|
There's a lot of mention/discussion nowadays about "political correctness", particularly amongst the younger generation, but who makes the rules and where are they documented?
|
You want a sort of Debrett's for acceptable language?
Sounds like a gap in the market to me, which I sincerely hope nobody fills.
It wouldn't be called Political Correctness though. That's essentially a satirical or pejorative term for nonsense such as Winterval for Christmas, and chalkboard for blackboard.
The last person to oversee a manual for this sort of thing was probably Stalin, or maybe one of the Kims in North Korea.
|
|
Various consensus groups make their own unwritten rules and promulgate them via personal contacts and Twitterish and traditional media. Poltically they tend to the left.
|
|
So far it looks as if it's OK for me to admit (or even to brag) that I had a golliwog when I was young.
|
>> So far it looks as if it's OK for me to admit (or even to
>> brag) that I had a golliwog when I was young.
Not if you're just saying it to wind people up.
|
>> Not if you're just saying it to wind people up.
>>
You're not answering my question. Who makes the rules? I think that a lot of people have become far too oversensitive for no good reason. I'm not one of those. Someone could call me a white honky to my face and I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
|
>>Someone could call me a white honky to my face and I wouldn't bat an eyelid.
In the UK it carries zero weight - in fact if someone called you a honky you'd probably laugh.
If you lived in a country where you were in the minority with a long history of being seen a an inferior breed of person, and where the term was used to remind you of your inferiority you'd perhaps not be so jolly.
|
|
True, but then that's when the .44 Magnum comes into it's own.
|
|
Maybe explains the murder rate where such weapons are permitted.
|
>> >> Not if you're just saying it to wind people up.
>> >>
>>
>> You're not answering my question.
Correct - I was replying to your post.
|
>> Someone could call me a white honky to my face and I wouldn't bat an
>> eyelid.
Once in my 52yrs I've been called a white honky. The user of the term was a black woman who very clearly had mental health problems.
I'm pretty sure my black colleagues, at least two of whom are UK born, have been called a black something or other far far more times and by people who are otherwise reasonable.
|
>> So far it looks as if it's OK for me to admit (or even to
>> brag) that I had a golliwog when I was young.
I guess most of us born before 1970 or so probably did. We also collected the 'Golly' badges exchanged for labels off Robertson's jam.
But where does a pragmatic recognition that society has moved on become 'PC'? Should school libraries still include Little Black Sambo?
|
>> But where does a pragmatic recognition that society has moved on become 'PC'? Should school
>> libraries still include Little Black Sambo?
>>
Why should anyone think that young children would read anything bad into it? I didn't ~ to me it was just a children's book.
|
I would hazard a guess that L'es does not have frequent contact with people of non-white origins.
|
>> I would hazard a guess that L'es does not have frequent contact with people of
>> non-white origins.
Correctamundo. I live neither in Bradford nor in that London. But half the workforce was of non-white origins where I worked in Leeds.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 13:30
|
Difficult ain't it?
When my brother, sister and I were kids (now there's another word I shouldn't use) we had a golliwog doll which had been made by my Gran. We used to fight over it until it got passed to the younger one - we loved it and I don't think any of us thought it was representative of an "ethnic minority" - it was just a doll we loved like a teddy bear.
I also remember reading books with Little Black Sambo in and books that featured pickaninnies (sp?). They all seemed to be lovable characters, full of fun and good characters. So as far as my attitude to "people of ethnic origin" (aren't we all?) they gave me a very positive image. This was reinforced when (in a town that had virtually no "ethnic minorities"), I went to watch cricket matches featuring the West Indies team which had "the 3 Ws" - Worrell, Weekes and Walcott - Weekes was my favourite! Also saw Wes Hall, Charlie Griffiths, Gary Sobers and the great W Indian fast bowlers - Holding, Marshall, Garner etc. Bloomin' fantastic players (and characters?) - nearly as good as Fred Trueman, Ken Platt, Brian Close and Doug Padgett!!
The other day when describing to my wife a bloke who was really helpful to me I said "you know the one, the tall black guy" and my daughter said "You can't say that, it's racist". So I said "But if it had been a girl I might have said "the tall blonde, or the little brunette - I'm only describing a distinguishing physical attribute, no insult implied" and she said I was obviously a closet racist/sexist and I shouldn't refer to anyone by their physical characteristics.
Wish everyone would wear name badges - would make life a lot easier.
Am I a racist/sexist old git? I hope not.
|
...and my daughter said "You can't say that, it's racist"...
Daughter needs a very politically incorrect slap for two reaons.
1. For being needlessly disrespectful to her father.
2. For being stupid.
Last edited by: Iffy on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 19:40
|
See your points Iffy but,
1. She has been brought up in a different era to me.
2. Don't think she meant to be disrespectful - just pointing out "the error of the ways" of people brought up and educated a generation earlier who are less aware of modern PC "rules"
3. She is a great "kid" - love her for her way of life, success in profession and way she treats me in all other ways.
4. No way is she "stupid" - far cleverer than me in many ways - we have some great discussions in many areas - and she's a better driver than me which really hurts!!
5. I wouldn't dream of slapping her - PC or not (she is younger, fitter and I would come off worst!!!)
P
|
...No way is she "stupid"...
Might be very smart in other ways, but the remark about racism fits every defintion of 'stupid' I know.
Unless it was an attempt at irony, but you don't portray it as such.
|
|
Perhaps just a 'stupid' remark Iffy - not the same as being stupid?
Last edited by: Focus on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 20:22
|
...Perhaps just a 'stupid' remark Iffy - not the same as being stupid?...
Could be, but it's sad an otherwise intelligent person could be so weak-minded as to swallow the racist claptrap.
|
" so weak-minded as to swallow the racist claptrap."
Well, daughter is certainly not weak-minded"!!
Think much of the attitude towards "racism" depends on when and where you were educated and where you live. Daughter has several close friends of "ethnic minorities" and one of her closest friends is in a "mixed marriage" - great couple that I also know well. Maybe daughter has more understanding than I do of racist attitudes because she has heard of/experienced them.
