Friday, 21 January 2011

BBC ‘East Enders’ Lies. Cultural Marxism and Black / White Sexual Relations

The multi coloured Jackson family from Eastenders

By Tim Haydon

The BBC soap ‘East Enders’ deliberately propagates lies about the frequency of white / black sexual relations and the general tension-free wonderfulness of the multicultural, multiracial ‘community’ that is Albert Square.

It does this in order to further the BBC’s Marxist agenda of racial obliteration of the white British. But perhaps unwittingly or because of the social setting of ‘East Enders’ it correctly focuses that on the whole those whites who do pair with blacks tend to be lower class women. This article attempts to answer the questions:-

(1) Why is it on the whole white working class women but not white women from higher social groups who to a limited extent pair with black men?

(2) Why don’t white men pair with black women to the same degree?

How the BBC propagandises its Marxist Agenda

The BBC continues its drive to expunge the British from the face of the earth. This agenda can be seen in action through the BBC drive to eliminate British and specifically English identity through miscegenation. Here is an analysis of the racial character of the ’love interest‘of just one family, that of Bianca in ‘East Enders’ (No doubt your writer will be corrected on the details if necessary):-

Bianca: Bianca has a mixed race son, Morgan.

Carol : (Bianca’s mum) – Married a black man Alan Jackson and had a mixed race son, Billy. Carol has shared a black boyfriend (Connor) with Bianca’s adopted daughter, the perennial victim

Whitney: Shared a black boyfriend with Carol (see above).

Thus three generations of this one English BBC TV family have had or are having sexual relationships with blacks. (The concentration on blacks arises from the Cultural Marxist position that as historically the most primitive and most ‘oppressed’ of races, the negro most requires to be shown as on the same socio-economic level as the ‘oppressing’ whites).

Some major points arise: although the East Enders’ depiction of reality is grossly perverted through the deliberate, ridiculous exaggeration of the frequency of mixed–race liaisons which is a device for encouraging them, there is a certain amount of truth in it:-

1) Black/ White Liaisons do indeed happen.
Given racial genetic interests and fitness theory (see eg ; Frank SalterOn Genetic Interests’ ) and human assortative mating revealed by facial resemblance (‘Computer simulations suggested that sex among genetically complex organisms requires mate choice strategies for its evolutionary maintenance, to reduce excessive genetic variance produced by out-crossing) why do these inter–racial liaisons occur at all?

The answer must be that racial preference / fitness etc are tendencies only which can be overridden by other tendencies given the right circumstances. Much academic work needs to be done on this subject (in the present political climate this is unlikely to be a priority in the academy) but here are a few tentative suggestions:-

a) BBC and other propaganda for miscegenation (such as the numerous depictions of mixed – race couples in Advertisements, the attack on white history in our schools and the parallel celebration of other races /cultures) must be having an effect on some individuals. Indeed given the intensity of this propaganda, it is perhaps remarkable that there is not more miscegenation than there is.

b) Popular ‘culture’ is now in large part a celebration of black or black-derived music. The star status of black or mixed race entertainers encourages miscegenation. During the run of the X-Factor the BBC and some elements of the print media publicised the assertion that because of the success of mixed race contestants, ‘mixed race’ was now fashionable. (Can you imagine the BBC at any time suggesting that it was fashionable to be white?).

2) Black/ White liaisons tend to happen at the level of society depicted by East Enders.

It is a fact that the white females who pair with blacks tend to be lower class. You can see evidence of this outside schools, most shopping malls and elsewhere where single mums congregate with their mixed –race offspring, often having a fag –at public expense. Why is this?

Lower Class Individuals are more influenced by Black – Based Popular Culture

a) One reason must be that individuals at this level of society tend to be more influenced by black-based popular culture and political-class indoctrination than those at higher levels.

We look for Mates in the same IQ levels as Ourselves

b) Connected with a) above, it is known that as a general rule we tend to look for our partners in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. Blacks in Britain have an average IQ of 86 (almost exactly the same as Blacks in the USA) (Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve p88).

This level of IQ is mirrored in those white women who pair with blacks. The lower class have on average the lowest level of IQ among whites. This fact ought to be readily accepted since it accords with everyday common-sense observation. It was accepted in many University Psychology Departments in pre-PC days as a result of the studies but thanks to ideology and not to empirical observation it is now treated in much the same way that evidence for the low inherited average IQs of blacks is. Bruce Charlton, a Newcastle University evolutionary psychiatrist, was met with hostility from the usual suspects when he made this point in connection with working class entrance to the better universities in 2008.

Mating with Individuals in the same socio-economic Class as Ourselves

urthermore, people tend to mate with partners who are of the same socio-economic class (When the partnership is a committed one, women tend to ‘marry up’, or used to, but many of these inter-racial liaisons are not likely to be committed to the point of marriage). As Charlton indicated, notwithstanding the attacks on it, IQ, which measures intelligence and is 50% heritable very accurately predicts real-life success. ‘‘ ‘The Bell Curve’ showed that IQ predicts success in education, jobs and training. Low IQ predicts child abuse, crime and delinquency, health, accident proneness, having a child out of wedlock, getting a divorce after 5 years’ marriage and even smoking during pregnancy.’’ (J Philippe Rushton: ‘Race Evolution and Behaviour’ (Abridged Edition P48).

Foreign born Afro –Caribbean males who work in London have the lowest socio-economic status as measured by the International Index (ISIE). They score 37 with white males scoring 47.4. (South Asians score 46.6 and Chinese 45.6). (Overall in the UK, whites earned an average of £332 in 2001. For blacks it was £225 while for Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (ie moslems) it was £182. The Chinese had average weekly earnings of £342 in 1995). ( Richard Lynn: The Global Bell Curve P101/ 102).

The Low Physical Attractiveness of Lower Class white Women

Another factor which might enter into the equation is the fact that as studies have shown, we tend to mate with those whom we consider to be on the same level of physical attractiveness as ourselves. It will be remembered from above that we also tend to mate with individuals in the same intelligence levels as ourselves. A recent study by Dr Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School of Economics, (Report Daily Telegraph 17 Jan 2011) shows that the best looking among us have an IQ 12.4 points higher than the less attractive. This seems to help confirm your writer’s admittedly personal observation that low-IQ underclass white women tend also to come low down on the scale of attractiveness.

It seems likely then that matching low IQs, social status and physical unattractiveness are reasons why these females rather than more attractive white women higher up the socio-economic scale are the more likely to mate with blacks, who to this English male eye at least, are (generally speaking) physically very ugly. The better –looking ones are those with a lot of white blood. That your writer should think this is of course ethnic preference and linked aesthetic conditioning talking rather than any objective standard of attractiveness.

3) Black /White couples do usually comprise a black Man and a white Female

Admittedly from personal observation, as ‘East Enders’ and advertisements show, mixed –race couples do tend to comprise a black (negro) male and white female. The ratio of such pairings to the whole seems to be as high as 75% - 90%. This imbalance is quite remarkable. What is the reason for this phenomenon? There is clearly limited space for what requires a major study, but here are a few suggestions:-

More black Men than Women?

