Row over boy's monkey role in play
Jun 22 2006

A mother has taken her son out of a school play after he and another black pupil were cast as monkeys.

Lorraine Rees said that Ashley Down Infant School in Bristol had acted in a racist manner by asking her son to perform the role.

"I think what the school have done is definitely racist and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. It is just not acceptable".

"There is no way that black pupils should even be asked to play monkeys in any type of play".

Head teacher Helen Heap said an investigation into the incident would take place. Three other white students are to play monkeys in the play, which will be performed next month.
http://icharrow.icnetwork.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=17276098&method=full&siteid=50102&headline=row-over-boy-s-monkey-role-in-play-name_page.html

Considering the inherently racist nature of the US I don't blame the mother.

This happened in the U.K.

Oops. Just noticed that.

That's moronic.

If she doesn't like it we could always offer her and her sons a plane ticket back to the african nation of her choice so they can go live it up in that earthly paradise instead. I'm sure no one will ask her sons to play as monkeys in a school play there.

Oops. Just noticed that.
So, does that change your statement at all?

Yes. I don't know enough about racial stratification in Britain to make that claim. I don't think the British are nearly as redneck as the US is though.

Okay, so three white monkeys and two black monkeys? Shit man, I could understand if they made it so there was 10 monkeys and all were black, but more than half of the monkeys are white, 3 outta 5.

If she's upset about that, they outta just replace the three white monkeys with three more blacks and have the white guys whip em during the play or something. That outta give her a real reason to cry racism. :rolleyes:

That lady is the one being the racist, not the teacher.

- N

If anyone is racist, it is the mother.

Considering the inherently racist nature of the US I don't blame the mother.
Countries are inherently racist because people are inherently racist, even when they say they aren't. Granted, some people, and thus countries, are more conspicuously racist than others.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A36395-2005Jan25.html

Even if this happened in America, I would still say that it was the mother being racist and not the school. The mother should be slapped. Ignorance is bliss I guess.

why should we even care, its just a jumped up black women getting on her high horses about a kids play, lets put em in rags and put shackles on them and then see how she likes it

It's not like we enslaved the current black population in the UK anyway. Most of them were imported here from the West Indies in the 1950s.

So the whole slavery thing isn't even an issue for "British" black people.

It is very clear that many blacks view themselves as monkey like people.

It is very clear that many blacks view themselves as monkey like people.
:confused: They do?? I may be the newbie but that is the most asinine provacative comment I've heard in a long time!

:confused: They do?? I may be the newbie but that is the most asinine provacative comment I've heard in a long time!Would it have been "racist" for the teacher to decide NOT allow black children to play the role of monkeys?

Is that not what the mother is asking for?

The only one who is seeing these black African children as "monkeys" is their black African mother.

Speaking from her home in Henbury, Bristol, Mrs Rees said: "Everyone is aware of the racist connotations of asking a black pupil to play a monkey.

"I think what the school have done is definitely racist and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. It is just not acceptable.

"There is no way that black pupils should even be asked to play monkeys in any type of play.

"My son is very upset by all of this, he had wanted to play the part of a hunter but was told he would have to play the part of a monkey."

I agree with the mum. I think it's insensitive of the school at best.

And I think D'ster should be barred before I batter him.

What's wrong with playing a monkey? We're all apes anyway.
If africans resemble monkeys more than europeans, then more power to their roleplay.
I think the mother is so wrapped in her racism concepts, that she doesn't see her own arse.

And I think D'ster should be barred before I batter him.You still hold the primitive thoughts of our ape like ancestors, are you African?

A mother has taken her son out of a school play after he and another black pupil were cast as monkeys.

Lorraine Rees said that Ashley Down Infant School in Bristol had acted in a racist manner by asking her son to perform the role.

waa waa waa
i'm gonna play the race card.

what a crybaby.

Yea, I thought about the same. As if being black means you are entitled to some special privileges.

"I think what the school have done is definitely racist and should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. It is just not acceptable.

"There is no way that black pupils should even be asked to play monkeys in any type of play.

