I'm a little concerned about where the race industry is taking us.
The sort of Klu Klux clan racism, and racial or religious hate of that type is total repugnant and wrong. Got to be stopped.
But we have reached a ridiculous stage;
The PM accused of racism for a heated comment about the Welsh at a moment of high political tension.
It is alright for one racial group to use the word white, but not for another to use the word black.
A report of the (historical) way language was used in the forces gets a man of impeccable character sacked.
Ancient expressions and curses which have no racial meaning are considered racist because they include some proscribed words. (proscribed by who? anyone who wants to object)
I can go on and on, and quite probably so can you.
In the UK prior to the recent uncontrolled wave of immigration, the Welsh, Scots, Irish & English had a rich store of jokes, and vocabulary of insults we all enjoyed.
Now outlawed and condemned as Racist.
Lets remember language is a means of expressing ideas. The Language is a carrier, the richer the vocabulary the more clearly ideas can be expressed.
To exclude words because of PC views. diminishes us all and reduces our ability to communicate.
What can be racist, is the idea or motivation of the words. Lets restrict our constraints to hatred and unacceptable proposals and ideas, not to language.
Lets get some sense back into society and treat these stupid PC idiots with contempt.
What irritates is people who point fingers and screach 'racism' but when challenged to explain what is racist about something that's said just clam up.
Neither. I just want a balance we can all live with comfortably and to preserve our own cultural heritage. Do you have a problem with that Tizzy or do you want to sweep it all away?
Yorker, your comments show that you are not after a balance, but a place where you can feel comfortable without putting in the effort to understand that the majority are trying to mend fences, not put them up.
What do you mean by cultural heritage? Please don't be flippant, I would really like to know what you think your heritage is.
Insofar as sweeping 'it' all away (whatever 'it' is), I have no problems, but you evidently do; I want to discover and engage with anybody who thinks differently from me - how would I learn, otherwise?
It is not something you can put easily into words, Tizzy; it's almost indefinable - that is why booklets that preach Britishness to immigrants are so crass.
It's a way of life and respect for landscape, heritage, culture, etc you don't want to see destroyed or changed possibly for the worse. I happen to enjoy cultural difference and often seek it out. I used to love London, and it was OK when a moderate amount of immigration brought a touch of additional colour and cultural understanding. But now it has gone too far, causing divisions, alienation, ghettos and all the other ills of an unhappy megacity. For those in constant need of a cultural 'fix', though, it's still a wonderland, but it holds few thrills for me.
I have travelled Britain extensively, living and working in London, Scotland, the West Country, the Midlands and East Anglia, and my family comes from the North-East. I've seen the effects of mass immigration and know the resentment felt. I doesn't take much imagination to see what could happen if it isn't checked. I also know a good many Muslims and acknowledge how hard most of them try to integrate (as far as they are allowed to) and not cause problems. This works fine where their numbers are reasonable, say up to 5% of the local population. It gives them space to follow their own culture and in turn gives the indigenous people space to become interested or not (it's their choice after all) without having it thrust in their face. It all comes down to what is tolerable, and it is a mistake for Londoners and those who govern from London, to think that what suits them suits the rest of us.
You talk about fences Tizzy. My point is that if immigration exceeds the tolerance level you create fences. Best to avoid that.
Thank you Yorker, I appreciate your answer. This post is not about immigration, however, it is about racism, and our recent discussion was about cultural heritage.
It is a difficult question because it will depend on the boundary one sets, right down to neighbouring counties, or allegiance to Man City or Man Utd, as examples.
You say it's about your way of life, but that is likely to be different according to where and the manner in which you were brought up. Would you say that have more or less in common with your favourite MP and his/her family, than an Australian (or any other nationality) family living next door to you, working in the same environment as you? What is it that binds you to this country?
Ah, but voice an opinion about immigration and you're accused of racism...
It's not my way of life but the traditional British way of life, in which I share.
The erosion of this is loosening the ties that bind people to this country. Many in the south, including members of my own family, are sickened by it and leaving... heading for France, for example, where valued traditions are preserved and immigration not allowed to seriously dilute the French way. I haven't quite reached that point but may well put greater distance between myself and the foul chaos of the South-East.
