Racism

swedish chef

swedish chef

At the Start
Joined
Jun 28, 2010
Messages
4,847
Location
London
At the beginning of 2010 my brother-in-law was sentenced for 6 months for a drunken arguement with a black bouncer who accused him of calling him a nignog - this was my brother-in-law's first offence, he was in a full-time job, married, 2 kids and a mortgage. I asked him if he called this man by this name and he replied no - I called him a black bast**d. So he was racist but still a very harsh sentence under the circumstances. If it wasn't for the fact he has a close family who looked after his wife & kids and paid his mortgage and a company that stood by him it could have wrecked him & his family.

A few weeks ago four Somalian women got away without a custodial sentence for kicking a women whilst she lay on the floor, shouting kill the white bitch. This was captured on cctv but their excuse was, they are muslim and had been drinking alcohol for the first time.

Now Diane Abbott has twittered, "White people love playing 'divide & rule'. We should not play their game."
Mr Miliband told Ms Abbott that the remark was unacceptable, shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna said, adding that after the years Ms Abbott had spent campaigning for equality and against prejudice people would not "seriously think Diane is a racist."

I doubt anything will happen to Ms Abbott but I for one do not think she should be a member of parliament.

It seems to me that In arguments on racism, things can be black-and-white, meaning that the issue at hand is dichotomized (having two clear, opposing sides with no middle ground). Separated into two parts or classifications, where it's wrong for white to say black but ok for black to say white.

.
 
Last edited:
Milliband should have sacked Abbott on the spot. It is another example of his weak leadership that he didnt do so. Quite simply any white front bencher making a sweeping sneering statement about "black people" would have not touched the ground

Her comments were racist full stop.

its not the first time with her either
 
Last edited:
Everything goes to context, doesn't it? I don't think your brother-in-law would draw a custodial sentence for just yelling 'you're a black bastard'. He would have had to have been causing a breach of the peace, because he was drunk and out of control (which is not an excuse for bad behaviour), perhaps causing some degree of damage to premises, etc. Door security men don't throw out customers just because they're drunk. They can refuse to let them into premises if they are, which is quite right, just as drunks aren't supposed to be admitted, for example, to football grounds.

White races have a historical notoriety of treating non-white races, particularly Africans, with appalling brutality. Even where no slavery was involved, like South Africa, there was disgraceful discrimination against black Africans by the Boers, where let alone schools and hospitals were segregated simply on the grounds of colour, but also shop entrances, park benches, buses, work opportunities, and most strongly, living areas. Would you like to be made to live in only, say, Uxbridge, just because you're white? No choice in what house or flat you want? There is a long racial memory of abuse by white people, make no mistake.

You're right there's a stronger bias towards punishing white people who insult blacks - I can't believe you aren't aware of the Steven Lawrence case, where four to five white youths set about the kid just because he was black, and that two of them, the ghastly Acourt brothers, were known to police to run gangs which went round stabbing young men for fun.

There was no need for your rellie to include the word 'black', was there? How was that relevant to the incident? I assume he felt that he was in 'his' country and the black man had no 'right' to tell him what to do. But we, whites, have imposed our will over millions of people throughout Africa, India, the Far and Middle East by simply walking in and laying claim to their countries. And, of course, been eager partners with both African and Arab traders in buying conquered tribes for enslaving them for all of their lives and those of any heirs, often with indescribable barbarity.

When someone white yells out "nigger shit!!" "black c*nt!" and other lovely epithets, it's not too far from the long, long history of abuse that that race has suffered at our white hands. Remember that right up until the 1960s it was still legal and acceptable in Britain to put up signs in guest houses saying "NO IRISH, NO COLOUREDS, NO DOGS" - and not always in that order. Okay, go ahead and call someone a bastard, a shit, or whatever your drink-sozzled brain dictates (or even when it's not sozzled), but there is no reason to drag their race or nationality into part of the insulting process. Do you go to Spain on holiday and call your waiter over with, "Oi, dago boy", say your Jewish shopkeeper is not bad for a kike, refer to the nice little lady in your Chinese take-away as a chink or slant-eye?