This is rather disturbing, in my opinion. So it's unacceptable for the black children to have a role as a monkey in the play, yet it's perfectly fine for the white children to have the role? Is the role not good enough for a black person? It seems to me that the mother is racist in her own right, as she has made it perfectly clear that, in her paradigm, black people should not be allowed to be portrayed as animals, but white people should instead take the role that black people are too good for. I don't think that the children being apes is racist. I think that if the children didn't get a role at all, it would have been racist. I think that if only black children were in the play, it would be racist. But a racially mixed cast where the child, regardless of if he's black or white, was not allowed to play the role of the hunter, just sounds like life to me, not racism. I'm sure for every black child in the play that wanted to be the hunter, there were two other white children who were equally disappointed when they didn't get the lead role. After all, there's only one spot.

AmishRakeFight

Would it have been "racist" for the teacher to decide NOT allow black children to play the role of monkeys?

Is that not what the mother is asking for?

The only one who is seeing these black African children as "monkeys" is their black African mother.

How does that justify the crass generalization that "many blacks view themselves as monkey like people."?

Yes. I don't know enough about racial stratification in Britain to make that claim. I don't think the British are nearly as redneck as the US is though.

what a racist statement. terrible- get a moderator to cusure this miscreant.

How does that justify the crass generalization that "many blacks view themselves as monkey like people."?Because it is always blacks who go ape shit over this issue.

Because it is always blacks who go ape shit over this issue.
this is a direct result of affimative action.'black' has nothing to do with it.
if the situation was reversed it would be whites "going ape shit".

this is a direct result of affimative action.'black' has nothing to do with it.
if the situation was reversed it would be whites "going ape shit".
"Three other white students are to play monkeys in the play, which will be performed next month".

This is rather disturbing, in my opinion. So it's unacceptable for the black children to have a role as a monkey in the play, yet it's perfectly fine for the white children to have the role? Is the role not good enough for a black person? It seems to me that the mother is racist in her own right, as she has made it perfectly clear that, in her paradigm, black people should not be allowed to be portrayed as animals, but white people should instead take the role that black people are too good for. I don't think that the children being apes is racist. I think that if the children didn't get a role at all, it would have been racist. I think that if only black children were in the play, it would be racist. But a racially mixed cast where the child, regardless of if he's black or white, was not allowed to play the role of the hunter, just sounds like life to me, not racism. I'm sure for every black child in the play that wanted to be the hunter, there were two other white children who were equally disappointed when they didn't get the lead role. After all, there's only one spot.
Very well said.
I agree.


I have to say that my first response was, "The kid is a toddler. Not only is it a silly children's play, but what kid would NOT want to play a monkey in a play? I would have absoluttely LOVED it."

Then I read the article.
I find it curious that D'ster copied and pasted nearly the entire article, but left out the part that the kid was upset about it. And how her complaint to the school went ignored.
But he left in the part about how the teacher said an investigation would take place and how white children are playing the monkey parts now.
Not that it makes a difference, I still agree with what AmishRakeFight said, but Just thought it was interesting how D'ster appears to have cherry picked the article and posted the most damning parts.



Okay, so three white monkeys and two black monkeys? Shit man, I could understand if they made it so there was 10 monkeys and all were black, but more than half of the monkeys are white, 3 outta 5.
I think the point in the article was that they replaced the black kids with white ones. In other words, there are 3 monkey parts, not five.

A mother has taken her son out of a school play after he and another black pupil were cast as monkeys.There were only two black pupils that played as monkeys. So, I don't think it was an all-black role. Just to toss something in the pot to think about.


[Renrue]

I think the point in the article was that they replaced the black kids with white ones. In other words, there are 3 monkey parts, not five.
Or maybe it was 4 monkeys - this kid, the other black kid and two whites - but now it is three white kids and the other black kid?

It's not very clear.

Regardless, she should not be playing the race card because her kid wanted the lead role and didn't get it.
If the kid did think it was racist (which it did not say, it just said he was upset that he got the monkey role instead of the lead role) he likely learned that from his parents.

"Three other white students are to play monkeys in the play, which will be performed next month".
you misunderstood.
if whites were disadvantaged like blacks used to be and made slaves the way blacks used to be.

blacks can play the race card because of affirmative action.
believe me, if whites could they would.
thats why i said what i did. it's human nature to weasel out of things you do not like.

