Gollywogs - is this guy for real?.

[Gibber]

Is there some kind of Shrodinger's cat effect in place where the person witnessing an object that negatively stereotypes a group of people can only be offended when revealed to be of that same group? Until that point regrdless of opinion, they are in a state of + and - at the same time?

 

Would white people voting against the reintroduction of slavery be ignored because they aren't black?

 

Can you argue against Martin Luthur King's views by saying 'he would say that, he's black himself'?

 

If stevejack3's point is only based on the possibility of a black person being offended then he has got it wrong, the point is these symbols of racism can be offensive to all groups of people. You may have a point GR in that it may be more acute or more personal to those of the group being stereotyped but it isn't exclusive to that group, and I think that is because these 'groups' based on arbitrary and obvious criteria are gradually and rightly becoming redundant as significant barriers between people.

[stevejack3]

The answer is both as it happens but I was expressing my opinion on behalf of me :0)

[as]

Is there some kind of Shrodinger's cat effect in place where the person witnessing an object that negatively stereotypes a group of people can only be offended when revealed to be of that same group? Until that point regrdless of opinion, they are in a state of + and - at the same time?

 

Would white people voting against the reintroduction of slavery be ignored because they aren't black?Can you argue against Martin Luthur King's views by saying 'he would say that, he's black himself'?

 

If stevejack3's point is only based on the possibility of a black person being offended then he has got it wrong, the point is these symbols of racism can be offensive to all groups of people. You may have a point GR in that it may be more acute or more personal to those of the group being stereotyped but it isn't exclusive to that group, and I think that is because these 'groups' based on arbitrary and obvious criteria are gradually and rightly becoming redundant as significant barriers between people.

 

english is not my first language, so Thank You Gibber for putting this beautifully into words! It really hits the nail on the head.

[Ghostrider]

Is there some kind of Shrodinger's cat effect in place where the person witnessing an object that negatively stereotypes a group of people can only be offended when revealed to be of that same group? Until that point regrdless of opinion, they are in a state of + and - at the same time?

 

Would white people voting against the reintroduction of slavery be ignored because they aren't black?

 

Can you argue against Martin Luthur King's views by saying 'he would say that, he's black himself'?

 

If stevejack3's point is only based on the possibility of a black person being offended then he has got it wrong, the point is these symbols of racism can be offensive to all groups of people. You may have a point GR in that it may be more acute or more personal to those of the group being stereotyped but it isn't exclusive to that group, and I think that is because these 'groups' based on arbitrary and obvious criteria are gradually and rightly becoming redundant as significant barriers between people.

I'm not saying everyone's opinion isn't valid onany given subject. Rather that the views of those who experience personal offence from the initial object, event or whatever, carry a far greater validity and clout. They are talking from a point of view of personal hurt.

 

The views of those who do not suffer direct personal harm from whatever object, event etc in question, are only offended by proxy. Their offence arises from their belief that another has received personal harm, and it offends them that that has happened. While their views of the suject also carry validity, it is IMHO on a much reduced scale. They have no direct experience of the actual effects of the original incident, only of what they preceive to be the damage experienced by another. Bluntly they're in the second line of the attack, their only understanding and experience is second hand, and of how they precieve the original attack affected others.

 

A bit like the difference between going in to mourning for your favourite celebrity when they died, and going in to mourning for a close family member when they did.

[unlinkedstudent]

 

@stevejack3

 

Well, I note the link to the letter no longer works so I can't help but wonder if you requested it be withdrawn?

I did request that as the person I quoted anonymously asked me to.

 

But are you still petitioning for the golliwogs to be withdrawn from sale? Whilst I thank you for your reply, I can't help but note with interest that you appear to have glossed over what I was taught concerning cultural racism and how it is now regarded as extremely offensive to speak on behalf of those you believe have been affected. Granted, you do say that the person you quoted anon. asked you to withdraw the letter.

 

I have suffered, allegedly, racism. I'm a white (Well, more olive actually but that could be dirt) woman. Without fail, 90% of the corner shops I frequented in East London would serve the males first, even if I was next in the queue. I used the local mini-cab firm. Percentages even higher on this one as to "Are you married?", followed by "You have children?", then "How many boys you have?" - DESPITE the fact I had used the firm with the SAME drivers for over 10 years.

 

Does it make me a racist for daring to complain that I wasn't served next but last? Apparently yes, because the PC Brigade deem that we should embrace the cultural differences even if they are sexist as some academic called Anderson (I think) carped on about how ethnic minorities should be treated differently and that the indigenous people of a country are not entitled to and have ethnicity unless they too lived outwith their homeland. This I find rather patronising and biased. Would I want others to complain on my behalf? No, because I've got a big enough gob and capable of opening it.

 

Oh, and for the record, caucasians were and still are the minority where I lived in London.

 

Can people just not accept that we are all human beings? The more you legislate, the less freedom we have.

[Scorrie]

Is there some kind of Shrodinger's cat effect in place where the person witnessing an object that negatively stereotypes a group of people can only be offended when revealed to be of that same group? Until that point regrdless of opinion, they are in a state of + and - at the same time?

