What are your views on Multiculturalism in Ireland? - Threadbanned User List in OP

Rodney Bathgate

blackface is offensive but whiteface isn’t?

Gervais08

Rodney Bathgate wrote: »

blackface is offensive but whiteface isn’t?

Who knew ??? ðŸ˜

Gervais08

Gervais08 wrote: »

Why not?? If “blackface” to make fun of those with dark skin is wrong then why isn’t that ?

Because white people generally don't have a victim complex. Not yet anyway. There's little to be outraged over, since white people don't make any real claims of connection with other white people as a race. Whereas with Black people, such claims of being connected, united, abused together are common. For the same reason, you don't really see outrage from Asians over silly presentations of them except on a national level (China), but not purely on a racial one.

The problem with representing black people (or Muslims) is that any perceived negative representation is an insult to the overall group. There's enough activists involved to have a crusade over it, and raise the level of outrage. Whereas there's very few activists who care about white racial issues, and typically, they're relegated into the far right camp, and so their objections are dismissed immediately.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Because white people generally don't have a victim complex. Not yet anyway. There's little to be outraged over, since white people don't make any real claims of connection with other white people as a race. Whereas with Black people, such claims of being connected, united, abused together are common. For the same reason, you don't really see outrage from Asians over silly presentations of them except on a national level (China), but not purely on a racial one.

The problem with representing black people (or Muslims) is that any perceived negative representation is an insult to the overall group. There's enough activists involved to have a crusade over it, and raise the level of outrage. Whereas there's very few activists who care about white racial issues, and typically, they're relegated into the far right camp, and so their objections are dismissed immediately.

Calling it a victim complex is a bit much. They were enslaved until relatively recently in the USA and still are treated like 2nd class citizens in many ways, so white people dressing up in blackface could be seen by black people as mockery of them.
I mean Irish people were freaking out back in the 90s when Eastenders did some episodes here and portrayed us as drunkards and a bit backwards. It was all over the news.
I find the "what about about whiteface!!!" people far worse than overly sensitive black people tbh. White people have been on top in the Western World forever so we have no reason to be sensitive about the colour of our skin or any jokes made about it.

Gervais08

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Calling it a victim complex is a bit much. They were enslaved until relatively recently in the USA and still are treated like 2nd class citizens in many ways, so white people dressing up in blackface could be seen by black people as mockery of them.
I find the "what about about whiteface!!!" people far worse than overly sensitive black people tbh.

I do hate to break it to you but life wasn’t fun for us here for 700 odd years either.

Thelonious Monk

Gervais08 wrote: »

I do hate to break it to you but life wasn’t fun for us here for 700 odd years either.

And now you're very lucky to be born here given how wealthy we are and all the opportunities we have. What's your point?

Tombo2001

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Calling it a victim complex is a bit much. They were enslaved until relatively recently in the USA and still are treated like 2nd class citizens in many ways, so white people dressing up in blackface could be seen by black people as mockery of them.
I mean Irish people were freaking out back in the 90s when Eastenders did some episodes here and portrayed us as drunkards and a bit backwards. It was all over the news.
I find the "what about about whiteface!!!" people far worse than overly sensitive black people tbh.

Completely agreed. We are not all starting from a clean slate here where the two can be equivocated.

However if your starting point is one where you can not sympathise or empathise with the atrocities that black people have faced historically, or the systemic racism that they face from the moment they are born today, then of course you might think that both are the same thing.

Thelonious Monk

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Calling it a victim complex is a bit much. They were enslaved until relatively recently in the USA and still are treated like 2nd class citizens in many ways, so white people dressing up in blackface could be seen by black people as mockery of them.

Did I say African Americans? I said Black people. You've just shown exactly what I meant. The association is there automatically...

I mean Irish people were freaking out back in the 90s when Eastenders did some episodes here and portrayed us as drunkards and a bit backwards. It was all over the news.

I find the "what about about whiteface!!!" people far worse than overly sensitive black people tbh.

Which you're entitled to... just as I'm entitled not to care either way.. I'm secure in my racial/national identity. I gave up the outrage over our history over two decades ago.

Thelonious Monk

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I say African Americans? I said Black people. You've just shown exactly what I meant. The association is there automatically...

Black Americans seem to set the tone for black culture in UK/Europe and around the world, and their struggle has been similar in other countries too

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Because white people generally don't have a victim complex. Not yet anyway. There's little to be outraged over, since white people don't make any real claims of connection with other white people as a race. Whereas with Black people, such claims of being connected, united, abused together are common. For the same reason, you don't really see outrage from Asians over silly presentations of them except on a national level (China), but not purely on a racial one.

