After viewing the Eyre Street thread, I decided to create this new thread. When a group of white men attack an asian/black person, the immediate assumption by police/the press is that a racial motive must have to be behind it. On the other hand, when a group of asians/blacks attack a white man, anyone who dare suggest that race could be a motive is instantly muted and declared a "racist". Why is this?

I've always wondered the same thing. Surely in a racially accepting world the person's race would be no reason to atatck them and the police would see no difference between the two men?

PS - liking the new car

I think that you just notice it because it suits your own predjudice.

It should be called exactly what it is............a crime!

Once a crime has taken place, and someone is in hospital, does it matter what the motivation was? Surely the fact it's happened is the most important thing?

(Kind of repeating bulldog a little, but hey - this entire thread is a repeat of old discussions so who cares).

Originally posted by Geoff
Once a crime has taken place, and someone is in hospital, does it matter what the motivation was? Surely the fact it's happened is the most important thing?


Exactly, but attacks with "racial motives" seem to be punished a lot more.

its really up to the cps as I understand it. If they believe that the crime was racially motivated, and want it to stick, they have to have evidence with which to prove their case.

Insufficient evidence of racial motivation for the attack would mean that they would choose a different , appropriate, allegation such as gbh, attempted murder, etc.

any legal/LEO types correct me on this please.

Originally posted by t020
When a group of white men attack an asian/black person, the immediate assumption by police/the press is that a racial motive must have to be behind it.
I don't think there is any 'immediate assumption' in most cases. Most people are not racist, so any attack on anyone of another race is rarely considered to be a racist attack.

Originally posted by Sidla
I don't think there is any 'immediate assumption' in most cases. Most people are not racist, so any attack on anyone of another race is rarely considered to be a racist attack.

That's simply not true. When it's a white on black attack, racism is usually the FIRST assumption

When a white person attacks a black person the usual assumption is rascism because for the past 4 decades most of these types of attacks HAVE been rascist ones.
Because a majority of attacks are rascist, the police must assume it is that till proven. It is the pattern of violence from way back that leads to these so called assumptions.

Just take the 70's for instance, there were attacks on blacks and ethnic minorities all the time. When a white person is attacked nowadays and it makes news it just fuels the hatred of those who constantly moan about foreigners, refugees, blacks/asians who are just here to steal their jobs, money and women.

Originally posted by mojoworking
That's simply not true. When it's a white on black attack, racism is usually the FIRST assumption
How do you know this?

Originally posted by t020
[B] When does race become an attack motive? [/ B]

When the motivation for the attack is the colour of the person's skin.

Originally posted by Sidla
How do you know this?

To save me repeating the obvious, see Lestat's reply above

I've seen that, but as far as I'm aware police don't jump to any conclusions until they know the facts.

Originally posted by Sidla
I've seen that, but as far as I'm aware police don't jump to any conclusions until they know the facts.

A lot of the time the police don't act even WHEN they have the facts

Yes, I can relate to that. That doesn't answer my question though.

Originally posted by Smiler
When the motivation for the attack is the colour of the person's skin.

Which is exactly my point. How can you possibly know when it is? Unless the attacker goes round shouting "I hate ______, I will kill you all" prior to the attack.

removed by spook

Originally posted by spook

Phan is correct in his earlier post, racially and religiously motivated offences attract higher penalties than the same non racially/religiously motivated offences.

But why? Why is it more OK to kick the **** out of someone because they're fat/ looked at you the wrong way/ wear the wrong football shirt/ exist than it is to kick the **** out of someone for being a certain race or religion? Surely they should treat them all with equal importance and therefore a common level of penalty.

Phan is correct in his earlier post, racially and religiously motivated offences attract higher penalties than the same non racially/religiously motivated offences.

Which is exactly as it should be.

(I haven't got this quote thing sussed, have I?)

Originally posted by Smiler

Which is exactly as it should be.


WHY?!?!

Originally posted by t020
WHY?!?!

Because violence in this circumstance is the expression of a belief that people with a different colour of skin are of lesser value.

Because racial violence builds on a history of oppression that non-indigenous people have experienced in the UK.

Because such attacks cause whole sections of society to live in fear.

Because it begets other problems, eg revenge.

