Racist or not?

[claw3]

At our local train station at the weekend with ds 12, he was looking at news stand, while i was getting train tickets.

Anyhow at news stand there was a section which had black magazines ie black hair, black beauty, black music etc, etc. Ds asked me why do black people have their own mags and would it be racist if white people had their own magazines ie white hair, white beauty etc etc.

Your thoughts, would it??

Monkeytrousers - Do you not think that claiming ownership ie black music etc, etc is leading to tit for tat ie my Country, my houses etc.

Would we not be better off, as no one owns anything and for this to be reflected in the white/black labels?

Bit of a hippy chick

well actually I did know one that wasn't..........mind you he was so badly endowed you'd hardly know he had one if >>>> he was a very nice man, but well, you know..................

Manifeel - Im not sure why you and a few others feel the need to try and make this personal.

As the disclaimer states 'If you don't want to read posts from people who might strongly disagree with you, you might prefer to post in a different topic area on our site.'

Yes of course you can view it anyway you want.
i tend to draw some comfort though from the factthat the industry, the general public and most people on this board agree that there is a broad acceptance of minority publishing rules which are not considered offensive.

And that you seem to be the only one who either has a problem or is affecting to for some unknown but possibly attention seeking reason

TThere are reasons for claiming ownership on certain things. WATCH DREAMGIRLS that will explain abit about the black music history.

Do you really not realise how much people from black origin had to fight for everything they have today how back in the day there music wasn't allowed in the pop charts and how there songs were stolen and sang by white artists

ITS a magazine title its hardly labelling anything

LOL FAQ I also knew one the size of a baby carrot shocking it was

Ping - Yes i am aware of black history and their plight. But i fail to see how to keep reflecting on the past is a way forward.

Are you serious Claw3?

Can you not see that because of there past that black people want to claim ownership to the things they have achieved?

I really don't know why its bothering you so much that a magazine is called blackhair and its readers happen to be black Why is this troubling your soul so much?

There is not a market for a magazine called whitehair if there was I am sure that it would of been done by now Get over it

are you talking about racist labels like black hair and beauty, pride, the voice. come on! these magazines were started because black people were under represented. i grew up in a mainly white area with white foster parents. didnt know anything about my culture, how to do my hair, the right make up to wear etc.until i started buying magazines like this. You'll find that things aimed at newspapers like new nation, 1extra and choice fm are owned by white companies trying to make money from black audiences. I suggest you actually buy one to read and you will find that they are actually positive publications which address issues that are normally overlooked in white media.

Ping - Of course i can see that.

We have spent years slapping labels on everybody/everything. When you remove them all, you are left with a man. Its a bit outdated to still be labelling.

yes but unless you want everyone to be exactly the same with the same cultural background and heritage (which I think would make the world a very boring more place to live) then there's always going to be labels of some sort or another.

Wilfsell - I dont think i have been racist at any point during this thread. What a ridiculous conclusion to reach, im in the BNP.

What a brilliant way to shut down any discussions by throwing wild accusations about.

""Claw3 having black in the title is not empowering black people its just stating black hair products

Its not racist its not saying only black people can read this and its saying that black people are better than white people because they have a whole magazine dedicated to there hair.""

But the OP stated that if a magazine was brought out just for 'white hair' and was named this, would it be racist. On the description you have just given the same could be said for such magazine. It would be aimed at just 'white hair' and not everybody. This too would not be saying that only 'white' people could read it, just that it specificaly relates to 'white' hair. So this could therefor be the same as 'black' hair, minority or not, it is not staing that the other cannot read but simply what the product is for. Again this would be pointless as most magazines named 'hair' are for 'majority' white hair but do include others too, however it wouldn't make it racist

Claw3 - I'm not making it personal. I'm asking if you are lonely.

I am well able to read the disclaimer and I am well able to cope with people disagreeing with me.

However, you are not bringing anything fresh to this. There is a phenomenal consensus, not only of opinion, but of the basis for that opinion, on this thread. Your question has been answered. Perhaps - though I still struggle to see why, exactly - you are not happy with that answer. But you have had the answer nonetheless. Let me restate it for you.

"Ds asked me why do black people have their own mags" - because they are a minority group with distinct cultural, social and, to some extent, health and beauty issues.

"would it be racist if white people had their own magazines ie white hair, white beauty etc etc." In theory, no - but it would be superfluous in the context of a massive white majority. In practice, therefore, to state that it was "white" could only be construed as a gesture of separatism, which would be racist.

This brings us to the fundamental question implicit in this posting, "am I being unreasonable?" Yes you are.

This has been said over and over again by all different people in all different forms of words. If, in spite of this, you continue to ask the same questions over and over again, I can only assume that you are craving converrsation or that you are trying to provoke an altogether different argument. If it is the latter, perhaps you should re-post with a more specific and, ideally, better thought-out topic. I'm all in favour of debate for debate's sake but this is frankly becoming dull and grating.

its not a label its a fact my best friend is black she does not have the same hair as me we buy different mags because of our hair texture she also goes to a black hairdresser where the people there are trained to cut and style black hair etc

I could go to her hairdressers but if she went to my hairdressers the chances are they would fuck up her hair

wilfself how silly. What a horrible thing to suggest. The OP hasn't said anything racist.

Everybody wants to be proud of where they are from and thier heritage and if these book/magazines etc help people to do that then great but at the same time, 'white' people should also be able to do this whithout being called a 'racist'.

claw3, actually I think a lot of your assumptions are racist, and as I pointed out my wonderings (rather than accusations) are based on the reality that the kind of arguments you are developing are exactly the same as those used by groups like the BNP.

Does that bother you at all?

My spelling is terrible

oneyummy - I dont think a mag title, empowers black people, thats been taken out of context.

'This is why for 'white' to be used would be an unnecessary inflamatory political statement of their past oppression, where use of the work 'black, is a signal of growing black freedoms and their rights to exist as equals beside a previous 'elite'.'

I asked whether by empowering one group, while excluding another, was adding to racial tension.

oneyummymummy of course people want to be proud of there heritage your find its usually white people that say its racist for white people to be proud of there background

As a black person who grew up in Britain, let me educate Claw on a few facts:

The British media on the whole ignores the specific needs of ethnic minorities.

The British media perpetuates the belief that black women cannot be viewed as beautiful/desirable and many companies tell agencies not to use black models to advertise their products.

Growing in 70s Britain, mainstream British shops did not sell food products, hair products, skin products, makeup or music like reggae, ska etc and that is still largely the case now.

The British newspapers were only interesting in publishing stories to perpetuate negative stereotypes of black people unless they were good at sport or music.

As a child growing up, my memory of the British media is that it did not cater for me and as an adult, I still believe that to be case.

Claw, you know nothing about the black experience in Britain which for a long time has been about marginalisation, negative stereotyping, paternalism, exploitation and subjugation. Instead of trying to prove something that does not exist, educate yourself on the reality because when you do, you will be embarrassed by your level of ignorance.

Claw3 who is it excluding there is plenty of mags that cover hair for white people if there wasn't then yes it would cause racial tension but that is clearly not the case with Black hair

Having a magazine that deals specifically with African type hair, called 'black' for short, or brida wear fo Asian weddings is not 'labelling' people in any way that is racist. It is pragmatic and specifically targetted, that's all.

Do you personally feel excluded by not having a mag called 'white hair', Claw?

This 'why should they have a mag with black in the title when we don't have one with white?' approach does sound whiny and a bit 'we white people are disadvantaged by all this multiculturalism' in tone, Claw.