 

Would white people voting against the reintroduction of slavery be ignored because they aren't black?

 

Can you argue against Martin Luthur King's views by saying 'he would say that, he's black himself'?

 

If stevejack3's point is only based on the possibility of a black person being offended then he has got it wrong, the point is these symbols of racism can be offensive to all groups of people. You may have a point GR in that it may be more acute or more personal to those of the group being stereotyped but it isn't exclusive to that group, and I think that is because these 'groups' based on arbitrary and obvious criteria are gradually and rightly becoming redundant as significant barriers between people.

Well put, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny IMO.

 

There's a world of difference between taking an active interest in a genuine issue that results in the misery of many and attempting to legislate against what is, at best, a toy representing a largely redundant mindset and, at worst, a historical symbol of perceived cultural inferiority - neither of which appear to be worth working up much of a sweat about.

 

As I said many posts earlier, it's about context more than anything.

 

Anyway, I have rather a cynical view of online forum campaigns full stop. Too easy for fowk to click a button and pat themselves on the back for being 'right on' without actually thinking it through for themselves. Much easier to click a pre-chosen option, dont'cha think?

[hjasga]

 

I'm not a fan of Little Britain at all and can scarcely remember, but isn't it the "backwards" villagers who are the butt of that joke?

Er... no. The villagers are very accepting of homosexuality, but Matt Lucas' character insists that he's the victim of homophobia.

 

Alright. Don't see how that could be perceived as homophobic?

 

I don't plan on watching as I don't find it all funny, but just trying to understand the point being made.

[hjasga]

I agree it is interesting. I do think the intent is the most important part. You have to be careful or you lose perfectly good words so as not to be seen to be offensive.

 

I know there are schools where you are no longer allowed to order a black coffee. I know of a case where a girl was doing a childcare assignment and was threatened with a fail if she included comments about baa baa black sheep.

 

Were those examples of racist intent? Not at all. Casual racism? The school board thought they were, and banned the use, which is ridiculous.

These seem like those crazy urban legends people mention that have no basis in truth - can you name the school's in question or provide any evidence? I don't mean to insult but I just really struggle to believe these things genuinely happen.

 

(I'm aware there was an attempt to introduce a baa baa rainbow sheep song, but that had nothing to do with racism and was just a naive attempt to introduce kids to a wider vocabulary.)

[hjasga]

It’s bloody hard work being a UK born, non-Muslim, Caucasian, heterosexual these days.

Is it? Is it really?

[JohanofNess]

Alright. Don't see how that could be perceived as homophobic?

 

I don't plan on watching as I don't find it all funny, but just trying to understand the point being made.

The joke is that he would come in to the pub dressed in some outrageous outfit trying to draw attention to his homosexuality while nobody batted an eyelid then would accuse them all of being homophobic because they weren't making a fuss about it.

 

 

 

It’s bloody hard work being a UK born, non-Muslim, Caucasian, heterosexual these days.

Is it? Is it really?

 

Yeah it is [/sarcasm] see post from exciseman for further examples.

[hjasga]

Is it any different from alling a shelty a shelty? or a American a Yank?

Yes, it is. Those words were introduced within the communities themselves and don't have history as slurs. Whilst "Yank" might have taken on a new meaning it's generally still quite innocent and Sheltie is just a total non-issue.

 

(Apologies if multiple consecutive posts are frowned upon here, can't figure out how to quote more than one at a time.)

[hjasga]

 

Alright. Don't see how that could be perceived as homophobic?

 

I don't plan on watching as I don't find it all funny, but just trying to understand the point being made.

The joke is that he would come in to the pub dressed in some outrageous outfit trying to draw attention to his homosexuality while nobody batted an eyelid then would accuse them all of being homophobic because they weren't making a fuss about it.

 

I've gathered that much, but what in that is homophobic?

[JohanofNess]

^Seriously you don't see the use of irony in the sketch?. It's not meant to be homophobic it's highlighting how far the little welsh village has come that the only gay in the village is totally accepted much to his disgust as he wants it to be scandalous that he is the only gay in the village.

[hjasga]

^Seriously you don't see the use of irony in the sketch?. It's not meant to be homophobic it's highlighting how far the little welsh village has come that the only gay in the village is totally accepted much to his disgust as he wants it to be scandalous that he is the only gay in the village.

I'm a little lost now.

 

Somebody earlier said the sketch could be seen as homophobic, and I asked how.

[JohanofNess]

I'm a little lost now.

 

Somebody earlier said the sketch could be seen as homophobic, and I asked how.

Seems to me they said it couldn't be seen as homophobic.

 

As an aside, is Mark Lucas viewed as being homophobic because of his 'Only gay in the village' sketches? Nope.

Apologies to Scorrie if I picked them up wrong but I think they used the example of Matt Lucas's character to show that a gay character behaving outrageously could be construed as homophobic but not when he is the one behaving in the prejudiced manner by showing anger at his inability to shock his fellow villagers.