Home & Garden8 mins ago
Are the colours Red, White, & Blue, racist?
14 Answers
http://www.express.co...oll-protester-is-told
In that good old patriotic song "They'll always be an England" are the lines "red white and blue, what does it mean to you".
Well in this case in 2010 it means "RACIST".
In that good old patriotic song "They'll always be an England" are the lines "red white and blue, what does it mean to you".
Well in this case in 2010 it means "RACIST".
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
no, f f s this whole thing is being blown out of proportion, i don't even see how a song like there'll always be and england or baa baa black sheep is racism, racism is when you are predujice agaisnt a certain group of people and the sign may say that they want the politcians out, but isn't abusing them.
Ah....I love saying these words...You couldn't make it up!
It's made even worse when compared to a story like this
http://www.dailymail....cially-motivated.html
Sorry it's from the Mail, I read all papers but this one was to hand.
It's made even worse when compared to a story like this
http://www.dailymail....cially-motivated.html
Sorry it's from the Mail, I read all papers but this one was to hand.
"Get the lot out" is what is taken to be offensive in this case.
The message could be in black and white letters or multicoloured. It is not the colour of the message which is the problem, it is the implied meaning.
As it is, it is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as get all the non whites out, which would be racist. Or get all the foreigners out, which would also be racist.
He should go back to his colouring set and write a less cryptic message.
The message could be in black and white letters or multicoloured. It is not the colour of the message which is the problem, it is the implied meaning.
As it is, it is ambiguous. It could be interpreted as get all the non whites out, which would be racist. Or get all the foreigners out, which would also be racist.
He should go back to his colouring set and write a less cryptic message.
I wonder what the real story here is?
There's absolutely no way that the colours red, white and blue could be construed as racist. I suspect it may be think to what he has on his sign, in conjunction with the colours that may have offended locals.
No-one wants our national flag colours associated with right wing politics.
There's absolutely no way that the colours red, white and blue could be construed as racist. I suspect it may be think to what he has on his sign, in conjunction with the colours that may have offended locals.
No-one wants our national flag colours associated with right wing politics.
Depends on the context.
If you had a BNP poster with the words "get the lot out", it could definitely be perceived as racist.
This does seem completely over the top, but as usual with the cr@p press that we have, it is only one side of the argument.
He admits that the police explained why it could be perceived as racist and asked him to change or amend his sign - but of course that would be outrageous. Far easier to call the papers up and make an issue about it.
If you had a BNP poster with the words "get the lot out", it could definitely be perceived as racist.
This does seem completely over the top, but as usual with the cr@p press that we have, it is only one side of the argument.
He admits that the police explained why it could be perceived as racist and asked him to change or amend his sign - but of course that would be outrageous. Far easier to call the papers up and make an issue about it.
There's an election looming for goodness sake! This man's intentions seem pretty clear to me.
Having said that, if we think certain topics are unacceptable, we legislate against free speech, but that doesn't prevent people thinking their own thoughts. It merely stops them expressing them. Instead of addressing those thoughts, as they should be addressed, the law simply insists that they are suppressed. Hiding a problem, or denying it exists, doesn't cure it.
Having said that, if we think certain topics are unacceptable, we legislate against free speech, but that doesn't prevent people thinking their own thoughts. It merely stops them expressing them. Instead of addressing those thoughts, as they should be addressed, the law simply insists that they are suppressed. Hiding a problem, or denying it exists, doesn't cure it.
Oneeyedvic,
Absolutely spot on, and not only did he rush off to a newspaper, it turns out to be a very right wing newspaper - coincidental? Of course it was - not!
divegirl,
There is nil comparison between this story and the one which you provide a link for, is there? I mean, this guy hasn't even been prosecuted, whereas the one in your link has, and has a criminal record as a result, plus a fine. Your attempt at trying to stir up a bit of racism is pathetic.
Absolutely spot on, and not only did he rush off to a newspaper, it turns out to be a very right wing newspaper - coincidental? Of course it was - not!
divegirl,
There is nil comparison between this story and the one which you provide a link for, is there? I mean, this guy hasn't even been prosecuted, whereas the one in your link has, and has a criminal record as a result, plus a fine. Your attempt at trying to stir up a bit of racism is pathetic.
1 to 14 of 14
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.