One reason for it could be that there are simply more available black males than black females around. But even if true, that would not be enough to explain the huge imbalance as it does nothing on its own to explain why white females would want to pair with these blacks when there are enough white men.

Black Men find white Women more attractive than black Women?

It could be argued of course that black men find white women more attractive than their own black women. However, while It may be the case that in a mainly white society, white standards of beauty influence blacks, it seems unlikely that black men brought up among blacks with mainly black standards of physical attractiveness for women and taking into account ethnic preference would consider white women in general more attractive than their own women - quite the contrary.

The ‘Trophy’ Syndrome?

There is though the ‘trophy‘ syndrome in black /white pairings. The women involved are often blonds, even when bleached – ie as white as possible. White women, belonging to the majority, dominant racial group are seen as prizes which confirm their racial ‘equality’ and as visible sign of achievement for black men. The ‘trophy’ syndrome is instantly recognisable among successful blacks such as Trevor Phillips and Obama’s Father and celebrities such as Chris Eubank and Ashley Cole who have all sported attractive white women as partners.

One attraction for the white women involved with black celebrities; wealth and reflected celebrity or public exposure, is obvious. The attraction for the majority of white women pairing with blacks remains to be explained.
(There is a curious reverse flow with a few white celebrities such as Jon Snow the TV presenter and the Historian Niall Ferguson marrying black women (In the same socio-economic class). Here, one suspects at least part of the attraction for the men involved is the highly public confirmation their marriages give to their left-liberal, right-on credentials which is useful to them in their careers).

A suggested Explanation:

What white Men find attractive in Women

One explanation could be that men and women have different priorities when selecting mates. Yes, IQ and socio-economic class is very important but so too is physical attractiveness. But what constitutes physical attractiveness?

For men, it boils down to the signals which announce a woman as healthy, fertile and ready to mate. Hence the cosmetics women don: the eternal search for youth –enhancing potions; slimming regimes which define the hip /waist ratios which signal child bearing properties, the blusher, lipstick and so on which mimic sexual readiness, all of which accentuate these factors. European men can read the signals very easily in women of their own race, but it is more difficult in women of other races, especially those racially farthest apart from ourselves such as negroes.

White Male Standards of Female Beauty

Then there are standards of beauty, strongly linked to the sexual signals mentioned above which go hand in hand with ethnic preference and fitness.

There are pure blood black woman who are very striking and attractive up to a point. But beautiful, or even very pretty? Your writer has never seen a black woman who fitted this description. The (by white standards) coke –like hair, the large and coarse features, the thick and (to him) repellently everted lips, the proportions of the body, and yes; the sheer blackness and coarseness of the skin, so at variance with the delicacy and fragility, the blushing, pink- and white fineness of an ‘English Rose,’ the standard of English female beauty, all militate against it.

There are plenty of mixed –race women who can be described as pretty, but even then, Like Naomi Campbell, they would be prettier still although perhaps less striking to European eyes if they had more white blood in them.

This is not ‘racism,’ meaning a bigoted attitude born of sheer prejudice towards other races. It is a function of racial genetic preference / fitness which does not deny that Chinese and Japanese women, especially those from the North with small, delicate features far removed from the ape, slender limbs, fine complexions and skins whiter than most Europeans, can be very pretty and extremely attractive physically.

So too can women of other races such as the paler, slim and doll-like Indians and South -East Asians. Like their men, some light-skinned Afghan women can be very handsome with their strong, high cheek - boned features, normally covered up by moslem drapings.

White Female Standards of Male Attractiveness

For women in differing degrees ( apparently more so than men for women), what constitutes physical attractiveness need not be what is handsome only or even at all but what is male, including personality. (Phil Mitchell is no oil –painting). This is probably the case throughout the social spectrum. At the lower end of the social scale however, thanks to the other factors touched on above, white female affinity for pure maleness of over looks and ethnic preference / fitness can come to the fore so far as blacks are concerned. According to J Philippe Rushton,

‘the races differ in testosterone level which helps to explain men’s behavior’….While levels even up somewhat in older men, ‘ In a study of university students, Black Americans had 10% to 15% higher levels than White students …..Testosterone acts as a ’master switch’. It affects things like self-concept, aggression, altruism, crime and sexuality, not just in men but in women too. Testosterone also controls things like muscle mass and the deepening of the voice in teenage years’ (Race and Evolution p40).

Black Male Sexuality is More So

Blacks are sexually active at an earlier age than Whites and have sex more frequently than they do. Their male sexual apparatus is larger (although according to John Baker (Race) it is no larger when engorged).

Whites in turn are higher up the scales than Orientals. The same hierarchy is found in sexual permissiveness, thinking about sex, and even in levels of sex guilt.

What has been said above surely goes a long way to explaining the phenomenon of the white lower class female / black male imbalance. There is much that remains to be said about the pairings between other racial groups, or the absence of them. But this essay is already long enough and that exploration will have to wait until a later date.

A developing Class Structure based on Race

Suffice it to say that, as elsewhere the world, what seems to be developing very slowly but spurred on by the BBC and its marxist like is a class system in Britain structured on racial lines with whites and orientals at the top; south asians and mixed–race individuals mostly in the middle and those with the most negro blood at the bottom. In short, the complete antithesis of the racially and culturally egalitarian, multiracial nirvana envisaged by the leftists who are engineering it all.

As Robert Burns put it;
‘The best-laid schemes o’ mice an’ men
Gang aft agley….’


65 comments:

rebelliousvanilla said...

Assortative mating and selecting for genetic similarity is usually the case for relationships, while genetic dissimilarity is selected for flings. Evo-psych explains this, just like it explains why women prefer different men based on our stage in the menstrual cycle(or if we're on the pill or not).

Also, while as a group, usually genetic variance is reduced as a strategy, on an individual basis, there's outbreeding to reduce inbreeding depression and to boost immune system related things. There's also the case of outbreeding depression, of course, which happens on an individual basis. Why this happens is while a homogeneous group is a benefit on the short run, on the long run, tiny outbreeding benefits because of the wider gene pool - the bad genes being selected out, while the good genes increasing in frequency. Obviously, this doesn't happen if outbreeding is taken to an extreme.

To answer your questions though, there was a speed dating study done and 95% of black women don't want to date men outside of their race, 80% of white women and half of Asian women only and white the white women who did date out, dated blacks, Asian women disliked blacks and preferred white men.

Another reason for which black men like white women is that preferences aren't cultural. In any culture, fairer skin, hair and eyes are associated with female beauty(since it's easier to spot parasites and disease). Also, we have fairer skin when we ovulate, which is a fertility cue. Just like in all cultures, 0.7 waist to hip ratio is ideal, even for Africans, where women are not of the same body type.

