Edward Colston/Trans rights/Stamp collecting

veronese68

elbowloh said:

blazing_saddles said:

veronese68 said:

Racism is prejudice based on race, you can have other prejudices I know. But, racism is prejudice.

So, as black folks are also quite often prejudice against whites, does that make them racist?

Yes, of course.

Not sure why you would need to ask this?

I didn't think it warranted an answer, clearly someone is bored and looking for an argument.

blazing_saddles

elbowloh said:

blazing_saddles said:

veronese68 said:

Racism is prejudice based on race, you can have other prejudices I know. But, racism is prejudice.

So, as black folks are also quite often prejudice against whites, does that make them racist?

Yes, of course.

Not sure why you would need to ask this?

Well, I would have thought so, but being of a different generation to most on here, I find that sometimes it is best to check whether or not I have missed some subtle difference or salient point.
I am aware it's a sensitive topic and wasn't looking to get a rise out of anybody, just clarification.

So, thanks for the civil response.

DeVlaeminck

To be fair plenty of people do argue that whites can't suffer racism as racism is about power and oppressed groups don't have power over the oppressor.

john80

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

veronese68 said:

ilovegrace said:

rjsterry said:

ilovegrace said:

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

From surveys 20-25% of the population openly admit to being racist. Bikeradar is not remotely representative of the country on many measures. We all ride bikes for a start.

Sorry , dont believe it , show me the official survey and I will have to reconsider my theory.

I vaguely recall reading something where when answering a survey anonymously lots of people admitted to a degree of racism, but if asked openly they would deny it vehemently. This isn't"I'm not racist but..." types, more your average person. Can't remember the figures but remember being shocked by it.

The majority of drivers think they are better than average so go figure.

Half of all drivers are better than average though.

Unfortunately more than half think they are better than average though.

pblakeney

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

veronese68 said:

ilovegrace said:

rjsterry said:

ilovegrace said:

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

From surveys 20-25% of the population openly admit to being racist. Bikeradar is not remotely representative of the country on many measures. We all ride bikes for a start.

Sorry , dont believe it , show me the official survey and I will have to reconsider my theory.

I vaguely recall reading something where when answering a survey anonymously lots of people admitted to a degree of racism, but if asked openly they would deny it vehemently. This isn't"I'm not racist but..." types, more your average person. Can't remember the figures but remember being shocked by it.

The majority of drivers think they are better than average so go figure.

Half of all drivers are better than average though.

Unfortunately more than half think they are better than average though.

If 80% of all drivers think they are better than average then 62.5% of them will be correct. Stats are funny like that.

veronese68

blazing_saddles said:

elbowloh said:

blazing_saddles said:

veronese68 said:

Racism is prejudice based on race, you can have other prejudices I know. But, racism is prejudice.

So, as black folks are also quite often prejudice against whites, does that make them racist?

Yes, of course.

Not sure why you would need to ask this?

Well, I would have thought so, but being of a different generation to most on here, I find that sometimes it is best to check whether or not I have missed some subtle difference or salient point.
I am aware it's a sensitive topic and wasn't looking to get a rise out of anybody, just clarification.

So, thanks for the civil response.

In which case I apologise for my curt response, many do just try to get a rise.

david37

good to see the lib tards getting a pasting. Well done that man (or woman or non specific gender)

pangolin

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

veronese68 said:

ilovegrace said:

rjsterry said:

ilovegrace said:

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

From surveys 20-25% of the population openly admit to being racist. Bikeradar is not remotely representative of the country on many measures. We all ride bikes for a start.

Sorry , dont believe it , show me the official survey and I will have to reconsider my theory.

I vaguely recall reading something where when answering a survey anonymously lots of people admitted to a degree of racism, but if asked openly they would deny it vehemently. This isn't"I'm not racist but..." types, more your average person. Can't remember the figures but remember being shocked by it.

The majority of drivers think they are better than average so go figure.

Half of all drivers are better than average though.

Unfortunately more than half think they are better than average though.

If 80% of all drivers think they are better than average then 62.5% of them will be correct. Stats are funny like that.

Not if some of the 20% who don't think they're better than average actually are.

pblakeney

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

veronese68 said:

ilovegrace said:

rjsterry said:

ilovegrace said:

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

From surveys 20-25% of the population openly admit to being racist. Bikeradar is not remotely representative of the country on many measures. We all ride bikes for a start.

Sorry , dont believe it , show me the official survey and I will have to reconsider my theory.

I vaguely recall reading something where when answering a survey anonymously lots of people admitted to a degree of racism, but if asked openly they would deny it vehemently. This isn't"I'm not racist but..." types, more your average person. Can't remember the figures but remember being shocked by it.

The majority of drivers think they are better than average so go figure.

Half of all drivers are better than average though.

Unfortunately more than half think they are better than average though.

