At least you said the fact that this isn't a news-worthy issue.

I think the race card is just desperately raised here to get some importance to a non-issue.

US doesn't have an illustrious past — frank

The US hasn't a past. The past it has is illustrious.

The US started it's Monroe Doctrine in 1823, only 47 years after the Declaration of Independence. Hence we can say that only for a few decades was the US just minding it's own business (or just quarreling with it's former masters).

think the race card is just desperately raised here to get some importance to a non-issue. — ssu

Racism is the issue being discussed in the OP. Are you saying the woman CBS interviewed is a liar? Or just mistaken?

Bullpucky. Nobody (not me anyway) gives a shit about Meg's heritage. She's a toxic female running and ruining the life of a weak male. That cuts across races. People want to make Meg-hate a racial thing but it's not. She's isolating him from his friends and family. Isn't that a classic sign of an abuser? Her own brother warned Harry not to marry this, ah, rhymes with witch. Broken relationship with her dad, totally self absorbed, loves living the lifestyle of the rich and famous. Marries into the Royal family then says, "It's not working for me."

My God is this all too complicated for people to see?

It's toxic femininity. Not racism.

Discuss the issue raised in the OP or step off, ok?

Discuss the issue raised in the OP or step off, ok? — frank

I don't watch videos. Text is faster. Can you summarize it please? It says it's about racism. I don't think there's a racial angle to this. The Royal family welcomed the hell out of her. People are trying to make this bitch into a victim.

I didn't realize the question would be hi-jacked in this way.

All I know about it is the CBS interview.

We'll let this thread meet the bit bucket.

I didn't realize the question would be hi-jacked in this way. — frank

I did not knowingly hijack. A lot of people are saying two things right now:

1) That Meghan was treated badly by the Royals due to her race. On the contrary, she was welcomed with open arms, given a boatload of money to renovate her free new house, welcomed at all family events, etc.

2) That people who criticize Meghen are racist. That is also not true. She's following a classic toxic female script.

If you post a video without actually making your point in the accompanying text, you can't be surprised that not every response will meet your expectations. I asked you if you'd summarize the video for me and I reiterate the request.

I could get the transcript from CBS, but I'd have to pay for it.

She's following a classic toxic female script. — fishfry

What is that and why is this perspective not sexist?

She's following a classic toxic female script.
— fishfry

What is that and why is this perspective not sexist? — frank

Labeling my remark sexist is not an argument against my point. I do apologize if you feel that I hijacked your thread. This isn't the time for me to explain toxic femininity to you; nor the concept of psychological scripts and unconscious motivations, and the male and female archetypes. I'd suggest you start with some Freud, some Eric Berne, some Jung perhaps.

I'll step off right here, thanks.

What I think both kinds of racism have in common is this: people engage in it to make themselves feel better about who they are. True? — frank

What if racist behaviour is a consequence of human genetics? There is overwhelming evidence in favour of kin selection, a form of selection where individuals act to the benefit of their relatives not of themselves (a very interesting topic); racism might be the consequence of a similar phenomenon but at a population level. Racism could be considered as a strategy carried by a genetically-related population to preserve its genetic material. It could be seen as an instinct of a genetically-related population.

There is overwhelming evidence in favour of kin selection, a form of selection where individuals act to the benefit of their relatives not of themselves (a very interesting topic); racism might be the consequence of a similar phenomenon but at a population level. — Daniel

A challenge to that would be Native Americans who were reported to lack racism altogether, and in fact it was reported that a tribe might choose to wage war specifically to obtain new men. By the 19th Century, all the eastern tribes-people were mixtures of white and native blood because of their lack of discrimination in adopting men (and women).

So if rejection of difference is genetic, it would have to be a feature of more populated areas where there's competition for gene expression instead of need for diversity because of the threat of in-breeding.

What is that and why is this perspective not sexist? — frank

I know @fishfryalready left but I would like to second this question. A quick Google of the phrase doesn't turn up anything that seems unambiguously reliable a source for it.

I also know next to nothing about the particulars of the royals so I'm not sure what it is Meghan is supposed to have done that fits that label.

(Sorry for continuing this tangent in a thread that's supposed to be about racism, not sexism, though now a part of me wonders if sexism isn't a confounding factor here too).

