Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

If you are interested in this, I hope you find the information on the article interesting..

My main question on racism would be if you think it is appropriate to call someone a race.


I found that people base logic on London rather than the US nowaday, and I am quite certain this is so.


I read an article from 2007 on how a British lady in England/London had a child when she was with a man from India, though the article stressed that the child was black and Asian as the point.

The main point the lady said in the end was that she couldn't expect to have her youngest daughter be a Brady Bunch child, like her older sons who are all British with gold hair and blue eyes. The main thing she realized was her guilt in being racist without being able to help it to her daughter, who was still an infant at the time of the article. The tone she ended with was that she "calls herself 'white'" and just has this child forever who has a "small foot" in each culture to enjoy.

The child started out with blue eyes, and the lady seemed depressed to suddenly find that the features of her own child simply got darker, as stated from her interview.


I don't have the article at the moment, but it didn't really tell much else. Some of the comments, by other women in London/England, indicate the solving of the issue as something new. They seemed totally surprised of the article's existence, at all, and felt for the Asian/black child. So, the issue was left, at that, basically. They had a picture of the lady, who looked about 45 or 50 with white blond hair and blue eyes and fairly lighter skin, a bit obese. They also had a picture of Angelina Jolie with a child from Africa.

Oh piss off, Czarina.

It really is her...

I'm not surprised. Racism was born in England.

Or in Europe, at least.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
Or in Europe, at least.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
I'm not surprised. Racism was born in England. Hahaha. Funny racist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahaha. Funny racist.

I think he means as it exists in the US today. If so, then I think he has a point. Look at the Slave-trade Triangle, and the fact that the vast majority of slave-holders in Colonial America were English, or of English ancestry (that's why we speak it).

England was not the birthplace of all racism, but blaming expansionist British mentality on current US racism isn't too far-fetched. They dehumanized Indians, Native Australians, Hawaiians, and the Africans they owned, selectively bred, and forced to labor in North America.

As much as it disturbs me ,racism,genocide and ethnic cleansing are as old as mankind.The old testament is littered with them.The Roman empire was a dab-hand at at suppressing-assimilating the locals and eradicating their culture.
I believe that the word RACE has been used to mean what the user wants.These definitions rarely square with the 4 anthropological sub divisons of the human race---Australoid-Caucasoid-Mongoloid-Negroid (strictly in alphabetical order).Which are based on features such as eye shape/colour and hair type-not skin colour per say. southern Indians/ Sri lankans-- Africans--Australian aborigines can be equally dark skinned but each belongs to a different group ,and are easily distinguishable.
Most European domination of other groups was directly related to superior technology,-technical progress isnt the same thing as civilization
For reference. the term ASIAN(generally)
US=Japanese,Chinese,Korean,and SE asian
UK=Indian,Pakistani,Bangladeshi Sri Lankan
just a matter of where our asians come from.
BTW. The Americanism-"caucasian" is scientifically inacurate and seeks to subdevide CAUCASOID --european from middle eastern and south asian.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think he means as it exists in the US today. If so, then I think he has a point. Look at the Slave-trade Triangle, and the fact that the vast majority of slave-holders in Colonial America were English, or of English ancestry (that's why we speak it).

England was not the birthplace of all racism, but blaming expansionist British mentality on current US racism isn't too far-fetched. They dehumanized Indians, Native Australians, Hawaiians, and the Africans they owned, selectively bred, and forced to labor in North America.

It's kinda hard to say where exactly that racism started....and it's probably also kinda hard to say how that racism is particularly different than other (also earlier) forms of racism.

But obviously England had a big part in the development of racism in the US...I mean, really, you guys are just Englishmen that live abroad, aren't you?

lol

racism is tribalism applied to highly salient visual differences in people.

It is based on the natural schema and ingroup/outgroup processes of our brains.

Originally posted by demon-lllama
If you are interested in this, I hope you find the information on the article interesting..

My main question on racism would be if you think it is appropriate to call someone a race.


I found that people base logic on London rather than the US nowaday, and I am quite certain this is so.


I read an article from 2007 on how a British lady in England/London had a child when she was with a man from India, though the article stressed that the child was black and Asian as the point.

The main point the lady said in the end was that she couldn't expect to have her youngest daughter be a Brady Bunch child, like her older sons who are all British with gold hair and blue eyes. The main thing she realized was her guilt in being racist without being able to help it to her daughter, who was still an infant at the time of the article. The tone she ended with was that she "calls herself 'white'" and just has this child forever who has a "small foot" in each culture to enjoy.

The child started out with blue eyes, and the lady seemed depressed to suddenly find that the features of her own child simply got darker, as stated from her interview.


I don't have the article at the moment, but it didn't really tell much else. Some of the comments, by other women in London/England, indicate the solving of the issue as something new. They seemed totally surprised of the article's existence, at all, and felt for the Asian/black child. So, the issue was left, at that, basically. They had a picture of the lady, who looked about 45 or 50 with white blond hair and blue eyes and fairly lighter skin, a bit obese. They also had a picture of Angelina Jolie with a child from Africa.

You silly nutter, what are you going on about? (I know some will say that you won't be able to read this, but I think it's safe to assume that you have another account already).

"People base more logic on London rather than the U.S", what on earth is that supposed to mean? Also, please stop assuming that everyone from England comes from London, you presumptuous piece of shit.

Next time you get your soul switched, ask for one that's not a raving lunatic.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I think he means as it exists in the US today. If so, then I think he has a point. Look at the Slave-trade Triangle, and the fact that the vast majority of slave-holders in Colonial America were English, or of English ancestry (that's why we speak it).

