Greek Triple-Jumper Barred for Twitter Joke

[Ormurinn]

Here

On Monday, she tweeted: 'With so many Africans in Greece... At least the West Nile mosquitoes will eat home made food!!!'
This is a reference to an outbreak of the West Nile virus, a potentially fatal disease transmitted by mosquitoes of African origin, in Athens this summer.

She also re-tweeted a comment from Ilias Kasidiaris, a politician with Golden Dawn, criticising Prime Minister Antonis Samaras's stance on immigration.

Im in two minds about this - there are references to her breaking a contract by making those statements. If so, then fair enough, though the remark doesn't seem particularly racist. If no contract was broken, then its another case of oversensitive bureaucrats.

Its the re-tweet of the political view being held against her that I find more disconcerting. That's a seriously scary development.

Thoughts?

[lutzj]

Its the re-tweet of the political view being held against her that I find more disconcerting. That's a seriously scary development.

The IOC takes a very hard line against politicizing of the Games. I think it's a reasonable stance. Competing in the Olympics is not a right.

[Ormurinn]

Its the re-tweet of the political view being held against her that I find more disconcerting. That's a seriously scary development.

The IOC takes a very hard line against politicizing of the Games. I think it's a reasonable stance. Competing in the Olympics is not a right.

Absolutely, but all she did was re-tweet a statement she agreed with.It seems disproportionate, and targeted. Is a re-tweet really a politisisation?

[Роберт]

Absolutely, but all she did was re-tweet a statement she agreed with.It seems disproportionate, and targeted. Is a re-tweet really a politisisation?

The first paragraph of the article you linked to:

Papachristou, still in Athens, is now banned from travelling to London for the Games after a series of offensive posts on African immigrants and is the first athlete sanctioned from the Olympics for a social media offence.

So. Could we stick to what actually happened when talking about whether or not it's appropriate?

[Xeio]

Absolutely, but all she did was re-tweet a statement she agreed with.It seems disproportionate, and targeted. Is a re-tweet really a politisisation?

Is there a meaningful difference between tweeting something and retweeting something?

[Garm]

"Doesn't seem particularly racist"?

[Ormurinn]

Absolutely, but all she did was re-tweet a statement she agreed with.It seems disproportionate, and targeted. Is a re-tweet really a politisisation?

The first paragraph of the article you linked to:

Papachristou, still in Athens, is now banned from travelling to London for the Games after a series of offensive posts on African immigrants and is the first athlete sanctioned from the Olympics for a social media offence.

So. Could we stick to what actually happened when talking about whether or not it's appropriate?

In the context of politisisation, the only political statement she made was the re-tweet of an anti-immigration politician's stance. sorry if that wasnt clear. I can't find a source for the other tweets, just he one about the West Nile Virus.

"Doesn't seem particularly racist"?

rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

I don't think implying that African mosquitoes would find African blood more familiar fulfills either of those definitions - maybe in a strictly literal sense (different-tasting blood is a "characteristic specific to that race" in this joke) but that's weak.

Could someone enlighten me as to why this statement is actually offensive?

[omgryebread]

rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

I don't think implying that African mosquitoes would find African blood more familiar fulfills either of those definitions - maybe in a strictly literal sense (different-tasting blood is a "characteristic specific to that race" in this joke) but that's weak.

Could someone enlighten me as to why this statement is actually offensive?

Maybe this is a "if you have to ask..." sort of thing, but generally talking about differences between races outside of an academic setting, and then still very carefully is offensive or at best, very unclassy.

Since she's doing it very unscientifically, and her statements are about half a millimeter away from wishing a deadly disease on people based on their race, I'm pretty comfortable classifying the comment as racist.

Also, following/retweeting/acknowledging the existence of Golden Dawn except to ridicule or rail against them is a pretty good indication of racism as well.

[Роберт]

In the context of politisisation, the only political statement she made was the re-tweet of an anti-immigration politician's stance. sorry if that wasnt clear. I can't find a source for the other tweets, just he one about the West Nile Virus.

And you really think that that lone re-tweet, without the context of the other tweets, would have gotten her banned, and think that the assumption is so probably we can discuss the incident as if it played out that way?

Well. I disagree.

[Garm]

rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun:
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.

I don't think implying that African mosquitoes would find African blood more familiar fulfills either of those definitions - maybe in a strictly literal sense (different-tasting blood is a "characteristic specific to that race" in this joke) but that's weak.

Could someone enlighten me as to why this statement is actually offensive?

Maybe this is a "if you have to ask..." sort of thing, but generally talking about differences between races outside of an academic setting, and then still very carefully is offensive or at best, very unclassy.

Since she's doing it very unscientifically, and her statements are about half a millimeter away from wishing a deadly disease on people based on their race, I'm pretty comfortable classifying the comment as racist.

Also, following/retweeting/acknowledging the existence of Golden Dawn except to ridicule or rail against them is a pretty good indication of racism as well.

