Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I know he isnt the only one.....but his racism is not much mentioned so i thought i ought to point it out
it's not a very smart way to analyse the situation (through race differences) especially for someone in that kind of position, but empirically he's pretty much on the money.
(as i do by calling it mammon....which is more accurate cos ity isnt specific....its where you find it)
is foolish cos then you will totally not be able to distinguish the truth....
Let us take an analagy.....jews were persecuted to a horrendous extent whilst stateless in europe.....once given a state theirstate persecutes others who were 'stateless' (although the people they persecute are actually quite close historically they are all semitic peoples and have similar heritage.......to try to say that one bad thing is 'because of a race or subdivision' when that bad thing is not inherent but is a result of historical inheritance os regressive and does not improve understanding.
Due to hollywood there is a popular conception that the english are oppressors of say the scots....cos of films like braveheart and because of the clearences...yet the government in london practised clearences and battles against the english too....they did this first of course...but hardly anyone is aware of the english clearences or the privations carried out by the english against the english (historically)....thisis of course the same everywhere, relatively little is made of a country oppressing or hurting its own people when cvompared to international grief and oppression.
Britains were compelled to be british, just as many nationalities are compelled to be what they are.....it is not, because someone has white skin and has blue eyes. it is the nations history and developemnet that they live in that dictates national behaviour.
The colour of skin does not dictate tendancy to opression or genocide....that is a historical and competativve developement area..rwanda/burundi/DRC show this all too horrible at the moment.....i accept that it is vastly under-reported, but i understand the mechanisms as to why.
Most people in britain might not be white and blue eyed...i think the brown eyes have it maybe......therefore his comment was sounding like he was trying to evoke an aryan aspect implying perhaps that we were nazis (why mention the blue eyes otherwise) thus demonsterating his own slight facistic view of the world.
I felt very early on that all allegiances of circumstance (country/race/culture) should not have exagerrated importance (beyond the that which is natural occuring) as it is just as likely that the person who might be your closest soulmate or your best freind could come from any race/culture/social class/intelligence.....its just that you are less likely to bump into them because of the demarcation that exists (sometimes natural and physical demarcation sometimes artificial and idealogical)
I am white and have blue eyes and would hate myself if i felt i were to ever make such a comment
He isnt and has brown eyes and he made such a comment very prominantly.......does that make people wuith brown eyes facists? NO obviously not, does it make people with brown eyes stupid? NO obviously not
srsly i think hes doing political sh*t with that statement....he's manoevering to align himself with what he suspects will be more hatred towards the western countries from the poor in brazil....he will attempt to deflect anger of the poor masses in brazil towards white blue eyes.
This is appallingly wrong....becauwse in brazil there are VERY EXTREMEs of poor and mega rich.....and it is not divided according to eye colour....there are very very rich brown eyed brazillians who exploit poor brazillians jsut as much as the blue eyes.
What is worse is that there are a few poor blue eyed fairskinned brazillians who are not associated with teh western nations particularly....they would have little defence if there wwere angry mobs there....so basically a leader makes his own position more comfy, at the potential expense of a few of jhis citizens.....he might have a few differences but underneath .hes the same old same old...leader based on the roman model....and is part of what is REALLY wrong with the world
If so: 10 points.
creakyknees, meet kissinginkansas
just cos you find there might be a slight generalisation that you can make, does not make you right.......try to contemplate a reversal of this statement and apply it to some racist attitudes in say the uk
I always thought he seemed alright (well, by world leader standards anyway).
And what's more I accept full responsibility for the worlds ills.
Just finisehd reading about this on the bbc website, its a tad ill informed.
tomorrow belongs to us!!!!
you always were confused
....his comment is kind of self defeating "those other leaders are stupid"......whilst demonstrating his own stupidity (I feel like pocketmouse) (unless of coursse he isnt stupid and his intention was worse to have in a world leader)
imagine if this was the other way round, and the treatment of racism was equal between white people and black/indigineous.
if Gordon Brown said the same about black people he'd be made to stand down immeadietly.
you'd have to also swap the history of oppression between races
in theory it's a fair comparison, but in reality, totally different.
do past instances allow for those sort of comments?
its still racism, and its an inciteful comment.
as had seemed a fairly smart guy.
Is that I think we all know what a diverse country brazil is, If you heard of a new brazillian football player you wouldnt actually have a clue what his skin colour would be, multiculturism seemed to be demonstrable earlier there than in other countries (of course we only tended to see the rich cities in the 1970s)....but i was always impressed by how everyone seemed to mix on the beach (of course the very poor were absent) Brazil has people of african descent, of european descent and those indigenous to south america.....why would a premier with such a mix do something as potentially devicive to his own country.......in fact it is so stupid that it is obviously him keeping an eye out for his own future by aligning himself with what he expects will be mass anger...and funnelling it into something that deflects blame from 'leaders' and onto eye colour (unless he is suggesting that it is nazi aryan kind of thing (a bizarre suggestion considering the amount of influance that prominant jewish american men have on the american leadership)
he's white himself I think?
or is it cool if they have brown eyes?
also, plenty of Japanese bankers.
generalisation......'men like him'
'men like him, who dont protest anywheree near enough when something could be done and he has power, but when the shit starts to hit the fan the sort of man who looks to channelling unrest away from him'
'male leaders/male power brokers/males of great influence' like him...
i didnt think it relevant.