If 80% of all drivers think they are better than average then 62.5% of them will be correct. Stats are funny like that.

Not if some of the 20% who don't think they're better than average actually are.

Now you are complicating simple statistics. 😉

briantrumpet

pblakeney said:

pangolin said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

pblakeney said:

john80 said:

veronese68 said:

ilovegrace said:

rjsterry said:

ilovegrace said:

Just found the thread so have not been involved in what can only be described as an "interesting thread"
What I would like everyone to consider is this ,
Given that Bikeradar is a fairly wide representation of Britain , each one of us has to ask our self "am I a racist " yes or no.
I would guess the "yes" answer would be very very rare ,if at all .
So we have to ask ourselves (or at least the people who do not believe the report) ,
If we are a racist country ,"where/who are these racists "?

To he who only has a hammer everything is a nail.

From surveys 20-25% of the population openly admit to being racist. Bikeradar is not remotely representative of the country on many measures. We all ride bikes for a start.

Sorry , dont believe it , show me the official survey and I will have to reconsider my theory.

I vaguely recall reading something where when answering a survey anonymously lots of people admitted to a degree of racism, but if asked openly they would deny it vehemently. This isn't"I'm not racist but..." types, more your average person. Can't remember the figures but remember being shocked by it.

The majority of drivers think they are better than average so go figure.

Half of all drivers are better than average though.

Unfortunately more than half think they are better than average though.

If 80% of all drivers think they are better than average then 62.5% of them will be correct. Stats are funny like that.

Not if some of the 20% who don't think they're better than average actually are.

Now you are complicating simple statistics. 😉

OT, but when I was at school, for A-level, the better mathematicians did pure & applied, and the less competent did pure & stats. Suffice to say, I should have gone into the pure and stats dunces' class, but ended up in the 'top set', and didn't exactly shine. Still, at least it prevented me screwing up stats later in life, or even pretending that I understand them. Safer just to assume they are all made up.

blazing_saddles

veronese68 said:

blazing_saddles said:

elbowloh said:

blazing_saddles said:

veronese68 said:

Racism is prejudice based on race, you can have other prejudices I know. But, racism is prejudice.

So, as black folks are also quite often prejudice against whites, does that make them racist?

Yes, of course.

Not sure why you would need to ask this?

Well, I would have thought so, but being of a different generation to most on here, I find that sometimes it is best to check whether or not I have missed some subtle difference or salient point.
I am aware it's a sensitive topic and wasn't looking to get a rise out of anybody, just clarification.

So, thanks for the civil response.

In which case I apologise for my curt response, many do just try to get a rise.

Thanks.
I don't post much, but I do follow the thread.

rick_chasey

DeVlaeminck said:

To be fair plenty of people do argue that whites can't suffer racism as racism is about power and oppressed groups don't have power over the oppressor.

Yeah it’s a structural thing, not something that excludes specific instances of the reverse.

Pross

The BBC will have probably managed to managed to upset both sides with the Antiques Roadshow tonight. They did quite an interesting piece on the first cook and house keeper at the place in Scotland that was hosting. He'd been enslaved at 4, taken to a Caribbean plantation from 6 before being bought by the owner of the house who eventually gave him his freedom and the job at a salary that would be the equivalent of £30k today plus a house of the estate. He'd been educated sufficiently to sign his own name on the contract and went on to marry a local woman with apparently no controversy.

The next guest was a guy with his collection of Georgian / Victorian sugar tongs that he started collecting as a reminder of how slavery was used to ensure the rich could feel special buying luxuries like sugar.

I suspect it will be the case whenever they host an episode from any stately home where the owners were connected to the slave trade that they'll do a bit covering that. Probably a good thing if only as it gives a bit of interesting information on the property.

rjsterry

A reminder of what people thought about race in the mid 19th century. An anthropological map from 1848.

TheBigBean

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

david37

rjsterry said:

A reminder of what people thought about race in the mid 19th century. An anthropological map from 1848.

And not one person alive then is alive now, nor have there been since the last millennium. is your point how much has changed?

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

Sure. Clearly we've come a long way on many fronts, but there are still a not inconsequential number of people - one even a Nobel Laureate - arguing quite seriously for the ideas contained within that map.

So in answer to david37's question, a bit of both. I think somewhere in that report, the data is saying that, but it's all got a bit lost.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

TheBigBean

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

Sure. Clearly we've come a long way on many fronts, but there are still a not inconsequential number of people - one even a Nobel Laureate - arguing quite seriously for the ideas contained within that map.

So in answer to david37's question, a bit of both. I think somewhere in that report, the data is saying that, but it's all got a bit lost.

What are the ideas contained within that map that people are arguing for ?

Images aren't in high enough definition to zoom in.

rjsterry

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

Sure. Clearly we've come a long way on many fronts, but there are still a not inconsequential number of people - one even a Nobel Laureate - arguing quite seriously for the ideas contained within that map.

