that i`m in no-way, shape or form a Racist, because I now just don`t know how to refer to "non-white", folk British or not.
We all know the terms we should not use, but following the much broadcast news of the "slips of the tongues" of Suarez and Terry, and now we have this:
Quote:
Former Liverpool footballer Alan Hansen has apologised after describing black players as "coloured" during a debate on Match of the Day.
Hansen angered viewers after he twice referred to black players as "coloured" when discussing the race row threatening to engulf the sport.
At the time he said: "There's a lot of coloured players in all the major teams and there's a lot of coloured players that are probably the best in the Premier League."
Hansen has now apologised "unreservedly" for using the term.
unquote.
I always assumed that "Coloured" was acceptable! - what is P.C nowadays then?
Last edited by: devonite on Thu 22 Dec 11 at 15:29
|
It evolves and therefore constantly changes.
Don't worry about it, those in the 'know' will gleefully put you straight if you get it wrong.
There ought to be a difference between out and out unpleasantness (and there is plenty of that about) and a mild degree of ignorance never intended to offend....
... and the other angle is over sensitivity from usually those not affected, but being sensitive on behalf of others, who often couldn't care less.
|
So... does this make the use of the word "Caucasian" a no-no ?
|
If you aren't openly racist or making obvious and clumsy attempts to conceal a ferocious racism, no one is likely to take offence when you stumble over that sort of thing.
The trouble with 'coloured' I think is that it is associated with Apartheid in South Africa, where it was an official 'racial category'. 'Black' is the generally accepted term for people of African extraction. Black people don't mind being referred to as black unless the word is linked with another, less complimentary one. Then 'black' suddenly becomes part of a racial insult. Bit of a minefield, what?
No, not really. Some anti-racist militants use the term black to cover those of South Asian and Middle Eastern extraction too, but Arabs and Asians don't usually like that much and nor do African and Caribbean people. So it is politer to use specific national (e.g. 'Indian', Chinese, Japanese, etc., but only if you know for sure) or inoffensive regional (e.g. 'North African' or 'Asian') terms to refer to those.
There isn't much problem when people are well-meaning and courteous. When they are ready to explain themselves if misunderstood. Closet racists trying to be smart with a bit of ambiguous badinage are asking for it though. They always get rumbled immediately.
|
"Hansen angered viewers after he twice referred to black players as "coloured" when discussing the race row threatening to engulf the sport."
If he was discussing a race issue, how else could he differentiate between races? Foreign wouldn't be right as they may well be English. The world's gone mad...
|
>> The world's gone mad...
Yes, it has a bit, in a lot of ways.
It seems absurd that this geezer should have to apologise 'unreservedly' for using the term 'coloured'. Unless of course he was using the word on purpose to annoy black players; or unless so many people were annoyed by it, or said they were, that he just had to knuckle under like Clarkson the other day.
It doesn't matter so much down the pub or in private, but if you are being recorded by the news media it is prudent to think before speaking.
|
Whatever the rationale or logic I've known all my working life not to use the term 'coloured'. I think it was OK for a while in the sixties/seventies but was replaced by black, Asian or minority and ethnic in combination.
Hansen's a regular broadcaster and should know this stuff ruffles feathers. Surely the telly companies have have standing orders not to use various terms this one included.
|
AC is right, we have much to thank the South Africans for, in their attempt to segregate everything and everyone, they screwed up the use of the English language for everyone else when it came to discussing racial issues.
In my book coloured is ok, its not what you use or say, its how you do it that matters. Its perfectly easy to throw a nasty overtone on it when using the word "coloured"
"Non White" is a good harmless catch-all.
|
|
I've lived in this world for 59 years now, and I ain't seen a black man yet.
|
"Non White" is a good harmless catch-all.
"Many people object to the term non white for referring to people by what they are not rather than what they are." - Online dictionary
|
>> "Non White" is a good harmless catch-all. >>
--- harmless, if you lived in the apartheid days of South Africa.
|
Think i`ll take a page out of "Dogs book of Diplomacy" and just call everyone "Comrade"!
>>The worlds gorn mad"!!
|
Its a minefield without limits.
Having dated two black women, one who's origins were Jamaican and the other Ugandan, what I learnt is the reference to skin colour via types of chocolate ( black, white, milk ) by the Jamaican girl, but the Ugandan one thought it a bit vulgar and lacking class.
Neither had any issues with being called black though unless as has been said, it had other negative words attached.
