Racism and After Hours

Vegeta

people form opinions and views through experience. It is how we as humans have learned and survived, your cave buddy gets mauled by a tiger, lesson learned tigers are dangerous.

Being cautious when dealing with unfamiliar aspects of life is a good thing. It keeps people safe. No-one jumps in a car and trys to drive on the motorway on their first go, they get lessons and learn from these experiences.

It amazes me that when people are cautious with a different race (which they have seen or experienced to be harmful) they are called racist/prejudiced etc etc. People are only acting natuarlly like they would in any other situation

When you meet a person of a different race (or any stranger for that matter) there is no problem being a little cautious of them until they have proven themselves.

Now on the other hand if you are constantly cautious and always treat that specific race with disrespect (without just cause) then you have a problem.

Hagar is not racist, far from it. Sounds like he judges everyone on a person to person basis which is fine.

Doctor Fell

I couldn't really make it out, its a bit blotchy. Looks funny enough though....a Nigerian with a red beard, very good!

Vegeta

I also think Asian chicks are super hot does that make me racist

Stark

I deem all non-bisexuals to be sexist

Boston

Hobart wrote:

Why would you assume that?

He's white, protestant, and english, And I've never heard anything about him family immigrating. What makes you say he isn't.

Karl Hungus

Hobart wrote:

But is this not the point? In order for somebody to support or argue against one side of the argument, he/she must know what they are talking about.

Bandying about terms like race, racist et-al and, not actually know what you are talking about, is foolish.

AFAIK there is no overall acceptance of what actually defines a race. Who is to say that the British are not a race?

The term you used, was once used to define the people of Caucasia. It then morphed to be used to describe descendents of people from Europe, North Africa, West Asia, South Asia. These days it is used to describe sombodies skin colour (loosely).

My point is, you cannot define what race is and who is one race and who is another, if you actually don't have a basis to define those people on.

All this is nothing but nit-picking. Your not satisfied with a definition, so you're saying nobody should talk about it? The problem with this is, even if the definition is fairly loose, people still ascribe to it. People are still going to define themselves and others based on their concept of what race is, reguardless of whether or not you personally are happy with the definition. Aswell as this, there are still problems and divisions, even though the definition isn't a strict one.

Now what exactly is it that you are suggesting? Are you saying we should halt all further discussion untill we've defined "Race" to a satisfactory conclusion? Shall we ask all racists of the world to stop their discrimination untill that end?

Sorry if this sounds a little rude, because I don't mean it in that way, but I simply don't care whether you're happy or not with the definition that I or anyone else is using, because your reservations amount to nothing in the big picture of things.

So lets get back to your question.

What race is Tony Blair? Well he's white, same as the homogenus population of Europe. I'm not going to say he's caucasian, or anglo-saxon, but that really doesn't mean very much taken in context. Lets say that a black racist says "I hate all white people", he's not really going to give much interest in the definition of 'White' or 'Race' or whether either term in defined to a certain degress, he's just going to look at a white person and see "White" no more, no less. Same goes for a white racist who says they "Hate all black people." In practice, how loose the definition is really doesn't mean much, so a general or loose definition is fine because it's along fairly loose lines (Black/white/asian for example) that a person's race is defined almost all of the time.

Likewise people who are against racism are directly oppossed on those looese definitions, so there's very little point to splitting heirs over it.

Doctor Fell wrote:

I don't know what your problem is Karl, but I suspect it may be lack of brains, or not being able to see the blindingly obvious, even if its right there in your face. Perhaps you don't understand my posts for some reason, I thought it was just my posts you had a difficulty with, but apparently you don't understand Clown Bag's or Amp's either.

It's very easy to sit back and say you "Don't understand" while giving no examples, offer no counter to any arguement offered, and throw insults. It's extremely petty.

Hobart

LiouVille wrote:

He's white, protestant, and english, And I've never heard anything about him family immigrating. What makes you say he isn't.

Where did I say he is or is not anything?

Why do you deem the term "Anglo-Saxon" to be representitive of what a race is?

