I am dismayed. I am frustrated. I am angry.

"Why, John," I hear you ask, "Are you dismayed, frustrated and angry? Why, dear boy? WHY?"

Allow me to explain.

It seems in modern British society that whinging and crying can get you anything if you whinge and cry loud enough. If that is a little vague, I shall elaborate in an extremely elaborate fashion.

This week heralded a court case that could possibly sound the death knell of school uniform in the United Kingdom. I am a fan of school uniform, especially on women too old to actually go to school, but a fan I remain none-the-less. It provides order and regimentation amongst our schoolchildren but more importantly it removes the social distinction between the haves and the have-nots, the class system and religion. Charles Shand-Fontleroy is the same in school as Joe Blogs and Sanjeev Agarkar.

Everybody is equal. Everybody has to wear the same uniform. Until now that is. It seems that one schoolgirl, Shabina Begum, does not want to wear what English tradition and culture declares her to. It's against her Islamic beliefs, you see. And now, thanks to the British judicial system, she has whinged her way out of wearing her uniform. I'm not talking of a similar situation to that of France here (where all Islamic headdress was banned in schools), this is so far removed from the ballpark that it currently resides in a deep crater on the dark side of the moon.

To illustrate, let me provide you with some background of Shabina's school. Forty-three languages are spoken at Denbigh High. It is a school that prides itself in its tolerance of every colour and creed in the land and is one of the best examples amongst our education system of multi-culturalism. Further to this, the school's uniform policy for Muslim girls was agreed after consultation with Muslim clerics.

This is all fair but since when has fairness ever entered into the minds of whingers and downright selfish people? Ms begum is at a good school that has won educational awards and surely she and her parents knew of the uniform code before she enrolled. But no, she had a whinge and claimed that her human rights had been impinged upon because she was banned from wearing a full jilbab.

Do you know why this form of Islamic dress was banned at the school? Because it is the favoured form of dress of Islamic extremists, that's why. These very extremists advised her to wear it. The school's headmistress, Yasmin Bevan - herself a Muslim - banned it (long before Ms Begum attended) because she didn't want vulnerable pupils being exploited by these extremists and she didn't want Muslims who do not wear it to be treated as 'bad' Muslims by others for not doing so.

Denbigh High has bent over backwards to be the best it can to all of it's pupils regardless of their colour, ethnicity or religious belief. It is patently obvious that this was not good enough for Shabina Begum. It was simply not good form for her to have cake - she demanded lashings of strawberries and cream to go with it. The vast majority of schoolchildren don't even get the metaphorical cake nevermind the luxurious toppings.

This absolutely reeks of crybaby-ism. Didn't get what you want today? Throw the rattle out of the pram and get those in charge of so-called justice in this country fetch it back for you to the tune of £70,000 of taxpayers' money. Thanks to this show of teenage petulance, Luton General Hospital has lost out on funding for five extra trainee nurses and her own school has lost out on the recruitment of four trainee teachers. All because standard Muslim dress was not enough for this silly little girl.

If this belligerant abuse of human rights convention is what begets a school devoted to ethnic and religious tolerance, then what hope is there for full integration into a truly multi-cultural society? It seems that some people simply don't want this societal Nirvana, and it's not just the British National Party emitting this fascist stanza.

Shabina Begum does not want to be integrated. She does not want to be a member of multi-cultural Britain. She has no regard for British culture or a tradition that stretches back to even before Isaac Newton disregarded school as a waste of his time. School uniform is as British as cricket; as British as bad teeth; as British as Henmania each year at Wimbledon; and as British as fish and chips. This bastian of British tradition is about to crumble and it will entirely be down to the crying and whinging of one ignominious little brat.

That is why I am dismayed. That is why I am frustrated. That is why I am angry.

__________________

familiar story.

the only solution is to kick that bitch outta the country, along with her burka and plastic explosives.

I'd start a petition or something of the sort. I value history, and I think its blasphemous that some girl (who probably doesn't even fully understand her religion) tries to come to a foreign land and whines and flaunts her religion as a vindication to change everything. Why don't you recommend her going to an Islamic country and staying at home all day, cooking for her husband, then kissing his feet when he gets home, all while depriving herself of a top notch education. What really gets me is that the whole "covering your entire body" tradition came about by corrupt muslim leaders in early post classical muslim society. They had the audacity to say "woman are too beautiful and irresistable, thus they must cover themselves" in order to veritably degrade the gender. (For the record, I have nothing against Islam)

This sort of reminds me of the stupid man that strived to get "under god" taken out of the American Pledge of Allegience. The pledge was rewritten in order to provide citizens with a sense of security and hope during a time of nefarious warfare and such...and perhaps it continues to provide us with hope. But seriously, even if you don't believe in god, heres an idea...DON'T SAY THE PLEDGE YOU IDIOT!

John, I am also tired of such whiney brats

God damn looks like american selfishness and whining is rubbing off on other countries now. maybe im wrong, but americans do seem to be the whiniest and most arogant(and ignorant) people ive seen.

__________________

Nah, its just seems to run through all of humanity. Tiss our genes see?

__________________

Part of the frustration is also down to a hypotheticl reversal of roles. If it was a British schoolchild in, say, Saudi Arabia would they be able to overturn centuries of Saudi tradition with incessant whinging? No, and I certainly hope that A British person living in a different society wouldn't possess the audacity to do so.

Unlike many other countries that have an inherent pride in their culture and tradition, Britain is more concerned with bending over backwards so as not to offend. The response from the onset should have been: "You don't want to what? Wear your uniform? Get back to school you little bint. If you don't like it you know what you can do." It's quite simple.

Have her rights as a human being really been compromised? I say no: the school already had concessions for Islamic dress in place and good reason to ban the wearing of jilbab dress by pupils. Have my human rights been violated by my boss insisting that I wear a suit while on audit? Sure it's uncomfortable; sure I'd rather wear my jeans, boots and Disgorge t-shirt, but you can't always get what you want in life. Unless your a moaner who hides behind religion and ridiculous European constitutional laws, that is.

__________________

same shit has been happening over her for a bunch of years John, it led to the killing of our (at that moment, future prime minister) Pim Fortyn who was more right-winged.

Theo van Gogh, a columnist who spoke his mind once too often got killed too a while ago, it's rediculous. See, we've got a multi-cultural society here but we've been too friendly for foreigners and now they're fucking us over.

not all Muslims or foreigners over here are bad guys but the couple of rotten apples in the bunch ruine it for the rest.

I agree. The high profile cases are often ones that do not reflect well on the Muslim community. I'll bet that there are thousands of Muslims in Britain right now seething with anger that another selfish bastard has painted them in a bad light and set back inter-community relations once again.

As you also stated, Def, people who speak out against it are often wrongly castigated as rascist. Am I rascist for trying to uphold a tradition I believe in? Am I rascist for believing that this silly little girl should have met Denbigh High half way? Of course I'm not. Many peope feel the same way but are afraid to speak out because of the liberal left pouncing on them.

__________________

She has every right to complain, whereupon they simply should of course invited her to go fuck herself. But instead, this hippy quagmire.

Schools have nothing to do with social justice and freedom of expression anyway. You go to school to get that kind of thing beaten out of you so you understand the world is a cesspit run by authoritarian cunts when you leave. This is preparation for later life.

This girl is getting entirely too much attention. She should be strung from a lamp-post for wasting valuable seconds of other peoples lives with waffle.

__________________

She also wasted £70,000 of taxpayers' money by bringing procedings to court, but she seems quite proud of herself.

__________________

Seventy thousand POUNDS. Argh. Fuck her, and this pathetic 'freedom of speech' parade. Top marks for taking on the 'big issues', you stupid hairy monster of a girl.

When will people understand the reason that teenagers shouldn't have freedom of speech is because they're functionally retarded? Why do you think I'm always so darned cruel here? I'm actually very pleasant if you ever meet me in person veins.

__________________

I haven't really read much on this story, but isn't her brother a muslim extremist or something? I heard on the news she was mentioned Iraq or some shit.

Haha, this is exceptionally true.

__________________

It was the extremists who advised her to wear the banned jilbab so it is a distinct possibility that her brother is also in league with them. I hope they're proud that a foolish and naive girl has missed two years of schooling to be a pawn in their political games.

