It's alleged that Kitty (Xfactor) called Derry( from the group 'The Risk'.. also from XFactor) an evil black *******.. I read somewhere that he made a formal complaint to the shows bosses and that the matter has now been resolved
btw.. 'The Risk' are now out of the competition!
John Terry (allegedly) made some kind of racist comment towards another player ( Football) and I also heard today that Tiger Woods Caddy ( Golf) called him a black 'something'( not superstar!!...smartasses:))) in another 'racist remark scandal'
Again..from what I read the matter has been resolved there also
Am I missing something?
Is there something in the air?
Good to hear all these matters are being 'resolved' but what does that mean exactly..
It sounds like it means the person who was insulted has forgiven whoever did the insulting
But should the onus to forgive and resolve the matter really be on the person insulted, or the person doing the insulting?
Name calling may be child's play to some extent because in life you can never really know what another person is thinking.. even if they're happily eating lunch opposite you..
You can't legislate against thought
Then there are degrees of racism
You know the " I'm not a racist but..
or...the classic " I cant be racist I've got black friends"
O-Kay
Really?... name them!..age?, their children?.. where do they live?, birthdays? fav food, colour, style, family, where did they grow up?, school?, ever been to your home?, ever been to theirs?, what they do for a living?, who are their parents?, they married?, ...
Even if the answers came thick and fast.. and there was evidence of a 'genuine friendship'( not just 'some bloke I see in chippy' , or 'someone I see in the canteen at work') .. it wouldn't always be conclusive
If I hear any more derogatory remarks ima call it an airborne virus..
but unlike the flu 'Lemsip' wont ease that pain, but like the flu, left untreated it could **** you up
Think I'll get though the week?
No chance:)..
As it goes Dawna keep your enemies closer cause in dire straights you need to know what hand they are about to deal you. It's all a farce people thinking they have the right to degrade others with racist ABSUIVE comments only to dent a pride or two.
ReplyDeleteJohn Terry someone needs to bring that man down a peg or two or three. He should have apologised period if he was in the wrong, but hey this is sports were talking about. Rigged with backhanders and downright dirty play and for what a couple of millions a week. Good luck to them!!!
I like your remark "airborne virus"...indeed seems insults have officially gone VIRAL replicating at a speed faster than you can say Achooooooooo.
bless you!! Indeed!
ReplyDeleteOk, here goes - remember this a diazepam inspired reply and in a court of law I'd probably get away with 'diminished responsibility'
ReplyDeleteHow do we define ourselves? It's such a simple question and yet so damned hard to come to terms with. As individuals it seems to me that a large part of our self definition is our skin colour. I suspect of course that even before that (maybe) we define ourselves by gender. I am male means I am not female - if I'm not female then I'm somehow different from them. Then of course I'm white, you are black, he is brown - that of course implies that there are 'differences' between us and they run deeper than skin colour otherwise we'd never even be using colour to self define - it would have or contain 'no meaning'.
Let me put this another way - Who am I? If asked to define myself, and even if asked to do so in some order of importance what would my answers be? I'd have to say...
I'm male
I'm Scottish
I'm Glaswegian
I'm working class
I'm middle aged
I'm British
I'm European
I'm White
All of those are facts - but by defining ourselves at all - NONE of those definitions are universally inclusive - they exclude.
Being a man really means I'm NOT a woman.
By being Scottish what I'm saying is I'm NOT English.
Being Glaswegian is another way of saying "Hell I'm NOT from Edinburgh"
And so on and so forth - would it be wrong therefore to suggest that there's an element of pride, or comfort, or SOMETHING in us which says "I want to be known as this" but saying "I want to be known as this" really means "I don't want to be known as that" and there's where the problems arise - people take sides and that excludes it does not include.
I want to find a way round this - I want to find other definitions because I don't want to exclude anyone - but all I get left with is 'I'm a human being' and unless we're about to usher in a Universal Government, Universal Currency, A Universal religion, Universal this and Universal that - I see no way of ridding ourselves of these self defining labels...
It needs greater thinkers than I to find ways of creating self definitions which are inclusive - reinforcing what we define ourselves as currently - is what causes racism, nationalism, homophobia, misogyny and whole heap more of ism's and schisms. People conceal them - until high blood pressure and confrontation exposes the truth and they are revealed - they however I believe are not the problem, the problem is all of those things which feed the existing definitions people use when identifying "Who am I?".
Hell, did I just argue against holding the Olympics and the World cup?
I think maybe I did.
I'll go take another pill - sleep - and change my mind tomorrow...
I hear you Rory
ReplyDeleteand I understand where you’re coming from
It’s true, as soon as we classify ourselves as one thing we are immediately proclaim we are not another
And I think that’s fine...
However, that school of thought should not be used to justify racism or systemic racial bias/privilege.
Yet quite often.. It does..
If I say, Ii am a woman; my default is not to dislike men, deny them rights or discriminate against them
If I say I’m from London, my default is not to assume superiority over anyone who isn’t a Londoner
We are different, and we construct our differences through our language and discourse
But structural racism is something quite different than an observation of differences
I’m not sure it’s the definitions that do exclude
People do
Missed you Rory!!
Prefixing an insult with a persons colour, creed, whatever, exposes the perpetrators deep-rooted ‘isms.’ There are no excuses.
ReplyDeleteI see what you mean and understand you Dawna - In a sense I guess what I was trying to say is that all (or most) of the definitions I used of self are 'illusions' or 'constructed' and as you point out it's the institutions which inform and create those illusions - I think.
ReplyDeleteThere'a no such thing as a Scotsman - In the same way there's no such thing as an Englishman - Geordies don't want to be classed in the same group that contains soft London born Englishfolk (as they perceive them) - The people of Manchester don't want to be Geordies - so where are these 'English people'? Where is this land called England?
The exact same applies to Scotland - Highlanders have little in common with Glaswegians or Southerners - and just like the English they don't even have the same dialect - so what or where is this 'Scotland'?
It seems to me they exist only on a map - in the same way that 'Britain' does - there really is no such thing as Britain - other then the institutions which purport to represent those lines on the map. And so those institutions have to appeal to unifying factors to forge (in both senses of the word) an identity.
It used to be 'White, Anglo Saxon, Monarchy etc' but that no longer fits - that doesn't unite anymore as it doesn't even come close to defining Britain.
But whilst we the people are aware of it - the institutions are not - they still appeal to things which are overtly racist, sexist, class ridden, privileged and expect us to see the 'logic' of it all.
Sadly there are those who run with these ideas as individuals - and we get racism, nationalism etc as a consequence.
The institutions have to change - and they appear hopeless at doing so.
Sorry I'm going to waffle an example here - in order to be an upstanding example of an 'Equal Opportunities' employer in Scotland. One Fire service for whom there was always more then 300 applicants for every job - decided to randomise the application and interview process. A computer would randomly select those who would be interviewed. But if ethnic minority applications made up less than one hundredth of the applications then randomising their chances of selection for interview made their chances of interview EVEN SMALLER.
This was being touted as a 'fine example' of an equal opportunities employer - when it fact it was overtly racist. All of that stuff has to be weeded out and exposed for what it is. Discriminatory.
Missed you too Dawna :)
I agree Grogan!
ReplyDeleteRory - True and ys( Fire Stn) that was an interesting attempt at Equal opps!!:)