The problem with representing black people (or Muslims) is that any perceived negative representation is an insult to the overall group. There's enough activists involved to have a crusade over it, and raise the level of outrage. Whereas there's very few activists who care about white racial issues, and typically, they're relegated into the far right camp, and so their objections are dismissed immediately.

There's little to be outraged over. Full stop.

Here is a list of places that have been colonised by white Europeans.

All of North America
All of South America
Most of Africa
Most of Asia.
Australia and New Zealand.

Its nothing to do with "not connecting with other white people".....

The term Victim Complex is really appalling, it gives the impression of people who are just making the whole thing up, which couldnt be further from the truth.

Tombo2001

The other more pertinent point to your comment about 'not connecting with other white people'

White people travelled to the USA as free men and women. Irish people kept their Irish identity, Italians kept their Italian identity, Swedes, Germans, Jews, etc etc. And so Irish could continue to connect with Irish, so on and so forth. They didnt need to connect with other white people, they had their own.
,
Whereas black people - their identities were stripped from them, they were isolated from one another, they had no opportunity to form networks, to protect their culture. And thats how they be came a homogenic group, a homogenic group that throughout recent history has faced disadvantage at every turn.

So you shouldnt use that as a stick to beat them with - slavery turned black people into a homogenic group in the US, it was forced on them by white people. Its absolutely appalling really, I know its not your fault or my fault that this happened, but its absolutely appalling this history.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There's little to be outraged over. Full stop.

Well, actually, we could find plenty to be outraged over as a racial group if we really wanted to... but as I said, White people generally don't see themselves that way, whereas other racial groups do.

Its nothing to do with "not connecting with other white people".....

Why not? You've just dismissed the point, not argued against it.

The term Victim Complex is really appalling, it gives the impression of people who are just making the whole thing up, which couldnt be further from the truth.

No, it suggests that they embraced an identity that revolves around being a victim, and thus, not being responsible for their failures as a people. Because victims are never responsible for their situation.

Many countries throughout the last 80 years, have emerged from colonial backgrounds, or hostile occupations, and became successful in their own right. When we look at the majority of nations with Black people we see the opposite, even though they've been on the receiving end of aid from Western nations for decades. That is what I meant about a victim complex. The embracing of an excuse for failures to move past their historical problems. ie. colonialism. It's a handy excuse for 60 plus years of disorder, genocide, corruption, war, etc.

Tombo2001

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Black Americans seem to set the tone for black culture in UK/Europe and around the world, and their struggle has been similar in other countries too

The slave ships bound for the US all passed through the UK first, as the boats were owned and the slave trade conducted by British merchants. 1.5mn slaves passed through Liverpool, 500'000 passed through Bristol, for example.

And obviously many slaves were brought to the West Indies also, which remained colonies and the origin of much of the Black community in Britain today.

So big historic links.

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, actually, we could find plenty to be outraged over as a racial group if we really wanted to... but as I said, White people generally don't see themselves that way, whereas other racial groups do.

Go on, hit me with what you have on this front.

Obviously white people have been victimised by other white people, the Irish and Jews to the forefront there. But thats not what we are talking about here.

On your other point - I have argued in the follow up post on why white people dont connect in the same way, its pretty clear.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Go on, hit me with what you have on this front.

Obviously white people have been victimised by other white people, the Irish and Jews to the forefront there. But thats not what we are talking about here.

On your other point - I have argued in the follow up post on why white people dont connect in the same way, its pretty clear.

I don't have anything because I'm not someone who gets outraged over such things. As I said earlier.

And no, you didn't argue against it. You dismissed it. Providing a list of places that "white" people conquered doesn't do that.

I really wondering where all this is going...

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The other more pertinent point to your comment about 'not connecting with other white people'

Ahh... I understand now. This is about taking a slice of a sentence out of context, and arguing against that slice. Right.

Ok.

So you shouldnt use that as a stick to beat them with

:eek:

Seriously? You are really showing me that you're not worth engaging with when you turn to this kind of rubbish.

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Well, actually, we could find plenty to be outraged over as a racial group if we really wanted to... but as I said, White people generally don't see themselves that way, whereas other racial groups do.



Why not? You've just dismissed the point, not argued against it.



No, it suggests that they embraced an identity that revolves around being a victim, and thus, not being responsible for their failures as a people. Because victims are never responsible for their situation.