Another reason is the oxytocin factor.
http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/13/how-the-love-hormone-may-contribute-to-racism/
As you see, if you do see blacks as being from the same group as you, a lot of the ethnic preference for your own is removed.

I won't really go into what we, as women prefer) in men(it would take a huge essay. What we hate the most in men is weakness and white men display this fully and completely(from sharing their women and territory and feeling guilt when they feel bad about it to submitting to us, as women). Here are some interesting facts. The pill and plastic bottles put estrogen in our water, which have obvious consequences. So probably, if you take an African and a black person in the UK, the former probably has even higher T levels.

To sum it up, I will paraphrase a friend of mine when I said something about hating cruelty. He said that women can't hate cruel men, since they reserve that feeling for the weak ones. And that's entirely true. On an instinctual level, I'd rather be the harem girl of a Muslim warlord than the wife of a wimpy modern man, for who, instinctively, I feel nothing but disgust. Luckily, I'm more than base instincts and just as luckily, there are still European men who aren't pathetic wimps.

John McNeill said...

To the best of my knowledge, this is how most of Latin America turned out. I don't know why liberals see white supremacy as such a moral and viable path. ;)

Anonymous said...

"To sum it up, I will paraphrase a friend of mine when I said something about hating cruelty. He said that women can't hate cruel men, since they reserve that feeling for the weak ones. And that's entirely true. On an instinctual level, I'd rather be the harem girl of a Muslim warlord than the wife of a wimpy modern man, for who, instinctively, I feel nothing but disgust."
Perhaps you feel that way now, why still young. But how would you feel about your warlord when you become old and are turned out (Muslim men only need to bow to Mecca 3 times and say "I divorce you") for some pretty adolescent girl who takes your place? Or for that matter, would still feel the same about your cruel man (say, for instance a Latin American) who decides to toss acid in your face (as is commonly practiced there) for an alleged marital infidelity on your part? That strong cruel nature is a double-edged blade dear....
The White man's superiority lies in his civilized nature- he evolved beyond the cruelty of the jungle(which you and other white women like you mistake for strength) and left it behind. Perhaps you have not kept up with him?

davidc said...

Very interesting essay, great minds think alike, if i can be so bold. I think that white guilt is in play among liberal women, in addittion to your points. The MSM (main stream media) here in the states is complicit along with the schools in the propaganda pushing miscegenation. The ruling class is behind a lot of this tripe.

Anonymous said...

In all conquered countries, it's the females that accept the conquerors first.

e.g. The Norman conquest still leaves traces of this in our language. The farm animals (dealt with by men) are called by Saxon names Ox, Sheep, etc. The produce of farm animals (dealt with by women)are called by Norman names Beef, (Beouf) Mutton etc.

The reality is we are are being conquered by mass immigration

Anonymous said...

This 'metrosexual' ethnic doesn't look 'hard' to me.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1349376/Victorias-Secret-model-Doutzen-Kroes-gives-birth-baby-Phyllon.html

Does this beautiful Dutch model have a brain defect? Did her white father or some other white family elder molest her when she was young? Did they leave her to her own devices encouraging her to read perverted girly magazines when she was 10 years old or something?

Whatever the case she has certainly given a two's up to the race and God who blessed her with such beauty by mating with the creature next to her. In 10 years or less he'll have a another gullible white cow up the spout and this one will be crying into her soup LOL!

The white fathers of girls like this in these matters who "can't help" or "embrace" what their daughters choose as a mate could never have loved them enough or themselves. As the saying goes the little girl always looks for something of her father in a mate. If the father admonishes her whilst seemingly tries to fit in with a weak society that will be seen as a crippling weakness and she will go the extreme.

The ubiquitous preponderance of white male gays for all to digest in Marxist tabloids with some having babies now is another crippling weakness to white society.

Black males are not afraid to tell their offspring what they really think about white people and white queers. They do so openly!

White males are terrified to say or do anything lest they're criminalised for being racist and lose their jobs. Most white males in modern society put their jobs before their women such is their subservience to Marxism. Blacks get away with it as the insidious Marxist ideology encourages it.

White males have been emasculated by Marxism in all its forms without even realising it. All they can get away with openly in the alpha sense is open hostility towards other white males. 2 white males maiming or killing each other is a result for cultural Marxism. You see it every day in the streets, night clubs, work place, film and entertainment.

White males have become so repressed and pent up with fear and hatred of modern society they turn on each other at the drop of a hat as 'its easier'. This is the weakness imbued in their latent modern psyche which is reflected back at them from fellow white males. Same almost all over Europe and America.

This is what liberal Marxism, multiculturalism and acceptance of all taboos that up until just 30 years ago were seen as abominable in our civilised society, has done to us.

The worm will turn but it will take time. It has to get worse before it gets better.

The Dutch indigenous were in fact a lot more liberal a decade or more ago than they are now. The white males still have a long way to go.

Like the Scandinavians they virtually hand their women on a plate to anything that takes a fancy to them. They dare not openly criticise because their Marxist/liberal society forbids them to.

Look how they treat/ignore their Dutch descendants living in South Africa - Afrikaaners? They're 'embarrased' by them preferring instead to metaphorically 'give head' to ethnic parasites who rape and murder them in their own country?? White female feminists are right at the forefront of this.
Why?? do they hate themselves and their men THAT much?

It's no different in the UK When Nick Griffin was being grilled as 'disgusting' by that young black upstart. His vocal support came from toadying white females with no interjection from any white male?

Ironically, Pym Fortuyn, a poof, was seemingly a lot braver and more manly than the rest of the Dutch white male heteros put together! He paid the ultimate sacrifice for it! Nobody protected him. Tatchell on the other hand KNOWS he's protected.

rebelliousvanilla said...

Anonymous, you realize that that has nothing to do with it, right? I'm referring to instinctual stuff, like being turned on, not how pleasant my life in general will be.

And I don't consider the civility of sharing your women and territory with everyone on Earth as strength. I was referring to instincts anyway - I wouldn't date out of my ethnic group, most likely. In the same way, evolution doesn't have to be pretty. If being civilized is a negative trait, it will be selected out.

Anonymous #2, just look at South America. Amerindian maternally, Iberian paternally. From a genetic perspective, if your men surrendered, having the children of the conquerors makes sense. Just think of it this way - if Amerindian women didn't put out, their genes wouldn't exist anymore.

Anonymous #3, the most popular group for the Swedish Democrats is 18-22 years old people and for the younger Swedes than that, who can't vote yet, they're even more popular.

Anonymous said...

East Enders appeals to the dregs of humanity. Whites with any sense of respectability do not watch this crap as it aimed at the gullible miscegenated trash of all races living in the UK

Curt said...

I don't know how it happened, Sarah but I was the 1st "anonymous" poster in this comments section. Very odd, because I am certain that I typed my name in the box...Oh well.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Hi Curt

I have no idea how that happened, were you signed in at the time?

Sarah

Anonymous said...