The Corinthian

Doctor Fell wrote:

Oh I see, you are the only educated person on this site, is that it?

Not at all, there are quite a few here who are even frequent contributors.

Thx for your concern, but yes, I do indeed understand it. Your condescending attitude I don't understand though.
R-a-c-e, it's a big word alright.

You don’t appear to understand it though. You appear to cut and paste a definition that you may or may not have read, then blithely continue to push your own rather fuzzy interpretation.

I'll be honest and say that I have never received any such email originating from an African country. But for some reason I never seem to get any spam mails like everyone else:(

I suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

BTW, I’m still waiting for you to point out where Hagar admitted to racism. I think you should show us. I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to think you’re bull****ting us here.

Boston

Hobart wrote:

Where did I say he is or is not anything?

Your reponse would indicate that you did not accept my answer for what race he is. So what do you view his race as being?

Why do you deem the term "Anglo-Saxon" to be representitive of what a race is?

Give me a reason why it isn't a race. Millions of people identify as Anglo-saxon. It seems just as valid a destinctions as "African", "Latin", or "Asian".

And before you say where did I say "it isn't a race", answer my questions of you.

Doctor Fell

The Corinthian wrote:

You don’t appear to understand it though. You appear to cut and paste a definition that you may or may not have read, then blithely continue to push your own rather fuzzy interpretation.

I suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

BTW, I’m still waiting for you to point out where Hagar admitted to racism. I think you should show us. I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to think you’re bull****ting us here.

You really are aggravating, I think you're quite dumb now aswell, but anyway.
Demonstrate please how after continuing to push my own "fuzzy interpretation", that I don't understand the definition. I'd be genuinely interested (in a sneering kind of way) to see what you come up with.

Regarding the email subject, you are the one who is demonstrating a lack of understanding. Poor guy, you really should try reading my posts, perhaps more slowly, to try and see what I actually said. Just because I haven't received any emails, does not mean I don't know about them, now does it? Think about it a while....one does not imply the other, does it? Anyways, I suspect you are just posting a link without any understanding of what it means.

As for the other issue, why don't you read the previous posts. And for God's sake stop bullsh*tting, will you? It's really tiresome.

Karl Hungus

Doctor Fell wrote:

And for God's sake stop bullsh*tting, will you? It's really tiresome.

Oh jesus, I'm in tears! I doubt it could be any more ironic.

Hobart

LiouVille wrote:

Your reponse would indicate that you did not accept my answer for what race he is. So what do you view his race as being?

I don't know what race he is. I was inquiring as to why you defined him as from being from a race deemed "Anglo Saxon".

LiouVille wrote:

Give me a reason why it isn't a race. Millions of people identify as Anglo-saxon. It seems just as valid a destinctions as "African", "Latin", or "Asian".

And before you say where did I say "it isn't a race", answer my questions of you.

Here's a reason. Because I say it is not. It is as valid as you saying it is.

The term itself "Anglo-Saxon" is a bastardisation of two terms which were responsible used to describe tribes responsible for the colonisatin of certain parts of Britian.

These tribes were called the Angles and Saxons. It is thought that they descended from Germanic tribes and where those Germanic tribes came from, I do not know.

However, there is quite a mixture of different nationalities involved in the colonisation and re-colonisation of Britan. These include, Celts, Picts, Normans, Vickings and Huguenots amongst others. There have also been some modern day invasions, albeit with less blood letting, which have resulted in the cross breathing of of people from different cultures in Britan. these have included Jews, Irish, Poles, Indians, West Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Ugandan Asians and Chinese.

All British citizens are a beautiful mish-mash of DNA and culture (if we discount those living there illegally). Would I use a describe them all as "anglo Saxon" or anything, when referring to their race? No, I would not. the only collective term I would use to describe these people is British. And British is as valid a term as African American etc...

For all you know, Tony Blair might not have a single drop of "Anglo Saxon" blood in his body.

Doctor Fell

Karl Hungus wrote:

Oh jesus, I'm in tears! I doubt it could be any more ironic.

Well it could be if you said it!

