Israel and US hit Iran

Go out one Friday or Saturday night into the city centre, anytime from 11 to 2a.m.
Large groups of young people 17 to late 20’s mainly and many staggering about and shouting and even fighting, including the girls.Once the clubs and pubs are out you’ll see a very different picture from your own grandchildren.
I see this regularly when I return home from a work shift as I walk or cycle.

Oreo

The 20 somethings get drunk a lot, and when in groups that’s when racism often occurs.

That is the absolute opposite of my experience. The young generation drink much, much less than their parents and grandparents. In fact my grandchildren simply don’t drink alcohol.

sixandahalf

Aveline

Or they were too intimidated to agree overtly?

I very much doubt it. Thankfully many younger people are adept and flexible in their thinking. My own family laugh and joke with their colleagues and friends ,who are from all over the globe.

Perhaps time for older people with less ability to shed outdated attitudes to keep quiet.

Yes, my children and grandchildren met people from all over the globe when at university, and this shows in their attitude (and I would like to think their upbringing) - they are totally comfortable with people from anywhere and any religion etc. For example we (grandparents) were invited to a meal by one of our grandchildren alongside DD snd SiL. Sat at the table was someone from the Middle East, with a Christian Coptic tradition, someone from Nepal - a Buddhist - her father is a Ghurka, someone from Norway and the rest from the UK - all atheists or humanists. My grandchildren, I know have other friends from other parts of the world from the Far East, Israel and Chinese Canadian. Their paternal cousins are half African Caribbean. So their lives experience is a real melting pot of race and religion.

I do think from my experience however, that many older people have entrenched views as a result I suspect of limited experience of any real social contact with people other than their own social circle, you can hear it on this forum.

What I am sure if is that the less lived experience of people on a social level from other nationalities, religions etc, the more entrenched people appear to be.

The 20 somethings get drunk a lot, and when in groups that’s when racism often occurs.

Any age can be racist and any age can be extremely racist, however, IME younger people have far fewer of the prejudices of older people, have lived in an ethnically diverse area and often been educated in a multicultural school. Schools integrate diverse cultural perspectives, histories, and traditions into the school curriculum as a matter of course and this fosters equity, reducs prejudice, and can also improve academic achievement for all students. My own children and grandchildren have friends from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds, it's the norm for them.

There’s nothing like the racism there used to be in the UK.
Even then it may have been less than the US or other European countries.

In my experience younger people can be very racist, I have seen it in action.
I haven’t experienced anything in the least racist from my own age group or anyone middle aged.
Some very elderly people can say outdated things but nothing horrible like the younger ones.

Aveline

Or they were too intimidated to agree overtly?

I very much doubt it. Thankfully many younger people are adept and flexible in their thinking. My own family laugh and joke with their colleagues and friends ,who are from all over the globe.

Perhaps time for older people with less ability to shed outdated attitudes to keep quiet.

Aveline

Or they were too intimidated to agree overtly?

Intimidated by what? I'm fairly new to the group and this hasn't happened before so no one knew my opinion. The rest of the group, some have grown up together and some are newer to the area but IMO the reaction was quite spontaneous. I was genuinely heartened by it.

foxie48

LemonJam I've come to the conclusion that there will always be people in our communities with racist views but there are fewer than there was. I think younger people are much less likely to hold racist views and that gives me hope for the future of our country. I was in a group of people today when someone made an explicitly racist comment and the silence in response was deafening it was absolutely clear that no one else agreed or wished to be associated with the comment. I usually ensure that people know that I am willing to challenge these casual racist comments but on this occasion I stayed silent as the looks that passed round the group was enough.

However, even when these people get no response they still seem to think that everyone agrees with them. I’ve never understood that. I know I’ve mentioned this before but, when I confronted someone in my dog walking group for racist comments I was thrown out .

Why assume people were intimidated? Foxie was there and her observation was the silence spoke to those present either disagreed or didn’t want to be associated with the racism.

My experience has been those who claim to have been silenced, “we aren’t allowed to speak” are more likely to express racist views

Or they were too intimidated to agree overtly?

Good to hear that foxes.

