London Mayor- 'too many white men'
Biscuitman
Veteran
Joined: 11 Mar 2013
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,674
Location: Dunking jammy dodgers
25 Oct 2016, 3:00 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Because it's outrageous that 'anti-racists' think that groups need someone of the same color to make them feel more at ease. Why not the best person from that community? Regardless of color.
Ultimately, the symbolism matters nearly as much as the logistical knowledge. Displaying someone from that ethnic group breaking through a barrier, demonstrating to both their community and White Britain that they can succeed and that racialized restraints won't hold them back anymore. Kennedy's election mattered a lot for Irish-Americans on these grounds and today they're considered white people (previously "papists halfway to a negro" who aren't Germanic and are thus non-white) like any other, like Jackson for the Scots-Irish (previously "degenerate hillbillies" who aren't WASPs and are thus non-white) over a century earlier. Obama's election was a similar symbol of how far Black Americans have come and a long-sought end to a major barrier. Khan's own election fills this role for Asian Londoners, and is it surprising then that there are more calls for opening things up in the wake of it?
When there is literally no person from a minority community on the board that regulates transit in Britain's largest city by far, a city that is made up almost half of said minorities, this is clearly something that needs to be addressed.
Quote:
Did they? Any evidence for that? Strange thing is, it wasn't all down to white people fleeing because they were sick of what London had become. They were cleansed from the area because they could not afford to live there anymore!
Poorer ethnic minorities moving to an area drives down the cost of living, it doesn't raise it. This is one of the causes of white flight, a real and demonstrable phenomenon. My home city of Oakland is a prime example, its former residents mostly live in Contra Costa County and suburbs like the Tri-City today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
London is explicitly given as the main example in the UK section, the sources being BBC News, Harvard University Press, and The Torygraph of all things.
Quote:
Well that's a different issue we're not allowed to talk about.
You're allowed to talk about white flight, also about gentrification which is what raises living costs. Fighting gentrification is hard, you're going up against basically every real estate developer in a given city, but it's something that's widely talked about.
I find it amusing that for all their whining about "SJW victim narratives," alt-right types perpetuate the single most out-there victim narrative of all.
_________________
Don't believe the gender tag. I was born intersex and identify as queer, girl-leaning. So while I can sometimes present as an effeminate guy, that's less than half the time and if anything I'd prefer it say "female" of the two choices offered. I can't change it though, it's bugged.
25 Oct 2016, 7:38 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Did they? Any evidence for that? Strange thing is, it wasn't all down to white people fleeing because they were sick of what London had become. They were cleansed from the area because they could not afford to live there anymore!
My neighbor is from London and he tells a different story. The major reason many English leave is to escape what "they perceive" as mulitculturalism. They feel that multicultural neighbourhoods don't instill a traditional English community where everybody knows each other, and can meet for a drink down the local pub. At the same time rural England might give them back community but there are no jobs. Therefore they come here to places like Australia to find work.
JohnPowell wrote:
But I'm wondering why you're so against racism here but you support a state which has racial colonies in illegally occupied territories?
I don't support Israel's right to occupy terrritories but I do support their right to protect their people from terrorism. Unfortunately while Palestinians throw their support from HAMAS I don't see what else Israel can do?
26 Oct 2016, 9:39 am
As anyone in politics can tell you, local government is where the rubber hits the road. For the vast majority of citizens, city and local governments have vastly more impact over their daily lives than national or subnational governments.
Clean water, sanitation, rubbish collection, policing and fire services are almost universally within the local government remit. In many places the operation of schools and the erection of parks and recreation facilities falls within local government's ambit, too.
So while national leaders get the vast majority of media attention, it is often to lowly local councillors who have the greatest impact on quality of life. It stands to reason, then, that they, more than any other elected officials, should demonstrate a breadth of understanding of the communities that they serve--not simply the bricks and mortar geography of the city, but also the human geography.
"Too many white men," is a demographic reality. Women consume half of local services, but don't have 50% of the voice in designing those services. Linguistic and racial minorities--most especially newcomers--have very different understandings of what they can expect from local government, but are not properly represented on the councils that make decisions about how they will access services.
It is a mistake, I suggest, to see this as anti-white or anti-male. If the situation were reversed, and a council was composed exclusively of Asian women, there would be a legitimate question of how ethnically British and male citizens were accessing services. But the reality is that councils are still overwhelmingly male and still overwhelmingly white (though improvements are happening on both fronts). But it is in places like London, where diversity is built into the electorate, that change is most likely to come.