Because it, like other racist acts, suggets that is something inherently wrong with you, because of your colour. It puts the colour of your skin above the person you are, your beliefs, acts and opinions.

Although I agree with you, I can sympathise with what t020 is saying.

I'm white so have obviously not been discriminated against racially.

But I have been in a fight in the past because someone called me a fat *******. I say fight, but really I just ended up walking away because it wasn't worth the bother, even though I got a thump in the chops. And my mate who defended me probably came off worse just for telling the guy to calm down.

I think we should be cracking down on violence as a whole, no mater what the motivation. And in this I mean that when the motivation is simply to provoke a responce which I would imagine was why the guy who picked a fight with me did it in the first place. Although, that guy should be careful, because if I was of an ethnic minority background, he'd probably be in the slammer right now.

I think that you are under the misapprehension that "white" people cannot be victims of predudice. A member of my family was driven out of his house in Halifax because he had bought a house on a road that was being bought up house by house by asians. Both him and his wife were constantly verbally abused, they would find their car blocked in or people sitting of the car bonnet or blocking their way onto their path ect ect. The police didn't want to know.

they same is happening in the paigehall area in sheffield, nearly all of the shops have been bought by asians . iam not a racist and have good friends black as well as white, but in the area ive spoke about its basically become a no go area after darkfor white folk . all you see are gangs of asian youths stood on steet corners dealing ete. in a so called multi racial society how and why are areas allowed 2 be taken over

This topic's about race being an attack motive. If you want to talk about racial segregation then please go here (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=10740).

Originally posted by brooksy
its basically become a no go area after darkfor white folk

I'm guessing it's a no go area for all folks irrespective of colour. Same as roaming gangs anywhere, if you're not a gang member or tooled up you'd be fool to trespass on their turf.

I konw many respectable folk of all hues who won't go into the city centre at night in the belief, justified or not, that they would be attacked.

My point is, that you're trying to make it a race issue when it's simply a mindless youth issue.

Originally posted by Sidla
I'm white so have obviously not been discriminated against racially.

Why obviously? Its frequently argued that actually the easiest people to discriminate against are white males as the common view is that racism is 'against non whites' rather than differentiating between people based soley on their race and that sexism is 'against women' rather than differentiating between people based soley on their gender...

It seems obvious to be, because I don't think I could be offended racially.

Thats a personal thing though - not because you are white. I'm sure there are some people who would find being called a "white b*stard" just as offensive as others would find being called a "black b*stard" - and the two insults are equally racist...

Oh gawd not this argument again. It's so easy to say that when you're white.

rac·ism n
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a
particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

Source:: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.


Argument? looks pretty clear cut to me...

Yes, but being white you only have a perspective on how much it offends yourself.

This argument goes round in circles and it has been discussed in great detail before. Can we please get back to the topic of discussion?

Originally posted by Sidla
It seems obvious to be, because I don't think I could be offended racially.

Would you not be offended because you feel as a white person you are superior so if a black person called you 'white b*****d' it wouldn't bother you. You could walk away knowing you're better?

Don't be daft. I've explained all this before in this (http://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8442) topic if you'd care to read it. Otherwise, can we please get back to the topic in hand?

Ermmm we are on the topic in hand - when does race become an attack motive - or as described when whites attack someone of another race its racially motivated but when people of another race attack whites its not...

BTW your comments neatly negate your own earlier point!

Originally posted by evildrneil
BTW your comments neatly negate your own earlier point!
Which comments, and which earlier point?

You poopoo my coments that there will be some white people who are as offended by racist comments as much people from other races and then go on to say


Yes, but being white you only have a perspective on how much it offends yourself.


So unless you are of multiple races yourself how can you know that what I have said ISN'T true. As the comments are equally racist by a dictionary deffinition isn't it perfectly logical to assume there will be people who find them equally offensive? Or are you taking the line that white people are imune to racist abuse - which is in itself racist!

It all boils down to the history of racism. If you read the topic I pointed out before you might understand it more, but I really can't be bothered going into it again, otherwise we'll just be duplicating a 16 page thread.

Sidla lost this argument last time, so i'm guessing he's either not learnt a thing or going for a "best of 3" thing.

Chris.

