> If you wish to enter into a debate about imperialism, capitalism and so
> on, do you want to start a new thread? I'm sure that there are qualified
> capitalists, imperialists, anarchists, freethinkers, philosophers and
> sociologists in this ng to make it an interesting discussion - there may
> even be a mathematical angle to that one. In the meantime, I do hope you
> won't try and justify your anti-anti-racist stance on the basis of
> 'fighting racism from within'. Or do, actually, it would be quite funny.

I am not anti-anti-racist. I am anti-racist.

Apart from that I would love to get involved in a debate about these issues but I certainly would dread getting into another argument with anyone for the time being, not to mention it would be off topic.

Basically I have tried to answer the question to myself about personal responsabilty and found it very difficult. For example, when I buy a pair of trainers, how do I know that they weren't put together under unfair working conditions? In many cases (for example Nike), I have seen and read about proof of horrendous working conditions, poor pay, beatings etc. Naturally I was horrified. Obviously organisations such as Amnesty can provide advice but it's still virtually impossible to follow things all the way down the supply chain.

The reason I feel that these things happen is not because of inherent evil in people... a lot of the time it is the responsibility for these things that people pass along the line. It's easy to say they are wrong but who knows the conditions the factory manager is under, perhaps because someone entered a figure on a computer which he has to adhere to otherwise he loses his job and can't feed his family, or look after his dying wife, or whatever. To that computer operator it was just a figure.... and so on as the responsibility for such horrendous things is disseminated across the supply chain.

Who do we blame? The manager, the operator, the chairman of Nike?

What if we take this example and magnify it by 100,000. I can't categorically say that decisions I make in every day life aren't adding to this misery. I try as hard as I can, but how do I really know?

All I can say with certainty is that I'm sure all of this goes on because of a hangover from imperial colonialism, in that countries were exploited and still are by international trade and currency markets. I'm sure this macro exploitation sets the stage for micro level atrocities, and that is the area which I have attempted to focus on in the last two years - global history, economics and politics.

I'm sure you have worried about these things too, F, what are your answers?

Genuinely interested

M

M wrote:

>> I see that he hasn't bothered to respond since.....
> 
> 
> He just has.........

Yes, so I see, but not to me, a participant in his 'experiment'.
> 
>> You_clearly_haven't_bothered_to_read_anything_I've_posted or you are
>> incapable of responding to points I've made - IMO, a discussion is based
>> on following ideas through not tossing in a load of irrelevant rubbish
>> when you have nothing to say. My only regret is that I have wasted so
> much
>> of my time responding to someone who was clearly attacking me personally
>> for his own reasons under the guise of 'answering' the questions in hand.
> 
> My point about the inherent hypocrisy in attacking a minor case of
> stereotyping, while every day contributing to a political and economic
> system which is built upon a bedrock of post-imperialistic racial have and
> have-nots. is a bad one, then?

Did I say that? Are my postings in response to you somehow coming through on your newsreader in a different language or something?

>> You're talking crap. Either that, or you have a very poor grasp of the
>> english language.

> English has a capital E I think you'll find.

Is that the best you can do - take a bow M. I'd still like to see how

"It just seems to me the big fat fish can't help but swim round and round in circles in the pond. And guess what? They also happen to be the fish that bit the worm in the first place ;-)"

translates into:

"people tend to overreact if they feel they have been taken for a ride."

You still won't answer the question, will you?

If you have something to say I do wish you'd stop pussyfooting around and just spit it out.I invite you to so via email if you must, because I'm sure I can't be the only one bored to death with this branch of the thread.

> ps. It's funny how things which often seem the most colourful and fluffy
> often tend to be full of particularly virulent poison.

Which things are those? I await another one of your eloquent arguments in my 'in' box with bated breath. Please try and make them a little more comSPnt than your recent efforts.

R

R wrote in message ...
> Yes, so I see, but not to me, a participant in his 'experiment'.

Fair point

>>> You're talking crap. Either that, or you have a very poor grasp of the
>>> english language.

I don't really feel that most people who have read my posts previously on umr would agree. For all the argumentative posts I would like to think there have been a few astute or even funny ones over the last three years. So, well, nobody likes to be called stupid, so I responded in a tit-for-tat fashion. I personally do not feel that you are stupid or have nothing to say, nor would I say your future replies could be more "competent than your recent efforts", which I have found to constitute what I consider to be a well put pithy debate, basically.

