White Supremacy

145791016

Comments

  • I wonder if we are overthinking the whole racism bit. I think it is an intimate thing, a way of thought we pick up from our parents and that people like me and others in this thread spend the rest of our lives struggling against, although in my case the struggle is against religious bigotry and the related Irish nationalism. In cases like mine, struggling personally not to pass these prejudices to the next generation is the aim. Our awareness of our privilege and our poison is our salvation.

    I don't think I can go beyond that. I don't know what its like to grow up in other circumstances. Think of all those kids who grew up in institutions in the post-war era. I can't get inside their heads. I know someone who did. She had a sign on the door to her room to protect her from unwelcome visitors, in her 70's. She was happy when I knew her.

    Sorry. have to stop now I'm thinking of her.
  • There's a saying to the effect that "A lie can run 'round the world before the truth puts its boots on".

    (There are various versions. I think that's the one from Terry Pratchett's "The Truth".)
  • jbohn wrote: »

    Is suffering disadvantage an essential part of non-white identity?

    In the US? Yes.

    So any non-white person in the US who hasn’t suffered from disadvantage is actually white?
    Things are offensive because people find them offensive.

    By that definition, virtually everything is offensive. I'd say it means everyone should just stay at home all day and never interact with another human, but there are people who would find doing that offensive as well.

    Or, you know, try your best not to be offensive, and take responsibility when you inevitably inadvertently do, and make amends. It really isn't that hard, actually.

    Do you think a gay person should take responsibility and make amends for the offence they cause to homophobes?

    You don’t have to answer that, by the way. The question itself is merely intended as an indication of how ludicrous it is to define something as offensive merely because some people are offended by it.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited August 21
    What is ludicrous is that you appear to think what you wrote is a rebuttal to jbohn's post.
  • Unfortunately, *any* non-white person in the US suffers some disadvantage--maybe cops pulling them over for "driving while black or brown", or being aware that it's *always* a possibility; being followed by Security in stores, because there's an assumption that they'll steal; the constant atmosphere, all through life, that they are lesser in every way; oh, and that "wrongly killed by cops" thing.

    That's before you get into poverty; lack of health care, or care that assumes white = normal; schools, wrongful incarceration, etc.

    Women and girls suffer our own constant disadvantages; "but that's another story, and will be told another time".*

    *"The Never-Ending Story" book and film.



  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Twilight wrote: »
    The Bell Curve is unutterable nonsense not just because it claims that black people are less intelligent than whites, but first and foremost because it pretends it can divide people in categories of black and white.

    All those people who believe in "affirmative action" don't seem to see any great difficulty in dividing people into categories of black and white...

    I've not read the book. From the Wikipedia summary, it doesn't appear to be the work of white supremacists, as IQ tests apparently show Asians to be more intelligent than whites.

    What struck me particularly from that summary was two things.

    First that the authors argue for the influence of both heredity and environment. And say that none of this is a reason for treating individuals better or worse. Seems sensible - why would you dismiss this as nonsense ?

    Second that there seemed an element of ideologically-fuelled desperation amongst those queuing up to criticise it. Is the notion of hereditary intelligence so painful ?


  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    I've not read the book. From the Wikipedia summary, it doesn't appear to be the work of white supremacists, as IQ tests apparently show Asians to be more intelligent than whites.

    What struck me particularly from that summary was two things.

    First that the authors argue for the influence of both heredity and environment. And say that none of this is a reason for treating individuals better or worse. Seems sensible - why would you dismiss this as nonsense ?

    I'd dismiss that description as mendaciously dishonest, since Murray recommends rather sweeping changes to social policies based on the assumption that it's a waste to help the inferior. I'm not sure I buy the wide-eyed innocent protestations that this time evidence of African intellectual inferiority will prove sound. This is an example of what I was talking about earlier with people trying to put a non-racist gloss on an ancient prejudice. There's no reason to pander to this deception.
    Russ wrote: »
    Second that there seemed an element of ideologically-fuelled desperation amongst those queuing up to criticise it. Is the notion of hereditary intelligence so painful ?