If I remember rightly we were pretty much in agreement by the 16th page :rolleyes:

I was asleep by the 16th page. :)

Chris.

i never agreed with you either Sidla. But to drag this kicking and screaming back to the actual topic...

It becomes a racist crime if there is some reason to believe that it was commited because of any racial difference between the participants.

This can be hard to pin down of course, but if someone heard a racist comment shouted by the perpertrators just before or during the course of the crime, or if any racist comments are made during questioning then the police will probably try to present it to the cps as a racially motivated crime.

Without any such abuse, there's pretty much nothing to prove it either way, however I suspect most people committing crimes with a racial motive will go to great lengths to "explain" to the victim why exactly they are beating him near to death, and how they'd rather all the immigrants went home.

(This does work the other way, a group of coloured men beating up a white person whilst shouting racists abuse will also be prosecuted for racially motivated assualt.)

The motive behind the attack should not matter anyway, it is the attack itself which is the crime.

I think the problem is that many people view racism per sa as the worst thing possible, irrespective of what the nature of the racism is. Racism is such a broad term anyway; it can mean anything from name calling to genocide and many things in between.

I have a problem with the idea that a crime is considered worse just because it is racially motivated. That seems to be saying that if I (a white man) was attacked it would be less serious - and presumably carry a more lenient sentence - than if a black man were attacked in the same way.

I think the basic problem is not race anyway but large gangs of young men, too much alcohol consumed and far too few police present. I for one would like to see the city centre 'civilised' so that decent people (of whatever race) can enjoy it more.

The answer? I suspect there isn't a single one but more prisons and more people in them would be a good start.

I think the real issue here is why do people feel the need to attack other people full stop. The race issue is not really relavent in my eyes.

Originally posted by slimsid2000
I have a problem with the idea that a crime is considered worse just because it is racially motivated. That seems to be saying that if I (a white man) was attacked it would be less serious - and presumably carry a more lenient sentence - than if a black man were attacked in the same way.


I think you missed a large point. Racially motivated crimes can be committed against white people as well as coloured people. So it would not be more or less serious if you were attacked, it would depend on whether the crime was just assault or assault with a racial motive.

Originally posted by Sidla
It all boils down to the history of racism. If you read the topic I pointed out before you might understand it more, but I really can't be bothered going into it again, otherwise we'll just be duplicating a 16 page thread.

OK read it - and found your comments incoherant and just plain wrong - deifferentiating by race - whatever race - is racism (go re-read the definition) history and majority have no standing on that. Not trying to be offensive here, just stating a simple fact.

Yes, I agreed on that. But it's not as black and white (excuse the pun) as saying that it's either racist or not. There are degrees of severity. Here's a couple of quotes which mirror my opinions on the matter, both written by Michael Travis who seems to mirror my opinions on the subject:

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
Insults carry more weight when the insulted person is in the minority. I agree with Sidla more or less, because, living in England, someone calling me a "white *******" simply wouldn't offend me racially (although I obviously would prefer not to be insulted full stop).

I can accept that it might be different for a white person living in a totally black area and being called a "white *******", but even then it's not the same as the reverse. There has never been a culture in this country of white people being systematically put down, disadvantaged and abused because of the colour of their skin. Therefore how could a racial insult have the same resonance for a white person as for a black person?

I can't really argue with the point of view of most of you that an insult regarding the colour of a person's skin is always racist whether black, white or whatever, but I think that is being wilfully simplistic.

Originally posted by MichaelTravis
In the early part of the 20th century when the Suffragettes were campaigning for the vote for women, which do you see as "worse":

A) A man claiming that all women are weak and inferior and not entitled to the same rights as men.

B) A woman claiming that all men are brutish, arrogant, insensitive and not fit to hold power.

Both are clearly incorrect generalisations, but in that particular circumstance, I would say (A) is the more dangerous and negative viewpoint.

If you say the two are the same, then I think you are being too simplistic.

I think that believing that an insult based on colour or ethnic origin is only racist if you are the minority race is in itself a racist view. It's differentiating between the two and saying that something should or does apply to one group and not the other.

If you're not going to read my posts then there's not really much point me typing anything.

are you referring to me? I did read your post.

Then you'll realise that I didn't say you couldn't be racist if you're in the minority.

