L'Oreal sack first transgender model for racism
- Thread starter 2 man midfield
- Start date
- Status
You have to admire that troll.
I assure you, knowing his prior comments, you can avoid such.
It was well crafted tbf. But how could you mistake the transition, its illogical.
Because that's always been the case in history, it was practiced by everyone - the weak are conquered by the strong. You do know that the people that Europe conquered were fighting between themselves and conquering each other way before they were discovered? Sure, their means of fighting may have brought casualties on a smaller scale, but that was only because of the restriction of their technology, not because they were living peacefully. At the end of the day Europeans shouldn't be ashamed of their history but rather be proud of it - we were the best at it and that's nothing to be ashamed by. You would rather be the one that was conquered or the one doing the conquering? Because there was no third option back then.
The world as we know it was made by Europeans. Whether you like it or not, the abolition of slavery, the right to free speech, the habeas corpus and our current laws would most likely have never happened if it wasn't for Europe mainly because Europe strictly enforced these laws on other nations. I really have no idea why this thing "white guilt" even exists.
feck me
Alright then
I give up.
Do people actually suffer from 'white guilt' in here? Seem illogical to me.
I think it's more a willingness to acknowledge that white colonisers were in the wrong. I doubt anyone in the present day feels any actual 'guilt' as such.
Institutional racism has levels. But any hate crime commited in the UK or any threat of violence gets thoroughly investigated. We had our tires slashed on our crime and they wouldn't come out, I said it was a hate crime and they were going to come out if I had more evidence than 'I suspect it was'. Death threats on social media will definitely result in IP traces and police knocking on doors. She would have definite proof of: A) A Death Threat B) Possible hate crime. It'd get investigated and prosecuted.
The fact she hasn't bothered to report any of that but wants to talk to the media about it shows she's blatantly attention whoring and she's likely story telling, ie bullshiting.
You mean if she made intelligent remarks that weren't blatantly racist? They might be debated, she probably isn't that smart.
I think white priviledge is a complicated concept running alongside other priveledges such as class and wealth. While white privedge should be addressed, blacket generalisations and blaming white people as a group is simply racist.
My fiance teaches impoverished white kids in Yorkshire and the school will receive around 1/4 of the funding per pupil compared to the funding per pupil in London where her sister is schooled. Where is the white priviledge there?
Also the amount of ignorance in stating European wealth is built on the backs of black labour, when the white working classes suffered on similar levels for centuries is insulting and historically inaccurate.
There's racism on many levels, to the more extreme overt levels of having your tires slashed by a certain neighbour who has it in for you, to having the N word being yelled by a hateful driver by, to having racist Asians following you around a hair store because they assume you're a theif, to being perceived as 'scary' by a colleague, or being ignored or socially excluded or being passed over for promotion.
None of that makes the statement 'all white people are violently racist' acceptable, it isn't.
Surely it goes beyond acknowledgment of being in the wrong. Very few people would argue that empire building is a good thing anymore.
I'm not sure, I just always thought white guilt was merely a term which illustrates a sort of 'hold my hands up' attitude, as opposed to any literal feeling of guilt.
One of the problems is that she was willing to take money from a historically racist, anit-semitic and worst of all French company, before being sacked by the company for posting on Twitter. When you sell your soul to the devil, don't be surprised when he punishes you for upsetting his customers.
The original twitter message is clumsy, old-hat and shallow, but contextualised in a more nuanced argument it could have merit in my opinion. But that's perhaps beyond what we should expect from a cosmetics model-cum-twitter activist. The Cheryl Cole digression shows she is out of her depth. Hopefully it all dies down for her so she can go and do her modelling without being harassed and we can have one less twitter revolutionary to read about.
The original twitter message is clumsy, old-hat and shallow, but contextualised in a more nuanced argument it could have merit in my opinion. But that's perhaps beyond what we should expect from a cosmetics model-cum-twitter activist. The Cheryl Cole digression shows she is out of her depth. Hopefully it all dies down for her so she can go and do her modelling without being harassed and we can have one less twitter revolutionary to read about.
