Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other groups?
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:02:00 PM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black people is far
more extensive, than that against white groups. Especially in our lives
in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical event. It
does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
There's something almost Normanesque about it.
On 24/04/2023 15:18, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:02:00?PM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black people is far
more extensive, than that against white groups. Especially in our lives
in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical event. It
does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
Several close relatives of my MIL and FIL were murdered by the Nazis, so
the holocaust was a personal event for them, not historical at all.
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting
at the back of the bus was far worse?!
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice >experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other >groups?
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:19:00 PM UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other
groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
I did wonder if Diane might have meant that, but then I
dismissed that thought, because I couldn't believe she
would say that coloured people experienced 'real' racism,
while other named groups, including Jewish people, 'merely'
experienced prejudice.
To say or mean such a thing, would surely just be asking
for trouble from at least some Jewish people, particularly
given the recent history of allegations of anti-semitism in
the Labour party.
If she really did mean that, it's hardly surprising she was
suspended.
I thought that she was saying something more along the
lnes of; a number of groups of people, not just black people,
experience some degree of prejudice or racism, and
understanding some of the concerns of those other groups,
might help people understand or appreciate the concerns of
black people.
I don't think she should be suspended for that letter either.
She should be suspended(or hung drawn and quartered, choice is the
public's) 'cos she is a <expletive deleted> nutter.
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice
experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other
groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
I've only just read Tomiwa Owolade's original article to which
Diane Abbott was responding, it is quite an interesting article.
I was rather surprised at the fairly high percentage of Gypsy /
Travellers who reported experiencing racist insults, property
damage or physical attacks.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-britain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
On 24/04/2023 15:18, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:02:00 PM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black people is
far more extensive, than that against white groups. Especially in our
lives in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical event. It
does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
Several close relatives of my MIL and FIL were murdered by the Nazis, so
the holocaust was a personal event for them, not historical at all.
On 24/04/2023 09:50, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 23/04/2023 22:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
It seems she approached the subject from a specific viewpoint, and it
looks quite reasonable when taken in that context.
It also seems that anything that can be said, on the topic of racism,
is bound to cause great antipathy from one interest group or other.
True - but from my fairly limited time in politics, I would tender the
following advice:
"Know when to shut up".
That would be when the Press and your own colleagues have turned on you
and are attempting to eviscerate you.
Does that in fact prevent one from offering grovelling apologies to
appease the critics?
Diane Abbott is frequently disparaged for being stupid, clueless, incompetent.
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 20:06:37 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
What Diane Abbott appears to be saying is that "the only racism which really matters is the type that affects people like me". Which, to be fair, is a commonly held position, even by a lot of people who think they are above
such a crass simplification.
But, as well as being demonstrably false, it's
a stunningly insensitive thing for a politican to say - especially when one of the groups airily dismissed in this fashion is precisely the one that
your party has been found guilty of systematically discriminating against.
None of which seems to matter to Abbott. Neither the report itself, nor the data on which it was based, nor Tomiwa Owolade's intelligent summary of it, are as valid as her own pre-conceived notions. Dianne Abbott wrote her
letter because she believes that Diane Abbott is right, and everybody else
is wrong.
There's something almost Normanesque about it. Or, at least, there would be if it were not for the fact that Diane Abbott is, at least, intelligent enough
to realise that following her hero onto the independent bnches in the
Commons and then losing her seat at the next election is probably not a good career move.
Hence her apology. Although trying to claim "it was just a
draft" is only a few steps along from "my account was hacked". The reality
is that she's exposed what she truly believes. And, even if she's allowed back into the Labour party, that knowledge will dog her for the rest of her political career.
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:19:00 PM UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other
groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
I did wonder if Diane might have meant that, but then I
dismissed that thought, because I couldn't believe she
would say that coloured people experienced 'real' racism,
while other named groups, including Jewish people, 'merely'
experienced prejudice.
To say or mean such a thing, would surely just be asking
for trouble from at least some Jewish people, particularly
given the recent history of allegations of anti-semitism in
the Labour party.
If she really did mean that, it's hardly surprising she was
suspended.
I thought that she was saying something more along the
lnes of; a number of groups of people, not just black people,
experience some degree of prejudice or racism, and
understanding some of the concerns of those other groups,
might help people understand or appreciate the concerns of
black people.
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:19:00 PM UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other
groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
I did wonder if Diane might have meant that, but then I
dismissed that thought, because I couldn't believe she
would say that coloured people experienced 'real' racism,
while other named groups, including Jewish people, 'merely'
experienced prejudice.
On 24/04/2023 09:50, Les. Hayward wrote:
On 23/04/2023 22:04, Sam Plusnet wrote:
True - but from my fairly limited time in politics, I would tender the
following advice:
"Know when to shut up".
That would be when the Press and your own colleagues have turned on you
and are attempting to eviscerate you.
Does that in fact prevent one from offering grovelling apologies to
appease the critics?
Diane Abbott is frequently disparaged for being stupid, clueless, incompetent.
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
On 24/04/2023 11:55, Fredxx wrote:
On 24/04/2023 06:24, Ben wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 3:06:52 AM UTC+8, The Todal wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has already started a thread about Diane Abbott's >>>> letter, which has caused her suspension from the Labour whip.
I don't think the letter was so unreasonable as to justify a suspension, >>>> but it did justify her clarifying and apologising for any offence caused >>>> to anybody.
quote
Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all suffer >>>> from “racism” (“Racism in Britain is not a black and white issue. It’s
far more complicated”, Comment). They undoubtedly experience prejudice. >>>> This is similar to racism and the two words are often used as if they
are interchangeable.
It is true that many types of white people with points of difference,
such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all
their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish
people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the
back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to >>>> vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people >>>> manacled on the slave ships.
Diane Abbott
House of Commons, London SW1
It is a fact that one can estimate the propensity of someone
being/doing/having/etc. something based on their ethnic background.
Quite, I recall some calling for automatic health screening of some
ethnic groups for ailments that target certain ethnicities.
I wonder if they would advocate the same for inspecting young girls
labia and clitoris?
Funny you should mention that. How often are Jewish children treated in
this way by police? They wouldn't fucking dare!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/06/black-girls-three-times-more-likely-to-undergo-invasive-strip-search-by-met-police
Black girls three times more likely to undergo invasive strip-search by
Met police
Between 2017 and 2022, 110 female children and teenagers were subjected
to strip-searches in which their intimate parts were exposed, according
to data obtained via freedom of information requests and analysed by
Liberty Investigates. Disproportionately, almost half (47%) of those subjected to these strip-searches were Black.
The findings come after a report by the children’s commissioner found
that Black children were 11 times more likely than their white peers to
be selected by officers to be strip-searched.
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other
groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
On 24/04/2023 12:33, The Todal wrote:
People seem to have much more faith in the tousle-haired comedian who
claimed that his Downing Street wine and cheese parties were necessary
for work purposes and did not contravene the laws that he had a part
in making. Is it cos he is an Old Etonian?
I think the only sensible justification for the parties was that Downing Street is a maze of overcrowded offices, and everyone who came in to
work (which seems to have been almost all of them) must very quickly
have passed on any diseases they had to everyone else. So, getting
sloshed in the garden was probably safer than working indoors.
Curiously, that's not an explanation the comedian tried.
On 24/04/2023 14:29, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:19:00 PM UTC+1, soup wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
I did wonder if Diane might have meant that, but then I
dismissed that thought, because I couldn't believe she
would say that coloured people experienced 'real' racism,
while other named groups, including Jewish people, 'merely'
experienced prejudice.
I more take the uncharitable view that she was saying EXACTLY that.
"But they are not all their lives subject to racism"
Whereas coloured people... .
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other
groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways
around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around
400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
On 24/04/2023 01:45, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 12:12:43 AM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
On 4/23/23 20:06, The Todal wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has already started a thread about DianeThis appears another example of the hierarchy of racism outlined in the
Abbott's
letter, which has caused her suspension from the Labour whip.
I don't think the letter was so unreasonable as to justify a
suspension,
but it did justify her clarifying and apologising for any offence
caused
to anybody.
Forde report.
I don't think the letter is unreasonable, I think the suspension is the
act of a deeply racist party. AIUI, Diane is the most racially abused
person in the party. When Jewish Labour members sought to talk about
their “lived experience” of racism, no one was allowed to challenge it, >>> even during peek Corbyn.
Obviously, given the current climate, Diane had to speak obliquely, and
thus criticisms of being muddled are unfair.
Perhaps "muddled" is not exactly the right word. Diane said that
"many types of white people with points of difference, such as
redheads, ... Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers" can
experience prejudice or even racism. A valid point.
But then she gave three examples of such white people *not*
experiencing prejudice - not being made to sit at the back of
the bus, not prevented from voting in apartheid South Africa,
and not being manacled on the slave ships. So such examples
didn't really serve to clarify her point.
But no, I don't think her letter justifies a suspension. Rather,
I think she needs to hire an editor.
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting
at the back of the bus was far worse?!
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other groups?
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:40:55 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting
at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come across that
way.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice
experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other
groups?
But even that point is wrong, according to the research reported by the article she was taking issue with.
Mark
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of
living
in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around
400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms
in
Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
On 24/04/2023 18:54, Brian wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American >> troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the >> US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and
will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job
opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways
around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of
African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living >> in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around >> 400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in >> Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
They faced virulent antisemitism in the UK and the USA, in France and in Poland,
before the Nazis came to power and probably right up to the time when the extermination camps became well publicised - at which point, the antisemites thought it best to shut up.
On 24/04/2023 18:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:40:55 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting >>> at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come across that
way.
If so, it's a reasonable point for her to make. But I don't think that
was her point.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice
experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other >>> groups?
But even that point is wrong, according to the research reported by the
article she was taking issue with.
Interesting how the Jewish groups - the right wing groups, of course,
not the Jewish Voice for Labour - make a big fuss on behalf of Jews but >nobody makes a fuss on behalf of the Irish or the Travellers?
Is discrimination against Irish people actually racism? Do they belong
to a different race from you and me? Are Travellers a different race?
The prejudice and discrimination they face is not racism. What does it
add to the argument to claim it's racism?
And here's the view of the Jewish Voice for Labour - but they of course
are deemed to be the "wrong sort of Jews" and are routinely ignored. I'd
call that prejudice and discrimination, if you like.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/diane-abbott-a-statement-from-jewish-voice-for-labour/
On Sun, 23 Apr 2023 20:06:37 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoting Diane Abbott]
It is true that many types of white people with points of difference,
such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But they are not all
their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights America, Irish
people, Jewish people and Travellers were not required to sit at the
back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa, these groups were allowed to
vote. And at the height of slavery, there were no white-seeming people
manacled on the slave ships.
She is, of course, correct to say that. But, on the other hand, the Nazis didn't send black people to the gas chambers. Or, indeed, red-headeed
people. And China isn't currently sending either blacks or Jews to the Xinjiang concentration camps; those are for Uyghurs. Meanwhile, the UK has never had legislation which sends anyone to the gas chambers or makes them sit at the back of buses. But the UK was the first country to use concentration camps - to hold the impeccably white Boers in South Africa.
What Diane Abbott appears to be saying is that "the only racism which really matters is the type that affects people like me".
commonly held position, even by a lot of people who think they are above
such a crass simplification. But, as well as being demonstrably false, it's
a stunningly insensitive thing for a politican to say - especially when one of the groups airily dismissed in this fashion is precisely the one that
your party has been found guilty of systematically discriminating against.
What makes it worse, in this context, is that the article she was replying
to is not some semi-literate racism-isn't-really-that-bad dogwhistle article in the Daily Express, but a thoughtful, well-written opinion piece in the impeccably left wing Observer by someone who is just as black as Diane
Abbott herself, about the findings of a well-researched academic report into racial inequality in the UK.
among the most common victims of racism, they are not the absolute most common, and that there are differences even between different black communities in the UK.
None of which seems to matter to Abbott. Neither the report itself, nor the data on which it was based, nor Tomiwa Owolade's intelligent summary of it, are as valid as her own pre-conceived notions. Dianne Abbott wrote her
letter because she believes that Diane Abbott is right, and everybody else
is wrong.
There's something almost Normanesque about it. Or, at least, there would be if it were not for the fact that Diane Abbott is, at least, intelligent enough to realise that following her hero onto the independent bnches in the Commons and then losing her seat at the next election is probably not a good career move. Hence her apology. Although trying to claim "it was just a draft" is only a few steps along from "my account was hacked". The reality
is that she's exposed what she truly believes. And, even if she's allowed back into the Labour party, that knowledge will dog her for the rest of her political career.
GB wrote:
pensive hamster wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black
people is far more extensive, than that against white groups.
Especially in our lives in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical
event. It does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
Several close relatives of my MIL and FIL were murdered by the
Nazis, so the holocaust was a personal event for them, not
historical at all.
Up to 80 million people died in China during the revolution, but
nobody cares.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:29:09 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:40:55 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting >>>> at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come across that >>> way.
If so, it's a reasonable point for her to make. But I don't think that
was her point.
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any objective assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus is not far worse than being gassed to death. Only a completely unapolagetic antisemite could possibly think it was. But Diane Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge, an antisemite. She is, as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her choice of words.
The prejudice and discrimination they face is not racism. What does it
add to the argument to claim it's racism?
And here's the view of the Jewish Voice for Labour - but they of course
are deemed to be the "wrong sort of Jews" and are routinely ignored. I'd
call that prejudice and discrimination, if you like.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/diane-abbott-a-statement-from-jewish-voice-for-labour/
Oddly enough, some of that prejudice comes from the left. Jon Lansman, founder of Momentum, has stated that JVL "is an organisation which is not just tiny but has no real connection with the Jewish community at all".
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use the
same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is far, far
worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never met and you
were never related to, died in concentration camps which have long ago
been closed down and are no longer a threat to you.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish community
in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking those who died in
the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that victimhood it is an insult
to those who died, among whom were my own grandparents.
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to
the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are
very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >matter what David Baddiel may have said.
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels,
public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On Mark Goodge wrote:
GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with
having a third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then
conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come
across that way.
If so, it's a reasonable point for her to make. But I don't think
that was her point.
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any
objective assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus is
not far worse than being gassed to death. Only a completely
unapolagetic antisemite could possibly think it was. But Diane
Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge, an antisemite. She is,
as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her choice of words.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
But even that point is wrong, according to the research reported
by the article she was taking issue with.
Interesting how the Jewish groups - the right wing groups, of
course, not the Jewish Voice for Labour - make a big fuss on
behalf of Jews but nobody makes a fuss on behalf of the Irish or
the Travellers?
Possibly because there are very few Travellers in Parliament or
the media.
Is discrimination against Irish people actually racism? Do they
belong to a different race from you and me? Are Travellers a
different race?
In the sense used by the Equality Act, yes, they are.
The prejudice and discrimination they face is not racism. What
does it add to the argument to claim it's racism?
And here's the view of the Jewish Voice for Labour - but they of
course are deemed to be the "wrong sort of Jews" and are routinely
ignored. I'd call that prejudice and discrimination, if you like.
https://www.jewishvoiceforlabour.org.uk/statement/diane-abbott-a-st >>atement-from-jewish-voice-for-labour/
Oddly enough, some of that prejudice comes from the left. Jon
Lansman, founder of Momentum, has stated that JVL "is an
organisation which is not just tiny but has no real connection
with the Jewish community at all".
Mark
GB wrote:
pensive hamster wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The Todal wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has already started a thread aboutThis appears another example of the hierarchy of racism
Diane Abbott's
letter, which has caused her suspension from the Labour whip.
I don't think the letter was so unreasonable as to justify a
suspension,
but it did justify her clarifying and apologising for any
offence caused
to anybody.
outlined in the Forde report.
I don't think the letter is unreasonable, I think the
suspension is the act of a deeply racist party. AIUI, Diane is
the most racially abused person in the party. When Jewish
Labour members sought to talk about their “lived
experience” of racism, no one was allowed to challenge it,
even during peek Corbyn.
Obviously, given the current climate, Diane had to speak
obliquely, and thus criticisms of being muddled are unfair.
Perhaps "muddled" is not exactly the right word. Diane said that
"many types of white people with points of difference, such as
redheads, ... Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers" can
experience prejudice or even racism. A valid point.
But then she gave three examples of such white people *not*
experiencing prejudice - not being made to sit at the back of
the bus, not prevented from voting in apartheid South Africa,
and not being manacled on the slave ships. So such examples
didn't really serve to clarify her point.
But no, I don't think her letter justifies a suspension. Rather,
I think she needs to hire an editor.
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having
a third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude
that sitting at the back of the bus was far worse?!
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is
far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never
met and you were never related to, died in concentration camps
which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a threat to
you.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died, among whom were my
own grandparents.
On 24/04/2023 13:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
There's something almost Normanesque about it. Or, at least, there would be >> if it were not for the fact that Diane Abbott is, at least, intelligent
enough
... thank you for that gratuitous ad hom
On 24/04/2023 13:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
There's something almost Normanesque about it.
Would you like to supply a succinct definition of that term and make a >Wikipedia entry?
Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoting Diane Abbott]
It is true that many types of white people with points of
difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But
they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil
rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were
not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South
Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of
slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the
slave ships.
She is, of course, correct to say that. But, on the other hand,
the Nazis didn't send black people to the gas chambers. Or,
indeed, red-headeed people. And China isn't currently sending
either blacks or Jews to the Xinjiang concentration camps; those
are for Uyghurs. Meanwhile, the UK has never had legislation
which sends anyone to the gas chambers or makes them sit at the
back of buses. But the UK was the first country to use
concentration camps - to hold the impeccably white Boers in South
Africa.
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in
ditches, and people being deported with all their possessions
confiscated by the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel
that pain!"
What Diane Abbott appears to be saying is that "the only racism
which really matters is the type that affects people like me".
No, she is saying that black people face racism, ethnic groups of
white people face prejudice and discrimination.
It's a valid point of view. It isn't antisemitic. But she was
right to withdraw the remark when she realised that she had made
her point clumsily and in a manner that might be misinterpreted.
Which, to be fair, is a
commonly held position, even by a lot of people who think they
are above such a crass simplification. But, as well as being
demonstrably false, it's a stunningly insensitive thing for a
politican to say - especially when one of the groups airily
dismissed in this fashion is precisely the one that your party
has been found guilty of systematically discriminating against.
The EHRC report was deeply flawed and hardly anyone has bothered
to read it with sufficient attention to realise what a sloppy
piece of work it was.
What makes it worse, in this context, is that the article she was
replying to is not some semi-literate
racism-isn't-really-that-bad dogwhistle article in the Daily
Express, but a thoughtful, well-written opinion piece in the
impeccably left wing Observer by someone who is just as black as
Diane Abbott herself, about the findings of a well-researched
academic report into racial inequality in the UK.
Here's the thoughtful well written opinion piece. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-bri tain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
At the risk of over-simplifying it, I think the overall message is
that black people should not imagine that they are the main
victims of prejudice and discrimination - it affects just about
every race, every ethnic group and thus even white people can
justifiably whinge about being discriminated against. The task of
eliminating this discrimination is huge and perhaps too daunting.
I can imagine that offending many black people, who think their
experience of discrimination is being buried in a torrent of
well-meaning waffle from one of their own.
Which shows that, although black people are
among the most common victims of racism, they are not the
absolute most common, and that there are differences even between
different black communities in the UK.
None of which seems to matter to Abbott. Neither the report
itself, nor the data on which it was based, nor Tomiwa Owolade's
intelligent summary of it, are as valid as her own pre-conceived
notions. Dianne Abbott wrote her letter because she believes that
Diane Abbott is right, and everybody else is wrong.
No, it's because as a black woman who has had far more abuse aimed
at her than any other MP, in the form of letters and social media
posts, she knows a lot more about the black experience than, say,
Sir Keir Starmer. But her letter was clumsily phrased and she was
unwise to send it.
There's something almost Normanesque about it. Or, at least,
there would be if it were not for the fact that Diane Abbott is,
at least, intelligent enough to realise that following her hero
onto the independent bnches in the Commons and then losing her
seat at the next election is probably not a good career move.
Hence her apology. Although trying to claim "it was just a draft"
is only a few steps along from "my account was hacked". The
reality is that she's exposed what she truly believes. And, even
if she's allowed back into the Labour party, that knowledge will
dog her for the rest of her political career.
Corbyn has lost the whip because he refuses to apologise for what
he said about the pisspoor EHRC report. Abbott apologised almost immediately, but it seems that Sir Keir might grab at the
opportunity to rid himself of a turbulent MP and curry more favour
with the Board of Deputies.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>>public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>>https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires
a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here
before the Race Relations Act 1965).
Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
There's something almost Normanesque about it.
Would you like to supply a succinct definition of that term and
make a Wikipedia entry?
Wikipedia doesn't even have an enftry for Pythonesque, so I don't
have any hopes of getting my definition in there either.
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any
objective assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus is
not far worse than being gassed to death. Only a completely
unapolagetic antisemite could possibly think it was. But Diane
Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge, an antisemite. She is,
as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her choice of words.
But in the US it was actually a whole lot worse than just having to
sit at the back of a bus. Blacks in the southers US were attacked
and often killed with impunity for many years. When successful black
towns were established, those towns were burned to the ground. They
were told segregation was permissible because what they experienced
was equal to what white people experienced - but it wasn't at all
equal. Yes, the killing and destruction wasn't as targeted and
systematic as during the Holocaust, but it did exist, and it wasn't
limited to just a few "bad apples."
On 24/04/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:29:09 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
On 24/04/2023 18:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:40:55 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting >>>>> at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come across that >>>> way.
If so, it's a reasonable point for her to make. But I don't think that
was her point.
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any objective
assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus is not far worse than >> being gassed to death. Only a completely unapolagetic antisemite could
possibly think it was. But Diane Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge, >> an antisemite. She is, as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her
choice of words.
No, the correct comparison is:
a) being forced to sit at the back of a bus, or to use separate
facilities from white people, or
b) being aware that decades ago, people whom you never knew were sent to
gas chambers which no longer exist now.
Your false comparison is equivalent to saying that being forced to sit
at the back of the bus is not as bad as being bombed by the Germans
during the Blitz, and our victimhood as English people exceeds that of
those who had to sit at the back of buses.
Interesting how the Jewish groups - the right wing groups, of course, not
the Jewish Voice for Labour - make a big fuss on behalf of Jews but nobody makes a fuss on behalf of the Irish or the Travellers?
Is discrimination against Irish people actually racism? Do they belong to
a different race from you and me? Are Travellers a different race? The prejudice and discrimination they face is not racism. What does it add to
the argument to claim it's racism?
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens >>><jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst
those other groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>>>public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>>>https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/ >>>
"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires
a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here >>before the Race Relations Act 1965).
Yes, but it was a legal (as opposed to merely societal) rule in 1950s USA.
There used to be, and maybe still is, animosity towards travellers in
Ireland as well. In Ireland they used to be known as "Tinkers" on account
of their skill in mending, and possibly making pots and pans as they travelled around, Which was formerly, a useful service to the community.
They also had a long association with the breeding of horses and
regularly attended the Appleby Horse Fair. And maybe still do
where they meet up with English travellers - formerly known as
Gypsies. And while gypsies with horses were not a great problem
gypsies with cars and vans probably are
One disadvantage the Gypsies always had was in having no
written language of their own. Everything was passed down by
word of mouth. This made them attractive to folk lore enthusiasts
for a time in the early half of the 20th century. And correspondingly unpopular with officialdom in any form; especially tax collectors.
Then came the 1960's and the hippies. When suddenly having
an unconventional lifestyle, not paying rent or taxes and living
in a van became attractive both to both middle class idealists
who probably soon gave it up, and riff-raff who didn't.
One theory is that most gypsies are descended from people who
lived on common land who were dispossessed by the various enclosure
acts.
But at the end of the day people who don't *appear* to pay rent, taxes national insurance, have mortgages etc, and are free as the air (in summertime at least) are always going to generate resentment
among some of the people who do.
bb
phister <phister@inbox.com> wrote:
GB wrote:
pensive hamster wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black people is
far more extensive, than that against white groups. Especially in
our lives in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical event.
It does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
Several close relatives of my MIL and FIL were murdered by the Nazis,
so the holocaust was a personal event for them, not historical at all.
Up to 80 million people died in China during the revolution, but nobody
cares.
Why did they die? Was it because they were individually chosen to die
due to some characteristic that had nothing to do with the war but was
just an excuse to have someone to demonize?
Are you saying that, when only 11 or 12 million are killed because of
their characteristics and not in any kind of battle, we shouldn't care?
--
Stu http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
But the UK was the first country to use
concentration camps - to hold the impeccably white Boers in South Africa.
"The Tidal" <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote in message news:kao3k5Fg0vrU5@mid.individual.net...
Interesting how the Jewish groups - the right wing groups, of course, not
the Jewish Voice for Labour - make a big fuss on behalf of Jews but nobody >> makes a fuss on behalf of the Irish or the Travellers?
Is discrimination against Irish people actually racism? Do they belong to
a different race from you and me? Are Travellers a different race? The
prejudice and discrimination they face is not racism. What does it add to
the argument to claim it's racism?
There used to be, and maybe still is, animosity towards travellers in
Ireland as well. In Ireland they used to be known as "Tinkers" on account
of their skill in mending, and possibly making pots and pans as they travelled around, Which was formerly, a useful service to the community.
They also had a long association with the breeding of horses and
regularly attended the Appleby Horse Fair. And maybe still do
where they meet up with English travellers - formerly known as
Gypsies. And while gypsies with horses were not a great problem
gypsies with cars and vans probably are
One disadvantage the Gypsies always had was in having no
written language of their own. Everything was passed down by
word of mouth. This made them attractive to folk lore enthusiasts
for a time in the early half of the 20th century. And correspondingly unpopular with officialdom in any form; especially tax collectors.
Then came the 1960's and the hippies. When suddenly having
an unconventional lifestyle, not paying rent or taxes and living
in a van became attractive both to both middle class idealists
who probably soon gave it up, and riff-raff who didn't.
One theory is that most gypsies are descended from people who
lived on common land who were dispossessed by the various enclosure
acts.
But at the end of the day people who don't *appear* to pay rent, taxes national insurance, have mortgages etc, and are free as the air (in summertime at least) are always going to generate resentment
among some of the people who do.
bb
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst
those other groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>>>> public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>>>> https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/ >>>>
"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires
a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here
before the Race Relations Act 1965).
