BF2S Forums Race relations thread

Jaekus wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Incoming whites didn't want to assimilate with the natives, as was the case for the rest of the Empire.

No, they forced the Aboriginal people to become assimilated and at one point tried to absorb their culture by mixing their blood into mainstream white society, hence the Stolen Generations from around 1860 up to 1960 and in some places right up to the 1970s.

when white people act this way, it's fine, they're racially superior.

but if a lebanese immigrant doesn't want to learn english, or pay much notice to the natives? fucking scum

this is how dilbert's world works.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Had way more relaxed attitudes towards natives and freed slaves in totality. British and Americans did everything they could to separate themselves from native people and others. The Spanish and Portuguese actually mixed in and built new societies with them. It is why race relations are as close to humanely perfect as possible in Latin, and Portuguese America as opposed to apartheid South Africa, recently desegregated U.S., and Australia.

lol. yeah race relations in south america are near perfect. LOL. you missed the whole hugo chavez thing, then? or 100 years of literature and latin modernism exploring the severe class/race conflicts between the indigenous and the implanted euro-bourgeoisie elite?

LOL. please. go read another textbook. your knowledge is pitiful.

and it is very easy to view the race-mixing and cultural hijacking in places like brazil as a cynical strategy to attain the same level of control as the british/american systems. it's completely disingenuous and false to make out the spanish/portugese were more 'compassionate'. the portugese (and belgians) were renowned for some of the most brutal colonies of all. they were frequently lambasted in other nation's press for their ways.

You are trying to racialize class and economic issues.  You are projecting your British social set up on a whole completely different society and part of the world. It speaks to your perception of the world when the first thing you see is racial conflict when looking at a mixed society. Like I mentioned before your press was bias against the Spanish. So if you are running with that as an argument then you are basing things on lies.

You go read a text book. I am way more closer to this than you are.

Macbeth wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Had way more relaxed attitudes towards natives and freed slaves in totality. British and Americans did everything they could to separate themselves from native people and others. The Spanish and Portuguese actually mixed in and built new societies with them. It is why race relations are as close to humanely perfect as possible in Latin, and Portuguese America as opposed to apartheid South Africa, recently desegregated U.S., and Australia.

lol. yeah race relations in south america are near perfect. LOL. you missed the whole hugo chavez thing, then? or 100 years of literature and latin modernism exploring the severe class/race conflicts between the indigenous and the implanted euro-bourgeoisie elite?

LOL. please. go read another textbook. your knowledge is pitiful.

and it is very easy to view the race-mixing and cultural hijacking in places like brazil as a cynical strategy to attain the same level of control as the british/american systems. it's completely disingenuous and false to make out the spanish/portugese were more 'compassionate'. the portugese (and belgians) were renowned for some of the most brutal colonies of all. they were frequently lambasted in other nation's press for their ways.

You are trying to racialize class and economic issues.  You are projecting your British social set up on a whole completely different society and part of the world. It speaks to your perception of the world when the first thing you see is racial conflict when looking at a mixed society. Like I mentioned before your press was bias against the Spanish. So if you are running with that as an argument then you are basing things on lies.

You go read a text book. I am way more closer to this than you are.

the british don't racialize anything. our thing is class. your thing is race. thus to say i am "projecting a british social set-up" is pretty funny. british only care about class lines. race is america's bugbear. a great understanding you demonstrate.

the conflict between hugo's people and the european-descended rich elite was very clearly racial. how can you separate race from class/economic wealth in this respect? the people commanding all of the wealth and power were imperialists/settlers from another continent. it's hard to separate a person's wealth from his race in that setting: they are the same figure. to say the spanish imperial approach reached some sort of 'racial harmony' is a little bit ignorant, no? i wouldn't say there are no tensions between ethnically european-descended people and natives. there has historically been huge struggles between imported people's and their culture and the indigenous people and their way of life.

nostromo is one of the best novels i have ever read, related to the subject, btw.

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

lol. yeah race relations in south america are near perfect. LOL. you missed the whole hugo chavez thing, then? or 100 years of literature and latin modernism exploring the severe class/race conflicts between the indigenous and the implanted euro-bourgeoisie elite?

LOL. please. go read another textbook. your knowledge is pitiful.

and it is very easy to view the race-mixing and cultural hijacking in places like brazil as a cynical strategy to attain the same level of control as the british/american systems. it's completely disingenuous and false to make out the spanish/portugese were more 'compassionate'. the portugese (and belgians) were renowned for some of the most brutal colonies of all. they were frequently lambasted in other nation's press for their ways.

You are trying to racialize class and economic issues.  You are projecting your British social set up on a whole completely different society and part of the world. It speaks to your perception of the world when the first thing you see is racial conflict when looking at a mixed society. Like I mentioned before your press was bias against the Spanish. So if you are running with that as an argument then you are basing things on lies.

