Kelis slams UK for racism

[Sovvolf]

I agree about the Kunta Kunite part, but Nigerian doesn't seem too specific. I've heard comments like that more than a few times.

Also I don't think Small Waves' issue is that no one's defending her; it's that when incidents like this happen in the US, people in other countries like to pride themselves on using it as a reason to bash Americans in a generic sense, but when it happens elsewhere, you don't see those "lol, typical of the UK/France/etc" comments. It's alright to generalize Americans as doing stupid things, but how dare someone do it to anyone else--that sort of mentality, in a subconscious sense, maybe, is pretty common, especially in these forums.

Maybe, again I'm just saying a tad but its plausible. Also, I can see why that would be frustrating however all people are doing here is going against the statement that we Brits are all racists because of one man who I'm almost positive wasn't a Brit. Should we just keep quite of that. I imagine if this had happened to an American, the majority of the Americans here would be in uproar. Specially given the circumstances.

Also something further to add to all this: "In 2011 Kelis accused Great Britain of having racial issues via her Twitter account after saying that a white man racially abused her after accusing her of queue jumping in the immigration queue.. However, it should be noted that if the incident had occurred, the man would have been from a non-European Union country as European Union citizens (which includes British people) would not be in the same immigration queue as US citizens."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelis#Controversy

So the likely hood of this being a Brit, given the fact that it was a queue for non-Europeans, he was using racial slurs like "Slave and Kunta Kunite" which aren't ones your going to commonly hear in Briton given that it as little context here (Most racists here are poorly educated and probably have no idea of Britons involvement in the slave trade so it just wouldn't make sense to say it) is very slim at this point. Which means she's condemned a Country for the involvement of someone in a queue who in all likely hood isn't from the Country, and the fact that the people in the queue (also not likely to be Brits) didn't jump in and say something.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

anw, the only negetive thing I've notice but not enought o judge the country as a whole, was last summe when I went to London, I got this feeling that there was a next to extream segregation of London when i came to race.

the closer you got to the center of the city the more white people you'd see, and the further out you got the more people of other races you'd see, like there was this fear of mixing...
but this might have been wrong, I was only there for a few days so, not really enough time to get a truthful picture of the city.

but it was a great place for vegetarians =D

Some of the comments about the diversity in the UK caught my attention and I took a quick look in case I remembered incorrectly. Only approximately 8% of the UK is other than white.

Oh but you're in Sweden. You're non-white population is not much bigger. But you have a very low wealth gap. Minorities and immigrants tend to be in the lower economic strata and so they are usually mostly found in the poorer neighbourhoods. Due to the lower wealth gap it is probably not as noticeable in Sweden. There is also a tendency for ethnic groups to "clump" together, so you find places like "Little Tokyo" and the like. Living near a church/mosque/temple of one's faith is probably important to some and for immigrants being around other people that speak the same language and eat the same foods and such is probably a comfort.

 

[For.I.Am.Mad]

The Brits, racist? That's BS. Look at Princess Diana, she was always in Africa helping out. In fact, I think she spent more time in Africa than around her own family. God, she just loved those Africans, always had a big smile on her face. Almost like she was SERVING THEM. Almost like she wanted to love each and every one of them.

And I'm sure your government was fine and dandy with that. Having their Princess serving the people they once tried to destroy.

 

[minuialear]

Also, I can see why that would be frustrating however all people are doing here is going against the statement that we Brits are all racists because of one man who I'm almost positive wasn't a Brit. Should we just keep quite of that. I imagine if this had happened to an American, the majority of the Americans here would be in uproar. Specially given the circumstances.

Well no, the point is some of the same people who post "lol americans" when something stupid happens in the US are now up in arms because one woman said Britain is racist. The point is, people laugh when an American gets mad at people for generalizing all Americans in a backwards fashion, as if Americans either have no sense of humor or just like to get offended by everything. The same sentiment isn't carried over when a non-American gets just as irate about it (i.e., a "You guys are ridiculous" statement won't fly in this thread to the same extent the same thing in a thread about a US incident would). It has nothing to do with the specific incident and everything to do with the correlation between when people generalize and everyone laughs it off and says "Hah hah, you and your crazy people," and when generalizing is met with a gigantic backlash and people saying "It's not right to generalize like this, not everyone is this crazy" etc.

