London Riots

[Jeff Young]

I love this one. Typical of this type of breed of American who cites history with absolutely no understanding of it. The type of talking point that gets used to essentially rewrite history.

The party of Robert Byrd would have loved them too!

While I suspect Lonesome Nutjob will skip this entirely (too much for his attention span), let's have a brief discussion about race, the Democractic Party and the Republican Party in US.

Thomas Jefferson's Democractic-Republican party -- a party that represented primarily the landed interests in the southern US -- morphed first into the Jacksonians and then the "new" (as in the forerunner of today's) Democractic Party. They were generally opposed by the Whigs whose power base was with the merchants and small farmers of the North. In general, the Democrats were pro small government and pro slavery. The Republicans abolitionist and pro a more dynamic federal government.

After the Civil War, blacks in the South adoped the REpublican party as the "part of Lincoln" and voted straight ticket Republican until the 60s. MOre on that later. The Democrats on the other hand were split. More progressive Democrats out west and in the North opposed Jim Crow.

But the breed of "innit haters" who inhabited the South, where I live and grew up, were the architects of Jim Crow.

Things stayed this way really into the 70s. The south voted solidly Democrat and remained racist and segregationist. THe north and the West Coast Republican (basically the exact opposite of today).

So what changed? The Republican's "Southern Strategy." Realizing that the Democratic stranglehold on the racist vote in the South had led to Democrats holding the presidency for all years except for Ike's terms between 1932 and 1968, the Republicans sought to capture the "social conservative" (and racist) white vote in the South.

They succeeded. They convinced individuals like Strom Thurmand and Jesse Helms and countless others that the Democractic party had abandoned them with the Civil Rights Act, etc. and those racist white politicians either joined the Republican party (Helms, Thurmond, others) or reformed (Byrd, Wallace, others).

The Republican party remains whipsawed by this decision today. It alienated it's traditional moderate base of social liberals/fiscal conservatives in the Northeast and the West and sold its soul for the bible thumping anti-gay anti-abortion and yes ex-(and sometimes not so ex) racist vote from the South.

So whenever I see the conservative blog talking point about how the Democrats were the party of racism in the South, I chuckle. THey were.

And then all those racists joined the Republican party in the 70s and became its base.....

 

[Bob Fechter]

Thanks for the read, teacher. The fact is that Robert Byrd was a Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan. Not a hundreds of years ago, but in the twentieth century. He held office as a Democrat Senator until they had to bury him LAST YEAR. As a Liberal Democrat, you can get into a world of obfuscation, crime, racism, sex scandals and whatever if you vote the correct way.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Al - It's the language of the "hoodies" which is also nicknamed "Hinglish" . Innit.

We're British, Innit by Britishness expert Iain Aitch

Innit
This useful piece of punctuation can be used to end any sentence in Britain, providing a simple reaffirmation of the facts therein (It is well hot, innit?) or adding emphasis to the need for confirmation of a fact from a companion (Are you going to the cinema, innit?). The genius of the word is that it can be retrospectively applied to classic literature or speeches and still make sense. So, Shakespeare may ask ‘To be, or not to be, innit?’.

Holy crap. What ever next. Innit.

Expect some "water drinking" idiot to make some idiotic comments. Innit.

Something like American Ebonics?

 

[Keith]

Good analogy but different.. if you get my drift.

I will not break the (our) law by explaining further.

Internet defamation cases in the UK are the biggest growth area in litigation, so I will be very careful to say that anyone that doesn't agree with me and my policies is a racist.

 

[Keith]

The Ku Klux Klan would have loved you guys! Too bad you missed them by a couple of decades and a few thousand miles!

young jeff, I am sure you only got away with that comment because the forum owner is a mate of yours.

Bad form geezer innit.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Funny how a language can be bastardized throught pronuciation laziness then defended as a "new" language.

 

[Pete McCluskey.]

Frankly guys I don't give a rats arse how the perpetrators of the riots speak,or were they come from, what or who their god is and what colour their skin is.
Nor do I care that they may have lived a deprived childhood, been raped by various members of their families or the priesthood,or have a strange penchant for pulling the wings off bugs.
They are urban terrorists, thugs, crooks, criminals, lowlifes and scum!
They should all be arrested and thrown in the slammer. If they happen not to be citizens of the U.K. they should be sent home after a suitable amount of time at Her Majesty's pleasure.
If caught in the act of looting shoot the bastards.:furious:

 

[Graham]

Innit Shminnit, ya know that ah meen?

But seriously, we don't always have to like what's going on in our respective countries...
It doesn't make you a racist to not like what is happening in your neighbourhood if you find that you are being marginalised by PC bollocks. It's hard to articulate on a forum thread just what David and Keith are saying.

But I'll try (because I've just drunk a shed load of Doom Bar, and well, because I can )...

It is understandable for a relatively assimilated (for hundreds of years) people to be concerned with the influx of a group of foreign people and their way of life. OK, fine but the equation falls down when that group of people want to change the:-

A. Language
B: The culture
C: The religion

etc...

So, it's not about racism or any "ism", it's about a populace being able to express their fears WITHOUT being branded thus.

