1
   

Are you sitting down? There’s racism in the royal family!

 
 
snood
 
  2  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2021 11:07 am
@hightor,
White people have the option of not having to consider skin color. Others have to deal with a color conscious world. It is not baggage we choose.
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2021 08:16 pm
@hightor,
People classify people racially not just by their skin coloring, though. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach began the "racial" classification of humanity with his On the Varieties of Mankind. Peoples' ideas of "race" largely correspond to Blumenbach's classifications.

And, sure, "race" is a cultural construct, but then again, I don't think Derek Chauvin would have murdered anyone outside of his cultural constructs of "Black" (Blumenbach refers to it as "Ethiopean variety") the way he did George Floyd.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 Mar, 2021 08:55 pm
The next time I get stopped for being black while living, I’ll be sure to instruct the cop that he’s allowing his actions to be dictated by a social construct. That’ll straighten him out.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 06:37 am
@InfraBlue,
Quote:
People classify people racially not just by their skin coloring...

True, but it's pretty common for people to refer to Blumenbach's classifications of skin color — white, red, black, brown, yellow — as opposed to his racial distinctions based on craniometry.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 07:09 am
@snood,
Quote:
The next time I get stopped for being black while living, I’ll be sure to instruct the cop that he’s allowing his actions to be dictated by a social construct.

That would be neither a prudent nor a logical response to my point. I was describing a cultural phenomenon, not prescribing a course of action.

I was making an observation about the inaccurate way we assign people to "races" based on the color of their skin and expressing my hope that we eventually outgrow this vestige of tribalism. I mentioned the fact that there are people labeled "white" who have darker skin than people labeled as "black". I never suggested that these distinctions aren't operative in our culture, that they don't have negative repercussions, or the consequences of this ingrained habitual classification should be ignored.

Quote:
That’ll straighten him out.

In my experience, it's best to answer the cop's questions politely and say as little as possible. The particular dynamics of such a confrontation don't facilitate sociological discussions or challenges to long held beliefs. I suggest leaving discussions like this to message boards.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 07:25 am
@hightor,
<edit>
I wrote this prior to reading your last response. So, while my comment that you aren’t addressing me no longer applies, my question about your awareness (or lack thereof) of your own privilege stands.

I notice that you are not responding directly to me about this, even though in your responses to others you have made reference to my responses to you.

You express disdain at the absurdity of skin-color classification. I say that dealing with race as if it’s an intellectual exercise is a luxury- a privilege, if you will - for only white people to indulge. And I say that’s precisely because they don’t have to experience the consequences of having society at large judge them by skin color.

I can’t help wondering now if you are not too shallow or supercilious to even realize that.
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 09:19 am
@hightor,
Along with craniometry, he had physical descriptions of his five major racial "varieties", as well.

Quote:

Caucasian variety. Colour white, cheeks rosy; hair brown or chestnut-coloured . . . face
oval, straight, its parts moderately defined . . . To this first variety belong the inhabitants
of Europe . . . and those of Eastern Asia, as far as the river Obi, the Caspian Sea and the
Ganges; and lastly, those of Northern Africa.

Mongolian variety. Colour yellow; hair black, stiff, straight and scanty; head almost
square; face broad, at the same time flat and depressed . . . This variety comprehends the
remaining inhabitants of Asia . . . and the Finnish populations of the cold part of Europe,
the Lapps, &c. and the race of Esquimaux, so widely diffused over North America, from
Behring’s straits to the inhabited extremity of Greenland.

Ethiopian variety. Colour black; hair black and curly; head narrow, compressed at the
sides; forehead knotty, uneven . . . To this variety belong all the Africans, except those of
the north.

American variety. Copper-coloured; hair black, stiff, straight and scanty; forehead short .
. . This variety comprehends the inhabitants of America except the Esquimaux.

Malay variety. Tawny-coloured; hair black, soft, curly, thick and plentiful; head
moderately narrowed . . . This last variety includes the islanders of the Pacific Ocean,
together with the inhabitants of the Marianne, the Philippine, the Molucca and the Sunda
Islands, and of the Malayan peninsula.
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 10:16 am
@InfraBlue,
Interestingly, he was not a proponent of racial superiority.
0 Replies
 
hightor
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 11:39 am
@snood,
Quote:
You express disdain at the absurdity of skin-color classification.

