Please treat other members in a constructive and friendly manner: Our Community Guidelines.
  • Unfortunately the longer it go's on the worse it will be. Britain will eventually become... A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, a capitalist economy subject to stringent governmental controls, violent suppression of the opposition, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.

  • Out of date stereotyping their Jenny. You had to refer to Harry Enfield from 35 years back to create one of your famous straw men. But unfortunately like in most things you are totally clueless.


    Loadsamoney was a fictitious set painter at Pinewood Studios back in the day when there was lots of cash in hand work, he was unskilled labour who got lucky.


    New Money a moment of education for you...courtesy of Google


    pasted-from-clipboard.png


    The people I'm talking about are sitting pretty and enjoying the enforced break from work. They have order books full to this time next year and repeat customers that just keep coming back again and again, all paying top dollar for top quality work. They do not advertise, they do not rely on passing trade, they get their endless stream of work by recommendation and word of mouth. They are shrewd and smart business people who happen to be great at what they do and most importantly because they work their nuts off. They are currently pottering in their nice suburban gardens and polishing their Range Rovers (again). They have enough resources to survive for years if necessary, they will be just fine.


    You are quite right that some businesses that are start ups or not based in solid timeless business sectors will go to the wall. I am really sad for these people because nobody deserves the misfortune that comes from this dreadful virus, I am surprised that you would try to make something out of the misfortune of others. Oh hang on, these people who you described you utterly despise so its OK for them to go to hell isn't it? I guess that is the nasty lefty crawling out from the shadows, I knew the mask would slip eventually and TaDa there she is.


    As for the worlds barrow boys that inflate and deflate the stockmarket to line their own pockets I cannot comment. You appear to know more about that sort of thing than me. But you were raised in London so expect you would, maybe your dad was one of these wide boys?


    You try so desperately to take the morally indignant high ground all the time, I am very disappointed, I expected better from you.

  • For the most part I agree with you ....I have a few issues with other parts ... - Victims have always been able to push back from the very beginning but they chose not to because there would be consequences.

    :huh: Seriously?! You really mean to tell us that from the very beginning American slaves had the choice to emancipate themselves or that Blacks stuck at the back of the bus could've chosen to sit at the front or that Mr. Loving (white) and Mrs. Loving (black) didn't have to suffer under American racial segregation laws had they chosen to push back? Let's stretch it -- what about those who were denied new and better life in Australia because of White Australia Policy? Did non-white professionals really have the choice to force Australia to take them rather than ex-convicts from England and Scotland? What about victims Apartheid

    Nowadays those who feel they are victims are living in a society that is currently lead by weak individuals who are trying to make a modern society feel guilty about the crimes and mis-deeds of their forefathers. To pay a penance for crimes they did not commit. The victims are to a greater extent taking full advantage of this over sensitivity to push their own agenda and maximise the outcome of these feelings of guilt to their own advantage.....

    Fine. Many play and overplay the race card but that does not justify racism itself or disqualify it from the argument. It is absurd to say that racism is justified and therefore does not exist; or dilute it because many victims of racism themselves use and abuse it to their full advantage.

    The bit in purple - The term race now extends in its legal definition beyond racial identity groups and is now regarded as any group who feels an affinity or shared identity. That could include gay people as a group or religion that extends beyond a single race i.e. muslim, catholics etc. and other groups who feel connected. So racism has become something of a catch all phrase and in the process has lost its meaning and here is where we find ourselves today.

    In the context you are putting it; "racism" is about culture, ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, race. Racism is when an English person (white) discriminates against a Polish man (white) or a Jewish man (white) on the basis that they are of a different and inferior culture, language, nationality, ethnicity, religion.


    Discrimination against gay people is not racism.

    I have been talking about racism in terms of people of a single racial identity

    Which means what exactly?

