Racism and political correctness

[random_turnip]

Before i even start this, i want it to be clear that i am not racist.
I think me having to say that is a good place to start. As many people are aware being called racist for something that wasn't intended in that way whatsoever has become common place in our society, a way of ethnic minorities to try and get an upper hand against us, even police officers are told they are racist for enforcing the law against certain people (it would actually be racist of me to say that all asians... are like this, most aren't but there are undeniably some).
Saying a not perfectly politically correct phrase should not be terms for someone to get into trouble, most people don't know the politically correct terms for most people's ethnicity, i know i don't.

Political correctness in general has gone too far. Yes some terms are wrong and some terms are bad, but changing traditional nursery rhymes like Bah Bah Black Sheep because it uses the word black as an adjective is simply pathetic, no one should actually consider a nursery rhyme to be offensive.

What are your thoughts on these 2 issues?
I feel something about them should be included under the freedom of speech policy.

[JohnB]

Before i even start this, i want it to be clear that i am not racist.

That kind of start usually makes your listener wonder where you're going with this, and whether the statement you're making there is actually true (or even, possibly, on the edge of being a self-falsifying statement, if it's true then do you need to say it? If you need to say it, is it actually false, or at least dubious?)

being called racist for something that wasn't intended in that way whatsoever has become common place in our society, a way of ethnic minorities to try and get an upper hand against us

Ok, so I've just snipped one section, however... Read this again, and if you want your starting statement to be believed, you need to be much more careful how you use words and language. The first part, and possibly your meaning, perhaps aren't what follows at the end of that, where you just separated the world into "ethnic minorities" and "us", which is very definitely not the world I live in.

For the record, I'm a white British African, a funny mixture perhaps however I've seen all kinds of racism, in many different countries, in Africa where I was born, in Europe and the UK, and in America.

[SimbaLogical]

Before i even start this, i want it to be clear that i am not racist.
I think me having to say that is a good place to start. As many people are aware being called racist for something that wasn't intended in that way whatsoever has become common place in our society, a way of ethnic minorities to try and get an upper hand against us, even police officers are told they are racist for enforcing the law against certain people (it would actually be racist of me to say that all asians... are like this, most aren't but there are undeniably some).
Saying a not perfectly politically correct phrase should not be terms for someone to get into trouble, most people don't know the politically correct terms for most people's ethnicity, i know i don't.

Political correctness in general has gone too far. Yes some terms are wrong and some terms are bad, but changing traditional nursery rhymes like Bah Bah Black Sheep because it uses the word black as an adjective is simply pathetic, no one should actually consider a nursery rhyme to be offensive.

What are your thoughts on these 2 issues?
I feel something about them should be included under the freedom of speech policy.

wow......!

[random_turnip]

whether the statement you're making there is actually true

I'm not racist -_-

Ok, my wording perhaps could have been better, but i thought i got the point across that i was trying to.
I'm no english language expert, i'm an engineer, the trade renown for not being able to spell.

[philward]

Racism is a tricky one. While most of us claim to not be racist, we are ALL a bit racist deep down.
Humanity, as a species, are tribal and territorial. Some of us have the intelligence to rise above that natural trait, but others don't. Football hooligans are probably one of the most egregious examples of those that don't.
Even of we consciously try to rise above this base instinct, it is still there and can tarnish our attitudes towards those who are different from us.

I would define racism as any form of discrimination based on ethnicity. If you treat someone differently because of their race then you are guilty of racism. With this in mind I believe that there are certain things that the politically correct brigade would consider racist that in fact are not.

If you want to point someone out and they are the only asian person on the room then it is not racist to say "the asian guy over there" (unless said with a definite snarl).
Referring to black sheep and blackboards is not racist.
I would also add that I don't believe that it is racist to put on a comedy accent. It's not racist if I put on a comedy brummie or liverpudlian, so why should it be racist if I put on a comedy jamaican? There are white people in Jamaica who have the local accent. Just because the accent is mostly spoken by black people does not make it racist if I mimic the accent. (I'm thinking here of a Mitchell and Webb sketch involving a battle re-enactment society. They decided that a particular battle re-enactment was racist because it would mean mimicking rwandan accents.)

