Emiliano Wrote:That was my polite response to the video you posted. And I wasn't joking. It honestly must be a terrifying time to be a certain type of white person. Not just in Europe.. I think a lot of white people are feeling it in America too. I mean, look how far Trump has gotten.
But if you want a deeper reply and to have an actual conversation, then I'll do that too. But don't automatically flip out just because I may not share your political view or perspective. If you want an intelligent conversation, then you're going to have to act like a person who is capable of having one.
I don't know anything about British politics, much less the local politics of London. The only two things I know about Sadiq Khan is that he is Muslim and that he was pro marriage equality. So I really have nothing to offer up in a intellectual debate about whether or not he was more qualified than his opponent. But political experience and qualifications didn't seem to be the real theme of that video you posted either.
It sounded much more like a call to white people to wake up, to be scared for the future of their race, homelands, and cultures, and to unify at least politically before its too late.
I could write out a lot more on that, including the points made by the guy in the video that I found most interesting. But I don't want to write a bunch of stuff out if we aren't on the same page about what that video was really trying to get across.
No sorry, I'd be interested to hear your what ever you have to say.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
![[Image: image.png]](http://memecrunch.com/meme/18D85/that-s-racist/image.png)
You can fuck me off if you want hun, cause you know I dont give a shit.
Just relax yaself, cause it's coming across as your love for your country is to be purposefully against this man for who he is and what he's done.
America did the same for Obama and while I'm not qualified to say, as I'm neither European nor American;
Sometimes change and integration can be a good thing you know.
It's something we islanders had forced on us through slavery and now look at us;
Everyone wants to come to an Island.
Not that that makes us better than you all, but it's clear when situations like this arise.
•
Hygge Wrote:No sorry, I'd be interested to hear your what ever you have to say.
A lot of the guy in the video's points seem to be coming from a very idealized and extremely short view, historically speaking, of white people's influence on this world. The whole thing about how white culture, since the time of the ancient Greeks, has been creating and living by a set of universal ethics that seeks to make the world better for all people is absurd. Especially when coming from a British perspective. I'll leave it at that and move on to the next thing he said that stood out to me.
The whole in group preference thing. I don't think he's wrong in saying that exists, and it is influential. But its not something white people don't do. First, there is enough white representation in political offices in Europe and the USA that white voters don't need to be aware of, and are not made aware of, their racial preferences. The actions of white people are rarely racialized where as the actions of non white people often are, and done so in a dismissive way. But there's more forms of in group preference than just race. An example from America, since I can't speak about England, is how many republican leaders who will openly say that they don't support Trump, are still going to vote for him strictly because he is the Republican candidate. I'm not talking about Trump supporters. I'm talking about republicans who recognize that he is an awful candidate, but still will support him, strictly because they refuse to go outside of party lines.
Saying that Muslim voters only voted for Khan because he is Muslim, or that Black voters only voted for Obama because he is black, or that women will only vote for Clinton because she is a woman (which is starting to come up here in the USA), is a way of dismissing and devaluing the voices of those people. And it suggests that only white people are capable of making thoughtful, nuanced decisions. The man in the video even changes his way of speaking when pretending to come from a non white perspective, "we good, you bad". But he was also equally dismissive to the white people who do vote for non white candidates. Suggesting that they are only doing so because they want to prove to others that they aren't racist. That suggests that any white person who is intelligent, honest, and thoughtful couldn't possibly think that a non white or Muslim leader could be a serious choice for a leader. Which sounds a lot like racism to me.
To see yourself reflected in leadership is important. There is 1 million Muslims living in London. Out of like 8.5 million people. Khan is the first Muslim mayor in it's history. Its like how there's only been one black mayor of NYC. And we have about 2 million black people living in this city out of a population of about 8.4 million. Its absurd. In both countries, our leadership is firmly dominated by white politicians. But its going to be important now and in the future for white people to accept that as demographics are changing, so are the people who will be voted in to represent those people. One Muslim mayor does not mean that London is now under Sharia law, or that it is no longer an English city. It simply means that Muslims in your country are gaining a political presence.
