When will the BBC be held accountable for their lack of patriotism

[longfingernails]

Why does this far-left propoganda group continually try to do Britain down?

Why can't they have more presenters who think like the majority of Brits - people who believe that Britain is truly great - indeed, the best country in the world.

People who believe in our institutions, who love the monarchy, who revere the military, who speak in hushed awe about the majesty of our traditions. Presenters who are over-awed by the silent beauty of our countryside, and the glory of our heritage and history. Why do they always use their sneering, supercilious, Guardianista attitude - this constant insinuation that Britain should always be taking the blame and apologising. Coincidentally, it seems to stem from the same sort of sneering middle-classery that is prevalent on MN...

The most recent, shameful episode is the Beeb trying their best to spoil the England 2018 bid. Now I have no time at all for football - I can't stand it - but I fully recognise how important it is for our economy, and also for our national psyche.

The sooner the BBC withers and dies the better. Sadly, it has gotten away with a miniscule 16% cut in the TV tax over 6 years. They will continue their ramblings for the foreseeable future.

I'm struggling with that.

Can you tell the difference between a random Chinese man and a random Welsh man? Would you be able to correctly classify one as Chinese and the other as Welsh, given only those two options?

Yes - but only because of the social construct we put on two particular sets of characteristics. (The Welsh aren't a race btw. I'm taking it to mean White in this context. Chinese aren't really a race either - I'm taking that to mean - South east Asian)

Yes I know that the Welsh are Caucasians. So what you call "social construct" is experience and knowledge from which you can make an inference. Is there any chance that that "social construct" could be wrong? Has it been constructed incorrectly?

A social construct can't be right or wrong, as it us just "what people think". It may or may not be congruent with reality.

so are you saying that you can't be sure if you are right or wrong about who is Chinese and who is Welsh?

Sorry everyone for not staying on the thread - I have been insanely busy at work.

No, this is not satire, to all that asked.

The BBC should do more for Britain, instead of shoving its metropolitian leftie embarrassed-to-be-British slant onto so much of its output.

longfingernails - It already does lots for Britain and doesn't have a slant on it's output.

Claig - No of course you could, but all that shows is that you can identify the set of signifiers labelled Chinese or Welsh. This doesn't indicate anything genetic, innate or anything, just that I'm part of a culture with a specific classification system.

no I think it indicates that there is a difference, which is why you are able to make the distinction. The difference is genetic and extends across a race, which means that race is not "an entirely social construct".

Welsh is a 'race'? So. Colin Jackson. Shirley Bassey. You think you could determine their Welshness. How would you go about doing that claig?

Chinese is a race? So you could 'distinguish' a Chinese person from, say, a Taiwanese person, or a South Korean? How, exactly?

Claig - Similarly, I can tell the difference between a Liverpudlian and a Glaswegian. But a Chinese person couldn't (at least not without training in our culture), thought they could tell the differnce between people from two bits of China where I couldn't.

Claig - Race is a result of how we classify various genetic, cultural and other differences. The fact that some of them are genetic doesn't mean there is a genetic basis to Race.

Take cars. You can divide them into small, medium or large or into red, yellow, blue etc. or into Mercededes, Lada, Rover etc.

They are all equally valid sorting schemes.

This doesn't mean that the colour of cars determines anything.

The Wilfred Owen poem is rightly scornful of armchair patriots.

As for physical characteristics somehow proving that there are different races -- highly dubious argument. I look nothing like even my next younger sister and we are both children of the same parents, and of the same 'race'.

'The Wilfred Owen poem is rightly scornful of armchair patriots.'

but it's not scornful of the patriots who die in foreign fields, whereas the Marxist website's poem is scornful of those who die in foreign fields and is scornful of their flag (the red, white and blue) and calls these patriots "nuts", while the poet thinks he is clever by trying to get his leg over.
No one, except a Marxist, would ever broadcast the "International Socialism" poem on Remembrance Sunday.

'As for physical characteristics somehow proving that there are different races -- highly dubious argument. I look nothing like even my next younger sister and we are both children of the same parents, and of the same 'race'.'

do you look more like your sister than you look like Winnie Mandela?

'Claig - Similarly, I can tell the difference between a Liverpudlian and a Glaswegian. But a Chinese person couldn't (at least not without training in our culture), thought they could tell the differnce between people from two bits of China where I couldn't.'

I agree, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a difference, just that it is not always discernible by everybody

Claig - "'As for physical characteristics somehow proving that there are different races -- highly dubious argument. I look nothing like even my next younger sister and we are both children of the same parents, and of the same 'race'.'

do you look more like your sister than you look like Winnie Mandela?"

It depends on your viewpoint. My daughter would consider both Winnie and Mathanxieties sister to be 'mummies' (Well she'd probably think of Winnie as a granny tbh) as the primary way she divide the world is into Mummies, Daddies and Children.

'Take cars. You can divide them into small, medium or large or into red, yellow, blue etc. or into Mercededes, Lada, Rover etc.

They are all equally valid sorting schemes.

This doesn't mean that the colour of cars determines anything.'

but race is about more than just colour. A red Mercedes is not the same as a red Lada. It's not about colour.

Of course there are differences, and of course some are genetic. But so are lots of other things. Skin colour and facial characteristics are just easy to use as identifying them is built into hardware as identifying individuals is a basic human ability.

'Race' is a concept that emerges from the human propensity to categorise.

'It depends on your viewpoint. My daughter would consider both Winnie and Mathanxieties sister to be 'mummies' (Well she'd probably think of Winnie as a granny tbh) as the primary way she divide the world is into Mummies, Daddies and Children.'

yes, but she is a young child. An adult would think differently.

A red Mercedes is the same as a red Lada if all you care about is the colour. It depends what you need to use your classification for.

If you are a paint shop then you care more about the colour than that make.

Yes I agree, it is a way of categorising and making distinctions, but the categorisation is based on real differences.

Yes - an adult has had more time to absorb the social construct of 'Race' and the assumptions of our society.

Yes a child may think a red Mercedes is the same as a red Lada. they are both cars. But adults know that there are other differences as well. A white person and a black person are both the same because they are both people, but they also have differences.