So if rejection of difference is genetic, it would have to be a feature of more populated areas where there's competition for gene expression instead of need for diversity because of the threat of in-breeding. — frank

Or a feature not shared by all gene pools, taking into account that populations next to each other tend to share more genetic markers between them than with populations located farther away (I think). Think of a population as an animal with a number of traits; if certain traits promote its survival, those traits may be favoured by some kind of population selection phenomena. Maybe in the evolution of the native American tribes there was not a selective factor for racism but there was one for other populations. A selective factor could be population size or in-breeding (against?), as you said. Others could be terrain, reproductive availability (if you know what i mean), resource availability, or a mix of all these, making it a very very complex trait, as any other behaviour, right?

I was thinking of starting a thread on this myself. I think the video spells out the issue well. I would only reiterate the mention of the way the media operates in the UK. It has become normalised for the entire media to examine the lives of certain, chosen, Royals in minute detail and to turn any slightly interesting, or controversial developments, or circumstances into a media storm. This level of scrutiny is unprecedented anywhere else or against any other group of celebrities.

The press pack is lead by a group of competing newspapers known as the gutter press. The Daily Mail, The Mail on Sunday, The Daily Express, The Sun, The Daily Mirror. These rags blow up any tittle tattle, selacious gossip, juicy stories into media storms daily and once they latch on to a Royal story they just don't stop. Yesterday, as I walked past the newstand in my local Supermarket, every front page( including the serious papers) had large photos of the Queen, or Meghan, or Harry, pulling faces, or looking angry. This has been going on continuously since the story broke and won't stop for months.

This is followed by the mainstream TV repeating sanitised versions of the story's ad hominem, until everyone is sick of it.

More broadly and what is the base perspective of these rags is a toxic cocktail of sexism, misogyny and racism, which pervades a rump of the population who read these newspapers. Perhaps half a million to 2 million people. This then pervades a larger group, who will imbibe the vitriol almost subliminally, while not questioning it, or giving it much thought. This same rump were very vocally in favour of Brexit by the way.

A new word has been coined to describe the prejudice against Meghan, misogenior. A combination of misogyny and racism against black, or people of a West Indian heritage.

The majority of the population in the UK are broadly supportive of the Harry and Meghan, and are either appalled by what has happened, or simply don't see it as an important story at all.

I didn't realize the question would be hi-jacked in this way. — frank

Come on, Frank. Anyone with 3,980 posts (--you, at the time of this post) should know that your topic was doomed from the get go. The least you could have done was say something devastatingly clever, sarcastic, and insulting about the royal parasites.

Megan kissed the right frog and is now ungrateful. Send her back.

And who is this person pontificating on the video? Why should we spare her the time of day?

The US doesn't have an illustrious past, and instead has a history of struggling to survive. — frank

As national states go, the US has a sufficiently illustrious past. We successfully seized our country from other people, which is the usual way nations get big and powerful. Powerful nations have never been established through a sensitive respect for native cultures or peaceful coexistence. Never mind this e pluribus unum crap. Our predatory symbol should have in its talons the legend, "Accipere facilis est et accipe illud!" -- Take it easy, and take it all!

We ought to enjoy the remaining years of our supremacy before someone else decides it's their turn for a go at world domination.

I say they were # hacked off.

Racism is the issue being discussed in the OP. — frank

Then the question ought to discussed seriously than from the viewpoint of "Megxit".

Are you saying the woman CBS interviewed is a liar? — frank

Did you ever watch yourself the media frenzy when the Meghan - Harry relationship was revealed and when their wedding was announced? Ever noticed it?

Sorry, but I don't read some obscure alt-right news and the media coverage what I remember, the so-called "MSM", was full of rejoice and overt happiness that the Royal family was so progressive and was open to Meghan to join. Ever heard the line that Meghan and Harry were the new face of the crown? No????

Megxit-drama is one of the worthless issues that the British tabloid press comes up with. We (and the Royal family) would be better off without it, but the press has to make money somehow. Linking it up racism to it is a cynical way to try to capture the public discussion for some to push their own agendas.

Yes, the MSM mood was, from the start, predominantly celebratory re the relationship. In a stupid patronising way, but, whatever, they were making money. Which seems to be the primary motivation for this piece too. The second that M and H announced the step back, there was an editor somewhere saying to himself "Can we get a race angle on this?" and another "Can we do a Meghan-the-man-eater thing here?" and another "How about the spoiled-ungrateful-brat take?" Whatever sells. There are enough factoids out there to piece together a narrative convincing enough for some media target market to swallow it. Which is not to say there's not an element of truth in any of the stories, just that they're consumer products parasitising a hapless couple who are themselves parasitising the British taxpayer and sensibly (in my view) want a break from the whole sick shitshow.

