|
Post by onlymark on Mar 21, 2011 20:13:57 GMT
So in your point at 84, you are saying that because I am white it is unfair to "pass judgement on racial matters". Fair point, but aren't you then lumping me together with other whites, no matter whether I was born there etc, just like I am not allowed to do with deyana? You are saying that there is a history and connection to my race, which though, cannot be considered where deyana or anyone of any other race is concerned?
So my view is treated differently and with different weight to another race? That's racism isn't it?
In a practical sense what you say is true and that is how it seems to work. However that in itself is unfair, isn't it? Unfair on whites. Anyone of any race who complains of racism should understand that if you want to be equal in all things with me then by rights I should be equal with you. We should be treated equally in everything, even if originally it was an advantage you have over me.
If you complain of racism then so can I - and it be treated exactly the same. Just a mention on sex, as you did, the same applies in my eyes to males and females. If females want equality, and it is long overdue, then again there is no discrimination. We both get the good with the bad. You'll end up with more good than I'd get from you, as it should be, but no woman can complain if I want to retire at the same age or take the same maternity leave, or have any of the (few but still there) advantages of being female. You will fight the same as I do, you will work the same as I do (for the same pay), you will be able to go anywhere and do anything I am able to as male. But in the same token, any privileged you have, I have also.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 21, 2011 20:30:01 GMT
Mark said ~ From Gail Omvedt ( Dr. Gail Omvedt is an American born Indian scholar, sociologist and human rights activist. Omvedt has been involved in Dalit and anti-caste movements, environmental, farmers' and women's movements.) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gail_OmvedtAs part of the World Conference on Racism she says - "Neither caste as a social system nor "racism'' are based on actual biological differences among human beings. Both, though, are systems of discrimination that attribute ``natural'' or essential qualities to people born in specific social groups. In other words, while caste has nothing to do with ``race'', the justifications of caste discrimination have a lot to do with the social phenomenon of ``racism''." wcar.alrc.net/mainfile2.php/For+the+affirmative/16/You may interpret that in saying they are completely different or that caste discrimination has a lot to do with racism. I've not had chance to really read exactly all she says but no doubt if there is something contradictory to my viewpoint in it, someone will pick it out.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 20:43:01 GMT
I am currently fighting a bank in Luxembourg, where I opened an account as a French citizen, but which has now told me that it wants to report me to the United States for tax reasons due to my birth records.
Today I sent them a message telling them that I was astonished and dismayed that people were still making ethnic reports to dominating foreign powers and that it reminded me of nauseating times from the 1940's.
I am looking forward to their reply.
Note: the United States has demanded that every bank in the world supply the records of every United States citizen or anybody born in the United States or whoever has ever had a Green Card. They then demand 30% taxes on every financial gain that such a person may make, whether or not the money has any relation to the United States. And just about every bank in the world has accepted this demand.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 21, 2011 20:49:38 GMT
"To not include caste as a form of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia or related intolerance is the same as not including Jupiter as one of the planets of the solar system. It is the biggest, most obvious and significant form of racial discrimination in the world, affecting one in every 25 people on the planet, and enslaving them to a life of social exclusion, poverty, violence, illiteracy, human degradation and exploitation. It is in fact the mother of racism and is exactly the same social construct: that your quality of life should be determined by the family you are born into." From the same website about the World Conference on Racism - wcar.alrc.net/index.phpTell me that caste isn't a part of racism again. However, it is just an opinion and you are entitled to yours, fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 21, 2011 20:54:31 GMT
Kerouac, so anyone born in the USA at any time who is still living and earning money has to pay taxes to the USA no matter that they may well be paying taxes to their 'new' country? But not if you are no longer a US citizen though surely, not if one is a citizen of another country (can you have dual citizenship with the US? Some countries don't allow it I think)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 21:43:15 GMT
The bank in question actually suggested that I renounce citizenship if I wanted to retain "full banking rights". I told them that since I opened my account as a French citizen, it was none of their business what other nationalities I may or may not possess and I was shocked that they would even talk about such administrative matters.
You can have dual (or triple or whatever) citizenship with the U.S., but that country demands that taxes be paid there. I have always paid taxes in the country where I live and from which I obtain the services paid for by taxes, but "most countries" (including France) have signed a bilateral agreement with the U.S. accepting that income taxes be paid exclusively to the United States.
