PN wrote:

> R writes:
> 
> 
>> BTW, did anyone see the programme on racism in football last night? Very
>> timely........
> 
> No, but from first-hand experience i would imagine that it pointed
> to the number of Asian footballers, ethnic diversity on the terraces
> (seats these days) and racist chants. However, it can be even worse at
> sunday league level.. which is where an important part of the problem
> lies IMO.

Yup...that about covers it.

> All footballers get stick from the crowd..and if the player happens to be
> black well, the obvious happens. Home side.. away side.. it matters not.
> Mates who go to Leicester City say that opposing fans
> chant "you're a town full of pakies" all the time.

A lot of the racist dickheads were justifying themselves by saying that they were only words, that the chants didn't necessarily make them racist....that they were almost affectionate terms that no-one could take offence to.
> 
> I worry about this because i don't turn around and say.. shut up,
> cos i don't particularly want to end up in hospital.
> So what would happen if the govt turn racist like it did in Germany?
> Would i stand up and be counted like we expect the Germans to have done?
> I think that i would have to do something if i saw someone being
> beaten to death in front of me. But ask yourself this... ask yourself
> how much you actually stand up for what is right.

The other question must be at which point do you turn around and say that something isn't acceptable?

As you can see from the responses to the original post, there are some that are still saying that they/their mates/family/ wouldn't have a problem with this type of joke, that it isn't racist. The fact that some have found it so and have pointed it out still doesn't seem to matter to them. IMO, there are disturbing echoes here (although very faint) of what was said in the TV programme.

Depressing.......

R

R writes:
> PN wrote:

> 

>> All footballers get stick from the crowd..and if the player happens to be
>> black well, the obvious happens. Home side.. away side.. it Matters not.
>> Mates who go to Leicester City say that opposing fans
>> chant "you're a town full of pakies" all the time.
> 
> A lot of the racist dickheads were justifying themselves by saying that
> they were only words, that the chants didn't necessarily make them
> racist....that they were almost affectionate terms that no-one could take
> offence to.

I've got no doubt that some of them actually believe that as well, but they don't realise (or perhaps they do) that those terms are so condescending.. they certainly know that such terms are hurtful.. but as i say, all players can get some really dreadful abuse, black or not - so that might be a general problem. I find the chants more worrying.

> The other question must be at which point do you turn around and say that
> something isn't acceptable?
> 
> As you can see from the responses to the original post, there are some
> that are still saying that they/their mates/family/ wouldn't have a
> problem with this type of joke, that it isn't racist.

It was condescending for sure.. but nowhere near as vicious as such jokes can be. That one was quite lightweight.. and most of us have laughed at E, I, S jokes as well... all countries have such jokes.. they aren't unique to us!!! That doesn't make it right.. of course.

> The fact that some
> have found it so and have pointed it out still doesn't seem to matter to
> them. IMO, there are disturbing echoes here (although very faint) of what
> was said in the TV programme.

Well, i'd ask them if they thought jokes about all the Irish being in the IRA funny... or about how pakies need the shit kicking out of them.. see what i mean?

> Depressing.......

Indeed.. what do we do about it?

F wrote:

> IMO there shouldn't be a line to cross. One is either racist or not racist
> - it's like the supposition that someone can be a little bit pregnant, or
> a little bit dead... poking fun is a dangerous game when one has
> spectators, because not everyone is capable of differentiating between
> ribbing and insulting - we've all met people that think they are
> innoffensive (like me, for example!), when in fact they come across as
> appallingly insensitive.

On consideration I have to say I agree with this. I think something either is whatever-ist or it isn't. But I do think people sometimes get a bit confused about what prejudice is and what it isn't.

When I'm out with friends, neither they nor I will think twice if anyone cracks a joke about the wheelchair - such as my brother once choosing a particularly apt moment to tell me it was time I learnt to stand on my own two feet. ;) Other people around us might not know that I'm cool with people saying that kind of thing, but once they see me laughing then maybe they'll realise that it's okay to say the word "walk" in the same room as a wheelchair user without having to get all embarrassed. The joke wasn't disabled-ist because it didn't make use of any kind of prejudice, nor did it denigrate me. It was just a play on words.