White men are slowly coming to the realization that they must share power. That does not mean that they will be excluded from power, but where law and policy are made by bodies disproportionately controlled by white men, their legitimacy is going to be increasingly called into question the more that they no longer represent the human geography of the places they represent.
_________________
--James
26 Oct 2016, 7:24 pm
visagrunt wrote:
White men are slowly coming to the realization that they must share power. That does not mean that they will be excluded from power, but where law and policy are made by bodies disproportionately controlled by white men, their legitimacy is going to be increasingly called into question the more that they no longer represent the human geography of the places they represent.
The colonial empires that gave rise to European dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries were not originally based on race rather nation states.
In the aftermath of dismantling colonial rule European powers were face with a influx of "darkies" made up of ex slaves and coolies into their streets/cities and towns. Somewhere around this point the artificial concept of a "white man" was born in order to socially classify people into "civilised" and "uncivilised" based on the ethnic origins. Australia and Argentina did a great job murdering of it's indigenous population and both are among the "whitest" nations on earth (putting aside places that are too cold for our equatorial cousins like Iceland, Finland and Russia).
Here in Australia we had a national publication called the "Bulletin" which had on it's masthead "Australia for the White man" up to 1965. Our locally produced television programs are like going in a time machine back to 1950s America. Our parliament has one female minister Julie Bishop.
So at least here in Australia middle class white males aren't in any hurry to share anything.
27 Oct 2016, 11:22 am
Quote:
The colonial empires that gave rise to European dominance in the 19th and 20th centuries were not originally based on race rather nation states....Somewhere around this point the artificial concept of a "white man" was born in order to socially classify people into "civilised" and "uncivilised" based on the ethnic origins...
Anatomists then said that colored people belong to a different specie, and now hide the same line of discussion behind paywalls.
Secularly speaking, all hominids were a kind of animal, anyway.
In religious times, the different kinds of people were classified, according to their lineage or family, as descended from the Biblical Noah. Academics would speculate as to which Biblical patriarch had founded each country or people group.
People were absolutely considered to be be different, whether as a matter of faith or scientific observance.
28 Oct 2016, 12:38 am
friedmacguffins wrote:
People were absolutely considered to be be different, whether as a matter of faith or scientific observance.
I think the adoption of social darwinism and the idea of the "survival of the fittest" emphasised that military power and technology equated to superiority and so some 20th century scientists tried very hard to work backwards to prove that some humans are biological more advanced than others.
https://psmag.com/the-price-of-american ... .6j79ch248
28 Oct 2016, 5:40 pm
There has been a sanity check, in which social justice warriors abused the language, for so long, that people went back to statistcs.
Noone wants to be a statistic, but society was faced with a choice between social utilitarianism and outright collapse.
I consider it graceless.
But, tolerance is for mass consumption. The elite do measure the common man.
Behind their paywalls, academic literature has carried on the same, anthropological discussions, which began before the Civil War.
28 Oct 2016, 6:06 pm
Pravda wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Because it's outrageous that 'anti-racists' think that groups need someone of the same color to make them feel more at ease. Why not the best person from that community? Regardless of color.
Ultimately, the symbolism matters nearly as much as the logistical knowledge. Displaying someone from that ethnic group breaking through a barrier, demonstrating to both their community and White Britain that they can succeed and that racialized restraints won't hold them back anymore. Kennedy's election mattered a lot for Irish-Americans on these grounds and today they're considered white people (previously "papists halfway to a negro" who aren't Germanic and are thus non-white) like any other, like Jackson for the Scots-Irish (previously "degenerate hillbillies" who aren't WASPs and are thus non-white) over a century earlier. Obama's election was a similar symbol of how far Black Americans have come and a long-sought end to a major barrier. Khan's own election fills this role for Asian Londoners, and is it surprising then that there are more calls for opening things up in the wake of it?
When there is literally no person from a minority community on the board that regulates transit in Britain's largest city by far, a city that is made up almost half of said minorities, this is clearly something that needs to be addressed.
Quote:
Did they? Any evidence for that? Strange thing is, it wasn't all down to white people fleeing because they were sick of what London had become. They were cleansed from the area because they could not afford to live there anymore!
