Why don't the British make Britain a Republic?

Post Reply New Topic

not at all. he said an archetypal successful black man would be mistaken for a white man if you heard him speak without seeing him. he was very explicit in this.

the fact is people from all races can be successful, and don't have to pander to white cultural norms to do this, although the culturally racist nature of society makes it easier for them if they do, depending on the area in which they desire success.

he also specifically stated that whites have become black. he equates rioting with black culture. it's very clear.




i might say the same about white culture. also why should black people drop the accent? it's easy enough for white glaswegians to become successful without dropping their accent. why should it be different for black londoners? many south east asian people, for example, are successful without adopting white british dress code and accent.


regardless, he explicitly said that the culture of violence and rioting has origins in the black community, as if it had never existed prior, which is revisionist in the extreme. if knife crime suddenly became more prevalent, would we blame white culture, since it was prevalent in glasgow in the sixties?


surely this undermines your argument, since her manner of speech is colloquially london carribean?

Bear in mind, this was a Government that could not secure supply because they had lost their majority in the Senate and was using a combination of Governor-General's warrants and illegal loans to finance government operations to muddle through until the half-Senate elections due the following year (at which they hoped to recover a majority in the Senate).

The Prime Minister categorically refused to recommend a dissolution (which is the proper resolution of a loss of confidence), whereas the Leader of the Opposition was willing to pass the budget in the Senate (it had already been passed in the House) and then immediately recommend a dissolution. So what was a responsible Governor-General to do? The Prime Minister was, arguably, acting unconsitutionally, and the Leader of the Opposition was prepared to take the issue to the electorate. The "undemocratic" Crown, taking advice from an unelected Prime Minister, put the matter entirely back in the hands of the Australian people. Not quite the violation of democratic principles that Whitlam's partisans have always made it out to be.