LemonJam I've come to the conclusion that there will always be people in our communities with racist views but there are fewer than there was. I think younger people are much less likely to hold racist views and that gives me hope for the future of our country. I was in a group of people today when someone made an explicitly racist comment and the silence in response was deafening it was absolutely clear that no one else agreed or wished to be associated with the comment. I usually ensure that people know that I am willing to challenge these casual racist comments but on this occasion I stayed silent as the looks that passed round the group was enough.

- 'Just over a century ago, in 1924, the prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, sought to appease right wingers by appointing Sir William Joynson-Hicks as home secretary. ....Joynson-Hicks had “established himself as an unapologetic antisemite”. As home secretary, he “raised the hurdle” for immigrants to achieve “naturalisation” (equivalent to indefinite leave to remain) “from five to 10 years, and to 15 years for Russians”. “Russians” tended to mean Jewish refugees, fleeing pogroms and other oppressions. Joynson-Hicks made it as hard as possible for refugees to settle in the UK.

....The home secretary “issued instructions to immigration officers to increase their vigilance and never to give the benefit of the doubt to an alien attempting to enter the country”. He visited the ports “to examine the tighter procedures and encourage officials to greater zeal”. In other words, while there is no suggestion that Mahmood is an antisemite like Joynson-Hicks, his policies uncannily prefigured Mahmood’s.
The same goes for the context. The rightwing press, led by the Times, the Daily Mail, the Express, the National Review and the Morning Post, had spent the preceding 20 years whipping up paranoia about a “flood” of “aliens” and “undesirables” entering the country. “Aliens” and “undesirables” tended to be code for Jews. Jews in Britain were widely accused of “tribalism”, of refusing to “assimilate”, of being “un-English” and unpatriotic and of “leeching” off the state. The Imperial Fascist League issued stickers with the slogan: “Britons! Do not allow Jews to tamper with white girls.” Jewish immigrants were blamed for the housing shortage and unemployment.
Joynson-Hicks spoke disparagingly of Jews, who, he claimed, “put their Jewish or foreign nationality before their English nationality” and believed that left wingers “would like to see England flooded with the whole of the alien refuse from every country in the world”. Many right wingers believed there was a conspiracy to create a Jewish world order.

In other words, the stories being told about Muslims and immigrants today are the same stories that were being told about Jews a century ago. Both Muslims and immigrants are now accused of tribalism and a failure to assimilate, of hostility to “British values” and of “tampering with white girls”. They are blamed for the housing shortage and unemployment and for “leeching” off the state. Rightwing conspiracy fictions claim that Muslims in Britain are seeking to create an Islamic world order in the form of a “global caliphate”. Figures such as Suella Braverman and Matthew Goodwin suggest that people from ethnic minorities cannot be truly English or truly British. Braverman proposes a literal blood-and-soil definition of Englishness, “rooted in ancestry, heritage, and, yes, ethnicity” with “generational ties to English soil”.

Just like the age-old generalisations about Jews, these characterisations are entirely false. To give one example, a poll last month found that Muslims in both the UK and the US are more likely than non-Muslims to believe that “democracy is the best system of government” and to express loyalty to the country. So why all the hatred?

Well, the primary source is the same as it was a century ago: the media. Still the Daily Mail (now owned by the 4th Lord Rothermere), the Express and other newspapers pour division and bile into our lives. Today they are supplemented by outlets such as GB News and the social media site X. But just as they did 100 years ago, governments will blame anyone and anything else for polarisation and hate. Last week both Keir Starmer and Nigel Farage, apparently reading from the same script, took this blame-shifting in a remarkable new direction by accusing the Green party of “sectarianism”, which appears to mean that it attracted Muslim votes. Is “sectarian” now code for Muslim?

Etc.

mum2three holds Blair and KS responsible - absurd- but this kind of anti- immigrant rhetoric is now new.

