UKC

He appeared to be struggling to keep a straight face as he sincerely apologised for using a certain word in a (formerly) well known children's rhyme.....

My South African family are on a visit to the UK and are staggered at our race relation's laws coming from a country where everyone (blacks, coloureds or whites) address each other by this word which is seen as being non-offensive and in the same context as words like "dude" or "mate".

In reply to Trangia:

I actually have some sympathy with him. We used that rhyme when I was a kid, perfectly innocently and with no thought of what the words meant, and I would recite it now without thinking (well obviously not after this has happened and raised my awareness of it).

If he knew what he was doing and was trying to push it as far as he could without getting into trouble, then he's an arsehole.

In reply to Trangia: Ask your South African family what would happen if a white telly presenter used the work "Kaffir" in South Africa.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Absolutely - fat, middle-aged bloke trying to be "non-PC" and "edgy" = nobhead who deserves to be sacked. Fat, absent-minded, middle-aged bloke who said it by mistake - accept the apology and move on.

In reply to Trangia:

Apparently there are serious negotiations regarding the name of the dog in the 2014 remake of the Dambusters.

Sad

In reply to Trangia:

I'd never heard the n word used in this rhyme until a few years ago, we used the rhyme in games back in the early seventies and it was always "tiger". Wasn't PC or anything, it just was.

In reply to Removed User:

It was the n word when I was a child in the 60's. and I genuinely never thought what it actually meant. Weird in hindsight.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I would recite it now without thinking (well obviously not after this has happened and raised my awareness of it).

Oh come on, would you really recite it in front of a black person?

In reply to seankenny:



In the world of equality, why would you discriminate?

In reply to Trangia:


I was just reciting a rhyme about Jeremy Clarkson and accidentally used the word c**t.
Apologies for any offence caused.

In reply to seankenny:

Now, no. But two days ago, yes, because I had never actually considered the words and their meaning - a bit like the Lord's prayer. You just say it. I would probably have had an awkward, dawning realization half-way through.

Clarkson has got form with this sort of thing though. The "slope on the bridge" thing for example.

In reply to andy:

I'm reading a SA cop story by Roger Smith and he makes that precise point: all sorts of unpleasant epithets might be shrugged off by black South Africans - except the word "kaffir".

In reply to Removed User:
Speaking to a cousin a few years ago about this it seems to depend on where you grew up. For him in London the multi-cultural environment meant that using the 'N' word was a complete no no but for me in a small provincial town it was the norm. Looking back my attitude to it was ambivalent rather than racist.

I note that everyone is referring to the 'N' word which everyone knows refers to the word 'ni**r'. Why the self censorship?

I've edited out the uncensored use of the 'N' word because of the post by The New Nick B BUT the question still stands why do we self censor a word that everyone knows. Why aren't we self censoring/banning books like Tin Tin in the Congo?

In reply to andy:
"Kaffir" is quite unacceptable in SA because of it's historical connotations. However the "n" word is accepted by all races because it is an American word and has never been used in a derogatory sense in SA.

Thank you - I've learnt something myself!

Done some more research. Kaffir is a Muslim word and refers to a "sub section" of society who having been taught the word of Allah rejected it. Probably dates back to the Arab slave trade throughout Africa.

In reply to Trangia:

I've not seen the footage but I would comment that whilst an unfortunate choice of word it is JUST A WORD.

So why arn't people upset when Jay Z or Kanye West and others use it.

In reply to Antigua:

Alan has asked that people take care with such things and has, I think deleted threads in the past, even when used in a context like this. I guess it is a commercial and reputational issue.

In reply to MGC:


Do we really have to go through this every time?

In reply to andy:

I thought "non-PC" was meant to be part of the Clarkson/Top Gear appeal ?

In reply to The New NickB:

Looks like we do......

E

In reply to The New NickB:

However, Spurs were threatened with legal action for their fans singing about themselves being Yids.

It's a confusing world for average people who don't spend their lives keeping upto date with "the rules", which are always defined by other people and by the lowest point of offence, are somewhat arbitrary and are applied as if they are gospel by people with little capacity to reason beyond the boundaries of their arbitrarily defined rules.

For example, Alan Hansen was slaughtered for using the adjective "coloured" instead of "black" a while back. How is that fair?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Really! How confused do you need to be to miss the difference between a middle aged white bloke using the term and an African American Rapper, using a very slightly different word.

In reply to Enty:



Here is what Wikipedia has to say:

Intragroup versus intergroup usage
Main article: Nigga
Black listeners often react differently to the term when it is used by white speakers and by black speakers. In the former case, it is regularly understood as an insult; in the latter, it may carry notes of in-group disparagement, or even be understood as neutral or affectionate, a possible instance of reappropriation.

Among the black community, the slur nigger is almost always rendered as nigga, representing the pronunciation of the word in African American Vernacular English. This usage has been popularized by the rap and hip-hop music cultures and is used as part of an in-group lexicon and speech. It is not necessarily derogatory and, when used among black people, the word is often used to mean "homie" or "friend".

Acceptance of intra-group usage of the word "nigga" is still debated, although it has established a foothold amongst younger generations. The NAACP denounces the use of both "nigga" and "nigger". Mixed-race usage of "nigga" is still considered taboo, particularly if the speaker is white. However, trends indicate that usage of the term in intragroup settings is increasing even amongst white youth due to the popularity of rap and hip hop culture.[84]

According to Arthur K. Spears (Diverse Issues in Higher Education, 2006)

In many African-American neighborhoods, nigga is simply the most common term used to refer to any male, of any race or ethnicity. Increasingly, the term has been applied to any person, male or female. "Where y'all niggas goin?" is said with no self-consciousness or animosity to a group of women, for the routine purpose of obtaining information. The point: Nigga is evaluatively neutral in terms of its inherent meaning; it may express positive, neutral or negative attitudes;[85]

While Kevin Cato observes:

For instance, a show on Black Entertainment Television, a cable network aimed at a black audience, described the word nigger as a "term of endearment." "In the African American community, the word nigga (not nigger) brings out feelings of pride" (Davis 1). Here the word evokes a sense of community and oneness among black people. Many teens I interviewed felt that the word had no power when used amongst friends, but when used among white people the word took on a completely different meaning. In fact, comedian Alex Thomas on BET stated, "I still better not hear no white boy say that to me... I hear a white boy say that to me, it means 'White boy, you gonna get your ass beat.'"[86]

In reply to The New NickB:

I was talking in a wider context. I understand the difference between the two scenarios; but I can understand why some people can't.

In reply to Trangia:

It seems have been a far stronger term in the US than the UK, historically. Are we importing a level of offence? Obviously it's deeply insulting but previously in the UK I don't think it was more so than other many other slurs. Is this changing so it is somehow now uniquely terrible?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:
I think most people are able to judge the 'rules' fairly accurately. Yes, you will get someone going over the top,(IIRC on the Question Time episode with Nick Griffin, Jack Straw was berated for pronouncing Caribbean as Carri-bean and not Carib-ean and gave a grovelling apology), but I think the vast majority of people know what is offensive.

In reply to Trangia:

I also grew up as a child with that rhyme and had no idea (at the time) whatsoever that it meant anything at all, anymore than Eeney or Meeney etc.

Now I know better and realise it isn't appropriate. Nor is referring to a child covered in mud as a dirty hayrab which I now realise started as a reference to Arab. The good old days?

But it does seem like journalists looking for something to be offended by to me. It wasn't broadcast.

In reply to Ridge:

It doesn't stop there being an aggressive clamour when someone like Hansen doesn't use the currently most-favoured word. I really don't like that.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


You really never knew how insulting this word could be? Seriously? You are from the 1950s and I claim my five bob.

In reply to seankenny:

I think it does depend a little on where you grew up, and how multicultural it was at the time. Growing up in a northern market town in the 70s, my primary school was entirely white. I'm pretty sure the "n" word still figured in nursery rhymes because there'd been no one to suggest it might offend anyone.

But on the other hand, it wasn't intended to offend, it was just a word that we were vaguely aware referred to a black person, without any thought that black people were in some way inferior. I was really deeply shocked at age 9, at summer camp in the US, when a member of summer camp staff automatically assumed that some minor trouble had been started by the two black girls (it hadn't). That strikes me as far more worrying than innocent use of language (though I wouldn't assume Clarkson's use was innocent.....)

I remember hearing the grandmother of one of my mate saying that the new carpet in their house had a really nice "nigger-brown" colour.
Apparently for people of her generation it was a completely common thing to say. Barely 180 years ago this country was still trading slaves, it's not that long back.

In reply to Trangia:

Clarkson sits alongside Farrage in my book as the hero of the average British repressed bigot.

In reply to Trangia:

Can't stand Clarkson, hate racism, but jeez this is ridiculous. He made a mistake and took the appropriate remedy to ensure that no offence was caused. Someone on the production staff decided to stitch him up.

As to the word, should the band NWA have been called "Black People with attitude" - that's surely more offensive !

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Except he hasn't taken the appropriate remedy at all.


FFS Chris, I expect better from you.

In reply to seankenny:

TBH, if, at aged 8-10 for example, someone had asked me about the word nigger and what it meant I'm not sure how I would have answered, what the prevailing view of it was at the time in the predominately white, working-class area I grew up in. I just can't remember.

However, it's somewhat irrelevant, because the point I was making was the words were not actually considered, just repeated - just like the Lords Prayer I referred to above. I could recite it by rote then, I can recite it by rote now, and I've never given a single thought to what any of it means.

I have to say that it does irritate me that you implied that I was lying about it. What possible motive would I have? It would be good if you could realise that other people have different lives, upbringings, priorities, opinions and interests than you, which doesn't necessarily mean they are wrong.

In reply to The New NickB:


It wasn't broadcast and he's said sorry. What do you want to happen now?

In reply to Trangia:

Spike Lee has been a long time critic of Quentin Tarantino's excessive use of the N word in film like Jackie Brown and Pulp Fiction.
http://thegrio.com/2012/06/14/spike-lee-quentin-tarantino-jackie-brown-n-wo...

In reply to Sir Chasm:


How about the bit where he lied about not saying it.

I don't really care what happens.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Burn him, burn him!!!!

In reply to The New NickB:


The appropriate remedy was to ensure the clip, in which he mumbled the word more audibly than he intended, wasn't broadcast. That should have been the end of it.

Using the word "nigger" isn't inherently racist IMHO, its the intent. If Clarkson had been referring to someone, even mumbling, that would have been offensive, but he wasn't. He was using a nursery rhyme that many of us grew up with. And his intent was not to be audible using the word, but still count the two syllables. Is anyone who says "Eany Meany Minny Moe" and says the rest under their breath a racist? This is back to "Baa Baa Black Sheep" myth which was used to undermine anti-racism in 80s.

