nickie on 12/6/2020 at 18:55
Don't be too hasty with the ferule, Renz. I think this is a fascinating conversation. Gotta say that dema said it for me, though.
Quote Posted by faetal
Nope. Just don't see the value in half an internet's worth of white people musing over what racism is.
I will be interested to see what Merriam-Webster comes up with when they've (
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52993306) updated their definition. IMO, racism is learned. White people musing and maybe through that musing come to re-educate themselves about what racism is and comprehend it has got to be good hasn't it?
Nice to see you again, by the way.
Judith on 12/6/2020 at 19:08
Quote Posted by icemann
I'd forgotten to put Judith on ignore. That's better. Resorting to personal insults, rather than debating an issue. I take my hat off to you.
Oh, and I'll still browse through your walls of text, because sometimes, when you're not acting like a big cheese, you can be right about something! ;)
(Okay, I'm done, I promise.)
Quote Posted by Thirith
Words are the tools that direct the anger of the frustrated and disaffected away from the actual causes of their anger towards those that they'd actually have common cause with in many ways. To my mind, it's pretty naive to dismiss them so glibly, because language and symbols have a real-world impact.
Yes, unfortunately. Just the way news headlines and links have been worded for the last... decade? (Longer?) In to make people angry and click the link. And at the same time, companies and social media hosts demand that comment sections should be an equivalent of elevator music, which is obviously an impossible thing. I wonder how long this kind of surreal tension will last.
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
I'm not sure what you mean here. If people slowly change their minds and opinions on certain issues (racism, transgenders, etc), and while that change occurs, they start to use different words, that's the way it works. I think. But changing the words first ("women" -> "people who menstruate"), and then hoping people's opinion will then automatically change too, I don't think that'll work. That's pure 1984 Newspeak.
I have to read up on the Rowling case first, so I don't understand what you mean either (yet). What I simply meant was that taking down a higher-up figure looks flashy, but doesn't solve much in the long run. Although now when I think of it, I could name at least one counter example, so maybe it's not so easy :)
Renzatic on 12/6/2020 at 19:23
Quote Posted by icemann
There is no "you" in this anymore Sulphur. I'm not the one you need to convince this time. And secondly you do not have the right to judge my culture. That to me is racist.
Oof. No, man. Just...no.
Listen, I can understand you're trying to save face right now, attempting to defend the point you were trying to make. But like I said before, if you refuse to be cognizant of all the issues inherent in the subject you're trying to address, you won't do yourself any favors in continuing to argue it. This is a dumb road you're going down, man.
caffeinatedzombeh on 12/6/2020 at 20:51
Quote Posted by Fingernail
I think if anything the show makes him out to be a daft old bugger and all his views are portrayed as fairly questionable. And when Basil attacks the Germans, or is shocked to see a black doctor, I've always thought the joke was how intolerant he was.
Yes, the entire point is that it's deliberately and quite explicitly encouraging mocking of the intolerant.
catbarf on 12/6/2020 at 20:57
Quote Posted by Sulphur
catbarf: just to add, I see where you're coming from, but this conversation has always been about derogatory terms and usage like the one that started this off in icemann's post. We're not extending this to every possible word in the language used in a racist context or time; that'd be a bit much.
I got it, yeah, fair enough.
My angle is that, relating to this thread, it's useful to apply cultural context when unpacking a work of art to determine the author's intent: whether it was designed to support racial injustice, unintentionally does so through cultural tropes, invokes language or imagery that has acquired negative connotations since when the work was made, or was written from a position of ignorance that manifests as racism. This requires acknowledging the culture that it originated in and examining it from that perspective.
To be clear, historical context doesn't excuse or justify racism, and these elements should still be called out for what they are- a slur or stereotype is still racism even if it was in casual use at the time. But I think intent can inform how to treat these now-controversial works. Adventures of Huckleberry Finn? Give it a disclaimer, acknowledge the problematic aspects, and keep it in the public. Birth of a Nation? I really have no problem with it disappearing from the world,
maybe save film classes.
My concern, and the reason I replied as I did earlier, is that I feel that a lack of nuance endangers works that probably shouldn't be censored. Gone With The Wind is problematic, but reflective of an era in history that we shouldn't try to hide. Blazing Saddles is blatant satire, but with its directness in employing stereotypes to mock them it seems like the kind of film that might be lost as collateral damage. And Twitter teenagers just now discovering Tropic Thunder (
https://twitter.com/miaxmon/status/1255918055269568513?lang=en) is a thing.
Anyways, pretty sure it was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I really like how Warner Bros handles it with their old cartoons. For those who haven't seen, (
https://i.imgur.com/sOklpJa.jpg) this is the disclaimer presented before Looney Tunes films. It makes it clear that attitudes have changed, but they still own up to the racism and don't make excuses for it, and the films are still made available.
SubJeff on 12/6/2020 at 21:27
Wow, this blew up.
Imma step in here and defend iceman on one point. It really depends on where you are whether a word is bad or not, and that goes for racism. I don't buy this bs that it's racist "wherever it is". The obvious US to UK one is the word "fanny". If you told me your friend was rubbing his girlfriends fanny when you were at the bar it would mean a completely different thing in the UK than in the US.