It's all about the measure of offence that is introduced. A black or Asian person issuing a racist insult to me would not insult me nearly as much as me doing the same to them.

Let me just get this straight - first you say:


I find it hard to believe a black person could ever say anything towards a white person that could be considered racist.

and now you say


Then you'll realise that I didn't say you couldn't be racist if you're in the minority


Aren't the two self contradictory?

'Considered' is the key word.

You're taking that out of context anyway.

Originally posted by Sidla
Then you'll realise that I didn't say you couldn't be racist if you're in the minority.

It's all about the measure of offence that is introduced. A black or Asian person issuing a racist insult to me would not insult me nearly as much as me doing the same to them.

How do you know how offended a black or asian would be? Also, it depends on the individual - some might not care, some may even take it as a compliment (like you seem to imply you would if you got called a white ******). And just because *you* personally wouldn't feel too insulted doesn't give you the right to speak on behalf of the entire white population of the country.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think you missed a large point. Racially motivated crimes can be committed against white people as well as coloured people. So it would not be more or less serious if you were attacked, it would depend on whether the crime was just assault or assault with a racial motive.


I think you missed a larger point. Slimsids point, as I took it to be, is that if a white person gets mugged and beaten by a gang of white youths hurling abuse at him, they would get off more lightly than if a black person got mugged and beaten by a gang of white youths hurling *racist* abuse at him. This implicitly says that it is more excusable to beat someone up, so long as it isn't about race. In my view, this approach to racism causes more division and resentment. As slimsid said, as soon as racism becomes part of the issue it is suddenly treated as the worst thing ever. A gang could hurl all kinds of abuse at a white person about their mother, their weight, their height, their clothes, their hair, their perceived sexual orientation, etc etc, and then kick the **** out of him, but the attack would never be treated and punished as seriously as a gang going up to a black person, calling him a black **** and beating him up. This, in my view, is WRONG.

Originally posted by t020
How do you know how offended a black or asian would be? Also, it depends on the individual - some might not care, some may even take it as a compliment (like you seem to imply you would if you got called a white ******). And just because *you* personally wouldn't feel too insulted doesn't give you the right to speak on behalf of the entire white population of the country.
I don't know how offended they would be, obviously. It is also obvious that they would be more offended than I would be.

Take my other example above about how I got offended at being called fat. You cannot relate to that because you are not overweight. But it's not very nice when someone you don't even know decides to insult you just because of the way you look.

Originally posted by Sidla
I don't know how offended they would be, obviously. It is also obvious that they would be more offended than I would be.


What a silly contradiction! Why is it "obvious"? If you don't know how offended they would be, how can you say whether or not they'd be more offended than you would be? They might be as proud to be black/asian as you are seemingly proud of being white.

Because I know what it's like to be discriminated against!

It's possibly difficult to understand, t020, when you clearly don't have any distinguishing features that people could just randomly insult you about for no particular reason.

Originally posted by Sidla
Because I know what it's like to be discriminated against!

It's possibly difficult to understand, t020, when you clearly don't have any distinguishing features that people could just randomly insult you about for no particular reason.

Everyone has something that can be picked on. Its the mentality of the people that do the picking that makes this the case. This is why I think its wrong for one aspect of "discrimination" (i.e. skin colour) to be put above all the rest. People that use insults randomly are usually finding something sensitive to pick on to provoke a reaction. If they choose skin colour, this doesn't mean they're closet KKK members about to rid the world of all non-whites. Likewise, if they choose body weight it doesn't mean they have a deep routed hatred of fat people. So why punish some insults so much more than others? Why should an attack "motivated" (i.e. random insult) by race be so more severely punished than an attack "motivated" (again, random insult) by someone being fat/ wearing the wrong type of clothes/ being short???? Surely both should be treated as equally bad, and in my view, by not doing so we are increasing racial division and tension.

That's almost the exact argument I've already used a couple of times; I don't know why race should be more important.

Mass press hysteria surrounding the issue, maybe?

it's not just race that gets singled out for extra punishment.

religously aggravated offenses also get special treatment.

They might get a more harsh punishment because incitement of racial/religous hatred in itself is a crime.