  • :huh: Seriously?! You really mean to tell us that from the very beginning American slaves had the choice to emancipate themselves or that Blacks stuck at the back of the bus could've chosen to sit at the front or that Mr. Loving (white) and Mrs. Loving (black) didn't have to suffer under American racial segregation laws had they chosen to push back? Let's stretch it -- what about those who were denied new and better life in Australia because of White Australia Policy? Did non-white professionals really have the choice to force Australia to take them rather than ex-convicts from England and Scotland? What about victims Apartheid

    I said that they have always had the option to push back but there would be consequences. The ability to fight or run is an option, however if they did they would be severely punished. But they could have pushed back if they really wanted to. Nelson Mandela pushed back and he suffered the consequences but he won in the end. If there is no fight there is no victory.


    Fine. Many play and overplay the race card but that does not justify racism itself or disqualify it from the argument. It is absurd to say that racism is justified and therefore does not exist; or dilute it because many victims of racism themselves use and abuse it to their full advantage.

    Yes, the race card is overplayed these days and this has the unfortunate effect of diminishing legitimate cries of racism. It does not disqualify or justify racism in any form and whats more I never said it did.


    In the context you are putting it; "racism" is about culture, ethnicity, language, nationality, religion, race. Racism is when an English person (white) discriminates against a Polish man (white) or a Jewish man (white) on the basis that they are of a different and inferior culture, language, nationality, ethnicity, religion.

    I am using the the definition as used by the Equality Act 2010 where the Protected Characteristics phrase came to light, the link takes you straight to Section 9 (Race). The act recognises that people of different races can still form a single racial identity. I admit my assertion that Gay people could be included was incorrect (my bad) they are covered in Section 12 of the same legislation. Apart from my clarification we are agreeing that we agree with the definition set out in the Equality Act 2010 - some progress at last.


    Which means what exactly?

    Which means I have been talking about race as in people that look different to me. You have been talking about white people being racist so I guess we were talking about the same thing all along. All the other protected characteristics etc away from skin colour have not thus far entered our discussion. You have less than subtly suggested that I am racist but I would like to draw your attention to my first post in this thread.


    Maybe, as I have been so obliging to you, you would like to go and find my first post in this thread, hit the quote button and then say what you think about it. To give you a clue I posted before you did, it is the second post, you can't miss it.

  • "it should be remembered that China is not too honest and open" !!!!


    The above is a quote published on this forum in the Corona Thread. I cite it not to be snidey or clever.

    I posted this (from Bryanluc) to show once and for all that it is OK to state a perceived fact or an actual fact without being racist.

    If I said the above or Katie Hopkins - Trump ? said the above, Bryanluc and Schmaltz would say this is vile racism at work.

    Change the word CHINA to Immigrants or Muslims or Irish or Pakistan .... it would wrongly be highlighted as a racist comment - which of course it is not.

    The fact is China -Government - is economical with the truth of course the UK ...WMDs .. are never economical with the truth???

    So lets have a little less holier than thou accusations and open your minds to the truth.

    I rest my case on this "RACISM" debate.

    Again... I am not being snappy. I simply contribute to the debate in this way because Bryanluc and Schmaltz fail to see the salient base truth.

    Of course Schmaltz.. you will have to accuse BLuc as being racist, based upon your definition of racism. But as you are both leftie liberals there is no way this will happen.

  • "Protected Characteristics" - is exactly why Travellers are protected in the Equality Act.

    Its OK to cite the Jim Crowe era no matter in doing so avoids the real question of the push by the leftie liberal ideologues perverting the definition to suit their personal insecurities.

  • It's "one rule for me, another rule for thee".

  • "Protected Characteristics" - is exactly why Travellers are protected in the Equality Act.

    Its OK to cite the Jim Crowe era no matter in doing so avoids the real question of the push by the leftie liberal ideologues perverting the definition to suit their personal insecurities.

    Progressives want to take control of definitions and then keep changing them, it keeps them in control of what is acceptable and helps to control free speech. Once people become aware of how easy it is to fall foul of progressive nebulous definitions they self-censor to avoid saying something that will get them called racist or misogynist etc.


