Page 2 of 3

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:26 am UTC
by Thesh
CorruptUser wrote:It doesn't have to work with any race for a joke to not be racist.


I did not say it did.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:54 am UTC
by jseah
I'm Chinese. Not particularly offended.

I also interpreted it the same way, being a jab at Foxconn. I'm not mainland Chinese though, Singapore background.

Funny clothing, and the kid's quite cute. Lol.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 2:07 pm UTC
by Mutex
Thesh wrote:I don't know who Lord Sugar is, and I may be fallacious in assuming he is not a giant douche.


Quite wrong :) But not because he's a racist.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:49 pm UTC
by Red Hal
He is the British equivalent of Donald Trump (i.e. nominal star of The Apprentice, self-made businessman). The differences are mainly in the choice of hairpiece (Sugar is more pragmatic in that respect and appears not to give a toss about his hair, a position I thoroughly applaud) and in the willingness to ride complete roughshod over the rights of others in pursuit of business Nirvana (compare Trump's golf course in Scotland with Alan Sugar's ... um ...).

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 3:59 pm UTC
by Роберт
MartianInvader wrote:Soooo... reducing people to nothing more than representatives of their race is fine, as long as it's topical?

So I guess you'd be offended if I posted a picture of a random Martian (who might not even live on mars) and said "he's sad because he can't find any water"? Whatever. Get however offended you want. I don't care. So long as I'm following Wheaton's Law, I'm good.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Wed Oct 09, 2013 11:31 pm UTC
by MartianInvader
If you posted a picture of me, a Martian, in which I was holding a pink slip and crying because I lost my job, and tweeted it saying "He's crying because he can't find water", I would find it demeaning. You've taken an image of me, and essentially asserted that the only important thing in the picture is my race (or, uh, species). It implies that in any picture I take, post, or share, the only thing you will notice is my race (er, species).

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:58 am UTC
by nitePhyyre
MartianInvader wrote:If you posted a picture of me, a Martian, in which I was holding a pink slip and crying because I lost my job, and tweeted it saying "He's crying because he can't find water", I would find it demeaning. You've taken an image of me, and essentially asserted that the only important thing in the picture is my race (or, uh, species). It implies that in any picture I take, post, or share, the only thing you will notice is my race (er, species).

No it implies that one thing you notice is race.

And it doesn't even imply that. In the scenario described, even more important than race is the crying.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:08 am UTC
by omgryebread
nitePhyyre wrote:
MartianInvader wrote:If you posted a picture of me, a Martian, in which I was holding a pink slip and crying because I lost my job, and tweeted it saying "He's crying because he can't find water", I would find it demeaning. You've taken an image of me, and essentially asserted that the only important thing in the picture is my race (or, uh, species). It implies that in any picture I take, post, or share, the only thing you will notice is my race (er, species).

No it implies that one thing you notice is race.

And it doesn't even imply that. In the scenario described, even more important than race is the crying.
You seriously think anyone would have tweeted a picture of a crying white kid with the same "joke"?

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:10 am UTC
by Carlington
The stereotype that Lord Sugar's tweet plays on exists at a societal level. Without it, the tweet loses its impact, and doesn't really work. The stereotype itself relies on long-standing cultural notions about what it means to be Asian, and how Asian people behave. I feel as though we can call this racist quite comfortably (or, if not racist, at least prejudiced/bigoted), because it follows quite a simple chain, from negative associations with Asian people, through negative stereotyping of Asian people, to humour based on the negative stereotype.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:12 am UTC
by Tyndmyr
omgryebread wrote:And it doesn't even imply that. In the scenario described, even more important than race is the crying.
You seriously think anyone would have tweeted a picture of a crying white kid with the same "joke"?[/quote]

You could, and the joke* would still work, because the connection between a child, child labor, and foxconn are all there. The choice of a chinese kid to reference chinese incidents is not really surprising, though. It's not any more racist than a picture of french people when talking about french news.

Yes, topicality matters. Otherwise, every discussion of racism is itself racist, and things get stupid.