You could draw parallels with the sexism of Gray and Keys, but with them there abuse was targeted at particular individual, sometimes in person

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Rubbish , he's a witch. I bet he floats...

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I think the comparison with Baa Baa Black Sheep is exceedingly weak.

In reply to Postmanpat:

and weighs the same as a duck

In reply to The New NickB:


A right wing paper invented a story that a "loony-left" council had banned the use of the nursery rhyme. This was a blatant lie. But a teacher believed the story and stopped kids from singing it. Now you genuine story. Why did the paper lie in the first place - to undermine genuine attempts to curb racism, and so that people like Clarkson could go "It's political correctness gone mad".

This (non)story give them more ammunition

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I know the back story, the comparison is still very poor. There is a world of difference between "Baa Baa Black Sheep" and a rhyme that has the words "catch the nigger by the toe".

In reply to seankenny:


I suspect the understanding of the N word as offensive was an American import, and possibly a Caribbean import. Growing up in the 1960s I don't think it was regarded as such in the UK , as apparently it wasn't in South Africa. Certainly we used the nursery rhyme in its original form just as we read "Little Black Sambo" without any sense it might be offensive.

I remember on my first trip to the US in 1975-6 being involved in a game of charades with a group of Americans . The answer to one charade was "The N…of the Narcissus" and the wife of the guy using it gave him a huge bollocking. I was surprised.

In reply to Carolyn:


I'm going to call this one out. I come from a milk-white small town in rural East Yorkshire, the kind of place where the local skinheads (this was back in the 80s) prefered Combat 18 grafitti to plain old NF grafitti. I remember being told that the n-word was offensive, and certainly by the time I was a teenager I knew that this was the case.


>it was just a word that we were vaguely aware referred to a black person, without any thought that black people were in some way inferior.

I just checked Wikipedia, which whilst not the fount of all knowledge, suggests that the n-word was considered offensive by the early 1900s, possibly even earlier in the writings of Mark Twain. That might be in the US - the same entry suggests the sea-change occured in the 1970s in the UK.

So Submit to Gravity might just get a free ignorance pass if he's in his 60s, but to be eligible for the pass he'd have to prove he was ignorant of such stories as the trial and conviction of Dobson and Norris for the murder of Stephen Lawrence, where they used the n-word repeatedly...

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/13/stephen-lawrence-murder-trial-rac...

In reply to The New NickB:



http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27249038

Thats about as grovelling an apology as I've seen..... coming from Clarkson just shows how worried he is of public reaction to it. Normally you'd get a flippant F You 'appology'.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Yes, it does seem the change in how people used the world took place in the 70s and 80s - but to claim ignorance about it in 2013 just seems strange to me. No, scrub strange, it's just ignorant - sorry to be so blunt but this is a social norm, right?

The deeper question of how rhymes like "Little Black Sambo" (with its conotations of black men as "boys" which I suspect goes back to the days of slavery) can be unconcious manfiestations of a racist society* is probably a bit beyond this thread, given that some respondents are struggling to understand why black people can use a word that white people can't.

Chris Rock can help you on this one, btw:
youtube.com/watch?v=_Tc9xWX3wLE&


* note I'm not saying society is currently racist, at least not generally

In reply to Trangia:

>The NAACP denounces the use of both "nigga" and "nigger"

But not, presumably, 'coloured'. Someone should tell Alan Hansen.

This is all bollocks, isn't it? It's just a word.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:




Is it a word you'd use in a professional context?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


I don't imply you are lying - I believe you are being 100% truthful. As I said, I'm struggling to understand how you could live in the modern world and not get at least the basics of this stuff. Did you not have the faintest inkling that black people might not like being called a n****r by a white person?

Note that I'm self-censorting here as I don't want to get the thread pulled for hate-speech. I know all the words to Gold Digger! Well, most of them

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Shout out "yo, bitch" to your wife when you get home, and tell me tomorrow how sleeping on the sofa feels.

Odd argument from one so usually sensitive to the meaning and use of words...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Weird, isn't it, that it's just a word that he chose, deliberately to mumble, rather than speak as clearly as the rest of the rhyme, a word that was chosen not to be shown, and a word that he lied about having used, and then apologised for using.

Words.

Tiny, yet pretty powerful.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not a bad idea, actually. Not for this incident, just for the fact that he makes money by justifying the mild bigotry of those who refuse to let go of the attitudes they were brought up with and feel they have a right to keep in spite of the insidious damage they do throughout society.

youtube.com/watch?v=_yon6FGRvxo&
youtube.com/watch?v=qLGvWEnbg3c&

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


I think you are talking shite, as on this thread you appeared to at least appreciate what the issue was about

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=494242&v=1#x6758347

In reply to seankenny:

Ah yes, but words have meanings in their context and time. It's pathetic, for example, to get exercised about the name a dog was given in 1943, or a novella in 1897, or a Victorian nonsense song. It strikes me as much the same as airbrushing characters out of Soviet photographs.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Agreed on the first two points. The dog and the novel were called what they were called, that's that.

The Victorian nonsense rhyme, that'll be the one that has an alternative phrasing to the one used, which Clarkson chose not to use. Not quite the same, under your context and time criteria, as the furore shows.

In reply to The New NickB:



Got to keep those groups separate. Thank god for wikipedia.

Sup ma cracka?

Edit:

"The word “Negro” is used in the English-speaking world to refer to a person of black ancestry or appearance. The word negro denotes 'black' in the Spanish and Portuguese, derived from the ancient Latin word, niger, 'black', which itself ultimately is probably from a Proto-Indo-European root *nekw-, 'to be dark', akin to *nokw- 'night'.[1][2]
"Negro" superseded "colored" as the most polite terminology, at a time when "black" was more offensive.[3] This usage was accepted as normal, even by people classified as Negroes, until the later Civil Rights movement in the late 1960s. One well-known example is the identification by Martin Luther King, Jr. of his own race as 'Negro' in his famous 1963 speech I Have a Dream."

It's like a fucking circle. Negro will be back before we know it, and I will chastise the lot of you for using the word 'black'.

In reply to FreshSlate:


Intragroup: "A long reach for a gaston above a bunch of RPs."
Intergroup: "Yes, I had a lovely day out climbing on Sunday."

Suspect you do it all the time :p

In reply to seankenny:

It has an alternative phrasing because people, pathetically in my view, decided that the Victorian words might offend people.

Since when did tigers 'holler'?

jcm

In reply to Removed User:
It was definitely the n word in the 70s around the midlands because without thinking I would use it with my kids with the wife keep correcting me, but when I started my apprenticeship I used to travel through a certain part of Birmingham on the way to work and there was a car service center called golliwog with a Robinsons golliwog on the sign (owned by 2 jamacans) so no malice meant with it also now a my kids school he's not allowed to call back pudding black it's got to be pigs pudding, as he's irish he asked me what is he allowed to call white pudding, personally I think Clarkson is a bit of a c@#ck but pc is getting a bit ridiculous

In reply to seankenny:



Don't recall taking offense at the word RP from non-climbers. ^^

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Why don't you stand on a street corner and recite the original version to everyone who passes, you can then tell anyone who expresses offence how pathetic they are.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Erm, perhaps some people actually were and continue to be offended by that word?


Since when have any of us grasped a burly black gentleman by his toe, awaiting a squeal? Hmmmm, on second thoughts, better not to answer that.

In reply to The New NickB:

Argumentum ad Populam?

In reply to FreshSlate:


Clearly not, as popular a tactic as it is on these forums. I just JCM should stand by his principles.

In reply to FreshSlate:


I'm not sure I understand your argument here. Are you lamenting the fact that you can't use the n-word these days? Or does it all seem somehow a bit trivial? Genuinely curious...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


In the Jungle Book Shere Khan demonstrates a range of vocal abilities.

If you're going to get pedantic I'd have more issue with the one about the old women living in the shoe.

In reply to The New NickB:

Because I've got better things to do. In any case, even it were deemed ill-mannered to recite the actual rhyme in public, as far as my limited understanding of this story goes, Clarkson is being slated for doing so in private because some ill-wisher has chosen to release film of it.

jcm

In reply to seankenny:

Wolfo has a point; in the 1970's I was taught that 'negro' was the correct term to use if one wanted to be correct and polite, and that 'black' was not quite as correct and polite. Now that's changed, for no particular reason. Ditto 'coloured'.

This stuff is all bollocks; equality's about much more important things than these silly taboos. Clinton aide, niggardly, etc.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Currently at number 7 in the Top 40 Posters.

In reply to seankenny:


Would that be the alternative phrasing that some of us had never heard until today?

It must be a slow news day when papers are resorting to forensic audio analysis of recordings made a "couple of years ago" to fill their twadry tabloids ;(

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


It's the same, over all time, with words that refer to any group of people that are in a position where they don't have power. As an example, look at what has happened with words to describe people with a mental illness over time... Using words like 'Black' and 'Nigga' is an attempt to claim the power back and to stop the slide of words

http://grammar.about.com/od/pq/g/pejorterm.htm

In reply to seankenny:


Exactly.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Yep, UKC doesn't write itself.

In any case, even it were deemed ill-mannered to recite the actual rhyme in public, as far as my limited understanding of this story goes, Clarkson is being slated for doing so in private because some ill-wisher has chosen to release film of it.

I am not sure I agree with your definition of private, especially as he was doing a piece to camera. But, does it really matter, something either is or isn't offensive. It's not some silly pseudo philosophical question about trees falling over in forests.

In reply to Trangia:

Clarkson is in serious trouble now, he has the full backing of Michael Gove.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I suspect there is a reason, but clearly both our understandings of the history of racial politics is lacking the finer details. Back in the 1970s you may have been taught that by a white person, perhaps black people came along and said, nope, not like that, thank you very much. Please call us this instead. So stuff changed. No big deal, for us, is it? Unless the big deal is that the change in language reflects a change in power structures and a loss of a particular view of the world, which is why everyone who complains about not being able to use coloured or gay tends to be of a certain age...




Taboos maketh human society. Again, given your profession and your general "wordiness", this is a surprising attitude to take.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Hmmmm...

I think you do see a reason, but disagree with it.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Well we caught a rabbit and waited for it to squeal (in 1980s yorkshire). Rabbits being commoner than either of the other options, and health adn safety ruling out the tiger...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



If you're sure that all this bollock is not important in equality, then can you explain why minorities get so het up about it? It might not be the most rational thing in the world, but some words take on a significance that relates them to hatred and abuse, and once a word has that significance it becomes taboo.

I can tell you now that the word "faggot" (used to mean homosexual, not some disgusting offal product that I don't really know what it is) really genuinely makes me wince and anyone who uses it as "banter" without any self-awareness of how offensive it is is, in my view, a total and utter cock. You can say it's unimportant and I should worry about something else, but there's something about psychology and language that results in these words taking on a big significance about the attitudes of the person using them.

