https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858
I think the British parliament decided that allowing a rebellion was the sign of incompetence.
L'Oreal sack first transgender model for racism
- Thread starter 2 man midfield
- Start date
- Status
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_India_Act_1858
I think the British parliament decided that allowing a rebellion was the sign of incompetence.
It was in part due to the belief that the Company had been responsible for creating the conditions which led to the revolt, and the perceived need for central oversight over British rule in India.
(Edit): what @berbatrick says above
Cheers
"Honestly I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of Mongolians any more. Yes ALL Mongolians.
"Because most of ya'll don't even realise or refuse to acknowledge that your existence, privilege and success as a race is built on the backs, blood and death of Chinese and Slavic people!"
Some interesting comments on this thread. I don't feel any guilt for being white, as that's just a biological fact and a happenstance. We all have the capacity to be kind and compassionate to our neighbour and we're all responsible for our own actions. That's all you can ask of anyone.
Our history is now set in stone, but our future is full of possibilities.
Our history is now set in stone, but our future is full of possibilities.
Pretty much how I look at it.
I do wonder how much of this is people vying to show off how progressive they are though. It's like a competition on social media now to see who can be the most left-leaning and forward thinking person there is. I honestly thought of myself as liberal and on the left until about 12 months ago, but now I'm not sure. I don't agree with half the stuff that apparently goes for liberalism now.
Using the word 'bigotry' has become irrelevant in the present day because of people like you. Can you refrain yourself for one sec from usign such stupid words without anything to back it up? I've studied enough history to know my shit, I doubt you could say the same thing about yourself.
Very ironic, my friend. You're the one that can't provide any arguments to your case and instead resort to personal attacks that only make you look like a fool.
And often they were not so welcomed and outright massacred. They were 'welcomed' because the Europeans were thought as useful tools by many of the Native Americans. The Aztecs were "cruelly killed"? Are you serious? The main reason that the Europeans were greeted with such joy by many of the Indians under Aztec rule was precisely because they believed that the Europeans would save them from the Aztecs. It was the same with the Inca Empire, albeit its cruelty and oppression was not as high as the Aztec Empire. It seems to me you're trying to paint the Native Americans as completely peaceful, in harmony with nature and extremely loving people when in fact it was not so at all. They were arguably more cruel than the Europeans themselves, the only difference was that Europe possessed superior technology. Also the Native Americans also slaughtered their fair share of European men and women.
Come the feck on man, society based on Aztec ideas? Like human sacrifices and such? Is that what you want? Because that was their culture. You can't sit there and argue with me that if our society was based on Native American culture we would be better off (no offense to Native Americans).
I don't acknowledge them because they are completely false.
I mean, you're advocating pride in what is essentially genocide, greed, and racism — justified by your presumable comfort you currently have in life. You clearly don't know enough about history and I'm not going to use my precious time to get you up to speed. Apart from being off topic of the OP, you're really just that far behind the 8-ball so it's pointless to even debate this with you. Sorry it hurts your feelings. Maybe next time.
Wat? You really came to this idea by me analyzing history from a neutral perspective?
Doubt that.
Are you sure your time is 'that' precious?
This is pretty much the only thing you got right.
You've not exactly been neutral... and what happened to the Native Americans was frequently genocide.
Yep, you owe me $20.00 + a $10 damage fee for having to look at the shit you write.
I'm sure there is a bit of social media preening going on, but I think it's disingenuous to assume that all of it is or to dismiss the experiences and concerns of vast swathes of people as worthless because you find it hard to relate to it.
That's not a criticism of you, I think the sort of experiences that posters like villain discuss are difficult to empathise with the first time you come across them if you've come across from a completely different background, and ultimately it's easier to dismiss them as exaggerated nonsense than it is to question your own belief system, and challenge viewpoints that you probably didn't even realise don't represent other people experiences. It requires a degree of introspection and self-reflection that people aren't really used to dealing with.
I'd read villains reply to someone earlier in the thread to Snowjoe if you haven't which I think encapsulates some aspects of what you're uncomfortable with.
