Afro-carribean

you mean jamaicans? the kind that were brought to drive england's buses after wwII?

they wouldn't even let them drive the buses at first, in fact people were arguing that blacks couldn't even drive buses, despite the obvious fact that blacks drove the buses in JA, for white patrons at that!

No it means either from Africa or the caribbean

Unfortunately each group has a tendency to dislike the other

Most of the UK black population originates from the caribbean, although there has been a large increase in poeople from Africa in the last 40 years

i dont know, who invented, manufactures and distributes these firearms? I cant think of any black owned gun makers, not even in Africa!

Who invents, manufactures and distributes these firearms? I dont recall any black owned gun makers, not even in sunny Africa! kind of destroys your myth that blacks are as hellbent on killing each other with guns, considering it is the white people who continue to create and distribute these guns in the first place...

Um where do you get your facts from?

The government here asked people to come to the UK from the commonwealth countries as this tiny little island lost two complete generations of males in two world wars

Without their immigration the country would have ground to a halt

As it didnt grind to a halt I would presume they were allowed to drive buses, and trains and anything else they wanted to

ah.

so who is doing these crimes? the africans, or the caribbeans? and what about social class? got any stats for that?

According to official police statistics for 2005-2006

Of all people arrested in the UK, 84% were White, 9% were Black, 5% were Asian, 2% were 'other'.#

Conviction rates for Whites and Blacks are about equal at roughly 50% each.

As The Pits says, figures change dramatically when considering gun crime, especially in London where, in 2006, Blacks accounted for 75% of its victims and 79% of its suspects.

Another interesting statistic I found from 2001 (this time from Interpol) was that, according to crimes committed per 100,000 of population, Britain, France and Germany were ahead of the US. - with the UK running at more than double the US figure.

Um so its the guy in the factory who makes the gun who actually pulls the trigger?

Silly me!

Oh by the way, if you had done your research again, you would find that over 80% of firearms used in crimes are "acquired" from illegal sources not from gun manufacturers or gun stores, no matter what the colour of the owners

Now will you please try using the rest of the deck, that card looks old, tired, and worn out.......

the government didn't ask anybody to come to the UK, they issued citizenship to the colonies in order to keep them as colonies within the commonwealth in the age of Independence movements after WWII, but they forgot that jamaica is not kenya or india, and that JA is close enough for blacks to immigrate and come to Britain as full citizens, which the whites absolutely detested...



by the way, I noticed you didn't answer my question about who manufactures and distributes firearms?

There doesnt seem to be any further breakdown

As for the social class, yup you guessed it, the overwhelming majority are from socially deprived backgrounds, thats from Lee Jasper the mayors adviser on race issues

Most crime seems to be perpetrated by people from poor backgrounds so its not really a surprise

What is surprising is the willingness of young black males to use guns as opposed to the unwillingness of young white males, its frighteningly disproportionate

The current thinking is that its related to a gun culture in Jamaica that has been importing its values to the community here for many years

yeah, the poor commit the bulk of violent crime.

but the rich commit the bulk of "while collar" crime which is in my opinion worse than violent crime and yet receives little attention and light penalties.

you know how many lives the fuckers at enron ruined?

Do you actually believe any of the rubbish you come out with?

Yes some people didnt like the idea of immigrants coming here, the same as a few people in every country in the world have had a problem with immigrants

Citizenship wasn't given to keep people as colonies, it was done on an appeal for immigrants from consecutive governments

Check your facts and leave your stupid bigotted rhetoric at home

As for the ethnic origins of gun designers and manufacturers I have no idea whether they are black, white, or purple with green spots

What I do know is this, the person holding the gun and who pulls the trigger is the murderer, or are you suggesting that there is some conspiracy in the arms industry to give blacks guns to kill each other?

Have you also considered the fact that ALL Americans have the right to bear arms?

And now that you know that you are more likely to be shot by a person of your own race, maybe its a sinister plot by the arms industry to kill EVERYONE!

Yeah I agree with you on the whitecollar crime

The worst one we had was a guy called Levy if I remember correctly, defrauded something like £220 million and received 220 hours community service years ago

Those bastards at Enron should have been slow roasted over an open fire, and had all their assets stripped and distributed amongst the people who they ripped off

yes, that's what im talking about. when people talk of "crime", they should include fuckers like this one. if he had stolen some twinkies from a store he would have received harsher penalties.

With respect, the first half of your statement is entirely wrong. The period of mass commonwealth immigration into Britain came at the height of a labour shortage. Blacks from the commonwealth were nothing short of being begged to come and work in Britain - usually in low-skilled service industry jobs.