__________________

NO
this is aimed just at the whits here for a sec- do you guys have pride in being white and your ancestors?? im not talking about white pride like "heil hitler kill all non whites" thats just dumb, but pride in where you come from and who you are? i have the utmost pride in my ancesors and who i am, but as soon as you mention that you get pissed on and labeld a nazi and racists peice of shit. yet if someone said black pride or jew pride or even gay pride they get hailed for it

ok now...

this is a prime example of why multiculturism is a crock of shit. im sure ill get flamed for this and piss a few people off, but i couldnt give a shit about their culturs. and i dont think we should have to bend over for their shit, nor do i think if we were in their country that they should bend over for us.
everyones so caught up with being so freindly and open minded and multi cultural its sick, they get so wrapped up in learning about everyone elses cultur and history that they forget or neglect their own. in schools here, we get thrown at us about how great jews,blacks,muslims everyone is soo great and we have to take courses to learn about their pre-christian religions. but when somone mentions odinism, their automatically marked a nazi. and when it comes to our culture and heritage were taught only negative things and that we should feel ashamed about it. yes i know we did do alot of bad things in history but so has everyone else. we get pounded over and over and over about how american slavery as sooo worng and that we should still feel bad about it, but do they ever mention how in africa their still is slavery, no. and do the same people that talk about american slavery being worng do anything about the slavery still going on, no. the same shit happens here all the time. some jew complained a few years ago about how she had to learn abot christmas every year and such, (first off she was OUT of school at the time she brought this up!) so now the courts say we cant have anything christmas related in schools, or any other christians religion (of which i couldnt care anyway) but i distinctly remember being force fed jewish shit from then on. I do realise alot of this country is made up of these other culturs and people, and they should have the right to learn about their heritage .in english i remember doing this almost half a year project on black writers because white writers were "old white dead and non important" how are we expected to relate to this ( i guess now would be a good time to say that there was MAYBE one non white kid in my school) these writers are going on about slavery and such, i just dont care and theres nothing for me there, i would much rather read snorri sturlusen and his norse eddas, of which i can relate to because those are my ancestors. but the school board says this is non important and we shouldnt learn it but instead we should be taught the kabbala

__________________

Excellent point there GD, of course I have pride in my Russian heritage. I do care about black/jewish/arab (whatever) cultures, but the problem arises, as you have said, when that is all schools and institutions teach. Luckily, my school isn't really like that, but my previous schools have been and it pisses me off.

It's pure hypocrisy. If I had said "I don't think the holocaust really happened" or something along those lines, I would have probably been suspended, but all other people from different cultures are allowed to say whatever they wish. White people in my school are afraid to express their pride for their race as it is often misconstrued as racism. Jews even think I'm racist, just for being friends with a Palestinian guy!

In my (limited) experience, it's best to keep your mouth shut, or express your views and opinions in a subtle way. This kind of shit gets a lot of people into trouble for the wrong reasons.

here is the solution to multiculturalism and the many laws that come with it. prepare yourselves, its not the answer you want to hear


















there is no solution. live your life in your own way, racist or accepting, proud or humble, but you will not , nor will countries, be able to jump the boundaries of racial mixing or religious mixing or whatever the problem is. live by yourself and associate with only people you approve of and have the same mentality as you.

the end

__________________

you shouldnt go overboard on the odinism stuff, studying it in school is kinda pointless, i say this knowing that the greek/roman stuff in world history is a little too overemphisised, and being a greek i read the mythology on my own,study the periods i enjoy<mycenean,minoan,when my ancestors were at war with the pharoahs and shit, thats the stuff i love>im not worshipping zues or anything.i hate the classical period myself.multiculturalism in school is just another symptom of a neurotic and truely empathyless society<america> teaching thier young to embrace beliefs and ideas that they themselves do NOT share, its a big apologetic band-aid to a problem that is NOT FIXED, and will never be by the virtue of high school, it will<racism>will be aleviated somewhat, but not alltogether eraticated when the baby-boom generation retires from our government, im convinced of this, as with the communist/terrorist obsessions that plagues our politics. there is no conspiracy to be had, 9/11 was payback from our cold war policies and the goverments we shattered and usurped. europe is paying for it too cause they benefitted from our policies in some ways and had shitty policies themselves, they also have the highest concentration of wealth and luxury on the other side of the pond, expect attacks and further resentment from the rest of the world, migration of peoples from poor impoverished lands into your country for a better life.

my views on high school is that it should be avioded at all costs, homeschooling,community college are the way to go,

you can go overboard on everything .... moderation is the key to life in all respects


drinking

religion

racial view

education/vs slacking off

moderate it all.... anybody that goes way into one thing is not going to give you a rational and reasonable view

__________________

how did i go overboard? i merly mentiond it. you could view it as pointless but so is teaching a class of all whites that malcom x was a great leader to us

__________________

Cheers to that. I don't even really care about my own cultural heritage for that matter (not even sure what it is). Spending time teaching old ass cultural traditions just takes away from valuable time that could be spent studying philosophy, physics, electronics, guitar, etc...

I know if I had refused to wear my military uniform when I was in the service they would have fucked me up big time and rightly so.

And the millions ALLOWING her to get away with it........it's simply not one persons fault.......and I agree with you on your anger......but unless enough resistance is thrown against this......then you have to live with the results of society tolerating this type of thing.

you can read the norse stuff on your own is all i really meant,as i the greek stuff. malcolm x is important cause he was a black islamic seperatist who later moderated and recanted his old fire and brimstone, he then preached racial acceptance and unity and was killed for it, reading about him in school isnt that bad,c'mon man......black history month just happened huh?, wasnt a big deal when i was in school

i always found that funny, they would try and get the most important black figuers to teach us about, and all they could get were writers and althletes (at least in my school)

__________________

john, that sentence made me angry just by reading it. i'm furious on your behalf. and it's not even in my country. perhaps because it's the same.

a less extreme case was that at school. as a pathetic attempt at humour i said in maths to the teacher "i swear to allah i will have my calculator next lesson.' after class, this lebanese dude in question grabbed me hard and threatened to "beat the living shit out of me, bro" if i said anything about muslims again. it's like you said, there are plenty of decent, hard working muslims out there who run stores, drive public transport and so on, but the minority spoils it for the rest of us.

do us aussies go around in huge gangs in lebanon, doing nothing but driving holden commodores and ford falcons all day, looking for fights, bludging off the government, acting XXXhardXXXcoreXXX 24/7? no we fucking don't. do we go around in turkey, picking fights with the turks, preaching christianity? no.

their constant bitching drives me more insane than your local madhouse. do we complain about the islamic crescent moon "being offensive because it doesn't represent my religion"? no. i don't care if they want to pray 5 times a day to mecca, take part in that starve-yourself-for-a-month bullshit, it's none of my business, until they start crying that everything is "a sin against allah."

i agree with kalmah, i would take a petition. i don't care if i seem ignorant, i don't care if i appear biased, that's my opinion and nobody should have the right to complain that much.

she's taking advantage. if back in her country, doing this would most likely result in her being shot.

Eh, she'd probably be tortured severely...a woman in Iraq was beaten severely for wearing white socks. (supposedly a certain police officer thought she was degrading the country by wearing a color of the flag on her feet)...Now imagine a young girl questioning years of islamic history...

...Get out the whips guys and gals, tis time to inflict some pain!

Good, learn to respect other's religion.

Now get over it, its a fucking UNIFORM, those who wish to wear it still have the right to, those who dont can wear clothes of their choosing.. seems win win in my book.

Worry more about the education than the appearance.

Now I shall leave this thread, before I see some ignorant arab bashing.

__________________

is it so bad if they ban uniforms over there? it represents equality in a superficial way, an ideal never held true to life. as long as theres no gang colors i dont see the harm, when i was in high school it was pot smoking t-shirts or band<gory death metal shirts especially> t-shirts and bandanas that were banned. people feel comfortable in thier own cloths, might help the already drab enviroment of high school in general, who knows

that girl probably only did it cause the birka had already been an issue in other european countries that got large press, the issue had already been stigmatized

good, get a sense of humour. that's what this was intended as: humour. if they choose to be dull and boring, it's not my problem if they get offended by a sad joke.

and why should i respect other people when they clearly don't respect me? by that i mean, never will respect me. this blokes openly despises australians and americans, therefore, i will return some of his hatred.

anyway we're getting off topic.

she should have just gone to another fucking school

That would be the first thing to come to my mind. Maybe she just wanted some popularity, and decided to do it the easy way: do something huge that makes people really angry, but you're the top story in the whole UK for a month.

__________________

You're not biased. Only religious people are biased, based on this topic at hand.

__________________

One way of getting around this would be to outline a code of conduct to students and make them sign it, in which it states that any breaches of this code will result in disaplinary action decided upon the seriousness of the breach. In this the geneal school uniform should be outlined. When they say "Hey I don't want to wear this, im being oppressed, then you have a nice little document to produce saying that they aggreed to being "oppressed". If they choose not to sign the document they can also excercise the right of choise by choosing another school.

__________________

thats a good idea, but thats really pathetic if thats what it takes to make kids go to school and act like reasonable people.

__________________

If i remember correctly it's what I had to do.

__________________

You guys are doing real well with education lately, eh? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4323979.stm

From everything I hear this sounds like a privately-run school (if I'm wrong please correct me), in which case a waiver like Beastie there suggests would have been a smart thing to have invested in while they were stocking themselves with all those multi-cultural accoutrements. Covering your ass is standard legal practice, and, really, if you leave a loophole over for some extremist asshole to achieve a symbolic victory through, you deserve to look stupid in the press. In America we can still discriminate privately all we like, and start your own damn club if you're pissed for not being admitted into mine.

