is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary?

is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

LadyEllen -> is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 4:13:17 PM)
thank goodness for the BNP - they provide such interesting themes to debate! A letter was sent to the BNP (British National Party) today, calling their membership, employment and (latterly) representation policies into question under legislation that prohibits discrimination; membership of the party is open only to indigenous whites (Anglo Saxon, Celtic, Norse, in the party's word) in Britain, and they only employ those of that background too. The same charge in relation to representation of constituents was refuted by their leader today who made the point of saying alll constituents regardless of ethnicity would be represented - but at the same time he indicated in no uncertain terms that it was not only right but necessary for there to be such a policy in relation to membership since there was no party or other body representing indigenous interests against what he describes as the "liberal elite" who he claims promote only the interests of immigrants against the interests of natives. Meanwhile the presence of associations and groups (often affiliated to political parties) in the UK which represent the interests of ethnic and cultural minorities and which accept members only from those within those minorities in order to promote exclusively the interests of those minorities adds to the whole situation. After all, if it is right and necessary for these groups to exist for this purpose then what argument can there be against a similar group existing for the same purpose in relation to the majority indigenous population? I dont want to discuss here whether the charges laid against the "liberal elite" are valid or even whether there is such a thing as a "liberal elite". Rather, the question is whether it is acceptable and/or necessary for the BNP to take the stance described in relation to membership? And from that, whether it is acceptable and/or necessary for the same stance to be adopted by minority groups? E

Aneirin -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 4:53:19 PM)
Any group that identifies themselves by virtue of their colour, ancestry or religous belief, I have no time for, as they display intolerance to others. Whatever, colour, race, relgion we are, we are all people and if anything, the multi representatives of the British people should defy those that seek to set us apart, and join together against their tyranny.

DesFIP -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 4:55:41 PM)
Aneirin, are you then claiming that to attend any religious meeting composed solely of your coreligionists is equivalent to being intolerant? Because when I go to shul, I am surrounded solely by those of my faith which does not mean that we believe others to be lesser, just different. Except of course, that we serve better food.

LadyEllen -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 4:59:01 PM)
And does that include the Black Police Association though? All in all I'm a "one nation" sort of person (regardless of origins) - which is why I dont support the model of multi-culturalism we have; for me, it is something that divides us. And because of that division, it becomes necessary for entities such as the Black Police Association to exist (and many other similarly exclusive groups). And the existence of those groups, able as they are to lobby for their particular membership then not only leads to something like the BNP but provides it a raison d'etre which is difficult to argue against in that context. E

lronitulstahp -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 5:00:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Aneirin, are you then claiming that to attend any religious meeting composed solely of your coreligionists is equivalent to being intolerant? Because when I go to shul, I am surrounded solely by those of my faith which does not mean that we believe others to be lesser, just different. Except of course, that we serve better food. The difference being Celeste, if a person of another faith wanted to attend services, they would be welcomed; whereas The BNP are utilising (spelled it like the Brits) exclusionary tactics as pre-requisites for participation in the party.

LadyEllen -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 5:08:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Aneirin, are you then claiming that to attend any religious meeting composed solely of your coreligionists is equivalent to being intolerant? Because when I go to shul, I am surrounded solely by those of my faith which does not mean that we believe others to be lesser, just different. Except of course, that we serve better food. The difference being Celeste, if a person of another faith wanted to attend services, they would be welcomed; whereas The BNP are utilising (spelled it like the Brits) exclusionary tactics as pre-requisites for participation in the party. note though that such a welcome is not extended to foreigners (naturalised even) in Japan, when it comes to Shinto. nor can one "become" a Hindu (hare krishna doesnt count). Both are ancestral traditions - one has to have the ancestral connection. E

sweetsub1957 -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 5:10:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin Any group that identifies themselves by virtue of their colour, ancestry or religous belief, I have no time for, as they display intolerance to others. Whatever, colour, race, relgion we are, we are all people and if anything, the multi representatives of the British people should defy those that seek to set us apart, and join together against their tyranny. I think it's one thing to have meetings of particular, say, political or religious groups, but to exclude others is discrimination and should not be tolerated. ~edited for wording~

numuncular -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 5:56:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen And does that include the Black Police Association though? if you go to their website you'll find this on the top of the frontpage: Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application There is no bar to membership based on colour.

mnottertail -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 6:14:44 PM)
Except of course, that we serve better food. Not even.