I agree with the mum. I think it's insensitive of the school at best.

And I think D'ster should be barred before I batter him.


Spot the 'groid?

If the kid did think it was racist (which it did not say, it just said he was upset that he got the monkey role instead of the lead role) he likely learned that from his parents.
this is an interesting point
children pick on differences but that doesn't make them racists.
putting myself in a childs shoes i would probably be more curious than anything else

putting myself in a childs shoes i would probably be more curious than anything elseAre you trying to suggest that some how these children are like the monkey "curious" George?

Thats so racist!

Are you trying to suggest that some how these children are like the monkey "curious" George?

Thats so racist!
you misunderstood. . . again.

I'm fairly sure he was joking, leopold.

AmishRakeFight

you misunderstood. . . again.
You just got punked :)

You just got punked :)
oh man :o

You still hold the primitive thoughts of our ape like ancestors, are you African?
We're all African, brother.

Spot the 'groid?
'Groid as in negroid? I'm not black if that's what you mean. I'm Caucasian. But what fucking difference does it make?

Speaking from her home in Henbury, Bristol, Mrs Rees said: "Everyone is aware of the racist connotations of asking a black pupil to play a monkey.
Far from 'playing the race card', Mrs Rees is pointing out that, in a racist society, it's wrong to force black children into playing these roles because it serves to reinforce racist perceptions. What is so hard to understand about this?

Funny how the so called anti-racists inhere are the only racists in this thread.

Funny how the so called anti-racists inhere are the only racists in this thread.
Is that a reference to me? If so, further explanation is necessary.

Well I know that it's not the "racists" in here that are making threats of violence.

what a racist statement. terrible- get a moderator to cusure this miscreant.
Is this the way to treat the new guy?! What particularly is racist? I just don't know enough about race in Britain to comment. And the RedStates are chock full of rednecks that think racism is an American tradition. This thread is more than enough proof.

Far from 'playing the race card', Mrs Rees is pointing out that, in a racist society, it's wrong to force black children into playing these roles because it serves to reinforce racist perceptions. What is so hard to understand about this?Nobody is being "forced" to play a role, and it seams that this has only reinforce your racist perceptions.

I think the point in the article was that they replaced the black kids with white ones. In other words, there are 3 monkey parts, not five.No where in the article is the word "replaced" used.

The article says:
"Three other white students are to play monkeys in the play, which will be performed next month".

Is this the way to treat the new guy?! What particularly is racist? I just don't know enough about race in Britain to comment. And the RedStates are chock full of rednecks that think racism is an American tradition. This thread is more than enough proof.
Calling people "rednecks", is the same as calling people niggers.

I take it that those who say the mother was wrong are not black. Those who say that the children should be cast as monkeys are not black. To understand the thoughts that the mothers had, you'd have to understand what it is to be black.

That being said, if a black teacher wanted Jewish kids to play dead holocaust victims in a play, would that be racist? Or casting Italian kids as mafia members? How about German kids as Nazis? Spanish kids as wet backs sneaking over the border? Polish kids a dumb?

As the term "monkey" is perceived as an insult to blacks, is it a wonder that this mother feels that this is racist?

[G. F. Schleebenhorst - Educated White Man? Why do u feel the need to say that? Are U a racist? You name makes u sound like a german skin-head. Yeah, you're a racist. White Power!!!]

Yea, I thought about the same. As if being black means you are entitled to some special privileges.

No, as a black man, I expect nothing special. Just an even playing field. Nothing more, nothing less.

We're all apes anyway......
If africans resemble monkeys more than europeans,

in what way? the flattened nose? or perhaps a foot...