Basically it's all about attitude. Be prepared to apologise if you cause offense, but also be prepared to explain why you believe that taking offense is unnecessary.

As for political correctness, be ready to completely blow away anyone who is offended by proxy. While at University my wife was told that we must use the term "thought shower" because "brain storm" might be offensive to epiletics. My wife is epileptic, and she politely explained to the PC goon that she was not offended by "brain storm" but was utterly offended by the PC partonising and by being told that she should be offended by an every day term.

[Sharkz]

Political Correctness in the UK is ridiculous.

I disagree that maliously insulting someone based on race is wrong, but think that friends should be able to jokingly be "racist" to one another. One of my best friends is from Kashmir (sp?) and we are always jokingly making jibs at each other and our countries. My girlfriend is a mix of Malaysian, Chinese and Kashmirian and we also make racist jokes in a light hearted manner. We are never malious about it and I don't think many people would care about it but under Political Correctness we would be branded as racist.

Also crackas isn't racist cause it's insulting white people rite?

[plooterman]

Political correctness can in some circumstances look ridiculous - most often when the people making rule don't really understand what gives offence and what doesn't. Like the 'brain storm' issue quote above. But at the same time I think it is good that as a society we are trying to make an effort not to unnecessarily offend each

[forsterb01]

IMHO, whilst yes the political correctness in this country is wrong and has graduated to extreme levels, the racism laws just need to be further quantified, and applied by the police service to ALL ethnic groups, not just everyoen except for White British.

[horizon86]

Also crackas isn't racist cause it's insulting white people rite?

Lol honkey is also a term for white folk as used in the blues brothers film. Genious. The thing people fail to realise is racism is just a reaction to something that's different. When viewed from someone else's point of view you can see exactly where their coming from. i.e. Prince Charles comment to that black comedian a while ago(i don't know his name). Prince Charles has had a much different upbringing to a lot of us and in his mind he was just expressing his opinion without malicious intent.

I agree that the law needs to be applied equally to all parties with regards to racism but i also feel that 'Political Correctness' is a media creation to generate stories. However as a political party whenever we represent the party we need to be very careful about how we phrase things as we can see from the first post in this thread that someone can give completely the wrong image if they are not aware of how others may interpret their words.

[jez9999]

I would define racism as any form of discrimination based on ethnicity. If you treat someone differently because of their race then you are guilty of racism.

I've seen this one before, and I think this is a very unhelpful definition of racism. Different races are bound to get treated a bit differently, even by those politically correct people (Indian restaurants being able to be biased towards Indians as waiters?) The real definition of racism should be treating somebody *negatively* because of their race, on a one-to-one basis.

Basically it's all about attitude. Be prepared to apologise if you cause offense, but also be prepared to explain why you believe that taking offense is unnecessary.

Apologizing because one has caused offence is a rather obvious facet of basic courtesy, but only within reason - up to a point. I don't think this just extends ad infinitum, and the lack of being able to define that 'point' has caused a lot of tension and problems in our society, IMHO. We should be actively trying to seek out where an acceptable place is to draw the line at 'taking offence'. For example, a black woman in the Question Time audience was saying about how she 'winced' at the term Afro-Caribbean, preferring instead the term African-Caribbean. That's the kind of stage at which I'd refuse to apologize to someone, and tell them to get over themselves.

[epriezka]

For example, a black woman in the Question Time audience was saying about how she 'winced' at the term Afro-Caribbean, preferring instead the term African-Caribbean. That's the kind of stage at which I'd refuse to apologize to someone, and tell them to get over themselves.

That woman in the QT audience made me wince when she said that. She's got Nick Griffin in the panel ahead of her, and she makes it a priority to educate the nation about something as trivial as that? Nit-picking about labels used by predominantly middle-class people during a TV show filmed in a rich country demeans the importance of the real and global issues about race and fair treatment in this world. According to the WHO, 90% of the people who die from malaria each year are African children under 5 years old. They're dying because they are poor and don't have mosquito nets, not because somebody didn't use the preferred nomenclature during a Western liberal panel show.

