Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on November 08, 2020, 03:56:40 PM
-
At least according to Trevor Phillips. (Note this has a token which should allow those without access to The Times to read it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dfbee358-2045-11eb-8696-f5d5fcef88fd?shareToken=9be61b045dbc0ec8f604e7391c643c80
-
The best takeaway from this was in the remarks column at the end:
Woke has become such an umbrella term that it's almost meaningless.
It's quite possible to have different views on a number of the issues mentioned.
The label of woke is lazy and simplistic.
-
Well, it's a sad state of affairs when white men are made to feel ashamed to be white. It's the old pendulum swing.
Marc Sidwell has a book out: The Long March, discussing the same subject. Here he is reading the first chapter:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L96XKAnydo&feature=emb_logo
-
I could definitely relate to these 2 sections in the article:
"Personally I find the appeal of this brand of ethno-masochism hard to fathom, but then I’m not white."
"This view ignores the inconvenient truth that people of Indian origin in this country (and in the US) outsmart the white majority educationally, outshine them professionally and outearn them by more than 15 per cent. The notion of white privilege would be baffling to the families of white boys who have fallen to the bottom of education attainment league tables, and who are staring at a lifetime of sweeping the streets occupied by their affluent Indian-heritage classmates."
ETA: It might not be PC to admit, but I can actually remember my grandmother saying the last line (above) to me during the 70s when I was about 5 or 6 years old and two slightly older boys from school spat in my face for being brown, when they passed me on the street. My grandmother lived with us, had come to Britain maybe 5 years before, her spoken English was ok but not great and I think she left school after O'Levels but even she could see in the 1970s that education beat white privilege.
-
I can't be bothered. Isn't it time he got a real job?
-
At least according to Trevor Phillips. (Note this has a token which should allow those without access to The Times to read it.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dfbee358-2045-11eb-8696-f5d5fcef88fd?shareToken=9be61b045dbc0ec8f604e7391c643c80
Who'd have thought I agreed with Trevor Phillips about something.
-
This thread got me to thinking about how the racism narrative works in the US. I looked up some stats, which appear to show that you are more likely to be a victim of homicide from an attack by a member of your own race rather than another race. So based on the stats below, is the fear of inter-racial attacks manufactured by the media - especially the fear black people supposedly have about violence from white people or is it a widespread belief that just happens to not be supported by evidence or are there stats that counter these stats?
Bureau of Justice statistics show that the majority of violent crime are committed by people who are same race as their victims. 57 % of crimes involving white victims were committed by white perpetrators while only 15% committed by blacks and 11% by Hispanics. 63% of crimes involving black victims were committed by black perpetrators, while 11% committed by whites, 6.6% by Hispanics. National Crime victim survey in 2000 reported similar - 73% white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80% of black victims attacked by blacks. This idea that one race has to walk around fearing death at the hands of another race isn’t what the statistics show as homicide especially is more likely to happen at the hands of your own race.
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2017/10/23/white-supremacists-favorite-myths-about-black-crime-rates-take-another-hit-bjs-study
Bureau of Justice stats 2018 survey - 593,598 inter-racial violent victimisations (excluding homicide) between blacks and whites in 2017. Blacks committed 537,204 (90%) and whites committed 56,394 (less than 10%).
As there are a lot more white people in the US than black people, that could explain why the majority of victims were white but I was more interested in it seeming to not support the black people have to fear violence from white people narrative in the US.
Violent crime against Black Americans has dropped 43% over the past 14 years, and they are now less likely to be victims of violent crime than White or Hispanic people, according to data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/nov/2/blacks-now-less-likely-be-violent-crime-victims-wh/
-
Is there a narrative of black people fearing being attacked by white people in the US?
-
Is there a narrative of black people fearing being attacked by white people in the US?
There would appear to be a narrative of black people being killed by white police officers in the US.
-
There would appear to be a narrative of black people being killed by white police officers in the US.
Agree - but that isn't the same thing and wouldn't be covered by the stats that Gabriela put up. I think though that jeremyp did put up some stats on that on the George Floyd thread.
-
Agree - but that isn't the same thing and wouldn't be covered by the stats that Gabriela put up. I think though that jeremyp did put up some stats on that on the George Floyd thread.
Can't remember if I did but I think the gist is that, if you have an encounter with the police in the USA, the colour of your skin does not make much difference to your chance of being murdered by them. However, black people are significantly more likely to have an encounter with the police in the first place.
It occurs to me that even that might not mean the police are systemically racist. It could be that black people are poorer than white people on average and therefore more likely to own a car with defects like broken tail lights. That may, in itself be caused by racism, but not necessarily of the police.
Black people die proportionally more often than white people at the hands of the police, but the answer is not as simple as "racist police". This is the problem with the so-called "woke" arguments: people leap at obvious and simplistic ideas without really thinking about whether they are really true.
-
Anecdote time.
Our friends in the US who I have previously spoken of, have a daughter who is currently engaged to a Black man, it is only now that my friend Maryann has appreciated the different attitude that the police have to the black community.
As an example her daughters boyfriend is stopped more than would seem necessary by the police - 4 times in the last 4 years. He is not poor, he is a teacher. And yet he still gets stopped more than his girlfriend who is also a teacher or indeed her brother who is a salesman of mobile homes. The brother and sister are both white of course.