It is good to know that as an attractive, smart, wealthy woman in a mixed race relationship that my cover has been blown and that we are just together for furthering our agendas. At least I know it isnt cause I am dumb, poor and ugly

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, this article reminds me of that first article I commented on, the 'Diversity reality or myth' article, in which you claimed that any white woman in a relationship with a black man would inevitably end up gettin raped.

It also made a very important question occur to me. My white fiancée is moving in next week, and I currently have a white female friend staying in the spare room while she looks for permanent accomodation. I haven't raped anyone yet, but as a Black (or white / black mixed) male, how long do you think it will be before I do?

James Mathurin said...

A quick comment to subscribe to the thread. Also, I would have thought you would be happy to see lots of mixed race relationships in Eastenders, as it is a show where everybody ends up miserable. Surely any kind of relationship it showcases will appear to be a cautionary tale?

rebelliousvanilla said...

Anonymous, expressions like 'dregs of humanity' are the reason why I really like British people. :P

Silas said...

@ Anonymous 14.35

You may be wealthy if you say you are, but "smart"? and "attractive"? that's subjective.

James Mathurin said...

Hey Silas.

Just so you know, Anonymous is my fiancée, she is gorgeous, and she has several degrees.

Silas said...

Hey James

Well she's your partner, you would say she's gorgeous. There is male pride involved in that, nobody wants to admit he's dating the best he can.

As for degrees, I guess we all know people with degrees who ain't smart.

Whatever she looks like treat her well, 'cos we won't want her back.

James Mathurin said...

Wow Silas, sounds like you're trying to talk a little trash there.

Trust me, I knew she was smart before I knew she had any degrees, and trust me again, some people with degrees aren't smart, and some are brilliant. She's not just brilliant, she is kind, funny and insightful, and knows more about the workings of the human mind than any of the amateur psychologists with their half-baked ideas about miscegenation and the Marxists media's promotion of it lower class women.

And trust me on one more thing, Silas, you couldn't get close to her on your best day.

Curt said...

"Whatever she looks like treat her well, 'cos we won't want her back."
Very well said, and I got a good laugh out of that, Silas! "James" is quite the typical black man. He feels he can anger white males by boasting that he's bedded a white woman. Really James, who cares? To most of us she is lost just as soon as she
s crossed that line and it is a rare white man who would want her after she has done so (at least if she's been honest enough to let him know about the black man in her back ground). As to whether you will rape her, that may not happen, but you will be the rare black man if you do not pack up and leave her after she has born you a mixed-race kid. You will be even rarer still if you don't have multiple affairs while married to her (assuming the both of you are or will be married).

Silas said...

James said "And trust me on one more thing, Silas, you couldn't get close to her on your best day."

With due respect James, and its not me that's talking trashy, I wouldn't want to get close, whatever day it was.

James Mathurin said...

Curt,

You know, I did not at any point try to 'anger' Silas, he just said something offensive about the woman I am going to spend the rest of my life with, and I called him on it.

The fact that he was angry. and your response to him, says far more about you than the 'typical black man'.

Also, I was not 'boasting' about sleeping with a white woman. If I was boasting about anything, it was that she is such an exceptional woman - easily the smartest I have ever met, and someone any man, white black or other, would be lucky to have.

What on Earth makes you think I will leave her ot cheat on her? Firstly, I won't, and neither have any of the black men I know or am related to, who are in mixed race relationships. For what it's worth, I know more white couples that have split up or suffered one partner having an affair.

And does that prove anything about white couples? No. I know just as many who have stayed loyal and together. Some couples make it, some don't. I have not seen any evidence that race becomes a factor.

What I can say is that any man who would reject a woman because she has had a relationship with someone of another race is a man who is not good enough for that woman.

James Mathurin said...

Silas,

"With due respect..."

Amusing. To be honest, I was curious to see whether someone like you would be as insulting towards an actual individual who was having a conversation as you were towards the hypothetical 'white slag and her rapist boyfriend'.

Clearly, you are. Congratulations, you're a real class act.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

I would be grateful if commentators could avoid making this topic a personal one. The issue here is not about personal choices, in a free society people are able to make choices. People can choose to become smokers, or take up dangerous sports, and it is a sad fact that the more sadistic a serial killer the more marriage proposals he will receive. However, the women making those proposals, together with the smokers and dangerous sportsmen are adults making informed decisions in possession of all relevant information.

James's fiancee could decide to become a smoker, and be one of the lucky ones still puffing away when she opens her telegraph from the queen. However, she would do so in the full knowledge that the statistics do not favour that outcome. She does not have the benefit of similar information when she enters a mixed race relationship.

The media actively promote mixed race relationships whilst at the same time actively suppressing relevant information about mixed race relationships, such as the significantly higher levels of domestic abuse and femicide by non-white males compared to white males. The significantly higher levels of child abandonment by Afro-Caribbean males, not to mention the higher levels of STDs amongst black males.

For instance, this very weekend whilst all the headlines should about a white Dutchman being charged with the murder of Jo Yeates in Bristol, news of yet another white woman murdered by yet another black boyfriend is hidden away in the local news section. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-12241253

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Sadly this thread is becoming personal. Please avoid personal comments or I will have to close off the comment facility.

Silas said...

Okay Sarah, I will respect your wishes.

However, you will damage your blog if you carry on feeding the trolls in the way you do.

James and his partner are simply trying to undermine you for a political agenda.

We would never be allowed equal levels of free speech on some pro multi-cult site which you allow them.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, you are honestly comparing mixed race relationships to smoking and dangerous sports? Come on, you have never showed me any convincing statistics for that, and it's not as if this is the first time you have suggested it, or the first time I've pointed out what a ridiculous proposition it is.

When you make comments like this, how are people in mixed race relationships, or the product of them (as I am on both counts) not supposed to take it personally? It is insulting, disrespectful, degrading, and completely false.

If the media 'actively promote mixed race relationships', what are they doing when they show white-white relationships and black-black relationships? I have seen this before, and it is pretty consistent in the views of people on here: You do not want mixed-race relationships to exist at all, and any reflection of the reality that they do exist is always interpreted as a dangerous promotion of mixed-race relationships.

Let me put it another way. How many mixed-race relationships could Eastenders or any similar programme show that you would not view as being 'active promotion'? I believe that the answer is zero, but perhaps I am being unfair.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, may I be permitted t respond to that final personal attack of Silas'? After all, you approved it, so I assume, you will permit me a response.

"James and his partner are simply trying to undermine you for a political agenda."

Our relationship is not a 'political agenda'. We are in love, we are a fantastic match for each other, and both of us have had our lives immeasurably improved by being together, in a way in which I can't imagine it being with anyone else.

Is it so ridiculous that I could find your remarks sincerely insulting and offensive? It has to be some calculated defence of a political agenda? You ignorantly insulted my future wife, and I pointed out that you were wrong on just about every point. It is as simple as that.

Anonymous said...

Hello

Considering I never saw what people were saying about me or what James was saying until now as I have been busy I was surprised to see I was "Undermining" Sarah political agenda. I am always polite and I have in the past agreed with comments made by Sarah. I would appreciate that I am not put in that basket.

