Does racism automatically make someone a bad person?

jank

Nodin wrote: »

.....it may have had aliens involved, given we're talking about something that didn't happen.



...if you want to discuss the other thread, I'd suggest that's the place for it.

Ah the classic Nodin "Do as I say, not as I do"! Perhaps I should ask you ten times for an answer of why you are being a hypocrite on this matter?

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Ah the classic Nodin "Do as I say, not as I do"! Perhaps I should ask you ten times for an answer of why you are being a hypocrite on this matter?

Bit of a job, seeing as I'm not.

laoch na mona

it depends on how their racism manifests itself
some older people I known are racist but that seems to be due to ignorance and they don't seem to be racist all the time.

jank

Friend Computer wrote: »

Don't be silly, Jank, there isn't a history of systemic discrimination against black people! That's all a fantastical re-writing of history, created by the liberal-commie alliance to dupe innocent young men into leaving their pure white women to be corrupted!

Em, maybe put the tinfoil hat away. I never said there was but please quote me if I did....

Racism can be both ways, only some people here seem to think that anytime a white person attacks a black person its racism by default, if its the other way around its never racism, or the burden of proof is more explicit. That is hypocrisy.

Just look at the Trayvon Martin media circus. White on black racism... only the guy was Hispanic!

Nodin

jank wrote: »

Em, maybe put the tinfoil hat away. I never said there was but please quote me if I did....

Racism can be both ways, only some people here seem to think that anytime a white person attacks a black person its racism by default, if its the other way around its never racism, or the burden of proof is more explicit. That is hypocrisy.

Just look at the Trayvon Martin media circus. White on black racism... only the guy was Hispanic!

...who? Links and quotes please.

biko

Itwasntme. wrote: »

False. I am a Tutsi and there is an ethnic difference between Hutus and Tutsis. Yes, those lines have been blurred by intermarriages over time but we are ethnically different. Recent history books will tell you that this is not the case and that Hutu and Tutsi is an economic dichotomy engineered by the Belgians to further their own agenda but most of those books were not written by Rwandans and their knowledge of our history is very limited. Rwandan oral history tells a different story.

We also did not 'get along' most of the time and neither did it just happen that one day the Hutus decided to annihilate all Tutsis. And while we are all of the same race, it was most definitely a hate crime along the lines of a racist crime.

Sound, thanks for clarifying the issue. When you refer to the Belgians I suppose it's down to African peoples forced together into nations as a result of map drawings by colonial powers?

Henlars67

Nodin wrote: »

...if you want to discuss the other thread, I'd suggest that's the place for it.

Pretty typical response from you. Another failure to address the points made to contradict your extremely one sided view of racism

Friend Computer

jank wrote: »

Em, maybe put the tinfoil hat away. I never said there was but please quote me if I did....

Maybe I should've been even more heavy-handed with the satire, I thought it was pretty obvious though...

Racism can be both ways, only some people here seem to think that anytime a white person attacks a black person its racism by default, if its the other way around its never racism, or the burden of proof is more explicit. That is hypocrisy.

Shall I refer you again to the bit about history of systemic discrimination? It's not hyporcisy, Jank, it's called nuance. Not every situation is the same which is why there is a shift in the burden of proof. It's more likely that a white person attacking a black person is racist because... well statistically it's just more likely to happen, I'm not aware of any kind of black-on-white form of systemic discrimination in the Western world nor of any organisations--political or otherwise--who make it their business to demonise and vilify non-whites.

How many times has a white person been targeted--again, so we're clear, in the Western world--because they're white? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some tumblr-esque social justice warrior but I also don't carry around a persecution complex.

jank

Friend Computer wrote: »

Maybe I should've been even more heavy-handed with the satire, I thought it was pretty obvious though...

