Casual Racism [Archive] - hibs.net Messageboard

--------

09-10-2009, 07:03 PM

I find it unbelievable that this was aired on Australian TV, along with Bruce Forsyth's comments that we are losing our sense of humour about using the P word, some folks seem to be stuck in the sixties. Thoughts?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k739n2VEsbA

There's a great deal of casual unacknowledged racism about, which we're only made aware of when someone "lets slip" an insult like the one DuBeke came out with.

I actually think that these "slips" betray an underlying prejudice that needs to be challenged and dealt with, if only because a great number of people share the attitudes they betray. People who wouldn't support or vote for the BNP right now, but who would be quite comfortable with the idea if the community at large showed itself prepared to tolerate those attitudes provide the silent constituency for people like the BNP. They're where the votes will come from if the BNP are ever to achieve a position of power, from people who'd tell you, "I'm not a racist, but...."

In some ways this is more insidious than the sort of outright racist abuse the BNP and other neo-Nazi groups come out with, because it can't really be legislatedf against.

Personally, I've always found Bruce Forsyth pointless and offensive - I've no idea why anyone would want to watch him on their TVs at all. he makes my skin crawl. But that goes for a great number of popular "entertainers" - I have a very long "loathe-list" of "celebrities" i'd happily ban from the media for ever. But as my dear son has already informed me, I'm an intellectual fascist (no other kind, I hasten to add) and snob, and rather proud of the fact.

The Australian clip is appalling - reminds me of some of the "humour" the BBC and ITV used to put on air in the 1950's and 1960's. It wasn't funny then and isn't funny now.

hibsbollah

09-10-2009, 07:13 PM

The problem is in 21st century Britain the word 'racism' or 'racist' has lost its meaning. Racism and racist behaviour is widely tolerated in society, but calling someone a racist is seen as a terrible insult. I sometimes think it would be better if more people owned up to their racism instead of living in denial.

LiverpoolHibs

09-10-2009, 07:15 PM

Personally, I've always found Bruce Forsyth pointless and offensive - I've no idea why anyone would want to watch him on their TVs at all. he makes my skin crawl.

Yesterday on Five Live I heard someone say that she felt 'very let down by Bruce Forsyth'. I really don't think I'll ever hear an odder comment in my lifetime.

LiverpoolHibs

09-10-2009, 07:26 PM

--------

09-10-2009, 07:39 PM

Yesterday on Five Live I heard someone say that she felt 'very let down by Bruce Forsyth'. I really don't think I'll ever hear an odder comment in my lifetime.

Bruce Forsyth as a Moral Compass. :faf:

It's also noticeable that you can't read or hear anything about this without hearing someone, Bruce Forsyth or otherwise, claim that it's wrong to say it because 'of the world we live in now'. The intimation being that it was perfectly acceptable to walk round telling someone they 'looked like a Paki' (or asking them if they're a terrorist because of their background) in previous decades and that it's really an awful imposition that we're no longer 'allowed'.

****ing insane.

I remember the good old days when you could watch the Black and White Minbstrels on the Beeb - lovely singers they were - and then switch over to ITV and get that nice Bernard Manning telling jokes about 'Paddies' and 'Coons'.

How we laughed.... :rolleyes:

Hiber-nation

09-10-2009, 07:46 PM

It's also noticeable that you can't read or hear anything about this without hearing someone, Bruce Forsyth or otherwise, claim that it's wrong to say it because 'of the world we live in now'. The intimation being that it was perfectly acceptable to walk round telling someone they 'looked like a Paki' (or asking them if they're a terrorist because of their background) in previous decades and that it's really an awful imposition that we're no longer 'allowed'.

****ing insane.

Yep, like big Ron he's of a different generation remember :rolleyes:

Hiber-nation

09-10-2009, 07:53 PM

I remember the good old days when you could watch the Black and White Minbstrels on the Beeb - lovely singers they were - and then switch over to ITV and get that nice Bernard Manning telling jokes about 'Paddies' and 'Coons'.

How we laughed.... :rolleyes:

It takes me back to my childhood - all the other kids were having a laugh about the Manning jokes and no-one batted an eyelid about these bizarre "minstrels" but I had no idea what was going on as my mum refused to watch these programmes - back in the late 60s she kept going on about racists being "disgusting ignorant people" and it stuck with me - more than likely the only advice she ever gave me that I heeded mind you.

Hainan Hibs

09-10-2009, 07:58 PM

I'll have to be honest and say it made me laugh.

hibsdaft

09-10-2009, 08:42 PM

Ants

09-10-2009, 08:44 PM

This racism claim is becoming very more predominant every day.

I have been informed of a situation, where a non-white child is causing "sneakily" disruption in several school classes, the teachers are turning a blind eye to his behaviour and are selecting the children whom he has picked on for punishment, as they are unintentionally causing a classroom disruption by responding to his actions.

His family members have also been present outside the school and have verbally "made several children aware" of their intentions..... enough said :grr:

Ants

09-10-2009, 08:49 PM

Bruce Forsyth as a Moral Compass. :faf:

I remember the good old days when you could watch the Black and White Minbstrels on the Beeb - lovely singers they were - and then switch over to ITV and get that nice Bernard Manning telling jokes about 'Paddies' and 'Coons'.

How we laughed.... :rolleyes:

Love Thy Neighbour...

This will now be classed as racism from both parties concerned, I destinctly remember the term white honky being used, to which I laughed and still do.
I firmly believe its not offensive as used in this programme.

Sir David Gray

09-10-2009, 09:16 PM

i took what Bruce Forsyth said differently.

something was said in private and we don't know the context or relationship between the two between whom it was spoken. whatever happened is in the past between them. if she wanted the guy to gtf we all know the BBC of 2009 would have supported her 100% and quite rightly. but she didn't feel this was necessary and they both moved on.

but since then the media have blown this issue into a massive furore to boost paper sales and phone in ratings because they know now that racism stories sell.

so you have this insane situation where the two people involved (the two people who actually know the context of what happened) have come to terms with the incident and moved on, but the media is insistent on generating what they call a "public debate" but what is really just an ugly counter-productive ****storm.

Brucie is right. this solumn moralising is now undoing much of the good anti-racist progress thats been made. the desperate attempts of the media to keep this issue live are despicable. for all they try to pretend they are generating some "national discussion" its really just them making the most an ugly story and squeezing as much unnecessary hysteria out of it as they can.

ultimately, witchhunts, hysteria and sacking folk will never truly combat racism, but will create an uneasy society.

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, it's not always about what is said, but rather how it's said.

I haven't really paid too much attention to the whole story but as far as I understand, the woman on the receiving end of the comment wasn't too enamoured with what was said but they have since made up, the guy apologised and it is now all behind them. I don't know why it can't just be left at that to be honest.

I don't know why Bruce Forsyth had to get involved, though.

As for the Australian show, I thought that was quite funny and not in the least bit offensive. I honestly cannot understand how anyone could be genuinely offended by that performance.

Big Ed

09-10-2009, 09:23 PM

Love Thy Neighbour...

This will now be classed as racism from both parties concerned, I destinctly remember the term white honky being used, to which I laughed and still do.
I firmly believe its not offensive as used in this programme.

Whilst the comparison appears to be valid in terms of calling blacks say, coons and calling whites honky; I think that the kind of names that people call blacks are deep rooted and viscious, based on years of loathing and hatred. If a black guy called me, a white man, a honky, I would'nt know where to look; I'd be that embarressed for the boy.
Coon and ****** go way back and represent the deep rooted bile that people had for blacks.
On the subject of Love Thy Neighbour; it hasn't dated well. However, despite the language, I can't help feeling that the message was that the whole race thing was pointless. The wives of the main characters were similarly black and white and similarly bewildered by the actions of their husbands. The wives were always portrayed as the sensible ones, the husbands the dumb-asses.
My other memory of the programme was that it wasn't very funny.

hibsdaft

09-10-2009, 09:44 PM

I don't know why it can't just be left at that to be honest.

thats simply been down to the media loving these sorts of sh*tstorms imo.

GhostofBolivar

09-10-2009, 09:50 PM

The BBC fired Carol Thatcher when she described Jo-Wilfried Tsonga as a "golliwog", so why does this guy still have a job :confused:

steakbake

09-10-2009, 10:10 PM

thats simply been down to the media loving these sorts of sh*tstorms imo.

Very true. The Great British Public love a media induced scandal/outrage, usually over absolutely nothing at all involving people of absolutely no consequence.

I can't wait to read about the next sorry instalment of the Peter Andre/Katie Price trainwreck. Or the X Factor (Simon has a cold and the whole thing might apparently fall to pieces if he can't raise up out of his sick bed).

Pete

09-10-2009, 10:52 PM

Agreed. As far as I'm concerned, it's not always about what is said, but rather how it's said.

I haven't really paid too much attention to the whole story but as far as I understand, the woman on the receiving end of the comment wasn't too enamoured with what was said but they have since made up, the guy apologised and it is now all behind them. I don't know why it can't just be left at that to be honest.

I don't know why Bruce Forsyth had to get involved, though.

As for the Australian show, I thought that was quite funny and not in the least bit offensive. I honestly cannot understand how anyone could be genuinely offended by that performance.

I thought it was funny too...but In a way I sort of felt uncomfortable and I sensed the American guy shared these sentiments.

"Blacked up" faces are somehow associated with laughing at the black race but in this instance I think the joke was for everyone to laugh at.
The joke isn't about them being black but the fact that Michael is portrayed as white!

I think some people need to chill and get with the 21st century. To me, things like that are actually how you deal with real racism. The joke is on the very idea that there are racial stereotypes...and those who think there are are the real ones who are being laughed at.

Beefster

09-10-2009, 11:02 PM

It's also noticeable that you can't read or hear anything about this without hearing someone, Bruce Forsyth or otherwise, claim that it's wrong to say it because 'of the world we live in now'. The intimation being that it was perfectly acceptable to walk round telling someone they 'looked like a Paki' (or asking them if they're a terrorist because of their background) in previous decades and that it's really an awful imposition that we're no longer 'allowed'.

****ing insane.

The most cringeworthy thing I've heard this week was Brucie's 'best friend' Kenny Lynch trying to justify casual racism on Five Live this week. I don't think Jimmy Tarbuck is going to be too happy though, after Lynch let the cat out of the bag about some of his chat.

Steve-O

10-10-2009, 04:28 AM

70hibby

10-10-2009, 04:58 AM

Not entirely sure what was 'racist' about the Aussie TV thing? It was pretty pish, but racist?

The Jackson 5 were black, at the end Jackson was pretty much white. These guys dressed up like that and...? :confused:

Agreed.... Ive watched this clip and nowt within it screams Racist to me. Why was there no out cry when Eddie Murphy played a white guy, or have you seen the movie White Chicks....2 black guys play white girls.

This is just PC gone mad !

Betty Boop

10-10-2009, 10:39 AM

Chuckie

10-10-2009, 10:53 AM

The whole race issue is a minefield.

You know it's there, and likely to explode, so best just to walk in another field and avoid it.

steakbake

10-10-2009, 11:16 AM

Wondered how long it would be...

:agree: very funny.

LiverpoolHibs

10-10-2009, 12:40 PM

As for the Australian show, I thought that was quite funny and not in the least bit offensive. I honestly cannot understand how anyone could be genuinely offended by that performance.

Not entirely sure what was 'racist' about the Aussie TV thing? It was pretty pish, but racist?

The Jackson 5 were black, at the end Jackson was pretty much white. These guys dressed up like that and...? :confused:

Agreed.... Ive watched this clip and nowt within it screams Racist to me. Why was there no out cry when Eddie Murphy played a white guy, or have you seen the movie White Chicks....2 black guys play white girls.

This is just PC gone mad !

I can only imagine you can say that as you know nothing about the history of 'blackface' acts.

The entire point of such things is rooted in a white attempt to appropriate and neuter black culture. It's the archetypal exotic, primitive 'other' which white, Western society simultaneously fetishised and degraded - exhibiting what a white audience thinks 'the other' should be like rather than he/she actually is - a spectacle of the real. Mythical black stereotypes were (and apparently still are) portrayed by white people as a means of exciting and amusing a similarly white audience without the 'danger' that actually having black people would give. Invariably it involves, despite the excitement at the exotic primitive 'other', showing how ****ing stupid the 'black' character is compared to the innately superior white character. You cannot judge this sort of thing as an individual act - they are fixed in an inherently historic racism. Profit via apporpriation.

No doubt the claim will come soon that it can all be rolled out again because we're 'past that all that' and we can do it since 'we're all so terribly ironic these days' and 'we've gone too far with this PC stuff anyway' - well, we're not and we can't so shut the **** up with your false claims of repression. It seriously baffles me that people can defend this sort of ****.

To compare it to 'White Chicks' (however dreadful that film may be - I've not had the misfortune of watching it) is ****ing stupid - it has none of the history and cultural frame.

Edit: If you actually want to watch a film that actually deals with it try Spike Lee's 'Bamboozled'.

Peevemor

10-10-2009, 01:04 PM

Mythical black stereotypes were ...

I don't find the clip very funny, but the guys who were blacked up looked nowhere near as ridiculous as Michael Jackson's siblings did at the televised tribute do, complete with coffin (empty I'd imagine).

Steve-O

10-10-2009, 01:22 PM

I can only imagine you can say that as you know nothing about the history of 'blackface' acts.

The entire point of such things is rooted in a white attempt to appropriate and neuter black culture. It's the archetypal exotic, primitive 'other' which white, Western society simultaneously fetishised and degraded - exhibiting what a white audience thinks 'the other' should be like rather than he/she actually is - a spectacle of the real. Mythical black stereotypes were (and apparently still are) portrayed by white people as a means of exciting and amusing a similarly white audience without the 'danger' that actually having black people would give. Invariably it involves, despite the excitement at the exotic primitive 'other', showing how ****ing stupid the 'black' character is compared to the innately superior white character. You cannot judge this sort of thing as an individual act - they are fixed in an inherently historic racism. Profit via apporpriation.

.

I'm not certain any of this applies here to be honest. If you think they were portraying black people as primitive and/or stupid then that's up to you. I don't see it in this case, no matter what the history is.

Speedy

10-10-2009, 01:27 PM

I don't really see what the problem is with that clip :confused:

Jack

10-10-2009, 05:55 PM

Your're all just a shower of whinging Jocks. No sense of humour these Scotch folk.

Dashing Bob S

10-10-2009, 06:00 PM

I'd never describe a local newsagent as a 'Paki's', simply because it's stupid and inaccurate. The establishment is more likely to be owned by Bengalis, which is like describing Scots or Irish people as English. It's lazy, stereotypical and therefore racist.

I have no problem with describing a Chinese restaurant as a 'chinky', because that's what it is, nor would I baulk when a West Highland Terrier is called a 'Scottie.'

Removed

10-10-2009, 06:24 PM

A few times today on BBC Radio Scotland I heard the Japanese referred to as 'Japs'. I can't see any difference with that terminology and Paki/Chinky. Haven't heard any moral outcry about it, am I missing something :confused:

Peevemor

10-10-2009, 06:40 PM

Woody1985

10-10-2009, 06:42 PM

Whilst the comparison appears to be valid in terms of calling blacks say, coons and calling whites honky; I think that the kind of names that people call blacks are deep rooted and viscious, based on years of loathing and hatred. If a black guy called me, a white man, a honky, I would'nt know where to look; I'd be that embarressed for the boy.
Coon and ****** go way back and represent the deep rooted bile that people had for blacks.
On the subject of Love Thy Neighbour; it hasn't dated well. However, despite the language, I can't help feeling that the message was that the whole race thing was pointless. The wives of the main characters were similarly black and white and similarly bewildered by the actions of their husbands. The wives were always portrayed as the sensible ones, the husbands the dumb-asses.
My other memory of the programme was that it wasn't very funny.

This arguement pisses me off. Racism is racism regardless of history.

It's socially acceptable to be racist to white people 'cos of all the bad stuff that white people used to do in Africa hundreds of years ago'

Removed

10-10-2009, 06:47 PM

I'm with you, but prepare yourself for a slaughtering. :rolleyes:

:confused: Why? I didn't say if I agreed or disagreed. I just think if you can get away with calling a Japanese person a Jap then what's the difference in calling a Pakistani person a Paki. I was actually a bit shocked when I heard it. Maybe this meassage board is having an effect on me :greengrin

ArabHibee

10-10-2009, 07:15 PM

hibsbollah

10-10-2009, 07:17 PM

That'll be me then.

:confused:

Marabou Stork

10-10-2009, 07:27 PM

This arguement pisses me off. Racism is racism regardless of history.

It's socially acceptable to be racist to white people 'cos of all the bad stuff that white people used to do in Africa hundreds of years ago'

It means nothing though.

As was stated, being called a honky or a cracker aren't in the least offensive to me. If anything I find them quite amusing. '******' and 'Coon' however can be very offensive when used by a white person in reference to a black person.

ArabHibee

10-10-2009, 07:33 PM

:confused:

You asked people to own up, didn't you?

hibsbollah

10-10-2009, 07:38 PM

You asked people to own up, didn't you?