Yes, but it was a legal (as opposed to merely societal) rule in 1950s USA.
Ok, but this is a new distinction you've invented that nobody had
mentioned previously.
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels,
public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels,
public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom
https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/ >>
"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires
a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here
before the Race Relations Act 1965).
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
[quoting Diane Abbott]
It is true that many types of white people with points of
difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But
they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil
rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were
not required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South
Africa, these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of
slavery, there were no white-seeming people manacled on the
slave ships.
She is, of course, correct to say that. But, on the other hand,
the Nazis didn't send black people to the gas chambers. Or,
indeed, red-headeed people. And China isn't currently sending
either blacks or Jews to the Xinjiang concentration camps; those
are for Uyghurs. Meanwhile, the UK has never had legislation
which sends anyone to the gas chambers or makes them sit at the
back of buses. But the UK was the first country to use
concentration camps - to hold the impeccably white Boers in South
Africa.
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in
ditches, and people being deported with all their possessions
confiscated by the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel
that pain!"
Yes, I agree. On the other hand it is not unreasonable to say, "I
face the constant fear that demagugues, racists and xenophobes will
find an excuse to, again, target Jews for hate and retribution for
imaginary slights."
What Diane Abbott appears to be saying is that "the only racism
which really matters is the type that affects people like me".
No, she is saying that black people face racism, ethnic groups of
white people face prejudice and discrimination.
It's a valid point of view. It isn't antisemitic. But she was
right to withdraw the remark when she realised that she had made
her point clumsily and in a manner that might be misinterpreted.
I agree. I didn't find her statement to be out of bounds. There are distinct differences between the ways blacks are treated as opposed
to treatment of other groups. Pointing that out isn't antisemetic.
No, the correct comparison is:
a) being forced to sit at the back of a bus, or to use separate
facilities from white people, or
b) being aware that decades ago, people whom you never knew were sent to
gas chambers which no longer exist now.
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use the
same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is far, far
worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never met and you
were never related to, died in concentration camps which have long ago
been closed down and are no longer a threat to you.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish community
in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking those who died in
the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that victimhood it is an insult
to those who died,
among whom were my own grandparents.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
GB wrote:
pensive hamster wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The Todal wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has already started a thread aboutThis appears another example of the hierarchy of racism
Diane Abbott's
letter, which has caused her suspension from the Labour whip.
I don't think the letter was so unreasonable as to justify a
suspension,
but it did justify her clarifying and apologising for any
offence caused
to anybody.
outlined in the Forde report.
I don't think the letter is unreasonable, I think the
suspension is the act of a deeply racist party. AIUI, Diane is
the most racially abused person in the party. When Jewish
Labour members sought to talk about their “lived
experience” of racism, no one was allowed to challenge it,
even during peek Corbyn.
Obviously, given the current climate, Diane had to speak
obliquely, and thus criticisms of being muddled are unfair.
Perhaps "muddled" is not exactly the right word. Diane said that
"many types of white people with points of difference, such as
redheads, ... Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers" can
experience prejudice or even racism. A valid point.
But then she gave three examples of such white people *not*
experiencing prejudice - not being made to sit at the back of
the bus, not prevented from voting in apartheid South Africa,
and not being manacled on the slave ships. So such examples
didn't really serve to clarify her point.
But no, I don't think her letter justifies a suspension. Rather,
I think she needs to hire an editor.
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having
a third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude
that sitting at the back of the bus was far worse?!
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is
far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never
met and you were never related to, died in concentration camps
which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a threat to
you.
Without context I agree. However Jews have been discriminated
against for thousands of years. As evidenced by the Holocaust, even
when it appeared that prejudice and discrimination had gone away,
they were brought back all too easily, with deadly consequences.
It's not irrational to fear it happening again.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died, among whom were my
own grandparents.
Yes, I agree. Victimhood is one thing, and it does not appear to be happening to the Jewish community as a whole either in the UK or the
US. But that can easily and quickly change - that's what the fight
should be about.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:10:10 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:29:09 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
On 24/04/2023 18:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:40:55 +0100, GB <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a >>>>>> third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude that sitting >>>>>> at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come across that >>>>> way.
If so, it's a reasonable point for her to make. But I don't think that >>>> was her point.
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any objective
assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus is not far worse than >>> being gassed to death. Only a completely unapolagetic antisemite could
possibly think it was. But Diane Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge,
an antisemite. She is, as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her >>> choice of words.
No, the correct comparison is:
a) being forced to sit at the back of a bus, or to use separate
facilities from white people, or
b) being aware that decades ago, people whom you never knew were sent to
gas chambers which no longer exist now.
But Diane Abbott has never been forced to sit at the back of a bus. Nor have the vast majority of black British citizens.
Your false comparison is equivalent to saying that being forced to sit
at the back of the bus is not as bad as being bombed by the Germans
during the Blitz, and our victimhood as English people exceeds that of
those who had to sit at the back of buses.
No; the comparison is that the English people who were bombed in the Blitz were suffering more than the American people who had to sit at the back of a bus. 21st century Brits and Americans, of course, have to suffer neither.
On 24 Apr 2023 20:22:32 GMT, "Stuart O. Bronstein" <spamtrap@lexregia.com> wrote:
Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any
objective assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus is
not far worse than being gassed to death. Only a completely
unapolagetic antisemite could possibly think it was. But Diane
Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge, an antisemite. She is,
as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her choice of words.
But in the US it was actually a whole lot worse than just having to
sit at the back of a bus. Blacks in the southers US were attacked
and often killed with impunity for many years. When successful black
towns were established, those towns were burned to the ground. They
were told segregation was permissible because what they experienced
was equal to what white people experienced - but it wasn't at all
equal. Yes, the killing and destruction wasn't as targeted and
systematic as during the Holocaust, but it did exist, and it wasn't
limited to just a few "bad apples."
I know. But the comparison was Diane Abbott's, not mine.
Mark
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter
antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to
the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are
very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No
matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by
Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensOk, but this is a new distinction you've invented that nobody had
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst
those other groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>>>>> public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>>>>> https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires >>>> a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here >>>> before the Race Relations Act 1965).
Yes, but it was a legal (as opposed to merely societal) rule in 1950s USA. >>
mentioned previously.
The first line of my post you originally responded to clearly stated we had never had such rules here.
And the EHRC used a very sweeping definition of antisemitic online
speech. An extract:
quote
* diminished the scale or significance of the Holocaust
• expressed support for Hitler or the Nazis
• compared Israelis to Hitler or the Nazis
• described a ‘witch hunt’ in the Labour Party, or said that complaints had been manufactured by the ‘Israel lobby’
unquote
The first of these might be remarks founded on stupidity or ignorance
rather than antisemitism. The second is beyond doubt antisemitic. The
third, comparing the acts of the Israeli government or armed forces to
the actions of the Nazis, ought to be regarded as legitimate argument
and not to be regarded as antisemitism. The fourth includes those who
say, quite legitimately, that there is a "witch hunt" inasmuch as people
were being suspended or expelled merely for criticising Israel.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:18:27 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use the
same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is far, far >>worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never met and you
were never related to, died in concentration camps which have long ago
been closed down and are no longer a threat to you.
But it's not worse to have to sit at the back of a bus than it is to be sent to a concentration camp. Bearing in mind that nobody involved in this debate - including Diane Abbott - has ever had to do either.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish community
in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking those who died in >>the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that victimhood it is an insult
to those who died, among whom were my own grandparents.
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s
America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British
Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas chambers
- and people being lined up and shot and dumped in ditches, and people
being deported with all their possessions confiscated by the German
state. I'm still suffering! I still feel that pain!"
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Funny you should mention that. How often are Jewish children treated in
this way by police? They wouldn't fucking dare!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/06/black-girls-three-times-more-likely-to-undergo-invasive-strip-search-by-met-police
Black girls three times more likely to undergo invasive strip-search by
Met police
Between 2017 and 2022, 110 female children and teenagers were subjected
to strip-searches in which their intimate parts were exposed, according
to data obtained via freedom of information requests and analysed by
Liberty Investigates. Disproportionately, almost half (47%) of those
subjected to these strip-searches were Black.
The findings come after a report by the children’s commissioner found
that Black children were 11 times more likely than their white peers to
be selected by officers to be strip-searched.
What are the relative numbers for committing crimes / being arrested etc.
Raw numbers, such as you quoted, without the other data are misleading.
On 2023-04-25, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon RibbensOk, but this is a new distinction you've invented that nobody had
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst >>>>>>>>> those other groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>>>>>> public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>>>>>> https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though.
"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires >>>>> a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here >>>>> before the Race Relations Act 1965).
Yes, but it was a legal (as opposed to merely societal) rule in 1950s USA. >>>
mentioned previously.
The first line of my post you originally responded to clearly stated we had >> never had such rules here.
Exactly my point - you said "rules" not "laws". So your statement was
false. If you had instead said "laws" then your statement would have
been true but extremely misleading.
On 24/04/2023 21:30, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
GB wrote:
pensive hamster wrote:
Pancho wrote:
The Todal wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has already started a thread aboutThis appears another example of the hierarchy of racism
Diane Abbott's
letter, which has caused her suspension from the Labour whip.
I don't think the letter was so unreasonable as to justify a
suspension,
but it did justify her clarifying and apologising for any
offence caused
to anybody.
outlined in the Forde report.
I don't think the letter is unreasonable, I think the
suspension is the act of a deeply racist party. AIUI, Diane is
the most racially abused person in the party. When Jewish
Labour members sought to talk about their “lived
experience” of racism, no one was allowed to challenge it,
even during peek Corbyn.
Obviously, given the current climate, Diane had to speak
obliquely, and thus criticisms of being muddled are unfair.
Perhaps "muddled" is not exactly the right word. Diane said that
"many types of white people with points of difference, such as
redheads, ... Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers" can
experience prejudice or even racism. A valid point.
But then she gave three examples of such white people *not*
experiencing prejudice - not being made to sit at the back of
the bus, not prevented from voting in apartheid South Africa,
and not being manacled on the slave ships. So such examples
didn't really serve to clarify her point.
But no, I don't think her letter justifies a suspension. Rather,
I think she needs to hire an editor.
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having
a third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then conclude
that sitting at the back of the bus was far worse?!
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is
far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never
met and you were never related to, died in concentration camps
which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a threat to
you.
Without context I agree. However Jews have been discriminated
against for thousands of years. As evidenced by the Holocaust, even
when it appeared that prejudice and discrimination had gone away,
they were brought back all too easily, with deadly consequences.
It's not irrational to fear it happening again.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died, among whom were my
own grandparents.
Yes, I agree. Victimhood is one thing, and it does not appear to be
happening to the Jewish community as a whole either in the UK or the
US. But that can easily and quickly change - that's what the fight
should be about.
I agree.
But the lesson that the world should learn from the Holocaust is viewed
in ambiguous terms.
Typically, Jews will say "it must never happen again, to the Jews" -
hence the need to support and strengthen Israel.
A more enlightened approach would be to say "it must never happen again,
to anyone".
Leaving aside what Israel has been doing to the
Palestinians, there are other countries and other communities where
ordinary innocent citizens are rounded up and shot or imprisoned. In
Ukraine, we know this is happening and we agree that Russia is the enemy
and must be stopped. In other countries we turn a blind eye because it doesn't suit us to intervene or else we are powerless to influence
events. And so the Holocaust is preserved in aspic as a unique crime perpetrated by unique evildoers, when actually it isn't.
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 17:36:29 +0100, Max Demian <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 13:38, Mark Goodge wrote:
There's something almost Normanesque about it.
Would you like to supply a succinct definition of that term and make a
Wikipedia entry?
Wikipedia doesn't even have an entry for Pythonesque, so I don't have any hopes of getting my definition in there either.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-25, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:49:54 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 19:05:26 -0000 (UTC), Jon Ribbens
<jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:"Back of the bus" doesn't require legislation either, it just requires >>>>>> a lack of legislation preventing it (as indeed we had such a lack here >>>>>> before the Race Relations Act 1965).
On 2023-04-24, Brian <noinv@lid.org> wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst >>>>>>>>>> those other groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK.
That's false. We have had racial segregation in housing, jobs, hotels, >>>>>>>> public houses, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_segregation_in_the_United_Kingdom >>>>>>>> https://camra.org.uk/learn-discover/the-basics/what-was-the-colour-bar-2/
There has never been any legislation imposing such rules, though. >>>>>>
Yes, but it was a legal (as opposed to merely societal) rule in
1950s USA.
Ok, but this is a new distinction you've invented that nobody had
mentioned previously.
The first line of my post you originally responded to clearly stated
we had never had such rules here.
Exactly my point - you said "rules" not "laws". So your statement was
false. If you had instead said "laws" then your statement would have
been true but extremely misleading.
Using your logic, the ‘No platforming’ etc of (for example) the feminist speaker by the Oxford Students is equivalent to a law.
Since when did the Oxford Union have the right to pass laws?
I don't see why it matters to you, as you're being handcuffed and
dragged off the bus, whether the police are doing this to you
because the bus driver called them and told them to, or because
the bus driver merely called them.
On 2023-04-24, Brian wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Funny you should mention that. How often are Jewish children treated in
this way by police? They wouldn't fucking dare!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/06/black-girls-three-times-more-likely-to-undergo-invasive-strip-search-by-met-police
Black girls three times more likely to undergo invasive strip-search by
Met police
Between 2017 and 2022, 110 female children and teenagers were subjected
to strip-searches in which their intimate parts were exposed, according
to data obtained via freedom of information requests and analysed by
Liberty Investigates. Disproportionately, almost half (47%) of those
subjected to these strip-searches were Black.
The findings come after a report by the children’s commissioner found
that Black children were 11 times more likely than their white peers to
be selected by officers to be strip-searched.
What are the relative numbers for committing crimes / being arrested etc.
Raw numbers, such as you quoted, without the other data are misleading.
The biggest correlation with criminality, especially violent crimes,
is being male. Should the police start randomly searching all men?
On 2023-04-24, Brian wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Funny you should mention that. How often are Jewish children treated in
this way by police? They wouldn't fucking dare!
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/apr/06/black-girls-three-times-more-likely-to-undergo-invasive-strip-search-by-met-police
Black girls three times more likely to undergo invasive strip-search by
Met police
Between 2017 and 2022, 110 female children and teenagers were subjected
to strip-searches in which their intimate parts were exposed, according
to data obtained via freedom of information requests and analysed by
Liberty Investigates. Disproportionately, almost half (47%) of those
subjected to these strip-searches were Black.
The findings come after a report by the children’s commissioner found
that Black children were 11 times more likely than their white peers to
be selected by officers to be strip-searched.
What are the relative numbers for committing crimes / being arrested etc.
Raw numbers, such as you quoted, without the other data are misleading.
The biggest correlation with criminality, especially violent crimes,
is being male. Should the police start randomly searching all men?
It reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg's comment that the Holocaust wasn't
about "race". I think it's possible that both she and Diane regard race
as black people / white people and not Jews / gentiles.
Which is perhaps just semantics. If the Nazis regarded Jews as part of a distinct and different race from gentiles, then arguably it really was
about racism.
But it isn't antisemitic to say that the Holocaust wasn't about race. It doesn't trivialise it. And the Holocaust isn't a tragedy that somehow
exceeds in importance the tragedy of slavery and apartheid and civil
rights abuses in the USA.
I think part of the problem is that many people today have quite
forgotten the civil rights movement in the USA, the lynchings of black people, the fate of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers, the Ku Klux Klan, the Birmingham church bombing. Easy to say that Hitler and the Nazis were
pure evil. Not so easy to recognise that many white Americans were
equally evil.
On 24/04/2023 20:52, The Todal wrote:
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas chambers
- and people being lined up and shot and dumped in ditches, and people
being deported with all their possessions confiscated by the German
state. I'm still suffering! I still feel that pain!"
Whereas 'sitting at the back of the bus' was ended in 1956 (well it was unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution.) and yet people still shout about it.
Hmm Mid 40s 'water under the bridge' lets forget about it.
Mid 50s 'oh my god the pain' something must be done.
Oh and as a very far aside this is UK legal moderated not USA legal moderated. Sitting at the back of a bus was NEVER a law/rule in the UK
"Brian" <noinv@lid.org> wrote in message news:u26fp0$efpv$1@dont-email.me...
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of
African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of
living
in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around
400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms
in
Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
So please refrain from mangling her words to make it look as if she is a Holocaust denier.
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use the
same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is far, far
worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never met and you
were never related to, died in concentration camps which have long ago
been closed down and are no longer a threat to you.
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas chambers
- and people being lined up and shot and dumped in ditches, and people
being deported with all their possessions confiscated by the German
state. I'm still suffering! I still feel that pain!"
I agree. I didn't find her statement to be out of bounds. There are distinct differences between the ways blacks are treated as opposed
to treatment of other groups. Pointing that out isn't antisemetic.
Not only was it never a rule here, during WW2, when Black US servicemen
were stationed here, we refused to have any form of segregation - even when the US forces requested / suggested it.
The Todal wrote:
It reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg's comment that the Holocaust
wasn't about "race". I think it's possible that both she and
Diane regard race as black people / white people and not Jews /
gentiles.
Which is perhaps just semantics. If the Nazis regarded Jews as
part of a distinct and different race from gentiles, then
arguably it really was about racism.
But it isn't antisemitic to say that the Holocaust wasn't about
race. It doesn't trivialise it. And the Holocaust isn't a tragedy
that somehow exceeds in importance the tragedy of slavery and
apartheid and civil rights abuses in the USA.
I think part of the problem is that many people today have quite
forgotten the civil rights movement in the USA, the lynchings of
black people, the fate of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers, the Ku
Klux Klan, the Birmingham church bombing. Easy to say that Hitler
and the Nazis were pure evil. Not so easy to recognise that many
white Americans were equally evil.
I really wouldn't want to be a black person in the southern USA
even now. There is undoubtedly still prejudice on a much greater
scale than in the UK.
But.
The Holocaust killed about 6 million Jews. The sheer scale of it
makes it worse than the evil that has happened to black people in
the USA.
On 24/04/2023 21:58, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:10:10 +0100, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:48, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:29:09 +0100, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:07, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 13:40:55 +0100, GB
<NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with
having a third of your people killed by the Nazis, and then
conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was far worse?!
I'm not sure that was her intent. But it certainly does come
across that way.
If so, it's a reasonable point for her to make. But I don't
think that was her point.
Well, not it's not at all a reasonable point to make. By any
objective assessment, being forced to sit at the back of a bus
is not far worse than being gassed to death. Only a completely
unapolagetic antisemite could possibly think it was. But Diane
Abbott is not, to the best of my knowledge, an antisemite. She
is, as far as I can tell, merely very careless in her choice of
words.
No, the correct comparison is:
a) being forced to sit at the back of a bus, or to use separate
facilities from white people, or
b) being aware that decades ago, people whom you never knew were
sent to gas chambers which no longer exist now.
But Diane Abbott has never been forced to sit at the back of a
bus. Nor have the vast majority of black British citizens.
But the comparison should be between day to day discrimination
condoned by society, which at one time involved where you could
sit on a bus but continues to a modified extent in the present
day. As distinct from certain pogroms or massacres that happened
during a limited period which were condemned by all the civilised
world.
In fact, nowhere did Diane Abbott allude to the Holocaust or imply
that it was less important than civil rights abuses in the USA.
That's a malicious interpretation of her words. She was commenting
on an article that seemed to be saying that "racism" against white
minorities was as important as "racism" against black people and
she was trying, albeit clumsily, to assert that black people's
experience should not be minimised or lumped in with all
discrimination.
By the same token, some Jewish groups objected to Corbyn speaking
out against "all" racism and "all" discrimination, and unfairly
accused him of ignoring the specific problem of antisemitism which
in their view needed to be cited regularly and not made a part of
general discrimination.
Your false comparison is equivalent to saying that being forced
to sit at the back of the bus is not as bad as being bombed by
the Germans during the Blitz, and our victimhood as English
people exceeds that of those who had to sit at the back of
buses.
No; the comparison is that the English people who were bombed in
the Blitz were suffering more than the American people who had to
sit at the back of a bus. 21st century Brits and Americans, of
course, have to suffer neither.
When describing discrimination and prejudice it is pointless and inappropriate to keep citing events that are in the past, part of
history. Some Jewish people will probably claim, to this day, that
they are forever fearful of a new pogrom, a new massacre. During
the 2019 general election I regularly heard Jewish people (not
just ordinary people, some local leaders too) ring LBC to say that
they feared a Labour government so much, because of Labour's
antisemitism, that they were preparing to emigrate rather than
risk remaining in Britain in Labour won the election. That was an
example of outrageous exaggeration and fearmongering which Jeremy
Corbyn alluded to when he said:
“One antisemite is one too many, but the scale of the problem
was also dramatically overstated for political reasons by our
opponents inside and outside the party, as well as by much of the
media. That combination hurt Jewish people and must never be
repeated".
Those words are what caused him to have the whip withdrawn by
Starmer. Unreasonably.
On 24/04/2023 20:09, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:54, Brian wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced
'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American >>> troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the >>> US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and >>> will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job
opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways
around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of
African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living >>> in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around >>> 400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in >>> Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
They faced virulent antisemitism in the UK and the USA, in France and in
Poland,
before the Nazis came to power and probably right up to the time when the
extermination camps became well publicised - at which point, the antisemites >> thought it best to shut up.
Then some started up again. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12000469/Junior-doctor-leader-joked-Twitter-gassing-Jews-suspended-BMA.html
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government officials, never mind the general population.
The Todal wrote:
No, the correct comparison is:
a) being forced to sit at the back of a bus, or to use separate
facilities from white people, or
b) being aware that decades ago, people whom you never knew were
sent to gas chambers which no longer exist now.
You forgot to add LAWS WHICH NO LONGER EXIST NOW [1]to your point
"a" above. Jim Crow no longer exists .
[1] well legally . Except by some black/coloured people who want
separation for blacks coloured.
Yes, I agree. Victimhood is one thing, and it does not appear to
be happening to the Jewish community as a whole either in the UK
or the US. But that can easily and quickly change - that's what
the fight should be about.
I agree.
But the lesson that the world should learn from the Holocaust is
viewed in ambiguous terms.
Typically, Jews will say "it must never happen again, to the Jews"
- hence the need to support and strengthen Israel.
A more enlightened approach would be to say "it must never happen
again, to anyone".
Leaving aside what Israel has been doing to
the Palestinians, there are other countries and other communities
where ordinary innocent citizens are rounded up and shot or
imprisoned. In Ukraine, we know this is happening and we agree
that Russia is the enemy and must be stopped. In other countries
we turn a blind eye because it doesn't suit us to intervene or
else we are powerless to influence events. And so the Holocaust is
preserved in aspic as a unique crime perpetrated by unique
evildoers, when actually it isn't.
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice
experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other
groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
I've only just read Tomiwa Owolade's original article to which
Diane Abbott was responding, it is quite an interesting article.
I was rather surprised at the fairly high percentage of Gypsy /
Travellers who reported experiencing racist insults, property
damage or physical attacks.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-britain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
On 24/04/2023 20:18, The Todal wrote:
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people
is far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you
never met and you were never related to, died in concentration
camps which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a
threat to you.
Jim Crow was years ago how many alive today have actually
(legally) had to do any of those things.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died,
...and those who claim slavery made them victims do they deserve
reparations ? After all it was 200 not 90 years ago
among whom were my own grandparents.
My condolences
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
In addition being able to charge interest on loans, which was
their monopoly, until the German Fuggers were able to bend
the Pope's ear, made them especially vulnerable in their role
a moneylenders. Should indebted kings or nobles, find themselves
strapped for cash and unable to pay.
Not that any of that had anything much to do with the millions
of relatively impoverished Jews who populated the tolerant former
Hapbsburg Empire of Central Europe and found themselves being
loaded into cattle wagons on their way to the extermination camps.
Not even time for a last meal, as The Nazis had worked out it
would obviously be a waste. But then such fine distinctions
don't necessarily make for a good Racial Theory.
On 24/04/2023 15:18, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:02:00 PM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black people is far
more extensive, than that against white groups. Especially in our lives
in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical event. It
does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
Several close relatives of my MIL and FIL were murdered by the Nazis, so
the holocaust was a personal event for them, not historical at all.
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
In addition being able to charge interest on loans, which was
their monopoly, until the German Fuggers were able to bend
the Pope's ear, made them especially vulnerable in their role
a moneylenders. Should indebted kings or nobles, find themselves
strapped for cash and unable to pay.
Jews had cash and made loans because they were not allowed to
own any property.
They could only own what they could carry on their backs.
Vir Campestris <vir.campestris@invalid.invalid> wrote:
The Todal wrote:
It reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg's comment that the Holocaust
wasn't about "race". I think it's possible that both she and
Diane regard race as black people / white people and not Jews /
gentiles.
Which is perhaps just semantics. If the Nazis regarded Jews as
part of a distinct and different race from gentiles, then
arguably it really was about racism.
But it isn't antisemitic to say that the Holocaust wasn't about
race. It doesn't trivialise it. And the Holocaust isn't a tragedy
that somehow exceeds in importance the tragedy of slavery and
apartheid and civil rights abuses in the USA.
I think part of the problem is that many people today have quite
forgotten the civil rights movement in the USA, the lynchings of
black people, the fate of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers, the Ku
Klux Klan, the Birmingham church bombing. Easy to say that Hitler
and the Nazis were pure evil. Not so easy to recognise that many
white Americans were equally evil.
I really wouldn't want to be a black person in the southern USA
even now. There is undoubtedly still prejudice on a much greater
scale than in the UK.
But.
The Holocaust killed about 6 million Jews. The sheer scale of it
makes it worse than the evil that has happened to black people in
the USA.
And it wasn't only the Jews. They killed (according to some sources)
between 5 a 6 million others as well. The scale of the killing was
huge.
On 25/04/2023 15:03, Jon Ribbens wrote:
I don't see why it matters to you, as you're being handcuffed and >> dragged off the bus, whether the police are doing this to you
because the bus driver called them and told them to, or because
the bus driver merely called them.
I'll admit to being smell-ist. I once interviewed a very good candidate
for a job, and I was on the point of offering him a job, then decided
that I couldn't subject staff and clients (and myself ofc) to that level
of BO.
