Legitimate celebration of white culture?

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

While slavery was abolished (I think America being the last country to do so) in 1865, that's hardly centuries ago. A century would be more accurate.

Actually, Mauritania was the last nation to officially abolish slavery in 1980. Even in the Americas, the US was not the last to abolish it – that honour falls to Brazil, in 1888.

Now then we had the lovely Jim Crow laws enacted to virtually keep that slavery in place by making sure that the former slaves couldn't achieve any true economic independence....so basically they all had to be gardeners, maids, etc etc.

Not unusual, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) officially abolished slavery in 1921, however it continued as an effective practice until it was finally stopped in 1936 (less said about how that happened the better ).

Then you had Apartheid South Africa which only ended a DECADE ago and is still around in some ways because the companies that profited off it are still making sure that the majority stay where they were in terms of poverty.

Didn’t Uganda strip all citizens of Asian or Indian origin of citizenship and then deport them in 1972? Many also argue that something similar is presently (and ironically) happening to Europeans in Zimbabwe.

All in all, white people don’t have a monopoly on being ****, so I suggest you get over the guilt trip, TBH.

Redleslie2

por wrote:

Overall I believe that Northern European influence has done more good than bad over history.

Why the emphasis on northern europe I wonder. Southern and eastern europeans like the romans, greeks and byzantines were somewhat influential on the course of world history. Anyway, any talk of white culture without considering the importance of arab, persian and other influences is silly. It was the arabs that taught europeans how to keep accounts, a huge volume of their works on commerce, maths and science were translated into latin in the middle ages and words like tariff, zero, magazine, almanac and algebra are all from arabic.

pickarooney

Can you not the hypocrisy of associating "white" history with oppression, colonisation, genocide etc. and ignoring the positive aspects of it while overlooking the exact same despicable elements of "black" history?

Take slavery for example. The people who were brought to the Americas as slaves were already slaves before they left. They were enthralled and then sold by other black Africans. Slavery still exists, and is even on the increase in parts of Africa. But white people alive today should be ashamed of what some unrelated white people did centuries ago?
Apartheid South Africa was an appalling situation, but it was controlled by a tiny minority of white people. Far more white people worldwide condemned it and refused to trade with the apartheid regime than were actively involved in it.

How many objected when Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam encouraged a million men to march on Washington? If their white equivalent, the Ku Klux Klan had done the same, what sould have been the reaction?

The Corinthian

Redleslie2 wrote:

It was the arabs that taught europeans how to keep accounts, a huge volume of their works on commerce, maths and science were translated into latin in the middle ages and words like tariff, zero, magazine, almanac and algebra are all from arabic.

Actually, the Arabs more correctly reminded rather than taught the Europeans as many of the mathematical principles we took from them were originally Roman or Greek and had been lost to us as a result of the fall of the Western Roman Empire.

Of course the Arabs added to mathematics (both algebra and zero are theirs) and also arguably the Greeks pinched mathematics from the Egyptians in the first place.

Redleslie2

Then there's the very northern european Mr.Christ of course.

por

Redleslie2 wrote:

Why the emphasis on northern europe I wonder.

Take a look at the Americas.
Northern Europeans (British and Germans mainly but also some French and Scandinavians) colonised the USA and Canada, and look at how prosperous and developed they have become.

Now look at what the Southern Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) colonised in Central and South America., look what it has become poor, corrupt, etc etc.

This however may also be to do with a difference between Protestant and Catholic rather than North and South Europe.

sovtek

pickarooney wrote:

Can you not the hypocrisy of associating "white" history with oppression, colonisation, genocide etc. and ignoring the positive aspects of it while overlooking the exact same despicable elements of "black" history?

I'm not overlooking the positive aspects of European culture or any other. I do question the motives of people who need to identify it with "white" culture.

Take slavery for example. The people who were brought to the Americas as slaves were already slaves before they left. They were enthralled and then sold by other black Africans. Slavery still exists, and is even on the increase in parts of Africa.

I'm well aware of the history of slavery and the Africans part in it. On the other hand we are supposedly the bringers of "civilization" to the "savages" yet it was the money and goods that bought these slaves that further encouraged that enslavement.

But white people alive today should be ashamed of what some unrelated white people did centuries ago?