In addition the boyfriend when stopped goes through a whole procedure he was taught to do by his parents. Tell the police you are reaching into the glove compartment to reach for your driving licence. Tell them you are opening the door even though the police have asked you to do that.
Whilst I acknowledge that these matters are seldom simple and lots of factors intersect to cause these societal issues, I would suggest that racism itself is not a simple issue and it would be unwise to play down it's impact in this particular instance.
-
Is there a narrative of black people fearing being attacked by white people in the US?
I'm not sure but was looking at the narrative of each race having to fear the other. I seem to remember in the run up to the elections lots of articles and a narrative of Trump's rhetoric causing an increase in white supremacy ideology and this potentially igniting a race war and black people feeling unsafe from white racists. I don't know if black people genuinely felt unsafe or if that was a few activists speaking for everyone else. It happens in the Muslim community - a few vocal activists about Islamophobia are taken to be representative of the thoughts and feelings of a community that is not known for agreeing on anything in relation to Islam - they can't even agree on something as simple as what is considered halal meat.
Here is an example of one such article but I seem to remember there were discussions about race wars.
https://www.newsweek.com/trump-right-wing-extremists-1528527
There are Republicans (black and white) who argue that white and black people are under threat from violence from black people but when white people say it, it is considered racist. Can it be racist if a white person has that fear based on statistics but not racist if a black person has the same fear based on statistics?
-
Anecdote time.
Our friends in the US who I have previously spoken of, have a daughter who is currently engaged to a Black man, it is only now that my friend Maryann has appreciated the different attitude that the police have to the black community.
As an example her daughters boyfriend is stopped more than would seem necessary by the police - 4 times in the last 4 years. He is not poor, he is a teacher. And yet he still gets stopped more than his girlfriend who is also a teacher or indeed her brother who is a salesman of mobile homes. The brother and sister are both white of course.
In addition the boyfriend when stopped goes through a whole procedure he was taught to do by his parents. Tell the police you are reaching into the glove compartment to reach for your driving licence. Tell them you are opening the door even though the police have asked you to do that.
Whilst I acknowledge that these matters are seldom simple and lots of factors intersect to cause these societal issues, I would suggest that racism itself is not a simple issue and it would be unwise to play down it's impact in this particular instance.
I honestly don't know what I think about profiling. It is clearly harmful to society when people in power such as police racially profile based on the statistics that black people disproportionately commit violent crime. However, it is rational to profile based on statistics and if it is the police's job to try to solve/ prevent crime trying to act irrationally when it comes to stopping people is a hard thing to train yourself to do if your appraisal depends on results.
There is the often touted Jesse Jackson quote ""There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery, then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved."
If I hear footsteps when walking at night by myself and it's a man I am tense, if it's a woman I relax. I am profiling based on statistical probability. So while I wish profiling did not exist in an ideal world I don't know of any country in the world where people do not use profiling.
And speaking of statistics, I don't know of any country in the world where the government or legislature is representative of the ethnic diversity of its population. I am not even sure if that's achievable and if it doesn't exist anywhere, how do we know it's a good statistic to aim for and that there is something wrong in societies that haven't achieved it? There may be plenty wrong in societies but how do we know it's because we haven't achieved ethnic representation? How do we know that if one day in the future if it happened somewhere in the world, that that society will be a better society than one where it hasn't happened? Presumably having a particular colour skin doesn't make you think a particular way. I certainly don't consider myself representative of people with brown skin, or people from any part of the Asian sub-continent but do consider myself representative of people of all skin colours who value education.
-
Which is easier for white people to talk about - the idea that statistically black criminals represent a threat of harm or this article about the threat of terrorism from white supremacists? Or are they both equally easy to discuss?
https://www.vox.com/2019/4/4/18295358/fbi-white-nationalism-christchurch-usa-violence
The Trump Administration’s counterterrorism strategy, released in October 2018, warned that the United States faces a threat from individuals motivated by types of violent extremism other than radical Islam, “such as racially motivated extremism, animal rights extremism, environmental extremism, sovereign citizen extremism, and militia extremism.” In April 2018, federal authorities charged 57 members of white supremacist organizations with drug trafficking and kidnapping. As U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions remarked following the arrest, “Not only do white supremacist gangs subscribe to a repugnant, hateful ideology, they also engage in significant, organized and violent criminal activity.”
-
Which is easier for white people to talk about - the idea that statistically black criminals represent a threat of harm or this article about the threat of terrorism from white supremacists? Or are they both equally easy to discuss?
I'm quite happy to discuss either. Is the first assertion true?
-
The assertion is a short-hand for black men being over-represented in the stats for both perpetrators and victims of violent crime in the US. Which then leads to profiling in certain areas - police seem to stop more black men in those areas.
Interaction with armed police in the US can lead to a tragic outcome for those being stopped - black men are over-represented in the stats for people killed by the police and the stats for unarmed people killed by the police.
Also property values go down in those areas, small businesses might leave or not be replaced, which leads to loss of jobs. Parents may have to travel far to find work, which means they are not present to supervise their children to keep them safe and focused on their education.
-
https://www.tsowell.com/speducat.html
An interesting look at some of the history of US education of children in poor neighbourhoods, specifically schools where low-income and minority students do in fact score well on standardized tests.
