UKC

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/01/how-to-keep-fighting-...

It would seem the Graun is plowing a new depth of furrow in whacked out gibberish for 2017

In reply to Big Ger:

They've given a Seattle based blogger a few column inches. Unlike the Daily Fail it's not deliberately divisive propaganda masquerading as fact based news, it's an opinion piece, so where's the harm?

In reply to EddInaBox:
What harm was claimed?

I wonder if they gave this person "column inches", which they regularly do it would seem, as they thought it would add intellectual quality, or as they thought it was a parody?

When someone has to inform their readers thus;


It doesn't show a great deal of faith in their intellect.

In reply to Big Ger:


Rhetorical question. If there's no harm, what's the problem with the Guardian publishing it?

You seem to be using it as an excuse to shoot the messenger rather than criticise the actual piece and the pillock who wrote it.

In reply to Big Ger:

It's in Comment is Free, it's not quite the same as it being in the Guardian.

In reply to EddInaBox:


None whatsoever, who claimed there was a problem? It does them no favours to publish it was my intent.


I can see how you may have thought that, and my apologies for giving that impression.

In reply to The New NickB:
It was in the Guardian's "opinion" section I think Nick, though seems to have vanished off today's front page. (One can only wonder why.)


ETA: you are right, "Comment is Free," my apologies.

In reply to Big Ger:

In principle I don't disagree with the statement. I have some wonderfully illustrated old school books which hail the British Empire as the best thing since sliced bread and everything good was achieved by white males. These days things are a little more balanced with ethnic and female scientists and achievers getting due notice. I am all for that. In the past such achievements were hidden.
What I disagree with is the jargonised, patronising, shoe-horning of political correctness in to every situation

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

Spot on.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:

There has just been a very interesting programme on radio 4:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b086nzlg

concerning polarisation, inability to listen to opposing views, airing one's views only on echo chambers of like minded souls (not like UKC then!). Worth a listen.

In reply to Big Ger:

>

"People of color"? Isn't that an offensive (in Europe) Americanism that actually pervades the idea that there are "white people" and "non-white people" rather than, as it should be seen, just a load of people of a wide range of different races and cultures, all of which are equally valid?

It sounds like something my grandparents would say in the 1980s.

The rest of it seems a good article, though.

In reply to Neil Williams:

It clearly discriminates against transparent people. Appalling.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I think 'people of colour (color)' is the preferred descriptor at the moment, whereas the grammatically similar 'coloured people' is outrageously racist. Until they change it again and nobody sends Benedict Cumberbatch the memo.

In reply to Siward:

Cheers - I'll have a listen later when I've got time.

In reply to Yanis Nayu:



In all seriousness...

I thought either of them was deprecated in Europe, in favour of, where actually necessary and relevant, correctly describing the origin/ethnicity of the person concerned rather than lumping all "white people" and "people of color" together.

I suppose it does follow along the line of using the term "people with a disability" instead of "disabled people" etc - emphasizing the people first - but I still think two arbitrary groupings on simple skin colour is as silly as grouping people on eye colour. Cultural and genetic differences may require terminology when they are being discussed - but the simple presence of melanin in the skin is, or at least should be, of no more real significance than the colour (or absence) of someone's hair.

In reply to Neil Williams:
Seems pretty apt given the state of the world - more widely than Africa..

Bob Marley. War

Until the philosophy which hold one race superior
And another
Inferior
Is finally
And permanently
Discredited
And abandoned -
Everywhere is war -
Me say war.

That until there no longer
First class and second class citizens of any nation
Until the colour of a man's skin
Is of no more significance than the colour of his eyes -
Me say war.

That until the basic human rights
Are equally guaranteed to all,
Without regard to race -
Dis a war.

That until that day
The dream of lasting peace,
World citizenship
Rule of international morality
Will remain in but a fleeting illusion to be pursued,
But never attained -
Now everywhere is war - war.

And until the ignoble and unhappy regimes
that hold our brothers in Angola,
In Mozambique,
South Africa
Sub-human bondage
Have been toppled,
Utterly destroyed -
Well, everywhere is war -
Me say war.

War in the east,
War in the west,
War up north,
War down south -
War - war -
Rumours of war.
And until that day,
The African continent
Will not know peace,
We Africans will fight - we find it necessary -
And we know we shall win
As we are confident
In the victory

Of good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah!
Good over evil -
Good over evil, yeah! [fadeout]

In reply to MG:


Yes he seems to have rather an opaque view of things.

In reply to Duncan Bourne:

I agree - the Guardian piece is over-stated. It is universally recognised that the Blacks have made leading contributions to art and culture, e.g. the inventions of Jazz, Blues, Rhythm and Block, Rock music..., sport, etc etc.

In reply to John Stainforth:

And rugby union. Hang on a minute...

In reply to John Stainforth:

not to mention science and industry

In reply to Neil Williams:

The americanised spelling of colour would suggest that the article was originally written for a North American audience.