On the other hand, one of my school friends was the only black kid in our school for a while, and while he was well-liked he was also subject to some awful racism. One particularly awful example was being given the nickname 'Gerald' after the 'Not The Nine O'Clock News' sketch about the talking gorilla. It was chiefly used by people who liked Nigel, and thought he didn't mind the joke - he'd even deny that it upset him if they asked, but it seemed obvious to me that it did. Being an interfering sort, I used to try and get people to stop saying it, but didn't have much luck.

The other kids weren't saying it to upset Nigel, but knowingly or not (and I suspect it was a mixture of both), they were setting him apart from the other kids because of his colour. And the nickname was clearly derogatory.

> The problem with gentle racism is that it becomes over time incipient
> racism. And incipient racism leads to prejudice, which eventually leads to
> the justification used by some insane but charismatic person, McCarthy,
> Hitler and Ghengis Khan spring to mind.

Absolutely. I think that people find it hard to understand just how damaging these kinds of subtle prejudice can be unless they've been on the receiving end. It's easy to dismiss it and say people are over-reacting and being overly sensitive. What these people don't have is first-hand experience of what it's like to be on the receiving end. Often they don't have second-hand experience, either, and have never really bothered to find out what it's like for people who suffer.

Tell someone who's been beaten up by a pack of thugs (for their race, sexuality, whatever) that some prejudicial jokes are harmless.

And even if people don't agree, you can't do any harm by avoiding racist comments, so why run the risk that it *is* harmful?

> Maybe someone can turn this into a PC versus Mac thread at this point?

I did think of trying that...

J

F wrote:

> J wrote:

> 
>> On Fri, 05 Jun 1998 16:12:21 +0100, N wrote:

>>> I think such things have to be weighed against who you're with and
>>> whether sensibilities are going to be offended. In a public forum maybe
>>> the rules are tighter.
> <snipped>
>>> a) know me well enough to know I don't mean anything by it and
>>> b) don't contain anyone who would be offended (not the same as not
>>> containing anyone from the group who are the Butt).
> 
> Just because the butt is absent or ignorant of the consequences of
> endorsing it doesn't mean it is not racist.
> 
>> There's a difference between poking gentle fun and inciting hatred,
>> and everyone will draw the line in a different place. Having been on
>> the receiving end of a fair bit of prejudice myself, and having seen
>> it affect other people around me, I tend to draw that line very
>> conservatively.
> 
> IMO there shouldn't be a line to cross. One is either racist or not racist
> - it's like the supposition that someone can be a little bit pregnant, or
> a little bit dead...

I disagree. I think everyone is racist to a certain extent. In my opinion wanting England to win in the World Cup could be called racist but there's going to be very few people getting upset by it. Most people would say it's perfectly natural to support your own team. Obviously there's going to be some sort of preferential treatment going on there but where is the line between that and outright disrespect or even hatred for the opposing side?

It's the level of racism that's important but there's no easy line to tell people when a remark is OK and when it is not as it's different for every person. I very much doubt much communication could be achieved if we had absolutely zero discrimination

One can still inadvertantly upset someone else by saying something out of ignorance. For example, In the UK, most afro-carribbeans don't mind being called black but in certain sections of the US it would be a very racist remark. Are you a racist because you called an Afro-American 'black' because you thought it was acceptable? Surely it's down to intent rather than what's actually been said. In my opinion the words themselves don't mean a lot, it's the thoughts behind them that you should really be looking at.

> poking fun is a dangerous game when one has
> spectators, because not everyone is capable of differentiating between
> ribbing and insulting

Agreed!

> - we've all met people that think they are
> innoffensive (like me, for example!), when in fact they come across as
> appallingly insensitive.

Agreed ;-o

>>> E.g, I'll be very surprised if many here are offended by this racist
>>> gem:
>>> Q) How can you tell when a plane load of English have landed in Sydney ?
>>> A) The engines have stopped, but you can still hear the whining!
> 
>> No, it's not at all offensive
> 
> It is, however, racist, and could become the root of some fool's future
> prejudice against whingeing poms getting a job in, say, customer
> relations.
> 
> The problem with gentle racism is that it becomes over time incipient
> racism. And incipient racism leads to prejudice, which eventually leads to
> the justification used by some insane but charismatic person, McCarthy,
> Hitler and Ghengis Khan spring to mind.