    What was OK yesterday will be racist tomorrow. Once upon a time it was OK to say "black" person or "coloured" person but no more, they are bad phrases, now you must say "person of colour". Not quite sure what was achieved through this but what it did was made everyone think if they should say the words at all and many decided to avoid the subject altogether. That is the self-censoring in action. I think we are just about at a point where people are starting to wake up to what is being done to them.

  • Progressives want to take control of definitions and then keep changing them, it keeps them in control of what is acceptable and helps to control free speech. Once people become aware of how easy it is to fall foul of progressive nebulous definitions they self-censor to avoid saying something that will get them called racist or misogynist etc.


    What was OK yesterday will be racist tomorrow. Once upon a time it was OK to say "black" person or "coloured" person but no more, they are bad phrases, now you must say "person of colour". Not quite sure what was achieved through this but what it did was made everyone think if they should say the words at all and many decided to avoid the subject altogether. That is the self-censoring in action. I think we are just about at a point where people are starting to wake up to what is being done to them.

    Exactly. The fact the progressives say Islam is a race is tantamount to insanity. It is also NOT a crime or racist or wrong or devious or vile or inconsiderate or offensive to say Islam is NOT a race. Furthermore the leftie progressives will happily see any person taken from their home, their spouse, their family and locked up in police cells whereas I, a right of center politically minded person (therefore, apparently - nasty Nazi) will never seek to have any person arrested or closed down for their application of freedom of speech.

    This is the point of the debate the LPs will not face.

  • I said that they have always had the option to push back but there would be consequences. The ability to fight or run is an option, however if they did they would be severely punished. But they could have pushed back if they really wanted to.

    Could have pushed back, how? The law itself was against them. You flout segregation laws and you either go to jail or get lynched. It was only after the adoption of anti-racist laws did they have the chance to fight back under the protection of the law.

    the race card is overplayed these days and this has the unfortunate effect of diminishing legitimate cries of racism. It does not disqualify or justify racism in any form and whats more I never said it did.

    Not is so many words. Here's your say about that.


    Opener: "It's impossible to be racist towards another human being the whole idea is insane. To be prejudice /dislike towards a culture or a religion is a whole different issue."


    Shanks: "I see your point entirely."


    You have less than subtly suggested that I am racist but I would like to draw your attention to my first post in this thread.

    It's your posts that suggest that you are. Not me.

  • On the origins of (the word) "racism"

    Introduction


    Interesting if your a reader this points out some very interesting....


    In the recent debates on the race question in South Africa a claim has been persistently made that ‘blacks can’t be racist’. This is a statement often, though not always, made by intellectuals who could be regarded as embodying the negation of this claim. This view does have a wider currency though, including amongst some liberals, and it is worth examining some of the reasoning behind it.

    The argument is, in essence, that ‘racism’ is the doctrine that some groups are racially superior to others. In the South African context the white minority, as a class, remains hugely advantaged - educationally, socially and materially - relative to the still (largely) deprived black majority. Given this lived reality there is no material basis for any credible claim of innate black racial superiority. Without this key element it is not possible for black South Africans to be ‘racist’ towards whites.

    Thus, when Mzwanele Jimmy Manyi, President of Progressive Professionals Forum, was asked on social media whether Velaphi Khumalo’s statement that “white people in south Africa deserve to be hacked and killed like Jews” was ‘racist’ or not, he replied: “This is an expression of extreme anger and criminality. Nothing about racial superiority.”

    The basic underlying belief is that highly productive and successful – or so-called ‘economically dominant’ - ethnic or racial minorities cannot, by definition, be the victims of ‘racism’ at the hands of relatively disadvantaged majorities, or the nationalist movements claiming to represent them.

    This highlights a broader problem in our public debate. While every person and their dog claims to be utterly opposed to ‘racism’, the word often tends is used in an entirely self-serving manner. There is little consensus about what constitutes ‘racism’ beyond crass anti-black examples of it.

