Racism Part two

[sidcow]

I have been pretty shocked by the number of casually racist comments and pictures people have posted up. 

Mostly not even remotely humerous just things obviously posted because the baby is mixed race.  It's quite bizzaire and just something I would have hoped had been left behind.  Kind of Alf Garnett stuff, or as near as damn it. 

[terrytini]

I’m not going to pontificate on what is and isn’t racist, nor venture into assessing what was in Danny Bakers mind.

I never watch or listen to him so I’ve no idea of his comic style.

I am simply going to post what happened in my head.

I saw the fuss this evening on Twitter so had a look at the offending Tweet.

I saw a monkey dressed in clothes and thought “ welcome to the circus/ the royals are a family of performing monkeys”.

 I associate monkeys wearing clothes with PG Tips adverts and Circuses. I have never associated a monkey wearing clothes with Black people.

I then read the story of what’s happened and at that point I learned that the Mother of the Princess is ( was ? don’t know if she’s still alive) Black. And that the Princess is mixed race.

At that point I understood why someone who knew the Princesses Mother was Black, and that the Princess was Mixed Race, could see a Tweet showing the baby as a monkey as a racist comment. 

I say could, not would.

Having said that, I am not at all sure why someone with a high tv/ radio profile would, if they were a racist, sit waiting for these circumstances to arise in order to make their views - obliquely- known.

Anyway, must go, there’s a fully fledged and popular racist being given his weekly airing on BBC just now.

[Ingram85]

I’ve discovered why everyone cannot actually have a discussion on here anymore without falling out. 

Someone will post something that someone doesn’t agree with and start their reply with swear words and insults. Can’t we just say “I don’t agree and this is why” instead of “**** nonsense/shite” or whatever. Sometimes people who most times ‘get’ a situation can post daft things when talking about something else (I’ve done my fair share) but the patronising high horse responses making yourselves out to be more woke or whatever crap is grating and puts a greater division between posters who otherwise would normally get along. 

It needs to stop. On all sides.

Edited May 9, 2019 by Ingram85

[dont_do_it_doug.]

7 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

it's kinda strange indeed ..are either of these posts any less / more racist than Bakers ? yet both are still on the BBC at various times

You can't be racist towards white people because power structures. So no/yes/delete where applicable. 

White people are crazy bastards, so it's also factually correct. 

Aaaaaand there's my return to Off Topic #MicDrop

Edited May 9, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[chrisp65]

I remember the good old days when we just banged on about them being German.

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

You can't be racist towards white people because power structures.

This is absolute nonsense. Non-white people can be racist towards white people, there's much less opportunity for non-white people to be racist but it's perfectly possible and does happen. Having said that, the tweet above isn't an example of it

The Lord Sugar tweet, however, most definitely is racist and he's still working at the BBC

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I remember the good old days when we just banged on about them being German.

But Harry isn't, neither of his parents is from German stock 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

12 minutes ago, bickster said:

This is absolute nonsense. Non-white people can be racist towards white people, there's much less opportunity for non-white people to be racist but it's perfectly possible and does happen. Having said that, the tweet above isn't an example of it

Racism requires the belief of superiority. With the power structures the way they are, white people are the dominant race. No matter how despicable we may find that, and I do.

A person of colour may have racist intentions, use racist language and be hateful towards white people, but they and you are mistaken for thinking that it is a racist act. It can't be because ultimately within the structures that exist they will always* be subjugated by the white man.

For the same reasons the matriarchy does not exist, reverse racism also cannot exist. 

*currently

Edited May 9, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[bickster]

9 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Racism requires the belief of superiority. With the power structures the way they are, white people are the dominant race. No matter how despicable we may find that, and I do.

A person of colour may have racist intentions, use racist language and be hateful towards white people, but they and you are mistaken for thinking that it is a racist act. It can't be because ultimately within the structures that exist they will always be subjugated by the white man.

For the same reasons the matriarchy does not exist, reverse racism also cannot exist. 

re-read that, please. You just said that non-white people can be racist but that isn't racism.