Hobart

Doctor Fell wrote:

You really are aggravating, I think you're quite dumb now aswell, but anyway.

Can I ask you to attack the post, and not the poster? Just because you are finding it hard to debunk some of TC's retorts, you should not slip into the area of personal insults.

Doctor Fell

Hobart wrote:

Can I ask you to attack the post, and not the poster? Just because you are finding it hard to debunk some of TC's retorts, you should not slip into the area of personal insults.

Hey, he attacked me personally, could you warn him too please? How am I having difficulty debunking his retorts? He insults my intelligence, I don't think that's a retort that can be answered in a serious way. So if he stops attacking me personally, I'll stop. I've been personally insulted quite a lot here, so lay off.

Boston

Hobart wrote:

I don't know what race he is. I was inquiring as to why you defined him as from being from a race deemed "Anglo Saxon".


Here's a reason. Because I say it is not. It is as valid as you saying it is.

The term itself "Anglo-Saxon" is a bastardisation of two terms which were responsible used to describe tribes responsible for the colonisatin of certain parts of Britian.

These tribes were called the Angles and Saxons. It is thought that they descended from Germanic tribes and where those Germanic tribes came from, I do not know.

However, there is quite a mixture of different nationalities involved in the colonisation and re-colonisation of Britan. These include, Celts, Picts, Normans, Vickings and Huguenots amongst others. There have also been some modern day invasions, albeit with less blood letting, which have resulted in the cross breathing of of people from different cultures in Britan. these have included Jews, Irish, Poles, Indians, West Indians, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, Ugandan Asians and Chinese.

All British citizens and all a beautiful mish-mash of DNA and culture (if we discount those living there illegally). Would I use a describe them all as "anglo Saxon" or anything, when referring to their race? No, I would not. the only collective term I would use to describe these people is British. And British is as valid a term as African American etc...

For all you know, Tony Blair might not have a single drop of "Anglo Saxon" blood in his body.

So British is a Race? Even though one British person may share absolutely nothing in common, genetically or culturally with another? Not many would subcribe to your "one big race" idea. Fair enough, you wouldn't use Anglo saxon to describe all the biritish people, but thats wasn't what i was doing. Their all the one nationality, not the one race, you're question related specifically to what race Tony Blair was, not what nationality he was.

Is american a race? I wouldn't agree.

Hagar

Would this be a good time to "pimp my thread" ?
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054933942

Hobart

LiouVille wrote:

So British is a Race?

Why do you find it necessary to mis-quote or infer something from my answers? Would you please show me where I specifically said that to be British is to be part of a British race?

I specifically went out of my way to avoid your silly retort, I don't know why I bothered tbh. Have you actually read any of my replies on this topic?

Doctor Fell

LiouVille wrote:

Is american a race? I wouldn't agree.

As a distinct population of people, I would say there is a race of Americans. The whole point is that race is arbitrary and open to interpretation.

Hobart

Doctor Fell wrote:

Hey, he attacked me personally, could you warn him too please? How am I having difficulty debunking his retorts? He insults my intelligence, I don't think that's a retort that can be answered in a serious way. So if he stops attacking me personally, I'll stop. I've been personally insulted quite a lot here, so lay off.

Sorry, you misunderstood me. I was not warning you, as I have no place to warn you.

It seems to me that you are having some issue when it comes to the reading of other peoples posts. Hagar earlier, now The Corinthian. Maybe everybody else is wrong.

Doctor Fell

Hobart wrote:

It seems to me that you are having some issue when it comes to the reading of other peoples posts. Hagar earlier, now The Corinthian. Maybe everybody else is wrong.

Would you care to explain that comment further? How have I demonstrated difficulty reading other people's posts? Have you actually read any of my posts? Corinthians posts are quite simple - he basically calls me stupid, and I'm meant to reply to that in a meaningful way. Please, I thought you were above that sort of crap, maybe not.
I interpreted Hagar in a certain way which I explained numerous times, so what are you talking about really?