Yes they should be ashamed of it...and make sure the effect it still has on us today is reversed. If I remember correctly...it took until Clinton for a US President to even apologize for slavery and Howard refused to apologize to the Aboriginies a few years ago.

Apartheid South Africa was an appalling situation, but it was controlled by a tiny minority of white people.

Far more white people worldwide condemned it and refused to trade with the apartheid regime than were actively involved in it.

Yes a majority of white people condemned it while alot of their governments secretly supported it and America (and the UK IIRC) even sent military aid to the Apartheid regime to fight against the ANC in surrounding countries, like Angola and Mozambique.
I memory is hazy but didn't France, along with UK and the US also refuse to condemn Apartheid in a UN Resolution?

How many objected when Louis Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam encouraged a million men to march on Washington?

Actually alot of white people did object in America and the media downplayed it with reports "The 500,000 Man March" which became a running joke in America.
Of course many people, blacks included condemn Farrakhans racist ideology towards Jews as well.

If their white equivalent, the Ku Klux Klan had done the same, what sould have been the reaction?

IIRC Farrakhan and his group have never gone out and hung white peope on a large scale.
Comparing the KKK to the Nation of Islam is like comparing the Nazi's to PETA.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually, Mauritania was the last nation to officially abolish slavery in 1980. Even in the Americas, the US was not the last to abolish it – that honour falls to Brazil, in 1888.

Not unusual, Abyssinia (Ethiopia) officially abolished slavery in 1921, however it continued as an effective practice until it was finally stopped in 1936 (less said about how that happened the better )

K so even less than a century then.

Didn’t Uganda strip all citizens of Asian or Indian origin of citizenship and then deport them in 1972? Many also argue that something similar is presently (and ironically) happening to Europeans in Zimbabwe.

All in all, white people don’t have a monopoly on being ****, so I suggest you get over the guilt trip, TBH.

And I suggest you tell me when I ever said that white people have a monopoly as well I suggest you tell me how the Europeans in Zimbabwe isn't linked to the history of those said Europeans ruling said country.

sovtek

por wrote:

Take a look at the Americas.
Northern Europeans (British and Germans mainly but also some French and Scandinavians) colonised the USA and Canada, and look at how prosperous and developed they have become.

The European colonists come in a wipe out the original inhabitants and then take over all the nice rich land..

Now look at what the Southern Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) colonised in Central and South America., look what it has become poor, corrupt, etc etc.

And that had nothing to do with the US/UK and France coming in afterwards and continuing the colonial tradition...ie Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Grenada, Haiti, Cuba.........etc etc.

This however may also be to do with a difference between Protestant and Catholic rather than North and South Europe.

Maybe...if you don't look too closely.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

K so even less than a century then.

Only for African and Middle Eastern states though, which wasn’t really your argument – no nasty white men enslaving the poor oppressed black man, which kind of defeats your argument, in fairness.

And I suggest you tell me when I ever said that white people have a monopoly as well I suggest you tell me how the Europeans in Zimbabwe isn't linked to the history of those said Europeans ruling said country.

It’s probably more closely linked to the same kind of political opportunism that we saw in Uganda when Idi Amin decided that all the Asians living there didn’t deserve to continue living there.

Of course, with regard to Zimbabwe, I would note that arguing that past colonial injustice justifies the brutal suppression of a (white) racial minority is a bit like the old justification for anti-Semitism on the basis that the Jews crucified Christ.

por

sovtek wrote:

And that had nothing to do with the US/UK and France coming in afterwards and continuing the colonial tradition...ie Phillipines, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Honduras, Grenada, Haiti, Cuba.........etc etc.

And what colonial tradition did the US/UK and France countine in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Cille, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Venesuala, none that I can recall.

sovtek wrote:

And I suggest you tell me when I ever said that white people have a monopoly as well I suggest you tell me how the Europeans in Zimbabwe isn't linked to the history of those said Europeans ruling said country.

So you are saying it's OK for blacks to oppress whites on the basis of history?

The crux of this is, and it has been stated by others is that it's OK for races other than white to express their pride etc but when whites do it it is some way glorifying a past of oppression of natives.

the_syco wrote:

A white hetrosexual male cannot sue anyone for being racist or sexist towards him, but anyone can sue him for being racist or sexist.