Thanks for that Ryebread.

I would add that implication of her tweet is the opposite of what you say. Home made food is generally thought to be better or at least more comforting. This falls right in to definition number one of the dictionary definition you posted. Namely, she's implying that people of African descent are found to be more tasty to African mosquitoes than those of "Mediterranean" descent (or whatever term they're using these days). That seems to be saying that a 'race' possesses a certain characteristic to me.

[Ormurinn]

Maybe this is a "if you have to ask..." sort of thing, but generally talking about differences between races outside of an academic setting, and then still very carefully is offensive or at best, very unclassy.

Since she's doing it very unscientifically, and her statements are about half a millimeter away from wishing a deadly disease on people based on their race, I'm pretty comfortable classifying the comment as racist.

Also, following/retweeting/acknowledging the existence of Golden Dawn except to ridicule or rail against them is a pretty good indication of racism as well.

Why is discussing differences between races offensive? One of my colleagues brought up the other week that she'd read that mixed-race individuals made better athletes because they had a more diverse gene-pool, and thus a wider selection of positive genes could find themselves within their DNA. No-one found that offensive (though some disagreed). It's pretty generally acknowledged that Africans tend to make good runners, Northern Europeans and Slavs good strongmen etc.

I can't imagine her getting the same treatment if shed tweeted "Pubs will be doing good business tonight, the Irish are coming over!"

With regards to your second point, It's possible to be anti-immigration without being racist. I know a number of people who vote BNP because their candidate treats them best, and their platform has good economic and social policy elements.

I would add that implication of her tweet is the opposite of what you say. Home made food is generally thought to be better or at least more comforting. This falls right in to definition number one of the dictionary definition you posted. Namely, she's implying that people of African descent are found to be more tasty to African mosquitoes than those of "Mediterranean" descent (or whatever term they're using these days). That seems to be saying that a 'race' possesses a certain characteristic to me.

Yeah, I acknowledged that it fit the literal definition - but then so would saying "Basques are predominately haplogroup R1b" or "those Welsh are good singers." Usually for something to be attributed as "Racist" (in the way the term is actually used) It has to be offensive. Call me crazy, but "You're tasty and comforting" Is pretty much the opposite of that.

[Izawwlgood]

The IOC takes a very hard line against politicizing of the Games. I think it's a reasonable stance. Competing in the Olympics is not a right.

I'm coming from a position of relative ignorance here, but is the above bolded true? Who is allowed to compete in the Olympics? Or do you mean that Olympians are subject to a series of fairly strict ethical codes that they must follow, in terms of what they are allowed to say publicly, etc?

[Choboman]

I'm conflicted about the subject. I don't like racism or that we (as a people) still demonstrate a large degree of group-ism, but I'm also really reluctant to endorse so much restriction of free speech. If she said something as a representative of the Olympics that's one thing, but if she posts as an individual to a quasi-private distribution I have a little harder time accepting her ban-hammer.

[Jahoclave]

Seriously, you can't understand why a comment made in malice towards an ethic group is racist? Secondly, it's a logically stupid comment. West Nile is a reference to a virus, not the mosquitoes carrying it, which would be Grecian in origin.

Thirdly, and here's where it gets really racist, he's linking a commonly despised insect as having a preference for a certain ethnic group and then linking a disease outbreak with that group as well through this comment. It's a lot like how Republicans in the U.S. have tough on crime campaigns and then point to such high rates of inner city crime that needs to be dealt with--they might not say, look at them scary black people vote for me and I'll keep them out of your suburban neighborhoods, but that's the implication, and it's racist.

Fourth, and now for some more racism, there's the implication that if you're of African origin then you aren't Greek and can't be Greek, even if your family has been in Greece for generations and you only speak Greek. He's deliberately othering a group and disparaging them to a food product.

You may now stop pretending this statement isn't racist. You know, in order to be a better human being.


@Chobo, if we're worried about free speech, this is the least of our worries in terms of Olympic restrictions... You know, the ad police and all...

[Radical_Initiator]

The IOC takes a very hard line against politicizing of the Games. I think it's a reasonable stance. Competing in the Olympics is not a right.

I'm coming from a position of relative ignorance here, but is the above bolded true? Who is allowed to compete in the Olympics? Or do you mean that Olympians are subject to a series of fairly strict ethical codes that they must follow, in terms of what they are allowed to say publicly, etc?

I can't put forward a good source at the moment, but I am fairly certain that generally, only athletes from countries that have a national organizing body (such as a NOC) are permitted to participate, at least without special dispensation from the IOC itself. There was a recent question regarding a South Sudanese runner, Guor Marial, who wished to compete in London but is not yet a US citizen (and South Sudan has no NOC as of now, what with being too busy trying to survive). He is being allowed to participate as an independent, but only because the IOC allowed it.