I have an entire anthropological-cum-PST rant on this, but it's really not worth the time typing it out. I mean, aside from John's actually fairly well-founded point, this thread's turned into an opportunity for everybody to air their racial laundry for March, and that's boring and stupid. On the other hand, Transient said something good (or something I chose to interpret as good; I'm not sure), so I guess the thread as a whole about broke even. Cool.

You move to my country, you adopt my culture. Don't like it? Get out.

I move to your country, I adopt your culture. I don't like it? Time for me to leave.

And BLS, it's way more than a fucking UNIFORM. Surely you can see this.

__________________

the more you try and acomodate peoples wishes the more they want to have accomodated, crush the rebellion with an Iron Fist of Tyranny, can no one can winge. as for 70.000 for a teenage winge, Imagine the drum gear I could get with thart!!!!!

__________________

amen to that tim. this may surprise some foreigners, but we actually don't want a bunch of weird customs and funny clothes.

but, you're wasting your time with that last comment. BLS won't see this. he tripped over his guide dog and misses things that ray charles can see. and he doesn't get it either. he wouldn't get it, if it came in a large bag, marked: "To BLS: Re: "It." "

After reading through this thread I thought it very interesting (and freaky)what four items automatically popped up in the ad banner when I hit page 2 of the thread:

" African-American Speakers
Book a Black Public Speaker for Your Black History Month Program.

Discount
Great deals on Items Shop on eBay and Save!

Black Bible Lessons
Teaching Black History From the Bible

African American cultural
DVD, video, 16 mm & 35 mm films Check out our special deals. "


Edit: After I posted this message, the ads were even cooler on page 3:

" From Slavery to Freedom
A History of African Americans. Get the book free w/ free shipping.

BlackNews.com
Daily African-American news and issues.

African American History
Brand new and used. No bidding. Buy it at eBay! (aff)

African-American History
Inclusive American history courses featuring AA contributions"


My favorite is the "African American History Brand new and used."

they should start teaching from howard zinn's "the peoples history" in high school, as they do in college, it stratifies black,native american,european immigrant,rich and poor perspective viewpoints on us history very well. it'll be a good counterpoint to the boring standard us history,ripe with revision and candy coated for mass consumption

No, you shouldn't be proud of being white. You shouldn't be proud that you have white ancestors. Why the fuck should you be proud of that? Nobody should be proud of their ethnic background, and even less should they be proud of their skin color. Everybody has an ethnic background and a skin color, and it's dictated by genetics and nothing more. Anybody who is proud of their color or heritage is simply proud because they were born. What kind of a fucking pansy ass society do we live in where people are proud just because they were born?

People should be proud of personal accomplishments, nothing more.



As for being forced to do a project on black authors, quit whining like a spoiled little school girl. What difference does it make that the authors are black or that they wrote their experiences that you stubbornly refuse to relate to? Big fucking deal. It's school WORK. Not school fun. When I was in high school, I didn't get to base my biology project on snakes. I sure as hell didn't whine about it, just because I couldn't relate to microorganisms. I did projects on books I didn't want to read. You're only using that fact that these authors were black as an excuse to complain about it. I read lots of boring books and did lots of boring projects in high school, what the fuck difference does it make that these guys were black? I defy you to try to come up with an explanation that doesn't make you sound stupid.

As for this Jewish stuff, I'm glad there is no more Christmas shit in schools because I got sick of constantly having Christianity shoved down my throat, being forced to read the entire pledge of allegiance every fucking morning on threats of suspension, and other such nonsense. Good for that girl. Good for America, which believes in (but rarely practices unless girls like that stand forward) separation of Church and State. This stuff got done before I was out of high school, too, I never remember having Judaism shoved down my throat. I doubt you did, either.

There's a huge difference between being made to learn about a religion and it's aspects and having that religion shoved down your throat. You are in school to learn. Religion is a huge facet of history. Quit bitching because you had to learn a religion that doesn't have anything to do Thor, study Nordic mythology on your own time. What importance has Nordic mythology on history compared to that of Judaism? It's nearly irrelevant in comparison. You have to learn about Christianity in schools, as well, and it's entirely relevant because it's an integral part of history.

__________________

Precisely. People like this clearly have no respect anyone's culture but their own.

Classic man. Good for you. I didn't say "under god" in the pledge either (When I did it was an accident and I didn't mean it), but nobody noticed or gave a shit.

As far as that girl goes though, she is forcing her religion on the school, not the other way around. The school is the victim. She is no better than the kooks who changed the pledge of allegiance and our cash to have god in them and she should be ignored like the plague...

There are a few people stating that it's just a uniform and that the school should just let her wear what she wants. I disagree wholeheartedly with this sentiment as it belittles everything that wearing a uniform is meant to mean. Do you think the army would have pandered to this girl's petty moaning? No, her drill sergeant would have told her to shut her mouth and get back in line or face having a court marshall rammed down her throat quicker than a cock to a $5 whore.

Discipline. There's a word. Uniform is about discipline and the breaking down of cultural, religious and ethnic boundaries. Black, white, brown, Christian, Muslim and Jew: they all are the same in uniform. All of them are equal. Uniform also stands for regimentation and a feeling of belonging to something.

Others have questioned why she didn't find another school. Well, the school she went to is one of the leading multi-cultural schools in the entire country. She was already at one of the most flexible schools in terms of Muslim dress but this wasn't enough - she had to whinge in order that she could wear her extremist clothing.

She could not take the fact that the jilbab was banned for a reason and decided to stamp her foot to get her own way. It is this that annoys me more than any of the religious aspect, which just happens to be the catalyst for this particluar cry-athon. I loath, despise and abhor people who cannot accept sound reasoning and go against all logic: arrogant people whose parents never had the guts to say no to them.

This little madam stamped her foot and got her own way. We Brits are famed for our stoicism and our knack for just getting on with things but yet again this is another facet of British society that is gradually being eroded from the inside. In days gone by, if you tripped on the kerb stone you got up sharpishly and hoped that nobody saw you in your state of ignomy. Nowadays, people are rushing 'round the street clammering for people to back up their future compensation claim.

Life is hard, it isn't fair and it certainly isn't for pussies who can't take no for an answer. But when the courts let whingers, crybabies and moaners rub the festering dirt of arrogance onto the face of society I truly despair for every honest and decent person who just gets on with life regardless of how difficult it becomes.

__________________

never thought ide see the day when pst complemented phishboy

__________________

Unfortunately, no matter how many people stand against this sort of thing the matter will always be used as a pawn in political games between the main parties here in Britain. If the government decides to put a paper through parliament outlawing certain Muslim (or any other religion for that matter) dress, the other parties will oppose and pick up the Muslim vote. The situation would be damaging for the government's majority (due to Britain's very large ethnic communities) and could damage it's success in bringing in future laws and legislation. It's very frustrating.

__________________

im assuming he liked the moderation part...

__________________

I think it was when you stated that there is no solution to whingers. I think it was Rene Descartes who famously said, "People whinge, therefore they are." Or something.

__________________

I was going to write a long ass reply pointing out every little thing I disagree with, but I need to get to bed and don't really feel motivated any more. So I'll just say:

1. In my eyes, a line has been drawn between two people I used to respect equally. John and Chris. Chris is "above" the line, as respected as before. John is not. This thread has (in my eyes) shown numerous weird ways of expressing opinions and basing them on facts, that I did not expect from you John. If you'd like to hear what I base this on, I'll try and point the "offending" pieces out to you, if not, we'll, I'll do something else.

2. Chris was the first one to say what I had been thinking since somewhere in the first page. Why be proud of your heritage? Your heritage is not your "fault", your life is.

3. Some of you mentioned hypocrisy. First, I think there's been some obvious hypocrisy in this thread. Second (in reply to someone who said that people are complaining about former American slavery, but not doing anything about Africa of today, and saying this is bad), this type of hypocrisy exists in other places too, and I don't see anyone doing shit about it. George W. Bush has referred to Americans as "peaceful". Yet I can name 9 wars that the USA has participated in, that started after the end of the last war Sweden ever participated in. And Sweden is in a geographically/tactically more important position than the US. And people are complaining about how other countries leaders are lying and being false and whatever, yet they are voting for Bush. Just thought I'd mention it.

4. Some people have mentioned that they want to be thaught their own culture, and not anyone else's. Why? Your own, current culture is all around you every day. There's no need to learn about it.

Not very coherent, and not very thought-through. If you take offense, don't. ;-) It's not meant to make you mad, it's really just me calling it as I see it, and braking down your points, rather than making my own. I think. Or whatever.

I'll try and defend/debate/back-up any statements in this reply if you want me to. Or, if you can prove me wrong, I'll admit my defeat.