The comments you have made are hurtful but not surprising. I have led a very happy, structured life and until James I was not mistreated. I do not hate whites. My first husband was white and we had a normal marriage (before you jump to conclusion he was killed in an accident.)I met James and chose him based on his kindness, our similar taste in art and our leanings towards nerdy programming.

The point of a blog is to share thoughts and opinions. With that you need to accept differing opinion otherwise there will be no change for or against your beliefs.
Therefore my opinion and others should be met without insult.

I admit I was being provocative with my post but in my life I have been told I am intelligent, I have achieved and I am successful. I was just responding to the main article and a comment that it was only low achieving, poor people who pick a member of another race. I was mocking the flippant nature of the original comment.

Anyway I hope the insults stop here. I will not lower myself to any level (I apologise for James doing so but it was that male pride thing) and I hope we can all be more mature and intelligent.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

I am not seeking to offend you in any way, I am just making some points in relation to the content of Tim Haydon's article.

I have posted substantiation to what I say a number of times in the past, I am not going to hunt through my archives to find them, however, you can read them in my blog.

Meanwhile here is some reading matter for you:

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/cgi/reprint/79/5/595.pdf

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_05.pdf

http://www.harrietharman.org/tackling_domestic_violence_in_the_ethnic_minority_community

Now, assuming everyone has had their say, can we please move on.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, regarding your evidence:

Although some more up-to-date research might be useful, I wonder how you respond to this quote from the first article which you linked to:

Racial differences in the risk of spouse homicide, however, may only be a reflection of socioeconomic factors. Previous homicide research has demonstrated that socioeconomic factors are more important than race in explaining variations in homicide rates across
aggregate units of analysis (e.g., states and cities).31-33
Furthermore, other research indicates that variations in
homicide rates among family and acquaintances may be more sensitive to socioeconomic factors than homicide rates among strangers.34'35


In case you are interested, here are the sources for these claims:
31. Loftin C, Hill RH: Regional subculture and homicide. Am Soc Rev 1974;
39:714-724.
32. Williams KR: Economic sources of homicide: reestimating the effects of poverty and inequality. Am Soc Rev 1984; 49:283-289.
33. Centerwall BS: Race, socioeconomic status and domestic homicide,
Atlanta, 1971-72. Am J Public Health 1984; 74:813-815.
34. Parker RN, Smith MD: Deterrence, poverty, and type of homicide. Am J Soc 1979; 85:614-624.


I am really shocked to see you referencing an 'evil Marxist' like Labour MP Harriett Harman to make your case, particularly as the article doesn't even seem to reference mixed-race relationships.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Ah yes, the socio-economic factors, the great excuse! in both Britain, and in America where most of that research relates to there are more whites living below the poverty level than all other racial groups.

Statistics tend to hide this because they are usually based on percentages, which disguise the fact that in numerical terms there are more poor white people.

According to the US statistics on poverty 8.6% of the white population are below the poverty level and 24.7% of the black population is, which makes it look as if there are far more blacks living in poverty. However, whites still make up 66% of the population whereas blacks are 13% of the population.

That means that in numerical terms there are approximately 17.6 million whites in poverty compared to 9.8 million blacks. i.e., there are almost twice as many whites living in deprived socio-economic conditions.

Ergo, poverty ain't the cause.

Your argument would have some merit if the numbers of offences committed by each racial group correlated with the numbers living in deprived socio-economic conditions.

Whereas, in fact the figures show that non whites are involved in for instance domestic violence to a massively disproportionate degree, irrespective of economic factors.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, you are getting amazingly good at missing the point here, and also starting to get quite hypocritical. The study you linked to showed that there was a greater number of white spouses killed by white partners, by a long way, but you used percenages to prove your point.

Now, because it goes against what you want the truth to be, you argue that percentages 'disguise the facts'.

"Your argument would have some merit if the numbers of offences committed by each racial group correlated with the numbers living in deprived socio-economic conditions."

But the study did not break them down along those lines. They did reference previous studies that gave them good reasons for expecting that it would if they did do a study along those lines. Neither of our point is proven, but the people who study this for a living lean more towards mine, for what that's worth.

"Whereas, in fact the figures show that non whites are involved in for instance domestic violence to a massively disproportionate degree, irrespective of economic factors."

No, no. 'Irrespective' means that those economic factors have been measured and proved to be insignificant. What we have here is a study that simply didn't measure them. These are 2 very different things.

I can see why this is confusing for you, but if you are going to comment on these things, you really need to familiarise yourself with what the terms you use actually mean.

Also, you may want to use real words like "isn't", instead of "ain't", especially if you are trying to use terms like "ergo".

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

You are proving what Silas said about. you are now playing troll tricks and being deliberately obtuse.

Of course percentages matter when you are expressing factors such as the likelihood or propensity of individual groups to commit crimes.

Of course more white women are killed by white partners because overwhelmingly most white women have white partners. However, statistically an individual woman is more likely to be killed by an individual non-whiter partner.

That is a correct use of statistics, however, what you were doing was misleading

When you are talking about numbers then you have to compare them to numbers to achieve an accurate picture.

You are the one who is being hypocritical here, and you are the one who is seeking to mislead.

James Mathurin said...

"Troll tactics"? If that is the rhetorical tool you wish to use to dismiss my pointing out the weaknesses in your arguments, fair enough. It doesn't change the facts, though.

I will be honest, I was offended by the responses in this comments thread. If there were some truth behind them, fair enough, but when you are being offensive in defence of lies, you are just lowering yourself and the debate, and it is hard for me to maintain the politeness I normally do in response to that.

However, onto the factual content of the posts.

Let me compare two of your responses from this thread:

"Statistics tend to hide this because they are usually based on percentages,"

"Of course percentages matter when you are expressing factors such as the likelihood or propensity of individual groups to commit crimes."

So, when it works against your argument, they disguise facts, and when it works for your argument they are important? If I am misunderstanding your meaning, please explain, because this looks like blatant hypocrisy.

"However, statistically an individual woman is more likely to be killed by an individual non-whiter partner."

I can see that, but the makers of the study that you got that very fact from also said that when you take a range of studies into account, this fact disguises the more significant influence of socio-economic factors.

You are being deliberately misleading, and not giving the whole picture. For all your talk of 'free speech', you seem to be trying to drive the debate away from an open and honest discussion of all the important facts.

Use whatever terms you wish to attack me, my family and fiancée and my opinion (it is your blog, after all, and we are only guests here), but I hope you will actually answer to the points I have raised.

Let me ask you a question that I think gets to the heart of this:

Do you think a middle-class mixed race relationship is as likely, more likely or less likely to end in violence than either a middle class intraracial relationship, or a working class interracial relationship?

This is not a trick question.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

Nobody is telling lies here you are choosing to interpret the data in a way which suits your argument, that is understandable.

