David, the guy may have helped people of differnt races in his Apprentice like activity, but in the article that The Sun ran it talks of him 'being Asian and helping people in the Asian community' on that Secret Millionaire programme. I never saw the programme but from the description we can conclude that he went into Asian neighbourhoods in that particular city and helped people who were the same ethnicity as himself, when people of other ethnicity would need help too, and he singled those people out purely because they were of the same ethnicity as himself. On another occasion he did the Apprentice like activity where race was not something he considered. If I was to help a load of white people, just because I am white and they are white, then at another time help a load of people of all differnt ethnic backgrounds, it would still be remembered that at one stage I singled out people for help because they had the same look and background as me, and would rightly be seen as evidence of how I consider, at least at certain times, the ethnicity of people when considering helping them. I have never seen people in terms of colour - this guy has.
Next. You mention about the footballer. Whether he was a naturalised Brit or not makes a lot of differnce. I have lived abroad twice myself, but neither time was I a naturalised citizen of either place. I was always a foreigner - as defined by the fact I was not a passport holder, had limited extent of residency there, could not vote there or get Social Security, healthcare, etc, and was only able to be there for the spell I was because I was granted a limited time-period visa. This is exactly how the foreign footballer would be in the UK, he is not a Brit he is a foreinger like I was when I lived abroad. If he became a naturalised Brit, could live here forever, vote, had a passport, and all the other things I've outlined, then he would be a Brit and his loyalty should be to here just like he would be demanding that Britain had total loyalty to him. If he would cry 'racist racist' if he is not seen as being exactly the same as, for want of a better term, the indigeonous population, then he should act like it and regard himseld as full-blown Brit just like he would demanded to be viewed as a full-blown Brit. People can help people in other countries - many British people have given money to help the dying in Africa, but they are doing this out of kindness because the place needs help, not because they once had a personal association with a place, which they claim to have relinquished when becoming a citizen of somewhere else, then suddenly felt that association again. People who demand to be viewed as Brits should act like Brits. If they are still foreign, then they should be foreign.
One for Max Tranmere
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Total confusion
You said
"If he became a naturalised Brit, could live here forever, vote, had a passport, and all the other things I've outlined, then he would be a Brit and his loyalty should be to here just like he would be demanding that Britain had total loyalty to him. If he would cry 'racist racist' if he is not seen as being exactly the same as, for want of a better term, the indigeonous population, then he should act like it and regard himseld as full-blown Brit just like he would demanded to be viewed as a full-blown Brit. People can help people in other countries - many British people have given money to help the dying in Africa, but they are doing this out of kindness because the place needs help, not because they once had a personal association with a place, which they claim to have relinquished when becoming a citizen of somewhere else, then suddenly felt that association again. People who demand to be viewed as Brits should act like Brits. If they are still foreign, then they should be foreign.
The above seems totally confused. On the one hand you seem to be saying that it's okay for the indigenous, British population ( I know you dont intend voting for the BNP but are using the word indigenous as the BNP would use it - white) to provide support to African people in need of aid, but if someone from an African country e.g. Togo, becomes a naturalised British person and then provides money to support charities in the country of their upbringing, this is racist or certainly at the very least, not okay.
This strikes me as complete bonkers. To give money to those less well off than yourself is praiseworthy, whether they have the same colour skin as you or not. If a UK benefactor supports an Asian community project on Monday, a community centre in an overwhelming white estate on a Tuesday and a mixed race school on a Wednesday, you appear to be suggesting that they are racist on Monday and Tuesdays, but not Wednesdays.
The important thing is that race is just one, small part of the whole package of being human. There are all sorts of other factors that need to come into play before you can call someone racist.
Cheers
D
"If he became a naturalised Brit, could live here forever, vote, had a passport, and all the other things I've outlined, then he would be a Brit and his loyalty should be to here just like he would be demanding that Britain had total loyalty to him. If he would cry 'racist racist' if he is not seen as being exactly the same as, for want of a better term, the indigeonous population, then he should act like it and regard himseld as full-blown Brit just like he would demanded to be viewed as a full-blown Brit. People can help people in other countries - many British people have given money to help the dying in Africa, but they are doing this out of kindness because the place needs help, not because they once had a personal association with a place, which they claim to have relinquished when becoming a citizen of somewhere else, then suddenly felt that association again. People who demand to be viewed as Brits should act like Brits. If they are still foreign, then they should be foreign.
The above seems totally confused. On the one hand you seem to be saying that it's okay for the indigenous, British population ( I know you dont intend voting for the BNP but are using the word indigenous as the BNP would use it - white) to provide support to African people in need of aid, but if someone from an African country e.g. Togo, becomes a naturalised British person and then provides money to support charities in the country of their upbringing, this is racist or certainly at the very least, not okay.
This strikes me as complete bonkers. To give money to those less well off than yourself is praiseworthy, whether they have the same colour skin as you or not. If a UK benefactor supports an Asian community project on Monday, a community centre in an overwhelming white estate on a Tuesday and a mixed race school on a Wednesday, you appear to be suggesting that they are racist on Monday and Tuesdays, but not Wednesdays.
The important thing is that race is just one, small part of the whole package of being human. There are all sorts of other factors that need to come into play before you can call someone racist.
Cheers
D
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Total confusion
David, it is the reasons that one does it that I was focusing on. If the guy saw there was a need to help people in, say, Somalia, Nigeria, and in Togo, and sent money to those places just because they needed help - the same as people from the West who have no connections with those places would, then it is all well and good to help them, but it is the fact he has singled out a country just because he had a historical connection to it, which means he is being selective and is very possibly only inclined to send money because of that historical connection to the place.
