|
Swan_Knight
|
 |
« Reply #15 on: 22:08:40, 12-09-2008 » |
|
a white person who refers to a black person as a 'nigger' is instantly labelled a 'racist' What else could he/she possibly be? This is a serious question. This may seem VERY strange to you, but there are people in the UK and the US who use this term freely, without intending it as a racial slur; indeed, many such have friends of African origin, who don't view the term as insulting. You might argue that they should know better, but their education (such as it was) didn't 'enlighten' them in this area; and they would be astonished to be labelled 'racist'. To my mind, a racist is a person who discriminates against someone else on racial grounds and hold his own race to be superior to another. Referring to people of different races by shorthand terms such as 'nigger', pakkie' or, indeed 'honky' is not enough, I'd say, to label someone a racist. Go to Bradford, Barnsley or Doncaster (not areas frequented by comrade Barrett, I'd imagine) and you'll be advised to visit the 'pakkie shop' on the corner if you run out of domestic supplies on a Sunday evening when all the supermarkets are shut. Again, no slur is intended - if the person who refers to the corner shop as a 'pakkie shop' is such a racist, then why is he directing business to his racial enemy? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
...so flatterten lachend die Locken....
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #16 on: 22:14:31, 12-09-2008 » |
|
The former KKK leader and Holocaust denier David Duke, who came close to becoming governor of Louisiana, once set up a National Association for the Advancement of White People in response to the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People. The implications of this were pretty clear, and a White Police Chief would be similar.
Inasmuch as that is an answer, this is a question........... ? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
perfect wagnerite
|
|
« Reply #17 on: 22:16:56, 12-09-2008 » |
|
What I object to is the way people use their 'right-on' ness to close down debate - for example, a white person who refers to a black person as a 'nigger' is instantly labelled a 'racist': end of story. No attempt is made to understand why the term was used and no attempt is made to explore the intention behind the use of the term. And no one has yet explained to me why calling a person of African origin a 'nigger' is any worse than calling someone from Manchester a 'Manc'.
....
In this way, the know-nothing left attempts to police everyday thought.
Sorry, I can't accept this. The use of the term political correctness, it seems to me, is about power. It is a form of abuse used by those who exercise power to assert their superiority over the historically less privileged who aspire to share that power. Because, for example, the relationship between white and black people has often been one of colonist and colonised, or even master and slave, that relationship is reflected in terminology. Originally, the idea of what is called "political correctness" was a way of getting past that loaded terminology; the normal use of the term now, to close off debate, seems to me to be a way of ensuring that we do not expunge that terminology, and maintain the relationship implicit in the language. Of course there is plenty of scope to debate the extent to which terminology reinforces inequality, but it seems to me that the attempt to avoid loaded expressions is simply a way of treating those whose cultural and social experiences are different from those of the speaker with respect. I agree that some of the manifestations have been ridiculous. a white person who refers to a black person as a 'nigger' is instantly labelled a 'racist' What else could he/she possibly be? This is a serious question. It certainly is! Let me pose another serious one... When the Head of the Black Police Association is interviewed we all feel grateful that a representative of an important body within society is recognised and saluted. BUT...why is there no corresponding Head of a "White Police Association"? Would this be considered "racist"? If so (bearing in mind the previous paragraph), why? Because the vast majority of police officers are white, and the police service has been condemned by Macpherson - no crusading radical - as "institutionally racist". For what would a White Police Association actually campaign? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 22:19:03, 12-09-2008 by perfect wagnerite »
|
Logged
|
At every one of these [classical] concerts in England you will find rows of weary people who are there, not because they really like classical music, but because they think they ought to like it. (Shaw, Don Juan in Hell)
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #18 on: 22:27:41, 12-09-2008 » |
|
...For what would a White Police Association actually campaign?
That was not an answer to the question I asked PW. Let me repeat it: Would a corresponding White Police Officer Association be considered "racist", as opposed to a Black Police Officer Association which is not? Yes or No? Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #19 on: 22:59:51, 12-09-2008 » |
|
BUT...why is there no corresponding Head of a "White Police Association"? Would this be considered "racist"? If so (bearing in mind the previous paragraph), why?
Because the vast majority of police officers are white, and the police service has been condemned by Macpherson - no crusading radical - as "institutionally racist". For what would a White Police Association actually campaign? Sounds to me like PW forgot to add a 'yes' before he started answering the 'why'. And I certainly agree with him that this notion of a W.P.A. is no better than the NAAWP of David Duke. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #20 on: 23:07:51, 12-09-2008 » |
|
BUT...why is there no corresponding Head of a "White Police Association"? Would this be considered "racist"? If so (bearing in mind the previous paragraph), why?