As White People I think we always find it difficult to recognise ourselves as a racial group who have markedly different experiences to others, and it's (to me) obvious that you run in to feelings of discomfort the first time you think of yourself in those terms, but being able to essentially go through life without having to think about things like this is a pretty good example in itself of White Privilege.
I also don't think there's a 'path to enlightenment' here; I'm sure I've posted things in this post alone that probably aren't phrased as well as they could be, and that I've dramatically underplayed other aspects, but I think the 'liberal' (but I'm not sure liberal/left wing is really the best descriptor for this issue) thing to do is to approach topics you might not understand fully to start with with an open mind and try and reflect on them and challenge your original position.
To borrow an excellent graphical depiction by a certain ex-Google employee:
'Excellent' presumably meaning 'fecking daft' in this context?
To borrow an excellent graphical depiction by a certain ex-Google employee:
unbelievably useless use of charts.
fecking hell! This is a new level.To borrow an excellent graphical depiction by a certain ex-Google employee:
My eyes hurt.
Is this the genius that all the men's rights "activists" are worshiping at the moment?
When you defend colonialism and claim that 'European colonialists have nothing to be ashamed for', you're personally insulting the millions who suffered in brutal regimes so I have no problem calling you out for the ignorant, malicious little prick that you are. It's like saying 'Nazis have nothing to be ashamed for' and expecting an amiable response.
Beyond the genocides committed under colonialism, if you're actually interested in learning why it was so harmful economically, try this for a start.
He's just your average systems biologist. If he looks like a genius it's only because those on the other end of the argument aren't up to much.
I'm referring to the people who seem to think he's a heroic genius for getting himself sacked.
She got a new job:
Model fired by L'Oreal for racism remarks will be face of rival campaign
Illamasqua hires Munroe Bergdorf, sacked by French firm after urging white people to be aware of unconscious racism
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rks-rival-campaign-illamasqua-munroe-bergdorf
Model fired by L'Oreal for racism remarks will be face of rival campaign
Illamasqua hires Munroe Bergdorf, sacked by French firm after urging white people to be aware of unconscious racism
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...rks-rival-campaign-illamasqua-munroe-bergdorf
Shock. Horror.
So much for rebelling against the system and not liking the world around her like some tried to claim. It's also interesting that article doesn't quote her for what she was fired for, just the point after. Fair enough she's got a new job, she was punished for what she did. But the failure to understand exactly what she did that was wrong still seems to be evident.
So much for rebelling against the system and not liking the world around her like some tried to claim. It's also interesting that article doesn't quote her for what she was fired for, just the point after. Fair enough she's got a new job, she was punished for what she did. But the failure to understand exactly what she did that was wrong still seems to be evident.
Not understanding what you're trying to say here?
Should she have just not taken another job because white supremacy and institutionalised racism exists?
Also the article is about her new job, why would they focus on L'Oreal firing her? Munroe isn't sorry for what she said because it was taken out of context, and more people were angry that she called out racism than the racism that she was calling out.
She got fired from her previous job, 'punished' if you wish - but now we move on, and racism continues to exist.
A few defending her, even one one here I believe, suggested she did it deliberately. As in getting fired on purpose to demonstrate her point.
If you actually read the article, you'll see it's littered with L'Oreal comments, including right there in the headline, and quotes from what she said. At no point does it quote the first part though, the racist part. And taken out of context? By whom exactly?
The context was she was talking about the white supremacists and Charlottesville then said, what she said. Can you explain to me how her words were taken out of context there? I mean, she actually posted them and those are what she was fired for.
Yes it does. But she was fired for racism and doesn't even acknowledge it, it's like she's completely innocent. That's wrong, not the fact she's got a new job.
And being sacked is punishment surely. If it was wrong, then she'd have taken them to the courts by now.
Smashing the white privilege cis male het patriarchy one cosmetics company at a time.
The triggered are now unhappy she got another job.
She made a post on her personal facebook in response to the Charlottesville Nazi's, a week after she described getting the L'Oreal job as a dream come true, im paraphrasing - it makes no sense that she was doing this deliberately.
