Apparently Barack "isn't black"

[nomadthethird]

What I mean is that on the one hand someone like BO has succeeded by refusing to accept that these supposed limitations and obstacles apply to himself.

On the other hand I mean to say that when 'well-meaning' (it's there in the quote - this does not refer to Berlusconi matt!) people get overly touchy about an issue they can inadvertently perpetuate it and to an extent immobilise themselves and progress. 'Ooh, this is a politically sensitive situation, I'd better watch out I don't oppress someone or say the wrong thing, aargh, what do I do!'.

OK, this is the shaky center of your entire point, and it makes no sense: how does pretending that racial sensitivities and tensions don't exist somehow erase the years of history that created them and the social situations that still exist as a result of them?

 

[jambo]

Also, Jambo, you didn't exactly "coin the phrase" PC moral high ground, but...

Damn, I've been corrupted. I would actually tend to agree with you but there are several senses in which that idiom is used and I thought it might be fun to try another one.

By the way, it looks like I wasn't even using 'PC' in a judgemental pejorative sense at all initially, until someone took exception to it. It was purely descriptive - the issue was political correctness. The judgement came from elsewhere.

 

[jambo]

OK, this is the shaky center of your entire point, and it makes no sense: how does pretending that racial sensitivities and tensions don't exist somehow erase the years of history that created them and the social situations that still exist as a result of them?

The shaky part of your argument is that that isn't what I just said.

And that wasn't my entire point, it was a thought I offered later on in the thread when it had devolved in to bickering and I thought I would say something er, constructive.

 

[IdleRich]

"A couple of weeks ago I was out at this bar and got chatting to the toilet attendant, a Nigerian guy in late middle age whose 'day job' was playing saxophone - in fact he used to play sax in Fela Kuti's band. Must have been between gigs, I guess. He's still touring and showed me his performer's card from an opera he'd played in at the Scala (not the night club near King's Cross, the actual Scala in Milan), and had lived for a while in Italy, or at least toured extensively there, but decided he wanted his kids to grow up in Britain because he found so many Italians are just openly racist towards black people."

Great stoy - reminds me a little of this

 

[jambo]

But you included a little kid crying "that's racism", the claim that the whole thing was "school playground", and that I'm a hypocrite for complaining about racism while using words like cunt.

I was referring to the attitude of the Times article and other commentators initially, not you.

The question was just that, a question, not an accusation. It was a little hyperbolic and rhetorical but come on. All you had to say was 'no'.

Is it possible to sack the italian people for repeatedly voting this cunt back in?

Is it more 'racist' than calling for a whole nation to be sacked because of one monster? Less PC than using the word 'cunt'?

Could it be you played your own part in setting the tone?

 

[matt b]

ok last post on the matter

What I mean is that on the one hand someone like BO has succeeded by refusing to accept that these supposed limitations and obstacles apply to himself.

see, this i where i disagree- mr b has refused to accept the power of potentially racist comments? is choosing not to use racist language as it might offend others a 'limitation'? i don't think so.
as i've mentioned more than once, this position is used by the likes of jim davidson as a defence for racist language.

it is not for those who have not suffered racism to decide when such terminology is no longer racist

people get overly touchy about an issue they can inadvertently perpetuate it and to an extent immobilise themselves and progress. 'Ooh, this is a politically sensitive situation, I'd better watch out I don't oppress someone or say the wrong thing, aargh, what do I do!'.

frankly, if people get confused because they can no longer call someone 'a paki', but have to scrabble round attempting to find a non-offensive term, then good.

the widespread use of the term 'gay' as a 'lighthearted' form of abuse (see: chris moyles, many 16-19 year olds) hasn't ended homophobia, afaik.

but, lets just agree to disagree, huh?

 

[jambo]

where do I mention people like Silvio Berlusconi, or 'racist terms' there?

...

 

[jambo]

And since then you've just been crying like a baby cos everyone's so howwid to you and it's only your first day.