Shall I refer you again to the bit about history of systemic discrimination? It's not hyporcisy, Jank, it's called nuance. Not every situation is the same which is why there is a shift in the burden of proof. It's more likely that a white person attacking a black person is racist because... well statistically it's just more likely to happen, I'm not aware of any kind of black-on-white form of systemic discrimination in the Western world nor of any organisations--political or otherwise--who make it their business to demonise and vilify non-whites.

How many times has a white person been targeted--again, so we're clear, in the Western world--because they're white? Don't get me wrong, I'm not some tumblr-esque social justice warrior but I also don't carry around a persecution complex.

Em, statistically

"After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/19/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism/
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6


You have not heard of the Nation of Islam. Come off it!!!

Christ the Redeemer

Mostly ignorant. But those that attempt to spread their ignorance on the internet are always bad people.

They blame their own pathetic failure of a life on some foreigners they never met.

old hippy

Clandestine wrote: »

http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/census/869_CCSR_Bulletin_How_has_ethnic_diversity_grown_v4NW.pdf
White British:
1991-93%
2001-87%
2011-80%

That is a huge and worrying drop imo

And it's worrying, why?

Christ the Redeemer

old hippy wrote: »

And it's worrying, why?

*insert poorly spelled rant about white genocide*

Clandestine

old hippy wrote: »

And it's worrying, why?

Because the white, British born citizens of Britain are becoming a minority in their own country? How would you like it if gypsies started becoming a majority in Ireland? Many ethnic groups do not integrate very well with the indigenous population, and people originally living in the UK become isolated and leave, making the issue worse. Crime is already rising and religions like Christianity are being replaced by Islam which is in my opinion, a far worse alternative.

old hippy

Because the white, British born citizens of Britain are becoming a minority in their own country?

And what's wrong with that? It's a big melting pot, so what?

How would you like it if gypsies started becoming a majority in Ireland?

Unlikely but what's wrong with that?


Many ethnic groups do not integrate very well with the indigenous population,

Because people like you have a problem with integration, I reckons.

and people originally living in the UK become isolated and leave, making the issue worse.

Yes, it's horrific when the little englanders take up residence in the costa del crime :rolleyes:

Crime is already rising and religions like Christianity are being replaced by Islam which is in my opinion, a far worse alternative.

So, there's no crime from Christianity, hmmm? Bobbins. Crime rate in the UK is actually falling. Not rising. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/18/crime-survey-fall-england-wales

Christ the Redeemer

Clandestine wrote: »

Because the white, British born citizens of Britain are becoming a minority in their own country? How would you like it if gypsies started becoming a majority in Ireland? Many ethnic groups do not integrate very well with the indigenous population, and people originally living in the UK become isolated and leave, making the issue worse. Crime is already rising and religions like Christianity are being replaced by Islam which is in my opinion, a far worse alternative.

You should join Stormfront.

Friend Computer

jank wrote: »

Em, statistically

"After researching the FBI numbers for “Suicide of a Superpower,” this writer concluded: “An analysis of ‘single offender victimization figures’ from the FBI for 2007 finds blacks committed 433,934 crimes against whites, eight times the 55,685 whites committed against blacks. Interracial rape is almost exclusively black on white — with 14,000 assaults on white women by African Americans in 2007. Not one case of a white sexual assault on a black female was found in the FBI study.”
http://www.humanevents.com/2013/07/19/black-americas-real-problem-isnt-white-racism/

You'll excuse me if I don't take the word of a publication that touts itself with the tagline "Powerful Conservative Voices" very seriously on this subject. And also given the author is Pat Buchanan. And the lack of links to the stats.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6

Alright, the stats there bear out. But you have to admit there might be a perception that blacks are more at risk; when you consider the number of white nationalist/white supremacist organisations it's hard not to see why.

Still, what're the stats with regards numbers of whites versus blacks in... shall we say problem areas of cities?

Statistics don't really tell you much if you ignore the context behind them.

You have not heard of the Nation of Islam. Come off it!!!

Not in recent times, no.

Christ the Redeemer

old hippy wrote: »

So, there's no crime from Christianity, hmmm? Bobbins. Crime rate in the UK is actually falling. Not rising.