The negro foot impresses the beholder very disagreebly; its exceeding flatness, its low heel, projecting backwards, the prominent yet flat contour of the sides, the thick bolster of fat in the inner hollow of the foot, and the spread-out toes, serve to make it excessively ugly. The small length of the toes, however, is one circumstance in its favor, which may give it some claim, in the eye of the inexperienced, to beauty of form. The great toe is smaller than ours, and therefore appears more beautiful, and its shortness, compared with the second toe, greater than in the European. Here we observe at once a distinct characteristic of the lower animals. The smaller size of the second toe, in proportion to the first, is a marked peculiarity of the white man, and the short great toe of the negro a decided approximation to the type of the ape. This resemblance to the ape is further strengthened by the wide separation between the first and second toes of the negro foot. This is a peculiarity which strikes only the experienced eye. It is, however, the excessively flat foot which impresses every one so disagreeably. A popular American song characterizes, very aptly, the want of the hollow in the foot of the negro, thus.... Hermann Burmeister (http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/rbaapc:@field(DOCID+@lit(rbaapc03500div2)))

"De hollow of his foot
Make a hole in de groun'."

heh

Calling people "rednecks", is the same as calling people niggers.
I disagree. Many white men swell with pride and a big toothless grin when referred to as rednecks. I've seen bumperstickers proclaiming it, comedians profiting from it and musicians singing anthems to redneckdom, so no. It's not the same and most importantly it isn't a racial slur.

I disagree. Many black men swell with pride and a big toothless grin when referred to as niggers. I've seen album covers proclaiming it, comedians profiting from it and rappers singing anthems to niggerdom, so yes. It is the same and most importantly it is a racial slur.

in what way? the flattened nose? or perhaps a foot...

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.
The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.
The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.
The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.
The Negro has a shorter trunk, the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.
The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.
Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.
The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.
The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.
The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.
The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.
The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.
The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.
The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.
The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.
The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.
The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.
The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.
The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.
The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

I disagree. Many black men swell with pride and a big toothless grin when referred to as niggers. I've seen album covers proclaiming it, comedians profiting from it and rappers singing anthems to niggerdom, so no. It is the same and most importantly it is a racial slur.
Do you openly refer to blacks that way? The rednecks I work with don't have the cajones to in person but they love the N word in safe company.

I watch and hear blacks call each other niggers all the time.

Those who say that the children should be cast as monkeys are not black. To understand the thoughts that the mothers had, you'd have to understand what it is to be black.
I never thought of it that way.

I guess your right blacks do look like monkeys, especially when there young.

I watch and hear blacks call each other niggers all the time.
I hear it too from lumpen urban blacks. But as a white guy I would never use the term. Neither should blacks. It's a term that has a rich long history rooted in slavery and oppression. They've simply neutered the derogatory meaning, as gays have done with the word queer. Still doesn't make it acceptable in a civilized society.

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.
The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.
The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.
The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.
The Negro has a shorter trunk, the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.
The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.
Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.
The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.
The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.
The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.
The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.
The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.
The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.
The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.
The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.
The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.
The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.
The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.
The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.
The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

cool!
thanks!
have you ever fucked one of them?
i wonder what it must be like

:confused: Am I in the neo-nazi fora? Deeply disturbing. And I thought I was an extremist!! :rolleyes:

Anyone ever see a pet bird escaping and be instantly attacked by native sparrows or starlins?




Anyway as white English the worst attack against a differing race I see is muslims(both british and foreign) against whites. We have offered british muslims equal rights and citizenship yet they have a tremendous hate towards whites(white athiests in particular). Why would the bleeding heart liberals not account for this as racism?
I dont hate anyone for merely being different. I do however reserve animosity to anyone who themselves ascribe to a group that demands hate against difference. It is moronic for modern society to demonize only one group as racist, all groups are prejudiced against differences!

I dont honestly give a damn one way or the other really, but I do think energy would be better focused on racist crime rather than contemporary politically correct bull.

Are we all educated people here? We do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race, right? And we are living in a muticultural society?

Is this an example of secularism? And you wonder why the mother was upset!! Must have run into a few people like some on this forum, maybe, hmm?