Does it have to be a bad thing or a scary thing for Muslims to have a political voice? I don't think so. What I think is dangerous is when a minority group feels themselves excluded by the broader society, that there is no role for them in it, that they are the problem, that they have no voice. That will breed extremism. That will encourage the development of potentially dangerous subcultures. That further alienates them from being able to identify with the national identity. No taxation without representation, you know?
But to see a Muslim mayor, who takes issues stemming from the Muslim community seriously, and who works as part of the system rather than outside of it, that can encourage the next generation to want to participate and find their roles in society too. And once there is greater representation, there is greater choice. And with greater choice comes greater representation. And that is sewing people into the country and the society, rather than pushing them to the sides and expecting them to be happy about it. Because if you are isolated and alienated from the broader culture, your role models are going to be the people who are also like that. And I think Europe and America have felt what it means to have angry, alienated minority groups putting those emotions into action.
England is not exclusively white anymore. Europe is not exclusively white anymore. That doesn't mean England is not England or that Europe is not Europe though. White people are not and have never been the racial majority on this planet. But they have influenced the world heavily - in bad ways, and in great, amazing, wonderful ways. The worst way to misinterpret anything I wrote here is that I'm anti-white people. What I'm against is this idea that there is something special and unique, something culturally superior, about white people that has held them separate, and should continue to hold them separate from the rest of the world. Its easy to say that it is European culture that gave birth to the ideas of the ancient Greeks, to democracy, to the Enlightenment, to secular thought and religious reform... but we shouldn't stop there - what social conditions led to those movements? How were those society's funded? From what continents were those resources from? How were they acquired? On whose backs and from whose labor were the great, white, cultures built?
Its not ridiculous in my eyes to fear the loss of one's cultural or historical identity. But it is ridiculous to try to pretend that that very culture and history is not somehow connected to the present situations in this world, or that white culture is somehow above such barbaric and tribal behavior.
•
Posts: 734
Threads: 21
Joined: Jul 2015
Reputation:
0
I'm a : Single Bi Man
Starsign:  Aries
Mood:
Ok man you piqued my interest so i looked into Khan's links with extremists. They are pretty much all bull. Except for one professional acquaintance with a cleric named Gami. However Sadiq severed all ties with Gami in 2003 over Gami's opposition to same-sex marriage.
Other than that none of the claims hold water at all. They're all based on wordplay and massive leaps of logic. in short they're just propaganda, lies meant to swing an election.
I can't list them all because the Conservatives basically dug through Khan's entire life finding even the most tenuous links to anyone associated with a person considered to have once thought about buying a sandwich from a man who looks abit like a known terrorist.
Honestly man, I'm not even a labour supporter I'm unbiased, I went into this business with an open mind because I never really trusted Khan anyway. (he seems arrogant to me)
On a purely factual level. Sadiq Khan is in no way linked to extremists.
Also on a personal note, demographic shifts are scary but you should know that nothing is being destroyed.
Islamic culture is nothing to be afraid of. No one is tearing down churches to build mosques. English culture is surviving amd thriving quite well thankyou.
And you're right the campaign wasn't goldsmith's style. But if he was spineless enough to let the Conservative party run his campaign for him he deserved to lose.
•
[MENTION=23412]Hygge[/MENTION], did you prefer Boris Johnson, and if so, why did you prefer him?
•
TigerLover Wrote:Ok man you piqued my interest so i looked into Khan's links with extremists. They are pretty much all bull. Except for one professional acquaintance with a cleric named Gami. However Sadiq severed all ties with Gami in 2003 over Gami's opposition to same-sex marriage.
Other than that none of the claims hold water at all. They're all based on wordplay and massive leaps of logic. in short they're just propaganda, lies meant to swing an election.
I can't list them all because the Conservatives basically dug through Khan's entire life finding even the most tenuous links to anyone associated with a person considered to have once thought about buying a sandwich from a man who looks abit like a known terrorist.
Honestly man, I'm not even a labour supporter I'm unbiased, I went into this business with an open mind because I never really trusted Khan anyway. (he seems arrogant to me)
On a purely factual level. Sadiq Khan is in no way linked to extremists.
Also on a personal note, demographic shifts are scary but you should know that nothing is being destroyed.