I don't know where everyone is from or has lived but I grew up in Africa and lived there until I was 18. The n-word in the 90s had almost no power of abuse or offense at the time and the only way that anyone would get annoyed would be from realising that you were trying to be racist.
In fact the n-word was used in my school, up to the age of 18, every day, by every. single. person. And the word honkey too. These were simply descriptors, really. Additionally mixed race people (anyone with African heritage but not actually black) was described as "coloured", something which Benabum Candlewax had to apologise for using last year or something, because in the UK it's considered very racist. I doubt it even is in the US, is it? Almost all the "coloured" people would be classed as black in the USA, because Americans are ridiculous. (Side note: there was one family with a white father and a "coloured" mother. These guys and girl had very pale skin and looked almost white except they had definite afro hair and big afros. The sister was really hot. This "class" of ethnicity was named after this family so if you had this make up you'd be a Langmore (name changed) whether you were related or not. Everyone found this hilarious, no one got offended).
There is another word, the k-word if you will, that racist white Zimbabweans and South Africans used to use, and THAT would one into trouble. Big trouble.
When it comes to language, it really is all relative.
RE: The major in Fawlty Towers. It's not "wog" that's the problem. I've left the clip here for you all to see. The issue I have with this is a. his story is ridiculous, which is why it's funny and b. he's clearly from a past era and the joke is on him and the person he's describing. Idiot racists will find it funny because ha ha wogs, and this is the problem with humour that's even one level more sophisticated than a knock knock joke - dumb people can like it because they don't get it and dumb people can get offended for the same reason.
[video=youtube;Ns0uRr6aPQE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ns0uRr6aPQE[/video]
heywood on 12/6/2020 at 21:46
When I moved to Sydney 10 years ago, I was surprised to hear people using "wog" in casual conversation. As far as I knew, it had always been a derogatory term for people of darker skin in the UK, most often used against people from India, the Middle East, North Africa. But in Australian English, I found out it refers to Southern Europeans. Based on my (just a few years) experience there, wop seemed to be a neutral term that could have harmless or pejorative intent depending on context, in the same way that Aussies called Brits poms, Americans yanks, and New Zealanders kiwis.
On the other hand, when I moved to Sydney I found out pretty quickly that I better start calling my wife my partner, otherwise everyone was going to think I was chauvinist pig.
I'll throw out another one: guappo. I grew up in a town and school system with a sizeable minority Italian-American population and they were proud. Where I grew up, a guappo referred to a young man who was very image-conscious and tended to act tough and puff up their masculinity. If you've ever seen the TV show Happy Days, think of the Fonz. We didn't use it to refer to Italians in particular, but anyone who fit the stereotype regardless of family ancestry. We would sometimes use it to call someone out when they were getting overly-obsessed with preening their hair, trying to walk with a swagger, or just trying to play tough guy for no good reason. But it was also a term of flattery, with Italian kids complimenting each other on a new chain, new sunglasses, or dressing up nice for a dance, looking like a mafioso. But then I went to college in a city in a different state, where guappo was treated the same as "wop", a slur against poor Italian-American immigrants that was considered offensive enough to fight over.
When I was a kid, the standard and respectful term for people and things from East Asia was Oriental. Somewhere along the way, that became offensive. By the time I was in high school, we were changing over to use the word Asian instead. Some people now find the word Asian to be insensitive and lazy, because it lumps together people from different countries who have visibly similar features but who don't want to be associated with each other. I would never use the word to refer to a specific person, i.e. "I have an Asian co-worker", "He's dating an Asian girl". It's still acceptable to say Asian or Asian-American when referring to demographic groups though.
There's countless more examples. Language is fluid. It's constantly changing. Terms that were formerly acceptable are not anymore. Even terms that were once embraced by a minority may become offensive over the course of time and usage. The usage and meaning of a word can vary regionally and culturally.
So I can't get behind the argument that if any group is offended by a word now, then it's universally racist. It depends on where and what context it's being used. Each word is going to have it's own rules, which can vary from place to place and time to time. And if you don't know the rules, just avoid using it. I especially disagree with the argument that if a word is racist now, it has always been racist, and anybody who thinks they used it in a non-racist context in the past is wrong and they were actually being racist.
caffeinatedzombeh on 12/6/2020 at 21:59
Quote Posted by SubJeff
RE: The major in Fawlty Towers. It's not "wog" that's the problem. I've left the clip here for you all to see. The issue I have with this is a. his story is ridiculous, which is why it's funny and b. he's clearly from a past era and the joke is on him and the person he's describing. Idiot racists will find it funny because ha ha wogs, and this is the problem with humour that's even one level more sophisticated than a knock knock joke - dumb people can like it because they don't get it and dumb people can get offended for the same reason.
Context though, the entire episode is about the hypocrisy of Basil thinking the Major's rather racist comments are (at best) out dated and irrelevant yet doing the
exact same thing. That he would choose not to use a specific word whilst displaying the same attitudes is the whole point.
SubJeff on 12/6/2020 at 22:35
It's still a criticism of these people and not just ha ha racist words though, isn't it?
caffeinatedzombeh on 12/6/2020 at 22:49
It's specifically making the point that pretending not to be a racist by refusing to use a particular word doesn't make you not a racist. It it the least appropriate piece of television ever to decline to show to people because it uses a particular word.