Im pretty certain that obama hasnt got blue eyes.
Do you think that this el presidente thinks that if fred goodwin went unescorted, up to a group of white anti capitalist demonstrators, that they would engage him in polite argument (because he is white as well)?
el presidente is (Im searching for a suitable insult here.....aha got it) 'A typical national leader'
to make sure he was excluded from his blame group.
by this statement
and those that have relative power in their area.......tiers of people collude to keep their positions (whether economic or title/job) and thus the status quo
yr assesment the racial situation in brazil is pretty naive imo
generalisation....it would not be hard to be more simplistic and niave (except i dont think he is niave)
its aping....parady....facaetious......imagin me to be a sneering charlie brooker with spittle flecked lips and sardonic inflection
i wouldnt normally do that, but d*ckhead statements like his make me say things like that....someone who makes such nonsense speeches (to be heard by all) cannot be argued against rationally cos there could be many accusations of why you he made it...but he doesnt qualify why he did....he probably wants it to be ambiguous....and yet many will take it particualr and different ways.....whatever it is not helpful for many....it may be helpful for where he wishes to position himself....he might not be stupid...he might be canny and sly
(i wish i could interogate politicians?.)
nearly everyone there has mixed heritage, I don't know why but it seems there more than any other countries groups have mixed
comment such as his provoke it.
You also know that the economics is now global....perhaps if you consider the worlds ricjh list, you might find relatively fewer europeans than you might expect, you might be suprised to find quite a few brown skinned brown eyed people on it (after the americans of course), global economics is exactly that, it involves people in positions of influence in different areas making deals....
tiers of leaders and influencers now deal with each other, international traders mostly dont care about ethnicity as long as they can make a buck with their their co-respondant. leaders do deals with each other.
britain may at one time have been the chief custodian of the cutting edge of mammon, yet it is passed on.....rome had it for a long time, and this was perpetuated by early popishness (but in a sort of muted fashion) it was reborn in britain afresh and then europe became custodians as well......then america picked up the baton....however i think that you will find that china was sort of willing to get ready to take the baton......along with the brick countries (of which brazil is one) now the baton has sort of disintigrated into a soggy mush.....perhaps el presidente suspects that the real baton is being held still, in the us?
By the way who funds the imf? the fed? who owns the fed? the us gov? I think maybe not....who does own it? someone told me the other day that it is prrivately owned....i always thought it was owned by the us gov.....is el presidente making some reference to the largely unknown owners of the fed? (I hadnt actually thought of this in muy earlier posts in this thread /\....perhaps its a comment intended for other leaders and people who will interpret something exclusive from this message.....hmmm......let me pause for reflection and some investigation here)
Seriously my criticism of him is valid....if you are a leader of a country that has wealthy and much poverty and a diverse mixture of skin colour, then to say something like that with such poor choice of words is irresponsible........things are only going to get worse from now on........
and no capitals................?..........
brilliant..... did you ask wrighty to tee that up for you?
I was simply in the right place at the right time.
yr criticism taht he shouldnta said it may be valid but yr assesment of teh racial and political situation in brazil and poss consequences aint at all valid imo
very few people consider that my assessment of underlying influences and possible consequences of the economic and social conditions are valid when applied elsewhere either.
very few people thought my assessment of direr consequences to initial announcement of the credit crunch were valid.
few think that my assessment that jobs/prices/housing/capital/saving/pensions/everything being gloomier than predicted (at any stage) was valid.
Yet the picture gets gloomier by the day...
few thought that there would be violence as a result , yet that is now coming to pass and the imf chief confirms that he now thinks there will be wars..
In 12 months time if you have time to reflect you might laugh at all the furore concerning the lickle wickle bit of damage to fred goodwins house as being insignificant compared wit hthe enormous level of violence and discontent in the future....except people dont do that.
think Lula might be their first ethnic president. When the Spanish came I believe swathes of the indigenous population were wiped out, and the people left were treated as slaves.
I saw something on it which used the beach analogy, it said that in Brazil you would be likely to see some older white men with younger indigenous women, this had always been the case due to white men always being the most powerful in society.