Otherwise, qualification varies by sport, I believe; some sports are fielded by teams created by the NOCs (I'm thinking mostly major team events, like basketball and gymnastics), while others (often individual events) can qualify on their own and may or may not be members of a larger "team" contingent - the IOC does allow for "wild-cards" in some events. Regardless, with the exception of Marial, all athletes are competing under the auspices of a recognized national committee, and those committees are quite likely able to disqualify or refuse to field an athlete who does not comply with their own regulations. If you are a national or can claim citizenship in a country that has a recognized NOC, you'll have to follow their rules if you want to compete under their flag.

[Garm]

To link a few links and pick a few nits:

Jahoclave, the tweetor in question is a lady: http://deadspin.com/5928886/greek-olympian-banned-for-racist-twitter-joke

Radical, here's a source on the marathoner: http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/breaking/chi-south-sudanese-marathoner-gets-into-olympics-20120721,0,2261158.story

The IOC cracks down on things like this tweet because of things like this

[Ormurinn]

Seriously, you can't understand why a comment made in malice towards an ethic group is racist? Secondly, it's a logically stupid comment. West Nile is a reference to a virus, not the mosquitoes carrying it, which would be Grecian in origin.

Its a joke. It doesn't need to have scientific merit.

Thirdly, and here's where it gets really racist, he's linking a commonly despised insect as having a preference for a certain ethnic group and then linking a disease outbreak with that group as well through this comment. It's a lot like how Republicans in the U.S. have tough on crime campaigns and then point to such high rates of inner city crime that needs to be dealt with--they might not say, look at them scary black people vote for me and I'll keep them out of your suburban neighborhoods, but that's the implication, and it's racist.

Well it's she, to start. Even if we take everything as you do, it's still a case of "squint really hard and interpret with the worst possible meaning and its maybe sort of kind of racist." Thanks though, I didn't realise that thinking inner city crime is a problem is racist.

Fourth, and now for some more racism, there's the implication that if you're of African origin then you aren't Greek and can't be Greek, even if your family has been in Greece for generations and you only speak Greek. He's deliberately othering a group and disparaging them to a food product.

Greek is an ethnicity as well as a nationality. A Naturalised African immigrant can certainly be a Greek citizen, but to suggest that they're ethnically Greek too robs both groups of their identities. Its ridiculous - its like me moving to america and claiming to be Navajo.

You may now stop pretending this statement isn't racist. You know, in order to be a better human being.

I'm not pretending anything. The definition of racism you're applying makes anyone who notices differences between races into a racist, which is at odds with how the word is used in everyday life. Most people would accept for instance, that "I hate niggers" is a racist statement while "Kenyans make good sprinters" isn't. "LOL africans are tasty to mosquitoes" is certainly nearer the latter than the former. Its a crap joke, but I don't think its worth crushing this woman's career over.

@Chobo, if we're worried about free speech, this is the least of our worries in terms of Olympic restrictions... You know, the ad police and all...

Yeah, that's disgusting too.

[Jahoclave]

Seriously, you can't understand why a comment made in malice towards an ethic group is racist? Secondly, it's a logically stupid comment. West Nile is a reference to a virus, not the mosquitoes carrying it, which would be Grecian in origin.

Its a joke. It doesn't need to have scientific merit.

A racist joke that's stupid to boot.

Thirdly, and here's where it gets really racist, he's linking a commonly despised insect as having a preference for a certain ethnic group and then linking a disease outbreak with that group as well through this comment. It's a lot like how Republicans in the U.S. have tough on crime campaigns and then point to such high rates of inner city crime that needs to be dealt with--they might not say, look at them scary black people vote for me and I'll keep them out of your suburban neighborhoods, but that's the implication, and it's racist.

Well it's she, to start. Even if we take everything as you do, it's still a case of "squint really hard and interpret with the worst possible meaning and its maybe sort of kind of racist." Thanks though, I didn't realise that thinking inner city crime is a problem is racist.

I thought she was retweeting something from a guy. Yeah, and way to ignore the entire rest of what leads to it being racist in your comment. And it isn't really hard and worst possible case racism. It's actually pretty blatant and easy to interpret racism. It has malicious intent and designed to disparage a race.

Fourth, and now for some more racism, there's the implication that if you're of African origin then you aren't Greek and can't be Greek, even if your family has been in Greece for generations and you only speak Greek. He's deliberately othering a group and disparaging them to a food product.

Greek is an ethnicity as well as a nationality. A Naturalised African immigrant can certainly be a Greek citizen, but to suggest that they're ethnically Greek too robs both groups of their identities. Its ridiculous - its like me moving to america and claiming to be Navajo.

Yes, again, you have a penchant for ignoring the point of a comment to make pedantic statements. That in no way removes the part where it's disparaging and othering with intent to liken a certain race to a food product.

You may now stop pretending this statement isn't racist. You know, in order to be a better human being.