In terms of the real world, about 65% of U.S. citizens living outside the U.S. ignore this law, and since a lot of them are super influential millionaires or billionaires, the U.S. has never pushed the case too hard and instead tries to just crush people with less money. I will fight this to my dying breath and I will fight even harder against countries that accept this domination.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 22:15:31 GMT
How do they know of your American citizenship?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 22:21:27 GMT
jus soli
|
|
|
Post by mich64 on Mar 21, 2011 22:26:35 GMT
Kerouac, does this mean that you have to pay the USA the income tax on the wages you earn in France to the USA as well as France? Or to report the money you have in bank accounts?
A friend of mine works in the USA and keeps her Canadian citizenship. She has to submit a Canadian Federal Tax form, but I have never heard that she has to pay any taxes to Canada, she pays to the USA.
I think Canada needs to know for Pension information, she did work here in Canada as well before moving to work there, so when or if she comes back, she can apply for whatever is in her Canada Pension Plan. Perhaps is that the reason why they need to know? Or they strictly want to know so they can tax you for money in (to them) an overseas account? Has this always been the case since you moved to France? I know I read some reports in the business news regarding World Banks being asked to report funds due to the Madoff scandal.
Mich
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2011 22:55:51 GMT
Theoretically, I should pay income tax to the United States for the income earned in France. France would then exempt me from income case due to the bilateral agreement. But I refuse this law (as do most Americans abroad, as stated above), and the U.S. has not yet ever dared to enforce it.
However, they also want a share of all investments. The money in Luxembourg is the money from the sale of my parents' house. I have never touched this money, but it is for paying for my mother's care when the other money runs out (and that will happen in about 3 months). I do not see any reason for the United States to get 30% of the investment revenue from this money (which is in my name, as a French citizen). If the bank persists, I will bring the money to France for the first time, but I will then be subjected to various French fiscal laws. While this will annoy me a bit, it is fairer than the U.S. grabbing the money of a French citizen from a bank in Luxembourg. If ever the French bank tries to pull the same shit (but I don't think it will), I will move the money again
Anyway, to get back to the original subject of this thread, cultural sensitivity does not just concern ethnic groups at the bottom, but it can also attack people at other levels. (But people like me are nevertheless not the people to be the most concerned about, that's for sure.)
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 22, 2011 2:08:25 GMT
[highlight=Yellow] to get back to the original subject of this thread[/highlight], cultural sensitivity does not just concern ethnic groups at the bottom, but it can also attack people at other levelsGad, and about time, too! And its true that cultural sensitivity should be applied toward everyone, whether or not they belong to an officially oppressed group. ... Which brings us full circle back to a point a few pages back that in the UK the culture is that now you cannot say anything negative about any group who are not white, non disabled, hetrosexual or any other nationality for fear of being branded. Actually, all of that has been addressed, mostly on pages 1 & 2, but it got lost or ignored in the other debate. If I say that X group is such&such negative thing, then yes, I must be branded as prejudiced against that group. I can think it, I can say it to my closest friends, but if I can't deal with that attitude within myself, and have to blurt it out publicly, then gee whiz, I must in fact be prejudiced.
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 22, 2011 2:27:21 GMT
And that is not to attack you, Mark, nor you FMT. It's just that I don't agree with your stances about political correctness.
Language is a powerful thing because it sneakily inveigles attitudes into everyone. And we all know that if "everyone" thinks such&such a thing, then it must be okay, right? Well, no, not right and that is what a more sensitive approach to how we speak about others is trying to correct.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 5:13:02 GMT
Just to clarify what my stance on PC is. It has gone too far to often ridiculous lengths and is being abused. My impression is that I doubt any of the general public in the UK has by now a good word to say about it.
If your view is that it hasn't gone too far, is about right, or even it hasn't gone far enough yet, then we'll have to agree to disagree.
Instead of singing “Baa baa, black sheep” as generations of children have learnt to do, toddlers in Oxfordshire are being taught to sing “Baa baa, rainbow sheep”.
also changed the ending of Humpty Dumpty so as not to upset the children and dropped the seven dwarfs from the title of Snow White ........ In 2000 Birmingham City Council tried to ban the rhyme, after claiming that it was racist and portrayed negative stereotypes. The council rescinded the ban after black parents said it was ludicrous. Last year, a nursery school in Aberdeen caused uproar, when teachers changed the lyrics to “Baa baa, happy sheep”.