Here's a key bit from the legislation

"One of the common public interest factors in favour of prosecution is that the offence was motivated by any form of discrimination against the victim's ethnic or national origin, sex, religious beliefs, political views or sexual orientation, or the suspect demonstrated hostility towards the victim based on any of those characteristics. "

Not personally convinced anymore of the need for a harsher punishment.

Sidla - You misunderstood what I was saying before. I wasn't saying that coloured people can be racist (as I know we already agree). I was saying that believing that the affects of racists comments towards people of different ethnic backgrounds may have a lesser or greater impact (because of that background) itself sounds racist to me. It is making a generalisation based on race, it's a prejudice. It's like saying, "yes we know that racial insults to black people will offend them, but we white people can rise above it all".

In my opinion, one of the main distinguishing issues is power. I agree that racism isn't solely perpetrated by white people or against black people.

In the UK, most power is held by white people. Society is ordered to follow the indigenous culture (broadly speaking this is white, liberal, christian, mercantile...i am sure there are plenty of other and better descriptors too). Therefore these attributes are seen as the norm. Someone calling me a white ******* is insulting me racially. Likewise, if i called someone a black ******* then I am insulting them racially. However, my insult would be worse because I am coming from a position of power.

The best analogy I can think of off the top is that it is like bullying. Bullies pick on people who are in a position of weakness, from a position of strenth. White people, generally speaking, are in a position of strength over black people because of the way society is ordered in the UK.

As for whether a racial attack is worse than a non-racial attack, I maintain that it is. Anyone assualting anyone is wrong. A racial motivation is an aggravating factor.

Originally posted by Cyclone
Sidla - You misunderstood what I was saying before. I wasn't saying that coloured people can be racist (as I know we already agree). I was saying that believing that the affects of racists comments towards people of different ethnic backgrounds may have a lesser or greater impact (because of that background) itself sounds racist to me. It is making a generalisation based on race, it's a prejudice. It's like saying, "yes we know that racial insults to black people will offend them, but we white people can rise above it all".
But you could say that about anything. You could say that I'm weightist because I know that calling a fat person fat will most probably offend them, but calling a thin person thin in most cases wouldn't offend them.

Someone insulting me because I'm white simply wouldn't offend me in any comparable way to being insulted because of my weight. And I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are many if any white people who could feel insulted by their skin colour in most situations.

Originally posted by Smiler
As for whether a racial attack is worse than a non-racial attack, I maintain that it is. Anyone assualting anyone is wrong. A racial motivation is an aggravating factor.


Any motivation is an aggrevationg factor, so why should some be treated with more weight than others? This in itself causes racial division, IMO.

Originally posted by Sidla
But you could say that about anything. You could say that I'm weightist because I know that calling a fat person fat will most probably offend them, but calling a thin person thin in most cases wouldn't offend them.

You obviously dont know many skinny people!!!

Originally posted by t020
Any motivation is an aggrevationg factor, so why should some be treated with more weight than others? This in itself causes racial division, IMO.

I think I have answered this in my previous posting re the power balance in society.

Originally posted by Smiler
I think I have answered this in my previous posting re the power balance in society.


Not really, no. e.g. thinner people hold more power, stronger people hold more power, and also there are areas in the UK in which whites are the minority.

Q.. When does race become an attack motive?

A ..When ignorance overcomes intelligence.

Originally posted by t020
Not really, no. e.g. thinner people hold more power, stronger people hold more power, and also there are areas in the UK in which whites are the minority.

I still think I answered this in my earlier post but I shall try to expand.

You will note I say MOST power is held by white people in the UK. I would accept that there are a few areas where this is not the case, within the overall context of the indigenous culture. My point is that the strength of a racist comment is in the power imbalance that underpins it. So if a white person were subject to racist abuse in an area where they were in the minority then that would carry more weight. It would be an expression of power form a powerful position. However, this needs to be seen from a context in which white people dominate power throughout the UK generally. Therefore even the most non-white area is subject to the 'norms' of a white dominated society.'

I should add that this is an extremely simplistic description. It assumes that there is a white/non-white divide. The truth is that it is far more complicated as there are a variety of groups who would describe themselves as black, white and a whole variety of ethnicities and cultures in between.