I didnt ask anyone to do anything. I just think honesty is the best policy. Its totally irrelevant what language some D list celebrity, Brucie or the newspapers decides to use or not to use. Individuals need to look at their own prejudices and examine why they have them.

PiemanP

10-10-2009, 07:39 PM

Betty Boop

10-10-2009, 07:40 PM

You asked people to own up, didn't you?

Are you admitting to being a racist?

ArabHibee

10-10-2009, 07:41 PM

I didnt ask anyone to do anything. I just think honesty is the best policy. Its totally irrelevant what language some D list celebrity, Brucie or the newspapers decides to use or not to use. Individuals need to look at their own prejudices and examine why they have them.

Well, I'm being honest then.

hibsbollah

10-10-2009, 07:42 PM

Well, I'm being honest then.

This should be interesting.
Who are you prejudiced against and why?

PiemanP

10-10-2009, 07:45 PM

That'll be me then.

Oh christ, the PC brigade will be at your door with pitchforks any minute...

ArabHibee

10-10-2009, 07:54 PM

Are you admitting to being a racist?
I think that everyone is, to a certain extent.

This should be interesting.
Who are you prejudiced against and why?

Nobody and everybody. It doesn't really matter who it is, you said people should be honest and that's what I am being. I agree that calling someone a racist is seen as a terrible insult and that's why people will never admit to it.
Maybe my idea of being racist is different to everyone else's?

hibsbollah

10-10-2009, 07:57 PM

I think that everyone is, to a certain extent.

I agree with you. I have a load of prejudices against groups of people as well. The trick is to work out why and whether they stand up to scrutiny.

Sir David Gray

10-10-2009, 08:25 PM

Agreed.... Ive watched this clip and nowt within it screams Racist to me. Why was there no out cry when Eddie Murphy played a white guy, or have you seen the movie White Chicks....2 black guys play white girls.

This is just PC gone mad !

Yup.

I think it's just another example of left wing white people finding 'offence' at something for the sake of being offended. Have there actually been any black people who have publicly expressed their disgust at this particular performance? Since they are apparently the butt of the joke, I think they should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive.

I'm not certain any of this applies here to be honest. If you think they were portraying black people as primitive and/or stupid then that's up to you. I don't see it in this case, no matter what the history is.

Exactly as I see it, too.

I prefer to judge every single thing like that on its own merit and not just lump every single example into one. I really cannot see how anyone can view that particular performance and see it as being even remotely racist.

They (a group of white people) are doing an impersonation of the Jackson Five (who were/are black). When you are impersonating someone, you should try to look and act like them and if you are a white person impersonating a black person, it makes perfect sense (to me at least) to paint your skin. By the same token, if a black person wants to impersonate a white person, it makes sense for them to paint their faces, too. Although I very much doubt if there would have been the same outrage if the shoe was on the other foot.

I have the utmost respect for people who try to combat true racism whenever it comes up. However, in my opinion, this is just taking things to a ridiculous level.

A few times today on BBC Radio Scotland I heard the Japanese referred to as 'Japs'. I can't see any difference with that terminology and Paki/Chinky. Haven't heard any moral outcry about it, am I missing something :confused:

They were referred to as 'Japs' on the back page of today's Daily Record as well. I was always under the impression that it was just as "politically incorrect" these days to use that term as it was to say 'Paki'.

steakbake

10-10-2009, 08:46 PM

Oh christ, the PC brigade will be at your door with pitchforks any minute...

With their Guardians, tea and life changing chats.

hibsbollah

10-10-2009, 09:06 PM

Yup.

Have there actually been any black people who have publicly expressed their disgust at this particular performance? Since they are apparently the butt of the joke, I think they should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive.

Ah. So only the targets of racism are allowed to find it offensive? Nonsense. Thats like saying white people can't find apartheid South Africa offensive, or non-Jews the Warsaw ghetto.

hibsdaft

10-10-2009, 09:38 PM

just another example of left wing white people

well i'm a left wing white person and i don't give a sh*te about it. that said i only watched the first half minute of it because it bored me senseless but unless it got ever more stupid than it already was by that point then i don't see the offense.

its not left/right its something else imo.

its basically identity politics and there are as many left wing groups that have denounced identity politics as have embraced it: Militant, the Communists, the Socialist Party, IWCA etc are all against this pish.

in France its Sarkozy (leader of the French Tories) who is trying to copy the UK model with quotas, pigeonholing of people and racialising the states view of society. it makes thing easier to manage i guess. the unions, the Socialists and the Communists (ie the French Left) all want nothing to do with it because they know where it leads.

all these groups have stood consistently against tangible racism where and when is has existed: the back of the bus, "no dogs, no blacks, no irish", and real employment discrimination when it has existed. but when it becomes intangible nonsense they draw a line.

at best what you're talking about FH is imo more to do with liberalism, pragmatism and kneejerk over-sensitivity (sorry BB).

at worst its the cynical wanting to represent imaginary comminities (wtf is the "black community" because i am certainly not aware of being part of any "white community") for their own gain and if you look around all politicians are at it - not least of course... the BNP.

Beefster

10-10-2009, 09:44 PM

Yup.

I think it's just another example of left wing white people finding 'offence' at something for the sake of being offended. Have there actually been any black people who have publicly expressed their disgust at this particular performance? Since they are apparently the butt of the joke, I think they should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive.

For the record, I'm a right of centre Tory voter. Hardly 'left wing'.

As to black people condemning it - yes, it's happened.

(((Fergus)))

10-10-2009, 10:49 PM

Was the lassie offended that her fake tan was being insulted, that she was being compared to a Pakistani or something else?

steakbake

10-10-2009, 11:10 PM

Personally, I don't like hearing the word or ones like it. It offends my ears.

As for the blacked up (or whited down) dancers, I read the story in the Australian online papers. (Look up 'Hey Hey it's Saturday' + 'race row' and you'll find articles about it). Seems like they were a group of lads who used to do this act at medical school 20 years ago and thought they'd dust it down again. It was probably funny to people 20 years ago but it pissed off a lot of people now.

Poor taste, poor judgement all round. Lets hope a black person complained about it or we're all just making a fuss out of nothing. :duck:

AFKA5814_Hibs

10-10-2009, 11:13 PM

Lucius Apuleius

11-10-2009, 05:17 AM

Having been a victim of racism I can sympathise at times with how some people feel when THEY have been a victim too. Other people getting outraged does nothing for me.

Now, there are two ways to go when you have had the experience I had, you either react and become racist yourself, or you become even more anti racist. No comment on where it led me.

Beefster

11-10-2009, 08:32 AM

Was the lassie offended that her fake tan was being insulted, that she was being compared to a Pakistani or something else?

According to the NOTW.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/strictly_come_dancing/533578/laila-rouass.html

LiverpoolHibs

11-10-2009, 09:33 AM

Woody1985

11-10-2009, 10:15 AM

It means nothing though.

As was stated, being called a honky or a cracker aren't in the least offensive to me. If anything I find them quite amusing. '******' and 'Coon' however can be very offensive when used by a white person in reference to a black person.

It does, it is using a derogetory term to refer to someone of a particular race. It wouldn't be used as a reference to an asian. It is quite clear it is a racist term.

It may mean nothing to you or me personally because we don't have a deep rooted history but it's still racism.

It's socially acceptable to be racist to a white person in this country. It's all 'water off a ducks back' attitude because there is no deep rooted history, this is illustrated in your views.

Peevemor

11-10-2009, 10:15 AM

When was the last time you were racially abused?

Using 'PC' criteria, I would say that I'm racially abused on a regular basis. Some of the abusers are among my best friends and the most decent people you could meet (there are even a couple of leftie town councillors among them). However, not being one for keeping my head up my backside, I try to see people for what they really are instead of giving them unfair labels due to a comment or two that other people might deem offensive.

Woody1985

11-10-2009, 10:21 AM

When was the last time you were racially abused?

About 9 months ago in Southside whilst walking down the street with a (white) friend after a night out by a few asian lads outside the chicken shop (over from Blockbuster). Why, what relevance does that have?

Please don't tell me that you were going to try and define racism by the amount it happens towards a particular race or at least make excuses for it. With your views in general that would be very blinkered, I would have thought you would be alot more balanced.

I'm sure there are black/asian people who have never been racially abused. Yes, it may be more common towards those races in a predominantly white country but that does not make it okay to abuse white people.

sydneyhibee

11-10-2009, 10:32 AM

They (a group of white people) are doing an impersonation of the Jackson Five (who were/are black).

Just to be clear the guys that did this were all of Asian and Middle Eastern extraction.

does that make a difference?

LiverpoolHibs

11-10-2009, 10:51 AM

Using 'PC' criteria, I would say that I'm racially abused on a regular basis. Some of the abusers are among my best friends and the most decent people you could meet (there are even a couple of leftie town councillors among them). However, not being one for keeping my head up my backside, I try to see people for what they really are instead of giving them unfair labels due to a comment or two that other people might deem offensive.

What's the P.C. criteria? Who drew that up?

About 9 months ago in Southside whilst walking down the street with a (white) friend after a night out by a few asian lads outside the chicken shop (over from Blockbuster). Why, what relevance does that have?

Please don't tell me that you were going to try and define racism by the amount it happens towards a particular race or at least make excuses for it. With your views in general that would be very blinkered, I would have thought you would be alot more balanced.

I'm sure there are black/asian people who have never been racially abused. Yes, it may be more common towards those races in a predominantly white country but that does not make it okay to abuse white people.

No, I'm not going to try and define racism as that. I'm objecting to your ridiculous claim that anti-white racism is socially acceptable - and by intimation prevalent in society. It isn't.

Your dismissal of any definition of racism that isn't a 'comment in a vacuum' is also patently ridiculous. Racism is not just racism. It's about power structures, culture and history. Words don't exist on their own terms, they are imbued with the history that has gone along with them. If there was any history of institutionalised and societal anti-white racism to go along with the terms 'white *******', 'honky' or 'cracker' then they would have as much power and offensiveness as 'black *******', '******' or 'paki'. There isn't and they don't. To suggest otherwise is monumentally fatuous. There is no potency to them whatsoever.

You seem to be edging precariously close to the 'white men are the most oppressed group in society' bollocks.

Tomsk

11-10-2009, 10:59 AM

According to the NOTW.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/showbiz/strictly_come_dancing/533578/laila-rouass.html

I never thought I would see the day when I was grateful to the NOTW, but here it is. The article makes it crystal clear that the comment was intended to be derogatory and demeaning and used a value-laden racist term to achieve its ends. Despites his denials the man is self-evidently a racist. He is also quite obviously a complete arse.

Peevemor

11-10-2009, 11:21 AM

What's the P.C. criteria? Who drew that up?

That you can't refer to another person's race, nationality, colour or creed unless it's done in a positive fashion, with what's "positive" to be decided by people who are in no way involved.

Woody1985

11-10-2009, 11:32 AM

What's the P.C. criteria? Who drew that up?

-------
No, I'm not going to try and define racism as that. I'm objecting to your ridiculous claim that anti-white racism is socially acceptable - and by intimation prevalent in society. It isn't.

Your dismissal of any definition of racism that isn't a 'comment in a vacuum' is also patently ridiculous. Racism is not just racism. It's about power structures, culture and history. Words don't exist on their own terms, they are imbued with the history that has gone along with them. If there was any history of institutionalised and societal anti-white racism to go along with the terms 'white *******', 'honky' or 'cracker' then they would have as much power and offensiveness as 'black *******', '******' or 'paki'. There isn't and they don't. To suggest otherwise is monumentally fatuous. There is no potency to them whatsoever.

You seem to be edging precariously close to the 'white men are the most oppressed group in society' bollocks.

Because the effects of 'white *******', 'honky' or 'cracker' etc don't have as much power behind them is irrelevant. It is still racist.

There was a comment on here a few months back when someone said that French people were arrogant and was branded a racist. In true definition of the word that is accurate. However, you can't have it both ways. We either draw a line under everything racist or we don't.

I fail to see that. The point I am making is that it is deemed acceptable to have derogatory term for white people and no issue is made of it. This is illustrated on this thread.

EDIT: You never answered my question re the relevance of the last time I was racially abused. I assume that your blinkered views expected me to say that I hadn't as it couldn't possibly happen to a white person.

Also, by the points that you've expressed the racism I experienced is not really valid because there has been no deep rooted racial history towards whites. :faf:

LiverpoolHibs

11-10-2009, 11:55 AM

That you can't refer to another person's race, nationality, colour or creed unless it's done in a positive fashion, with what's "positive" to be decided by people who are in no way involved.

Who's deciding?

Because the effects of 'white *******', 'honky' or 'cracker' etc don't have as much power behind them is irrelevant. It is still racist.

There was a comment on here a few months back when someone said that French people were arrogant and was branded a racist. In true definition of the word that is accurate. However, you can't have it both ways. We either draw a line under everything racist or we don't.

I fail to see that. The point I am making is that it is deemed acceptable to have derogatory term for white people and no issue is made of it. This is illustrated on this thread.

Why have you essentially ignored every point I made in that thread and just continued with the nonsensical assertion of 'irrelevance'? It is not irrelevant it's absolutely central.

EDIT: You never answered my question re the relevance of the last time I was racially abused. I assume that your blinkered views expected me to say that I hadn't as it couldn't possibly happen to a white person.

Also, by the points that you've expressed the racism I experienced is not really valid because there has been no deep rooted racial history towards whites. :faf:

I did answer it, you must have ignored it along with the rest of my post...

I'm objecting to your ridiculous claim that anti-white racism is socially acceptable - and by intimation prevalent in society. It isn't.

What are my 'blinkered views'?

Did I say your experience wasn't valid (I'm not even sure what 'valid' means there)?

Woody1985

11-10-2009, 12:08 PM

Who's deciding?

-----
1. Why have you essentially ignored every point I made in that thread and just continued with the nonsensical assertion of 'irrelevance'? It is not irrelevant it's absolutely central.

2. I did answer it, you must have ignored it along with the rest of my post...

I'm objecting to your ridiculous claim that anti-white racism is socially acceptable - and by intimation prevalent in society. It isn't.

3. What are my 'blinkered views'?

4. Did I say your experience wasn't valid (I'm not even sure what 'valid' means there)?

1. No I've not, you're stating that racism has to be embedded. I'm saying that it doesn't.

2. No you didn't. You answered the 2nd paragraph in post #60. My question to the relevance of when I last experienced racism was in paragraph 1.

3. IMO it would appear that you feel that white people cannot be targetted for racism as there is no history. Again IMO, I feel this is a blinkered view point and that it would seem you think that only people of non-white origin can be attacked.

4. The foundation of your arguement is that racism has to be deep rooted into history, culture and politics and you've intimated you don't think that is the case towards white people. Therefore, when I was racially abused that would not be valid as it's not really racism due to the lack of history, culture and politics in this country towards white people.

steakbake

11-10-2009, 12:59 PM

I think this thread hit its intellectual peak a while ago. So.... anyone know how to make a good potato rosti?

PiemanP

11-10-2009, 01:10 PM

I think this thread hit its intellectual peak a while ago. So.... anyone know how to make a good potato rosti?

I'd need to nip over to the Paki shop to get the ingrediants...

Oh no what have I just said!
Dont hurt me Liverpool Hibs and fellow cronies :rolleyes:

hibsdaft

11-10-2009, 01:15 PM

If there was any history of institutionalised and societal anti-white racism to go along with the terms 'white *******', 'honky' or 'cracker' then they would have as much power and offensiveness as 'black *******', '******' or 'paki'. There isn't and they don't. To suggest otherwise is monumentally fatuous. There is no potency to them whatsoever.

i think you're getting bogged down in theory here.

there was plenty of power to the terms used against Woody by the sounds of it, simply by way of the context in which they were used: being outnumbered by another group and targeted with abuse on account of his skin colour.

thats just as disgusting (and cowardly) as a group of white guys picking on an asian and intimidating him and threatening him on account of his skin colour.

the previous hundreds of years of history really mean eff all in that situation tbh.

Marabou Stork

11-10-2009, 01:16 PM

I'd need to nip over to the Paki shop to get the ingrediants...

Oh no what have I just said!
Dont hurt me Liverpool Hibs and fellow cronies :rolleyes:

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/27152/picard_facepalm.jpg

hibsdaft

11-10-2009, 01:20 PM

I'd need to nip over to the Paki shop to get the ingrediants...

Oh no what have I just said!
Dont hurt me Liverpool Hibs and fellow cronies :rolleyes:

while your at it why not call the shopkeeper a paki? then you can come back and report his feelings on that. for info.

seeing as you're so comfy with the term like.

Beefster

11-10-2009, 02:01 PM

I'd need to nip over to the Paki shop to get the ingrediants...

Oh no what have I just said!
Dont hurt me Liverpool Hibs and fellow cronies :rolleyes:

http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0811/stupidity-stupidity-demotivational-poster-1226826996.jpg

LiverpoolHibs

11-10-2009, 03:15 PM

1. No I've not, you're stating that racism has to be embedded. I'm saying that it doesn't.

I don't know what you mean by 'embedded'. I've already explained why I don't think anti-white racism has any of the potency of other forms. I haven't heard anything that's made me question that. You're just set on attempting to reduce what I've said to something meaningless.