Hobart

Doctor Fell wrote:

Would you care to explain that comment further? How have I demonstrated difficulty reading other people's posts? Have you actually read any of my posts? Corinthians posts are quite simple - he basically calls me stupid, and I'm meant to reply to that in a meaningful way. Please, I thought you were above that sort of crap, maybe not.
I interpreted Hagar in a certain way which I explained numerous times, so what are you talking about really?

No.

Karl Hungus

Doctor Fell wrote:

How have I demonstrated difficulty reading other people's posts?

You said that Hagar had already said he was a racist, when it was actually me who said that. You've clearly a problem reading other's posts.

WhiteWashMan

Doctor Fell wrote:

As a distinct population of people, I would say there is a race of Americans. The whole point is that race is arbitrary and open to interpretation.

and following that logic, racism is subjective and is open to interpretation.

in which case, you calling anyone a racist does not mean they are a racist.


which begs the question:

whats your point?

Vegeta

Doctor Fell wrote:

I interpreted Hagar in a certain way which I explained numerous times, so what are you talking about really?

the thing is Doc when people asked you to go back and quote Hagar exactly where he said he was racist you just say go back 2 posts and do it yourself, so people are less likely to believe you/ take you seriously unless you can quote Hagar and show proof

I am in no way attacking you i am just saying that I think this is what Hobart is referring to, your asked for proof on something but don't give it as if you hadn't even read the posts.

You don’t appear to understand it though. You appear to cut and paste a definition that you may or may not have read, then blithely continue to push your own rather fuzzy interpretation.

I suggest you educate yourself on the subject.

BTW, I’m still waiting for you to point out where Hagar admitted to racism. I think you should show us. I’m sure you wouldn’t want people to think you’re bull****ting us here. .

where did he call you dumb??

I can see what they're saying

Doctor Fell

WhiteWashMan wrote:

and following that logic, racism is subjective and is open to interpretation.

in which case, you calling anyone a racist does not mean they are a racist.

No, me calling someone a racist who has demonstrated a prejudicial view based on their interpretaion of race does make them a racist.

E.g, someone says "Nigerians are spongers". They are racist, and they believe Nigerians to be a distinct population group.
That's one of my points.

Karl, again I would say you are wrong. I never said Hagar said he was a racist, I said he admitted as much by his comments (sorry Hagar for dragging you into this again!). Are you a racist Karl?

Karl Hungus

Doctor Fell wrote:

Are you a racist Karl?

Here's your answer.

Doctor Fell

Vegeta wrote:

where did he call you dumb??

Imo suggesting I can paste something but not understand it implies stupidity. He's also insinuated this a few times. Educate yourself, please. I've probably spent more years in university than anybody here. Not being snobbish, just truth, but I'm not blowing my education trumpet here like Corinthian.

Boston

Hobart wrote:

Why do you find it necessary to mis-quote or infer something from my answers? Would you please show me where I specifically said that to be British is to be part of a British race?

I specifically went out of my way to avoid your silly retort, I don't know why I bothered tbh. Have you actually read any of my replies on this topic?

It would be nice to infer something from your answer, what with it being an answer and all. Now you didn't specifically say anything about anything in fact, but I asked you about race, and that the topic of this thread, and you went off and gave me a history lesson and talked about nationality. You then went on to equate a nationality(british), with a race (African american, (subset of african)). So forgive me if I inferred the wrong thing from your post, but in fairness, it was rather muddled and full of miss direction, in an attempt not to be tied down. You say you don't know what race The guy is, but seem unwilling to accept Anglo-saxon as a logical answer, instead preferring to talk about people in terms of nationality, which is rather irrelavent and a non-answer to the question, you yourself possed.

Vegeta

Originally Posted by Doctor Fell

So I'm not playing the racsit card unfounded. You are racist, you said it yourself. Nothing "uber PC" about it, its just a fact.
Again I would say, what is the problem with calling someone a racist, if they clearly are? It's not "slinging the racist drivel around", it's reality. .

Karl, again I would say you are wrong. I never said Hagar said he was a racist, I said he admitted as much by his comments (sorry Hagar for dragging you into this again!). .

Ammmm yes you did Doc