*Or reference, really. It's not extremely amusing.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:06 am UTC
by Zamfir
China never seemed to me a place with much child labour, by the standards of similarly wealthy countries. You don't see much children in China during school hours, at least in the cities. They pop up behind the desks of family businesses later in the day, while in other parts of the world those desks are manned by kids all the time.
Sending your kids (well, kid) to school is taken rather serious, even by people who struggle to make ends meet.


There was a scandal some time ago when Foxconn was hiring 14 year olds as interns, by carefully not checking their papers too carefully.I bet that happens a lot anyway, but it's telling that hiring 14-year-olds has to be done in secret. People are worrying about an increase of teenagers who drop out of school to get a job in Dongguan, it's not what those factories run on as a basis.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:51 am UTC
by Chen
I'm curious then. I've seen a meme (which I cant seem to search for here at work) with a white guy sitting in a car (probably limo) saying something like "Can't sit comfortably, wallet too fat". Clearly a poke at the "problems" the very rich face. Are we to somehow assume this is racist towards white people? I mean the stereotypical view would be that the wall street fat cat is a white guy in a suit. Its fairly clear the meme is to make a statement about the problems the rich face and nothing at all about the person in the picture. Why is this Chinese child one different? It's meant to make a statement about child labor. Not about the Chinese in general.

Someone asked what Chinese people on the forum thought. I'm Chinese and I didn't take offense to it at all.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:30 pm UTC
by Red Hal
Thanks for the data point, Chen, and a well-made point. You get to the heart of my dilemna. Were the company, and child, obviously British (my own nationality) I would have interpreted the jibe in exactly the same way, and wouldn't have taken offence. And given that then I naturally apply it irrespective of the nationality. Now, if it was a British child and the jibe was something along the lines of "Crying because he's just realised this is the best his teeth are ever going to look" then *that* would be a national stereotype and I'd have a problem with it. Ditto for $nationality , $national stereotype.

To those of you who are adopting the "it's not-racist" viewpoint, is that similar to your reasoning? To those of you who are adopting the "it's racist" viewpoint, what do you think o that line of reasoning?

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:41 pm UTC
by Carlington
Personally, speaking from the "it's-racist" side of things, I feel like that line of reasoning misses a couple of key points, to do with the greater context, along the lines of "nothing happens in a vacuum".
Firstly, we need to take into account that regardless of how much or how little child labour actually currently exists in China, we in the Western world have a cultural association, for whatever reason, between China and child labour, and this breeds negative stereotyping of Chinese people. While you personally may interpret it regardless of the race or nationality of the child, there are people who will have seen this tweet, or the media coverage now surrounding it, and immediately thought something to the effect of "Haha! Child labour! Asians do that all the time, those slimy bastards!". If we now side with Lord Sugar, and defend his sentiment, this also has the unintended effect of telling that group of people "It's okay - nobody really minds that you feel that way about Chinese people, and Asian people in general."

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 12:48 pm UTC
by leady
Your example is xenophobic yes, but xenophobia is a generalisation on "dos" rather than "ares". Personally I think those are far less of an issue, because its possible to avoid "dos".

For example I'm British and whilst I don't have a US Miley Cyrus fake veneer smile (but hey all my teeth 100% british with no fillings), I could very easily if I cared enough about it.

The original issue however is not a "dos" or an "ares" generalisation, but a parody of an actual "was" and probable "is"- i.e. its neither, but I do like the autocensor of PC :)

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:06 pm UTC
by Red Hal
Carlington, that's illuminating, because in the U.K. we don't have any cultural association of the Chinese with child labour. The stereotypes we have for the Chinese in my generation and below (i.e. didn't ffight in World War 2) are: hard-working, shorter than us, eat more rice than we do, have a government with a poor human rights record, smile a lot. That's about it, and to be honest none of those are particularly negative about the Chinese people. In short, we in the U.K. don't have any negative cultural associations with the Chinese people that I am aware of, beyond the general dour mistrust of anyone who doesn't like marmite or talk much about the weather. I suspect that that lack of negative association with Chinese people and culture goes some way toward explaining the difference in position on the tweet.

Leady, "do's" vs "ares", that's a succinct way of putting it!