> "It just seems to me the big fat fish can't help but swim round and round
> in circles in the pond. And guess what? They also happen to be the fish
> that bit the worm in the first place ;-)"

Frankly I was reluctant to spell it out because I feel that allegory can be more elegant and less personally confrontational than direct attacks.... such as the ones you have employed towards me. However for the record:

"Big fish in a small pond" is a saying which I'm sure you are familiar with. UMR is a good example of this saying as it is a small social group in which we can all be known if we shout loud enough. It's easy to become a big fish on a newsgroup. So I was saying in my post that I felt that you (and others) had attempted to act like big fish in being the self-appointed moral guardians of umr. I was not disagreeing with what you were saying, I just felt you were saying it very loudly and often, and I personally didn't feel it necessarily reflected the view of the newsgroup.

I thought that the image was humorous, so I changed it to 'big fat fish'. I simply did that because I am fond of alliterations and I felt this added a slightly humorous slant in keeping with my thoughts of the image. It was certainly not intended to be a physical slant on anyone at all, and I would not have included it if I did not feel that the post was suitably vague.

I thought that people were very resentful of being used in an experiment and probably felt like they were being used like lab animals. So this made the idea of comparing them to a fish quite funny. I also liked the idea of fish as cold clammy creatures.... there was an evident lack of humour in general on the thread. And of course the 'round and round in circles' referred to the fact that I felt that at that stage the debate was going nowhere.

Biting the worm? Well, there is no doubt now that the post was a troll, ie. it was bait designed to draw people in! Which it did, including me this far down the line. So there you go, personally I decided to say this in an oblique fashion as I felt that it summed up the whole thread in an image that was suitably ridiculous without severely offending anyone. Obviously that was an error of judgement.

Now I made a mistake that this post was not all aimed specifically at you, but that was the (accidental) impression I gave. I did apologise to you for this, but probably messed it up by my joking about J's alarm sound. So for the record I was sorry to give you the wrong impression that it was a personal attack.

Now I find myself in a difficult situation because you are making very personal derogatory statements about my intelligence and writing ability. However in the light of the fact that I have not made myself clear in this thread I'm happy to consider those statements as part of what has been a lively and slightly over-zealous debate.

In short I would not like to be considered by you (or F) as antipathetic towards you and I suggest a truce.

M

> translates into:
> 
> "people tend to overreact if they feel they have been taken for a ride."
> 
> You still won't answer the question, will you?
> 
> If you have something to say I do wish you'd stop pussyfooting around and
> just spit it out.I invite you to so via email if you must, because I'm
> sure I can't be the only one bored to death with this branch of the
> thread.
> 
> 
>> ps. It's funny how things which often seem the most colourful and fluffy
>> often tend to be full of particularly virulent poison.
> 
> Which things are those? I await another one of your eloquent arguments in
> my 'in' box with bated breath. Please try and make them a little more
> competent than your recent efforts.
> 
> --
> R
> 

M wrote:

<snipped IMO(!) a well-considered post with some flaws - but let's not go around in circles, as you say!>

> In short I would not like to be considered by you (or F) as antipathetic
> towards you and I suggest a truce.

....no, no M, au contraire. Truce it is then - any opinions about decommissioning?! 8) :)

R

> In short I would not like to be considered by you (or F) as antipathetic
>> towards you and I suggest a truce.
> 
> ....no, no M, au contraire. Truce it is then - any opinions about
> decommissioning?! 8) :)

Phew! all my aggressive weapons have now been destroyed.

I still think we should do something about that fire alarm of J's, though :-)

M

M wrote:

> You can't go around levelling accusations
> such as racist at someone when they have made a comment/joke which has
> core assumptions that have proved to be ambiguous in accordance with the
> reader's presuppositions.

Flagging the original post 'Off-topic Irish joke' directly defines the post as a racist contribution when one assumes that the post was made without ulterior motives, irrespective of the vagaries of the joke's humour 'button', and I haven't seen any such accusations since the AT 'came out'. I'd be curious as to your reaction were it to emerge that the post was NOT a deliberate study-oriented troll.

> We are all guilty of complacency when it comes to racial issues otherwise
> we would donating a substantial part of our income to third world
> countries.

Speak for yourself. Just because you may not have the guts to stand up for others' rights doesn't mean you should tar everyone else with the same brush.

> The bottom line is that I certainly wasn't being complacent when I didn't
> get annoyed at the original post. It's just that I have a balanced sense
> of "racism" as a sliding scale which goes from jokes such as these through
> to extreme cases such as genocidal war.