In essence, theres no definitive rule book on it though and what one person finds offensive, another wont.
When Jamaican gf said she wanted some cute milk chocolate babies, aside from running to the hills, I did also find it uncomfortable to label any future children I have on the basis of skin colour, but she openly desired a certain racial mix and made no secret of it.
My son is fair skinned and blond haired, but its not something I think alot, I wasnt brought up with skin colour being very relevant, but obviously im not yet likely to come under any attack on account of being white, something that sadly ethnic minorities do have to still deal with, so I dont blame them so much as the people who still take issue with ethnicity, they just encourage the sensitivity.
|
>> In my book coloured is ok,
Guy at work was called coloured. He took offence and said he was black, "and don't ever call me coloured again". I made sure I remembered, as he's not exactly small..
|
>> Guy at work was called coloured. He took offence and said he was black
A coloured chap where I used to work was called Barry. His nickname (which he gave himself) was "Black Barry". Really funny bloke who felt left out and unloved if he wasn't insulted daily, and mainly it had to be about his skin colour. He really whooped up the attention he got and could give as good as he got. His father who worked at the same place however was the complete opposite and would have you up in front of race relations if you so much as asked for a cup of black coffee.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 24 Dec 11 at 18:05
|
>> what is P.C nowadays then? >>
The best person to ask is your "non-white" friend, if you have one. Ask him/her which word they would prefer that you use when you refer to the "colour" of their skin or their race.
I notice that Devon is pretty sensitive about "P.C." issues:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2077484/
Staff at the Rural Payments Agency office in Clyst St Mary, Devon, were ordered to take down the tinsel and baubles so that the workplace would keep its professional look.
'This approach was part of a package to deliver consistently high standards of service to our customers throughout the year and is entirely appropriate for a modern and diverse workplace.'
|
...Staff at the Rural Payments Agency office in Clyst St Mary, Devon, were ordered to take down the tinsel and baubles so that the workplace would keep its professional look...
Typical government office - always plenty of time and resources for meetings and rulings about internal 'issues'.
They ought to be too busy getting on with the job to care, but in truth, too many have nothing better to do.
Won't stop then bleating about how over-worked they are come next strike day.
|
>> Typical government office - always plenty of time and resources for meetings and rulings about
>> internal 'issues'.
>>
>> They ought to be too busy getting on with the job to care, but in
>> truth, too many have nothing better to do.
Another new manager out to make some small trace in his rise to HQ. Know all the theory about process redesign, SOP's etc and stuff all about relating to their staff.
|
...Another new manager out to make some small trace in his rise to HQ. Know all the theory about process redesign, SOP's etc and stuff all about relating to their staff...
That's probably a more accurate explanation than my mini-rant.
But my experience tells me it's usually publicly-funded offices that concern themselves with this type of stuff.
The newspaper offices I've worked in just cannot be bothered with it.
There's a downside to that, I've seen one or two cases where a staff member could have done with some welfare help, but didn't get it.
A newsroom is a 'sink or swim' environment.
|
I don't care,non white or coloured seems to me the right term.Not many people are black or white.
I suppose plenty of non white coloured or black people have names to call the white pinkish pale skin race.It is a minefield.If Terry called this player names he should apoligise to him and give plenty of money to a good charity without the courts getting involved.Plenty of poor kids in Africa to support.
|
I'm white (supposedly) but I have a Mediterranean sort-of look, when I lived in Tenerife, Sheeple used to think I was 'one of theirs',
Being I'm a life-long joker, I used to say to the milk white Brits (wearing milk white sox with their sandals) Hola! buenas dais señor y señora , ¿Cómo estas?
But after passing by I'd always follow with "turned out nice again, ain't it" with my Cockney accent.
Last edited by: Dog on Fri 23 Dec 11 at 09:51
|
|
In Andalusia it's "bona dia" - they always drop the ends of words!
|
Non-white is just teetering on the brink of becoming a subtly offensive term, when said in a certain way by those who want to imply something without risking being overt.
It has shades of "non-Aryan", suggestive of those not privileged by inclusion in the master-race.
Pre-Obama, "black" was becoming a difficult word for Americans, who had been brainwashed to say "African Americans". Wasn't there a president who visited South Africa but couldn't bring himself to say "black", so bafflingly described the local population as African Americans?
|
I worked in South Africa for two years around the time apartheid ended.
"Coloured" was generally a term associated with abuse.. But then - as above - apartheid screwed up the English language..