__________________

I was respecting your points, and saw your motivation until i reached number 3. First of all, America may not be the MOST peaceful nation in the world, but several of the wars that the country engaged in were justified (i.e. WWI, the U.S. was an international debtor, Europe was preoccupied with the war, so the U.S. monopolized many of Europe's economic clients, thus rendering the country an international creditor...the nation later entered the war to assist allies who were financially, physically, and mentally exhausted, thus keeping a great world reputation, also, WWI as we were a direct target even after practicing isolationism, eh, whatever though) Second, how can you call Sweden a more strategically important nation? The U.S.'s number of international port city's probably exceed's swedens by 50-fold (including Hawaii and Alaska).

Also, people want to learn culture to take part in civil activities and to become good citizens. They may want to learn their countries history, which can unlock understandings about several issues.

Besides these 2 points, i pretty much held respect for everything you said

that is far too true. i myself am a teen, and i do not find myself exempt from that theory

This is a funny and revealing thread.....
Bottom line....we all bleed RED and lets just say to me at least it's a human culture....not a race culture.....think about it.....I can promise with almost 100% assureness that you randomly take 5000 white christian humans (can be ANY race) and isolate them say...on an island.......come back in 10 years...you WILL find the same conditions that a mixed race society goes through.....the strong will take advantage of the weak.....the smart will exploit the dumb.....factions would grow...evolve.....they themselves would find/make reasons to fight...argue....have conflict........thing is....we're all human and humans are for the most part selfish brutal and corruptable.......it's why we have evolved into what we are today......a weak peace loving non violent society would have never made it through the milleniums of time.

I'd like to read your evidence, but I fail to see how my dislike for whingers, complainers, moaners and their apparant absolution from rules that apply to everyone else can result in me 'not living up to your expectations'. As stated earlier my qualms are not based on religion, faith or ethnicity, they are purely based on an uprising of people throwing tantrums to get what they want and then shitting on people who get on with life without complaint.

If me wanting to erradicate bullies who cry to the teacher as soon as you stand up to them makes me a bad person, so be it. If me wanting to eliminate leeches crying compensation every time they fall over takes me below the line, so be it. If me disliking a person for whinging their way out of wearing school uniform when everybody else has to wear it makes me a lesser man, so be it. These types of people are all losers who play the system to their advantage while decent people are left trailing in their disgustingly arrogant wake and I will retain my right to vent my disdain at these despicable little retches until the day I die.

__________________

In your attempt at a profound claim that all people are the same, you failed to realize that all people AREN'T the same. Sure, we may be biologically, similar, but morally, and psychologically, we are entirely different. A islamic extremist has very different fundamentals than does a right wing american christian conservative. Put them on an island together...i bet only 1 survives! Take a bantu african and a native andian from south america...they wouldn't even be able to survive in the same climate as a result of genetic drift and natural selection.

Tens of thousands of years of settlement dispersal, religious belief, war, and countless other factors have created an extremely diverse species.

i agree with kalmah on the last one

nobody here will ever agree on a whole about race. its pointless to argue about it, and nobody is particulary right about it, just like nobody is right about abortion or pot laws either

__________________

We need a law that says one can smoke pot WHILE getting their abortion.....heh heh

You're correct.....I suppose the point I was trying to make is that it's hopeless to try and WISH for a more perfect world.......people suck.....always have......always will.

I'm afraid part of my post may have been misunderstood by some, so let me correct this and say that the girl I was talking about is not the same as the girl that John is talking about. For the record, I am inclined to actually agree with John on this issue, considering that this is a private school (is it not?) and the fact that she is going there for a better education and is not being forced to go. I'm under the impression that her family traveled to where they are for the sole purpose of having their daughter receive an excellent education from this apparently accredited school.

Going strictly by the facts that John has provided, I'd definitely have to side with him on this. They only way I could disagree is if some facts were exaggerated or left out due to a bias, and seeing no evidence of that, I'm inclined to believe John.



We are not a particularly diverse species, either superficially or biologically speaking. Superficially, I can think of many other species with far more variation, Lampropeltis triangulum and Thamnophis sirtalis immediately come to mind, me being a snake person and all.



Nobody will ever agree on a whole about race because far to many people know absolutely nothing about it and can't be bothered to learn anything about it. Despite this stubborn ignorance, these people can be counted on to be the first ones to open their mouths about something. Yes, there are people who are particularly right about it as well, these people are called scientists and are smart enough to know there are no different races of humans.

I've explained this before, and to keep it brief, this whole misconception of seperate 'races' came to be when white people tried to justify torturing and mutilating people and raping and sodomizing women and children under the guise that they were a different species. Nobody is a different species from anybody else, nobody is even a different subspecies, the lowest you can possibly fucking get.

All that exists among us is ONE violent, bloodthirsty, vindictive, vengeful, self-destructive species disposed to bringing upon itself it's own imminent demise. Such silly and arbitrary means of division as color, ethnicity, religion, or nationality mean absolutely nothing because the facts presented in the first sentence absolutely do not change from group to group no matter how hard you try to look. There is no deviation from the pattern. More disgustingly, every aforementioned arbitrarily divided group of human beings tries to look down on every other group by casting the facts described in that first sentence as characteristics as other groups.

Everybody with enough of an attention span to read all that gets a cookie.

__________________

I'm not reading the rest of the drivel in here, but Jesus Fornicating Christ on a Railway Spike, I'm laughing so hard the walls are shaking. That is fucking gorgeous

"Anyone for a Rosa Parkes? Going twice? SOLD! To T3HMAN86 in Iowa!"

__________________

Can't comment on either of those species of snakes (mainly because I know nearly nothing about snakes) But would you not agree that Homo Sapien Sapiens are a classic example of several evolutionary processes? Countless founder effects have taken place (thus there are people dispersed on all corners of the globe). While speciation hasn't occured, adaptive divergence and natural selection have altered the gene pools so that there is such an immense diversity in size, color, etc of humans. Only certain populations are susceptible to certain illnesses due to evolved immunity. The world is basically a giant hybrid zone for humans (and since we can alter the environment to fit our needs, evolution probably won't occur readily) so i think differences will just keep emerging among the species, but speciation will never occur (atleast not soon). Oh well i've only taken one college class of biology (i'm still in highschool though)...so i'm sure you're more justified as a source than i (and you probably wont even wanna hear my argument )

Oh well, I don't wanna get off topic anyway...

nope. couldnt do it

Oh, I would definitely agree that humans do display several evolutionary processes, however, these differences are not nearly enough to consider our species especially diverse, even less so when you consider how many more species of animal or plant are so far more diverse. For example, there is not immense diversity in size or color, two of the traits you mentioned. Humans come in different shades of two colors, yellow and brown. Some are intermediate and tannish. Others are dark and appear orangish. Some are a pale yellow. Others are a dark brown. This isn't especially diverse. Consider other species of animals that come in a stunning variety of shades of just about every color imaginable. Bothriechis schlegelli, for example, comes in many different shades of green, blue, purple, red, orange, yellow, and brown.

Also consider pattern. Humans have no pattern and are strictly one shade throughout their whole bodies, with the exception of certain areas being slightly lighter shades, including the palm of one's hand. Now, consider Bothriechis schlegelli again. Bewildering array of patterns, I wouldn't do it justice to put it to words. Picture Google for Bothriechis schlegelli and you'll see for yourself.

Now size, as you have mentioned, is a factor, and there is variation between sizes of humans. However, the variation between the size of humans isn't especially diverse when compared to the differences between the sizes of other animals. I mean, really, what's the disparity between average human sizes? Let me be generous for a moment and assume the largest human ethnicity averages at 72 inches, roughly 183 centimeters for the benefit of any foreigners wanting to participate in this discussion. I'm very sure that no ethnicity would average that tall, but let's be generous and assume they do. Now, let's picture the smallest ethnicity, some sort of isolated pigmy population. How tall would they average? The smallest tribe of ethnic pigmies in the world are on average 4' 9", which translates to 57 inches, or approximately 145 centimeters. What is the disparity there? 15 inches, or approximately 38 centimeters. That's not especially diverse, even less so taking into consideration other animal species that have dwarf populations, or simply animal species with a large deviation between sizes.

__________________

I'm sure you have all made some good points, I just can't be bothered reading them.