England was not the birthplace of all racism, but blaming expansionist British mentality on current US racism isn't too far-fetched. They dehumanized Indians, Native Australians, Hawaiians, and the Africans they owned, selectively bred, and forced to labor in North America.

But the attitude that created the modern day Racism problem in the US was born of the concept of Manifest Destiny which is entirely an American phenomenon. The fact remains that by this period of history slavery was outlawed in Great Britain, and they were freed whenever found, at the same time that the American view on the Native Americans (whom the British had treaties with promising not to go further into their lands, it was only after independance that that went out the window) is that it was the destiny of Americans to own that land so it was their right to have it instead.

It took a war to stop slavery in the US, and that was almost a side effect- even the Russians emancipated first.

Yes, all European colonial expansion had domination and slavery in there somewhere, but it got dropped a hell of a lot quicker in Europe. In the US it got worse.

Why is this in the Philosophy section?

i thought the blacks get along fine with the whites in UK ?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's kinda hard to say where exactly that racism started....and it's probably also kinda hard to say how that racism is particularly different than other (also earlier) forms of racism.

But obviously England had a big part in the development of racism in the US...I mean, really, you guys are just Englishmen that live abroad, aren't you?

I don't consider my Hispanic ass to be "English" in any sense of the word. But I speak their language, because people who look like them make up the numerical majority of my country, and run it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But the attitude that created the modern day Racism problem in the US was born of the concept of Manifest Destiny which is entirely an American phenomenon. The fact remains that by this period of history slavery was outlawed in Great Britain, and they were freed whenever found, at the same time that the American view on the Native Americans (whom the British had treaties with promising not to go further into their lands, it was only after independance that that went out the window) is that it was the destiny of Americans to own that land so it was their right to have it instead.


I know full well what Manifest Destiny was. But were the people who started it black or Hispanic? No, they were of Anglo-Saxon descent, and benifited from the Brits and Scots-Irish who founded colonies here 2 centuries earlier.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

It took a war to stop slavery in the US, and that was almost a side effect- even the Russians emancipated first.


What did Russia have to do with American slavery?

Originally posted by Ushgarak

Yes, all European colonial expansion had domination and slavery in there somewhere, but it got dropped a hell of a lot quicker in Europe. In the US it got worse.

And I'm saying that the mentality in of it was an acquisition from their white counterparts across the ocean.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
But the attitude that created the modern day Racism problem in the US was born of the concept of Manifest Destiny which is entirely an American phenomenon. The fact remains that by this period of history slavery was outlawed in Great Britain, and they were freed whenever found, at the same time that the American view on the Native Americans (whom the British had treaties with promising not to go further into their lands, it was only after independance that that went out the window) is that it was the destiny of Americans to own that land so it was their right to have it instead.

It took a war to stop slavery in the US, and that was almost a side effect- even the Russians emancipated first.

Yes, all European colonial expansion had domination and slavery in there somewhere, but it got dropped a hell of a lot quicker in Europe. In the US it got worse.

I agree except it goes before Manifest Destiny, and there is no way Manifest Destiny is an "American phenomenon,"; calling it "colonization" is not much better.

The attitudes of the European "elite class" did not change at all; they simply enslaved Africans and forced Asian to trade with them rather than enslave "citizens" of their European nations who were not Caucasian.

The russian reference is almost certainly" the emancipation of the serfs"
1874.THe majority of the poor were effectivly the personal property of the TZAR and aristocracy.The results of this technicality made little difference for most. not surprising there was a revolution.
From 1800bc in babylon to a recent case the british courts of an imported woman who was forced to be the slave of a family. Slavery is just that and in my opinion wrong wrong wrong no matter who how many where or when.

I don't get this woman. She was obviously attracted to the father if she had a child with him, so why does she dislike her daughter's dark features?

Originally posted by cococryspies
I don't get this woman. She was obviously attracted to the father if she had a child with him, so why does she dislike her daughter's dark features?

Cause he's white. ha j/k. But it's cause it isn't his preference in the same way a certain feature about a chick may not be your preference.

I don't like pale skinned women. Meaning ghost white cause it's visually unattractive to me. It looks lifeless. But it's not because she's a Caucasian woman.

Glad to see a regional racism argument here. Makes me wonder, is there anything on the internet I wouldn't masturbate to?

Originally posted by demon-lllama
If you are interested in this, I hope you find the information on the article interesting..

My main question on racism would be if you think it is appropriate to call someone a race.


I found that people base logic on London rather than the US nowaday, and I am quite certain this is so.


I read an article from 2007 on how a British lady in England/London had a child when she was with a man from India, though the article stressed that the child was black and Asian as the point.

The main point the lady said in the end was that she couldn't expect to have her youngest daughter be a Brady Bunch child, like her older sons who are all British with gold hair and blue eyes. The main thing she realized was her guilt in being racist without being able to help it to her daughter, who was still an infant at the time of the article. The tone she ended with was that she "calls herself 'white'" and just has this child forever who has a "small foot" in each culture to enjoy.

The child started out with blue eyes, and the lady seemed depressed to suddenly find that the features of her own child simply got darker, as stated from her interview.


I don't have the article at the moment, but it didn't really tell much else. Some of the comments, by other women in London/England, indicate the solving of the issue as something new. They seemed totally surprised of the article's existence, at all, and felt for the Asian/black child. So, the issue was left, at that, basically. They had a picture of the lady, who looked about 45 or 50 with white blond hair and blue eyes and fairly lighter skin, a bit obese. They also had a picture of Angelina Jolie with a child from Africa.



No thank you, I don't believe in miscegenation.