2. No you didn't. You answered the 2nd paragraph in post #60. My question to the relevance of when I last experienced racism was in paragraph 1.

You asked why I enquired about it and I've explained why.

3. IMO it would appear that you feel that white people cannot be targetted for racism as there is no history. Again IMO, I feel this is a blinkered view point and that it would seem you think that only people of non-white origin can be attacked.

No I haven't - are you intentionally misinterpreting me?

4. The foundation of your arguement is that racism has to be deep rooted into history, culture and politics and you've intimated you don't think that is the case towards white people. Therefore, when I was racially abused that would not be valid as it's not really racism due to the lack of history, culture and politics in this country towards white people.

Seriously, can you read what I've written again?

I'd need to nip over to the Paki shop to get the ingrediants...

Oh no what have I just said!
Dont hurt me Liverpool Hibs and fellow cronies :rolleyes:

I'm sure no-one has any intention of hurting you. 'We' are, however, perfectly entitled to think you're just a bit of a ****.

i think you're getting bogged down in theory here.

there was plenty of power to the terms used against Woody by the sounds of it, simply by way of the context in which they were used: being outnumbered by another group and targeted with abuse on account of his skin colour.

thats just as disgusting (and cowardly) as a group of white guys picking on an asian and intimidating him and threatening him on account of his skin colour.

the previous hundreds of years of history really mean eff all in that situation tbh.

I don't agree. I think the cowardliness, disgustingness and offensiveness would be just through the fact of a large group of people abusing and intimidating a smaller group of people for no particular reason. I don't believe that, even in a situation such as the one Woody describes, the racist taunts would have any greater weight than being called a '******', '********' or whatever else by a large intimidating group. The awfulness is through the threat and intimidation, not the racist language - as I say, it doesn't have any potency.

steakbake

11-10-2009, 04:45 PM

http://www.motifake.com/demotivational-poster/0811/stupidity-stupidity-demotivational-poster-1226826996.jpg

I was hoping for a recipe for a potato rosti. Still waiting.

dodemac

11-10-2009, 04:55 PM

Hiber-nation

11-10-2009, 05:12 PM

A lot of you guys are younger than I am so it stands to reason that your viewpoint on many things will be different.
Me, personally, I think the PC brigade are sanitizing everything that is said or done to anyone who happens not to be straight, white and male.

The British have a history of Black (sorry) / Gallows Humour.
Its what pulled us together through tough times.

Don't see what age has to do with it. Most of the folk on here with views I totally disagree with appear to be much younger than me. I would hope that some people's views may change as they get older.

Aye its all that darn PC brigade's fault for us whites not being able to verbally abuse people of a different colour.

matty_f

11-10-2009, 05:58 PM

I don't know what you mean by 'embedded'. I've already explained why I don't think anti-white racism has any of the potency of other forms. I haven't heard anything that's made me question that. You're just set on attempting to reduce what I've said to something meaningless.

You asked why I enquired about it and I've explained why.

No I haven't - are you intentionally misinterpreting me?

Seriously, can you read what I've written again?

I'm sure no-one has any intention of hurting you. 'We' are, however, perfectly entitled to think you're just a bit of a ****.

I don't agree. I think the cowardliness, disgustingness and offensiveness would be just through the fact of a large group of people abusing and intimidating a smaller group of people for no particular reason. I don't believe that, even in a situation such as the one Woody describes, the racist taunts would have any greater weight than being called a '******', '********' or whatever else by a large intimidating group. The awfulness is through the threat and intimidation, not the racist language - as I say, it doesn't have any potency.

First of all, I'll point out that I don't consider myself to be racist in any way, shape, or form. I am very much of the opinion that I'll treat everyone the same (even Yams...) and I don't have any prejudices.

I do take issue with the history bit still being relevant though - how long do you want to make victims of the people who were oppressed?

A huge chunk of the world has long since moved on from the days when racism was acceptable. Britain is very much a multi-cultured society, with the vast majority of people living a tolerant and accommodating existence with their neighbour, regardless of their skin colour.

I'm not saying that we are racism-free, far from it, however I think bringing up the attitudes and race-crimes of our ancestors does nothing but perpetrate the thinking that black people (I use that term to generalise) are perennial victims.

FWIW, I laugh at a lot of things. There are things I find inherently amusing about the human race. If that means I laugh at whites, blacks, or whoever else, I'll do it, and in the same breath I am a caring person and if someone needs cared for and I'm in a position to do it, I will, regardless of their skin.

Beefster

11-10-2009, 06:37 PM

I was hoping for a recipe for a potato rosti. Still waiting.

http://www.bareingredients.com/recipes/2001-03:potatorostii

LiverpoolHibs

11-10-2009, 06:50 PM

First of all, I'll point out that I don't consider myself to be racist in any way, shape, or form. I am very much of the opinion that I'll treat everyone the same (even Yams...) and I don't have any prejudices.

I do take issue with the history bit still being relevant though - how long do you want to make victims of the people who were oppressed?

A huge chunk of the world has long since moved on from the days when racism was acceptable. Britain is very much a multi-cultured society, with the vast majority of people living a tolerant and accommodating existence with their neighbour, regardless of their skin colour.

I'm not saying that we are racism-free, far from it, however I think bringing up the attitudes and race-crimes of our ancestors does nothing but perpetrate the thinking that black people (I use that term to generalise) are perennial victims.

FWIW, I laugh at a lot of things. There are things I find inherently amusing about the human race. If that means I laugh at whites, blacks, or whoever else, I'll do it, and in the same breath I am a caring person and if someone needs cared for and I'm in a position to do it, I will, regardless of their skin.

It's got nothing to do with 'making victims' of people, nor of making 'us' guilty by association for crimes of the past. It's about understanding why it's not alright to call someone a 'Paki' (or whatever other epithet might be chosen to replace it) and why it's not alright to 'black up'*, regardless of whether any great degree of racial enmity is intended.

And as you say, it's not like racism is just part of some distant, barely memorable past.

*Also, someone (FalkirkHibee I think) said before in the defence of the clip that if you're doing an impression it's good to look like the person. None of them do look like the person they're portraying though, do they? The Michael Jackson figure apart they, erm, all look alike...

matty_f

11-10-2009, 07:03 PM

It's got nothing to do with 'making victims' of people, nor of making 'us' guilty by association for crimes of the past. It's about understanding why it's not alright to call someone a 'Paki' (or whatever other epithet might be chosen to replace it) and why it's not alright to 'black up'*, regardless of whether any great degree of racial enmity is intended.

And as you say, it's not like racism is just part of some distant, barely memorable past.

*Also, someone (FalkirkHibee I think) said before in the defence of the clip that if you're doing an impression it's good to look like the person. None of them do look like the person they're portraying though, do they? The Michael Jackson figure apart they, erm, all look alike...

I realise that it's important to understand why it's not alright to call someone a 'Paki', and I agree with that, however, it's my opinion that by making a point of saying that perceived racism towards blacks, Indians, Pakistanis - whoever - is more relevant because of the history does continue to portray these groups as the oppressed, when the reality is that (in the UK in particular) they are no more oppressed than you and I.

I don't get offended if an English person calls me a Jock, that we spent a fair whack of time oppressed by the English many moons ago adds no more or no less weight to that name (IMHO).

IMHO, there comes a time when people have to draw a line under what has happened a long time ago, and move on.

Betty Boop

11-10-2009, 08:24 PM

BNP wives on Sky3 now. :jamboak:

ArabHibee

11-10-2009, 08:27 PM

I think this thread hit its intellectual peak a while ago. So.... anyone know how to make a good potato rosti?

Forget the potato rosti, go and get yourself a chinky chonk. :wink:

lapsedhibee

11-10-2009, 09:20 PM

I find it unbelievable that this was aired on Australian TV, along with Bruce Forsyth's comments that we are losing our sense of humour about using the P word, some folks seem to be stuck in the sixties. Thoughts?
Nothing wrong with the sixties. For a start, wimmin knew it wasn't their place to start controversial threads on messageboards/flag debates at coffee mornings. :grr:

A few times today on BBC Radio Scotland I heard the Japanese referred to as 'Japs'. I can't see any difference with that terminology and Paki/Chinky. Haven't heard any moral outcry about it, am I missing something :confused:
When I want to be mildly offensive about a Japanese person I use a different word.

well i'm a left wing white person and i don't give a sh*te about it. that said i only watched the first half minute of it because it bored me senseless but unless it got ever more stupid than it already was by that point then i don't see the offense.

its not left/right its something else imo.

its basically identity politics and there are as many left wing groups that have denounced identity politics as have embraced it: Militant, the Communists, the Socialist Party, IWCA etc are all against this pish.

in France its Sarkozy (leader of the French Tories) who is trying to copy the UK model with quotas, pigeonholing of people and racialising the states view of society. it makes thing easier to manage i guess. the unions, the Socialists and the Communists (ie the French Left) all want nothing to do with it because they know where it leads.

all these groups have stood consistently against tangible racism where and when is has existed: the back of the bus, "no dogs, no blacks, no irish", and real employment discrimination when it has existed. but when it becomes intangible nonsense they draw a line.

at best what you're talking about FH is imo more to do with liberalism, pragmatism and kneejerk over-sensitivity (sorry BB).

at worst its the cynical wanting to represent imaginary comminities (wtf is the "black community" because i am certainly not aware of being part of any "white community") for their own gain and if you look around all politicians are at it - not least of course... the BNP.
Excellent.

I'd need to nip over to the Paki shop to get the ingrediants...

This is the word.

New Corrie

11-10-2009, 09:29 PM

Do any of you people actually exist in real life? I get loads of texts and jokes sent to me (beleive it or not, some from people who post on here) and the content includes,,,,,blacks, gays. jews. pakis. pikeys. papes etc etc

You know what! Some of these texts are funny!

Betty Boop

12-10-2009, 07:28 AM

[QUOTE=lapsedhibee;2203688]Nothing wrong with the sixties. For a start, wimmin knew it wasn't their place to start controversial threads on messageboards/flag debates at coffee mornings. :grr:

I didn't know you were the thread police person. Why don't you start one yourself? :blah:

Steve-O

12-10-2009, 09:38 AM

lapsedhibee

12-10-2009, 09:53 AM

I didn't know you were the thread police person. Why don't you start one yourself? :blah:

:grr:

BravestHibs

12-10-2009, 11:22 AM

I have to say, 'paki jokes' make me cringe. They are really not funny.

I'd agree with that. They're about as funny as someone adding 'NOT!' onto the end of a sentence. I feel sorry for people who do that in all seriousness.

steakbake

12-10-2009, 11:31 AM

Yep, jokes about pakistanis, jews, black people etc. All very playground. Might as well trot out the tired old unfunny gags about Ethiopians and dinner tickets etc.

It's nowt to do with black/gallows humour.

Move on.

(((Fergus)))

12-10-2009, 11:54 AM

I still don't understand why that woman took offence.

Ed De Gramo

12-10-2009, 03:42 PM

You speak to people who grew up in the 60/70's and they will tell you that the word 'Paki' was used to describe the shop they went to on a sunday morning amongst places :agree:

IMO, if a white person is called a 'white *******' then thats just as racist...END OF :agree:

Sir David Gray

12-10-2009, 11:10 PM

Ah. So only the targets of racism are allowed to find it offensive? Nonsense. Thats like saying white people can't find apartheid South Africa offensive, or non-Jews the Warsaw ghetto.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that black people should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive and if they are not offended by it, I don't see why anyone else should be getting too upset over it.

I also really don't think that you can compare a few people dancing about with their faces painted black, whilst impersonating the Jackson Five, with the two examples that you have given above.

Apartheid in South Africa and the Warsaw Ghetto were both examples of widespread discrimination and hatred against millions of black and Jewish people. Of course every single decent minded person (regardless of skin colour) is going to be shocked and disgusted by those examples. I think there's a world of difference between poking light-hearted fun at people and discriminating against them in all walks of life and physically and mentally torturing them.

But perhaps that's just me.

Obviously there will be a few black people who will object to this performance but I would hazard a guess that they will be in the minority and most black people will not be offended in the slightest by it.

I would personally liken this performance to the Little Britain sketch with Lou & Andy. A few years ago, I heard quite a few able bodied people saying how offensive this sketch was to disabled people.

Now, I don't think Little Britain is particularly funny but as someone who is disabled myself, I do not find any of the scenes with Lou & Andy even remotely offensive. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I would say that most disabled people would feel the same way.

As long as I am not overlooked for a job purely because I'm disabled, prevented from entering buildings purely because they can't be bothered to provide adequate access or attacked in the street because I'm disabled, then people can say/do whatever they like to me.

Just to be clear the guys that did this were all of Asian and Middle Eastern extraction.

does that make a difference?

Not at all, why would it make any difference?

It's got nothing to do with 'making victims' of people, nor of making 'us' guilty by association for crimes of the past. It's about understanding why it's not alright to call someone a 'Paki' (or whatever other epithet might be chosen to replace it) and why it's not alright to 'black up'*, regardless of whether any great degree of racial enmity is intended.

And as you say, it's not like racism is just part of some distant, barely memorable past.

*Also, someone (FalkirkHibee I think) said before in the defence of the clip that if you're doing an impression it's good to look like the person. None of them do look like the person they're portraying though, do they? The Michael Jackson figure apart they, erm, all look alike...

Maybe not but they still looked more like the Jackson Five than they would have done, had they not painted their faces.

matty_f

13-10-2009, 12:17 AM

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that black people should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive and if they are not offended by it, I don't see why anyone else should be getting too upset over it.

I also really don't think that you can compare a few people dancing about with their faces painted black, whilst impersonating the Jackson Five, with the two examples that you have given above.

Apartheid in South Africa and the Warsaw Ghetto were both examples of widespread discrimination and hatred against millions of black and Jewish people. Of course every single decent minded person (regardless of skin colour) is going to be shocked and disgusted by those examples. I think there's a world of difference between poking light-hearted fun at people and discriminating against them in all walks of life and physically and mentally torturing them.

But perhaps that's just me.

Obviously there will be a few black people who will object to this performance but I would hazard a guess that they will be in the minority and most black people will not be offended in the slightest by it.

I would personally liken this performance to the Little Britain sketch with Lou & Andy. A few years ago, I heard quite a few able bodied people saying how offensive this sketch was to disabled people.

Now, I don't think Little Britain is particularly funny but as someone who is disabled myself, I do not find any of the scenes with Lou & Andy even remotely offensive. Maybe I'm wrong about this but I would say that most disabled people would feel the same way.

As long as I am not overlooked for a job purely because I'm disabled, prevented from entering buildings purely because they can't be bothered to provide adequate access or attacked in the street because I'm disabled, then people can say/do whatever they like to me.

Not at all, why would it make any difference?

Maybe not but they still looked more like the Jackson Five than they would have done, had they not painted their faces.

:top marks good post.

Hibs90

13-10-2009, 03:16 AM

I don't see the problem with the word 'Paki'. To me it simply short for 'Pakistani'. Going by the same logic surely Scots is racist too? People need to get off there high horses.

Steve-O

13-10-2009, 06:40 AM

I don't see the problem with the word 'Paki'. To me it simply short for 'Pakistani'. Going by the same logic surely Scots is racist too? People need to get off there high horses.

Not again :grr:

Please read over all previous debates that have dealt with this exact statement.

Beefster

13-10-2009, 07:27 AM

I'm saying that black people should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive and if they are not offended by it, I don't see why anyone else should be getting too upset over it.

Some kids put up with blatant cruelty and bullying from others just so that they 'fit in'. We shouldn't worry about it because they are choosing to put up with it?

Anyway, a quick search on the Web will find lots of examples of black people offended by the 'performance', including some fairly high profile people.

I don't see the problem with the word 'Paki'. To me it simply short for 'Pakistani'. Going by the same logic surely Scots is racist too? People need to get off there high horses.

Groundhog Day.

hibsbollah

13-10-2009, 07:35 AM

That's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that black people should be the ones to decide whether or not the performance is offensive and if they are not offended by it, I don't see why anyone else should be getting too upset over it.

It is what you're saying. And you've just said it again in the next paragraph.

Racism is like any kind of prejudice, bullying or discrimination. If someone was giving you, as a disabled person, abuse or bullying at ER, for example, I have the right to be offended and the right to intervene. It is not, solely, your problem as the target. Thats what 'society' means to me, and the principle applies to all situations IMO.

Hibby70

13-10-2009, 08:10 AM

To me words aren't racist its the context in which they are used.

Referring to "the Pakis" when using it as a term for the local shop and "chinky" when referring to a chinese takeaway to me have very different meanings to using the words to describe a person.

Like it or not even if these terms have been created in the past as derogatory terms there are many people who have grown up with these terms as children and are still used by them due to habit. Does that make these people racist? I would say no.

We often see blacks referring to each other as ****** in films (I dont know how prevalent this is in real life mind you and have only heard it a couple of times) but again the word isnt necessarily racist. Felt sorry for the girl on Big Brother who used it thinking it was a cool reference to call a friend.