This is rather disturbing, in my opinion. So it's unacceptable for the black children to have a role as a monkey in the play, yet it's perfectly fine for the white children to have the role? Is the role not good enough for a black person? It seems to me that the mother is racist in her own right, as she has made it perfectly clear that, in her paradigm, black people should not be allowed to be portrayed as animals, but white people should instead take the role that black people are too good for. I don't think that the children being apes is racist. I think that if the children didn't get a role at all, it would have been racist. I think that if only black children were in the play, it would be racist. But a racially mixed cast where the child, regardless of if he's black or white, was not allowed to play the role of the hunter, just sounds like life to me, not racism. I'm sure for every black child in the play that wanted to be the hunter, there were two other white children who were equally disappointed when they didn't get the lead role. After all, there's only one spot.

Does any of that seem racist to you?

Mrs Rees is pointing out that, in a racist society,

Redarmy, you must understand that every society is racist to some degree. Even the phrase "racist society" is fairly redundant, because every society, from the xenophobic French to the melting pot of America to the rugged towns of China, is racist, even if just a little bit.

it's wrong to force black children into playing these roles

But if white children are "forced" into playing the role, its fine? Are white people the default race in America or something? And last time I checked, when entering a elementary/middle school play, children sign up to be IN the play, not to be a certain role. The play director chooses who gets what part. The black children weren't "forced" into being in the play any more than the white children were "forced" into being in it. They signed up, they got their parts. End of story.

it serves to reinforce racist perceptions

Do you find it odd that, with 6,000,000,000 people alive on this rock we call home, at least 1 of those 6,000,000,000 might have a "racist perception" of white people being monkeys? Or of Latin people being monkeys? Or of monkeys being monkeys? I mean, come on, should every race complain because they have been chosen to portray an animal? Should the play direct bring in live monkeys to do the part that the humans are too good for? When does it stop?

And, in the real world, not everyone is trying to "keep the blacks down." But the majority of black people that I know still are stuck in an old mentality that the man is trying to keep them down, and that every gesture is one meant to slight them. Don't get me wrong, I love black people, and I've got several black friends. But there's always the select few who haven't changed, who don't want to change, and who will refuse-to-change themselves out of society's good graces.

AmishRakeFight

We have offered british muslims equal rights and citizenship yet they have a tremendous hate towards whites(white athiests in particular). Why would the bleeding heart liberals not account for this as racism?

oh?
do expand

Are we all educated people here? We do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race, right?
No that is not right race by its definition exists among humans. The old fallacies such as breed doesn't exist scientifically.

oh?
do expand
There is really nothing to expand on. I am a white atheist and I see attack against my groups human rights just as any afro-Caribbean would.

We do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race, right?If "we do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race"?

That would mean there is no such thing as racism, right?

If "we do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race"?

That would mean there is no such thing as racism, right?
Unfortunately no. We still have people that hate on other races. Racism might be funny to some righties but I wonder how much laughter there would be if we could drop the white racists off in central Congo. I would happily drive the truck to drop them off.

We do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race, right?
We still have people that hate on other racesOne of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does'nt belong.

Pick one.

Sorry, but some of you start to sound so alike.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does'nt belong.

Pick one.
Could it be that the Master Aryan made an error!? :eek: In fact it was I that said people still hate on other races.

i think that it would be more racist to tell the kids that only whites are allowed to play monkeys. i could understand if she made all and only the black kids monkeys(and some of them were good enough actors to have main parts instead), but this is just a mother getting pissed of because her son didnt get the lead in to play and being so black supremicist that she thinks her child deserves a better part simply because of his race.

One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just does'nt belong.

Pick one.

Race is an arbitrary label applied to people from different populations

Definition: Webster's
People who are believed to belong to the same genetic stock

However scientifically speaking there are not enough genetic differences between people to segregate them into races

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

P.S. Try Google or wikipedia intead of nitpicking

If "we do know that scientifically there is no such thing as race"?

That would mean there is no such thing as racism, right?


There is racism

Racism:An act of discrimination based on an ideology of racial superiority

Could it be that the Master Aryan made an error!? :eek: In fact it was I that said people still hate on other races.


Ya he is the master of cut selectively and paste indiscriminately

I'm just a Jewish kid from Los Angeles.