    Yeah, I'm going to say that pretending scientific racism is something fresh and new and not something with a long and shamefully discredited history seems more "ideologically-fueled" than pointing out the obvious flaws in Murray's reasoning. (e.g. the Flynn effect seems to indicate IQ is changing at much faster than heredity would allow).
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    What is ludicrous is that you appear to think what you wrote is a rebuttal to jbohn's post.

    If he's going to say that something is offensive simply if someone finds it offensive, and that everyone should try their best not to be offensive, take responsibility when they inevitably inadvertently do, and make amends for that offence, then I think it's perfectly valid to ask whether that also applies to those forms of "offensiveness" that most people of good will would declare to be perfectly fine.

    A five minute Google search could find copious examples of people who are offended by homosexuality, breastfeeding in public, equal rights, the existence of religions other than their own and so on and so forth. Are those things offensive? Should those who do/are those things apologise and make amends?

    No, of course they bloody shouldn't.

    A hell of a lot of people were offended when Rosa Parks refused to leave her seat on that bus. Does that mean she should have apologised and made amends?

    No, of course it bloody doesn't.

    My point is that you can't define something as offensive simply because somebody, somewhere, finds it offensive - because sometimes taking offence is the wrong thing to do. And the phrase "I'm offended by that" is not a magic incantation that automatically compels the person it's directed at to stop doing whatever it was they were doing.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    edited August 22
    So any non-white person in the US who hasn’t suffered from disadvantage is actually white?

    No. And you aren't that thick, so don't play at it.

    The point is that, as a whole, a non-white person in the US will be at a disadvantage compared to a white person. It doesn't mean that white folks don't have disadvantages - I grew up working poor. It means that the color of my skin wasn't an added burden - as it was (is) for many of my schoolmates.
    Do you think a gay person should take responsibility and make amends for the offence they cause to homophobes?

    You don’t have to answer that, by the way. The question itself is merely intended as an indication of how ludicrous it is to define something as offensive merely because some people are offended by it.

    I'd say that one might try to see the wide gulf between being people of good will actually being offended and the sort of whataboutism you're demonstrating here. Poor form - 3/10 points.
    My point is that you can't define something as offensive simply because somebody, somewhere, finds it offensive - because sometimes taking offence is the wrong thing to do.

    No shit. But do see the above.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    This seems to come from the dubious idea that freedom of speech is the same as freedom from criticism...

    ...If you want to argue that immigrants are a bunch of lazy dead weight that has to be supported by everyone else you have perfect freedom to do so. You don't have the "right" to demand other people agree with you, take the argument seriously, or dictate how they interpret your motives.

    I'd tend to agree that this is a valid distinction.

    There are all sorts of things that you're at liberty to say (e.g. that Arsenal are a great football team) that other people are at liberty to not take seriously or to disagree with.

    And there are other things that you're not at liberty to say (e.g that so-and-so is a child molester) without evidence, because it is defamatory - because it is an assault on their good name.

    So the question I'd put to you is which category it comes into when you say that someone is racist (or is a racist, or has done something racist) ?

    Is this an accusation of having committed some real evil ? A slur upon someone's good name, a damage to their brand ? Something serious enough to be potentially actionable under the law of slander?

    Or is it just a personal opinion, a judgment of uncoolness, that nobody need take seriously if they don't want to ?

    Because it's the equivocation on the r-word that I find it difficult to form an appropriate response to.

  • jbohn wrote: »
    I'd say that one might try to see the wide gulf between being people of good will actually being offended and the sort of whataboutism you're demonstrating here. Poor form - 3/10 points.

    Being offended is being offended - it's the same emotion regardless of who feels it and for what reason. You can't use it as a blanket indicator of what is right or wrong in the way that your previous posts were doing.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    jbohn wrote: »
    I'd say that one might try to see the wide gulf between being people of good will actually being offended and the sort of whataboutism you're demonstrating here. Poor form - 3/10 points.

    Being offended is being offended - it's the same emotion regardless of who feels it and for what reason. You can't use it as a blanket indicator of what is right or wrong in the way that your previous posts were doing.
    That is not what he was doing. He was assuming people would understand context.