Poorer ethnic minorities moving to an area drives down the cost of living, it doesn't raise it. This is one of the causes of white flight, a real and demonstrable phenomenon. My home city of Oakland is a prime example, its former residents mostly live in Contra Costa County and suburbs like the Tri-City today:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_flight
London is explicitly given as the main example in the UK section, the sources being BBC News, Harvard University Press, and The Torygraph of all things.
Quote:
Well that's a different issue we're not allowed to talk about.
You're allowed to talk about white flight, also about gentrification which is what raises living costs. Fighting gentrification is hard, you're going up against basically every real estate developer in a given city, but it's something that's widely talked about.
I find it amusing that for all their whining about "SJW victim narratives," alt-right types perpetuate the single most out-there victim narrative of all.
We really do have enough tokenism. Jobs should be based on merit and nothing else. If a person is denied a job because of their color or gender etc, then that is a different case. The sheer rate of immigration and tokenism could lead to segregation and civil war. America's racial problems are completely different to the ones here. Obama isn't black and he's been an awful President and has shown a lot of people that just because he's a non white Democrat, it doesn't mean he can't be worse than a white Republican. Khan won because he's a shill. If he was an honest man and spoke against corruption and wars, he wouldn't be in the position he is and the same crooks that love him would link him to alleged Jihadist terrorist groups.
One particular board. There could be a different board or company with more non whites. The Society For Black Lawyers springs to mind.
How does pouring poor foreigners into an area raise the cost of living. You explain it please.
I didn't say 'white flight' was about one issue particularly.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
28 Oct 2016, 6:14 pm
JohnPowell wrote:
Obama isn't black
America's color line is based pretty explicitly on skin tone. Raised by his white mother or no, as far as said color line is concerned and as far as the symbolic importance of his victory goes, he's black. Whether he's "culturally black" is a different story, since he didn't grow up in a black community.
Quote:
One particular board. There could be a different board or company with more non whites. The Society For Black Lawyers springs to mind.
This doesn't sound like a government organization, nor does it sound like something that regulates an essential transit board. I'd wager if you looked at London's government boards, you'd find whites represented in numbers considerably larger than their proportion of the city's population.
Quote:
How does pouring poor foreigners into an area raise the cost of living. You explain it please.
It doesn't. As I said, in most cases, it lowers it by lowering property value. This is one of the main causes of white flight.
London's raised cost of living has largely been due to zoning restrictions, building up rather than out, as well as heavy gentrification in traditionally working-class neighborhoods. At worst, an influx of new migrants increases demand for building up, but ultimately the root cause of even that is inability to build out.
friedmacguffins wrote:
Behind their paywalls, academic literature has carried on the same, anthropological discussions, which began before the Civil War.
"Anthropology" as a field today is no longer based on the "race science" of the past. Carleton Coon-style obsessive categorization is considered outdated, and a clinal view of race is the norm in the field today. If you walk across Eurasia from Portugal to Vietnam, you won't see sharp breaks in how people look. You'll see gradual transition from one appearance into another. The DNA evidence supports this as well.
_________________
Don't believe the gender tag. I was born intersex and identify as queer, girl-leaning. So while I can sometimes present as an effeminate guy, that's less than half the time and if anything I'd prefer it say "female" of the two choices offered. I can't change it though, it's bugged.
Last edited by Pravda on 28 Oct 2016, 6:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
28 Oct 2016, 6:15 pm
cyberdad wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Did they? Any evidence for that? Strange thing is, it wasn't all down to white people fleeing because they were sick of what London had become. They were cleansed from the area because they could not afford to live there anymore!
My neighbor is from London and he tells a different story. The major reason many English leave is to escape what "they perceive" as mulitculturalism. They feel that multicultural neighbourhoods don't instill a traditional English community where everybody knows each other, and can meet for a drink down the local pub. At the same time rural England might give them back community but there are no jobs. Therefore they come here to places like Australia to find work.
JohnPowell wrote:
But I'm wondering why you're so against racism here but you support a state which has racial colonies in illegally occupied territories?
I don't support Israel's right to occupy terrritories but I do support their right to protect their people from terrorism. Unfortunately while Palestinians throw their support from HAMAS I don't see what else Israel can do?
So your neighbor from London spoke to all the people that have now left London? Is he friends with them all? What's his secret? I said that it wasn't just about getting away from multiculturalism, some were forced away.