You go read a text book. I am way more closer to this than you are.

the british don't racialize anything. our thing is class. your thing is race. thus to say i am "projecting a british social set-up" is pretty funny. british only care about class lines. race is america's bugbear. a great understanding you demonstrate.

the conflict between hugo's people and the european-descended rich elite was very clearly racial. how can you separate race from class/economic wealth in this respect? the people commanding all of the wealth and power were imperialists/settlers from another continent. it's hard to separate a person's wealth from his race in that setting: they are the same figure. to say the spanish imperial approach reached some sort of 'racial harmony' is a little bit ignorant, no? i wouldn't say there are no tensions between ethnically european-descended people and natives. there has historically been huge struggles between imported people's and their culture and the indigenous people and their way of life.

The U.K. has way more blatant day to day racial issues than the U.S. National parties don't win seats in our government running on a "immigrants have to go" platform. Our parties bend over backward to at least try to seem inclusive and white people here find the biggest insult you can throw at them is being called a racist. The British throw bananas at soccer players. How enlightened of you.

Stop trying to use Hugo Chavez as an example of race discontent just because some Vice writer tried to play that angle. While whites were sitting on most of the money after the Spanish left doesn't mean the people there see the divide between the rich and poor as a race problem. Like I said, this is projecting British race relations.

coke wrote:

Macbeth wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

the british don't racialize anything. our thing is class. your thing is race. thus to say i am "projecting a british social set-up" is pretty funny. british only care about class lines. race is america's bugbear. a great understanding you demonstrate.

the conflict between hugo's people and the european-descended rich elite was very clearly racial. how can you separate race from class/economic wealth in this respect? the people commanding all of the wealth and power were imperialists/settlers from another continent. it's hard to separate a person's wealth from his race in that setting: they are the same figure. to say the spanish imperial approach reached some sort of 'racial harmony' is a little bit ignorant, no? i wouldn't say there are no tensions between ethnically european-descended people and natives. there has historically been huge struggles between imported people's and their culture and the indigenous people and their way of life.

The U.K. has way more blatant day to day racial issues than the U.S. National parties don't win seats in our government running on a "immigrants have to go" platform. Our parties bend over backward to at least try to seem inclusive and white people here find the biggest insult you can throw at them is being called a racist. The British throw bananas at soccer players. How enlightened of you.

Stop trying to use Hugo Chavez as an example of race discontent just because some Vice writer tried to play that angle. While whites were sitting on most of the money after the Spanish left doesn't mean the people there see the divide between the rich and poor as a race problem. Like I said, this is projecting British race relations.

This, this is hilarious!

Macbeth probably watched This is England and decided that there's a huge race issue in the UK.

Last edited by Cybargs (2013-03-27 08:36:08)

It is truly amazing how great British people think their race relations are and how shitty they see others. You guys act like your shit doesn't stink.

Macbeth wrote:

It is truly amazing how great British people think their race relations are and how shitty they see others. You guys act like your shit doesn't stink.

No one said race relations in Britain are great, but they certainly aren't bad. And to say that the "UK has more blatant day to day racial issues than the US" is frankly laughable.

britain is one of the most inclusive and race-unconcerned places in europe. france are obsessed with a national monoculture and official 'high' identity. germany, well, let's not go there. scandinavia are all pure and very family/community oriented, and very intolerant of outsiders. italy hates immigrants. spain is barely ever not under some sort of right-wing totalitarian sway. britain, especially considering it is an island people, and hence always historically suspicious of people coming from without, is hugely diverse and tolerant. multiculturalism is far from a perfect project, and 'integration' is sometimes a bit of a fabled-utopian dream, but on the whole, the race you are in britain determines very little.

the existence of the BNP says nothing. the tea party are basically just the BNP's social beliefs in a different ideological banner. the BNP represent a current that you find in every mass democracy: disenfranchised working-class people who no longer have jobs/economic sustenance/a social place. xenophobia is rife across all societies in these groups of former-industrial workers. it's a form of social conservatism in the face of globalised powers that are the cause of their poverty. this is not 'british'. the BNP are not a political power  here. the party has crumbled and collapsed, after a once-in-a-century rise to prominence in all of about 3 seats. lol. a hilarious misrepresentation by macbeth there.

frankly i'm glad we have parties like the BNP and UKIP. not because i sympathize with them, but because it shows our democracy is more than a 2-party same-flavor bullshit system. if disenfranchised workers and angry xenophobes want to get together and try to form a political credo, more power to them. that's democracy. they'll never win shit, but it's a more healthier stake in society than moving to montana and stockpiling M16's. you fucktard.

Last edited by Uzique The Lesser (2013-03-27 08:49:25)

So you're telling us that former colonials are not looked down upon?

As has been mentioned elsewhere often the most racist people you'll come across in the UK are immigrants themselves either carrying over prejudices from their own culture, or resentment of the "new" immigrants.

coke wrote:

As has been mentioned elsewhere often the most racist people you'll come across in the UK are immigrants themselves either carrying over prejudices from their own culture, or resentment of the "new" immigrants.

i bet the indians and pakistani's don't get along too well.

Jay wrote:

So you're telling us that former colonials are not looked down upon?

Race relations are great there. Uzique hasn't been knocking down Roc with racial abuse for the past week at all. That isn't racism. It is just joking. Americans are the real racist.