Because the vast majority of police officers are white, and the police service has been condemned by Macpherson - no crusading radical - as "institutionally racist". For what would a White Police Association actually campaign? Sounds to me like PW forgot to add a 'yes' before he started answering the 'why'. And I certainly agree with him that this notion of a W.P.A. is no better than the NAAWP of David Duke. I doubt that is the case TF because it would be politically incorrect over here to discriminate against members of society on the grounds of colour. Since Black Police Officers (quite rightly in my view) have their voice, the question arises "should white ones" also. I (logically) should say "yes", but - under current "political correctness" must say "no". Now that strikes me as duplicitous, illogical and ridiculous. But the important question (for me) is this: is my inbuilt wish for racial equality here making me appear to be "racist"? It is a serious issue, and I am not surprised that PW did not reply so quickly. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
martle
|
|
« Reply #21 on: 23:17:42, 12-09-2008 » |
|
It is a serious issue, and I am not surprised that PW did not reply so quickly.
Baz, if you've been reading other threads and looking at your watch and the homepage, you'd understand that PW is most likely tucked up in bed, where he belongs after the sort of couple of days he's had. Perhaps you should follow suit, because you don't seem to get the point of recent posts: there is no need for a WPA, since they are in a (vast) majority. But there is for a BPA, since they are in a minority and have been identified by objective enquiries as being institutionally disadvantaged through prejudice and thus need formal representation in legal and contractual matters. Yeah? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Green. Always green.
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #22 on: 23:20:59, 12-09-2008 » |
|
It is a serious issue, and I am not surprised that PW did not reply so quickly.
Baz, if you've been reading other threads and looking at your watch and the homepage, you'd understand that PW is most likely tucked up in bed, where he belongs after the sort of couple of days he's had. Perhaps you should follow suit, because you don't seem to get the point of recent posts: there is no need for a WPA, since they are in a (vast) majority. But there is for a BPA, since they are in a minority and have been identified by objective enquiries as being institutionally disadvantaged through prejudice and thus need formal representation in legal and contractual matters. Yeah? Ta martle - see you in the morning. Baz  Oh - sorry but just before turning off for the night: I understand from this that the creation of a WPA would therefore be "racist" while the BPA still would not be. Correct? ta-ta... Baz |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 23:34:15, 12-09-2008 by Baz »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
time_is_now
|
|
« Reply #23 on: 23:48:27, 12-09-2008 » |
|
I doubt that is the case TF because it would be politically incorrect over here to discriminate against members of society on the grounds of colour. Since Black Police Officers (quite rightly in my view) have their voice, the question arises "should white ones" also. I (logically) should say "yes", but - under current "political correctness" must say "no". Now that strikes me as duplicitous, illogical and ridiculous. But the important question (for me) is this: is my inbuilt wish for racial equality here making me appear to be "racist"?
It is a serious issue It is a serious issue, and you've touched upon a difficult point: is it not ironic to attempt to abolish racism (i.e. the judgment of people based on their race or skin colour) by means of an organisation which identifies people by their race/skin colour? However, I think the appropriate question is not 'Why don't we have a White Police Association?' but 'Why do we accept a Black Police Association?' For myself, I'm happy with the answer that we need the latter only because and until the historical inequalities have been addressed, but I do think that one question those involved in 'identity politics' always need to ask themselves is: To what extent do we accept 'tribal' self-identification by minority groups as an end in itself, and to what extent is it a means to an opposite end (viz., the dissolution of those same identity barriers)? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
The city is a process which always veers away from the form envisaged and desired, ... whose revenge upon its architects and planners undoes every dream of mastery. It is [also] one of the sites where Dasein is assigned the impossible task of putting right what can never be put right. - Rob Lapsley
|
|
|
|
Turfan Fragment
|
|
« Reply #24 on: 03:32:50, 13-09-2008 » |
|
This isn't about identity. It is a pro-active effort to ensure equal treatment. A black person does not deny his or her identity.
The B.P.A. would surely not continue to exist just for sh*ts and giggles if the policemen of African descent felt that their situation had become an equitable one.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #25 on: 09:59:47, 13-09-2008 » |
|
I think Baz is running Mischievously Obtuse 5.3. Baz, you need to upgrade, everyone can see right through it.
The police force need to have something like the BPA because the police force is pervaded by racism against black people. If it were pervaded by racism against white people there would need to be a WPA in order to address their concerns. However, it is not. Therefore such a thing is not required.