  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    Russ wrote: »
    And there are other things that you're not at liberty to say (e.g that so-and-so is a child molester) without evidence, because it is defamatory - because it is an assault on their good name.

    Which differs from most accusations of racism since those are typically based on the evidence of a person's words or actions.
    Russ wrote: »
    So the question I'd put to you is which category it comes into when you say that someone is racist (or is a racist, or has done something racist) ?

    Casting about for how racist one can be and still avoid public criticism for racism seems like the wrong way to approach the question. It is, however, a fairly common approach. Just find someone who's worse than you and claim that you can't be racist because you're not as bad as [ Bob Jones University / the White Citizens Council / the Ku Klux Klan / Einsatzgruppen Stormtroopers ] (adjust up or down as necessary).
  • At what point is white supremacy "terrorism"?
    Does there have to be a mass shooting? If the person or people doing the shooting are Muslims, does that make it terrorism?
    Was apartheid or segregation terrorism?

    Answering my questions, the bar is much higher for calling something terrorism if it's white people and if they're not Muslim.
  • CrœsosCrœsos Shipmate
    edited August 22
    Was apartheid or segregation terrorism?

    No. Those qualify as "state terror" rather than "terrorism". They're similar but not the same.
  • jbohnjbohn Shipmate
    jbohn wrote: »
    I'd say that one might try to see the wide gulf between being people of good will actually being offended and the sort of whataboutism you're demonstrating here. Poor form - 3/10 points.

    Being offended is being offended - it's the same emotion regardless of who feels it and for what reason. You can't use it as a blanket indicator of what is right or wrong in the way that your previous posts were doing.

    Head -> wall.
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    ]That is not what he was doing. He was assuming people would understand context.

    Bingo.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Crœsos wrote: »
    Was apartheid or segregation terrorism?
    No. Those qualify as "state terror" rather than "terrorism". They're similar but not the same.
    State terror is among the tools used to maintain segregation and apartheid. (More so segregation I think: the judiciary in apartheid South Africa was generally committed to the rule of law even if police forces weren't.) State terror is I think distinguished from unjust or authoritarian law by the fact that it doesn't adhere to the rule of law: either state actors ignore the law entirely, or else the laws are vague and wide-ranging enough that they can't be consistently enforced and it's almost impossible to avoid doing something that falls foul of them.
    Lychings I think do fit the definition of terrorism, even where the state turned a blind eye to them.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    jbohn wrote: »
    I'd say that one might try to see the wide gulf between being people of good will actually being offended and the sort of whataboutism you're demonstrating here. Poor form - 3/10 points.

    Being offended is being offended - it's the same emotion regardless of who feels it and for what reason. You can't use it as a blanket indicator of what is right or wrong in the way that your previous posts were doing.
    That is not what he was doing. He was assuming people would understand context

    The context being whether he (or you) consider the specific offence to be justified, presumably?
  • edited August 22
    Further to the "state terrorism" aspect, I think I could safely consider most recent colonization as white supremacy and also state sponsored terror. Which then leads to why we have the migrant, refugee, and immigrant issue as part of this. Why are people from (mostly) the global south coming to rich northern countries? Does this not have a lot to do with the history of state-sponsored colonial terror? I think so. Which makes migrancy a tit-for-tat in Europe. People from Africa or the middle east for example, have every justification from history to colonize Europe.

    The situation in the western hemisphere is different but similar. We have to ask why the economies of much of Spanish speaking territories is poor in central America. This seems to have a lot to do with economic colonization, by which I mean ordering up economies of other countries to serve the economies of America (and Canada). Thus again, we might consider that the people coming north have every reason and right to do so. Foreign aid being money to the needy country but really about the money reverting to the donor country (which isn't completely fair, but explains some).

    ? Maybe I listen to too much Bruce Cockburn Call it Democracy (lyrics), over here youtube. No, don't think so. Not listening to enough, of that and much else should be paying attention to.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    edited August 23
    At what point is white supremacy "terrorism"?

    At the point where the intention is to terrorise the general population i.e. to make clear that no-one is safe until other people collectively do what the white supremacists want.