BTW apologies ffor any misspellings, my F key has an intermittent fault.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:10 pm UTC
by Carlington
Right back at you, with regards to the illumination - do you really not have the trope of the Chinese sweatshop over there? Is that a uniquely Australian thing, yet another hallmark of the great nation that I get to feel proud to be a part of?

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:24 pm UTC
by leady
not really - we have the Indian subcontinent / Vietnam one, probably basically of historical roots (the chinese annoyingly resisted our glorious benevolent empire)- and I'd argue the former is dying rapidly /changing in scope (call center workers :) )

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:29 pm UTC
by Carlington
That changes things somewhat - maybe this particular trope isn't as pervasive as I thought it was. It certainly makes sense, however, that there would be tropes specific to Australia - China is the closest representation of the Communist world, geographically, and was thus the easiest target in the backlash to the "Red Menace".

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 1:58 pm UTC
by leady
understandable really - they top the list for immigration and military threat to australia

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:08 pm UTC
by omgryebread
Carlington wrote:That changes things somewhat - maybe this particular trope isn't as pervasive as I thought it was. It certainly makes sense, however, that there would be tropes specific to Australia - China is the closest representation of the Communist world, geographically, and was thus the easiest target in the backlash to the "Red Menace".
Well, we certainly have the trope here in the US, along with a great many other stereotypes, some "positive" (hard working, good at math), some negative (rude, make low quality stuff). I'm guessing the US and Australia both have a great deal more Chinese than the UK.


Chen wrote:I'm curious then. I've seen a meme (which I cant seem to search for here at work) with a white guy sitting in a car (probably limo) saying something like "Can't sit comfortably, wallet too fat". Clearly a poke at the "problems" the very rich face. Are we to somehow assume this is racist towards white people? I mean the stereotypical view would be that the wall street fat cat is a white guy in a suit. Its fairly clear the meme is to make a statement about the problems the rich face and nothing at all about the person in the picture. Why is this Chinese child one different? It's meant to make a statement about child labor. Not about the Chinese in general.

Someone asked what Chinese people on the forum thought. I'm Chinese and I didn't take offense to it at all.
Eeehhh. A few things about that.

For one, it's harder to be racist against white people. Racism is a multifaceted thing, tied in with historical and current social context.

Secondly, the picture as you describe it has other indicators. If it were a white person in overalls sitting in the back of a beat up Chevy pickup with the same caption, that would be bizarre (and probably racist.) The picture of the Chinese kid in question is more like the white guy in overalls: every indicator other than his race shows the kid isn't a child laborer.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 2:14 pm UTC
by Red Hal
Yeah, what leady said about this. We don't really have that association. To be fair there is a general association with "sweatshop" but that tends to be not speciic to any one country and could equally apply to any so-called "developing" nation, where labour costs are much lower than ours. Is that a fair stereotype? Probably not. Is it associated with race or even any one country in particular? Definitely not. If anything it tends to be viewed as a negative association with large corporations providing poor working conditions in countries where they can get away with it, rather than aimed at the people themselves. Does that help?

Edit: omgryebread, I agree with you about it being harder to be racist toward white people, but one has to be careful that when taking into account history and context one does not adopt the absolutist standpoint "You can't be racist if you aren't white". Racism toward the "former oppressor" is still racism, it's just that the bar for what counts is a little higher.

What I find quite interesting is that as the British Empire's star has departed from the main sequence and started to fade, so the collective guilt we feel over the misdoings of the past has started to fade as well. Now we're just another small nation competing with other small nations and that feeling of parity, of not being a super-power, of not having to wring our hands quite so much over our treatment of "Johnny Foreigner" and deal with other countries more honestly has been - I feel - quite a healthy development.

Conversely, the U.S.'s star is in the ascendant. It's top dog (current shutdown notwithstanding) on the world stage, and for socially aware types that brings with it an acute awareness of the asymmetry of that position. What will be interesting is to see how, as the U.S. star begins to fade and China's starts to rise over the next couple of decades, the attitudes change.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 3:55 pm UTC
by Роберт
Red Hal wrote:Thanks for the data point, Chen, and a well-made point. You get to the heart of my dilemna. Were the company, and child, obviously British (my own nationality) I would have interpreted the jibe in exactly the same way, and wouldn't have taken offence. And given that then I naturally apply it irrespective of the nationality. Now, if it was a British child and the jibe was something along the lines of "Crying because he's just realised this is the best his teeth are ever going to look" then *that* would be a national stereotype and I'd have a problem with it. Ditto for $nationality , $national stereotype.