I know what you are saying, I just think it's utter nonsense because if you define racism in that way it does not solve the problem, in some respects it exacerbates it

You try educating a white racist that his actions are wrong and he's being racist but when it comes back in the other direction, the white racist is going to have his silly views entrenched by the idea that the non-white person doing a racist act somehow isn't racism

EDIT: It's that kind of woolly thinking that fuels the likes of Yaxley-Lennon

[dont_do_it_doug.]

10 hours ago, AVFCDAN said:

Without context or interpretation it isn't offensive though is it?

Using it in this context was a mistake on his part I guess but if he genuinely didn't see the racial connotations in it is it fair to blame him for the offence it causes? I really don't think that was a sackable offence on his behalf but then I'm not the "victim" of the joke as it were so I'm not really in a position to say either way.

 

The context is that it is a racist trope to compare people of colour to monkeys. I mean this isn't rocket science to be fair. Just don't compare black people to monkeys and you're set. I don't buy his excuse or the excuses being made on his behalf either, to be honest. It's up there with Wayne Hennessey claiming he doesn't know who Hitler is. 

11 hours ago, AVFCDAN said:

Nothing to defend in my opinion regarding Danny Baker.

I genuinely believe he didn't even see it a racial issue or with racial connotations, isn't that exactly how it should be.

Firing him over that means that we continue to highlight race as an issue and tread on eggshells around it, how can it ever be inclusive when incidents like this are commonplace?

Ummm... good? It isn't 'treading on eggshells' to highlight racism and racist tropes, it is the only way in which we can combat this thing and create an inclusive society. How can it be any other way, I am all ears. Unless you genuinely believe racism is a myth? 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

re-read that, please. You just said that non-white people can be racist but that isn't racism.

No. I said they can use racist (read hateful) language. That isn't the same thing. 

Quote

I know what you are saying, I just think it's utter nonsense because if you define racism in that way it does not solve the problem, in some respects it exacerbates it

You try educating a white racist that his actions are wrong and he's being racist but when it comes back in the other direction, the white racist is going to have his silly views entrenched by the idea that the non-white person doing a racist act somehow isn't racism

I mean, that doesn't change the fact of it. That white racist also cannot be allowed to use the concept of reverse-racism as a defence mechanism, the fact that we do allow them that exasperates the problem. Feeling sorry for the white man having his oppression pointed out to him is not really something I am willing to countenance, personally. 

Quote

EDIT: It's that kind of woolly thinking that fuels the likes of Yaxley-Lennon

Ehh. I wouldn't call it woolly, I'm reasonably forthright and confident about my opinion on it. I'm here for a debate with you anyway, not to debate fascists. Who aren't worth debating.

Edited May 9, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[chrisp65]

7 minutes ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

Racism requires the belief of superiority. With the power structures the way they are, white people are the dominant race. No matter how despicable we may find that, and I do.

A person of colour may have racist intentions, use racist language and be hateful towards white people, but they and you are mistaken for thinking that it is a racist act. It can't be because ultimately within the structures that exist they will always* be subjugated by the white man.

For the same reasons the matriarchy does not exist, reverse racism also cannot exist. 

*currently

No, let's keep this simple, racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. There's no bar on who that's applicable to.

We cannot get in to a hierarchy debate of whether a maltese person can be racist to Peruvians but not Chinese on some weird scale or ranking. Without disappearing up the proverbial, the very concept of a ranking order is surely itself based on some form of racist idea of a league table of ethnicity?

Either that, or its not possible for the Chinese to be racist towards the Japanese?

[bickster]

1 minute ago, dont_do_it_doug. said:

No. I said they can use racist (read hateful) language. That isn't the same thing. 

I mean, that doesn't change the fact of it. That white racist also cannot be allowed to use the concept of reverse-racism as a defence mechanism, the fact that we do allow them that exasperates the problem. Feeling sorry for the white man having his oppression pointed out to him is not really something I am willing to countenance, personally. 