Example: Practically any post about religion in relation to American politics.

 

[Sovvolf]

snip

Again I can see why that would be frustrating however its blaming the actions of a bunch of ignorant morons on everyone else. Pretty similar to what this Kelis is doing. A few start throwing insults at America, so anyone else who defends a non American country on this site is an hypocrite. Honestly, I'd have said she was an idiot regardless of the country she is in.

 

[minuialear]

snip

Again I can see why that would be frustrating however its blaming the actions of a bunch of ignorant morons on everyone else. Pretty similar to what this Kelis is doing. A few start throwing insults at America, so anyone else who defends a non American country on this site is an hypocrite. Honestly, I'd have said she was an idiot regardless of the country she is in.

The problem isn't that "anyone else who defends a non-American country on this site is a hypocrite" it's that in general, it's more acceptable to insult/poke fun at Americans than it is to do the same to anyone else. That's typically the culture of these forums, regardless of the specific people involved. I.e., the sentiment is common enough that regardless of the specific mix of people, one will find the same general mindset prevalent within the comments made.

Which is indirectly also a valid point for this discussion: saying that a country has a racist culture is not equivalent to saying all people in that country are racist. There is a subtle difference (which, now that I reread her statement, somewhat applies to this example). She didn't say "All Brits are racist" (which would be a massive generalization of British people), but rather was making a point about the culture she perceived. Now of course generalizing about a culture due to one incident (assuming this was her only proof of the matter; from some of the rest of her statement there's a valid reason to suspect there could be other incidents) is again a no-no, but still. People should at least understand the actual reason to be outraged before they get all up in arms about it.

 

[Sovvolf]

snip

Well all that aside because it just sounds like we're going in circles with the argument. She as no reason to think we have a racist culture. As pointed out all the evidence points to the fact that this isn't a Brit who said it, the line wouldn't have been British the only person I can see being British is the guy at the desk.

I'm not outraged that she called my country racist or the culture racist. I'm outrage by the logic behind the accusation. Regardless of saying "All Brits are racist" shes saying the Briton "The land it self and the people in it" have a backwards and racist culture based on a running with one man who is very unlikely to be British.

Okay lets put this in perspective... If I was on my way home from America and I was in a queue for only Brits and I pushed in, say a Black Brit walks up to me and calls me out for pushing in and uses a racial slur. Would it be fair to start saying that America as a racist culture over it?

 

[minuialear]

I'm not outraged that she called my country racist or the culture racist. I'm outrage by the logic behind the accusation. Regardless of saying "All Brits are racist" shes saying the Briton "The land it self and the people in it" have a backwards and racist culture based on a running with one man who is very unlikely to be British.

Okay lets put this in perspective... If I was on my way home from America and I was in a queue for only Brits and I pushed in, say a Black Brit walks up to me and calls me out for pushing in and uses a racial slur. Would it be fair to start saying that America as a racist culture over it?

Well technically she said this was the thing that pushed her to comment--not that it was the only incident (and if anything, saying that one thing is the push to comment on a sentiment generally indicates that there were other instances that she chose not to comment on), so there's a valid possibility that there were numerous things that led her to believe that the UK culture isn't racially tolerant. So I don't see the example as equivalent.

 

[Sovvolf]

Well technically she said this was the thing that pushed her to comment--not that it was the only incident.

Spoiler

"Singer Kelis has accused Britain of being "racially decades behind progression" after she was allegedly subjected to abuse at an airport because of her skin colour.
Using her Twitter account, the American musician claimed she was accused of queue-jumping by a "red faced sweaty man" who called her a "slave" and "probably a disgusting Nigerian" and told her to call him "Sir".
Kelis said that man labelled her "Kunta Kinte" - the name of a slave in Alex Haley's book Roots - and "ranted and raved some more".
She claimed an official behind the passport desk had laughed, shaken his head and said "Kunta Kinte".
The musician, who did not name the airport, added: "All the while the entire line full of people I just sat on a plane with for almost three hours, over 50 people said nothing. Didn't flinch."
The incident apparently took place as the 32-year-old was travelling home after performing at Bestival on the Isle of Wight.
Kelis tweeted: "I didn't say anything at the time of the riots in London for a lot of reasons. But I am in London all the time and today I'm gonna say that the racial issues in the UK are disgusting. It's racially decades behind progression because everything is swept under the rug. People don't talk about it. People don't fight about it."
She said her own country was "the poster child for racial inequality", but that it was not a secret.
Kelis, whose hits include Milkshake and Caught Out There, claimed she had not lost her temper at the airport because she had her two-year-old son with her."