"Nigger" took on that significance a long time ago (from the US, as suggested?) and most people have accepted that and would steer well clear of using it in any context where it might imply an underlying attitude. It's pretty obvious when a word takes on an offensive significance, I don't buy this crap people say about "oh it's so hard to keep up with the rules these days". When someone says that "baa baa black sheep" is offensive, it's obvious that they're talking bollocks; when someone says that "nigger/paki/faggot" is offensive, it's equally obvious that those words have taken on that significance. Unless you're willfully out of touch.

In reply to Mike Stretford:


I'm good with that one, but the old lady who swallowed a series of increasingly large animals, starting with a fly, her? Just wrong, nope nope nope.

In reply to The New NickB:

>But, does it really matter, something either is or isn't offensive

Of course it matters FFS. Something can’t be ‘offensive’ unless there’s someone to offend.

jcm

In reply to The New NickB:


Sounds like we can benefit from an economy of scale.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Bollocks, something either is or it isn't. Anyway, he wasn't in private.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>and would steer well clear of using it in any context *where it might imply an underlying attitude*.

Well, quite. Isn't that what I'm saying?

>When someone says that "baa baa black sheep" is offensive, it's obvious that they're talking bollocks;

Well, there are well-meaning organisations who find that offensive, are there not?

>when someone says that "nigger/paki/faggot" is offensive, it's equally obvious that those words have taken on that significance

Unless, as I've said before, you're an international bridge player, where everyone would ask 'did the Pakis beat the Aussies?' and think nothing of it, including the (very popular) Pakistani bridge team.

jcm

In reply to The New NickB:


On the other hand, he doesn’t have the backing of Piers Morgan.

jcm

In reply to seankenny:
No that's fine. My argument is basically as follows:

The use of Nigger, Negro, Black, coloured is not inherently racist, whether or not these words are considered racist have changed over time, not in any linear fashion but in a often quite contradictory manner. The idea that we can eventually find the 'ideal terminology' for calling a black man a black man is nonsensical.

I don't think racism is temporal. I think it's defined roughly as:

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."

Whatever our word of the decade is, this does not change. Jeremy Clarkson might well be racist, but it's not because he said the word Negro. I don't believe that racism is best tackled by lexical semantics, but by addressing the derogatory context and it's cause.

In reply to The New NickB:

Really? Beliefs can reasonably be called offensive even if not communicated, but words? I don't see it. You think someone sitting in their bedroom muttering 'f*ck, f*ck, f*ck' to themselves is offensive? We shall have to agree to differ.

It's not a live piece. He was in private in the sense that he was effectively rehearsing. Obviously there were other people there.

jcm

I'm guessing the Pakistani bridge team are rather posh and, being from Pakistan and not here, probably have no inkling of the hate dolled out along with that word in the Britain of the 1970s and 80s. Again, what counts as offensive is down to class, power and history.

Incidentally, try suggesting that daughters of the Pakistani brige players marry a habshi, and see what their reaction is.

In reply to tlm:



I don't, actually. I don't interest myself in the question as much as you might imagine. The only reason I've ever heard given was Stan Collymore saying 'black people aren't orange', which I didn't find very compelling.

Enlighten me. What is the supposed reason?

jcm

In reply to seankenny:


I was vaguely surprised to find half caste isn't acceptable as a term, a few years ago, it's not something I'd said, but a definitely not racist friend had used it quite innocently about a mixed race girl he'd had a short relationship with.

Occasionally things can just pass people by.

In reply to seankenny:


You'd be only half right. I expect they're posh compared to the average Pakistani, though I can't say I know, but their main star grew up here.

Agreed about class/power/history, of course.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:
I agree with you on the point about context, I don't think any of these offensive words are offensive on their own. All can be used in in-group or ironic ways that wouldn't be offensive (to me, and by extension, to others like me).

The point I'm disagreeing on is "it's all bollocks, equality is about more important things". I think that people not publicly displaying an attitude of accepted hatred, i.e. not being surrounded by offensive language on TV, at work, etc is important to equality. I know the difference between living in both environments, having gone to school in the 90s, and been at work in the 2010s.

In reply to Timmd:

I don’t know about offensive, but just wrong, surely? Half-caste doesn’t mean mixed race, it means something within Indian society which I don’t pretend to understand, doesn’t it?

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

Words, said in private or public tend to be considered an expression of beliefs, they are after all our primary form of communication.

In reply to Trangia:

When i was a kid my mum used to sing this rhyme and instead of the n word she would say "c*nt" Not as bad but still edgy

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I gave what I see as the reason in my post above...

Language is one of the main ways that people interact with one another. People have evolved to have a range of emotions, because they are a group animal. Interacting with other people gives rise to emotions. Therefore, words can give rise to emotions, which are quite a powerful driver.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Don't ask me, but listening to the BBC Asian Network an email was being read about, and the presenter mentioned it not being the right thing to say when another person used it to mean mixed race. I'd have thought it was to do with Indian society originally though.

In reply to FreshSlate:



Well, not necessarily contradictory, as I've suggested above.


Hmmmm, I'm a white man. You're a white man. Funnily enough, that's fairly close to "ideal terminology". Why should black men, or god forbid black women, be any different?




Well, if I called a black person a negro he or she might find it a bit, erm, weird. Old fashioned maybe? Harking back to a time when the relations between black people and white ones were very different?

I guess it matter because some words have historical and emotional baggages - as Jon wrote about above, and he can write about it with real feeling and understanding which I can't, for obvious reasons. Also, some words are markers for more unpleasant attitudes...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Well, I certainly agree with that. I just don't think Victorian counting rhymes convey 'an attitude of accepted hatred'. That's what I mean by 'bollocks'.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



https://www.google.co.uk/#q=half+caste+racist+term

It seems most see it as offensive, it's probably technically wrong as well as offensive...

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Shame, I was thinking some kind of micro-generation system might be feasible.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



You Can't say mixed race anymore it's offensive. The new PC term is "biracial"

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


I see what you mean, and given the mumbling and the obvious malice in the very existence of the story, I agree that this one is bollocks. On the other hand someone who, for example teaches their kids the "Victorian" version of the rhyme is conveying the attitude that they don't give a f^ck about something that most people would acknowledge is important. Which might be ignorance rather than hatred, I suppose.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

This from the Piston Heads forum is quite interesting.

'All about context and intent. Mixed race is fine, bearing in mind the whole prejudice (both from within the differing castes and from outside as well). I have heard the term half caste used with real venom in the past from both the lower dregs of the white part of the sewer but also from supposedly highly 'educated' but incredibly snobby Indians.'

In reply to doz generale:


That's bollocks.

In reply to seankenny:



As the above, says " "Negro" superseded "colored" as the most polite terminology, at a time when "black" was more offensive."

Right at this very time black seems quite appropriate, but already things are changing. In America you will find this common place: "I think you will find that is, 'African American' actually." I was once pulled up on my usage of the word black in public, do not think that it is a safe word and will not become outdated. The government policy of clubs in this country for minorities allows the name "Black Women's community group" but explicitly states that any such reasoning for acceptance criteria should be based on 'heritage' and not the colour of a persons skin. There has been some noise about many terms involving the word 'black', 'blacklisting' is one particular example.

I think the key to this is the word "fashion".


This is true. As soon as you are beaten up and called "you f*cking black prick" repeatedly, the word 'black' certainly loses much of it's appeal. If you are repeatedly discriminated against or harmed with reference to the term 'snow leopard' you would have very much the same feelings towards those words. However, taking Clarkson to task on his use of snow leopard is one thing, stopping people racially discriminating and being violent against other people is another.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Surely it's at least partly because it's an "easy" action to take, correcting language rather than tackling the underlying prejudice?

If there is an underlying prejudice, then it's quite possibly a useful first step to challenging it. But often it's just careless use of an old fashioned term from someone without an underlying prejudice. Is it helpful to put energy into changing that?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Just heard that "Biracial" is also offensive as it assumes that humanity is more then one race.

The new PC term is "Dual herritage"

In reply to doz generale:

The attempt to replace words that have gathered offensive significance (and "mixed race" ain't one of'em) can often seem clumsy and the proliferation of terms is unhelpful.

Is that what you're saying, or do you think that when a word becomes offensive because of how it's used (e.g. paki etc) everyone should carry on using it despite the fact that the people it's being used about hate it?

You seem to be trying to make a point without actually making a point.

In reply to seankenny:

>Unless the big deal is that the change in language reflects a change in power structures and a loss of a particular view of the world, which is why everyone who complains about not being able to use coloured or gay tends to be of a certain age...

Now, y'see, if I were the type who got offended, why, I might find that quite offensive.

I wouldn't say I 'complain' about 'not being able' to use the word 'coloured' - it wasn’t really in my idiolect anyway -, but I do find it quite tiresome needing to be careful about certain types of language not in order to make myself clear but because people might take offence where none is intended. For example, the fashion of a few years ago to correct people who used the word ‘Indian’ to describe British citizens of Indian descent (something that AFAICS BCID don’t actually give a flying f*ck about and which seems to have died away, probably for that reason).

I also thoroughly dislike the hijacking of the word ‘gay’ and would never use it myself (except in its original sense). That’s partly because I dislike the impoverishment of the language and partly because I resent the Orwellian use of language for implicit political purposes. I’m also of a certain age. I’m not sure what you mean by saying that ‘involves the loss of a certain view of the world’, but I’m not sure that I like it.

jcm

In reply to Carolyn:


Interesting point. It's difficult to know what "tacking underlying prejudice" really entails - do we honestly need to teach people that black people aren't actually inferior? I think the way it works is that the establishment (law, media, education, etc) changes the attitudes it embodies and the elements of society that aren't down with it eventually catch up or die out.


Maybe it is. It's symbolic of the attitudes of society if words connected to a bygone age where everyone thought that black people were inferior are just stamped out/completely changed in meaning, as is pretty much the case with "nigger". It just isn't used anymore in it's old-fashioned racist sense. If it had been fine for people to use it "accidentally" and "without underlying prejudice" then that change wouldn't have been so marked and the change in attitudes symbolised by the establishment would not have been clear to black people.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>On the other hand someone who, for example teaches their kids the "Victorian" version of the rhyme is conveying the attitude that they don't give a f^ck about something that most people would acknowledge is important. Which might be ignorance rather than hatred, I suppose.

Well, I would have done. I'm not sure that I have, but if I'd taught them it at all, it would have been the 'nigger' version. The "attitude" I would have been "conveying" is that words are offensive or not only in context and that I disagree with people who think differently.

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:

My sister is a teacher and has been told to avoid the phrase mixed race and to replace it with Biracial or Dual/Multi Herritage.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Haha, that's interesting!