I am interested in your comment that thin people are more powerful than fat? My first thought was 'well the Prime Minister is thin' but I guess that you mean something a bit more sophisticated? And as for stronger people...?

Apologies for the use of capitals (shouting, I know) but I can't work out how to underline or use bold on these posts.

Heres one to stir ir up.

In my job,I see all sorts of things that the 'youths of today' get up to.While driving around at night most street corners are filled up with your usual array of chavvery.
The problems seem to arise when the groups of asian youths,aged from 17-25 turn up at these chav hang outs in their souped up Hondas.
Thats when the abuse starts to be shouted and the racial tension gets turned up a gear.

The last time I saw this,that much racial abuse was thrown,a brawl broke out.Fists flew and teeth fell.

Oh,and it was the asians shouting all the abuse,and them that started the trouble.

Originally posted by Sidla
But you could say that about anything. You could say that I'm weightist because I know that calling a fat person fat will most probably offend them, but calling a thin person thin in most cases wouldn't offend them.

Someone insulting me because I'm white simply wouldn't offend me in any comparable way to being insulted because of my weight. And I may be wrong, but I don't believe there are many if any white people who could feel insulted by their skin colour in most situations.

So what you are getting at here, is that fat people would rather not be fat, so they are insulted/hurt when someone uses that to taunt them. Whereas thin people (in general) are happy being thin, and prefer to stay that way, so there is no insult. It's like insulting someone by shouting "you clever, handsome, rich person". It's not an insult because they are positive factors.

Then you somehow equate this to race. So in your view White is a good thing, so you don't believe it's an insult and Black is a bad thing, thus it becomes an insult.

And that's why I was saying earlier that this entire view comes across as inherently racists in itself.

No, what I'm saying is that it's rare that white people ever encounter discrimination based on their skin colour, whereas other races do; just as fat people are discriminated against, and blonde people, and short people etc.

I don't like being discriminated against because of what I am, but I'm not ashamed of it.

I'm sorry but thats just rubbish!

Racism is frequently applied to whites, even if its the low grade pervasive racism which affects us all to a greater or lesser extent and the racism that t020 was originally talking about where an attack by whites on non whites is seen as racially motivated but an attack by non whites on whites is rarely (if ever) seen as racially motivated.

Originally posted by Sidla
No, what I'm saying is that it's rare that white people ever encounter discrimination based on their skin colour, whereas other races do; just as fat people are discriminated against, and blonde people, and short people etc.

I don't like being discriminated against because of what I am, but I'm not ashamed of it.

You didn't say that. You said that if "White" were used in the context of an insult it would not cause much if any offence.

Discrimination is a slightly different issue to *ist abuse. If you are bothered by someone calling you fat then you are maybe not ashamed, but certainly aware of it. If on the other hand someone calls you a "clever tw*t" and is actually inferring that cleverness is something bad, you almost certainly will not be offended by the "clever" as it's something you are proud of and wouldn't give up if you could.

Originally posted by evildrneil
I'm sorry but thats just rubbish!

Racism is frequently applied to whites, even if its the low grade pervasive racism which affects us all to a greater or lesser extent and the racism that t020 was originally talking about where an attack by whites on non whites is seen as racially motivated but an attack by non whites on whites is rarely (if ever) seen as racially motivated.
If you say so. I give up now, because it's obvious your opinion isn't going to change.

I have never been discriminated against because of my skin colour, and I don't see how I ever could be in most regular situations.

Maybe some people just don't appreciate what discrimination feels like.

Originally posted by Cyclone
You didn't say that. You said that if "White" were used in the context of an insult it would not cause much if any offence.

Discrimination is a slightly different issue to *ist abuse. If you are bothered by someone calling you fat then you are maybe not ashamed, but certainly aware of it. If on the other hand someone calls you a "clever tw*t" and is actually inferring that cleverness is something bad, you almost certainly will not be offended by the "clever" as it's something you are proud of and wouldn't give up if you could.
I point you back to this example:
Originally posted by MichaelTravis
In the early part of the 20th century when the Suffragettes were campaigning for the vote for women, which do you see as "worse":

A) A man claiming that all women are weak and inferior and not entitled to the same rights as men.

B) A woman claiming that all men are brutish, arrogant, insensitive and not fit to hold power.