I fully agree. It likely has gone just like that.

Yes, the MSM mood was, from the start, predominantly celebratory re the relationship. In a stupid patronising way, but, whatever, they were making money. Which seems to be the primary motivation for this piece too. The second that M and H announced the step back, there was an editor somewhere saying to himself "Can we get a race angle on this?" and another "Can we do a Meghan-the-man-eater thing here?" and another "How about the spoiled-ungrateful-brat take?" Whatever sells. There are enough factoids out there to piece together a narrative convincing enough for some media target market to swallow it. Which is not to say there's not an element of truth in any of the stories, just that they're consumer products parasitising a hapless couple who are themselves parasitising the British taxpayer, and sensibly (in my view) want a break from the whole sick shitshow. — Baden

Yep.

Meghan seems like a decent person to me...Harry seems like an up-right guy. He, understandably, is remembering how the British press hounded his mother...and is deploring the bullshit coming his and Meghan's way right now.

Yeah...they both knew it would happen...but that does not make it any more tolerable...not for him or for her.

Good for them for standing up to the crap.

Things like alleged racism are always difficult to discuss, because different social groups are so very different - it hadn't occurred to me that 'Meghan' was anything but an American, un-hyphenated. Countries differ, and differ in the way they perceive what goes on elsewhere. America was hugely influenced by the need to justify slavery, whereas the UK used it to justify imperialism, which most people couldn't care less about - their 'hatred', nasty though it was, was mainly of outsiders, especially noticeable ones - skin different, different clothes etcetera, and as with reactions to the Irish, it changes over time. Outside football grounds, to my notion, there is little real anti-West-Indian feeling now, and a lot of imitation, whereas the mugs deeply detest 'Pakis' because they don't all learn English, have a different religion and behave so differently. I must admit, violently anti-racist as I have always been, having had to fight my reactions when I saw a Pakistani man walking along the pavement with his wife behind him like a dog - my urge to kick the bugger's arse was almost overwhelming. I come from a culture, however, where crowds would come out and night and make wife-beaters ride the Ceffyl pren (wooden horse) while they jeered ands threw things. I think Meghan, apart from the odd, Irish spelling of her name, started off with great popular goodwill, but antagonised the journalists, as most decent people do. I don't think these people are any of my business, but if they want to be 'celebs' I suppose they ask for opinions!

What I gather is that:

1. SSU is innundated by information about the royal family and can't get away from it. He's possibly in some Finnish basement somewhere being forced to read a tabloid with his eyes pried open like that guy in A Clockwork Orange. He may even be that guy.

2. Bittercrank wants to know why anybody would take the black lady on the video seriously. Well, Vlad was interviewing her and I might be slightly in love with Vlad. Why else?

3. Baden is saying the black lady's testimony is unreliable. It didn't sound unreliable, but ok.

4. Punshh says some British people throw a lot of energy into being really nasty, which I already knew.

5. Iolo talked about how people justify their cultural shadow and then he gave valuable information about events on the ground. Pakis don't assimilate. A lot of American Latinos don't assimilate, but they mostly look white and they're Christian. Their wives don't follow behind. By and large, Latinos are short and cute and whites and blacks just want to squeeze them and give them a big kiss, and talk really loudly to them like that will make the English translate better. Not really.

The takeaway is that if you only watch one CBS segment on racism in the UK, you might walk away with a wrong impression of what's going on?

Baden is saying the black lady's testimony is unreliable. It didn't sound unreliable, but ok. — frank

Not in all respects. There was some solid stuff in there. The Daily Mail is for example a horribly nasty right-wing rag, Boris Johnson is racist, black people aren't well-integrated into the British establishment, and the stuff about class she briefly touched on is also cogent. But she's creating a narrative about the reasons for M and H's recent decision based on speculation along a certain angle for consumption by a certain market. And the hosts take this, exaggerate it, and run with it in a somewhat sensationalised way, which she's happy to accommodate. Similarly @fishfry has his own speculative narrative built up from his interpretation of the facts (and for some reason is even more inordinately sure of himself). So, genuine concern over a genuine issue or poking the market for profit? Mixed bag at best.