One might even draw a parallel with "man-made global warming" - I think it's bovine excrement - warming has been going on for 12,000 years since "end of last ice-age" and I reckon we are still in last ice age but lucky enough to be in a warm interglacial. But then I was educated a few (!) years ago when there were fears of "a new ice age"
I have no doubt that many would disagree depending on when/where they were educated!
P
|
>> so weak-minded as to swallow the racist claptrap.
It isn't all claptrap Iffy. And there's the rub. It's racism that's stupid and wrong, not anti-racism.
Not everyone can be sure they know real racism when they see it, and some are tempted to overstate the case just to be on the safe side. That's what this thread is about.
|
>> me I said "you know the one, the tall black guy" and my daughter said
>> "You can't say that, it's racist". So I said "But if it had been a
>> girl I might have said "the tall blonde, or the little brunette - I'm only
>> describing a distinguishing physical attribute, no insult implied" and she said I was obviously a
>> closet racist/sexist and I shouldn't refer to anyone by their physical characteristics.
>> Wish everyone would wear name badges - would make life a lot easier.
>> Am I a racist/sexist old git? I hope not.
You are not. That exact same scenario is in the Olympics games volunteers diversity training. Its perfectly acceptable, when pointing someone out in a crowd, to use the term Black Guy.
|
Am I a racist/sexist old git? I hope not.
NO.
|
Phil,
I think your daughter's got a bit mixed up. We went through a phase thirty or so years ago where the term 'black' was frowned on.
Perhaps a product of jokes from my Grandmother's era about running away with a black man. TBH I think it meant eloping with a guy who was far more interesting than the locals but for whatever reason it was 'non U'. Might also have been a link with apartheid.
Today the three African and Caribbean ladies are work with are quite happy to tick the 'Black' box on the annual staff satisfaction etc survey.
Absolutely no problem in using black or Asian to describe somebody's race or appearance.
The offensive terms are Ni**er, Pa*i, Chi*i etc
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 20:32
|
>> So far it looks as if it's OK for me to admit (or even to
>> brag) that I had a golliwog when I was young.
Say it in a public area and see what the reaction is. There are no set rules. Things move on and if you have been in any way alive in the last thirty plus years you will just know roughly what is acceptable and what isn't.
|
>> So far it looks as if it's OK for me to admit (or even to
>> brag) that I had a golliwog when I was young.
Yes its ok to admit you had a golliwog when you were young, but no its not OK to brag about it. And you know the reason why, which is why you mentioned it.
And there, in a stroke is the lessons for political correctness. Its not what you say, its how you intended it that counts.
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 13:23
|
|
When I was a member of the National Union of Journalists I used to be pestered all the time with circulars about how people or things should be described. Presumably the NUJ, the world's most incompetent union in my memory, had - maybe still has - a focus group or something that dreams up these things.
|
|
when i was a lad being bought up in leicester in the 60s my sihk neighbour,s lad was called 'sooty' by the Polish woman over the road, most of my school mates were asian and i still keep in touch with a few 40 years later
|
|
I had a work colleague nicknamed Jap by one and all because of his Asian looks. He didn't mind at all. In fact I think he enjoyed the attention he got as opposed to another colleague who was practically ignored because he blended completely into the background.
Last edited by: L'escargot on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 16:15
|
|
Its funny, when my old man was on the railway, anyone of west indian origin was called "chalky". So was anyone with the surname "white"
|
What is meant here by political correctness, the silly petty finicky attention paid, and simulated offence taken, when matters of race, gender, age, ability and so on are under discussion, is a result of ham-fisted attempts by politicians - often local politicians - to suck up to some electoral segment or, to give the devils their due, to improve the social climate.
The problem really is that those who tend to feel most strongly about these things are the young and hot-headed, and those who address them on behalf of local councils and the like are very often dumb but conceited individuals drunk with power. The laws are inevitably crude in the extreme which suits such people perfectly. Nor is it the case that all black people or homosexuals or whatever are wise and laid-back. Opportunities to ambush the harmless and well-intentioned abound, and PsITA quite often seize them.
Any normal adult can tell the difference between a clumsy or infelicitous choice of words and a veiled insult. The problem arises with mischievous, malevolent individuals and I suppose a handful of genuinely half-witted ones.
|
Any one else see this last night - not sure what the PC brigade would have made of it. Quite funny - she's a real character.
goo.gl/eMnEH (Mail report of Will.i.am and Miriam Margolyes on Graham Norton last night)
|
|
It's a white mans world and the white man rules.I know it's a bold statement but true.
|
a Billion chinese and a billion Indians disagree...
|
All things pass Dutchie. Not too suddenly or painfully we hope in this case.
'"My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings. Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!" Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.'
|
...It's a white mans world...
Car4Play is certainly a (white) man's world.
We used to have an apparently ethnically diverse woman from the Antipodes, but Zero got rid of her.
Mind, she deserved it for showing off about her diverse and oh so interesting bakground.
|
There are a couple of Asian-looking handles here, perhaps for good reason. We aren't exclusive are we?
Did Zero really offend that harmless Aussie girl car freak?
Damn the fellow.
|
|
She may have gorn darn under.
|
...Did Zero really offend that harmless Aussie girl car freak?...
Flounce here:
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=9695&m=218482
At least she stuck to it.
|
|
She was a troll, no Aussie is that sensitive.
|
|
Did seem a bit odd - perhaps a nerve was hit.
|
>> Did seem a bit odd
I see that at the time I thought so too. I remembered franfran's existence but not the flounce.
You can't say for sure she was a troll. She may just have become bored with the site as some do. If so it was a rude way to decamp.
|
Come to think of it, one of my closest friends is "Afro-Caribbean". I'm not. Do either of us particularly notice or pay attention to that difference? No, not even slightly.
Would I describe him as a "tall black guy" ? Sure, of course I would.
Would he describe me as an "astonishingly good looking for his age, white guy" ? Well, I really wouldn't know...
Possibly I suppose...
:-))
|
I see the PC/race/gender thing as analogous to a food chain.
As a white male heterosexual who's Anglo-Saxon and would pass for CofE I'm that food chain's Blue Whale.
Which means I'm a bit reluctant to judge the experiences of those further down the chain.
|
|
Afro Caribbean is a no no.... African Caribbean is the correct title
|
>> Afro Caribbean is a no no.... African Caribbean is the correct title
>>
Until some other pillock comes along and says you can't say African Caribbean either...and so it all goes on.