Right. If it was an Asian boy and it said "crying because he realized his penis won't get any bigger", that would be horrible and racist. The whole point of it would be "haha, negative stereotype about group I'm not in". That's generally a very bad thing. If it was a picture of an kid who looked like he was from the U.S. (even if he wasn't really) and it said "crying because the government shut down his favorite park", then that wouldn't be racist at all. If it showed a chubby U.S. looking kid and said "crying because this is the skinniest she'll get", that would be the bad. (I wouldn't personally be offended, but I would consider it "offensive" is that it's reasonable for someone to be offended by it.) If it said "crying to annoy the NSA so much they stop listening in on what she's saying", that would actually be funny.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 4:44 pm UTC
by leady
Red Hal wrote:Edit: omgryebread, I agree with you about it being harder to be racist toward white people, but one has to be careful that when taking into account history and context one does not adopt the absolutist standpoint "You can't be racist if you aren't white". Racism toward the "former oppressor" is still racism, it's just that the bar for what counts is a little higher.


I disagree the bar is exactly the same, but the ability to offend or cause harm is a lot lower. Being called a cracker wouldn't offend me, but its clearly a racist term. However I suspect living in a society in a poor demographic with a 90% non-cracker demographic would change my views.

What I find quite interesting is that as the British Empire's star has departed from the main sequence and started to fade, so the collective guilt we feel over the misdoings of the past has started to fade as well. Now we're just another small nation competing with other small nations and that feeling of parity, of not being a super-power, of not having to wring our hands quite so much over our treatment of "Johnny Foreigner" and deal with other countries more honestly has been - I feel - quite a healthy development.
.


I have no guilt over something I had no hand in, and further I prefer judging by the standards of the time. Under the last metric the British Empire was a relative saint, whilst being abhorent under a modern worldview. The only thing we should apologise for is educating all the future rulers of India in British bureacracy and Keynesism - dwarfs all of our direct imperialist damage.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:13 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
omgryebread wrote:For one, it's harder to be racist against white people. Racism is a multifaceted thing, tied in with historical and current social context.
Would it be more fair to say that it isn't harder to be racist toward white people -- but that racism toward white people concerns us a little less? At least in the context of America.

Otherwise, it sounds like racism is only racism if the person you're being racist to suffers some negative impact.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:34 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
I see people occasionally trying to redefine racism to exclude anyone in a 'privileged group'. That to me seems so horribly wrong. Sure, group X may have more problems than group Y, but you shouldn't deny that Y has any problems.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 5:57 pm UTC
by Роберт
Well, some people want a term that means "systematically oppressive race-based prejudice" and use "racism" to mean that. I think it tends to confuse the issue and would be nice for them to use another word. (Sort of like using "African-American" to mean "Black" doesn't make sense when the person is a citizen of the UK. And what if they are an African-American in the sense that they are from South Africa, but they are white? Etc). But you have to use the language they are speaking for the argument to make any sense. You can easily argue in circles otherwise.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:05 pm UTC
by DaBigCheez
The way I've heard that definition has been less "anyone in a privileged group is automatically excluded" and more "to be racism, it has to be some kind of symptom/facet/evincing of a broader institutional/societal pattern of oppression". And since privileged groups (especially those that tick all the boxes - rich white cis hetero males, etc.) generally don't have broad societal patterns of oppression aimed at that, it's a lot harder for something to be racist against them.

It probably depends on how wide a net you're casting, though. In the U.S. of A., where power is overwhelmingly concentrated in the hands of rich white males and "upper-middle-class white dude" is pretty much the default assumption, it might be different than if you consider, say, the situation in a specific neighborhood where white people are in the minority and racial tensions are high, or other countries where white people are not the "default".