In retrospect, he may just have been nervous about being interviewed. He
may have had a string of rejections. These days, with remote interviews
and WFH, he'd have passed easily.
On 24 Apr 2023 at 20:43:23 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:09, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:54, Brian wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American
troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the
US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and >>>> will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job
opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways
around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of >>>> African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living
in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around >>>> 400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in
Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
They faced virulent antisemitism in the UK and the USA, in France and in >>> Poland,
before the Nazis came to power and probably right up to the time when the >>> extermination camps became well publicised - at which point, the antisemites
thought it best to shut up.
Then some started up again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12000469/Junior-doctor-leader-joked-Twitter-gassing-Jews-suspended-BMA.html
Most of his remarks seem to be humour fails rather than espousing the precise views he mentisons. But clearly unacceptable in his position.
On 24/04/2023 17:14, GB wrote:
On 24/04/2023 15:18, pensive hamster wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:02:00 PM UTC+1, Pancho wrote:
The point is that the history of oppression against black people is far >>>> more extensive, than that against white groups. Especially in our lives >>>> in the Anglosphere.
The Holocaust was a terrible event, but it is an historical event. It
does not define the experience of people alive today.
I think perhaps it does, to some extent. I'm not Jewish myself,
so I can't claim any insight into how Jewish people might feel.
Several close relatives of my MIL and FIL were murdered by the Nazis,
so the holocaust was a personal event for them, not historical at all.
Yes, some Holocaust survivors remain. But how does the Holocaust define
your “lived experience”, the prejudice you suffer today? The prejudice your children suffer today?
Members of my direct family suffered crippling injury and horrific
hardships in the two world wars, but it never really affected me. The
society I live in is totally different to the one they experienced. I
also don't think I'm entitled to special consideration because of their heroicism or suffering. Their opinions on many things were totally
different to mine.
On 25/04/2023 09:43, The Todal wrote:
So please refrain from mangling her words to make it look as if she is
a Holocaust denier.
I don't think for one moment that she's a holocaust denier. But, she
mangled her own words.
That whole piece you quoted was a stream of consciousness that probably
meant something to Diane Abbott but puzzled everyone else.
What she should have avoided was any comparison with other races. It
really doesn't matter whether black people suffer the most or are third
on the list.
And, in commenting on a report about current racism in this country,
buses in the USA and manacles in slave ships are irrelevant and confusing.
In essence, what she wrote was ill-considered nonsense. She's a loose cannon rolling around the deck, and this is not the first time she has
fouled up. Stripping the ship for action in the coming election, Starmer unsurprisingly wants her jettisoned over the side.
On 24/04/2023 20:18, The Todal wrote:
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use the
same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people is far,
far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you never met and
you were never related to, died in concentration camps which have long
ago been closed down and are no longer a threat to you.
Your statement is simply wrong:
My MIL only died 7 years ago. The holocaust was a personal event for
her, as she lost her sister in the camps. She escaped on her own to
Sweden as a young teenager, and had to fend for herself. In my view , it scarred her for life.
My daughter's FIL is still alive (at the age of 94). He was fortunate to emigrate to this country aged 10, but he lost close family members.
"George was born in Vienna in 1929. George had a happy childhood until
the Anschluss when he was made to sit at the back of the class and deal
with the Hitler Youth who would wait for him after school."
I am a bit shocked that you wrote "people whom you never met and you
were never related to", when that's simply untrue.
On 24 Apr 2023 at 16:12:31 BST, "pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the prejudice
experienced by black people is worse than that experienced by most other >>> groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called racism because they all belonged to the white race. While discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to and black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically. So I do think she was talking nonsense,
but I can see her faulty logic. Even if she was right, I really don't see her logic that racism is worse than anti-semitism, though I do see that it is easier to recognise black people on sight. But people who want to commit anti-semitic crimes seem to be able to find Jewish people fairly easily.
I've only just read Tomiwa Owolade's original article to which
Diane Abbott was responding, it is quite an interesting article.
I was rather surprised at the fairly high percentage of Gypsy /
Travellers who reported experiencing racist insults, property
damage or physical attacks.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/apr/15/racism-in-britain-is-not-a-black-and-white-issue-it-is-far-more-complicated
On 24/04/2023 20:52, The Todal wrote:
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in ditches,
and people being deported with all their possessions confiscated by
the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel that pain!"
Can you provide any examples of people actually saying anything as nonsensical as that?
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:18, The Todal wrote:
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people
is far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you
never met and you were never related to, died in concentration
camps which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a
threat to you.
Jim Crow was years ago how many alive today have actually
(legally) had to do any of those things.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died,
...and those who claim slavery made them victims do they deserve
reparations ? After all it was 200 not 90 years ago
Slavery was, yes. But they are still suffering the lingering
effects. For example in the US the average white family has many
times the savings of the average black family. It's not specifically
because of slavery, but it's because of the lingering discrimination
that arose after slavery ended.
On 24 Apr 2023 at 20:43:23 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:09, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:54, Brian wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American
troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the
US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and >>>> will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job
opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways
around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of >>>> African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living
in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around >>>> 400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in
Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
They faced virulent antisemitism in the UK and the USA, in France and in >>> Poland,
before the Nazis came to power and probably right up to the time when the >>> extermination camps became well publicised - at which point, the antisemites
thought it best to shut up.
Then some started up again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12000469/Junior-doctor-leader-joked-Twitter-gassing-Jews-suspended-BMA.html
Most of his remarks seem to be humour fails rather than espousing the precise views he mentisons. But clearly unacceptable in his position.
On 25/04/2023 17:29, GB wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:52, The Todal wrote:
The gas chambers are irrelevant.
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in ditches,
and people being deported with all their possessions confiscated by
the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel that pain!"
Can you provide any examples of people actually saying anything as
nonsensical as that?
Of course not. The closest example I can give would be the Jewish men
and women who rang LBC during the 2019 election campaign to say that
they were so afraid of history repeating itself under a Labour
government with Jews being subjected to persecution, that they had
already made plans to emigrate.
Seemingly the Holocaust was never far
from their thoughts and a useful political strategy. Members of the
Jewish community were encouraging each other to feel a sense of panic
and imminent doom.
On 24/04/2023 21:40, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
I agree. I didn't find her statement to be out of bounds. There are
distinct differences between the ways blacks are treated as opposed
to treatment of other groups. Pointing that out isn't antisemetic.
I don't think DA is antisemitic.
But, this is not the first time she has
said or written nonsense.
It's given Starmer the opportunity to ditch her.
I disagree, as I'm sure you'd expect.
To say that she must not cite the slave trade or black oppression in the
USA is just as unreasonable as saying that Jews must not cite the
Holocaust.
British Jews and American Jews in the 1930s and 1940s didn't experience
the Holocaust except vicariously, perhaps because they had friends or relatives who were asking if they could be brought to safety. In fact,
as the Ken Burns documentary "The US and the Holocaust" reveals,
American Jews were generally as vociferous as non-Jews in demanding that there should not be an influx of refugees and the Jews of Europe should
solve their own problems.
Anyway - what she said fully required an apology from her, which she was quick to give. She is a good constituency MP and a campaigner against
racism and discrimination. Her mistake only becomes unforgiveable if
Sir Keir is fearful of the stranglehold on his party exercised by the
JLM (Jewish Labour Movement), which is hypersensitive to any hint of antisemitism and is keen to purge the party of critics of Israel.
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty
well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in
the US has been through the courts.
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter
antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to
the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are
very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No
matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by
Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his
article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK >> - are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist >> assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority >> people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure >> of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people >> from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white
and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement ...
... I thought she was saying that discrimination against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called racism because they all belonged to the white race. While discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to [ ... ]
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty
well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in
the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice
for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership
a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all
assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the
Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat
any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to
comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:18, The Todal wrote:
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people
is far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you
never met and you were never related to, died in concentration
camps which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a
threat to you.
Jim Crow was years ago how many alive today have actually
(legally) had to do any of those things.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died,
...and those who claim slavery made them victims do they deserve
reparations ? After all it was 200 not 90 years ago
Slavery was, yes. But they are still suffering the lingering
effects. For example in the US the average white family has many
times the savings of the average black family.
It's not specifically
because of slavery, but it's because of the lingering discrimination
that arose after slavery ended.
On 26/04/2023 02:00, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:18, The Todal wrote:
Sitting at the back of the bus and being told that you can't use
the same toilets, washrooms or restaurant areas as white people
is far, far worse than knowing that years ago, people whom you
never met and you were never related to, died in concentration
camps which have long ago been closed down and are no longer a
threat to you.
Jim Crow was years ago how many alive today have actually
(legally) had to do any of those things.
It may be thought insensitive to say so, but the modern Jewish
community in the UK has no right to claim victimhood by invoking
those who died in the 1930s and 1940s. When they do claim that
victimhood it is an insult to those who died,
...and those who claim slavery made them victims do they deserve
reparations ? After all it was 200 not 90 years ago
Slavery was, yes. But they are still suffering the lingering
effects. For example in the US the average white family has many
times the savings of the average black family. It's not specifically
because of slavery, but it's because of the lingering discrimination
that arose after slavery ended.
If you compare the savings for a specific IQ, independent of race, do
those racial differences go away?
Is it not because of a lingering IQ discrimination?
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter
antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to
the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by
Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at >>> football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK >>> - are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the >>> highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people >>> from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African >>> groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white
and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote[...]
"billy bookcase" wrote:
In addition being able to charge interest on loans, which was
their monopoly, until the German Fuggers were able to bend
the Pope's ear, made them especially vulnerable in their role
a moneylenders. Should indebted kings or nobles, find themselves
strapped for cash and unable to pay.
Jews had cash and made loans because they were not allowed to
own any property.
Which did however make them especially vulnerable. A small
religious minority in a deeply religious age, to whom powerful
people owed money.
My father always loathed the government of Israel and joined campaigns
for Palestinian rights. He knew he was in a minority among Jewish friends.
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
On 24 Apr 2023 at 16:12:31 BST, "pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
So I do think she was talking nonsense, but I can see her faulty
logic. Even if she was right, I really don't see her logic that
racism is worse than anti-semitism, though I do see that it is easier
to recognise black people on sight. But people who want to commit anti-semitic crimes seem to be able to find Jewish people fairly
easily.
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in
ditches, and people being deported with all their possessions
confiscated by the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel
that pain!"
Yes, I agree. On the other hand it is not unreasonable to say, "I
face the constant fear that demagugues, racists and xenophobes will
find an excuse to, again, target Jews for hate and retribution for
imaginary slights."
On 25/04/2023 05:34 pm, GB wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:40, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
I agree. I didn't find her statement to be out of bounds. There are
distinct differences between the ways blacks are treated as opposed
to treatment of other groups. Pointing that out isn't antisemetic.
I don't think DA is antisemitic.
I can't be so sure.
I vividly remember Jesse Jackson, a prominent American black media figure (and one-time seeker after the Democrat presidential nomination), making
some distinctly anti-semitic remarks and claims in the mid-1980s.
And he was apparently a "Reverend".
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit >> at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears >> were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s
America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British
Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened
many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >officials, never mind the general population.
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 24 Apr 2023 at 16:12:31 BST, "pensive hamster"
<pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
So I do think she was talking nonsense, but I can see her faulty
logic. Even if she was right, I really don't see her logic that
racism is worse than anti-semitism, though I do see that it is easier
to recognise black people on sight. But people who want to commit
anti-semitic crimes seem to be able to find Jewish people fairly
easily.
On 26/04/2023 01:58 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement ...
... I thought she was saying that discrimination against Irish, Jews and
Travellers, however extreme (and I don't think she was wanting to deny the >> Holocust!) couldn't be called racism because they all belonged to the white >> race. While discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group I think >> this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at
least some extent as a 'race' if we want to [ ... ]
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
It's confusing, isn't it?
JNugent wrote:
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
The EU?
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0043>
(6) The European Union rejects theories which attempt to
determine the existence of separate human races. The use of the
term "racial origin" in this Directive does not imply an
acceptance of such theories.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:31:13 AM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote[...]
"billy bookcase" wrote:
In addition being able to charge interest on loans, which was
their monopoly, until the German Fuggers were able to bend
the Pope's ear, made them especially vulnerable in their role
a moneylenders. Should indebted kings or nobles, find themselves
strapped for cash and unable to pay.
Jews had cash and made loans because they were not allowed to
own any property.
Which did however make them especially vulnerable. A small
religious minority in a deeply religious age, to whom powerful
people owed money.
Didn't the Medici in medieval Italy make a lot of money
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
On 26/04/2023 01:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 at 20:43:23 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:09, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:54, Brian wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other >>>>>> groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American
troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the
US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and >>>>> will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job
opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways >>>>> around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of >>>>> African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living
in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around
400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in
Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
They faced virulent antisemitism in the UK and the USA, in France and in >>>> Poland,
before the Nazis came to power and probably right up to the time when the >>>> extermination camps became well publicised - at which point, the antisemites
thought it best to shut up.
Then some started up again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12000469/Junior-doctor-leader-joked-Twitter-gassing-Jews-suspended-BMA.html
Most of his remarks seem to be humour fails rather than espousing the precise
views he mentisons. But clearly unacceptable in his position.
The Mail is deeply offended by his remarks about the Queen and the Tories.
However his remarks about the Holocaust and the Jews are beyond the pale even if
I try my hardest to see them as a joke (or satire that he didn't personally believe in) or merely anti-Israel.
quotes (I don't think the Mail quoted the actual words)
In response to a tweet about a synagogue shooting in 2018, Dr Whyte tweeted: “Hahaha zeig heil hahaha gas the jews hahaha just kidding but have you seen these youtube videos about the holohoax they’re pretty convincing imo [in my
opinion].”
He also tweeted: “Me: It’s important to represent Judaism and Jewish people
fairly and respectfully in art. Also me: Jew banker goblins.”
Mr Whyte’s Twitter account has now been closed.
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty
well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in
the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice
for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership
a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all
assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family
members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the
Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat
any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to
comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority
over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty
of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s
America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British
Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened >>> many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane
Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
Mark
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and
indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
Most, if not all, religions think their adherents are ‘special’ / ‘ chosen’
or some equivalent. In some cases, it leads to conflict.
On 26/04/2023 11:53, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 01:36, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 24 Apr 2023 at 20:43:23 BST, "kat" <littlelionne@hotmail.com> wrote:
On 24/04/2023 20:09, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 18:54, Brian wrote:
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled
and unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people
can experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which
seems a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and
metaphors and similes are supposed to clarify the point
being made, not to obscure it.
Seems obvious to me that she was meaning coloured people experienced >>>>>>> 'real' racism by having to sit at the back of the bus whilst those other
groups 'merely' experienced prejudice.
Such rules have never existed in the UK. In fact, during WW2- when American
troops were based here- those who were still subject to restrictions in the
US were surprised to find none existed here.
Of course, there always will be individuals who have their prejudices and
will, if they can, abuse their position to, for example, limit job >>>>>> opportunities. We have laws etc but people will inevitably find ways >>>>>> around them.
The Jews have probably faced persecution in Europe longer than those of >>>>>> African heritage for the simple reason they have a longer history of living
in Europe, at least in numbers. They were banned from England for around
400 years about 1000 years ago. There is a history of countless pogroms in
Europe. That is before we get to the Nazis.
They faced virulent antisemitism in the UK and the USA, in France and in >>>>> Poland,
before the Nazis came to power and probably right up to the time when the >>>>> extermination camps became well publicised - at which point, the antisemites
thought it best to shut up.
Then some started up again.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12000469/Junior-doctor-leader-joked-Twitter-gassing-Jews-suspended-BMA.html
Most of his remarks seem to be humour fails rather than espousing the precise
views he mentisons. But clearly unacceptable in his position.
The Mail is deeply offended by his remarks about the Queen and the Tories.
"He also made jibes about the 'decomposing carcass of the Queen' and called Conservatives 'bastards', adding they should not be allowed to work as medics."
I don't know, but that doesn't sound "deeply offended" more a side comment.
However his remarks about the Holocaust and the Jews are beyond the pale even
if
I try my hardest to see them as a joke (or satire that he didn't personally >> believe in) or merely anti-Israel.
quotes (I don't think the Mail quoted the actual words)
In the link above...
"In response to a tweet about a synagogue shooting Dr Whyte tweeted: 'hahaha zeig heil hahaha gas the jews hahaha just kidding but have you seen these youtube videos about the holohoax the're pretty convincing imo [in my opinion]…'.
The same year, 2018, he tweeted: 'Me: It's important to represent Judaism and Jewish people fairly and respectfully in art. Also me: Jew banker goblins.' And
a year earlier, he argued that people should boycott Israel 'out of spite', writing: 'Lifehack: promise not to boycott Israel, but do it anyway. Do it out
of spite.' In addition, he has made a series of other controversial remarks online."
In response to a tweet about a synagogue shooting in 2018, Dr Whyte tweeted: >> “Hahaha zeig heil hahaha gas the jews hahaha just kidding but have you seen
these youtube videos about the holohoax they’re pretty convincing imo [in my
opinion].”
He also tweeted: “Me: It’s important to represent Judaism and Jewish people
fairly and respectfully in art. Also me: Jew banker goblins.”
Mr Whyte’s Twitter account has now been closed.
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote: >>>
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter
antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to
the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by
Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at >>> football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK >>> - are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the >>> highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people >>> from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African >>> groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white
and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s
America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British >>>> Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened >>>> many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane
Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
Mark
So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
JNugent wrote:
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
The EU?
<https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32000L0043>
(6) The European Union rejects theories which attempt to
determine the existence of separate human races. The use of the
term "racial origin" in this Directive does not imply an
acceptance of such theories.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 17:14:55 BST, "Pamela"
<uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 24 Apr 2023 at 16:12:31 BST, "pensive hamster"
<pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having
a third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good
point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice. Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the
most prejudice doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a
secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this
group I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live
and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want
to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
It conveniently "explains" the anti-semitic trope that "jews" are not
loyal to the nation they are born and brought up in.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 14:42:31 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and
indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
Not that indirectly for a lot of American fundamentalists. The disposition of Israel and the Jewish people is apparently an essential component of the day of judgment and the end of time that they are looking forward to. And the Jesish people being chosen by god seems to be quite important. After all, the predictions of the messiah were largely based on this concept.
On 2023-04-24, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in
ditches, and people being deported with all their possessions
confiscated by the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel
that pain!"
Yes, I agree. On the other hand it is not unreasonable to say, "I
face the constant fear that demagugues, racists and xenophobes will
find an excuse to, again, target Jews for hate and retribution for
imaginary slights."
A lot of anti-semitism now, especially the conspiracy theory kind,
arises from Viktor Orbán's campaigners' irrational targeting of George Soros. But in a bizarre twist, that campaign and choice of hate figure
was advised by two Jewish political consultants, George Birnbaum and
Arthur Finkelstein. The latter has been helping evil politicians from
Nixon onwards.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 14:45:44 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 01:58 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement ...
... I thought she was saying that discrimination against Irish, Jews and >>> Travellers, however extreme (and I don't think she was wanting to deny the >>> Holocust!) couldn't be called racism because they all belonged to the white >>> race. While discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group I think
this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at
least some extent as a 'race' if we want to [ ... ]
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
It's confusing, isn't it?
Only if you want to confuse two different things. I said, hardly originally, that distinct biological races of humans don't exist. I also said that culturally defined "races" are an important source of suspicion and enmity between people, although said races are inconsistent, variable and have no biological basis. Not that difficult. Think of witches as a distinct type of female person. You might well agree that they don't exist in any objective, scientific sense, but that didn't stop them being persecuted.
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s
America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British
Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened >>> many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane
Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 14:45:44 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 01:58 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement ...
... I thought she was saying that discrimination against Irish, Jews and >>> Travellers, however extreme (and I don't think she was wanting to deny the >>> Holocust!) couldn't be called racism because they all belonged to the white >>> race. While discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group I think
this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at
least some extent as a 'race' if we want to [ ... ]
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
It's confusing, isn't it?
Only if you want to confuse two different things. I said, hardly originally, that distinct biological races of humans don't exist. I also said that culturally defined "races" are an important source of suspicion and enmity between people, although said races are inconsistent, variable and have no biological basis. Not that difficult.
Think of witches as a distinct type of
female person. You might well agree that they don't exist in any objective, scientific sense, but that didn't stop them being persecuted.
If you claim not to understand that then I must doubt the sincerity of your attempt to do so.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge" ><usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote: >>So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of >Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s
America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British >>>> Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened >>>> many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane
Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
On 26/04/2023 18:54, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-24, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
A modern Jew in Britain has no right to say "I face constant
antisemitism because back in the 1930s and 1940s there were gas
chambers - and people being lined up and shot and dumped in
ditches, and people being deported with all their possessions
confiscated by the German state. I'm still suffering! I still feel
that pain!"
Yes, I agree. On the other hand it is not unreasonable to say, "I
face the constant fear that demagugues, racists and xenophobes will
find an excuse to, again, target Jews for hate and retribution for
imaginary slights."
A lot of anti-semitism now, especially the conspiracy theory kind,
arises from Viktor Orbán's campaigners' irrational targeting of George
Soros. But in a bizarre twist, that campaign and choice of hate figure
was advised by two Jewish political consultants, George Birnbaum and
Arthur Finkelstein. The latter has been helping evil politicians from
Nixon onwards.
ISTR that Soros stole a billion pounds from us a few years ago. But
that's just capitalism so it's OK.
ISTR that ...
On 2023-04-26, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 14:45:44 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 01:58 am, Roger Hayter wrote:
[ ... ]
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement ...
... I thought she was saying that discrimination against Irish, Jews and >>>> Travellers, however extreme (and I don't think she was wanting to deny the >>>> Holocust!) couldn't be called racism because they all belonged to the white
race. While discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group I think
this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry separately to at
least some extent as a 'race' if we want to [ ... ]
Who was it who so recently said that races don't exist?
It's confusing, isn't it?
Only if you want to confuse two different things. I said, hardly originally, >> that distinct biological races of humans don't exist. I also said that
culturally defined "races" are an important source of suspicion and enmity >> between people, although said races are inconsistent, variable and have no >> biological basis. Not that difficult.
That's a fair summary. And if racist (sexist, homophobic, xenophobic)
trash didn't exist, we'd all be better off and we wouldn't need to
define protected categories in legislation.
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>>>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at >>>> football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the >>>> highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African >>>> groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
On 26 Apr 2023 21:27:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s >>>>> America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British >>>>> Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened >>>>> many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane
Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
No, not at all. Anyone in the UK is perfectly entitled to complain about the treatment being meted out to any oppressed group by any regime, anywhere in the world. But what they can't do is claim that they, personally, are being oppressed or victimised by it, other than in a metaphorical sense.
It currently isn't safe to be a foreigner, particularly with a white skin,
in Sudan. That's why European and American governments are doing their best to evacuate their citizens. But none of that has any direct effect on me, here in my comfortable house in the UK. That doesn't mean I can't point out the human rights abuses being perpetrated in Sudan. It just means that I can't claim to be a victim of them.
important for the category; "African heritage" or "Pakistani heritage" are more than just cultural categories as they imply descent by "blood", even
if not distinct.
On 26/04/2023 18:54, Adam Funk wrote:
A lot of anti-semitism now, especially the conspiracy theory kind,
arises from Viktor Orbán's campaigners' irrational targeting of George Soros. But in a bizarre twist, that campaign and choice of hate figure
was advised by two Jewish political consultants, George Birnbaum and
Arthur Finkelstein. The latter has been helping evil politicians from
Nixon onwards.
ISTR that Soros stole a billion pounds from us a few years ago. But
that's just capitalism so it's OK.
ISTR that Soros stole a billion pounds from us a few years ago. But that's just capitalism so it's OK.
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>>>>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at >>>>> football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African >>>>> groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic >>>> for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However, >>>> the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>
wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on
account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they
are
very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly
phoney. No
matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading
his
article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic
chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in
the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims
of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic >>>> minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a
prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups
had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by >>>> people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black
African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and >>>> White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and
indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
Most, if not all, religions think their adherents are ‘special’ / ‘ chosen’
or some equivalent. In some cases, it leads to conflict.
On 26/04/2023 22:13, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 14:42:31 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>> On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and
indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
Not that indirectly for a lot of American fundamentalists. The
disposition of
Israel and the Jewish people is apparently an essential component of
the day
of judgment and the end of time that they are looking forward to. And the
Jesish people being chosen by god seems to be quite important. After
all, the
predictions of the messiah were largely based on this concept.
"How odd/of God/to choose/the Jews." (William Norman Ewer, 1885-1976)
"Israel will be restored to her land, never more to be removed." (Amos
9:15; Ezekiel 34:28)
US Evangelists insist that it's necessary for Jews to inhabit Palestine
(not sure if that means exclusively) for the Second Coming of Christ to happen. It's not clear what will happen to them after that.
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>>>>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at >>>>> football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African >>>>> groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic >>>> for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However, >>>> the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
On 27/04/2023 12:50, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal
<the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on >>>>>>> account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often
rise to
the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers -
they are
very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly
phoney. No
matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report
cited by
Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just
reading his
article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic
chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here,
in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims >>>>>> of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of
ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a
prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%)
groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported >>>>>> by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black >>>>>> African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group >>>>>> and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the
statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical >>>>> attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed
white
and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society.
However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media. >>>>
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
Presumably it is well known that when people vote for any political
party they do not necessarily endorse the entire manifesto or belief
system. Unemployment and inflation would probably have been the main motivators. I don't believe that one can define the German character at that time or even subsequently, as very different from that of our own people.
What were policies of that party at that time?
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:u2dk0u$1sou8$1@dont-email.me...
". Most people realise that inheritance is
important for the category; "African heritage" or "Pakistani heritage" are >> more than just cultural categories as they imply descent by "blood", even
if not distinct.
Except that
1 Pakistan didn't even exist until 1947.
2 The largest ethnic Group in Pakistan are Punjabis. While
the Indian half of Punjab is home to the Sikhs.
While Pakistan is home to numerous ethnic groups the main
difference between India (Hindu Sikh) and Pakistan (Islam)
is one of religion. And intentionally so.
However this again has nothing to do with blood and everything
to do with the Mughal Empire which controlled India for three
centuries. While the Mughals respected the existing culture
many rulers of the various Princely States who wished to gain
favour will have converted both themselves and their people
to Islam.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:u2dkfp$1sou8$2@dont-email.me...