We should be concentrating more on dealing with the real racists in society as opposed to picking on the odd use of a word here or there. Nick Griffen doesnt use any of the offending words above - but his words are much more racist.

LiverpoolHibs

13-10-2009, 09:50 AM

Obviously there will be a few black people who will object to this performance but I would hazard a guess that they will be in the minority and most black people will not be offended in the slightest by it.

Erm, yeah - it's good that you're 'hazarding a guess' at that.

Maybe not but they still looked more like the Jackson Five than they would have done, had they not painted their faces.

You've rather missed my point there...

Betty Boop

13-10-2009, 11:29 AM

Forsyth blasted by anti-racism groups
Friday, October 9 2009, 09:50 BST
By Daniel Kilkelly, Entertainment Reporter

BBC
Bruce Forsyth has been criticised by anti-racism groups following his public defence of Strictly Come Dancing star Anton Du Beke.

The show's presenter recently dismissed Du Beke's racism controversy by claiming that critics need a "sense of humour". He later clarified his remarks by insisting that he does not condone offensive language.

Last weekend, Du Beke apologised for describing his celebrity dance partner Laila Rouass as a "P**i". Despite calls for him to be sacked, the BBC has indicated that it will not be taking further action over the matter.

Responding to Forsyth's comments, Hope Not Hate spokesman Gerry Gable told The Sun: "We know Brucie's getting on, but these kind of attitudes went out with the cart and horse. Using that word is not acceptable and he should know better."

Jed Grebby, from Show Racism The Red Card, added: "We find 'P**i' is widely known to be a racist word among 10-year-olds."

Goodness Gracious Me star Kulvinder Ghir also commented on the new row, saying: "Claiming the word 'P**i' is harmless is just ignorance. It's as bad as calling somebody a n***er."

Rouass recently said that she wants to "move on" from the incident.

Dinkydoo

13-10-2009, 11:32 AM

I use the word Paki and Chinky as an abreviation - but I wouldn't say it to a Pakistani or Chinese persons' face because of the fear that I might offend them.

it really depends on what context you say it in as well.

For example, I don't get my knickers in a twist when someone calls me a Scot. It's easier than Scottish person!

I would however be a little peeved if someone said, Oh, theres' that tight fisted, stingey Scot over there. They created copper wire by fighting over a 2 pence coin ya no.

Then again it's not the word "Scot" that I'm annoyed about, it's other sterotypical garbage that is used around the abreviation.

I think it's a load of rubbish to be honest, an abreviation is an abreviation is it not, and racism is racism........:duck:

FWIW, I've not seen the clip (can't watch it on a work P.C) but I thought I'd add my feelings on the whole issue of abreviating a persons nationality.

Phil D. Rolls

13-10-2009, 05:23 PM

Betty Boop

13-10-2009, 05:40 PM

steakbake

13-10-2009, 07:30 PM

:agree: We are all Jock Tamson's bairns, as my Nana used to say! :greengrin

Jock Tamson got about a bit.

Betty Boop

13-10-2009, 08:10 PM

Jock Tamson got about a bit.

Who was Jock Tamson anyway? :confused:

Woody1985

13-10-2009, 09:29 PM

Who was Jock Tamson anyway? :confused:

Yer great granda based on what yer nana said. :greengrin

Gatecrasher

13-10-2009, 10:36 PM

matty_f

13-10-2009, 10:58 PM

It always makes me laugh when white people decide what is offensive to black people. I think they miss the point that most of this humour is not aimed at them so they cannot begin to imagine how it would feel to a black person.

At the same time, I'm aware of black people playing the race card whenever they are accused of something they can't defend. I think we all have to work together to try and make race an issue that belongs in the past.

:agree: Surely the generalisation that something is offensive to black people is in itself a racist sentiment by definition.

Some folk find things funny, some people find the same things offensive, and other folk won't even bother wasting time on the same things. Doesn't matter what colour their skin is.

IMHO, I don't think there are too many groups in Britain that absolutely rely on white people to champion their cause these days. Naturally there will be times when groups need the support of others, but I don't think reacting to a TV sketch is one of those times.

lapsedhibee

13-10-2009, 11:00 PM

:agree: Surely the generalisation that something is offensive to black people is in itself a racist sentiment by definition.

Some folk find things funny, some people find the same things offensive, and other folk won't even bother wasting time on the same things. Doesn't matter what colour their skin is.

IMHO, I don't think there are too many groups in Britain that absolutely rely on white people to champion their cause these days. Naturally there will be times when groups need the support of others, but I don't think reacting to a TV sketch is one of those times.

Aye but you're failing to take into account there the feelings, needs or rights of another minority group - professional offendees.

matty_f

13-10-2009, 11:26 PM

Aye but you're failing to take into account there the feelings, needs or rights of another minority group - professional offendees.

:greengrin ****** 'em.

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 06:00 AM

there is a corner shop just round from me...

But is it actually on the corner? Some so-called "corner shops" are a door or two along from the corner but aren't actually on the corner itself, which isn't the same thing at all and are therefore inappropriately named.

In addition, there are many shops situated on a corner that you would never dream of calling a "corner shop" - take Jenners for example.

What you're actually talking about is a general newsagent, grocer and tobacconist and I think you should use the correct terminology in future.

Steve-O

14-10-2009, 06:34 AM

Betty Boop

14-10-2009, 06:39 AM

My local shop is owned by a Sikh, however I have heard some of the locals call it the P shop. :blah:

Steve-O

14-10-2009, 06:47 AM

My local shop is owned by a Sikh, however I have heard some of the locals call it the P shop. :blah:

Well this is exactly the problem. Pure ignorance.

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 06:59 AM

My local shop is owned by a Sikh, however I have heard some of the locals call it the P shop. :blah:

Well this is exactly the problem. Pure ignorance.

Not likely, but the owner could be a Pakistani Sikh. It happens.

Steve-O

14-10-2009, 07:05 AM

Not likely, but the owner could be a Pakistani Sikh. It happens.

I guess, however there is no doubt that shops owned by Indians and others are dubbed 'the Paki shop' by an ignorant minority.

Gatecrasher

14-10-2009, 07:27 AM

But is it actually on the corner? Some so-called "corner shops" are a door or two along from the corner but aren't actually on the corner itself, which isn't the same thing at all and are therefore inappropriately named.

In addition, there are many shops situated on a corner that you would never dream of calling a "corner shop" - take Jenners for example.

What you're actually talking about is a general newsagent, grocer and tobacconist and I think you should use the correct terminology in future.

Your right I better be careful not to offend anyone:bitchy:

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 07:38 AM

All you people that are interested so much in abbreviating things, why don't you just call 'the paki shop', 'the shop'. There you go, I've shortened it for you :wink:

As for going for a 'chinky', does it really take that much longer to say 'chinese'?? Why do you even need to abbreviate?? :confused:

Why give anything a nickname in that case?

FWIW, I have always referred to chinese food as "a chinky", but never a chinese person.

Phil D. Rolls

14-10-2009, 08:27 AM

there is a corner shop just round from me, there used to be a man who owned it who was a pakistani, we called him "paki bill" he didnt mind, we were just primary school kids at the time and we talked to him and he used to give us free sweets :greengrin

we still call the shop bills even though he's no around anymore cos the guys a legend :agree: (i even hear some kids calling it bills)

if we were going for a chinese i would call it a chinky, its just what its called there is nothing to get uptight about, anyone who does should get a life :yawn:

i do understand why some people who are called these things in an aggresive manner would be upset but thats not in the context i would use these words, i have better insults than that to stoop to the race card :devil:

:agree: Surely the generalisation that something is offensive to black people is in itself a racist sentiment by definition.

Some folk find things funny, some people find the same things offensive, and other folk won't even bother wasting time on the same things. Doesn't matter what colour their skin is.

IMHO, I don't think there are too many groups in Britain that absolutely rely on white people to champion their cause these days. Naturally there will be times when groups need the support of others, but I don't think reacting to a TV sketch is one of those times.

Aye but you're failing to take into account there the feelings, needs or rights of another minority group - professional offendees.

I am not black, so I can't possibly know how I would react to being called ******, coon etc. I do know that black people said they didn't like it, and when it comes to the bit, if they don't like it we have to respect that. I can see how generalising what black people think could be construed as racist though, but given that the Council for Racial Equality are probably more in touch with what minorities are concerned about, I think it is safer to go with their guidance than not.

It is for the people the CRE are "defending" to decide if they are representing their feelings correctly. There do seem to be professional offendees in every minority group, who go out of their way to, er, take offence. I feel that they should be hammered by their own communities, and I have noticed a few cases where that has happened.

The most notable one surrounded the Edinburgh Sh*tty Councillor Shami Khan. He claimed the police in the town had a racist agenda after his son kept getting arrested for hitting people with belt buckles in night clubs. A spokesman for the Pakistani council condemned him, and after that support was gone, he was fair game to be taken to task for his false accusations.

A case where I was disappointed, was when a young Sikh lad claimed that white boys had cut his hair off in Pilrig Park. Demonstrations were arranged, the press were contacted and there was a lot of concern about racost activity in Leith. It transpired that the lad had cut his own hair off - I was extremely disappointed that the Sikhs didn't apologise.

I just wish people would stop saying that "chinky", "paki", "pape", "yid", "queer", etc are harmless phrases. It is for the person who they are aimed at to decide. I know people will say "my pal is chinese and he is happy to be called chinky", I'm not comfortable with that. I feel it is taking self deprecation to a damaging level - of course it all depends on the context.

Hibby70

14-10-2009, 08:42 AM

I just wish people would stop saying that "chinky", "paki", "pape", "yid", "queer", etc are harmless phrases. It is for the person who they are aimed at to decide.

Agree if it is actually aimed at a person - sometimes its not. Just think we get hung up on words rather than the context. As I said you can be just as racist/offensive without using these words.

The press seem more likely to start a campaign against Aton Du Beke/Carol Thatcher rather than Nick Griffen et al.

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 09:10 AM

Agree if it is actually aimed at a person - sometimes its not.

Alot of people seem to be saying this and it confuses me. A word has to aimed at the correct recipient for it to be offensive? If you wouldn't take a phone call in a cornershop and refer to it as a 'Paki shop' in a loud voice, if you wouldn't do the same in a Chinese takeaway and tell your mate you're in the 'Chinky', why the **** would you use it in any different situation?

Would anyone defending these terms happily refer to a shop run by a black family as the '****** shop'? I wouldn't, but then I'm a professional offendee...

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 09:21 AM

Would anyone defending these terms happily refer to a shop run by a black family as the '****** shop'? I wouldn't, but then I'm a professional offendee...

What a crap example.

The answer is no, for 2 reasons.

In Scotland the vast majority of 'corner' shops aren't run by black people, thus no generic term has been adopted.

"******" isn't an abbreviation for the country of origin of the vast majority of asian corner shop owners. Also, a lot of people above a certain age, myself included, will use the term Paki in all innocence (in their minds) but would never dream of using the word ******.

Steve-O

14-10-2009, 09:34 AM

The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.

In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word. The word has been turned into a keepsake for the young British Pakistani community that is not acceptable for someone outside the community to say it, including Indians and Bangladeshis.

Betty Boop

14-10-2009, 09:34 AM

Alot of people seem to be saying this and it confuses me. A word has to aimed at the correct recipient for it to be offensive? If you wouldn't take a phone call in a cornershop and refer to it as a 'Paki shop' in a loud voice, if you wouldn't do the same in a Chinese takeaway and tell your mate you're in the 'Chinky', why the **** would you use it in any different situation?

Would anyone defending these terms happily refer to a shop run by a black family as the '****** shop'? I wouldn't, but then I'm a professional offendee...

At least you admit it! :faf:

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 09:46 AM

The abbreviation Paki acquired offensive connotations in the 1960s when used by British tabloids to refer to subjects of former colony states in a derogatory and racist manner. In modern British usage "Paki" is typically used in a derogatory way as a label for all South Asians, including Indians, Afghans and Bangladeshis. To a lesser extent, the term has been applied as a racial slur towards Arabs and other Middle Eastern-looking groups who may resemble South Asians. During the 60's many emigrants were also dubbed as "black" to further segregrate them from the white community. Some would say such a division still exists in parts of England.

The words "tory" and "leftie" can have negative connotations depending on how they are used. Does this mean we should all stop using them?

In recent times there has been a trend by second and third-generation British Pakistanis to reclaim the word. The word has been turned into a keepsake for the young British Pakistani community that is not acceptable for someone outside the community to say it, including Indians and Bangladeshis.

Says who?

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 09:55 AM

What a crap example.

The answer is no, for 2 reasons.

In Scotland the vast majority of 'corner' shops aren't run by black people, thus no generic term has been adopted.

"******" isn't an abbreviation for the country of origin of the vast majority of asian corner shop owners. Also, a lot of people above a certain age, myself included, will use the term Paki in all innocence (in their minds) but would never dream of using the word ******.

As much as you might find it uncomfortable, I'm afraid it's not a crap example.

1) I'm struggling to see how there not being many black owned cornershops in Scotland has any bearing on anything whatsoever. Just because a term has become prevalent, doesn't mean it's acceptable. So as before, would you answer your phone in a cornershop and tell the person on the other end that you were in the 'Paki shop' in an audible voice?

2) Christ, can we put it to bed once and for all that 'Paki' is not a contraction of 'Pakistani'. It isn't, never has been and never will be. Your age and 'innocence' means absolutely nothing. As I've said already intent really means very little.

What about a more immediately obvious example. A shop owned by a Jewish family - would you feel alright calling it the 'yid shop' since 'yid' is 'merely a contraction of Yiddish'? Or a shop run by Irish Catholics - the 'taig shop' since 'taig' is just a slight corruption of the Gaelic boys-name Teague?

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 09:59 AM

I guess, however there is no doubt that shops owned by Indians and others are dubbed 'the Paki shop' by an ignorant minority. I dunno if it's necessarily ignorance in the sense of not knowing the difference between Pakistan and neighbouring countries, though. Of the (very) few people I've challenged (not for saying Paki, but for saying Pakistani when the precise origin is unclear), all have known that Pakistan and India are not the same. If I had to call it anything, I would call it laziness rather than ignorance. I have urged speakers to establish the surname of the shopowners, and use that, as I'm not sure that calling a shop "the Indian shop" is a terrific advance on "the Paki shop".

Using the term "corner" instead of Indian/Pakistani/Asian is a bit of a euphemism and merely stores up racial identity problems for ethnically pink shopowners whose surname is Corner.
Also, it is clear from the acclaimed US tellybox series "The Wire" that "corners" are places - in Baltimore at least, but presumably more widespreadly than that - where bad things are sold by bad people.

Betty Boop

14-10-2009, 10:03 AM

Gerd Wilders is on Five Live now taking questions, following the decision being overturned to ban him from the UK. Wonder if he will appear on Question Time with Nasty Nick? :greengrin

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 10:15 AM

As much as you might find it uncomfortable, I'm afraid it's not a crap example.

I don't find it uncomfortable at all. I just find it crap.

1) I'm struggling to see how there not being many black owned cornershops in Scotland has any bearing on anything whatsoever. Just because a term has become prevalent, doesn't mean it's acceptable. So as before, would you answer your phone in a cornershop and tell the person on the other end that you were in the 'Paki shop' in an audible voice?

If I knew the owners were Pakistani, then I may have done in the past. Paki is a term I no longer use.

2) Christ, can we put it to bed once and for all that 'Paki' is not a contraction of 'Pakistani'. It isn't, never has been and never will be. Your age and 'innocence' means absolutely nothing. As I've said already intent really means very little.

Utter tripe!

What about a more immediately obvious example. A shop owned by a Jewish family - would you feel alright calling it the 'yid shop' since 'yid' is 'merely a contraction of Yiddish'? Or a shop run by Irish Catholics - the 'taig shop' since 'taig' is just a slight corruption of the Gaelic boys-name Teague?

Can you not see that you've undermined your argument? These terms aren't used as they have always been viewed as derogatory, the whole "Paki shop" thing wasn't.

Steve-O

14-10-2009, 10:20 AM

The words "tory" and "leftie" can have negative connotations depending on how they are used. Does this mean we should all stop using them?

Says who?

Irrelevant.

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 10:27 AM

Irrelevant.

Why?

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 10:30 AM

I don't find it uncomfortable at all. I just find it crap.

Ok.

If I knew the owners were Pakistani, then I may have done in the past. Paki is a term I no longer use.

Why, if as below it's 'utter tripe' that it's not just a harmless contraction of Pakistani?

Utter tripe!

Brilliant.

Can you not see that you've undermined your argument? These terms aren't used as they have always been viewed as derogatory, the whole "Paki shop" thing wasn't.

I haven't undermined anything. 'Paki' has never been anything other than a pejorative epithet. You and others might have used it without meaning to cause great offence to the recipient, but as I've said - that doesn't mean anything.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

The words "tory" and "leftie" can have negative connotations depending on how they are used. Does this mean we should all stop using them?

Wow, now that's a crap example.