What word do you think homosexual people should use instead to identify themselves? It's hardly fair to ask us, a minority of about 1 or 2% of society to invent a completely a new word and hope it'll catch on with the exact connotations intended.

It sounds a bit like you're against the evolution of language, which is strange. I just don't think it's possible to be selectively against the "Orwellian use of language for implicit political purposes" while being OK with all the other continual ways in which language changes.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Jesus. Do you want them to get beaten up and ostracised or something? A bit of pragmatism might help them out...

In reply to MGC:



I asked a black mate of mine about this and he said it's because they adopt the negative, and in doing so take ownership of a word that is loaded with hate.

It's more than just a word, it's cancerous, it's almost unique in what it stands for.

In reply to Timmd:



That's interesting; I'd imagined it was derived from the caste system, but evidently not. If it's from the same etymological lineage as 'quadroon' and so forth, I can certainly see why it's offensive.

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:

>What word do you think homosexual people should use instead to identify themselves?

'Homosexual'?!

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:

On the other hand someone who, for example teaches their kids the "Victorian" version of the rhyme is conveying the attitude that they don't give a f^ck about

The Victorians Bowdlerised verse they found offensive and we now think this odd and prudish, yet we are doing exactly the same. Not using nigger in new work is one thing, pretending it was never previously used is just censorship.

In reply to doz generale:


I wonder who's actually getting offended by the term "mixed race" - my guess is no one, which IMO means that person who's telling your sister not to use the term is full of crap. The trouble with this sort of stuff is that it by making out that non-offensive terms are offensive, it muddies the whole issue and as you imply leaves people with the impression that there are pointless, arbitrary rules about what's OK and what's not.

I might be wrong and some people might be deeply offended by being called "mixed race", or maybe people have used it as in insult (all sounds unlikely) but my view on it is that words that have an association with hatred are offensive and that words that aren't, aren't.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Oh come on. Do you honestly think the tone is appropriate for "it's a homosexual night with shit dance music" or "there's a few homosexual bars there now, it's becoming new homosexual area". It's explicit and technical and has completely the wrong tone for what's needed, and you know that as well as I do.

In reply to MG:


I don't know what you're trying to say. That we should teach kids that using "nigger" is usually offensive but is OK if the context carries an appropriate historical background?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
>

I disagree. Do you really think, for example, that many people were offended by being termed "coloured people" as opposed to "people of colour"? Of the terms for "people of colour" listed above I think only the N word was used (and then mainly in North America) as a deliberately offensive term. The rest were adopted or discarded on the basis of (possibly) imagined interpretations of their meaning or implications.

I think that was is happening here is that minorities, or more particularly their (often self) appointed spokespeople are attempting to redress the balance of power by dictating the correct use of language.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Oh, are we allowed to say 'people of colour'? I didn't know that. I thought it was 'non-white' people.

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I'd say yes, we do.

It's perhaps rare, but I've certainly come across people who appear to truly believe that black people (or in other circumstances, women, or wheelchair users, etc) are inferior. The local council did some work a while back, and some of the quotes from interviews are really shocking. That's what shocked me as a child - why on earth would you assume that the trouble makers in a group (who've you've only known for a day or two) are the two black kids?

Sloppy use of language might be irritating, and there are good reasons to try and avoid it, but it's not the underlying issue.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



Oh Christ, did I miss the memo on that? No job at the BBC then

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Yes - don't try and re-write things to suit today's mores. They are what they are, even if some of them may express attitudes that today are frowned upon. Did Bowdler really do anyone any favours by removing references to suicide from Shakespeare simply because the Victorians found the idea offensive?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Yes, fair enough, I don't mind it too much as code in those sort of entertainment contexts. Though TBH, like Brian Sewell, I would rather prefer 'queer', although one can see why that hasn't caught on. It's more in contexts like 'gay marriage' or 'gay rights' or the whole LBGT (or whatever the initials are) industry that it offends me.

jcm

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think what happens is that attitudes are slow to change, so when a new acceptable term comes along (e.g. "coloured") it's used by racists until people hate hearing it as much as they hated hearing "nigger". The source of the proliferation of terms is the failure of people to stop being racists, not some arrogance of minority groups as you imply.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

I don't see the merit of your quibble. "Gay bar" OK, "gay rights" not OK. What are you on about?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Well, I don't mind it to define a social ambience. I don't like it to define a class of people.

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Is that why 'coloured' became unacceptable? I can't keep up. tlm claimed to have posted the reason earlier, but I missed it.

jcm

In reply to MG:


This is all rather weird. "Eeny, meeny, miny, moe" is not a piece of literature being corrupted, it's children's rhyme whose content is utterly offensive in today's world. Why on earth would you want to teach it to your children?

The parallel to censorship is worrying - there's an unfortunate suggestion that we will change our attitudes towards racism and be more tolerant of it in future!

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


You're a robust chap.



But surely the anger against using "gay" as slang for homosexual is also about using language for a very political purpose, ie "this word - gay - means what WE want it to mean, not what YOU want to mean," where WE = middle aged and older straight people and YOU = those pesky homosexuals. So the fight over whether gay means skipping in a meadow or skipping to Old Compton Street is really one about who has power in society - the power in this case being to shape language. Your use of "hijacking" is telling - someone has taken something from you by force, and like a lot of hijackings it was by a group (originally) without a great deal of policial power.

As someone a bit younger and I guess the next generation down, I find the whole upset over the use of "gay" utterly mystifying. Thesaurus.com gives 49 synonyms for the word so it's hardly a great loss in lexigraphical terms. The politial explanation is the best I've got for otherwise utterly irrational behaviour.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

In "gay bar" the word "gay" defines people sharing the trait of homosexuality, a class of people as you put it. It has nothing to do with the social ambience, in which case it would be called a "crass bar" or such.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Right. And swapping nigger for tiger doesn't change that. Either use it as written or not at all.


No there's not. Just a suggestion that superficially hiding things we find unpleasant, doesn't make them go away.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


Keep up. I've come across LGBTQIA appearing more in the UK recently.

In reply to Trangia:

Is it dwarf or vertically challenged person? The last time I met one was years ago and things could have changed.

In reply to Postmanpat:


And how do you feel about that?

In reply to MG:

I don't see the problem with changing it for modern useage? Personally, I'd teach it to my kids with "tiger" or "monkey" or "rabbit" or one of the other variations I've heard - but at some point, explain that it used to be "nigger', what that means, why many people find it offensive, etc.

Denying it ever existed with "nigger" in is equally as stupid as pretending that's still an acceptable everyday useage.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Both can be true which is why, as carolyn said, the problem is the racism not the word. Repeatedly changing the terminology doesn't solve the underlying problem but does risk undermining and trivialising the issue by seeing racism in places it isn't (Alan Hansen is an example that springs to mind)

I'm not implying arrogance by minority groups. I am suggesting an instinct to redress the balance of power by taking control of the language applied to them. I would suggest that sometimes they misplay their hand.

In a sense the gay community has taken a different stance, by sticking with the term "gay" for themselves, but attacking its use as a negative term in other contexts.

In reply to MG:


The point has been made above - there's considerable merit in changing society from one full of offensive language in schools, workplaces, etc to one in which the words - and thus the attitudes they symbolise - are taboo.

In reply to seankenny:


Quite sympathetic to the principle but suspicious that it often used as a method of empowerment by specific interest groups of people within the minority not necessarily on behalf of the minority, and concerned that the repeated change of terminology leads to misplaced accusations of racism which weaken the case against real racism.

My basic position is that, within reason, I try and be polite to people so I use the terms that they are comfortable with. I think that's most peoples' position isn't it?

In reply to Postmanpat:


True. But it's difficult for people to stick with a term to describe themselves once people have started using it as an insult due to their genuine attitudes. It will be interesting to see what happens with the word "gay". I think since the establishment is now pro gay rights, the offense of the word being used as an insult is really quite 'light' - it's said most frequently with a bit of self-awareness and irony. This is how come the word will stick, because its use as an insult is connected with the schoolyard rather than the establishment.

In reply to MG:


It's a nursery rhyme, surely one of the most mutable pieces of wordplay in the language? Different versions of recognisably the same rhyme have been used by children for hundreds of years. So, we change a word that we don't like nowadays, or whose meaning has changed, what's the big deal? It's not Hamlet's soliloquay.

Changing it doesn't mean forgetting how it once was.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Well, no, it doesn't. A gay bar isn't one where only homosexuals are admitted. It's one whose ambience is supportive of/attractive to homosexuals.

jcm

In reply to Postmanpat:


Agreed - tho you also forgot (possibly) well-meaning but essentially clueless white people. Some of them may unfortunately share similar reading habits to myself


I would hope so.

In reply to Carolyn:


Things get really complicated here. The racism of the past forced a large percent black people to the bottom of the socio-economic ladder, and once you've got poverty handed down the generations, you've got culture and crime figures and correlations in which kids are badly behaved in class. The modern prejudice may come about for reasons more difficult to address than a completely unfounded belief in racial superiority.


No, the underlying issue is extremely difficult - more so than you appear to acknowledge.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


You may not be aware of the difference between a "gay bar" and a "gay-friendly bar"?

In reply to Trangia:

It is unambiguously taboo outside of rap music and street culture. For many 'coloureds' is just as offensive.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


I take your point, and can see how that might well be the case in places (such as many UK cities) that have had a significant size of black population for a number of generations. But I'm not sure it explains the situation, such as in Cumbria, where there's only been a significant (in % terms) BME population in the last 10 years or so - but there appears to be a very deep seated racism in parts of the population. It may simply be based on the message that's been put across in parts of the press, I suppose.

In reply to Trangia:
Here's what all the fuss is about:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/jeremy-clarkson-n-word-shame-expert-34...


E

In reply to Enty:

I think the poll at the end should have been simply:

"Do you hate Jeremy Clarkson?"

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think you've hit the nail on the head there Jon.

E

In reply to Trangia:
82% say he shouldn't be sacked.

So probably not a poll of whether people hate him on not! I'm pretty sure there is a 60/40 divide the other way there.

The idiots baying for Clarkson's blood are probably the same Gaudianista do gooders that would have us remove Ten Little Nigger Boys and Little Black Sambo from school reading lists. It's a madness...

In reply to Trangia: or people who are bored of an unpleasant reactionary who seems to have a lot of similar 'accidents'

In reply to Flatus Vetus:


“But it is really important that all of us appreciate that the use of this language is unacceptable and it's right that anyone who uses language like this, even in error, should apologise for doing it.”
Michael Gove

In reply to Trangia:

As kids in the 70s we used this rhyme a lot. Mainly when deciding amongst us who was 'on' when playing hide and seek etc.