We all know the really offensive words in our language, inc the racially offensive ones. Polite people wouldn't use them, other than that this continually evolving 'must not use', that usually comes from people acting on behalf of ethnically diverse people, is utterly ridiculous.
|
>> usually comes from people acting on behalf of ethnically diverse people
I agree 100%, and this is my principal problem with it. It is not actually the "offended" getting offended, but the morons who are getting offended on their behalf by claimiing to have some sort of insight into the psyche of ethnic minorities that the rest of us don't have. It's insulting, and it's deluded. If they actually bothered to ask the people they claim to be representing, they would find that the vast majority of them not only don't take offence at the slightest little thing, but actually couldn't care less.
A good mate of mine is of Chinese descent. He uses the word "Chinky" to describe his ethnicity, or "Chinkyland" to describe his parents homeland frequently. Black people use the word "n*****" all the time. It's not offensive to them at all in itself. A gay friend will happily call himself or other gay people "poofs".
Far more important than the language used is the context, and the way in which it is meant. I can only speak in terms of my friends and associates of different ethnicities, but they use slang, and give and receive light hearted abuse in the same way the rest of us do, and ironically this often involves language that would have a PC proponent salivating if they heard it.
What PC does do is create an issue of out of someone's ethnicity / race / sexuality, when it otherwise would not exist.
Last edited by: DP on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 10:51
|
>> >> Afro Caribbean is a no no.... African Caribbean is the correct title
>> >>
That reminds me. Can't remember where, but I remember seeing some idiot Yank repeatedly using the PC "African American". Trouble was, he was talking about people in one of the west african states at the time.
I did briefly wonder if any of them would have been offended to be called "American".....
Last edited by: TeeCee on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 14:46
|
>> some idiot Yank repeatedly using the PC "African American". Trouble was, he was talking about people in one of the west african states at the time.
TeeCee, it's possible he wasn't such an idiot as all that. It seems quite likely he was referring to the colonial ruling class of Liberia, descended from freed American slaves and known as 'Americo-Liberians'. The connection meant that Liberia was a close ally, a sort of protectorate, of the US for which it supplied, for example, military bases. Goodyear (or was it Firestone? Both perhaps) used to grow a lot of its rubber there.
Liberia was ruled by an oligarchy drawn from a few Americo-Liberian families until the military coup fronted (but probably not really led) by the virtually illiterate NCO Master Sergeant Samuel Doe, who came from one of the tribes of native Liberians. The old ruling class was far from perfect and of course endemically corrupt, but the country has seen a welter of chaos and gratuitous bloodshed and cruelty since Doe's coup.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 15:06
|
>> I did briefly wonder if any of them would have been offended to be called
>> "American".....
Probably not as much as if you said the same to a Canadian.
Now that is one time I really HAVE seen someone get angry and upset at being called something.
|
>> apparently ethnically diverse woman from the Antipodes,
'half Scottish married to an Italian' may sound ethnically diverse to you Iffy, but it doesn't to me. I'm more ethnically diverse than that myself, and so is my wife. But you wouldn't think so to meet us. We just seem English to the really ethnically diverse people.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 23 Jun 12 at 20:27
|
|
Apart from mine, there appears to be no answer to the OP's question.
|
Clearly you haven't fully understood how this forum works.
Did he really expect to be directed to the rules? In which respect your answer was no help anyway ;-)
|
>> Apart from mine, there appears to be no answer to the OP's question.
Effectively your answer said there was no answer. So we agreed with you and talked about something else.
|
>> I had a work colleague nicknamed Jap by one and all because of his Asian
>> looks.
Now I think about it there was a lad at school we called 'chocco' on account of his dark complexion. He took a lot of stick about de Camptown Racers, Banana Boats, his Unlce Idi (Amin) and goodness knows what else.
He actualy came to Yorkshire from Lincoln and was as 'Anglo' as the rest of us.
|
PhilW>>he other day when describing to my wife a bloke who was really helpful to me I said "you
>>know the one, the tall black guy" and my daughter said "You can't say that, it's racist". So I
>>said "But if it had been a girl I might have said "the tall blonde, or the little brunette - I'm
>>only describing a distinguishing physical attribute, no insult implied"
Hmm. You'd get into trouble for objectifying women in that way. "The woman with the blond hair" is fine. "The blonde" is not. (Even wikipedia says as much.)
Whereas the Olympics has confirmed that referring to "the black man over there" is fine. (Presumably "the black over there" is not...)
As an aside, if you visit the Atomium in Brussels and take the audio guide, you will hear that the pavillion for the Belgian Congo at the 1958 Expo included a delightful rural scene, complete with real Congo people tending crops etc. It was shut soon after the opening, as the kind Belgians were throwing bananas into the compound. The world has changed somewhat since then.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 15:02
|
The term PC is of now pejorative and any examination needs to start from that context. There’s also a view of discrimination which uses the model of a food chain. I’m a white, male, heterosexual, Anglo Saxon who’d pass for CofE. So, I suspect are most of us here. In the food chain model we’re large carnivores and need to be careful in assuming we understand those with different positions in the chain.
In terms of what’s acceptable and not there’s plenty of guidance out there on the interweb. My employers sponsor department produces an excellent guide on religion and belief. I cannot find a public version on the internet but there’s plenty of information available including NHS and MoD publications.
A few key points:
Avoid stereotyping and making assumptions. Someone may describe themselves as Christian on official forms but they may not be active in a Church. Muslims may follow all diet and other routines but some are much more observant than others.
Certain words (such as names of deities, holy men, and scriptures) are important to people with a faith. Misuse of these words (e.g. as used as expletives or inappropriately) may cause offence. Describing others’ religious practices as ‘rituals’ is bad manners too – do we refer to communion as a ritual?
Not all cultures have the same given name/family name protocol as we do. The term Christian name, while unlikely to be treated as offensive if used innocently, can confuse.
DP refers to use of Chinky and the ‘N’ word by people of Chinese or African heritage. That doesn’t make it acceptable for others to use those words uninvited. Nothing new there either. There’s a Nevil Shute novel written in the fifties where the hero is an Australian pilot with part Aboriginal roots. He calls himself Ni**er Anderson but even then it was clear the term was rather shocking and used only by permission. On the same principle The Lad and I might throw all sorts of insults at each other when joshing about something but that’s no licence for others to call me a whatever.