This is a great example of popular misconceptions. like teen pregancy has been dropping steadily with the crime rate, but ask a daily mail reader and they will tell you the opposite.

These papers cherry pick data to make it seem like a steady rise in overall crime when stats might say "knife attacks on the rise" or "violent crime on the rise".

but we should just blame the brown people because us whites are way above violent crime and knife attacks.

Clandestine

[QUOTE=old hippy;85958504
So, there's no crime from Christianity, hmmm? Bobbins. Crime rate in the UK is actually falling. Not rising. http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/jul/18/crime-survey-fall-england-wales[/QUOTE]

I poorly worded that, I should have said "among high immigrant areas etc."

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

You should join Stormfront.

Refute my points please, don't attack me. Ad hominem attacks are worthless

Christ the Redeemer

Clandestine wrote: »

Refute my points please, don't attack me. Ad hominem attacks are worthless

Na'h. "scientific racism" went out with Charles Darwin's generation. I think I'll stick to mockery of bad hatred based "opinions".

matthew8

It depends entirely on how racist they are and whether they act on it. A fear or moderate distrust of another race can sometimes be understandable but hatred of them would make me question that person's morals.

tritium

Friend Computer wrote: »

You'll excuse me if I don't take the word of a publication that touts itself with the tagline "Powerful Conservative Voices" very seriously on this subject. And also given the author is Pat Buchanan. And the lack of links to the stats.

Alright, the stats there bear out. But you have to admit there might be a perception that blacks are more at risk; when you consider the number of white nationalist/white supremacist organisations it's hard not to see why.

Still, what're the stats with regards numbers of whites versus blacks in... shall we say problem areas of cities?

Statistics don't really tell you much if you ignore the context behind them.

Not in recent times, no.

If I understand you right, the statistics don't fit your hypothesis so you're going to disregard the statistics?

Wtf

Opinion is not fact people

Friend Computer

tritium wrote: »

If I understand you right

You don't.

[-0-]

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

You should join Stormfront.

He'd be more welcome in Stormont. :pac:

tritium

Friend Computer wrote: »

You don't.

OK, then I'll assume you concede your assertion that white on black violence was more prevalent was hugely wrong.

Regarding perception - perception is worthless, the lifeblood of bigots, racists, mysogonists, misandrists and every group who thrives on a " they took our jobs" mantra. The only worthwhile thing to do with perception is to challenge it.

You are right about contextualising statistics, however to often this means ignoring what they tell us because the data doesn't suit. If there is a hugely disproportion are level of poverty in a given group this needs to be tackeled in parallel to other issues, not instead of. Pretending that violent crime can somehow be justified by social circumstance or past wrongs is frankly a cop out.

Nodin

biko wrote: »

Sound, thanks for clarifying the issue. When you refer to the Belgians I suppose it's down to African peoples forced together into nations as a result of map drawings by colonial powers?

...the Belgians declared one group "superior" to the other, issued separate identity cards based on ethnicity and used the distinction as a form of divide and conquer, exaggerating what tensions may have already existed.

Nodin

Clandestine wrote: »

Because the white, British born citizens of Britain are becoming a minority in their own country? How would you like it if gypsies started becoming a majority in Ireland? Many ethnic groups do not integrate very well with the indigenous population, and people originally living in the UK become isolated and leave, making the issue worse. Crime is already rising and religions like Christianity are being replaced by Islam which is in my opinion, a far worse alternative.

....hmmmm, needs only a tad more hysterical tone to be perfect.

You do realise that a lot of British born citizens aren't white?

Friend Computer

tritium wrote: »

OK, then I'll assume you concede your assertion that white on black violence was more prevalent was hugely wrong.

Regarding perception - perception is worthless, the lifeblood of bigots, racists, mysogonists, misandrists and every group who thrives on a " they took our jobs" mantra. The only worthwhile thing to do with perception is to challenge it.