ISTR that Soros stole a billion pounds from us a few years ago. But that's >> just capitalism so it's OK.
He didn't steal anything. Like a lot of other people he recognised
the essential weakness of the pound and so ( unlike a lot of other
people) he shorted it to the tune of Ł10 billion And he's on record as saying that if Norman Lamont hadn't pulled the plug he was good for
at least another 5 billion.
JNugent wrote:
What were policies of that party at that time?
Make Germany Great Again.
On 26 Apr 2023 21:27:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s >>>>> America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British >>>>> Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened >>>>> many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane
Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
No, not at all. Anyone in the UK is perfectly entitled to complain about the treatment being meted out to any oppressed group by any regime, anywhere in the world. But what they can't do is claim that they, personally, are being oppressed or victimised by it, other than in a metaphorical sense.
It currently isn't safe to be a foreigner, particularly with a white skin,
in Sudan. That's why European and American governments are doing their best to evacuate their citizens. But none of that has any direct effect on me, here in my comfortable house in the UK. That doesn't mean I can't point out the human rights abuses being perpetrated in Sudan. It just means that I can't claim to be a victim of them.
Mark
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 25/04/2023 05:34 pm, GB wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:40, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
I agree. I didn't find her statement to be out of bounds. There are
distinct differences between the ways blacks are treated as opposed
to treatment of other groups. Pointing that out isn't antisemetic.
I don't think DA is antisemitic.
I can't be so sure.
I vividly remember Jesse Jackson, a prominent American black media figure
(and one-time seeker after the Democrat presidential nomination), making
some distinctly anti-semitic remarks and claims in the mid-1980s.
And he was apparently a "Reverend".
This is a source of basic misunderstanding
American blacks, and blacks in general feel no sense of guilt
for the Holocaust whatsoever. Which whatever anyone says, still
colours many peoples's view of anti-semitism.
In 1969, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York held an
exhibition "Harlem on My Mind" focussing on the experience of
black New Yorkers, featuring both photographs and spoken
material transcribed for the catalogue
What they hadn't bargained for. was that many black New Yorkers'
experience of Jewish people, was mainly confined to their role as
landlords. And as a result many of their recorded comments as
transcribed in the catalogue were hardly complementary. A big
fuss ensued, and in retrospect many of the published comments
could be seen as downright anti-semitic. As a result the catalogue
was withdrawn and made available only on request.
However the point is that black people don't see things in that way
at all. Jewish people are simply another variety of white people,
none of who have ever done them any favours in the past. So for
them there's simply no such thing as anti-semitism. Basically
it's not really their problem, and never has been.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty
well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in >>>> the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice
for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership
a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all
assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family
members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the
Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat
any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to
comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer
regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority
over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any
country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty
of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA.
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
So I do think she was talking nonsense, but I can see her faulty
logic. Even if she was right, I really don't see her logic that
racism is worse than anti-semitism, though I do see that it is easier
to recognise black people on sight. But people who want to commit
anti-semitic crimes seem to be able to find Jewish people fairly
easily.
On 27/04/2023 11:58, Max Demian wrote:
ISTR that ...
I won't repeat the defamatory statement. Is it wise to defame someone
at all, let alone someone with an awful lot of money to spend on
lawyers, should he choose?
On 27/04/2023 12:50, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic >>>>> for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical >>>>> attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>>>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However, >>>>> the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media. >>>>
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
Presumably it is well known that when people vote for any political
party they do not necessarily endorse the entire manifesto or belief
system. Unemployment and inflation would probably have been the main motivators. I don't believe that one can define the German character at
that time or even subsequently, as very different from that of our own people.
On 27/04/2023 12:50, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic >>>>> for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical >>>>> attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>>>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However, >>>>> the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media. >>>>
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
Presumably it is well known that when people vote for any political
party they do not necessarily endorse the entire manifesto or belief
system. Unemployment and inflation would probably have been the main motivators. I don't believe that one can define the German character at
that time or even subsequently, as very different from that of our own people.
On 27/04/2023 12:50, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic >>>>> for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical >>>>> attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>>>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However, >>>>> the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media. >>>>
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
Presumably it is well known that when people vote for any political
party they do not necessarily endorse the entire manifesto or belief
system. Unemployment and inflation would probably have been the main motivators. I don't believe that one can define the German character at
that time or even subsequently, as very different from that of our own people.
On 27/04/2023 12:50, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, The Todal wrote:
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account
of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful >>>>>>> lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at
football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to >>>>>> property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the
highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African
groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic >>>>> for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical >>>>> attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>>>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However, >>>>> the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media. >>>>
cause of all their problems.
Up to a point.
The ordinary civilians would not have attacked Jewish stores and homes
if it had not been for the brownshirts and the police, flagrantly
inciting violence and encouraging it and making it very obvious that
they weren't going to protect the victims of the violence.
Up to a point. Let's not forget that six years earlier 1/3 of the
ordinary civilians had voted Nazi.
Presumably it is well known that when people vote for any political
party they do not necessarily endorse the entire manifesto or belief
system. Unemployment and inflation would probably have been the main motivators. I don't believe that one can define the German character at
that time or even subsequently, as very different from that of our own people.
On 27/04/2023 14:05, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:u2dkfp$1sou8$2@dont-email.me...
ISTR that Soros stole a billion pounds from us a few years ago. But
that's
just capitalism so it's OK.
He didn't steal anything. Like a lot of other people he recognised
the essential weakness of the pound and so ( unlike a lot of other
people) he shorted it to the tune of L10 billion And he's on record as
saying that if Norman Lamont hadn't pulled the plug he was good for
at least another 5 billion.
That's what I said. It's capitalism.
On 27/04/2023 11:58, Max Demian wrote:
ISTR that ...
I won't repeat the defamatory statement. Is it wise to defame someone
at all, let alone someone with an awful lot of money to spend on
lawyers, should he choose?
It's not just a question of wisdom, though. He's not here to defend
himself, so it's unfair to make OTT statements like that. Hedge fund managers undertake similar trades all the time, so why did you pick on
this particular guy?
soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:
For example in the US the average white family has many
times the savings of the average black family. It's not specifically
because of slavery, but it's because of the lingering discrimination
that arose after slavery ended.
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty
well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in >>>>> the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice
for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership
a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all
assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the
Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat
any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to
comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer
regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority >>> over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any >>> country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty
of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA.
Neat swerve.
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier
in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any
legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation
which applied in the Confederacy.
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction.
So I do think she was talking nonsense, but I can see her faulty
logic. Even if she was right, I really don't see her logic that
racism is worse than anti-semitism, though I do see that it is easier
to recognise black people on sight. But people who want to commit
anti-semitic crimes seem to be able to find Jewish people fairly
easily.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a >>>>>> third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice. >>>>> Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is merely our choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different races.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 12:51:45 BST, "Mark Goodge" <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 21:27:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of >>> Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s >>>>>> America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British >>>>>> Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened
many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again,
whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government
officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane >>>> Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
No, not at all. Anyone in the UK is perfectly entitled to complain about the >> treatment being meted out to any oppressed group by any regime, anywhere in >> the world. But what they can't do is claim that they, personally, are being >> oppressed or victimised by it, other than in a metaphorical sense.
It currently isn't safe to be a foreigner, particularly with a white skin, >> in Sudan. That's why European and American governments are doing their best >> to evacuate their citizens. But none of that has any direct effect on me,
here in my comfortable house in the UK. That doesn't mean I can't point out >> the human rights abuses being perpetrated in Sudan. It just means that I
can't claim to be a victim of them.
Mark
Actually it is considerably less safe in Sudan to have a black skin, especially if you're not a foreigner but live in Darfur.
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:35:24 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty >>>>>> well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in >>>>>> the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice >>>>> for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership >>>>> a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all >>>>> assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the >>>>> Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat >>>>> any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to >>>>> comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control >>>>> from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer >>>> regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority >>>> over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any >>>> country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty >>>> of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA.
Neat swerve.
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any
member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier
in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any
legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation
which applied in the Confederacy.
Since the Confederate forces were citizens of the USA the federal government could declare them guilty of insurrection, treason etc. Once the Germans had occupied a country they could declare anyone fighting them or the occupying power's local agents to be criminals. We could declare IRA fighters to be criminals because they were UK citizens. None of them could declare bona fide soldiers of a country they were at war with to be criminals. The one case I don't know the answer to is what the status of civilians attacking invading troops is if they are captured by the invading army. Not good, I would think.
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> posted
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a >>>>>> third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice. >>>>> Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is merely our choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different races.
On 26/04/2023 07:40 pm, Brian wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact
that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always
has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding
him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him
turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church
Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who
regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard
that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and
indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
Most, if not all, religions think their adherents are ‘special’ / ‘ chosen’
or some equivalent. In some cases, it leads to conflict.
That does not undermine what I said.
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen". Anyone may join (Christianity is a proselytising and
evangelical idea).
On 27 Apr 2023 at 12:51:23 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 11:58, Max Demian wrote:
ISTR that ...
I won't repeat the defamatory statement. Is it wise to defame someone
at all, let alone someone with an awful lot of money to spend on
lawyers, should he choose?
It's not just a question of wisdom, though. He's not here to defend
himself, so it's unfair to make OTT statements like that. Hedge fund
managers undertake similar trades all the time, so why did you pick on
this particular guy?
If people don't like capitalists making huge sums out of us and taking them to
their own country or a tax haven then they should stop voting conservative, rather then just picking on particular capitalists they don't happen to like for other reasons.
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> posted
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> posted
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
It was.
The Kaiser was known for his anti-Semitism. He blamed the Jews for the
defeat of Germany in WW1. This was exploited by the German National
Socialist Party.
Austria was far from a comfortable place for Jews long before WW2.
While France appeared more accepting, as the Dreyfus affair showed, there
was an underlying problem.
Without downplaying the murders committed by the Nazis, the USSR killed
more Jews over a longer period.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:35:24 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty >>>>>> well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in >>>>>> the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice >>>>> for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership >>>>> a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all >>>>> assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the >>>>> Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat >>>>> any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to >>>>> comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control >>>>> from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer >>>> regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority >>>> over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any >>>> country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty >>>> of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA.
Neat swerve.
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any
member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier
in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any
legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation
which applied in the Confederacy.
Since the Confederate forces were citizens of the USA the federal government could declare them guilty of insurrection, treason etc. Once the Germans had occupied a country they could declare anyone fighting them or the occupying power's local agents to be criminals. We could declare IRA fighters to be criminals because they were UK citizens. None of them could declare bona fide soldiers of a country they were at war with to be criminals. The one case I don't know the answer to is what the status of civilians attacking invading troops is if they are captured by the invading army. Not good, I would think.
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 07:40 pm, Brian wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 12:32 am, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to the fact >>>>>> that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist" religion always >>>>>> has and still does totally deny the *divinity* of Christ, regarding >>>>>> him as false Messiah,. Never mind turning him over to the Romans
and demanding they crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts
Christ as a prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to have him >>>>> turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be no Christian
religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of the
entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an insistence
on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all embracing Christianity
which was open to all comers (Marketing 101) was never exactly a
Public Relations masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring
animosity towards the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church >>>>>> Which was why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination
camps in largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German Lutherans who >>>>>> regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never heard >>>>> that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish circles (and
indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old Testament, and thus,
none of the New Testament, makes sense without it.
[ ... ]
Most, if not all, religions think their adherents are ‘special’ / ‘ chosen’
or some equivalent. In some cases, it leads to conflict.
That does not undermine what I said.
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen". Anyone may join (Christianity is a proselytising and
evangelical idea).
That seems rather contradictory. Why does it need to ‘spread’ its ideas?
“Hi you xyz’s, I’m here to tell you you’ve got it wrong. Join us or go to
Hell ( or the equivalent)“ Seems rather arrogant- whichever religion does it.
To varying degrees, you can convert to most religions. True, I believe the ‘strict’ Jews don’t accept converts but, like most religions, different branches take a different view.
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a >>>>>> third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice. >>>>> Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction.
I recall, from a documentary or a book, that the variation in human DNA across the races actually remarkably small. I believe, it was claimed, a wider variation had been found in large troupes of apes or monkeys.
So, while we look different etc, and have other ‘obvious’ features, are perhaps prone to certain conditions, etc, we aren’t that different.
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>9781447368861/ch004.xml
wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on
account of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally
encounter antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but
often rise to the top in their places of employment. Some of the
most successful lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for
black lawyers - they are very few, and it is far harder work for
them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly
phoney. No matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited
by Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just
reading his article. Because, far from it being just a bit of
antisemitic chanting at football matches, it turns out that Jews -
modern day Jews, here, in the UK - are more likely than most black
Britons to have been the victims of racist assault. To quote from
their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic
minority people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and
damage to property), with several ethnic minority groups having a
prevalence figure of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and
Jewish (31%) groups had the highest figures. High prevalence of
assault was also reported by people from the Black Caribbean
group and the Mixed White and Black African groups (both 19%),
and people from the Any Other Black group and White and Black
Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the
statistic for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for
"mixed white and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society.
However, the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on
social media.
And the EHRC used a very sweeping definition of antisemitic online
speech. An extract:
quote
diminished the scale or significance of the Holocaust expressed
support for Hitler or the Nazis compared Israelis to Hitler or the
Nazis described a 'witch hunt' in the Labour Party, or said that
complaints had been manufactured by the 'Israel lobby'
unquote
The first of these might be remarks founded on stupidity or ignorance
rather than antisemitism. The second is beyond doubt antisemitic. The
third, comparing the acts of the Israeli government or armed forces
to the actions of the Nazis, ought to be regarded as legitimate
argument and not to be regarded as antisemitism. The fourth includes
those who say, quite legitimately, that there is a "witch hunt"
inasmuch as people were being suspended or expelled merely for
criticising Israel.
And if I get into an online argument with an ignorant person who
claims that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust has been
greatly exaggerated, am I really entitled to chalk that up as an
antisemitic assault that I myself have suffered? I'd say, surely not.
Others will probably disagree.
Those who attend political demonstrations in support of Israel are
obviously likely to be subjected to offensive antisemitic jeers. And
those who attend football matches, probably likewise.
Black people are accustomed to being assaulted by police and security
guards - there is a strong prejudice which categorises them as
potential drug-dealers and thieves. I don't think any Jewish person
has been victimised in that way. Or has seen people cross the street
to avoid them on a dark night merely because of their face or
clothing.
I wonder where Jewish people are physically asssaulted. Could it be a
lot of assaults in certain very specific and limited geographical
areas? Are there places where any Jew would walk in fear of being
assaulted and if so, where and from whom?
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with
having a third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good
point. Surely the main issue should be trying to understand
various forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice. Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the
most prejudice doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a
secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this
group I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live
and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we
want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there
would be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed
body in the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in
TV fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different races.
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a >>>>>>> third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point. >>>>>> Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice. >>>>>> Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice >>>>>> doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group >>>>> I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry >>>>> separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between
individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different
races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can happen to
just any child, of any pair of parents, quite unpredictably and
uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
On 23/04/2023 20:46, pensive hamster wrote:
On Sunday, April 23, 2023 at 8:06:52?PM UTC+1, The Todal wrote:
I'm not sure if anyone has already started a thread about Diane
Abbott's letter, which has caused her suspension from the Labour
whip.
I don't think the letter was so unreasonable as to justify a
suspension, but it did justify her clarifying and apologising for
any offence caused to anybody.
quote
Racism is black and white
Tomiwa Owolade claims that Irish, Jewish and Traveller people all
suffer from racism (Racism in Britain is not a black and
white issue. Its far more complicated, Comment). They
undoubtedly experience prejudice. This is similar to racism and the
two words are often used as if they are interchangeable.
It is true that many types of white people with points of
difference, such as redheads, can experience this prejudice. But
they are not all their lives subject to racism. In pre-civil rights
America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers were not
required to sit at the back of the bus. In apartheid South Africa,
these groups were allowed to vote. And at the height of slavery,
there were no white-seeming people manacled on the slave ships.
Diane Abbott House of Commons, London SW1
I don't think Diane Abbott's letter was so unreasonable as to
justify a suspension either, but it does seem a bit muddled and
unclear.
I think she was trying to say that various (groups of) people can
experience racism or prejudice to some degree, which seems a
perfectly reasonable thing to say.
But her examples didn't seem all that well thought out. "In
pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and Travellers
were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
It's not very clear what she was on about. Images and metaphors and
similes are supposed to clarify the point being made, not to obscure
it.
I suppose politicians mostly tend to hang out with people who agree
with them, and thus perhaps may not always realise to what extent
their pronouncements may sometimes come across as a bit strange to
people of a different culture or worldview.
It reminds me of Whoopi Goldberg's comment that the Holocaust wasn't
about "race". I think it's possible that both she and Diane regard
race as black people / white people and not Jews / gentiles.
Which is perhaps just semantics. If the Nazis regarded Jews as part
of a distinct and different race from gentiles, then arguably it
really was about racism.
But it isn't antisemitic to say that the Holocaust wasn't about race.
It doesn't trivialise it. And the Holocaust isn't a tragedy that
somehow exceeds in importance the tragedy of slavery and apartheid
and civil rights abuses in the USA.
I think part of the problem is that many people today have quite
forgotten the civil rights movement in the USA, the lynchings of
black people, the fate of Emmett Till and Medgar Evers, the Ku Klux
Klan, the Birmingham church bombing. Easy to say that Hitler and the
Nazis were pure evil. Not so easy to recognise that many white
Americans were equally evil.
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen". Anyone may join (Christianity is a proselytising and
evangelical idea).
That seems rather contradictory. Why does it need to 'spread' its ideas?
Although you claim "black people are accustomed to being assaulted by
police and security guards", it may reflect a greater propensity for
blacks to engage in violent behaviour, as evidenced by official crime
and prison statistics.
<https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the- law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest#by-ethnicity>
I could not say I notice blacks in the UK are spontaneously physically attacked to any great extent (other than by other blacks in street
robbery and gang disputes). In some incidents those blacks in the
statistics may have been at least as culpable in starting the rumpus
but, as has sadly become too common, subsequently played the race card
to get exonerated.
In slightly different circumstances, Jussie Smollett went so far as to
stage a hoax racist attack on himself and then falsely reported it to
the police. This was to improve his popularity amongst his fans by
eliciting sympathy for being a "victim of racism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussie_Smollett#2019_hate_crime_hoax
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with having a >>>>>>>> third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point. >>>>>>> Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of prejudice. >>>>>>> Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice >>>>>>> doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group >>>>>> I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry >>>>>> separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would >>>> be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in >>>> the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV fiction. >>>
individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different
races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can happen
to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite unpredictably and
uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and genetic history of
those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
On 22:41 27 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with
having a third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the
prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point
she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good
point. Surely the main issue should be trying to understand
various forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice. Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the
most prejudice doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a
secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination
against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't
think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this
group I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live
and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we
want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and
black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there
would be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed
body in the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in
TV fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between
individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our choice to choose some of these differences as relating to
different races.
What biologists have said is they do not fully understand the genetics
which underlie the difference between peoples and therefore the current
level of understanding of genetics is not of practical use to form a biological distinction. That is quite different from saying there is no biological explanation. They note the boundaries of the purported races
have become too blurred for precise scientific use.
A few biologists have been gaslighted or sucuumbed to Stockholm syndrome (like the foolish marks attending the expensive Race2Dinner scam) but
these outliers do not form the mainstream opinion. Their research papers "doth protest too much" and are characterised by masses of excess detail designed to swamp the reader into confused submission. Take this paper for example written by sociologists and anthropologusts but not geneticists
and which I don't find in the major science databases nor does it appear
to have been accepted fro publication other than by a university
department.
""Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy" https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/soc_facpubs/39/
Marxist sociologists have leapt into this void to assert that if race is
not biological then it must be a sociological. However sociologists
haven't been able to offer a shred of scientific proof. All they have provided are crackpot sociological hypotheses passed off as science.
To varying degrees, you can convert to most religions. True, I believe the ‘strict’ Jews don’t accept converts but, like most religions, different branches take a different view.
On 28/04/2023 10:40 am, Brian wrote:
I recall, from a documentary or a book, that the variation in human DNA
across the races actually remarkably small. I believe, it was claimed, a
wider variation had been found in large troupes of apes or monkeys.
So, while we look different etc, and have other ‘obvious’ features, are >> perhaps prone to certain conditions, etc, we aren’t that different.
Indeed. I think it's often quoted as 99.9% of DNA shared with primates.
Clearly, 0.1% of DNA is very important as a proportion.
""Human races are not like dog breeds: refuting a racist analogy" https://digitalcommons.uri.edu/soc_facpubs/39/
On 28/04/2023 12:03, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:40 am, Brian wrote:
I recall, from a documentary or a book, that the variation in human DNA
across the races actually remarkably small. I believe, it was claimed, a >>> wider variation had been found in large troupes of apes or monkeys.
So, while we look different etc, and have other ‘obvious’ features, are >>> perhaps prone to certain conditions, etc, we aren’t that different.
Indeed. I think it's often quoted as 99.9% of DNA shared with primates.
Clearly, 0.1% of DNA is very important as a proportion.
That kind of percentage is rather meaningless as we share 50% of DNA
with a banana.
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:35:24 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty >>>>>> well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in >>>>>> the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice >>>>> for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership >>>>> a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all >>>>> assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to
apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the >>>>> Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat >>>>> any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to >>>>> comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer >>>> regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority >>>> over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any >>>> country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty >>>> of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA.
Neat swerve.
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any
member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier
in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any
legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation
which applied in the Confederacy.
Since the Confederate forces were citizens of the USA the federal government could declare them guilty of insurrection, treason etc. Once the Germans had occupied a country they could declare anyone fighting them or the occupying power's local agents to be criminals. We could declare IRA fighters to be criminals because they were UK citizens. None of them could declare bona fide soldiers of a country they were at war with to be criminals. The one case I don't know the answer to is what the status of civilians attacking invading troops is if they are captured by the invading army. Not good, I would think.
Marxist sociologists have leapt into this void to assert that if
race is not biological then it must be a sociological. However
sociologists
haven't been able to offer a shred of scientific proof. All they have provided are crackpot sociological hypotheses passed off as science.
The number of African slaves transported to the United States was significantly less than the number of Jews (and other minority groups)
lost in the Holocaust.
Nor was the outcome comparable: the purpose of the Holocaust was death
and extermination whereas the purpose of slavery was make use of live
slave labour. As David Starkey famously said, slavery was not genocide,
and he clumsily went on to observe how very many slave-descended blacks
now live in America.
Out of a total 11 million slaves transported across the Atlantic from
Africa, only a fraction totalling 400,000 slaves were taken to America.
(Much later Africans transported to the Caribbean started moving to the United States.)
Isn't it better to compare the Holocaust with the enslavement of
millions of Africans in their home country? One could add to the 11
million Africans enslaved for the Transatlantic Trade, an almost equal
number of Africans enslaved for the Indian Ocean Slave Trade.
As David Starkey famously said, slavery was not genocide,
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with
having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus"
in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and
Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was
far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good point. >>>>>>>> Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various
forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most prejudice >>>>>>>> doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called
racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this group >>>>>>> I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and marry >>>>>>> separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back.
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there would >>>>> be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed body in >>>>> the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV
fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between
individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different
races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can happen
to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite unpredictably and
uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and genetic history of
those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such
as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority
black population?
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Brian wrote:
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
"billy bookcase" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Indeed. Which historically was not entirely unconnected to
the fact that the Jewish Religion, the original *Monotheist"
religion always has and still does totally deny the
*divinity* of Christ, regarding him as false Messiah,. Never
mind turning him over to the Romans and demanding they
crucify him Unlike say Islam which accepts Christ as a
prophet.
I have read the theory that Jesus collaborated with Judas to
have him turned over to the Romans. Otherwise there might be
no Christian religion.
That's *some* conspiracy theory!
So that denying the entire basis of the dominant religion of
the entire Continent for say 18 centuries, along with an
insistence on being the Chosen Race - unlike the all
embracing Christianity which was open to all comers
(Marketing 101) was never exactly a Public Relations
masterstroke, was it ? Hence the enduring animosity towards
the Jews shown especially by the Catholic Church Which was
why the Nazis decided on siting their extermination camps in
largely Catholic Poland. Whereas the same doctrinal
animosity didn't necessarily still exist among German
Lutherans who regarded Catholicism and all it stood for, as
essentially corrupt,.
I have heard Jews called the "chosen people," but I have never
heard that (much less insisted) from a Jewish person.
Do you mean directly?
The concept is generally held to within religious Jewish
circles (and indirectly within Christianity). None of the Old
Testament, and thus, none of the New Testament, makes sense
without it.
[ ... ]
Most, if not all, religions think their adherents are
‘special’ / ‘ chosen’ or some equivalent. In some
cases, it leads to conflict.
That does not undermine what I said.
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians
being "chosen". Anyone may join (Christianity is a proselytising
and evangelical idea).
That seems rather contradictory. Why does it need to ‘spread’
its ideas?
“Hi you xyz’s, I’m here to tell you you’ve got it wrong.
Join us or go to Hell ( or the equivalent)“ Seems rather
arrogant- whichever religion does it.
To varying degrees, you can convert to most religions. True, I
believe the ‘strict’ Jews don’t accept converts but, like
most religions, different branches take a different view.
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
On 28/04/2023 10:18, Brian wrote:As a matter of interest, is this possibility equally open to women? My limited understanding, which may well be tainted by anti-semitic commentators, was
To varying degrees, you can convert to most religions. True, I believe the >> ‘strict’ Jews don’t accept converts but, like most religions, different
branches take a different view.
It's time-consuming to undergo an orthodox conversion - two or three
years - and it takes a lot of commitment, but I know several people who
have done it.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kavf2hFke1pU1@mid.individual.net...
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
You might think this would be a good reason not to bother with religion
at all but apparenyly not. ( More research needed, clearly)
bb
.
On 27/04/2023 08:22 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 12:51:45 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 21:27:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of >>>> Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s >>>>>>> America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British >>>>>>> Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened
many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable
efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane >>>>> Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
No, not at all. Anyone in the UK is perfectly entitled to complain about the
treatment being meted out to any oppressed group by any regime, anywhere in >>> the world. But what they can't do is claim that they, personally, are being >>> oppressed or victimised by it, other than in a metaphorical sense.
