John Terry and the 'unacceptability of racism'

[Napster]

This is totally irrelevant to the thread, but I'm so pleased you've been able to prove your point. I was only saying, anecdotally, you're quite correct, what I understood to be the case, and which, incidentally, seems to have been the case in every one of the three different educational establishment I've worked in.

The link to the US article seemed to back my theory up, and to my mind, makes quite a good deal of sense.

Theories are no good without evidence.

 

[OldBlueLady]

Theories are no good without evidence.

Like I said, the US article seemed to back mine up. Now you've proved your point, can we now revert to the topic of the thread? All of this quite pedantic destruction of an innocuous comment about the sale of pink and blue playpens seems as far away from the subject of racism as it's possible to get!

 

[Blue_Wes]

On the white **** / black **** argument. I always had the impression that racial abuse was discriminating against someone because of the their race. I didn't realise there had to be an underlying historical atrocity (slavery) for a slur on race to be relevant. Calling someone a white **** is as bad as calling someone a black ****. It just so happens that there is a far greater history of one of the races being discussed suffering racism. White people not having a history of being enslaved by blacks doesn't mean that being called a white **** by a black person is not racist.

Also, just a thought - is saying something to hurt someone in the heat of an argument still racism, or is it a case of using what you know will hurt them the most to cause the greater pain. For example, racism when I was growing up was picking on someone because of their race (i.e. ****-bashing), however, in this case Terry didn't look to have a go at Anton because he was black, it's just something he used once he got in an argument to cause the greatest upset.

 

[Thorpe Groyney]

Racism is racism and thus unacceptable, that is my fundamental belief. However, this begs the question: Is it really acceptable to purposely insult/offend/anger someone, then look to prosecute for being insulted/offended/angered in return, albeit with an escalation in the response.

In this instance, Anton Ferdinand did not prosecute, it was the Met Police that instigated this action. All Anton wanted to do was not shake his hand at a later game.

Rule of thumb is that if you insult someone it's best not to commit a criminal offence in doing so.

Interesting to see plenty of people here taking a left wing view of this, albeit unintentionally.

 

[steveo]

If i shouted out .. "do one blackie" at a football match (ie not swearing) i'd possibly be arrested and charged for racism, and banned from football

if a black fella shouted "do one whitey" would he be treated the same ??

No definitely not. And because us Whitey's dont bother with complaining, this sort of thing can happen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18588612

 

[Napster]

Interesting to see plenty of people here taking a left wing view of this, albeit unintentionally.

I don't think left or right wing really comes into it.

 

[Napster]

No definitely not. And because us Whitey's dont bother with complaining, this sort of thing can happen:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18588612

Who cares? Isn't it good to know that if they want a gay flatmate, then the chances are, they're probably gay too?

 

[Napster]

On the white **** / black **** argument. I always had the impression that racial abuse was discriminating against someone because of the their race. I didn't realise there had to be an underlying historical atrocity (slavery) for a slur on race to be relevant. Calling someone a white **** is as bad as calling someone a black ****. It just so happens that there is a far greater history of one of the races being discussed suffering racism. White people not having a history of being enslaved by blacks doesn't mean that being called a white **** by a black person is not racist.

Also, just a thought - is saying something to hurt someone in the heat of an argument still racism, or is it a case of using what you know will hurt them the most to cause the greater pain. For example, racism when I was growing up was picking on someone because of their race (i.e. ****-bashing), however, in this case Terry didn't look to have a go at Anton because he was black, it's just something he used once he got in an argument to cause the greatest upset.

1) The history bit is important, it has a much greater effect. For a black person to call me a white ******* isn't really an insult - but for me to call someone a black *******, I'm using the word black as an intensifier - and it has been used thus for a long, long time, hence the history.
2) Yes. The two are linked - if you know it will cause the most pain, then you know it is racist.

I don't think Terry is a racist, I think he used racist language.

 

[Napster]

Like I said, the US article seemed to back mine up. Now you've proved your point, can we now revert to the topic of the thread? All of this quite pedantic destruction of an innocuous comment about the sale of pink and blue playpens seems as far away from the subject of racism as it's possible to get!

It;s not really pedantry to use facts to dismantle an anecdotal argument you claimed was fact because you worked in a whole 3 schools.

Never mind. You're right. Back to the argument.

 

[Blue_Wes]

1) The history bit is important, it has a much greater effect. For a black person to call me a white ******* isn't really an insult - but for me to call someone a black *******, I'm using the word black as an intensifier - and it has been used thus for a long, long time, hence the history..