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 11:00 AM

'Paki' has never been anything other than a pejorative epithet.

Don't think that's true.
My folk memory is that 'Paki' was originally used in my neighbourhood as abbreviation for 'Pakistani shop'. As in 'go down to the Paki's'.
Initially - before you were born, I think - I don't think the individual word Paki was ever used in a deliberately offensive or aggressive manner.
That was then and this is now, and the history is not necessarily very relevant, but I think your statement above may be incorrect.

Dinkydoo

14-10-2009, 11:34 AM

Phil D. Rolls

14-10-2009, 11:34 AM

Don't think that's true.
My folk memory is that 'Paki' was originally used in my neighbourhood as abbreviation for 'Pakistani shop'. As in 'go down to the Paki's'.
Initially - before you were born, I think - I don't think the individual word Paki was ever used in a deliberately offensive or aggressive manner.
That was then and this is now, and the history is not necessarily very relevant, but I think your statement above may be incorrect.

Bernard Manning and other comedians in the 70s used Paki as a label for asian people in general. I don't think his jokes were designed to make people think positively about "pakis".

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 11:36 AM

Bernard Manning and other comedians in the 70s used Paki as a label for asian people in general. I don't think his jokes were designed to make people think positively about "pakis".

Yes but before him?

Edit: Off topic but Manning himself never claimed that his jokes were designed to make people think positively about anything. He was always completely clear that the point of a joke was to make people laugh.
I didn't think he was that funny, but I did think he was capable of being way funnier than Terry Scott, Hugh Lloyd, Dick Emery, Charlie Drake and other so-called comedians of the era. There was some truly dismal 'entertainment' in them days, of all sorts.

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 11:38 AM

Ok.
Why, if as below it's 'utter tripe' that it's not just a harmless contraction of Pakistani?

In case there's someone like you standing behind me. :greengrin I no longer use the term because I recognise that people some take offense to it, even though I think they are wrong to do so.

I haven't undermined anything. 'Paki' has never been anything other than a pejorative epithet. You and others might have used it without meaning to cause great offence to the recipient, but as I've said - that doesn't mean anything.I totally disagree with the first sentence. As for the second - that's my point. It wasn't used in an insulting sense to begin with.

---------- Post added at 11:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:29 AM ----------

Wow, now that's a crap example.Why? These are common expressions that can be used in a derogatory sense. Are they pejorative or not?

Phil D. Rolls

14-10-2009, 11:42 AM

I take it none have you have ever sang "Your just a fat Eddie Murphy" then...........?

Or the Mercer song.......?

Both (one defiantely) could be percieved as being extremely offensive.

I can't actually believe that some people are trying to argue about Paki not being an abrreviation ffs :faf:

All the racial crap that may or may not be associated with the word "Paki" doesn't really matter because it all depends on the context in which your using the term. If Paki isn't short for Pakistani then I must have a severe grammar issue here :bitchy:

Gay, is a term that could be percieved as being homophobic yet I very much doubt that theres someone on here that has never used it before. The correct term is Homosexual but unless you are actually being aggresive or derogatory when you use the word Gay, how could that person possibly be described as being a homophobe...?

See how you can get bogged down by almost anything that could be percieved as offensive if you don't use a bit of common sense and tact.

I find it pretty simple to be honest - it's the PC lot that I feel sorry for:rolleyes:

The word might have been used in one context at one time, but once it became the language of racists it took on a new meaning. Other examples might be "gay", which means homosexual now, but once meant happy; Aids means something completely different from 30 years ago etc

***** can actually be an affectionate term. All depends on the context. Not a risk I would take unless I knew the person I was speaking to very well.

I think the most common sense and tactful way to tackle racism is not to use words that can be taken two ways. That way there is no chance that anyone can be offended.

If you feel sorry for the PC people, are you able to understand what it is they are trying to achieve?

Phil D. Rolls

14-10-2009, 11:44 AM

Yes but before him?

Starting to go before my time, and I would venture before there was an issue with immigration in this country. There was Alf Garnett in the 60s I suppose.

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 11:55 AM

Starting to go before my time, and I would venture before there was an issue with immigration in this country. There was Alf Garnett in the 60s I suppose.
Think that's the point really - I think I can remember the word Paki being used in Leef without any pejorative intent at all, before there was any issue with immigration in Leef.

It may well have been used with different intent once immigration issues arose (and they may have arisen in parts of England some years before they reached Leef).

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 12:39 PM

I take it none have you have ever sang "Your just a fat Eddie Murphy" then...........?

Or the Mercer song.......?

Both (one defiantely) could be percieved as being extremely offensive.

I can't actually believe that some people are trying to argue about Paki not being an abrreviation ffs :faf:

All the racial crap that may or may not be associated with the word "Paki" doesn't really matter because it all depends on the context in which your using the term. If Paki isn't short for Pakistani then I must have a severe grammar issue here :bitchy:

Gay, is a term that could be percieved as being homophobic yet I very much doubt that theres someone on here that has never used it before. The correct term is Homosexual but unless you are actually being aggresive or derogatory when you use the word Gay, how could that person possibly be described as being a homophobe...?

See how you can get bogged down by almost anything that could be percieved as offensive if you don't use a bit of common sense and tact.

I find it pretty simple to be honest - it's the PC lot that I feel sorry for:rolleyes:

****ing hell...

In case there's someone like you standing behind me. :greengrin I no longer use the term because I recognise that people some take offense to it, even though I think they are wrong to do so.

Is that not a bit gutless?

I totally disagree with the first sentence. As for the second - that's my point. It wasn't used in an insulting sense to begin with.

Yes it was. People seem to think it works in the same way as Uzbekistan, Afghanistan etc. - it doesn't. Both in terms of the historically and culturally charged nature of it and the fact that there are no people called the 'Pakis' as there are Uzbeks and Afghans.

Why? These are common expressions that can be used in a derogatory sense. Are they pejorative or not?

What!? There's nothing wrong with using pejorative terms.

You're equivalencing political belief with race. Surely you can see how preposterous that is?

I'd genuinely have thought that debates surrounding racism would have moved past whether the terms 'Paki' and 'Chinky' or blackface acts were racist. Apparently not.

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 12:54 PM

Is that not a bit gutless?

No, it's about having a minimum of respect for my fellow earthlings.

Yes it was. People seem to think it works in the same way as Uzbekistan, Afghanistan etc. - it doesn't. Both in terms of the historically and culturally charged nature of it and the fact that there are no people called the 'Pakis' as there are Uzbeks and Afghans.

I spoke of the past, you are speaking of the present - try not to confuse the two.

What!? There's nothing wrong with using pejorative terms.

So do you use some when you answer the phone in a newsagent?

You're equivalencing political belief with race. Surely you can see how preposterous that is?

No, why apply different rules to different groups of people?

I'd genuinely have thought that debates surrounding racism would have moved past whether the terms 'Paki' and 'Chinky' or blackface acts were racist. Apparently not.

Why? Is the debate closed simply because you've made up your mind?

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 01:04 PM

It wasn't used in an insulting sense to begin with.

Yes it was.

What's your evidence for this LH?

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 01:08 PM

No, it's about having a minimum of respect for my fellow earthlings.

Nah, I think it's gutless. If you don't think it's at all racist you should use it, and then explain your reasoning if necessary. Don't be cowed by societal norms...

I spoke of the past, you are speaking of the present - try not to confuse the two.

Ok then, care to supply any proof of its delighful tolerant history?

So do you use some when you answer the phone in a newsagent?

I'm confused...

No, why apply different rules to different groups of people?

Haha, this is getting mental. If you really think there's any equivalence whatsoever between calling someone a 'Tory *******'/'Nazi *******'/ 'Labour *******'/'socialist *******' and 'Paki *******'/'Chinky *******' then there is really no point continuing this.

Why? Is the debate closed simply because you've made up your mind?

Hmmm, sure.

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 01:11 PM

What's your evidence for this LH?

You and others are the people claiming, from nowhere as far as I can tell, that it never had any racist connotations when it's usage was first introduced (by whom I wonder). The burden of proof is on you.

Tomsk

14-10-2009, 01:17 PM

...

You're equivalencing political belief with race. Surely you can see how preposterous that is?

...

Ow!

Please!

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 01:21 PM

You and others are the people claiming, from nowhere as far as I can tell, that it never had any racist connotations when it's usage was first introduced (by whom I wonder). The burden of proof is on you.

From nowhere? In my case my own childhood?

You appear to have assumed, on no evidence that you care to produce, that the times you have so far lived in are identical to times before you were born.

An assumption too far, as even a slight knowledge of history (of absolutely anything under the sun) will support.

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 01:27 PM

Nah, I think it's gutless. If you don't think it's at all racist you should use it, and then explain your reasoning if necessary. Don't be cowed by societal norms...

Ok then, care to supply any proof of its delighful tolerant history?

I'm confused...

Haha, this is getting mental. If you really think there's any equivalence whatsoever between calling someone a 'Tory *******'/'Nazi *******'/ 'Labour *******'/'socialist *******' and 'Paki *******'/'Chinky *******' then there is really no point continuing this.

Hmmm, sure.

This is getting daft. :yawn:

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 01:56 PM

Ow!

Please!

Is that not a word? It should be. :greengrin

From nowhere? In my case my own childhood?

I think I can remember the word Paki being used in Leef without any pejorative intent at all.

Hmmm, excuse me if I don't take that as a sound basis for fact.

You appear to have assumed, on no evidence that you care to produce, that the times you have so far lived in are identical to times before you were born.

No, no I'm not.

I'll also add, I don't understand this intent argument. Just as a historical referent since they're the order of the day - you can read any number of novels of abolitionist literature from 19th century America; Uncle Tom's Cabin, Huck Finn etc. etc. and the intention is quite explicitly anti-racist but they are undoubtedly also incredibly racist at times. So if intent to be anti-racist can result in racism, lack of intent to be racist means absolutely nothing with regard to whether you're actually being racist.

An assumption too far, as even a slight knowledge of history (of absolutely anything under the sun) will support.

I have no idea what that is meant to mean. Here's an excellent passage from Marina Hyde on the recent furore...

The reactions of the “lighten up” brigade come down to that lazy inability to see that just because a word is spoken — or a sketch performed — in non-malicious jest, it can nonetheless cause deep hurt and offence. Perhaps in the mouth of Anton Du Beke, “Paki” is merely half the word Pakistan, as it is to many who have stormed the talkboards. But in the ear of others, “Paki” is something quite different. It is the word that once rained down in playgrounds or football terraces or streets, and frequently still does in our far-from-civilised society. The stubborn refusal to admit to those historic associations is a tacit perpetuation of them. This is how, long after legislation has addressed the wrongs of the past, one generation still manages to pass the discrimination furtively on to the next.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

This is getting daft. :yawn:

Indeed it is.

Betty Boop

14-10-2009, 01:58 PM

A prime example of what we are discussing on this thread, are these comments from an ignoramus on Keechback.

Originally Posted by LPjambo91
HE NEEDS TO GTF AND PLAY FOR PAKISTAN FFS. WHITE SCOTLAND MORE WHITES PLZ!

Islam Feruz is a Somalian, who has been called up to play for the U17 Scotland squad. :grr:

Phil D. Rolls

14-10-2009, 01:59 PM

The reactions of the “lighten up” brigade come down to that lazy inability to see that just because a word is spoken — or a sketch performed — in non-malicious jest, it can nonetheless cause deep hurt and offence. Perhaps in the mouth of Anton Du Beke, “Paki” is merely half the word Pakistan, as it is to many who have stormed the talkboards. But in the ear of others, “Paki” is something quite different. It is the word that once rained down in playgrounds or football terraces or streets, and frequently still does in our far-from-civilised society. The stubborn refusal to admit to those historic associations is a tacit perpetuation of them. This is how, long after legislation has addressed the wrongs of the past, one generation still manages to pass the discrimination furtively on to the next.

---------- Post added at 02:56 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:55 PM ----------

Indeed it is.

That sums it up for me. I'm trying to think of a phrase that used to be used as an insult, but is now considered harmless, and none come to mind.

khib70

14-10-2009, 02:25 PM

That sums it up for me. I'm trying to think of a phrase that used to be used as an insult, but is now considered harmless, and none come to mind.
Sums it up for me too. It's easy to pass off casual racist remarks as "banter" "harmless" etc. But they are the thin end of a very nasty wedge. Terms like "Paki" imply that someone is a member of a group with certain pre defined characteristics and behaviours. They imply that everyone within the target group is the same, and therefore deny people their individuality. It's much easier to discriminate against people or persecute them when you dehumanise them and regard them simply as part of an amorphous group. Tolerance of casual racism will encourage less casual racists to push the boundaries bit by bit.

And there's a huge illogicality about some of the arguments being used to justify "casual racism". My "favourite" is the one about calling someone a "lefty" or a "Tory". This is completely and utterly irrelevant, as LH has said. Your political beliefs, like your taste in music or food, are a matter of choice. Your ethnic origins aren't.

But what is going on here is civilised debate. The quote from Keechback posted above would never be tolerated on this board. I know that the vast majority of Hearts fans aren't racists - but they seem to tolerate this on a message board. I think they call that "repressive tolerance".

Monts

14-10-2009, 02:38 PM

If the word 'paki' is inherently racist, regardless of intent or aggression involved, does that not make everyone who has used the word in this thread a racist?

Peevemor

14-10-2009, 02:40 PM

Terms like "Paki" imply that someone is a member of a group with certain pre defined characteristics and behaviours. They imply that everyone within the target group is the same, and therefore deny people their individuality.

As I've already said, I stopped using the word Paki years ago out of respect for others. However, when I used the word in the past it was simply as an abbreviation of Pakistani and nothing more (nothing to do with Bangladeshis, etc.) and no amount of reasoned, well founded or emotional debate will convince me otherwise.

Beefster

14-10-2009, 03:08 PM

Gay, is a term that could be percieved as being homophobic yet I very much doubt that theres someone on here that has never used it before. The correct term is Homosexual but unless you are actually being aggresive or derogatory when you use the word Gay, how could that person possibly be described as being a homophobe...?

This is just utterly wrong. The word 'gay' is not homophobic but a large number of gay people object to the word being used in a negative sense to describe something that's crap.

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 03:11 PM

Hmmm, excuse me if I don't take that as a sound basis for fact.

I've no idea what that is meant to mean. Here's an excellent passage from Marina Hyde on the recent furore...

The reactions of the “lighten up” brigade come down to that lazy inability to see that just because a word is spoken — or a sketch performed — in non-malicious jest, it can nonetheless cause deep hurt and offence. Perhaps in the mouth of Anton Du Beke, “Paki” is merely half the word Pakistan, as it is to many who have stormed the talkboards. But in the ear of others, “Paki” is something quite different. It is the word that once rained down in playgrounds or football terraces or streets, and frequently still does in our far-from-civilised society. The stubborn refusal to admit to those historic associations is a tacit perpetuation of them. This is how, long after legislation has addressed the wrongs of the past, one generation still manages to pass the discrimination furtively on to the next.

In your determination to rid the world of unpleasant language - good luck with that - you have missed the point. You claimed unequivocally that the word Paki was never used without pejorative overtones/undertones/intent. Peevemor and I, for two, remember otherwise, that it was so used. Our memories may not count for you as any sort of worthwhile fact, but you have produced no evidence whatsoever that they are false, and have instead tangented off on to quoting someone else's view of something different (which as far as I can see is just the same as your own and therefore adds nothing). The word Paki did not "rain down" on my playground. You are wrong if you believe that it did. It did appear in the phrase or saying "get a bottle of skoosh from the Paki's ". To imagine that you or Marina Hyde fully understand the minutiae of things that passed before you were born imo weakens your case.

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 03:14 PM

That sums it up for me. I'm trying to think of a phrase that used to be used as an insult, but is now considered harmless, and none come to mind.

If you were "queer" in the 1950s you could expect to get locked up, beaten up, etc. A few decades later it's in the title of a popular tellybox series. This doesn't indicate that the connotations have improved?

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 03:18 PM

The word 'gay' is not homophobic but a large number of gay people object to the word being used in a negative sense to describe something that's crap.

Would this not, then, make the users a bit homophobic? And if so, would that not have something to do with their intent? :dunno:

Green Mikey

14-10-2009, 03:37 PM

In your determination to rid the world of unpleasant language - good luck with that - you have missed the point. You claimed unequivocally that the word Paki was never used without pejorative overtones/undertones/intent. Peevemor and I, for two, remember otherwise, that it was so used. Our memories may not count for you as any sort of worthwhile fact, but you have produced no evidence whatsoever that they are false, and have instead tangented off on to quoting someone else's view of something different (which as far as I can see is just the same as your own and therefore adds nothing). The word Paki did not "rain down" on my playground. You are wrong if you believe that it did. It did appear in the phrase or saying "get a bottle of skoosh from the Paki's ". To imagine that you or Marina Hyde fully understand the minutiae of things that passed before you were born imo weakens your case.

If your memory does indeed represent the fact in this case regarding the historical use of the word Paki in the Leith area it begs the question: does the historical use of the word in any way justify the current use now that the word has racist connotations?

