Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

Different cultures have different prejudices and different perspectives on various different things.

It is not really "weird", it is just the sort of thing that happens with enough time and distance.

@ Gabrael: I'd just like to note these are my personal views. Other British Trope's views will differ.

Racial slurs are verboten in modern Britain. I wouldn't be surprised that in some places (especially in the Public Sector) saying a racial slur is a offence likely to get you instantly sacked, if not worse.

The anti-immigration feeling is probably due to several factors; economic conditions and the somewhat loose immigration policies of previous Labour Governments^note  And one of the suspected political calculus behind it — recent immigrants are more likely to vote Labour amongst them. Let's just say it's also tied into the general anti-Politics mood here as well. Asians and Africans are different groups with different histories and regarded as such — indeed there has even been some racial tension (well, riots) between both groups in several cities.

In terms of the Black British and Africans, it's down to their different histories; most Black British people are Afro-Caribbean, have been here for longer^note  since the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948 and have assimilated more than more recent African immigrants. Black British are also more likely to be Christian — Evangelical Christian — then more recent arrivals, which are of more mixed faith (including Muslim).

Not surprising. There's a long history of anti-Irish sentiment, not helped by The Troubles. As for the anti-Americanism...blame the Iraq War for that. I'd admit it's something I'm guilty of myself^note  The usual stereotype of an American in Britain is Eagleland Type 2 — fat, stupid, ignorant and self-riotous.

edited 25th Sep '14 3:27:58 PM by Greenmantle

Oh that I know. The English were very kind to tell me. Never mind I grew up hearing about how my family had to immigrate to escape all the racial drama.

What I found interesting was why would black Englishmen be so pissed off and say this art show was exploiting black history and people when the whole point of the show was to show how these people were treated and encourage a sympathetic and proactive response to minority rights and not repeat past mistakes.

I would appreciate the criticism that black people don't need to remember how they were abused except that its not black people who need to remember. It's the whites. It's the people in charge. Its the people who grew up never knowing this was even a thing or realizing such abuses continue until this day.

The people in charge are probably too aware. And the whites? It'll get written off as Political Correctness Gone Mad, and they've got more pressing problems to worry about. I mean, nobody knows about it and even fewer care.

London is London. It's different to the rest of the country, and virtually a City-State on its own, and with the recent Scottish Referendum, what's more important right now is Nationalism, both between the Nations of the Union and within them.

edited 25th Sep '14 3:55:07 PM by Greenmantle

It wasn't whites who were protesting this exhibit. It was blacks.

London is a city unto itself. It stinks like hell too.

The impression I have, as a white Brit who moved to the US, is that anti-Black racism is less in the UK than in the US, provided you're not a recent immigrant from Africa as Gabrael says.

Anti-Islamic sentiment is worse in the UK in many respects. Also, many American Islamophobes don't actually encounter anyone who meets that description on a regular basis; it's a racial/cultural hatred based on things they've read, seen on the news, searched the Internet for.

I'm wondering if the protestors against that art piece feel that seeing black people caged like animals will raise racist sentiment rather than encourage reflection and thought?

From now on if a cop pulls me over I'm just gonna assume I'm getting shot even if I follow his orders. I may as well just tell him aim for a meaty spot so the bullet will just pass through, while I'm trying to completely prostrate myself for him.

I'm not sure what the exact procedure for a situation like that is supposed to be, to be honest. But generally speaking, when you're pulled over, you stay in the car with your hands on the wheel until you're told to do otherwise. Getting out of the car or reaching somewhere the officer can't see is always a bad idea. If the officer is standing at the window and can see what you're doing, then getting your registration out of the glove box or something is fine, but reaching under a seat or in the back is going to cause some drama.

I can see why the officer in that video decided to draw his weapon. A bunch of warning signs all at once — guy gets out of the car, then goes back into it (when the cop was probably expecting him to reach into his pocket), and is reaching for something that he can't see because a) it's out of sight inside the car, and b) the driver is blocking it with his body. There's plenty of reason to be suspicious there (none of which has anything to do with race).

Actually shooting, though, seems excessive. While there was reason to be suspicious about what the guy was doing, there was also some obvious innocent explanations for what he was doing. The fact that he only reached back into the car when the officer asked for his ID and only turned back around when the officer started yelling at him means that while it was possible he was going for a weapon, it wasn't exactly the most likely scenario. Like I said, I don't know what official procedure for that kind of situation is, but I'd hope that it's not SOP to shoot someone on the suspicion that they might be able to do something dangerous.

Ultimate, I think the officer overreacted, but it's not as cut and dry as "he's black, open fire!".

Alright.

First mistake: If you pull over a guy and he is halfway out of his car, you ask him to step away from his car and come towards yours. Immediately call for a second unit if you are solo. If he did have another officer, the other officer could have checked the car, gotten whatever license was needed on behalf of the driver, etc. Yeah, him already getting out while the officer is rearranging his car is a red flag.

The officer was rearranging his car to make the camera on the scene which is not just following protocal, that's enough I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt that he wasn't out to get this guy.

Second mistake: If you're in a situation where a suspect is already out, which is weird, ask WHERE is your license, not for the license. Again, more cops are killed in traffic stops, yes even in broad daylight and public spaces, then anything else. I don't blame him for being on edge.