Last edited by: madf on Fri 23 Dec 11 at 13:22
|
|
Well, it's the same in Tenerife, except for the clowns (like me) who go about speaking the King's Spanish (at first!)
|
I understand the restriction on "coloured" as explained above. I have a genuine question as a follow-up.
I remember it used to be the done thing to describe someone as a "woman of colour" (at least in the US). Is the term "of colour" (or more accurately "of color") now defunct as a valid expression?
I don't want to give offence even by accident.
|
I've used the expression 'people of colour' here a couple of times. It's handier than using the whole list although 'black and Asian' more or less covers it too.
I am fortunate in having Trinidadian friends of decades' standing who know me well, and who freely use the n word in front of me when they feel like it, even permitting me to answer in kind from time to time (but with due care and caution). Trinidad is very racially mixed having had not only black African but Indian labour from India imported back then, as well as an indigenous Carib (Native American) strain in the population. As a result Trinidadians, or those with brains and culture anyway, have a highly evolved view of all these things. I rely on these buddies to keep me straight on true (as opposed to 'received') political correctness. Which does vary and evolve over time.
They aren't that keen on 'people of colour' as a term. Apartheid South Africa blighted the word 'colour' I guess.
It is difficult for a native Briton to appreciate the depth and sharpness of the feelings around this issue having seldom if ever been in the position of a black or brown person surrounded by genially (or nastily) thuggish and insensitive Brits. Perhaps Stu is right. It is, sometimes, a bit of a minefield.
|
|
"People of colour" seems to have a bit of the "only mentioned behind back of hand" or "shameful" air about it.
|
A story told by legendary US Broadcaster Vin Scully, about Jackie Robinson, who was the first Black player to break into the major leagues in Baseball (with the Brooklyn Dodgers). This is a massive thing in the US, and no player ever wears the number that Jackie wore - 42 - as a mark of respect for what he went through on behalf of other black players. . . . .
Jackie had received some serious threats against his life, so that when the Dodgers came to Cincinnati, the old Crosley Field, they had riflemen on the rooftops and on the roof of the big laundry building back in left field. It was serious.
And before the game, the Dodgers held a meeting in the clubhouse. And everybody, understandably, was tense. This was really serious.
And they had an outfielder named Gene Hermanski, who suddenly broke the silence by saying, "I've got it!"
And everybody stopped and said, "What?"
And Hermanski said, "We'll confuse them. We'll all wear number 42!"
Well, everybody broke up and it released the tension and they went out and played.
|
|
Well how about "Folks of Ethnic Ancestry"? - would that upset anyone?
|
I grew up with kids from Indonesion background never had a problem.I take a individual as they are.Black White Brown or Pink.
Sailed with lads from the Cape Verdis friendly people.
|
It is possible, in this age of sensitivity to such things to decide to take offence at all manner of things. Sensible people know where to draw their own lines.
I don't mind in the least being referred to as a "Jock" for example. Albeit slang and as such could by those of a confrontational or perhaps insecure disposition be taken as disparaging it is ultimately a true description in its simplest form in meaning "Scottish".
So why would I or anyone else who happens to hail from north of the border be offended by the term unless we were trying to find something to be irritated about as part of a wider agenda?
Likewise, if factual, as opposed to disparaging, reference is made to any other element of a person's ethnicity why would that be offensive? Irrelevant perhaps but then so is much human discourse.
|
Jock, k****, Frog, Rosbif, even Sheepshagger, can pass as ordinary robust badinage. No one feels put down by them because no one is really being 'racially' abused or discriminated against. They all know they are and are seen as more or less equal and the same.
It's different when you've been born holding the crap end of the stick as a result of colonial and imperial history and the received status that goes with that history. Especially as there are still quite a lot of people in our societies who believe or half-believe that 'racial' characteristics are somehow more important and defining than cultural or individual ones, and can't help letting it show.
Never mind people who want to exploit this stuff to make mischief. They are obvious. It's the silent majority that matters.
|
The vast majority of people of whatever hue their skin are quite reasonable, a black lady friend of mine in particular has a great sense of humour over the ludicrousness of some of this PC garbage, life's too short to worry about such rubbish.
The problem has become a problem because thousands of none jobs have been created, indeed whole lucrative industries all funded by us, and many more thousands of (usually white trendy boring sods) do gooders have made names (if only they knew) for themselves by taking offence for people who were never offended in the first place.