What do you mean?
You certainly may have being somewhat maligned because you were black. But looking back how many teens in your school had relationships that weren't actually fictional? How many girls and boys didn't have relationships in school? There's probably more that didn't than those that did. When I was in school myself and many of my friends were too shy to aproach girls we fancied. There might have been plenty of lads in your school that fancied you but didn't want the humiliation of being knocked back. Also I've had plenty of black girlfriends and the ones who had most attention weren't the necessarily the most attractive but those that dressed more provocatively and flirted the most. Perhaps you were conservative and reserved?
Like you say as you functioned with more mature less self conscious men you didn't have a problem being perceived as an attractive woman.
I've got a few of these replies, and didn't respond. The reason is that whataboutism is a stupid retort.
Just a cheap joke about tolerance, expectation, hypocrisy, incoherence/inconsistency (particularly online) to undercut the super cereal post.
Holy feck.
No one needs to feel guilty for things that happened hundreds of years ago but the least you could do is not be proud of it. Pillaging and committing untold atrocities on an entire fecking continent should not be something any sane person should be proud of. Have a fecking word with yourself.
I'm not saying there weren't other possible factors at play, of course it's possible - but you're thinking only on individual, anecdotal level.
The whole point of that story is that it wasn't relatable on an individual level, but rather my story mirrors millions of black and brown girls who shared similar experiences and as such on social media we are able to connect, share stories and form relationships.
Wow. Such ignorance, such bigotry - if it wasn't so dangerous, it'd be funny.
Yeah, this really what the crux of the matter should be, understanding that this is something that happens around the world to this day, rather than individually. Just because I haven't seen it, it doesn't make it any less real.
Which is what makes this woman's comments so racist for me, especially being from a similar area herself, as back at school when I was 13-14 I had a black girlfriend and no one cared. In fact I've had a couple, and never really even thought of them as black - as in if asked, skin colour wouldn't be the first thing I used to describe any of them. It just was as normal as anything. So yes I can accept white pivilege is a thing and likely have or will benefit from it in some way and yes that's wrong. But no, to suggest I'm in any way shape or form racist just because the colour of my skin is, well...racist.
As someone mentioned above, maybe not so much white privilege where I'm from, more privileged to grow up in a multicultural area. And thank feck I did, seeing the mindset of actual racist people at work.
I don't think there's any reasoning with that.
Can't have ideas if you don't have intelligence.
"Yeah I've only read the cliff notes of European history, and haven't read any other history, so therefore, white people created everything and were good for everyone. The end."
@Dumat12 by your logic, Europeans gave us climate change. Because how could a bunch of savagas pollute the Earth without the European means of production? So even playing by your own rules, you look like a fool.
Of all the obvious flaws with this, two things stand out for me;
1) Often Europeans were welcomed by non-Europeans. Without the Native Americans, the Virginia colonists wouldn't have survived their first Winter (hence Thanksgiving) and relations where good until John Smith had to return to the UK and we started pillaging their crop and taking their land. The Incas and the Aztecs were cruelly slaughtered by the Spanish Conquistadors after agreeing to meet them for discussions, usually unarmed apart from a few rudimentary weapons. Does that sound brave and heroic to you? Or actually does it seem pretty cowardly to slaughter thousands of unarmed people, some of whom even when fired upon didn't defend themselves?
2) Paragraph 2 assumes that the Euro-centric approach to law, private property, society, relationships etc...etc.....that we developed and imposed is in the best interests of everybody. Usually society was structured this way and laws where put in place initially to protect the interests of noblemen and the very wealthy. Who is to say we wouldn't be all much happier in a world based on, for example, 'traditional' Native American, Incan or Aztec ideas? The fact that you assume the European way is the best way straight away proves the point of many in this thread. From the other perspective, you could easily see us as the brutal savages that came along and bought death, greed, inequality and oppression to otherwise predominantly peaceful and functional societies.
I could go on but I think if you don't at least acknowledge the two points above there is really no point getting into any more complicated or controversial arguments.
