On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 17:06:00 +0200, "Gilles Tran"
<gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:

>
>(*) The French town of Nantes is, according to polls, the nicest city in the 
>country. Should we forget that its current prosperity was inherited from the 
>17-18th centuries when being the slave trade capital turned Nanted into a 
>large, wealthy city? Likewise, some of the corporations (banks, 
>industries..) that provided the funds for colonization in the 19th century 
>are still in operation today and wealthy as ever. People die, but capital 
>rolls on.

No we shouldn't {I can think of a few British examples (my home town
was a stop on the "Slave Triangle")} But we shouldn't take personal
responsibility. Just don't compound the problem.
On a personal note when I was working in Kingston (a former slave
colony of ours). A lot of people had a great deal of fun with me, on
the subject of slavery.
 
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

48109c95@news.povray.org...
>  Is her point that I should feel guilt or something because sometimes
> other people may treat me differently because of my skin color (or other
> attributes)?

Guilt would be pointless. Awareness will suffice.

>  Perhaps this is more relevant in places where open racism is prevalent.

Doesn't need to be open and it doesn't even need to be plain racism (again, 
that's the point of the essay). But yes, Wikipedia tells me that Finland has 
2% of immigrants (vs 8-10% in countries like UK or France), most of them 
from neighbouring countries of close cultural background so I guess that 
these kinds of problems are rather theoretical there.

G.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:19 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>The issue is way too complicated
>to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner

Too true! And my good Scottish friend Peter Lukiewicz would agree with
you.
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:10:19 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
> wrote:
> 
>> The issue is way too complicated
>> to be simply presented in a black/white, true/false manner
> 
> Too true! And my good Scottish friend Peter Lukiewicz would agree with
> you.
'Afternoon, Stephen.
Fancy a pint in a bar staffed by Polish, French and Italian workers? Say
a week from today i.e. 1st May.

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 24 Apr 2008 16:30:30 +0100, Doctor John <doc### [at] gmailcom>
wrote:

>'Afternoon, Stephen.
>Fancy a pint in a bar staffed by Polish, French and Italian workers? Say
>a week from today i.e. 1st May.

As long as I've already voted. I don't want Boris to get in by default
:)
-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> 
> As long as I've already voted. I don't want Boris to get in by default
> :)

OK will confirm exact time nearer to the date

John

-- 
I will be brief but not nearly so brief as Salvador Dali, who gave the
world's shortest speech. He said, "I will be so brief I am already
finished," then he sat down.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <gil### [at] agroparistechfr> wrote:
> But yes, Wikipedia tells me that Finland has 
> 2% of immigrants (vs 8-10% in countries like UK or France), most of them 
> from neighbouring countries of close cultural background so I guess that 
> these kinds of problems are rather theoretical there.

  I live in a suburb with a much higher % of foreigners than that because
there's a University here and a lot of exchange students.

  OTOH this might not be the "best" place to find rampant racism because
most people living here (both Finnish and the exchange students) are
highly educated.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> But yes, they didn't really stand a chance because of the technological 
> differences - that doesn't mean they didn't try or that they weren't 
> willing to do so.

True. I misread your original post that I followed up to. Your 
"unwilling, or didn't try" came out as binary alternatives in my brain 
rather than two restatements of the same idea.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Stephen wrote:
> I think what she is saying is that people who are born into a
> "privilege" don't see that the "privilege" is a privilege and don't
> take it into account when dealing with people who were not born with
> that "privilege".

I think calling it a "privilege" is disingeuous myself. Almost all the 
stuff she talks about being a "privilege" is stuff that a politician 
would call "rights".  It's not a "privilege" to be treated fairly by the 
courts, or to be allowed to live without being hassled by your 
neighbors, or to avoid being beat up for no reason when you walk down 
the street.

The idea that you'd want to take these "privileges" away from someone in 
order to be "more fair" is absurd in my mind.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran wrote:
> X years later, Group B still *** suffers *** from the crime while Group A 
> still *** benefits *** from it (*)

And in many cases group B still benefits and group A still suffers. I 
don't see why the work can't be to simply make things fair and balanced 
without any "payback" portion of it, myself. But maybe that's because I 
take responsibility for my own actions and the results thereof.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message