The Christmas thing just one example is similar, i know lots of people of various origins and beliefs and not once have i ever found one to be offended by anything like this, these diversity co-ordinator types have mended something that was never broken in the first place...again.
|
Exactly, AC. Criticising someone for innate physical characteristics is illogical.
*tongue-in-cheek-on*
Of course they are fair game for self-defining characteristics that they choose for themselves, such as taking a particular political viewpoint, or flaunting of brand images, e.g.
- joining the KKK or BNP
- supporting arsenal FC
- Driving a BMW
some people do all three of these and are hopeless cases.
*tongue-in-cheek-off*
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 23 Dec 11 at 17:33
|
I bet most of those who complained about Hansen were Guardian-reading public service workers.
Or employees of the BBC.
Yet another example of 'nothing better to do'.
|
People just don't understand how convoluted this stuff is.
There are many people in our society who are well enough brought up not to have racist prejudices and to understand that this is a historically fraught issue in our country. They are civilized people who are kind and mean well.
However, if they do not often frequent black or brown people they are anxious - culturally anxious - when they meet them. Their demeanour will show this: the slightly too bright welcoming smile, and if they are socially awkward or none too intelligent, an unconscious adaptation of discourse to something they consider appropriate, clumsy street slang or some sort of pidginized baby language.
Noticed and identified almost before they have happened, these social gaffes get two different responses: either they are seen as well-meaning and perhaps teased a bit, or identified, perhaps wrongly, as racists and treated accordingly.
A tiny backwater of the human tragicomedy.
|
>> It's different when you've been born holding the crap end of the stick as a
>> result of colonial and imperial history and the received status that goes with that history.
Surely all that is now so long ago, that it's time to brush that off and 'get on with it'. Idi Amin's asians did, quite well.
Too much harking on about that irritates... and can potentially take away something from those truly hard done by and who deserve the sympathy.
|
>> all that is now so long ago
What could you mean Westpig? You must know perfectly well that there's plenty of overt racism still to be seen and heard, some of it grossly criminal and nasty. And it is part of 'all that', its descendant, its prolongation. All that is still now. Society is still waiting for the last dregs to drain away, and we all know, don't we, what last dregs can be like.
>> Too much harking on about that irritates... and can potentially take away something from those truly hard done by
Yes. Very true, and there are high profile PsITA who go in for it. Everyone sensible despises such people. But among the 'silent majority' there are also different levels of intelligence and different levels of excitability or irascibility. Some are a lot more sensitive and reactive than others.
As I keep saying though, having had it dinned into me over the years, what seems just a bit coarse to you or me can cause sharp pain to black, brown or mixed-race individuals who might just have been dissed in the street or snooted on a bus. It's less annoying or insulting to us than it is to them. Because it doesn't threaten us or our children. But it does threaten them and theirs.
|
>> What could you mean Westpig?
What I mean is the overt/covert true racists are fairly few and far between..fortunately, although they hide amongst the rest of society.
You do however have a large chunk of the population who may or may not have their moments now and again with the odd inappropriate joke or non PC language, do spout a few things sometimes that the over sensitive or those waiting in the wings to make a scene might jump on...but are generally decent people who would give anyone a chance...but, get seriously miffed if they or their culture or their country are seemingly or actually had over....then bung in to the mix some folk who have a perpetual chip on the shoulder...and hey presto the disharmony continues. How long for though?
I think the problems of a colonial past have to be treated as past and history at some point...how about now.
Take slavery for example. This country indulged in it and that should not be forgotten..however this country was also the first to ban it and the Royal Navy spent 30 years policing that ban..before other countries agreed with us. There's credit in that.
It's time to move on. My comment about Idi Amin's asians was that they were totally uprooted from their country..thrown out...and within a generation all their offspring and now their grandchildren fill our hospitals, law firms etc with all the qualified posts...through sheer hard work and good luck to that ethos. Not much looking backwards there.
|
>> slavery for example. This country indulged in it
A bit more than indulged. Prospered enormously. A lot of our architectural heritage from the 17th century onward was built with triangular-trade money.
And the experience of slavery was so grim for so many that its memory tolls in modern consciousnesses - not so much ours of course, more theirs - like a dreadful bell. People were literally bred like farm animals, their original cultures suppressed, family and attachments forbidden. Those who survived the crossing from Africa and their descendants of course.