Very true, have a look at advertising in the US. In an ad containing a scene between people of different races the white male is portrayed as a bumbling buffoon where as the non-white is portrayed as being smart and inelegant, put it the other way round and you would have up roar from minority organisations. A good example of this is a Reebok ad during the Superbowl in 2003. It was called 'Terry Tate office Linebacker', it was basically a huge African American in an office situation tackling people and enforcing office rules etc. In the ad Terry Tate mainly tackles weedy white workers, and rarely workers of other races or black workers. If that was a white man tackling non-white workers the networks would be too scared to put it on air.

Here is a link to the ads. http://www.xtrememass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105

Moriarty

por wrote:

Very true, have a look at advertising in the US. In an ad containing a scene between people of different races the white male is portrayed as a bumbling buffoon where as the non-white is portrayed as being smart and inelegant, put it the other way round and you would have up roar from minority organisations. A good example of this is a Reebok ad during the Superbowl in 2003. It was called 'Terry Tate office Linebacker', it was basically a huge African American in an office situation tackling people and enforcing office rules etc. In the ad Terry Tate mainly tackles weedy white workers, and rarely workers of other races or black workers. If that was a white man tackling non-white workers the networks would be too scared to put it on air.

Perhaps if there were more black people in office employment and more white people playing linebacker in american football, the roles would have been reversed.

sovtek

The Corinthian wrote:

Only for African and Middle Eastern states though, which wasn’t really your argument – no nasty white men enslaving the poor oppressed black man, which kind of defeats your argument, in fairness.

Ummm you mean a formerly ruled by a European country that abolished slavery after independence from Europe doesn't support my argument? Not that I every stated in any argument that white people have a monopoly on oppression of others.

It’s probably more closely linked to the same kind of political opportunism that we saw in Uganda when Idi Amin decided that all the Asians living there didn’t deserve to continue living there.

You mean that Idi Amin that was originally backed and installed by America Idi Amin?

Of course, with regard to Zimbabwe, I would note that arguing that past colonial injustice justifies the brutal suppression of a (white) racial minority is a bit like the old justification for anti-Semitism on the basis that the Jews crucified Christ.

Maybe, if you're really trying to stretch that there's no direct historical link between white colonialism and the eventual backlash it causes. Especially when one tries to suggest that the negative aspects of "black" history are somehow divorced from that link.
While the equation of white farmers taking land from black inhabitants and the process of land reform (that only started two decades ago), with Jews and Jesus is tenuous. It reminded me of Hitler's idea of placing arm bands on Jews coming from the Middle Ages.

sovtek

por wrote:

And what colonial tradition did the US/UK and France countine in countries like Brazil, Argentina, Cille, Columbia, Bolivia, Peru, Venesuala, none that I can recall.

I guess you aren't aware of the School of the Americas and how many of the rulers of that list of countries "graduated" from there. Or maybe the coup a couple of years ago in Venezuala that America hailed, even though it deposed the democratically elected leader...of whom the people helped put back in power a couple of days later.

So you are saying it's OK for blacks to oppress whites on the basis of history?

How did you logically come up with that?

The crux of this is, and it has been stated by others is that it's OK for races other than white to express their pride etc but when whites do it it is some way glorifying a past of oppression of natives.

I think bonkey covered this point quite well already.

Very true, have a look at advertising in the US. In an ad containing a scene between people of different races the white male is portrayed as a bumbling buffoon where as the non-white is portrayed as being smart and inelegant, put it the other way round and you would have up roar from minority organisations. A good example of this is a Reebok ad during the Superbowl in 2003. It was called 'Terry Tate office Linebacker', it was basically a huge African American in an office situation tackling people and enforcing office rules etc. In the ad Terry Tate mainly tackles weedy white workers, and rarely workers of other races or black workers. If that was a white man tackling non-white workers the networks would be too scared to put it on air.

Here is a link to the ads. http://www.xtrememass.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105

Because the history of America has made alot of black people sensative about images of themselves in the media.
Personally I don't agree always agree with that but I understand the history behind it.
I also believe that if there were alot of other issues addressed regarding race then that would probably disapate.

The Corinthian

sovtek wrote:

Ummm you mean a formerly ruled by a European country that abolished slavery after independence from Europe doesn't support my argument?