It currently isn't safe to be a foreigner, particularly with a white skin, >>> in Sudan. That's why European and American governments are doing their best >>> to evacuate their citizens. But none of that has any direct effect on me, >>> here in my comfortable house in the UK. That doesn't mean I can't point out >>> the human rights abuses being perpetrated in Sudan. It just means that I >>> can't claim to be a victim of them.
Mark
Actually it is considerably less safe in Sudan to have a black skin,
especially if you're not a foreigner but live in Darfur.
You have just utilised the arguments advanced by the White Lives Also
Matter (a/k/a All Lives Matter) campaign.
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:32:55 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 08:22 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 12:51:45 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 21:27:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of >>>>> Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s >>>>>>>> America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British
Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened
many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane >>>>>> Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
No, not at all. Anyone in the UK is perfectly entitled to complain about the
treatment being meted out to any oppressed group by any regime, anywhere in
the world. But what they can't do is claim that they, personally, are being
oppressed or victimised by it, other than in a metaphorical sense.
It currently isn't safe to be a foreigner, particularly with a white skin, >>>> in Sudan. That's why European and American governments are doing their best
to evacuate their citizens. But none of that has any direct effect on me, >>>> here in my comfortable house in the UK. That doesn't mean I can't point out
the human rights abuses being perpetrated in Sudan. It just means that I >>>> can't claim to be a victim of them.
Mark
Actually it is considerably less safe in Sudan to have a black skin,
especially if you're not a foreigner but live in Darfur.
You have just utilised the arguments advanced by the White Lives Also
Matter (a/k/a All Lives Matter) campaign.
Not really! You seem to be assuming that the majority of the population of Sudan aren't white. They are (more or less, I am not a specialist in racial identities) arabs, who I thought were supposed to be white - if a bit backward. You believers in race will have tell me - but they most certainly are not black.
On 28 Apr 2023 at 18:29:51 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kavf2hFke1pU1@mid.individual.net...
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
You might think this would be a good reason not to bother with religion
at all but apparenyly not. ( More research needed, clearly)
bb
.
That of course is the classic conundrum of omniscience or determinism
versus
free will. But for us practical people the fact that the success or
otherwise
of our striving is pre-determined should not stop us doing our best.
On 09:22 25 Apr 2023, The Todal said:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com>9781447368861/ch004.xml
wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on
account of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally
encounter antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but
often rise to the top in their places of employment. Some of the
most successful lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for
black lawyers - they are very few, and it is far harder work for
them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly
phoney. No matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited
by Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just
reading his article. Because, far from it being just a bit of
antisemitic chanting at football matches, it turns out that Jews -
modern day Jews, here, in the UK - are more likely than most black
Britons to have been the victims of racist assault. To quote from
their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic
minority people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and
damage to property), with several ethnic minority groups having a
prevalence figure of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and
Jewish (31%) groups had the highest figures. High prevalence of
assault was also reported by people from the Black Caribbean
group and the Mixed White and Black African groups (both 19%),
and people from the Any Other Black group and White and Black
Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
The data used by the EVENS study, referred to by Tomiwa Owolade in his Guardian article which Diane Abbott responded to, is to be published
soon.
<https://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/research/projects/evens/code-research-projects-evens-data/>
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the
statistic for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for
"physical attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for
"mixed white and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society.
However, the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on
social media.
And the EHRC used a very sweeping definition of antisemitic online
speech. An extract:
quote
diminished the scale or significance of the Holocaust expressed
support for Hitler or the Nazis compared Israelis to Hitler or the
Nazis described a 'witch hunt' in the Labour Party, or said that
complaints had been manufactured by the 'Israel lobby'
unquote
The first of these might be remarks founded on stupidity or ignorance
rather than antisemitism. The second is beyond doubt antisemitic. The
third, comparing the acts of the Israeli government or armed forces
to the actions of the Nazis, ought to be regarded as legitimate
argument and not to be regarded as antisemitism. The fourth includes
those who say, quite legitimately, that there is a "witch hunt"
inasmuch as people were being suspended or expelled merely for
criticising Israel.
And if I get into an online argument with an ignorant person who
claims that the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust has been
greatly exaggerated, am I really entitled to chalk that up as an
antisemitic assault that I myself have suffered? I'd say, surely not.
Others will probably disagree.
Those who attend political demonstrations in support of Israel are
obviously likely to be subjected to offensive antisemitic jeers. And
those who attend football matches, probably likewise.
Black people are accustomed to being assaulted by police and security
guards - there is a strong prejudice which categorises them as
potential drug-dealers and thieves. I don't think any Jewish person
has been victimised in that way. Or has seen people cross the street
to avoid them on a dark night merely because of their face or
clothing.
I wonder where Jewish people are physically asssaulted. Could it be a
lot of assaults in certain very specific and limited geographical
areas? Are there places where any Jew would walk in fear of being
assaulted and if so, where and from whom?
Although you claim "black people are accustomed to being assaulted by
police and security guards", it may reflect a greater propensity for
blacks to engage in violent behaviour, as evidenced by official crime
and prison statistics.
<https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/crime-justice-and-the-law/policing/number-of-arrests/latest#by-ethnicity>
I could not say I notice blacks in the UK are spontaneously physically attacked to any great extent (other than by other blacks in street
robbery and gang disputes). In some incidents those blacks in the
statistics may have been at least as culpable in starting the rumpus
but, as has sadly become too common, subsequently played the race card
to get exonerated.
In slightly different circumstances, Jussie Smollett went so far as to
stage a hoax racist attack on himself and then falsely reported it to
the police. This was to improve his popularity amongst his fans by
eliciting sympathy for being a "victim of racism".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jussie_Smollett#2019_hate_crime_hoax
On 27 Apr 2023 at 12:51:23 BST, "GB" wrote:
It's not just a question of wisdom, though. He's not here to defend himself, so it's unfair to make OTT statements like that. Hedge fund managers undertake similar trades all the time, so why did you pick on
this particular guy?
If people don't like capitalists making huge sums out of us and taking them to
their own country or a tax haven then they should stop voting conservative, rather then just picking on particular capitalists they don't happen to like for other reasons.
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>>>>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>> having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>> point.My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most
prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue. >>>>>>>
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>> group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and >>>>>>>> marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back. >>>>>
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there
would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed
body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV
fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between
individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different
races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and
genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such
as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established
to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
On 28 Apr 2023 at 14:55:45 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:18, Brian wrote:As a matter of interest, is this possibility equally open to women?
To varying degrees, you can convert to most religions. True, I believe the >>> ‘strict’ Jews don’t accept converts but, like most religions, different
branches take a different view.
It's time-consuming to undergo an orthodox conversion - two or three
years - and it takes a lot of commitment, but I know several people who
have done it.
My limited
understanding, which may well be tainted by anti-semitic commentators, was that it was harder.
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kb2kinF4usuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28 Apr 2023 at 18:29:51 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kavf2hFke1pU1@mid.individual.net...
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
You might think this would be a good reason not to bother with religion
at all but apparenyly not. ( More research needed, clearly)
bb
.
That of course is the classic conundrum of omniscience or determinism
versus
free will. But for us practical people the fact that the success or
otherwise
of our striving is pre-determined should not stop us doing our best.
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be free, that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
The point is that Calvinism is a religion of self denial. But why should people
deny themselves things which are nor necessarily sinful in themselves,
mayber watching TV on Sundays, if they're not members of the Elect ?
bb
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
You might think this would be a good reason not to bother with religion
at all but apparenyly not. ( More research needed, clearly)
On 28/04/2023 12:03, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:40 am, Brian wrote:
I recall, from a documentary or a book, that the variation in human DNA
across the races actually remarkably small. I believe, it was claimed, a >>> wider variation had been found in large troupes of apes or monkeys.
So, while we look different etc, and have other ‘obvious’ features, are >>> perhaps prone to certain conditions, etc, we aren’t that different.
Indeed. I think it's often quoted as 99.9% of DNA shared with primates.
Clearly, 0.1% of DNA is very important as a proportion.
That kind of percentage is rather meaningless as we share 50% of DNA
with a banana.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
As David Starkey famously said, slavery was not genocide,
It was cultural genocide.
The equivalent of David Starkey
being dragged from his comfortable Hampstead, or wherever,
home, bundled into the back of a transit and transported
up North somewhere. To spend the rest of his life working
in a pork pie factory sat alongside Greg Wallace. With only
the "Sun" to read, only ITV game shows to watch, and all
his food out of Greggs - "for the rest of his life"
bb
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsAFF47C4E1EE0A91F3A2@135.181.20.170...
Marxist sociologists have leapt into this void to assert that if
race is not biological then it must be a sociological. However
sociologists
haven't been able to offer a shred of scientific proof. All they have
provided are crackpot sociological hypotheses passed off as science.
The concept of "race" is a purely historical phenomenon; which only arose when Europeans first became aware of, and then started to colonise other parts of the world.
With the Victorians joining in by indulging their
mania for attempting to classify almost everything. The Chinese on the
other always simply saw themselves as being superior to anyone else,
should they even exist. And more or less left it at that.
bb
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:35:24 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction >>>>>>>> onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty >>>>>>> well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in >>>>>>> the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for
treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military
forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice >>>>>> for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership >>>>>> a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all >>>>>> assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to >>>>>> apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the >>>>>> Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat >>>>>> any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to >>>>>> comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer >>>>> regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority >>>>> over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any >>>>> country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty >>>>> of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA.
Neat swerve.
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any
member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier
in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any
legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation
which applied in the Confederacy.
Since the Confederate forces were citizens of the USA the federal government >> could declare them guilty of insurrection, treason etc. Once the Germans had >> occupied a country they could declare anyone fighting them or the occupying >> power's local agents to be criminals. We could declare IRA fighters to be
criminals because they were UK citizens. None of them could declare bona fide
soldiers of a country they were at war with to be criminals. The one case I >> don't know the answer to is what the status of civilians attacking invading >> troops is if they are captured by the invading army. Not good, I would think.
The issue wasn’t so much slavery in the existing Southern States. Key was the issue of territories yet to join the Union. The anti- slavers were keen to ensure new member States were free of slavery. That would tip the
balance, leading to pressure on the slave states in the future.
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com>
wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>>>>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>> having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison.
She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus."
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that
experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>> point.My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most
prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue. >>>>>>>
different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a
different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>> group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and >>>>>>>> marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back. >>>>>
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between
visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there
would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed
body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV
fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between
individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different
races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and
genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such
as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established
to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
On 28 Apr 2023 at 10:32:55 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 27/04/2023 08:22 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 12:51:45 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 21:27:17 GMT, Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 21:54:25 BST, "Mark Goodge"
<usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 25 Apr 2023 10:33:41 +0100, Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:So it's about time we stopped complaining about the chinese treatment of >>>>> Uighurs (sp?) and Tibetans then; it doesn't affect us.
On 2023-04-24, Mark Goodge wrote:
Diane Abbott is a British citizen, born in Britain. She has never had to sit
at the back of a bus because of her skin colour. And her immediate forebears
were Jamaican, not American. To her, the civil rights issues of 1960s >>>>>>>> America are as remote, if not more so, than the Holocaust is to British
Jews. For her to claim victimhood on the basis of something that happened
many years ago in a foreign country is laughably absurd.
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction
onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
But that still doesn't affect Diane Abbott, though. What affects Diane >>>>>> Abbott is racism here, in the UK.
No, not at all. Anyone in the UK is perfectly entitled to complain about the
treatment being meted out to any oppressed group by any regime, anywhere in
the world. But what they can't do is claim that they, personally, are being
oppressed or victimised by it, other than in a metaphorical sense.
It currently isn't safe to be a foreigner, particularly with a white skin, >>>> in Sudan. That's why European and American governments are doing their best
to evacuate their citizens. But none of that has any direct effect on me, >>>> here in my comfortable house in the UK. That doesn't mean I can't point out
the human rights abuses being perpetrated in Sudan. It just means that I >>>> can't claim to be a victim of them.
Mark
Actually it is considerably less safe in Sudan to have a black skin,
especially if you're not a foreigner but live in Darfur.
You have just utilised the arguments advanced by the White Lives Also
Matter (a/k/a All Lives Matter) campaign.
Not really! You seem to be assuming that the majority of the population of Sudan aren't white. They are (more or less, I am not a specialist in racial identities) arabs, who I thought were supposed to be white - if a bit backward. You believers in race will have tell me - but they most certainly are not black.
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such as
that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established to
be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsAFF47C80825C91F3A2@135.181.20.170...
The number of African slaves transported to the United States was
significantly less than the number of Jews (and other minority
groups) lost in the Holocaust.
The United States was founded in 1776. African slaves had first been tranported to the American colonies in the 1620's and by the 1670's
were extensively used on tobacco plantations. Assuming the colonists
had started breeding their own, along with 100 years worth of regular
fresh arrivals, by 1776 you'd imagine the place would be pretty well
full up.
Nor was the outcome comparable: the purpose of the Holocaust was
death and extermination whereas the purpose of slavery was make use
of live slave labour. As David Starkey famously said, slavery was
not genocide, and he clumsily went on to observe how very many
slave-descended blacks now live in America.
Out of a total 11 million slaves transported across the Atlantic
from Africa, only a fraction totalling 400,000 slaves were taken to
America. (Much later Africans transported to the Caribbean started
moving to the United States.)
Non Sequiter. (See above)
On 28/04/2023 20:15, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 28 Apr 2023 at 14:55:45 BST, "GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.invalid> wrote: >>
On 28/04/2023 10:18, Brian wrote:As a matter of interest, is this possibility equally open to women?
To varying degrees, you can convert to most religions. True, I believe the >>>> ‘strict’ Jews don’t accept converts but, like most religions, different
branches take a different view.
It's time-consuming to undergo an orthodox conversion - two or three
years - and it takes a lot of commitment, but I know several people who
have done it.
Yes
My limited
understanding, which may well be tainted by anti-semitic commentators, was >> that it was harder.
I can't see why it would be.
On 28/04/2023 06:29 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
I have heard the phrase "The Elect" and know what it means, yes. But I
can't say I'm totally familiar with its origins. For one thing, it was mentioned as a belief by certain characters in the novel "Her Benny" by
Silas K. Hocking, which I read in the mid-sixties.
<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43325/43325-h/43325-h.htm>
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
That is incompatible with mainstream Christian belief. In fact, since it appears to be directly contrary to the reported and recorded teachings
of Christ, it cannot seriously be regarded as a Christian belief.
You might think this would be a good reason not to bother with religion
at all but apparenyly not. ( More research needed, clearly)
On 28/04/2023 21:19, billy bookcase wrote:
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message
news:kb2kinF4usuU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28 Apr 2023 at 18:29:51 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>>
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message
news:kavf2hFke1pU1@mid.individual.net...
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
You might think this would be a good reason not to bother with religion >>>> at all but apparenyly not. ( More research needed, clearly)
bb
.
That of course is the classic conundrum of omniscience or determinism
versus
free will. But for us practical people the fact that the success or
otherwise
of our striving is pre-determined should not stop us doing our best.
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be free, >> that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does
free will come into that?
The point is that Calvinism is a religion of self denial. But why should
people
deny themselves things which are nor necessarily sinful in themselves,
mayber watching TV on Sundays, if they're not members of the Elect ?
bb
On 28/04/2023 04:08 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>>>>>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>>> having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison. >>>>>>>>>> She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus." >>>>>>>>
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>> experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>>> point.My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely >>>>>>>>> different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most
prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue. >>>>>>>>
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>>>>>>>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>>> group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and >>>>>>>>> marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back. >>>>>>
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between >>>>>>> visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there >>>>>>> would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed
body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV
fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between >>>>>> individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different >>>>>> races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and
genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such
as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established
to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
Possibly. Such things haven't been available for all that long. The
concepts I was referring to have been familiar for longer than that.
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
On 28/04/2023 21:19, billy bookcase wrote:best.
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be
free,
that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does
free will come into that?
On 28/04/2023 04:08 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>>> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>>>>>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>>> having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison. >>>>>>>>>> She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus." >>>>>>>>
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>> experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>>> point.My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely >>>>>>>>> different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of
prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most
prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue. >>>>>>>>
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>>>>>>>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>>> group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and >>>>>>>>> marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to
I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back. >>>>>>
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between >>>>>>> visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there >>>>>>> would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed
body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV
fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between >>>>>> individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is
merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to
different races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and
genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/ >>>
such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established
to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
Possibly. Such things haven't been available for all that long. The
concepts I was referring to have been familiar for longer than that.
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
On 28/04/2023 06:29 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
I have heard the phrase "The Elect" and know what it means, yes. But I
can't say I'm totally familiar with its origins. For one thing, it was mentioned as a belief by certain characters in the novel "Her Benny" by
Silas K. Hocking, which I read in the mid-sixties.
<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43325/43325-h/43325-h.htm>
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
That is incompatible with mainstream Christian belief. In fact, since it appears to be directly contrary to the reported and recorded teachings of Christ, it cannot seriously be regarded as a Christian belief.
On 15:08 28 Apr 2023, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF47C80825C91F3A2@135.181.20.170...
The number of African slaves transported to the United States was
significantly less than the number of Jews (and other minority
groups) lost in the Holocaust.
The United States was founded in 1776. African slaves had first been
tranported to the American colonies in the 1620's and by the 1670's
were extensively used on tobacco plantations. Assuming the colonists
had started breeding their own, along with 100 years worth of regular
fresh arrivals, by 1776 you'd imagine the place would be pretty well
full up.
If you re-read what I wrote below (which you appear to have
misinterpreted as a "non sequitur"), you will see that only 400,000
slaves were transported to north America during the entire
Transatlantic Slave Trade.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Destinations_and_fl ags_of_carriers>
This slave population had grown to 4 million by the time America
abolished slavery in 1865,
Furthermore, the death rate amongst slaves taken across the Atlantic
was no higher than amongst non-slave crew members. Presumably this is
because no owner would wish his recently purchased slaves to die before
he could make use of them.
In other words, these figures support my point that there were far
fewer slaves transported across the Atlantic than those who perished in
the Holocaust.
"GB" wrote
On 28/04/2023 21:19, billy bookcase wrote:
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be
free,
that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does
free will come into that?
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
In just the same way that people don't spend their whole lives
contemplating the inescapable reality that all life is in fact totally
random
and purposeless.
Even Brian Cox.
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time.
Where does free will come into that?
On 29 Apr 2023 at 12:15:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 04:08 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such >>>> as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>>>> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>>>>>>
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>>>> having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison. >>>>>>>>>>> She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus." >>>>>>>>>
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>>> experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>>>> point.My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely >>>>>>>>>> different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. While
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of >>>>>>>>>>> prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most >>>>>>>>>>> prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue. >>>>>>>>>
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>>>>>>>>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>>>> group
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and >>>>>>>>>> marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to >>>>>>>>>
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so back. >>>>>>>
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between >>>>>>>> visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there >>>>>>>> would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed >>>>>>>> body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV >>>>>>>> fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between >>>>>>> individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is >>>>>>> merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different >>>>>>> races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and
genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/ >>>>
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established
to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
Possibly. Such things haven't been available for all that long. The
concepts I was referring to have been familiar for longer than that.
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsAFF58BE0BC4E791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
On 15:08 28 Apr 2023, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF47C80825C91F3A2@135.181.20.170...
The number of African slaves transported to the United States was
significantly less than the number of Jews (and other minority
groups) lost in the Holocaust.
The United States was founded in 1776. African slaves had first been
tranported to the American colonies in the 1620's and by the 1670's
were extensively used on tobacco plantations. Assuming the colonists
had started breeding their own, along with 100 years worth of regular
fresh arrivals, by 1776 you'd imagine the place would be pretty well
full up.
If you re-read what I wrote below (which you appear to have
misinterpreted as a "non sequitur"), you will see that only 400,000
slaves were transported to north America during the entire
Transatlantic Slave Trade.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Destinations_and_fl
ags_of_carriers>
This slave population had grown to 4 million by the time America
abolished slavery in 1865,
That's just one single generation of slaves in 1865.
What about all the preceding generations of slaves who were born
and died over the preceding 150 odd years ? Don't they count too ?
Furthermore, the death rate amongst slaves taken across the Atlantic
was no higher than amongst non-slave crew members. Presumably this is
because no owner would wish his recently purchased slaves to die before
he could make use of them.
In other words, these figures support my point that there were far
fewer slaves transported across the Atlantic than those who perished in
the Holocaust.
So what ? So the countless number of slaves who spent their entire
lives working away on plantations both in the Caribbean and America
for no wages at all, only their board and keep, are of no concern
at all ?
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kb4d0uFd5dsU1@mid.individual.net...
On 28/04/2023 06:29 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
In any case, Christianity itself has no concept of Christians being
"chosen".
You've presumably never heard of Calvinism then and "The Elect" ?
I have heard the phrase "The Elect" and know what it means, yes. But I
can't say I'm totally familiar with its origins. For one thing, it was
mentioned as a belief by certain characters in the novel "Her Benny" by
Silas K. Hocking, which I read in the mid-sixties.
<https://www.gutenberg.org/files/43325/43325-h/43325-h.htm>
Being all knowing, God already knows who is going to be saved
even before they were born.
That is incompatible with mainstream Christian belief. In fact, since it
appears to be directly contrary to the reported and recorded teachings of
Christ, it cannot seriously be regarded as a Christian belief.
But when you think about it, if God is all knowing then He (or She, or
It ) must already know the future.
I assume that devout Calvinists (who didn't used to watch TV on Sundays
in some parts of Scotland) reason that if they're good Calvinists then
that must mean they've been part of the "Elect" all along.
At least so they hope.
On 29/04/2023 12:15, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 04:08 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent"
<jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
GB wrote:
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>>>> having a third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison. >>>>>>>>>>> She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus." >>>>>>>>>>>> and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>>> experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>>>> point.
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of >>>>>>>>>>> prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most >>>>>>>>>>> prejudice doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a
secondary issue.
My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely >>>>>>>>>> different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. WhileI wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>>>>>>>>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>>>> group I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live >>>>>>>>>> and marry separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we >>>>>>>>>> want to
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so >>>>>>>> back.
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites
biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between >>>>>>>> visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there >>>>>>>> would be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed >>>>>>>> body in the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in >>>>>>>> TV fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between >>>>>>> individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is >>>>>>> merely our choice to choose some of these differences as relating to >>>>>>> different races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and
genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences
such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been
established to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA
match>
Possibly. Such things haven't been available for all that long. The
concepts I was referring to have been familiar for longer than that.
The article included. "Hugh, the husband doesn't understand, because his father, a historian, had traced their family tree and there were no African-Americans. Under pressure from his family, he forced his wife to
take a DNA test, but the results proved that he was the father and that
his wife had not cheated on him."
So I am left wondering what you meant with regards the article and what
it had to do with "concepts I was referring"?
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
A great deal. You obviously didn't fully read the article. Scroll down to:
2. Mary and Joseph Smith in Arkansas: white parents, black child
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> posted
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:48:16 PM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" wrote
On 28/04/2023 21:19, billy bookcase wrote:
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be
free,
that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does
free will come into that?
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
In just the same way that people don't spend their whole lives
contemplating the inescapable reality that all life is in fact
totally random
Oh no it isn't, life follows the laws of physics with an atomic
level of precision. (It seems a bit more unpredictable at a
sub-atomic level.)
On 28/04/2023 05:46 pm, Brian wrote:
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:35:24 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>>Neat swerve.
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction >>>>>>>>> onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty >>>>>>>> well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in
the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for >>>>>>> treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military >>>>>>> forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice >>>>>>> for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership >>>>>>> a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all >>>>>>> assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to >>>>>>> apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>>>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the >>>>>>> Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat >>>>>>> any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to >>>>>>> comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control
from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer >>>>>> regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority >>>>>> over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any >>>>>> country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty >>>>>> of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA. >>>>
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any >>>> member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier >>>> in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any >>>> legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation >>>> which applied in the Confederacy.
Since the Confederate forces were citizens of the USA the federal government
could declare them guilty of insurrection, treason etc. Once the Germans had
occupied a country they could declare anyone fighting them or the occupying >>> power's local agents to be criminals. We could declare IRA fighters to be >>> criminals because they were UK citizens. None of them could declare bona fide
soldiers of a country they were at war with to be criminals. The one case I >>> don't know the answer to is what the status of civilians attacking invading >>> troops is if they are captured by the invading army. Not good, I would think.
The issue wasn’t so much slavery in the existing Southern States. Key was >> the issue of territories yet to join the Union. The anti- slavers were keen >> to ensure new member States were free of slavery. That would tip the
balance, leading to pressure on the slave states in the future.
That is certainly the history of which I am aware. It was essentially
about whether the Mason-Dixon Line should be extended across the
continent. That question had already been the cause of at least one
state's northern boundary being moved south.
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:28 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> posted
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
It was common across much of Europe, including the UK. It was somewhat less prevalent here than in some other places, but was nonetheless a factor.
Benjamin Disraeli, the UK's first ethnic minority Prime Minister, had to formally renounce his Jewish faith in order to enter politics
On 29/04/2023 22:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:28 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard <Ben@nowhere.com> >> wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> postedIt was common across much of Europe, including the UK. It was
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
somewhat less
prevalent here than in some other places, but was nonetheless a factor.
In much the same there were calls that bankers should be hung after the >2007/8 banking crisis. There always has to be a scapegoat from the
left, normally people with strong links to money.
Benjamin Disraeli, the UK's first ethnic minority Prime Minister, had to
formally renounce his Jewish faith in order to enter politics
Can you provide a cite for that? Was there a law at the time in
question that stopped him "entering politics"?
In message <u2k4ls$34ppi$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> writes
On 29/04/2023 22:33, Mark Goodge wrote:As it happens he was baptised by his father at the age of 12 after he
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:28 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
<Ben@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> postedIt was common across much of Europe, including the UK. It was
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long
before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a >>>> result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
somewhat less
prevalent here than in some other places, but was nonetheless a factor.
In much the same there were calls that bankers should be hung after
the 2007/8 banking crisis. There always has to be a scapegoat from the
left, normally people with strong links to money.
