London Mayor- 'too many white men'

Post Reply New Topic

Their appearance is the result of genes, which also show their lineage.

I've been tested, can see who I am related to, and how related we are.

Sudanese Arabs would largely be considered black in the US, if President Omar al-Bashir is anything to go by. But where are their "white genes" or "black genes"? They have genes primarily from their area of the world (Sudan, south Algeria, etc.), in-between the Mediterranean and Sub-Saharan Africa.

Whiteness is clinal. Blackness is clinal. They gradually phase into each-other, with no clear region of demarcation. They are, first and foremost, appearance-based social categories.

Last edited by Pravda on 28 Oct 2016, 7:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.

At some point in trickle-down economics, all market makers are backed by a 5th Plank lending monopoly, in virtual currency, so may subsidize positive behaviors, rather than change agents.

The labor surplus (aka industrial army) can be employed to improve the Malthusian carrying capacity of the land.

But, the people are said to have no motivation to produce, where there is a glut of free or nerarly-free resources. (Theory of Rent)

Last edited by friedmacguffins on 28 Oct 2016, 7:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.

At which point do you believe they "merge," if not demarcate.

Most all the nodes on that genetic tree have been labeled, of which I am aware.

For instance, Mongoloids and whites are assumed to have shared ancestry, in Siberia. I believe it is called haplogroup Q.

How are you able to locate the first black person, in which the traits are particularly notable?

That's my point. I don't believe there is a single clear point of merger. If you were to walk from Scandinavia to South Africa, you'd see a gradual darkening as you head down Germany into Central Europe, further as you head down the Italian peninsula, further still as you head down North Africa and into the Sahara.

Our social image of "white" was once "Northwest Germanic European," but today encompasses "anyone who can pass for European," in America. Bavarians/Austrians, Irish, Russians, Italians, Jews, Armenians, Spanish Cubans have been added though they were once excluded.

Our image of "black" is "anyone who can pass for Sub-Saharan African."

These are clinal in relation to each-other rather than distinct categories. You often get individuals on said cline in North Africa and the Sahara who don't fit into either, and are in a middle ground.


In genetic terms, distinct haplotypes are only measurable for the direct paternal (y-DNA) and maternal lines (mtDNA). That's two individual ancestors among millions who make up your ancestry. It's useful for measuring population movements in history, not so much for forming distinct racial/ethnic classes. For example, Hitler's mtDNA is e1b1; typically found in the Middle East, among Berbers, and Somalis. He could pass for none of these.

Last edited by Pravda on 28 Oct 2016, 7:52 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Right. And it definitely has nothing to do with 'equality'.

Obama isn't black, he's mixed race. It's beyond insulting to call a person who's half white "black".

Yep, but still amazing how it's allowed to exist in the age of 'equality'.

So non whites are all immigrants?

Cultural conservatives acknowledge their bias. The One Drop Rule assumes he is something other than white.



Yes, because we are predominantly-European.

The same logic can be applied to whites, living in black and Asian countries. There is a name for these white people, assuming they are foreign.

Why is it offensive. If we're so tolerant, you can own-up to your differences.

He refers to himself as black. Most White Americans consider him functionally black because of his skin tone and facial features. These are simply social categories. For example, most Black Americans have a humongous chunk of European ancestry. Are they all "mixed race"? That would be defining the racial gap as some objective measure of percentages, akin to an inverse of the "one drop rule" and in opposition to how it's used in actual conversation, as ethnic social classes rooted in history.

The only question as to his "blackness" came from the black community itself, which was on cultural (raised by a white mother) rather than ancestral grounds. The man who raised it, Al Sharpton, himself is verifiably part-European.


In Britain, anyone not considered white and a good chunk of those who are are of immigrant descent, yes. They either live in historical immigrant communities or have been in Britain long enough to have assimilated.

I think the simple answer is people are scared of what they don't know...change can be quite an upheaval

Car crash post 2016 award winner right there^

What exactly are the barriers that would be symbolically broken? Is it really appropriate to allocate taxpayer money—the board member's salaries—for the purpose of creating a symbol? Is it appropriate to influence the way the transportation system is run, the way people get to and from work and school, for the purpose of an abstraction? On one hand we've got concrete issues of finances and keeping the trains and buses running, and on the other hand we've got mere thoughts in people's head about achievement, assuming that the symbolic appointment has the intended psychological effect. For example, I did not think that Obama's becoming president indicated much about racism in the U.S. (unless you are comparing it to social conditions, say, fifty years ago).