Third mistake: He didn't keep a clear line between himself and the suspect, including line of sight. I'm guessing he was beside his driver's side as potential cover because of how he swept across like that, but he didn't have enough people to securely allow a suspect to move like that.

Fourth mistake: He fired. You can hear the panic in his voice. I think the cop just missaw something and drew. I don't mind that he drew his gun, but he didn't have enough to fire. But at the same time, this is so easy for me to say behind my computer screen, not in the situation.

I don't think this was "BAD COP MUST GET BLACK GUY" I think this was, well intentioned but not really thinking cop who panicked.

By all means sue, but I don't think the cop should be fired based on this video alone. Send him back through retraining and give him a desk until he can clear exams again. Then give him a partner. Give the man who was shot 1.5 million dollars and have his plates spread through the department so everyone knows to leave this guy alone regardless of his seat belt.

Our History Is Richer Than Human Zoos and Enslavement

Latina, at the white, male New York Times: “Why are people thinking it’s OK to say racist sh-t in front of me?”

A Few Comments On Cultural Appropriation

Not exactly earth shattering, but he makes a strong point. He argues that it's a bit strange and pointless to ask him if it's okay for white people to have dreadlocks because dreadlocks are not historically "owned" by black people. He goes on to list some differences between relatively harmless cultural blending (a white person watching anime) and insensitive activities (the "Redskins" moniker and blackface).

This also reminds me of an article about micro-aggressions I came across that opened with the example of a non-black person asking a black woman to teach her how to twerk. If she's some sort of professional dancer or she has otherwise made it known that she knows how to twerk, by all means, ask away. The problem with this question is that it carries with it the implication that black women naturally know how to twerk. It's like asking an Asian guy to help you with your math homework. Are you asking because he's an actual tutor, because he offered his services, because he has an established reputation of being good at math, or because you just presumed he was good at math due to his being Asian? Many people do not make this distinction, and that often leads to things like micro-aggression.

The video is less than five minutes long. Check it out.

EDIT: Something I'd like to briefly add about dreadlocks is that they are one of the oldest hairstyles known to man, and they have been used by Europeans as well as the groups he mentions in the video. I believe the Scots were fairly fond of dreadlocks, as were some ancient German tribes.

edited 28th Sep '14 3:29:15 PM by Aprilla

I'd add that the problem with Iggy Azalea and Miley Cyrus isn't that they're doing things considered part of black culture but that they're pretty much using it for their own purposes, but overall I agreed with the message of the video that cultural appropriation isn't exactly as cut and dry as people on both sides tend to make it.

I'll also note that the bit about dreadlocks being worn by non-Rastafarians (or Hindu yogis) is something that we neglect to talk about in discussions on whether or not it's okay for white people to wear dreadlocks. (Which for the record, I don't really care whether white people wear dreads or not, though I know that many other black people would for perfectly understandable reasons.)

Yeah in my experience approrpriating tends to be more pretending like you invented said cultural item (for example Miley Cyrus acting like she invented twerking, I mean a song about twerking came out in 2000 for Christ's sake) and/or then trying to pretend like you are of the ethnicity. Thus why there wasn't much of an outcry over, say, Amy Winehouse or Adele. Even Robin Thicke, as creepy as he is, never really got cries of appropriation because he never really pretended he was black.

Kind of like Elvis Presley? I'm not that familiar with him or his music, but the way I hear it, his fame was partially to offset the innovations made by black artists.

Elvis never claimed he invented Rock N' Roll, either. He simply popularised a specific brand of it (rockabilly).

edited 29th Sep '14 12:16:48 PM by LogoP

That's not the point I was making. As I said, the argument I've heard is that is his music was used to draw attention and accomplishment from other artists of color.

Then you might as well make the same point about Rock Music in general...

Yes and no. Rockabilly was a combination of both rythm & blues, which had a clear African-American origin, and white american folk/country music. Elvis himself acknowledged that influence, which he called a "debt".

However, he certainly didn't appropriate anything, as we mean it know. If anything, many POC artists based their stage mannerisms on his.

edited 29th Sep '14 12:40:19 PM by LogoP

Income inequality highlighed by Google Maps. Specifically, using it to look at the most unequal county in the US, a lake separating the rich white folks from the poor black folks. Which, until recently, only one side was searchable using Google Street View. I'm sure you can guess which side was searchable.

Proof on that last one?

Tom and Jerry cartoons carry racism warning

Can Mighty Whitey apply to an entire group or only ever to a single character?

Tom and Jerry bothered me more because of how Jerry was honestly a little shit most of the time and yet Tom, who is just doing what he's told and following the rules, is the bad guy.

Kinda got a bad Classical Aladdin feel.

But I remember the older cartoons like Little Lulu, Casper, and other old ones that had the Mammy stereotype in there. I also remember the classic WWII cartoons against the Japanese.

I don't think these particular cartoons should be inaccessible because I think they are good teaching lessons in the proper context. However there are many other classic cartoons you can play. You can leave the Mammy ones in the vault.

You know you are an adult when you start rooting for Tom. Jerry really is a prick of the highest order.

@Zeal

A quick wiki-search suggests that this was the opinion of Jackie Wilson.

edited 1st Oct '14 7:04:14 AM by Achaemenid