That said, I'm kind of turning this around in my head, and while there's lots of stereotypical examples of more-or-less clear-cut racism ("[Group] are so lazy", "ha ha those stupid [group]", etc.) I'm curious how something like "ugh, those greedy-ass whites" would play in. Prejudice/stereotyping, certainly, and my initial *instinct* is that it would count as racism, even if the context is specifically that whites are *not* being oppressed by the system and gain unfair advantages. So, not sure on that one.

Ninja'd: Yeah, more or less what Роберт said. I think some people use "racism" to mean "any judgement primarily or purely predicated on a person's race", some use it to mean "any negative judgement primarily or purely predicated on a person's race", and some use it to mean "judgements establishing a pattern of oppression against a group of people primarily or purely predicated on their race". It's kind of like arguments about "discrimination" where one party in the conversation means it as "treating one group differently than another" and one party means "systematically denying one group privileges the other enjoys without reason other than group membership (which is irrelevant to ability to undertake activities relating to the privileges in question)".

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 6:27 pm UTC
by Red Hal
Leady, that is what I was trying to say, as modified by what TGH said.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 8:42 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Chen wrote:I'm curious then. I've seen a meme (which I cant seem to search for here at work) with a white guy sitting in a car (probably limo) saying something like "Can't sit comfortably, wallet too fat". Clearly a poke at the "problems" the very rich face. Are we to somehow assume this is racist towards white people.


Racist wouldn't even cross my mind. You could maaaybe call it classist, but even that is a serious stretch. Really, if you want to portray the image of a ridiculously wealthy dude, he's probably gonna be white and not extremely young and male. That isn't poking fun at all white people, it's simply portraying a realistic image of rich people. Like "child laborers" and "chinese", there's going to be an obvious pile of non-overlapping examples of those two categories.

And I'd put the link between apple and child labor as much more explicit there. We can see where the barb is aimed, and it's kinda justified.

omgryebread wrote:For one, it's harder to be racist against white people. Racism is a multifaceted thing, tied in with historical and current social context.

Secondly, the picture as you describe it has other indicators. If it were a white person in overalls sitting in the back of a beat up Chevy pickup with the same caption, that would be bizarre (and probably racist.) The picture of the Chinese kid in question is more like the white guy in overalls: every indicator other than his race shows the kid isn't a child laborer.


It is exactly as easy to be racist against anyone for any reason. Some groups have more power, and thus, have the capability to do more harm, but racism is racism regardless of if you're powerful or not.

The Great Hippo wrote:
omgryebread wrote:For one, it's harder to be racist against white people. Racism is a multifaceted thing, tied in with historical and current social context.
Would it be more fair to say that it isn't harder to be racist toward white people -- but that racism toward white people concerns us a little less? At least in the context of America.

Otherwise, it sounds like racism is only racism if the person you're being racist to suffers some negative impact.


Agreed. Even ascribing positive traits via race can be racist. It's not normally quite as offensive as negative traits, but you can still be quite offensive in a "complementary" way. So, clearly, racism is about the means you're judging someone by, not the amount of harm suffered. A racist statement is still racist even if nobody else hears it.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 10:01 pm UTC
by Роберт
In terms of whether a meme-style image is problematic from that standpoint, you should ask yourself "what is the joke here"?

Bad: "haha, asian people and their child labor"
Bad: "haha, Russians are homophobic"

Fine: "haha, Apple's products are made from child labor"
Fine: "haha, the Putin administration is homophobic"

Also: Image
Many of these are making fun of racism as it applies to stereotypes, not making fun of black people, so I don't find them inherently offensive.

So yeah, I still don't see the tweet as a hate crime or anything.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:09 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
DaBigCheez wrote:Ninja'd: Yeah, more or less what Роберт said. I think some people use "racism" to mean "any judgement primarily or purely predicated on a person's race", some use it to mean "any negative judgement primarily or purely predicated on a person's race", and some use it to mean "judgements establishing a pattern of oppression against a group of people primarily or purely predicated on their race". It's kind of like arguments about "discrimination" where one party in the conversation means it as "treating one group differently than another" and one party means "systematically denying one group privileges the other enjoys without reason other than group membership (which is irrelevant to ability to undertake activities relating to the privileges in question)".
That being said, I think there's more use in the broader meaning of the term 'racism'; limiting it to only the types of racism we implicitly care about creates a trap -- it becomes easy for people to point at racist comments toward white people and say 'That's racism too, and you're denying it!'.