However, although you accuse me bad faith, you are clearly struggling with the concept. Let me try and explain again.

It is legitimate to use percentages in an analysis if you are comparing like with like, or if you are comparing a percentage to another equally measurable percentage.

However, what is not acceptable is to attempt to imply that 24% of A is the same size as 8% of B when B is significantly larger than A.

For your socioeconomic argument to hold water, if there are 17 poor white men for every 9 poor black men, (as is the case in America) were poverty to be the cause of crime you would expect to see a similar correlation in criminality. However, what we are in fact seeing is a smaller number of black men in the same socioeconomic situation as a larger number of whites but committing a disproportionately larger number of crimes.

However, what the figures do show is that an individual black American is significantly more likely to be poor than an individual white American, which is a separate argument.

That is entirely legitimate and it is exactly the same analysis as used in the reports which show the higher propensity of non-whites to commit domestic violence.

It is two entirely different calculations. Now do you get it?

If not, ask the lady with the degrees to explain it to you.

Pamela said...

James I recommend you stop digging Sarah is correct. Her calculations make perfect sense.

The poverty figures support her argument, not yours.

Sorry

James Mathurin said...

Fair enough, you could argue that if someone doesn't understand that what they are saying is not true, they are not lying. I can qualify my statement to say that you may be ignorant, rather than dishonest. One thing you are not, however, is right.

OK, let's go through this point by point to see where you are making your mistakes.

"It is legitimate to use percentages in an analysis if you are comparing like with like, or if you are comparing a percentage to another equally measurable percentage."

Fair enough, you can't compare percentages to quantities, no problem there.

"However, what is not acceptable is to attempt to imply that 24% of A is the same size as 8% of B when B is significantly larger than A."

Agreed. Not what I suggested doing at any point, but yes, that is correct.

"For your socioeconomic argument to hold water, if there are 17 poor white men for every 9 poor black men, (as is the case in America) were poverty to be the cause of crime you would expect to see a similar correlation in criminality."

You keep throwing up claims like this, but mysteriously avoiding putting the sources. Considering how misleading so many of your articles have been, you cannot expect me to give the benefit of the doubt and take you at your word.

You are taking limited facts and building some huge misconceptions out of them. If the committing of crimes is not broken down by socioeconomic status, and the groups being discussed are not broken down by socioeconomic status, any attempt to say that crime is differentiated along purely racial lines is unproven and dishonest.

You are allowed to claim it is the case, of course, but pretending your evidence backs it up is lying, pure and simple.

"However, what we are in fact seeing is a smaller number of black men in the same socioeconomic situation as a larger number of whites but committing a disproportionately larger number of crimes."

If that is the case, it would seem to support your claim. However, I am not, as I said, happy to take you at your word. Please share your sources.

"However, what the figures do show is that an individual black American is significantly more likely to be poor than an individual white American, which is a separate argument."

OK, but it is a separate argument that relates to this one, so if there is a link between socioeconomic status and crime, you would expect to see black Americans committing more crimes, not because they are black, but because they are poor, correct?

Or, to put it another way, suggesting that a white woman is in more danger being with a black man is not honest, you should be saying that anyone is in more danger if they are with a poor partner.

Where you could go from there would depend on your political views. I might lean towards lifting people out of poverty, you might lean towards preventing poor people from having relationships, going by the views expressed on this blog.

"It is two entirely different calculations. Now do you get it?"

I do. You are suggesting that because the study does not measure socioeconomic status, it is therefore not a significant factor in spousal abuse. You are making a massive assumption in order to support your prejudices on race.

Do you get it?

The lady with the degrees has already been frustrated with your inability to deal with quite simple statistical matters. If you want a more advanced explanation of why you're wring, I could ask her for it, but she's a bit pushed for time at the moment.

James Mathurin said...

Hi Pamela,

I am sorry that you have been confused, but the more we dig, the closer we get to the truth, and Sarah's statistics are only scraping the surface.

I am not saying her calculations are wrong, but that they are entirely insufficient to make the conclusions she is drawing about spousal abuse.

Maybe I should stop saying she is wrong. Maybe I should more precisely say that her point may coincidentally happen to be correct, but she has failed utterly to prove it, and until she does, she should stop making the claims she is.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Link to Wikipedia article regarding poverty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

scroll down to where it says "poverty and race" where it states that about half of those living in poverty in America are white.

Don't get distracted by the statement about "rates being higher amongst other groups as that is not relevant in terms of numbers.

Figures in the US Census report:
http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/data/incpovhlth/2009/highlights.html

US Population racial demographic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

I think that most people can see what you are trying to do, you are simply trying to ware me down by pretending to misunderstand or misinterpret what I am saying.

For instance your statement "You are suggesting that because the study does not measure socioeconomic status, it is therefore not a significant factor in spousal abuse. You are making a massive assumption in order to support your prejudices on race." shows that you are either deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying, or that you are stupid as I at no point said any such thing.

As I doubt you are stupid I must conclude that you are being disingenuous.

I am not going to continue arguing with you. I will leave it to the readers to decide which one of us has proved our case and substantiated it.

Now get back under your bridge

Pamela said...

I am not in the least confused thank you James

James Mathurin said...

"scroll down to where it says "poverty and race" where it states that about half of those living in poverty in America are white."

So, what it is saying is that whites are under-represented in the poor of America, as they are more than half (53.1% based on the final article you linked to, although I am doing that as a quick, rough calculation)of the population?

Here's the thing you seem to be missing - most poor people in America will be white; most rich people in America will also be white; most people in the middle will be white.

This is why we look at percentages, because comparing numbers is pointless unless the groups are very similar sizes.

Of course, this goes against the points you have been trying to make, so it is no surprise to see you say,

"Don't get distracted by the statement about "rates being higher amongst other groups as that is not relevant in terms of numbers."

True, but the numbers cannot let us draw any conclusions. Therefore, the statement that,

"poverty rates are much higher for blacks and other minorities,"

Is far more important than you wish to admit. Once again, your own evidence goes against the point you are trying to prove.

The US census figures again confirm that non-whites are more likely to be poor than whites in America, and that poverty rates for all groups have increased.

"I think that most people can see what you are trying to do, you are simply trying to ware me down by pretending to misunderstand or misinterpret what I am saying."

That is really quite insulting. I am pointing out genuine flaws in your thinking and you are making a conspiracy theory out of it?

I understand perfectly. I understand better than you, it would appear. You are saying that black people are inherently more violent and dangerous, and are twisting statistics that do not support this prejudice to look as if they do.

"For instance your statement "You are suggesting that because the study does not measure socioeconomic status, it is therefore not a significant factor in spousal abuse. You are making a massive assumption in order to support your prejudices on race." shows that you are either deliberately misunderstanding what I am saying, or that you are stupid as I at no point said any such thing."

OK, I am sorry if I have continued to confuse you. Let me try to break it down:

- I said that the researchers had stated that, based on other studies, socioeconomic factors were more important than the racial factors they had measured.