Islamic culture is nothing to be afraid of. No one is tearing down churches to build mosques. English culture is surviving amd thriving quite well thankyou.
And you're right the campaign wasn't goldsmith's style. But if he was spineless enough to let the Conservative party run his campaign for him he deserved to lose. As an interesting note, the English during Henry VIII's reign destroyed everything that was Catholic did they not? Abbeys and monasteries were not allowed to stand, and they make the most beautiful religious ruins in the British countryside these days. Not sure that Oliver Cromwell and his armies didn't dabble in this destruction too, at some point.
•
Maybe the Muslims of London voted for him mostly because they got the impression that Sadiq wasn't bullshitting or ignoring them, like others have in the past? If one eighth of the population of London majorly voted him in, and the other 7 eighths didn't, the outcome would have been different. As it happens, the results show that the other eighths also voted for Mr Kahn. Mr Molyneux is suggesting that the other voters of London didn't go and vote, didn't use their right to vote, or weren't 'intelligent' enough to counter Mr Kahn's candidacy. Well, it's their mistake and fault then if they don't have the mayor they wanted. But I think, if they had felt threatened, they would have gone to the ballot boxes en masse. Maybe Mr Kahn was simply the better choice.
From what I gather, Mr Molyneux no longer lives in the UK and therefore has no right to vote for the mayor of London. Why should he deny the inhabitants of London the right to vote for the mayor of their choice?
I really didn't appreciate all the assumptions that he was making, when he admittedly said they were not verified facts. Phrases like '' We all know where that comes from '' or ''We all know where that's going '', are unhelpful. We understand that he's foregone a trip to Europe with his wife because he doesn't like what Europe is becoming, but then that's his choice. Lucky him if he can live in a predominantly white (and goodness knows what other epithets we should add) neighbourhood and country. Where on earth does this man live? Does he think the planet is only inhabited by white people? The trend towards multiculturalism is not a new one for London. This all started quite a while ago (and I mean centuries). It is a product of the former empire. We have had ample time to get used to it. The same is happening in most of the big capitals / big cities of the world (where free circulation of the population is allowed).
•
yes he said "we good, you bad" I think more to symbolize the inherent stupidity in it rather than the non-white race of the person saying it and also by it's meaning and context, it would suggest the English language is not "good" too, right?
I don't think Stefan would be so crude in the way you suggest as he also says he would like to live a truly racially harmonious society (or something to that effect) but that isn't what is happening...
Yes I do think it's a bad thing for British muslims to have political representation, I think it is devastating, British Muslims do not share our values, and say they want to lead separate lives under Islamic Sharia law, we hear this over and over again and know it's true. more than 100,000 British Muslims sympathize with suicide bombers and people who commit other terrorist acts. We know it's true.
•
princealbertofb Wrote:[MENTION=23412]Hygge[/MENTION], did you prefer Boris Johnson, and if so, why did you prefer him?
No he was a relic, a comfortable illusion of what London was, an image to represent to the world of what london is but really isn't. He was a comedian.
•
Hygge Wrote:I don't think Stefan would be so crude in the way you suggest as he also says he would like to live a truly racially harmonious society (or something to that effect) but that isn't what is happening...
To me that sounded a lot like "I'm not racist but...." which if you have any experience being spoken to like that, you probably know that it usually means that whatever follows is going to be pretty racist. Sure I want to live in a post racial society, as long as everyone is either white or conforms to standards of white culture.
But you've got your own view of whats happening in your country. I'm just an American peeking in from my own perspective. The bright side - Khan doesn't seem like he will be the Muslim mayor to put in sharia law though, so hopefully London will be free of that for at least a few more years. I am certainly not a supporter of religious law being the law of the land.
What I thought was more interesting than all of this, and what I intended to ask you about, was the bit that you edited out from your response. I guess I understand why you did, I'm sure some people would have had a pretty strong reaction to them, but at the same time, if those are your views you should feel comfortable enough voicing them and standing by them. Leaving that out makes the conversation safer and more comfortable, but when we pretend that such feelings are not a factor in our opinions and decisions, whether on this tiny scale, or on a broader, culturally wide scale, it really does limit the importance, and the point, of intelligent conversations regarding race relations.
•
|