Please see my earlier post about absolutism in reference to racism. If you have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be and get away with it, you are by definition imo a racist. And I still have yet to see any sense of balance from you - so far all we've had is thinly-veiled vitriol.

> I too disagree with racism but I
> feel that considering the structure of global economic politics, unethical
> practices of multinationals, even something such as the Stephen Lawrence
> enquiry, there are far, far, more important areas into which probing
> anti-racist probosces could be poked.

I agree. However, this thread must be taken in its own context - the poster asked for a reaction and got it, based on the question 'is this or is this not a racist post?' (assuming for the sake of this argument that the poster was telling the truth regarding the origination of the thread).

> Just for the record, I too am anti-racist, and I am of direct Irish
> descent.

See above, and so what? in that order. Put away your prejudices about individuals on this ng and argue your philosophical points - as I said above I'd be interested in your views about the debate in hand.

F

F wrote:

> Please see my earlier post about absolutism in reference to racism. If you
> have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be and get away with
> it, you are by definition imo a racist.

IMO too.

And in such absolute terms I freely confess to being racist myself - for example, I'll occasionally make disparaging remarks about Americans, thinking that I know people won't take any serious offence at them. I did so in here recently, in response to the URL about the fanatical US anti-abortionist group. It was meant as a joke at the time, but I can't honestly deny that it was a racist one.

I think there's a big difference between jokes which poke fun at the stereotypes themselves, and jokes that play upon them for effect. The former, I feel, are acceptable, and possibly even healthy. Jokes about racists will necessarily include racist sentiments, but in such a way that means I don't believe they are offensive.

The latter kind, however, are not acceptable at all - to me at least. And yet I'm sometimes guilty of making that kind of joke, which is hypocritical, and a bad habit that I'll undertake to try and change. If someone made a joke about blacks I'd call them racist. My jokes about Americans are no different, really.

No doubt a lot of people may think this is being excessively PC, but I agree 100% with the idea that racism is like being pregnant - you either are or you aren't.

I think someone has said recently (actually, I think it was me, but in another newsgroup) that we're all racist to some extent, in that we tend to make generalisations about people based on factors that *may* include their race or nationality. They may also include gender, age, whatever... the way people tend to assume that women are less likely to be interested in football than men. Or are surprised when they learn I have a job and drive a car, despite being in a wheelchair.

It's part of human nature - the way we tend to label or compartmentalise people. Some kind of mental shortcuts are inevitable, I guess, but IMO they're also to be avoided whenever possible. The trick is to try not to let those generalisations influence your interactions with specific individuals.

So I can admit to being racist, without that meaning I've just confessed to being a closet member of the KKK. I'm also sexist, ageist, and whatever else, in the sense that I do tend to make generalisations, and base assumptions on those generalisations. I do it because I'm human. I just try to keep a watch on myself and not do it very often.

J

J wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Jun 1998 13:01:17 +0100, F wrote:

> 
>> Please see my earlier post about absolutism in reference to racism. If you
>> have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be and get away with
>> it, you are by definition imo a racist.
> 
> IMO too.
> 
> And in such absolute terms I freely confess to being racist myself -
> for example, I'll occasionally make disparaging remarks about
> Americans, thinking that I know people won't take any serious offence

<snipped>

I liked this post, J.

F

F wrote:

>>> Please see my earlier post about absolutism in reference to racism. If you
>>> have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be and get away with
>>> it, you are by definition imo a racist.
>> 
>> IMO too.
>> 
>> And in such absolute terms I freely confess to being racist myself -
>> for example, I'll occasionally make disparaging remarks about
>> Americans, thinking that I know people won't take any serious offence
> 
> <snipped>
> 
> I liked this post, J.

Cheers. Straight from the heart, with a pinch of self-recrimination.

On Saturday night I was in the pub, telling a mate of mine that I didn't want to hear his "An Englishman, Irishman and a Scotsman" joke. And yet earlier in the day I'd been making wise-cracks about loud American tourists while I was wandering the Natural History Museum, with the same friends no less.

AWWWWOOOOOOOGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!

Sorry, that was my "hypocrisy" detector going off. Ooh, look, it's pointing at me.

I don't know if you meant me when you said someone had changed their mind as a result of this thread, but I have. I was guilty of double standards - operating a "zero tolerance" policy on racist jokes based on skin colour, but not on those based on nationality.