Really, is that how you describe someone making an effort to make themselves correctly understood against a tide of prejudice and hostility?

 

[nomadthethird]

persecution complex massive

Can't we all just agree that it takes a whole message board to accelerate the rude tenor of discussion?

Also, what Matt B said.

 

[jambo]

see, this i where i disagree- mr b has refused to accept the power of potentially racist comments? is choosing not to use racist language as it might offend others a 'limitation'? i don't think so.

Huh? Who is Mr. B? We'd better be clear now.

I'm talking about racist attitudes, endemic racism, structural inequalities. All these things exist, Barack Obama has succeeded not by denying the existence of these things but by refusing to let himself believe that these need be obstacles.

Simple so far?

as i've mentioned more than once, this position is used by the likes of jim davidson as a defence for racist language.

This is offensive to me.

 

[jambo]

Racist, sexist, homophobic language is abhorrent and ugly to me. I dislike it intensely and do not tolerate it.

 

[vimothy]

Mr B = Berlusconi

Matt thinks you are trying to justify Berlusconi's possibly or probably racist language. You know, you could interpret what he says as something along the lines of, "he's not black, he's good looking and tanned".

 

[jambo]

frankly, if people get confused because they can no longer call someone 'a paki', but have to scrabble round attempting to find a non-offensive term, then good.

the widespread use of the term 'gay' as a 'lighthearted' form of abuse (see: chris moyles, many 16-19 year olds) hasn't ended homophobia, afaik.

On the other hand I mean to say that when 'well-meaning' (it's there in the quote - this does not refer to Berlusconi matt!) people get overly touchy about an issue they can inadvertently perpetuate it and to an extent immobilise themselves and progress. 'Ooh, this is a politically sensitive situation, I'd better watch out I don't oppress someone or say the wrong thing, aargh, what do I do!'.

Maybe this is a slightly more esoteric point, it's a musing really.

I mean that by so ardently and righteously (not in the good way) denying and resisting 'politically incorrect' attitudes, prejudices or whatever in ourselves, we can actually end up giving those reactions and relationships more reality, re-enforcing and crystallising them. By constantly being defensively on edge about possible transgressions (in ourselves) we risk giving them further purchase. It's like a Chinese finger trap. In addition to this the other thing that happens is that we inadvertently cast the potentially trespassed against other (the black person, the woman) in an unequal power relationship to ourselves - the implication is that we have the power to do them harm with our attitudes.

 

[waffle]

Really, is that how you describe someone making an effort to make themselves correctly understood against a tide of prejudice and hostility?

I wouldn't worry about much of the abuse you're receiving on this thread: much of it originates from posters who, not so long ago, were defending the 'findings' of the Bell Curve racists [see the Bell Curve thread for the 'evidence']; but now that Obama is Preznez, they've suddenly 'discovered' the reasonableness of PC-ness.

 

[nomadthethird]

Maybe this is a slightly more esoteric point, it's a musing really.

I mean that by so ardently and righteously (not in the good way) denying and resisting 'politically incorrect' attitudes, prejudices or whatever in ourselves, we can actually end up giving those reactions and relationships more reality, re-enforcing and crystallising them. By constantly being defensively on edge about possible transgressions (in ourselves) we risk giving them further purchase. It's like a Chinese finger trap. In addition to this the other thing that happens is that we inadvertently cast the potentially trespassed against other (the black person, the woman) in an unequal power relationship to ourselves - the implication is that we have the power to do them harm with our attitudes.

This makes sense, I think this is important...but I don't know if not reacting to possibly offensive terminology is a way of leveling the playing field for the disempowered.

 

[nomadthethird]

I wouldn't worry about much of the abuse you're receiving on this thread: much of it originates from posters who, not so long ago, were defending the 'findings' of the Bell Curve racists [see the Bell Curve thread for the 'evidence']; but now that Obama is Preznez, they've suddenly 'discovered' the reasonableness of PC-ness.