Only one species, but race is a different story (according to Merriam-Webster at least):

"race - c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type"


I want my cookie damn it!!!!!!!!!

i will third that. everybody makes mistakes, and 90% of parents make the mistake of giving birth to these pathetic little shitkickers.



hah, i love it when people illustrate my point as john has done here. in which was possibly bia's first intelligent post also, she stated perfectly which is absolutely true.

let me point something out to you, which further puts the muslims into hot water. muslims, arabs, are NOMADIC PEOPLE. they do not tolerate, and at least i've gotten through to fatdanny with this one, other peoples religions, beliefs, cultures, anything. let me take you to egypt. back at the turn of the millenium, the egyptians were completely different. they had a system where they worshipped the pharaohs, spoke their own language, communicated with hieroglyphics, as well as the little things, like mummifying the dead, building pyramids and so on. and look what happens: the arabs come in with all guns blazing and by the 1400s, most egyptians spoke arabic and followed islam. this is only just one example.

something i think about is if somebody, (particularly the scandinavian vikings) had invaded saudi arabia to abolish the islamic culture. that's far more appealing to me, and i wish they had....but nobody wanted to go there i suppose. anyway, what i'm getting at, is who knows where we would be today if the vikings had defeated the arabs? would we be having constant terrorist threats in the name of odin? where would we be today?

anyway i'm getting rather off topic here, but that's my two cents worth.

middle eastern hatred toward the west has more to do with events that happened within the last couple hundred years,andrew c, namely french, british and american intervention on an ailling ottoman empire, splitting it up with arbitrary borders, installing patsy presidents-for-life caudillo types,cold war proxy skirmishes<iran and iraq,afganistan vs soviets>, arms deals and intelligence sharing with isreal<7 day war>,bombing quadaffi because the lockabee<spelling?>plane hijacking,iran-contra,iraqs then biological, chemical weapons the us helped develop etc etc etc, too many events to name, thier hatred of the us and europe is justified, the west schemes for oil thru war, sanctions,assasinations and bombing campaigns

history lesson

the seljuk turks,egyptian malmahurks or moors would fucking destroy the vikings overwelmingly.....as they repelled 8 or so crusades<armies from all of europe> quite sucessfully

i actually enjoyed reading about the arab invasions of the 7th-15th century, good counterpoint to roman-byzantine dominance over arab lands, shows that no nation or people act with impunity, what goes around comes around. even if they did burn the library of alexandria

i will not deny that they have had some pretty rough times and had some nasty things happen, low-tech. but they have to realise that they're not going about the correct way to counter it.

you mentioned the locherbie bombing (i think thats how you spell it anyway). instead of trying to do something like bring down the U.S. president, or do something constructive (in their eyes or ours), 500 innocent civilians were killed mercilessly by cold-hearted libyan extremists. also some of these problems have been between themselves for example iraq invading kuwait. besides, if the united states discovers that your country is making nuclear weapons, and if your country is a known enemy of the united states, you leave your country open to a bombing really don't you.

as for the palestinian vs israel garbage, i don't approve of that, it annoys the hell out of me to be honest, taking up valuable news time. i'm not sure about this particular one, i just try my hardest to ignore it.

besides it's not all bad, look at iraq, since the fall of saddam hussein, which couldn't have been done without U.S. support mind you, quality of life has improved for 95% of iraqi people.

The farthest south the Vikings got was the Byzantine empire, and they had their asses handed to them by the Greeks. This was a common reaction of Vikings to cultures who fought back, and, had they encountered Muslims, they would have probably been beaten back to Scandinavia. The Vikings were pussies, gentlemen. Don't let all the metal you've listened to fool you. Their mythologies kick ass, however, and would merit being taught in school for their pure aesthetic value, if it weren't for their cultural irrelevance.

For the record, when I said Transient was right I meant he was right in that, if you value your heritage so much, the thing to do about it is to work to preserve it within your own life and means, just like truly subjugated cultures have done to maintain theirs for centuries. I personally don't feel that much pride for my ethnic background - for reasons Chris has explained here and elsewhere - but if I did, that's what I'd do rather than waste my time whining about how I had to spend one half of one out of four years reading books written by black people or how a guy whose core life beliefs I'd insulted for the sake of a casual and sub-mediocre joke got offended. But I guess my priorities aren't straight; it's much better to fume jingoistically and impotently about how annoying those funny-talking motherfuckers are.

Oh, and Israel has no business existing. Seriously.

It's funny how the most orthodox jewish dogmas read that they may not have a state of their own (at least until some prophet will lead them to it)

__________________

The Middle East has no business existing. Seriously.

__________________

Chris: As far as I am aware, the school she attended (Denbigh High) is not a private school.

__________________

I'll do my best to explain.


That's not what it's about. It's the level at which you state your points. That's (mainly) where you're "not living up to" my "expectations". You have an (AFAIK) above average understanding of mathematics and science in general. You usually deliver your points factually and calmly. This thread (in particular the initial post) does IMO not live up to those standards.


That is one thing that also bothers my somewhat. You say that it's "not based on religion, faith or ethnicity", but (in my eyes) you are bringing forth those aspects of the matter in a way that would be unneccessary (sp?) if it wasn't. But, this may be because I have not seen the media coverage that you have seen, so don't take this point to seriously.




I agree in your "depreciation" (meant as opposite of appreciation, correct use of the word?) of these types of people, and I believe in your right to vent your disdain. What mainly surprised me is the way in which you did this.

To explain further, I will quote you on some particular points, and point out what it is in each of them that surprised me. Obviously, this can seem as if I'm ripping things out of context, or that I'm nitpicking and being a cunt. That's not my primary goal. My primary goal is to give examples that can back up, or at least explain my "disappointment".



To me, you seem to be (conciously (sp?)) overlooking many things.
It does not make them equal. Charles will still have his upper-class attitude, accent and vocubulary. He will still be picked up at school by a Rolls Royce, while Joe is going to get his bike which has a flat tire and go home. Sanjeev is still going to have his/her (not certain about the gender of a person by that name, sorry) accent. Charles still has much more in common with other upper class children than he has with Joe. One difference has been eliminated, all the others remain.

(The above assumes that Charles, Joe and Sanjeev are imaginary people, made up to represent different social groupings, and is simplified and exagerated to make my point clear.)


Has it? This part to me looks like an obvious exageration, which is not what I would have expected from you. As I said, you usually stay calm and present facts rather factually.


This one is not to be taken too seriously, but this looks a little hypocritic to me (and most of my replies are probably rather hypocritic too, thus, don't take it too seriously). You're enjoying a freedom of speech and economic freedom (in the sense that you have more money and more things to buy for it) than most of the worlds people. Yet you complain loudly about how this girl used part of your money. When other people never had, and never will have half the money you had. Or the freedom to complain about it.
But, as I said, don't take this part too seriously.


Doesn't a multi-cultural Britain require that some of its inhabitants are not integrated?


In the beginning of you post you said "This week heralded a court case that could possibly sound the death knell of school uniform in the United Kingdom" [focus on "could possibly"]. Now you say "is about to crumble". A bit of a sudden change, IMO. And the biggest problem in the quote: you blame it on *one* *single* person. Obviously you realise that it is not only her fault? Just like WWII was not only Hitlers fault (Fichte had never said and written what he did, maybe Hitler had never gotten the idea...). It seems to me that this technique for arguing is preferred by people of much "lesser intellect" than you.


Your example only reverses the roles to a limited extent. Which is something I "expected" you to point out. By pointing out the flaws in your arguments, you seem less biased and more educated, IMO.


This sentence to me feels very incoherent (or like it's jumping to conclusions). Obviously, the "fact" (I don't know any more than what's in this thread, so I don't want to say it's a fact, if it's only someone's (more or less well-educated) conclusion) that "the extremists" advised her to wear the banned jilbab does not rule out the possibility that her brother is in league with them. But neither does it support that theory.


Depending on what situation you're talking about, the uniforms used by the army do serve a purpose that is crucial to the fulfilling of their goals. With random clothing on, a soldier in the woods will be easy to distinguish, and easy to kill. With improper (sp?) clothing, a fighter pilot is not going to be able to handle his plane safely.
Obviously, there are other sitations where the army uses uniforms, in which they serve no crucial function, but in many cases, the army's uniforms are very important to their success (sp?).
I don't believe that there is such a high corelation between school uniforms and learning as there is between military uniforms and survival/(military succes).


One thing that deserves to be mentioned: This is not meant as "flames". It is meant more like "constructive criticism", to maintain the "higher level" that you (John) in my eyes used to be on.

And now, on to the next thing I feel a need to respond to.

You are correct that comparing the US with Sweden is not a good idea, since Sweden (to the best of my knowledge) has been rather "extreme" in this respect lately.

But, whether a war is justified or not will probably come down to personal opinion, sooner or later. I don't feel that the evidence presented to me to support the US theory that Usama Bin Laden resided in Afghanistan at the time of "invation"/"attack" is strong enough to justify a war against that country. Maybe you do, maybe you don't. The thing is, the US has not had a lot of peace, compared to several other countries. Out of the 9 wars I was thinking of, only 2 were fought on US ground.



-Weak military (easy to defeat)
-Wood
-Ore (Iron, copper, silver, zink, to a limited extent uranium)
-Control of the Baltic sea (easy to get for Russia, since they already had about half of the coast)
-Good "springboard" to get the Norwegian coast (and their OIL).