Many countries throughout the last 80 years, have emerged from colonial backgrounds, or hostile occupations, and became successful in their own right. When we look at the majority of nations with Black people we see the opposite, even though they've been on the receiving end of aid from Western nations for decades. That is what I meant about a victim complex. The embracing of an excuse for failures to move past their historical problems. ie. colonialism. It's a handy excuse for 60 plus years of disorder, genocide, corruption, war, etc.

Couple of things - they are victims, so what is the problem with acknowledging that.

(ii) Lets go some through countries that have emerged from Colonial backgrounds.

India - one of the poorest countries on the planet with population growth out of control.
Pakistan, Bangladesh, similar poverty levels.
Argentina, frequent bankruptcies
Venezuela in free fall at present.


While some African countries are beginning to become more prosperous - ghana would be a good example - circa 70 years after independence. Which is about the length of time it took Ireland to get its act together.

Tombo2001

Deleted User wrote: »

Ahh... I understand now. This is about taking a slice of a sentence out of context, and arguing against that slice. Right.

Ok.



:eek:

Seriously? You are really showing me that you're not worth engaging with when you turn to this kind of rubbish.

Grand, now you are the one not debating the point I made, not defending your own claims, but instead targeting me personally.

Best of luck.

/violin music.

Good lord, you're really trying so hard to pin their failures on to White people.. are you even aware of what they've done to their own people over the last few decades?

Dyr

Tombo2001 wrote: »

There's little to be outraged over. Full stop.

Here is a list of places that have been colonised by white Europeans.

All of North America
All of South America
Most of Africa
Most of Asia.
Australia and New Zealand.

Its nothing to do with "not connecting with other white people".....

The term Victim Complex is really appalling, it gives the impression of people who are just making the whole thing up, which couldnt be further from the truth.

I have to say we made a fist of North America and the Southern Hemisphere, from the stone age to top tier nations states in no time. Asia and Africa were colonised for about a 100 years or less, most of the Asians have made a go of it since, Africa is not much better than when we found it.

At some stage, we're going to have to admit that the problems are not about colonialism.

Tombo2001

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Grand, now you are the one not debating the point I made, not defending your own claims, but instead targeting me personally.

Best of luck.

I didn't target you personally. I referred to your post, and the manner of your post... not liking one of the things you ascribed to me: "So you shouldnt use that as a stick to beat them with".. highly suggestive sentence that.

Gervais08

Bambi wrote: »

I have to say we made a fist of North America and the Southern Hemisphere, from the stone age to top tier nations states in no time. Asia and Africa were colonised for about a 100 years or less, most of the Asians have made a go of it since, Africa is not much better than when we found it.

At some stage, we're going to have to admit that the problems are not about colonialism.

I was roundly shouted down for this once but look at South Africa since the colonists have been replaced by the indigenous people - violence, rape, murder - how is that “better” ?

Yellow_Fern

Gervais08 wrote: »

I was roundly shouted down for this once but look at South Africa since the colonists have been replaced by the indigenous people - violence, rape, murder - how is that “better” ?

Gervais08 wrote: »

I was roundly shouted down for this once but look at South Africa since the colonists have been replaced by the indigenous people - violence, rape, murder - how is that “better” ?

Black people are not indigenous in South Africa. The San people were indigenous but they have been wiped out. There are plenty of African success stories but South Africa isnt one of them, perhaps because a vast system of positive discrimination introduced in the 90s.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

Black Americans seem to set the tone for black culture in UK/Europe and around the world, and their struggle has been similar in other countries too

African American culture does seem to set the tone but their history is totally different to Africa.

Gervais08

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Black people are not indigenous in South Africa. The San people were indigenous but they have been wiped out. There are plenty of African success stories but South Africa isnt one of them, perhaps because a vast system of positive discrimination introduced in the 90s.

My apologies - I knew I’d be pulled up for saying ‘native people” - but thank you, that’s interesting!

Yellow_Fern

Bambi wrote: »

I have to say we made a fist of North America and the Southern Hemisphere, from the stone age to top tier nations states in no time. Asia and Africa were colonised for about a 100 years or less, most of the Asians have made a go of it since, Africa is not much better than when we found it.

At some stage, we're going to have to admit that the problems are not about colonialism.

You are right that it is not colonialisms fault but its not necessarily people fault either. The economic potential of different regions is vastly different. Many African countries have population densities far lower than Europe because the land is so bad. In contrast India and China have always been densely populate dplaces and generally have been very wealthy regions. India only started growing properly in the 1990s as it was a highly socialised country before then but its stomping performance since.