We never used the N word... not because we were told not to, but because we never knew it was meant to be in the rhyme. No idea how we learnt these rhymes in the first place. If I remember, we used ' catch a baby by its toe. Along with - when its done, wipe its bum, on a piece of chewing gum!

Other rhymes used: Racing car number nine, losing gallons all the time.... remember that?


Ah the simple days!

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Before being so insulting, please read what I wrote. I completely understand the issue, what I said was that as a kid reciting that rhyme, I never considered the meaning of it. That was 35 years ago. I also said that I may have recited the same rhyme now without thinking about it.

By no means is that the same as me not understanding why the word is offensive. I know it is and I understand why.

In reply to Bellie:

It's "Ibble obble chocolate bubble..." now around here.

In reply to Flatus Vetus:


Well, I read the guardian and you would probably class me as one of your archetypal do-gooders.....

However, while I'm certainly not baying for his blood, I don't see any problem with asking for influential broadcasters like Clarkson to set a reasonable example. IMO using this word does not do that and knowing him I'm really not sure that he wouldn't do this on purpose.

In reply to Bellie:
When I was playing as a kid we used "catch a fish by its toe".

No idea why, and until now I never questioned fish having toes...

In reply to Trangia:

The more I think about it, the more I think the "slope on the bridge" comment was out of order. I remember watching the episode and him saying it, and thinking it sounded out of place. I didn't know that "slope" was a racist (or any sort of) term for an Asian, so I didn't get the reference, but knowing what I know now I think he's got a bit of explaining to do. It seems to me that he likes to slip these references in under the radar and get a bit of a kick from it.

As for the rhyme, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt, but when you start to look at the rap sheet, you do have to wonder whether he deserves it.

In reply to JoshOvki:



Exactly, you gave it no thought.

In reply to Trangia:


"Kaffir" means unbeliever for muslims, people destined for hell who any good believer should help into the true road to salvation, even if force was required. I visited in a place called Nuristan in Afghanistan which, until it's conversion to islam was called "Kaffirstan". Nuristan means the Land of Light. The inhabitants were given a choice though, their heads were placed on a block of wood and a sword was held above them, they could choose illumination, and take their new muslim name, or equally they could refuse in which case the sword came down... Charming custom.

I don't know how the term moved to South Africa though.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



Erm, the British Empire included both South Asia and South Africa, and linked all sorts of disparate parts of the world - Gandhi spents years in SA, and of course then there was VS Naipaul's family in Trinidad, or the huge numbers of British Asians with family ties to Kenya and Uganda. Globalisation isn't such a recent phenomena...

Btw, good story about Nuristan, tho of course not particularly typical for Islamic conversion across South Asia, as you well know - but that would be another thread. Was Nuristan nice, btw? I imagine it's like Chitral.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

As I said the last time we went down this road, if "colored" is really offensive to most black Americans, surely the NAACP would have changed its name by now.

In reply to seankenny:

You're right "nigger" has always been offensive, anyone who is unaware of this, even as a child, either has memory loss, is fibbing or lived in a context where they never heard the word except in the nursery rhyme.

PS. When I say always I mean my always, ie. the last 60 years.

PPS. Why would anyone want to catch a person by his toe anyway, what is the origin of the rhyme?

In reply to seankenny:


Very nice, to visit, very poor but probably one of the best sorts of poverty. 4 years later I visited Chitral too, the people are fairly similar, same clothes and such like. At the time of conversion in 1896 some of the inhabitants escaped across the border to Western Chitral. Their descendants still live there today and have become a bit of a tourist attraction. They had, or have, I'm not sure, their own religion and until the conversion the area was famous for it's wine.

I would have loved to return but even now I think it is far too dangerous, it has been described as one of the most dangerous parts of Afghanistan in several articles I've read and yet at the time the people seemed altogether pleasant and reasonable, we had no arms and would have been completely at their mercy if they had decided we shouldn't be there. It just goes to show something, I suppose.

In reply to Trangia:

I remember using this word in the nursery rhyme when I was a kid but never knew what it meant and never gave it a thought. as to why you would catch someone by his toe, again I have no idea and again never gave it a thought. like many kids nursery rhymes- fi fi fo fum, I small the blood of an English man etc etc. its just something we recited and didn't know what it meant

In reply to redsonja:


I would save your breath, it doesn't seem to be a concept people understand.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Seriously though, can you tell me that all homosexuals are gay? It's always seemed to me to one of the silliest euphemisms in modern English.

Why can't people just call a spade a spade these days?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

when I told my sister that her daughter is far too fat (which he is!), she snapped at me that she is "just big".

In reply to Bruce Hooker:



And where does that term come from?

In reply to Tom Valentine:

I presume they're keeping it because of its historical connections, and it's not offensive in that context. Or something.

jcm

In reply to Jon Stewart:


You're right. I'm not. What is it?

jcm

In reply to Trangia:

We sang this at six years old.
"eanie, meanie, minie, mo, catch the baby by the toe,
When it's dead, boil it's head
And turn it into gingerbread."

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Indeed, many of the them are f^cking miserable.

I think the idea was to pick a term that had broadly positive rather than broadly negative (e.g. "queer") connotations, nothing more.


I'm not sure what you're saying you'd prefer - a term which reflects the median emotional state of the minority group in question, or something that refers specifically to sexual acts?

In reply to Flatus Vetus:

What have deceased Spanish architects got to do with all this?



Puzzled Ealing,

(Now retired on the Costa Brava.)

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Agreed, the same-sex community have hijacked the word 'gay' and turned it into something else. How do teachers now teach English Literature written before say 1970 and explain that "No, when a character in those days said that they were "gay" it did not mean that they were homosexual just "happy".
That has fxxxxd much of Shakespeare and others' writings.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:


If I was a straight man and I went into a gay bar I should expect everyone in there to assume I was gay and behave accordingly. Gay bars are places where gay men meet to pull. Lots of men go to gay bars alone.

A gay-friendly bar on the other hand is a bar which is known as having a mixed gay and straight clientele where gay people can assume that no one's going to be a prick towards them for that reason, and where there'll be other gay people around. More unusual to head out to a gay-friendly bar by yourself. Not specifically a place to pick up men for a casual encounter, more likely to have a pleasant, trendy, bohemian type atmosphere rather than a nauseating, seedy one.

In reply to wynaptomos:



I might be mistaken here, but I was under the impression, that none of this was actually broadcast, but the footage was 'discovered' by the Mirror (that well known bastion of sensible, intellectual and factual reporting??) and passed to a forensic sound person, who after several hours, managed to decipher what 'sounded like' the N word.

I'm not defending Clarkson - he can be a somewhat immature cock at times - but as it wasn't actually broadcast, then how could anyone have been offended by it?

Of course, thanks to the Mirror, everyone now has.

So we hang him for 'possibly' saying it, even though no one outside of Top Gears production company (and the Mirror) has actually heard it?

In reply to mockerkin:

Don't they just explain that when a character in those days said that they were "gay" it did not mean that they were homosexual just "happy"?


Really? Is "gay" the only word in all of Shakespeare's work whose meaning has changed*? A have a strong feeling that you're talking total crap.

*The word has gained an additional meaning, and presumably because it was a word that was useful, its new meaning is now the more prominent of the two (or more?)
.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Neither, I was just joking, in the context of this thread, I though some wag would tell me to stop digging or something like that.

I agree that going to a "queer bar" or a campaign for "queer marriage" doesn't exactly trip off the tongue with the same elegance though... Maybe no "carefully chosen term with the right connotations" is required at all then? Ditto for different human visible sub-groups?

PS. Whenever I hear people using the word "coloured" in this way I'm always inclined to ask "What colour?"

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Not sure how that would work?! Things that exist tend to have words to describe them.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So Bruce, what's the derivation of the phrase "to call a spade a spade"?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I suspect it's a subset of the old "Calling a tool a tool".

Other elements are "Calling a shovel a shovel", "Calling a gimlet a gimlet" and so on.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I think you should be cautious using it - it has racist implications since a "spade" became a racial slur for a black person.

In reply to Goucho:
Well I think it's notable that it demonstrates that Clarkson truly is a racist git if he'll happily mutter it when he thinks he can get away with it.

Or is he only racist if it's intended for. Tv?

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Rather liked this, which I came across while trying to answer your question.

>http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/an-etiquette-guide-for-straight-people-in-ga...

jcm

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


I knew it. You're Stan Collymore.

jcm

In reply to Trangia:

Meanwhile outside this earth shattering debate the civil war is starting in the Ukraine, helicopter gunships and armoured vehicles are killing civilians in droves at the orders of a self proclaimed regime containing a significant fascist component (never mind those who mess with words) and not a peep is to be heard from the defenders of freedom throughout the world.

Does it matter what this motoring journalist said?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Erasmus, according to the internet. People considering that offensive would be a example of the sort of bollocks I'm deploring.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

It illustrates what I said earlier about it being difficult to follow what's acceptable and what isn't.

In reply to wbo:



Isn't it only offensive, when it is said publicly, and someone else is actually offended? Or, you're a Daily Mail or Guardian reader, in which case you're allowed to be offended because someone else was, because you like nothing more than a good old 'offended of Orpington' bandwagon to jump on.

I hope you get equally offended by the violent and misogynistic lyrics of Rap artists, who's music is available to be purchased by 12 year old's in Tesco?

In reply to Trangia:

Mmm. I don't like cars or top gear, or Jeremy Clarkson from the persona that is presented in the papers. But...
He's of a similar age to myself, and those are the words that I know to that rhyme. A younger colleague agreed that it was harmless.
I think his apology should be accepted. I'm more intrigued about Gerry Adams. I bet he is glad to be in the papers at the same time as Clarkson and Peaches?

In reply to wbo:

Well I think it's notable that it demonstrates that Clarkson truly is a racist git if he'll happily mutter it when he thinks he can get away with it.

Alternatively, it was scripted so that section of the phrase was deliberately mumbled and ambiguous and a play on how it has changed in recent times.
Clarkson in all probability mumbled something similar to the word in question, the BBC realised it wasn't quite unambiguous enough and didn't use it.
The Mirror found it and decided to make something out of it. It's interesting that they had to use a Forensic Analyst to decipher it when most people would have missed it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


>
Civilians my arse. How about "gunships of of self proclaimed regime containing a significant fascist component attacking militarised supporters of kleptocratic quasi fascist regime"?

Oh, I forgot, the enemy of my enemy must be my friend. Do you have any thought processes beyond that?

In reply to Postmanpat:

If you read the reports the Kiev spokespeople complain about the "rebels" using civilians as "human shields"... as you are doubtless aware human bodies don't make very good shields against modern weapons. These people came to power on the wave of outrage that followed the month's old demonstrations and quite violent occupations of buildings, just as we've seen in E Ukraine of late, coming to a head when dozens died from shooting. The blame being put on the Ukrainian forces of the time. A famous quote was: "When a government using firearms against it's own people it has lost all legitimacy."