Given the destructive effects of racial discrimination the practice is worse than absurd.
Quote:
I say that dealing with race as if it’s an intellectual exercise is a luxury- a privilege, if you will - for only white people to indulge.

If that were the total extent of my feelings about skin color in our culture and racism in our society, yes, that would be pretty shallow. I only raised it as a tangential point because, as a person of mixed racial ancestry, it's something I have done some thinking about. It's aspirational — as well as being an indictment of a particularly ugly aspect of the human imagination.
Quote:
Harry and Meghan expressly said they were asked how dark they thought Archie was going to be.

The best response to the people who asked that question was provided by Dr. King:
Quote:
I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sun 14 Mar, 2021 11:49 am
@hightor,
Damn, man. Are you serious? There’s trying to be aspirational, and then there’s just talking ridiculous ****.
You just suggested that someone quote Dr King to the royals who brought up Archie’s skin color.

And as for your “mixed ancestry”...
To be completely accurate, there are no pure breeds of humans anymore. Especially in the US. Rape of slave women took care of that.
But no one would never mistake you for a person of color.l, would they? And we were talking about racism related to skin tone.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2022 09:45 am
Two relevant news stories today.

Quote:
The late Queen's lady-in-waiting Lady Susan Hussey has apologised and resigned after she repeatedly asked a black British charity boss where she was from.

Ngozi Fulani, a charity founder, was questioned about her background at the charity event at the palace on Tuesday.

Ms Fulani, said she was "totally stunned" by Prince William's godmother's comments.

The palace described the comments as "unacceptable and deeply regrettable".

Ms Fulani was at the reception at Buckingham Palace on Tuesday representing the London-based charity Sistah Space, which supports women of African and Caribbean heritage across the UK who have faced domestic and sexual abuse.

Along with 300 guests, she had been invited to the event, where the Queen Consort, Camilla, had warned of a "global pandemic of violence against women".

But afterwards, Ms Fulani described on Twitter how the royal aide moved her hair aside to see her name badge, and then challenged her to explain where she was from.

In the post, Ms Fulani referred to the palace aide only as "Lady SH".

Ms Reid confirmed to the BBC the person who had made the remarks was Lady Susan Hussey, having seen her name badge. Neither Buckingham Palace nor the charity named her.

Ms Fulani recounted in detail how she said: "We're based in Hackney," to which the aide had replied: "No, what part of Africa are you from?"

She said: "I don't know, they didn't leave any records", and the palace aide responded: "Well you must know where you're from, I spent time in France. Where are you from?"

Ms Fulani went on to say: "Here, UK".

But she recalled how the questions continued, with Lady Sarah saying: "No, but what nationality are you?"

Ms Fulani said she had replied: "I am born here and am British."

"No, but where do you really come from, where do your people come from?"

Ms Fulani said on Twitter: "It was such a shock to me and the other two women that we were stunned [into] temporary silence."

Also part of the conversation was Ms Reid, leader of the Women's Equality Party.

She said that members of the Royal Household were circulating at the reception and making "chit chat" - but she said it became a "really unpleasant interaction", when despite Ms Fulani's replies there was an insistent questioning about her background.

Ms Reid said they were "stunned into silence" afterwards and says that Ms Fulani should receive an apology and those working for the palace should receive training.

An eyewitness to the conversation, Mandu Reid, told the BBC Lady Susan's questions had been "offensive, racist and unwelcoming".

She said she had a "sense of incredulity" about the exchange in which Ms Fulani was interrogated about where she was from, even though she had already explained she was born and lived in the UK.

In its statement, Buckingham Palace said: "We take this incident extremely seriously and have investigated immediately to establish the full details.

"In this instance, unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments have been made. We have reached out to Ngozi Fulani on this matter, and are inviting her to discuss all elements of her experience in person if she wishes.

"In the meantime, the individual concerned would like to express her profound apologies for the hurt caused and has stepped aside from her honorary role with immediate effect. All members of the household are being reminded of the diversity and inclusivity policies which they are required to uphold at all times."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63810468

Quote:
The Duchess of Sussex received "disgusting and very real" threats while a working royal, the outgoing Metropolitan Police assistant commissioner has said.