There is a topical article published in Guardian this morning- 'Read these words from 100 years ago about immigrants in Britain-and see how history is chillingly repeating itself" by George Monbiot. Features a photo of front page Daily Mail 15 January 1934 article "Hurrah for the Blackshirts" by Viscount Rothmere. Guardian article published this morning and already has attracted 1285 responses.

mum2three

Something had to be done. Shipping in the Red Sea has been targeted by terrorists, funded by Iran (so we are told). This affects everyone, not just Israel.
Starmer/ Blair might now find out how foolish it was to allow migrants from all cultures to settle in Britain. They were so set on turning our country multi-racial that they didn't consider the consequences. How many 'sleepers' have been welcomed in and allowed to roam our streets gathering information to send back to their leaders?

Starmer Blair? So over fourteen years of various conservative leaders, we had no immigrants ?

It’s impossible to find rentals with a dog now.

In London in the 50’s, boarding house windows,
‘no blacks, no Irish, no dogs

LemonJam

mum3three: "Starmer/ Blair might now find out how foolish it was to allow migrants from all cultures to settle in Britain. They were so set on turning our country multi-racial that they didn't consider the consequences. How many 'sleepers' have been welcomed in and allowed to roam our streets gathering information to send back to their leaders?"

A somewhat daft comment as migrants have been settling in the UK before Starmer and Blair were even born. There have been many PMs over all those many years . Clearly you hold Labour leaders specifically responsible. You have the right to cast your vote for your favoured leader/party at the next election. Not sure the history of UK migration is the highest consideration in relation to current US Iranian strike.

I guess the answer to the question you pose lies with British Security Services surveillance teams. Security Services in other countries also will have such surveillance intelligence of those that "roam their streets gathering information to send back to their leaders, including those that are British. Uk also has under cover operatives!

The so called "Windrush Generation" (Mainly from Jamaica) arrived through`a whole series of governments both Labour and Conservative from 1948 onwards. They came to fill jobs in transport and in the NHS and a number of other jobs as they were needed. We have subsequently welcomed people, many from ex colonies, to fill doctor and other needed positions.

Many had British Citizenship initially, as that had been granted to Commonwealth countries when we carelessly and with ghastly mistakes - like the sudden division of India and Pakistan, which led to (the low estimate) of 1.000.000 dead...

coming to this country to work has a very long protracted history....and it has been at and in our hands that it happened.

Racism was there from the start as well of course, and simply because of the colour of ones skin, as British Black citizens arriving from Jamaica to do essential work were greeted with "NO BLACKS" and enoch Powells "rivers of blood" speech.

Beware of careless racism. Remember our history. We asked people to come over.... and historically, had treated those peoples very badly indeed.

AGAA4

This should be a war between Israel and Iran without the wider world being involved.
Netanyahu's regime has razed Gaza to the ground and killed many thousands of the people.
Now they want to do the same to Iran and have manipulated Trump into joining them. Netanyahu looked positively gleeful when asked if he had dragged the US into his war.
History has shown us that the west being involved in middle eastern wars never end well.

Exactly. Imo Trump is Netanyahus puppet. I think even Rubio admitted to that the other day.

Forgot the Shia and Sunni aspect.
Havent read up on that for a while.

fancythat

^All the Gulf states didn't want a war but Iran attacked them regardless, being neutral hasn't helped them^

That has surprised me too.
I dont understand that.
Not that I know that much about Middle East politics.

There isn't much love last between Shia Iran and most of the rest of moderate Sunni governments who are under pressure from Iranian sponsored extremists.

What precisely are you suggesting, fancy that?

mum3three: "Starmer/ Blair might now find out how foolish it was to allow migrants from all cultures to settle in Britain. They were so set on turning our country multi-racial that they didn't consider the consequences. How many 'sleepers' have been welcomed in and allowed to roam our streets gathering information to send back to their leaders?"

A somewhat daft comment as migrants have been settling in the UK before Starmer and Blair were even born. There have been many PMs over all those many years . Clearly you hold Labour leaders specifically responsible. You have the right to cast your vote for your favoured leader/party at the next election. Not sure the history of UK migration is the highest consideration in relation to current US Iranian strike.

I guess the answer to the question you pose lies with British Security Services surveillance teams. Security Services in other countries also will have such surveillance intelligence of those that "roam their streets gathering information to send back to their leaders, including those that are British. Uk also has under cover operatives!