As for comparing your relative's behaviour with anyone else's, Diane Abbott's remark isn't historically incorrect, for a start. The Dutch, British, French, Germans, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese divided Africa into portions which did not respect ancient tribal or regional lines, the better to rule it. The Belgians divided the Congo tribally for their benefit, allowing one tribe which they favoured to treat the other very savagely - with a result that the tribal division between the Hutu and the Tutsi there and in Rwanda is still a vivid scar. The British divided tribes in the same way in what's now South Africa and certainly played off regional allegiances in their old fights in Afghanistan and India, to name a couple more. Diane is not wrong for what she said, because if we can, politically rather than just racially, play that game today, we do.
 
Thats rubbish Krizon. if she had said "past colonial leaders etc etc" then ok, thanks for the history lesson.

She did not say that

she said all "white people"

she is racist

would you accept sweeping statements about "black people" based on past behaviour? Or germans say? or anyone else?

sorry but thats garbage
 
Last edited:
Accept sweeping statements about Germans? Are you kidding me? British stand-up comedy is forever "talking about the war", there are still jibes about Italian and French "war heroes" and our very white, very British anti-this and anti-that just bubbles barely under the surface.

You're welcome to the history lesson - if you don't understand what informs today's anti-race laws, you sure need it. So, I take it you condone SC's relative's outburst? Bearing in mind that being drunk excuses nothing.

It's also time to get past a racial insult shouted at a chap just doing his job - and an insult as to his parentage, however innocuous you think that is - and a remark which has got its roots based in racial history, which Abbott's has. If we went with your thinking (?) only white people could criticise white history or behaviour. Your argument, on that score, is illogical. Black people have been a part of our history for centuries, mostly to their detriment (I can remember your anti-colonialism remarks, don't worry), and they have as much right as anyone - more than anyone - to pass comments on us, whether it's complimentary or not.

If you can't see the difference between a personal insult and a historical - and accurate - remark, just because they're made about one race by another, then you need to go back to school.
 
her comment wasnt framed as a history lesson. How could it be on twitter?

Comedians are not on the front bench (officially)

nd they have as much right as anyone - more than anyone - to pass comments on us, whether it's complimentary or not.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but this is not on. "us" means all white people and if thats ok then whites should be able to make stupid generalisations about "blacks" then shoudnt they? the same generalisations that lawrences murder and the inept and bigoted police response at the time

So, I take it you condone SC's relative's outburst?
Click to expand...

Whats that supposed to mean? where the fuck have i said that?
 
Last edited:
You haven't - that's why I'm asking if you do. You were so busy having a go at me (no change there, yet we were getting on so well this year!) that you omitted to make any remarks at all about the original premise of "black bastard" getting the man six months, or whether you thought that was acceptable if Diane Abbott could say that about white political history. I'd like to see the connection. Obviously if you consider her Tweet to be 'racist', then you must surely find SC's relative's outburst the same?
 
This is totally confused now.

Where in her tweet is anything about "history". wheres the qualification? Its rubbish

a Tory Mp tweets that " black people eat each other " and then tries to excuse it by saying "well they did and not all of them"

How long do you think he would last?
 
clivex said:
Milliband should have sacked Abbott on the spot. It is another example of his weak leadership that he didnt do so. Quite simply any white front bencher making a sweeping sneering statement about "black people" would have not touched the ground

Her comments were racist full stop.

its not the first time with her either
Click to expand...

correct, correct and correct. she is a horrible thing, and if people like her could be removed from the country, the UK would be far better off.
 
Thats an awful article jeremy and just full of the usual left wing hand wringing rubbish

Drawing a parrallel with a comedian is stupid. it is somewhat different when you consider your self a potential minister (god forbid...)

She represents a constituency with 61% white electorate. Shes dismissed them with with stupid remark.
One group that her oversimplification did ignore, unfortunately, is the large number of white working-class people who are at the bottom of the social heap and don’t have the power to divide and rule anything. But they’re not the people falling over themselves to express their outrage
Click to expand...
.

Whats that supposed to mean? It only happened today? Is he assuming because they didnt take to the streets they are happy with it or something? what crap...
 
You know what i mean! She, and other non white racists, are as dangerous, or will be in time as the bnp.
 
Hamm: "if people like her could be removed from the country... ". Breath-taking. In what, a mobile gas lorry, perhaps? You have a problem with people like her because of what? Her womanliness? Her skin colour? Maybe, before you sound like slightly more left of Goebbels than maybe you intended, you could enlighten us all with that profoundly-reasoned remark.