You are right about contextualising statistics, however to often this means ignoring what they tell us because the data doesn't suit. If there is a hugely disproportion are level of poverty in a given group this needs to be tackeled in parallel to other issues, not instead of. Pretending that violent crime can somehow be justified by social circumstance or past wrongs is frankly a cop out.

That's all I was getting at. Too often in these threads there's either an undercurrent or outright statement of "they're criminals because they're black" while ignoring the underlying social issues that affect more blacks than whites.

I'm not saying it's a justification for crime only that it should be used to understand why it's such a problem instead of lazily--and usually agenda-ladenly--blaming it on race. This isn't an issue of race it's a social issue that disproportionally affects one more than the other.

Nodin

Friend Computer wrote: »

That's all I was getting at. Too often in these threads there's either an undercurrent or outright statement of "they're criminals because they're black" while ignoring the underlying social issues that affect more blacks than whites.

I'm not saying it's a justification for crime only that it should be used to understand why it's such a problem instead of lazily--and usually agenda-ladenly--blaming it on race. This isn't an issue of race it's a social issue that disproportionally affects one more than the other.

Not to mention certain facts in regards to convictions, arrests etc

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06/04/marijuana_possession_laws_aclu_report_why_blacks_are_four_times_more_likely.html

Christ the Redeemer

Nodin wrote: »

Not to mention certain facts in regards to convictions, arrests etc

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/06/04/marijuana_possession_laws_aclu_report_why_blacks_are_four_times_more_likely.html

The entire US justice system is racist.

woodoo

Leftist wrote: »

80%? dangerously close to a minority.

As for Sweden's poultry 86% white populace? dear me, they are down to their last numbers.
Does it hurt when you try to spell your name?

Before you get too smart look at the trend in those numbers.

Feathers

raah! wrote: »

You do understand why you are taking the action, because your parents or the government told you to.

Yeah, but you don't understand the reason that they've asked you to. You're complying because you think they know best, not because you've thought through the consequences of what they've asked you to do.

Just like some people who went with the status quo in generations gone by, in relation to racism.

But both you with your parents & them with an authority figure were acting ignorantly, as you had no exposure to cursing & they had no exposure to black people.

raah! wrote: »

And there are easier examples. Saying "hurting people is bad because my parents told me it was", is ignorant, if you have received this from your parents. You miss the point if you go back steps, Because I can just declare the first point given to you by your parents or society as something about which you are ignorant.

Not really sure what you mean here…

raah! wrote: »

Feathers wrote: »

Nobody would judge someone for having an irrational fear, but banning all Irish people from the shop is treating them indiscriminately as one group, which presumably is done through ignorance or immorality.

What presumably? I said she didn't want any of them because she was afraid of them all. She is indiscriminately afraid of them.

This again contradicts the terms of the example. She has an irrational fear of irish people. It's not because she doesn't know not all irish people are drunkards, she is afraid of all irish people because many of them are drunkards.

I'm saying that presumably that's why she's banning all Irish people; she has no other reasons. A minute ago, you said she was afraid of drunks & she was banning all Irish people, "just in case". See:

raah! wrote: »

If you think there is no true negative generalisation about groups of people then how about "alot of irish people like to drink, I'm terrified of drunkards, therefore, just in case, I don't let irish people in my shop".

raah! wrote: »

I'm saying a woman with a fear of drunks, not wanting drunks in her shop, is not necessarily a bad person. It's unfortunate that she is afraid of irish people, but her being afraid of them does not make her bad.

Now you're changing your example round.

solas111

The following incident occurred last week. I was not a witness so I am relying on the accounts of third parties but I have no reason to believe that they are not telling the truth.

A group of travellers/itinerants pulled into the car park of supermarket in a small town and parked their vans there. Some of the children ran amok in the shop and the management had to shut the doors and turn away paying customers. The travellers were asked to move but refused to do so. The shop remained closed until a court order could be obtained that allowed the Gardai to move them on.