I am someone who has lived in the UK all my life, and have a family line going back further than I can trace. I would be just as keen to help anyone anywhere, I wouldn't single people out. If this footballer was originally from Somalia, say, and he had now severed ties with that place and was a fully feldged Brit now, then I would expect him to help people anywhere it was needed. If I was one of those people who settled in Australia in the 1950's or 60s (there was a huge migration from Britain to Australia in those days) and I heard of problems occuring now in Britain, Poland, and also Egypt (let's pretend all these countries were just as poor as some of Africa is) then I wouldn't be anymore inclined to send money to Britain than I would those two other places. I would send it to where it was needed - irrespective of whether I had a historial link to the place or not.
On this issue of the businessman supporting solely Asian causes on Monday, then supporting causes irrespective of the receipients' ethnicity on Tuesday and Wednesday, it confirms that this guy is - overall - someone who will help anyone, regardless of background. That would be a fair assessment of someone when looking back over all the good deeds they have done collectively. But I still find it weird that anyone would single out people of their own ethnicity on any day - even if on subsequent days they would help people regardless of background and look.
I am sure people would find it weird, and wrong, if I was a millionaire businessman and I went on that Secret Millionaire programme, and decided to just help poor white people in Tower Hamlets in east London, even if later on I went and helped people who were Asian, black, white and so on. Just the fact that I would be seen on the programme as a white man, and the programme, and wider reporting about it, said 'he is keen to help white-based projects in east London', or 'he is going to give money to white families that don't have much money in that area of London'. I would be called a racist for that, EVEN if they next thing I did, with later projects (not sreened on the TV show), was to help people regardless of colour or background. There would be complaints about what I had done, 'Community leaders' and the London Mayor's office, would be criticising Channel 4 for the whole thing - even if I was minded to do a multi-racial thing at a later date.
Honestly, try and picture a white guy on a TV show saying he is keen to (just) help poor white families in east London - implying, confirming actually, that he will ignore - for that project anyway - ethnic minority poor people in that region. There would be a storm of complaints and vilification as a result. I can not understand why that businessmen just wanted to help Asian people on that TV programme, regardless of what he may have done later, when there are poor black families, white familes, and so on, in that region of the country, who would need help too. He could do it and get away with it. If I did the equivilant, if I was very rich (and I am of course white), I would be called racist for doing so - because racist is what I would be being.
Lastly, you mentioned my use of the word 'indigeonous' in your last comment. If you look at my last entry you who see I preceeded it with the words 'for want of a better term...'.
I am someone who has lived in the UK all my life, and have a family line going back further than I can trace. I would be just as keen to help anyone anywhere, I wouldn't single people out. If this footballer was originally from Somalia, say, and he had now severed ties with that place and was a fully feldged Brit now, then I would expect him to help people anywhere it was needed. If I was one of those people who settled in Australia in the 1950's or 60s (there was a huge migration from Britain to Australia in those days) and I heard of problems occuring now in Britain, Poland, and also Egypt (let's pretend all these countries were just as poor as some of Africa is) then I wouldn't be anymore inclined to send money to Britain than I would those two other places. I would send it to where it was needed - irrespective of whether I had a historial link to the place or not.
On this issue of the businessman supporting solely Asian causes on Monday, then supporting causes irrespective of the receipients' ethnicity on Tuesday and Wednesday, it confirms that this guy is - overall - someone who will help anyone, regardless of background. That would be a fair assessment of someone when looking back over all the good deeds they have done collectively. But I still find it weird that anyone would single out people of their own ethnicity on any day - even if on subsequent days they would help people regardless of background and look.
I am sure people would find it weird, and wrong, if I was a millionaire businessman and I went on that Secret Millionaire programme, and decided to just help poor white people in Tower Hamlets in east London, even if later on I went and helped people who were Asian, black, white and so on. Just the fact that I would be seen on the programme as a white man, and the programme, and wider reporting about it, said 'he is keen to help white-based projects in east London', or 'he is going to give money to white families that don't have much money in that area of London'. I would be called a racist for that, EVEN if they next thing I did, with later projects (not sreened on the TV show), was to help people regardless of colour or background. There would be complaints about what I had done, 'Community leaders' and the London Mayor's office, would be criticising Channel 4 for the whole thing - even if I was minded to do a multi-racial thing at a later date.
Honestly, try and picture a white guy on a TV show saying he is keen to (just) help poor white families in east London - implying, confirming actually, that he will ignore - for that project anyway - ethnic minority poor people in that region. There would be a storm of complaints and vilification as a result. I can not understand why that businessmen just wanted to help Asian people on that TV programme, regardless of what he may have done later, when there are poor black families, white familes, and so on, in that region of the country, who would need help too. He could do it and get away with it. If I did the equivilant, if I was very rich (and I am of course white), I would be called racist for doing so - because racist is what I would be being.
Lastly, you mentioned my use of the word 'indigeonous' in your last comment. If you look at my last entry you who see I preceeded it with the words 'for want of a better term...'.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Total confusion
I disagree but see little point in continuing this discussion. Although you say that you would never vote BNP you have the victimhood of a BNP member i.e. it's always the whites that are getting picked on.
D
D
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Total confusion
Ah David, you disappoint me. I spent ages typing that last entry.