Terminology changes over time. BEM – black and ethnic minority – has become BME. Same words but different order because minority is more important than ethnicity. Similarly African Caribbean rather then Afro Caribbean, perhaps to make clear it covers both African and black Caribbean heritage. Doesn’t seem to me to be particularly difficult to keep up and if in doubt an innocent question will not offend.
Awareness has made a difference and it was needed. With hindsight the public service I joined thirty years ago was institutionally sexist and racist. Assumptions were made, mostly by men of the wartime generation, about which posts were suitable for women. Sexual harassment and sexual comments about women’s appearance were common place. If a woman was emotional or expressed unconventional views it was either the time of the month or perhaps lack of sex in her life. Accents were an excuse to keep people out of offices where they were in contact with the public. Certain races were assumed not to be trustworthy or out to make the most of every trick and benefit in the system.
Yes, ‘equality’ has been a career option for a few. Someone who started her service as a trainee manager in my office in 1989 is now a board member with responsibility for diversity in another dept and has MBE after her name. There’s plenty of nonsense about but, like elf’n’safety, there are more myths than facts and people who should know better get carried away on hobby horses. A lot of what’s described as ‘PC’ comes under the latter heading.
I’m glad we’ve focussed on this stuff in the last thirty years and that it’s made a real difference.
|
That's a very sound post Bromtonaut. Not much to criticize there at all.
Of course there are a few more things to say. But one can faff on about this sort of thing till the cows come home.
Oo-er... is 'cows' all right? Some people thought the very mention of cattle unspeakably vulgar in Jane Austen's day.
:o}
|
|
cow is sexist, can you please refer said beasts as bovine...otherwise you could find yourself in the hague....or worse the CAP...be warned?
|
What I find intensely irritating though is the lurker who can't wait to pull someone up on something, even though the person saying it has uttered whatever it is with no hint of malice and at worst is guilty of a mild lack of up to date knowledge.
The other thing is...who decides when something 'has to change'. who decided that BEM had to become BME?
We all know that the 'n' word, for example, is right up there for offensiveness...but is BEM really that offensive?
As it happens, a mate of mine and I made one up once, a while back. It took us ages to get it right, because we didn't want to actually offend anyone..plus..the Old Bill has a robust internal complaints system and it wouldn't have been a career move to have 'got it wrong'. We settled on the phrase that we'd chosen...and kept pulling people up on it whenever they used it, until eventually we got bored..and that was that...for about 8 months...when a young detective had just come back from his detective's course and was covering nights with my team. I used the phrase and he pulled me up...quoting the exact crap we'd made up and he'd been advised by someone on his course (don't know whether staff or student). I couldn't believe it. Irritatingly I had to wait 12 hours to tell my mate, as he'd been promoted and moved on and wouldn't have appreciated a phone call at 2am.
|
>> The other thing is...who decides when something 'has to change'. who decided that BEM had
>> to become BME?
>>
>> We all know that the 'n' word, for example, is right up there for offensiveness...but
>> is BEM really that offensive?
I don't think there's any question of offence in BEM v BME. No idea how one replaced the other or on whose authority, its just a change of terminology. If that's a message from my half day every two years diversity training then I accept it just like changes in data security classifications.
There's a day job to get on with.
|
In my last company, it was never deemed necessary to issue guidance, or provide training with respect to racial diversity. We had business conduct guidelines that said everyone had to be treated the same and with fairness. And we had to sign to say we had read them annually.
The funny thing is, Diversity training is only imandatory n the public service. Makes it political in my book.
|
>> In my last company, it was never deemed necessary to issue guidance, or provide training
>> with respect to racial diversity. We had business conduct guidelines that said everyone had to
>> be treated the same and with fairness. And we had to sign to say we
>> had read them annually.
>>
>> The funny thing is, Diversity training is only imandatory n the public service. Makes it
>> political in my book.
Treating people with respect is what most of it is about Zeddo. A lot of the rest is understanding the whys and wherefores.
Business is a matter of choice. Govt has to deal with everybody and has powers over people.
It makes a difference.
|
...Diversity training is only mandatory n the public service. Makes it political in my book...
As ever, publicly funded bodies seem to have limitless time and resources to devote to this type of stuff, while at the same time bleating about how short of time and money they are.
My lot assume I know how to treat and speak to all types of people.
Were I to make a 'diversity balls-up' they would start with the premise I was sacked and go from there.
|
>> My lot assume I know how to treat and speak to all types of people.
Iffy: 'your lot' are assumed by definition to have some awareness of all major issues in the country including this one.
Unless I have it wrong, 'Bromptonaut's lot' includes everyone from rational, properly-educated elements like Bromptonaut himself, via the jumped-up and conceited, the raw-nerved young black person and the general array of office workers through to cleaners, drivers, handymen and so on, all races and creeds confounded along with all levels of education, intelligence and decency.
That was why those guidelines were seen as necessary. Should we disbelieve Bromptonaut when he says they have done more good than harm? I don't anyway.
|
>> Unless I have it wrong, 'Bromptonaut's lot' includes everyone from rational, properly-educated elements like Bromptonaut
>> himself, via the jumped-up and conceited, the raw-nerved young black person and the general array
>> of office workers through to cleaners, drivers, handymen and so on, all races and creeds
>> confounded along with all levels of education, intelligence and decency.
Armel Coussine, just out of curiosity, I wonder who you think my "lot" includes.
:-D
|
>> I wonder who you think my "lot" includes.
Er... slugs? Puppy-dogs' tails? That's all I can think of.
:o}
|
That's all I can think of.
:o}
I don't know what you do or did Gastropod, but your attitudes seem cool to me.
|
>> My lot assume I know how to treat and speak to all types of people.
The public sector thought that too. MacPherson came along and the resulting inquests/audits proved otherwise.
Surely you have a style book and editorial guidance on what is and is not acceptable in your organ? I'd also hope that before you or a new cub reporter are let out to speak to victims and witnesses you have some training as to what is and is not acceptable when race, gender etc are in play.
