Re: Carol Thatch | Forum — The Modern Antiquarian

Carol Thatch

more_vert

suave harv Feb 10, 2009 12:30:42

Replying to Merrick

Merrick wrote:

The thing is, it's that casual, socially embedded racism that lets the active racism flourish. It makes the hateful racist feel they're drawing on a widespread discontent. It also serves to make anyone not white feel like they have a major struggle to be taken as an equal. Hell, if people can denigrate your entire ethnicity and not even 'mean anything' by it, what hope for real respect?

Which is saying "no-one should say anything bad about anybody if it isn't true". And of course, you're damn right.

I knew a bloke at work who used to call white girls that went out with black men 'wog meat'. He was an out and out bigot and I firmly believe if he saw a black person in trouble he might not help out in the same way as if it were a white person. Of all the people I've known in my life, he is the one I'd call a true 'racist'.

He says 'Wog Meat' and it makes my skin crawl. My Mum says 'Wog's house' and I think 'aww blesss!'. The difference is 'intent', and that's been discussed here loads anyway.

I know other people that go down the paky shop, eat from the chinkie and say jewish meaning 'mean', who would help anyone out in distress, regardless of colour. And that, to me, is the true test. Not how un-offensive their words are, or how 'PC' they are.

I used to work on re-mods where I was the only white person there other than the carpenter. The contract was for an Indian builder, lasted a few years. We (the carpenter & I) used to rib them, we were always shouting "there's too many Indians here and not enough cowboys". The Indians ribbed the Jamacians, no-one gave a shit. From what I've seen all the up-tightness about 'words' comes from 'white lefties' anyway, (which, of course, I'm one).

And as for this thread, I can scroll through every message and see common sense in every post. OF COURSE we shouldn't generalise or use terms that are offensive. However, I think it's quite healthy too to have people say "hang on" every now and again when they see the pendulum swing a bit too far and we are reacting merely for reaction's sake.

Shit, I spent a few hours in the Anne Frank house in Amsterdam last year, that's quite an eye opener for bringing home the real horrors of racism. They've got one of those cloth stars there in a glass case that they used to make Jewish people wear so people would know who they were. Fucking chilling it is.

When I got back in the UK a mate phoned me and said "I was going to buy such and such but I couldn't afford it, call me jewish but I just couldn't".

Should I have berated him about his racist coment? No fucking way. I knew for a fact he's got nothing against any race and he's just saying something people have said to him all his life.

Yea, it's wrong, and I wouldn't say it. He's 62, I'm 42, and I'd hope most people 22 wouldn't even know it used to be used in that way.

We're doing okay. There's not one on this thread that isn't aware and right-on. So let's not worry the small stuff, some people just say stupid things. I can't see myself how stupid comments can lead to the type of stuff I saw in that museum in Amsterdam (which, let's face it, is the end result of extreme racism), but as far as OUR intent, we're all singing from the same hymn sheet at least (except I'm agnistic, but that's another thread. And I'm sure it will be).

Squid Tempest Feb 10, 2009 12:39:10

Replying to suave harv

suave harv wrote:

My Mum says 'Wog's house' and I think 'aww blesss!'.

You're more tolerant than me then. When my grandad used to say things like that it made me cringe. I would complain to my dad and he'd have a word with him.

suave harv wrote:

When I got back in the UK a mate phoned me and said "I was going to buy such and such but I couldn't afford it, call me jewish but I just couldn't".

Should I have berated him about his racist coment? No fucking way. I knew for a fact he's got nothing against any race and he's just saying something people have said to him all his life.

Well I think you should have said something. From my point of view that kind of comment is offensive, and if someone offends me, I want them to know. Same old story, if no-one does anything about it this kind of sub-racism flourishes and grows.

suave harv Feb 10, 2009 12:42:08

Replying to suave harv

[quote="suave harv"]except I'm agnistic,[quote]

Which is like being an dyslexic agnostic I suppose.

Merrick Feb 10, 2009 16:09:36

Replying to suave harv

suave harv wrote:

Which is saying "no-one should say anything bad about anybody if it isn't true".

No, it's not saying that.

It's saying nobody should be criticised for something they didn't choose to do. Nobody should be attacked with a generalisation about whole groups of people that isn't true.

suave harv wrote:

The difference is 'intent', and that's been discussed here loads anyway.

Yes it has, and yes, I agree that there are broadly two different kinds of use of discriminatory language.

But, as I said, the non-intent makes for a more fertile ground for the other kind.

Also, it normalises the language of discrimination, it reinforces the idea that we can just generalise about whole groups like that. It takes us further away from a society of equality.

It's notable that these things are deviations from white, english, able-bodied, maleness.

suave harv wrote:

We (the carpenter & I) used to rib them, we were always shouting "there's too many Indians here and not enough cowboys". The Indians ribbed the Jamacians, no-one gave a shit.

But what happens between friends who know each other talking about one another is very different to what gets said about people who aren't there and/or people we don't know.

suave harv wrote:

From what I've seen all the up-tightness about 'words' comes from 'white lefties' anyway

That may be what you've seen, but it is not the whole story by a long way. I have seen, innumberable times, non-whites attacking racist behaviour, as well as women and disabled people attacking behaviour that discriminates against them.

Yes, white people speak out against racism. And so they should. It's an issue for anyone interested in advancing a fair and just society. As people in the discriminated-against groups have, by definition, been disempowered, those in the dominator groups have more confidence and get listened to more.

suave harv wrote:

Should I have berated him about his racist coment?

Yes, I think you should. As a friend you have his ear and he's not going to take it as a personal attack. As someone who's not a hate-filled bigot, I'm thinking it likely that he'd just not thought it through. I had the same thing with my brother using 'gay' to mean pathetic (he'd picked it up off his school-age kids).

I'd regard it as being like a driver who parks up on the pavement. They don't hate people with pushchairs or in wheelchairs, but they've just not thought it through. A word from someone and they don't do it any more, and they pass the idea on. The parking of pavements becomes less normalised and people in wheelchairs are not discriminated against like that as much.

suave harv wrote:

He's 62, I'm 42, and I'd hope most people 22 wouldn't even know it used to be used in that way.

But they do. As well as being able to come up with new ones based on a paradigm that accepts such bigoted language. Again, I think of the modern usage of 'gay' to mean pathetic.

Because the beliefs based on supremacy are so pervasive, we are all carrying around attitudes and language we've picked up that perpetuate them, even if it's not what we feel in our hearts.

It's only by having such things challenged that we leave them behind. It doesn't take much thought and it makes for a more progressive environment for everyone.