Business people along the route that the convoy then took had been fore warned and they shut off access to their car parks. However, the travellers did gain entry to the parking area of one shop. They were told that the car park was for the use of shop customers only and not a public parking area and they moved on.

There are several definitions of ‘race’ and they do not all relate to skin colour. For example, The Free Dictionary by Farlex has the following as one definition: “Humans considered as a group”.

Therefore, in dealing with the travellers in the way that they did, are these business people racists? Were they wrong to take action that they believed to be necessary in order to protect their livelihoods? Are they bad people?

Just to be clear – I am not suggesting that all travellers are bad people or better or worse than anyone else. Neither am I raising the question of halting sites etc. or any related matters. My questions relate only to the manner in which people dealt with this group and whether or not these business people would be considered racists or bad people.

Feathers

solas111 wrote: »

The following incident occurred last week. I was not a witness so I am relying on the accounts of third parties but I have no reason to believe that they are not telling the truth.

A group of travellers/itinerants pulled into the car park of supermarket in a small town and parked their vans there. Some of the children ran amok in the shop and the management had to shut the doors and turn away paying customers. The travellers were asked to move but refused to do so. The shop remained closed until a court order could be obtained that allowed the Gardai to move them on.

Business people along the route that the convoy then took had been fore warned and they shut off access to their car parks. However, the travellers did gain entry to the parking area of one shop. They were told that the car park was for the use of shop customers only and not a public parking area and they moved on.

There are several definitions of ‘race’ and they do not all relate to skin colour. For example, The Free Dictionary by Farlex has the following as one definition: “Humans considered as a group”.

Therefore, in dealing with the travellers in the way that they did, are these business people racists? Were they wrong to take action that they believed to be necessary in order to protect their livelihoods? Are they bad people?

Just to be clear – I am not suggesting that all travellers are bad people or better or worse than anyone else. Neither am I raising the question of halting sites etc. or any related matters. My questions relate only to the manner in which people dealt with this group and whether or not these business people would be considered racists or bad people.

Did the subsequent businesses refuse them access because they were travellers, or because they'd trashed a previous shop?

raah!

Feathers wrote: »

Yeah, but you don't understand the reason that they've asked you to. You're complying because you think they know best, not because you've thought through the consequences of what they've asked you to do.

Just like some people who went with the status quo in generations gone by, in relation to racism.

But both you with your parents & them with an authority figure were acting ignorantly, as you had no exposure to cursing & they had no exposure to black people.



Not really sure what you mean here…

If you don't understand this second part then you don't understand the first part and that's why your response doesn't address the point I was making with both of those pieces of text.

I'm saying that presumably that's why she's banning all Irish people; she has no other reasons. A minute ago, you said she was afraid of drunks & she was banning all Irish people, "just in case". See:





Now you're changing your example round.

And again you don't understand. Those t hings were explicitly connected in what I said. She is afraid of drunkards, she has heard that there are alot of irish drunkards, so therefore, because she is afraid of drunkards, and thinks that it's likely that an irish person will be a drunkard, she is afraid of irish people because they are likely drunkards.

Feathers

raah! wrote: »

And again you don't understand. Those t hings were explicitly connected in what I said. She is afraid of drunkards, she has heard that there are alot of irish drunkards, so therefore, because she is afraid of drunkards, and thinks that it's likely that an irish person will be a drunkard, she is afraid of irish people because they are likely drunkards.

So again, just to be clear, she's barring all Irish people "to be on the safe side" but you're saying it's not from ignorance (I.e. she knows not all Irish people are drunks) and it's not from bigotry, but a third option.

But If an eloquent, well dressed, sober Irishman walks up to the shop & she's not prejudiced against him, what other reason is there to assume he's drunk?

Mint Aero

Therefore, in dealing with the travellers in the way that they did, are these business people racists? Were they wrong to take action that they believed to be necessary in order to protect their livelihoods? Are they bad people?

