Went for an eye test today and was asked what my ethnicity was. Thinking that Klingon wouldn't be taken seriously I repled, "White Afro Caribbean". Not surprisingly I got a startled look and a bit of an uncertain smile.
In the bad old days when we were a racist country I can understand the need to capture this info to ensure no racism was taking place, i.e. "their eyes" are as important as "our eyes" and all must get a fair crack of the whip.
While I was waiting my turn I had a nice chat with a gentleman (he was) of sub-continentinal ethnicity. We were, however, both British (I'm actually English, but no matter). Our ethnicity was irrelevant.
Now of course, Britian is truly multicultural and most decent and/or educated people don't make a distinction between the colour of people's skin (most Brit girls like a fake brown skin anyway), so why do public institutions still gather this info?
Surely it's time we dropped this racist process?
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i refuse to tick the boxes, most forms now have a "prefer not to say" option.
i like to tick the box that says other i find it leaves them wondering ......
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Sid - are you not mixing up two things in your post - race and culture?
You were talking about race and ethnicity and then you mentioned multi-cultural, totally different. A common mistake that many make.
We are a mult-racial society, true - no problem with that. Labour's failed apartied experiment with muli-culturalism is discredited and over.
Agree with the thrust of what you say though. I will not give a serious answer to any questions like that - indeed, Klingon would be a good answer, I will remember it.
Yes Barry I deliberately mixed the two, they go hand in hand.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo Sid.... not at all.
A society needs a common culture, its the glue that holds it together. We need integration, not seperation.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
quite right barry, i do not give a monkeys about someones background.
mind you i couldn't really, just that we all live by the the same standards and responsibilities.
I had to drive through parts of London today and at times thought it was like Bagdhad - I saw so many veils in use and at one point saw three little girls (I assume girls - can't be totally sure of course) in little white burkhas. I found it quite offensive. Does that make me racist? Or does it mean I think women are equal but different to men and should not have to conform to a male-derived stereotype of restricted femininity and sexuality that even proscribes 8 and 9 year olds dress and eqautes their white burkhas with purity?
No Bern, it just means you are intolerant my girl. Carry on like this and you'll have to sit at the front of the class.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
all too guardian reading earnest stuff for me.
But with far fewer spelling mistakes eh?
To simplify: why should I wear what men think is suitable for me and covers anything that a man could claim was provocative when I can vote, read, cook, break wind, earn my living and that of my family come to that, sort out my car engine, manage a single service budget of over £10million at work, probably deck most men easily and without breaking sweat, read Hebrew Greek and Latin, and tell the difference between a good wine and a great wine?
Or in Grauniad speak: Women are quale and have the vite.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
I liked your number 12 post Bern - very good; I agree with it too, by the way.
Roger
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
here here. We are far too tolerant in this country...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
I can see that the difference in culture between British and Muslims in Britain is heading on for a severe clash as time goes by, added to which the clash in Afghanistan, which ia also about culture and different views. I really find it hard to comment further than I already have expressed my views on this, but I totally disagree with Sid bulldozing every person's views down as racist when they are not exactly in conformity with those of Mr. Perkins! Sid, people might start getting fed-up with your insults. I am!
Erm Alexander, I don't think you will find mention of Eastern Europeans "marching" into our jobs or of Pols/Ukranians stealing from us in any of my posts. You may find one or several mentions in this vein within your own though.
Still, it's good to see you have learnt how to use the Labour tactic of spinning the truth to suit your position. Maybe UKIP will benefit from that style of approach, it worked for TB/GB.
Another classic example of the "Muslim brotherhood" today.
12 people murdered in Afghanistan because they were alledgedly preaching christianity. Forget the fact that they were there trying to give sight to the locals. "Dont you just love 'em"
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
jimmy
the considered decision so far is that they were murdered by robbers.
the taleban claim all sorts of things.
sid
i hardly think that the reds are masters of spin, it was invented by the blues who employed the saatchi brothers.
Howard,
Have I missed the point here ??12 people murdered and you try to excuse it because the killers were allegedly robbers?? Robbers or taliban it makes no differance to those people now.
Just another example of do gooders shooting themselves in the foot.