What they are doing now goes far beyond what happened back then... but sorry, we shouldn't get off the all important debate about what some wanker said off-mike on a motoring programme. I only mentioned it because I just saw the news.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

What is the dual meaning of Shakespeare's play, 'much ado about nothing'?

Well, it's a play about not much, but nothing was also a colloquial term for a private parts of a woman. Yes, it's also a play about sex..

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I'm definitely with you on the spade argument.

you may not want to call a spade a spade. You may prefer to call it a spatulous device for abrading the surface of the soil. Better, however, to stick to the old familiar, simple name that your grandfather called it.

E

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Here's a clue Bruce. It's not a football game with goodies and baddies. It's a desperately complicated conflict with many grey areas and many baddies on both sides and people being manipulated by dubious forces on both sides and grim prospects for the outcome. And none of us, nor probably them, really know what's going on.

So FFS stop pretending otherwise.

In reply to Postmanpat:

That's just a cop out, if you applied this logic to life none of us could even vote at election times. Being an adult human being is making judgements in situations which are always unclear. We have ample information to form an opinion on what's going on in Ukraine if we want to... alternatively we could say it's all too complicated and sit on the fence watching the blood flowing in a far away country, to misquote your late guru.

In reply to Trangia:

My take on this is the same as this guy's take:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2618371/Did-Clarkson-really-use-N...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

We've got from Jeremy to Ukraine. Impressive.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Who were the people acting together like trained soldiers in the plain green uniforms then Bruce?

You can't deny that Russia very very likely has a hand in the chaos which is ensuing, there have even been Kalashnikovs(sp) being carried which aren't officially for sale yet...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


We don't have to vote on this. Any decent person would think that if they have a role it is to support a peaceful settlement rather than wave the flag for one group of thugs because they don't like the supporters of the other group of thugs But some people prefer to see the blood flow I guess.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Probably, I was thinking of eight year olds who when being asked to write their own poem about e.g. spring would typically write like this.
"It is the month of May, and all the lambs are gay"



No, but it is a word that has changed it's meaning vastly.


So? it has gone from being a word with a simple meaning, to one which one has two meanings, one of which will confuse the youngsters. Also it has meant that no-one now can use the original meaning of "gay" without misunderstandings. Who can now say that they are feeling gay without everyone assuming that the person meant homosexual? So it has been hijacked.
It's only the abuse of the English language that I am discussing here, not sexuality.

In reply to Timmd:

You've been reading/listening to that Western media again. All Russia wants is self determination, transparency and free and fair elections everywhere.

That St Putin, he's second only to Mandela.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Silly me. I'll watch Russia Today for something impartial.

In reply to Timmd:


... ensuing from the chaos inspired by the West both in bringing down the USSR (remember the Cold War?) then it's break up (remember Yeltsin and his deal with the rulers of Belorussia and Ukraine?) and the Orange revolution and the following "Battle of the Corrupt", then months of barricades and petrol bombs to get rid of the elected (but rather too pro-Russian) government.

The people in the East of Ukraine are horrified by the chaos they saw in Kiev, they are the ones that produce much of Ukraine's dwindling riches, the industrial heart of the country.. as many have said on the telly, what they want is stability and a return to the life that they were used to until all this started on the other side of their country.

In reply to Timmd:


You won't though, you'll watch the BBC, Sky News or whatever your poison is... Don't imagine that you are any more intelligent than people in other countries, even if you have been taught to hate them all your life, that your channels of information are any less manipulative than the ones you make fun of.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And who appointed you their spokesman?

There was some question about the sophistication of the weaponry used to shoot down those two helicopters, wasn't there? If I was a cynic, I might suggest it was used by Russian special forces.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

'ensuing from the chaos inspired by the West both in bringing down the USSR (remember the Cold War?) '

I remember the Cold War very well Bruce, IIRC the USSR were quite happy to participate until they - ahem - lost.

The USSR was a failed state built on 20 million deaths, it failed because despite the most draconian powers it couldn't deliver what the people wanted - food - toilet paper - razor blades - holidays - and some basic level of personal freedom to say 'f*ck you'. It failed, and will fail again under Putin, and buffoons like you will go to your graves saying that you've seen the future, it hasn't failed yet, and why doesn't everyone else see it.

In reply to mockerkin:






It is linguistic evolution, not abuse. 50 years ago to describe someone as being "tight" would, dictionary definitions aside, have meant that they were pissed (or miserly), to do so today would mean they were being cruel, unfair, intolerant (or miserly). The principal meaning of very many words has changed over time - take "nice" as a prime example. There is no hijack with "gay", just the impotent bellowing of a few bigots trying to portray it that way
P

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

I think Putin might find that his current popularity might wane when the economic effects of Russia's actions are felt. The rouble is devalued, money is flooding from the country, standards of living are falling and countries are reducing their reliance on Russian gas, which will only make things worse.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

And don't imagine you're any more intelligent than other people because you parrot the stuff off whatever your poison is. The main difference is that some people choose to believe their propaganda of choice regardless of the consequences.

Others are more humble.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


If you were a naïve fool who hasn't read the papers for decades you would, the Vietnamese shot down helicopters with home made rockets and islamists seem to do quite well with hand held ground to air missiles. Since the Libyan escapade there are shedloads of this stuff floating around, and anyway no one denies that the Russians could be supplying arms, just as "our side" is helping the Kiev junta... They've just been promised $17 Billion from the FMI.

The only solution is either splitting the country in two or a federal system but the West and Kiev don't seem to want a compromise, they prefer destruction like in Yugoslavia. If no one stops them we'll have another Yugoslavia but on a far bigger scale... Does this appeal to you, or your friends over there?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

The only thing they've said to me is that they don't want to be part of Russia and they don't want a war. It seems to me that both are now inevitable. It's such a mess.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Your still haven't twigged that Russia is no longer communist, have you? You don't have to hate them anymore.

And your "memory" of the Cold War (you can't really be that old, can you?) is a little jaded, you don't even appear to "remember" who started it.

In reply to Paul Atkinson:

"Tight" is still used to mean both drunk or tight-fisted ie. "mean", nothing has changed on that one. How has "nice" changed? Let's no mistake regional differences with overall linguistic change.

In reply to Trangia:

A funny thing happened tonight. I clicked on a thread which read "Jeremy Clarkson's Apology", then I clicked on "bottom of page". then I read this:
The only thing they've said to me is that they don't want to be part of Russia and they don't want a war. It seems to me that both are now inevitable. It's such a mess.

WTF?

E

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think anyone born after about 1960 (maybe much earlier) would ever use the word "tight" to mean drunk although they would understand it in a historical context in literature etc.

The word "nice" originally meant "proper, respectable, appropriate, done well within the social norms" rather than its meaning from the mid-late 20th C onwards of "kind, friendly" or later, "cool, spot on, great".

The primary meaning of the word "gay" has changed - understand that or live in the 1950s. Thankfully most people, including young kids, are intelligent enough to take on the variety of meanings without blowing a fuse and can read old literature without becoming apoplectic

P

In reply to Timmd:

Here's a report, not from RT but the British equivalent, that may shake your certainties:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27258501

In reply to Enty:

A funny thing happened tonight. I clicked on a thread which read "Jeremy Clarkson's Apology", then I clicked on "bottom of page". then I read this:
The only thing they've said to me is that they don't want to be part of Russia and they don't want a war. It seems to me that both are now inevitable. It's such a mess.

On this day in 1982, the General Belgrano was justifiably sunk.
Rule Britannia!!!

In reply to Paul Atkinson:

Interestingly the original meaning of "nice" was foolish or stupid. Then it came to mean subtle or clever, as in "nice distinction" and then adopted its current meaning.

In reply to Postmanpat:

It was actually named after the biscuit.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Don't be silly.












It was named after a city in Southern France

In reply to Paul Atkinson:


Clearly you're not a Londoner, it's still perfectly standard down here.

As for "nice", your explanation doesn't really demonstrate a major difference. It went through it's innuendo period during the "Carry On" days but it's back to normal now... Don't you ever say "I fancy a nice cup of tea"?, or "let's go out, it's going to be a nice day", "Jimmy seems like a nice bloke"... no change that I can see.

As for "gay" no one is denying that it has developed an extra meaning, in fact two as some kids use it to in a pejorative way, but that's fairly marginal, but the old meaning is still lurking there and could well come back in a few years... languages change, especially English which has no "English Academy" to battle to freeze it.

In reply to doz generale:



So the accepted (i.e PC correct) version has changed within 12 minutes?

And is the new term really 'dual herritage'? Or should it be spelt correctly.

Or are you just posting total bollocks?

In reply to Postmanpat:

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nice

this doesn't really give a statistical idea of the shift in intended meaning with time which has undoubtedly taken place but certainly supports the fact that general understanding has been mutable. Whatever the case with "nice" which I chose off the top of my head as an example, the fact is that the word "gay" has a new and widely accepted primary meaning which has enriched the language and culture without negating the original and now historic meaning. Only bigots seem to have a problem with this

P

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That might enable them to read Huckleberry Finn without an excessive guilt trip.

In reply to Paul Atkinson:

>Only bigots seem to have a problem with this

'Bigots', eh?

Do you ever wonder why some people run away with the idea that homosexuals are a bit of a chippy and over-sensitive lot?

jcm

In reply to Trangia: One of the downsides to living over here is that you go to bed, aware of this storm in a tea cup, but when you get up there's a 235 post thread about it, replying to which would be pointless.

In reply to Andy Say:

Oh, he's definitely not talking total bollocks. My wife works in some kind of PC administrative role, and 'dual heritage' is definitely what they go for.

Here, for example, is Merton Council rockin' it for the new correctness.

>http://www.merton.gov.uk/health-social-care/children-family-health-social-c...

jcm

In reply to stroppygob:

"DOWNsides"??!?

In reply to FactorXXX:



Well what it is is that language changes, you see. When the thread started "Jeremy Clarkson's Apology" was about some clapped out old TV presenter who'd dropped a clanger, but in the few hours that followed this came to mean "What the hell's going on in Ukraine".

It's here to stay and anyone who doesn't think so is an old bigot who should be castrated and sent for execution in Oklahoma.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:





Interesting assumption. A wrong one if memory serves.

In reply to The New NickB:

I wasn't assuming anything. You don't have to actually be homosexual in order to assist in promoting the impression I mentioned.

jcm

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



I'll let other judge if you made that point successfully. Seems more than a little odd to me.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

LOL!! Fair point

In reply to Paul Atkinson:

the fact is that the word "gay" has a new and widely accepted primary meaning which has enriched the language and culture without negating the original and now historic meaning. Only bigots seem to have a problem with this

Don't some people, now use 'Gay' to mean 'a bit rubbish/naff' and sectors of the gay community have complained about this, saying that the word should remain unique to their preferred usage?