    As has been noted before, debates around what is ‘racism’, and who is ‘racist’, are generally decided by how these words are defined; by who gets to be the ‘master’ of them in the first place. One alternative to an interminable tug-of-war however between modern-day race thinkers and classical liberals over the meaning of these words is to try and locate their origins in the English language.

    The etymology of ‘racism’

    The Oxford English Dictionary (2008) defines racism “the theory that distinctive human characteristics are determined by race” or “belief in the superiority of a particular race leading to prejudice and antagonism towards people of other races, esp. those in close proximity who may be felt as a threat to one’s cultural integrity or economic well-being.”

    The first recorded use of the term “racialism” – which the OED regards as synonymous with “racism” – is given as being in the first decade of the 20th Century. Interestingly, the word was commonly used then in relation to the fraught relations between the Dutch and British ‘races’ in what later became the Union of South Africa. The first recorded use of “racism” meanwhile is listed as 1936 when it was used by Lawrence Dennis in The Coming American Fascism, and then again in 1938.

    In Safire’s Political Dictionary William Safire notes that the term “racism” (a “shortening of racialism”) was originally used to describe policies defining, and directed against, Jews as a ‘race’ (rather than a religion). Safire also cites Dennis’ 1936 work as the earliest known usage of the term. It was only somewhat later however - from 1938 onwards - that the word began to be widely used. In this regard he quotes Harvard Professor J. Anton de Haas as writing in November 1938 “This word [racism], has come into use the last six months, both in Europe and this country.”

    Safire does not explain how and why the terms “racism” and “racist” came into widespread use in the late 1930s. It is possible however to trace the emergence of these words through the comprehensive online archive of the New York Times.

  • Edited quotes Schmuck - a cheap trick. Game over.

  • continuation...


    First usages

    In the New York Times’ archive there are, in fact, two pre-1936 references to “racism”, both from James G McDonald, League of Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (Jewish and other) coming from Germany.

    The first is from a brief news report on 17 June 1935 quoting McDonald as using the term “racism” in relation to Adolf Hitler’s “contagious” anti-Jewish doctrines in a speech to the annual convention of Brith Sholom in Atlantic City, New Jersey, the day before.

    The second is from a report on a speech by McDonald to the Anglo-Palestinian Club in London on the responsibility of Christians to aid exiles from Nazi Germany. The article quoted him as saying:

    “Have we Christians no duty while 100,000 Jews and those related to them are degraded, treated as outcasts and threatened with pauperization? It is no answer to say that these are domestic policies, for their effects reach far beyond the State that imposes them. The poison of unreasoning racism is beginning to supply a pseudo-scientific, pseudo-philosophic basis for bitter intolerance even in remote parts of the world.” (New York Times 22 October 1935. My italics.)

    In his resignation letter to the League of Nations at the end of December that year McDonald refers to the “exclusive racialism” of the Nazis which targeted not only those of the Jewish faith but also those Christians descended from Jewish stock; the Nuremberg laws, adopted by the Nazi party congress in September 1935, having stripped Jews of their formal right to citizenship, and also forbad marriages and sexual relations between Jews and those “of German or related blood.”

    In this document McDonald documented in great detail the steadily escalating persecution of the Jews in Germany. He wrote: “Relentlessly the Jews and ‘non-Aryans’ are excluded from all public offices, from the exercise of the liberal professions, and from any part in the cultural and intellectual life of Germany…It is being made increasingly difficult for Jews and ‘non-Aryans’ to sustain life…. In no field of economic activity is there any security whatsoever.”

    The attitude of the German government, he wrote, was based on the “theory of ‘Nordic race’ supremacy”, a “desire to eliminate ‘foreign racial elements’ from the life of the country”, and the conception of the “absolute subordination of the individual to the state.” The Jews were continually “blamed for all the misery and dejection” the German people had suffered in recent history, with ‘Aryan’ children being stirred to hate them and incite their parents to “extirpate” them altogether.

    The following year there was a single reference to “Nazi racism”, in the New York Times, in a report dated 7 July 1936. Then in 1937 an article by the paper’s Berlin correspondent Otto D Tolischus on Nazi “racialism” in the New York Times Magazine was flagged in the main section of the newspaper in an article headed “Menace of Nazi ‘racism’.” (21 November 1937)

    A search of 1938 throws up six examples of the word being used, in various contexts, up until the 13th of July 1938 (and two of “racist”). Up until the middle of 1938 then “racism” was a rarely-used word, in English, used to describe the racial policies of Nazi Germany, as directed against the Jews. It was a truncation of “racialism”, which very much remained the preferred and more widely accepted and understood word. The term “racist” meanwhile, though not unknown, was even rarer still.

    From 14th of July 1938 until the end of the year however there are around thirty articles using the words “racism” and/or “racist”. The impetus for this dramatic increase in usage – and the move of these words from the margins to the mainstream of the English-language - did not come from within the English-speaking world, or Germany for that matter, but from Italy.

  • Razzismo

    Up until 1937 the Italian Fascist dictator Benedicto Mussolini had opposed Nazi racism. The historian Renzo de Felice noted that for a good fifteen years after the Fascists had come to power “the Jews in Italy were not discriminated against and were able to reach the ranks and positions they sought and aspired to.” Mussolini had also spoken against Nazi racism and anti-Semitism many times in private and public.

    By late 1937, as Italy was drawn ever closer into the German political orbit, Mussolini too fell victim to the anti-Semitic contagion emanating from Nazi Germany. This shift was first signalled on 16 February 1938 in a communique issued by the Fascist regime ostensibly rejecting rumours that it was contemplating “taking political, economic or moral measures against the Jews as such, except, obviously, for those elements hostile to the Regime.”

    It concluded, however, by noting ominously: “The Fascist government plans to watch over the activities of the Jews who have recently entered our country and make sure that the role of the Jews in the collective national life is not disproportionate to the personal merits nor the numerical importance of their community.”

    As Felici notes, while apparently conciliatory, the last paragraph in particular was saying, in effect, that Mussolini “was preparing measures against foreign Jews who were refugees in Italy and wished to introduce proportional representation for Italian Jews.” Given that the Jews, according to the statement, made up less than 50 000 of a total Italian population of 44 million this proportion was minuscule.

    At the time the ambiguity of the statement was reflected in the New York Times report which was headed: “Italy reassuring on status of Jews: But Fascist Regime reserves right to control ratio in high public offices.”(17 February 1938). The newspaper’s correspondent, Arnaldo Cortesi, noted that the interpretation of the final paragraph was not clear. “What it seems to mean is that Jews occupying high positions are gradually to be weeded out until the ratio of Jews to Christians in prominent posts about equals the ratio of Jews to Christians in total population.”

    Many Italian Jews, Cortesi wrote, do not appear greatly disturbed “by the possibility that some of their number occupying high positions may lose their jobs. They believe this sentence has been added merely as salve to those who have been carrying on an anti-Jewish campaign in the Italian press and as an act of deference to the Nazi end of the Rome-Berlin axis.”

    The next formal escalation in this campaign came with the publication of an anonymous 10 point document in Il giornale d’Italia, followed by the entire press, on 14 July 1938 with the title “Manifesto degli scienziati razzisti” or “Manifesto of the racist scientists”.

    The document endorsed the concept of race as a biological construct and proclaimed that the Italian ‘race’ was both ‘pure’ and ‘Aryan’. Point 7 of the document stated that “The time has come for Italians to openly proclaim themselves racists (razzisti). All the work the Regime has carried out in Italy until now is, after all, racism (razzismo)”. Point 9 meanwhile declared that “Jews do not belong to the Italian race” being the only population “which has never assimilated in Italy because it is made up of racial elements which are not European, differing absolutely from the elements that make up Italians.” Point 10 called for an end to miscegenation between Italian ‘Aryans’ and others.

    In its numerous reports on the manifesto and subsequent Fascist anti-Jewish policies - as well as Pope Pius IX’s criticisms in response - the New York Times translated razzista / razzisti as “racist” and razzismo as “racism”. (The Manchester Guardian kept to more traditional usage translating razzismo as “racialism”.) It was these reports on Italian “racism” that explained the dramatic upsurge in the usage of the word in the New York Times in the second half of 1938.

    The ‘scientific’ basis of the manifesto was, Felice notes, practically non-existent. Its claims were difficult to take seriously given that Mussolini himself had previously ridiculed the idea that such a thing as a pure race could exist. It was clear however from the start, Felice writes, that the “purpose of the manifesto was to create an ideological and scientific platform for state- sponsored anti-Semitism.”

    On the 25 July Achille Starace, the Secretary General of the Fascist Party, held a meeting with the ten university professors who had been rounded up to put their names to the manifesto. (Felice states that, in reality, it had probably been drafted by Fascist party functionaries and edited by Mussolini.) Starace announced a “vigorous racist campaign aimed at safeguarding the ‘Italian race’ from ‘non-Aryan’ infiltrations.” (New York Times, 25 July 1938).

    A Fascist party bulletin issued after the meeting stated that the “Italian race” had to protect itself from hybridisation and contamination from the other races it was coming into contact with. “As far as the Jews are concerned, they have thought of themselves for thousands of years, the world over, as well as in Italy, as a different race superior to others, and it is notorious that, notwithstanding the tolerant politics of the Regime, the Jews have made up, in every nation, with their men and with their means, the general staff of anti-Fascism.” (My italics)

    A government statement on 5th August sought to give backwards legitimacy to government’s new policy, claiming that “Italian racism dates back to 1919.” The communique argued that in order to prevent racial miscegenation in Italy’s recently acquired African colonies “a strong feeling, a strong sense of pride, a clear and ever-present consciousness of race are required.”

    Turning to the issue of the Jews in Italy the communique stated: “…the Fascist Government has no special plan to persecute the Jews themselves. It deals with another matter. There are 44,000 Jews in the metropolitan territory of Italy, according to Jewish statistical data, which must, though, be confirmed by a special census in the near future; the proportion therefore is supposedly one Jew for every thousand inhabitants. It is clear that, from now on, the participation of the Jews in the overall life of the State should be, and will be, adapted to such a ratio.” (My italics)

    The expulsion of Jews from public positions began almost immediately. The Fascist Ground Council in early October 1938 adopted a declaration forbidding mixed marriages between Italians and Jews or black Africans and restricted marriages with foreigners even if Aryan. It also set out criteria for establishing whether a person belonged to the Jewish race.

    With various exceptions Italian citizens of the Jewish race were to be prohibited from belonging to the Fascist Party; from owning or managing companies of any kind employing more than a hundred persons; owning more than fifty hectares of land; or, serving in the armed forces.

    This declaration was given legal effect through the Royal Legal Decree of 17th November 1938. This stated that Italian Jews “may not be owners or managers, with whatever title, of businesses declared as being of interest to the defence of the Nation… nor of a business of any nature which employs one hundred or more persons, nor have, or take the position of administrator or auditor of the said businesses; be owners of land which, in total, has an estimated value of more than five thousand lire; be owners of urban buildings which, in total, have an assessable tax of more than twenty thousand lire.”

    The employment of such Jews – with some exemptions - was also prohibited in the military, civil administration, municipalities, provincial administrations, state-controlled institutes, banks of national interest and private insurance firms. The Italian citizenship granted to foreign Jews after 1919 was revoked, and foreign Jews (with some exceptions) were required to leave Italian territory by March 1939.

    By mid-1939 Jewish Italians had been expelled from all state jobs as well as the teaching profession. In June 1939 a law was passed severely restricting the participation of such Jews in all the other professions – and banning them outright from being notaries or journalists (if not belonging to an exempted category in the latter case).

  • Analysis

    The word “racism” was thus first used as an adaptation of “racialism”, to describe Nazi racial policies towards the Jews of Germany. It was however only really popularised through Mussolini’s public embrace of razzismo (racism) in the second half of 1938 and the implementation of severe anti-Jewish race discrimination that followed.

    In the imaginations of both German and Italian racists the Jews - though a small minority - wielded huge power and “influence” over the national life of those countries. In March 1933 Joseph Goebbels, newly appointed Reich Minister of Propaganda and Popular Enlightenment, complained:

    “The Jews living in Germany, in view of the small percentage they represent of the entire population, have held such an enormously large number of powerful posts in the life of the nation that the Germanic element seemed almost completely excluded from the leading positions.”

    Similarly, the leading Italian anti-Semitic theorist of the time, Giovanni Preziosi, stated:

    “The Jews control the biggest banks in Italy; they occupy a high percentage of the boards of directors of our corporations; they are very numerous within the Senate and in the Chamber of Deputies; they occupy the highest and most important positions within the state administration. They are innumerable in the teaching profession, and some university departments have been effectively closed to anyone else. They own almost all the publishing companies in Italy. Many daily newspaper are under their control… And we should not forget that all business deals, even those having a patriotic theme, are directed by a Jew.”

    Though such claims of Jewish “influence” and “domination” were grossly exaggerated the Jewish minorities of Italy and Germany were certainly, as a class, very well-off compared to the rest of the population, and economically influential. As in Germany the Jews of Italy, Felice notes, “were for the most part middle- and upper-middle class.”

    It was precisely the desirability of the positions held by the Jews in the state, business and the professions - and their relative prosperity - that made them such a tempting target for racial demagoguery. In both countries the most fanatical drivers of anti-Semitic racial policies were members of the party and emerging middle class who stood to immediately profit from the removal of more successful individual Jewish rivals and competitors.

    As US Consul General in Germany, George Messersmith, noted in a dispatch on 21 March 1933, in the early days of the campaign to drive the Jews out of state employment and the professions in Germany:

    “… the members of [of the Nazi Party] had been told [for years] not only publicly, but in private assembly that when the Party came into power the members would have practically a free hand with the Jews. This meant that not only were they to be given an opportunity to harry the Jews and through fear drive them out of the country, but also that the many places in the professions, business, the theatres and practically all walks of life occupied by Jews were to be cleared so as to make way for the adherents of the Party.”

    In his analysis of these same early events, Horace Rumbold, the British Ambassador to Berlin also noted:

    “Wherever imagination, financial acumen or even business flair comes into play, the Jew tends to outdistance his German rival, and in every domain of intellectual effort the achievements of the Jews are entirely out of proportion to their numbers…. It is only natural that the academic youth of this country should bitterly resent the success of the Jews, especially at a moment when the learned professions in Germany are hopelessly overcrowded. The dismissal of doctors, lawyers and teachers, which is now taking place on a wholesale scale, will reopen these professions to the National Socialist candidates, and the anti-Semitic Nazi party comprises in its ranks most of the academic youth of this country for that very reason." (My italics)

    Arnoldo Cortesi saw similar motives at play in Italy with the adoption of racist measures there in 1938. As he observed:

    “… there are vast sections of the population that will derive, or hope to derive, tangible personal benefits from a vigorous new [racist] policy. Clerks in the government, party and private offices, as well as officers in all armed forces, look forward to promotion; professional men dream of a notable increase in clients; shopkeepers, traders and others of that class are overjoyed at the prospect of seeing competitors forced out of business. Between them they are the most convinced propagandists of the anti-Jewish campaign. Whether or not they believe in the new Fascist racist theories they will see to it that the elimination of the Jews, now that it has begun, continues without interruption.” (New York Times 11 September 1938).