Smaller and businesses and those in 'B2B' to some extent can choose their territory. Work can be declined or the risk of trouble priced into a contract. Govt has to deal with everybody and society is increasingly vigilant for any sense that people are not treated appropriately. I'm pretty sure that big retailers, public transport providers and anyone else exposed commercially to the whole of society has a diversity failure on its risk list and steps in place to deal with it including documentation and staff training.
The other aspect of diversity is getting the most from staff. Flexible working practices and managers made aware of the risks of treating people inappropriately can help organisations make best use of skills and aptitudes.
And on a lighter note:
Some bloke suggested the other week that if there were such a thing as a glass ceiling the men would be on the floor below looking up the lady's skirts. The feminist retort was that the glass ceiling did exist and the men were upstairs looking down the women's tops!!
|
>> the men were upstairs looking down the women's tops!!
Sexism less serious than racism eh Bromptonaut? I should be so lucky.
The balcony of our old gaff during the carnival though... mmmmm! I used to bulge my eyes and make remarks about 'embonpoint' and 'pulchwitude' in a cod Michael Winner accent. Used to drive herself and the daughters berserk with rage.
Heh heh...
|
...I'd also hope that before you or a new cub reporter are let out to speak to victims and witnesses you have some training as to what is and is not acceptable when race, gender etc are in play...
Not a chance.
To me, if a person needs that sort of training, they shouldn't be doing the job in the first place.
And your comment illustrates just how far apart we are in ways of working.
I'm not having a go, just observing.
|
>> To me, if a person needs that sort of training, they shouldn't be doing the
>> job in the first place.
If competition for posts in journalism has always been so keen that people who genuinely don't need that sort of training are present in number then fair enough.
On the other hand, perhaps training has been cut and much else sacrificed in pursuit of 'the story'.
If that's what brought us phoneacking and all the other stuff that Leveson LJ's inquiry is bringing out I'd not be surprised. Today's evidence about the English lad killed in a foreign coach crash is a case in point.
To echo:
Which illustrates just how far apart we are in ways of working and;
I'm not having a go, just observing.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 26 Jun 12 at 21:47
|
...If competition for posts in journalism has always been so keen that people who genuinely don't need that sort of training are present in number then fair enough. If on the other hand, perhaps training has been cut and much else sacrificed in pursuit of 'the story'...
Again, we are miles apart.
Diversity training just doesn't exist in newspapers.
If training in general has been cut, it's because there's no money to do it.
As in, we didn't flog enough newspapers/advertising last year, so we cannot pay for something this year.
I've no idea what your Leveson point is, and linking lack of diversity training to voicemail hacking is barmy.
|
>> Diversity training just doesn't exist in newspapers.
Quite frightening.
>> If training in general has been cut, it's because there's no money to do it.
>>
>> As in, we didn't flog enough newspapers/advertising last year, so we cannot pay for something
>> this year.
Or training has no short term benefit; we can scrap it and keep the dividend on target.
>> I've no idea what your Leveson point is, and linking lack of diversity training to
>> voicemail hacking is barmy.
Not diversity related, training generally and a moral compass. Giles Crown's evidence to Leveson is here:
www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/jun/26/leveson-inquiry-crown-colbourne-lamb-live
Other interpretations will be on other news sites
|
...Quite frightening...
I think it must be a private/public sector thing.
If you said to a journalist: "I find it quite frightening you have had no diversity the training," the journalist would think you were taking the wotsit, or if not, you were just another feather-bedded public servant with no grasp of the real world.
As I said, we're a little way apart on this one.
As regards the Guardian link to Leveson, where do you find the time to plough through all this stuff?
Before I lost the will to live, I gathered it's something about a grieving family complaining of pictures appearing in newspapers.
I'd have to see the long lens one to make a judgement, but if you stick stuff on Facebook, it's a bit rich to later claim it's 'private'.
Still, no doubt the lawyers who asked the questions will slap in a big bill, so it's another good day in publicly-funded Never Never Land.
|
>> If you said to a journalist: "I find it quite frightening you have had no
>> diversity the training," the journalist would think you were taking the wotsit, or if not,
>> you were just another feather-bedded public servant with no grasp of the real world.
I'm no journalist, but in my line of work money for training isn't as available as it once was, so I understand what Iffy means.
Whilst I don't wish to see anyone out of work, the sooner some people enter the 'real' world, the sooner their eyes will be opened.
|
>>so it's another good day in publicly-funded Never Never Land.
There's a fundamental difference in the way public and private sector spend money.
The public sector starts from the point of view of what it must spend. Budgets are seen as a problem, not a tool - hence PFI seemed acceptable to its architects, despite its being spending money we didn't have.
My last company hasn't spent any money on "Respect for People" as it was called for several years, so it's either gone out of fashion, become unaffordable or the emperor's clothes have been rumbled.
|
Brompton. That's a really hilarious sexist joke, love it. Nearly broke my back laughing. Do you have any racist ones in your 1000 Jokes for Uncivil Servants book?
I'm glad to see that diversity training has improved you as a person.
|
>> I'm pretty sure that big retailers, public transport providers and anyone else exposed
>> commercially to the whole of society has a diversity failure on its risk list and
>> steps in place to deal with it including documentation and staff training.
>>
I'm pretty sure that that is not the case, except perhaps with ex-public sector companies such as BP and British Airways.
|
>>I'm pretty sure that that is not the case, except perhaps with ex-public sector companies such as BP and British Airways.
Utter carp unless the likes of John Lewis and M&S are "ex-public sector"
|
>> Utter carp unless the likes of John Lewis and M&S are "ex-public sector"
That would be my response too. Manatee referred to his private sector employers 'valuing people' or similar campaign.
Of course there's a political dimension in the public sector but cutting to the chase this stuff is about (a) relating to your customers/clients/claimants and (b) getting the most from the people you employ.
(a) Is a risk thing. Get something wrong in profiling or addressing your customers by gender race or class and there's a commercial and reputational exposure. (b) probably has less profile at the moment because recruiting and retaining staff in a recession is not a as costly as in a boom. Even so, losing staff trained at great expense is not lightly undertaken.
|
>> Utter carp unless the likes of John Lewis and M&S are "ex-public sector"
>>
So you define what JL and M&S are doing as ".... has a diversity failure on its risk list and steps in place to deal with it including documentation and staff training."
