely to be involved in a network. But looking at the child sex crime statistics (I couldn't find a finer demographic breakdown than just Asian), either they commit the same amount of sex crime (just in gangs), or non-pakistani Asians commit a lot less sex crime than general pop to bring the overall numbers for Asians down. Which do you think sounds more plausible.
should be "non-Pakistani Asians commit a lot less child sex crime than general pop..."
DeleteSince I was asked....
DeleteTechnically, the grammar and style problem is overuse of linking verbs, an overuse which sucks all the life out of writing -- just as Passive Voice does (Passive also uses "being" verbs, i.e., is, are, was, were). See Excessive Use of Linking Verbs. Worth reading.
Overuse of linking verbs also makes writing tend toward the nonspecific.
Jez,
Delete(I couldn't find a finer demographic breakdown than just Asian
That lack of breakdown is obfuscation -- and Islamophilia.
Don't forget "laziness" -- I didn't look very hard.
DeleteI do not understand why scientific papers are required to be written in the passive voice. It is habit forming. But these voices and verbs do have their place: imagine rewriting a clear statement of a constant truth such as "5 is greater than 3" to avoid them. It only makes it more awkward, doesn't it?
The form of that sentence would be familiar to someone who reads the same technical material as I do. To anyone outside my niche, I can see that the whole thing is unwieldy and difficult to parse. Shorter sentences are easier to parse almost automatically.
Jez,
DeleteI do not understand why scientific papers are required to be written in the passive voice.
Poor teaching!
A few of my former students -- I teach Advanced High School Composition -- have gone on to instruct science and business people to write better. Unfortunately, that circle is quite small because I teach small groups (4-10, usually).
Jez,
DeletePlease forgive my request here....
How much racial bias have you personally suffered?
I am "white bread," so the racial bias have had to endure is reverse discrimination.
It's not teaching, it is (or was, I'm happy to report that journals are changing their mind about this just recently) a professional requirement!
DeleteI don't have any real horror stories, if that's what you're getting at.
Jez,
DeleteI don't have any real horror stories
In 1960 here in the United States, I assure you that you would have horror stories.
And both the whites and blacks would have shunned you.
DeleteI saw the latter as late as 1983 here. A black father left his wife and son to get a "blacker" wife. I had the boy in my class, and you've already read about CS I think.
I had a similar situation with a girl in my class in 1986.
DeleteI'm sure in Britain too, in 1960. As I get older and reflect on that period, I wonder how much my parents shielded me from. It may have helped that we lived in a fairly quiet semi-rural area.
DeleteJez,
DeleteAs I get older and reflect on that period, I wonder how much my parents shielded me from.
Are they still living? Could you ask them?
*****************
What about at school?
@ jez:
Delete"I assert that I am not victim-blaming, please explain how you think I have done that."
I could see where that might bother you, let me apologize.
Let me be a little clearer.
Think of it as cautionary, reverse the racial and class distinctions. If you were "white" and the girls were considered "black", you would have been called a racist and a victim blamer.
I do not understand British class distinctions even though I administrated a British message board for over two years.
Movement through "classes" --here--, is fluid and for the most part economical. A person can rise through their situation through a number of actions and also fall. That is why you see the lunatic ravings of the "Never Trumpers", they have lost their place as the "Mandarins" of the "ruling elite".
You may not be aware; at the time of the US Civil Rights law, carve outs and quotas, were given to "Negros", in government jobs, private industry and higher education. Laws were passed that effectively removed the duty of the States to provide "Pubic Assistance" and created another bureaucratic Federal, Welfare system that seemed to always spend 80% of it's funding on the bureaucracy proper (itself). Many took advantage of the system but many only took advantage of the Welfare payments, food stamps (free food) subsidized housing (actually free for most) and free medical care which forced doctors to accept only partial payment for their service, and never took advantage of the other opportunities. So it continues to this day.
What have the consequences been:
We have blacks and Latinos and smaller ethnicities that have self-segregated subsisting on Government subsidies (not to mention the illegal emigrants). They begrudge those that have more than they. In effect, they have become the spoiled pets --pawns-- of one of the oldest political games.
I can trace that game back to the decline of the Roman Empire when the masses were provided bread and circuses.
Why would these masses be concerned about Marxist or Socialist polices when everything they have is already provided by the State? They can only believe they will get even more largess from an even larger State.
It's far easier to believe they don't have everything they want because of institutional racism than it is the fault of their own shortfalls and opportunities they passed over.
You pose that some (Government?) action could alleviate the problem that you call institutional racism.
What would that look like?
Keep in mind that I'm an amateur historian --which consists of writing and publishing "white papers" for smaller blogs and message boards-- and I am intimately aware of programs that affect the poor and disadvantaged having over 9 years of social work including personal contacts and tracking through that period. And having been the facilitator on a "Dioceseson Commission on "Social Justice". --I will tell you the conclusions of that commission if you wish.-- It was accepted and implemented by the Bishop.
Human beings are animals too,(everyone), if you make a pet of an animal, it will forget or never know how to take care of itself, (food and shelter, everything.)
In other words, I'm not giving you short shrift, this is something I've studied in some detail and taking in the human condition.
I'll reply to jex's comment later. I'm having some problems with my comments showing up where they belong related to this cell phone and blogger.
ReplyDelete