As for British v American racism, the history differs, but I don't see any clear division there. The majority of the myriad forms of expression of this ugliness span both sides of the Atlantic imo. Though if someone has a bit more meat to put on the opposing argument, I'll bite.

Rich & famous (for the talent of marrying up) colored lady got her feelings hurt, so then fucks off in a huff back to where she came from? And I'm suppose to have more than zero fucks to give about that? Because, y'know, everyday peeps - colored or whatever - don't get treated like that (or usually worse)? Bollocks, mate! Sorry. Pinched-off my daily MegXit this morning, feeling less full of it and quite relieved on that account.

For fuck's sake. :brow:

[How you like my drive-by quasi-Jonathan Pie rant?]

As for British v American racism, the history differs, but I don't see any clear division there. The majority of the myriad forms of expression of this ugliness span both sides of the Atlantic imo. Though if someone has a bit more meat to put on the opposing argument, I'll bite. — Baden

There's principle-based racism, which is institutional, and then unique flares of racism that are responses to stress. If the US and the UK share principles that give rise to institutional racism, there won't be a difference there. Stress-response racism (or more broadly, intolerance of any kind) would be expected to vary in character even in the same culture from episode to episode.

What interested me about the woman's testimony in the interview was the comment that when more established news outlets allow racist expressions, it gives permission to the wider population to indulge in it. I don't really care why M+H are doing whatever they're doing. It was that idea of permission being given that caught my attention.

What I hear you saying is that a distorted version of events was presented by this CBS segment. The issue of racism wasn't there originally. It was fabricated and retrojected for the purpose of sensational news. The reason I'm pretty open to accepting that is that I witness on this forum distorted narratives about life in America, and there doesn't appear to be any way to correct it. Any attempt to give a counter view is brushed off as denial or delusion. IOW, news outlets don't help us understand one another, and our natural tendencies don't help either, which is interesting.

What I hear you saying is that a distorted version of events was presented by this CBS segment. The issue of racism wasn't there originally. It was fabricated and retrojected for the purpose of sensational news. The reason I'm pretty open to accepting that is that I witness on this forum distorted narratives about life in America, and there doesn't appear to be any way to correct it. Any attempt to give a counter view is brushed off as denial or delusion. IOW, news outlets don't help us understand one another, and our natural tendencies don't help either, which is interesting. — frank

Tell me...do you think Danny Baker was telling the truth when he said he did not realize his picture of a couple with a chimp in a tweet about Meghan and Harry leaving the hospital with their child...would be offensive?

"Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up," Baker wrote. "Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

I think we should give Meghan some credit, I think she is moving to Canada to protect the kids from that kind of exposure and vilification that is going to be dedicated to her and them in the UK.
I would do that, although, I wouldn't have married him in the first place.

Regarding the permission point, yes, I am concerned about this. Because the BBC, which is a nationalised institution is regarded widely as only purveying the true reality, which can be trusted above all else. Indeed whatever and however any story is covered on radio 4 is gospel. Most of the population will take this as granting permission. Although to the BBC's credit, they did not indulge in the overt racism and were quite balanced on institutionalised racism and sexism. The issue I have with their coverage is their elevation of details of the family life of H and M to the level of important national news, on a par with politics. Indeed it easily pushes Johnson etc of the headline slot.

Going back to the salacious vilification purveyed by the papers, it acts as a dog whistle for the bigoted racist rump I mentioned before. Which over time seeps into general discourse.

What I hear you saying is that a distorted version of events was presented by this CBS segment. The issue of racism wasn't there originally. It was fabricated and retrojected for the purpose of sensational news. — frank

I can't say for sure what was and wasn't there, but my speculative narrative, if I could be bothered with one, would be as valid as the one in the segment or fishfry's. So, I'd put it that there's a mix of something important (racism) and something trivial (M and H splitting off) and the way the media deals with this type of thing trivializes the important and elevates the trivial.

We need to get you your own YouTube channel, mate. :naughty: :party:

Tell me...do you think Danny Baker was telling the truth when he said he did not realize his picture of a couple with a chimp in a tweet about Meghan and Harry leaving the hospital with their child...would be offensive?

"Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up," Baker wrote. "Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased. — Frank Apisa

I guess it's possible. No?