Historically it was acceptable to call people ******s does this justify the use of it now?

LiverpoolHibs

14-10-2009, 03:51 PM

In your determination to rid the world of unpleasant language - good luck with that - you have missed the point.

I'm not trying to rid the world of offensive language. Offensive language is sometimes great. Racist language, not so much.

You claimed unequivocally that the word Paki was never used without pejorative overtones/undertones/intent. Peevemor and I, for two, remember otherwise, that it was so used.

No, no and thrice no. If you read the entire thread (or even just our recent exchanges) I have said on numerous occasions that the word may have - and may still - use the word, or words like it, without any pejorative intent whatsoever. Everytime I have said that I have followed it up by saying that this doesn't mean anything. That was the point of the, admittedly slightly odd, diversion into American antebellum literature.

Our memories may not count for you as any sort of worthwhile fact, but you have produced no evidence whatsoever that they are false, and have instead tangented off on to quoting someone else's view of something different (which as far as I can see is just the same as your own and therefore adds nothing). The word Paki did not "rain down" on my playground. You are wrong if you believe that it did. It did appear in the phrase or saying "get a bottle of skoosh from the Paki's ". To imagine that you or Marina Hyde fully understand the minutiae of things that passed before you were born imo weakens your case.

I haven't 'tangented off'. I supplemented a bit of my post responding to bit of your own which I didn't really understand with a passage from a good article I had just read.

I'll remember never to comment about events which happened before my birth again...

Scouse Hibee

14-10-2009, 03:59 PM

As I have said before on a similar thread, I will continue to say what I like to who I like, I don't care what I am percieved to be. I know what I am................................................ ........................ An Englishman in Scotland, now that's a different story though eh!!!!!

hibsbollah

14-10-2009, 04:06 PM

Sums it up for me too. It's easy to pass off casual racist remarks as "banter" "harmless" etc. But they are the thin end of a very nasty wedge. Terms like "Paki" imply that someone is a member of a group with certain pre defined characteristics and behaviours. They imply that everyone within the target group is the same, and therefore deny people their individuality. It's much easier to discriminate against people or persecute them when you dehumanise them and regard them simply as part of an amorphous group. Tolerance of casual racism will encourage less casual racists to push the boundaries bit by bit.

And there's a huge illogicality about some of the arguments being used to justify "casual racism". My "favourite" is the one about calling someone a "lefty" or a "Tory". This is completely and utterly irrelevant, as LH has said. Your political beliefs, like your taste in music or food, are a matter of choice. Your ethnic origins aren't.

But what is going on here is civilised debate. The quote from Keechback posted above would never be tolerated on this board. I know that the vast majority of Hearts fans aren't racists - but they seem to tolerate this on a message board. I think they call that "repressive tolerance".

Excellent post on the subject:agree: I had almost given up hope:yawn:

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 04:08 PM

If your memory does indeed represent the fact in this case regarding the historical use of the word Paki in the Leith area it begs the question: does the historical use of the word in any way justify the current use now that the word has racist connotations?
No, not in my opinion. Then was then and now is now. I was commenting on this:

'Paki' has never been anything other than a pejorative epithet.

Which I believe to be false.

Historically it was acceptable to call people ******s does this justify the use of it now?
Language changes all the time. It is foolish imo to cling on to, or try to justify, outmoded usage for whatever reason. It is equally foolish in my opinion to go around claiming that words have always meant what they mean today.

lapsedhibee

14-10-2009, 04:20 PM

If you read the entire thread (or even just our recent exchanges) I have said on numerous occasions that the word may have - and may still - use the word, or words like it, without any pejorative intent whatsoever. Everytime I have said that I have followed it up by saying that this doesn't mean anything. That was the point of the, admittedly slightly odd, diversion into American antebellum literature.
Not disagreeing with that. It's imo obvious that a thing can be offensive or racist or many other things without necessarily being intentionally so. My only point in the area was that what is offensive or racist or many other things can change over time. I took your "'Paki' has never been anything other than a pejorative epithet" to be a contrary view.

I'll remember never to comment about events which happened before my birth again...
Good because I wouldn't like to be tempted to introduce the possibly mildly offensive epithet whippersnapper into the thread. :wink:

Phil D. Rolls

14-10-2009, 05:29 PM

If you were "queer" in the 1950s you could expect to get locked up, beaten up, etc. A few decades later it's in the title of a popular tellybox series. This doesn't indicate that the connotations have improved?

I think gay people use the term as defensive irony, but I can't speak for them. I just find it frustrating that I can't buy a pouffe to put my feet on any more.

---------- Post added at 06:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:27 PM ----------

As I have said before on a similar thread, I will continue to say what I like to who I like, I don't care what I am percieved to be. I know what I am................................................ ........................ An Englishman in Scotland, now that's a different story though eh!!!!!

You can only stretch tolerance so far. :greengrin

I think it's good that English people are standing up to the racist bullying that they often suffer in Scotland. Just don't expect me to support England in the World Cup!

Ed De Gramo

14-10-2009, 09:27 PM

In your determination to rid the world of unpleasant language - good luck with that - you have missed the point. You claimed unequivocally that the word Paki was never used without pejorative overtones/undertones/intent. Peevemor and I, for two, remember otherwise, that it was so used. Our memories may not count for you as any sort of worthwhile fact, but you have produced no evidence whatsoever that they are false, and have instead tangented off on to quoting someone else's view of something different (which as far as I can see is just the same as your own and therefore adds nothing). The word Paki did not "rain down" on my playground. You are wrong if you believe that it did. It did appear in the phrase or saying "get a bottle of skoosh from the Paki's ". To imagine that you or Marina Hyde fully understand the minutiae of things that passed before you were born imo weakens your case.

I think it's more that LH thinks he's always right and has to take the moral high ground on here...sounding more and more like he's for the PC Brigade every time :jamboak:

Green Mikey

14-10-2009, 09:43 PM

I think it's more that LH thinks he's always right and has to take the moral high ground on here...sounding more and more like he's for the PC Brigade every time :jamboak:

Usually in a debate people think they are right or they wouldn't participate.

Personally, I don't think you are automatically a member of the 'PC brigade' if you don't use words like Paki or Chinky.

Steve-O

15-10-2009, 06:50 AM

Usually in a debate people think they are right or they wouldn't participate.

Personally, I don't think you are automatically a member of the 'PC brigade' if you don't use words like Paki or Chinky.

Correct.

"Oh I think I'll give my opinion even though I think I am wrong..." :rolleyes:

I just cringe everytime I hear the word 'Paki' - I can't honestly believe people still use it.

This abbreviation pish. If you met someone new, at work or something for example, would you ask them if they were 'a paki', or Pakistani?

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 08:10 AM

I think it's more that LH thinks he's always right and has to take the moral high ground on here...sounding more and more like he's for the PC Brigade every time :jamboak:

Can I just ask, what qualifies you to say what someone else thinks? If you don't want to engage in debate with someone that's fine, but I think it is a bit unfair to go making judgements over someone's motivation for posting on here.

Scouse Hibee

15-10-2009, 08:12 AM

Correct.

"Oh I think I'll give my opinion even though I think I am wrong..." :rolleyes:

I just cringe everytime I hear the word 'Paki' - I can't honestly believe people still use it.

This abbreviation pish. If you met someone new, at work or something for example, would you ask them if they were 'a paki', or Pakistani?

What??? Ask a question like that, I'd be accused of being a racist!!

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 08:15 AM

What??? Ask a question like that, I'd be accused of being a racist!!

I remember once at work we had a woman who appeared to have no English. We knew she was from Pakistan, and spent a couple of days trying to sort out an interpreter. When we told the doctor, he said that he spoke her language. No-one had been brave enough to ask an asian doctor if he was from Pakistan, in case it was offensive.

That is PC gone mad.

Beefster

15-10-2009, 09:08 AM

I think it's more that LH thinks he's always right

http://loudounlady.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/pot-kettle-black.jpg

LiverpoolHibs

15-10-2009, 09:21 AM

I think it's more that LH thinks he's always right and has to take the moral high ground on here...sounding more and more like he's for the PC Brigade every time :jamboak:

Tee-hee!

Those bloody moral-high-ground-ers and their objections to racist abuse. The swines!

lapsedhibee

15-10-2009, 10:31 AM

I remember once at work we had a woman who appeared to have no English. We knew she was from Pakistan, and spent a couple of days trying to sort out an interpreter. When we told the doctor, he said that he spoke her language. No-one had been brave enough to ask an asian doctor if he was from Pakistan, in case it was offensive.

That is PC gone mad.

Now that all these issues relating to words beginning with Pak have been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction - and very educational it's been too - I look forward to the hibs.net guide on words beginning with Hin.

As far as I can make out:

Hindu is a person or a religion
Hindustan is a place
Hindustani is a language either including or not including the language spoken in Pakistan (which is sometimes called Urdu).

Some of these definitions may be out of date. Are any of the words racist though?

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 11:20 AM

Now that all these issues relating to words beginning with Pak have been cleared up to everyone's satisfaction - and very educational it's been too - I look forward to the hibs.net guide on words beginning with Hin.

As far as I can make out:

Hindu is a person or a religion
Hindustan is a place
Hindustani is a language either including or not including the language spoken in Pakistan (which is sometimes called Urdu).

Some of these definitions may be out of date. Are any of the words racist though?

Well sensitivity over ethnicity certainl hindered us in the example I gave.

Type of thing?

Dinkydoo

15-10-2009, 11:45 AM

The word might have been used in one context at one time, but once it became the language of racists it took on a new meaning. Other examples might be "gay", which means homosexual now, but once meant happy; Aids means something completely different from 30 years ago etc

***** can actually be an affectionate term. All depends on the context. Not a risk I would take unless I knew the person I was speaking to very well.

I think the most common sense and tactful way to tackle racism is not to use words that can be taken two ways. That way there is no chance that anyone can be offended.

If you feel sorry for the PC people, are you able to understand what it is they are trying to achieve?

I agree with you, if you look at m,y previous posts I stated that I would never call someone a Paki to thier face in case I caused offence.

I understand what they are trying to achieve and totally respect that but out of Political correctness has now came "Postive discrimination" which is just as bad imo.

I feel sorry for the PC people simply because for example 5 pages have been wasted on this message board arguing whether the use of Paki is ok - as it's clearly evident that it's all down to the context in which it's being used and how someone might perceive the remark.

When lets face it, you could call someone something much, much worse.

When PC and common sense go together hand in hand the world will be a much better place and people wont' live in fear of constantly offending someone by a fairly innocent remark.

BravestHibs

15-10-2009, 11:50 AM

I just everyone could just get along. Why don't we all go into the dug out for a cuddle and a read of a nice story?

http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=163769

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 12:13 PM

I agree with you, if you look at m,y previous posts I stated that I would never call someone a Paki to thier face in case I caused offence.

I understand what they are trying to achieve and totally respect that but out of Political correctness has now came "Postive discrimination" which is just as bad imo.

I feel sorry for the PC people simply because for example 5 pages have been wasted on this message board arguing whether the use of Paki is ok.

when lets face it, you could call someone something much, much worse.

Good point, there are examples of people abusing the system that has been put in place to protect them, there can be no doubt. I still don't understand why we have to debate whether it is alright to call someone Paki.

I have got personal experience of knowing people - especially kids - who have been hurt by having that term used. I get the impression it made them feel lesser people for being stigmatised. It is a real thing as far as I can see, and not one that people have decided "might be insulting".

I think there might be worse things you can call someone, but - for me anyway - being insulted because of my ethnicity would be very hurtful. Firstly it is something you have no control over, second it is an insult to your parents and the rest of your family.

I'd have to ask an Asian what the worst thing they can be called is. I have worked with people from Africa, and they claim that they feel sorry for people who racially abuse them, as it shows the other person's ignorance. I'm not so sure they'd feel sorry for them if they abused them in front of their kids.

It seems to me the central issue in the discussion on the board though has been whether Paki is an offensive term. As I said earlier, it isn't for a white person to decide what is offensive to an Asian.

As far as I'm concerned the Commission for Racial Equalities is the representative of ethnic groups in the UK, I'll take my guidance from them until such time as the people they represent object to their policies.

I heard someone say today that change usually happens for a good reason, and people should remember that the whole anti-racist movement was founded to protect people from very real harm. That's why it annoys me when people play the race card to get them out of bother, and when some wee pen pusher decides that you can't call waste disposal bags "black bags" because it might offend someone, or decides that Christmas cards might be offensive to minorities - as far as I know the Sikhs in Great Junction Street love Christmas.

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 12:18 PM

I just everyone could just get along. Why don't we all go into the dug out for a cuddle and a read of a nice story?

http://www.hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=163769

Cam we have Little Black Sambo?

Doh!!!!!

LiverpoolHibs

15-10-2009, 12:25 PM

Stewart Lee on political correctness...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IYx4Bc6_eE

That just about covers it. :greengrin

lapsedhibee

15-10-2009, 03:49 PM

Stewart Lee on political correctness...

That just about covers it. :greengrin

Oh ****. That clip reminds me that in the Billy Bunter stories I was exposed to as a kid, his classmate Hurree Jamset Ram Singh was referred to as "Inky". How do I go about suing my parents for allowing this? :dunno:

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 04:13 PM

Oh ****. That clip reminds me that in the Billy Bunter stories I was exposed to as a kid, his classmate Hurree Jamset Ram Singh was referred to as "Inky". How do I go about suing my parents for allowing this? :dunno:

I am interested in gathering names for a class action against Robertsons for putting Golliwogs on their jam, and Barrs for their comical "african" character Ba-Bru.

Seriously though, I think both of those things indicate a less sensitive time. It never harmed me, but what did it do to a black kid growing up in Brixton or Southall - let alone one growing up in Dundee?

Jeezo I remember our head teacher at school, making a joke that we didn't stand a chance in a rugby match, because the other team had a black player and we wouldn't be able to see him lying in the mud. (This was at the school assembly, and we only had one black pupil and maybe three asians, I bet they felt like they belonged).

Thank goodness things have moved on.

lapsedhibee

15-10-2009, 04:24 PM

Jeezo I remember our head teacher at school, making a joke that we didn't stand a chance in a rugby match, because the other team had a black player and we wouldn't be able to see him lying in the mud. (This was at the school assembly, and we only had one black pupil and maybe three asians, I bet they felt like they belonged).

Thank goodness things have moved on.

You are talking about an incident many years ago. An interesting question for me is: Should that head teacher have been sacked for his remark, as he presumably would be now?

(I say no, he shouldn't have been sacked.)

Phil D. Rolls

15-10-2009, 04:38 PM

You are talking about an incident many years ago. An interesting question for me is: Should that head teacher have been sacked for his remark, as he presumably would be now?

(I say no, he shouldn't have been sacked.)

I think he shouldn't have made the remark. It was extremely insensitive and must have made two or three kids feel absolutely sh*t.

I would sack him now, as society has moved on. Then, his biggest crime was ignorance, and I don't think that is something that we really want to see in head teachers. After all things they say and do can have a lifetimes affect on people.

I would want teachers to show a higher level of sensitivity to minorities than he did.

Sir David Gray

15-10-2009, 11:34 PM

It is what you're saying. And you've just said it again in the next paragraph.

Racism is like any kind of prejudice, bullying or discrimination. If someone was giving you, as a disabled person, abuse or bullying at ER, for example, I have the right to be offended and the right to intervene. It is not, solely, your problem as the target. Thats what 'society' means to me, and the principle applies to all situations IMO.

If someone made a comment to me and it didn't bother me, I honestly don't see that it's anyone else's place to get involved. You might feel that the comment was misplaced or out of order but if the target of a particular comment isn't offended by it then I think that should be the end of the matter.

You started talking about examples of torture, discrimination and mass murder, which I don't think is any comparison to a crass/mildly offensive comment.

I think it's quite obvious that people will object to hundreds/thousands of innocent people being tortured and killed, even if they aren't the ones being targeted. It's not so obvious that someone who is on the receiving end of a comment, which you consider to be offensive, will necessarily be hurt or offended by that comment, and it is therefore up to them to decide whether or not the comment is offensive and if they have not been offended, I don't see why anyone else should be getting involved.

I suppose the main difference that I see between the examples of crass comments that I'm talking about and the examples of torture and discrimination that you are talking about is that the latter is usually done to people after having been sanctioned by the state and subsequently the victims usually have no say as to their fate and that means that other people have to stand up for them and their cause. Whereas in the case of someone making an "offensive" comment, the person on the receiving end can choose whether or not they wish to answer back and if the comment was really offensive, they could choose to report it to the police.

Erm, yeah - it's good that you're 'hazarding a guess' at that.

Since I have not heard a single black person come out and criticise that performance, I think it's only logical that I therefore assume that the majority of black people are not offended in the slightest by this.

If you have some information to the contrary then I would be very interested to hear/see from all these black people who have been deeply offended by the performance.

You've rather missed my point there...

Well why don't you help me to see your point then?