The idea of giving them citizenship to bolster the commonwealth is strange given that Britain was at that time coming to a swift recognition that it could no-longer actually fund an Empire (being totally broke after WWII). It was ultimately tapping a workforce before losing it.
As for Blacks being detested by the British on arriving, this is again false in the extremity of the word 'detested'. Yes, there were riots in Notting Hill in the late 50s, and very small pockets of unrest elsehere, but the most common experiences of blacks in britain at that time was that they were treated with suspicion and ultimately as second class citizens. The real problems however started in the 70s when the oil crisis brought a massive recession and white people started to blame blacks for taking their jobs. That's when you began to see the relatively brief rise of racist skinheads and the National Front party.

Well put

As for WWII we only finished paying the USA for the tanks, guns and ships under the "lease/lend" agreement this year!

62 years to pay for the privilege of fighting a world war.........

You're right that the arms industry is an overwhelmingly white affair, but I don't agree with what you seem to be suggesting: that the industry is somehow motivated by a desire to see the end of the black race. It's a finance driven industry, and money has no real agenda beyond the making of more money. I also have no doubt that were Black people in a better position to enter into the arms trade at this manufacturing level, rather than as consumers, they would.

But who knows, all the neo-cons are into Nazi eugenics and shit and the voting bloc they seem to be able to always count on are southerners. But yeah, their main thing seems to be profit at any cost.

And if there's one thing I'm convinced of, it's that southerners hate blacks a lot less than they love money.

I thought they loved their relatives most..........

No, that's the Welsh I think.

that rings pretty true.

Yes, that was a constant thing in the news, the whole Yardie thing. It's being replaced in the media now with the whole knife thing, especially it seems, at least in the part of London i'm from, amongst Bangladeshi kids - but which is now spreading into white gangs.

That said, I remember as a kid in the seventies gangs of white kids wandering around with Stanley knives. But that was mainly a football hooligan thing - which has traditionally been almost exclusively white.

Yeah that was the old ICF with the stanley blades, funny thing was they ended up opening a club in Bow called Echoes

From football hooligans to club promoters in one easy step

I think each generation has some form of violence problem, its just the latest one is claiming more lives than any before it

??? i dont understand how you just proved me wrong here, by supporting exactly what I said with evidence such as uprisings and discrimination....



Britain was attempting to preserve its Empire, it did not really need workers from its colonies, I did not make this up. It is from EP Thompson, Lydia Lindsey, Peter Thorsheim, Gareth Jones, Miles Ogborn...... you sir, are naive and even oblivious if you believe that Britain was only trying to 'appeal for immigrants' in the British Nationality Act of 1948.... Imperialism is imperialism, particularly in recovery from war. if they wanted immigrants so bad why did they treat them like shit?


that wasn't my point at all. you also overemphasised manufacturing and forgot about distribution (ie, how such produced firearms end up in peoples hands to begin with)

I wasn't trying to prove you wrong, just that the word 'detested' was a bit harsh to describe people's attitudes to post-War immigrants.

As much as I respect a historian like EP Thompson, his attitude towards the Government and Empire is famously - although not at times unreasonably - hostile. Commonwealth members had the right to become permanent British citizens until 1962, a point where most of the Empire had ceased. The period between 1962 and 1972 (when increased restrictions were introduced) was dominated bythe 90,000 Gurjurati Indians expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin.

The period between 1945 and 62 was a period when no restrictions applied for commonwealth citizens to enter Britain. The problem was that most simply didn't want to leave their homes for cold, foggy London. The years immediately following the War saw Britain employing ex German and Italian POWs to help counter the labour shortage, but when this proved insufficient, they looked towards commonwealth countries like Jamaica to work primarilly in the postal and transport system.

Historians will forever argue about the real causes, effects and attitudes towards immigration in Britain at this time. Certainly it was a complex, messy affair but not the period of Empire maintenance you portray. If anything, Britains political landscape in the postwar years up to the 70s (if we conveniently forget the Suez crisis) was immensely oriented towards domestic issues and remains one of the most progressive phases in its history. Of course, a statement like that is itself massively open to debate.

Re Arms distribution: I'm not sure about the obviously unofficial channels of arms distribution that help fuel street crime. Again, I believe that a vast majority of those heading this trade are white, but also continue to believe that, if given the opportunity, blacks would happily replace them, and sell their arms on to the exact same people.

