Sentencing

Doesn't it hold back society as a whole by clinging to past wrongs though? Its hardly ancient history I agree. There are people still alive who lived during segregation for instance. But things that throw back to slavery, the whole reperations thing for example, seems pointless. Those alive today did not suffer those grievances and white people today had nothing to do with it. It'd be like saying I hold responsibility for the iraq war since I'm British. Actually that one has even more credibility than the slavery one because I could have done something about it. Nothing realistic mind you, I mean short of a revolution I don't know what the public could of done, but that was stil within our abilities, far fetced as it might be. Racial crimes of the past though? No. I wasn't alive. Not sure why I should be held accountable for the crimes of people before my time based purely on the fact I'm white.Or in the reperations case because I happen to be related.

Most people in the world want humanity to strive for peace and working together. That's meant to be one of the greatest end goals we can hope to achieve. Clinging on to past trespasses throws quite a spanner in that idea. Its why I never got why Americans in particular are so obsessed with their heritage. Italian-American, Irish-American and soon and so forth. Its just throwing up more barriers and divisions.

There's enough of an issue with discrimination today that could do with being dealt with without stopping those discussions being brough forward because some people refuse to move on from the past.
 
In Glasgow you would think some of the Tims had died themselves in the potato famine the way they go on about it, there was a potato famine in the north of England and Scotland too but no one mentions it. Some of the Rangers support used to bait the Celtic Supporters by singing "the Famine Song" (tune from "Sloop John D). It's banned now.

Famine Song

I often wonder where they would have been
If we hadn't have taken them in
Fed them and washed them
Thousands in Glasgow alone
From Ireland they came
Brought us nothing but trouble and shame
Well the famine is over
Why don't they go home?

Now Athenry Mike was a thief
And Large John he was fully briefed
And that wee traitor from Castlemilk
Turned his back on his own
They've all their Papists in Rome
They have U2 and Bono
Well the famine is over
Why don't they go home?

INSTRUMENTAL

Now they raped and fondled their kids
That's what those perverts from the darkside did
And they swept it under the carpet
and Large John he hid
Their evils seeds have been sown
Cause they're not of our own
Well the famine is over
Why don't you go home?

Now Timmy don't take it from me
Cause if you know your history
You've persecuted thousands of people
In Ireland alone
You turned on the lights
Fuelled U boats by night
That's how you repay us
It's time to go home.
 
I'm inclined to agree. Maybe it's because of our age that we don't see the world in the same light. While I won't argue against the point that racism isn't still rampant in the U.S., I think a lot of the problems claimed (such as socio-economic welfare) cannot be contributed as much to racism as they seem to be by some people. For me there seems to be a lot more issues surrounding economic class with patronizing those who are less fortunate or poor, making these people out to be lazy or sub human which results in their current life situation. What mucks it up is that a lot of minorities fall into this class and I think that's why racism is attached and focused on so much.

I would also say when people tell me minorities are in the social class they are in due to racism, I would also agree. However I believe that is due to past events that I don't think are as prevalent today. Racism caused the situation, but addressing racism as the problem isn't going to solve the problem. Opportunity for education and skill training for employment is going to contribute much more for the betterment of the lower financial class, and that is more of a money/opportunity issue then race issue in todays world, in my opinion.

I'm also troubled at times when I hear the race arguments from people that are around my age. For example we were going over Indian mascots in my Sociology of Sports class and how many Native Americans found it offensive, racist, and discriminating. When the topic turned to class discussion I was surprised to hear an African American student say, "I don't think it's a big deal, the racism they are dealing with isn't as important as our racism today." From what I've heard since that discussion, Native Americans have it far worse then African Americans do, and to claim that one races problems are more significant then anthers when actual welfare is supposed to be involved in both cases seems a little audacious to me.

I just don't see focusing on race to the degree that it is as moving towards solving a lot of the problems it is attached to today. Many of those problems I can throw myself right in currently but I'm white, so how is race involved for me? Racism isn't something that can be cast aside while saying, "it's nonexistent anymore," but is focusing on the issue with such intensity taking away from focusing on real solutions to problems?
 
Did you say Tims, Jimmy?

But really, it's hardly the same thing at all. Nothing like the same scale, and it wasn't brought about by the policies of an occupying foreign nation. Doesn't diminish it, but it's easy to understand why the one is largely forgotten and the other one isn't. It's the effect that it had on the popular consciousness.

It's just that sort of provocative racism (like the song you posted) that makes people defensive. If no one baited people for their nationality, or their religion or their skin colour, then no one would be talking about it.

It seems that too many people like to see people get baited, and then whine about them being over-sensitive when they react.
 
I've been trying to think of a good way to put that. Cheers. Its an issue I see with prison numbers too. There's points made about how the legal system is racist since there's a disproportionate number of minorities in prisons. The idea of it being some institutionalised racism (I'm aware there is some proof of minorites being given harsher punishments for similiar crimes by the way but I don't think that accounts for all the imprisonments) becomes the focus rather than recognising that those minorites are more likely to be lower on the economic scale than whites and so more likely to commit crime. Its also a thing I've seen in news over here before where there's complaints about how some minorities are poorer and I've wondered how much of it is due to first or second generation immigrants just being less likely to be as well established as other groups.

Racism is certainly still a problem but it does seem to be used as an explanation a bit too freely at times.


That's slightly depressing. Guess black discrimination is a more recent memory than what happens to the Natives.
 
I think a lot of that is just common sense really. Immigrants of necessity tend to start at the bottom of the heap. The flipside of that though is that a lot of immmigrants come to this country with a work ethic which is exponentially greater than that of most of the native population!

(See, it's ok to say that we're a bunch of lazy, work-shy slobs because I'm talking about us. )

There wil always be some individuals who will use racism as an excuse, because they are lazy and weak. That's human nature, I'm afraid. But it doesn't mean that it doesn't exist as a reality for other people.