What is interesting is that poor children apparently travelled from all over the city to go to schools that required discipline and work and produced good results. The ones who did not want to study went to other schools that did not require hard work and therefore did not produce as good results. It seems to have been left to individual choice as to whether you valued an education enough to work for it - but the article seems to suggest that the outcome was determined more by that individual choice than by parental income, occupation or school access to funding. So he seems to be questioning the value of certain political interventions by the government in social issues such as education.
From Wikipedia - the author, Thomas Sowell, is an American economist and social theorist and is a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
He describes himself as a libertarian. He has said that the hypothesis of systemic racism is untested in order to know whether to accept it as true or not. He is a Republican and did not want Biden to win the election as he thought Democratic policies would be bad for the US.
I suppose this is one of the conflicts between those who think governments should determine what is good for people and who advocate more government involvement in order to try to engineer equality, and those who advocate less government involvement and think people should decide for themselves whether to do what is "good" for them or not even if that leads to inequality for them and their families.
-
Anecdote time.
Our friends in the US who I have previously spoken of, have a daughter who is currently engaged to a Black man, it is only now that my friend Maryann has appreciated the different attitude that the police have to the black community.
As an example her daughters boyfriend is stopped more than would seem necessary by the police - 4 times in the last 4 years. He is not poor, he is a teacher. And yet he still gets stopped more than his girlfriend who is also a teacher or indeed her brother who is a salesman of mobile homes. The brother and sister are both white of course.
In addition the boyfriend when stopped goes through a whole procedure he was taught to do by his parents. Tell the police you are reaching into the glove compartment to reach for your driving licence. Tell them you are opening the door even though the police have asked you to do that.
Whilst I acknowledge that these matters are seldom simple and lots of factors intersect to cause these societal issues, I would suggest that racism itself is not a simple issue and it would be unwise to play down it's impact in this particular instance.
This colour thing worked in favour of my adopted mixed race son, he sold his car and somebody was seen driving his car after he had sold it and whoever it was had been detected driving without insurance.
They hadn't received the change of ownership slip at the D V L A, we then had two Policemen on our doorstep looking for my son, we don't think of him a anything else than he is, Fred, not his real name, his ID occurred to me and I said to these Policemen you do know he's mixed race the they immediately were able to apologise for bothering us and off they went.
I'd like to add, this football chap that lost his job for using racist terms, just taking, coloured when describing people, I'm only referring to his use of the word 'coloured', I've asked both of my sons about this and neither they or I can see anything racist in this term, I'll apologise in advance if I'm offending anybody in writing this.
If it is offensive to use coloured as a term to describe people with darker skins than most Europeans could somebody tell me why?
At the moment this one has gone right over my head and I want to use the right words in this area because the very last thing I would want to do is cause any offence.
My youngest son has just said to me it can be tone of voice when using any of these terms and he acts accordingly.
ippy.
-
I have a memory of being in state Primary school, trying to fit in and make friends. I think I was about 7 and these 2 white slightly older girls befriended me and managed to persuade me to go to the school nurse alleging I had been punched in the stomach by another girl in their year - I can't remember for sure if I was supposed to allege racism but I think I was. It's shocking now thinking about how I went along with it and was persuaded to make a false allegation.
The girl I was falsely accusing (and it may have been that I was supposed to accuse her and her friend) wasn't particularly nice and had made racist or mean comments, but she had not laid a finger on me.
This was the 70s so the school nurse (who was actually the mother of one of the girls who had talked me into lying in her misguided attempt to get back at a mean girl) offered sympathy and was a nice lady but didn't take it any further as far as I know, thank goodness. Back then you actually needed some bruises or blood to be considered hurt rather than just feeling uncomfortable and sad, which was considered part of the normal rough and tumble of life. Though I hope if it had been taken further I would not have stuck to my lie, once I appreciated the consequences for the person being falsely accused by me. I hope I would not have been that callous and stupid and would have come to my senses. Though back then being racist wasn't seen as being particularly problematic so long as you did not actually go around beating people up.
Where my older daughter is at university in the Midlands, she says casual racism was everywhere amongst the other students in terms of jokes and comments and she thought it was maybe just her London private school bubble where white people tied themselves in knots worrying about racism. Also all the comments she hears are not then repeated online with demands for justice as the people making them are not public figures or officials.
Maybe Clarke would have got away with the "coloured" comment but he also made some other comments that apparently is problematic for someone with too little melanin or who is not a member of some minority group to say in public.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Indians-so-racist-when-it-comes-to-darker-skinned-people
-
VG,
Sorry, can't really get what question you are trying to answer or where you are trying to get to. Not sure crime statistics can help with it: but it is certainly possible for the use of stats to lead to self-fulfilling forecasts.
-
I have a memory of being in state Primary school, trying to fit in and make friends. I think I was about 7 and these 2 white slightly older girls befriended me and managed to persuade me to go to the school nurse alleging I had been punched in the stomach by another girl in their year - I can't remember for sure if I was supposed to allege racism but I think I was. It's shocking now thinking about how I went along with it and was persuaded to make a false allegation.
The girl I was falsely accusing (and it may have been that I was supposed to accuse her and her friend) wasn't particularly nice and had made racist or mean comments, but she had not laid a finger on me.