[philward]

I've seen this one before, and I think this is a very unhelpful definition of racism. Different races are bound to get treated a bit differently, even by those politically correct people (Indian restaurants being able to be biased towards Indians as waiters?) The real definition of racism should be treating somebody *negatively* because of their race, on a one-to-one basis.

I disagree completely with this. While Indian or Chinese restaurants tend to have Indian or Chinese staff this does not mean that it is acceptable to prefer one ethnicity over another. If such an establishment is seen to turn down staff based on their ethnicity then they are guilty of racial prejudice and should be treated like any other establishment acting in this way.

Treating someone differently because of their race is just as ugly whether it is negatively or positively. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Part of Martin Luther King's dream was that people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. This must work either way.

It's not necessarily on a one-to-one basis either. The National Front marchers in the 70s were certainly racist, but their public declaration of their views was not one-to-one.

[jez9999]

I've seen this one before, and I think this is a very unhelpful definition of racism. Different races are bound to get treated a bit differently, even by those politically correct people (Indian restaurants being able to be biased towards Indians as waiters?) The real definition of racism should be treating somebody *negatively* because of their race, on a one-to-one basis.

I disagree completely with this. While Indian or Chinese restaurants tend to have Indian or Chinese staff this does not mean that it is acceptable to prefer one ethnicity over another. If such an establishment is seen to turn down staff based on their ethnicity then they are guilty of racial prejudice and should be treated like any other establishment acting in this way.

You are aware that the current UK law permits this kind of discrimination, right? http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?ActiveTextDocId=2059995 - see section 5. I don't really disagree with (a) - (c), but (d) is very questionable. Perhaps some other examples could be added there quite reasonably, too... I'd say it should be legitimate to require a certain percentage of a football team to be nationals of that club's country, for example.

Treating someone differently because of their race is just as ugly whether it is negatively or positively. Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Part of Martin Luther King's dream was that people would be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character. This must work either way.

Welllll yes, but what I was really talking about was neutral discrimination. You're more likely to assume someone is a Muslim if they're of Arabian or south Asian ethnicity; I don't see this as unacceptable. You're probably attracted, sexually, more to members of one ethnic race over another (I guess some people are exceptions, but the large majority aren't); you wouldn't get too far trying to legislate that this was illegal discrimination.

It's not necessarily on a one-to-one basis either. The National Front marchers in the 70s were certainly racist, but their public declaration of their views was not one-to-one.

They had views that included racism on a large scale, but that would certainly have been a subset of their racist views, which would have included treating those of other race(s) negatively on a one-to-one basis. One-to-one would've been part of their beliefs.

[bobappleyard]

"Racism" arguably comes in two broad forms. The first ("weak racism") is the idea that humanity is separated into distinct groups, based on certain phenomenological characteristics (e.g. skin colour, bone structure). The second ("strong racism") is the idea that these distinct groups organise into a hierarchy of some kind. This can extend to people explicitly saying "white people are at the top, black people are at the bottom, mongoloids are somewhere in between," and so on, however it also covers things like black people being good at running, south-east Asians being good at maths and so on. What clouds these categories, and, I would argue, exposes their arbitrary nature, is that, as we are members of the same species, we are able to breed. "Miscegenation" is the term that has been used to describe this, and while it is possible to trace ancestry through the female line (through mitochondrial DNA) and the paternal line (through the Y chromosome), it is impossible to say, without drawing up entirely arbitrary rules, what "race" a person may be a member of.

I would go on to argue that all this fussing over race is a by-product of the late 19th Century/early 20th Century project of racialising identities. For instance, the term "anti-Semitic" is often used to describe someone who ascribes negative qualities to Jews, when "Semite" ostensibly describes a set of peoples that cluster around the eastern Mediterranean. By this token, Arabs should qualify, yet when the senior cleric of Mecca's grand mosque describes Jews as "monkeys" or the like, this is described as anti-Semitism (thus making him ... a self-hating Arab? hardly). In reality, Judaism is a complicated identity, describing a faith, a tradition, a set of practices and a cultural identity, and cannot be boxed into the category of race.