Home Office minister John Denham has been criticised by the police for using the phrase "nitty gritty" because of race relations rules. He was told that police officers could face disciplinary charges for saying "nitty gritty" because it dates from the slavery era.
There are millions of examples, and I'm sure you don't need them and they wont change your viewpoint. But Jeez.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2011 5:51:21 GMT
On another site, I once wrote "I'm a retard when it comes to computers" and I received a deletion message the next day from the admin about having used an offensive word.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 6:29:13 GMT
I never knew 'computers' was offensive. Or was it 'comes'?
|
|
|
Post by bixaorellana on Mar 22, 2011 6:59:49 GMT
Well, I agree that some of the examples you cited are earnestly misguided, to say the least. Actually, the black sheep one is downright weird as the sheep is just a sheep (albeit one that can count and talk). I always thought it was black in the song because it sounds good after "baa baa".
I like the nitty-gritty one. Where did they even get that piece of information?
But I can see where the depiction of dwarfs in Snow White might be offensive. Also, "retard" is pretty unkind.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 7:20:07 GMT
Snow White and the seven - 1. vertically challenged? 2. person of slight stature? 3. little people?
On second thoughts it's probably best not to refer to them at all and just call it 'Snow White'. But wont they be offended if they are missed out?
Bixa, the examples are not unusual in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 22, 2011 7:23:06 GMT
Well, they couldn't have Snow White living with seven normal-sized men, could they? The implications about her morals would be insulting.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 8:23:29 GMT
Perfectly right bjd. But what if it was Mr White and his seven wives? That'd be a thought.
However, if someone can explain to me why it could be wrong to name a dwarf as a dwarf (apart from over sensitivity on the part of, as in the above case, a County Council) when there are recognised organisations like the Dwarf Sports Association of the UK, the Dwarf Athletic Association of America and the International Dwarf Advocacy Association - if you can I'd be obliged because I can't really understand it myself.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 22, 2011 8:31:29 GMT
On the same theme -- back in the Neolithic Age, when I was young, homosexuals were called "queers". Now, of course, it is forbidden. But, I see advertising for magazines on "Queer Studies" in the New York Review of Books.
So, does that mean that certain groups can call themselves whatever they want, including names that are/were considered insulting, but other people outside the group cannot use those words because they will be accused of political incorrectness? Where is the line?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 9:14:02 GMT
You're stirring up a hornets nest there. I'd never do that.
It does seem double standards that a group can refer to itself, personally and collectively, as something and yet those outside cannot or are advised not to. Maybe if you are a member of that group you are thought of to have more right to do so than a non member.
If all was fair and equal then I should be able to call you whatever you call yourself. What is the politically correct name for a white person anyway?
|
|
|
Post by hwinpp on Mar 22, 2011 9:15:08 GMT
... So, does that mean that certain groups can call themselves whatever they want, including names that are/were considered insulting, but other people outside the group cannot use those words because they will be accused of political incorrectness? Where is the line? Dangerous territory there, bjd ;D I usually call people what they want to be called, but not always. I see nothing wrong with dwarf or midget (in Manila they used to have a bar where they had a competition in which to win you hadto throw dwarves or midgets or tiny people as far as you could, nobody local complained, just Westerners). And when it comes to place names I usually go with old names anyway, can't be bothered with whimsical name changes.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 9:33:01 GMT
Dwarf throwing was banned in the UK as I recall and I even think a French dwarf who earned his living being 'tossed' took his complaint before the UN's Human Rights and Anti-Discriminational Committee, claiming that his rights had been violated when France introduced the ban. He lost. 'The Uk's national organisation run by and for all lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, queer, asexual, transgender, inter-sex, gender-queer, transexual, curious and questioning youth' - www.queeryouth.org.uk/community/Never knew there were that many categories.
|
|
|
Post by bjd on Mar 22, 2011 10:01:43 GMT
Dangerous territory there, bjd ;D Yeah, I thought the thread was getting dull. ;D I didn't know there were so many categories either. I guess I have been living a sheltered life. Does that mean "curious and questioning youth" is a sexual category?