If that was the case she would've taken it to a public forum like twitter/youtube.
The story blew up because of a Daily Mail article which took he quotes out of context - because duh, it's the Daily Mail.
As far as her words being taken out of context her post said "I don't have energy to talk about the racial violence of white people any more. Yes ALL white people." it was Daily Mail who then insinuated that she said all white people are racist.
She goes on to state that due to systemic racism, white people have gained success & privilege is based on the blood & death of people of colour.
That's different to saying all white people are racist.
If you have an issue with that statement, then we don't have much further to discuss.
Important questions have to be asked. Is powder too white? Are red lips a racist beauty ideal? The truly tough questions haven't even been asked yet.
sorry can't stay serious if people who work in the fashion/beauty industry are involved in anything
Cosmetics is just cultural appropriation of the ancient Egyptians, absolutely disgusting practice.
No we don't, because you have resorted to trying to shut debate down. Including using the daily mail in your point, despite the fact I didn't even read that article myself, so I'm not sure what you are trying to say there.
The fact is she was fired for racism. It still baffles me how people who claim to want to fight racism can continue to ignore that point. I'm also not sure how shutting down a debate on racism is a good thing, just because the person in this case happens to be a mixed race girl from London.
And I do have an issue with her making negative comments about an entire race. You know the exact part I'm referring to too, before you try to take this off on a tangent. I'm clearly talking about the first part, and not her overall point.
But you win, let's just stop. Maybe you should head to the pewdiepie thread and stop them too whilst you are at it.
Ok
Fwiw, I've no issue with her new job btw. If openly genuine racist scum can keep their jobs, then a woman with strong opinions who made a mistake should beable to move on and continue her life. I just still think she'd do the world of good to at least acknowledge how her first post came across. Like I say, it's not the overall point she had that's the issue.
Genocide? What genocide? 99% of Native Americans died due to various diseases Europeans brought to them, they were not killed on purpose. That's like claiming Genghis Khan tried to genocide Europe by opening the Silk Road and thus infecting Europe with the Black Death that killed most of Europe's population. It's just so fecking stupid and quite frankly historical revisionism.
It's pretty easy to block me if you dislike my posts and what I'm saying, yet you still haven't. That means you're interested in what I have to say, you just can't admit it.
What the feck is wrong with you people? Colonialism was nothing more than one nation conquering another. The whole world fecking did it, but yet you feel fit to blame only the Europeans for this? The same Europeans who abolished slavery and forced everyone else to do so, who introduced free speech and promoted it all around the world, the right of an individual, liberalism, women's rights and so much more, but yet you see fit to blame us for things like EVERYONE (I really can't stress this enough) did (even the conquered). Yes, European colonialists have nothing to be ashamed of because that's how the world was run back then - you either conquer or get conquered, there was no ifs and buts, nothing inbetween. Did the Europeans have some obligation to African or Native American people? No they did not. You know what's the real problem here? It's that you're looking at history from present-day morals. It's so fecking stupid my mind can't handle it. "Oh the fecking Romans were so bad for conquering the poor and peaceful Carthage". Sounds stupid, doesn't it? Unfortunately I won't be able to read the document you gave me because it's far too large and I don't really have the time to spend on reading it, so I hope you can provide me with the short version and we can discuss it from there.
I think he destruction following the World Wars have completely devastated European culture and society and made us demoralized and ashamed of our history. We've allowed ourselves to be trampled on by other people with some backbone. Actually, it's Europeans who are the biggest proponents of 'white guilt' because we have been lead to believe that everything our ancestors did was bad and nothing positive ever came out of it. I don't know about you, but I refuse to judge my ancestors according to the present times I live in. Sue me. Anyway, at the end of the day people a century from now may judge our actions even differently than we are judging that of our ancestors. People are fickle, morals change, but the only thing that remains is history and I refuse to judge the actions of the people before me any differently than with the morals in the times they lived in. Unfortunately I'm unable to read the document you gave me because
I advice you to go watch a documentary about a Chinese company working in Congo and how African people deal with work situations. It follows an African man named Eddy (translator) and Lao Yang on their quest to find gravel that was promised to them by the Congolese government but hasn't yet been delivered. Here's a clip:
The whole documentary can be found on YouTube (it's 1 hour long, I think). Beware that the Chinese don't care about PC culture or have any guilt at all or feel ashamed to say the things like they stand. So you may think of Lao Yang as racist, but he just tells the things as he seems them.