"Political correctness" is a much easier notion to define. It can be described as a regimen denoting what ideas it is possible to vocalise in polite society. Clearly, the set of politically-correct ideas changes over time. Nowadays, the notion that, say, black people are intrinsically inferior to white people is not politically-correct. So to is the idea that, say, our armed forces are thuggish mercenaries. To take two examples, neither particularly pleasant. It is largely a mechanism for policing expression through social pressure. Very often, however, only one aspect of "political correctness" is highlighted (e.g. the OP), which often gives the impression that those complaining about it would rather their distasteful opinions went unchallenged. To frame it as having to use euphemisms for often rather nasty notions misses the point. Indeed, one runs the risk of creating a "tower of euphemisms," for instance, the progression from Shell Shock, to War Fatigue, to Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

Note that both of these terms were coined by ostensible opponents of the ideas they were intended to express. I believe Trotsky coined the term "racism," while "political correctness" is a child of the right. Looked upon with clear sight, it can be seen that both were guilty of the notions they wished to deride.

What this has to do with freedom of speech is distinctly non-obvious to me. By opening my mouth and saying something, I am exercising my freedom of speech. There are attempts to punish certain forms of speech after the fact, some successful, and some rightly so. Nowadays it has often gone beyond what I would consider the correct application of the law in this regard, in that such restrictions are often framed in terms of avoiding offence. There is no justification for a right not to be offended; that argument seems bizarre to me. There are also justifications along the lines that it may harm someone's reputation. Often, the people claiming this have such foul reputations to begin with, one wonders why anyone would worry. Of course, spreading lies about someone is not a pleasant thing to do. However, as has been shown, time and again, resorting to the law in order to correct this tends to have the opposite effect from what was intended. Beyond conspiracy, incitement to violence and so on, I do not see any justification for the law to restrict speech. That said, I do not consider social pressure to be a particularly bad method for controlling speech, if only because social mores are so often ahead of the law in this regard (not all, though).

[jez9999]

Bob,

Much of what you said makes sense, but:

What clouds these categories, and, I would argue, exposes their arbitrary nature, is that, as we are members of the same species, we are able to breed.

This doesn't make sense. Many different species are able to breed, an obvious example being horses and donkeys. I'm sure there are species out there that can interbreed and not produce sterile offspring. This hardly means you classify the breeding animals as the same species or having the same innate physical/mental capabilities.

[M2Ys4U]

Bob,

Much of what you said makes sense, but:

What clouds these categories, and, I would argue, exposes their arbitrary nature, is that, as we are members of the same species, we are able to breed.

This doesn't make sense. Many different species are able to breed, an obvious example being horses and donkeys. I'm sure there are species out there that can interbreed and not produce sterile offspring. This hardly means you classify the breeding animals as the same species or having the same innate physical/mental capabilities.

The ability to produce fertile offspring is the exact definition of species.

[peterh]

Before i even start this, i want it to be clear that i am not racist.

Yes you are, because:

I think me having to say that is a good place to start. As many people are aware being called racist for something that wasn't intended in that way whatsoever has become common place in our society, a way of ethnic minorities to try and get an upper hand against us, even police officers are told they are racist for enforcing the law against certain people (it would actually be racist of me to say that all asians... are like this, most aren't but there are undeniably some).

You talk about 'ethnic minorities' trying to gain the upper hand as though they are some kind of unified conspiracy against white people. You are talking about millions of individuals all with different viewpoints and agendas, but to you they are all just a big threatening mass aren't they?

The idea that 'political correctness [has] gone mad' belongs only in the gutter press, by jowly old right-wing hacks who are pissed off they can't go around calling people niggers and pakis anymore. Given the howls of injustice emitted by the festering pools of anti-intellectualism every time someone tries to avoid causing offense by choosing the terminology (rather than using the terminology these alleged champions of free speech demand they use...) there is no way that there could possibly be some PC agenda rampaging through society.

Nothing I've said is particularly contentious in terms of facts; as far as I am concerned if you disagree with any of this you are as racist as the OP