Utter nonsense and double crap.
All they are doing is the minimum necessary to satisfy the various Acts, drafted and imposed upon them by PC bureaucrats.
|
Umm yeah, you're right.
Maybe you should write to the Chairman of M&S and ask his opinion.
|
corporate.marksandspencer.com/mscareers/careers_about/our_diversity
The fact that most of the above is enshrined in law has nothing to do with private/public sector drum-banging....
Bigotry, nepotism, harassment, intolerance and race/sex/age discrimination has been a fact of life since we climbed out of the trees.
Indeed even chimps seem more than capable of these 'human' traits.
|
>> Oo-er... is 'cows' all right?
Depends.
If you meant wimmin then you'll burn in hell.
If you meant bovines, then it's o.k.
|
Here's some of my (genuine) difficulties with PC crap.
- Not being allowed to ask for a black coffee in the canteen. Some clown said I had to ask for a 'coffee without milk'. The African canteen lady burst out laughing at that one. Totally ignored it.
- being told to use the term 'board blasting' not 'brain storming' on a course to protect the sensibilities of those with epilepsy and similar. Totally ignored it.
- being told to remove a jokey picture off the wall of my office, by some pillock (junior to me) who thought 'someone' might be offended by it. Not him of course, just 'someone'. It was a digitally enhanced picture of a white businessman, fully clothed in a suit, with his head up his own backside. The old boy in my office had given it to me and told me 'this is what it's like working in here'. I thought it funny so put it on the wall. I queried the difficulty with this fellow and asked him what the problem was...then before he could answer said "Ah I get it, if someone were to come into my office with their head up their ar*e, they might be offended"..at which point the Old Boy went through convulsions of laughter and ended up having to go outside for some fresh air.
There's loads more...but you get the drift. Pathetic really, there's people dying in the world and the truly bullied lead lives of pure misery...yet too many of us have to suffer this crap.
t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTdpoScpmrbyYuTj9B1IEDbJ19ch75JOSvAtzX2jzaThp4TN6qn0w
Last edited by: Westpig on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 20:13
|
"Describing others’ religious practices as ‘rituals’ is bad manners too – do we refer to communion as a ritual?"
Hell yes!
|
>> Hell yes!
I too noticed that point, virtually the only criticism I can think of. I am bewildered by the suggestion that 'ritual' is an offensive word for, er, ritual.
There are of course a few words like that which people who can't speak English, but are too conceited to realise it, may object to.
'Native' even when used correctly for example. Even 'local', that most harmless of words. No doubt there are others.
|
Perfectly useful words when habitually used to insult or disparage become loaded with that meaning. Spastic for example. The same things happens to substitutes, and they in turn have to be replaced. "Travellers" is now just as loaded for many people as the non-PC "p****s", and will probably be unacceptable soon if it still is. So if there were a rule book, it would have to be continually revised.
Even PC words can be used in a negative way. I suspect that is one reason why "ethnic minority" has become "minority ethnic". I can't quite see how the "minority" trumps the "ethnic", when the ethnicity is the defining factor of the minority.
Evil is as evil does. My mother was a shining example of humanitarian, liberal tolerance (save where slackers of any kind were concerned) but invariably rang for the Paki' taxi service. Happily she had retired from teaching by then!
|
>> My mother was a shining example of humanitarian, liberal tolerance
>> (save where slackers of any kind were concerned) but invariably rang for the Paki' taxi
>> service.
>>
Yes. That wholly offensive and unsuitable word distinctly frowned upon in modern times...yet the Pakistani Embassy in London has the number plate PAK1 on one of their cars...so they can't be at all sensitive about it, can they?
|
|
I get this slight feeling they don't expect you to see it as PAKI. More, Just a wild guess this, PAK - 1
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 22:26
|
>I get this slight feeling they don't expect you to see it as PAKI. More, Just a wild guess this, PAK - 1
You reckon that they didn't realise how it would be interpreted?
|
>> Just a wild guess this, PAK - 1
>> You reckon that they didn't realise how it would be interpreted?
According to this:
bit.ly/hlBXIA
they don't have PAK 1 but do have 1 PAK.
Last edited by: Dave_TDCi on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 22:53
|
>> bit.ly/hlBXIA
>>
>> they don't have PAK 1 but do have 1 PAK.
>>
They used to have it, I used to see it out and about in the late 80's. Maybe they swapped it.
|
>> My mother was a shining example of humanitarian, liberal tolerance (save where slackers of any kind
>> were concerned) but invariably rang for the Paki' taxi service.
I once worked for a Bengali taxi service. When I first started there I hadn't had any previous dealings with immigrants of any creed, so I was bemused to see one brown gentleman using that word as a pejorative term about another brown gentleman.
|
>> I too noticed that point, virtually the only criticism I can think of. I am
>> bewildered by the suggestion that 'ritual' is an offensive word for, er, ritual.
>>
As an atheist I've no problem with any religious ceremony or process being described as a ritual. But for those to whom these things have meaning I think there's something slightly pejorative or demeaning about the term - a they have rituals we have ceremonies kind of thing.
One of my early posts in the Civil Service was as a clerk in the Lands Tribunal. I don't remember many cases I sat through but one was to do with whether a bathing facility associated with a Synagogue qualified for relief from rates as a religious building. The place was just up the road from where I lived in Golders Green. I learned a huge amount about Judaism that week and gained a sort of sneaking respect for their practices. One aspect of the Synagogue's appeal was to remove the word 'ritual' from the description in the rating list.
Cannot remember the outcome but I had some sympathy with their submission.
|
Could I liken all this nonsense to the subject in the following Para'.? All those who have been employed in/by these Heads up ar e institutions may advise please as I have been my own Guvnor for almost 38 years so I really don't know or indeed want to know what is right and what is wrong, in THEIR eyes.
I 'carry' a very big stick in one of my vehicles. The vehicle that I use for taking the working dogs around and all that that may entail. It is there to thrash the living daylights out of brambles etc. and to aid my knackered knees by offering some support (as a Walking Stick). I presume that it could be deemed to be an OFFENSIVE weapon as could the krooklok IF there was INTENT. Would the same not apply to all of those supposedly derogatory terms?? i.e. No intent, no offence.