In reply to FactorXXX:


This has been discussed a fair bit on here. It depends on how it's used but sometimes I find 'gay' being used to mean 'crap' quite grating. Given the errm, diversity, of this thread I don't mind rising to this bait. The trouble is that this new use of 'gay' is not unconnected to its meaning for homosexual people. It can be shorthand for 'crap in the way that gay people are crap' and as such it can be unpleasant depending on the subtlety of how it's used. There are good reasons why Stonewall ran a campaign about it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Stonewall Jackson?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I think schools have had a big impact on that. About a decade ago hearing "that's so gay"/"come on, don't be so gay" seemed quite common in the UK, but earlier this year I spent some weeks in English schools and didn't hear it once. I was also very impressed how completely uninterested kids seemed in differences in sexuality and because of that I'm sure I met a number of sixth formers at least who were quite openly gay. There was very little meanness and homophobia even 25 years back when I was in sixth form but no one was openly gay and it was more a don't ask don't tell sort of situation back then.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Oh come on it's that that insulting, everyone talks shite now and again including me, but I'll try and be more polite. You have talked yourself into a corner on this one.


You're an intelligent bloke, so the notion that the n word wouldn't draw your attention because it's wrapped up in nursery rhyme seems fanciful to say the least.

To be fair, you did say this

"If he knew what he was doing and was trying to push it as far as he could without getting into trouble, then he's an arsehole"

take the 'if' and 'then' out, and you've hit the nail on the head. It's obvious that's what he was doing, it's half of his act.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

I genuinely don't think that if I had started to recite that rhyme a week ago, I would have done so cognisant of the fact that it contained a racist word. As I have said many times, and others have supported, these rhymes are recited as children without analysis or consideration.

So, IF someone other than Clarkson, with an unblemished record, had recited this rhyme and been castigated, I think I would give them the benefit if the doubt.

As I have said later, the more I think about it, the less I think Clarkson should have the benefit of any doubt, because he has shown this capacity IMO for trying to get one over on the audience by slipping in these sort of references - the "slope on the bridge" being from my recollection the main example of this.

I'm not an apologist for Clarkson, although I do find him entertaining on Top Gear.

In reply to Anyone:
I've just read somewhere that this was never broadcast (having assumed that it had been and was current). Someone leaked it to which ever newspaper it was that made it public. To me that puts all this crap in a rather different light. Would you agree? Do we know the source?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:




>
It's not really a sound argument is it? Can you imagine a court of law finding someone guilty because "we think he's been a bit dodgy in the past so should go down for this"?

One can see it both ways: that he was rehearsing off screen so used the original word he was brought up with but mumbled it in acknowledgement it was inappropriate and changed it for the actually recording, or, that he deliberately kept it in because he really thinks it stupid that anyone gives a shit. Or a third, I guess, that he said it because he is a racist and wanted to offend black people.

Personally I guess the former but could be the second. Since we can never know it seems vindictive to call for his head on the basis of surmise.

In reply to Postmanpat:

I wasn't talking about how a court or his employers should judge him, I was talking about how I form an opinion of him, my opinion ultimately being irrelevant in the matter.

I think he deliberately plays with fire, and at some point he'll get burnt.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Serious question, do you think someone should be fired if he uses the word "nigger" in any circumstances? In this case off-mike preparing a shoot using a well known nursery rhyme used when choosing between two options on a random basis, or in another case someone suggesting as suitable reading Joseph Conrad's "Nigger of the Narcissus"?

I seem to remember we had this as reading for O-level English lit, looking it up just now to check the spelling I see that a publisher has re-edited it as the "N-word of the Narcissus"! How do you feel about this?

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


What? Really? I remember clearly discussing that it was a racist word at first school, so the late 70s. I suspect my mum or dad had told me what the word meant but plenty of others at school knew it was a horrible word too. We used to say Indian instead, which is odd (I always thought of the "cowboys and..." type) but not actually racist.


Obviously not true from my experience 30+ years ago and I can't imagine kids now saying it at all.

In reply to TobyA:

well, its true from my experience- as I have said, we said this rhyme as kids, and it was just a word to us which we didn't even think about

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I see what you mean about people not understanding!!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I haven't been taught to hate anybody, good grief (Your faith in your ability to know the thoughts of others is remarkable?)*, but honestly, do you really think in a country where journalists who are too critical of the establishment in Russia keep ending up murdered by people who are never caught, the main TV broadcaster is going to be objective?

Russia would be amongst the last countries one would describe as having a free press. Do some research into the many journalists who have been killed in Russia, and into what they talked about before they died...

*I'm very aware that Russia and the USSR has long been portrayed as a threat and sinister in the western press since the USSR was formed.

In reply to Trangia:

as Bruce so rightly says, there are far more important things going on in the world than what a TV presenter said. for instance, thousands of people are missing or dead in a mud slide in Afghanistan. But he cant blame the west for that so didn't bother mentioning it

In reply to Timmd:


So it came natural to you, did it? You appear to forget I've been reading your posts for years, they give a pretty fair insight into what you think, do they not?!


This is a fine example, you think that there are no critical independent journalists in Russia, but appear convinced that the same is not true in Britain... then tell me you haven't been taught to hate all your life... It beggars belief.


Really? Are you sure of that?

And Britain does? Take a look at the vocabulary used in the reporting of Ukraine in your free press, when it was pro-Western rioters building barricades, beating people up, lobbing petrol bombs and bricks at the police and occupying by extreme violence public buildings, then compare the vocabulary used when people in Eastern Ukraine do similar things, albeit on a much reduced scale... are you so brain washed that you don't even notice the difference.

Over 30 people died last night in Odessa, burnt or suffocated in a building they were taking refuge in... How much "shock/horror" is there to be seen in the British press? How many condemn the Nationalist football hooligans that were at work last night? How much sympathy for the dead and their families?

Compare also the vocabulary used when the previous regimes forces were fighting against those occupying Maidan square and that used to describe the present regime's use of not only police but the actual army with helicopter gunships, armoured cars and tanks now... Don't you notice the difference even and yet Ianoukovytch didn't use the army against the people, two governments but totally distorted pictures, in your free press.

PS. Did you look at the video I linked above? Doesn't it shake your certainties even just a little bit? Here's another, from the British state media again, not those nasty Ruskies:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27267247

In reply to redsonja:


I hadn't seen it when I saw the news about Odessa last night... but, on the other hand, do you think it would have been as likely to have happened if Afghanistan hadn't been in a state of war for over 30 years? It all started in 1979 when the US administration took the decision to organise and finance the pseudo jihad there....

All the same I wouldn't have said that as the cause and effect is not so clear as in Ukraine. I don't think all the problems in the world are caused by the Western powers but as I am a citizen of one of them I feel more responsible and when we are slipping down the road to WW3 due to my country's appalling foreign policy it gets to me a bit more than events which were quite likely a natural catastrophe, even if "helped" by various human factors.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Have you met any of them? Just wondering as a number I have met now live in exile in places like Paris and London.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

'It all started in 1979 when the US administration took the decision to organise and finance the pseudo jihad there....'

Funny that, I could have sworn the 'recent' troubles in Afghanistan kicked off when Russia invaded. My memory must be playing tricks again.

In reply to MGC:


Fully agree. Ok, so it's rude to use it, but it's also pretty rude to call someone a cnut and people don't have the same reaction over that.

There is a big difference between calling someone a nigger because you are purposely trying to use it in a derogetory term to specific indivdual(s) in it's original meaning and using the term in a nursery ryme or discussing it as a word in itself.

It is after all, just a word. The English lanugage is full of them, some bad some good, but words shouldn't be forgotten or eradicated because it offends someone. It's part of history and part of remembering that history is so that such mistakes as the slave trade can not be repeated again.

I would never call anyone a nigger and a broadcaster shouldn't be using that term, but the reaction is way over the top. Should he issue an appology? Yes probably. Should he be sacked? No.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I don't think they should automatically, no. It depends on context etc.

In reply to TobyA:

I'm glad to see that you are more of an expert on what I know and think than I am.

What shall I have for my tea?

In reply to redsonja:

I know, I'm losing the will to live with it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This isn't a Russia thread.

White cracka ass.

In reply to redsonja:


You must be older than people are assuming.

I thought Sub to G was about the same age as me (41), hence I responded with incredulity.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:


Spam fritters.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

You can read me like a book.

In reply to Postmanpat:



Much as I dislike Clarkson, I suspect that your first suggestion is almost certainly correct, and that this really has been blown up out of all proportion. It's not as if he deliberately said this clearly and loudly on a live TV show. We are all, anyway, prone to say things spontaneously in private that we would never want broadcast. A lot of people seem to fasten on to the wrong things these days, imho, and miss those that really matter. In this case, leave off I say.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The open admitted stuff started in 79 but the lead up was much earlier. The last fairly stable period finished when the last king was overthrown by someone from his own family, Daoud, the country moved from monarchy to republic overnight, I went there during both periods but the only visible difference was the notice board on offices. The changes going on were hidden from the average tourist, the growth of the two rival communist factions that led to the overthrow of Daoud and the breakdown of the country and the Soviet intervention.

There's a good book on the subject called "Unholy Wars: Afghanistan, America and International Terrorism" by John Cooley.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

You miss my point and mischaracterise what I said. I think we're roughly around the same age aren't we? It would have been '78 when I started primary school, and I knew that nigger was an offensive word then and so I remember did other people at school. I'm not saying you did (or should have done) but at least by the end of the 70s, going to an all white, small town first school, we knew it was a word to avoid.

And just as an afterthought or question to anyone else who has had a long interest in some hiphop: - I started listening to rap in middle school (mid 80s-ish I guess) and I don't remember rap that was commercially successful enough for an 11 year old in Worcestershire to hear back then ever including the N-word? I guess not until my late teens when I started listening to more political hip hop like PE that I started hearing it more?

youtube.com/watch?v=tUqvPJ3cbUQ&

In reply to TobyA:

I'm a little older than you. I really can't remember at that age whether or not it was an issue. The point I am more trying to make, clearly without success, is that I never considered the meaning of the content of the rhyme. You or anyone else, may choose to disbelieve me, but it's true, and I'm struggling to understand what motive I would have for stating something that wasn't true. It's not me in Clarkson's position trying to defend myself.

I can see someone reciting a rhyme without necessarily considering the content. I believe you.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

I don't disbelieve you at all, but equally I just want to make the point that for many of us even going back quite a few decades we couldn't use that word 'unconsciously' or with out really thinking about it.