Ha Ha, great memories of Echoes back in the day. I was brought up in the West Ham area, so the whole ICF thing was massive when I was a kid and it was definitely a bit weird sharing a bottle of water and a cheeky half with a bloke that a few years before would've been causing mayhem down at Upton Park. Happy days.

Uprisings and discrimination?

What you class as an uprising was nothing more than what would pass for a bloody big punch up in the USA

As for the discrimination, inexcusable but minor compared to what was going on in the USA

As for preserving our "empire" when the appeals went out for people to come here it was already consigned to history

We didnt need immigrants?

Are you completely bloody stupid???

After two world wars we lost entire generations of men, not counting the women and children killed in the bombing raids on the UK

We had bombed out buildings in London and craters up to and including the 1960's

Why?

Because we didnt have the people to rebuild the country

Are you aware that we still had some food rationing here until 1953?

As for me being naive, I would rather be naive than have the blinkered, bigotted, jaded view of everything that doesnt fit into your card playing mentality

Your view is as racist as the discrimination you purport to "expose"

The sooner you leave a country you so obviously despise for Haile Sellassis paradise of Ethiopia, the better

so something morally wrong is acceptable in comparison to something that is morally worse? discrimination is discrimination, imperialism is imperialism..

the difference between you and I is that you seem to give into the bullshit from the place you live, where as I am not attached to any place in particular (no, not even Ethiopia, I can speak hours more on the socio-political troubles of Ethiopia then on Britain or the US) and just call it as I see it. LA sucks, the US sucks, Britain sucks, the EU sucks, Israelis suck, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia sucks, they all suck man, I just can openly accept and admitt that there is no place in the world that does not "suck" politically and historically and hence do not suffer from an idealistic approach to intepreting past-present connections.

You're right that discrimination in any form is bad, but compared with any other country I've visited, I'd happily say that Britain has managed to accomodate the various waves of post-war immigration in a way that a number of its neighbours would do well to copy. Britain is far from perfect in this respect, but then immigration will never give rise to a perfect scenario. It's all about coping and when you consider that most immigrants move to areas that are already quite poor, I'm quite proud of the way in which those British people already living in these areas have generally accepted the situation.

Saying that, this may well change as the forces of political correctness squash any white-led discussion of immigration with often petty claims of rascism. Recent parliamentary successes by far right parties such as the BNP are, in my opinion, a direct response not to increases in Britain's immigrant population, but to what has effectively become an unofficial taboo on the discussion of race issues by the more mainstream parties.

No, your problem is you are a one trick, or should I say one card, pony

You allude to everything as being the fault of the "whites"

Hints at some conspiracy within the arms industry in the USA to supply "blacks" with enough illegal firearms to kill themselves with

Well that kinda backfired given that as much as "blacks" kill "blacks" with said guns, as many "whites" kill "whites" with the same guns from the same manufacturers

Lets not forget 85% of said guns were acquired illegally

Everything you come out with has a tendency to come back to what you perceive as discrimination

Well the bad news is, it doesnt

I'd also have more respect for your views if you actually included all discrimination such as that in Rwanda where 900,000 people were murdered because one tribe discriminated against the other

Or maybe Zimbabwe, where Hottentots and Shangaans have been systematically wiped out in a deliberate government policy of genocide

Silly me, of course you wont jump up and down about these examples

They were committed by "blacks"

Although I daresay in your twisted logic somehow the "whites" will be to blame

The crap things that happen in this world are usually just down to the plain and simple fact that the perpetrators are assholes

Not because of discrimination

And sorry to dissillusion you again but not all assholes are white

If all the countries you mentioned suck so badly, might I suggest you move to the Arctic

I am sure there is an igloo with your name on

its not my twisted logic, the problems in Africa, particularly these ethnic conflicts, are often (as in Rwanda) DIRECTLY RELATED TO EUROPEAN COLONIALISM, specifically the arbitrary division of African borders and the imaginary nations they created with out regard of the people who lived there. In Rwanda it was exclusively the BRITISH who created racism between so-called Hutu and Tutsi, a division which NEVER existed prior to the 1930s, which was formalized in government in the 1950s (again by the Brits);

and zimbabwe, shit I dont think i even need to begin on the problems that Europe created for Zimbabwe, but I am affraid I might offend your sensibilites as good brit, you savage bastard. get over yourself, Britain sucks, america sucks and together they have destroyed the world as it should have been, and replaced it with a hell created in their image. sorry, i just must be the last honest white person out there who looks at things as they are, and not as we would like them to be.