LadyEllen -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 6:20:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: numuncular quote: ORIGINAL: LadyEllen And does that include the Black Police Association though? if you go to their website you'll find this on the top of the frontpage: Membership of the NBPA is open to all in policing on application There is no bar to membership based on colour. Indeed a poor example; but the organisation exists solely and specifically to represent BME interests. In which case, if such an organisation is acceptable and necessary, then if the BNP similarly opened its membership but maintained its stance of solely and specifically representing white indigenous interests, presumably it would no longer be possible to mount any objection to its existence and activities? Unless one simultaneously called into question such as the BPA? E

FatDomDaddy -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/23/2009 7:54:13 PM)
Yes this is deplorable. In fact it sounds very much like the Congressional Black Caucass here in the states.

servantforuse -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 5:47:17 AM)
Anyone who would associate themselves with a group that excludes others is a bigot, regardles of their race. We have Black music awards, Black police unions and a Black miss America here. You can imagine what would happen if groups like this were to exclude Blacks. We are all equal and everyone should remember that..

pahunkboy -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 6:24:48 AM)
http://www.songsforteaching.com/folk/kumbayah.htm <- I found the mp3 for this thread. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumbaya <- the wiki here http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/religion/stories/DN-kumbaya_11rel.ART0.State.Edition1.3e6da2d.html ---<-- the slang

rulemylife -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 6:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Anyone who would associate themselves with a group that excludes others is a bigot, regardles of their race. We have Black music awards, Black police unions and a Black miss America here. You can imagine what would happen if groups like this were to exclude Blacks. We are all equal and everyone should remember that.. Ah yes, the new conservative rallying cry: "the white majority is being discriminated against". Out of Rush's mouth to the ears of FDD and you, then you bleat it out here on the boards. Let me ask, why do you think these things you disparage were started? Miss Black America - Wikipedia History J. Morris Anderson first created and produced the Miss Black America Pageant on August 17, 1968, it was a local Philadelphia area pageant to protest the lack of black women in the Miss America pageant. With strong assistance from Phillip H. Savage, Tri-State Director of the NAACP, the Pageant received nationwide press coverage as a protest against the Miss America Pageant, an event that Mr. Savage and other NAACP leaders loudly condemned, over many years, for exclusion of black women contestants. Black police in America - Google Books Result by W. Marvin Dulaney - 1996 - Social Science - 193 pages Timeline results for history of black police unions Aug 7, 1969 - The Hartford Courant (1923-1984) - Hartford, Conn. Author:. The Guardians, a fraternal organization of black policemen, formally presented their grievances regarding alleged discrimination in the Hartford Police Department to the police union Wednesday.

pahunkboy -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 7:44:13 AM)
Via the birthrate- and that is facts not assumptions... the globe will be less white each year that passes. ....current events tho- are all about distraction. So- as people get into diversions- go thru grannies attic for me. I am looking for silver. Cut me a fair deal and I will be your best fiend. Seriously- I will pay more then the cash for gold as there is no overhead. But expect a sweeter deal then a coin store. CM me if you have 90% junk silver coins that you want to sell- I am learning about foreign junk silver- so if you have coins that are foreign, and silver hit me up. (quarters,dimes,halfs, dollars, for the most part up to 1964 I am expecting a check from me brother- and I am in the mood to BUY.

NorthernGent -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 12:37:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: servantforuse Anyone who would associate themselves with a group that excludes others is a bigot We need answers from the world of golf.

Vendaval -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 2:12:29 PM)
Fast Reply - What's up? I thought this was a thread about white-only underwear? We really need to enforce what people wear under the outer clothing since that is a true test of patriotism. [8D]

RealGirl4One -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 6:29:46 PM)
IMO there should be NO "whites only" NO "NAACP" no "BLACK HISTORY MONTH" ETC. We are all people who wish to be treated with the same rights and privileges and courtesies so why is there so much effort to alienate and divide. One positive thing (though at a tragic cost) to come from 9/11 was that for a time it seemed to me that there was a new feeling of unity among people in the U.S. For a while it seemed like color didn't matter anymore (as it shouldn't) and the thing was that we felt we were all under attack and as such it was a solidifying event. Sadly, now these many years later, much of that sentiment has dissipated and we spend far too much time thinking about racially divisive matters.

DarkSteven -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 6:42:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lronitulstahp quote: ORIGINAL: DesFIP Aneirin, are you then claiming that to attend any religious meeting composed solely of your coreligionists is equivalent to being intolerant? Because when I go to shul, I am surrounded solely by those of my faith which does not mean that we believe others to be lesser, just different. Except of course, that we serve better food. The difference being Celeste, if a person of another faith wanted to attend services, they would be welcomed; whereas The BNP are utilising (spelled it like the Brits) exclusionary tactics as pre-requisites for participation in the party. Agreed. I have invited people of other faiths to my services, and have seen others do so as well. I "swapped" with a couple of African Methodist Episcopalian ministers where they attended my synagogue on Friday night and I attended their Sunday services. When I was married to a Catholic for years, I attended mass with her and was never made to feel out of place, except that of course I didn't take communion. Odd note: The NAACP started a Toastmasters club in Colorado Springs to teach its members to speak better before the media. It was an all-black club for its first few years. I was the Caucasian that broke its color barrier.

Crush -> RE: is a "whites only" party acceptable? or necessary? (6/24/2009 10:42:06 PM)
Sure, you can have an "X-only" party. Just expect there to be some outcry against it. Bald-headed men, unite! If you aren't genetically bald (less than 5000 hairs) then we don't want you in the crew! No shavers. No depilliators. Only naturally bald men. Segregation is segregation. Society may frown on it, but it is still going to happen in large and in small ways. (LEFTIES UNITE FOR A BETTER PAIR OF SCISSORS!)

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

3.198242E-02