Yes, they're both racist and bad people. They should've designated no less than 8 parking spaces for caravans. Preferably, rezoning their entire parking lot so that travellers get preferential spaces over differently abled people.

Furthermore, the businesses should've provided skips, water facilities and electricity to their new halting sites. Honestly makes my blood boil when I hear of businesses not facilitating our lands native and noble people.

raah!

Feathers wrote: »

So again, just to be clear, she's barring all Irish people "to be on the safe side" but you're saying it's not from ignorance (I.e. she knows not all Irish people are drunks) and it's not from bigotry, but a third option.

But If an eloquent, well dressed, sober Irishman walks up to the shop & she's not prejudiced against him, what other reason is there to assume he's drunk?

Everything you are asking and every criticism of the example you've made has been addressed more than once in my posts. Read the posts more closely and you'll see that the answers to these questions are contained within them. I don't see the point in repeating the explanation I just made.

Killer Wench

Ten of Swords wrote: »

My 2c... If it's a fact backed by science and studies then it's not racist but if you use it to promote an agenda or undermine people then yes it can be seen as racist.

These studies have been refuted on multiple threads in AH. It's an agenda continuously dragged out like it is fact.

BuilderPlumber

Racism is a horrible thing and often distorts the real issues at hand. But good people are lead into it by what they hear and are told. Because some evil person who happens to belong to a certain group does evil, then everyone is equated with this. You see this with Islam (everyone is assumed to be al Qaeda/Taliban terrorists which is very very far from the reality) and with the media's stereotypes of certain countries in the world (for example, you only hear negative things about most of Africa and the Middle East in the news and NEVER the good things).

In Ireland, the travellers are blamed for all the crime especially rural robberies. As a victim of this, I know that no travellers were involved and the guy jailed for it was a local settled smalltime drug dealer and addict. But I remember at the time these robberies were happening (there was one almost every night for 6 months somewhere in my area), everyone was saying it was travellers. No doubt, the person who really did it was among those saying it was travellers!

Leftist

woodoo wrote: »

Before you get too smart look at the trend in those numbers.

86% still isn't the minority though is it? I'd imagine it's got a long way to go to be a minority if the rate is 10% drop in 20 years.

Bear in mind many children with mixed race will not be considered white.

Either way it's totally and absolutely irrelevant.

Morons were complaining about migrants to their towns and villages, from within their own country until 20 years ago. There will always be idiots that are frightened by outsiders coming in. This is natural reaction among people who don't have any concept of what it is like to live outside the area which they grew up.

So what if some kid isn't white? are we to suggest that the 14% of Sweden that isn't white cannot be considered Swedish?

Will some black kids who were born in ireland and grew up in ireland, even some who played GAA, will they be considered irish?

Clandestine

Can I make something clear, I don't have an issue with immigration as a whole but the main issue here is that it is occurring at too large of a scale at the moment. If people want to travel to England, Ireland etc. and work hard, get a job and contribute to society I don't have an issue with that, but unfortunately there is an exorbitant amount of migrants who survive solely on government handouts and refuse to find work which is a lose-lose situation for all. I realise this is not an issue that is exclusive to migrants, but in my opinion original citizens should come first and migrants shouldn't be supported on the scale that they are.

Leftist

Clandestine wrote: »

Can I make something clear, I don't have an issue with immigration as a whole but the main issue here is that it is occurring at too large of a scale at the moment. If people want to travel to England, Ireland etc. and work hard, get a job and contribute to society I don't have an issue with that, but unfortunately there is an exorbitant amount of migrants who survive solely on government handouts and refuse to find work which is a lose-lose situation for all. I realise this is not an issue that is exclusive to migrants, but in my opinion original citizens should come first and migrants shouldn't be supported on the scale that they are.

Do you have any data or information, credible survey or study based information that shows that foreign peoples are coming en masse and refusing to work?

I think that is a lie tbh.