Both are clearly incorrect generalisations, but in that particular circumstance, I would say (A) is the more dangerous and negative viewpoint.

If you say the two are the same, then I think you are being too simplistic.

This is just going round in circles as I predicted it would. It's really getting very boring.

removed by spook

Racially insulted, yes. Discriminated against, not so much so.

Oh dear lord! Deja vu!

I do get what Sidla is trying to say, he does mean well but I don't think he realises what he is saying. The way I'm interpreting it is that, you can't be insulted as a white person because it's cool to be white. A black/asian person can be insulted/racially abused/discriminated against and it's obvious because they are beneath white people, the minority, and not proud enough of their origin/skin colour to not be insulted. By saying all that you are in fact being racist because you are merely emphasising that you think white people are superior.
If a black person calls someone 'white *insert expletive* then that's ok, the white person can laugh and think to themselves, 'I'm white, I'm better than you anyways' and not be bothered by it? Is that what you are saying?? However, the other way round the black person would hang their head in shame at having black skin? I don't think so, I'm sure the black person would be equally proud of their skin colour and think the insulter was a **** head. :loopy:

The emphasis on skin colour is getting ridiculous. Violence is wrong for whatever reason. By constantly bringing race into the argument is just fueling racial tension, racial segregation etc.

Originally posted by Sidla

I'm white so have obviously not been discriminated against racially.



Why so obvious. It's possible a black person could have discriminated against you because you are white. Racism works both ways.

Originally posted by Cyclone
I think you missed a large point. Racially motivated crimes can be committed against white people as well as coloured people. So it would not be more or less serious if you were attacked, it would depend on whether the crime was just assault or assault with a racial motive.

What if I were attacked by a white person? Surley this is just as serious as if a black person were attacked by a white person on racist grounds.

I think that when people suggest that certain racial minorities deserve special protection/treatment it can encourage some white people to go out and vote for the BNP. Most people in this country are white and it seems wrong to say they deserve less legal protection than non-whites. It is just a question of fairness.

Originally posted by uncleheed
Heres one to stir ir up.

In my job,I see all sorts of things that the 'youths of today' get up to.While driving around at night most street corners are filled up with your usual array of chavvery.
The problems seem to arise when the groups of asian youths,aged from 17-25 turn up at these chav hang outs in their souped up Hondas.
Thats when the abuse starts to be shouted and the racial tension gets turned up a gear.

The last time I saw this,that much racial abuse was thrown,a brawl broke out.Fists flew and teeth fell.

Oh,and it was the asians shouting all the abuse,and them that started the trouble. That's just cobblers. You personally see that because you have predjudice and you use it to reinforce youre predjudice, not because its especially more true.

Originally posted by Foxxx
Oh dear lord! Deja vu!

I do get what Sidla is trying to say, he does mean well but I don't think he realises what he is saying. The way I'm interpreting it is that, you can't be insulted as a white person because it's cool to be white. A black/asian person can be insulted/racially abused/discriminated against and it's obvious because they are beneath white people, the minority, and not proud enough of their origin/skin colour to not be insulted. By saying all that you are in fact being racist because you are merely emphasising that you think white people are superior.
If a black person calls someone 'white *insert expletive* then that's ok, the white person can laugh and think to themselves, 'I'm white, I'm better than you anyways' and not be bothered by it? Is that what you are saying?? However, the other way round the black person would hang their head in shame at having black skin? I don't think so, I'm sure the black person would be equally proud of their skin colour and think the insulter was a **** head. :loopy:

The emphasis on skin colour is getting ridiculous. Violence is wrong for whatever reason. By constantly bringing race into the argument is just fueling racial tension, racial segregation etc.

That's what i've been trying to get at. Thanks for saying it clearly.

SS2k - I don't know, should crimes that have additional aggravating factors that themselves are illegal not have a more harsh punishment.
It's not as you suggest though, special treatment for the minority. These laws apply equally to everyone.

Originally posted by Tony
That's just cobblers. You personally see that because you have predjudice and you use it to reinforce youre predjudice, not because its especially more true.

So what I saw was cobblers was it?

How can you say that when you were'nt even there,Tony.
I notice a pattern of you pooh-pooing every post I make.Carry it on and a complaint will be made to the chief of the secret service.