I'm not pretending anything. The definition of racism you're applying makes anyone who notices differences between races into a racist, which is at odds with how the word is used in everyday life. Most people would accept for instance, that "I hate niggers" is a racist statement while "Kenyans make good sprinters" isn't. "LOL africans are tasty to mosquitoes" is certainly nearer the latter than the former. Its a crap joke, but I don't think its worth crushing this woman's career over.

Actually, the former is a lot closer to being racist than you might think, depending on what reason you're saying it--considering a lot of the reasons are environmental, not genetic. Often times, particularly in America, such statements stem from a narrative related to slavery and Africans as good at physical rather than mental labour. Repeating such statements without any real qualifiers only feeds into a systemic problem and the racist narrative. Hence why you can discuss why Kenyans do very well in running events without being racist, it just means you have to actually be careful about how you have the discussion and stay away from racist commentaries. And "Africans are tasty to mosquitoes" is a hell of a lot closer to the blatant racism than the idea that there are a lot of good African runners. Your problem is your ill-informed idea that for something to be racist it has to be blatant. And anybody who thinks that something has to be blatant to be racist is part of the problem and defending racism. Also, let's be honest about calling triple jumping a career... She'll probably stands a better chance of making a career being a pundit for the Greek version of Fox News than she ever has had at turning the triple jump into a career. Furthermore, the Olympics is a single competition, not a career. There's nothing about her being banned from competitions other than the Olympics.

In short, her joke is still racist. Defending racism is bad m'kay.

Also, there's a privilege coat rack around here somewhere. If you've got an excess of privilege clouding your judgment you can check it with the concierge.

[omgryebread]

With regards to your second point, It's possible to be anti-immigration without being racist. I know a number of people who vote BNP because their candidate treats them best, and their platform has good economic and social policy elements.

Sure, but it's impossible to support Golden Dawn without being racist. I don't just mean "it's exceedingly likely that supporters of Golden Dawn are racist," I mean the very act of supporting this political party is a racist action. This is a party that publishes explicitly racist magazines, leaders in the party have explicitly praised Hitler, their party platform is based on the ideals of the 4th of August Regime, which heavily persecuted ethnic minorities.

I also don't mean that "everyone who supports Golden Dawn does it because they hate ethnic minorities", but I do mean that supporting Golden Dawn, for whatever reason you do, shows such an utter apathy towards people who aren't the ethnic majority that its racist.

Anyone voting BNP is racist in the same way, for the record.

[PeterCai]

IOC is not a nation or a political organization, it alone decides whether to ban someone from the game, and it doesn't have an obligation to protect your freedom of speech.

[Iulus Cofield]

I don't really agree with the policy that Olympic athletes can't make political statements while Olympic athletes, but that's their established policy.

[Jahoclave]

IOC is not a nation or a political organization, it alone decides whether to ban someone from the game, and it doesn't have an obligation to protect your freedom of speech.

Also, it was the Greek Olympic Committee that kicked her off--so it's more, you will not represent our country.

[juststrange]

IOC is not a nation or a political organization, it alone decides whether to ban someone from the game, and it doesn't have an obligation to protect your freedom of speech.

Also, it was the Greek Olympic Committee that kicked her off--so it's more, you will not represent our country.

Exactly. Greece wants to control their media image, so they choose not to let a controversial anything go a representative of them to the world stage. I think it's fair. Greece also has a large stake in the Olympics in general, as it kinda, you know, started there.

Pedantic rant spoilered:

Spoiler:

To be pedantic for a moment - African is not a race, its indication of a continent of origin. No more than Asian, European, American, Austrailian, Antarctican, are races. If you got a problem with black people, you're a racist. If you have a problem with africans, then, I think you're confused more than anything else. I only say this because I went to a diverse university and that whole 'african american' thing did not fly, especially with my friends from places like Saint Kitts or Jamaica. They weren't african, just black.

The IOC does have an agenda they push at the top level as well - look at Saudi Arabia. It's great, they are sending women on the team this year, but thats likely less the Saudi's getting their act together, and more the IOC saying "If you don't bring some women and promote women athletics, you're not invited next time". Global cultural reform through sports!

[Izawwlgood]

Global cultural reform through sports!

Actually, this is a good point that brought me around;
The Olympics, the spirit of competition, is supposed to be a non-political, bring the world together thing. One of the issues with a lot of conflicted groups is that they don't have a venue for healthy competition. Nations should be banned if they don't bring x women for every y men they send, maybe.

[Ormurinn]

Global cultural reform through sports!

Actually, this is a good point that brought me around;
The Olympics, the spirit of competition, is supposed to be a non-political, bring the world together thing. One of the issues with a lot of conflicted groups is that they don't have a venue for healthy competition. Nations should be banned if they don't bring x women for every y men they send, maybe.

Isn't that, in itself, politisising the Olympics far more than anything this woman did?

"To compete in the Olympics you must hold to Western moral standards" - coming from the IOC themselves, is a lot more political than a single athlete displaying ethnic pride with a gesture, or re-tweeting a political opinion.