I'm not so sure. For some, yes this could be the case but just because I've taken E, it doesn't mean I'm going to end up a heroin/crack addict. Everyone has their level. The more intelligent/sensitive amongst us realise quite early on what is and what isn't insensitive most of the time. That still doesn't stop us making the odd mistake now and then.

I've never been a fan of zero tolerance in any field whether it's racism, sexism, socialism, capitalism, genderism(??),. Whatever field it is it just ends up being fascist if there is no flexibility. I strive for real democracy and liberty. To achieve this I must have the right to say what I want, when I want, to who I want. It does however also mean for real democracy to work I also have to respect everyone elses views, cultures and ideals.

Basically I want to live in a world where there are no rules to stop someone saying/doing something antisocial but it would also have to be a world where no-one wanted to do anything antisocial in the first place.

We should not try to hide each others differences. We should celebrate them.

I don't think the occasional light hearted joke about another cultures language, lifestyle or way of thinking always does harm. In many cases it does exactly the opposite. When I finished reading that joke I had warm feelings about how cute the Irish accent can be, not thoughts of stupid Irishmen.

D

D writes:

> I
> strive for real democracy and liberty. To achieve this I must have the
> right to say what I want, when I want, to who I want. It does however
> also mean for real democracy to work I also have to respect everyone
> elses views, cultures and ideals.

Hypothetically speaking what would you think of a culture who thought that was the wrong way.. and tried to affect the way you lived. Suppose more of those people from that culture started to live next door to you.. and eventually they got enough support to vote somebody in to the political arena. However those views went completely against striving for real democracy and liberty!! Suppose their ideas are that you do not have the right to do what you want, when you want etc.. suppose they thought that smoking drugs was an evil that was punishable by death!! Suppose they thought that disabled babies should be killed. (I mean, in Britain) What are you going to do? If you believe your way is better.. are you racist?

IMO the evils of hypocrisy and ignorance are universal.. you must respect such views.. but you don't have to accommodate them!!!

PN wrote:

> D writes:
> 
>> I
>> strive for real democracy and liberty. To achieve this I must have the
>> right to say what I want, when I want, to who I want. It does however
>> also mean for real democracy to work I also have to respect everyone
>> elses views, cultures and ideals.
> 
> Hypothetically speaking what would you think of a culture who thought
> that was the wrong way.. and tried to affect the way you lived.
> Suppose more of those people from that culture started
> to live next door to you.. and eventually they got enough
> support to vote somebody in to the political arena. However
> those views went completely against striving for real
> democracy and liberty!! Suppose their ideas are that you do not have
> the right to do what you want, when you want etc.. suppose
> they thought that smoking drugs was an evil that was punishable
> by death!! Suppose they thought that disabled babies should be killed.
> (I mean, in Britain) What are you going to do?

Fight like hell to get them removed from parliament, fight like hell to help people with opposing views to get a better airing. Make sure everyone knows the full consequences of voting for them.

> If you believe your way is better.. are you racist?

Depends on your definition of racist. Before we go into this scenario, let me explain where I stand on all this racism talk and let you decide.

I sometimes see races and cultures not from the UK as very different and I often comment on those differences (and similarities). Whatever I've said about them I've never thought them as inferior and in many ways, I see their ideas and cultures have better ways of dealing with some issues.. I've never said anything in front of their presence or away from it that would demean them in any way although some things may have been a little controversial. However most of the controversy stems from a countries governmental policies rather than it's peoples thoughts. Does that make me a racist?

Back to your question..

You don't say whether this culture comes from originally (moved in from another country or just part of the usual multicultural population of Britain). Whatever the case, technically, I would be a culturalist regardless and probably a racist if they were from a foreign culture. But my dislike for them would stem from their oppression of my freedoms and liberties in which case that would make them fascist. If that hatred of oppression seeps into the area of culturalism and/or racism then yes, I'd have to say I was a racist. However the prime reason for my hatred would be for their oppression not the culture itself. I see no problem in opposing anyone who tries to remove liberties and freedoms from people.

> IMO the evils of hypocrisy and ignorance are
> universal.. you must respect such views.. but you don't have
> to accommodate them!!!

Agreed, but the only way to get rid of ignorance is to educate. Hypocrisy, generally stems from a persons own insecurities. Once they realise what those insecurities are, they're half way there to curing themselves. Some people are just plain bigots and they are the ones that need some enforcement.

D