    In both countries the anti-Jewish measures were initially justified - and local and international opposition to them effectively neutralised - by the invocation of the principle that the Jews should be limited, in all fields, to their negligible percentage of the total population. Continued Jewish ‘over-representation’ was regarded as suggesting the ‘superiority’ of this ‘alien race’, and this could and would no longer be countenanced.

    As a matter of historical fact then it is simply not true that racial minorities perceived as ‘privileged’ and ‘powerful’ cannot be the victims of racism. Indeed, as documented above, the word was first commonly used in the English-language to describe precisely this type of racial persecution.

    Bibliography

    Renzo De Felice, The Jews in Fascist Italy, enigma books, New York 2001. This book's annexures contain translations from the Italian of a number of the key documents cited above.

    William Safire, Safire's Political Dictionary, Oxford University Press, 2006

    New York Times online archive

  • Edited quotes Schmuck - a cheap trick. Game over.

    As if it mattered whether or not I quoted entire paragraphs!:rolleyes:


    So. May I take it that you have taken the option to run away and disengage yourself from the discussion since you have failed to refute any of the arguments I have presented to you?

  • As if it mattered whether or not I quoted entire paragraphs!:rolleyes:


    So. May I take it that you have taken the option to run away and disengage yourself from the discussion since you have failed to refute any of the arguments I have presented to you?

    No you may not. As far as I can see you have made no points at all other than accuse people of things that they clearly are not by legal definition. Therefore your opinion is based in your own ideological possession, your inability to see beyond your own bias and preconceptions. I thought we had made some progress but others warned me I was wasting my time. But we are where we are, you have your point of view, I have mine. We have discussed the issue, made our respective points and come back to where we started.


    I don't think there is anywhere else to go with this do you?

  • It was always a lost cause no argument to have. Undisputable. The sooner the word racist, racism is scrapped the better the world will be. Hate that house, hate that person hate this weather hate and racism is a very different thing.

  • No you may not. As far as I can see you have made no points at all other than accuse people of things that they clearly are not by legal definition. Therefore your opinion is based in your own ideological possession, your inability to see beyond your own bias and preconceptions. I thought we had made some progress but others warned me I was wasting my time. But we are where we are, you have your point of view, I have mine. We have discussed the issue, made our respective points and come back to where we started.


    I don't think there is anywhere else to go with this do you?

    Well. That's the problem; you can't see very far. You can only view things from and within the confines of your whiter than white suburbia. You are limited and when someone presents the wider picture all you and "others who warned you" do is rail against it.


    So, you're disengaging then. I agree with you; I think you should.

  • Well. That's the problem; you can't see very far. You can only view things from and within the confines of your whiter than white suburbia. You are limited and when someone presents the wider picture all you and "others who warned you" do is rail against it.


    So, you're disengaging then. I agree with you; I think you should.

    Why insult people? So your attempt at trying to convince people of your stance on racism viz a viz "white superiority" is by insulting people. Try filtering that through your brain?

  • Why insult people? So your attempt at trying to convince people of your stance on racism viz a viz "white superiority" is by insulting people. Try filtering that through your brain?

    What are you on about, I insult people? I get to be called a schmuck for arguing my point tactfully and successfully; and I'm the one that insults people? :rolleyes:

  • What are you on about, I insult people? I get to be called a schmuck for arguing my point tactfully and successfully; and I'm the one that insults people? :rolleyes:

    Admit it! no matter how you choose to twist things your ideology as failed. Its like splitting the atom what a devastating effect it had when the Americans used it as a bomb on Japan. The same effect can be used just by a single word Racist!

  • What are you on about, I insult people? I get to be called a schmuck for arguing my point tactfully and successfully; and I'm the one that insults people? :rolleyes:

    Yes. As judge Judy would say.. "you're cooked"!!