[CorruptUser]

First of all, ethnic shame/pride is in itself bullshit. Oh, some people that look vaguely like you did something awful/amazing? Sorry, you should not receive blame/credit for something you personally had nothing to do with,

Second, forcing Saudi Arabia to allow women athletes isn't about "Western" morals, it's about human rights. If you and your culture are in favor of oppression of an entire gender (or ethnicity, or orientation), then fuck you. Your culture belongs in the dung heap of civilization if oppression of women is so integral the culture couldn't survive without it. I hope religion is right just so there is a hell for you to burn in. The world would be a better place if women weren't prevented from becoming scientists or athletes or anything else simply because the powers that be want to take advantage of them.

Third, Olympics is entirely political. It's about nations showing off who has the better athletes. It's about competition between nations that doesn't involve actual warfare. That's the point.

Fourth, we all know you (Ormurinn) are an ultra-nationalist that, if you had your way, would institute incredibly racist and xenophobic policies in Britain, so we aren't surprised by your support of this excuse for a woman.

[kiklion]

Global cultural reform through sports!

Actually, this is a good point that brought me around;
The Olympics, the spirit of competition, is supposed to be a non-political, bring the world together thing. One of the issues with a lot of conflicted groups is that they don't have a venue for healthy competition. Nations should be banned if they don't bring x women for every y men they send, maybe.

Isn't that, in itself, politisising the Olympics far more than anything this woman did?

"To compete in the Olympics you must hold to Western moral standards" - coming from the IOC themselves, is a lot more political than a single athlete displaying ethnic pride with a gesture, or re-tweeting a political opinion.

It is only politisising if your 'politics'? don't agree with basic tenants of competitive sports. Where any one person can be just as good as another at a certain objective and within relatively small constraints, and we seek to find out who is the better. Sports do not have affirmative action in it, sports do not care about the individuals wealth (though team wealth is sometimes factored in in team based sports), nor the individuals scholarly achievements. Anyone can partake as long as they qualify. This notion of equality is the baseline of competitive sports. If your nation does not believe in equality, then your nation does not really believe in sports in a pure sense.

On the other hand, even the IOTC says men and women aren't equal and that is why the sports are different and don't compete against each other. So while I believe the olympic gold in weight lifting should go to the person who can lift the heaviest weight using x movement of any gender/race, and the olympic gold in TKD should go to the best person at TKD, obviously the IOTC already disagrees with me that equality is one of the main pillars of competition.

[iamspen]

The problem being that, except in the rarest of cases, the best women in a sport can't compete with the best men in the same sport. The physiology is just too different. Even in a relatively non-athletic sport such as golf, the best women tend to have a hard time competing with the best men, though it could be argued that this is because the modern golf game emphasizes range over strategy or ball placement.

There are exceptions to this rule. Curling comes to mind, though I must admit, I typically enjoyed watching the all-female curling teams.

Edit: My philosophy is, if the women can compete with the men, let 'em.

[johnny_7713]

It is only politisising if your 'politics'? don't agree with basic tenants of competitive sports. Where any one person can be just as good as another at a certain objective and within relatively small constraints, and we seek to find out who is the better. Sports do not have affirmative action in it, sports do not care about the individuals wealth (though team wealth is sometimes factored in in team based sports), nor the individuals scholarly achievements. Anyone can partake as long as they qualify. This notion of equality is the baseline of competitive sports. If your nation does not believe in equality, then your nation does not really believe in sports in a pure sense.

Even in individual sports wealth can buy you a significant advantage, by giving access to better training facilities, support staff and in some cases even equipment (e.g. see the fuss that was kicked up over certain swimsuits, or various innovations in speed skating). Though for most Olympic sports this is more about wealth on a national / sporting federation level, than on an individual level, that's true.

[Jahoclave]

The problem being that, except in the rarest of cases, the best women in a sport can't compete with the best men in the same sport. The physiology is just too different. Even in a relatively non-athletic sport such as golf, the best women tend to have a hard time competing with the best men, though it could be argued that this is because the modern golf game emphasizes range over strategy or ball placement.

There are exceptions to this rule. Curling comes to mind, though I must admit, I typically enjoyed watching the all-female curling teams.

Edit: My philosophy is, if the women can compete with the men, let 'em.

Something to this effect. Also, highlighting the best woman and the best man in a sport doesn't seem to me to be horrible, especially since you can often compare results--though team sports makes this very hard. Back when I was running cross country, my race times were nearly equal to the top female runner in the state, whereas I was somewhere around the 100 mark on the men's side. And it wasn't because she was slacking off in the training--physiology made that much difference.

And, there are quite a few instances of the female beating the male in head to head: The Billie Jean King Match comes to mind: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_ ... es_(tennis)

I think perhaps in the next half century or so we'll probably see some mixing in sports where some of the top women are brought into the pro-leagues. After all, we're only now seeing pro-women's leagues developing.