Where in that article did she say that this was the thing that pushed her to comment? Additionally if it was the racial abuse she's complaining about from Brits... Why would it be this that pushed her to say it about Britain when (given the evidence) the fellow couldn't have been a Brit? Why isn't she complaining about the other incidents that directly affected her?

Again her whole story sounds fishy. Honestly wouldn't put this past a publicity stunt for her in hopes of gaining sympathy. Perhaps she's got a new album on the way.

So I don't see the example as equivalent.

Why not, its the exact same that happened to her... Why is in not the equivalent when it happens to me?

 

[Dexiro]

lolwhat? UK is miles ahead of the US in terms of social progression.

Err, August Riots? We are better in some areas but it's clear in many others we have a long way to go and more than many other places our society suffers from a bad case of "Tall Poppy Syndrome".

Maybe I worded it wrong, I'm talking more about attitudes towards minority groups. The area I live in isn't particularly pretty but I've been astounded by peoples apparent attitudes. I mean I came out as gay in High School and had the roughest kids in school saying they had my back.

I know a lot of areas won't be so accepting, but this seems a lot less rare than it does in the US even considering the US is much larger.

 

[minuialear]

Well technically she said this was the thing that pushed her to comment--not that it was the only incident.

Spoiler

"Singer Kelis has accused Britain of being "racially decades behind progression" after she was allegedly subjected to abuse at an airport because of her skin colour.
Using her Twitter account, the American musician claimed she was accused of queue-jumping by a "red faced sweaty man" who called her a "slave" and "probably a disgusting Nigerian" and told her to call him "Sir".
Kelis said that man labelled her "Kunta Kinte" - the name of a slave in Alex Haley's book Roots - and "ranted and raved some more".
She claimed an official behind the passport desk had laughed, shaken his head and said "Kunta Kinte".
The musician, who did not name the airport, added: "All the while the entire line full of people I just sat on a plane with for almost three hours, over 50 people said nothing. Didn't flinch."
The incident apparently took place as the 32-year-old was travelling home after performing at Bestival on the Isle of Wight.
Kelis tweeted: "I didn't say anything at the time of the riots in London for a lot of reasons. But I am in London all the time and today I'm gonna say that the racial issues in the UK are disgusting. It's racially decades behind progression because everything is swept under the rug. People don't talk about it. People don't fight about it."
She said her own country was "the poster child for racial inequality", but that it was not a secret.
Kelis, whose hits include Milkshake and Caught Out There, claimed she had not lost her temper at the airport because she had her two-year-old son with her."

Where in that article did she say that this was the thing that pushed her to comment? Additionally if it was the racial abuse she's complaining about from Brits... Why would it be this that pushed her to say it about Britain when (given the evidence) the fellow couldn't have been a Brit? Why isn't she complaining about the other incidents that directly affected her?

Again her whole story sounds fishy. Honestly wouldn't put this past a publicity stunt for her in hopes of gaining sympathy. Perhaps she's got a new album on the way.

"...I didn't say anything at the time of the riots in London for a lot of reasons.But I am in London all the time and today I'm gonna say that the racial issues in the UK are disgusting."

Do I need to explain the quotation (not meant in a condescending manner)?

And if you've ever been the persistent victim of inequality (or if something's ever just nagged you for a very long time), you'd be able to understand the possibility that she was just so fed up with the behavior that the slightest thing that seemed consistent with that behavior was enough to say "Alright, that's it, I'm not taking this anymore."

In regards to why she didn't bring up every other incident, you seemed to have missed the part where she Tweeted this (Twitter not being the greatest platform for having an extensive discussion of all past wrongs, should they exist). Also if she was outraged over this particular incident, she likely was not in a mindset to carefully lay out every injustice done to her (which doesn't excuse her for not doing so, but it really shouldn't have to be explained that angry people don't always explain their opinions as carefully as the calmer parties listening to them).

I don't think the intentions of her claim become suspicious just because her argument's obviously incomplete. Should she clarify her opinion and be less sweeping in her judgement? Absolutely. But just because she didn't, doesn't mean she hasn't in general experienced enough racism to warrant getting angry and ranting about it, and doesn't mean that this incident must be fishy or suspect.