But they do have their racial colonies and have done for nearly 50 years. You support Israel's terrorism though? What measures do you support to protect their people from terrorism? Israel supported Hamas in the 80's to take down the PLO, that wanted to resolve the conflict. What are the Palestinians meant to do?
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
28 Oct 2016, 6:31 pm
visagrunt wrote:
As anyone in politics can tell you, local government is where the rubber hits the road. For the vast majority of citizens, city and local governments have vastly more impact over their daily lives than national or subnational governments.
Clean water, sanitation, rubbish collection, policing and fire services are almost universally within the local government remit. In many places the operation of schools and the erection of parks and recreation facilities falls within local government's ambit, too.
So while national leaders get the vast majority of media attention, it is often to lowly local councillors who have the greatest impact on quality of life. It stands to reason, then, that they, more than any other elected officials, should demonstrate a breadth of understanding of the communities that they serve--not simply the bricks and mortar geography of the city, but also the human geography.
"Too many white men," is a demographic reality. Women consume half of local services, but don't have 50% of the voice in designing those services. Linguistic and racial minorities--most especially newcomers--have very different understandings of what they can expect from local government, but are not properly represented on the councils that make decisions about how they will access services.
It is a mistake, I suggest, to see this as anti-white or anti-male. If the situation were reversed, and a council was composed exclusively of Asian women, there would be a legitimate question of how ethnically British and male citizens were accessing services. But the reality is that councils are still overwhelmingly male and still overwhelmingly white (though improvements are happening on both fronts). But it is in places like London, where diversity is built into the electorate, that change is most likely to come.
White men are slowly coming to the realization that they must share power. That does not mean that they will be excluded from power, but where law and policy are made by bodies disproportionately controlled by white men, their legitimacy is going to be increasingly called into question the more that they no longer represent the human geography of the places they represent.
Clean water, sanitation, rubbish collection, policing and fire services are almost universally within the local government remit. In many places the operation of schools and the erection of parks and recreation facilities falls within local government's ambit, too.
So while national leaders get the vast majority of media attention, it is often to lowly local councillors who have the greatest impact on quality of life. It stands to reason, then, that they, more than any other elected officials, should demonstrate a breadth of understanding of the communities that they serve--not simply the bricks and mortar geography of the city, but also the human geography.
"Too many white men," is a demographic reality. Women consume half of local services, but don't have 50% of the voice in designing those services. Linguistic and racial minorities--most especially newcomers--have very different understandings of what they can expect from local government, but are not properly represented on the councils that make decisions about how they will access services.
It is a mistake, I suggest, to see this as anti-white or anti-male. If the situation were reversed, and a council was composed exclusively of Asian women, there would be a legitimate question of how ethnically British and male citizens were accessing services. But the reality is that councils are still overwhelmingly male and still overwhelmingly white (though improvements are happening on both fronts). But it is in places like London, where diversity is built into the electorate, that change is most likely to come.
White men are slowly coming to the realization that they must share power. That does not mean that they will be excluded from power, but where law and policy are made by bodies disproportionately controlled by white men, their legitimacy is going to be increasingly called into question the more that they no longer represent the human geography of the places they represent.
How many black people are in the Knesset?
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
28 Oct 2016, 6:36 pm
Quote:
Obama isn't black
Obama is customarily considered to be black, under the "One Drop Rule."
Quote:
Whether he's "culturally black" is a different story, since he didn't grow up in a black community.
He was disappointed that whites were superior in Kenya, so apparently self-identifies as black.
28 Oct 2016, 6:47 pm
The use of the concept of "representation" is ambiguous in this thread. In the context of the original post, I considered "unrepresented" to mean that people in certain neighborhoods had no one representing their political interests. But it seems that one or two people in this thread have used it to mean that people have no one from their ethnic group (or race?) in power, implying, it seems, that someone of a particular ethnic group would necessarily properly represent that ethnic group.
28 Oct 2016, 6:59 pm
Pravda wrote:
JohnPowell wrote:
Obama isn't black
America's color line is based pretty explicitly on skin tone. Raised by his white mother or no, as far as said color line is concerned and as far as the symbolic importance of his victory goes, he's black. Whether he's "culturally black" is a different story, since he didn't grow up in a black community.
Quote:
One particular board. There could be a different board or company with more non whites. The Society For Black Lawyers springs to mind.