    Murdering people that you think are doing something wrong isn't terrorism, it's vigilantism.
    Does there have to be a mass shooting?

    No. Bombs will do.
    If the person or people doing the shooting are Muslims, does that make it terrorism?

    No. But it doesn't mean it isn't.

    Corrected quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
  • Which makes migrancy a tit-for-tat in Europe. People from Africa or the middle east for example, have every justification from history to colonize Europe.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, as my mother used to say.
  • Which makes migrancy a tit-for-tat in Europe. People from Africa or the middle east for example, have every justification from history to colonize Europe.

    Two wrongs don't make a right, as my mother used to say.

    Your mother was talking about you hitting your sister, not about the continued negative legacy of European colonization. A transfer of wealth back to where it was taken from is probably another part of the solution.
  • A transfer of wealth back to where it was taken from is probably another part of the solution.

    Even if I agreed with what you say here, it's a far cry from what you said before about them having justification for colonising Europe as a tit-for-tat retaliation for Europeans colonising them in the past.
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited August 23
    NP, what you say about a wealth transfer is a good idea, but the Europeans are still holding onto cultural artifacts looted in the Colonial era. Imagine what they will do to keep the dosh. Plus I believe we are both sitting on land that really belongs to someone else.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    NP, what you say about a wealth transfer is a good idea, but the Europeans are still holding onto cultural artifacts looted in the Colonial era. Imagine what they will do to keep the dosh. Plus I believe we are both sitting on land that really belongs to someone else.
    First, people have to recognise that sins of the past. Then they have to recognise that those sins still effect the descendants of the abused. And then they have to accept responsibility for some sort of rectification. Each step is both more difficult to accept and easier to self-justify worming out of.
  • We are indeed as you say ST. We are working through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, and the Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women Inquiry recommendations, the issues flowing out of the Indian Residential Schools settlements, with the day school settlement under discussion, and additional land claims by both First Nations and Métis peoples, with rights of non-treaty status indigenous people also in the offing. We're a long, long way from conclusion, but working on it. I'm optimistic since I was involved in some of it in the early 1990s. We're actually discussing uneven treatment by public institutions and personnel, and it's becoming standard to require education in indigenous issues as part of any university degree.

    The problems with the course of human history and progress toward a fairer world, is that the purpose is easily bent toward individual self interest, which the seven deadly sins perhaps summarize, as does the 2 Jesus commandments. We don't seem to think that the people in other countries are our neighbours.

    More Bruce Cockburn:
    "I don't believe in guarded borders and I don't believe in hate
    I don't believe in generals and their stinking torture states." (Rocket Launcher, 1984)
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    Here is a story that demonstrates implicit racism.

    The tl;dr is that the Notting Hill Festival is treated differently to other large, UK festivals. The difference being there are loads of black people and other, low class scum at NH.*

    The atl;dr¹ but would like a bit more is as follows.
    Of the large festivals, Notting Hill is no less safe² than the others³ and yet is treated differently.
    Free standing metal detectors are called Security arches in the other festivals, but Knife arches at NH.
    Crime stats are automatically released for NH but must be requested for others. Except for the arrest to actually facing charges rate. That one the Met haven't released despite an FOI request.
    And the press and politicians are all over the crime factor of NH, but not so much the other festivals.

    ²Creamfields has the highest arrest to charge rate
    ³Despite being larger than Glastonbury by a factor of 10 or more. 120K for G and over 1 million for NH.

    *That is sarcasm for those not firing on all cylinders.

    ¹article too long; didn't read
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Here is a story that demonstrates implicit racism.

    The tl;dr is that the Notting Hill Festival is treated differently to other large, UK festivals. The difference being there are loads of black people and other, low class scum at NH.*

    On the other hand, if you have a more upmarket music festival, the policing for drugs extends only so far as offering a service to make sure your drugs are genuine.
  • We are indeed as you say ST. We are working through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's recommendations, and the Missing and Murdered Aboriginal Women Inquiry recommendations, the issues flowing out of the Indian Residential Schools settlements, with the day school settlement under discussion, and additional land claims by both First Nations and Métis peoples, with rights of non-treaty status indigenous people also in the offing. We're a long, long way from conclusion, but working on it. I'm optimistic since I was involved in some of it in the early 1990s. We're actually discussing uneven treatment by public institutions and personnel, and it's becoming standard to require education in indigenous issues as part of any university degree.

