Armenian Genocide

. A-K-P apparently lost 2.3 million votes

I don't like long discussions -especially political- and don't want to start one. but, your claim is nonsense.

Turkish local elections, 2014 – March 30, 2014
AKP: 43.31%
CHP: 25.59%
MHP: 17.63%

Turkish local elections, 2009 – March 22, 2009
AKP: 38.99%
CHP: 23.23%
MHP: 16.13%

Statistics says; in 2014 local elections of Turkey, 52,695,831 people voted in elections.

And, since AKP raised her vote-rate about 5%, this means they got 2.600,000 more votes, if we compare that with 2009 elections.

Even Gulen and CHP alliance couldn't get AKP down. And, after Erdogan's move towards Armenians, will raise his popularity in the world and in the next general election AKP will get more than 50% of votes.
 
Flying Pig said:
To me, the signs in landlords' windows saying 'no dogs, no blacks, no Irish' trump the 'scientific' 'understanding' of race.
Yep. Slavs weren't considered white as a matter of government policy or social standing. They were even considered to be beneath the Irish.
 
I don't know. I just noted that Armenians and Turks weren't considered suitable as immigrants to Australia because they weren't white. Flying Pig has agreed and noted that Slavs weren't considered white either. Domen's got all offended by our observations of how Brits and Australians saw race 50 years ago and is now trying to defend the whiteness of the Polish people in the here and now. It's a bit weird to say the least.
 
Yep. Slavs weren't considered white as a matter of government policy or social standing. They were even considered to be beneath the Irish.

By whom? Australians?

BTW - did they count Bulgarians and Russians as Slavs?

Domen's got all offended by our observations of how Brits and Australians saw race 50 years ago

Why would I get offended? I just pointed out how they saw it 140 years ago instead.

to defend the whiteness of the Polish people

So Australians and Brits also considered Sarmatians as not white? :)
 
Russians in particular were considered strange, savage people in Britain and Western Europe until extremely recently. Before about 1910, the only thing that European governments could agree on was that Russia should be kept as far away as possible. After a brief break for the Second World War and 'Uncle Joe' Stalin, the Cold War made it all too easy to stereotype them - you need only watch the James Bond films to see how. Even today some of the bitterest racism in the UK is directed towards Eastern Europeans, although relatively recent events mean that South Asians and Middle Easterners have been getting worse.
 
I asked if they were considered white. You answered that "no, they were considered savage".

So finally we know that "non-white" = "savage".

Even today some of the bitterest racism in the UK is directed towards Eastern Europeans

This was also my impression. Thanks for confirming my own conclusions.

I think that the UK is very politically correct when it comes to Muslims, Black people, etc.

But this political correctness is not applied towards your fellow Europeans from the eastern part of the continent.

This racism towards Eastern Europeans may also explain why Islam is not discriminated in the UK, but Catholicism and Orthodoxy are.
 
I asked if they were considered white. You answered that "no, they were considered savage".

So finally we know that "non-white" = "savage".

Well, yes - the point of being 'white' is that it means 'from the same ethnic group as us' to your white racist. This is my point - what matters is the groups that people put other people into, not the actual colour of their skin. To use the latter implies that there is something scientific and objective about race, which is simply not the case. The Irish, for example, were regularly described as 'white negroes' in the United States.

I think that the UK is very politically correct when it comes to Muslims, Black people, etc.

I really don't think Muslims get much political correctness. They certainly get far more violence whenever terrorism is in the news. There is certainly a huge amount of anti-Islamic prejudice around; I was rather disgusted with the Times lately for 'exposing' a 'fundamentalist Islamic plot' to 'take over schools' and 'indoctrinate children' which stank of bad journalism at best (they complained that an Arab-born school governor greeted teachers with 'salaam alaykum' and called it a 'Muslim greeting') and McCarthyism at worst.
 
Yes, then going home and throwing bricks through mosque windows.

I didn't know it is as bad.

Western propaganda always shows your tidy Western European corner as a peaceful place, unlike that savage Eastern part.

But the more I learn, the more it seems that the West is the real nest of racism, prejudices, and in general all bad things.

=======================================

When it comes to religious intolerance index, Western European is indeed currently well ahead of more tolerant Eastern Europe:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/sep/20/religious-restrictions-index-intolerance-rise#

Except for Russia, where intolerance is comparable to that in Western Europe (but probably discrimination is against different religions).

Social-hostilities-index--010.jpg
 
Domen said:
By whom? Australians?

By pretty much all English speakers.

Domen said:
Why would I get offended? I just pointed out how they saw it 140 years ago instead.
How one person saw it.
 
How one person saw it.

And classification quoted by you and by Flying Pig is from what source? Based on how many persons?

I found also other 19th century maps but they don't have such a thing like "white" race.

They have Caucasian race (probably equivalent of "white"), which divides into Aryan (these into Euro-Aryan and Indo-Aryan), Semitic and Hamitic.

In this map from 1890, Slavic people count as Euro-Aryan (Jews as Semitic - and therefore also white / Caucasian):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/25/Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg

Spoiler :
Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg

Meyers_b11_s0476a.jpg
 
Based on official Australian Government policy.
 
So basically it was how one person - Australian Prime Minister - saw it.

Russians in particular were considered strange, savage people in Britain and Western Europe until extremely recently.

Funny thing is that Russians are the highest-income ethnic group in the USA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita_income_in_the_United_States_by_ancestry

Worse in terms of household-income, perhaps due to less numerous families:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_household_income#By_Ancestry_or_ethnicity
 
Even if we make the ridiculous assumption that the Prime Minister was wholly responsible for setting immigration policy... we still had more than a few Prime Ministers between 1901 and 1945.
 
Well, I've heard that Australia recognized that Aborigines are human beings only during the 1970s, or something like this.

So I'm not really surprised that you were counting Slavs as people of Mongoloid (yellow) race, similar to Chinese or Japanese.

But as far as I know, Australian government cannot legislate Slavic people into changing their skin colour - or can it ???
 
You're really taking this rather personally, dude. What does it matter if Poles weren't considered to be white?
 
I was serious about this. I don't remember exactly, but AFAIK Aborigines had no rights until the 1970s.

Maybe this is some rumour, maybe not. Can you explain ???

Anyway - Aborigines were treated much worse than black people in South Africa during the Apartheid.

Quite recently Australian Prime Minister was even apologizing for some of those persecutions.
 
I'm not going to be drawn into that debate because you want to make some sort of point about how Poles are really members of the 'white race'.
 
Back
Top Bottom