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 10:13:20 GMT
I have no idea. Really. No idea at all.
|
|
|
Post by onlymark on Mar 22, 2011 10:21:06 GMT
You've gotta love Egypt - Cairo airport authorities denied two Arab post-operative transgender passengers access to Egypt on Sunday. Officials noticed a 22-year-old passenger of "outstanding beauty" embarking from a plane coming from the Jordanian capital Amman, holding a passport under the name Ahmed.www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/366507"The passengers were then examined, and their accounts proved to be correct. However, customs authorities banned them from entering Egypt and put them on the same plane back to Jordan."
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2011 13:59:00 GMT
hwinpp - being an Asian, do you have nothing more to say apart from a few jokes that having nothing much to do with the video? Are you not offended in the least by the video? I'm just curious? Perhaps I'm just not as smart as the above few posters and don't know that the new 'thing' to do is just joke it all off? Make light of it. See it as entertainment even. I guess that's easy to do if you are white and know will never have to personally confront the issues. Not very admirable though.
And of course OnlyMark being the 'Golden boy who can do and say no wrong' tends to get away with just about anything on here doesn't he? The likes of me would get at least a slap on the wrist for some of the the things he is allowed to get away with.
Mark if you want complete equality with minorities, and you want to be treated just like them. I wish I could give you your wish. Then I would make sure you turn black or brown in color, and I would give you a slight accent and just enough money to survive on and then tell you to go and live your life in the UK for 6 months and come and report back to us about what your findings. In fact this kind of experiment has already been done before, I've seen it on T.V. Although it was just for the day. and the person came back in tears. I believe you wouldn't last out the week without complaining and whining.
From the start he (the man who turned black for the day on tv), was treated with little respect and so the day carried on. He was astounded at just how the treatment of him as a white male and as a black male was so different. And that's just the icing on the cake. To some of you racial slurs and other put down may be a matter of a just telling a joke, of no or little importance. To the ones who are the target of such insults it's not nice at all. Not only is it not nice, but young people have committed suicides over racial slurs and put downs. It's hurtful, it's miserable and it's wrong. Treating others with kindness takes so little effort and has so many rewards.
Same with wanting to be equal to a women, you should have the opportunity of being a woman for some length of time, especially a woman of color without much money. You'll be singing a different tune by the end of your time.
I think what fumobici said has gone on deaf ears by all. YOU being a white male are already a 'winner', you haven't had to fight to be at the top of the heap. Minorities and women have had to fight tooth and nail just to get this far, and really, it's not that far at all. It's still a very uphill battle. I think you don't fully realized just how lucky you are and what you have. None of this was earned by you, you were born into it, you've had it easy simply by being born into your gender and your race.
The weird thing is, you talk down about other races and women (not only on this thread but I've seen it on other threads too), but yet you have a family of color and a wife who is the breadwinner and someone who is high up in her ladder and profession from what I can understand. You'd think by now you would have progressed and have more understanding. But it's not the case. You are blinkered and the sad thing is when your kids are grown up and come to you for advice about racial matters that they will no doubt have to deal with one day, you will no have a clue.
|
|
|
Post by tod2 on Mar 22, 2011 14:19:01 GMT
I don't know where this is all going quite honestly. The subject seems to have taken a turn for the worse all over a stupid teenage girl who can't compare with some of the people on this forum who are nearly three times her age and have three times the wisdom.... One person who got it right and didn't fire up on all cylinders over cultural sensitivity was Nelson Mandela, and Lordy did he have something to complain about.
|
|
|
Post by fumobici on Mar 22, 2011 14:31:05 GMT
On the same theme -- back in the Neolithic Age, when I was young, homosexuals were called "queers". Now, of course, it is forbidden. But, I see advertising for magazines on "Queer Studies" in the New York Review of Books. So, does that mean that certain groups can call themselves whatever they want, including names that are/were considered insulting, but other people outside the group cannot use those words because they will be accused of political incorrectness? Where is the line? Well it's actually pretty simple. It's fine to use the word "queer" if it is clear from context that it is used affectionately. I've even used the "N word" affectionately with friends and not been misunderstood, which is admittedly treading on thin ice. Basically any word is fine to use as long as it is c-l-e-a-r that it is used affectionately rather than in a disparaging manner. Simples.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 22, 2011 14:43:21 GMT
Exactly. Fumobici, where do you get all your wisdom from? You're amazing.
and usually such words are only used affectionately within the race, but not always.
I think most people know when a word is used to hurt and to be unkind. It doesn't take a genius to figure it out.
|
|