Benjamin Disraeli, the UK's first ethnic minority Prime Minister, had to >>> formally renounce his Jewish faith in order to enter politics
Can you provide a cite for that? Was there a law at the time in
question that stopped him "entering politics"?
had had an argument with his synagogue (not on religious grounds) LONG before he became an MP; although at the time the MPs oath of allegiance
had a Christian element which a person of another faith might have
difficulty in swearing
If you re-read what I wrote below (which you appear to have
misinterpreted as a "non sequitur"), you will see that only 400,000
slaves were transported to north America during the entire
Transatlantic Slave Trade.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Destinations_and_flags_of_carriers>
This slave population had grown to 4 million by the time America
abolished slavery in 1865, out of a total population of 31 million.
Furthermore, the death rate amongst slaves taken across the Atlantic
was no higher than amongst non-slave crew members. Presumably this is
because no owner would wish his recently purchased slaves to die before
he could make use of them.
In other words, these figures support my point that there were far
fewer slaves transported across the Atlantic than those who perished in
the Holocaust.
Nor was the outcome comparable: the purpose of the Holocaust was
death and extermination whereas the purpose of slavery was make use
of live slave labour. As David Starkey famously said, slavery was
not genocide, and he clumsily went on to observe how very many
slave-descended blacks now live in America.
Out of a total 11 million slaves transported across the Atlantic
from Africa, only a fraction totalling 400,000 slaves were taken to
America. (Much later Africans transported to the Caribbean started
moving to the United States.)
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be free, >> that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time.
Where does
free will come into that?
On 30/04/2023 00:39, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message <u2k4ls$34ppi$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> writes >>> On 29/04/2023 22:33, Mark Goodge wrote:
As it happens he was baptised by his father at the age of 12 after heOn Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:28 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard >>>><Ben@nowhere.com>In much the same there were calls that bankers should be hung after
wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> postedIt was common across much of Europe, including the UK. It was >>>>somewhat less
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to >>>>>> start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They >>>>>> had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the >>>>>> cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long >>>>> before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not a >>>>> result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
prevalent here than in some other places, but was nonetheless a factor. >>>
the 2007/8 banking crisis. There always has to be a scapegoat from
the left, normally people with strong links to money.
Benjamin Disraeli, the UK's first ethnic minority Prime Minister, had to >>>> formally renounce his Jewish faith in order to enter politics
Can you provide a cite for that? Was there a law at the time in
question that stopped him "entering politics"?
had had an argument with his synagogue (not on religious grounds)
LONG before he became an MP; although at the time the MPs oath of >>allegiance had a Christian element which a person of another faith
might have difficulty in swearing
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway.
I am aware there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty,
such as Sinn Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading
and I feel better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn
Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:d56c11a5-6cd4-4dd6-a9a8-10361a69a0d7n@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:48:16 PM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" wrote
On 28/04/2023 21:19, billy bookcase wrote:
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be >>>>> free,
that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does >>>> free will come into that?
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
It's got nothing to do with solopsism whatsoever
Unless you believe that colours can exists independent
of any perceptual apparatus to perceive them.
The very fact that various animals and people with defective
vision distinguish different colours when exposed to the
same stimuli, undermines any possibility of colours having
"independent existence".
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ? "Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn
Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
JNugent <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 05:46 pm, Brian wrote:Hmm, I thought the MD line ‘question’ was overtaken by events when Virginia
Roger Hayter <roger@hayter.org> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:35:24 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote: >>>>
On 26/04/2023 10:25 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 26 Apr 2023 at 16:38:00 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:Neat swerve.
On 26/04/2023 03:55 pm, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-26, Stuart O. Bronstein wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> wrote:
"To her", OK, but from 1945 onwards Germany has made considerable >>>>>>>>>> efforts to stamp out (Neo-)Nazism and prevent it from rising again, >>>>>>>>>> whereas the USA has manifestly failed (from the Reconstruction >>>>>>>>>> onwards) to purge racism against African-Americans among government >>>>>>>>>> officials, never mind the general population.
There was an attempt to do that in 1865. And it was working pretty >>>>>>>>> well until it was abandoned. Since then any progress against racism in
the US has been through the courts.
It wasn't a serious attempt, IMO.
The insurrectionists could have been convicted and sentenced for >>>>>>>> treason. The ones who had been serving in the lawful US military >>>>>>>> forces could have been convicted and sentenced under military justice >>>>>>>> for desertion and treason.
Congress could have passed laws during the war making slave-ownership >>>>>>>> a crime [1] punishable by life at hard labour and confiscation of all >>>>>>>> assets for redistribution to the slaves, with the same sentence to >>>>>>>> apply to any LEOs who enforced slavery [1], and permanently
disqualifying all slave-ownersm, former slave-owners, and their family >>>>>>>> members from serving on juries. And at the conclusion of the war, the >>>>>>>> Union Army could have been ordered to arrest them for trial and treat >>>>>>>> any resistance as ongoing combat.
[1] starting one day after the date of the legislation, of course (to >>>>>>>> comply with §9 ¶3 of the Constitution) but to be enforced
immediately after the forces of law and order regained control >>>>>>>> from the insurrectionists.
The whole point of that war was that the secessionist states no longer >>>>>>> regarded the Washington Congress as having any jurisdiction or authority
over them.
Creating a law which penalises one's enemy for things which are
otherwise lawful within their territory seems pretty drastic.
What if the Nazis had created a law which decreed that any member of any
country's armed forces who killed a German soldier in battle was guilty >>>>>>> of murder?
Or would that be Totally Different?
Unless, say, Bavaria had declared war on the rest of Germany, yes it would be
totally different. After all that's exactly what we did with the IRA. >>>>>
How about an answer to the question?
If, in 1939, Germany had purported to pass a law to the effect that any >>>>> member of any other country's armed forces who killed a German soldier >>>>> in battle (of any sort), was guilty of murder, would that have had any >>>>> legal effect?
It would be the same as the Union purporting to pass novel legislation >>>>> which applied in the Confederacy.
Since the Confederate forces were citizens of the USA the federal government
could declare them guilty of insurrection, treason etc. Once the Germans had
occupied a country they could declare anyone fighting them or the occupying
power's local agents to be criminals. We could declare IRA fighters to be >>>> criminals because they were UK citizens. None of them could declare bona fide
soldiers of a country they were at war with to be criminals. The one case I
don't know the answer to is what the status of civilians attacking invading
troops is if they are captured by the invading army. Not good, I would think.
The issue wasn’t so much slavery in the existing Southern States. Key was >>> the issue of territories yet to join the Union. The anti- slavers were keen >>> to ensure new member States were free of slavery. That would tip the
balance, leading to pressure on the slave states in the future.
That is certainly the history of which I am aware. It was essentially
about whether the Mason-Dixon Line should be extended across the
continent. That question had already been the cause of at least one
state's northern boundary being moved south.
split and West Virginia joined / stayed with the Union.
I confess, I’m basing the above on info from a visit to Atlanta in the 1980s, visiting a civil war museum and talking to an enthusiast I met.
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:d56c11a5-6cd4-4dd6-a9a8-10361a69a0d7n@googlegroups.com...
Oh no it isn't, life follows the laws of physics with an atomic
level of precision. (It seems a bit more unpredictable at a
sub-atomic level.)
On 30 Apr 2023 at 02:13:04 BST, Fredxx wrote:
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn
Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
I see from that article that the ECHR held that allegiance to a monarch is in fact a proxy for "an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support . . . the workings of representative democracy".
Can't quite work that one out myself . . .
On 30 Apr 2023 at 02:13:04 BST, Fredxx wrote:
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn
Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
I see from that article that the ECHR held that allegiance to a monarch is in fact a proxy for "an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support . . . the workings of representative democracy".
Can't quite work that one out myself . . .
On 30/04/2023 10:41, RJH wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 02:13:04 BST, Fredxx wrote:
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn >>> Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
I see from that article that the ECHR held that allegiance to a
monarch is in
fact a proxy for "an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional
principles
which support . . . the workings of representative democracy".
Can't quite work that one out myself . . .
I can understand the concept. As an MP you are a member of the King's government. Everything is constitutionally carried out by the king or on
his behalf but the overriding understanding is the King will observe and
sign off the laws passed by Parliament.
The Monarch is a proxy for the "UK government". I genuinely recommend
you look up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy
Therefore allegiance to a monarch is allegiance given to Parliament. If anyone, such as a Sinn Fein elected MP, wants to read anything else into
the oath, then it is their choice.
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
"pensive hamster" wrote
On Saturday, April 29, 2023, billy bookcase wrote:
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
It's got nothing to do with solopsism whatsoever
Unless you believe that colours can exists independent
of any perceptual apparatus to perceive them.
The very fact that various animals and people with defective
vision distinguish different colours when exposed to the
same stimuli, undermines any possibility of colours having
"independent existence".
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ?
"Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
In just the same way that people don't spend their whole lives
contemplating the inescapable reality that all life is in fact
totally random
Oh no it isn't, life follows the laws of physics with an atomic
level of precision. (It seems a bit more unpredictable at a
sub-atomic level.)
Oh dear ! Reducing any of the other sciences, biology, chemistry,
neurology etc to physics, is simply impossible.
As they use their
own concepts to describe the processes and phenomena which are
their subject matter. Reducing everything to atoms would simply
rob them of any explanatory value at all.
In message <u2kfav$36cdq$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> writes
On 30/04/2023 00:39, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message <u2k4ls$34ppi$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk>
writes
On 29/04/2023 22:33, Mark Goodge wrote:As it happens he was baptised by his father at the age of 12 after he
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:28 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
<Ben@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> postedIt was common across much of Europe, including the UK. It was somewhat >>>>> less
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason >>>>>>> to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. >>>>>>> They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the >>>>>>> cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long >>>>>> before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not >>>>>> a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
prevalent here than in some other places, but was nonetheless a
factor.
In much the same there were calls that bankers should be hung after the >>>> 2007/8 banking crisis. There always has to be a scapegoat from the
left, normally people with strong links to money.
Benjamin Disraeli, the UK's first ethnic minority Prime Minister, had >>>>> to
formally renounce his Jewish faith in order to enter politics
Can you provide a cite for that? Was there a law at the time in
question that stopped him "entering politics"?
had had an argument with his synagogue (not on religious grounds) LONG
before he became an MP; although at the time the MPs oath of allegiance
had a Christian element which a person of another faith might have
difficulty in swearing
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway.
If you look at Benjamin Disraeli's Wikipedia entry you will find reference
to his father Isaac D'Israeli's argument with his synagogue and Benjamin's baptism at 12
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:23:16 PM UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
Tony Blair used to talk about "tough on crime, tough
on the causes of crime."
Personally, I tend to think more attention should be
paid to the causes of crime, and not just to the
punishment of crime. There would seem to be various
(mostly social?) factors that tend to increase the
prevalence of crime. For example, closing down youth
clubs as part of a programme of austerity, may lead to
young men being less exposed to the influence of more
mature / wiser men, and thus more likely to be enticed
into joining drug gangs.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:23:16 PM UTC+1, Max Demian wrote:
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
Tony Blair used to talk about "tough on crime, tough
on the causes of crime."
Personally, I tend to think more attention should be
paid to the causes of crime, and not just to the
punishment of crime. There would seem to be various
(mostly social?) factors that tend to increase the
prevalence of crime. For example, closing down youth
clubs
as part of a programme of austerity, may lead to
young men being less exposed to the influence of more
mature / wiser men, and thus more likely to be enticed
into joining drug gangs.
But criminology is not an exact science, and "lock 'em
up and throw away the key" seems to be more of a vote
winner.
Arguably, people brought up within a stable and economically
secure household, may have more "free will" about whether
or not to become involved in crime.
On 30/04/2023 10:41, RJH wrote:
On 30 Apr 2023 at 02:13:04 BST, Fredxx wrote:
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn >>> Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
I see from that article that the ECHR held that allegiance to a
monarch is in
fact a proxy for "an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional
principles
which support . . . the workings of representative democracy".
Can't quite work that one out myself . . .
If I've got to swear allegiance to anyone, I'd rather it's to someone
with no power.
On 30 Apr 2023 at 02:13:04 BST, Fredxx wrote:
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway. I am aware
there are some aspects of allegiance that cause difficulty, such as Sinn
Fein taking up their seats. This makes interesting reading and I feel
better informed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_Allegiance_(United_Kingdom)
I see from that article that the ECHR held that allegiance to a monarch is in fact a proxy for "an affirmation of loyalty to the constitutional principles which support . . . the workings of representative democracy".
Can't quite work that one out myself . . .
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d56c11a5-6cd4-4dd6-a9a8-10361a69a0d7n@googlegroups.com...
On Saturday, April 29, 2023 at 4:48:16?PM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" wrote
On 28/04/2023 21:19, billy bookcase wrote:
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be >>>>>> free,
that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does >>>>> free will come into that?
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
It's got nothing to do with solopsism whatsoever
Unless you believe that colours can exists independent
of any perceptual apparatus to perceive them.
The very fact that various animals and people with defective
vision distinguish different colours when exposed to the
same stimuli, undermines any possibility of colours having
"independent existence".
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ? "Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Consciousness is perceived by the conscious entity. The problem is attributing it to anything else, especially different forms such as
animals and machines. We can't really *know* other than by analogy. I
can't think of a way to measure it.
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
We also have a notion of continuity of responsibility to justify punishing people many years after the crime was committed - even though almost all
of their physical body has been replaced - as in "Trigger's Broom"/"The
Ship of Theseus" (delete according to cultural pretension) - and the
person's personality, beliefs and tastes are likely to have changed extensively. (This is partly dealt with by various "statutes of
limitation", but I think that's done because evidence will have been lost
or witnesses will have forgotten rather than anything to do with the
suspect changing.)
[1] Actually punishment could be justified as a form of conditioning,
which would work if we were animals or non-sentient automata.
We seem to have free will, but the precursors to the decision can be
detected with fMRI. Perhaps it's something other than our conscious selves that actually possess it.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:17:40 AM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" wrote
On Saturday, April 29, 2023, billy bookcase wrote:
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
It's got nothing to do with solopsism whatsoever
Unless you believe that colours can exists independent
of any perceptual apparatus to perceive them.
You seem to have changed the criterion from "exist"
to "exist independently".
Does anything exist independently of whatever causes
and conditions give rise to its existence?
The sensation of olour is not purely created within a
person's brain, it arises partly as a result of photons
entering the eye.
The very fact that various animals and people with defective
vision distinguish different colours when exposed to the
same stimuli, undermines any possibility of colours having
"independent existence".
I wasn't suggesting that colours have"independent existence",
only that they exist. Even if they are only sensations within
a person's brain and conciousness, those sensations do
actually exist.
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ?
I was taking the proverbial. For rhetorical purposes.
"Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
In just the same way that people don't spend their whole lives
contemplating the inescapable reality that all life is in fact
totally random
Oh no it isn't, life follows the laws of physics with an atomic
level of precision. (It seems a bit more unpredictable at a
sub-atomic level.)
Oh dear ! Reducing any of the other sciences, biology, chemistry,
neurology etc to physics, is simply impossible.
Biology, chemistry, neurology all seem to be sub-categories
of physics. They all involve interactions between atoms subject
to various physical forces such as electrical fields, heat, gravity,
etc.
https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science
'... Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena
has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a
remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able
to account for all known phenomena.'
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote:
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote
billy bookcase wrote:
"GB" wrote
billy bookcase wrote:
Free will is different. Just so long as people feel themselves to be >>>>>>> free, that's all that really matters (Dr Johnson)
Your brain is a biological computer. Given the same set of inputs
repeatedly, it will come to the same conclusion every time. Where does >>>>>> free will come into that?
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
It's got nothing to do with solopsism whatsoever
Unless you believe that colours can exists independent
of any perceptual apparatus to perceive them.
The very fact that various animals and people with defective
vision distinguish different colours when exposed to the
same stimuli, undermines any possibility of colours having
"independent existence".
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ? "Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Consciousness is perceived by the conscious entity. The problem is
attributing it to anything else, especially different forms such as
animals and machines. We can't really *know* other than by analogy. I
can't think of a way to measure it.
I can't exactly see what the "problem" is, in attributing consciousness
to anything else.
If I go to poke a dog in the eye with a stick, and he moves away then
the normal assumption surely would be that the dog was indeed
conscious. Indeed I can't really see any "problem" at all in assuming
all dogs are conscious. Or fish or spiders for that matter.
What difference does it make ?
The fact that some owners may go on from that, to assume that their
dogs actually understand what they say to them is indeed highly
implausible and unfortunate, But just as long as they don't expect
other people to necessarily agree with them I can't really see
what harm is being done. Even if they do leave all their money
to the dog in their will.
"Bryan Morris" <Bryan@brymor.me.uk> wrote in message >news:cbCk8KB6oiTkFwQs@this.machine...
In message <u2kfav$36cdq$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk> writes >>>On 30/04/2023 00:39, Bryan Morris wrote:
In message <u2k4ls$34ppi$1@dont-email.me>, Fredxx <fredxx@spam.uk>
writes
On 29/04/2023 22:33, Mark Goodge wrote:As it happens he was baptised by his father at the age of 12 after he
On Thu, 27 Apr 2023 20:44:28 +0100, Algernon Goss-Custard
<Ben@nowhere.com>
wrote:
Adam Funk <a24061a@ducksburg.com> postedIt was common across much of Europe, including the UK. It was somewhat >>>>>> less
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason >>>>>>>> to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. >>>>>>>> They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the >>>>>>>> cause of all their problems.
Antisemitism was extremely common in Germany and Eastern Europe long >>>>>>> before the rise of the Nazis. It was one of the cause of Nazism, not >>>>>>> a
result of it. It was especially prevalent in Poland.
prevalent here than in some other places, but was nonetheless a
factor.
In much the same there were calls that bankers should be hung after the >>>>> 2007/8 banking crisis. There always has to be a scapegoat from the
left, normally people with strong links to money.
Benjamin Disraeli, the UK's first ethnic minority Prime Minister, had >>>>>> to
formally renounce his Jewish faith in order to enter politics
Can you provide a cite for that? Was there a law at the time in
question that stopped him "entering politics"?
had had an argument with his synagogue (not on religious grounds) LONG >>>> before he became an MP; although at the time the MPs oath of allegiance >>>> had a Christian element which a person of another faith might have
difficulty in swearing
Thanks for that. I use Google but didn't make much headway.
If you look at Benjamin Disraeli's Wikipedia entry you will find reference >> to his father Isaac D'Israeli's argument with his synagogue and Benjamin's >> baptism at 12
And also to the fact that
quote:
Isaac's friend Sharon Turner, a solicitor, convinced him that
although he could comfortably remain unattached to any formal
religion it would be disadvantageous to the children if they
did so. Turner stood as godfather when Benjamin was baptised,
aged twelve, on 31 July 1817.[21]
unquote:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Disraeli
In fact if you read the biography of Isaac D'Israeli by James
Ogden published by Oxford Monographs in 1969, on page 201 you
can read Benjamin Disraeli's own account of how his father
had to be convinced by Turner
" Mr Sharon Turner persuaded my father, after much trouble
to allow his chidren to be baptised"
On 30/04/2023 05:15 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
The fact that some owners may go on from that, to assume that their
dogs actually understand what they say to them is indeed highly
implausible and unfortunate, But just as long as they don't expect
other people to necessarily agree with them I can't really see
what harm is being done. Even if they do leave all their money
to the dog in their will.
Dogs are indeed capable of recognising (a limited number of) words spoken
by their keeper.
A dog's name will usually provoke a reaction from him,
as will sounds associated with certain particular things (the last dog I
had responded very positively to "Where's your lead?", toddling off immediately to fetch exactly that item.
Did Pavlov labour in vain?
On 30/04/2023 03:47 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
Personally, I tend to think more attention should be
paid to the causes of crime, and not just to the
punishment of crime. There would seem to be various
(mostly social?) factors that tend to increase the
prevalence of crime. For example, closing down youth
clubs
Youth clubs!
as part of a programme of austerity, may lead to
young men being less exposed to the influence of more
mature / wiser men, and thus more likely to be enticed
into joining drug gangs.
But criminology is not an exact science, and "lock 'em
up and throw away the key" seems to be more of a vote
winner.
Arguably, people brought up within a stable and economically
secure household, may have more "free will" about whether
or not to become involved in crime.
I have always *loved* the "not enough youth clubs" explanation for crime.
It's so deliciously dotty.
I have never in my life set foot in a youth club, so I obviously must be
a dastardly career criminal, or at least a mass-murderer... correct?
"pensive hamster" wrote
https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science
'... Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena
has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a
remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able
to account for all known phenomena.'
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
Now its your turn.
Please describe a cucumber in terms of the interactions between
atoms subject to various physical forces such as electrical fields,
heat, gravity, physical laws, time etc as noted above.
Such that afterwards everyone can assure themselves that it was
actually a cucumber you were talking about, as they can with the
botanical description above.
And in your own words please
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 4:20:48 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/04/2023 03:47 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
Personally, I tend to think more attention should be
paid to the causes of crime, and not just to the
punishment of crime. There would seem to be various
(mostly social?) factors that tend to increase the
prevalence of crime. For example, closing down youth
clubs
Youth clubs!
as part of a programme of austerity, may lead to
young men being less exposed to the influence of more
mature / wiser men, and thus more likely to be enticed
into joining drug gangs.
But criminology is not an exact science, and "lock 'em
up and throw away the key" seems to be more of a vote
winner.
Arguably, people brought up within a stable and economically
secure household, may have more "free will" about whether
or not to become involved in crime.
I have always *loved* the "not enough youth clubs" explanation for crime.
It's so deliciously dotty.
You may mock, but:
https://news.sky.com/story/its-crazy-out-there-closure-of-youth-clubs-across-uk-pushing-children-to-violence-12619046
22 May 2022
'... A parliamentary report last year found that a rise in knife
crime was linked to youth service cuts.'
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/07/youth-club-closures-young-people-risk-violence-mps
7 May 2019
'Youth club closures put young people at risk of violence,
warn MPs'
'Areas with largest spending cuts have suffered bigger
increases in knife crime, committee finds'
Etc.
I have never in my life set foot in a youth club, so I obviously must be
a dastardly career criminal, or at least a mass-murderer... correct?
Comments such as the above lead one to think that perhaps
there ought to be legislation punishing crimes against logic.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 30/04/2023 05:15 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
The fact that some owners may go on from that, to assume that their
dogs actually understand what they say to them is indeed highly
implausible and unfortunate, But just as long as they don't expect
other people to necessarily agree with them I can't really see
what harm is being done. Even if they do leave all their money
to the dog in their will.
Dogs are indeed capable of recognising (a limited number of) words spoken
by their keeper.
Some dogs may respond to a particular tone of voice.
Some dogs may recognise words as "noises" which they associate
with particular actions.
A dog's name will usually provoke a reaction from him,
Indeed. You can call your dog "Stupid", "Brian" or anything
you like and train him or her to come when you call. You could
even give your male dog a girl's name
Some people might think it would be cruel to call your dog "Stupid";
but they won't mind as they don't understand what the word "Stupid"
actually means. Although if you own a big Rottweiler it might be
best to err on the side of caution.
as will sounds associated with certain particular things (the last dog I
had responded very positively to "Where's your lead?", toddling off
immediately to fetch exactly that item.
That's true. But that's only because you choose to use the word "lead",.
As he's a dog, whether called Stupid or not, you could just as well
say, in preparation for "walkies", "where's your banana" and he'd
still toddle off and fetch his lead.
Whereas if he actually came back with a banana, then maybe it would be
time for a name change.
What they do actually think about us, can be a bit of a puzzle at times.
Did Pavlov labour in vain?
He was just So Krule.
BTW the first openly Jewish MP to be elected was Lionel de Rothschild https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_de_Rothschild . It took many attempts
by him to have the MP's oath amended. His Bills on this subject were
passed in the Commons but repeatedly blocked in The Lords.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:37:53 PM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" wrote
https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-scienceFair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
'... Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena
has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a
remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able
to account for all known phenomena.'
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
Now its your turn.
Please describe a cucumber in terms of the interactions between
atoms subject to various physical forces such as electrical fields,
heat, gravity, physical laws, time etc as noted above.
You want me to do that for free?
In the meantime, you might want to contact some of the
people involved in research in the field, such as:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/physics-of-life/research/physics-of-plants/
'... To fully grasp the physics underlying plant biology is a
necessary step towards a fundamental understanding of
plant life ...'
I was on holiday on a farm in Bavaria some years ago and the farmer's dog
was very friendly, but responded better to "gut hund" than to "good dog" [true].
"pensive hamster" wrote
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/physics-of-life/research/physics-of-plants/
'... To fully grasp the physics underlying plant biology is a
necessary step towards a fundamental understanding of
plant life ...'
Ah right. So researchers hoping to attract grants studying the
physics underlying plant biology are desperate to convince
people such as yourself that this is a necessary step towards
a fundamental understanding of plant life. Something which has
clearly been of deep concern to people around the world
since er...
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:8dd339d2-934f-42b8-8258-153cff5b5404n@googlegroups.com...
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 6:37:53 PM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" wrote
https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-scienceFair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
'... Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena
has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a
remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able
to account for all known phenomena.'
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
Now its your turn.
Please describe a cucumber in terms of the interactions between
atoms subject to various physical forces such as electrical fields,
heat, gravity, physical laws, time etc as noted above.
You want me to do that for free?
Well you're the one who appears to think its such a good idea
so I would have thought you would be jumping at the chance.
In the meantime, you might want to contact some of the
people involved in research in the field, such as:
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/physics-of-life/research/physics-of-plants/
'... To fully grasp the physics underlying plant biology is a
necessary step towards a fundamental understanding of
plant life ...'
Ah right. So researchers hoping to attract grants studying the
physics underlying plant biology are desperate to convince
people such as yourself that this is a necessary step towards
a fundamental understanding of plant life. Something which has
clearly been of deep concern to people around the world
since er...
Historical Materialsm as espoused by Karl Marx holds that
basically everyone who gets the chance is only in it for the
money - while as Professor Mandy Rice Davies suggested as
a corollary "Well they would (say that) wouldn't they"
Your researchers are simply yet one more example of rampant Marxist-Rice-Daviesism
Whereas most people just go to the supermarket and try and
select the biggest cucumber, without looking too obvious about
it.
snip
bb
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote
I was on holiday on a farm in Bavaria some years ago and the farmer's dog
was very friendly, but responded better to "gut hund" than to "good dog"
[true].