But what does PC even mean?

 

[jambo]

Mr B = Berlusconi

Matt thinks you are trying to justify Berlusconi's possibly or probably racist language. You know, you could interpret what he says as something along the lines of, "he's not black, he's good looking and tanned".

Matt might think that, or have read it that way. He'd have to say so himself. I think we understand each other better now.

It would be silly to have any interest in attempting to 'justify' what someone else says, let alone Silvio Berlusconi, whether the statement is potentially racist or not.

I was just saying that it might not necessarily be intended in an offensive manner given Italian context. It sounds bad to 'us'. This is not a justification, it's an observation.

...

I've noticed that I have offered several ideas here to which I have not immediately attached value judgements, they are observations. Subsequently, projected judgements have been attached to them by others and interpreted as if I had put them there.

Is the rule here that we must always declare our personal evaluation on a VERY BAD THING > VERY GOOD THING scale for everything we mention?

[Last paragraph to be read as a rhetorical, humorous, whimsical, slightly cynical statement. The proposal satirically suggested is considered by the author to be a MODERATELY UNNECESSARY THING]

Actually, maybe it's not such a bad idea.

 

[jambo]

But what does PC even mean?

Yes, I'm not too sure how it is being approached here.

I realise there have been historical drives to impose PC language, but it's not clear who considers this a good thing or a bad thing.

The sense in which I was using it initially was not negative but merely to denote language that is generally considered 'politically correct'.

Some have talked here about it being 'loaded' and that we should be 'careful', and as if there is a formal definition or a movement attached to the term.

I don't disapprove of the idea that we should be aware of the implications of the language we use. It has a real effect, language is important. I would call that being politically and socially aware of language, perhaps 'politically correct' means something else to people.

 

[waffle]

Mr B = Berlusconi

In all the on-going elliptical confusion, I could have sworn it was, first Mr Barack, then Mr Bush, then Mr Matt B, then Mr Baldrick, and finally, Mr Bean.

Maybe this is a slightly more esoteric point, it's a musing really.

I mean that by so ardently and righteously (not in the good way) denying and resisting 'politically incorrect' attitudes, prejudices or whatever in ourselves, we can actually end up giving those reactions and relationships more reality, re-enforcing and crystallising them. By constantly being defensively on edge about possible transgressions (in ourselves) we risk giving them further purchase. It's like a Chinese finger trap. In addition to this the other thing that happens is that we inadvertently cast the potentially trespassed against other (the black person, the woman) in an unequal power relationship to ourselves - the implication is that we have the power to do them harm with our attitudes.

Yes, it reduces anti-racism to a simple matter of verbal ethiquette. It is not racist practices, it is not the support of racist policies, it is racist 'language' that is - exclusively - racist. It's okay to criminalize immigrants/asylum seekers/ etc just so long as you avoid articulating any racist slurs. If (as in that Channel 4 TV Big Brother episode some time back) you're a poorly educated English working class lass hurling abuse at the smug pomposity of an upper-caste, multi-millionaire, self-appointed Indian Princess, you're a racist, but if you're an upper-caste, multi-millionaire, self-appointed Indian Princess who totally supports, defends, and benefits from a racist caste system but never uses 'difficult' language, you're not a racist, but an angel ...

[I also remember that case of the loving, liberal British couple, just engaged, who agree to visit their 'homeland', India, to celebrate the news of their engagement by meeting with their relatives back home. As the train arrived in the town of the bride-to-be to meet her relatives ... he never even got out of the train. Straight back to England, summarily abandoning his 'loved one' forever: he suddenly realized, from all the cultural-social cues provided by the behaviour of the relatives, that his bride-to-be was of 'a lower caste'. But you see, he's an upstanding PC liberal 'outside' of India].

 

[Mr. Tea]

3) http://differentwaters.blogspot.com/2008/11/ocora-africa-part-1.html

Nice one, cheers!