Yours confused and mildly chuffed off by all this nonsense. Black coffee indeed.............
|
>>No intent, no offence.
Within reason.
I couldn't reasonably carry a loaded shotgun through the streets, even if I had no intent to use it on a human being.
|
>I couldn't reasonably carry a loaded shotgun through the streets, even if I had no intent to use it on a human being.
If you were shooting the goddamn^W pigeons around here you'd be applauded.
|
|
If people use the term "Brits" for we British, why can I not use the term "Paki" for Pakistanis?
|
You can, and it tells everyone a bit about you.
What would you call someone from Nigeria?
Never mind I think we know that one.
Last edited by: Lygonos on Mon 25 Jun 12 at 23:31
|
|
You can. Just expect to get thumped.
|
>You can. Just expect to get thumped.
You're saying that all Pakistanis are violent?
|
No, I'm saying that a lot of Pakistanis would find the term offensive and to call a Pakistani a Paki to his face could well provoke violence. To use a word that you knowingly find offensive
is provocation.
|
>No, I'm saying that a lot of Pakistanis would find the term offensive and to call a
>Pakistani a Paki to his face could well provoke violence.
Ahh, understood.
I didn't want to twist your words to cause offense where none was intended. You obviously meant that just a lot of them could be violent.
;-)
|
|
Why not Roger call them what you like.Or call a Brit a Limey I have seen that causing a few fistycuffs.>:) Cheeseface K r a u t. or Yank all helps for good relations.
|
>> If people use the term "Brits" for we British, why can I not use the
>> term "Paki" for Pakistanis?
>>
Because the correct, widely accepted, term is Pak. Look it up. Although it could cause offence to an Indian, just as calling a Canadian "American" causes offence to them.
Your version is considered offensive by most South Indians (and possibly it's use is condemned by people of other races too).
|
The whole thing is a tremendous waste of energy.
Treat people with a bit of respect, and as you would want them to treat you. Nothing else is required.
|
A perfect example of why (diversity training of) Civil Servants is (are) such a complete waste of our time and money. Ignorance reinforcing ignorance in the name of not offending people who aren't going to be offended anyway. Look at this:
>>>> I too noticed that point, virtually the only criticism I can think of. I am
>>>> bewildered by the suggestion that 'ritual' is an offensive word for, er, ritual.
>>>>
>>As an atheist I've no problem with any religious ceremony or process being described as a
>>ritual. But for those to whom these things have meaning I think there's something slightly
>>pejorative or demeaning about the term - a they have rituals we have ceremonies kind of
>>thing.
Here we have a fine example of an atheist. Who doesn't use the term ritual (because the Civil Service has told him not to) when referring to the religious activities of non-Christians because it might suggest Imperialism because it's not the sort of thing that "we" (or at least, people that he thinks that might be like him) "do". Attached, please find an 1894 Publication - much in use in (certain) Anglican churches even to this date as it has probably never been bettered - entitled "Ritual Notes".
anglicanhistory.org/liturgy/ritual_notes_1894/
Ever heard of the last rites (16m google hits)? The Rite of Holy Communion (1.9m google hits)? The 1980 Alternative Service Book referred to the two different rites of Holy Communion as "Rite A" (the modern language version) and "Rite B" (the traditional language version).
Brompton that you put such stall by such rubbish suggests to me that the rest of your musings are similarly well informed too. What a waste of my (taxpayers') money.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 26 Jun 12 at 09:42
|
In fairness to Bromp he made it clear he has better things to do in general than spend too much time on this stuff, and I didn't get the impression he sets great store by it. You are shooting the messenger.
There's nothing wrong with the basic principle of discouraging casual and systemic racism for example. But its not worth all the bolleau promoted by the whole industry that has grown up around it.
I'm not convinced it works either. We would have become more cosmopolitan anyway. And there is still a lot of vicious racism that most of us here can be unaware of 99.9% of the time.
Only the converted listen to the preaching. The bigots will always exist. The theory deals with this by assuming that removing all the casual and inadvertent unhelpful language will have an effect, but I don't think it does.
|
>> In fairness to Bromp he made it clear he has better things to do in
>> general than spend too much time on this stuff, and I didn't get the impression
>> he sets great store by it. You are shooting the messenger.
And quite rightly so for the messenger passed judgement on the guide by writing this: "My employers sponsor department produces an excellent [my italics] guide on religion and belief."
No it's not. It's over-sensitive, seeking to find offence where none exists. It is produced by the ignorant. Read by the ignorant. Lauded by the ignorant. Propagated by the ignorant. And thus ignorance prevails and predominates.
Paid for by US.
It's exactly the same as the black coffee point, but it has been dressed up as the thinking man's version. It's probably institutionally divisive - "you think you're being clever by not referring to black coffee, but you're actually stupid as the coffee is black. However because I'm a civil servant I'm cleverer than you are, so don't refer to rituals, not that you'd understand, of course."
Once you open a can of worms it's hard to squeeze them back into the can. A topic better not touched*. Yet we pay people to produce these "excellent" guides, and we pay people to learn to do training on them and we pay for people to be trained on them.
* Yes obviously the world is a better place thanks to the significant reduction in casual racism. But it's not obvious that creating artificial racism (black coffee, rites) and then eliminating that too is doing anything other than keeping people in jobs.
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 26 Jun 12 at 10:33
|
>> No it's not. It's over-sensitive, seeking to find offence where none exists. It is produced
>> by the ignorant. Read by the ignorant. Lauded by the ignorant. Propagated by the ignorant.
>> And thus ignorance prevails and predominates.
>>
>> Paid for by US.
>>
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Try working amongst it, having to go on courses and listen to it, have some colleagues spout it enthusiastically. Trouble is, if you fight back too much, you can easily come across as a bigot who doesn't wish to open their eyes to the real unpleasantness in society.
The trouble is, the basics, such as legislation, are there to protect people. To prevent the misery that some people suffer at the hands of others...and it does happen. The problem though is the 'Richard Cranium' gets hold of it, puts his/her slant on it...and twists it.
I think ignorance covers it nicely.
I'm truly glad I'm out of it.
|
>>
>> The trouble is, the basics, such as legislation, are there to protect people.