Clandestine

Leftist wrote: »

Do you have any data or information, credible survey or study based information that shows that foreign peoples are coming en masse and refusing to work?

I think that is a lie tbh.

I'm not saying all of them refuse work (in fact, it seems that in some places they are accepting work at a faster rate than citizens) but thats not always the case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9026401/370000-migrants-on-the-dole.html

370,000 people, thats costing taxpayers billions of pounds every year.

jank

Friend Computer wrote: »

Alright, the stats there bear out. But you have to admit there might be a perception that blacks are more at risk; when you consider the number of white nationalist/white supremacist organisations it's hard not to see why.

Still, what're the stats with regards numbers of whites versus blacks in... shall we say problem areas of cities?

The FBI website is a treasure trove of information. Maybe you should look into it. Challange that perception of yours.

Friend Computer wrote: »

Statistics don't really tell you much if you ignore the context behind them.

So I gave you stats to prove your assertion wrong and you dont accept them. Interesting.

Friend Computer wrote: »

Not in recent times, no

Willful ignorance.

Henlars67

Leftist wrote: »

86% still isn't the minority though is it? I'd imagine it's got a long way to go to be a minority if the rate is 10% drop in 20 years.

Bear in mind many children with mixed race will not be considered white.

Either way it's totally and absolutely irrelevant.

Morons were complaining about migrants to their towns and villages, from within their own country until 20 years ago. There will always be idiots that are frightened by outsiders coming in. This is natural reaction among people who don't have any concept of what it is like to live outside the area which they grew up.

So what if some kid isn't white? are we to suggest that the 14% of Sweden that isn't white cannot be considered Swedish?

Will some black kids who were born in ireland and grew up in ireland, even some who played GAA, will they be considered irish?

During the Celtic Tiger when the village I grew up in had a few new housing estates built, loads of the more-narrow minded locals were constantly giving out about "all the fcuking townies" who were moving into the area.

And they weren't joking about it either. They really resented the fact that outsiders were coming to live there.

They've accepted it now, but it took a few years, though some still don't like to see 'blow-ins' on the committees of local clubs and groups.

That's rural ireland for ya.

Leftist

Clandestine wrote: »

I'm not saying all of them refuse work (in fact, it seems that in some places they are accepting work at a faster rate than citizens) but thats not always the case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9026401/370000-migrants-on-the-dole.html

370,000 people, thats costing taxpayers billions of pounds every year.

370,000 out of a reported 20.3m people reported receiving benefits in the UK.

and you did say they refused to work:

but unfortunately there is an exorbitant amount of migrants who survive solely on government handouts and refuse to find work

Clandestine

Leftist wrote: »

370,000 out of a reported 20.3m people reported receiving benefits in the UK.

and you did say they refused to work:

I think 370,000 people on benefits (and yes I would say a sizable amount of them refuse work) is still an exorbitant amount tbh. Maybe its a small amount out of the total in your opinion, but the impact it has is still felt.

Leftist

Clandestine wrote: »

I think 370,000 people on benefits (and yes I would say a sizable amount of them refuse work) is still an exorbitant amount tbh. Maybe its a small amount out of the total in your opinion, but the impact it has is still felt.

how can you say that a sizeable amount refuse to work. Some might, but without any information to back it up it's just an assumption and the numbers of which are totally pie in the sky.
d

old hippy

Clandestine wrote: »

I think 370,000 people on benefits (and yes I would say a sizable amount of them refuse work) is still an exorbitant amount tbh. Maybe its a small amount out of the total in your opinion, but the impact it has is still felt.

How does it impact you, specifically?

Nodin

Clandestine wrote: »

I'm not saying all of them refuse work (in fact, it seems that in some places they are accepting work at a faster rate than citizens) but thats not always the case:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9026401/370000-migrants-on-the-dole.html

370,000 people, thats costing taxpayers billions of pounds every year.

That's cost British taxpayers billions a year. We're Irish.

So "migrants" can't lose a job, get sick, or go on holiday?