One thing I keep coming back to reading this thread is that racism in (mostly) white families isn't just a quaint or uncomfortable memory of an uncle or cousin saying something ignorant or hostile. It expresses itself in myriad forms, avoidances and prejudices. A key recognition is that because structural racism is embedded in systems, pedagogies and institutions the family is bound to be affected by something so pervasive, which is why even the aunt who would never say anything nasty about a person of another race may be quite comfortable that her book club never reads any books by black authors or her instinctive choice to vote for Brexit. And since racism is so deeply woven into the social fabric, it remains largely invisible to those for whom whiteness is normative. Which is why many black writers describe talk about being simultaneously hypervisible (as a threat or an exotic object of fantasy) and invisible in the West.
I keep thinking of a cartoon I saw this week, two figures with placards. The black figure holds up a sign that reads "I Can't Breathe;" the white figure holds a sign that reads "I Can't See."
It's the way some of the hoops we jump through to try an eliminate racism are meaningless - like the statutory reporting of racist comments or bullying in education.
It's a few years ago but one of the students at school with special educational needs was being abused for having learning difficulties by a fellow student. When they riposted with an inaccurate racial epithet they were automatically suspended for racism, but the student who was abusing them was not. I got involved with intervening with that one, and the sanction was downgraded to internal exclusion, partly as a vulnerable student not in school was not a great idea. It took work to get the abusive student also sanctioned for bullying.
Fwiw, I am finding it easier to connect with opinions here that acknowledge some degree of uncertainty and humility.
I'm sure you mean well with this, but it is inherently unfair to ask the person being beaten to engage the person swinging the stick with any sort of politeness. I acknowledge that people would rather be politely told they are doing wrong, but it is in no way equitable.
Every so often a really clear and well made Facebook meme comes along that directly refers to an issue that I agree with but that family members are dismissive of. While I find it difficult to call anyone out on their views, I have made a point of sharing specific memes that I know they will find outrageous given their racist and/or pro-guns viewpoint. It seems to let them know that I am super supportive of things that they are on the opposite side of. If I did not have some of my family members as friends on Facebook, I would never know that another side was even possible. Many of the things they support are absolutely abhorrent to me.
As to the second comment.... I was kinda hoping that On Here Anyway, tempers could be laid to one side and altogether we could find a place to wonder aloud what a way out of this mess might look like.
Look
Your comment on not talking more your elderly relative( or however you put it) That surprised me! Brought a bit of attention from others too as I recall.
But that helped me.
It's the way some of the hoops we jump through to try an eliminate racism are meaningless - like the statutory reporting of racist comments or bullying in education.
It's a few years ago but one of the students at school with special educational needs was being abused for having learning difficulties by a fellow student. When they riposted with an inaccurate racial epithet they were automatically suspended for racism, but the student who was abusing them was not. I got involved with intervening with that one, and the sanction was downgraded to internal exclusion, partly as a vulnerable student not in school was not a great idea. It took work to get the abusive student also sanctioned for bullying.
IMo, that is a sign of poor implementation, not a meaningless system. Statutory reporting seeks to eliminate excuses and hiding/ignoring, removing it allows for easier abuse. IMO and IME, evaluation in a transparent manner should always be part of the process, but is a bit fraught in itself.
One of my favourite advice columnists, Captain Awkward, got her name from her informal motto: "Return awkwardness to sender." Your relative is bringing in the awkwardness with racism and everyone else has to deal with the burden. No! Return the awkwardness to them, and let them deal with their own burden.
The first thing I'd ask you to consider is risk. Are you dependent on this relative for housing or income? Would the potential fallout include harming your safety or housing? If so, I would say that you should wait until you are safe and independently housed and financed before risking this. There's a difference between cowardice and prudence and I advocate the latter.
Scripts for what to say to Awkward Racist Relative are probably pond-dependent on the spectrum of rudeness-politeness. "Wow, that's a really racist thing to say" would be among possible scripts. It can be said mildly, politely, firmly - but something like that can and should be said.
At that point, having returned the awkwardness to its sender, they have to deal with it. They may lapse into embarrassed silence, at which point you may brightly change the subject. They may begin to sputter and double-down on the racism, at which point you may need another script at hand. "I don't think that way, and that is not the way we see the world in this household." That gives awkward relative some choices. Do they fade out into muttering? Do they leave in umbrage? That is up to them.
Awkward Relative may conscript other family members into getting you to apologize. Peacefully stand your ground. This may necessitate a third script: "Oh, that's between me and Awkward Relative. Anyway, did you hear about the change in subject matter? I hear the sportsball team is playing the local weather..." etc.
How do I know these things are possible? I told an edgy joke when I was a teenager, and a friend in the group looked at me and said quietly "Wow, that was really racist." He was right. I stfu and never made that sort of joke again. I'm grateful to that friend for having the courage to say that, and to say it in that way. Tuned me right up.
Your Awkward Relative may not have the emotional or intellectual equipment to cope very well with that challenge. But that is their burden to bear. They may shop around for opinions supporting them, or they may face up to their own racism. That's not something you can control, so leave it up to them to sort it out.
Scripts for what to say to Awkward Racist Relative are probably pond-dependent on the spectrum of rudeness-politeness. "Wow, that's a really racist thing to say" would be among possible scripts. It can be said mildly, politely, firmly - but something like that can and should be said.
At that point, having returned the awkwardness to its sender, they have to deal with it. They may lapse into embarrassed silence, at which point you may brightly change the subject. They may begin to sputter and double-down on the racism, at which point you may need another script at hand. "I don't think that way, and that is not the way we see the world in this household." That gives awkward relative some choices. Do they fade out into muttering? Do they leave in umbrage? That is up to them.
Of course the worst is if their reaction is smug, not so secret pride that they got the reaction out of you that they were looking at eliciting followed by the argument that they were looking for.
For instance, if LB held the opposite views (s)he does, but the same temperament, I don't imagine those scripts working.
Host hat on
I can’t interpret this as anything but a personal attack as it is phrased. At the very least it is breaking the Purgatory guideline about not getting personal. Lay off, or take it to Hell. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Return awkwardness is very good, as racists and other phobes rely on consent, or at least, embarrassed silence. Reminds me of Andersen, "but he isn't wearing any clothes at all".
Scripts for what to say to Awkward Racist Relative are probably pond-dependent on the spectrum of rudeness-politeness. "Wow, that's a really racist thing to say" would be among possible scripts. It can be said mildly, politely, firmly - but something like that can and should be said.
At that point, having returned the awkwardness to its sender, they have to deal with it. They may lapse into embarrassed silence, at which point you may brightly change the subject. They may begin to sputter and double-down on the racism, at which point you may need another script at hand. "I don't think that way, and that is not the way we see the world in this household." That gives awkward relative some choices. Do they fade out into muttering? Do they leave in umbrage? That is up to them.