Neil Basu said he would understand if Meghan had felt "under threat all the time".

People have been prosecuted over the threats, he told Channel 4 News.

Prince Harry, who moved to California with Meghan in 2020, said last year he did not feel safe when visiting the UK.

The couple have often spoken about the abuse they received before they left and how it affected their mental health. As early as 2016, after the couple went public with their relationship, Prince Harry issued a statement attacking social media trolls for targeting Meghan.

Neil Basu - the former head of counter-terrorism policing in England - was speaking to Channel 4 News in his final interview as assistant commissioner.

"If you'd seen the stuff that was written and you were receiving it, the kind of rhetoric that's online, if you don't know what I know, you would feel under threat all of the time," he said.

When asked if there had been genuine threats to Meghan from the far-right, he added: "Absolutely.

"We had teams investigating it. People have been prosecuted for those threats."

He said he had previously spoken publicly about the threat of "extreme right-wing terrorism", saying it was the "fastest growing" threat that he dealt with.

"When I started in counter-terrorism in 2015, it was about 6% of our total workload. When I left 15, 16 months ago, it was over 20% of our workload."

Mr Basu, who is Britain's most senior officer of colour, was also in charge of royal protection.

He became an officer at the Met in 1992 before rising through the ranks and has been outspoken about race and policing over the years.

He added: "I speak about race because I know something about race because I'm a 54-year-old mixed-race man."

Mr Basu also criticised the government during his interview, saying he found "some of the commentary coming out of the Home Office inexplicable".

He had been asked about comments by Home Secretary Suella Braverman saying that it was her "dream" to see asylum seekers removed to Rwanda under the government's policy.

"It is unbelievable to hear a succession of very powerful politicians who look like this talking in language that my father would have remembered from 1968. It's horrific."

In response to his comments, a Home Office spokesman said: "The Home Secretary expects forces to take a zero tolerance approach to racism within their workplace.

"But the Home Secretary is also very clear about the need to manage our borders effectively and have an asylum system that works for those in genuine need, as are the British people."

The Duke and Duchess of Sussex stepped down as senior members of the Royal Family in 2020 to carve out their own path in the US.

After leaving the Royal Family, Meghan gave an Oprah interview in which she revealed she felt suicidal while a serving royal.


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63804711
snood
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2022 10:40 am
@izzythepush,
I write on Medium (it's a platform where members can submit articles for public consumption). Recently there was an interaction in a comments section between myself and a black lady who had been posting some very mean things about Meghan Markle.
I had confronted her and told her exactly that - that what she was posting was just senselessly nasty and bitter toward Markle. I added that she has had to endure that kind of thing from white people on both sides of the pond, but when I see it coming from other women of color, it takes on an added creepy aspect. t\

There's evidently some deep resentment in the hearts of some black women about the apparent ease with which Markle was able to navigate in and out of white society.
Here's the gist of what I told the Black woman who was sniping at Markle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a nasty, petty kind of sniping. It’s uncalled for.
I don’t have any particular reason to defend Meghan Markle. To be honest, she wasn’t even someone I was aware of until she started being in the news for marrying Harry.

But **** - what did she do to earn all the gratuitous hate? I guess I could understand it if she had been out here actively denying or trying to hide her black mom. But all I could find was articles like in Elle in 2016, where she talks about the difficulties of growing up biracial.

https://www.elle.com/uk/life-and-culture/news/a26855/more-than-an-other/

One of the things she shares in that article was about encountering racism when she was out with her mother.

She wasn’t trying to “pass”.

She told any and everyone who asked that she was half black and half white. She may have gotten acting parts because of her “white” features, but that’s the colorism of our media and entertainment industries, not the calculations of Markle.

My ethnicity is Black/Filipino. I have always identified as black - that was what always seemed natural to me. But if others have struggles with their identity because of being biracial, I have learned to try to be a little understanding. This world doesn’t always make your path as clear as mine was.

Like I said, it would be a whole different thing if Markle had been quoted denying her black bloodline, or trying to claim that she was all Caucasian. She never did.