Also, I
Sort of like a racist does.
Forgive my being slow on the uptake but what point are you trying to make by posting the documentary?
Edit:
I'm going to ignore (except for this acknowledgement) the baseless attack on my education and jump right into my refutation of your "fecking stupid...historical revisionism" argument.
Genocide: the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular ethnic group or nation.
Origin: Raphael Lemkin - cultural historian, jurist, founder of the UN Genocide Convention
Some quotes by Lemkin pertinent to colonization and genocide...
In a thorough study of the colonization and settlement of the continents of North and South America, you will find all elements included in Lemkin's statements about the foundations of genocide. I will focus upon the actions of the government of the United States, as Lemkin did in his essay "Cultural Genocide of the Plains Indians"...
The Indian Removal Act of 1830: a law signed by President Andrew Jackson that forcibly removed the native tribes of the American southeast from their homeland to a series of reservations in the west. This Act led to the Trail of Tears, essentially a death march made at the point of US military bayonets. The Trail and Removal Act led to the deaths of some 15,000 natives of the 100,000 who made the march.
California Genocide: the native population of California was some 150,000 by the time the United States gained control over the area. The native population of California subsequently fell to some 30,000 by 1870 and about 15,000 by 1900. Both US federal and California territorial and state governments encouraged and financed the destruction through violence of the native population of California.
The Reservation System: natives were forced upon these reservations, and the tribes that resisted and attempted to maintain their nomadic way of life were targeted by the US military and eventually forced through military conquest to join the reservations (See events like the Wounded Knee Massacre). While on the reservations, the native tribes were forced to attend government schools, wear "American clothing", learn to speak English, attend Christian worship, etc. The reservations were used to completely obliterate the native culture.
The Dawes Act: Another law passed by the US government to reduce the Native population. 160 acres of land was given to each native family and 80 acres to single men, once the land had been divided and given away, the excess land was sold to American settlers with the funds allegedly going to the native tribes. The native tribes never received the funds and the natives essentially lost millions of acres of the lands that they had already been reduced to living on. The law required natives remain on the land for 25 years, effectively breaking up the natives as a cultural unit.
Treaties: There were some 400 US government treaties with natives. They were frequently written only in English, and natives were forced at gunpoint to sign them, not knowing what they were signing away. These treaties typically included requirements that natives farm the lands that they were allowed to remain on. Natives were forced at gunpoint to stop following the buffalo herds, were given farming tools, but were not taught how to farm. This led to mass starvation.
Slaughter of the Buffalo: Part of William Tecumseh Sherman and Phillip Sheridan's strategy for the destruction of the Cheyenne and Lakota tribes was a scorched earth policy that targeted the American Buffalo herd as a means of starving natives into submission, not to mention the frequent massacres of women and children asleep in their encampments. Sheridan saw the Buffalo as he did the Shenandoah Valley in the Civil War, as a food source to be exterminated. Commenting on the massive influx of hunting parties encouraged by the US government in the West, and financed by the Transcontinental Railroad, he said
Sheridan also summed up the US government treatment of Native Americans as such...
With that, I direct you back to the original quotes on the topic by the man who coined the phrase "genocide" and allow you to contemplate how the US government's treatment of Native Americans could be seen as anything else.
Last edited:
Nah, just because you don't know what you're talking about doesn't mean I have to block you. You should also learn how to finish your sentences. You know... like a 1st grader could.
Also if you discern from my responses that I'm interested in what you have to say, then you could add reading comprehension next to your knowledge of history regarding things you don't know.
You should add manners to yours.
Given his previous comments in this thread I'm really not sure it's worth the effort engaging tbh.
- Status