J

>> Please see my earlier post about absolutism in reference to racism. If you
>> have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be and get away with
>> it, you are by definition imo a racist.
> 
> IMO too.
> 
> And in such absolute terms I freely confess to being racist myself -
> for example, I'll occasionally make disparaging remarks about
> Americans, thinking that I know people won't take any serious offence
> at them. I did so in here recently, in response to the URL about the
> fanatical US anti-abortionist group. It was meant as a joke at the
> time, but I can't honestly deny that it was a racist one.

J,

You are ever the diplomat.

However I personally found F's remarks extremely disagreeable indeed. Calling someone a racist is a harsh accusation to make.

> It's just that I have a balanced sense
> of "racism" as a sliding scale which goes from jokes such as these through
> to extreme cases such as genocidal war.

Let me re-iterate. I have a balanced sense of "racism" (the word - hence quotation marks) as existing on a scale. ie. People's definition of a racist occupies some point on that scale.

Calling someone a racist is therefore something which should be done with regard to the fact that they may interpret it as an extreme insult.

You called me a racist and that justified it very well.... but it's still a dangerous thing to do. What happens if someone read the beginning of that post and didn't bother with the rest? If I genuinely felt someone was a racist on this newsgroup I would not give them the time of day.

This is a contentious issue, this is an explosive word and should not be used as an accusation such as in the way F has done so.

I am frankly extremely distressed about this........

---M

M wrote:

> You are ever the diplomat.

I'm flattered, M, but I assure you I was being *quite* serious. This thread has touched on issues that I hold to be very important, and it's served to make me reconsider my own standpoint - or more accurately, to get a bit harsher with myself over my own hypocrisy.

I agree with F on this one, I'm afraid. If I make a "slightly racist" comment, then I am indeed a racist. While there may be a sliding scale, surely to be on that scale at all means I *must* be a racist.

> However I personally found F's remarks extremely disagreeable indeed.
> Calling someone a racist is a harsh accusation to make.

Surely it depends on your definition of racism? I've read F's definition and I happen to agree with it. By those terms, I call myself a racist, even if I think I'm quite low down on that sliding scale. All I'm doing is acknowledging that I'm not perfect and sometimes make errors. Nothing harsh about facing up to that.

> If I genuinely felt someone was
> a racist on this newsgroup I would not give them the time of day.

Why ever not? I have a friend who often makes racist comments. He knows how I feel about it all, and we argue about it. However, every single time I've ever seen him come into contact with anyone who wasn't white, those racist views have disappeared beneath the surface. Most of his talk is just that - talk. I've seen him go miles out of his way to help an asian G who's car had broken down - not even anyone he knew well, just a friend of a friend of a friend.

And yet he's still a racist. Racism (especially racist language) is part of the baggage he brought with him from his childhood. I like to think that over the years of mixing with myself and my other friends, he's toned down considerably. Maybe before he met us he didn't even give non-whites the time of day, I don't know. But we couldn't have tried to change his mind unless we'd talked to him about it.

> This is a contentious issue, this is an explosive word and should not be
> used as an accusation such as in the way F has done so.

I can't comment on how it was meant - personally I read it as a very provocative and challenging statement, but one that was aimed more at the principle that was being expressed than the personality expressing it. F is more than capable of responding to that himself, however. I may even be wrong.

It's not an explosive word to me, because frankly I think I'd be hard pressed to find many people who weren't racist in one sense or another, if I really scratched the surface. That ranges from people who make comments about the Germans having no sense of humour or Italians being terrible drivers, right up to card-carrying members of the NF or BNP. If we can't face up to this part of our own nature then we can never overcome it.

> I am frankly extremely distressed about this........

I can see that, and appreciate it. It's not my intention to fight F's corner, I just feel that I have to speak up and say that I agree with his argument.

And if a simple word like "racist" can evoke such strong emotions, I'd argue that supports the "zero tolerance" attitude towards racism itself. Because I didn't see it as anything like as insulting a term as you did, because of my different interpretation of what it means. And yet by using that word F has clearly upset you. It's not hard to see how that example applies to the whole issue of politically correct language. Just because one person doesn't find something offensive, that doesn't mean no-one else will.

>> The bottom line is that I certainly wasn't being complacent when I didn't
>> get annoyed at the original post. It's just that I have a balanced sense
>> of "racism" as a sliding scale which goes from jokes such as these through
>> to extreme cases such as genocidal war.
> 
> Please see my earlier post about absolutism in reference to racism. If you
> have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be and get away with
> it, you are by definition imo a racist. And I still have yet to see any
> sense of balance from you - so far all we've had is thinly-veiled vitriol.