But you're both determined to be side-tracked, aren't you, with the shadow play? Swedish Chef has asked if it's right that his drunken brother-in-law did bird for probably three of a six-month sentence for shouting "black bastard" at a door supervisor. As a door supervisor with a current licence myself, I've just checked out what the beak would give you a six-month sentence for, and one of a few charges is a minor public order offence of being drunk and disorderly, for which the maximum for a single summary offence (that is, no previous convictions) is six months, and/or a fine of up to £5,000. That's without throwing the racial insult into the mix. If you're banged up for under a year, you only serve half your sentence, so SC's relative would've been out in three months.

So, he was convicted for being an obnoxious drunk, likely to be a risk to himself or the public - possibly because he tried to get into or refused to leave a club when requested, which is an indictable offence, where the police can and do intervene. The length of sentence for D&D behaviour isn't that unreal, since it gives the guilty the chance to calm down and consider their actions in future which, one hopes, won't be repeated with or without the racial slur.

So let's get that bit out of the way. I don't know why the four Somali women weren't given the same treatment, or more, considering it involved a racial ABH. That's a question which is worth raising with your local MP, Chef.
 
I agree, for the left anyway

it is ironic that that article refered to the "white working class" who have surely been as alienated as anyone by the fawning by some on the left of extreme bigoted Imans and black supremicists. Livingstone and Short spring to mind of course

The key is (as Swedish chef stated) that standards have to be applied equally. it is the least anyone should expect
But you're both determined to be side-tracked, aren't you, with the shadow play?
Click to expand...

Thats ridiculous. It was the end point of the original post FFS
 
Last edited:
krizon said:
Everything goes to context, doesn't it? I don't think your brother-in-law would draw a custodial sentence for just yelling 'you're a black bastard'. He would have had to have been causing a breach of the peace, because he was drunk and out of control (which is not an excuse for bad behaviour), perhaps causing some degree of damage to premises, etc. Door security men don't throw out customers just because they're drunk. They can refuse to let them into premises if they are, which is quite right, just as drunks aren't supposed to be admitted, for example, to football grounds.

White races have a historical notoriety of treating non-white races, particularly Africans, with appalling brutality. Even where no slavery was involved, like South Africa, there was disgraceful discrimination against black Africans by the Boers, where let alone schools and hospitals were segregated simply on the grounds of colour, but also shop entrances, park benches, buses, work opportunities, and most strongly, living areas. Would you like to be made to live in only, say, Uxbridge, just because you're white? No choice in what house or flat you want? There is a long racial memory of abuse by white people, make no mistake.

You're right there's a stronger bias towards punishing white people who insult blacks - I can't believe you aren't aware of the Steven Lawrence case, where four to five white youths set about the kid just because he was black, and that two of them, the ghastly Acourt brothers, were known to police to run gangs which went round stabbing young men for fun.

There was no need for your rellie to include the word 'black', was there? How was that relevant to the incident? I assume he felt that he was in 'his' country and the black man had no 'right' to tell him what to do. But we, whites, have imposed our will over millions of people throughout Africa, India, the Far and Middle East by simply walking in and laying claim to their countries. And, of course, been eager partners with both African and Arab traders in buying conquered tribes for enslaving them for all of their lives and those of any heirs, often with indescribable barbarity.

When someone white yells out "nigger shit!!" "black c*nt!" and other lovely epithets, it's not too far from the long, long history of abuse that that race has suffered at our white hands. Remember that right up until the 1960s it was still legal and acceptable in Britain to put up signs in guest houses saying "NO IRISH, NO COLOUREDS, NO DOGS" - and not always in that order. Okay, go ahead and call someone a bastard, a shit, or whatever your drink-sozzled brain dictates (or even when it's not sozzled), but there is no reason to drag their race or nationality into part of the insulting process. Do you go to Spain on holiday and call your waiter over with, "Oi, dago boy", say your Jewish shopkeeper is not bad for a kike, refer to the nice little lady in your Chinese take-away as a chink or slant-eye?

