The markel family interview

[IamSuperTired]

Anyone know how/where I can watch it? :) I think it's on today ....

'The interview was not a chat show appearance'

What's wrong with calling it a chat show? It was a show, they chatted (about other people ironically as well as their own truths). It was hardly Newsnight.

It wasn’t a serious interview, there was no pushback from Oprah, even when they contradicted each other and she just went along with their allegations without question.

Didn’t it show fake headlines too, which further undermined its credibility

It was hardly Frost and Nixon

I agree. I knew about TMJ's YT channel but I hadn't really looked at the content properly until yesterday and I found it upsetting. I would not want to have to 'find' it and link to it for any reason.

I'm really glad you are okay. I really admire the fact that you chose to adopt a black child knowing the additional challenges it would create in your life. Please do carry on posting.

Right. So he should be invited. The rf should ignore all his blabbing on chatshows, they should rise above it yet the Sussexes should not speak to TM who has done what they've done themselves. Got it. I think some of you have no idea how blinkered and hypocritical you sound.

I have said none of this. I have said that we do not need to rise above or be the better person if someone has done or continues to do us harm. Based on what Harry has said - he feels that he has been actively harmed by the firm and therefore I am personally surprised at his attendance though I note his attempts to differentiate between the firm and the individuals in the institution. Likewise - if the firm feel that Harry has harmed them they absolutely are in their rights to not invite him and again I was personally surprised at the invitation.

Now that he is attending the individual members in the firm who feel harmed and hurt by him should absolutely not engage with him and vice versa. Hope that clarifies my position.

Wow that last post.

I guess it should come as no surprise that people who minimise the bullying (and racialised reporting) that a mixed-race woman was subjected to in the tabloid press, and who are keen to put a sympathetic framing over her white family's atrocious behaviour, including blackmail, blackface, and outright lies, are exactly the kind of people who think that adopting a black child is some supremely heroic thing for which white women deserve to be admired because of all the "challenges" that these children "create" in the white women's lives.

Look up "white saviour complex" if you wish to be educated about what is so fucking offensive about this very Kipling-like "white man's burden" stance.

Christ, this forum really is the pits sometimes.

Disclaimer I'm not a TM fan but it's either ok to hurt your family by sharing private info to the media or it isn't. Make your minds up.

I missed this. Just to make it clear Thomas Markle’s reason for not having a relationship with his daughter and his grandchildren currently is because of the very real harm he poses to his grandchildren by associating with people who doubt their existence or believe that their mother faked her pregnancies with them both. This is not sharing private information. Much as it would pain me to see my father so unwell - it would be more important to protect my children.

@MrsMaxDeWinter agree with you, it’s really offensive what is going on here. It’s disgusting.

😳

I know from my mother's experience that she would have had a much easier life if she had married someone who was of similar ethnic origin to herself. She always maintained that she lost a lot of family support, friends and respect for marrying a non white person. Of course it is more liberating to not have to worry about racism on a personal level. One of my siblings is darker and was openly rejected by my mother's family for it (along with my dad). That was in the '80s.

Yep definitely the pits

Why not just address the specific post you disagree with rather than announcing 'christ this forum is the pits'?

The pp was offering support to the other poster who had experienced prejudice from all sides. There wasn't a 'white saviour' tone at all.

@Whaeanui

For someone who declares this forum is the pits sometimes - you’re never off it.

@Whaeanui
sorry- I see it was your buddy who made that comment

Samantha and Thomas Jnr are actively malevolent and malicious people, who are playing on the weakness of their father to get to the half-sister they have always resented. But even he has his agency in all of this

Yes I agree. I also think the father is covert - I'm not fooled by the look of victimhood on his face. He could have supported Meghan in a fatherly fashion before and after the wedding but he didn't care to. He just didn't care and doesn't care. A self serving man .

In the Bahamas one person noted Britain's absence while the US and Canada helped with relief after Hurricane Dorian

Then it's a shame they weren't better informed:

https://reliefweb.int/report/bahamas/uk-government-continues-support-bahamas-relief-effort

Never let the truth get in the way of a hating Britain story. 😉

It was hardly Frost and Nixon.

😂😂😂

Some posters have pointed out that Thomas looks very frail and they think that Meghan should contact her father because of the risk that his health could take a turn for the worse .
Now I am not one who usually resorts to whatboutism . However, I just think about the fact that her father cared little for Meghan’s failing mental health when she was ( and is still is) being maligned by the British press on a daily basis, in fact he conspired with those who were / are actively trying to destroy his own daughter.
This is a woman who has suicidal thoughts but because some dislike her they choose to ignore her struggles. In fact they accuse her of lying.
It is probably time for Mr Markle to be an actual father to his daughter .

Whataboutery

For the trillionth time if Harry thinks the rf should listen to his waahs then surely they should also listen to TM's? (Not TM junior obviously I'm talking about the df)

It is the inconsistencies and as always one rule for him and another for everyone else that shows him up.

I'm sorry your family's experience has been dismissed so lightly.

Unfortunately there is little space for nuance, it seems, and for a variety of experiences when it comes to race.

The narrative is that to be white is inevitably be racist due to societal structures, and if you are a POC you inevitably speak 'the truth' about racism because of societal structures. So, by definition, being white is to be racist, to be a POC is to tell the 'truth' about racism.

I think there is a degree of truth in that, from the perspective of a euro-centric/N American-centric/Australian/NZ context. Societal structures are institutionally racist - but that does ignore the variety of experiences of race. Of Rishi Sunak/Suella Braverman's attitude to immigration, for example, which by that definition cannot be racist.

But it is more complex than that, even in those contexts, and even more so out of those contexts.

In SA there is a division of 'previously disadvantaged' (by apartheid) in today's Equal Ops monitoring that also defines POC from outside of SA as 'previously disadvantaged' - because they are defined by race. Much to the annoyance of a previous colleague, who, as someone from an affluent professional family in a country with majority rule for decades, was offended by the implication that the experience of his country and family was equivalent to apartheid SA. His point was not that SA should not try to create a level playing field for those who WERE horrendously and long-lastingly impacted by apartheid. But that it had more nuance than the very simplistic division by race.

Thank you. It has become almost predictable 🙄As you pointed out regarding people like Braverman, the end result of inflexible thinking is that it can be easily weaponized against the minorities on whose behalf they are trying to speak out. Whenever there is a discussion about Meghan, it is inevitably turned into a discussion about race when there is no actual basis for doing this. Once this happens, the same posters grab the reins and dictate what is right or wrong thinking with the same chorus nodding along with literally everything. They always ask for proof of this and that but you already know that the proof will never be adequate.

the same chorus nodding along with literally everything.

And a lot of people who don't necessarily agree will not challenge that for the accusations of racism, etc against them. After all, it's an internet forum of random strangers, so far safer to say nothing, rather than the ultimate accusations of racism, white saviourism, blackface - if only they had included 'cultural appropriation' we'd would have had full house of word bingo! So it is very effective in shutting down the conversation - no doubt why it is used!