So I don't see the example as equivalent.

Why not, its the exact same that happened to her... Why is in not the equivalent when it happens to me?

See above. It's not equivalent because in your example you're implying that was the only incident that caused you to think that way, whereas here there's a strong possibility this is not the only incident she is referring to (she indicates at least two).

 

[Comando96]

Its like calling the French cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Someone watches top gear. Or it's a common phrase in Europe, I wouldn't know I'm Australian

Actually that phrase was coined by Monty Python.
From there on it remained infamous.

 

[Dark Knifer]

Its like calling the French cheese eating surrender monkeys.

Someone watches top gear. Or it's a common phrase in Europe, I wouldn't know I'm Australian

Actually that phrase was coined by Monty Python.
From there on it remained infamous.

Ahh, I see. I have yet to see monty python but since everyone keeps talking about it, it's probably worth a look. Also, yay for thread derailment.

 

[Treblaine]

lolwhat? UK is miles ahead of the US in terms of social progression.

Err, August Riots? We are better in some areas but it's clear in many others we have a long way to go and more than many other places our society suffers from a bad case of "Tall Poppy Syndrome".

Maybe I worded it wrong, I'm talking more about attitudes towards minority groups. The area I live in isn't particularly pretty but I've been astounded by peoples apparent attitudes. I mean I came out as gay in High School and had the roughest kids in school saying they had my back.

I know a lot of areas won't be so accepting, but this seems a lot less rare than it does in the US even considering the US is much larger.

I've heard kids of the younger generation speak. How they use "gay" as the ultimate catch-all insult, that's just the surface.

 

[Sovvolf]

snip

I stand corrected. However I do hold the complaint on the man fishy. Specially if she's trying to pass this fellow off as a Brit. That being said, even if she's had a few bad experiences she still can't claim that the whole countries culture is racist. Indeed they're racists in this country like any other but our actually culture certainly isn't.

 

[Deimateos]

THEY write themselves out, to of course, remain innocent victims who need to be given gifts today.

Also not true. A white did write us out of history, but it was mainly just one, one who just happened have a lot of pull at the time (But who can say why )
Right smack @ 7 minutes

Only victims and slaves. That is used today to fuel white guilt, while same time painting anyone with white skin, as the oppressive slave families.

To be honest, I kind of feel like it's sold that way for two reasons:
1. To try and keep black Americans ignorant of our history
2. To try to make white Americans indifferent, even mildly hostile to black Americans, since according to our racist president woodrow wilson's rewritting of history, Americans are told only 4-5 black Americans ever did anything useful (And one made peanut butter, ZOMG). Even what we're told about most of them is mostly distorted or lies of omission (Such as Fredrick Douglass' real opinion of the infamous "3/5ths" rule).

No one cares to mention first slaves in the USA were Irish

Yep and they were actually the third class citizens in the US (up until the prevalence of minstrel shows, where most actors were Americans of Irish descent),and the slur for them was "Green (N-word)". I can't really fault them for doing what they did to escape their situation, and considering irish Americans beat black Americans to the Oval office by 47 years (JFK), I'd say they did well for themselves.

Who gets the college funds? The educational loans? Big tip, not the white guys.

So by that logic, every college in the nation would be majority black. That is a categorically untrue insinuation. Though none of them should be at all, there are literally hundreds of scholarships not influenced by melanin production. Any claim that "blacks get all the money" is a cop-out from lazy people who didn't apply to every scholarship they were eligible for. You should punch whoever spewed that rhetoric at you in the throat (I suggest running away after if they're bigger than you).


Now to properly address what concept I assume you're really attacking: Fuck affirmative action. It's one of those laws that is just fueling social segregation, and it infuriates me. I want to be hired because I'm good at the job and that alone, not because they need to reach some asshat quota.

200 years after it's over and they expect to be treated as kings while being allowed to be racist with no consequences.

Problem is, that culture is the result of a 93yr old false history being propagandized to American citizens, white, black and everyone in between.

Eh I'd write her off as a spoiled idiot thinking she's superior, cause of how she's raised. Pay her no mind.

I agree, she's the symptom, not the cause. The only way to rectify it is to repair or falsified history.