I'm not arguing that it happened uncleheed, just that you only saw the asians as always being the protagonists because it suits your outlook on life. I'm not having a personal go at you, just pointing out that a lot of people do this.

There are plenty of asian youths who have a chip on their shoulders, and plenty of whites that put them there.

Originally posted by Sidla
No, what I'm saying is that it's rare that white people ever encounter discrimination based on their skin colour, whereas other races do; just as fat people are discriminated against, and blonde people, and short people etc.


No, that was part of what you were saying. The other part was basically that "black" is more of an insult than "white", which is in itself racist. I can see this, Cyclone has seen this, everyone else can see that your argument is flawed apart from you. Maybe you should rethink things a little?

Originally posted by Tony
There are plenty of asian youths who have a chip on their shoulders, and plenty of whites that put them there.

Ermmm sorry? Are you trying to claim that asians (in this case) aren't capable of a bit of old fashioned mindless bigottty and racism and that any apparent racism is a backlash against the descrimination meted out by evil whites?????

Not at all - that wasn't what I said. Racism certainly works in more than one way.

What I said (again) was that lots of people allow their own predjuduce to be reinforced because it suits them.

Just checking - it certainly looked like thats what you were saying!

Oh and perhaps the asians in question come from nice middle class asian families with plenty of money and are engaging a in a bit of simple, mindles racism and you are looking for a legitimising reason for their actions out of your personal PC prejiduces to help reinforce them ;)

Nope... I didn't say that either, please don't put words into my mouth. The trouble is that I don't have any predjudice really apart from where something is quite obviously the case, and I'm certainly not PC (have you read some of my rants? :)) - I just try to be respectful.

There are plenty of of people of all ethnicities that are perfectly well balanced - they have a chip on both shoulders.

However, lots of... hmm.. for want of a better phrase lets say 'non-whites' over compensate for the crappy way that they are treated by others. That's an observation that I'm sure you will agree with and understand why they do it even if it's not really a very clever way to react.

Most people don't react like that, but you should see the way that an ordinary person, who just lives every day like you and I, gets abused frequently just because of their skin tone. Surely that isn't right is it?

As a smart, well balanced bloke, I'm sure that you also agree that to say something like 'asians in souped up Honda's' is just shorthand racism, even though it's a fulfilled stereotype. There are plenty of 'white trailer trash' that have souped up Honda's too. I suppose it's all about context, and in the way it was used it just serves to reinforce already ingrained predjudice.

If someone if perpetrating racism, in whichever direction, They should be dealt with by the law. No exceptions, no excuses.

I personally find that pre-judging people based on simple criteria like race just seems to get in the way of knowing some really nice people who enrich my own life. Maybe I'm funny that way:P

Well I agree with most of that apart from the 'asians in souped up hondas' beind shorthand racism - I'm sure there are just as many fake burberry baseball cap wearing asian barry boys as there are white, black and any other skin tone *shudders at the thought of barry boys*!!! I think the steroetype is more on of yourthfull stupidity / lack of taste / tribalism than necesarily racism!

In general yes I agree about the stereotype. I do think that lots of people use that stereotype to reinforce their own narrow views though, which is what I was saying all along - maybe not very well.

I'm not trying to say that it's more 'cool' to be white, don't be so cretinous!

All I'm saying that non-whites are the minority, so being non-white may be perceived as 'not normal'. Just as being fat is seen as 'not normal', being disabled is seen as 'not normal', being short is 'not normal' etc.

I don't see things this way, but people with prejudices do. I don't see how pointing out this fact is being racist. I'm not saying it's right for people to think in this way.

But likewise, non-white people could think being white is "not normal". In either case, thinking such a way is racism.

Originally posted by t020
But likewise, non-white people could think being white is "not normal". In either case, thinking such a way is racism.
Yes, I know!

FGS how many times do I have to go through this??? :mad:

Originally posted by Sidla
Yes, I know!

FGS how many times do I have to go through this??? :mad:

About as many times as it takes you to accept that a black insulting a white is as insulting as a white insulting a black, and just because *you personally* wouldn't be racially insulted, you don't have the right to speak on behalf of the entire white race.