Now look at 'enlightened' Europe. Their high officials are all lily white. And the whiteness goes down to local police and fire departments, even to municipal services.
Do you always make sweeping and incorrect generalisations without knowledge, or are you simply lying for effect?
The UK is part of Europe, and the part I know best. So, let's go through...
First, the non-white population of Europe is far lower than the US - UK is more mixed than most, about 6% non-white (and more young than elderly).
Second, the vast majority of non-white immigration to Europe is post-colonial. We're barely on a third generation here. Start from the bottom in any culture and it will take time to achieve power. [but hey, they've had the vote for as long as any others, since 1848 anyhow]. The non-elected leadership of any large company, govt. body, etc, will surely tend to reflect the attitudes and views of the 'ruling class' 40-50 years earlier, when the youngest of said class were being born and raised.
Third, even then you're wrong. For the UK, we have plenty of non-white management and professionals, numerous non-white mayors and equivalents, some MP's and a few in govt (none in Cabinet currently - we're before the election). There's theoretical numerical under-representation, IMO partly because of point 2: it's very rare for even a 2nd-generation immigrant, given likely poverty especially when young, to really do well. But I don't rule out prejudice at the top levels, also: especially when there isn't really any strong ethnic voting bloc to back an individual, they're going to be more vulnerable to 'passive' racism (lack of preferment, etc).
Note that we also have very few elected posts compared to the US: individuals tend to be chosen for (for example) judicial posts by length of service, quality of service, etc... not ideal. And also (as is noted) leads to stagnation of attitudes and a 'club' mentality which excludes outsides - be they non-white, female, or whatever. The more senior the judicial ranks, the less non-whites or women among them (although, again, this tends to reflect the 'educated elite' from the immediate post-war generation: at younger levels it's very different).
Lawyers, startlingly enough, do have an effective lobby, and a lot of MPs worked in the legal field before election... they're among the slowest to change.
On police and fire services (and also prison warders), I'll grant you're accurate. But they're more racist than the majority of state and local leadership, not less. They have been and are more white than most of the communities they protect, and there's still a culture of at least prejudice against non-whites, if not active racism as such... this is an attitude which the senior levels are still not sufficiently active in eradicating. The armed forces have managed to change, however. IMO the police will too, soon enough: they get public condemnation now, not acceptance, for showing any other attitude in most quarters.
It's the lowest level - the real dregs of society - who form the most visible and vocal voices of white supremacy... the skinhead thugs that join whatever gang will accept them and offers the most violence, with the cause irrelevant. The leaders tend to make common cause with neo-Nazis, white supremacists and some of the nastier US 'militia'. Their adherents are even younger and less intelligent than the leadership, who use them to stir up fear and trouble. I suspect they're the inevitable low end of the IQ bell curve... and hence they're also a tiny minority. Rest assured that they're not coherent enough to lecture you or anyone.
<edit> I don't believe that an international conference is likely to achieve much, anyway. Still, it's unworthy to snub it. |