As a person of Anglo Indian origin I believe based purely on personal experience that racism is a minimal problem. A far more serious problem now is when it is abused as a defence to prevent legitimate objection to doctrines and practices of certain minorities.
In particular the demands for respect of their way of life while at the same time imposing their restrictions sometimes with grossly excessive force on others who have no interest or belief in their dogma.
I believe that this overtolerance holds the danger of a severe backlash which will damage innocent and guilty alike.
Rover: locally we have an Asian community numbering about 500 in a population of 15,000. They now have 2 mosques, pursue their own culture, fit nicely into the local business scene and are very welcoming to outsiders who show an interest. The indigenous folk can take them or leave them, it is not an issue, there's no friction and relations are friendly.
It's a numbers thing. If that community were to grow to 2 or 3 times its present size it would have much greater impact, which would be resented, and a certain amount of hostility would follow. If it were to grow 8 to 10 times, there would be serious trouble. Now why can't the boys and girls in Westminster understand that?
As a witness at the famous river of blood speech I did some research on whether he was talking rubbish based on the social science data of the time. It seems that he was basically talking sense if somewhat over emotively.
If I remember correctly there is a critical mass where only military power can retain control of separate cultures. A superb example of this is Jugoslavia. Tito's greatest achievement was holding the country together in the face of the opposing cultures. Around 15% appears to be the critical mass though this is less than perfect both in the size and depth of the studies I looked at with an estimated range of 5% to 20% depending on the isolation level of the communities.
Has anyone done any proper studies on the subject since and is the data in the public domain?
If you don't believe it, go do a test as the rest of this post will be meaningless otherwise.
It's almost impossible to retrain those subconscious biases and they're constantly reinforced by media etc.
Therefore, what most people do is consciously correct their own bias (at least when they're aware of it).
Should it ever become acceptable to be racist/Islamophobic, the floodgates would open. This is why I nearly always call people on saying something likely to by construed as such.
Minorities are much more acutely aware of bias as they are constantly subject to it. People avoid their gaze, lock their car doors as black men walk past, give white middle-class males the jobs etc.
Racism is a mischievous label for something I would call 'preference'. We are (or should be) all entitled to exercise preference or (that favourite buzzword of politicians) "choice".
Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for European American compared to African American
It appears I'm a racist bigot - who knew?
Fact is, I prefer black people to Americans!
It's automatic prejudice in specific situations and, as I said, we attempt to compensate when we're consciously aware of it.
There was something in the Guardian on Monday about not enough ethnic minority women MPs (0.5% of total). Are we really saying that this grouping doesn't make as good MPs as the others? No, it's blatantly caused by prejudice among the general population (ethnic women included and FPTP to a lesser degree).
The other interesting thing to look at are those situations where we couldn't or wouldn't know to override such automatic preferences...
I try to be extra nice to ethnic minorities in the street, although cultural differences and not appearing patronising make that quite a challenge. There aren't many Muslims in this part of Bristol but black people get a bit of a shock when I smile or nod. ;)
Tim - I prefer blonde chinese girls that live above breweries, however, I don't think there are many of that demographic in the UK. guess I'll stick with the missus!
The test that dave suggested is quite interesting though - do you remeber the film "Paralax View"? the test reminded me very much of that. Sinister really!!??
Anyway I'm glad I can hold my head up - I'm clean!!!
DaveGould, if Oona King stood for Parliament around here I'd probably vote for her because she appears to have what it takes as well as universal appeal. Other ethnic minority women probably haven't otherwise they'd do better. King stands a chance of getting in anywhere (just unfortunate she came up against Gorgeous George). It's not necessarily a racial thing.
Psychometric testing fails on many levels, not least because it is American. The tests predict results before the test are taken and even, in the case of your link, publish the results expected to be viewed immediately before taking the test. That in itself would have a subconscious effect making the results null and void. The reason that the American origin of the test makes it invalid is because thought processes are governed by language and we and the Americans do not speak the same language therefore our thought processes are different.
As a mixed race person I object to the forms with ethnic origin not having a box for not important. As a friend of mine of mixed Afro Caribbean Scandinavian origin put it, "Why should I give a stuff about my roots I'm not a potato. It's what I grow into that matters."
Timbill, I wonder if they ran Andy Coulson through a battery of psychowhatsits. He must have passed with flying colours to land that megabucks job... There's a thought.
