stevejack3 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 But are you still petitioning for the golliwogs to be withdrawn from sale?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. Thanks for the reply. I am no expert in issues of race equality. The only training I have had was via Gillian Neish http://www.neishtraining.com/diversity_workshops.htm One of the key messages I took from her workshops was the importance of not "going along to get along" i.e. as individuals if we don't challenge what we experience, then nothing will ever change. Its much easier to say nothing, and believe me I wish I had right now, and if I am wrong to say what I have said, I am sorry. I saw something that I thought had been consigned to history and chose to comment on it. Whether or not I withdraw the petition, I honestly don't know. The fact that this much discussion has ensued as a result of it is probably much more important than anything such a small petition could achieve. I reacted quickly and personally after seeing something and perhaps, on reflection, should have thought more carefully about it. The subsequent letter about it was prompted by some of the comments others made and agreed to share. Now I am going to go back out and look at the northern lights again - staring up at the sky helps put things back in perspective ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
humptygrumpty Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 Bring back the Black and White minsteral show !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spinner72 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 The thing is, so much has changed in so many ways that there is almost nothing now that can't be taken as offensive by someone in some way. It is all about intention, not interpetation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 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. Scorrie is suggesting that there is anything in it that could be construed as homophobic, though, which I really don't think there is. If you're not making that link, why bring it up? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mate64 Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 GR, I am in total agreement with your brilliant posts on this thread. The one about videoing oneself on some holm could be developed further.But then your mentioned coloured people. OMG. This term is now highly offensive. The new word is “blackâ€. For example, the lovely coloured Beyonce is black.It can get confusing though since black or white people don’t actually exist. I’m a kinda unhealthy lookin pinky biege wee extra moorit spots fur twartree weeks in da simmer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 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. It may lack some of the emotive force but I don't think it is just by proxy. There is an empathy involved that doesn't get halted at the colour divide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted March 15, 2012 Report Share Posted March 15, 2012 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. It is all about context which is why I said this is the wrong target. A golliwog sold in a curio shop probably isn't going to perpetuate the stereotypes it represented very much. If anything most people would see something like this as a shameful embarrassing reminder of what a dated culture can fetishise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DizzyKipper Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 snip 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. 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.) Quite true I'm afraid, and worse! And all things in question were experienced by my extended family. For the assignment, pink sheep or rainbow sheep were deemed suitable alternatives to black sheep. Go figure Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nortower Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Stevie Jack - I would like this to be the closing comment on this forum. I'd like to point out [***Mod edit - personal attack removed***]. Every called someone from lerwick a "toony"? Its no different to calling a pakistani a p*ki Or a chinese person a ch*nky. Get over yourself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 ....... Thanks for the reply. I am no expert in issues of race equality. The only training I have had was via Gillian Neish http://www.neishtraining.com/diversity_workshops.htm One of the key messages I took from her workshops was the importance of not "going along to get along" i.e. as individuals if we don't challenge what we experience, then nothing will ever change. Its much easier to say nothing, and believe me I wish I had right now, and if I am wrong to say what I have said, I am sorry. I saw something that I thought had been consigned to history and chose to comment on it. Whether or not I withdraw the petition, I honestly don't know. The fact that this much discussion has ensued as a result of it is probably much more important than anything such a small petition could achieve. I reacted quickly and personally after seeing something and perhaps, on reflection, should have thought more carefully about it. The subsequent letter about it was prompted by some of the comments others made and agreed to share. ....... Regarding challenges, absolutely right, there are issues that need addressing in society - but just because you have the abiltiy to challenge something, it does not necessarily make every challenge valid or warranted. This particular subject is a good example of something that is overhyped and didn't warrant an online 'crusade'. As for withdrawing your petition - why would you want to do that? It's something you obviously believe quite strongly in and although I am opposed to your viewpoint I wouldn't want you to feel you are being howled down by a couple of brainless numpties on an insignificant backwater of the internet. Carry on and good luck to you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Scorrie is suggesting that there is anything in it that could be construed as homophobic, though, which I really don't think there is. If you're not making that link, why bring it up? FFS http://shirtshovel.com/products/movies/thebiglebowski/element-434.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scorrie Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 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. Yup And I was wondering how those sketches would be taken by some if Matt (why did I call him Mark?) wasn't gay? Would there be 'outrage' at a straight guy openly ridiculing some of the more vocal members of the gay community? Bearing in mind the current distaste for sketches by the likes of the Two Ronnies where they are blacked up. It's all a bit queer and it's definitely not black and white....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gibber Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Stevie Jack - I would like this to be the closing comment on this forum. I'd like to point out [***Mod edit - personal attack removed***]. Every called someone from lerwick a "toony"? Its no different to calling a pakistani a p*ki Or a chinese person a ch*nky. Get over yourself. Is it the same as calling a black person a n**ger? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hjasga Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 Scorrie is suggesting that there is anything in it that could be construed as homophobic, though, which I really don't think there is. If you're not making that link, why bring it up? FFS http://shirtshovel.com/products/movies/thebiglebowski/element-434.jpg Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. Really, though, don't accuse me of being out of my element when you appear to be having such difficulty with basic reading comprehension. The Little Britain argument came about as "yeah well why does nobody complain about this?" insinuating that it is homophobic, which it isn't. If Scorrie wasn't making that link, he might as well have asked why nobody complains the Teletubbies are homophobic/racist/sexist. I suggest instead of jumping in two footed with condescension and silly images you actually read what's being typed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unlinkedstudent Posted March 16, 2012 Report Share Posted March 16, 2012 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.) Re Yank - Me thinks from experience and from speaking to my acquaintenances on the other side of the pond that you are most wrong. If I call them "yanks" then it is treated lightly by most of them, the exception being some of my friends in the Deep South who do take offence. "Yank" originates from the American Civil War period whereby those in the South referred to those in the North as "Yanks". Example: Some here may refer to the (English) idiots/cloth heads in Westminster; those in the South may refer to "The Yanks in Congress/Whitehouse/Pentagon". Some in the Deep South do use the term to "slag off" those in the North and to some, especially those with relatives killed by those from the North ("the Yanks"), they will take offence if you call them a "Yank" because it is regarded as an insult. Therefore, the noun "Yank" does indeed have a history of being a "slur". Now whether or not those in the North of the USA deem "Yank" as being offensive, I know not (Unless, of course, in the context of the example given above). Once again, this demonstrates how, by whom and why the useage of such a noun defines whether or not it is deemed to be offensive language. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.