I don't know about Clarkson but suspect he's a lot cleverer than he sometimes pretends to be so suspect he was more being 'edgy' than forgetful.

In reply to TobyA:

On the balance of probabilities, you're probably right.

In reply to Submit to Gravity:

Chatting to an Anglo-Indian girl today, she did not have a preference, so long as it was meant earnestly - mixed race was preferred, half caste accepted bi heritage or whatever just made her laugh.

The black lad said it was quite comedic listening to earnest white people tie themselves in knots. Black, dark and even coloured was ok so long as it was meant honestly, N*** as shouted at him on his bike from car windows was very very different...... "There's a difference between white people trying too hard to be right, and hate".

In reply to Trangia:

Jeremy Clarkson is a dick.

Racially offensive language sucks.

But...

If I was black I think I might be a bit more animated about the continuing pay gap between white and black people, the persistence of widespread discrimination in recruitment, the fact that on average black people have less money, are more likely to be unemployed, have poorer housing, suffer worse health, are massively under-representedf in our elite universities and in our political system, and are sometimes the victims of a category of crime that is specifically defined in terms of hatred towards them.

All these might seem more pressing issues to me than a few words mumbled by an ageing fool on a dimwitted programme aimed at adolescent boys (of all ages)

And yet this is what our media obsess about when the issue of racism is discussed.

Could this possibly be because its easier (and less threatening to the status quo) if we get our knickers in a twist about Jeremy Clarkson than if we try to address these issues of deep seated structural inequality?

In reply to Trangia:

Of far greater concern to me is that Polical correctness, and the desire for establishments such as the media to adhere to such 'correctness' has resulted in the almost complete removal of the freedom of speech. Those who choose to use language or hold views that may be offensive to others have every right to express and hold such views. I do not have to agree with them, and am quite grown up enough to ignore such comments, turn of the TV, or engage in interesting debate arising. I do not require any organisation, politcal faction etc to look after my interests I can do so all on my own.

In reply to j.brown960@btinternet.com:

'I do not require any organisation, politcal faction etc to look after my interests I can do so all on my own.'

Good for you.

When I was a kid mongol, spastic and cripple were all routine terms of abuse. I'm very glad that 'political correctness' has seen them off.

In reply to Trangia:

This is spot in IMHO

http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2014/05/n-word-jeremy-clarkson-has-finall...

In reply to Paul Atkinson:


Apart from the fact that, like every other commentator, he completely ignores the fact that none of this was actually broadcast - it was an outtake which was leaked (I wonder why?) to the Daily Mirror, who still had to employ a forensic sound engineer, who after many hours, concluded that she was 75% sure that she could make out the 'N' word.

See how many Barristers you can find who'll happily take this on as a prosecution in a court of law?

Clarkson has got form, and at times is a complete knob, but the hanging court of public opinion is baying for his blood irrespective of the actual facts.

And if the 'N' word, is so offensive (which I completely agree it is), why is it acceptable for black people to use it when greeting another black person?

That's the equivalent of saying it's perfectly ok for someone to call a person in a wheelchair a cripple, if they're in a wheelchair too.

If a word is offensive, it's offensive full stop, not just for certain sections of the community.

In reply to Goucho:

Whether the word was broadcast or not is a peripheral issue of scale. The fact is that he used it and, given that he mumbled just this word in a sentence, the idea that its use was subconscious is frankly risible. It is important because it encourages the view that it's ok to be racist but best to keep it under wraps except among like minded people. His primary demographic is feeble minded young and middle aged men and the battle against racism is still hard fought here.

People who belong to minorities which have been vilified and oppressed for centuries have a bit of special licence with their use of vocabulary IMHO. That's not really a difficult concept to understand, a bit of the humour of the trenches - life and society are complex enough to allow philosophically and ethically for such double standards to exist. I know black, asian gay and disabled people who will delight in playing with the language of bigotry and I have no difficulty at all in understanding why they do this and also why it's still not acceptable for others to do so. What is and what is not acceptable behaviour has always been fluid and nuanced but Clarkson is nowhere near skirting the line here, he is well over it

P

In reply to Paul Atkinson:


Except that it was never broadcast and nobody would even have the possibility to be offended if it hadn't been for someone who has it in for the bloke who made it all public... As said already, there are many more important things to get excited about.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


A bit rich given the stuff that you get excited about. Still, "as already said" (i.e. from your frequent posts on such subjects), you don't tend to give much credence to claims of sexism or racism, no matter how overt. Not stopping you having an opinion mind (I know you are sensitive on this issue) just challenging it.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


Neither was Big Ron's us of it, or Carol Thatcher calling someone a "golliwog" - if someone used that word where I work it wouldn't be broadcast either, but I'd expect them to be called out on it (as indeed they were at my previous place someone looked round the room at a sea of white, middle aged blokes and said "and that, gentlemen, is what I think we might call the nigger in the woodpile, if I'm still allowed to say that!" (smirks all round that all started to look uncomfortable when a mate said "actually, no, you're not, and if you say it again I'll make sure HR know about it").

In reply to Paul Atkinson:

Whether the word was broadcast or not is a peripheral issue of scale...

That is just so plainly bollocks - if it wasn't broadcast, how could anyone be offended by it??? So in your opinion, anyone who holds what could be interpreted as racist views, should be immediately sacked?

His primary demographic is feeble minded young and middle aged men and the battle against racism is still hard fought here.

I think this comment (or lazy stereotypical cliched generality) demonstrates, your opinion of Clarkson is already entrenched, and therefore somewhat biased

So in your opinion, if this had been eavesdropped at his home, you still think he should be sacked for it.

I'm sure if it was someone other than Clarkson, you might possibly have a different 'benefit of the doubt' approach. But as it's Clarkson, and he's got form, your approach is lets have him?

I hope to god you never end up on a jury.

In reply to Goucho:

This could certainly be argued either way. Lots of jobs with public responsibility carry obligations into one's private life. If it was revealed that I was a racist in my private life, I could expect to be struck off from my profession. Should the same be true in broadcasting?



Well we do already know he likes to make money by flirting with casual racism as a way to appeal to an audience who think that's funny. That gives more context. On the other hand, the fact that it has so maliciously been brought into the spotlight is also worth considering. Not clear cut for me. Although because I hate him, I would quite happily see him burnt at the stake for this, or any, infraction.

In reply to Goucho:


The crips have already reclaimed their word in a reclaiming political sense...

http://cripconfessions.com/archives/category/disability-culture

In reply to Goucho:

and here is another article about reclaiming words:

http://dailyuw.com/archive/2013/02/05/arts-leisure/reclaiming-dictionary-sh...

In reply to Goucho:



Can you point out where I said he should be sacked?

Don't you think there's a difference between holding and expressing racist views when you are a national broadcaster and a hero/sage/role model to quite a lot of people and doing it when you are, say, a butcher, baker or candlestick maker?

It's not difficult to avoid saying unacceptable things at work, even if you have to bottle up your repugnant views to the point of bursting; in fact stringent rules apply in many professions and people seem to manage ok


I know, I know, but I so enjoyed typing it


Racism, homophobia and sexism are the most pernicious of all lazy generalisations


See above


I do despise the scumbag for his views but in this case it's nothing personal - he wouldn't be in this shitstorm if he had a vague sense of professionalism. Many/most people would be in disciplinary trouble for saying what he said at work


Better keep the well educated and liberal minded out of such matters - they never come up with the goods?

In reply to Paul Atkinson:

And of course, I presume you have actually heard this outtake?? -surely you must have done, to have formed such a 'guilty' verdict on him?

I wonder why the Mirror never released this outtake, so we can all make up our own minds (apart from the fact it was obtained illegally)?

I wonder whether it's because if they did, there's a possibility that the vast majority of people might not be able actually distinguish the 'N' word?

Of course, we should just take the Daily Mirrors word that he did say it.

After all, this is the same Daily Mirror which published pictures of British soldiers torturing Iraq prisoners of war - the same pictures which were exposed as fakes resulting in the sacking of the then editor Piers Morgan, and a multi-million pound lawsuit!!!!

But hey, in your world, the very fact that he chose the childrens rhyme 'eeny meeny miny' proves that he was obviously trying to slide a deliberate racist gag under the radar - of course?

In reply to Goucho:


They did. It's here:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/video-watch-jeremy-clarkson-use-348120...

In reply to Skyfall:


Same with me in the late 70's. I didn't even know what it meant.

Chevy Chase once used the word nigger on set, Alan Hansen used the word coloured on set too. Neither were sacked, because I imagine their bosses had an idea of 'context', which the average Daily Mirror reader struggles with. Reciting a rhyme that you were taught at the school is not inherently racist. Saying that 'black people are inferior to white people' is racist. One has an offensive word and is not racist, the other have followed the correct conventions of terminolgy yet is racist. It's a pretty simple concept.

Jeremy Clarkson is not apologising for being racist, he's apologising for the use an offensive word that was drilled into him at an early age.

He may be all the derogative terms under the sun. However, he has not given anyone enough rope to hang himself as a racist on this one.

In reply to Goucho:


Also, the video is convincing enough to have convinced old Clarkson that he had better retract saying he had never used the word and to give out an apology instead, so it convinced him, at any rate.

In reply to tlm:
It didn't convince me but there's an 'O' sound in there. The only version of the Rhyme that I am aware would have an 'O' sound in that part would be the one that uses the word 'negro'. It's by the powers of deduction rather than actually hearing and that we work out the word.

In reply to FreshSlate:



In the article which everyone is raving about by Musa Okwonga he says I am a writer of colour trying to make his career as best he can

So is coloured or colour ok?? I always thought it was negative.

No matter what camp you're in regarding JC - does anyone honestly think he's racist?

E

In reply to FreshSlate:
He knows it's offensive. If you watch the clip it didn't "slip out", otherwise why mumble that line and speak the rest clearly? I suspect he's enjoying the spluttering outrage, and knew that's what would happen if the footage was broadcast.

He's probably not a racist, but he has form for saying offensive things in an attempt to pander to his fanbase, many of whom are not affected by being the victims of prejudice or exclusion, and so "can't understand why anyone would be offended - it's just a word".

Hansen wasn't sacked, but both Carol Thatcher and Ron Atkinson were - but obviously the BBC won't fire Clarkson, just as they didn't fire that dancer for saying his mixed-race partner looked "like a Paki" after she'd had a spray tan.

I think they've done the right thing - he's apologised and is apparently on his final warning. If another racist epithet "slips out" then fire him.

In reply to andy:


Are you implying that Clarkson leaked the footage?

In reply to andy:


That is the very phrase that I couldn't find the words for. If you never experience something yourself, it can just seem like pointless censoring, chip on shoulder, first world problem stuff - easy enough to dismiss with a shrug.