So in answer to david37's question, a bit of both. I think somewhere in that report, the data is saying that, but it's all got a bit lost.

What are the ideas contained within that map that people are arguing for ?

Images aren't in high enough definition to zoom in.

Sorry, thought that might be an issue. Here's a link to the original.

https://twitter.com/MapPornTweet/status/1379087809315766277?s=19

Broadly the idea that some races are superior to others. James Watson - Nobel Laureate for his work on the structure of DNA - continues to promote this basic idea.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

Sure. Clearly we've come a long way on many fronts, but there are still a not inconsequential number of people - one even a Nobel Laureate - arguing quite seriously for the ideas contained within that map.

So in answer to david37's question, a bit of both. I think somewhere in that report, the data is saying that, but it's all got a bit lost.

What are the ideas contained within that map that people are arguing for ?

Images aren't in high enough definition to zoom in.

Sorry, thought that might be an issue. Here's a link to the original.

https://twitter.com/MapPornTweet/status/1379087809315766277?s=19

Broadly the idea that some races are superior to others. James Watson - Nobel Laureate for his work on the structure of DNA - continues to promote this basic idea.

And to make it even easier:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EyOBDW0WYAAvRMb?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

rjsterry

Thanks, BT.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.

Yes that is no doubt true, but in 1848 the slave trade had already been banned for 40 years and slavery in colonies had been banned for 15 years. No idea how profitable the plantations were at that point.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

You’ve lost me. Who’s proud of work houses and why are they comparable to colonialism?

DeVlaeminck

rjsterry said:

DeVlaeminck said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

Sure. Clearly we've come a long way on many fronts, but there are still a not inconsequential number of people - one even a Nobel Laureate - arguing quite seriously for the ideas contained within that map.

So in answer to david37's question, a bit of both. I think somewhere in that report, the data is saying that, but it's all got a bit lost.

What are the ideas contained within that map that people are arguing for ?

Images aren't in high enough definition to zoom in.

Sorry, thought that might be an issue. Here's a link to the original.

https://twitter.com/MapPornTweet/status/1379087809315766277?s=19

Broadly the idea that some races are superior to others. James Watson - Nobel Laureate for his work on the structure of DNA - continues to promote this basic idea.

Ah ok thanks. Yes that's obviously a controversial idea - googling him he has a number of controversial views based in genetics doesn't he.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.

Yes that is no doubt true, but in 1848 the slave trade had already been banned for 40 years and slavery in colonies had been banned for 15 years. No idea how profitable the plantations were at that point.

Very. Freed slaves in the Caribbean mostly continued working on the same plantations for low wages.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.

Yes that is no doubt true, but in 1848 the slave trade had already been banned for 40 years and slavery in colonies had been banned for 15 years. No idea how profitable the plantations were at that point.

Very. Freed slaves in the Caribbean mostly continued working on the same plantations for low wages.

A quick google reveals this isn't true. It was a big struggle at the time and only returned to profitability once the indentured labourers had arrived and been established. Interestingly they also didn't do well in the years prior to the ban on slavery.

This is entirely irrelevant though to the point I was making which is that is that life wasn't great for many in the UK at the time, and the ruling classes were entirely comfortable with this.

Also, many consider this Victorian period to be a wonderful time.

rjsterry

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rjsterry said:

TheBigBean said:

rick_chasey said:

TheBigBean said:

Just a regular point, but in 1848, there were work houses for the poor and only a small part of the population got to vote.

I think most people on here wouldn’t get called hand-wringing anti British revisionists for saying that these were bad things, however.

It doesn’t feature in the list of “things British should be proud of”

The Empire does however so you’re not comparing apples with apples.

You don't think democracy and the length of time it has existed is often talked of in the list?

I'm also fairly sure that workhouses will have contributed to someone's wealth and probably a building or two.

They were paid for from local taxation - they weren't intended to generate wealth. I think compared with sugar, tobacco and tea plantations the any wealth generated by the Workhouses was trivial.

Yes that is no doubt true, but in 1848 the slave trade had already been banned for 40 years and slavery in colonies had been banned for 15 years. No idea how profitable the plantations were at that point.

Very. Freed slaves in the Caribbean mostly continued working on the same plantations for low wages.

A quick google reveals this isn't true. It was a big struggle at the time and only returned to profitability once the indentured labourers had arrived and been established. Interestingly they also didn't do well in the years prior to the ban on slavery.

This is entirely irrelevant though to the point I was making which is that is that life wasn't great for many in the UK at the time, and the ruling classes were entirely comfortable with this

From what I've read there are differing views on this, but anyway: it is of course true that life was pretty hard for the 19th century European working classes, too. I don't think there was much of a movement to classify the working classes as an inferior subspecies, though.