I'm just a Jewish kid from Los Angeles.
For real? I pictured you a tatooed skinhead in northern Idaho. :cool:

However scientifically speaking there are not enough genetic differences between people to segregate them into races

Who has the authority to say how much difference warrants a different racial clasification? There is no yard stick because no other species has a similar classification. One can argue that Wikipedia article may have been written by a PC influenced scientist. some races seperated 60000 years ago, modern humans are only thought to be 150000 years old. It is certainly debatable that any genetic difference that resulting from land seperation for so long should be defined as race.
If you want to use google Im sure every one of us could find unstifled recent scientific material that needs to use the term race to make sense.

For real? I pictured you a tatooed skinhead in northern Idaho. :cool:

ME TOO!! :eek:

Who has the authority to say how much difference warrants a different racial clasification? There is no yard stick because no other species has a similar classification. One can argue that Wikipedia article may have been written by a PC influenced scientist. some races seperated 60000 years ago, modern humans are only thought to be 150000 years old. It is certainly debatable that any genetic difference that resulting from land seperation for so long should be defined as race.
If you want to use google Im sure every one of us could find unstifled recent scientific material that needs to use the term race to make sense.


Oh Puh-lease!!!

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/iuaes/08-race.htm

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980909040042data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

Redarmy, you must understand that every society is racist to some degree. Even the phrase "racist society" is fairly redundant, because every society, from the xenophobic French to the melting pot of America to the rugged towns of China, is racist, even if just a little bit.
Granted - therefore educated people, and especially educators, should be aware of the consequences of their actions.

But if white children are "forced" into playing the role, its fine?
Yes, because white people aren't generally regarded as 'monkeys' by racist non-whites.

Are white people the default race in America or something?
I've no idea. I'm British, it's a British news story but, in any case, I think the issues involved are international.

And last time I checked, when entering a elementary/middle school play, children sign up to be IN the play, not to be a certain role. The play director chooses who gets what part.
Then they should choose more carefully.

The black children weren't "forced" into being in the play
No, but one of them was forced into playing an inappropriate role against his will (I accept that he was probably too young to realise that it was inappropriate, and probably had normal, selfish, child-like reasons for wanting a different part. Nevertheless, he was herded into playing an inappropriate role by an adult who should have known better, as were the other black children).

Do you find it odd that, with 6,000,000,000 people alive on this rock we call home, at least 1 of those 6,000,000,000 might have a "racist perception" of white people being monkeys? Or of Latin people being monkeys? Or of monkeys being monkeys? I mean, come on, should every race complain because they have been chosen to portray an animal?
I've never heard of white people, Latinos, Orientals, etc. being compared with monkeys in a derogatory way. I've frequently heard of black people being referred to and portrayed in this fashion, eg bananas being thrown at football matches whenever a black player gets the ball, to accompanying chimpanzee noises. It's a well-known stereotype, which the teacher should have been careful to avoid.

the majority of black people that I know still are stuck in an old mentality that the man is trying to keep them down, and that every gesture is one meant to slight them
Do you know any wealthy, educated black people? Do they see society in this way? Even assuming for a moment that what you say is true, do you not wonder why the majority of blacks that you know harbour such a grudge? To be honest, though, I'd say this is more a characteristic of the poor and the uneducated than of black people. I know plenty of poor, white people with similar views and attitudes. I also know plenty who are at the opposite end of the spectrum, with many more dotted in between these two points. It takes all sorts, I suppose.[/QUOTE]

To sum up? The teacher should have been more sensitive to the issues. Did he/she honestly not consider the possibility that black parents might object to their children being given a role with such strong racist associations? As for everyone else: try putting yourself in the place of the black parent before you comment further (naturally, this doesn't apply to the unapologetic racists amongst you, who should just die painfully).

Oh Puh-lease!!!

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/iuaes/08-race.htm

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980909040042data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/

OK I stand corrected.