    The problems with the course of human history and progress toward a fairer world, is that the purpose is easily bent toward individual self interest, which the seven deadly sins perhaps summarize, as does the 2 Jesus commandments. We don't seem to think that the people in other countries are our neighbours.

    More Bruce Cockburn:
    "I don't believe in guarded borders and I don't believe in hate
    I don't believe in generals and their stinking torture states." (Rocket Launcher, 1984)

    I love where I live, but I sometimes feel like this land is not where I should be. Especially in summer, it feels like I am not made to live here. The sun carries us off, so many of my Parents' generation dying from skin cancers or their treatment. Sometimes when I am thinking or reading about indigenous people, I feel like the whole land revolts against us, almost like we are not welcome on a very deep level.

    It's probably just me. But I'm afraid of it a bit, so afraid that I have never spoken it before. We have a rock formation we Europeans call Hanging Rock near here. Its sacred, of course, a place of the Ancestors and Ceremony. I drive past it almost every day. It is haunting and beautiful.

    I just looked at the Wikipedia page for the first time. The two settler kids who were looked after by the tribe share a variant of my surname. It is unlikely they are related to me but it freaks me out a bit. I've been unable so far to pinpoint any massacres around here so far, but I know the Ranges were likely to be a point of resistance from my reading about how the frontier wars were fought in other places. In Australia, the fighting seems to have been going on around the time of the American Civil War, a war I was interested in as a kid. I was taught there were no wars in Australia.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The tl;dr is that the Notting Hill Festival is treated differently to other large, UK festivals. The difference being there are loads of black people and other, low class scum at NH.*

    That’s one possible reason for the difference, of course. Another might be that it takes place right in the middle of London rather than in a field in the middle of nowhere.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I believe we are both sitting on land that really belongs to someone else.

    Worth thinking a bit about the underlying assumptions - what premises does one have to accept in order to reach this conclusion ?

    - that the "someone else" are a different tribe from your tribe (even if you and they hold the same nationality papers)

    - that their collective right to the land passes to the current members of that tribe from their ancestors by blood rather than by law

    - that such ownership does not perish - that if one generation acquiesces, that does not remove the next generation's right to the land

    - that your tribe cannot come to rightfully own the land merely by occupying it for some period of time.

    Is this not the philosophy of a European white supremacist ? Of someone in Scotland or Sweden or Germany who wants to expel the foreigners ? Does their belief-system not equally depend on the assumptions that
    - they are not us (regardless of what the paperwork says)
    - the land belongs to us by a higher right
    - previous governments letting them in does not take away our right
    - that it doesn't matter how many generations they've been here for, they can never belong

    ?








  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The tl;dr is that the Notting Hill Festival is treated differently to other large, UK festivals. The difference being there are loads of black people and other, low class scum at NH.*

    That’s one possible reason for the difference, of course. Another might be that it takes place right in the middle of London rather than in a field in the middle of nowhere.
    Crime doesn’t matter in the countryside?
    Freedom of Information is not relevant in the city?
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.

    The real test is whether the met police have called such arches the same thing on other recent occasions within the city or not.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.
    Then they’d call them the same at Creamfields.
    Here is the thing: You get to look at instances as individual occurrences when they are actually part of a pattern. White privilege in a nutshell.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.
    Then they’d call them the same at Creamfields.

    If "they" are the same "they". Are they?
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.
    Then they’d call them the same at Creamfields.

    If "they" are the same "they". Are they?
    They being the police.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.
    Then they’d call them the same at Creamfields.

    If "they" are the same "they". Are they?
    They being the police.

    "The police" doesn't necessarily pick out the same group of people. On this side of the pond "the police" in Macon, Georgia, are quite a different beast from "the police" in Los Angeles. Hence my question.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Shipmate
    edited August 26
    The conduct of the MET police bussed all over the country during the miner’s strikes during the 1980s was such that decades later non-London police would indicate they meant to the right thing by saying: “we’re not going to do a met”.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.
    Then they’d call them the same at Creamfields.