Slavery which incidentally predated the same Europeans ever getting near those places. And let’s not forget those African nations (few as they were) that never really bothered with getting rid of slavery (e.g. Ethiopia), even without European colonialism. So, no it does not really support your argument because it’s not very believable.

Not that I every stated in any argument that white people have a monopoly on oppression of others.

However you’ve repeatedly postulated that any oppression by non-white people on themselves or others is ultimately and historically the fault of white people. That comes as close to stating that white people have a monopoly on oppression of others as makes no difference.

You mean that Idi Amin that was originally backed and installed by America Idi Amin?

Again, it’s the white man’s fault apparently. No one installed Mugabe; oh wait, that’s still the white man’s fault.

Maybe not, if you're really trying to stretch that there's no direct historical link between white colonialism and the eventual backlash it causes. Especially when one tries to suggest that the negative aspects of "black" history are somehow divorced from that link.

No one is attempting to deny a link, by way of reasoning, between white colonialism and the eventual backlash it causes. However, a reason is not a justification - neither should it be accepted as a carte blanc permission for such nations to do as they will.

Otherwise, by your logic, Israeli expansionism is presently justified as a backlash to their expulsion from Judea by the Romans.

Somehow all of, in particular, Africa’s ills are ultimately the White Man’s Burden. Any genocide, slavery, war, famine or corruption there is apparently as a direct result of backlash of European colonialism. The entire continent would be a utopist paradise otherwise, because they could never have been so cruel without our oppression.

In short, get over it.

While the equation of white farmers taking land from black inhabitants and the process of land reform (that only started two decades ago), with Jews and Jesus is tenuous. It reminded me of Hitler's idea of placing arm bands on Jews coming from the Middle Ages.

The idea is not tenuous, as it was used as a moral justification based upon what was perceived to be an historical injustice to persecute the descendants of the perpetrators of that historical injustice. You are accepting much the same in Zimbabwe.

mycroft

The Corinthian wrote:

Somehow all of, in particular, Africa’s ills are ultimately the White Man’s Burden. Any genocide, slavery, war, famine or corruption there is apparently as a direct result of backlash of European colonialism. The entire continent would be a utopist paradise otherwise, because they could never have been so cruel without our oppression.

In short, get over it.

How about the fact the any number of African countries are still paying off the massive loans from the world bank, that have been run up, very often by the corrupt regiemes installed by the west during the 70s. These massive debts are crippling economies and money which should be going towards building infrastructure and helping their own people are going instead to service the interest of an unpaybackable debt which the west run world bank insisted they do.

We're still screwing over africa we've just gotten more subtle.

pickarooney

^^^not even slightly relevant, unless it's an extravagant public display of self-flagellation. This "we" you're referring is a wholly different notion to the simplistic pigeonholing of people by skin colour.
How many kids did you oppress and how many economies did you destroy before breakfast?

Jesus, WE (of lighter hue) are equated to THE WORLD BANK now? And they talk about judging people based on a few bad apples...

Victor

Of course the white Zimbabweans didn't quite feed the populous at large, what with tobacco being the country's main crop. Unless it was chewing tobacco. :rolleyes:

pickarooney wrote:

But white people alive today should be ashamed of what some unrelated white people did centuries ago?

No, not ashamed, for the vast majority of them did not commit those acts. However, many still benefit from the profits of those historical acts. The cities of 19th century Europe and the United States were (in part) built on the back of slaves used in mining and forestry in Africa.

por wrote:

Take a look at the Americas. Northern Europeans (British and Germans mainly but also some French and Scandinavians) colonised the USA and Canada, and look at how prosperous and developed they have become.

Then where did all them **** come from? Did the all just magically show up in Alabama / Marseille / London in 1968?

por wrote:

Now look at what the Southern Europeans (Spanish and Portuguese) colonised in Central and South America., look what it has become poor, corrupt, etc etc.

Can I scream "Enron" quickly enough? And might they be poor because of capital repatriated to Europe and spent on luxuries and war?

por wrote:

This however may also be to do with a difference between Protestant and Catholic rather than North and South Europe.

Ah, you don't want to be doing that now, the rest of the whiteys get upset when you expose the Catholic / Protestant divide and expose the Irish Catholics as non-white. Wouldn't want to expose the fact the KKK hates Catholics.

The Corinthian wrote:

...Uganda ... **** ....