This doesn't sound like a government organization, nor does it sound like something that regulates an essential transit board. I'd wager if you looked at London's government boards, you'd find whites represented in numbers considerably larger than their proportion of the city's population.
Quote:
How does pouring poor foreigners into an area raise the cost of living. You explain it please.
It doesn't. As I said, in most cases, it lowers it by lowering property value. This is one of the main causes of white flight.
London's raised cost of living has largely been due to zoning restrictions, building up rather than out, as well as heavy gentrification in traditionally working-class neighborhoods. At worst, an influx of new migrants increases demand for building up, but ultimately the root cause of even that is inability to build out.
friedmacguffins wrote:
Behind their paywalls, academic literature has carried on the same, anthropological discussions, which began before the Civil War.
"Anthropology" as a field today is no longer based on the "race science" of the past. Carleton Coon-style obsessive categorization is considered outdated, and a clinal view of race is the norm in the field today. If you walk across Eurasia from Portugal to Vietnam, you won't see sharp breaks in how people look. You'll see gradual transition from one appearance into another. The DNA evidence supports this as well.
He isn't black, he's half white, half black. What happens to his white genes? To call him black is outrageous.
It's not a government organisation. Well OK, show me the evidence for it. This 'equality' rabidness is out of control and has nothing to do with 'equality'.
What good is saving a few pence a year when you're losing thousands of pounds on your property?
There are plenty of ways to lower the cost of living without flooding the city with poor migrants. I know the corrupt politicians and co depend on them, but we have to fight corruption to get other solutions.
_________________
"No one believes more firmly than Comrade Napoleon that all animals are equal. He would be only too happy to let you make your decisions for yourselves. But sometimes you might make the wrong decisions, comrades, and then where should we be?"
28 Oct 2016, 7:22 pm
starkid wrote:
The use of the concept of "representation" is ambiguous in this thread. In the context of the original post, I considered "unrepresented" to mean that people in certain neighborhoods had no one representing their political interests. But it seems that one or two people in this thread have used it to mean that people have no one from their ethnic group (or race?) in power, implying, it seems, that someone of a particular ethnic group would necessarily properly represent that ethnic group.
The simple answer: it's both.
The primary issue is that many primarily-minority neighborhoods don't have anybody representing them on the board regulating London's transit. This fosters an inefficient service for residents of said neighborhoods, having nobody familiar with provision in those areas. The secondary issue is one of symbolic achievement, breaking through important barriers, for the ethnic communities that primarily make up these unrepresented areas. That the board is literally all-white in a city that is almost half not, and has always been that way, demonstrates the issue here. I also do think it's fair to say that a member of a given ethnic community, unless they were raised in isolation from the main brunt of it, will be better able to understand that community's desires.
JohnPowell wrote:
He isn't black, he's half white, half black. What happens to his white genes? To call him black is outrageous.
"White genes" and "black genes" don't exist. What is a Berber? What is a Sudanese Arab? They're about halfway between the stereotypical image of both. Race is clinal, and a social categorization. Based on his skin tone, in the American racial framework, he is considered a black man. That's why we all refer to him as black.
This goes back a long way, evidenced in how the historical "one-drop rule" was treated. In theory, having one drop of "black" ancestry made someone "black." In practice, any mixed-race individual who could pass for white did so, and were socially considered white unless they actively told someone that their parent was black.
Quote:
It's not a government organisation. Well OK, show me the evidence for it.
Their website would be a tell. http://www.blacklawyer.org/ They are a private legal organization much like the SPLC or the ACLU in the United States, not a representative/government body. Not surprising, no lawyers' guild is.
Quote:
This 'equality' rabidness is out of control and has nothing to do with 'equality'.
It has everything to do with fair representation. The board has not a single representative of non-white London on it. It never did. How is this a playing field that's anything but stacked against immigrant Londoners?
_________________
Don't believe the gender tag. I was born intersex and identify as queer, girl-leaning. So while I can sometimes present as an effeminate guy, that's less than half the time and if anything I'd prefer it say "female" of the two choices offered. I can't change it though, it's bugged.
Last edited by Pravda on 28 Oct 2016, 7:41 pm, edited 3 times in total.
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Trump picks first woman White House Chief Of Staff |
09 Nov 2024, 10:59 pm |
| Black and white thinking and "doubt-mongering" |
10 Oct 2024, 4:01 am |