Oh Puh-lease!!!

http://www.leidenuniv.nl/fsw/iuaes/08-race.htm
Much of the biological variation among populations involves modest degrees of variation in the frequency of shared traits. Human populations have at times been isolated, but have never genetically diverged enough to produce any barriers to interbreeding.All dogs, horses, cats etc..... can interbreed too, I guess all dogs are the same?
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980909040042data_trunc_sys.shtml
Templeton analyzed genetic data from mitochondrial DNA, a form inherited only from the maternal side; Y chromosome DNA, paternally inherited DNA; and nuclear DNA, inherited from both sexes. His results showed that 85 percent of genetic variation in the human DNA was due to individual variation. A mere 15 percent could be traced to what could be interpreted as "racial" differences.15% out of 100% is quite a difference to me.
http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Lewontin/
Despite the differences in amount of genetic variation within local populations, the finding that on the average 85% of all human genetic variation is within local populations has been a remarkably consistent result of independent studies carried out over twenty-five years using data from both proteins and DNA.15% is alot of difference.

Human DNA is about 98.4% the same as chimpanzee DNA. This means that all the differences between humans and chimps is contained in only 1.6% of our DNA. To put this another way, chimps are 98.4% the same as humans. Why is this important? Because the race-deniers try to tell us that all humans are virtually the same except for some itsy bitsy minor little genetic things. Even the most race-deniers should be able to see how that itsy bitsy 1.6% difference between humans and chimps results in a world of difference between the two creatures.

All dogs, horses, cats etc..... can interbreed too, I guess all dogs are the same?
15% out of 100% is quite a difference to me.
15% is alot of difference.

Human DNA is about 98.4% the same as chimpanzee DNA. This means that all the differences between humans and chimps is contained in only 1.6% of our DNA. To put this another way, chimps are 98.4% the same as humans. Why is this important? Because the race-deniers try to tell us that all humans are virtually the same except for some itsy bitsy minor little genetic things. Even the most race-deniers should be able to see how that itsy bitsy 1.6% difference between humans and chimps results in a world of difference between the two creatures.


Can you read? I mean really?

Then read this s-l-o-w-l-y

1.First, the human species as a whole has immense genetic variation from individual to individual. Any two unrelated human beings differ by about 3 million distinct DNA variants

2.by far the largest amount of that variation, about 85%, is among individuals within local national or linguistic populations, within the French, within the Kikuyu, within the Japanese

3.Of the remaining 15% of human variation, between a quarter and a half is between local populations within classically defined human “races,” between the French and the Ukrainians, between the Kikuyu and the Ewe, between the Japanese and the Koreans


That's all

Try again.

I never thought of it that way.

I guess your right blacks do look like monkeys, especially when there young.

I was gonna reply with so negative remark but that would make me just as stupid and ignorant as you. Grow up young boy. Grow up!!!

The hair is black, crispy, and "woolly" in texture, it is flat and elliptical with no central canal or duct like the hair of Europeans.
The nose is thick, broad and flat, often turned up nostrils exposing the red inner lining of the mucous membrane similar to an ape.
The arms and legs of the Negro are relatively longer than the European. The humerus is a trifle shorter and the forearm longer thereby approximating the simian form.
The eyes are prominent, iris black and the orbits large. The eye often has a yellowish sclerotic coat over it like that of a gorilla.
The Negro has a shorter trunk, the cross-section of the chest is more circular than whites. The pelvis is narrower and longer as it is in an ape.
The mouth is wide with very thick, large and protruding lips.
Negro skin has a thick superficial horny layer which resists scratching and impedes the penetration of germs.
The Negro has a larger and shorter neck akin to that of anthropoids.
The cranial sutures are more simple than in the white type and close together earlier.
The ears are roundish, rather small, standing somewhat high and detached thus approaching the simian form.
The Negro is more powerfully developed from the pelvis down and the white more powerfully developed in the chest.
The jaw is larger and stronger and protrudes outward which, along with lower retreating forehead, gives a facial angle of 68 to 70 degrees as opposed to a facial angle of 80 to 82 degrees for Europeans.
The hands and fingers are proportionally narrower and longer. The wrist and ankles are shorter and more robust.
The frontal and paricial bones of the cranium are less excavated and less capacious. The skull is thicker especially on the sides.
The brain of the Negro on the average is 9 to 20% smaller than whites.
The teeth are larger and are wider apart than in the white race.
The three curvatures of the spine are less pronounced in the Negro than in the white and thus more characteristic of an ape.
The femur of the Negro is less oblique, the tibia (shin bone) more curved and bent forward, the calf of the leg high and but little developed.
The heel is broad and projecting, the foot long and broad but slightly arched causing flat soles, the great toe is shorter than in the white.
The two bones proper of the nose are occasionally united, as in apes.