All Ugandans are fully heterosexual. There is no sexual deviance in Uganda.

pickarooney

Victor wrote:

However, many still benefit from the profits of those historical acts. The cities of 19th century Europe and the United States were (in part) built on the back of slaves used in mining and forestry in Africa.

Viking Dublin, in its day, was the site of the largest slave market in Europe.
Should we expect an apology from the Danes any time soon?

Victor

pickarooney wrote:

Viking Dublin, in its day, was the site of the largest slave market in Europe. Should we expect an apology from the Danes any time soon?

Can you legitimately claim proximity 10th century vikings and between present day Danes?

pickarooney

Nope, nor can I legitimately claim proximity between myself and the Irish of more than 150 years ago, or between modern "African Americans" and the slaves of the 1500s.

bonkey

The Corinthian wrote:

Somehow all of, in particular, Africa’s ills are ultimately the White Man’s Burden. Any genocide, slavery, war, famine or corruption there is apparently as a direct result of backlash of European colonialism. The entire continent would be a utopist paradise otherwise, because they could never have been so cruel without our oppression.

I wouldn't go that far (and I was one of the people criticising the White Man for said oppression earlier). I just think it is unjustifiable to point at anywhere in the world where brutalised and oppressed our way in and point to it as a shining example of how good a job the North European "White Man" has done, or as something to be proud of...especially when discussing such a meaningless classification.

Are we to blame for everything? **** no. Does that mean we are blameless? Even less so. But.....

The Black Pride movement (getting back to where we came from) was not celebrating the oppression of anyone...it was a backlash against ongoing oppression. The "White Pride" movement - as argued so eloquently by Por - would appear to be a "if they can celebrate their skin colour as a counter to oppression, we can celebrate ours too as, ummm, errrr......welll....cause "we" have a great history of historically "improving" the world.

Only one of those two groups is looking at "their" past - and present - through rose-tinted glasses, that I can see. There's no guarantee that life would have been any better in Africa, Australia, The Americas, or anywhere had the White man not come in, but that doesn't excuse the slaughter.

"I'm sorry I killed him brutally your honour....but he had a crap life anyway and he was most probably going to be brutally killed or oppressed by someone else, so surely that means I didn't do anything wrong".

No. Or - mor correctly - not for me thanks. I do not, and will not, ever accept such reasoning as a lessening of responsibility. Being a lesser tyrant than someone else - or a replacement tyrant - does not excuse tyranny.

Unless, of course, we would like to suggest that the blacks weren't really oppressed and were treated really well, and they are simply trying to con us all with revisionist history to fool us into feeling sorry for them or something.

And who's this "we"? A carefully-chosen moniker which describes a group which is neither culturally nor genetically significant as an entity in its own right, but which falls somewhere inbetween specific classifications (e.g. Celtic) and general ones (e.g. White). What a curious choice of classification for anyone to choose.

"Northern European White"....I ask you. We don't see "Sub-Saharan Black Pride" and "North-West-African Black Pride", but I guess if you just said "White", then you couldnt' conveniently exclude the Russians, Slavs and so on.

jc

por

Victor wrote:

Of course the white Zimbabweans didn't quite feed the populous at large, what with tobacco being the country's main crop. Unless it was chewing tobacco. :rolleyes:

While the whites were running large farms both the pre and post 1980 the farms were producing and people were fed. Now since the 'war veterans' have taken over the land and have little or no interest in efficiently running the farms and people are on the verge of starvation!!!. as a result.

Victor wrote:

Then where did all them **** come from? Did the all just magically show up in Alabama / Marseille / London in 1968?

Interesting terminology, but what's you point ?.

Victor wrote:

Ah, you don't want to be doing that now, the rest of the whiteys get upset when you expose the Catholic / Protestant divide and expose the Irish Catholics as non-white. Wouldn't want to expose the fact the KKK hates Catholics.

My point has nothing to do with Irish or the KKK, the point is Protestants make better empire builders than Catholics. Look at Protestant North America and Catholic South America, and the Catholics did as much if not more native butchering.

bonkey

por wrote:

The crux of this is, and it has been stated by others is that it's OK for races other than white to express their pride etc but when whites do it it is some way glorifying a past of oppression of natives.

Well - the only reason you could offer at the start for celebrating your whiteness was exactly that - the colonisation of the world, of which the oppression, slavery and/or genocide of the locals was an intrinsic part.