This was the 70s so the school nurse (who was actually the mother of one of the girls who had talked me into lying in her misguided attempt to get back at a mean girl) offered sympathy and was a nice lady but didn't take it any further as far as I know, thank goodness. Back then you actually needed some bruises or blood to be considered hurt rather than just feeling uncomfortable and sad, which was considered part of the normal rough and tumble of life. Though I hope if it had been taken further I would not have stuck to my lie, once I appreciated the consequences for the person being falsely accused by me. I hope I would not have been that callous and stupid and would have come to my senses. Though back then being racist wasn't seen as being particularly problematic so long as you did not actually go around beating people up.
Where my older daughter is at university in the Midlands, she says casual racism was everywhere amongst the other students in terms of jokes and comments and she thought it was maybe just her London private school bubble where white people tied themselves in knots worrying about racism. Also all the comments she hears are not then repeated online with demands for justice as the people making them are not public figures or officials.
Maybe Clarke would have got away with the "coloured" comment but he also made some other comments that apparently is problematic for someone with too little melanin or who is not a member of some minority group to say in public.
https://www.quora.com/Why-are-Indians-so-racist-when-it-comes-to-darker-skinned-people
I understand all of the rest of that chaps comments were out of order and I agree with the decision made by the authorities, it's just the reference specifically to the word coloured being used, I heard a recording of him using that word, coloured, in a pretty neutral tone of voice, other than the tone of voice that can be used, I would like to know how describing a group or a single person as coloured is offensive for at the moment I can not see it?
Once again I've no wish, nor do I have intent to offend, I'm just asking the question?
ippy.
-
I understand all of the rest of that chaps comments were out of order and I agree with the decision made by the authorities, it's just the reference specifically to the word coloured being used, I heard a recording of him using that word, coloured, in a pretty neutral tone of voice, other than the tone of voice that can be used, I would like to know how describing a group or a single person as coloured is offensive for at the moment I can not see it?
Once again I've no wish, nor do I have intent to offend, I'm just asking the question?
ippy.
In my opinion, it is not offensive in itself, but objections have more to do with how it is used. eg: that someone's skin colour can be taken to mean that they are a different kind of human that can or must be treated differently to "normal" people.
The use of such words is subject to fashion too so, as NS mentioned earlier, "coloured", was replaced by "people of colour" and so on, some of which are in fashion, some not, and some taken as being deliberately offensive.
Racism is about the assumption of characteristics or behaviour of people according to some racial or ethnic classification rather than the use of one word or other - except where the words are used to imply and support those assumptions.
-
I understand all of the rest of that chaps comments were out of order and I agree with the decision made by the authorities, it's just the reference specifically to the word coloured being used, I heard a recording of him using that word, coloured, in a pretty neutral tone of voice, other than the tone of voice that can be used, I would like to know how describing a group or a single person as coloured is offensive for at the moment I can not see it?
Once again I've no wish, nor do I have intent to offend, I'm just asking the question?
ippy.
It might have something to do with its association with racial segregation in the apartheid era in South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds
-
It might have something to do with its association with racial segregation in the apartheid era in South Africa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds
Now having discussed this with my family it seems we would all take the a similar view about the SA associations as the most likely culprit plus the American notices directing various racial groups, back of buses, not in this restaurant etc.
Even so my two boys don't see anything wrong with the use of coloured and have no particular hang ups with the term, again whatever term used it's the tone of delivery that usually informs them either way.
ippy.
-
VG,
Sorry, can't really get what question you are trying to answer or where you are trying to get to. Not sure crime statistics can help with it: but it is certainly possible for the use of stats to lead to self-fulfilling forecasts.
Yes sorry - I was going all over the place and should have maybe split into new threads.
I recently (for the 2nd time) watched The Hate You Give (a film dealing with the shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a police officer) and was just musing that black people in the US (or here with knife crime) seem to have the most to fear from other black people based on the statistics as black victims and perpetrators are both over-represented in the stats.
And while profiling could damage relationships in society, it makes sense that the police use profiling while their performance continues to be measured by crime stats. I think society has to decide that solving and preventing crime is less important than race relations before profiling can stop. Also, I was questioning how we know it is even possible to stop ourselves profiling people - we do it naturally because profiling is rational.
I was also questioning the hypotheses about systemic racism by asking what is the test for systemic racism that proves it exists, and how do we know a society where we don't profile people is humanly achievable as I have never seen such a society anywhere in the world? While I think we (people of all races) should be aware of our tendency to profile as it's good to question our assumptions so that we don't keep arriving at incorrect conclusions which jeopardises our future as a community, it may be that we are being excessively distracted about our tendency to profile. The current focus on racism may have got to a point where we are jeopardising our future as a community. I linked to a Quora thread to show that ethnic minorities are extremely discriminatory against each other as the focus on white privilege seems on the verge of becoming some kind of mental health disorder such as body dysmorphia where people obsess about perceived flaws.
However, absolutely I agree the US police need to be less trigger-happy. I'm not sure what the training is to make police less trigger-happy as not shooting could result in you or someone else dying only you won't know for sure until after the event. How do you train fear out of every single police officer whereby they are not afraid to risk their death or someone else's? I imagine that human nature being what it is, there will always be some police officers that will react with fear. In the army, where they put in a fair amount of sustained effort training you to run towards bullets usually while firing a weapon yourself and your aim is to kill people to neutralise the threat, there will be some soldiers who will act on fear despite their training.