Ehh. I wouldn't call it woolly, I'm reasonably forthright and confident about my opinion on it. I'm here for a debate with you anyway, not to debate fascists. Who aren't worth debating.

Your position isn't logical. You have to treat everybody equally and condemn similar actions equally for the same reasons otherwise you give people ammunition to claim it isn't fair. That unjust feeling fuels racism and division

[dont_do_it_doug.]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

No, let's keep this simple, racism is the belief that one race is superior or inferior to another. There's no bar on who that's applicable to.

We cannot get in to a hierarchy debate of whether a maltese person can be racist to Peruvians but not Chinese on some weird scale or ranking. Without disappearing up the proverbial, the very concept of a ranking order is surely itself based on some form of racist idea of a league table of ethnicity?

Either that, or its not possible for the Chinese to be racist towards the Japanese?

The league table exists because... well it does. We have made it that way. White people have via centuries of oppression placed themselves at the top of the chain, we cannot ignore that fact whilst simultaneously combating the problem. 

The major problem with reverse-racism kicks in the minute you bring oppression and power structures into the debate. That is why, in my humble opinion here and I promise I ain't spoiling for a fight, a person of colour can use racist language against a white person but they cannot literally be racist. Because they hold no power in the relationship. We absolutely have to change that.  

[dont_do_it_doug.]

6 minutes ago, bickster said:

Your position isn't logical. You have to treat everybody equally and condemn similar actions equally for the same reasons otherwise you give people ammunition to claim it isn't fair. That unjust feeling fuels racism and division

When people ARE equal, then we can have that debate. 

[bickster]

Just now, dont_do_it_doug. said:

When people ARE equal, then we can have that debate

People will never be equal with your approach

[dont_do_it_doug.]

In more practical terms, when you allow people the space to say that comments like Romesh's above are to be labelled as racism, unchallenged, you give them the oxygen to shout "SEE, 'THEY' ARE AS BAD AS US"

That is the kind of pandering which fuels Yaxley-Lennon. 

Edited May 9, 2019 by dont_do_it_doug.

[Rodders]

context completely matters. White people in this country are a majority, in other countries they are a minority / not benefiting from looking like the chaps in charge so there's no rule about who can or can't be racists. 

I completely agree about systemic entrenched biases, and the consequences of empire loving attitudes ( not exclusive to any race / creed/ tribe ) that creates a dominant socio-economic environment, that's just basic history. But racism as most people understand it, is about the act of abusing / discriminating others based on that characteristic, and that happens irrespective of broader social conditions. You might create some kind of argument as to why non-dominant to dominant tribe racism is different, maybe, but it is a pointless abstract argument that does no favours, particularly to those individuals on the receiving end of the abuse. In the situation where a white person is abused, it would be aburd for them to respond, "oh well, I suppose that's the reasonable legacy I must put up with because of my collective ancestors" ( I'm not sure if you're saying that, but for me that's a logical endpoint of saying that there' 'cant be that kind of racism. 

[dont_do_it_doug.]

3 minutes ago, bickster said:

People will never be equal with your approach

Because attempting to define racism is exactly what we shouldn't be doing? Because we have done such a great job combating it up until now?

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Ingram85 said:

I’ve discovered why everyone cannot actually have a discussion on here anymore without falling out. 

Someone will post something that someone doesn’t agree with and start their reply with swear words and insults. Can’t we just say “I don’t agree and this is why” instead of “**** nonsense/shite” or whatever. Sometimes people who most times ‘get’ a situation can post daft things when talking about something else (I’ve done my fair share) but the patronising high horse responses making yourselves out to be more woke or whatever crap is grating and puts a greater division between posters who otherwise would normally get along. 

It needs to stop. On all sides.

Again, nonsense. You haven't 'discovered' anything.

If you really think that 'It needs to stop. On all sides' then don't spin your own post of criticism around phrases like 'Patronising high horse' and 'woke' in such close conjunction.