There are pockets of ethnic majorities in this country that woud beggar belief. Factories that employ people that can't speak a word of English. People living in communities that will rarely ever see an "indiginous" member of the populace.

To express concern about these issues does not make one a racist, it makes one a realist. These are issues that all of us face at one time or other and to discuss them or poke fun at them is simply our way of expressing concern for the future of our society such that it is (or was)... :huh:

Anyway, I'm pissed anyway (it's taken me an age just to spell check this post )...

Byeeee!

 

[Bob Fechter]

Innit Shminnit, ya know that ah meen?


"To express concern about these issues does not make one a racist, it makes one a realist. These are issues that all of us face at one time or other and to discuss them or poke fun at them is simply our way of expressing concern for the future of our society such that it is (or was)... :huh:"

Well said, Sir. In the US, any disagreement with the current regime is immediately labeled "Racist." I feel that's the final defense of a lost debate.

 

[Jeff Young]

Ah so, but it is a fine line between racist and "realist" c'est pa?

Cultures are constantly having to assimilate groups who live differnently than the existing population. I think Keith/Harvey Morgan has claimed this is some sort of unique pheonomenon to the UK right now, or at least that us in the US "don't understand." Well, we certainly, as we (particularly in the southwest) are having these very same "issues" with hispanic immigrants.

But here's the thing. Posts like Keith's and David's sound a LOT like those in the US in the South who didn't like black folks, or those in the southwest who did not hispanics...and it often becomes hard to tell the difference between the two.

Innit Shminnit, ya know that ah meen?

But seriously, we don't always have to like what's going on in our respective countries...
It doesn't make you a racist to not like what is happening in your neighbourhood if you find that you are being marginalised by PC bollocks. It's hard to articulate on a forum thread just what David and Keith are saying.

But I'll try (because I've just drunk a shed load of Doom Bar, and well, because I can )...

It is understandable for a relatively assimilated (for hundreds of years) people to be concerned with the influx of a group of foreign people and their way of life. OK, fine but the equation falls down when that group of people want to change the:-

A. Language
B: The culture
C: The religion

etc...

So, it's not about racism or any "ism", it's about a populace being able to express their fears WITHOUT being branded thus.

There are pockets of ethnic majorities in this country that woud beggar belief. Factories that employ people that can't speak a word of English. People living in communities that will rarely ever see an "indiginous" member of the populace.

To express concern about these issues does not make one a racist, it makes one a realist. These are issues that all of us face at one time or other and to discuss them or poke fun at them is simply our way of expressing concern for the future of our society such that it is (or was)... :huh:

Anyway, I'm pissed anyway (it's taken me an age just to spell check this post )...

Byeeee!

 

[Bob Fechter]

Ah so, but it is a fine line between racist and "realist" c'est pa?

Cultures are constantly having to assimilate groups who live differnently than the existing population. I think Keith/Harvey Morgan has claimed this is some sort of unique pheonomenon to the UK right now, or at least that us in the US "don't understand." Well, we certainly, as we (particularly in the southwest) are having these very same "issues" with hispanic immigrants.

But here's the thing. Posts like Keith's and David's sound a LOT like those in the US in the South who didn't like black folks, or those in the southwest who did not hispanics...and it often becomes hard to tell the difference between the two.

Assimilation is critical here. The problem comes when they don't want to be assimilated. Its especially devastating to their children.

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Ah so, but it is a fine line between racist and "realist" c'est pa?

Cultures are constantly having to assimilate groups who live differnently than the existing population. I think Keith/Harvey Morgan has claimed this is some sort of unique pheonomenon to the UK right now, or at least that us in the US "don't understand." Well, we certainly, as we (particularly in the southwest) are having these very same "issues" with hispanic immigrants.

But here's the thing. Posts like Keith's and David's sound a LOT like those in the US in the South who didn't like black folks, or those in the southwest who did not hispanics...and it often becomes hard to tell the difference between the two.

Most gringos I know in Tucson have friends of Mexican decent. People here including those of Mexican decent don't like or accept breaking the law. Coming into the US without a visa or green card by crossing the border illegally is breaking Arizona State law and Federal Law. We don't like the fact that politicians are granting amnesty for their own benefit, the vote. We don't appreciate higher taxes for the welfare and Access health care that is given to the illegals. Please don't lump us into some racist class that you have formed for us. We are not racist, we think the law should be enforced, as a lawyer you should know this.
Pete, sorry for the thread drift!

 

[Al Wohlstrom]

Ah so, but it is a fine line between racist and "realist" c'est pa?

Cultures are constantly having to assimilate groups who live differnently than the existing population. I think Keith/Harvey Morgan has claimed this is some sort of unique pheonomenon to the UK right now, or at least that us in the US "don't understand." Well, we certainly, as we (particularly in the southwest) are having these very same "issues" with hispanic immigrants.

But here's the thing. Posts like Keith's and David's sound a LOT like those in the US in the South who didn't like black folks, or those in the southwest who did not hispanics...and it often becomes hard to tell the difference between the two.