And, as was mentioned as the first point in the list, it would all come at a low price, compared to invading the US. Sweden is open for land based invasion from (today's) Finland and Norway. Naval attacks from both east and west are possible. Compared to the US: No land links (except for Canada and Mexico, which are/(have not been) very likely to have the resources to attack the US), huge distances both ways if you are to go over the water.

So, I say Sweden is strategically important because it has a good value to price ratio.

That's most of what I feel that I need to reply to right now. I'll try and answer any replies.

[Edit]If you bothered to read all that, you deserve a cookie. So, if you ever meet me, ask for one[/Edit]

__________________

I do agree with quite a few of the things you've said, but this statement is a little extreme for me. I agree that the girl in question has no respect for British culture, but not that it is a general character trait of muslims.

I agree with John that uniforms are important in schools - in my opinion they are important primarily for regimentation and discipline. This is is the only legal way left of maintaining some kind of control over the dregs of the human race that have started to drag their knuckles into schools (I will point out that I am basing this on my old secondary school).

Discipline seems to be a growing problem. The little cunts know they can get away with almost anything. That is the problem, which John's example highlights nicely. In this case it was the 'religion card' that allowed her to get away with it, I think the point raised is not directly a religious one.

On that note, however, Britain is far too PC for its own good these days.

You bring up some good points G_urr_A, but I feel they are not beyond redress. However, it will have to wait 'til later as I am still at work...

__________________

I don't really know enough about biology to make a relevant comment on Chris'/Kalmah's discussion, but what actually dictates genetic traits, such as height, skin colour, facial feature etc.?

Are we just one breed with different mutations?
Or do we fall under the category of "human" with blacks, asians, caucasians etc. representing different breeds of human? (eh, that's quite far-fetched, but I'm just throwing it into discussion for the biologists here)

I'd really like to know more about this subject.

Yeah, pretty much. Race is a contoversial word for a lot of people, but it's basically used to classify specific breeding stock within a species that has particular traits which set it apart from the rest. This applies to things like race horses, sheep, cows, and of course people. Sometimes it is encouraged by human intervention, sometimes it is just random. In the case of humans, it is of course mostly natural selection and random events due to weather, food sources, in-breeding, mutations, etc... There are however several historical situations where certain traits were encouraged in humans through selective breeding of various types.

The phrase "human race" is actually the mistake because race is being improperly used as a synonym for species. Since "human race" has become a standard saying, people like to argue that we are all the same race. It's all semantics and posturing for the most part. I don't personally care either way, but that's the strict definition and these small differences within a species are the reason the term "race" was invented in the first place.

Notice that species and race are not the same according to the Thesaurus:

Entry Word: species
Function: noun
Text: Synonyms TYPE, breed, class, kidney, kind, nature, order, sort, stripe, variety

Interesting, what I'd like to know is why exactly humans developed in this way? Perhaps a question that'll never have a direct answer, but we can only speculate.

I was going to make a point about different genetic features etc, which would bring about the "nature vs. nurture" debate, but subsequently, there are too many other factors to consider, so I won't spark off a discussion.

As as I've explained before, the word race is specifically meant to describe an animal on a specific (or occasionally subspecific) level. This is the only proper use of the word in the context we are speaking of. Obviously it is also used in other manners, such as to describe several people or machines speeding along to see which can reach a certain area first.

Now, like I've said one million times, at the time the word in it's scientific context originated, it was abused for the purpose of justifying 400 years of rape, torture, and mutilation of men, women, and children. Now, why is that? Because the white pro-slavery pseudo-scientists claimed that Africans were an entire different species. The word has been in popular misuse ever since, and the dictionary is only reflecting that. Looking it up in a dictionary or thesaurus proves nothing. Researching the histories of both biology and enslavement of Africans, as I have done (and am still doing), proves everything.



Good job painting two whole religious and ethnic groups with one wide, ignorant brush. Firstly, Arabic peoples are not all nomadic in nature, I'm not entirely sure where you got that from. There were nomadic ethnic groups residing in the near east and eastern Europe and there probably still are, they are not Arabs. Your statement does nothing to put Arabs into hot water, all it does is expose your ignorant biases. You are speaking about two seperate groups of people as if every single person within those groups act the same, which is clearly wrong. There are Moslems who are tolerant of other people's religions, beliefs, and cultures. There are also Arabs who are tolerant of other people's religions, beliefs, and cultures. Nothing you or anybody else can say will change those facts.



Let me take you back to just about anywhere, really. Because Europeans had pretty much stolen lands all around the globe, spreading diseases, murdering ethnic people's for religious reasons (present day Latin America has been especially well documented), and forcing survivors to convert to Christianity. Oh, jeez, I guess that means all European descendants and all Christians are intolerant of other people's religions, cultures, and everythings- or at least they are if we are to apply the same logic you used.



No, it doesn't. Just a convenient way for Europe and the US to get rid of immigrants under the guise of providing them with a 'safe haven'. The already volatile region has been nothing short of explosive ever since.



It's hard to verbally articulate an easy explanation. I mean, your first part is easy- genes dictate height, skin colour, and facials features. However, physical development can be stunted by outside factors (like smoking at a young age), so it's not the only factor, just the primary factor. I definitely wouldn't use the word mutation. Mutation is generally when something goes wrong genetically, like an albino animal, for example.

I'm not sure I would use the word 'breed', either, as that generally denotes a type of animal brought about by selective breeding. Since the only selective breeding has come via years of 'racism', it really isn't relevant to a discussion involving humans.

What we are is one species (or subspecies, actually) with a degree of variation among us. These variations are not nearly significant enough to warrant seperate classification, as is evidenced by the low level of both superficial and (especially) genetic diversity. We are actually very closely related to all other humans on the planet in comparison to most other species, that have a much higher degree of genetic diversity.

__________________

Ah right. Thanks for clearing that up Chris

The original meaning is totally meaningless even if you're claim is true. We have a language we communicate with and words are to be used as currently defined (or accepted as in the case of slang). The word "gay" is a perfect example. The origin is of no importance at this point, only the current accepted meanings are relevant. The dictionary is the official guide to our language and it changes just as any major computer language has specific meanings for each function which change over time. When you get the dictionary changed to match your definition of race, only then will you be correct. The official origin does not jive with anything you said either. Doing obscure research can lead you to many books which are biased as a result of the author's personal pet peeves and misunderstandings. Old books like the bible can not necessarily be taken at face value. I am merely showing you what is accepted by current English society as the definition. Discussing it's supposed origins is mildly interesting, but is not pertinent to the use of the word when communicating to english speaking humans of any race in the year 2005.

Main Entry: 3race
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

Unfortunately this thread cannot be judged merely by facts. I've stated the facts of the case but the majority of my original post is entirely down to my opinion of those facts and me expressing my anger at the turn of events. I may be factual and calm most of the time but everyone gets angry, right? Show me somebody who doesn't get angry and I'll show you a person without emotion or feeling.




It's unfortuante that this particular case invloves a Muslim girl but it could have been anyone and I still would have vented my spleen. It could have been an office worker refusing to wear a tie (as has happened in the UK) because he says it infringes on his human rights - I'd feel the same and would abhor him as much as this girl for being a whinger.




Yes there are differences but why introduce even more differences at such an early age. Kids are inquisitive and how long is it before they ask mummy and daddy why one of their classmates doesn't have to wear a uniform when they themselves have to? Granted, the parents need to handle it well and explain the situation carefully, but children are naturally petulent and if you'v every been around kids you'll know that they want anything that they can't have. Won't this breed a dislike for the other person if the kid can see that they are having it 'easier' than they are for no apparant reason?




I believe that Denbigh High has bent over backwards to accommodate students of diferent beliefs and cultures. I don't know of any schools in Liverpool were another language other than English is spoken outside of foreign language lessons. At Denbigh high, 43 languages are spoken and encouraged.

The school also consulted with Muslim clerics to establish it's dress code. I can tell you how many schools I know of that have done that. Zero. So yes, I do believe that Denbigh High has fulfilled its part of the bargain and has been exploited by this girl.




I think you have misunderstood. The 'cake' in this instance was the fact that the school openly encourages other cultures and had in place a very good dress code that accommodates all beliefs (remember they consulted Muslim clerics when compiling the dress code). The 'strawberries and cream' refer to the fact that this girl was not content with an already excellent approach to Muslim dress from the school (the jilbab was banned with good reason and was met with no opposition from the Muslim clerics they consulted).




This is quite a paradox. On one hand you have the situation were everybody is integrated and effectively lose their culture and adopt a predominantly British culture. Hence there is no culture other than British. On the other hand, which you neglect, if nobody is integrated and different cultures remain segragated then there is no multi-culturalism.

I don't agree that 'some' have to remain segragated. What needs to happen is that they adopt tolerance of our culture and we adopt a tolerance of theirs. This girl clearly did not have a tolerance for uniform and it's British tradition and therefore was refusing to 'integrate' herself into British culture.