There's also a confusion between race and ethnicity. The comment in the article is about people of a certain color—white men—dominating, but "white" isn't a distinct ethnic group. A "white" person who had been raised in the relevant neighborhood by people of one of these ethnic groups would have the cultural knowledge that is supposedly necessary to represent the community, so I don't see why whiteness should be the issue.

I don't see how the elements of ethnicity—culture, language, religion—are relevant enough to public transportation to justify prioritizing the hiring of someone from a specific ethnic group. Are there specific cultural issues related to the transportation system?
I don't know how they run the transportation systems there, but in my area the transportation departments have had public meetings
where special populations (for example, disabled people) can voice their concerns about the system. Familiarity with the needs of different neighborhoods is seen as part of the transportation department's job, not something for which they have to hire special people. Assuming that whomever is currently in charge will use the public input, would such meetings work to get these neighborhoods properly represented?

Furthermore, there's no guarantee that anyone of any ethnic background will properly represent their ethnic group, even given the ability to do so. Finding the best representative (considerate of and loyal to users needs) should be part of the hiring process, not taken for granted based on race or ethnicity.

A Briton from a non-white/immigrant background (almost half of London's population) on London's most essential service board, a service that anyone who doesn't own or regularly use a car requires day to day?


I think it's appropriate to have democratic representation on a board of this nature, yes. If the people from these communities want a representative, they should get one. To describe this as "allocating taxpayer money" can equally be used to ask if it's appropriate to allocate taxpayer money to keep the board all-white.


And I'd argue both are important. I don't think describing said thoughts as "mere" thoughts are helpful, considering they are an actually existing thing.


The black community strongly turned out for him and were tremendously glad for his victory, exactly because of the symbolism of having a first black President. Both for what that means as far as their community's ability to achieve is concerned, and what it means as far as hindering white racism is concerned when the highest office in the land is for the first time in history not occupied by someone from their background. Just like Jackson meant to the Scots-Irish and WASPs respectively, or Kennedy to Irish-Americans and Protestants respectively.


Someone who self-describes as a "white Briton" is disproportionately likely to be from an English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish background. There is a chance they might be a relatively unassimilated descendant of Greek or Polish immigrants, or similar, but this is far less likely. It also says nothing about the status of Asian or Black Britons, who by nature of not being classed as "white" find assimilation into English identity far less easy.


They would have direct knowledge of that community's transportation needs, which is one of two concerns. Also, that's assuming they don't live on some fringe of it. For example, certain affluent and majority-white streets in "Southside Chicago" that border the University and don't at all represent the bulk of the Southside.


Which is no guarantee that said concerns will be listened to, if the actual bureaucracy that runs it includes no member of those communities. I'd also add that urban transit departments tend to be by necessity much more bureaucratic and offer less in the way of public hearings. And the British government is more bureaucratic than any American state government, especially within the city of London.


Sure, you could be from a well-off Asian or Black family, an Eton grad from Staines or something. I'd support it being someone actually from said community who shares their concerns, not someone from a mostly-assimilated and totally disconnected background whose grandparents happened to have come on the same boat. The latter would serve literally no purpose. Considering the call is for better representation, for representatives of minority communities who are from mostly-minority underrepresented neighborhoods in London (e.g. not rich neighborhoods), those pushing for it appear to agree.

I think he's a simply butthurt the almighty British Empire that conquered 1/4 of Earth was clearly better than his joke of a country being another irrelevant nation whose greatest achievement ever was curry.

Haters gonna hate, they say. I'm not even mad.



I miss London. I have to come back someday.

I don't see a problem with this statement. Caucasian heterosexual men are easily the most privileged denomination in most of Europe and North America, economically and politically. I personally theorize that these statements and behaviors are tolerated or even encouraged as a kind of collective moralistic backlash against centuries of mistreatment of minorities or non-whites by European or European descended states.

1) His country is Britain. He was born and raised in Britain.

2) Assuming you mean his parents' home of Pakistan, aside from having literally one of the first civilizations on the planet? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harappa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilisation Muslims from the Subcontinent also have the immensely prosperous Mughal Empire, which unified the bulk of the Subcontinent and kept it that way prior to British subjugation.

3) As someone of South Asian descent (Sri Lankan), describing Pakistan as a "joke of a country ... whose greatest achievement ever was curry" is like saying "China is a joke of a country whose greatest achievement is riceballs." It's a pretty damn racist statement.