As for comparing your relative's behaviour with anyone else's, Diane Abbott's remark isn't historically incorrect, for a start. The Dutch, British, French, Germans, Belgians, Spanish and Portuguese divided Africa into portions which did not respect ancient tribal or regional lines, the better to rule it. The Belgians divided the Congo tribally for their benefit, allowing one tribe which they favoured to treat the other very savagely - with a result that the tribal division between the Hutu and the Tutsi there and in Rwanda is still a vivid scar. The British divided tribes in the same way in what's now South Africa and certainly played off regional allegiances in their old fights in Afghanistan and India, to name a couple more. Diane is not wrong for what she said, because if we can, politically rather than just racially, play that game today, we do.
Click to expand...

I usually have a lot of time for your point of view, Kri, but the majority of this is utter bollocks.

It's the usual 'You're going to have it bad for the next 200 years for what happened in the 1700s crap.

You sound like Lee Jasper and George Galloway
 
swedish chef said:
At the beginning of 2010 my brother-in-law was sentenced for 6 months for a drunken arguement with a black bouncer who accused him of calling him a nignog - this was my brother-in-law's first offence, he was in a full-time job, married, 2 kids and a mortgage. I asked him if he called this man by this name and he replied no - I called him a black bast**d. So he was racist but still a very harsh sentence under the circumstances. If it wasn't for the fact he has a close family who looked after his wife & kids and paid his mortgage and a company that stood by him it could have wrecked him & his family.
Click to expand...

If you don't mind me asking, what was the actual charge?
 
Hamm said:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2012/jan/06/diane-abbott-twitter-row-over-excited

A very poor article and a very lame excuse. Abbott is a disgrace.
Click to expand...

Not that long ago, I used to buy the Guardian occasionally and, whilst not often agreeing with its editorial line, generally found it to be well written and thought provoking.

These days it is quite pathetic, and its commentators: Ashley, Toynbee and the rest, excepting Simon Jenkins, are utterly predictable in following a hand wringing agenda some way to the left of Miliband's crew. I fear the BBC is following a similar path.
 
That piece of drivel was a typical piece of "only in the Guardian" but might even be topped by this

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/06/diane-abbott-tweet-anti-white-racism

It would appear that the left (and Guardian is certainly drifting harder left) seem to feel that sweeping racial remarks are only offensive if they are by one section of the community agaiinst another but perfectly ok if the other way round

Incredible...
 
Last edited:
Clivex, why is everything left-wing drivel to you, if it doesn't accord with your own views? Are your own views right-wing drivel?

Oh, did I mention the Spanish banging their bibles at the Aztecs and Mayans before putting them to the Pope-blessed sword of civilization? Not that their divide and rule was so political as to divide tribe from tribe but more tribe from heritage gold, and then to rule by simple genocide - Catholically-sanctioned, of course, since those bizarre brown people were far beyond the reaches of The One God and deserved to be annihiliated if they refused to kiss the good book. "First the Bible, then the sword... " or the Colt 45, in the case of America's glorious interplay with native tribes. Anyone who thinks the division of tribes from their lands and the imposition of a segregated rule is overplayed by American Indian 'rightists' should just Google "Trail of Tears" and learn about one of whitey's less noble exploits.

Whatever one's personal opinion of Ms Abbott, there is no doubt that she is merely Tweeting fact, not fiction. Perhaps it annoys white boys that a black woman should be so uppity and not know her place - the kitchen, perhaps, cleaning their shoes and cooking their meals.

The feeble response of "Imagine a white man said that about black people eating each other" would be wrong, on the grounds that not all black tribes are cannibals (the Aborigines certainly weren't, and there was no known cannibalism among any of the tribes in what is now South Africa), so it falls down on factuality. Ms Abbott's statement does not. There is not a single instance of white men overpowering non-white countries and not dividing one way or the other, and ruling.

And 'white' history is littered with white races dividing white tribes from each other in their endeavour to take control of land - note the Romans, note the Normans, ask the Scottish, ask the Irish, kindly note two world wars. So her comment is as valid regarding white vs white division and rule, like it or not. End of, over and out.
 
Last edited:
How many more times do we have to say that "white people divide and rule" isnt FACT unless it s the objective of EVERY white person.

She did not say "some"

Is it really so difficult to equate that with a statement such as "black people are XXXX" ?
 
Very Very Ordinary said:
I fear the BBC is following a similar path.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure a BBC which employs the likes of Jeremy Clarkson and Nick Robinson (and until recent times Jeff Randall also) can be thought of as a BBC that has drummed right-wing thought and thinkers entirely off its roster. There's light and shade there yet, if sought out.

gc
 
Back
Top