Now, I've stumbled upon a difference between Western and Islamic culture with this last reply. We ask (if we ask at all, that is) Muslims to observe our culture when in our country while Muslims demand that we observe theirs while we are in their country. It's subtle, but it gives you an idea as to who was being flexible in the case of my first post.




Make no bones about it, this case is a landmark case. In the eyes of the other children, this girl can wear what she wants to school now while they have to toil with an uncomfortable uniform. [It was uncomfortable, but I still wouldn't swap it for my normal clothes if I could go back to school again]

It only takes one ruling in Britain for the law to be changed. I'm sure there will be countless scores of copycats claiming (moaning) that their human rights have been impinged upon by them being required to wear a uniform. Of this I have no doubt. The difference is that, it probably won't make the papers, because the story has already broken and run it's course with the Shabina Begum case.




I know that pointing out flaws is a benefit - but I wouldn't have believed them if I had stated them. Would the Saudi's (maybe a harsher example would have been more appropriate, Syria maybe) change their Muslim tradition for the sake of a few hundred or even a few thousand people? Deep down you know they woudn't.




I was merely speculating and did not state anything about her brother being an extremist as fact.




You're misunderstanding uniform for combat regalia. Of course combats serve a major importance in military operations. Standard uniform also serves a crucial function: discipline and pride in one's appearance. This is also translated to the school environment as the children are forced to keep themsleves smart at all times.




I never took anything that you said as a 'flame' or verbal attack. You have the right to question me and I'm glad that you did - if everybody agreed with me this thread would just be a giant mess of triumphant backslapping. I'm glad it isn't and that an intelligent debate has ensued.

__________________

To all of you saying that the muslims were always forceful and imposed their religion on others...YOURE WRONG! Actually it used to be the direct opposite of that. The muslims didn't want to win converts because the Ummayad leaders devised a plan to split all treasures and such aquired from conquered lands equally among all muslims. Fewer muslims=more money for each person. People's religions were actually tolerated very respectfully, as long as the people didn't question muslim political ruling and such. Egypt was taken under the Ummayads and conversion didn't take place until after when the Ummayad empire fell. Decades later when Islam became increasingly corrupt, people were converted at a vigorous rate (and even treated as equals, while it was supposed to be a rule that converts were to be treated as a lower class...of course this rule was proposed by the Ummayads and not Muhammad).

Anyway, though i'd point that out and Chris, thanks for the examples of the diverse species...they really do tend to make humans look a lot less diverse

legitimate difference or not, one of those reasons that separate us will bring about the apocalypse.

__________________

Excellent.........and lets not forget millions of people from all corners of the planet have suffered this same treatment for hundreds of thousands of years too.......slavery is as old as mans ability to enslave.

No, not very likely. Perhaps it will bring down western civilization, nothing more. Pollution, nature, and their eventual collision will bring about the apocalypse. With all the shit we have done and are still doing to this planet, there will be a day when the Asian/African tsunami catastrophe will look like fucking preschool.



There is absolutely no way of knowing how long slavery has been around, but we do know it existed long before New World slavery. Slavery before then was a lot different, though. Think of the serfs I'm sure you've read about in Euro history classes. Basically, they were slaves. Could you honestly compare them to the American slaves? Hardly. Slavery before then generally consisted of taken a conquered people or somebody who owed you a debt and forcing them to work for you for a period of time. These people were able to work their way to freedom. They were never considered property. They were always considered humans, and, as such, protected by the law.

Here in these United States, things were a lot different. Very, very different. First off, the enslaved peoples owed no debt to the whites, nor were they conquered (Europeans didn't become powerful enough to conquer Africa until the advent of advanced firearms). These people were kidnapped, plain and simple. Once brought into slavery, they were slaves for life. Laws were put into place prohibiting masters from freeing the slaves (this act being known as 'manumission'), meaning that a slave could never work their way out. All children borne of a female slave became slaves for life, including the children of the white masters and drivers. These slaves were considered property (3/5 of a person for reasons of congressional representation). They were not protected by any laws. Children couldn't do anything to stop themselves from being raped and mutilated, nor could their parents.

Sometimes, just to break the spirit of a couple of slaves, they (sometimes masters, but especially white slave drivers) would rape the wife in front of the husband (slaves were encouraged to marry because they were less likely to run away). The husband can't do anything about it at all, he can't physically stop them, he can't say anything, he can't even look displeased or else he will be tortured, possibly disfigured, even murdered. The woman obviously can't do anything. Besides being at a distinct physical advantage, as most rape victims are, she couldn't fight back even if it were physically feasible for her to do so. That's automatic grounds for, yes, torture, mutilation, or even murder. Masters raped slaves frequently as well, but usually these were house slaves. Not that it really makes a difference ethically.

Frequently as punishment, families would be broken up and sold to different places.

So, to say that slavery took place since the beginning of mankind, that is probably wrong technically and definitely wrong aesthetically, as chattel slavery was a completely different form than previous varieties. On the other hand, if you want to say that people have been oppressed, humiliated, dehumanized, beaten, raped, tortured, mutilated, and slaughtered since before chattel slavery, you'd definitely be right, and this something I think of all the time. It all fits in place with the natural cruelty of our species. You really do have to put it into that context, as negative and unsavory as it seems. Homo sapiens as a whole is the most worthless species to have ever come into existence. We are the only species on the entire planet to experience bloodlust, as I've undoubtedly mentioned before. This speaks volumes. We are also the only species on the planet actively working to destroy it. This planet would have been so much better off if we had never come into existence. Not that I mind living myself.

__________________

Basically, you are accepting the dictionary's definitions without the benefit of having any real knowledge of the history itself. You can look up any word in the dictionary and accept it as fact, yet the people who study the words in their true context will always understand them better. My knowledge and understanding of the word race, for example, has come about through years of researching hundreds of years of chattel slavery, as well as many more years than that of researching hundreds of years of biology. All your knowledge of the word comes from a dictionary. Honestly and objectively, who do you think is going to have a more detailed and accurate understanding of it's context?

__________________

Sure, we can argue all day, I'm just pointing out that the definition is what people go by and the history of words is just trivia. Most words start out as one thing and end up as something else. We can't live in the past and we can't pick and choose our own definitions. Saying that my knowledge of the word only comes from the dictionary is absurd, that's the first time I've ever looked it up. It just so happens that the dictionary confirmed what I previously thought it meant in current society based on my years and years of various research and communication on whatever subjects brought the word up. You talk about context, and that is exactly my point. If this thread was written for chattel slaves to read, then the context might change, but this is not the case. The context is contemporary english and you're definition is obsolete. Furthermore, you will never win a debate by simply saying that you've researched it and you're correct. That is called "wannabe intellectualism" and is only respected by people who don't understand what you're talking about in the first place. If you can provide a logical proof of why you're definition is correct, then that would be a different story, but since you're definition is technically obsolete in the english language, this is not possible. You could at best provide a logical proof of how the word was distorted from it's original meaning, but even that would likely rely on questionable documents. Even if you did all that and got the dictionary entries changed, you would still have to provide a substitute word to describe groups of humans with distinctly different traits since race is the only word currently in common use to describe this. You would also have to find a new word to replace the words racist and racism. You would have to rewrite history and replace phrases like "race riot" with "xxxx riot". All of these things are unlikely to ever happen so whatever your beef with the word race is, you should just learn to live with it because by telling people it means something other than the commonly accepted definition you are simply adding to the confusion of the language.

kalmah, the ummayads where a umbrella empire that composed of a series of bedouin tribes,moors, saudi arabs,mediteranean semites,turks and other lower russian steppe peoples united under the newly adopted islamic faith

they adopted the persian model of conquest as the greeks had and romans before them cause its common sense not to kill everyone, burn thier cities and salt the earth after you defeated all resistance<mongols,vikings,german visogoths>. so they imposed a military tax to billet troops and allowed thier subjects to govern themselves, these then new conquerers did nothing new in the spirit of empire,aside from inspiring alot of subjects to convert. they werent any more tolerant than those who came before them, and they never split any treasure equally, it was a land grab with not much resistance,byzantine was dissolving anyway

they also fucked up big time with burning that library, the world lost the knowledge of egyptian glyphs for a more than a millenium, and they destroyed the most comprehensive source of greek and roman and ancient egyptian literature ever

1. I clearly see what you mean and acknowledge that.....and yep....I was kinda referring to the brutality as a whole throughout time....but DO see your point.
2. Add the horrors cause because of bruised EGOS........absolutely correct.....we're pretty much scumbags on a planitary scale.....but I'm not going to snuff myself out over it either....hahaha

Hey......alot of Leviticus mentions "proper treatment" for slaves and conqubines in the King James Bi-Bull.....what's up with that shit?