Betty Boop

16-10-2009, 11:02 PM

Outrage over "black-face" photos in Vogue magazine.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/oct/13/french-vogue-photographs-outrage

Phil D. Rolls

17-10-2009, 09:15 AM

If someone made a comment to me and it didn't bother me, I honestly don't see that it's anyone else's place to get involved. You might feel that the comment was misplaced or out of order but if the target of a particular comment isn't offended by it then I think that should be the end of the matter.

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.

It's pretty simple - we're all in this together (as certain non-Nazi politicians are wont to tell us).

Personally, I can't bear to see people being hurt, and if there is anything I can do to prevent that, I will.

Since I have not heard a single black person come out and criticise that performance, I think it's only logical that I therefore assume that the majority of black people are not offended in the slightest by this.

If you have some information to the contrary then I would be very interested to hear/see from all these black people who have been deeply offended by the performance.

If they objected to racist iconology like the Robertson's golliwogs, and they haven't changed their stance on that since, I am willing to bet that performance is something they will object to. Turning your argument on its head, I haven't heard a single black person say it was funny either.

Betty Boop

17-10-2009, 10:43 AM

It's pretty simple - we're all in this together (as certain non-Nazi politicians are wont to tell us).

Personally, I can't bear to see people being hurt, and if there is anything I can do to prevent that, I will.

If they objected to racist iconology like the Robertson's golliwogs, and they haven't changed their stance on that since, I am willing to bet that performance is something they will object to. Turning your argument on its head, I haven't heard a single black person say it was funny either.

:top marks Superb Mr.Rolls.

lapsedhibee

17-10-2009, 10:58 AM

First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Personally, I can't bear to see people being hurt, and if there is anything I can do to prevent that, I will.
Niemoller's poem is a powerful piece of oratory. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy)'s an alternative view of it.

Personally, I can't bear to see people being hurt, and if there is anything I can do to prevent that, I will.

Unfortunately if you put this personal desire of yours into practice you will infringe the rights of sadomasochists who under current legislation are free to do exactly that to each other. Would you change the law, or try to prevent it as a vigilante? :dunno:

Phil D. Rolls

17-10-2009, 11:16 AM

Niemoller's poem is a powerful piece of oratory. Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope#The_slippery_slope_as_fallacy)'s an alternative view of it.

Unfortunately if you put this personal desire of yours into practice you will infringe the rights of sadomasochists who under current legislation are free to do exactly that to each other. Would you change the law, or try to prevent it as a vigilante? :dunno:

I know, there has to come a point where people's rights conflict with each other. Although, I think sadomasochists are prevented from doing what they want to each other - did they not send some people to jail in England for it?

I suppose you have to accept the grey areas in life, and that is one of the things that linguistic facism - something the "PC brigade" are guilty of at times - fails to address. It deals with the symptoms rather than the disease.

Personally though, I think the issues of golliwogs, and calling every brown skinned person a paki, are a bit more clear cut. I also think that it is important to not only treat others as we would want to be treated, but to see that others remember respect.

I'll get my halo.

lapsedhibee

17-10-2009, 05:03 PM

Although, I think sadomasochists are prevented from doing what they want to each other - did they not send some people to jail in England for it?

Yes, you're right, they did.

The Court of Appeal's view was that "the courts must draw a line between what is acceptable in a civilised society and what is not" and "the satisfaction of sado-masochistic libido" was an insufficient reason for allowing consenting adults to hurt each other. In boxing, apparently, there is a good enough reason to allow it. The reason unstated. Wonder what they had in mind. :dunno:

Betty Boop

19-10-2009, 07:33 PM

Racism in Britain on Panorama now.

wpj

19-10-2009, 07:37 PM

Racism in Britain on Panorama now.

Very sad already :bitchy:

lapsedhibee

19-10-2009, 08:09 PM

Very sad already :bitchy:

Not very sure what conclusion to draw from that programme. There are several subnormal, bullying, thugs on the Southmead estate, who are also racists. Shirley no-one is surprised at that? :dunno:

Wonder what sort of "family intervention" could possibly turn round Sonny Clark's life - can't recall seeing a more obnoxious wee scrote on the tellybox for some time.

The thugs said 'Paki' quite a bit. And swore a lot.

Should we all stop swearing lest we turn into bullying thugs? :dunno:

Betty Boop

19-10-2009, 08:43 PM

Disgusting behaviour in that programme, these ignorant morons seem to be consumed with hate. Why is that?

lapsedhibee

19-10-2009, 08:48 PM

Disgusting behaviour in that programme, these ignorant morons seem to be consumed with hate. Why is that?

Is it because they live in Bristol, and Bristol became prominent in the slave trade in the late 17th/early 18th century? :dunno:

bingo70

19-10-2009, 08:51 PM

Disgusting behaviour in that programme, these ignorant morons seem to be consumed with hate. Why is that?

Seemed to me thats what they did for fun.

I got the impression they were just **** and would pick on anyone they didn't recognise and thought they could bully, the fact they were a different race was just used as an excuse to pick on them as they knew it would hurt.

Unfortunately, no matter how hard the council or police try to deal with people like that, there always have been and always will be horrible little ***** like those shown tonight.

hibsdaft

21-10-2009, 02:17 PM

i thought this was quite interesting (relates to another word which has evolved into a derogatory term but which for a time people would have used without such intent):

This medical term "*******" became used to describe cerebral palsy. The *******s Society (now called Scope) was a UK charity for people with cerebral palsy, which was founded in 1951.

However, the word began to be used as an insult and became a term of abuse used to imply stupidity or physical ineptness; one who is uncoordinated or incompetent, or a fool.[3] The mental connotation derived from a common misconception that those with any physical disability resulting in *******ity would necessarily also have a mental or developmental disability. It was often colloquially abbreviated to forms such as "spa", "spaz", "spazmoid", "spazzer", "spazmo", "spack", "spackhead", "sped", "spazzy", "spacko", or "spacker".

Its derogatory use grew considerably in the 1980s. This is sometimes attributed to the children's show Blue Peter. During the International Year of Disabled Persons (1981), several episodes featured a man with cerebral palsy (described as a "*******") named Joey Deacon. Phrases such as "joey", "deacon", and "spaz" became popular insults amongst children at that time.[4]

The *******s Society changed its name to Scope in 1994. The words then gradually dropped out of common usage as the majority of British society came to regard them as offensive and politically incorrect. (Since then, the terms "Scope", "Scoper" or "Scopie" have been used as insults.[5][6][7])

In the mid-1980s, some people attempted to "reclaim" the term. This is the meaning in the Ian Dury and the Blockheads song "*******us (Autisticus)", and it is also used in the Ben Elton book Gridlock. There is also a movie called "I'm *******us" (a wordplay on "I'm Spartacus"). The group 2NU best known for their early 90s Top 40 song "Ponderous" wrote a song called "Spaz Attack".[citation needed]

The current understanding of the word is well-illustrated by a BBC survey in 2003, which found that "*******" was the second most offensive term in the UK relating to disability (****** was deemed most offensive) [2]. In 2007, Lynne Murphy, a linguist at the University of Sussex, described the term as being "one of the most taboo insults to a British ear".

from wikipedia

the meaning of words change over time, and people stop using them. theres no science to it and its not necessarily be that rational but it happens and people move on with it eventually because they don't want to be seen to offend, its shouldn't be a big deal either way imo, at least not until the word is firmly derogatory

Tinyclothes

21-10-2009, 02:35 PM

Some forms of racism can be hilarious. It only becomes wrong when it is directly intended to offend or as a means of belittling the recipient.

Phil D. Rolls

21-10-2009, 05:26 PM

Some forms of racism can be hilarious. It only becomes wrong when it is directly intended to offend or as a means of belittling the recipient.

I like the racists who sneak onto message boards and drop the odd bombshell here and there, but never get into a serious discussion, in case they are shown up to be ignorant f*ds. They are hilarious.

What kinds of racism make you laugh?

Tinyclothes

21-10-2009, 08:27 PM

I like the racists who sneak onto message boards and drop the odd bombshell here and there, but never get into a serious discussion, in case they are shown up to be ignorant f*ds. They are hilarious.

What kinds of racism make you laugh?

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

Hiber-nation

21-10-2009, 09:03 PM

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

Christ, I think ma sides have split.

sleeping giant

21-10-2009, 09:15 PM

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

:fishin:

Are there any Jewish goalies in Scotland ?

Phil D. Rolls

22-10-2009, 08:53 AM

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

You're so post modern.

steakbake

22-10-2009, 08:57 AM

You're so post modern.

But if one Israeli person finds it funny then it's not offensive? :wink:

hibsbollah

22-10-2009, 08:59 AM

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

Anyone who objects to that must be part of the 'PC brigade':thumbsup:
:rolleyes:

Phil D. Rolls

22-10-2009, 09:11 AM

But if one Israeli person finds it funny then it's not offensive? :wink:

I'm sure someone finds it funny. :agree:

Beefster

22-10-2009, 10:35 AM

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

Anti-semitic too. Good effort.

Mind and watch Question Time tonight. Your mate's on.

Dinkydoo

22-10-2009, 11:27 AM

When you see a fat person from Israel on the TV and someone shouts Jew fat *******, like they do at the football with the goalies. That sort of racism.

OMFG :faf:

Are you for real?

Since when does someone's religion come into whether they're overwieght or not. Also just because someone is from Israiel doesn't neccessarily mean that they're Jewish.

A very offensive generalisation coupled with an anti-semitic remark (Great post!! :blah:)

Would you feel as comfortable standing up at ER and shouting Nade, you fat black B@s**rd :grr:

You really shouldn't have bothered posting, I can't seem to work out how you don't see your comment as being offensive....... jebus!

BravestHibs

22-10-2009, 11:33 AM

OMFG :faf:

Are you for real?

Since when does someone's religion come into whether they're overwieght or not. Also just because someone is from Israiel doesn't neccessarily mean that they're Jewish.

A very offensive generalisation coupled with an anti-semitic remark (Great post!! :blah:)

Would you feel as comfortable standing up at ER and shouting Nade, you fat black B@s**rd :grr:

You really shouldn't have bothered posting, I can't seem to work out how you don't see your comment as being offensive....... jebus!

It is a pretty safe bet though.

hibsbollah

22-10-2009, 11:39 AM

It is a pretty safe bet though.

Not really, about 20% of Israelis are the Arab minority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Phil D. Rolls

22-10-2009, 11:55 AM

Anti-semitic too. Good effort.

Mind and watch Question Time tonight. Your mate's on.

Nick Griffin must wear tiny clothes, because he doesn't look very tall to me.

OMFG :faf:

Are you for real?

Since when does someone's religion come into whether they're overwieght or not. Also just because someone is from Israiel doesn't neccessarily mean that they're Jewish.

A very offensive generalisation coupled with an anti-semitic remark (Great post!! :blah:)

Would you feel as comfortable standing up at ER and shouting Nade, you fat black B@s**rd :grr:

You really shouldn't have bothered posting, I can't seem to work out how you don't see your comment as being offensive....... jebus!

It's just a tramp on the wind up, he's probably creaming himself right now that anyone is paying attention.

Not really, about 20% of Israelis are the Arab minority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

So that would give you an 8 in 10 chance of calling an Israeli a Jew and being correct then? It seems to me that the liklihood of an Israeli being a Jew is quite high on that basis.

BravestHibs

22-10-2009, 12:16 PM

Not really, about 20% of Israelis are the Arab minority http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

Yes but 75% are. I don't know if you're a betting man but I'd take those odds.

Dinkydoo

23-10-2009, 11:23 AM

Yes but 75% are. I don't know if you're a betting man but I'd take those odds.

I'm not disagreeing that those are decent odds but my point was it's not right to simply presume.....

BravestHibs

23-10-2009, 11:58 AM

I'm not disagreeing that those are decent odds but my point was it's not right to simply presume.....

Maybe not if you were talking to them over the phone, but I reckon you'd pretty much be able to tell the difference between an arab and a jew if you met them face to face. And even on the phone all it would take to be able to make a pretty accurate guess would be a name. There's always going to be anomolies but I would say that it pretty much is safe to presume.

Woody1985

23-10-2009, 12:16 PM

I was watching Russel Howard's new program last night. He had a clip that showed Rabbi's who are learning martial arts and teaching it at their congregations. He called him the Karate Yid. Yes, I did laugh. I must admit that I didn't even know what a yid was until I read it on here. Knowing his style and the way he talks it is clear RH is not a racist.

Now, I think there is a very thin line between racism and using a term that rhymes with something or is used to stereotype people. It would seem that line is crossed on everything that is said now.

It's interesting that the advert (the pineapple juice, the name escapes me) with the two women in Jamaica having a laugh and joking around whilst all sitting in the sun with a bunch of black people. In the true definition of the word that is racist as it is generalising all Jamaican's as happy go lucky people. Why no outrage? Is it because people pick and choose when they want things to be racist.

Borat is the prime example of getting away with racism. Is racism acceptable towards Jews okay because a Jewish person is saying it? Has anyone on this thread who is opposed to racism watched the film and laughed, if so, you are a hypocrite.

Either we outlaw all forms of racism, funny or not, or stop being hypocrites.

Sir David Gray

25-10-2009, 10:41 PM

If they objected to racist iconology like the Robertson's golliwogs, and they haven't changed their stance on that since, I am willing to bet that performance is something they will object to. Turning your argument on its head, I haven't heard a single black person say it was funny either.

At no point during any of my comments on this thread have I said that anyone else would find the performance funny, I simply said that I thought very few black people would be offended by it.

I would say that there is a huge difference between not finding something funny and finding it offensive.

Your argument (along with quite a few others) is that for a white person to blacken their face for a public performance is offensive to black people. I would like someone to therefore prove this claim to me by providing me with a list of black people who have publicly condemned the performance and said that it's offensive and racist.

Although it won't change my mind, I would be quite happy if you (or anyone else) could even name one black person who has said they were offended because I have so far not heard from a single black person on the issue.

LiverpoolHibs

25-10-2009, 11:21 PM

At no point during any of my comments on this thread have I said that anyone else would find the performance funny, I simply said that I thought very few black people would be offended by it.

I would say that there is a huge difference between not finding something funny and finding it offensive.

Your argument (along with quite a few others) is that for a white person to blacken their face for a public performance is offensive to black people. I would like someone to therefore prove this claim to me by providing me with a list of black people who have publicly condemned the performance and said that it's offensive and racist.

Although it won't change my mind, I would be quite happy if you (or anyone else) could even name one black person who has said they were offended because I have so far not heard from a single black person on the issue.

Even though your argument is unremittingly terrible and illogical, I did what you could have done and looked on google - or, I dunno, you could have asked someone about the ****ing disgusting history of 'blacface' acts. This blog entry was top of the list.

http://www.happynappyhead.com/2009/10/this-is-what-australia-thinks-of-black.html

It contains the very good line,

This is what happens when people think that racism is limited to hoods, burning crosses and swastikas. They will believe that as long as they don't have someone coming on the show with a "Die Negroes, Die!" routine, that something like blackface is completely done "in fun."

But then you've already said that nothing will change your mind so what's the point?

hibsdaft

25-10-2009, 11:26 PM

Borat is the prime example of getting away with racism. Is racism acceptable towards Jews okay because a Jewish person is saying it? Has anyone on this thread who is opposed to racism watched the film and laughed, if so, you are a hypocrite.

not really because the joke is on the daftness of racism and anti-semitism with Borat. its ridiculous. that said i didn't agree with him going over to a real village to shoot the early scenes in the Borat film. the viewer was meant to laugh at real people living in horrible conditions - it was a bit of a shame to say the least.

not sure why i have a picture of a guy with shades on at the top of this post btw.

Sir David Gray

26-10-2009, 12:07 AM

Even though your argument is unremittingly terrible and illogical, I did what you could have done and looked on google - or, I dunno, you could have asked someone about the ****ing disgusting history of 'blacface' acts. This blog entry was top of the list.

http://www.happynappyhead.com/2009/10/this-is-what-australia-thinks-of-black.html

It contains the very good line,

This is what happens when people think that racism is limited to hoods, burning crosses and swastikas. They will believe that as long as they don't have someone coming on the show with a "Die Negroes, Die!" routine, that something like blackface is completely done "in fun."

But then you've already said that nothing will change your mind so what's the point?

I said it wouldn't change my mind if the name of just one black person, who found the performance offensive, was provided although I'll accept that it's a start as I hadn't even found one example before you provided that link and that's after more than two weeks! That's a bit different from saying "nothing will change my mind" as you seem to have somehow managed to quote me as saying.

Obviously if dozens of black people were coming out and saying how offensive this was to them, without any black person saying it isn't offensive to them, then I would need to rethink my position but I really don't believe that is the case.

The reason I asked you, or any of the people who have sided with you on this argument, to provide me with examples of black people who have found this whole incident offensive is because you have spent the entire thread mentioning about how offensive this would be to black people so I just presumed that you must have had plenty of examples of outraged people to hand.

LiverpoolHibs

26-10-2009, 10:45 AM

I said it wouldn't change my mind if the name of just one black person, who found the performance offensive, was provided although I'll accept that it's a start as I hadn't even found one example before you provided that link and that's after more than two weeks! That's a bit different from saying "nothing will change my mind" as you seem to have somehow managed to quote me as saying.