- You said, "Your argument would have some merit if the numbers of offences committed by each racial group correlated with the numbers living in deprived socio-economic conditions."

However, the study did not measure the socio-economic factors, so you dismissed my point without having any reason to do so.

"I will leave it to the readers to decide which one of us has proved our case and substantiated it. "

The statistics as they are cannot prove either of our cases, but only you are claiming that your case is proved, and that is a claim lacking any substance whatsoever.

James Mathurin said...

Fair enough Pamela, but you are drawing conclusions that are utterly unsupported by the evidence.

If you are not confused, you are either foolish or dishonest, and not knowing you, I go for confused, as it is the least judgemental option.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

JAMES SAID: So, what it is saying is that whites are under-represented in the poor of America, as they are more than half (53.1% based on the final article you linked to, although I am doing that as a quick, rough calculation)of the population? Here's the thing you seem to be missing - most poor people in America will be white; most rich people in America will also be white; most people in the middle will be white. This is why we look at percentages, because comparing numbers is pointless unless the groups are very similar sizes. Of course, this goes against the points you have been trying to make, so it is no surprise to see you say,

REPLY: No that is not what I am saying at all, you initially tried to blame the higher incidence of crime on socio economic factors, I merely showed you that doesn't stand up to scrutiny (Incidentally, the final article clearly states “The White, not-Hispanic or Latino population comprises 66% of the nation's total” so I don't know where you got 53.1% from

JAMES SAID: "poverty rates are much higher for blacks and other minorities," Is far more important than you wish to admit. Once again, your own evidence goes against the point you are trying to prove.

REPLY: No that is only important in terms of social inequality, it does not account for the disproportionate levels of criminality.

JAMES SAID: The US census figures again confirm that non-whites are more likely to be poor than whites in America, and that poverty rates for all groups have increased.

REPLY: Yes, individual non-whites are more likely to be poor, but that does not explain why a smaller number of poor non whites committ a numerically greater number of crimes than a greater number of equally poor whites.

JAMES SAID: "I think that most people can see what you are trying to do, you are simply trying to ware me down by pretending to misunderstand or misinterpret what I am saying." That is really quite insulting. I am pointing out genuine flaws in your thinking and you are making a conspiracy theory out of it?

REPLY: I take it back, your not disingenuous, you are stupid

JAMES SAID: it would appear. You are saying that black people are inherently more violent and dangerous, and are twisting statistics that do not support this prejudice to look as if they do.

REPLY: I am not twisting anything, that is what you are doing. I showed you reports demonstrating significantly higher rates of domestic abuse and homicide amongst non-whites, which you first tried to blame on socio-economic factors, before the debate was diverted into lala land


JAMES SAID: OK, I am sorry if I have continued to confuse you. Let me try to break it down: - I said that the researchers had stated that, based on other studies, socioeconomic factors were more important than the racial factors they had measured.- You said, "Your argument would have some merit if the numbers of offences committed by each racial group correlated with the numbers living in deprived socio-economic conditions."However, the study did not measure the socio-economic factors, so you dismissed my point without having any reason to do so.

REPLY: You appear completely incapable of what I am saying. I did not dismiss your argument, I merely demonstrated how socio-economic factors do not hold the answer. The researchers may have attempted to give the politically correct spin to the figures as you did, but that spin does not stand up to scrutiny.

I linked to the report because of the data, not the researchers attempt play down their significance.

JAMES SAID: The statistics as they are cannot prove either of our cases, but only you are claiming that your case is proved, and that is a claim lacking any substance whatsoever.

REPLY: Perhaps those who understand what I am saying may conclude differently.

James Mathurin said...

Sorry, I wasn't expecting another reply. Anyway:

"No that is not what I am saying at all, you initially tried to blame the higher incidence of crime on socio economic factors, I merely showed you that doesn't stand up to scrutiny."

No you didn't. Here is the problem. You insisted it didn't, but you never proved it. You didn't show any evidence showing that, with socioeconomic factors included, people of different ethnicity are significantly more or less likely to commit crimes.

You can keep saying you have, but merely insisting is not proving it. The researchers themselves said that they believed that if they had included socio-economic differences, it was reasonable to they would show a more significant effect than any racial ones. How are you demonstrating that this was not reasonable?

Come on Sarah, I have admitted on here when I have been wrong, I am just asking for the same level of honesty from you.

You say that levels of poverty in different communities are "only important in terms of social inequality, it does not account for the disproportionate levels of criminality."

We amy be getting to the source of the misunderstanding. Are you suggesting that social inequality has no effect on criminality? If so, I have already shared the evidence linking the two very significantly in another thread, and you approved the comment, so I know you should be aware of it.

Maybe the disagreement could be helped if we look at that point. Do you have any evidence that social inequality, which we both have recognised as causing a bias against non-whites, is not a significant factor in incidence of criminality?

"your not disingenuous, you are stupid"

That should be "you're stupid." When you're making an accusation like that, check your Queen's English.

"The researchers may have attempted to give the politically correct spin to the figures as you did, but that spin does not stand up to scrutiny"

OK, but where is the scrutiny? All you have done is deny it without offering any evidence. That is not scrutiny, that is denial.

"I linked to the report because of the data, not the researchers attempt play down their significance."

So you cherry-picked the bit you wanted, and were trying to divorce it from the qualified discussion of the people who actually did the study, and actually know what they were talking about?

Maybe I should take back what I said about you being confused, this is starting to sound more and more like dishonesty, Sarah.

James Mathurin said...

Although I am repeating myself, here is the information about the effect of income inequality on social cohesion, crime and homicide:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_inequality#Social_cohesion
"Research has shown an inverse link between income inequality and social cohesion. In more equal societies, people are much more likely to trust each other, measures of social capital suggest greater community involvement, and homicide rates are consistently lower.

In addition to affecting levels of trust and civic engagement, inequality in society has also shown to be highly correlated with crime rates. Most studies looking into the relationship between crime and inequality have concentrated on homicides - since homicides are almost identically defined across all nations and jurisdictions. There have been over fifty studies showing tendencies for violence to be more common in societies where income differences are larger. Research has been conducted comparing developed countries with undeveloped countries, as well as studying areas within countries. Daly et al. 2001.[21] found that among U.S States and Canadian Provinces there is a tenfold difference in homicide rates related to inequality. They estimated that about half of all variation in homicide rates can be accounted for by differences in the amount of inequality in each province or state. Fajnzylber et al. (2002) found a similar relationship worldwide. Among comments in academic literature on the relationship between homicides and inequality are:

* The most consistent finding in cross-national research on homicides has been that of a positive association between income inequality and homicides. (Neapolitan 1999 pp 260)
* Economic inequality is positively and significantly related to rates of homicide despite an extensive list of conceptually relevant controls. The fact that this relationship is found with the most recent data and using a different measure of economic inequality from previous research, suggests that the finding is very robust. (Lee and Bankston 1999 pp 50)"

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

I am not questioning the fact that poverty and inequality lead to crime. However, if there are more poor white people why are they not committing most of the crimes?.