Kylito: You're right to bring up the fact that, in its current cultural context, 'race' has a different meaning than Chris gives it. However, and this is the point you're missing, the current cultural context of that word is based on a fallacious rationalization for execrable and inhumane behavior; in other words, on error. The concept of race, as we understand it, is a social construct rather than a scientific fact (the science of it has not changed although that the accepted meaning has, despite attempts to force the former into the latter's box ex post facto), and has to be treated as the former rather than the latter. As a construct, it's proven to be one of the most corrosive and harmful of all time (look at, to name a few examples, slavery, the Spanish Conquest of Latin America (which makes 20th Century genocides look paltry and inefficient in comparison), and the origins of the genocide in Rwanda). The fact is, people believe that 'irregardless' is synonymous with 'regardless,' and that it's 'quadrology,' not 'tetralogy,' so maybe we should refrain from appeals to common practice for the moment, hmm?

Leviticus is an account of laws at a time when slavery was a common practice (as was sacking cities so thoroughly that not a single occupant was left alive), so obviously the jews would need a guideline regarding it. Though a lot of the Old Testament seems to be flying by the seat of the pants as far as what's morally just is concerned, so I'm not entirely sure what need there was for the laws, unless there's no God around to advise on all subjects.

Cloaca: Without the Middle East your culture wouldn't exist, so you wouldn't have any obnoxious soap box from which to claim Muslims should conform or be systematically terminated like any other cockroach or small insect. The Middle East did us the favor of keeping the products of Western Civilization in store for us while we were too busy being ignorant and backwards-assed to do it ourselves; it's only fair that they bring it down around our ears. Or at least annoy you a little.

By the way: this thread's not supposed to be a forum for random 'I hate darkies' (take that shit to an RTT) and a debate about the validity of race. We're supposed to be adressing the very specific problem John's brought our attention to, which most of you have ignored in favor of complaining about very non-analogous, yet neverthelessly racially-motivated, situations. Good job.

Sure. I didn't miss his point and I'm not missing your point either. The simple fact I was pointing out is that it's a word which has a meaning in our society. Chris is not in control of the english language and neither am I. It's a word. It means today what the dictionary says it means and all the research in the world will never change that. Besides, "Charlie Don't Surf" is a racial slur...

Oh, and that stupid bitch needs to put that friggin' uniform back on and toe the line...

EDIT

See, even you use the word properly in normal conversation. Don't try to blame slavery and all that shit on a word. You'll never be able to convince anyone that the supposed misuse of the word "race" is somehow responsible for all of the world's racial problems. It could have been called "peace" instead of "race" and all that shit still would have happened. Let's not forget about white slavery either, it's still happening...

First, a lot of dictionaries are bad. Very bad. Many of them contradict one another. Many of them are assembled by people with only one field of expertise, who gloss technical terms incorrectly. The dictionary definition of a word is almost always castrated, and is often misconceived. (This doesn't mean we should stop using dictionaries, but rather realize their inherant limitations when we use them, so we'll understand the term in a sophisticated, rather than blandly monochromatic, sense.) Since Chris was using the term 'race' in a specific, technical sense, any other definition is irrelevant.

Second, the meaning it has in our society is based on error and should be corrected. It's not even analogous to the 'gay' example you brought up, since in that case a tropological usage became common. In this case, a scientific usage was willfully adapted to fit specific political needs. In this case, it's a good thing to argue against the dictionary definition, especially since most dictionaries (including my OED) are flawed in at least some of the definitions (for example, the OED definition of 'kitsch' is moronic).

Third, while I'm aware that human nature would cause us to kill each other without any justification of racial differences. We did it for a long time before we came up with the idea. I'm just saying that it would be a better idea to try and force us to think of each other as humans rather than give us a good justification for treating those we dislike as though there aren't. It won't get rid of the Other, and certainly won't get rid of the human tendency killing one another, but it makes it much harder to fit that action within a modern moral system.

Fourth, I'm aware what 'Charlie don't surf' means. I've also been known to say the following: WASP, spic, nigger, PR, kyke, cracker, rag-head, dago, mick, jap, chink, gook, kraut, frog, hun, polack, and others I'm forgetting (if I forgot to insult your ethnic background, please forgive me for the moment). None of this has any bearing on whether or not the received definition of 'race' is valid. Ad hominem tu quoque, and a non sequitor. Combined with your appeal to common practice, you're really building up a strong argument here. Are you planning on another fallacy in the next round? Maybe a fun one I haven't seen before?

Finally, I'm aware I used 'race' with that meaning, and if you'd examine the context of the sentence and what it was referring to, you'd see why. Do you really think I don't pay attention to what words I use? Damn.

Relax PST. This is the quote I was referring to. It's a bogus and pretentious statement and that's a fact. No need to write a book over it.

I have been totally consistent. There are no fallacies in my statements and you have yet to point one out.

Consistency is not a guarantor against fallacies, and I've pointed out three:

1. The equation of 'common usage' with 'correct usage;' i.e. an 'Appeal to Common Practice,' a logical fallacy.
2. Pointing out that I have a 'racial' epithet in my title, and that I used the term 'race' in the same context I'm arguing is incorrect; both are examples of 'Ad hominem tu quoque, another logical fallacy.
3. Arguing that the use of a 'racial' (actually 'Charlie' was used specifically to refer to members of the Viet Cong, rather than Vietnamese in general, but since I negligently allowed it before I'll allow it now) slur somehow proves that race is a scientific fact, or that the common usage is correct; i.e. a 'Non Sequitor,' yet another logical fallacy.

There's another one or two or more, but you asked for the ones I pointed out, so there they are.

You have, however, been admirably consistent. Congratulations.

As for Chris's statement: Pretentious? Maybe. Bogus? I don't see why, unless biology is irrelevant, in which case there's no basis to an argument for races either.

Anyway, I'd love to keep this up, but it's not my job to keep internet discourse logical, and I have marginally more important things I should be writing about. I'll probably be around sometime soon, though.

Right on, I would agree this discussion has been beaten into the ground and then spit on for good measure. I'll just quick answer your comments on my statements.


"Consistency is not a guarantor against fallacies, and I've pointed out three:"

I never said it was.

"1. The equation of 'common usage' with 'correct usage;' i.e. an 'Appeal to Common Practice,' a logical fallacy."

This was not a general appeal to common practice. Correct usage of a word in a spoken language is a specific case where it does in fact equate to common usage. Since there are no physical laws or characteristics involved common usage is the only measure we have of a word's meaning.

"2. Pointing out that I have a 'racial' epithet in my title, and that I used the term 'race' in the same context I'm arguing is incorrect; both are examples of 'Ad hominem tu quoque, another logical fallacy."

These were light-hearted notes followed with the winking emoticon and were in no way part of my argument.

"3. Arguing that the use of a 'racial' (actually 'Charlie' was used specifically to refer to members of the Viet Cong, rather than Vietnamese in general, but since I negligently allowed it before I'll allow it now) slur somehow proves that race is a scientific fact, or that the common usage is correct; i.e. a 'Non Sequitor,' yet another logical fallacy."

Same answer as above.

You also said the example of the word "gay" was not analogous to "race". Both words have multiple meanings, some of which are not in the current english dictionary. All I said was that the meaning has changed over time for both words and they in fact have. It was not a core part of the argument so even if it wasn't analagous it's of no consequence.

I know they were light-hearted; they were included for being unfunny and irrelevant. Aside from the reference to my usage of 'racially-motivated,' which was used as an argument.

As for the two others, which are important: The common usage is not necessarily the correct usage; if the word is a technical term of a specific field, and the common usage is based on a solecism, then the common usage is an incorrect usage. 'Race' is not comparable to 'gay' for this reason; there is no misunderstanding that produced the currently-understood definition of the latter, and it is not a technical term. A quick study of the etymology of the word 'gay' shows a natural progression in which a euphemistic usage replaced the original over time. This is not so in the case of 'race,' where the transformation came from an ignorant or willfully ignorant misuse of the word, whose definition is nevertheless tied concretely to the field of biology.

Even this wouldnt be too much of a problem - public misunderstanding of a technical term isn't rare - but since this solecism is particularly odious and harmful, it is a problem, and I really don't see what's wrong with wanting to correct the public understanding of the word.

This debate was already concluded air tight in my favor on post 89. You can try all you want to change the meaning of the word, but there is no technical basis for it. Words are not technical in nature. Using latin to name species is simply a convention and has no inherent correctness to it. There is no way you can ever claim that a word's meaning is technically incorrect. If people understand it to mean a certain thing, then that is what it means. If it has multiple meanings which are understood in different contexts, then that is the way it is. To claim that some social scientists say the word means one thing and the rest of the world is wrong because they are scientists is silly. I could just as easily state that material engineers and physicists are the only scientists worth listening to and that all social scientists are wasting time and resources and should be ignored. You could learn you're own dialect consisting of obsolete definitions but that would have about as much technical importance as those kooks who learn to speak Klingon.