Re: Diane Abbott : Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:12 pm  

There is a host of difference between inter-racial comment and racism - the problem is the former is too often labelled the latter.

Re: Diane Abbott : Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:23 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There is a host of difference between inter-racial comment and racism - the problem is the former is too often labelled the latter.

No!

The problem is some people attempt to disguise the latter by claiming they only meant the former

Re: Diane Abbott : Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:56 pm  

Sal Paradise wrote:

There is a host of difference between inter-racial comment and racism - the problem is the former is too often labelled the latter.

Until recently I worked with a salesman who was from an Asian family, he had a great understanding of the differences between those of an Indian and English descent and put that knowledge to good use in the market place, we could converse in the office freely about the cultural differences between his parents and himself, Indian vs English, without feeling uncomfortable or holding any racial prejudices from either party.

However the "joke" on the previous pages is outright racism, its based on a presupposition that an asian family contribute nothing to the economy but extract everything and the "joke" simply wouldn't work at all if you didn't insert the word "asian" (or some derivative) into the first line - try it with the word "english" or "american" and see if its funny.

That is, if you think it was funny at all, I didn't but as all humour is infinitely subjective I'll accept that some may have found humour in it - the humour is derived from its racial content though.

Re: Diane Abbott : Sun Jan 08, 2012 1:15 pm  

cod'ead wrote:

I doubt he found it offensive, simply unfunny

You beat me too it. TBH, I am not easily offended, things on here are so anonymous its difficult to take it personal.

Re: Diane Abbott : Mon Jan 09, 2012 3:47 am  

Take the following joke:
Q: Why are there no {insert racial or ethnic group} in Star Trek?
A: Because they won't work in the future, either.

Is that funny?

Take the following variant - substitute "Scousers"

Does that make it a difference?

Have we got any Scousers on here? How would they feel about the variant?

If I were a Scouser, then I don't think I would be liable to be any more or any less offended by the joke than if I were one of the relevant ethnic group. Context would be everything, too; I can see myself laughing at the stereotype in the context of a mix of wisecracks at a comedy show, but might take the hump if the joke was directly aimed at me personally, say down the pub.

But it's more complicated than that. The "wogs" and "coons" jokes and remarks in TV sitcoms of the recent past did NOT grate on the ears of a large slice of the population, yet today almost anyone would find that hard to believe. I'm sure therefore that many "wogs" and "coons" of the day must have been on the other side of that equation; it surely can't have sounded, on average, anything like as bad, or carried anything like the same level of offence, as those words have come to over the years.

It hasn't been a long time either. So now we see comedians totally avoiding those types of jokes, but still homing in on specific groups - such as Scousers. Humour based around the notion that the Irish are stupid still seems to be acceptable, but is it right, and for how much longer? I wonder whether we have reached the end of the line, or whether any discriminatory humour, not just ethnic or racial, will in due course go the same way, if society's attitudes to discrimination continue to evolve the same way? Thus, for example, jokes at the expense of fat people, ginger people, etc. may eventually go the same way.

Re: Diane Abbott : Mon Jan 09, 2012 8:25 am  

cod'ead wrote:

No!

The problem is some people attempt to disguise the latter by claiming they only meant the former

We must as usual agree to disagree.

Let's widen this debate a little - do we think the behaviour and legal treatment of the 4 Somalian girls is an acceptable part of a multi cultural society?

Re: Diane Abbott : Mon Jan 09, 2012 9:42 am  

NO and I think the Judge was wrong by a very wide margin.

Re: Diane Abbott : Mon Jan 09, 2012 10:15 am  

Sal Paradise wrote:

Let's widen this debate a little - do we think the behaviour and legal treatment of the 4 Somalian girls is an acceptable part of a multi cultural society?

Was it racially motivated? Apparently so

Was the judge's decision acceptable? No

Now we've got that straw man out of the way, care to continue the actual debate?

Re: Diane Abbott : Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:16 pm  

Re:Ferocious Aardvark

What if the humour is self-deprecating humour and delivered by the same ethnic group it also targets?

Is a Jew telling a Jewish joke bigotry? is a black man telling a black joke racist? if an Irishman tells me a stupid Irishman joke is he racist or if i repeat the same joke am i?

Surely racism is about intent rather than content, my best friend is black if i pop round his house and said 'Wassup my n-g--r (which i wouldn't because I'm personally uncomfortable with the word, but some of our friends do) that's not racist, in fact even if i did say it he wouldn't bat an eyelid. If i then went out and said it to some random black guy I'd expect to receive some hostility and if i said it in a threatening or angry tone I'd be committing a crime.

Re: Diane Abbott : Mon Jan 09, 2012 1:48 pm  

Horatio Yed wrote:

Surely racism is about intent rather than content

It ain't what you do, it's the way that you do it?

Not necessarily IMO. It's entirely possible for someone to act or speak in a racist way without deciding to do so intentionally, something noticeable particularly in the older generation IMO.

It's also entirely possible for someone to act in a racist way while masking the motivation for their actions - turning someone down for a job on the basis of their race for example can easily be dressed up as a rational decision with no racial undertone to it.