Also: Corrupt, could you put some sort of warning on your posts when I'm going to end up agreeing with you? Though, I must say, technically human rights are predicated on Western morals in a way--though not entirely.

[Ormurinn]

Fourth, we all know you (Ormurinn) are an ultra-nationalist that, if you had your way, would institute incredibly racist and xenophobic policies in Britain, so we aren't surprised by your support of this excuse for a woman.

Can you point to a single instance of me advocating a "racist and xenophobic" policy? I don't think this woman got a fair shake, true, but thats quite the claim you're making.

[Angua]

Have a look at your avatar? The whole 'my land' thing is often associated with people who are xenophobic. Also, you've recently said that people who aren't white can't be counted as English, despite being born and bred in England. There are lots of other clues around.

[Kulantan]

Or the

Obviously I'm an advocate

of a set of policies among which is "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity" and "anti-Zionism" from a movement called "National Anarchism".

[Jahoclave]

Have a look at your avatar? The whole 'my land' thing is often associated with people who are xenophobic. Also, you've recently said that people who aren't white can't be counted as English, despite being born and bred in England. There are lots of other clues around.

Also, by English, do we mean prior to the Roman invasion, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the Viking Invasion, the Norman invasion, et al? Also, considering we're talking an area who has a mythological connection to Troy. . .

[CorruptUser]

Fourth, we all know you (Ormurinn) are an ultra-nationalist that, if you had your way, would institute incredibly racist and xenophobic policies in Britain, so we aren't surprised by your support of this excuse for a woman.

Can you point to a single instance of me advocating a "racist and xenophobic" policy? I don't think this woman got a fair shake, true, but thats quite the claim you're making.

A quick read through your posts shows you to be a xenophobe at the very least, likely deserving of a Godwin's comparison, and at the very most an actual Neo-Nazi. The very first thread you created was in support of a Neo-Nazi group (and don't say it wasn't; if it involves "National ______" and a bunch of people marching with that salute, don't tell me they are just a different type of Ethno-Fascist and thus not Nazis). What's your argument, that the statement "well, people that don't resemble me don't belong here" isn't racist in the very least? It's the very definition of racism.

[Ormurinn]

Have a look at your avatar? The whole 'my land' thing is often associated with people who are xenophobic. Also, you've recently said that people who aren't white can't be counted as English, despite being born and bred in England. There are lots of other clues around.

I've said that non-ethnically English people aren't ethnically English. That's a tautology. I've never implied they should be treated differently for this, only that wrong to deny the English an ethnic Identity.

Racial politics is a big deal to me, but that doesn't make me a racist.

"My Land My People?" England is my homeland and I'm rather fond of it. The English are my people and by and large I'm fond of them too. The two are a pretty big part of my identity. Doesn't mean I can't be fond of people of other nationalities too.

Or the

Obviously I'm an advocate

of a set of policies among which is "collective action organized along the lines of ethnic national identity" and "anti-Zionism" from a movement called "National Anarchism".

Oh, I remember the thread. I don't see anything wrong with collective action organised along the lines of ethnic national identity, no. I think things like campaigning for the truth about the Armenian Genocide, or for equal representation on the Census for Ethnic English Britons, to be good things.

I'll quite cheerfully admit to being Anti-Zionist. I'd much rather Israel was given back to the Palestinians. You can be Anti-Zionist without being anti-Semetic though, and I have no truck with Jews, so long as they're not contributing to genocide against the native Palestinians. Then I don't just have a truck, I have an 18-wheeler.

So wheres the evidence of me advocating for "racist or xenophobic" policies?

A quick read through your posts shows you to be a xenophobe at the very least, and deserving of a Godwin's at the most. The very first thread you created was in support of a Neo-Nazi group (and don't say it wasn't; if it involves "National ______" and a bunch of people marching with that salute, don't tell me they are just a different type of Ethno-Fascist and thus not Nazis). What's your argument, that the statement "well, people that don't resemble me don't belong here" isn't racist in the very least? It's the very definition of racism!

I identify with my ethnicity and my culture, as I think I have a right to. I have never once supported harm befalling anyone based on their ethnic group. I do think that people have a right to make racist statements, because, well, free speech - but I don't support them in that.

The last statement is just bizarre. I've never said anything along those lines - and the only way you could get that is a very deliberate misreading of some statements involving English (as an ethnicity), as distinct from English (as a nationality) - a distinction I've made quite clear prior to every one of those posts.

Where have I said that "people who don't look like me don't belong here?" You'll be looking a while.

EDIT: I did say this once (from one of the thread links you posted);

If we don't fall into the trap of reactionary fascistic statism, I think a lot of elements of a NA society will be present naturally in the cultures we live in within the next 50 years.

You're right. Godwin would be proud.

[Angua]

Have a look at your avatar? The whole 'my land' thing is often associated with people who are xenophobic. Also, you've recently said that people who aren't white can't be counted as English, despite being born and bred in England. There are lots of other clues around.