Mr. Moderator:

If I had just written the same thing detailing jews [as this idiot is] I would have been banned. You know it - I know it. Yet you let this human crap infest this forum? Why?

If you "had just written the same thing detailing jews" it would not have made any sence,
Jews and blacks are much different.

So now that there are no races, what are we going to call racism? It's not going to disappear like you Oprah Winfrey types think just because some tit in a white coat said there is no such thing as race.

Hatered to those who are different.

Today in the news I heard that many people from Eastern Europe last weekend got beaten up and their houses burned down by the Irish in the Northen Ireland. All the mass media calls it racism although any Latvian is as white as any Irish,
so nowadays we don't even use the word racism in reference to the skin colour.
It's hate and fear of those who are in some way different in the minds of those who hate and fear.
So in this aspect and situation they might as well call it all racism whether it's because of skin colour or nationality, religion or something else.

Prefrence for one race of people, does not mean hatered for another race of people.

I don't hate people because there different, I'm trying to expose the differences.

If I truly hated people because they were different, I would try get rid of our differences by trying to convince people that we are all the same.

Try again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence

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

Some more "research" ?

What's your excuse, D'ster?

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/race.htm

http://skepdic.com/iqrace.html

This is certainly very weird. Anti-jewish sentiment is looked down upon in this forum but anti-black propaganda is overlooked by moderators. Very strange. Maybe I will lodge an inquiry later on.

From what I've noticed it is not "Anti-jewish sentiment" I hear,

It is more like Anti-jewish jealously.

From what I've noticed it is not "Anti-jewish sentiment" I hear,

It is more like Anti-jewish jealously.

Yes we are so jealous of your fascinating personality :rolleyes:

The rednecks I work with don't have the cajones to in person but they love the N word in safe company.You work with "rednecks"?

You work with "rednecks"?
Unfortunately, yes.

Some more "research" ?

What's your excuse, D'ster?


NO ONE, not the NAACP, United Negro College Fund, or any educational group of any kind had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

NO ONE, not the NAACP, United Negro College Fund, or any educational group of any kind had been able to develop an intelligence test which shows Blacks and Whites scoring equally.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:IQ-4races-rotate-highres.png

1. I think that says more about the inherently flawed nature of intelligence tests than anything else. Therefore any conclusions that you draw from them are invalid.

2. I see that Asians score higher than whites on that graph. What conclusions do you draw from that?

3. Does it really matter which 'race' is the most 'intelligent' anyway? What are you trying to prove?

Well, think about it.

You could call those wikipedia stats on intelligence "willingness to be educated" and it would become a lot more clear.

Okay, so three white monkeys and two black monkeys? Shit man, I could understand if they made it so there was 10 monkeys and all were black, but more than half of the monkeys are white, 3 outta 5.

If she's upset about that, they outta just replace the three white monkeys with three more blacks and have the white guys whip em during the play or something. That outta give her a real reason to cry racism. :rolleyes:

That lady is the one being the racist, not the teacher.

- N

:D ...dude, you were wrong for that!...but funny. very funny. and true. i'm half black and i don't see why she's so upset. i hate that some black people actually look for reasons to be angry. if a white person tries to be sociable to a black person, even attempting to bridge the clutural gap, they are considered wannabes. if they just ignore them because, maybe they don't have much in common, they're racist. sometimes you just can't win.

seriously. who are the subjects of these tests? are the people all from the same area? it is a fact that a signifacantly higher percentage of upper-class people are not black (i'm not sayin' they're necessarily white) and that the majority of lower-class people are black. lower-class people tend to recieve a lower-quality education than upper-class people. in other words, is it any wonder that more white than black people statistically do better on standardized tests?

2. I see that Asians score higher than whites on that graph. What conclusions do you draw from that?
That Asians have a over all higher level of intelligents then do whites.

Unfortunately, yes.
What do "rednecks" do for work?