 

[minuialear]

snip

I stand corrected. However I do hold the complaint on the man fishy. Specially if she's trying to pass this fellow off as a Brit. That being said, even if she's had a few bad experiences she still can't claim that the whole countries culture is racist. Indeed they're racists in this country like any other but our actually culture certainly isn't.

I mean it's not like there's been a whole debate over whether the guy was a Brit, during which she stoutly defended her assumption that he was, so I think you're blowing that out of proportion. It seems similar to the guy assuming she's Nigerian because she's black and cutting lines and because he was probably tired of Nigerians...I dunno, sending scam emails?

And while I tentatively agree with your statement about her over-generalizing, I'd like to point out that a culture doesn't have to consist of 95% racist people in order to be racist. Saying a culture is intolerant is fundamentally different from saying the country as a whole is intolerant, because culture takes into account not only the racists ("Black people need to go back to Africa"), but also the people who may not agree with racists, but who are indifferent to things that racists do ("I don't think hating blacks is right, but I'm not going to involve myself in those issues for various reasons"), or who don't notice what the racists do anymore because their elevated privilege allows them to be blind to it ("What racism? There is no racism anymore"), etc. In other words, it includes not only the bigots, but the people who allow bigots to continue being bigots, thereby perpetuating the idea that it's not actually wrong to be a bigot, etc.

The majority of people in the US, for example, do not hate gay people, but the culture is still intolerant of gays. Because even though a lot of people don't believe homosexuality is wrong or that gays should be treated as second-class citizens, they're willing to look the other way when discrimination happens, often enough that gays are still treated horribly.

So yeah, there's still the possibility that she's blowing her experiences out of proportion. But not everyone in the UK has to be a blatant racist in order for the culture to be racist/intolerant/uninviting in regards to certain races, so at the same time there is still the possibility that she has a fair point.

lolwhat? UK is miles ahead of the US in terms of social progression.

Err, August Riots? We are better in some areas but it's clear in many others we have a long way to go and more than many other places our society suffers from a bad case of "Tall Poppy Syndrome".

Maybe I worded it wrong, I'm talking more about attitudes towards minority groups. The area I live in isn't particularly pretty but I've been astounded by peoples apparent attitudes. I mean I came out as gay in High School and had the roughest kids in school saying they had my back.

I know a lot of areas won't be so accepting, but this seems a lot less rare than it does in the US even considering the US is much larger.

It's easy to *appear* more accepting of minority groups when you don't have as many people from those groups (percentage-wise/per capita) in your country.

 

[Sovvolf]

And while I tentatively agree with your statement about her over-generalizing, I'd like to point out that a culture doesn't have to consist of 95% racist people in order to be racist.

Saying a culture is intolerant is fundamentally different from saying the country as a whole is intolerant, because culture takes into account not only the racists ("Black people need to go back to Africa"), but also the people who may not agree with racists, but who are indifferent to things that racists do ("I don't think hating blacks is right, but I'm not going to involve myself in those issues for various reasons"), or who don't notice what the racists do anymore because their elevated privilege allows them to be blind to it ("What racism? There is no racism anymore"), etc. In other words, it includes not only the bigots, but the people who allow bigots to continue being bigots, thereby perpetuating the idea that it's not actually wrong to be a bigot, etc.

Just saying first... Thats one looong sentence. On to the statement. So basically, your saying that Briton has a Racist culture because it as a few eggs in it? that makes no sense. Also, we aren't indifferent to what racists do over here. Being publicly racist can get you arrested here. Also, adding to this seems this all took place in Spain and not Briton.

Also, calling the full culture racist because of a few people is equally as ignorant and out of proportion.

 

[minuialear]

And while I tentatively agree with your statement about her over-generalizing, I'd like to point out that a culture doesn't have to consist of 95% racist people in order to be racist.

Saying a culture is intolerant is fundamentally different from saying the country as a whole is intolerant, because culture takes into account not only the racists ("Black people need to go back to Africa"), but also the people who may not agree with racists, but who are indifferent to things that racists do ("I don't think hating blacks is right, but I'm not going to involve myself in those issues for various reasons"), or who don't notice what the racists do anymore because their elevated privilege allows them to be blind to it ("What racism? There is no racism anymore"), etc. In other words, it includes not only the bigots, but the people who allow bigots to continue being bigots, thereby perpetuating the idea that it's not actually wrong to be a bigot, etc.