I've said that non-ethnically English people aren't ethnically English. That's a tautology. I've never implied they should be treated differently for this, only that wrong to deny the English an ethnic Identity.

Racial politics is a big deal to me, but that doesn't make me a racist.

Yasmin Qureshi is certainly less English than I am - just as much a citizen of Britain as I am, but as you said, England is not a sovereign state - so its fair to say that when someone says they are English, they are referring to their ethnicity. Please don't engage in the cultural appropriation that says everyone living in England is English.

When someone says they are English, they are actually often talking about where they are from, not their ethnicity. Therefore, someone born and raised in England has every right to count themselves as English if they so desire. The same goes for someone born and raised in Scotland (though obviously here they have the right to count themselves as Scottish).

Heck, if I'm raised somewhere I count myself more as where I was raised than where I was born (given that my 'ethnic' connection to either country is one grandparent each) - I certainly don't think of myself as distinctly belonging to my father's country, even though if we were solely looking at where each of your grandparents were born, I'd be half that and a quarter for the other two.

[Kulantan]

Oh, I remember the thread. I don't see anything wrong with collective action organised along the lines of ethnic national identity, no. I think things like campaigning for the truth about the Armenian Genocide, or for equal representation on the Census for Ethnic English Britons, to be good things.

I'll quite cheerfully admit to being Anti-Zionist. I'd much rather Israel was given back to the Palestinians. You can be Anti-Zionist without being anti-Semetic though, and I have no truck with Jews, so long as they're not contributing to genocide against the native Palestinians. Then I don't just have a truck, I have an 18-wheeler.

So wheres the evidence of me advocating for "racist or xenophobic" policies?

That may be the most disingenuous thing I have read all day. "Collective action organised along the lines of ethnic national identity" means (from part five of their manifesto entitled "Racial Separatism"):

Spoiler:

AS far as the Left is concerned, National-Anarchism is simply a form of generic fascism or, according to some of the more paranoid theories, a Right-wing conspiracy devoted to the subversion of the Left itself. Needless to say, this interpretation is incorrect and National-Anarchists are vigorously opposed to statism and reaction in all forms. At the same time, the 'national' component of the term National-Anarchism centres on the fact that we are racial separatists. Needless to say, whilst we wish to form Anarchist communities that are ethnically organic we also oppose negative and counter-productive attitudes that encourage racial hatred or mindless violence. Race-based politics have nearly always been the domain of Right-wing organisations. But the fact that National-Anarchists are prepared to address this thorny issue should not cause people to wrongly dismiss us as yet another Right-wing organisation committed to promoting 'white supremacy', because National-Anarchism itself transcends both Left and Right. We are not supremacist, racist, statist or totalitarian. In addition, the German National-Socialists and Italian Fascists of the twentieth century allied themselves with large banking interests and betrayed the more 'socialistic' aspects of their original programmes. We are genuine Anarchists and proud of the fact.

Right-wing organisations that recommend either a tightening of current immigration laws or advocate that people of non-European descent be repatriated to their countries of ethnic origin, inevitably try to play the system at its own game and therefore always come off second-best. The reason for this is simple. Not only do they become seduced and then corrupted by the parliamentary establishment and end up having to compromise in order to make electoral progress, they also reinforce the nonsensical realities of the modern nation-state by completely failing to understand the important difference between citizenship and ethnicity. As we mentioned in the Introduction, the 1789 French Revolution transformed a nation of monarchical subjects into citizens of a new republic, but aside from the fact that the jingoistic watchwords of 'liberty, equality and fraternity' were never put into practice, it did become possible for individuals to become part of the nation through citizenship alone, rather than it being a result of their French ethnicity. This subtle change has now smoothed the way for modern capitalists to bring in economic migrants from the Third World who, allegedly, are just as 'French', 'English' or 'German' as those of us with a blood-lineage stretching back thousands of years. The 'nations' of today, therefore, are completely false. By giving credence to these artificial entities, the Right actually reinforces the liberal-democratic myth. However, due to mass immigration and shifting demographics, the populations of contemporary Western 'nations' are changing all the time and therefore the establishment makes a determined effort to constantly redefine the whole concept of nationhood. The multi-racial populations of Europe and North America cannot be regarded as 'nations' at all. People of non-European extraction may well be national citizens and hold a valid passport informing them that they have become 'naturalised', but, in reality, true nationhood is based on ethnic considerations. Names like 'England', 'France' and 'Germany' were once related to specific tribes and they were hardly Moorish, Bedouin or Zulu, so the fact that modern nation-states no longer reflect the ethnic identity of those original Indo-European tribes - or at least not entirely - makes the whole thing a total farce. Is northern Paris, with its large African population, still French? Are the Turks who have settled in Deutschland still German? Of course not.