Of course the worst is if their reaction is smug, not so secret pride that they got the reaction out of you that they were looking at eliciting followed by the argument that they were looking for.
For instance, if LB held the opposite views (s)he does, but the same temperament, I don't imagine those scripts working.
Amazing how fragile people are about discussions on a discussion forum.
I am also not really sure that there is a journey from being racist to not being racist. I think the journey is towards controlling your racist impulses. A big part of this is language, which is where your Vietnamese-style terminology comes in, but also thought. I think words come first, but I'm not sure.
Language influences thought. Racist language is othering. If you talk about "them" as being $RACIST_EPITHET, it's easy to think of them as less than human (yes, there are parallels with the policing discussions, and the language that cops use to describe "the criminal classes" here).
If you stop using othering language, it's harder to maintain the mental fiction that they're not people.
That's not by any means the end of the journey, but it's a step.
Host hat on
I can’t interpret this as anything but a personal attack as it is phrased. At the very least it is breaking the Purgatory guideline about not getting personal. Lay off, or take it to Hell. Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
Sorry, what I meant was that LB seems to have strongly formed personal convictions and wouldn't fold in the face of a passive-aggressive rude comment but would likely see it as an insult to stand up to.
I didn't view it as either personal attack or praise although I concede that it could be viewed as an insult.
The invitation for half of my family to have a discussion about racism at a wedding/ christening /funeral.... would be too much . For all of us?
Embarrassed?
Them?
( yes I have just othered my family there, thank you. V helpful thoughts there @Leorning Cniht
And a massive reason why I started this thread.)
They would love Nothing More than a good old rant at a formal occasion
Nope
I m not going to given them That on a plate!
I know some people here have found this thread challenging. I ve found it really very helpful.
And
I don’t think that one size fits all as far as answers go.
I am almost certain that I am Not the only one here who has blatantly racist family or extended family members.
Not talking about Great Uncle George who is 98yrs old. Not talking someone who (for whatever reason ) does not really understand.
I m talking about Is A Racist. Uses racist language casually and regularly.
My question is, how do you cope?
Where are the lines drawn?
Well I guess you have many options available to you. Console yourself that you are better than them and remove the speck or indeed plank in their eyes?
It's the way some of the hoops we jump through to try an eliminate racism are meaningless - like the statutory reporting of racist comments or bullying in education.
It's a few years ago but one of the students at school with special educational needs was being abused for having learning difficulties by a fellow student. When they riposted with an inaccurate racial epithet they were automatically suspended for racism, but the student who was abusing them was not. I got involved with intervening with that one, and the sanction was downgraded to internal exclusion, partly as a vulnerable student not in school was not a great idea. It took work to get the abusive student also sanctioned for bullying.
IMo, that is a sign of poor implementation, not a meaningless system. Statutory reporting seeks to eliminate excuses and hiding/ignoring, removing it allows for easier abuse. IMO and IME, evaluation in a transparent manner should always be part of the process, but is a bit fraught in itself.
The problem is that, depending on where you are in the country, some schools have few if any students from ethnic minorities, so name calling using racist words, without much, if any, practical understanding may well not be the same issue as racist bullying and name calling in more diverse situations, where I would insist on heavy sanctions. Insisting on a blanket rule to be applied universally, whatever the situation, is not always constructive and can render the required actions meaningless in those situations.
I wasn't suggesting that the reporting requirement should be removed, but I remain unconvinced that blanket suspensions for racist abuse should be required for all students in all situations. In the situation above, maybe education would have been a better response, rather than a suspension.
The invitation for half of my family to have a discussion about racism at a wedding/ christening /funeral.... would be too much . For all of us?
Embarrassed?
Them?
( yes I have just othered my family there, thank you. V helpful thoughts there @Leorning Cniht
And a massive reason why I started this thread.)
They would love Nothing More than a good old rant at a formal occasion
Nope
I m not going to given them That on a plate!
Narcissistic bullies cannot resist the temptation to draw attention to themselves, especially at family events where the focus is not on them. They are looking to get a rise out of others so that they can get the attention they crave. (Were they not loved as children? Idk)
On such occasions it is best to ignore them and redirect attention to the couple/baptized person/deceased and talk about them, where the focus properly ought to be.
There seems to be evidence that young children actually don't notice skin colour. Does anyone when this changes, and why?
It isn't data, only anecdote, from my life. I had no idea about race myself until about 8 or 9 years old. Probably my parents' care because some of my father's cousins were Nazis (I mean actual WW2, serve in war, SS etc).
My early childhood was spent in an environment with people of various colours. Earliest memories of that from at least as young a 3. I noticed the colour of people, but since it didn't matter to the adults and older children, there was no value assigned to it by me. We do not need to be taught to see colour or any other physical difference, but we do need to be taught to think it matters.
A while ago there was a video that the rounds on Facebook. A young boy (5, at a guess) was begging his mother to let him have a really short haircut. Then he would be identical to his best friend, and they would be able to confuse their teacher. His mother said yes, he got shaved, and then appeared next to his friend. Their features were remarkably alike, but one was white and the other black.
I thought I'd read articles saying such colour blindness, on the part of young children, was the norm, but I could well be wrong.
A while ago there was a video that the rounds on Facebook. A young boy (5, at a guess) was begging his mother to let him have a really short haircut. Then he would be identical to his best friend, and they would be able to confuse their teacher. His mother said yes, he got shaved, and then appeared next to his friend. Their features were remarkably alike, but one was white and the other black.
I thought I'd read articles saying such colour blindness, on the part of young children, was the norm, but I could well be wrong.
In full fairness to what I have read about anthropology both past and present, when two people from differing tribal nations meet each other (say in New Guinea or Brazil, with the societies numbering a few hundred), they consider if they should kill the the strangers or not. The way it is told in what I've read is that foreigners may come to your area, steal your things, kidnap your children, take over. Thus to be suspicious of strangers is normal. This normal wariness or "useful paranoia" has to change when societies grow, become diverse, multinational. And so we articulate that everyone is equal, but we carry tribal heritage of rejection of the different. We have the brains and understanding to temper this, and some thousands of years of cultural history different than this. But then we have 500 years of slavery. Which indicates that the reversion to tribal denigration of others is pretty easily revived.
But then the point, and my lived experience, of not differentiating differences among skin colours and other "racial" differences. I think probably both of these motives - colour blindness and paranoid prejudice - exist in proportion in all humans, and we deny them to our and others' peril. At least, this applies to my analysis of me.
