I'm Worried My Friend Might Fall Out...
Family & Relationships1 min ago
Blatent racism !
Why are ethnic minorities allowed to be racist when we "whites" are not?
The newspaper "The Voice" (used to be Black Voice) has an article this week about a Church on the Olympic site being knocked down.
In the newspaper (and on their web site) this church is described as the "largest Black church in Europe" (and I dont think they are taling aobut the colour of the building.
How can they get away with describing it as that?
If a newspaper talked about a "whites only" church there would be cries of racism, questions in the house, and outrage from all sorts of ethnic minorities that they were being excluded.
But because it is a Black church that is somehow OK.
Or is the answer that only us awful whites can be racist and nobody else can.
Yet again double standards.
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/
The newspaper "The Voice" (used to be Black Voice) has an article this week about a Church on the Olympic site being knocked down.
In the newspaper (and on their web site) this church is described as the "largest Black church in Europe" (and I dont think they are taling aobut the colour of the building.
How can they get away with describing it as that?
If a newspaper talked about a "whites only" church there would be cries of racism, questions in the house, and outrage from all sorts of ethnic minorities that they were being excluded.
But because it is a Black church that is somehow OK.
Or is the answer that only us awful whites can be racist and nobody else can.
Yet again double standards.
http://www.voice-online.co.uk/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by VHG. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Elvis...you say in your post........''yet again double standards''????? No yet again...... yawning at your ignorance. Are you jealous or something? Because all you do it whinge,,,,,,boo hoo I am white and someone said this someone said that...I can't say this, I can't say that, say what you want. My sons classroom of 4yr olds sound more mature than you.
-- answer removed --
So how exactly, fred, am I to read your previous post? You say "You're free to call your church a 'white church' if you like."
Is that intended to be a statement of fact? Then it's false: you are not free to call your church a 'white church' if you like, even if you do not intend that to imply it would �be unfriendly to or discriminate against anyone who is black" The absence of mens rea in that respect would not save your legal skin. It might not as you say be discriminatory, but it would be racist, and you say �Of course the objection is in calling the church a 'black church' with all that may imply and 'racist' in VHG's question is to be read accordingly.�
So if we agree on that, how can you have made your previous post?
Actually VHG's question is a bit confused, as it likens a �black church� to a "whites only" church, and we are informed no doubt authoritatively on all sides that the black Church is not a "blacks only" church, or at any rate not now. Here is the relevant passage in VHG's question: "If a newspaper talked about a "whites only" church there would be cries of racism, questions in the house, and outrage from all sorts of ethnic minorities that they were being excluded."
The cries of racism would, we agree, be justified, and so would the outrage from ethnic minorities if the expression was "whites only", but not if it was your expression �white church�, because you tell us it would not in fact be implied, any more than in the black church. So any outrage would just be a bit more professional offence-taking. But that does not mean that �white church� would be any the less racist!
So not only are you not politically free to call your church a 'white church' if you like, but as a lawyer you way well be able to confirm my above-mentioned impression that you are not legally free to either, and it would be highly actionable.
Is that intended to be a statement of fact? Then it's false: you are not free to call your church a 'white church' if you like, even if you do not intend that to imply it would �be unfriendly to or discriminate against anyone who is black" The absence of mens rea in that respect would not save your legal skin. It might not as you say be discriminatory, but it would be racist, and you say �Of course the objection is in calling the church a 'black church' with all that may imply and 'racist' in VHG's question is to be read accordingly.�
So if we agree on that, how can you have made your previous post?
Actually VHG's question is a bit confused, as it likens a �black church� to a "whites only" church, and we are informed no doubt authoritatively on all sides that the black Church is not a "blacks only" church, or at any rate not now. Here is the relevant passage in VHG's question: "If a newspaper talked about a "whites only" church there would be cries of racism, questions in the house, and outrage from all sorts of ethnic minorities that they were being excluded."
The cries of racism would, we agree, be justified, and so would the outrage from ethnic minorities if the expression was "whites only", but not if it was your expression �white church�, because you tell us it would not in fact be implied, any more than in the black church. So any outrage would just be a bit more professional offence-taking. But that does not mean that �white church� would be any the less racist!
So not only are you not politically free to call your church a 'white church' if you like, but as a lawyer you way well be able to confirm my above-mentioned impression that you are not legally free to either, and it would be highly actionable.
Continued_____
VHG's point that "because it is a Black church that is somehow OK" is however also correct, and the somehow that it's OK is that it's a fait accompli, but so was 'men and women' until it had to be 'women and men', 'milkman' until it had to be 'milkperson', and so still apparently is �woman� until it has to become �woperson�.
So �black church� may not stay OK for very long: VHG tells us that "The Voice" used to be Black Voice. (Tho Im not entirely sure that that is not obfuscation rather than an attempt to defuse the name.)
So yes, fred, I was being obvious in my last post, but I hope I gave more than just a glimpse of the obvious. Glad it was �startling�, but obviously it was not �lengthy� enough. You have obliged me to go to even greater length.
How can you say �Of course the objection is in calling the church a 'black church' with all that may imply and 'racist' in VHG's question is to be read accordingly� having proposed the appellation �white church� yourself?
You're winding me up again, aren�t you, you waggish blighter? I took the bait and you're reeling me in. But I don�t think it�s a matter for waggery. You will only confuse people. But silly me, that�s your job, isn�t it? But here you're not doing it very well: nobody will be able to make out which side you are on!
VHG's point that "because it is a Black church that is somehow OK" is however also correct, and the somehow that it's OK is that it's a fait accompli, but so was 'men and women' until it had to be 'women and men', 'milkman' until it had to be 'milkperson', and so still apparently is �woman� until it has to become �woperson�.
So �black church� may not stay OK for very long: VHG tells us that "The Voice" used to be Black Voice. (Tho Im not entirely sure that that is not obfuscation rather than an attempt to defuse the name.)
So yes, fred, I was being obvious in my last post, but I hope I gave more than just a glimpse of the obvious. Glad it was �startling�, but obviously it was not �lengthy� enough. You have obliged me to go to even greater length.
How can you say �Of course the objection is in calling the church a 'black church' with all that may imply and 'racist' in VHG's question is to be read accordingly� having proposed the appellation �white church� yourself?
You're winding me up again, aren�t you, you waggish blighter? I took the bait and you're reeling me in. But I don�t think it�s a matter for waggery. You will only confuse people. But silly me, that�s your job, isn�t it? But here you're not doing it very well: nobody will be able to make out which side you are on!
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.