So what is it then? Colour has obviously been brought into it? The fact you don't find it an insult is not really relevant (if I didn't know you, one could suggest a racial superiority complex here - racist :winking:), but the intention is relevant. The fact that colour was brought into the insult, to me, means it's still a racial slur - the fact that it doesn't have historical impications in discriminating against white people shouldn't make it a less serious or less insulting form of racism. History is important, and the undertones of that even now unfortunately are still present, but it shouldn't be used to form levels of racism.

2) Yes. The two are linked - if you know it will cause the most pain, then you know it is racist. .

I don't think Terry is a racist, I think he used racist language.

This is the point I was getting at, albeit it probably won't be a popular one.

 

[Davros]

It probably was an oversight and it shouldn't matter but it's fairly obvious that to some people it would. The general public has a need to vent its outraged dignity somewhere.

But seriously, the pricing of black and white fake babies is slightly more emotive that black and white iphones!?

:stunned:

One more angle on this subject then...

If the white baby dolls were outselling the black baby dolls 2 to 1, and Tesco had a mass stock of black baby dolls left...

1) would it then be racist to reduce the price, or would it make perfect business sense
2) is it Tesco's fault, or is it the customers fault for not buying enough of the black dolls to stop them having to be reduced?

 

[Napster]

One more angle on this subject then...

If the white baby dolls were outselling the black baby dolls 2 to 1, and Tesco had a mass stock of black baby dolls left...

1) would it then be racist to reduce the price, or would it make perfect business sense
2) is it Tesco's fault, or is it the customers fault for not buying enough of the black dolls to stop them having to be reduced?

Hypothetically, Tesco would have forecast this, so should have bought less.

 

[South Bank Hank]

One more angle on this subject then...

If the white baby dolls were outselling the black baby dolls 2 to 1, and Tesco had a mass stock of black baby dolls left...

1) would it then be racist to reduce the price, or would it make perfect business sense
2) is it Tesco's fault, or is it the customers fault for not buying enough of the black dolls to stop them having to be reduced?

Just another couple of those obvious questions where you know the answer anyway. Ultimately, it comes down to being sensible. Tesco should be aware, as I'm sure they are, that if they're going to launch ranges of babies in different colours, it's going to need a little more care and attention than launching two different flavours of baked beans. It's the world we live in and launching the two at different prices was, for whatever reason, accidental or otherwise, pretty careless.

As for the thread:

I don't think Terry is a racist, I think he used racist language.

That's kind of where I was going.

 

[hockleyeast1964]

I take it when jt's found not guilty the cps pick up the tab?

 

[Napster]

So what is it then? Colour has obviously been brought into it? The fact you don't find it an insult is not really relevant (if I didn't know you, one could suggest a racial superiority complex here - racist :winking:), but the intention is relevant. The fact that colour was brought into the insult, to me, means it's still a racial slur - the fact that it doesn't have historical impications in discriminating against white people shouldn't make it a less serious or less insulting form of racism. History is important, and the undertones of that even now unfortunately are still present, but it shouldn't be used to form levels of racism.

OK, it's a fair point. And logically it makes a priori sense. But the word "black" has, for whatever reason, a negative connotation when used in the context of an insult, and used to a black person. History, culture, whatever, all meld into the semantics - "white *******" is/was never really an insult, because "white" was never really a signifier, in its linguistic usage.

"Black" is used to differentiate people from other people purely by the colour of the skin. Stereotypical attributes were then added and used negatively against different races. "White" was never used as a signifier or negative connotation, because white people are and always have been the ruling class. So "white" is not an insult.

We are all the same race. As we tell our kids, we are all pink on the inside.

 

[Davros]

Hypothetically, Tesco would have forecast this, so should have bought less.

and no doubt then some whistleblower would have called them up as racist for only ordering half as many black baby dolls as white baby dolls

 

[steveo]

Who cares? Isn't it good to know that if they want a gay flatmate, then the chances are, they're probably gay too?

Not me. However, if a whitey advertised for a White English flatmate would that be acceptable?

 

[Napster]

Not me. However, if a whitey advertised for a White English flatmate would that be acceptable?

Maybe not, but you can still just turn people down if you don't like the look of them.

 

[Napster]

and no doubt then some whistleblower would have called them up as racist for only ordering half as many black baby dolls as white baby dolls

Then they would be idiots, because that isn't racist, just commonsense. They would be laughed at.

 

[Davros]

i'm pretty sure there would be someone in this ever increasing nanny state that would listen to them!