Anyone else expressing their pride is not doing it for a historical reason that is directly related to oppression....unless they were teh ones oppressed.

I'm utterly staggered that you can't see a distinction.....It would be like saying that if the Jewish people decided to hold a "celebration" in defiance of anti-semitism, it would be ok for the germans to ceebrate the "germanisation" (read "de-semitification") of their nation in WW2.

(And if anyone wants to take this as an invite to rant on about how the Holocaust never happened, and so forth....take it to another thread).

Having said that....I've a sneaking suspicion that you do see the distinction, and just choose not to acknowledge it for whatever reason.

You want to celbrate without being condemned....then give a non-condemnable reason. What are you celebrating? If it doesn't include oppression, slavery and genocide as intrinsic parts of it....then you won't be criticised for those things.

This thread started with someone asking if there was a legitimate reason to celebrate white culture. So far...you, at least, have utterly failed to supply one. You have only supplied a reason inextricably linked to brutality.

jc

pickarooney

The Corinthian supplied several non-brutal reasons, but they were somehow overlooked or dismissed because, as far as I could make out, it was invalid to lump Irish and Italians together in one "white" group, but perfectly OK to do the same for anyone with dark skin.

bonkey

pickarooney wrote:

The Corinthian supplied several non-brutal reasons, but they were somehow overlooked or dismissed because, as far as I could make out, it was invalid to lump Irish and Italians together in one "white" group, but perfectly OK to do the same for anyone with dark skin.

The only reasons I can see TC as having supplied was where he said :

White Culture would theoretically be common European culture - classical music, opera, renaissance literature, ballet and architecture.

If that what someone wants to celebrate, then fine. However, as TC himself clarified, it is theoretically common European culture, not white culture.

It is not a celebration of "Northern European White Culture" as por has been going on about (which is what I was principally referring to).

Also, I suppose it would include the Russians (Tchaikovsky being enough of a link), although possibly not large amounts of South-Eastern Europe, which would have predominantly been under Turkish (Muslim) influence at the time, I believe.

Having said that...if a bunch of people got together to celebrate ballet, classical music, and so on, and called it a celebration of "White Culture"....I wouldn't have an issue....unless they decided that non-whites couldn't actually play the instruments, dance, etc. etc. at this celebration.

I'm pretty sure, however, that when por celebrates his whiteness, it is not by appreciating The Four Seasons or Swan Lake. If it is, then I apologise for my making an ass out of u and 'mption'.

jc

jc

pickarooney

bonkey wrote:

Having said that...if a bunch of people got together to celebrate ballet, classical music, and so on, and called it a celebration of "White Culture"....I wouldn't have an issue....unless they decided that non-whites couldn't actually play the instruments, dance, etc. etc. at this celebration.

Fair enough, that answers the original question.

por

bonkey wrote:

Having said that...if a bunch of people got together to celebrate ballet, classical music, and so on, and called it a celebration of "White Culture"....I wouldn't have an issue....unless they decided that non-whites couldn't actually play the instruments, dance, etc. etc. at this celebration.

In Boston on a Sunday night a few years ago myself and a few friends (all white) were out, we decided to go to a nearby nite club, the door man said we could not go in, we were 'too white' for this club.

I'm sure that there are many groups of Africans who get together to rap,dance etc in celebration of their Black Culutre where white people are not welcome. Do you agree with that.

mycroft

por wrote:

In Boston on a Sunday night a few years ago myself and a few friends (all white) were out, we decided to go to a nearby nite club, the door man said we could not go in, we were 'too white' for this club.

I'm sure that there are many groups of Africans who get together to rap,dance etc in celebration of their Black Culutre where white people are not welcome. Do you agree with that.

And I'm pretty sure theres more than a couple of sh*t kicker bars down south that ain't got an open door policy on "coons"

Segregation was a white invention, thirty years later both sides still informerly inforce it.

Your point being?

por

Redleslie2 wrote:

Making monkey noises at Ashley Cole seems more appropriate.

Redleslie2 are you implying that I am a racist ?.
I have addressed this in a previous post http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2095524&postcount=29

I have no problem with people that are not white, I have a problem however with white people being put down and accused of being racist for expressing pride in being white.
Just as you have done here.