The level of bitterness directed at Meghan Markle from white people is a damn shame. But it’s a special kind of creepy when that mindless hatred is coming from other women of color.




izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Nov, 2022 11:09 am
@snood,
I think there's always a group of people who are pisssed off because other people are gettingmsomething they feel entitled to.

It's good that a senior police officer has confirmed the abuse Megan Markle received because the narrative was that she was being oversensistive and attention seeking.

It's a pity he didn't say anything at the time, but maybe he couldn't because of his job.

The other story about a black charity worker being interrogated about where she was from is very telling.

These aristocrats are completely divorced from reality, she didn't even realise she was being racist until it was pointed out to her.

It reminds me of the general election in 87 which the Tories won. Comedian Jimmy Tarbuck was one of the acts at a party rally. He then told a lot of off colour jokes many of which were racist.

The one that stands out is a kid a Geography class saying that Africa wasn't that far because (racist name, another kid in the class,) went home for lunch.

That 's the level of thinking we're dealing with, only the day after the official census showed that 1.5 million British people are of Afro Caribbean heritage.

0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2022 03:22 am
The redtops are furious about the upcoming netflix documentary, the Mail is the most vocal, claiming to have "fact checked lies."
snood
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2022 04:19 am
@izzythepush,
What documentary is that?
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Tue 6 Dec, 2022 04:31 am
@snood,
It's called The Sussexes, I don't think it's out yet, this is the reaction to the trailers.

It isn't a cheap production, on the BBC they pointed out how it looked like a trailer for The Crown, which I've never seen. Netflix has just cancelled The Crown, so its motives may be purely mercantile, but that doesn't mean the documentary won't be any good.

The Mail has long been sycophantic to the max towards the royals and just right wing in general so of course it would attack Meghan.
0 Replies
 
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 8 Dec, 2022 10:08 am
Quote:
A Labour MP has accused the British press of monetising online hatred of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex.

Rhondda MP Chris Bryant said newspapers had "filled their online sites" with "hateful Meghan Markle material".

"It is becoming their richest clickbait scene… it drives viewing and earns advertising income," he said.

He made the comments in a speech introduced by Hugh Grant at the annual Leveson Lecture held by press-reform group Hacked Off.

Mr Bryant said the monetary incentive was "why so many British opinion writers penned so much drivel about the couple".

"Not because the story matters. It doesn't. Not because the writers genuinely cares about it. They don't. But because it makes money," he said.

"That is not journalism. It's a perversion of journalism and it means, yet again, the press see people lives as commodities to be traded."

Mr Bryant said one of the main reasons for the prevalence of hatred in media coverage were social media algorithms, and the type of content they promote.

He said the algorithms "nudge people to political extremes, they promote division, and they pervert the truth by creating an incentive for untruth".

"Far from caring about the harmful impact of algorithms, social media companies and their allies/competitors in the press rely on them, I think, to make money," he added.

Mr Bryant said analysis by data firm Bot Sentinel showed just 83 Twitter accounts were responsible for 70% of the negative content targeted at the royal couple.

"To the innocent bystander it looks like the whole world hated Harry and Meghan, but this is not just normal, spontaneous or altruistic hatred.

"It is coordinated and deliberate, it uses social media recommender systems to amplify hated.

"Like clickbait, it uses hatred to entice people to follow a link to an article on another client web page where money is to be made. Which is how it knowingly monetises hatred."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-63890118

The bit that interested me is in bold, it's incredible that such a small amount of accounts can have such a disproportionate effect.
izzythepush
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2023 10:29 am
Joh Grace's digested read of Spare by Harry.

"I was alone. Abandoned. With only a hundred million in the bank."
InfraBlue
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2023 04:23 pm
@izzythepush,
I tend to not be skeptical about the addage that says money does not buy happiness.
0 Replies
 
Mame
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Jan, 2023 05:02 pm
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:

The bit that interested me is in bold, it's incredible that such a small amount of accounts can have such a disproportionate effect.


Exactly. But you know, if you're not on these stupid sites (twitter, instagram, etc), you won't see the comments. If you don't read The Daily Mail, etc., you won't know you're having an affair with your husband's brother, etc., etc., etc. Anyone with a brain would ignore all that shite. Furthermore, why does anyone care what anyone else thinks or says?
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/22/2024 at 01:35:21