You make some good points, but I'm fairly sure we wouldn't be happier in a world based on Aztec ideas of blood sacrifice and renewal. Then again the Christian religion was pretty batshit mental back in the day too, so who knows how it would have turned out in the long run.
I'm not really sure why anyone is acknowledging that ignorant idiot up there.
For the sake of my sanity I chose to ignore his comments after he spoke on Sub-Saharan African heritage & history, clearly without knowing the truth.
For the sake of my sanity I chose to ignore his comments after he spoke on Sub-Saharan African heritage & history, clearly without knowing the truth.
I don't know why I should be feeling guilty for something my ancestors did. I don't expect a child to feel guilty for something his father did. I have my own life, my own thoughts and ideologies.
Don't pack me in with racists because I choose to continue with my 'white privileged' life and not devote it to eradicating racism in the world. I try to do my bit to make the world a better place here and there, and then basically get called racist, cheers.
Don't pack me in with racists because I choose to continue with my 'white privileged' life and not devote it to eradicating racism in the world. I try to do my bit to make the world a better place here and there, and then basically get called racist, cheers.
I'm guessing that 'white guilt' is just another variant on 'snowflake' and the like - a transparent attempt to dismiss as trivial and self-indulgent a very humane and natural regret about awful acts committed in our name.
Well yeah that's kind of my point (which you do acknowledge) - we assume that other civilisations/societies would not have achieved some of the demonstrably good things that we have achieved but how do we know that given the same amount of time they wouldn't have naturally evolved into much fairer, prosperous and safer societies based on sounder principles of mutual benefit rather than greed and taking whatever you can take by hook or by crook?
They weren't committed in my name, or your name, or even the name of the vast majority of our ancestors that lived in that time. They were committed in the name of ruling elites. The common man in the European nations mentioned were sent to die in wars and slog in factories for the benefit of those ruling elites.
Yep. In fact there's very little evidence, in Britain anyway, that empire actually meant anything to anyone. The common man didn't really know anything about the empire before the 20th century, much less took pride in it.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/3633193/Empire-What-empire.html
I am not clued up on the history but the East India Company were an insanely powerful private concern with its own army right? I know they dealt with the with the crown but how much of the Empire's activities were from the private sector and from the public sector? I know that the Rothschild's had a big tie up with the UK government at one point to fund some activities at least.
After the Company conquered or made deals with Indian rulers, they faced and beat a nationwide revolt in 1857; the territory they conquered was then transferred to the crown.
There was an initial crown funded venture into imperialism under queen Elizabeth, but it proved unprofitable. As you say it tended to be private enterprises that conquered new land for their countries unofficially. There was a lot of dick wagging among the European powers for centuries as a result, and the scramble for Africa in the 1800s was a catalyst for World War One.
Basically, it was far from a good thing as one poster tried to argue. It definitely funded the industrial revolution and shaped the fortunes of our country, and the rest of Europe, today.
Is that because ruling a territory was too much bother?
Drugs was an example of a larger point. Within that example - the drug war was racially targeted. Further, drug use goes up with unemployment, as do a host of mental illnesses. I'm sure individual drug use or sale is more likely in a community where it is already established, and I know for a fact that unemployment within an area correlates to drug use. So it is just as likely that the causation of drug use goes back to unemployment rather than the other way.
About your point about culture and parenting - let's take Donald Trump. He has had 3 marriages and various kids and step-kids. All these kids are rich and their financial security will never be threatened. However, bad parenting is a big problem when you look at poor kids and their odds in life.
Many of these bad cultural qualities were ascribed to blacks to explain their poverty, after this became kind-of taboo, and de-industrialisation meant the spread of poverty into previously middle-income white areas, the same cultural defects were attributed to these white people as well. So poverty becomes a function of culture rather than the material circumstances you were born into.
That is not to say that individual poor kids cannot rise out of poverty, but when 70% of people who are born poor die poor (and a higher number for the rich remaining rich), that is not about culture or individual choices.
Both these articles make this point.
- Status