And the other subject I was looking into was, given the stats about the black community's impressive educational achievements soon after the end of slavery up to the 1960s, despite the poverty, lack of funding and the racism, I thought that some of the current issues in the US about educational underachievement could be caused by factors other than a lack of funding, poverty and racism. And those same factors could also apply to the OP about white boys on free school meals being bottom of the educational attainment league.
-
Now having discussed this with my family it seems we would all take the a similar view about the SA associations as the most likely culprit plus the American notices directing various racial groups, back of buses, not in this restaurant etc.
Even so my two boys don't see anything wrong with the use of coloured and have no particular hang ups with the term, again whatever term used it's the tone of delivery that usually informs them either way.
ippy.
I did not see what the problem with 'coloured' was either. Unfortunately a few people seem to decide what the rest of us are allowed to say and not say in public. No one actually asks the majority of people how they feel. An online mob which probably represents a minority opinion shouts loudly and for some reason their opinions feared - I have no idea why. I use Paki in my home sometimes just for the hell of it to exercise my freedom to use the English language and I would encourage my white friends, who I know are not racist, to use the term in my presence as it feels great to exercise freedom of expression together despite the woke mob. I think it would be a great bonding exercise as none of us actually give a toss what colour anyone's skin is.
-
I use Paki in my home sometimes just for the hell of it to exercise my freedom to use the English language and I would encourage my white friends, who I know are not racist, to use the term in my presence as it feels great to exercise freedom of expression together despite the woke mob. I think it would be a great bonding exercise as none of us actually give a toss what colour anyone's skin is.
Can we just get one thing straight the objection to the term Paki arose a long time before anyone had even thought up the term "woke". It was objected to, as I am sure you of all posters must be fully aware because it was/is used as a term of verbal abuse against Asians sometimes used in conjunction with physical abuse. Maybe you think you are reclaiming the language in the same way that nigger is supposedly reclaimed. I don't feel comfortable with this notion.
My discomfort has nothing to do with being "woke", indeed I don't really have a concept of what "woke" means, it is more to do with being civil. Kind of like I wouldn't call someone who has Downs syndrome a mong.
Why would anyone use a name or phrase that they know offends others if they don't have to even if it is just between friends?
Are there not enough words in the English language for you to choose from to exercise your freedom of expression that you have to use offensive ones?
Finally how is it a bonding exercise? As you are friends surely you've already bonded?
-
Interesting one this. Having grown up in an area affected by sectarianism, friends and I have often used 'offensive' terms for one and other, and that works only on the basis of both mocking each other.
I agree with Trent that the bonding comes from the friendship not the use of such terms. I have a number of gay friends that I have known for over 30 years and I can use some terms for them that would be seen as an insult from a random eejit on a Saturday night, but I earned that by the 30+ years rather than just using the terms.
-
Interesting one this. Having grown up in an area affected by sectarianism, friends and I have often used 'offensive' terms for one and other, and that works only on the basis of both mocking each other.
I agree with Trent that the bonding comes from the friendship not the use of such terms. I have a number of gay friends that I have known for over 30 years and I can use some terms for them that would be seen as an insult from a random eejit on a Saturday night, but I earned that by the 30+ years rather than just using the terms.
It is interesting. Certainly gay people will happily exchange insults in a bar all night long(those were the days when you could go to pubs).
I sometimes tell my partner he is a "dizzy queen". I could never, ever call him a "forgetful paki" which covers more or less the same ground in what I am trying to express about him, and yet it would be so wrong knowing how the word paki upsets him.
I think you have to take into account the cultural weight of some words and the power they have.
There is the other thing as well, you might start off using a word in the comfort of your own home and then it will suddenly slip out at the most inappropriate time like in a meeting at work, or is that just me it happens to? The number of times I've had to add "Did I just say that out loud?"
-
It is interesting. Certainly gay people will happily exchange insults in a bar all night long(those were the days when you could go to pubs).
I sometimes tell my partner he is a "dizzy queen". I could never, ever call him a "forgetful paki" which covers more or less the same ground in what I am trying to express about him, and yet it would be so wrong knowing how the word paki upsets him.
I think you have to take into account the cultural weight of some words and the power they have.
There is the other thing as well, you might start off using a word in the comfort of your own home and then it will suddenly slip out at the most inappropriate time like in a meeting at work, or is that just me it happens to? The number of times I've had to add "Did I just say that out loud?"
And to add to that is the current idea that the new hate speech bill going through the Scottish Parliament may apply to what you say in your home.
-
Can we just get one thing straight the objection to the term Paki arose a long time before anyone had even thought up the term "woke". It was objected to, as I am sure you of all posters must be fully aware because it was/is used as a term of verbal abuse against Asians sometimes used in conjunction with physical abuse. Maybe you think you are reclaiming the language in the same way that nigger is supposedly reclaimed. I don't feel comfortable with this notion.
My discomfort has nothing to do with being "woke", indeed I don't really have a concept of what "woke" means, it is more to do with being civil. Kind of like I wouldn't call someone who has Downs syndrome a mong.
Why would anyone use a name or phrase that they know offends others if they don't have to even if it is just between friends?