By the way: I am not commenting on Lula's speech, this is not a defence of it, just remember seeing a very informative programme, part of the 'Racism: A history' series on BBC4
although he definitely came from a poor background. I know Evo Morales is Bolivia's first indigenous president.
i was a home worker (packing stuff into bags at home)
i was a home worker (stuffing soft toys)
i was a pizza delivery boy
why should that make any difference to the care of what you say when you become president of one of the most powerful/significant/populous countries in the world?
alan sugar sold car ariels from a back of a van, he's jewish, hes beardy, he supports spurs, he became rich, hes entertaining and makes the apprentices look like tw*tfarms in comparison....doesnt stop him being an ar*se though.
Why has the fact he was a shoeshine boy got anything to do with making statements like that? If it has got something to do with it then you might end up with the kingmakers whispering to each other "we better not pick Mr X, he used to be a lavatory cleaner and you know what sort of controversial things they might say, i think it would be better if we went with Mr Y who went to oxbridge"
Nobody is using "he was a shoeshine boy" as a counter to your argument. It's part of another discussion in the thread.
im just going a bit raggerdly ranty, because i cant believe that some people are defending what he said.....some of the comments are fair enough, like those that say, 'oh dear he seemed a good un up till now'......im prepared to believe that......stagger_linn has got my riled up by implying that his upbringing might have something to do with it, so hence i replied as if the mentioning of the shoeshine boy was part of that.
Im seriously astounded (and im making more noise about it cos others havnt) that the president of a country as large and powerful and important as brazil (that exports planes and cars to the UK) and designs and makes its own military vehicles, could make what (on the surface) seems like such a stupid thing to say (Akin to some things american presidents have in the past....except that he whole world hoots and hops up and down when bush made gaffs)
I would expect a lot of people with so much power, and i think we all should, we should expect less stupid sounding comments from them.
Fair enough if he wants to attack, what he believes to be the major cause of the worlds problems, but he MUST get the sentiment right.
To lob such clumsy accusations is something we might expect some shoeshine boys without any education or access to complexities and views of other types of lives/ways of living to do.....but NOT a president of a large varied, complex and powerful country
about how those killings in Co. Armagh were part of a legitimate fight back against an occupying army, so I've resolved not to take his/her opinion too seriously.
you know how the reply system works. If you want to discuss what Stagger-Linn's saying, don't do it by replying to dukebox, or everyone'll get confused.
I can see you're getting cross about this. Maybe you should take five, yeah? Go and look at some rainbows in that gay thread I posted.
it is pretty important news
chavez = ok
(actually when thinking of the beach.....there were no men in my minds eye.....womens beach volleyball wtf....;) )
The issue here is not that the President is racist, it is that he making a statement that Western Europe and America is too blame for the current crisis, which is true, because capitalism continually plunges the economy into 'boom & bust'.
Secondly, people on here are calling him stupid and know nothing of his upbringing, he did not have formal education like you, he only learnt how to read and write at the age of 10.
Also, everything he has said is true, and at least he has the balls to make a comments like this, whilst all the others don't want to destroy their 'special relationships'. Britain are looking to expand globalisation and make trade exclusively to them and other larger powers through rising trading tariffs on smaller countries so that they cannot compete on a globalised world economy, which we live in.
His comments are fully justified and I stand by what he has to say.
if that is what he meant why not say it.....he knows (even if if he only learnt to read at 10) that others are even less literate and are more likely to take the message more literally rather than reading between the lines......also in a way thats more patronising than me just calling him the name 'stupid' cos he might be fiercely intelligent wily cunning and sly, you are like making out his upbringing makes his comments being excusable, thats more condescending than i was in a way ...everyone has a different upbringing, if he learnt to read at 10 are you suggesting that he hasnt caught up? Just cos someone was poor, or had a hard upbringing doesnt mean they cannot be formidable intellectually.
If people took my criticism of him in conjunction with the criticism that they know i regularly give the western states pushing their brand of economics onto the rest of the world, then you would realise that i am not given to defending western states against poorer 'developing' nations ('developing' is a condescending idea as well)
exclusivity with some deals at the expense of less powerful countries then why didnt he make that clear?
(BRICK = Brazil, Russia, India, CHina, Korea(south))
My schooling was also interupted by huge gaps early on. I have never mentioned this before.......because why? why would anyone have that used as an excuse for anything...I've never even brought that into any thread before....cos there is no need.....he's a frikkin presidente ffs....why do you almost make an excuse for his ability to convey ideas?
but using a cricket ball to do so.
(traditionally one of the entry requirements was to have nukes that you could point at people....cos no one wants to upset them too much)
but i would have thought that a continant should at least have 'a member on it' (not that i condone the whole set up as it is...its just that thuis would seem fairer and i dont want people to get teh wrong idea about my feelings to brazil)
is actually comprised of the 5 largest victors of WW2.
The fact that they have nukes is incidental otherwise Pakistan, India Israel and N Korea would be members.
i dont necesssarily belive him to be racist and stupid, but what he said was (although there may have been hidden intent in that)