Look at the crime figures, they are not just statistical, they are numerical. The fact that 92% of gang rape suspects in London are non-white, is not down to economics http://elliotlakenews.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/gang-rapists-are-majority-non-whites/

I will not respond to any further messages from you on this topic

Anonymous said...

It is also an interesting question as to why blacks in particular do end up economically disadvantaged.

The old excuse of "white racism" no longer has any credibility, society is geared towards boosting ethnic minorities, if anything it is the white working class who are held back.

James Mathurin said...

Well, that is somethign I've talked about at greater length on the thread about Plymouth. I have acknowledged that there seem to be cultural factors associated with the types of crimes being committed.

However, this still leads us towards a socioeconomic explanation, as the parents of the youths committing those crimes did not commit those same crimes. Something has changed in between those generations, and the fact the income inequality has risen over that period may be a coincidence, but it is something you would expect to see.

It certainly doesn't support the interpretation that some ethnicities are spontaneously born wanting to rape more.

Also, have you got statistics on crime overall, with a breakdown by race and / or socioeconomic status, as that would support the assertions you made in that last post.

James Mathurin said...

@ Anonymous

It is an interesting point, and it goes back to the legacy of colonialism.

Even if society 'boosts' minorities (a hilarious suggestion - when it's easier for minorities to get houses, jobs and promotions than it is for white people, get back to me), we have held them down for several centuries. maybe a few centuries of 'boosting will get them back to a level playing field.

I totally agree that the working class are held back, and class is far more significant in this context. It is no coincidence that blacks are predominantly working, rather than middle or upper class, and are being held back along with the white working class.

Anonymous said...

Hello
Sarah, your choice of words and tone do come across as though you are dismissing James's argument. There is nothing wrong with that, just own and admit to it. Everyone will read into percentages to get what they want. In fact YOU are BOTH doing it. It is the way that we read, something that unless you spend countless hours and study it yourself you will not amend. When you read these studies I think that nothing is proved. It is all "This works in this situation when x, y and z factors are in place." This shows that the study is not complete or can not have a 100% proof and truth.

So technically you are both right and wrong at the same time. You both have valid opinions and thoughts. This however does not make this FACT for either of you.

What concerns me is the sweeping stereotyped statements. You really should take each person on face value despite race, socio-economic status or other. If you can honestly say that every black, muslim or any other race you met is inferior, then you need to report it as facts. Things they have done to you not just "opinions"

I have nothing against your blog. I believe EVERYONE should be able to discuss stuff. This is what has helped the world progress to the point we are at now. Part of that process is accepting the good with the bad. Accepting the counter argument without a condescending tone.

From the lady with the degrees

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

James

Do me a favour, if you are planning to present an argument for the socioeconomic causes of gang rape, please post them somewhere else, I've just eaten.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

Ah the old "legacy of colonialism" song, that's a classic oldie.

Shame we got rid of the piano.

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, I am not trying to do that. As I said on the other thread, there are clearly cultural factors that are making some groups more likely to commit this crime.

My point was that there seems to be a generational difference that needs to be explained if we are going to tackle it. This problem was not one for the previous generation, even though those same cultural factors were at play, so something must have changed. So what was it that changed from one generation to the next?

James Mathurin said...

"Ah the old "legacy of colonialism" song, that's a classic oldie.

Shame we got rid of the piano."

Well, you hum it and I'll follow. Seriously though, it may be an old argument (not as old as the argument that all blacks are mentally inferior sexual predators that need to be kept away from white women, which still seems to have a lot of currency on here), but it's not a discredited one.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@ lady with degree

I would point out that I allow James (and you) significantly more freedom to express your views, than I would ever be allowed on any similar blog which supported your views.

I don't think I make sweeping statements at all. I have merely pointed out that there is a significant statistical downside to interracial relationships, which the media deliberately suppresses whilst it actively promotes them.

I also sought to explain to James that the explanations for these things are not always simplistic as he would like to suggest.

However, sadly it appears that he has never yet encountered a politically correct platitude he doesn't agree with.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

@James

I could certainly discredit the popular argument about the legacy of colonialism. I think it is extremely misleading.

I may do so in a future posting, but not tonight

James Mathurin said...

Sarah, it would be interesting to read your thoughts on it. On the strength of this thread, though, you would be utterly convinced that you had disproved it, while those of u s more used to analysing complex arguments would be entirely unconvinced.

Knock yourself out, though.

Sarah Maid of Albion said...

You are entitled to your opinions, however odd some of them may be

Anonymous said...

After reading James and Sarah's comments it seems pretty clear to me that Sarah is presenting clear and logical points and james is, whether intentionally or not, failing to understand. I could never procreate with a differant race. I find it disrespectful to my parents who have passed on there genes to me, which have taken millenia to form and define us. To mongrelise them in such a way is a great shame.

Florian Geyer said...

A great read. It is something that I've noticed has pervaded all soaps lately so it is not just the BBC that are guilty. Both Emmerdale and Coronation Street are gradually filling with mixed race couples. In fact in both examples, every single ethnic character is involved in a mixed race relationship.

On a different subject regarding the BBC, Radio 4 is being taken over by ethnic subjects and content despite there being a plethora of radio stations specifically aimed at minority listeners such as BBC Asian Network. Come on BBC - when are we going to be able to listen to an indigenous white radio station?

Average Joe said...

No comment is necessary

http://www.mississippilink.com/news/article_ad8c2112-27ca-11e0-a2ab-001cc4c002e0.html

Anonymous said...

I don't it's true that only unattractive /ugly low-class white women with low IQ go out with the black men.I have seen very ugly,fat,low-class white women married to white men of the same type.Let me tell you something I might be ugly,but it doesn't mean I'm black and attracted to a black man.If it happens,that's better because black men are the best anyway.Who told you that because you were fair-skinned,you were the most beautiful in the whole universe?You do not have to be of mixed race either.I think you are more dilusional to think about that.Look yourself in the mirror.I think the Afghans,Pakistani,Indians the Blacks are more beautiful tham we whites. Have you got whaever it takes to talk like that?I think you are insulting people like Cherryl Cole and Ashley.Have you got a problem.I've got some black friends and I feel disgusted by your comments.There are many black people,you won't find them having a fag,drunk,or on drugs.There are a lot of highly intelligent blacks with high socio-economic class I've seen in this country.I like it when you use the word'negro'several times,it shows what social class you yourself are.Get a life!.Need to update your research

Anonymous said...

OFFTOPIC BUT RELATED..
ANY THREAD FOR WHAT HAPPENED IN THE FRENCH ELECTION TODAY?

Anonymous said...

I AM IN USA/ Los Angeles/ In what for now is a 'nice' area.
The Black Males I see like fat women, perhaps thats what they can get.
When I see a fat white woman with a black [fat or not] guy I laugh as it confirms what I have seen before, time and again.
CHEERS.