Are there not enough words in the English language for you to choose from to exercise your freedom of expression that you have to use offensive ones?
Finally how is it a bonding exercise? As you are friends surely you've already bonded?
Sure I fully appreciate that some people would object to it and I would be civil and not use the term as a joke or in some other non-harm intending way if I thought there was a risk that I was in the presence of someone who would object. Of course I have been called a Paki and not as a joke - I grew up in the 70s.
It would be a bonding exercise because my friends and I had something in common in that we don't find words offensive unless they are intended to offend. Whereas there are other people who find certain words offensive regardless of the intent, and that is their right. It would not be the only way to bond but there are multiple ways people can bond, and it's a relief to be able to really relax in the presence of someone who you feel really knows you and sees and hears you and knows what you mean beyond the limitations of words. Do you ever sometimes think and feel so many thoughts and feelings in a split second and you know it would be impossible to articulate them? The use of the word Paki or a few other slurs (though I don't use nigger unless I am quoting something like a song or speech) sometimes conveys a multitude of emotions and thoughts about a particular aspect of culture that I cannot necessarily articulate and sometimes you meet like-minded people who get it, and who aren't using the word the same way as someone who means you harm.
-
Even so my two boys don't see anything wrong with the use of coloured and have no particular hang ups with the term, again whatever term used it's the tone of delivery that usually informs them either way.
ippy.
It's a fairly vague word which could cover everybody. Everybody is coloured in some way, some with subtle tints, some with darker tones and some like me, polka dot. Some like to change their skin tone up a few notches by sunbathing or cosmetics. Long live the variety.
-
It's a fairly vague word which could cover everybody. Everybody is coloured in some way, some with subtle tints, some with darker tones and some like me, polka dot. Some like to change their skin tone up a few notches by sunbathing or cosmetics. Long live the variety.
For myself and all of my family it all boils down to some people are good eggs and some are shits, most of us prefer the former, end of story.
ippy.
-
I am reminded of the story about Sir Peter Ustinov. He arrived at a South African airport in the days of apartheid where he was presented with a form to complete. One of the questions was "Colour".
He wrote "Pink".
-
I am reminded of the story about Sir Peter Ustinov. He arrived at a South African airport in the days of apartheid where he was presented with a form to complete. One of the questions was "Colour".
He wrote "Pink".
Those days are over and it never would have occurred to me to introduce anybody and say something like, 'this is my coloured friend Fred'.
I have a list of heroes in my head, never had any reason to have mental reshuffle and remove Mandela from the top of my list.
That'd make a good thread as I'm sure there's a lot of us that do have some form of a mental list of our own personal heroes?
ippy
-
Yes sorry - I was going all over the place and should have maybe split into new threads.
I recently (for the 2nd time) watched The Hate You Give (a film dealing with the shooting of an unarmed black teenager by a police officer) and was just musing that black people in the US (or here with knife crime) seem to have the most to fear from other black people based on the statistics as black victims and perpetrators are both over-represented in the stats.
Sure, this has been known for some time.
And while profiling could damage relationships in society, it makes sense that the police use profiling while their performance continues to be measured by crime stats. I think society has to decide that solving and preventing crime is less important than race relations before profiling can stop. Also, I was questioning how we know it is even possible to stop ourselves profiling people - we do it naturally because profiling is rational.
"Profiling" using statistics and in a general sense is fine, the problem is when it instigates discriminatory actions that result in repression of people for no good reason. The case of Dale Semper comes to mind: A black banker whose career has essentially been destroyed because he was successful enough to own an expensive car. There was also the recent case of the black lawyer treated as a defendant when attending court. No doubt there are many other cases. Statistical arguments can't validly be applied to individuals or particular cases.
I was also questioning the hypotheses about systemic racism by asking what is the test for systemic racism that proves it exists, and how do we know a society where we don't profile people is humanly achievable as I have never seen such a society anywhere in the world?
Well, statistics can be used to identify and interrogate systemic racism, just as it can be applied to other community issues. However you can't compare statistical results to individual attitudes based on personal experiences and acquired prejudices.
While I think we (people of all races) should be aware of our tendency to profile as it's good to question our assumptions so that we don't keep arriving at incorrect conclusions which jeopardises our future as a community, it may be that we are being excessively distracted about our tendency to profile. The current focus on racism may have got to a point where we are jeopardising our future as a community. I linked to a Quora thread to show that ethnic minorities are extremely discriminatory against each other as the focus on white privilege seems on the verge of becoming some kind of mental health disorder such as body dysmorphia where people obsess about perceived flaws.
Is there any evidence supporting the idea that focus on or discussion of these issues are detrimental? As far as I can see, it is the usual columnists and self-publicists whining on about "wokeism" and the "woke mob" - ie. setting up a straw man to batter.
- I thought that quora thread was complete nonsense! - but probably not worth discussing.
However, absolutely I agree the US police need to be less trigger-happy. I'm not sure what the training is to make police less trigger-happy as not shooting could result in you or someone else dying only you won't know for sure until after the event. How do you train fear out of every single police officer whereby they are not afraid to risk their death or someone else's? I imagine that human nature being what it is, there will always be some police officers that will react with fear. In the army, where they put in a fair amount of sustained effort training you to run towards bullets usually while firing a weapon yourself and your aim is to kill people to neutralise the threat, there will be some soldiers who will act on fear despite their training.
