shall we take Andy's point that words can indeed be very offensive and in return he'll stop being insulting 
Glad you got the point!
Clarkson started it........ 
Perhaps I went a bit far, sorry. But surely I don't have to go through all the historical uses and associations of the word nigger again, do I?
VNA at no point did i say it was their own fault that they were sold into slavery - critique if you like but do it honestly, don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say because it suits you.
It's clearly what you were implying.
As to 'Chav' you make my point for me by your reply - it seems ok to use chav to denigrate an entire class of people because it's more acceptable to do that to white people than others who aren't white.
As I pointed out in my reply chav has absolutely nothing in terms of power and history as nigger does. So no I took your point apart I didn't make it. Go back to page 2 bud and read again.
Apparently it's acceptable to enslave by forcible mass kidnaps 1m+ white people by Berber raids across Europe and attacks on shipping as its a smaller number than those transported across the Atlantic - really???
Clearly not. Here I'll repeat myself for your sole benefit;
The difference is that you are taking of a 1/10th of those taken to the Americas. It does show that slavery does go across all races. But in general it has been discrimination aginst black people, particularly African blacks, often descendant of slaves that continued to be discriminated against until very recent years, and some would say continue to be discriminated against to this day. And you certainly get that impression on the fazer forum!
It was for example, not that long ago that the UK was supporting apartheid in South Africa. So no its not ancient history.
Oh try page 2 again. And lets hope at some point racial discrimination become history just like Berber piracy.
As to being discriminated against because of your colour that applies to white farmers in Zimbabwe who are being murdered and driven off land they have farmed for over a hundred years in some cases purely because they are white Zimbabwean citizens not black citiizens yet what reaction do we get to that - next to nothing
I mean talk about going off at a tangent, getting hold of the wrong end of a stick, trying to change the subject. Rhodesia was a British colony, blacks access to land has been restricted since the 1930's, blacks had few rights and no say in the running of the country, the incomers, the colonisers had of course took all the land. So no the anger directed against white farmers is not simply racial and only the extremely ignorant could suggest that it is so. And actually Zimbabwe is frequently in the news and the plight of white framers has been given, rightly, much coverage.
Like I said in my original post - do I condone prejudice based on skin colour No! - but that applies across the entire spectrum which includes prejudice against white people by black people as well as vice versa -that,unfortunately, is the point you seem to be missing.
Whilst I agree to some degree with your sentiment, I have to say that as a white male I have never felt threatened, uncomfortable in fear of my life or whatever becuase of the pale milky white nature of my skin, even when I've been the only white man in sight. I have been the butt of good humoured jokes in some such situations. However I am at a complete loss as what the point is that you wish to make.
not me as I'm just a sweaty sock watching my own country trying to get rid of English rule....is that racist too 
A sweaty sock? As you should know Sockish Independence is not racial it is inclusive, and is most certainly not about what colour of socks you wear or whether they are sweaty, smelly or whatever. All sockswill be equal in Sockland.