Just saying first... Thats one looong sentence. On to the statement. So basically, your saying that Briton has a Racist culture because it as a few eggs in it? that makes no sense. Also, we aren't indifferent to what racists do over here. Being publicly racist can get you arrested here. Also, adding to this seems this all took place in Spain and not Briton.

Also, calling the full culture racist because of a few people is equally as ignorant and out of proportion.

If you actually read the post you'd notice I didn't accuse the UK of officially being anything--I just said it's possible for the UK to have an intolerant culture without everyone being racist. Which was just a response to you saying not everyone in the UK is racist and therefore it's not possible for the country to have that kind of culture.

And you're not exactly getting my point. Either you're just choosing to completely ignore it or you don't understand it. So I'll break it down via an example.

Country A is made up of 100 people:

- 10 people despise athiests and want them deported from the country because they're so awful. 10 people don't hate athiests but believe they aren't trustworthy and/or have psychological problems and should get help. Overall 20 people are intolerant of athiests.

- 10 people are athiests. 20 people are not athiests but actively work with athiests to dispel false rumors about athiests (that they're immoral, that they are confused, etc). Overall 30 people are tolerant of athiests and work towards dispelling intolerance.

- 15 believe that there is no (or at least very little) intolerance; they believe athiests' complaints about discrimination are typically overblown, that athiests in current times really have no reason to complain, because conditions have improved greatly over the past few decades/etc. These people, while not intolerant, do not speak out against (and often may not find problems with) charges of intolerant behavior, because they're skeptical that it even happens anymore.

- 20 people believe there is intolerance, but don't see what they can do to stop it ("bigots never learn"), and therefore also don't tend to speak out against intolerant behavior--because they feel it will not solve anything. In some instances they may even simply ignore it, emulating the same behavior used against trolls on the internet.

- 15 people believe there is intolerance, and try to speak out every once in awhile, but otherwise stay out of the fighting, assuming others will set the record straight at some point (whether because they just assume everyone wants equality like they do, or because they believe others can achieve it more eloquently than they themselves can).


In total, 20 are actual bigots, 30 are either victims of the bigots or are trying to defend victims of the bigots, and 50 are somewhere in the middle. Clearly the bigots are in the minority, but the culture that results from this mix of people will still largely be intolerant of athiests. Why?

Because the people, as a collective, will be creating a culture in which the bigots go around saying stupid things about athiests, and the largest "side" (the 50 people) stay silent, for the most part, or in some cases even denouncing the actions of the athiests who complain about inequality, and in which there is nothing wrong with this dynamic because the majority of people don't want to do anything to change it. It's a culture where if you put 20 random people in a room together with an athiest and a bigot, a very small percentage of those 20 people will think to prevent the bigot from discriminating against the athiest, and where if you tell another 20 people about the incident, changes are the majority will not fault the random group from acting in that manner.

NOW AGAIN, this isn't to say that the UK is like this exactly (Based on my experiences there is definitely at least a bit of this dynamic present in the culture, but don't make any claims that the population falls into these exact percentages/that the culture is definitely intolerant/etc). But hopefully this allows you to see how bigots can be the minority in a population, but the culture as a whole can still be uninviting to a group of people, to the point where it implicitly supports discrimination against that group (and thus is intolerant,to some extent).

TL;DR: Read moar.

 

[Sovvolf]

And you're not exactly getting my point. Either you're just choosing to completely ignore it or you don't understand it. So I'll break it down via an example.

Neither really. Though I would like to ask. What would by the point in ignoring a point? it would be counter productive to a debate. That is unless you just want to win in order to make you feel good for about yourself. Which is a flawed debate and also pointless. We either debate to learn or we debate to teach others. Ignoring a point does neither or that.

It wasn't 100% missing the point neither. At the time of writing, I had about three chat windows open. Was trying to talk to three people at once while also replying to you. So I rushed my response and rushed reading it rather than giving it my full attention.

Which is pretty much what is happening now. I'm needing to set off fast so I guess answering your points like this wouldn't be doing either of us justice. I will say that at this moment I have no reply that will trump yours. I don't entirely think your right but I don't have the knowledge, evidence or intelligence at this moment to counter it. So I guess I have to bow out of the debate.

TL;DR: Read moar.

Thanks for being patronising.