Eh ? What did you expect ?
But did his bark sound the same as an English dog's bark ?
Did you know that foreign dogs barks are different ?
a.. Balinese - kong, kong
a.. Bengali - gheu, gheu; bhao, bhao
a.. Bulgarian - bau-bau (???-???); jaff, jaff (????-????)
a.. Brazilian Portuguese - au au
a.. Burmese - woke, woke
a.. Catalan - bau, bau; bub, bub
a.. Chinese, Cantonese - wow, wow (??)
a.. Chinese, Mandarin - wang, wang
a.. Croatian - vau, vau
a.. Czech - haf, haf; stek (the bark itself)
a.. Danish - vov, vuf
a.. Dutch - waf, waf; woef, woef
a.. Esperanto - boj, boj
a.. Estonian - auh, auh
a.. Finnish - hau, hau; vuh, vuh; rauf, rauf
a.. French - waouh, waouh; ouahn, ouahn; vaf, vaf; wouf, wouf; wouaf, wouaf; jappe jappe
a.. German - wuff, wuff; wau, wau; rawrau, rawrau
a.. Greek - ghav, ghav (???, ???)
a.. Hebrew - hav, hav; hau, hau
a.. Hindi - bow, bow
a.. Hungarian - vau, vau
a.. Icelandic - voff, voff
a.. Indonesian - guk, guk
a.. Irish - amh, amh
a.. Italian - bau, bau
a.. Japanese - wan-wan (????); kyan-kyan (??????)
a.. Korean - meong, meong (??, pronounced [m??m??])
a.. Latvian - vau, vau
a.. Lithuanian - au, au
a.. Macedonian - av, av
a.. Malay - gong, gong ("menggonggong" means barking)
a.. Marathi - bhu, bhu; bho, bho
a.. Norwegian - voff, voff or boff
a.. Persian - vogh, vogh
a.. Polish - hau, hau
a.. Portuguese - au, au; ão-ão (nasal diphthong); béu-béu (toddler language); cain-cain (whining)
a.. Romanian - ham, ham; hau, hau
a.. Russian - gav, gav (???-???); tyav, tyav (???-???, small dogs)
a.. Serbian - av, av
a.. Sinhala - ????? - buh, buh
a.. Slovak - haf, haf; hau, hau
a.. Slovene - hov, hov
a.. Spanish - guau-guau; gua, gua; jau, jau
a.. Swedish - voff, voff; vov, vov; bjäbb, bjäbb
a.. Tagalog - aw, aw; baw, baw
a.. Tamil - wal wal
a.. Thai - ???? ???? (pronounced [hô?hô?]); ???? ???? (pronounced [b??kb??k])
a.. Turkish - hev hev; hav, hav
a.. Ukrainian - ???, ??? (hau, hau); ????, ???? (dzyau, dzyau)
a.. Urdu - bow bow
a.. Vietnamese - gâu gâu; ?ng ?ng
a.. Welsh - wff, wff
https://languagepro.com.br/woof-woof-dog-barks-in-different-languages/
On 30/04/2023 11:50 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote
I was on holiday on a farm in Bavaria some years ago and the farmer's
dog
was very friendly, but responded better to "gut hund" than to "good dog" >>> [true].
Eh ? What did you expect ?
:-)
But did his bark sound the same as an English dog's bark ?
Did you know that foreign dogs barks are different ?
I did know that the onomatopoeia of animal and mechanical sounds are reproduced differently in other languages.
On 30 Apr 2023 at 23:36:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote:
Ah right. So researchers hoping to attract grants studying the
physics underlying plant biology are desperate to convince
people such as yourself that this is a necessary step towards
a fundamental understanding of plant life. Something which has
clearly been of deep concern to people around the world
since er...
Well actually it still is quite hard to convincingly explain how water
gets to
the top of a tree.
But I agree the other 99.8% of botany isn't explained by
the simple laws of physics, even if they do logically underly the actual detailed explanation.
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message news:492db771-bf1f-4640-88d9-2d49aef3925bn@googlegroups.com...
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:492db771-bf1f-4640-88d9-2d49aef3925bn@googlegroups.com...
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 12:17:40 AM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" wrote
On Saturday, April 29, 2023, billy bookcase wrote:
As explained above. People "feel" they are free. Just as they think
colours and sounds really exist and aren't in fact created
in their brains.
That's a rather solipsistic world view.
It's got nothing to do with solopsism whatsoever
Unless you believe that colours can exists independent
of any perceptual apparatus to perceive them.
You seem to have changed the criterion from "exist"
to "exist independently".
Does anything exist independently of whatever causes
and conditions give rise to its existence?
The sensation of olour is not purely created within a
person's brain, it arises partly as a result of photons
entering the eye.
The very fact that various animals and people with defective
vision distinguish different colours when exposed to the
same stimuli, undermines any possibility of colours having
"independent existence".
I wasn't suggesting that colours have"independent existence",
only that they exist. Even if they are only sensations within
a person's brain and conciousness, those sensations do
actually exist.
Oh no it isn't, life follows the laws of physics with an atomic
level of precision. (It seems a bit more unpredictable at a
sub-atomic level.)
Oh dear ! Reducing any of the other sciences, biology, chemistry,
neurology etc to physics, is simply impossible.
Biology, chemistry, neurology all seem to be sub-categories
of physics. They all involve interactions between atoms subject
to various physical forces such as electrical fields, heat, gravity,
etc.
https://www.britannica.com/science/physics-science
'... Although a completely unified theory of physical phenomena
has not yet been achieved (and possibly never will be), a
remarkably small set of fundamental physical laws appears able
to account for all known phenomena.'
As they use their
own concepts to describe the processes and phenomena which are
their subject matter. Reducing everything to atoms would simply
rob them of any explanatory value at all.
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
That's a whole different kettle of fish.
On 1.5.23 11:36 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:
Size?"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:492db771-bf1f-4640-88d9-2d49aef3925bn@googlegroups.com...
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
On 30/04/2023 15:17, pensive hamster wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that colours have"independent existence",
only that they exist. Even if they are only sensations within
a person's brain and conciousness, those sensations do
actually exist.
Curiously although we all (mostly) agree on what is red although we have
no way of comparing our subjective experience of that colour with
anybody else's. Comparatively few people have precise colour matching
skills. Red is a bit odd too since it is computed in the brain as Yellow-Green and is very handy for seeing ripe fruit. Our cone colour
sensors are actually Yellow, Green and Blue.
On 30/04/2023 15:17, pensive hamster wrote:
The sensation of olour is not purely created within a
person's brain, it arises partly as a result of photons
entering the eye.
And crucially whether the pigments in the various sorts of cones are correctly formed. Some famous people have been colour blind. Certain
types of colour blindness due to having an extra pigment allow a few
select individuals to see the difference between living plant material
and dead plant material cut down for camouflage. They see more and
different shades of green than the rest of us.
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:u2lj2r$3geae$1@dont-email.me...
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d56c11a5-6cd4-4dd6-a9a8-10361a69a0d7n@googlegroups.com...
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ? "Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Consciousness is perceived by the conscious entity. The problem is
attributing it to anything else, especially different forms such as
animals and machines. We can't really *know* other than by analogy. I
can't think of a way to measure it.
I can't exactly see what the "problem" is, in attributing consciousness
to anything else.
If I go to poke a dog in the eye with a stick, and he moves away then
the normal assumption surely would be that the dog was indeed
conscious. Indeed I can't really see any "problem" at all in assuming
all dogs are conscious. Or fish or spiders for that matter.
What difference does it make ?
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
Who is this "We" of whom you speak Kemo Sabe ?
We also have a notion of continuity of responsibility to justify punishing >> people many years after the crime was committed - even though almost all
of their physical body has been replaced - as in "Trigger's Broom"/"The
Ship of Theseus" (delete according to cultural pretension) - and the
person's personality, beliefs and tastes are likely to have changed
extensively. (This is partly dealt with by various "statutes of
limitation", but I think that's done because evidence will have been lost
or witnesses will have forgotten rather than anything to do with the
suspect changing.)
[1] Actually punishment could be justified as a form of conditioning,
which would work if we were animals or non-sentient automata.
Random thoughts
Experiments have shown that the majority of both people and chimps
and monkeys have an inbuilt sense of "fairness" or fair play.
In the past in some societies, in The Middle Ages etc justice revolved
around the concept of retribution rather than punishment. If you killed somebody, then you'd have to pay their relatives compensation,
more or less.
Moral outrage and a desire for justice can be stoked up to order.
A cynic might suggest deliberately so, in order to distract attention
from more intractable problems.
People like a good story with clearly defined villains for them to
direct their hatred towards. Everyone from Putin to Pedos
We seem to have free will, but the precursors to the decision can be
detected with fMRI. Perhaps it's something other than our conscious selves >> that actually possess it.
Even if we don't have free will we're still the person who allegedly committed the crime. Us and nobody else. Even if God told us to
do it, as was alleged by the Yorkshire Ripper. Maybe he should
think himself lucky he wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit
murder on top.
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:492db771-bf1f-4640-88d9-2d49aef3925bn@googlegroups.com...
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
"Roger Hayter" <roger@hayter.org> wrote in message news:kb8dc5F3461U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30 Apr 2023 at 23:36:45 BST, ""billy bookcase"" <billy@anon.com> wrote: >>
Ah right. So researchers hoping to attract grants studying the
physics underlying plant biology are desperate to convince
people such as yourself that this is a necessary step towards
a fundamental understanding of plant life. Something which has
clearly been of deep concern to people around the world
since er...
Well actually it still is quite hard to convincingly explain how water
gets to
the top of a tree.
But is it even necessary to know ? Surely thats the point ?
But I agree the other 99.8% of botany isn't explained by
the simple laws of physics, even if they do logically underly the actual
detailed explanation.
I think we're talking at cross purposes here.
Nobody denies that there are different levels of explanation.
Answering different types of question.
And that at a fundamntal level given that all matter consists of "atoms whirling around all subject to the laws of physics", all physical phenomena" are *ulimately* explicable in terms of detailed descriptions of atoms whirling
around subject to the Laws of physics,
And nobody would ever deny that.
However and the point that may possibly being overooked, is that
detailed descriptions of atoms whirling around subject to the
Laws of physics mean nothing in themselves; they are only of
value in answering questions at the next level up
So that the concepr of a "cell" is essential to explanations
in biology and botany.
But the concepts af cell has no place in detailed descriptions
of atoms whirling around subject to the Laws of physics
First you need to discover and decribe the cell before you can
"then" turn, if you really feel its necessary, to detailed descriptions
of atoms whirling around subject to the Laws of physics to detemine
how a cell may work.
And yet many people succeed in growing plants, as they have done
for millenia without any knoweldge of the existence of cells at all
Or to take the "To be or not to be" Soliloquy from Hamlet.
A psychologist or Freudian analyst may try and convince you
that you can't possibly understand or appreciate that work, without
taking account of the deep psychological stresses Hamlet is suffering.
"But then we all have a living to earn". Marx/Rice Davies
A historian may try and convince you that you cant possibly understand
or appreciate that work without taking into account the history of
Denmark at the time
"But then we all have a living to earn". Marx/Rice Davies
Your English teacher may well have tried to convince you that you
couldn't possibly understand or appreciate that work without taking
into account the poetic scansion of the lines (or something )
"But then we all have a living to earn". Marx/Rice Davies
And its the same with everybody, including researchers
bb
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kb8dbaF3448U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2023 11:50 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote
I was on holiday on a farm in Bavaria some years ago and the farmer's
dog
was very friendly, but responded better to "gut hund" than to "good dog" >>>> [true].
Eh ? What did you expect ?
:-)
But did his bark sound the same as an English dog's bark ?
Did you know that foreign dogs barks are different ?
I did know that the onomatopoeia of animal and mechanical sounds are
reproduced differently in other languages.
And guess what *big* word *I* had to Google myself, and it only took two
goes
at the spelling, in order to discover that list ?
"Zeugma" was another interesting sounding one, but having finally looked it up over half a century later I feel safe in the knowledge that I havent really been missing much
The storm sank my boat and my dreams.
"Yet time and her aunt moved slowly - (Jane Austen would you believe )
All examples of which, IMHO positively reek of artifice
bb
On 1.5.23 11:36 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:Size?
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:492db771-bf1f-4640-88d9-2d49aef3925bn@googlegroups.com...
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
On 1 May 2023 at 11:38:46 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
On 1.5.23 11:36 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:
Size?Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers >>>>
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
No that's the difference between a courgette and a marrow. Cucumbers really don't resemble courgettes at all if you look at them.
But as an aside the tree problem may well
involve some basic physics.
On 01/05/2023 16:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 1 May 2023 at 11:38:46 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote: >>> On 1.5.23 11:36 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:
Size?Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers >>>>>
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical >>>>> fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
No that's the difference between a courgette and a marrow. Cucumbers really >> don't resemble courgettes at all if you look at them.
Well cucumbers are (usually) eaten raw, whereas courgettes are (usually) cooked first. Perhaps that's just a culinary convention. But why can courgettes be sold unwrapped, whereas cucumbers are always encased in plastic? Is it to annoy the greenies?
On 1 May 2023 at 11:38:46 BST, "Bob Henson" <bob.henson@outlook.com> wrote:
On 1.5.23 11:36 am, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2023 17:56, billy bookcase wrote:Size?
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:492db771-bf1f-4640-88d9-2d49aef3925bn@googlegroups.com...
I'm not reducing everything to atoms, I'm reducing everything
to atoms plus fundamental physical laws (including time).
Fair enough. So for arguments sake let's take botany and say cucumbers >>>>
Now according to wikipedia
quote
The cucumber (Cucumis sativus) is a widely-cultivated creeping vine
plant in the family Cucurbitaceae that bears cylindrical to spherical
fruits, which are used as culinary vegetables
unquote
While for my own part I know they're long green things.,
So what's the difference between a cucumber and a courgette?
No that's the difference between a courgette and a marrow. Cucumbers really don't resemble courgettes at all if you look at them.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kb8dbaF3448U1@mid.individual.net...
On 30/04/2023 11:50 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote
I was on holiday on a farm in Bavaria some years ago and the farmer's
dog
was very friendly, but responded better to "gut hund" than to "good dog" >>>> [true].
Eh ? What did you expect ?
:-)
But did his bark sound the same as an English dog's bark ?
Did you know that foreign dogs barks are different ?
I did know that the onomatopoeia of animal and mechanical sounds are
reproduced differently in other languages.
And guess what *big* word *I* had to Google myself, and it only took two
goes at the spelling, in order to discover that list ?
"Zeugma" was another interesting sounding one, but having finally looked it up over half a century later I feel safe in the knowledge that I havent really been missing much
The storm sank my boat and my dreams.
"Yet time and her aunt moved slowly - (Jane Austen would you believe )
All examples of which, IMHO positively reek of artifice
courgettes be sold unwrapped, whereas cucumbers are always encased in plastic? Is it to annoy the greenies?
Even if we don't have free will we're still the person who
allegedly committed the crime. Us and nobody else. Even if God
told us to do it, as was alleged by the Yorkshire Ripper. Maybe
he should think himself lucky he wasn't charged with conspiracy
to commit murder on top.
But is it a crime if an individual hasn't done it intentionally?
There's got to be something to distinguish an injury caused by an
epileptic lashing out and someone who is conscious.
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message news:XnsAFF58BE0BC4E791F3A2@135.181.20.170...
On 15:08 28 Apr 2023, billy bookcase said:
"Pamela" <uklm@permabulator.33mail.com> wrote in message
news:XnsAFF47C80825C91F3A2@135.181.20.170...
The number of African slaves transported to the United States was
significantly less than the number of Jews (and other minority
groups) lost in the Holocaust.
The United States was founded in 1776. African slaves had first
been tranported to the American colonies in the 1620's and by the
1670's were extensively used on tobacco plantations. Assuming the
colonists had started breeding their own, along with 100 years
worth of regular fresh arrivals, by 1776 you'd imagine the place
would be pretty well full up.
If you re-read what I wrote below (which you appear to have
misinterpreted as a "non sequitur"), you will see that only 400,000
slaves were transported to north America during the entire
Transatlantic Slave Trade.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_slave_trade#Destinations_
and_flags_of_carriers>
This slave population had grown to 4 million by the time America
abolished slavery in 1865,
That's just one single generation of slaves in 1865. What about all
the preceding generations of slaves who were born and died over the
preceding 150 odd years ? Don't they count too ?
Furthermore, the death rate amongst slaves taken across the Atlantic
was no higher than amongst non-slave crew members. Presumably this
is because no owner would wish his recently purchased slaves to die
before he could make use of them.
In other words, these figures support my point that there were far
fewer slaves transported across the Atlantic than those who perished
in the Holocaust.
So what ? So the countless number of slaves who spent their entire
lives working away on plantations both in the Caribbean and America
for no wages at all, only their board and keep, are of no concern at
all ?
On 30/04/2023 17:15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:u2lj2r$3geae$1@dont-email.me...
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d56c11a5-6cd4-4dd6-a9a8-10361a69a0d7n@googlegroups.com...
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ? "Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Consciousness is perceived by the conscious entity. The problem is
attributing it to anything else, especially different forms such as
animals and machines. We can't really *know* other than by analogy. I
can't think of a way to measure it.
I can't exactly see what the "problem" is, in attributing consciousness
to anything else.
If I go to poke a dog in the eye with a stick, and he moves away then
the normal assumption surely would be that the dog was indeed
conscious. Indeed I can't really see any "problem" at all in assuming
all dogs are conscious. Or fish or spiders for that matter.
What difference does it make ?
There are philosophical issues: while it's credible to assume that dogs
and mice, and probably fish have some measure of consciousness, it's less credible that amoebae do. Insects are somewhere in the middle.
Then there are practical issues of whether we should cause them pain. Do insects suffer pain when they lose a limb? Why would they? What is pain
for?
We classify some animals as vermin. Should we? Should we worry that rats suffer when they bleed to death after ingesting Warfarin? (It's
interesting that the anti-thrombotic drug given to humans (in controlled doses is called the same.)
People are seriously proposing that AI devices should be accorded consideration and rights if they become sufficiently advanced. This could impede progress if we have to consider the feelings of our self-driving
cars.
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
Who is this "We" of whom you speak Kemo Sabe ?
"Society." Though there's clearly an element of revenge involved.
We also have a notion of continuity of responsibility to justify
punishing
people many years after the crime was committed - even though almost all >>> of their physical body has been replaced - as in "Trigger's Broom"/"The
Ship of Theseus" (delete according to cultural pretension) - and the
person's personality, beliefs and tastes are likely to have changed
extensively. (This is partly dealt with by various "statutes of
limitation", but I think that's done because evidence will have been
lost
or witnesses will have forgotten rather than anything to do with the
suspect changing.)
[1] Actually punishment could be justified as a form of conditioning,
which would work if we were animals or non-sentient automata.
Random thoughts
Experiments have shown that the majority of both people and chimps
and monkeys have an inbuilt sense of "fairness" or fair play.
In the past in some societies, in The Middle Ages etc justice revolved
around the concept of retribution rather than punishment. If you killed
somebody, then you'd have to pay their relatives compensation,
more or less.
Moral outrage and a desire for justice can be stoked up to order.
A cynic might suggest deliberately so, in order to distract attention
from more intractable problems.
People like a good story with clearly defined villains for them to
direct their hatred towards. Everyone from Putin to Pedos
We seem to have free will, but the precursors to the decision can be
detected with fMRI. Perhaps it's something other than our conscious
selves
that actually possess it.
Even if we don't have free will we're still the person who allegedly
committed the crime. Us and nobody else. Even if God told us to
do it, as was alleged by the Yorkshire Ripper. Maybe he should
think himself lucky he wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit
murder on top.
But is it a crime if an individual hasn't done it intentionally? There's
got to be something to distinguish an injury caused by an epileptic
lashing out and someone who is conscious.
On 01/05/2023 16:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
No that's the difference between a courgette and a marrow. Cucumbers
really
don't resemble courgettes at all if you look at them.
Well cucumbers are (usually) eaten raw, whereas courgettes are (usually) cooked first. Perhaps that's just a culinary convention. But why can courgettes be sold unwrapped, whereas cucumbers are always encased in plastic? Is it to annoy the greenies?
On 01/05/2023 17:07, Max Demian wrote:
On 01/05/2023 16:05, Roger Hayter wrote:
Cucumbers really don't resemble courgettes at all if you
look at them.
They are both boring long green things best eaten with something else.
On 30/04/2023 10:13 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/07/youth-club-closures-young-people-risk-violence-mps<sigh> Really?
7 May 2019
'Youth club closures put young people at risk of violence,
warn MPs'
'Areas with largest spending cuts have suffered bigger
increases in knife crime, committee finds'
Is it really necessary to remind people that correlation is not causation?
However the point is that black people don't see things in that way
at all. Jewish people are simply another variety of white people,
none of who have ever done them any favours in the past. So for
them there's simply no such thing as anti-semitism. Basically
it's not really their problem, and never has been.
In simplest terms everybody inherits two copies of each gene from
their parents.
So they will inherit two skin colour genes.
On Wednesday, April 26, 2023 at 11:31:13 AM UTC+1, billy bookcase wrote:
"Stuart O. Bronstein" wrote[...]
"billy bookcase" wrote:
In addition being able to charge interest on loans, which was
their monopoly, until the German Fuggers were able to bend
the Pope's ear, made them especially vulnerable in their role
a moneylenders. Should indebted kings or nobles, find themselves
strapped for cash and unable to pay.
Jews had cash and made loans because they were not allowed to
own any property.
Which did however make them especially vulnerable. A small
religious minority in a deeply religious age, to whom powerful
people owed money.
Didn't the Medici in medieval Italy make a lot of money
from setting up banks and charging interest? They may
even have invented compound interest. I'm pretty sure
they came before the German Fuggers. And I don't
think the Medici were Jewish, some of them became
Popes.
The Medici didn't seem to get a bad press for charging
interest. Perhaps that was because they had their own
armed retainers / private army, which Jewish people
mostly didn't, so far as I am aware.
Well actually it still is quite hard to convincingly explain how water gets to
the top of a tree. But I agree the other 99.8% of botany isn't explained by the simple laws of physics, even if they do logically underly the actual detailed explanation.
JNugent wrote:
pensive hamster wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/07/youth-club-closures-young-people-risk-violence-mps
7 May 2019
'Youth club closures put young people at risk of violence,
warn MPs'
<sigh> Really?
'Areas with largest spending cuts have suffered bigger
increases in knife crime, committee finds'
Is it really necessary to remind people that correlation is not causation?
It would be more correct to say that correlation may or may
not be causation. You can't really tell without further evidence.
Correlation may sometimes be, if not itself direct causation,
at least quite a big clue about where to look for the cause(s).
On 01/05/2023 00:53, Roger Hayter wrote:
Well actually it still is quite hard to convincingly explain how water gets toThat was well understood when I was a student, which is some decades ago.
the top of a tree. But I agree the other 99.8% of botany isn't explained by >> the simple laws of physics, even if they do logically underly the actual
detailed explanation.
(Capillary effect. Which is linked to surface tension.)
Andy
As most of the sociologists whose Departments were closed down by
Margaret Thatcher, even before the Philosophy Depts, would doubtless
explain, all social and cultural norms concerning the treatment of animals along with all laws, customs, etc are all simply the product of the underlying economic circumstances.
On 26/04/2023 15:41, Adam Funk wrote:
On 2023-04-25, The Todal wrote:
On 24/04/2023 21:24, Mark Goodge wrote:
On Mon, 24 Apr 2023 20:07:41 +0100, The Todal <the_todal@icloud.com> wrote:
Black people regularly encounter discrimination and prejudice on account >>>>> of their colour. Jews, on the other hand, may occasionally encounter >>>>> antisemitic jeers at football matches or at school, but often rise to >>>>> the top in their places of employment. Some of the most successful
lawyers are Jewish. You can't say the same for black lawyers - they are >>>>> very few, and it is far harder work for them to succeed.
So the claim for victimhood on behalf of all Jews is utterly phoney. No >>>>> matter what David Baddiel may have said.
It's not just David Baddiel. I'd recommend reading the report cited by >>>> Tomiwa Owolade in his article for The Observer. Or even just reading his >>>> article. Because, far from it being just a bit of antisemitic chanting at >>>> football matches, it turns out that Jews - modern day Jews, here, in the UK
- are more likely than most black Britons to have been the victims of racist
assault. To quote from their report:
During the first year of the pandemic, on average 14% of ethnic minority
people reported a racist assault (verbal, physical and damage to
property), with several ethnic minority groups having a prevalence figure
of over 15%. The Gypsy/Traveller (41%) and Jewish (31%) groups had the >>>> highest figures. High prevalence of assault was also reported by people
from the Black Caribbean group and the Mixed White and Black African >>>> groups (both 19%), and people from the Any Other Black group and White and
Black Caribbean groups (both 18%).
https://bristoluniversitypressdigital.com/display/book/9781447368861/ch004.xml
It would be helpful to see a breakdown of the figures.
"Assault" includes insults. It is perhaps surprising that the statistic
for Jewish is so high, but when one looks at the figure for "physical
attacks" the figure for Jewish is rather less than that for "mixed white >>> and black African".
I would be inclined to ignore online trolling as a form of verbal
assault. Others might disagree, but the sort of people who utter
antisemitic social media posts are also the sort who mock other
vulnerable people and they are not somehow typical of society. However,
the EHRC report on the Labour Party focused very much on social media.
People in Germany in 1938 didn't spontaneously decide for no reason to
start smashing up Jewish homes and businesses and attacking Jews. They
had been exposed for years to the claims that "dirty Jews" were the
cause of all their problems.
https://alphahistory.com/weimarrepublic/great-depression/#Homelessness_starvation_and_misery
It's amazing what happens where you can't feed your children and they
die. Hunger and homelessness tend to divide those who have a home, and
food, and those who don't.
The rest is history. Blaming those who you hold to account for your
troubles as dirty doesn't quit cut it though I suppose the foundations
of hatred seed the inevitable.
That's what you say. That races are just abstract categories like
"lawyer" or "Royal Academician". Most people realise that inheritance is important for the category; "African heritage" or "Pakistani heritage"
are more than just cultural categories as they imply descent by "blood",
even if not distinct.
"Christian" isn't a race as anyone can become a Christian. The
requirement of a Jewish mother to be Jewish is what leads to the
confusion and attempt to categorise Jewish as a race.