I'm mentioned before that in my family we have Chinese, Black, First Nations, White. I don't seem to differentiate much, and neither do my siblings (we're all 60+ now). But do I have prejudice? Yes, I do. It was directed at Eastern European immigrants when I was young, what we call Ukrainian here (which is also Polish, Romania, Russian, Mennonites). I've learned to detect my negative reactions. But I still feel them. I was taught by absorption and observation, nothing direct. Which then has me back at this being something normative for humans, and probably a survival strategy for hundreds of thousands of human tribal existence.
A lot depends on what you've been exposed to. I can always spot the Vietnamese babies that have spent their short lives wholly among Vietnamese--they take one look at my immensely long nose, squinch up their faces in confusion, and begin to cry. The color doesn't appear to bother them, but the nose, ah!
My early childhood was spent in an environment with people of various colours. Earliest memories of that from at least as young a 3. I noticed the colour of people, but since it didn't matter to the adults and older children, there was no value assigned to it by me. We do not need to be taught to see colour or any other physical difference, but we do need to be taught to think it matters.
That's true. My childhood was the opposite. I was taught that not only race but religion mattered, and not just religion but denomination. On race, the lessons were both direct and intentional and picked up by observation. I have so many memories of this. On religion it was mostly by word: directly telling me. I suppose you can't spot a proddy.
The weird thing about religion was that my Grandfather was a Mason, was secretary of his lodge and that we went to the annual lodge Christmas BBQ. As an adult, I also discovered that my Grandfather on my Dad's side converted to marry my Grandma. I never knew him. He died young. So I reckon my parents were trying not to instill hatred but (especially for my Mother) to avoid for my children her experience of not being the same as those around her, or of straddling two communities in conflict. However I have never heard any stories from her about this.
I think there is a big element of this with her instructions on race, that she was trying to manufacture a situation where I would have a happy and easy life as she saw it. But there was much more indirect stuff on race.
I don't know why the lessons didn't take with me and my siblings. Every now and then one of us might come out with an off-colour comment, but they are few and far between and they are always attempts at humour. That is certainly my downfall, exposing every now and then the ugly underbelly of my personality.
The last joke referring to ethnicity my brother made was this: I asked him why he and his boys liked Melbourne City instead of Melbourne Victory. They are fans of the round ball game. He looked me dead in the eye and said: Victory has too many Carlton supporters. This is a complicated Melbourne only joke. People reckon that most Greeks and Italians support Carlton in the real footy. It's bullshit, but they do. Young Greeks and Italians, along with the Serbs and the Croats tend to get rowdy at the round ball games and the Tennis. The round ball game leagues have been re-organised at least three times in my life because of inter-ethnic rivalry getting out of control. Melbourne Victory was the first club formed in the latest iteration, and all the "lads" support that club. Melbourne City is much more your family club. So my brother's comment had two meanings, one legitimate and one illegitimate. That's a good example of how me and my brother have turned out: twisted, contradictory and complicated. My sister is more straight up and down.
I am almost certain that I am Not the only one here who has blatantly racist family or extended family members.
Not talking about Great Uncle George who is 98yrs old. Not talking someone who (for whatever reason ) does not really understand.
I m talking about Is A Racist. Uses racist language casually and regularly.
My question is, how do you cope?
Where are the lines drawn?
Well I guess you have many options available to you. Console yourself that you are better than them and remove the speck or indeed plank in their eyes?
I'm not sure I have seen you post before @MrMandid Welcome!
There was a thread some time back which raised the issue of whether pointing out behavior such as this was putting yourself above the other person. It was one of @Russ 's threads I think.
I very much agree that our first task is to deal with ourselves and our own sin. Perhaps it is our only task. I think that for me, it is a life-long task. One of the things I try and do (and it's a wank, but I do it anyway) is to stop using words that I like to use but are really prejudiced slang. One example is saying, "I'm in a bit of gyp", meaning trouble or strife. It's a slur on the Roma or perhaps Egyptians. I reckon I've gone six months without saying it, and it popped out of me the other day. I wouldn't be surprised if on my death bed, I turn to my assembled nephews and nieces and say, "I'm in a bit of gyp I think, Oh bugg....ehhhh"
I am also not really sure that there is a journey from being racist to not being racist. I think the journey is towards controlling your racist impulses. A big part of this is language, which is where your Vietnamese-style terminology comes in, but also thought. I think words come first, but I'm not sure.
Language influences thought. Racist language is othering. If you talk about "them" as being $RACIST_EPITHET, it's easy to think of them as less than human (yes, there are parallels with the policing discussions, and the language that cops use to describe "the criminal classes" here).
If you stop using othering language, it's harder to maintain the mental fiction that they're not people.
That's not by any means the end of the journey, but it's a step.
That 'languaging' of early childhood can be crucial. My first language as a small child in Zimbabwe was Shona (my mother and her family used that all the time) and then English: for some time I thought of them as one big language so that I could say 'mist' or 'guti' and be understood no matter which word I chose. But all the books at home were in English and I was taught to read and write in English.
When I went to school at the age of five, the nuns would not hear us unless we answered in English. I remember the knot in my stomach whenever I had to stand up in class in case I got my words wrong and was ignored. Ironically the Dominican nuns were themselves German and we learned many hymns and clapping songs in German but English was the important language, the only one that counted. Nothing derogatory was ever said at school or at home about Shona as a vernacular language, but it was just discounted. That was one of my initial perceptions of 'difference' and Othering, a reason why translanguaging is so important to me now.
Point of order @Simon Toad - "gyp" meaning "swindle" (as a noun or verb) is indeed from gypsy, which itself derives from the mistaken belief that European Romanies came from Egypt.
"Gyp" meaning trouble or pain (e.g. "my leg's giving me gyp") on the other hand appears to be a back-formation of gyppy - as in "I've got a gippy stomach". This appears to derive from a slang word for Egyptian, as British forces stationed there sometimes found the food needed some getting used to.
Both forms of Gyp therefore ultimately go back to Egyptian, but only the "swindle" sense came via "gypsy"
My step-children, not just racist but exhibit casual anti-semitism. Fortunately I don't see them often but my children do and find references to "chi*nks" enraging, and they're concerned that these attitudes seem to be picked up by their niece. I gather that the last time it happened they issued an ultimatum that the offensive comments stopped or they'd leave, which prompted the excuse it was only "banter". Infuriating, enraging and dreadful. Reminders that we have Brit-Chinese family were ignored.
BTW they consider us right-wing, they're Corbyn supporting members of the LP, so it isn't a clear-cut political thing.
Knowing your very broad definition of anti-semitism, I think it's necessary to ask what this "casual anti-semitism" consists of.
Using the word "yids", referring to someone as "of course, they're one of the chosen", describing someone as "looking Jewish", ditto certain items of clothing, etc. Does any of that qualify for your definition of anti-semitism, or am I over-reacting?
No, you're not overreacting (though given your past history you can hardly blame me for wondering). That's bloody awful and if I encountered fellow party members behaving like that I'd be all for kicking them out pronto. I've never encountered anyone behaving like that.
How dare you! "Given your past history" ? As what? A father, widower, musician, man? You don't know me and, as far as I'm aware, we've never met. Do you make it your life's work to jump to, and publish, objectionable conclusions about complete strangers, or do you reserve your obnoxious sweeping generalisations for The Ship in general and me in particular?
No one who posts on any given site, especially one like the Ship, is a complete stranger. We all have history here. If you want to argue misinterpretation, that is reasonable. But one's posting history is indeed a representation.
The impression I get from your posts is definitely right of centre.
Well fear not, you won't see any more of my objectionable "right of centre" posts.
@TheOrganist, I hope this doesn't mean you are leaving. The Ship would be poorer without you.
Couldn't agree more, especially in public space, it becomes a duty if not to speak out but to stand with the persecuted and comfort them with words where possible.
What Tutu said is the same fucking thing I am saying. Cluebats available, should you need one again.
Ten days ago we had a garden party of six for my wife's birthday. Her 32 year old son, whom I've been out with in all weathers, came. He knows I love him unconditionally, for a third of his life, and I know he loves me. I've been able to be of service. His beloved uncle shared of too much drink with him. Four and a half of the elders present are raving liberals, four are socialists. He has travelled far more widely than most, picked Marlborough grapes, learned Italian in country, loved LA and his Mexican gangster uncle Martin. But. He's an educational underachiever. Due to multiple factors including 'pharmacological'. He's a perfect construction worker, multi-skilled, tall dark and handsome and a phenomenal success with the ladiez. He and my son lived and worked and played together in London. My son survived. My stepson could never make enough money because of the free mobility of labour. Eastern European labour.
At some point four of the elders began to give him advice on another family member. I tuned out, botanizing, occasionally firing a shot at one of their more unreflective gems. Not his. He swore more and more loudly. I made the mistake of telling his mother privately that in effect she was throwing fuel on the fire like the others. We rejoined the table and he yelled "I am not racist!".
He is of course, but it's not his fault. In his own eyes he's more than justified in it by bitter experience. Of racism. Nobody is ever going to tell him otherwise. I never do. As with my other stepson of forty years who is a homophobic, holocaust denying anti-Semite. Whom I love more than life. They both know I'm radically liberal. Many of the homeless I work with are on the same spectrum. I always react with 'political correctness' in public situations and would ban an acute offender. Otherwise I consistently under-react and empathise - as in 'I understand'. For the sake of the relationship.
@Martin54, that rings all sorts of bells with me. One of my most racist friends is a paramedic. As well as being very supportive of me, he works hard helping people in all kinds of distress. And he reckons that ethnic minorities misuse the system, coming over here to take advantage of "us". We have had long discussions that haven't changed either side. He's a hard man to argue with on this; he gets his hands dirty helping folk and I don't.
Couldn't agree more, especially in public space, it becomes a duty if not to speak out but to stand with the persecuted and comfort them with words where possible.
What Tutu said is the same fucking thing I am saying. Cluebats available, should you need one again.
Your post is a motherfucking, racism enabling, falsely sympathetic moron.
In my judgment, that's a Commandment 3 violation, not saved by the addition of "Your post" in the sentence. A post can be moronic but it cannot be a moron. You sailed too close to the wind.
If you want to make a meal of this, lilbuddha, take Martin54 to Hell.
He is of course, but it's not his fault. In his own eyes he's more than justified in it by bitter experience. Of racism. Nobody is ever going to tell him otherwise. I never do.
But you should. Gently. Some people hear, some don't, but you never know unless you try. You cannot control how they will process what you say, but not saying anything is a guarantee that they will not hear.
You sacrifice others for the person you know.
Is this natural? Yes. Is it fair? Fuck no. Is it Christian? Not even close.
There are many ways one can make their disagreement with another person known. When a racist thing is said, the simplest and pretty much the most polite is I do not agree.
When we do or say things, we don't know who's watching or listening. And the same goes for not doing or not saying things. People learn what sort of person you are from those interactions, whether you're trustworthy or fairweather.
You are not required to dissent from opinions you reject, but if someone is waiting for you to do so, to give them hope and courage and comfort, then ... there's only so much disappointment a soul can take before they turn away, unloved.
He is of course, but it's not his fault. In his own eyes he's more than justified in it by bitter experience. Of racism. Nobody is ever going to tell him otherwise. I never do.
But you should. Gently. Some people hear, some don't, but you never know unless you try. You cannot control how they will process what you say, but not saying anything is a guarantee that they will not hear.
You sacrifice others for the person you know.
Is this natural? Yes. Is it fair? Fuck no. Is it Christian? Not even close.
There are many ways one can make their disagreement with another person known. When a racist thing is said, the simplest and pretty much the most polite is I do not agree.
I appreciate you trying, very much.
I'm at my most Christian with him and my older stepson. I sacrifice no one. It couldn't be fairer.
The wrong can't be fixed. No matter how gently. That will not work in these and many other instances in my experience.
Simon's link was interesting. Particularly as the other night, while the World Service chuntered under my pillow, I found myself hearing the programme Stumped, which discusses world cricket. It was focussing on Australian indigenous representation in cricket, and mentioned one player who had achieved awards for his play, but been deliberately omitted from the state team where all previous winners had been automatically included. (Think it was Western Australia, as Perth was mentioned.) The telling thing was an interview with a representative from the higher reaches of the organisation who explained the under representation of indigenous players in cricket as the result of the indigneous being more interested in the more active sports such as football or rugby. He totally ignored the exclusion of the good players who were interested in the slow sport. I wonder what the excuse in those active sports is, since that link shows descrimination is active there as well.
@Penny S I listened to the interview on my commute. The racism suffered by the aboriginal cricketer (John Maguire?) in WA was shameful, and not at all surprising in the 1980's. He spoke of another junior cricketer who was denied a spot in a training team in suspicious circumstances recently.
What did surprise and sadden me were the comments of Jim Maxwell. Maxwell made two excuses for the lack of Aboriginal representation in cricket at the elite level. First, he made the argument you caught: that aboriginal kids were more interested in other sports. Then he said that one of the development coaches in the Northern Territory told him that aboriginals didn't want to play cricket because cricketers dress in white. Fortunately he said it as I pulled up to run an errand, or I might have caused an accident by my horrified reaction.
Maxwell also gave the standard defence that Australian cricket has put in place a number of programmes that seek to address the lack of elite Aboriginal cricketers.
In seeking to establish the name of the Aboriginal cricketer who failed to make the WA sheffield shield squad in the 1980's I did discover that there have been some Aboriginal cricketers who have made it to the elite level. Here is an article from the indigenous news service NITV listing their 10. The huge name there is Jason Gillespie, an amazing cricketer who I did not know was aboriginal, the only aboriginal to play Test cricket. Clearly, Jim Maxwell didn't know either or he would have made a song and dance about it on the radio programme.
Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention Penny. I always liked Maxwell. He has gone down in my estimation.
Those comments from Maxwell come across as a variation on "I'm not racist, but ...". Which is always going to lower someone in my estimation. "I'm about to say something racist, and I know it, but rather than address the racism in what I'm going to say I'll just say 'I'm not racist' and hope that's enough".
Those comments from Maxwell come across as a variation on "I'm not racist, but ...". Which is always going to lower someone in my estimation. "I'm about to say something racist, and I know it, but rather than address the racism in what I'm going to say I'll just say 'I'm not racist' and hope that's enough".
IME taps into common perception that someone is only racist if they use one of the 'words'.
Thank you for that link to the indigenous cricketers. I did know about the original tour back in the 19th century. I liked the way that the modern players were identified by their tribal name (is that the correct terminology?) it is respectful. I had missed the remark about playing in white. My relationship with Stumped is peculiar, and it more often sends me back to sleep than keeps me awake. I know enough about the game to understand some of what they are on about. This was extraordinary, though.
I didn't know about them playing and coaching over here at all. How can someone be involved in Australian cricket and not know of this sort of status? You'd think they would be jumping up and down about putting one over on the poms.
Not wearing white! Hang on, aren't some aficionadoes still offended by the coloured pyjamas?
Thinking on about this, I recall that English cricket is not without fault. We used to work on a wildlife site in a London park where there were some cricket squares - there were others about, too, in grounds belonging to companies, schools old boys etc. After a while something started nagging at me about the teams who booked these pitches for games. There we were in South London, where there were West Indians, Indians, Pakistanis, Sri Lankans, a truly multicultural area. But the teams were not. There were white teams, and black teams, and brown teams, but I never saw a mixed team. Not only that, but I never saw a white team play a black or brown team. It could have been that they weren't playing when I was there, of course. I eventually heard that there were different leagues for different ethnicities. This is sad.
I have a family member who has become increasingly racist over recent years. It used to be that he just disliked black people in a fairly vague sense. But his racism has developed over the years, and he now advocates some pretty weird ideas such as that black people represent an earlier stage of evolution, that the facial features of black people demonstrate their close genetic relationship to gorillas, and that black people are actually a separate species. There's not a lot one can do, because I think these ideas are so irrational and so deeply held that in this case racism may actually have turned into more of a mental health issue than a moral issue.
I do what I can. I explain very calmly that the fact that black people and other humans are capable of reproducing together and producing fertile offspring satisfies the main criterion for demonstrating that organisms belong to the same species. I have even cited the example of a friend of mine who has one black great-grandparent, one south Asian great-grandparent, and six white great-grandparents, which proves that all eight of his great-grandparents must have been humans. I have also pointed out that there is enormous variation in both skin tone and facial features and that humans of all skin tones may or may not bear something of a resemblance to other species of higher primates (indeed, some gorillas can look strikingly similar to humans). This perception is presumably a result of our tendency to anthropomorphise non-human species. I have also explained that, biologically, there are no "races", just humans who share similar features. I have explained that there is actually more genetic diversity among humans that we call "black" than there is between some humans that we call "black" and some other humans that we call "white". I have also tried to explain that it is quite arbitrary that we have decided that the concentration of melanin in the skin should be the main feature by which we categorise people. I have further explained that the concept of blackness is not consistent. For example, I was fascinated to learn that in Africa, Somalis apparently do not consider themselves to be black, despite often having very dark skin. I also learned that in Bulgaria, white Bulgarians (who are in fact often rather dark coloured) call the Roma "black", despite the fact that the Roma are actually ethnically south Asian (although here in the UK, we would probably not consider a gypsy and, say, a Bangladeshi as belonging to the same "race").
My relative has recently begun to express the view that black people should be enslaved, i.e. in contemporary Britain, not just as a vague principle. The idea is so preposterous that it is hard to know whether he is serious. I have even resorted to explaining that most economic historians now agree that slavery is an inefficient means of production. I have tried to explain that slaves are in fact somewhat costly because, although they are not paid a wage, they do still require housing, food, clothing, a basic level of medical care, and some provision for social and recreational needs. Furthermore, because slaves do not have their own money, they never become consumers or tax-payers, and thus their only contribution to the economy is their unpaid labour and their ability to reproduce.
I feel that this is perhaps a somewhat different kind of racism to what others on the thread have reported. I think that there is quite a significant difference between a racism that is expressed by using offensive words and a racism that is based on a fairly sophisticated, if completely inaccurate, system of purportedly scientific beliefs. As I say, I also wonder whether somebody who holds such incredibly extreme views, even when faced with irrefutable biological facts, may in fact be suffering from some kind of mental disorder.
70 years ago my mother would have called a certain colour n....r brown.
My godfather always liked to tell people, "I take my coffee n***** brown!" He would always deliver this trademark phrase with a broad grin and was obviously immensely pleased with himself every time he said it. He was certainly doing this as recently as the late 90s/early 2000s, and he may still be doing it now for all I know. I've had nothing to do with the man for years. He is a sex offender, so his racism was merely one aspect of a personality lacking in any redeeming features.
Most Chinese restaurants ,for example, are run by people who have or have had some connection with China. The way of preparing and serving food may well be changed to suit the conditions and expectations of the host country.
I believe I am correct in saying that until relatively recently, the vast majority of Chinese restaurants were owned and operated by immigrants from Hong Kong. That is why Chinese restaurants in the UK have traditionally favoured Cantonese cuisine with a certain amount of British influence. More recent immigration has come from mainland China, helping to prompt changes in the sort of Chinese food that is found in the UK.
I suppose what you have to ask yourself is: if a Chinese acquaintance was in earshot would you feel comfortable using that kind of language (obviously this only works for those who have a sense of embarrassment when it comes to racism but I'm reasonably sure that includes most folk here)?
Some years ago, I was involved, albeit only as a mute spectator, in a discussion between a white British friend and a Chinese Malaysian friend. The white British friend said to the Chinese Malaysian friend, "You wouldn't be offended if I called you Chinky Chinky Chinky." There was a long, uncomfortable silence, at the end of which the Chinese Malaysian friend said, very quietly, "Yeah, I would actually.
White skin, BTW, is only about 8 thousand years old. What we identify as European were what we would call black until around that time. Probably won't convince your family member, but it is a talking point.
Point of order @Simon Toad - "gyp" meaning "swindle" (as a noun or verb) is indeed from gypsy, which itself derives from the mistaken belief that European Romanies came from Egypt.
"Gyp" meaning trouble or pain (e.g. "my leg's giving me gyp") on the other hand appears to be a back-formation of gyppy - as in "I've got a gippy stomach". This appears to derive from a slang word for Egyptian, as British forces stationed there sometimes found the food needed some getting used to.
Both forms of Gyp therefore ultimately go back to Egyptian, but only the "swindle" sense came via "gypsy"
Except that when I have had children from that group in class, the family have seemed to be happy to use the g word themselves, introducing it into conversation. And loathed the p word which many gorgios seem to think is perfectly OK, while avoiding the other p word and the n word, and all the rest of the words which are not considered acceptable.
Even very deliberately at a football match - https://tinyurl.com/y85ezwro The link takes you to an article where a plane flew over Manchester City’s stadium shortly after the players, coaching staff and match officials had taken the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. The banner said ‘White lives matter Burnley. Burnley FC swiftly issued a statement that apologised “unreservedly to the Premier League, to Manchester City and to all those helping to promote Black Lives Matter”.
Comments
I keep thinking of a cartoon I saw this week, two figures with placards. The black figure holds up a sign that reads "I Can't Breathe;" the white figure holds a sign that reads "I Can't See."
It's a few years ago but one of the students at school with special educational needs was being abused for having learning difficulties by a fellow student. When they riposted with an inaccurate racial epithet they were automatically suspended for racism, but the student who was abusing them was not. I got involved with intervening with that one, and the sanction was downgraded to internal exclusion, partly as a vulnerable student not in school was not a great idea. It took work to get the abusive student also sanctioned for bullying.
Gosh
Damned with faint praise.
I did not mean well.
I was just cross.
Plus.... as a parent of many children....the appeal to Fairness is never going to trump the equally fair appeal to Manners.
Sorry to sound tart.... it is not personal.
As to the second comment.... I was kinda hoping that On Here Anyway, tempers could be laid to one side and altogether we could find a place to wonder aloud what a way out of this mess might look like.
Look
Your comment on not talking more your elderly relative( or however you put it) That surprised me! Brought a bit of attention from others too as I recall.
But that helped me.
One of my favourite advice columnists, Captain Awkward, got her name from her informal motto: "Return awkwardness to sender." Your relative is bringing in the awkwardness with racism and everyone else has to deal with the burden. No! Return the awkwardness to them, and let them deal with their own burden.
The first thing I'd ask you to consider is risk. Are you dependent on this relative for housing or income? Would the potential fallout include harming your safety or housing? If so, I would say that you should wait until you are safe and independently housed and financed before risking this. There's a difference between cowardice and prudence and I advocate the latter.
Scripts for what to say to Awkward Racist Relative are probably pond-dependent on the spectrum of rudeness-politeness. "Wow, that's a really racist thing to say" would be among possible scripts. It can be said mildly, politely, firmly - but something like that can and should be said.
At that point, having returned the awkwardness to its sender, they have to deal with it. They may lapse into embarrassed silence, at which point you may brightly change the subject. They may begin to sputter and double-down on the racism, at which point you may need another script at hand. "I don't think that way, and that is not the way we see the world in this household." That gives awkward relative some choices. Do they fade out into muttering? Do they leave in umbrage? That is up to them.
Awkward Relative may conscript other family members into getting you to apologize. Peacefully stand your ground. This may necessitate a third script: "Oh, that's between me and Awkward Relative. Anyway, did you hear about the change in subject matter? I hear the sportsball team is playing the local weather..." etc.
How do I know these things are possible? I told an edgy joke when I was a teenager, and a friend in the group looked at me and said quietly "Wow, that was really racist." He was right. I stfu and never made that sort of joke again. I'm grateful to that friend for having the courage to say that, and to say it in that way. Tuned me right up.
Your Awkward Relative may not have the emotional or intellectual equipment to cope very well with that challenge. But that is their burden to bear. They may shop around for opinions supporting them, or they may face up to their own racism. That's not something you can control, so leave it up to them to sort it out.
Of course the worst is if their reaction is smug, not so secret pride that they got the reaction out of you that they were looking at eliciting followed by the argument that they were looking for.
For instance, if LB held the opposite views (s)he does, but the same temperament, I don't imagine those scripts working.
I can’t interpret this as anything but a personal attack as it is phrased. At the very least it is breaking the Purgatory guideline about not getting personal. Lay off, or take it to Hell.
Host hat off
BroJames Purgatory Host
BroJames Purgatory Host.
Language influences thought. Racist language is othering. If you talk about "them" as being $RACIST_EPITHET, it's easy to think of them as less than human (yes, there are parallels with the policing discussions, and the language that cops use to describe "the criminal classes" here).
If you stop using othering language, it's harder to maintain the mental fiction that they're not people.
That's not by any means the end of the journey, but it's a step.
Sorry, what I meant was that LB seems to have strongly formed personal convictions and wouldn't fold in the face of a passive-aggressive rude comment but would likely see it as an insult to stand up to.
I didn't view it as either personal attack or praise although I concede that it could be viewed as an insult.
Embarrassed?
Them?
( yes I have just othered my family there, thank you. V helpful thoughts there @Leorning Cniht
And a massive reason why I started this thread.)
They would love Nothing More than a good old rant at a formal occasion
Nope
I m not going to given them That on a plate!
I know some people here have found this thread challenging. I ve found it really very helpful.
And
I don’t think that one size fits all as far as answers go.
Well I guess you have many options available to you. Console yourself that you are better than them and remove the speck or indeed plank in their eyes?
I wasn't suggesting that the reporting requirement should be removed, but I remain unconvinced that blanket suspensions for racist abuse should be required for all students in all situations. In the situation above, maybe education would have been a better response, rather than a suspension.
Narcissistic bullies cannot resist the temptation to draw attention to themselves, especially at family events where the focus is not on them. They are looking to get a rise out of others so that they can get the attention they crave. (Were they not loved as children? Idk)
On such occasions it is best to ignore them and redirect attention to the couple/baptized person/deceased and talk about them, where the focus properly ought to be.
And then afterwards I go
“Should have said something!”
Whilst knowing all the time that I will never create that sort of scene......
It isn't data, only anecdote, from my life. I had no idea about race myself until about 8 or 9 years old. Probably my parents' care because some of my father's cousins were Nazis (I mean actual WW2, serve in war, SS etc).
Lyrics to "You've Got to be Carefully Taught", musical South Pacific. Many people have sung on youtube: https://genius.com/Richard-rodgers-youve-got-to-be-carefully-taught-lyrics
I thought I'd read articles saying such colour blindness, on the part of young children, was the norm, but I could well be wrong.
In full fairness to what I have read about anthropology both past and present, when two people from differing tribal nations meet each other (say in New Guinea or Brazil, with the societies numbering a few hundred), they consider if they should kill the the strangers or not. The way it is told in what I've read is that foreigners may come to your area, steal your things, kidnap your children, take over. Thus to be suspicious of strangers is normal. This normal wariness or "useful paranoia" has to change when societies grow, become diverse, multinational. And so we articulate that everyone is equal, but we carry tribal heritage of rejection of the different. We have the brains and understanding to temper this, and some thousands of years of cultural history different than this. But then we have 500 years of slavery. Which indicates that the reversion to tribal denigration of others is pretty easily revived.
But then the point, and my lived experience, of not differentiating differences among skin colours and other "racial" differences. I think probably both of these motives - colour blindness and paranoid prejudice - exist in proportion in all humans, and we deny them to our and others' peril. At least, this applies to my analysis of me.
I'm mentioned before that in my family we have Chinese, Black, First Nations, White. I don't seem to differentiate much, and neither do my siblings (we're all 60+ now). But do I have prejudice? Yes, I do. It was directed at Eastern European immigrants when I was young, what we call Ukrainian here (which is also Polish, Romania, Russian, Mennonites). I've learned to detect my negative reactions. But I still feel them. I was taught by absorption and observation, nothing direct. Which then has me back at this being something normative for humans, and probably a survival strategy for hundreds of thousands of human tribal existence.
*Obviously, Colour vision deficiency the medical condition does.
That's true. My childhood was the opposite. I was taught that not only race but religion mattered, and not just religion but denomination. On race, the lessons were both direct and intentional and picked up by observation. I have so many memories of this. On religion it was mostly by word: directly telling me. I suppose you can't spot a proddy.
The weird thing about religion was that my Grandfather was a Mason, was secretary of his lodge and that we went to the annual lodge Christmas BBQ. As an adult, I also discovered that my Grandfather on my Dad's side converted to marry my Grandma. I never knew him. He died young. So I reckon my parents were trying not to instill hatred but (especially for my Mother) to avoid for my children her experience of not being the same as those around her, or of straddling two communities in conflict. However I have never heard any stories from her about this.
I think there is a big element of this with her instructions on race, that she was trying to manufacture a situation where I would have a happy and easy life as she saw it. But there was much more indirect stuff on race.
I don't know why the lessons didn't take with me and my siblings. Every now and then one of us might come out with an off-colour comment, but they are few and far between and they are always attempts at humour. That is certainly my downfall, exposing every now and then the ugly underbelly of my personality.
The last joke referring to ethnicity my brother made was this: I asked him why he and his boys liked Melbourne City instead of Melbourne Victory. They are fans of the round ball game. He looked me dead in the eye and said: Victory has too many Carlton supporters. This is a complicated Melbourne only joke. People reckon that most Greeks and Italians support Carlton in the real footy. It's bullshit, but they do. Young Greeks and Italians, along with the Serbs and the Croats tend to get rowdy at the round ball games and the Tennis. The round ball game leagues have been re-organised at least three times in my life because of inter-ethnic rivalry getting out of control. Melbourne Victory was the first club formed in the latest iteration, and all the "lads" support that club. Melbourne City is much more your family club. So my brother's comment had two meanings, one legitimate and one illegitimate. That's a good example of how me and my brother have turned out: twisted, contradictory and complicated. My sister is more straight up and down.
I'm not sure I have seen you post before @MrMandid Welcome!
There was a thread some time back which raised the issue of whether pointing out behavior such as this was putting yourself above the other person. It was one of @Russ 's threads I think.
I very much agree that our first task is to deal with ourselves and our own sin. Perhaps it is our only task. I think that for me, it is a life-long task. One of the things I try and do (and it's a wank, but I do it anyway) is to stop using words that I like to use but are really prejudiced slang. One example is saying, "I'm in a bit of gyp", meaning trouble or strife. It's a slur on the Roma or perhaps Egyptians. I reckon I've gone six months without saying it, and it popped out of me the other day. I wouldn't be surprised if on my death bed, I turn to my assembled nephews and nieces and say, "I'm in a bit of gyp I think, Oh bugg....ehhhh"
That 'languaging' of early childhood can be crucial. My first language as a small child in Zimbabwe was Shona (my mother and her family used that all the time) and then English: for some time I thought of them as one big language so that I could say 'mist' or 'guti' and be understood no matter which word I chose. But all the books at home were in English and I was taught to read and write in English.
When I went to school at the age of five, the nuns would not hear us unless we answered in English. I remember the knot in my stomach whenever I had to stand up in class in case I got my words wrong and was ignored. Ironically the Dominican nuns were themselves German and we learned many hymns and clapping songs in German but English was the important language, the only one that counted. Nothing derogatory was ever said at school or at home about Shona as a vernacular language, but it was just discounted. That was one of my initial perceptions of 'difference' and Othering, a reason why translanguaging is so important to me now.
"Gyp" meaning trouble or pain (e.g. "my leg's giving me gyp") on the other hand appears to be a back-formation of gyppy - as in "I've got a gippy stomach". This appears to derive from a slang word for Egyptian, as British forces stationed there sometimes found the food needed some getting used to.
Both forms of Gyp therefore ultimately go back to Egyptian, but only the "swindle" sense came via "gypsy"
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/gyp.html
This is a different question to whether the term might be best avoided.
Thirded
You should get that looked at.
I tell you what
At some point four of the elders began to give him advice on another family member. I tuned out, botanizing, occasionally firing a shot at one of their more unreflective gems. Not his. He swore more and more loudly. I made the mistake of telling his mother privately that in effect she was throwing fuel on the fire like the others. We rejoined the table and he yelled "I am not racist!".
He is of course, but it's not his fault. In his own eyes he's more than justified in it by bitter experience. Of racism. Nobody is ever going to tell him otherwise. I never do. As with my other stepson of forty years who is a homophobic, holocaust denying anti-Semite. Whom I love more than life. They both know I'm radically liberal. Many of the homeless I work with are on the same spectrum. I always react with 'political correctness' in public situations and would ban an acute offender. Otherwise I consistently under-react and empathise - as in 'I understand'. For the sake of the relationship.
They're alienated enough already.
It's not the same video, but it shows what I was on about.
In my judgment, that's a Commandment 3 violation, not saved by the addition of "Your post" in the sentence. A post can be moronic but it cannot be a moron. You sailed too close to the wind.
If you want to make a meal of this, lilbuddha, take Martin54 to Hell.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
You sacrifice others for the person you know.
Is this natural? Yes. Is it fair? Fuck no. Is it Christian? Not even close.
There are many ways one can make their disagreement with another person known. When a racist thing is said, the simplest and pretty much the most polite is I do not agree.
You are not required to dissent from opinions you reject, but if someone is waiting for you to do so, to give them hope and courage and comfort, then ... there's only so much disappointment a soul can take before they turn away, unloved.
As is the time taken to carefully explain them.
Y see..... you have both reached the point where you know what you are going to say and do.
Some of us are not there yet..... and no amount of yelling and upsets will get us further along our own particular journey. But this will
Thank you
I appreciate you trying, very much.
I'm at my most Christian with him and my older stepson. I sacrifice no one. It couldn't be fairer.
The wrong can't be fixed. No matter how gently. That will not work in these and many other instances in my experience.
@Penny S I listened to the interview on my commute. The racism suffered by the aboriginal cricketer (John Maguire?) in WA was shameful, and not at all surprising in the 1980's. He spoke of another junior cricketer who was denied a spot in a training team in suspicious circumstances recently.
What did surprise and sadden me were the comments of Jim Maxwell. Maxwell made two excuses for the lack of Aboriginal representation in cricket at the elite level. First, he made the argument you caught: that aboriginal kids were more interested in other sports. Then he said that one of the development coaches in the Northern Territory told him that aboriginals didn't want to play cricket because cricketers dress in white. Fortunately he said it as I pulled up to run an errand, or I might have caused an accident by my horrified reaction.
Maxwell also gave the standard defence that Australian cricket has put in place a number of programmes that seek to address the lack of elite Aboriginal cricketers.
In seeking to establish the name of the Aboriginal cricketer who failed to make the WA sheffield shield squad in the 1980's I did discover that there have been some Aboriginal cricketers who have made it to the elite level. Here is an article from the indigenous news service NITV listing their 10. The huge name there is Jason Gillespie, an amazing cricketer who I did not know was aboriginal, the only aboriginal to play Test cricket. Clearly, Jim Maxwell didn't know either or he would have made a song and dance about it on the radio programme.
Thanks very much for bringing this to my attention Penny. I always liked Maxwell. He has gone down in my estimation.
IME taps into common perception that someone is only racist if they use one of the 'words'.
I didn't know about them playing and coaching over here at all. How can someone be involved in Australian cricket and not know of this sort of status? You'd think they would be jumping up and down about putting one over on the poms.
Not wearing white! Hang on, aren't some aficionadoes still offended by the coloured pyjamas?
I do what I can. I explain very calmly that the fact that black people and other humans are capable of reproducing together and producing fertile offspring satisfies the main criterion for demonstrating that organisms belong to the same species. I have even cited the example of a friend of mine who has one black great-grandparent, one south Asian great-grandparent, and six white great-grandparents, which proves that all eight of his great-grandparents must have been humans. I have also pointed out that there is enormous variation in both skin tone and facial features and that humans of all skin tones may or may not bear something of a resemblance to other species of higher primates (indeed, some gorillas can look strikingly similar to humans). This perception is presumably a result of our tendency to anthropomorphise non-human species. I have also explained that, biologically, there are no "races", just humans who share similar features. I have explained that there is actually more genetic diversity among humans that we call "black" than there is between some humans that we call "black" and some other humans that we call "white". I have also tried to explain that it is quite arbitrary that we have decided that the concentration of melanin in the skin should be the main feature by which we categorise people. I have further explained that the concept of blackness is not consistent. For example, I was fascinated to learn that in Africa, Somalis apparently do not consider themselves to be black, despite often having very dark skin. I also learned that in Bulgaria, white Bulgarians (who are in fact often rather dark coloured) call the Roma "black", despite the fact that the Roma are actually ethnically south Asian (although here in the UK, we would probably not consider a gypsy and, say, a Bangladeshi as belonging to the same "race").
My relative has recently begun to express the view that black people should be enslaved, i.e. in contemporary Britain, not just as a vague principle. The idea is so preposterous that it is hard to know whether he is serious. I have even resorted to explaining that most economic historians now agree that slavery is an inefficient means of production. I have tried to explain that slaves are in fact somewhat costly because, although they are not paid a wage, they do still require housing, food, clothing, a basic level of medical care, and some provision for social and recreational needs. Furthermore, because slaves do not have their own money, they never become consumers or tax-payers, and thus their only contribution to the economy is their unpaid labour and their ability to reproduce.
I feel that this is perhaps a somewhat different kind of racism to what others on the thread have reported. I think that there is quite a significant difference between a racism that is expressed by using offensive words and a racism that is based on a fairly sophisticated, if completely inaccurate, system of purportedly scientific beliefs. As I say, I also wonder whether somebody who holds such incredibly extreme views, even when faced with irrefutable biological facts, may in fact be suffering from some kind of mental disorder.
My godfather always liked to tell people, "I take my coffee n***** brown!" He would always deliver this trademark phrase with a broad grin and was obviously immensely pleased with himself every time he said it. He was certainly doing this as recently as the late 90s/early 2000s, and he may still be doing it now for all I know. I've had nothing to do with the man for years. He is a sex offender, so his racism was merely one aspect of a personality lacking in any redeeming features.
I believe I am correct in saying that until relatively recently, the vast majority of Chinese restaurants were owned and operated by immigrants from Hong Kong. That is why Chinese restaurants in the UK have traditionally favoured Cantonese cuisine with a certain amount of British influence. More recent immigration has come from mainland China, helping to prompt changes in the sort of Chinese food that is found in the UK.
Some years ago, I was involved, albeit only as a mute spectator, in a discussion between a white British friend and a Chinese Malaysian friend. The white British friend said to the Chinese Malaysian friend, "You wouldn't be offended if I called you Chinky Chinky Chinky." There was a long, uncomfortable silence, at the end of which the Chinese Malaysian friend said, very quietly, "Yeah, I would actually.
lilbuddha is right about the evolution of pale skin in Europe. Fascinating article.
Please avoid. The acceptable term as a descriptor is Roma
Even very deliberately at a football match - https://tinyurl.com/y85ezwro The link takes you to an article where a plane flew over Manchester City’s stadium shortly after the players, coaching staff and match officials had taken the knee in support of the Black Lives Matter movement. The banner said ‘White lives matter Burnley. Burnley FC swiftly issued a statement that apologised “unreservedly to the Premier League, to Manchester City and to all those helping to promote Black Lives Matter”.