    If "they" are the same "they". Are they?
    They being the police.

    "The police" doesn't necessarily pick out the same group of people. On this side of the pond "the police" in Macon, Georgia, are quite a different beast from "the police" in Los Angeles. Hence my question.
    Whilst the individual units are a bit separate, policing in the UK is much more uniform than policing in America. But fuck it, let's talk only about the Met.
    The Met, which is responsible for calling them knife arches in at Notting Hill, call them security arches everywhere else in London.
    Notting Hill is the ONLY event the Met do where they call them knife arches.
    This nitpicking is also a function of white privilege. Breaking things down to individual events can make something seem more innocent however, when looked at as a whole, illustrate a trend.
  • Russ, my tribe did not come to occupy the land merely by occupying it. There is dispute as to the extent of bloodshed that occurred but no dispute that Aboriginals were excluded from their traditional land and herded into proscribed places, where they were required to stay unless they sought permission. I think that was the case as recently as the 1960's.

    I think there is a parallel between what happened in Australia and what happened in the Highlands after the Jacobite rebellion was crushed. It wasn't the same, but it was similar, if my understanding of the clearances is right. Both were hugely unjust.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The extra police presence is possibly attributable to being in the city, calling security arches knife arches, not so much.

    Knife crime is a big issue in London in a way that it simply isn’t in the countryside. The met police have an ongoing campaign against it, and as part of that campaign I can well believe they’d use the term “knife arch”.
    Then they’d call them the same at Creamfields.

    If "they" are the same "they". Are they?
    They being the police.

    "The police" doesn't necessarily pick out the same group of people. On this side of the pond "the police" in Macon, Georgia, are quite a different beast from "the police" in Los Angeles. Hence my question.
    Whilst the individual units are a bit separate, policing in the UK is much more uniform than policing in America.

    More uniform than the US, yes. Uniform enough that you can just say "they" as if decisions on what to call specific bits of kit are being made by a single central authority? Not even close.
    The Met, which is responsible for calling them knife arches in at Notting Hill, call them security arches everywhere else in London.

    You mean everywhere else in London except for Soho, Lambeth, Wandsworth, Merton, Croydon, Woolwich and Harrow?

    And they've been in use in London schools and colleges - under the name "knife arches" - for over a decade.

    I'm confident that the Met use the same nomenclature across the rest of the capital as well, but I couldn't be bothered going past the first page of the Google search.
    Notting Hill is the ONLY event the Met do where they call them knife arches.

    Simply untrue, as per the above links.
    This nitpicking is also a function of white privilege. Breaking things down to individual events can make something seem more innocent however, when looked at as a whole, illustrate a trend.

    Something can't be part of a wider trend if it isn't true.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    More uniform than the US, yes. Uniform enough that you can just say "they" as if decisions on what to call specific bits of kit are being made by a single central authority? Not even close.
    There is a more direct connection in policy and behaviour in the UK than in the US. Whilst it is not perfectly so, the uniformity, and the ability to control individual units, is many times greater than the US where it is effectively non-existent.
    You mean everywhere else in London except for Soho,
    That'll be the Sun calling them knife arches.
    Fair cop on that one. Though, one has to wonder if it is a coincidence that the customers in the shot are black...
    and Harrow?
    And that would be the HarrowTimes calling them knife arches.
    And they've been in use in London schools and colleges - under the name "knife arches" - for over a decade.
    And that would be the Beeb calling them knife arches.
    I'm confident that the Met use the same nomenclature across the rest of the capital as well, but I couldn't be bothered going past the first page of the Google search.
    Since you are not reading the links you found properly, I'm not sure that matters.
    Notting Hill is the ONLY event the Met do where they call them knife arches.