Same principle as Health and Safety legislation. The basics are very much needed and are there to protect all...then it gets twisted by the bureaucrats and fools.
|
>> Same principle as Health and Safety legislation. The basics are very much needed and are
>> there to protect all...then it gets twisted by the bureaucrats and fools.
>>
Yep, same reason why our M-ways get shut down for hours after a "police incident", but no other country in the world does it. It must be right, musn't it, because the Union of Chief Police Officers aka ACPO deems it to be so.
|
Mapmaker,
I was thinking in terms of modern usage/abusage. Rite and ritual although undoubtedly sharing the same linguistic root have acquired different meanings.
My dictionary (Collins) suggests the word ritual has several usages. One is as you outline; the prescribed form of religious or other ceremony and such prescribed forms in gemeral or collectively. Another is stereotyped activity or behaviour, I suspect the sensitivity arises from the latter. Personally, I wince at use of 'ritual' in the press when, for example, referring to activities undertaken by pilgrims in Mecca.
Last night's post was based on the gist of the training we're given. It started in earnest because of MacPherson's findings on the Met and a sense elsewhere of 'there but for the grace of etc'. It's not based on what one white person thinks might offend but on informed discussion with experts, repps of religious etc groups etc.
As it happens I think most of it is good sense and approach it on that basis rather than dictat that I've been told to follow.
Coffee break over; we may have to agree to differ.
EDIT. Having seen your crossed post we will have to differ.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 26 Jun 12 at 10:43
|
When I go to church the ritual is very important to me.
www.dioceseoftyler.org/documents/rubricsEucharist.pdf - the word ritual in the wild, in a twenty-first century church publication. I'll happily concede that it's not used very frequently, but it is used by the Church.
There's nothing more to say other than that you are by your own admission not in a position to pass judgement on the use of the term in the Church, that you do pass judgement, that you are paid to pass judgement (even if only in your half day every two years) and that the whole passing of judgement wastes a whole load of taxpayers' money.
Social rituals include the end-of-school "prom", key in which is the use of a stretch limo. Have I just offended teenagers by the use of ritual here? Surely not. (I do apologise for the Americanism of "prom".)
Last edited by: Mapmaker on Tue 26 Jun 12 at 11:25
|
Mapmaker,
I'm sorry if I've offended.
For the record I don't seek to pass judgement here or in the job but merely repeat and heed advice I was given and with which I agree.
Accept the word ritual may not offend your Christian (Catholic?) sensibilites and indeed you draw comfort from rituals; fair enough. The suggestion that it was best avoided in public communication would be based on advice, perhaps from non Christian sources. It wasn't pulled out of thin air by the well meaning.
As noted in my post last night the word's use in the rating list was an issue for Synagogue trustees as far back as 1983.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 26 Jun 12 at 13:13
|
Catholic, yes.
But not Roman Catholic, instead Church of England - making me even more of an establishment dinosaur/Blue Whale than you (white, middle class professional, etc. etc.)
>>As noted in my post last night the word's use in the rating list was an issue for Synagogue
>>trustees as far back as 1983.
Ignorance in the Synagogue as well as in the PC Department of HM Government, if you ask me.
I don't understand these two sentences:
>>The suggestion that it was best avoided in public communication would be based on advice,
>>perhaps from non Christian sources. It wasn't pulled out of thin air by the well meaning.
The corollary of the doubt about the adequacy of the sources is that it *was* pulled out of thin air by the "well meaning" ignorant.
Interestingly, if the sources making the complaints were non-Christian, it means they apparently *seek* to differentiate their ceremonies from our ritual(s). If indeed they do not seek to do this, then that must make them auto-racist.
|
>> Social rituals include the end-of-school "prom", key in which is the use of a stretch
>> limo.
Calling the school prom a "ritual" is stretching it a bit ( and I don't mean the limo ), its not a ritual but a fashion, or fad.
|
>> its not a ritual but a fashion, or fad.
>>
Just as religions are - only difference is that they have lasted well beyond their kill by date.
|
>>Just as religions are - only difference is that they have lasted well beyond their kill by date.
+ eleventy
|
>> Calling the school prom a "ritual" is stretching it a bit ( and I don't
>> mean the limo ), its not a ritual but a fashion, or fad.
>>
It's not only a fashion or fad, it's something copied from America and with an American name. Why do we have to copy America? Why can't we be original?
|
|
Like rock and roll you mean? or the blues, or jazz, or soul music, or the internet, or the lightbulb, or space travel, or or or
|
|
or, or - English - the language?
|
>> or, or - English - the language?
Being as it is an amalgam of the Western Germanic languages of the four German tribes: Angles, Saxons, Jutes and Frisii - so basically German with the grammatical structure of Latin (the Romans). Later add in a bit of the Northern Germanic language Old Norse (Vikings), Norman (William the Conqueror).
There is almost no remaining Celtic vocabulary in English.
|
|
More than just a bit of Norman, surely Mapmaker? It has planted may "false friends" (same or similar spelling, different meanings) in English for a start.
|
|
A big bit, obviously, but still a bit! (Forgive my mangling of this mélange!)
|
Is the grammatical structure from Latin - a Romance language surely?
As far as I understand it, the grammatical structure of English is far, far, different from the likes of Italian, Spanish, French & so on.
Romance languages place more emphasis on strict grammar, verb conjugation, adverb & adjectival placement and so on.
I used to say to Spanish people that the Spanish language was easy to pronounce, but the grammar was difficult, whereas English was difficult to pronounce, but the grammar was easy.
|
The grammatical structure of Anglo Saxon/Old English, yes - an inflected language. Modern English obviously is not as you allude.
|
Nearly 40 years ago I got into the lift to ascend the Empire State building. A middle-aged black woman bustled up smoking a cigarette.
The young white male uniformed lift operator held up his hand and said politely: 'Er, Ma'am, smoking is not permitted in the elevators.'
Shouldering her way past, the woman flicked some ash towards the lift operator's feet with the words: 'Stand aside, son. And show a little respect for your elders, or I'll set your leg on fire.' She continued to smoke amiably as the lift ascended, although the poor operator blushed a little.
Race was very clearly not an issue between them in any way at all.
|
"Political correctness" - Manatee
