and during the LA riots african americans went largely after these asians shooting at them and their businesses, probably feeling jealous these asians made a nice life for themselves and they still lived in ghettos

Here again you show your lack of understanding. There are variations in the US asian population depending on the country of origin, but you don't actually care about that. You just want to use one minority group to bash another.

This whole conversation feels ridiculous and like a MRA convention.

What is your understanding of the circumstances that started the Lozells riots in 2005?

Not enough to discuss it, nor would I with you.

For just two cities, other UK cities are available.

If the facts being quoted are wrong then provide a rebuttal.

Or is it so much easier just to criticise other posters without adding anything to the debate?

What rubbish. Do you really think that a worker in the UK was living in the same conditions as one in India?!

Invested some of the money they got from Indian resources, yes, to gain more Indian resources.

Which is a bit different from one raid in Ireland, so at least we are progressing. It is interesting that 7,000 to 9,000 sailors and an unknown number of the UK civil population taken as slaves over a period of 70 odd years becomes to you a few thousand over a few decades. What is important it is a history of the UK that is frequently ignored or downplayed in exactly the way you have done here.

It is also noted that approx 1.3 million were taken from Western Europe over a 250 year period whereas this is about one tenth of those taken from Africa over the same period from West Africa. The population of Western Europe was approx one tenth of sub Saharan Africa at this time. So the effect of slaving would be about the same for both at the hands of those who took the slaves from their home continent. Africa would fare worst of course because the Arab slavers were also slaving to the East through the Eastern ports and to the North to populate the Arab slave markets. Estimated to be in far greater numbers, and with even more cruelty than the Atlantic trade.

We are not progressing to any significant impact on Britain coastal towns. And I think you're reading a little too much certainty into those figures.

I like your estimation that crime should be assessed proportionately. So killing an only child is a worse crime than a sibling.

I have no doubt many British workers, especially agricultural ones were living in conditions every bit as bad, with as little care, and dying sometimes in the same proportions if not greater as the famines in Ireland, Scotland and England showed only too clearly. I suppose highland workers thrown out of their houses with the roofs burnt to stop reoccupation and having to trudge through winter snow in bare feet to seek a boat to indentured servitude was luxury compared to Indian workers but somehow I doubt it. That was not restricted to the Scottish highlands.

Building Indian infrastructure which Indians benefited from or does infrastructure benefit only work in one direction.

You are not accepting it which is different from whether or not there was a significant impact.

I was apportioning the impact of slaving which was not a crime in any size shape or form until it was outlawed by the British Empire.

Edit, the figures are calculated on the boats lost (with relative crew numbers) and the number of slaves kept by those doing the slaving. As with all estimates it is based on the best information available. It could be more it could be less, the link also suggests that writings at the time indicate that slaving raids were a common occurrence accounted for about 1500 per annum from UK and Ireland and totalling 700 raids overall.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...invasions.html

I've replied to responses with rebuttals, but it's difficult to discuss issues of race with people so far gone to believing that racial discrimination is some overblown issue, or that white men are somehow the victims of discrimination in western society (a ridiculous notion).

If they are discriminated against in any way because they are white then they are the victims of discrimination. Positive action discriminates against white men because they are white.

No one is denying discrimination at all. But those factors also existed in the 1960s - so how come the crime rate and murder rate has soared if the reasons are about the past not the present.

But other factors such as family breakdown and the lack of fathers in the home may also play a role - otherwise African Americans who live in households headed by a married couple wouldnt be far less likely to be in poverty than white Americans living in single parent households.

You owe me an irony meter. You just blew mine up.

So the EU can't spend our money for the benefit of all of the EU but we can spend India's resources in India for our benefit and that's OK.

Losing some privilege doesn't make you a victim.

duplicate post.

You mean privileged people who live in London SW6 - aka Chelsea and Fulham - as opposed to 18 year old unemployed teenage kids living on a council estate in Stoke cos they are so 'privileged' aren't they?

Well off middle class London privilege perhaps - cos I doubt those unemployed teenage kids whose only probable prospects are a zero hours contract job in Poundland clearly aren't feeling their privilege enough!

That's certainly two privileges. But the 18 year old employed teenagers have privilege too if they're white or male or not disabled. And are more privileged than unemployed teenagers who aren't educated and housed by a wealthy western state.

Sounds you are actually referring to 'resident in a western nation' privilege. And who created these successful prosperous western nations that are so attractive to everyone else?

But it's just a little much for residents of Chelsea and Fulham to ask others to check out their privilege - maybe they need a bit less privilege?

Or as they say - it's just a bit rich like London SW6.

I'm not sure what your point is.

If it's that, as someone with privilege, I'm not allowed to point out others' privilege that's just a bit weird.

You claim privilege is about race and gender when it's actually more to do with wealth.

If you got nothing you really aren't feeling much privilege are you?

It's to do with all those things and more. There's more than one sort of privilege.

Your teenagers had a house, that's privileged compared with most of the world's population.

If you're not unfairly targeted by police, or if you don't have to deal with racial discrimination in education, employment, etc. then yes you are privileged. A poor white person may have a terrible situation, but it is still one that is preferable to dealing with issues of poverty in addition to issues of race. It doesn't make you a bad person to have this be a fact of the world, it just means you are more aware. It can be difficult to sift through the complaints that are just petty grievances, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an actual problem.

I admit, the UK is well-known for being an inclusive society, but there are still thousands of racist incidents every year. In the US the issues are more stark, but I feel it's alright to point that out since previous posters have mentioned the US.

The thinking goes like this, If you have nothing and are white, you're more privileged than someone who is black and has nothing, assuming they're in the same locale.

I believe Oncemore is saying that even blacks with wealth are not as privileged as they think they are due to the in built anomalies of the system in the US.