    Simply untrue, as per the above links.
    I could point out that the single instance you found isn't an event. One could probably find other instances, but I'd wager the trend is more towards my point than yours. Still called screening arches at the Albert Hall. Weird, right?
    From the article I linked ealier:
    There are events at the Royal Albert Hall and they’re called screening arches there, they are at a lot of major events and festivals, but only when it comes to Notting Hill Carnival are they referred to as knife arches,” he said.

    “That’s one I really can’t get my head around, but it comes from the police and we have corrected them and they’ve stopped using those terms
    If this were not a targeted (Albeit possible unconscious) usage, there'd be nothing to stop.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    That'll be the Sun calling them knife arches.

    And that would be the HarrowTimes calling them knife arches.

    And that would be the Beeb calling them knife arches.

    Reply A - regardless of who uses the nomenclature, the evidence is that the term "knife arches" is in regular usage to describe the equipment in question. Which makes claims that it only applies to the Notting Hill Carnival false.

    Reply B - If those articles weren't taken virtually verbatim from Met Police press releases I'll eat my hat. Do you know how many versions of the first article I found (same pictures and everything) in my brief Google search?
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    A quick Google search suggests that the term ‘knife arch’ is incredibly common in media reports across the country, such that reports using the term are unlikely to indicate (by use of quotation marks or otherwise) that this is an unusual usage by the police. IOW the fact that a story doesn’t specifically indicate that the term originates with the police, doesn’t mean that the police are using other terminology.

    As it happens, they are, at least sometimes, using other terminology since in this article, talking about security at this year’s NH carnival, the Metro refers to them as ‘knife arches’, but the Metropolitan Police Superintendent is quoted as calling them ‘screening arches’.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    That'll be the Sun calling them knife arches.

    And that would be the HarrowTimes calling them knife arches.

    And that would be the Beeb calling them knife arches.

    Reply A - regardless of who uses the nomenclature, the evidence is that the term "knife arches" is in regular usage to describe the equipment in question. Which makes claims that it only applies to the Notting Hill Carnival false.
    Rubbish, of course it matter who says something.

  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    BroJames wrote: »
    A quick Google search suggests that the term ‘knife arch’ is incredibly common in media reports across the country, such that reports using the term are unlikely to indicate (by use of quotation marks or otherwise) that this is an unusual usage by the police. IOW the fact that a story doesn’t specifically indicate that the term originates with the police, doesn’t mean that the police are using other terminology.

    As it happens, they are, at least sometimes, using other terminology since in this article, talking about security at this year’s NH carnival, the Metro refers to them as ‘knife arches’, but the Metropolitan Police Superintendent is quoted as calling them ‘screening arches’.
    The media use terms designed to draw eyes. Crime, and the suggestion of crime do this.
    Again, we are wandering through white privilege.
    Even if I am completely wrong about the knife arch thing, study after study demonstrate that policing of BAME/POC is different to policing of white people.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I entirely agree with everything in your last post.

    The media point is especially true of sub-editors and their equivalents who want eye-catching headlines. This appears to have been the case in the Metro piece. ‘Knife arch’ catches the eye, then the rest of the story, sometimes even the quotations, is back-edited to bring the terminology in the story into line with the headline.

    It is important in making the case about differences in policing not to buttress it with erroneous material which inherently invites contradiction otherwise the main argument gets lost in the flurry of misinformation and its contradiction.

    Further the validity of the main argument is undermined by demonstrable errors in the evidence adduced to support it. People end up saying, “If that evidence is obviously untrue, why should I believe the main claim?”

    This is true in discussions about discrimination of all kinds as so many are keen not to be found guilty of prejudice.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Had to google what you meant by "knife arch" Weapons detectors here, but they are only good for metal detection. Many weapons do not have metal these days.

    The comments about police makes me want to add that the original purpose of the police--at least in the US--was to protect the monied interests in Boston but in the South the police became the principle enforcers of slavery. After the civil war the police were used to take care of political rivals and the Robber Barrons and the Industrialists used the police to protect their properties. The police were often used to break up union strikes. And then there was the prohibition where the police were employed to shut down speak-easies that did not cotton to certain politicians.

    For much of policing history it has been about oppression, and was not a citizen oriented service.
  • Just out of curiosity, is this your theme song, lilBuddha?
This discussion has been closed.