Well it probably is for most black Americans. For most native Americans it's probably the other way around. Amazingly enough.
 
Yep Tims, "For ever and ever we'll follow the bhoys.. the Glasgow Celtic.. the timalloys... old east end folk song".
As for the potato famine - it was a fungal infection of the potatoes - not a deliberate act by the evil brits, in an overpopulated island - there had already been many parliamentary inquiries and commissions into the levels of poverty and overcrowding on the land and with the only crop giving a big enough return to feed the population failing it was a disaster that had been hanging over the island for many years. The British government severely failed the Irish people by allowing the export of grain to continue from Ireland and not setting up the infrastructure to proccess maize which was brought in and sold at a reduced rate but was very labour intesive to make edible for human consumption. Mainly though the Irish were failed by Irish landlords far more than by the Government.
 
I've always thought of it as a Scottish thing. You just don't hear it used down here.

You're overlooking a few other major factors which the British were responsible for. Probably the main one was the Penal Laws, which amongst other things prevented Catholics from owning land. The effect of which in Ireland was to make the overwhelming majority of the population into tenant farmers.

Another requirement was that Catholics couldn't pass on their rented farms intact, they had to be split between all their sons. The effect of this was to make them smaller and less viable, to the point where people had no choice but to grow potatoes, because their plots were too small to be of use for much else, and potatoes gave the highest yield per acre.

And you can't seperate the landlords from the government like they were two distinct problems. The governments of the day were made up overwhelmingly of exactly the type of Protestant landowner who owned nearly all the land in Ireland. Some had Irish titles, some English and some Scottish, but they were basically all the same bunch.

One of the most sickening things about the famine was the way that the British did so little to deal with it. It was as though they thought it would be in their interests to decimate the population of Ireland. The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire offered something like sixteen million pounds of famine relief (a colossal sum in those days) but the British wouldn't accept it because it was far more than Queen Victoria was donating! So he had to give a fraction of that sum, because it's al that the British would accept. Disgusting.
 
Statements like this are are extremely ignorant of the facts. I think it is partialy due to the perception that the Native American genocide was a long time ago and everything is ok now. Both of these are wrong.
Racism against Native people is both institutionalized and personal and very active today. Incarceration rates, mortality rates, alcoholism, unemployment are all at insane levels. The reservation I live nearest to, Pineridge, is home to the Oglala Lakota people. Here is a nice article giving some numbers and facts about life on the "rez".
http://www.medicinewhl.org/situatione.htm

Thought I should add this. Many Lakota people are working very hard at social activism and it is beginning to show some results. Here is an article from todays paper.
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial-whiteclay-beer-sales-drop/article_5989415d-9a78-5ab1-9286-ae5b88987169.html
 
Personally I believe the work ethic of the native population has been eroded by the governments that have come and gone. They persist on perpetuating the idea that to have succeeded in life you must have a university education, work in the services sector as a banker or lawyer or some such and be a property owner.

With government pushing that sort of agenda, is it really surprising young people in Britain don't want to pick potatoes from fields or do any kind of manual labour at all? Is it surprising they see themselves as "better than" the immigrants that come here to do the jobs we won't do any longer even if it means our economy fails.
 
I hear what you are saying. I think in some ways it's chicken and egg.

Since the late seventies, traditional industries have been slashed. Apprenticeships are a rarity compared with how it used to be. If you don't have a degree, then chances are you'll have to go for a McJob in the service sector.

But employers are more likely to choose Poles over Brits not because they'll work for less but because they are more likely to work hard. And to at least show up.
 
So 10 years?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-21940733

That sound about right for killing a baby?
It doesn't seem right to me.
25 would seem more suitable. There'd be a case to be made for someone with that much of a temper being locked up forever IMHO.

Here's the thing...if the courts don't hand down sentences that seem justified then the "string 'em up" brigade get more vociferous and have more of a point don't they?
 
Holy crap were we off topic. I had no idea what you were talking about for a moment. Sorry for contributing to the off topic subjects in the thread!
 
So the courts should appease the mob? Why is 25 years more suitable than 10 years? That's really the question you must answer when demanding a tougher sentence. Where is the benefit to sending someone to prison for 25 years?
 
If you're going to hand down twenty five year sentances for manslaughter, then what do you give for murder?

I know that people will have diffferent ideas of what is appropriate. Is it possible to reach some kind of consencus?
 
A nut-job with a temper so bad he kills a child when he loses a stupid bet about football is kept away from me and my family for 15 years extra and is prevented from fathering or being anywhere near any more children for that time.
Imagine that man behind the wheel of a car or dealing with your kids in some way. No thanks. We've learnt something about that man. Keep him away from others.
 
philosoraptor said:
I don't think the ills of racism are nearly as historic as you think.

47martialman I'd agree that what is offensive is offensive, but I would say that the social context and history determines what makes a word offensive or not. Cracker does not have the same weight behind it.


Depends on the one receiving.

"Sticks and stones,......
Click to expand...

People tend to get offended too easy nowadays.

"Sometimes" it is a trumpet for making others feel bad in order to set sympathy
 
Personally I don't see how that case is manslaughter.
But anyway...causing the death of a baby by using a mobile phones while driving isn't the same sort of manslaughter as causing a baby to die by losing your temper and assaulting it.
I think in general I'd tend to "up" most sentences.
 
It's manslaughter because there was no intent to kill. The father of the baby acted out in a rage. Mental health treatment would be far more appropriate than a prison sentence.
 
For a country trying to get rid of segregation, it sure has turn hypercritical in labeling

"______________(insert....African, Irish, Italian-etc) American"

I am simply a "American"
 
Back
Top