I did not say 'get away with it'.

I am asking you now in the politest possible terms to retract your statement or any inference made in this paragraph I am a racist.

Please do so at your earliest convenience.

M

M wrote:

> I did not say 'get away with it'.

Agreed, but in the context of your previous postings to this thread I inferred it - maybe you did not mean it (certainly others have interpreted some things that I've said in a manner that I found inconsistent with my intentions), so please accept my apology for publishing my inference.

> I am asking you now in the politest possible terms to retract your
> statement or any inference made in this paragraph I am a racist.
> 
> Please do so at your earliest convenience.

You said:
> It's just that I have a balanced sense of "racism" as a sliding
> scale which goes from jokes such as these through
> to extreme cases such as genocidal war.

J said, in the meantime (quoting me):
>> If you have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be
>> and get away with it, you are by definition imo a racist.
> 
> IMO too.

I'll also quote M again:
> This is a contentious issue, this is an explosive word and should not be
> used as an accusation such as in the way F has done so. <snipped interesting gap>
> And now F (and let's face it, you're on the same team) has virtually
> called ME a racist.

I'll revise my statement to take on board my apology above.

Firstly you should be aware that my statement was qualified with an 'imo'.

You imply in your complaint that I've called you a racist using my terms. You are of course in the right, you did not say that you are a racist, M - you just said that you have a sliding scale on which you place others' definition of racism. If that's the case, then I didn't call you a racist, nor even imply it, because in my statement I defined my terms.

However, what I said was that if you have a sliding scale of how racist you are able to be, you are by definition imo (in my opinion) a racist. So, if you believe that you can be a little bit racist (and to me that implies that this should be acceptable to anti-racists, of which I am one), then I reserve the right to think of you as a racist, given that you have defended what I believe to be racism.

That does not necessarily mean that you are a racist as a consequence of my statement.

I'm not perfect, consider myself to have had racist thoughts, but I do not defend racism in any form. For me racism is an absolute offence, no matter how mild, so I'm sorry that although I have modified the statement that clearly offended you, I cannot modify my opinion of where you stand given your posts in defence of what I believe is racism. I hope that's cleared things up.

As a point of note, if you are basing your standpoint on personal prejudice (i.e. you don't like me), as you seem to imply by referring to your (erroneous) perception of the relationship between R's Philosophical position and my own, then I hardly see the point of my continuing to read your posts. I do hope this is not the case (although I don't give two hoots whether you like me or not) - as I said in a previous post I am interested in your (and everyone else's) Philosophical position.

F

> You imply in your complaint that I've called you a racist using my terms.
> You are of course in the right, you did not say that you are a racist,
> M - you just said that you have a sliding scale on which you place
> others' definition of racism. If that's the case, then I didn't call you a
> racist, nor even imply it, because in my statement I defined my terms.
> As a point of note, if you are basing your standpoint on personal
> prejudice (i.e. you don't like me), as you seem to imply by referring to
> your (erroneous) perception of the relationship between R's
> Philosophical position and my own, then I hardly see the point of my
> continuing to read your posts. I do hope this is not the case (although I
> don't give two hoots whether you like me or not) - as I said in a previous
> post I am interested in your (and everyone else's) Philosophical position.

As far as I'm concerned it's such a volatile word I was worried it was open to misinterpretation by people.

I can certainly see the point you are trying to make. At the end of the day we just have different definitions of the term. I certainly didn't mean I have a sliding scale... perhaps I used the wrong terminology. I have my own definition which is treating people as less than equal because of their race.

Thus you or J calling me a racist (very well explained by both of you) could be open to misinterpretation by a casual reader that I am in fact a racist of the extreme type when of course I am not and have had involvement with third world charities, Anti Nazi league marches.

Although I could agree with your points I was mortified by the potential for misinterpretation.

So the bottom line is thanks for clearing it up. I personally enjoy heated debates on umr and I can tell you now there are only two people who have ever really pissed me off on the newsgroup:

JA R-G and that G from Lifeline

I seem to remember meeting you once and you were actually quite friendly. I really don't want to have a personal fight with you or R - as far as I'm concerned we've had a good slanging match and I've certainly learned to look at things from another perspective, which is always a good thing.

M

M in a fluffy moment said

> and I suggest a truce.
> I can tell you now there are only two people who have
> ever really pissed me off

Ahem ! Will we be seeing you at the Academy on the 20th then .... ?

FD).....:) furling the old skull and crossbones..