Let's not justify Mugabe's actions in the last couple of years by blaming Cecil John Rhodes and his buddies.
He uses that same poor excuse to drive "white" farmers off their land and bring Zim's economy to a standstill.
He's a serious cunt, and no one can deny that.
Correct me if I'm wrong.

There's a significant difference between looking at things 'as they are', and reducing complex issues to simple, for want of a better term, black and white ones. I'd be the first to condemn Europe's handling of Africa and certainly believe that white rascism remains a problem throughout the world. But equally, we can't reduce all of the world's problems to the status of modern day symptoms of historical white supremacy. It's a cul de sac that leads only to a blinkered understanding of the world today, and to calls for racial seperatism from both sides.

The problem is power in all of its myriad forms: be it in the hands of blacks, whites, whoever. Whites have throughout much of history wielded more power than blacks - leading to the opression of the latter. But so the same can be said of men over women, the bourgeoisie over the proletariat, and so on. We need to look into overall structures of power before looking at single instances of its misuse - examples of which can be found in all communities, be they white, black, male, female, straight, gay, etc.

cash rules everything around me

a) its not white against black, it seems to be rich white male vs everybody else.

b) this is not quite as simplistic as I am allowed to say it for time. Besides, Einstein said nothing is worthing discussing if it cant be explained to a bar maid at a night out...that is why I simplified,

c) its not there are not other issues, it is just that we haven't quite solved this one. just as we need to look at all structures, we must not overlook the most impacting and long lasting ones. According to the longue duree, racism is perhaps the most impacting concept in history, and the most directly involved in our present society.

d) I keep pulling 'this card' because it seems relevent every time since it is challenged to begin with, which implies a lack of resolution.

CREAM, get the money, dolla dolla bill y'all.

There's no denying that Africa has historically been plundered for its resources, consequences be damned. It's a really sad saga and it just goes to show the sad state we're in as human beings. And that goes for the powerful that create the pillage and the drones that sit back and support it as long as they aren't affected. Now please forgive my foray into Jungian psychology, but here it goes. Important to realize is that it's only when the manipulators of public opinion add commercial and economic pressure and/or acts of violence to their activities do they achieve a temporary success. What happens in actuality is that this merely causes a repression of the geniune unconscious reactions. And mass repression leads to the same result as individual repression...mental illness; all such attempts to repress the actions of the unconscious must fail in the long run, for they are basically opposed to our truest instincts.


That's extremely nicely put, demonrail666.
http://www.sonicyouth.com/gossip/sho...&postcount=358

The human problem, in general, is the psyche's obedience to its master, which is fear. Instinctual fear is one thing. It helps keep us alive in accordance with natural selection and natural law itself. Instinctual fear cuts right through our bullshit filter.

The type of fear we are in as humans is a different type of fear, a self-created, sinister type of fear and confusion. In Kierkegaardian terms, it's dread, "the sickness unto death." It's a deep psychological pit by which we create a programmed personality mask, or ego, that serves to actually deny our own fears, and ultimately serves as a shield to protect us from pondering our own fear of death. It is in the acceptance of fear of death, and then the approaching of the acceptance of death itself, that the process of individuation and ego integrity begins. The self is in tune with the unconscious; unfortunately, we are rarely in tune with the self. Such is the root of the world's strife on every level, because only connections with the self can ward off the self-sabotaging control that envy, jealousy, greed, anger, depression, anxiety and insecurity have on our ailing minds and the unnecessary harmful, violent behaviors that result. But instead, we persist headstrong in our error, and on a path of neurotic dissociation towards psychological illness. We allow the filter of the ego to endlessly split everything into more and more categories, we build more and more fences, more mental walls, more separations. We attach ourselves to our cultural hero systems and its corresponding institutions to erect edifices of symbolic psychological meaning. Our minds become false constructs, and we undercut ourselves willingly, and with great pleasure, because it keeps us from having to really deal with the fear of death.

Now I do feel I have some talents, that I have a good level of educatedness, and most of all I feel I have a gift of a good memory and a sense of order to my thoughts, thoughts that I can slow down fairly well at times.
But, even so, I only have a slight smidgen of ego integrity. All of my life's sufferings have awarded me a little tidbit of wisdom and have made me, like Socrates, a little less ignorant, but it doesn't amount to too much unless it's seen all the way through and thoroughly cultivated. And so, like everyone, I have my personality ticks, my shortcomings and my faults, and I am usually controlled by my fear on some level when I analyze my behavior as objectively as possible.

One of my faults is that I expect anyone to regard this as anything more than "psychobabble.":)