On 27/04/2023 11:50, Max Demian wrote:
That's what you say. That races are just abstract categories like
"lawyer" or "Royal Academician". Most people realise that inheritance is
important for the category; "African heritage" or "Pakistani heritage"
are more than just cultural categories as they imply descent by "blood",
even if not distinct.
"Christian" isn't a race as anyone can become a Christian. The
requirement of a Jewish mother to be Jewish is what leads to the
confusion and attempt to categorise Jewish as a race.
That's an interesting comment. What is it about Jewish ancestry that
doesn't make them a race when people from Pakistan are?
On 01/05/2023 06:18 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As most of the sociologists whose Departments were closed down by
Margaret Thatcher, even before the Philosophy Depts, would doubtless
explain, all social and cultural norms concerning the treatment of
animals
along with all laws, customs, etc are all simply the product of the
underlying economic circumstances.
Which universities have closed their Sociology (or Humanities)
departments?
On 29/04/2023 13:29, billy bookcase wrote:
In simplest terms everybody inherits two copies of each gene from
their parents.
So they will inherit two skin colour genes.
That's true of many genes - eye colour is the classic one - but not of
skin colour. The children of a black person and a white one are generally brown.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34515229/
suggests there are over 150 genes involved in skin colour.
<div id="editor" contenteditable="false">> So what ? So the countless number of slaves who spent their entire
lives working away on plantations both in the Caribbean and America
for no wages at all, only their board and keep, are of no concern at
all ?
You may consider my point about the numbers is uninteresting but it is
not incorrect, as you had claimed in your previous post.
</div>
<div class="footer" onclick="setCursorToBottom()"></div>
While in fact the term "black" already covers all the numerous shades
of "brown" skin that already exist.
On Sunday, April 30, 2023 at 11:20:04 PM UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 30/04/2023 10:13 pm, pensive hamster wrote:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/may/07/youth-club-closures-young-people-risk-violence-mps<sigh> Really?
7 May 2019
'Youth club closures put young people at risk of violence,
warn MPs'
'Areas with largest spending cuts have suffered bigger
increases in knife crime, committee finds'
Is it really necessary to remind people that correlation is not causation?
It would be more correct to say that correlation may or may
not be causation. You can't really tell without further evidence.
Correlation may sometimes be, if not itself direct causation,
at least quite a big clue about where to look for the cause(s).
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message news:u2oo3d$8hko$1@dont-email.me...
.. But why can
courgettes be sold unwrapped, whereas cucumbers are always encased in
plastic? Is it to annoy the greenies?
As previously explained cucumbers contain a lot of moisture
they're "succulent", and so will lose water. Whereas from my
admiitedly limited experience uncooked courgettes and marrows
not only taste like cardboard (even when cooked) but probably
have the texture of cardboard when raw and so are less likely to dry
out.
On 01/05/2023 11:56, Martin Brown wrote:
On 30/04/2023 15:17, pensive hamster wrote:
I wasn't suggesting that colours have"independent existence",
only that they exist. Even if they are only sensations within
a person's brain and conciousness, those sensations do
actually exist.
Curiously although we all (mostly) agree on what is red although we
have no way of comparing our subjective experience of that colour with
anybody else's. Comparatively few people have precise colour matching
skills. Red is a bit odd too since it is computed in the brain as
Yellow-Green and is very handy for seeing ripe fruit. Our cone colour
sensors are actually Yellow, Green and Blue.
Check out the diagram on the right:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell
The ones on the RHS are very close together, presumably as a result of a
gene duplicating and one copy being mutated.
*Famous scientist* Maxwell said we see red, green and blue. (Actually I
don't know whether he studied the eye as he was a physicist.)
Colour TVs
are designed on that assumption, but they still work all right. Maybe it doesn't matter which colours they produce so long as they are well
separated.
On 1 May 2023 at 18:07:35 BST, Pamela wrote:
On 15:08 28 Apr 2023, billy bookcase said:
So what ? So the countless number of slaves who spent their entire
lives working away on plantations both in the Caribbean and America
for no wages at all, only their board and keep, are of no concern
at all ?
You may consider my point about the numbers is uninteresting but it
is not incorrect, as you had claimed in your previous post.
It's still difficult to understand your point. Stating a number
strips out some important points of context - the North American
method relied on procreation for numbers, for example. There wasn't
'less slavery', if that's your point.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kbae4mFcjfqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 01/05/2023 06:18 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As most of the sociologists whose Departments were closed down by
Margaret Thatcher, even before the Philosophy Depts, would doubtless
explain, all social and cultural norms concerning the treatment of
animals
along with all laws, customs, etc are all simply the product of the
underlying economic circumstances.
Which universities have closed their Sociology (or Humanities)
departments?
Google is your friend, as are a sense of curiosity and motivation.
Taking pride in being able to find things out for oneself.
And so unlike nowadays, when so many people expect to have everything
simply handed to them on a plate.
Don't you agree ?
On 30/04/2023 17:15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:u2lj2r$3geae$1@dont-email.me...
On 29/04/2023 19:50, billy bookcase wrote:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:d56c11a5-6cd4-4dd6-a9a8-10361a69a0d7n@googlegroups.com...
Would it stand up
in court, if you said: "Burglars don't really exist, they are
in fact created in witnesses' brains"?
What *are* you talking about ? "Everything" is *processed" in
people's brains. But because *most* peoples' perceptual apparatus
and brains work in a similar fashion, that doesn't create any
sort of problem. But that certainly doesn't mean that whatever
stimulated those perceptions, doesn't exist.
Consciousness is perceived by the conscious entity. The problem is
attributing it to anything else, especially different forms such as
animals and machines. We can't really *know* other than by analogy. I
can't think of a way to measure it.
I can't exactly see what the "problem" is, in attributing consciousness
to anything else.
If I go to poke a dog in the eye with a stick, and he moves away then
the normal assumption surely would be that the dog was indeed
conscious. Indeed I can't really see any "problem" at all in assuming
all dogs are conscious. Or fish or spiders for that matter.
What difference does it make ?
There are philosophical issues: while it's credible to assume that dogs
and mice, and probably fish have some measure of consciousness, it's
less credible that amoebae do. Insects are somewhere in the middle.
Then there are practical issues of whether we should cause them pain. Do insects suffer pain when they lose a limb? Why would they? What is pain
for?
We classify some animals as vermin. Should we? Should we worry that rats suffer when they bleed to death after ingesting Warfarin? (It's
interesting that the anti-thrombotic drug given to humans (in controlled doses is called the same.)
People are seriously proposing that AI devices should be accorded consideration and rights if they become sufficiently advanced. This
could impede progress if we have to consider the feelings of our
self-driving cars.
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify
it. [1]
Who is this "We" of whom you speak Kemo Sabe ?
"Society." Though there's clearly an element of revenge involved.
Even if we don't have free will we're still the person who allegedly
committed the crime. Us and nobody else. Even if God told us to
do it, as was alleged by the Yorkshire Ripper. Maybe he should
think himself lucky he wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit
murder on top.
But is it a crime if an individual hasn't done it intentionally? There's
got to be something to distinguish an injury caused by an epileptic
lashing out and someone who is conscious.
"JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote in message news:kbae4mFcjfqU1@mid.individual.net...
On 01/05/2023 06:18 pm, billy bookcase wrote:
[ ... ]
As most of the sociologists whose Departments were closed down by
Margaret Thatcher, even before the Philosophy Depts, would doubtless
explain, all social and cultural norms concerning the treatment of
animals
along with all laws, customs, etc are all simply the product of the
underlying economic circumstances.
Which universities have closed their Sociology (or Humanities)
departments?
Google is your friend ...
On 26/04/2023 18:43, pensive hamster wrote:
The Medici didn't seem to get a bad press for charging
interest. Perhaps that was because they had their own
armed retainers / private army, which Jewish people
mostly didn't, so far as I am aware.
AIUI medieval Christianity forbade the charging of interest, just as
Islam does today. Judaism did not, which made them uniquely qualified to
be bankers.
On 01/05/2023 11:58, Max Demian wrote:
On 30/04/2023 17:15, billy bookcase wrote:
"Max Demian" <max_demian@bigfoot.com> wrote in message
news:u2lj2r$3geae$1@dont-email.me...
Consciousness is perceived by the conscious entity. The problem is
attributing it to anything else, especially different forms such as
animals and machines. We can't really *know* other than by analogy. I
can't think of a way to measure it.
I can't exactly see what the "problem" is, in attributing consciousness
to anything else.
If I go to poke a dog in the eye with a stick, and he moves away then
the normal assumption surely would be that the dog was indeed
conscious. Indeed I can't really see any "problem" at all in assuming
all dogs are conscious. Or fish or spiders for that matter.
What difference does it make ?
There are philosophical issues: while it's credible to assume that
dogs and mice, and probably fish have some measure of consciousness,
it's less credible that amoebae do. Insects are somewhere in the middle.
Don't diss the humble amoeba.
Some in the plasmodium slime mould family can cooperate very effectively
to solve mazes. They have a collective intelligence of sorts.
https://www.nature.com/articles/35035159
I suspect that consciousness is an emergent property of any sufficiently large complex network of computing elements and as such will eventually
be simulated in all aspects by an AI or dedicated computer hardware.
Then there are practical issues of whether we should cause them pain.
Do insects suffer pain when they lose a limb? Why would they? What is
pain for?
To encourage you not to make the same mistake again. I expect all
sentient life feels pain of sorts. People who don't feel pain are at
serious risk of injury from very cold or very hot objects.
Creatures which are able to regrow another limb to order probably don't
feel anything like as much pain as those which cannot. Planarians which
are a favourite of modern biology teaching classes can regenerate a
whole individual completely when cut along any symmetry axis.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planarian
The humble leech can solve trig problems too - needed to get from their resting place onto their prey.
We classify some animals as vermin. Should we? Should we worry that
rats suffer when they bleed to death after ingesting Warfarin? (It's
interesting that the anti-thrombotic drug given to humans (in
controlled doses is called the same.)
Rats would overrun us without using some controls. I can think of a
couple of UK motorway service stations where they are brazen even during daylight and totally immune to warfarin - and uncountable after dark.
People are seriously proposing that AI devices should be accorded
consideration and rights if they become sufficiently advanced. This
could impede progress if we have to consider the feelings of our
self-driving cars.
We may have to at some point. If the first directive is to protect the passengers inside the vehicle how many children waiting at a bus stop is
it entitled to kill to fulfil its primary objective of keeping the
passengers inside safe from harm? Will it feel remorse afterwards?
Similarly with "free will" and the notion of "criminal
responsibility". So that unless someone is suffering from
a recognised mental illness, *they* are held to be
responsible for "their" actions regardless of whether
anyone would wish to argue they did or didn't in fact
have "free will".
We have a need to punish wrongdoers (morally and for control) so we
suppose that they must have had a choice as to what they did to justify >>>> it. [1]
Who is this "We" of whom you speak Kemo Sabe ?
"Society." Though there's clearly an element of revenge involved.
They do clearly have a choice but there are different degrees of theft.
Someone poaching a rabbit after dark could be transported to Australia
for that act even if they were doing it for food just to stay alive.
1828 Poaching by Night Act (has that law ever been repealed?)
Last used in 2007 AFAIK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7133021.stm
Whereas someone who robs banks, breaking and entering on an industrial
scale or smuggling drugs or people is doing it to acquire wealth and
status.
Even if we don't have free will we're still the person who allegedly
committed the crime. Us and nobody else. Even if God told us to
do it, as was alleged by the Yorkshire Ripper. Maybe he should
think himself lucky he wasn't charged with conspiracy to commit
murder on top.
But is it a crime if an individual hasn't done it intentionally?
There's got to be something to distinguish an injury caused by an
epileptic lashing out and someone who is conscious.
Where it gets tricky is when drunks and drug addicts punch seriously
assault medics and first responders who are trying to help them. I have personally witnessed this at an RTC where a drunk was the casualty.
The ambulance staff just seemed to view it as an occupational hazard :(
AIUI medieval Christianity forbade the charging of interest, just as
Islam does today. Judaism did not, which made them uniquely qualified to
be bankers.
On 29/04/2023 03:52 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 29 Apr 2023 at 12:15:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> wrote:
On 28/04/2023 04:08 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 14:19, JNugent wrote:
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 28/04/2023 10:38, JNugent wrote:
On 27/04/2023 10:41 pm, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 27 Apr 2023 at 15:16:18 BST, "JNugent" <jenningsandco@mail.com> >>>>>>>> wrote:
On 26/04/2023 05:14 pm, Pamela wrote:
On 01:58 26 Apr 2023, Roger Hayter said:
"pensive hamster" <pensive_hamster@hotmail.co.uk> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, April 24, 2023 at 1:41:01 PM UTC+1, GB wrote: >>>>>>>>>>I wonder if "nation" is a better word for that than "race".
Did she really compare sitting at the back of the bus with >>>>>>>>>>>>> having a
third of your people killed by the Nazis,
Well, she did seem pretty close to making that comparison. >>>>>>>>>>>> She did put "Jewish people" and "sit at the back of the bus" >>>>>>>>>>>> in the same sentence:
"In pre-civil rights America, Irish people, Jewish people and >>>>>>>>>>>> Travellers were not required to sit at the back of the bus." >>>>>>>>>>
and then conclude that sitting at the back of the bus was >>>>>>>>>>>>> far worse?!
No, I don't think she was going that far.
Is the point she was trying to make that *at the moment* the >>>>>>>>>>>>> prejudice experienced by black people is worse than that >>>>>>>>>>>>> experienced by most other groups?
As far as I can work out so far, that does seem to be the point >>>>>>>>>>>> she was trying to make. But I don't think it was a very good >>>>>>>>>>>> point.My understanding of Abbott's confused statement is completely >>>>>>>>>>> different to yours. I thought she was saying that discrimination >>>>>>>>>>> against Irish, Jews and Travellers, however extreme (and I don't >>>>>>>>>>> think she was wanting to deny the Holocust!) couldn't be called >>>>>>>>>>> racism because they all belonged to the white race. While >>>>>>>>>>> discrimination against Blacks was racism because they were a >>>>>>>>>>> different race from whites. As rehearsed very recently in this >>>>>>>>>>> group
Surely the main issue should be trying to understand various >>>>>>>>>>>> forms of prejudice, and ideally reducing the incidence of >>>>>>>>>>>> prejudice.
Setting up a sort of league table of who suffers the most >>>>>>>>>>>> prejudice
doesn't really help that aim. It is at best a secondary issue. >>>>>>>>>>
I think this is nonsense. We can regard any group who live and >>>>>>>>>>> marry
separately to at least some extent as a 'race' if we want to >>>>>>>>>>
Ditto. "Race" was the word I used in this context a week or so >>>>>>>>> back.
and black people simply aren't a different race to whites >>>>>>>>>>> biologically.
There *must* be some biologically-detectable differences between >>>>>>>>> visually-distinguishable races. If that were not the case, there >>>>>>>>> would
be, for instance, no way to determine the race of a decomposed >>>>>>>>> body in
the way in which those heroic pathology practitioners do in TV >>>>>>>>> fiction.
There are all sorts of biologically detectable differences between >>>>>>>> individuals. Height, weight, hair colour, skin colour etc. It is >>>>>>>> merely our
choice to choose some of these differences as relating to different >>>>>>>> races.
Oh?
Do they arise at random, then?
Is being black (or, for that matter, white) something that can
happen to just any child, of any pair of parents, quite
unpredictably and uncontrolled by the racial characteristics and >>>>>>> genetic history of those parents and forebears?
I never knew that.
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such >>>>> as that. And even a terminology, of sorts.
You mean where the white father and white mother have been established >>>> to be the black child's father and mother through a DNA match>
Possibly. Such things haven't been available for all that long. The
concepts I was referring to have been familiar for longer than that.
I suppose most might call it mutation. Would you call it anything
different?
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority >>>>> black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority >>>>>> black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have shown that
it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can assure you has a predominantly white population.
I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother?
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white, faithful lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
On 03/05/2023 09:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a majority >>>>>>> black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have shown
that it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can assure you has
a predominantly white population.
I was talking about South Africa.
You can talk about Arkansas if you wish to be irrelevant.
I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother?
You didn't really get the point, did you? Not even after other posters spelled it all out in some detail.
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white, faithful
lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
You are, yet again, totally mistaken.
Fancy that.
On 04/05/2023 14:24, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2023 09:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a
majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have shown
that it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can assure you
has a predominantly white population.
I was talking about South Africa.
You can talk about Arkansas if you wish to be irrelevant.
It can only be irrelevant because you didn't read the article
I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother?
You didn't really get the point, did you? Not even after other posters
spelled it all out in some detail.
Quite, a poster spelled out it was an article that included a couple in Arkansas. Arkansas is predominantly white. Now who said the mother was
in "a part of the world with a majority black population?"
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white, faithful
lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
You are, yet again, totally mistaken.
Fancy that.
Then feel free to explain the basis of phrase that you snipped so disingenuously, "There has long been a straightforward explanation for occurrences such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts".
Not sure how from reading the article that you refuse to read it is me
who is mistaken? Please feel free to explain.
Just to remind you the article included a black baby to an Arkansas
couple where DNA tests prove the father was the mother's husband and
both mother and father were white.
On 28/04/2023 12:44 pm, Fredxx wrote:
Probably not, but now consider yourself enlightened:
https://afroculture.net/white-parents-give-birth-to-a-black-child/
On 04/05/2023 06:42 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/05/2023 14:24, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2023 09:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a
majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have shown
that it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can assure you
has a predominantly white population.
I was talking about South Africa.
You can talk about Arkansas if you wish to be irrelevant.
It can only be irrelevant because you didn't read the article
No.
You would be irrelevant because you didn't see that I was discussing
only one case (the first one on the page), located in South Africa.
No-one said that.I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother?
You didn't really get the point, did you? Not even after other
posters spelled it all out in some detail.
Quite, a poster spelled out it was an article that included a couple
in Arkansas. Arkansas is predominantly white. Now who said the mother
was in "a part of the world with a majority black population?"
Not even you, as far as I'm aware.
I did point out that the *case* (it takes two to tango) was in such a location.
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white, faithful
lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
You are, yet again, totally mistaken.
Fancy that.
Then feel free to explain the basis of phrase that you snipped so
disingenuously, "There has long been a straightforward explanation for
occurrences such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts".
It isn't the sort of stuff I choose to discuss in the colloquial terms
to which I referred. But they exist and you are well aware of them.
Another poster explained it all.
Not sure how from reading the article that you refuse to read it is me
who is mistaken? Please feel free to explain.
Just to remind you the article included a black baby to an Arkansas
couple where DNA tests prove the father was the mother's husband and
both mother and father were white.
"The article" I was discussing was about a case in *South Africa*.
Forget Arkansas. it's irrelevant.
On 04/05/2023 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2023 06:42 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/05/2023 14:24, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2023 09:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a >>>>>>>>>> majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population? >>>>>The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have shown
that it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can assure you
has a predominantly white population.
I was talking about South Africa.
You can talk about Arkansas if you wish to be irrelevant.
It can only be irrelevant because you didn't read the article
No.
You would be irrelevant because you didn't see that I was discussing
only one case (the first one on the page), located in South Africa.
No-one said that.I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother?
You didn't really get the point, did you? Not even after other
posters spelled it all out in some detail.
Quite, a poster spelled out it was an article that included a couple
in Arkansas. Arkansas is predominantly white. Now who said the mother
was in "a part of the world with a majority black population?"
Not even you, as far as I'm aware.
Are you now in denial you said the words, "a part of the world with a majority black population?" You made an attempt to pull down the poor
mother who has already been unfairly vilified.
I did point out that the *case* (it takes two to tango) was in such a
location.
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white, faithful
lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
You are, yet again, totally mistaken.
Fancy that.
Then feel free to explain the basis of phrase that you snipped so
disingenuously, "There has long been a straightforward explanation
for occurrences such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts".
It isn't the sort of stuff I choose to discuss in the colloquial terms
to which I referred. But they exist and you are well aware of them.
Another poster explained it all.
Then you shouldn't have commented. Your explanation was wide off the
mark. If you had ready the article you would have seen that.
Not sure how from reading the article that you refuse to read it is
me who is mistaken? Please feel free to explain.
Just to remind you the article included a black baby to an Arkansas
couple where DNA tests prove the father was the mother's husband and
both mother and father were white.
"The article" I was discussing was about a case in *South Africa*.
Perhaps you should have been more specific about which article, or part,
you were referring to. The article I linked and was expecting a more considered reply referred to a couple in Arkansas, where were both were white, and where the father was the white husband using DNA evidence.
Forget Arkansas. it's irrelevant.
I cannot forget Arkansas. It is wholly relevant when you comment on an article that you utterly misunderstood, or couldn't be bothered to read
past the headline.
On 05/05/2023 06:54 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/05/2023 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2023 06:42 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/05/2023 14:24, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2023 09:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a >>>>>>>>>>> majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black population? >>>>>>The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have
shown that it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can
assure you has a predominantly white population.
I was talking about South Africa.
You can talk about Arkansas if you wish to be irrelevant.
It can only be irrelevant because you didn't read the article
No.
You would be irrelevant because you didn't see that I was discussing
only one case (the first one on the page), located in South Africa.
No-one said that.I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother?
You didn't really get the point, did you? Not even after other
posters spelled it all out in some detail.
Quite, a poster spelled out it was an article that included a couple
in Arkansas. Arkansas is predominantly white. Now who said the
mother was in "a part of the world with a majority black population?"
Not even you, as far as I'm aware.
Are you now in denial you said the words, "a part of the world with a
majority black population?" You made an attempt to pull down the poor
mother who has already been unfairly vilified.
Yes - South Africa!
Is that controversial?
I said nothing about the mother. You have made that up.
I did point out that the *case* (it takes two to tango) was in such a
location.
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white, faithful >>>>>> lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
You are, yet again, totally mistaken.
Fancy that.
Then feel free to explain the basis of phrase that you snipped so
disingenuously, "There has long been a straightforward explanation
for occurrences such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts".
It isn't the sort of stuff I choose to discuss in the colloquial
terms to which I referred. But they exist and you are well aware of
them. Another poster explained it all.
Then you shouldn't have commented. Your explanation was wide off the
mark. If you had ready the article you would have seen that.
Again, in English?
Not sure how from reading the article that you refuse to read it is
me who is mistaken? Please feel free to explain.
Just to remind you the article included a black baby to an Arkansas
couple where DNA tests prove the father was the mother's husband and
both mother and father were white.
"The article" I was discussing was about a case in *South Africa*.
Perhaps you should have been more specific about which article, or
part, you were referring to. The article I linked and was expecting a
more considered reply referred to a couple in Arkansas, where were
both were white, and where the father was the white husband using DNA
evidence.
Forget Arkansas. it's irrelevant.
I cannot forget Arkansas. It is wholly relevant when you comment on an
article that you utterly misunderstood, or couldn't be bothered to
read past the headline.
Grow up, lad.
On 05/05/2023 20:55, JNugent wrote:
On 05/05/2023 06:54 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/05/2023 19:37, JNugent wrote:
On 04/05/2023 06:42 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 04/05/2023 14:24, JNugent wrote:
On 03/05/2023 09:49 pm, Fredxx wrote:
On 29/04/2023 17:05, JNugent wrote:
[ ... ]
And notice that it took place in a part of the world with a >>>>>>>>>>>> majority
black population?
Sorry, I didn't realise Arkansas had a majority black
population?
The story was of a happening in South Africa.
What has Arkansas to do with that?
You need to read further down the (rather tedious) page.
No thanks. I read far enough.
Yes, you probably feel you did, any further and it would have
shown that it had everything to do with Arkansas, which I can
assure you has a predominantly white population.
I was talking about South Africa.
You can talk about Arkansas if you wish to be irrelevant.
It can only be irrelevant because you didn't read the article
No.
You would be irrelevant because you didn't see that I was discussing
only one case (the first one on the page), located in South Africa.
No-one said that.I can only assuming your post was intended as a slur to the mother? >>>>>You didn't really get the point, did you? Not even after other
posters spelled it all out in some detail.
Quite, a poster spelled out it was an article that included a
couple in Arkansas. Arkansas is predominantly white. Now who said
the mother was in "a part of the world with a majority black
population?"
Not even you, as far as I'm aware.
Are you now in denial you said the words, "a part of the world with a
majority black population?" You made an attempt to pull down the poor
mother who has already been unfairly vilified.
Yes - South Africa!
Is that controversial?
I said nothing about the mother. You have made that up.
The article I linked to, which you seem unable or unwilling to read
included a white couple in Arkansas
in a predominantly white state. The
husband was proved to be the father of the child by way of DNA.
If you had troubled to read the article you would have discovered I had
not made it up.
I would go further and say it's not becoming of ulm to say I made
anything up.
I did point out that the *case* (it takes two to tango) was in such
a location.
I'm just wondering why you felt you should abuse a white,
faithful lady, albeit in a oblique manner?
You are, yet again, totally mistaken.
Fancy that.
Then feel free to explain the basis of phrase that you snipped so
disingenuously, "There has long been a straightforward explanation
for occurrences such as that. And even a terminology, of sorts".
It isn't the sort of stuff I choose to discuss in the colloquial
terms to which I referred. But they exist and you are well aware of
them. Another poster explained it all.
Then you shouldn't have commented. Your explanation was wide off the
mark. If you had ready the article you would have seen that.
Again, in English?
I recommend you don't comment on articles you haven't read showing
ignorance of its contents, and then refuse to read the article.
Presumably out of embarrassment.
Not sure how from reading the article that you refuse to read it is
me who is mistaken? Please feel free to explain.
Just to remind you the article included a black baby to an Arkansas
couple where DNA tests prove the father was the mother's husband
and both mother and father were white.
"The article" I was discussing was about a case in *South Africa*.
Perhaps you should have been more specific about which article, or
part, you were referring to. The article I linked and was expecting a
more considered reply referred to a couple in Arkansas, where were
both were white, and where the father was the white husband using DNA
evidence.
Forget Arkansas. it's irrelevant.
I cannot forget Arkansas. It is wholly relevant when you comment on
an article that you utterly misunderstood, or couldn't be bothered to
read past the headline.
Grow up, lad.
Anyone would think you're whitelisted. I am grown up thanks....
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 300 |
| Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
| Uptime: | 43:12:08 |
| Calls: | 6,709 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 12,243 |
| Messages: | 5,354,017 |