Mantis Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 By 'to an extent' do you mean Britain colonised a number of those islands and shipped many thousands of slaves to work on them? You shouldn't need told that there is a considerable difference between that relationship and those the UK has with its European neighbours. I never said they were linked the same did I? Nonetheless there is a cultural connection there (I never said it was a good or bad thing) and cultural intertwinement was how you argued that Brits doing faux German or French accents is somehow different to doing a faux Caribbean accent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) One wonders why you bothered raising the point in the first place as you clearly don't need help in deducing why appropriating the accent of one could be seen as different to appropriating the accent of the other. Edited October 22, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted October 22, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't actually believe that the claims that Read's song is offensive are really genuine. But I also believe that in politics, claiming that it is, is a legitimate strategy ...You seem to be saying you believe making false accusations is legitimate, which seems a bit of a contradiction.FWIW I agree the song isn't "offensive" (other than in being toe-curlingly, appallingly dreadful in all regards, including lyrically). It's ill considered and just shows that Mike Read is a collossal dangleberry with no sense of self awareness and no concept of what an utter tube he is.The whole thing, then, is thoroughly representative of the UKIPs. Monumentally idiotic. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 22, 2014 VT Supporter Share Posted October 22, 2014 Tbh it is best to ask the opinions of those whose culture is being appropriated. And yes, language (including accents or dialects) comes under culture. How about Brits doing Irish accents (either for comic effect, or for singing Irish folk songs)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) Well I know a good deal who would be annoyed by it, and a good deal who couldn't care less. I think a good general rule of thumb is to be aware of your history and your relation to the accent you are using. Always question what you are doing and don't simply do it for a laugh or otherwise. Even a seemingly lighthearted bit of fun can be symptomatic of one culture's dominance (historical or otherwise) over another. Some may scoff and think 'who cares really', but I would hazard a guess and say the majority of people with that mindset come from a historically dominant Western culture. BTW this is all opinion and there is a heap of material on the subject a Google search away. It is quite interesting. Edited October 22, 2014 by CarewsEyebrowDesigner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't actually believe that the claims that Read's song is offensive are really genuine. But I also believe that in politics, claiming that it is, is a legitimate strategy ...You seem to be saying you believe making false accusations is legitimate, which seems a bit of a contradiction. FWIW I agree the song isn't "offensive" (other than in being toe-curlingly, appallingly dreadful in all regards, including lyrically). It's ill considered and just shows that Mike Read is a collossal dangleberry with no sense of self awareness and no concept of what an utter tube he is. The whole thing, then, is thoroughly representative of the UKIPs. Monumentally idiotic. Thats my take on it too Pete. It's fantastically embarrassing, and the fact that the'song' was fully endorsed by farage who urged kippers to try to get it to number 1 is even more hilarious. Own goals galore. Embarrassment galore. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Risso Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 By 'to an extent' do you mean Britain colonised a number of those islands and shipped many thousands of slaves to work on them? You shouldn't need told that there is a considerable difference between that relationship and those the UK has with its European neighbours. Even allowing for things like that, why is it considered racist to simply to do an impression of an accent? If it's done in a derogatory 1970s "Mind Your Language" context, then I can see why, but if I was to simply say "good morning" in an Indian or Jamaican accent, would this be considered racist, and if so, why? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meregreen Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Regardless of all the comment as regards "racism" I think Read should simply apologize for releasing such a turgid pile of shit onto the airwaves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dAVe80 Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Mike Read, you have embarrased the kippers more than anyone could have wished. Thank you Sir: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-29722860 Mike Read withdraws UKIP Calypso song Former BBC Radio 1 DJ Mike Read has requested a song he wrote in support of UKIP be withdrawn from sale following complaints that it was racist. UKIP Calypso, performed with a mock Caribbean accent, sings the praises of party leader Nigel Farage. "I am so sorry that the song unintentionally caused offence. It was never meant to, and I apologise unreservedly," Read said. "I have told the record company to withdraw the single immediately." Record label Angel Air declined to comment to the BBC. The song, credited to The Independents, makes digs at Prime Minister David Cameron, Chancellor George Osborne and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker. It makes references to tax, immigration and the European Union, with lines like: "With the EU we must be on our mettle/Want to change our lawnmowers and our kettles." The song also features the lines: "The leaders committed a cardinal sin/Open the borders let them all come in/Illegal immigrants in every town/Stand up and be counted Blair and Brown." Read's song had the backing of UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who urged supporters to get it to number one Shadow Business Secretary Chuka Umunna called the song "distasteful", while Labour MP David Lammy said it showed the party were "tone deaf elitists". Conservative MP Nigel Evans added: "Why have they chosen a Jamaican calypso, which really represents a whole section of society they want to close the door to? "I suppose it is their way of saying 'We are not racist', but it shows how out of touch they are." Speaking to BBC Radio Berkshire on Monday, Read defended the song, saying he found the accusations of racism "extraordinary". He added: "It's an old-fashioned political satire... you can't sing a calypso with a Surrey accent." 