Unwarranted civilian deaths will always occur when armed police or soldiers are in close interactions with any population. If groups have been designated as "the enemy" or identified with with the targets of any action it would obviously result in more casualties? I think this is mostly irrespective of the identifies or views of any of the police involved. The answer is to not deploy these armed forces, and find more intelligent ways to tackle the issues themselves.
And the other subject I was looking into was, given the stats about the black community's impressive educational achievements soon after the end of slavery up to the 1960s, despite the poverty, lack of funding and the racism, I thought that some of the current issues in the US about educational underachievement could be caused by factors other than a lack of funding, poverty and racism. And those same factors could also apply to the OP about white boys on free school meals being bottom of the educational attainment league.
IMV It is all down to culture and how it evolves - and how to change and/or progress it.
-
Sure, this has been known for some time.
"Profiling" using statistics and in a general sense is fine, the problem is when it instigates discriminatory actions that result in repression of people for no good reason. The case of Dale Semper comes to mind: A black banker whose career has essentially been destroyed because he was successful enough to own an expensive car. There was also the recent case of the black lawyer treated as a defendant when attending court. No doubt there are many other cases. Statistical arguments can't validly be applied to individuals or particular cases.
Sure - there are many instances where profiling does not work and it can have horrendous consequences. There is human error or malicious intent in a variety of police investigations. There is clear evidence that miscarriages of justice take place and people are convicted based on false testimony, fabricated evidence, police lies etc etc. However, we don't stop investigating, prosecuting or putting people in prison because sometimes there can be miscarriages of justice or racist police officers. I would say continue profiling so you are looking at the groups that are over-represented in crime rates but come up with better systems and training that improves the quality of the encounters between police and the public and relies less on uneducated guesswork, and holds police accountable for poor decision-making. At the same time more investment is needed in communities with high crime rates to improve aspirations and give people an incentive to walk away and not commit crimes https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/damilolas-dad-richard-taylor-and-ex-bad-300615
It's tragic that sometimes the system does not work the way it is supposed to. There have been numerous men of all pigments falsely accused of rape who were investigated and were suspended from their jobs until they were cleared. As i said, my question is do we therefore allow crime rates to rise rather than use profiling because sometimes there is human error or malicious actions? I think we need to have open discussions rather than inadequate measures based on a fear of being called racist.
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/21/londons-knife-crime-is-not-the-fault-of-the-black-community/
Well, statistics can be used to identify and interrogate systemic racism, just as it can be applied to other community issues. However you can't compare statistical results to individual attitudes based on personal experiences and acquired prejudices.
What kind of statistics do you think can identify it? How do you prove systemic racism exists. You can prove individual cases of racism exists where we can show that someone was unjustly or unfairly treated based on race. Profiling is not always unjust or unfair - though to some extent that depends on your perspective and beliefs. If you believe in systemic racism then you will see evidence of systemic racism everywhere. If you don't believe in systemic racism, then you won't. It's a bit like being a theist - if you believe in gods or karma or fate etc you see evidence for god/ karma/ fate everywhere, if you don't believe in one or more of those things you can come up with alternative explanations and you will want objective evidence that any of those things exist. Do we look at records of race hate crimes - again that is problematic because it is subjective: 'Any criminal offence which is perceived by the victim or any other person, to be motivated by hostility or prejudice based on a person's race or perceived race;
Is there any evidence supporting the idea that focus on or discussion of these issues are detrimental? As far as I can see, it is the usual columnists and self-publicists whining on about "wokeism" and the "woke mob" - ie. setting up a straw man to batter.
Yes - I think excessively focusing on pigment is leading to racism, and it is also leading to people being accused of being racist without objective evidence to support the allegation and this is detrimental to people because it causes division and can lead to not tackling crime die to fears of being labelled a racist. Also if people of certain pigments are a low priority for targeted support because they are not dark enough, that would also cause division.
- I thought that quora thread was complete nonsense! - but probably not worth discussing.
Ok you're entitled to your opinion. I disagree based on personal experience, the number of comments all over the internet on fair skin being attractive and dark skin being unattractive, and the huge sales in India of Fair and Lovely cream https://www.businesstoday.in/current/corporate/rebranding-fair--lovely-unlikely-to-impact-demand-for-fairness-creams-experts-say/story/408172.html
Unwarranted civilian deaths will always occur when armed police or soldiers are in close interactions with any population. If groups have been designated as "the enemy" or identified with with the targets of any action it would obviously result in more casualties? I think this is mostly irrespective of the identifies or views of any of the police involved. The answer is to not deploy these armed forces, and find more intelligent ways to tackle the issues themselves.
It's difficult to not deploy armed forces if they are expected to face a threat from armed civilians, given the liberal gun ownership laws in the US. Perhaps better selection, psyche tests, training and repeated drills of responses to potentially armed civilians might make US police less nervous and therefore less aggressive and more confident in their ability to talk their way out of the risk of getting shot rather than shooting first.
Until the expertise and funds exist to execute the above, another way could be that police are increasingly waiting before they show up to crimes so there is no need for them to interact with criminals who might be armed or resist arrest or might have mental health issues and which may result in police having to draw their weapon. The police provide a service of recording the crime, gathering forensic evidence and investigating the robbery, assault or murder after the criminals have left, leaving community members to tackle the actual instance of crime in their community or the factors that lead to crime. That way any accusations of racism could be levelled at the community for calling the police on darker-pigmented criminals rather than at the police.
Hopefully this service results in an arrest eventually, though questioning witnesses or suspects with pigmented skin might leave them with the impression of systemic racism and so if the suspects are pigmented some police are taking operational decisions to not question them in the interests of not jeopardising community relations. It's tricky to know whether it's more damaging to be accused of not tackling crime or being racist. Personally I am ok with being called a racist, as are most of the people I come across with my skin colour - they just don't seem to worry about being called racist as much as some white people appear to worry about it.
If you look at what seems to have happened in places like Rotherham with the on-street grooming and sexual exploitation of under-age teens by groups of minicab drivers and takeaway shop owners with pigmented skin - it appears that the police did not investigate more thoroughly partly because they did not seem to view the exploitation as a priority issue due to lack of resources and because the girls believed they were in relationships with their abusers and that abuse was a normal part of relationships, and also because the police did not want to use profiling to investigate once they realised that members of a certain religio-ethnic community with darker pigmented skin in certain parts of the city, who held certain jobs that brought them into frequent contact with vulnerable girls, were over-represented as alleged perpetrators. An entitled misogynistic belief seemed to have been cultivated in some parts of those communities that some young girls who are allowed out and about unsupervised are available for sex if the opportunity arose, and that these victims were not deserving of compassion or protection. A pigmented prosecutor seems to have found it easier than white officials to make headway in tackling these crimes possibly because it seems we brown people are often less concerned about appearing racist. Perhaps that is why the police are trying to recruit more from ethnic minorities. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/rochdale-grooming-prosecutor-nazir-afzal-13271237
IMV It is all down to culture and how it evolves - and how to change and/or progress it.
I agree but obviously culture is not homogeneous and there will be multiple opposing views on which version of culture should be promoted. And what does society do about people who subscribe to a culture that harms their financial self-sufficiency since that argument could easily be applied to anyone who chooses a low-paying vocation or trade or women who aspire to be stay at home mothers or don't aspire to sacrifice family life to chase a lucrative career or earn a high-paying promotion?
Within the black community after emancipation there were people who were interested in academic qualifications and those who just weren't interested, even if that meant they could not get influential jobs or become policy-makers because they lacked the minimum literacy skills. In which case, should we be unduly worried that the pigmentation spectrum or gender spectrum of society isn't being accurately represented in the legislature or judiciary or government or police force? Or are there more useful common-sense metrics to focus on to improve outcomes for members of society?
-
Sure - there are many instances where profiling does not work and it can have horrendous consequences. There is human error or malicious intent in a variety of police investigations. There is clear evidence that miscarriages of justice take place and people are convicted based on false testimony, fabricated evidence, police lies etc etc. However, we don't stop investigating, prosecuting or putting people in prison because sometimes there can be miscarriages of justice or racist police officers. I would say continue profiling so you are looking at the groups that are over-represented in crime rates but come up with better systems and training that improves the quality of the encounters between police and the public and relies less on uneducated guesswork, and holds police accountable for poor decision-making. At the same time more investment is needed in communities with high crime rates to improve aspirations and give people an incentive to walk away and not commit crimes https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/damilolas-dad-richard-taylor-and-ex-bad-300615
It's tragic that sometimes the system does not work the way it is supposed to. There have been numerous men of all pigments falsely accused of rape who were investigated and were suspended from their jobs until they were cleared. As i said, my question is do we therefore allow crime rates to rise rather than use profiling because sometimes there is human error or malicious actions? I think we need to have open discussions rather than inadequate measures based on a fear of being called racist.
https://areomagazine.com/2019/08/21/londons-knife-crime-is-not-the-fault-of-the-black-community/
...
Agree with the above, but will have to address the rest piecemeal as I find time ...
-
A very reasonable article on the idea of silencing
https://unherd.com/2020/12/how-the-mob-can-silence-you/
-
A very reasonable article on the idea of silencing
https://unherd.com/2020/12/how-the-mob-can-silence-you/
Yes a reasonable article. Just don't make the mistake I did of going down the rabbit hole of comments that followed.
-
Have the US have dealt with this better than the UK?
From 2011 - US protection of free speech under the First Amendment when people tried to silence Fred Phelps:
https://www.spiked-online.com/2011/03/17/free-speech-for-fred-phelps/
Would the Supreme Court take that view today? I haven't looked into any recent cases.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
SNYDER v . PHELPS et al.
The US Supreme Court upheld a ruling that the Westboro Baptist church could not be silenced and that its offensive placards at a military funeral were protected by the First Amendment because those statements were on matters of public concern, were not provably false, and were expressed solely through hyperbolic rhetoric.
The plaintiff had filed a diversity action against Phelps, his daughters—who participated in the picketing—and the church (collectively Westboro) alleging, as relevant here, state tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress, intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury held Westboro liable for millions of dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
Held: The First Amendment shields Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Because this Nation has chosen to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that public debate is not stifled, Westboro must be shielded from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Breyer, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
More excerpts from the judgment here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/09-751.ZS.html
-
Good for Cambridge
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/education-55246793?__twitter_impression=true