Have you been looking?

Obviously if dozens of black people were coming out and saying how offensive this was to them, without any black person saying it isn't offensive to them, then I would need to rethink my position but I really don't believe that is the case.

The reason I asked you, or any of the people who have sided with you on this argument, to provide me with examples of black people who have found this whole incident offensive is because you have spent the entire thread mentioning about how offensive this would be to black people so I just presumed that you must have had plenty of examples of outraged people to hand.

Honestly, this is really quite odd. If, for example, a television channel decided to screen the speeches of Alfred Rosenberg, would you need a host of black (or Jewish) commentators lining up to say how offended they were by it before you were willing to accept that it was racist?

Conversely, can you find me one black response that argues it wasn't racist or offensive?

Twa Cairpets

26-10-2009, 10:54 AM

I said it wouldn't change my mind if the name of just one black person, who found the performance offensive, was provided although I'll accept that it's a start as I hadn't even found one example before you provided that link and that's after more than two weeks! That's a bit different from saying "nothing will change my mind" as you seem to have somehow managed to quote me as saying.

Obviously if dozens of black people were coming out and saying how offensive this was to them, without any black person saying it isn't offensive to them, then I would need to rethink my position but I really don't believe that is the case.

The reason I asked you, or any of the people who have sided with you on this argument, to provide me with examples of black people who have found this whole incident offensive is because you have spent the entire thread mentioning about how offensive this would be to black people so I just presumed that you must have had plenty of examples of outraged people to hand.

Oh goody. A logical fallacy. One of my favourites too: The good old "Fallacy of Presumption" (arguing from ignorance variant). Here's a link. (http://www.logicalfallacies.info/presumption/arguing-from-ignorance/)

Dinkydoo

26-10-2009, 11:27 AM

It's interesting that the advert (the pineapple juice, the name escapes me) with the two women in Jamaica having a laugh and joking around whilst all sitting in the sun with a bunch of black people. In the true definition of the word that is racist as it is generalising all Jamaican's as happy go lucky people. Why no outrage? Is it because people pick and choose when they want things to be racist.

Borat is the prime example of getting away with racism. Is racism acceptable towards Jews okay because a Jewish person is saying it? Has anyone on this thread who is opposed to racism watched the film and laughed, if so, you are a hypocrite.

Either we outlaw all forms of racism, funny or not, or stop being hypocrites.

This really is PC gone mad.

The advert isn't generalising all Jamicans as being "happy go lucky" people. It could be percieved that way (as you have demonstrated) but in no way shape or form does the advert have a hint of racism in it.

Borat can be racist, sopme of the things he does are out of order as well but that doesn't make anyone who laughs at him a "hypocrite" simply because they are against racism.

If this is the way that Political Correctness is taking the UK then I really do fear for the future.

How long will it be before our country resembles ther Middle East where in some parts you are imprisioned and killed for having an opinion.

:bitchy:

Woody1985

26-10-2009, 11:46 AM

This really is PC gone mad.

The advert isn't generalising all Jamicans as being "happy go lucky" people. It could be percieved that way (as you have demonstrated) but in no way shape or form does the advert have a hint of racism in it.

Borat can be racist, sopme of the things he does are out of order as well but that doesn't make anyone who laughs at him a "hypocrite" simply because they are against racism.

If this is the way that Political Correctness is taking the UK then I really do fear for the future.

How long will it be before our country resembles ther Middle East where in some parts you are imprisioned and killed for having an opinion.

:bitchy:

Racism by:

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on race.

By point 1 you could argue that by perceiving all Jamicans in the same way or portraying them in a particular way could be deemed racist. I don't agree with it but who gets to pick and choose what racism is right or wrong?

When the original point was raised I argued against how stupid it is that someone on here called someone else racist for branding all French people arrogant/ignorant.

So you can find racism abhorrent but laugh at racist jokes that doesn't make you a hypocrite? Personally I think it's funny but it becomes acceptable because SBC is Jewish. If he were Muslim people wouldn't find it quite so funny now would they? If SBC was Muslim then you wouldn't be watching it and laughing, it would be slated and probably banned.

I just think that it illustrates how silly these things can/may get and how people can be selective when choosing what they think is racist or not.

Phil D. Rolls

26-10-2009, 11:50 AM

This really is PC gone mad.

The advert isn't generalising all Jamicans as being "happy go lucky" people. It could be percieved that way (as you have demonstrated) but in no way shape or form does the advert have a hint of racism in it.

Borat can be racist, sopme of the things he does are out of order as well but that doesn't make anyone who laughs at him a "hypocrite" simply because they are against racism.

If this is the way that Political Correctness is taking the UK then I really do fear for the future.

How long will it be before our country resembles ther Middle East where in some parts you are imprisioned and killed for having an opinion.

:bitchy:

I think this could be the way that all these "PC gone mad" stories grow legs. I don't think anyone has said that the advert is politically incorrect, just asked why it is acceptable. It's like these stupid stories that you can't hang out the washing on poles any more, or serve black coffee.

One person makes a joke, or muses ironically and before you know it there is a story going about that the PC brigade have banned something else. Seems to me that most of these accusations against political correctness are nothing more than urban myths.

What is really worrying is that people then start to act on them of their own accord, and they move from myth to reality. This only reinforces the perception that there is a group of people sitting waiting for the next phrase or expression to ban.

Woody1985

26-10-2009, 11:56 AM

Phil D. Rolls

26-10-2009, 11:58 AM

:agree:

I had to laugh when I read last week that as part of a promotion some biscuit company had contacted something like x thousand councils and asked how they dealt with the risk of eating biscuits on tea breaks. About 4/500 replied and one even stated that they supervised tea breaks to minimise the risk to staff. :faf: :faf: :faf:

I suspect that they've probably said that to make themselves look better but no doubt some dumbass will implement this.

Being the key word, I also think *rse licker, pen pusher and rabbit are good descriptions.

Betty Boop

28-10-2009, 07:43 PM

Has any one been watching "Race: Science's Last Taboo" on Channel 4? Thursday night looks really interesting, "How Racist Are You?".

http://raceandscience.channel4.com/?cntsrc=ppc_RACEANDSCI_racism

lapsedhibee

30-10-2009, 07:38 AM

Has any one been watching "Race: Science's Last Taboo" on Channel 4? Thursday night looks really interesting, "How Racist Are You?".

http://raceandscience.channel4.com/?cntsrc=ppc_RACEANDSCI_racism

Unfortunately it turned out to be not interesting at all. Best part of an hour spent watching a couple of dim and stroppy brown-eyed people and a couple of dim and stroppy blue-eyed people venting their prejudices, and a couple of each type making intelligent points. At the end Krish G-M asked the experimenter/coach, a stroppy American wumman, whether, after her 40 years in the field, she believed that all white people are racist. They are, apparently. :bitchy:

Cartoon claptrap.

Betty Boop

30-10-2009, 08:19 AM

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Race-hate-campaign-forces-two.5777285.jp

Shameful! :bitchy:

Betty Boop

30-10-2009, 08:32 AM

Unfortunately it turned out to be not interesting at all. Best part of an hour spent watching a couple of dim and stroppy brown-eyed people and a couple of dim and stroppy blue-eyed people venting their prejudices, and a couple of each type making intelligent points. At the end Krish G-M asked the experimenter/coach, a stroppy American wumman, whether, after her 40 years in the field, she believed that all white people are racist. They are, apparently. :bitchy:

Cartoon claptrap.

I have noticed you coming out with that a few times. Wumman?

lapsedhibee

30-10-2009, 08:33 AM

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Race-hate-campaign-forces-two.5777285.jp

Shameful! :bitchy:

Top bloke, Tesfu.

---------- Post added at 09:33 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:32 AM ----------

I have noticed you coming out with that a few times. Wumman?

What? :dunno:

hibsbollah

30-10-2009, 08:42 AM

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Race-hate-campaign-forces-two.5777285.jp

Shameful! :bitchy:

Cut n pasted below.

Unfortunately the race 'debate' is bogged down in semantics about what words people use:bitchy: The nonsense thread from yesterday about Marlon King is a prime example. It all justs diverts attention from real life tragedies like this one;

TWO families have been forced to flee their homes in north Edinburgh after being subjected to a campaign of racist abuse.

The victims, who have now been rehomed elsewhere in the city, have told support workers how they suffered constant insults in the street, had their cars and homes vandalised, and were left too scared to leave their homes.

The cases have sparked fresh moves to improve race relations across the whole city, with equality groups believing the rise of the far-right BNP may only lead to the situation becoming worse.

Tesfu Gessesse, director of the Capital's Black Community Development Project (BCDP), said: "I think things are getting worse for many reasons, including the profile of the BNP. Also, in times of economic decline when people are in poverty and are losing their jobs, they are stressed and often depressed. They often look for people to blame – that is sometimes ethnic minorities."

Mr Gessesse's organisation helped rehome the two families in recent months after they told how they could no longer cope.

One couple with three young children were racially abused for almost eight years in Granton, finally giving up their fight to stay in the community earlier this year.

Case worker Jacqueline McWilliams, from BCDP, said: "They had to leave – they were getting really depressed. When they went on holiday, they would worry whether their home was safe. It was a horrific case."

The other family, with a young child of mixed race, lasted only two months in their Royston home, with police prompting housing officials to move them. Ms McWilliams said: "The family would not leave their house at night – they were too scared."

Neighbours verbally assaulted the residents and smashed their car on a daily basis.

Last month the Evening News reported the case of Sarah Hutton and her children, who were evicted from their north Edinburgh home following complaints of racist abuse. But community activists believe racism is prevalent across the whole Capital.

At a Forth Neighbourhood Partnership meeting this week, members agreed to look into forming a stronger network of support for victims.

Mr Gessesse said: "I fully support the idea – it's what is needed. Life is a nightmare for many people."

Community safety leader Councillor Paul Edie said such cases were "abhorrent" and he welcomed any further initiatives to tackle racism in the city.

Forth Councillor Allan Jackson said: "There is a minority group of troublemakers attacking people whom they perceive to be different, so we must support any group that's going to try to discourage that. This behaviour does not just happen in north Edinburgh, though, and every community in the city need to take this issue on."

A spokesman for Lothian and Borders Police said: "We are committed to ridding racism and all strands of prejudice from our communities and will continue to actively engage with our key partners and local residents to tackle this issue

lapsedhibee

30-10-2009, 09:13 AM

Unfortunately the race 'debate' is bogged down in semantics about what words people use:bitchy: The nonsense thread from yesterday about Marlon King is a prime example. It all justs diverts attention from real life tragedies like this one;

"TWO families have been forced to flee their homes in north Edinburgh after being subjected to a campaign of racist abuse."

You make an interesting point about language (or, as you call it, semantics).

Firstly, however despicable the treatment that the families highlighted in the Scotsman suffered, they did not appear to "flee" their homes. They did not run out of torched houses in the middle of the night. That word is just plain wrong.

Secondly, BCDP itself uses a sensitive word - black (http://www.bcdp.org.uk/node/11) - to refer not to the colour of a person's skin but more generally to an oppressed minority (such as economically exploited Chinese immigrants). This is an idiosyncratic use and it is inevitable that a general public who do not use the word this way will want to mull over what is appropriate use and what is not. I am not sure if the public mulling over on hibs.net is what you mean by calling a now deleted thread "nonsense".

da-robster

30-10-2009, 10:00 AM

Has any one been watching "Race: Science's Last Taboo" on Channel 4? Thursday night looks really interesting, "How Racist Are You?".

http://raceandscience.channel4.com/?cntsrc=ppc_RACEANDSCI_racism

I saw that it was an intresting programme, it shedded quite a bit of light on racism in the UK. It showed that quite clearly ethnic minorities are still discriminated against and many of the people in power (in this case whites) don't know or care about it. I also reckon that the ethnic minorities were just as racist and if britain was run almost exclusively by coloured people there would be similar discrimination. Also it seemed the ethnic minorities believed that they were the only people discriminated against and that coloured on white racism doesn't happen, just because quite disgracefully almost all positions of power are held by whites they seem to believe that ethnic minorities do not commit racist attacks. I am sure there has been a racially motivated murder on a white person, from a group of asians I think if not my bad. Just because racistly motivated attacks from whites outnumber it 10 to 1 that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Like I said if the situation was the other way round make no mistake the same would happen to whites. What Jane Elliott said about all whites being racists, i feel that in itself is racist and she should have said all human beings are racist. I think that this programme taught us that discrimination still occurs in Britain and that the people in power are ignoring that.
Finally some of the ignorance displayed by all involved showed everybody that to destroy racism we still have a long way to go.The whites pretending that racism did not happen in the UK and the ethnic minorities saying that discrimination against whites didn't happen was wrong.

Rant over :greengrin.

hibsbollah

30-10-2009, 11:02 AM

You make an interesting point about language (or, as you call it, semantics).

Firstly, however despicable the treatment that the families highlighted in the Scotsman suffered, they did not appear to "flee" their homes. They did not run out of torched houses in the middle of the night. That word is just plain wrong.

Secondly, BCDP itself uses a sensitive word - black (http://www.bcdp.org.uk/node/11) - to refer not to the colour of a person's skin but more generally to an oppressed minority (such as economically exploited Chinese immigrants). This is an idiosyncratic use and it is inevitable that a general public who do not use the word this way will want to mull over what is appropriate use and what is not. I am not sure if the public mulling over on hibs.net is what you mean by calling a now deleted thread "nonsense".

To me, whether the journalist uses 'flee' or 'leave' when describing North Edinburgh ethnic cleansing (another one), or whether the BCDP decides to use the word 'black' or (hypothetically) 'nignog' to describe itself as an organisation, is all just etymological onanism (:duck:). It is, quite simply, impossible to debate race because all the words have lost their meaning through misuse.

Dinkydoo

30-10-2009, 11:43 AM

I think this could be the way that all these "PC gone mad" stories grow legs. I don't think anyone has said that the advert is politically incorrect, just asked why it is acceptable. It's like these stupid stories that you can't hang out the washing on poles any more, or serve black coffee.

One person makes a joke, or muses ironically and before you know it there is a story going about that the PC brigade have banned something else. Seems to me that most of these accusations against political correctness are nothing more than urban myths.

What is really worrying is that people then start to act on them of their own accord, and they move from myth to reality. This only reinforces the perception that there is a group of people sitting waiting for the next phrase or expression to ban.

No offence mate but I think it's a little niave to think that this is how all the "PC gone mad" stories grow legs. I simply questioned why the advert was being used as an example when there isn't anything racist about it.

I think that it is a product of "PC gone mad" to question why adverts like this are deemed acceptable simply because it's a bunch of Jamican's sitting around smiling and drinking juice. It doesn't exactly attempt to convey the idea that all Jamicans are like this; it may be because thats top quality refreshing juice that they're enjoying therefore they're looking happy.....:faf:

Would you really want to buy a drink that was advertised on the tele by a sour faced git looking miserable?

Subconsciously, that image would stick with you and unless you forced yourself or had been made consciously aware of the subliminal impact of the 'advert meaning your automatic first pick wouldn't be this brand of juice.

I studied Human Psychology and a little around subconciousness at High School and for a while after before I got my first job.

Admitedly, I think I initially misunderstood Woody's post (I thought he/she was saying that this advert was racist) but I still think that this particular advert isn't racist.

lapsedhibee

30-10-2009, 11:44 AM

It is, quite simply, impossible to debate race because all the words have lost their meaning through misuse.

Bit pessimistic, non? :dunno:

hibsbollah

30-10-2009, 12:03 PM

Bit pessimistic, non? :dunno:

I suppose it depends with whom you're debating. I'll qualify that;most of the time I think its a waste of time.

(although since ive already posted on the subject more than once i suppose im contradicting myself)

Mon Dieu4

30-10-2009, 12:16 PM

I suppose it depends with whom you're debating. I'll qualify that;most of the time I think its a waste of time.

(although since ive already posted on the subject more than once i suppose im contradicting myself)

Shut it Whitey :faf:

Phil D. Rolls

30-10-2009, 12:57 PM

No offence mate but I think it's a little niave to think that this is how all the "PC gone mad" stories grow legs. I simply questioned why the advert was being used as an example when there isn't anything racist about it.

I think that it is a product of "PC gone mad" to question why adverts like this are deemed acceptable simply because it's a bunch of Jamican's sitting around smiling and drinking juice. It doesn't exactly attempt to convey the idea that all Jamicans are like this; it may be because thats top quality refreshing juice that they're enjoying therefore they're looking happy.....:faf:

Would you really want to buy a drink that was advertised on the tele by a sour faced git looking miserable?

Subconsciously, that image would stick with you and unless you forced yourself or had been made consciously aware of the subliminal impact of the 'advert meaning your automatic first pick wouldn't be this brand of juice.

I studied Human Psychology and a little around subconciousness at High School and for a while after before I got my first job.

Admitedly, I think I initially misunderstood Woody's post (I thought he/she was saying that this advert was racist) but I still think that this particular advert isn't racist.

No offece taken. :thumbsup:I agree with what you say.