'A bit of fun' He later told BBC London: "People are very, very, very quick to take offence now at something that years ago would have been deemed to be a bit of satire and a bit of fun. "But now with social media everybody can assume that you meant something appalling by it, which of course I didn't. I've got so many chums out in the Caribbean. I've spent a lot of time out there." In a Facebook message on Monday, UKIP said: "Our celebrity member Mike Read, the former Radio 1 DJ, has written a brand new single especially for UKIP and we need your help to get it to the top of the pop charts." The song was released on iTunes and Amazon and the party said 20p from every 79p download would go to UKIP. On Twitter, Mr Farage said: "Help get the UKIP Calypso by The Independents to Number 1." Calypso is from Trinidad & Tobago, not Jamaica! Racist! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 22, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2014 I don't actually believe that the claims that Read's song is offensive are really genuine. But I also believe that in politics, claiming that it is, is a legitimate strategy and no worse than any number of other flags of convenience, parties are known to exploit. Only person of any note in this whole debate I've seen say it was racist is Mike Read himself. Everyone else has just said its embarrassingly bad and hilariously ironic that UKIP and Read chose a "foreign" style of music given their stance on immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 22, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2014 Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night "defending" Mike Read. This man is UKIP's Commonwealth Spokesperson, seriously out of his depth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villaajax Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Is that Winston "Croydon is an unsafe dump, please vote for me" McKenzie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MakemineVanilla Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I don't actually believe that the claims that Read's song is offensive are really genuine. But I also believe that in politics, claiming that it is, is a legitimate strategy and no worse than any number of other flags of convenience, parties are known to exploit. Only person of any note in this whole debate I've seen say it was racist is Mike Read himself. Everyone else has just said its embarrassingly bad and hilariously ironic that UKIP and Read chose a "foreign" style of music given their stance on immigration. The BBC. Former BBC Radio 1 DJ Mike Read has requested a song he wrote in support of UKIP be withdrawn from sale following complaints that it was racist. The Guardian: Former Radio 1 DJ Mike Read has apologised for his Ukip calypso song and asked for it to be withdrawn from sale following criticism that it was racist. Was I wrong to believe this? Edited October 22, 2014 by MakemineVanilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted October 22, 2014 Author Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2014 Thats something you should be asking yourself Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 Winston McKenzie on Newsnight last night "defending" Mike Read. This man is UKIP's Commonwealth Spokesperson, seriously out of his depth. What's Clay Davis doing on Newsnight? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted October 22, 2014 Moderator Share Posted October 22, 2014 By 'to an extent' do you mean Britain colonised a number of those islands and shipped many thousands of slaves to work on them? You shouldn't need told that there is a considerable difference between that relationship and those the UK has with its European neighbours. Even allowing for things like that, why is it considered racist to simply to do an impression of an accent? If it's done in a derogatory 1970s "Mind Your Language" context, then I can see why, but if I was to simply say "good morning" in an Indian or Jamaican accent, would this be considered racist, and if so, why? I agree, it's not, or at least I don't think it should be considered immediately racist when someone impersonates an accent but context is everything and I don't think there needs to be much doubt in order to tip the balance. In this case, the record is on behalf of UKIP, so there's already a racist undercurrent - add the accent and it becomes a lot harder to defend than if it had been in innocence. I think when racists do an accent, it's generally reasonably acceptable to assume they're being racist. ( See also Davidson, J.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 One wonders why you bothered raising the point in the first place as you clearly don't need help in deducing why appropriating the accent of one could be seen as different to appropriating the accent of the other. Except that despise those differences the end result is the same and I think it's a case of double standards to treat them differently. If you find "appropriating" one accent offensive then that should apply to all cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 I hear arguments along those lines a lot & while it is understandable & apparently 'fair' to want to treat everything the same, that argument only serves to reinforce the status quo e.g. treating a case of racism against an ethnic minority the same as a case of racism against a white person may seem fair and just, it quite simply isn't. That isn't to say one is a lesser offense, rather there are important differences that need to be taken into account i.e. by treating the cases the same you are (and presuming you live in a predominantly white society) saying a symptom of larger structural racism is equal to an incident of racism against the, for lack of a better term, privileged majority. You may (and probably will) argue that there is no structural racism, but that is another debate (which fits into the UKIP thread unlike this, I guess). Similarly my argument (and I admitted that I'm no expert in the area and you should go elsewhere for an answer) that appropriating the accent or culture from the historically oppressed is different to appropriating that of a fellow Western country and old colonial power. While both may well be offensive there are differences that should be acknowledged and not brushed aside in the name of equality. Apologies to Snowy for appropriating his use of parentheses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 (edited) I'm sorry but as a general rule racism is equally bad regardless of who the victim is. How bad an incident of racism is depends entirely on the incident in question rather than on the races of those involved - to suggest otherwise is in fact racist in itself because it implies that certain races are somehow more important than others. Edited October 22, 2014 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarewsEyebrowDesigner Posted October 22, 2014 Share Posted October 22, 2014 No, if I said that if one was a lesser offense than the other, then that would imply that certain races are more important than others. I said that differences have to be acknowledged and taken into account - a vague phrase admittedly but not one that suggests the two should be tried and judged differently. All I (and plenty of others) ask is that context (historical and contemporary) is taken into account when you are, say, judging the offensiveness of cultural appropriation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts