[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Brillopad

Are you a Zulu? If not - who made you judge and jury!

Are you suggesting I'm not entitled to my view and whilst claiming I'm somehow calling for everyone to agree with me you're simultaneously shutting my right to my view down?

For shame Brillo.

[smudgie]

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I would like to think as this is a festive celebration it could be seen thus.

[jet]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

OR.....He did some research on this 'tradition'.

1st article:

But Thandanani Gumede, 32, a Zulu from Durban, South Africa, whose West Yorkshire-based song and dance troop Zulu Tradition will perform in Lewes, said while the issue was sensitive,the costumes and makeup were “not derogatory”.

Gumede told the Guardian he had looked at photos of the costumes worn in previous years and considered they were not racist.
“When I first looked at the pictures I thought it was a Zulu,” he said. ‘If someone blacked up and dressed like Tarzan [that would be racist], but it looks like they have taken the time to reproduce the costumes carefully.”

He already knew they blackened their faces and didn't have a problem with it.

Article you posted:

Thanda Gumede, the troupe’s leader, delivered an ultimatum: drop the black face or we won’t come.

Hmmm...

[jet]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The question isn't whether or not each person finds it offensive, though, not really. I personally am not offended by blackface, racist words, racist stereotypes, any other sorts of stereotypes (including ones that apply to me, e.g. about men or about Scottish people). I'm very, very hard to offend I would say. However, not being easily offended on a personal level doesn't mean that you can't try to appreciate that some people ARE hurt, offended and angered by various things and therefore, is it not important to consider the feelings of others? Again I'll say that I'm well aware that it can go too far, there is a line where it becomes ridiculous (as we're seeing on certain academic campuses, etc.) but likewise, there is a line that goes the other way... I sort of feel like we (as a society) are somehow losing the ability to have a feel for what's "too far"... and people are dividing into these two extreme camps where one will take offense at things so minor that it becomes impossible to live a normal existence, and at the same time, the other end of the spectrum is saying "well I've had enough of all of it so I'll just say and do whatever I want" with which, again, things start to become impossible.

Where is the middle ground and why have we lost it? As always, this forum seems to be a bit of a microcosm for this effect. Views seem to be so extreme one way or the other, and frankly, the answer ALWAYS (with all things) lies somewhere in the grey area.

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by Marsh.

Are you suggesting I'm not entitled to my view and whilst claiming I'm somehow calling for everyone to agree with me you're simultaneously shutting my right to my view down?

For shame Brillo.

Is that privilidge reserved for one side only then? Feeling frustrated.

[Brillopad]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

That certainly makes sense Jet. A very well expressed valid point.

[Withano]

Originally Posted by jet

Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well

A lack of empathy? Usually psychopathic tendencies or narcissistic personality disorder? That can't be the reason there are differing views on this, surely.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Actually the piece I posted is an update to this one.

I am really struggling with this, so the guy was interviewed and then reinterviewed, and does this happen regularly or was it a journalist looking for an angle who didn't get it first time round, or did the guy genuinely not find it offensive and then change his mind and why would he comment in the first instance if he didn't know what he was commenting on, it's all very strange

[user104658]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

It's an interesting concept and I would say certainly valid in cases where people find themselves getting genuinely "offended on behalf of" others, i.e. Really emotionally upset or angry about the issues being discussed. However, like I said I think it's possible to at least explore these issues and think about / empathise with others WITHOUT being emotionally involved. Surely it's possible to appreciate and want to support people who are upset by something, without getting upset at all oneself, or having it affect the rest of one's day in any way?

I would also say that if it is the case, and people's heavy emotional involvement with "offense" is in part down to projection, then surely that must apply both ways? There are people who get very emotionally wound up and certainly very angry on the flips idea of this, too... I guess in this case you could say "outraged on behalf of the festival organisers". It's sort of the same thing; the specifics of the case don't involve them in any way at all unless they are actually from that area or involved, and yet some people are incensed at the idea of it being "affected by PC" etc... So, might there be a similar element of projection there? People aren't actually annoyed by criticisms of the Zulu carnival, they might be projecting their own feelings of having their own expression shut down or invalidated, and be projecting it onto an event / event organisers that have nothing to do with them... Making it exactly the same "fighting for them for me" escape mechanism?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I am really struggling with this, so the guy was interviewed and then reinterviewed, and does this happen regularly or was it a journalist looking for an angle who didn't get it first time round, or did the guy genuinely not find it offensive and then change his mind and why would he comment in the first instance if he didn't know what he was commenting on, it's all very strange

I think it was one comment and then a follow up after the controversy. My take on this is that there are two possibilities;

1) He initially didn't have an issue but hadn't given it much thought, and when certain aspects were pointed out he became genuinely less comfortable with them.

2) He didn't have a personal issue with it even after hearing other people's concerns, but the fact that other people WERE concerned was enough to make him change his statement for PR reasons.


Either way I honestly am not convinced that the opinion of any one person, Zulu or not, can be considered gospel in any situation. It's sort of meaningless whether he finds it OK or not... He's one person, and the idea that he speaks for an entire group just by virtue of being a member of that group is quite flawed. It doesn't indicate anything at all about the opinions of other members of that group.

I mean look at this forum / even this thread. There are a number of us Pale Stale Males here but it would obviously be nonsense to try to assume that all share the same opinion, when there are as many variations as members.

Of course, I'm not calling you a pale stale male Cherie. A pale well-febrezed female.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I think it was one comment and then a follow up after the controversy. My take on this is that there are two possibilities;

1) He initially didn't have an issue but hadn't given it much thought, and when certain aspects were pointed out he became genuinely less comfortable with them.

2) He didn't have a personal issue with it even after hearing other people's concerns, but the fact that other people WERE concerned was enough to make him change his statement for PR reasons.


Either way I honestly am not convinced that the opinion of any one person, Zulu or not, can be considered gospel in any situation. It's sort of meaningless whether he finds it OK or not... He's one person, and the idea that he speaks for an entire group just by virtue of being a member of that group is quite flawed. It doesn't indicate anything at all about the opinions of other members of that group.

I mean look at this forum / even this thread. There are a number of us Pale Stale Males here but it would obviously be nonsense to try to assume that all share the same opinion, when there are as many variations as members.

Of course, I'm not calling you a pale stale male Cherie. A pale well-febrezed female.

Yeah I agree we do seem very hung up in this guy and his changeable opinion, Of course he doesn't speak for all Zulus anymore than I speak on behalf of the Irish nation, it's just a snapshot of opinion that the paper has run with to make a story, and it has served us very well here on TiBB, it's kept us wittering away for pages

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I speak on behalf of the Irish nation

Thats impossible anyway, as Niamh got the job ages ago.

[Crimson Dynamo]

as far as i can gather the odd person thinking you are being racist is not illegal or indeed any reason not to do something

in fact their opinion is not really any of my business?

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

as far as i can gather the odd person thinking you are being racist is not illegal or indeed any reason not to do something

in fact their opinion is not really any of my business?

Would it be different if it seemed like the majority of people thought it; or at least, the majority of the race actually affected? I'm not saying that's the case with this specific example, just hypothetically.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

1st article:



He already knew they blackened their faces and didn't have a problem with it.

Article you posted:


Hmmm...

The explanation is in the article I quoted.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

I am really struggling with this, so the guy was interviewed and then reinterviewed, and does this happen regularly or was it a journalist looking for an angle who didn't get it first time round, or did the guy genuinely not find it offensive and then change his mind and why would he comment in the first instance if he didn't know what he was commenting on, it's all very strange

It's really not that hard, he did some further research into the 'tradition' and realised that he was not comfortable. Not sure how a journalist can influence a quote...

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Would it be different if it seemed like the majority of people thought it; or at least, the majority of the race actually affected? I'm not saying that's the case with this specific example, just hypothetically.

i think that most people can judge when that point arises yes

same way I would not cut in a queue in a shop etc

[Crimson Dynamo]

Its like the word "p aki"

when I was young that was the name of the local shop "the p akis " or "the p aki* shop" but over the years the word "p aki" was used in a negative way and became associated with bad feeling (and to lump all asians as one) so became a word not to be used

Conversely the word "chinky" was and is to a degree used for a Chinese takeaway and now people are like "ooh you cant say that but it was never used in a negative way due probably to numbers and visibility of Chinese people (in Scotland in this example)

I think people just link the 2 words together "p aki, chinky" but in my mind they have very different etymology


So in reference to the question that word to describe a Pakistani became unacceptable due to just that, the majority decrying it so


and interestingly the swear filter agrees with me

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by jet

What do you think of the theory that some people who are so easily offended on the behalf of minorities etc. aren't really offended for the group in question but relate to them because of their own feelings of anger, rejection, helplessness etc. Most people are not wired to get that emotionally involved in the woes of groups they don't belong to or know well, but very much wired to take care of their own negative feelings and emotions which they need an outlet to get relief from. These feelings and emotions are then projected onto others who they feel echo their own feelings of being marginalised.
It's like 'I'm fighting for them, for me." Yet they don't realise this; it's an escape mechanism.

What a ridiculous notion of course we are, we have sympathy, empathy, compassion, a conscience and free will to express any or all of those.

The suggestion that we are human echo chambers or only interested in what happens in our own circle of trust is a very insular , modern and in the main media driven concept.

I would go as far as to say if you can't express a full range of human emotions for the plight of suffering strangers, then that in itself is indicative of some defective thought and reasoning process.

Do you consider that only those regard themselves marginalised have a reason to care, and if not they don't?

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its like the word "p aki"

when I was young that was the name of the local shop "the p akis " or "the p aki* shop" but over the years the word "p aki" was used in a negative way and became associated with bad feeling (and to lump all asians as one) so became a word not to be used

Conversely the word "chinky" was and is to a degree used for a Chinese takeaway and now people are like "ooh you cant say that but it was never used in a negative way due probably to numbers and visibility of Chinese people (in Scotland in this example)

I think people just link the 2 words together "p aki, chinky" but in my mind they have very different etymology


So in reference to the question that word to describe a Pakistani became unacceptable due to just that, the majority decrying it so


and interestingly the swear filter agrees with me

It didn't that's why you had to break that word up.
All I got from your post is 'Oh why can't things be like they were in the 70s and casual racism be acceptable? Bring back Bernard Manning!!'

[user104658]

Originally Posted by LeatherTrumpet

Its like the word "p aki"

when I was young that was the name of the local shop "the p akis " or "the p aki* shop" but over the years the word "p aki" was used in a negative way and became associated with bad feeling (and to lump all asians as one) so became a word not to be used

Conversely the word "chinky" was and is to a degree used for a Chinese takeaway and now people are like "ooh you cant say that but it was never used in a negative way due probably to numbers and visibility of Chinese people (in Scotland in this example)

I think people just link the 2 words together "p aki, chinky" but in my mind they have very different etymology


So in reference to the question that word to describe a Pakistani became unacceptable due to just that, the majority decrying it so


and interestingly the swear filter agrees with me

Maybe right, though I'm too fresh-faced to remember "the p word" being used as anything other than a derogatory term. "Chinky" is a weird one; when it's used as shorthand for a Chinese takeaway or meal I;d say the etymology is no different to referring to a "chippy". Likewise, the Chinese restaurant next to my work (who we have a close working relationship with... by which I mean I swap them bags of change when they need it and they give me free chicken balls & chips ) has no issue with the term either. It does however become a problem when the actual PEOPLE are referred to as "Chinkies" and I guess that's the difference; nearly had a fight start when someone was referred to as "that wee chinky guy at the front" in a negative context.

Which is something I have some sympathy for, having lived in England for a while. Scotch whiskey? Fine. Scotch pie? No problem. Though I will argue that this is simply "a pie" with no prefix needed .

But when people called ME "Scotch" or "The Scotch guy" it did make me genuinely pissed off . So it's not the word, it's the usage.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

It didn't that's why you had to break that word up.
All I got from your post is 'Oh why can't things be like they were in the 70s and casual racism be acceptable? Bring back Bernard Manning!!'

Think his point was that you can't say **** (p-word) but you can say "chinky", showing that one has become a more commonly recognised racial slur.

[Crimson Dynamo]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Maybe right, though I'm too fresh-faced to remember "the p word" being used as anything other than a derogatory term. "Chinky" is a weird one; when it's used as shorthand for a Chinese takeaway or meal I;d say the etymology is no different to referring to a "chippy". Likewise, the Chinese restaurant next to my work (who we have a close working relationship with... by which I mean I swap them bags of change when they need it and they give me free chicken balls & chips ) has no issue with the term either. It does however become a problem when the actual PEOPLE are referred to as "Chinkies" and I guess that's the difference; nearly had a fight start when someone was referred to as "that wee chinky guy at the front" in a negative context.

Which is something I have some sympathy for, having lived in England for a while. Scotch whiskey? Fine. Scotch pie? No problem. Though I will argue that this is simply "a pie" with no prefix needed .

But when people called ME "Scotch" or "The Scotch guy" it did make me genuinely pissed off . So it's not the word, it's the usage.

agree with all of the above

[bots]

It is all about the usage rather than the words themselves. That's the nature of language and particularly English. Its not what you say, it's how you say it. That's why I think it's wrong to ban words outright. It diminishes our means to express ourselves. There has to be a more refined method of determining whats right and whats wrong, because those wishing to be derogatory will continually latch on to new terms to get their point across, they wont be stopped, and we just end up with fewer words in our vocabulary.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Think his point was that you can't say **** (p-word) but you can say "chinky", showing that one has become a more commonly recognised racial slur.

They are the same for me whether 'p shop' or 'c takeway' in my experience the people which use those terms will also use them as a racially aggravated descriptor 'effing p' or 'effing c'.
I don't recognise that one is any more or less offensive than the other personally.