SwanKnight, it is difficult to imagine what planet you might be living on. I may not live in Yorkshire but I have spent plenty of time there, thank you very much, and I do live in a highly multiracial part of London. If I went down now to Walthamstow Market and started freely using the word "nigger" I would not retain an upright position for very long and would not deserve to. It is perniciously disingenuous to deny the word's disparaging connotations in any situation in which you or I might use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #26 on: 10:03:01, 13-09-2008 » |
|
I doubt that is the case TF because it would be politically incorrect over here to discriminate against members of society on the grounds of colour. Since Black Police Officers (quite rightly in my view) have their voice, the question arises "should white ones" also. I (logically) should say "yes", but - under current "political correctness" must say "no". Now that strikes me as duplicitous, illogical and ridiculous. But the important question (for me) is this: is my inbuilt wish for racial equality here making me appear to be "racist"?
It is a serious issue It is a serious issue, and you've touched upon a difficult point: is it not ironic to attempt to abolish racism (i.e. the judgment of people based on their race or skin colour) by means of an organisation which identifies people by their race/skin colour? However, I think the appropriate question is not 'Why don't we have a White Police Association?' but 'Why do we accept a Black Police Association?' For myself, I'm happy with the answer that we need the latter only because and until the historical inequalities have been addressed, but I do think that one question those involved in 'identity politics' always need to ask themselves is: To what extent do we accept 'tribal' self-identification by minority groups as an end in itself, and to what extent is it a means to an opposite end (viz., the dissolution of those same identity barriers)? This was, of course, my only point t-i-n. The creation of the BPA was in my view a good thing in itself, and its presence - formally recognised - can only support and encourage a particular minority who are clearly still seriously disadvantaged through institutional bias and racism. But it is also a serious blot on our society because it shows how political correctness deems it appropriate to give special privilege and status to one group on the grounds of ethnicity, and it does so in order to satisfy the other politically-correct aspiration of asserting equality through ethnicity. But these are contradictory! It is, therefore, Society at large that needs to be addressed, and not just certain vulnerable parts of it. My worry is that in creating perfectly good organisations like the BPA Society will then merely sweep under the carpet the real causes of unfairness, as if they have already been addressed. "Political correctness" is only a term that (to me) means "manners and codes of behaviour arrived at through political insistence rather than through innate moral conviction". It is difficult to see how, by singling out particular groups, society can achieve the ultimate aim of reaching a perfect moral/intellectual harmony in which groups are then not singled out. So all that organisations like the BPA are doing is, surely, saying a) we have a very unfair society, and b) our presence is only a temporary stop-gap while society rebuilds its sense of moral values in a way more appropriate to today's situation. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Baz
Guest
|
|
« Reply #27 on: 10:16:25, 13-09-2008 » |
|
I think Baz is running Mischievously Obtuse 5.3. Baz, you need to upgrade, everyone can see right through it.
The police force need to have something like the BPA because the police force is pervaded by racism against black people. If it were pervaded by racism against white people there would need to be a WPA in order to address their concerns. However, it is not. Therefore such a thing is not required.
So here is another example of PC - one in which, having queried the existence of double standards (please see my last posting), I am now supposed to feel guilty and remorseful. Well I do feel guilty, but not about exposing the double standards; rather I feel guilty in being part of a Society that is so unfair as to require them. Baz |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Ian Pace
|
|
« Reply #28 on: 10:42:31, 13-09-2008 » |
|
"Political correctness" is only a term that (to me) means "manners and codes of behaviour arrived at through political insistence rather than through innate moral conviction". Where is the line drawn between the 'political' and the 'moral'? Does it form part of an irregular verb: I have moral conviction, he/she is politically insistent? Does 'political' mean 'anyone's politics except my own'? |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
'These acts of keeping politics out of music, however, do not prevent musicology from being a political act . . .they assure that every apolitical act assumes a greater political immediacy' - Philip Bohlman, 'Musicology as a Political Act'
|
|
|
|
richard barrett
|
|
« Reply #29 on: 10:44:24, 13-09-2008 » |
|
It is, therefore, Society at large that needs to be addressed, and not just certain vulnerable parts of it. My worry is that in creating perfectly good organisations like the BPA Society will then merely sweep under the carpet the real causes of unfairness, as if they have already been addressed.
Spoken like a true revolutionary Marxist. But I don't think people can be blamed for wanting to address issues of racism which affect them directly, personally, here and now, rather than waiting for the larger issues to be addressed. For black people in white society this is not an abstract ethical debate. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
