The post that was quoted here has been removedI had thought Montagnard is a vague and imprecise term used to refer to the tribal and dispossessed peoples of the backwoods of Vietnam who did ally with the West against the Communists, and did not believe that the Hmong were distinct from Montagnards, though I imagined Montagnards included non-Hmong.
My bad.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removedIt's blatantly clear you would only have accepted a report that condemned the UK as institutionally racist and the fact the report didn't find this to be the case and actually put the UK forward as a model for other countries to follow has rattled your cage and you are adamant we listen to you (the ravings of a lunatic) over and above the people who put the report together.
1 edit
The post that was quoted here has been removed“Kevcvs57 clearly implied that the scholarly critics merely skimmed the surface of
the report (allegedly finding it too hard to read) BEFORE they condemned it.
That's extremely insulting to the scholars' intelligence and integrity. “
My comment was in response to your assertion that it’s supporters had not read it. Also very insulting in your usually obnoxious offhand and arrogant manner. Which is probably also true but you do not need to read the whole report to either agree or disagree with its banner headline finding that institutional racism is not a problem in the UK.
This isn’t a difficult decision to make duchess. If, like me, you believe that institutional racism is a problem then you’ll disagree with the main finding of the report. Other people who do not believe that institutional racism is a problem will agree with the main finding of the report.
Just to clarify, if the main report found that institutional racism was a problem in the UK how many minds do you think it would change? And how many minds are going to be changed by its actual claims.