Race defines who we are, it provides us with an identity and exists for a damn good reason. Without maintaining this essential diversity, something you can find throughout nature, the world will become increasingly drab, standardised and monotonous and the only people left on the planet will inevitably form part of a coffee-coloured mush of uniform humanity. National-Anarchists wish to preserve the different races of the earth and believe that multi-racialism ends with the dissolution of all races. Racial separatism is the only way that the organic balance can be restored. We realise that it is impossible to separate people in the large cities and towns, many of whom have racially-mixed children or wish to live among foreign populations, and neither should we attempt to do so. Indeed, we believe that the nation-states of the West are likely to collapse in the next few decades and that our respective countries will begin to fragment along racial and cultural lines. So there is clearly no need to treat people inhumanely by herding them into camps or deporting them in the way that the Nazis and Soviets did in the last century; something which ended disastrously for those concerned. National-Anarchists must form new communities based on their own racial and cultural values. The maxim of the future will be respect for others and unity in diversity

Not fucking getting census boxes.

As for the anti-Zionism, well it really is anti Semitism (from part one of the manifesto):

Spoiler:

ALTHOUGH people around the world are quite aware of the disproportionate influence of Jewish pressure groups within the various governmental and mass media appendages of Europe and North America, most of which are completely under their control, few are prepared to come out and say so for fear of persecution or incurring the usual threats of 'anti-Semitism'. It is a fact, however, that ever since ambitious European monarchs first plunged us into the financial vortex of the burgeoning international debt system, an elite coterie of Jews and their allies have effectively manipulated world events for their own interests. This was achieved, not simply through usury, but also as a result of Jewish involvement in the bootlegging and criminal racketeering of 1930s America, something which eventually went on to finance the Zionist takeover of the Hollywood film industry and, by 1948, brought about the establishment of the bandit-state of Israel. But Zionism is not Jewish nationalism, as some like to claim, it is Jewish imperialism.

You can argue that you aren't racist all you want. However, you did advocate for this group. They are racist in my opinion and I suspect in the opinion of the vast majority of the fora. That much is a fact.

[Ormurinn]

Yasmin Qureshi is certainly less English than I am - just as much a citizen of Britain as I am, but as you said, England is not a sovereign state - so its fair to say that when someone says they are English, they are referring to their ethnicity. Please don't engage in the cultural appropriation that says everyone living in England is English.

When someone says they are English, they are actually often talking about where they are from, not their ethnicity. Therefore, someone born and raised in England has every right to count themselves as English if they so desire. The same goes for someone born and raised in Scotland (though obviously here they have the right to count themselves as Scottish).

Heck, if I'm raised somewhere I count myself more as where I was raised than where I was born (given that my 'ethnic' connection to either country is one grandparent each) - I certainly don't think of myself as distinctly belonging to my father's country, even though if we were solely looking at where each of your grandparents were born, I'd be half that and a quarter for the other two.

Fair enough - I live in an area where the usage I stated is more common - since its a majority non-(ethnic)English area. There are (ethnic)English people, (ethnic)Polish people, (ethnic)middle-eastern, (ethnic)Pakistani and (ethnic)Indian people who all have British citizenship and live in England, so usually the Nationality gets substituted for the ethnicity.

I repeatedly stated, in that very thread, that I was specifically referencing ethnic identity. I never expressed any opposition to immigration (I do think it's too high at the moment, but that's a question of the volume of population increase than the specific races of the immigrants themselves) nor have i advocated treating races differently under the law, as I again, explicitly pointed out in that thread.

I wish there were different words for English(culture), English(ethnicity) and English(country) because then I wouldn't get people insisting I'm a neo-nazi.

I'm quite happy for you to feel no particular connection to your ancestry - if doing so doesn't improve your well being there's no reason to. I don't, however, see my identifying with my own race and finding my ethnicity an important part of my identity as making me a racist - nor do I appreciate blatantly untrue statements being made about me, particularly that I would advocate racist governmental policy. Has anyone got a cite on that yet by the way? Or can we agree that it was a lie?

@kulantan - I'm embarassed to say I don't recall ever reading that on the website I linked - I first posted that thread as i was curious about the group, and posted a slew of unchecked google links at the start. I don't see the majority of National Anarchist groups espousing similar views, certainly the Tasmanian NA's seem to basically be ethnically conscious greens - Berroscirs Bannerites are folk-socialists etc. That website doesn't seem to be very active either, considering the last time it was updated.

Still, mea culpa. I advocated, indirectly for a movement - some representatives thereof espousing racist views. I hope my own views, as distinct from theirs, have become more apparent.

[iamspen]

It's not your pride in your ancestry that makes your beliefs intrinsically racist, most people have at least a bit of that. It's your belief that, when others from the outside begin identifying with your culture, it somehow magically negatively impacts your Englishness. It's your belief that, "separate but equal," is a real thing that can actually exist. It's your defense of xenophobic organizations all over these fora, even if you hand-wave away the racist elements as if you don't support those, as if someone can reasonably say, "I agree with the neonazis because of their economic policies."

THAT'S why we've pegged you as an ethnocentrist and xenophobe.