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

You are right that it is not colonialisms fault but its not necessarily people fault either. The economic potential of different regions is vastly different. Many African countries have population densities far lower than Europe because the land is so bad. In contrast India and China have always been densely populate dplaces and generally have been very wealthy regions. India only started growing properly in the 1990s as it was a highly socialised country before then but its stomping performance since.

Except the land wasn't so bad. Africa for a very long time was a bread basket, with vast tracts of land perfect for farming, and the production of animals. Added to this, the natural resources of gold, Zinc, diamonds, etc, the land could provide a wide range of valuable resources for internal use or export. There's an oft used belief that colonialism stripped the land of these resources, but the truth is that they're still being extracted to this day... The problem for Africa, in many regions, was the use of goats, and the destructive habits of local farmers. (along with pollution from factories, or rubbish dumped badly) Even so, Africa still remains a land with huge areas capable of supporting life.

The issue for Africa wasn't population, but societal change. The friction between different religious groups, the conflict between communism/capitalism, the tribal need to commit genocide of other tribal groups, the superstition that continues to this day with Tribal witch-doctors, etc. There's all manner of reasons for why African nations faltered or failed to be successful, although corruption within all levels of society remains one of the biggest factors.

Colonialism is responsible, in part. However, those who advocate the passing of responsibility for Africans, use colonialism as an absolute reason, blaming colonialism for all the negatives that came after. Africa and it's failures are more than that though... As I said, other countries have managed to put their colonial past behind them, and reach for relative success, but Africa is shackled by their own cultural behaviors.

Dyr

Gervais08 wrote: »

I was roundly shouted down for this once but look at South Africa since the colonists have been replaced by the indigenous people - violence, rape, murder - how is that “better” ?

Southern Hemisphere, meaning New Zealand and Australia in this context. Both being overwhelmingly European.


Th good people of South Africa are free to forge their own destiny now, if that means making a complete pigs mickey of it, then thats their look out.

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

Southern Hemisphere, meaning New Zealand and Australia in this context. Both being overwhelmingly European.

Both of which were sparsely populated even before the colonists came. Throughout the remainder of the area, the native groups remain dominant in population, and direction.

Th good people of South Africa are free to forge their own destiny now, if that means making a complete pigs mickey of it, then thats their look out.

Except they're employing reverse discrimination, with the aim of punishing those non-blacks who live within the nation, elevating Black people by providing them greater advantages in employment and society. Basically, they've embraced the very behavior of the colonialists themselves... a mirror image of what they wanted to remove. So, yes, the responsibility for that rests with them... as it does on any African nation that was created or continued into independence.

Wibbs

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Black people are not indigenous in South Africa. The San people were indigenous but they have been wiped out.

1) There were Bantu Black Africans in southern Africa since around the birth of Christ. 2) the San have not been wiped out, they're still there.

So how do you define indigenous? Are the Maori indigenous to New Zealand? See below.

Deleted User wrote: »

Both of which were sparsely populated even before the colonists came.

Actually New Zealand was uninhabited by humans until around the 13th century when the polynesian colonists found the place. The Maori were there on their own for sabot four hundred years until Europeans showed up.

Wibbs

Tombo2001 wrote: »

(ii) Lets go some through countries that have emerged from Colonial backgrounds.

OK, lets....

India - one of the poorest countries on the planet with population growth out of control.

India was dirt poor for much of its history. A land of built in caste discrimination with a tiny elite at the top with unimaginable wealth and power. Much of it was colonised by swelling their coffers even more to further enslave their own people.

Pakistan, Bangladesh, similar poverty levels.

Which were lower under colonisation.

Argentina, frequent bankruptcies
Venezuela in free fall at present.

Eh, both are colonies from the get go, just like the US. Majority White European in background too.

While some African countries are beginning to become more prosperous - ghana would be a good example - circa 70 years after independence. Which is about the length of time it took Ireland to get its act together.

Actually Ireland had it's "act together" pretty quickly contrary to some beliefs that we were wearing sackcloth and ashes until the late 90's. The country which save for a small corner of the north never had the industrial revolution was electrified and phoned up, massive projects like hydroelectric were going on and the nation got into the international politics end of things very quickly. Ireland was a player in the setting up of the League of Nations when the ink on our independence was barely dry.

One advantage Ireland had which most ex colonies didn't have, certainly British ones, was we retained the majority of our civil servants. That made a huge difference.