Jeff, are you suggesting that the English need to "assimilate" the groups that are rioting. Rioting is not living differently, it's once again "breaking the law". They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Is this a hard concept for you to grasp? Law, Jeff, Lawyer?

 

[David Morton]

Graham,
I'm quite happy with the culture and equally happy with the religions with proviso that it is religion for religions sake. Some of the Mullas and so called preachers can go well over the top here in the UK and eventually get locked up for inciting racial hatred. Even the U.S.A. have tried to get them extradited so they can put them on trial.
They have even incited some young men to join the opposition forces in Afghanistan and lay down their lives for Al Quaida. Their bodies just get left in the mud instead of being flown home with the Royal Air Force. That or they do not survive their exploding rucksacks when they kill and maim in London. Relgion here can sometimes conceal something much more sinister.
What really spoils the whole thing and often gets me annoyed, is the lack of learning and then bastardising the native tongue in this land and further more expecting signage to be provided in their respective native languages. Will those speaking Hinglish expect the same? The lack of learning becomes a major factor with some of the youths that end up in the courts and its evident that they are embarking of a life of bucking the system and their expectations in life has just hit the buffers. The welsh get away with the language thing and it must cost a fortune for the double size road signs and yet only about 5% of the welsh actually speak that language fluently , none have it as their native language any more, and all the welsh understand English as well. (They never read out the caution [you have the right to remain silent etc] in welsh when they arrest somebody. All the courts in wales speak only English. But it has to be all recorded in both languages. Why.....?

With a 20% increase in immigration into the UK, I feel it's right for me to be concerned. Enoch Powells speech is often quoted and being quoted more and more as the government here gradually loses control of reality (and immigration)
Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.<SUP id=cite_ref-9 class=reference>[10]</SUP> (Enoch Powell)

In 1976 I had the priviledge of talking to him for about three hours late into the night after a B.B.C. Newsnight program from Lime Grove.

This is the real truth - for a lot it's become a PC thing and people hide behind being PC- nothing else.

This UK, and especially England, is OUR country and as residents here , we are still allowed free speech. It's what this country is famous for. We do not need anybody to declare thats how it is. Any fools making comments about OUR country and that do not live here are should just keep their silly comments to themselves.
Go and read Enoch Powells Rivers of Blood speech. If the cap fits, wear it.

The water drinkers of this world are the total fools - they are so totally un PC ,the other way, they are somewhere to the right of Ghengis Khan. Just about everybody realises how stupid they are, but there are one or two amongst our brethren who gets taken in by their stupid comments and spout it out again as though it's a fact.

Innit.

 

[Jeff Young]

I was waiting for that one. Finally, Enoch Powell. The UK's Jesse Helms.

The veil is lifted, and the truth revealed.

 

[Jeff Young]

Necessary form, geezer innit.

This place is rapidly devolving into an Archie Bunker convention. Needed some perspective, so it gets it.

young jeff, I am sure you only got away with that comment because the forum owner is a mate of yours.

Bad form geezer innit.

 

[Mark]

Innit Shminnit, ya know that ah meen?

But seriously, we don't always have to like what's going on in our respective countries...
It doesn't make you a racist to not like what is happening in your neighbourhood if you find that you are being marginalised by PC bollocks. It's hard to articulate on a forum thread just what David and Keith are saying.

But I'll try (because I've just drunk a shed load of Doom Bar, and well, because I can )...

It is understandable for a relatively assimilated (for hundreds of years) people to be concerned with the influx of a group of foreign people and their way of life. OK, fine but the equation falls down when that group of people want to change the:-

A. Language
B: The culture
C: The religion

etc...

So, it's not about racism or any "ism", it's about a populace being able to express their fears WITHOUT being branded thus.

There are pockets of ethnic majorities in this country that woud beggar belief. Factories that employ people that can't speak a word of English. People living in communities that will rarely ever see an "indiginous" member of the populace.

To express concern about these issues does not make one a racist, it makes one a realist. These are issues that all of us face at one time or other and to discuss them or poke fun at them is simply our way of expressing concern for the future of our society such that it is (or was)... :huh:

Anyway, I'm pissed anyway (it's taken me an age just to spell check this post )...

Byeeee!

Totally agree. Arn't there areas of Africa where the locals now the fear the 'coming of the eastern man'. Suffering a massive influx of Chinese. It's all the same.

 

[Bob Fechter]

One way to deal with all this is to have reciprocal treaties. If a citizen of my country has a right to something in your country, your citizen has the same rights and protections in my country.

 

[Keith]

Bob, that's a very very sensible solution...

Because of that the EU would never go for it..

But, allegedly, we (in the UK) are free to go and live and work anywhere in the EU. Question is; why would we want to?

Strictly one way street.

 

[Bob Fechter]

Bob, that's a very very sensible solution...

Because of that the EU would never go for it..

But, allegedly, we (in the UK) are free to go and live and work anywhere in the EU. Question is; why would we want to?

Strictly one way street.

I'm looking at it in a strictly defensive position. But, yeah, what liberal wants to even the playing field? Would like a piece of land on the Baja Coast, though.