If we say 'Yes, that's racism, it's just not very important racism', we disarm the argument pre-emptively. There's also just the fact that I dislike words only having a negative connotation -- for example, is it possible to be racist in a good way? If not, then the word 'racist' risks becoming little more than a verbal boogeyman.

(An example of potentially 'good' racism: A medical policy that all people of X descent should be urged to undergo testing for a disease that disproportionately impacts people of X descent)

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:20 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
That's discrimination, not racism.

Racism is the belief that some races are inherently worth more as humans than others. Discrimination is choosing one thing over something else. Racial discrimination is using race as a measure of worth to discriminate (eg, a cab driver stopping for white but not black people).

You wouldn't describe someone having discriminating tastes in music as inherently bad, would you? Unless you hate hipsters of course.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Thu Oct 10, 2013 11:30 pm UTC
by The Great Hippo
CorruptUser wrote:Racism is the belief that some races are inherently worth more as humans than others. Discrimination is choosing one thing over something else. Racial discrimination is using race as a measure of worth to discriminate (eg, a cab driver stopping for white but not black people).
If that's the definition of racism, then racism -- as a term -- has a very limited utility. It's certainly not how I see the word 'racism' used in practice.

But maybe I'm wrong. Either way, I don't find the 'narrow' definition of racism to be very useful.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:05 am UTC
by CorruptUser
Racism may cause racial discrimination, which is the most common thing people think of when they think of racism, but it's the belief that makes it an 'ism'.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 1:05 am UTC
by jseah
Red Hal wrote:What I find quite interesting is that as the British Empire's star has departed from the main sequence and started to fade, so the collective guilt we feel over the misdoings of the past has started to fade as well. Now we're just another small nation competing with other small nations and that feeling of parity, of not being a super-power, of not having to wring our hands quite so much over our treatment of "Johnny Foreigner" and deal with other countries more honestly has been - I feel - quite a healthy development.

Coming from Singapore / Malaysia, I feel justified in stating that you guys did far more for us than you give yourself credit for.
Sure, taking people's stuff isn't exactly nice but we likely would never have gotten to where we are now without the British example and leadership.

A bit like how an estranged atheist son might feel about his devoutly religious father. Sure, you weren't perfect and you did do some nasty things, but you were a good role model and a definite positive. Plus the amiable parting without too much bloodshed helped alot, you let us go when we wanted to and when we were ready.

Did you know we're still trying to speak the Queen's English here? Not that we're doing all that well, ha.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 7:59 am UTC
by Red Hal
Neither is the UK, by all accounts!

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:11 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
The odd thing is, while not all of Britains colonies/possessions turned out OK, ONLY Britain's turned out OK. India, SA, Canada, US, Australia, etc. The ones owned by the Spaniards range from something resembling a country to a basket case. The ones owned by the French are now utter shitholes.

No Canada does not count as French.

Anyway, on the other side, it gets really irritating when some Brits try to pretend that Britain wasn't just building infrastructure to funnel wealth to itself, or responsible for numerous crimes against humanity. Their track record is similar to the US, and I'm sure you Limeys get just as annoyed when someone claims the US is the only Bastion of Freedom in the World *fireworks, eagles screaching*.

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:13 pm UTC
by eran_rathan
CorruptUser wrote:The odd thing is, while not all of Britains colonies/possessions turned out OK, ONLY Britain's turned out OK. India, SA, Canada, US, Australia, etc. The ones owned by the Spaniards range from something resembling a country to a basket case. The ones owned by the French are now utter shitholes.

No Canada does not count as French.


Except Quebec ;)

Re: Lord Sugar accused of racist tweet.

Posted: Fri Oct 11, 2013 12:16 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Yeah and Lousianna is French too. But like Quebec, it's a shithole that would've starved without the rest of the country subsidizing it.