There's a whole region of Jamaica where everyone's surname is Beckford. They weren't all descendants of the Beckfords who owned the huge plantation, but everyone they owned ended up called Beckford. A racy super-rich London celeb of his day, William Beckford I think, built a massive palace called Fonthill Abbey which was so ambitiously designed that it soon fell down, now buried on Lansdown in Bath alongside my parents as it happens, but in a stone catafalque in a sort of pit (he wanted to be buried above ground) under a charming chinoiserie/islamic folly he built there at the end of the garden above his Bath house.
The Ugandan Asians aren't anything like the descendants of slaves. They were a business/artisan class in Uganda, some very rich, and the whole problem of being uprooted was different, and less serious, for them.
There's a lot of detail in this stuff. It's all important. I don't know much of it.
|
|
There's a faux castle not far from here - built on the backs of the slave-trade, when it became politically unacceptable to trade in slaves, they built another industry based on slate and enslaved the local population, the ramifications are still on the local landscape and in the psyche of the local people. One of the longest strikes in industrial history played out there - troops were brought in at one point, rj could tell you similar tales from the south of the Country.
|
>> when it became politically unacceptable to trade in slaves, they built another industry based on slate and enslaved the local population,
Hush yo mout Rob. That's verging on naked Marxism. The Bourgeoisie might hear you and then you'll be in trouble with uncooperative judges and the like.
I was hoping to move on to that tomorrow or so, sliding in gently by recommending Engels's polemic 'The Duchess of Sutherland and Slavery'. About the highland clearances essentially, perhaps of special interest to our Caledonian brethren... Then on to the full industrial blast of the 19th century, a quintupled London swarming with domestics, criminals, unemployed and slum-dwellers, the Potteries, Sheffield, booming Birmingham...
Softly softly catchee monkey innit? We'll have Westpig and that Roger throwing petrol bombs in no time.
|
>> I was hoping to move on to that tomorrow or so
Perhaps I should explain what I mean by 'that'.
I mean the attitude of the ruling class, the owning class, as a class (not necessarily as individuals) or as part of an industrial or financial or managerial apparatus, to workers as a class, as labour to be exploited. There is no significant difference between the attitudes to British workers and African slaves. But the modalities of exploitation are a bit different. British workers for example have to be spun some sort of line and 'given' some sort of pay, instead of just being made to do things on pain of this or that.
Part of the line spun to the workers is the fiction that they are part of the imperial enterprise. So racist British workers think they are better than black immigrants. But their bosses don't think so at all. It's all just labour to them, in all its irksome variety.
Things have changed quite a lot over the last century or so.
But only in superficial detail. The basis of 'exploitation' is the same.
A bit of Christmas cheer for everyone.
|
>> But only in superficial detail. The basis of 'exploitation' is the same.
>>
>> A bit of Christmas cheer for everyone.
>>
It is the same in the armed forces, though it would be hotly denied. The management (officers) see the troops as a weapon. Obviously it pays to keep your weapons in as good a condition as possible to be effective.
|
>> >> But only in superficial detail. The basis of 'exploitation' is the same.
>> >>
>> >> A bit of Christmas cheer for everyone.
>> >>
>>
>> It is the same in the armed forces, though it would be hotly denied. The
>> management (officers) see the troops as a weapon. Obviously it pays to keep your weapons
>> in as good a condition as possible to be effective.
Mere cogs in a machine. The machine is the god, it feeds its creators worshippers, popes and cardinals.
Companies have finally owned up, when they called the personnel department, "Human Resources" One is just a resource, to be exploited. Mined like coal and burned
|
>> Part of the line spun to the workers is the fiction that they are part
>> of the imperial enterprise. So racist British workers think they are better than black immigrants.
>> But their bosses don't think so at all. It's all just labour to them, in
>> all its irksome variety.
Are we going back in time here to the attitude of the time of slavery or is this a current comment?
|
'It is the same in the armed forces, though it would be hotly denied. The management (officers) see the troops as a weapon. Obviously it pays to keep your weapons in as good a condition as possible to be effective. '
Should have joined the RAF ON, we send our officers off to war, strap 'em and their gone ;-)
|
|
not sure the manager goes down with the factory in the navy any more.
|
>> Are we going back in time here to the attitude of the time of slavery or is this a current comment?
My point, for what it's worth, was that there hasn't been any substantive change. It was current then and it's current now.
|
>> My point, for what it's worth, was that there hasn't been any substantive change. It
>> was current then and it's current now.
>>
Your opinion of British workers seems to be a bit on the low side then, why is this, spent much time at the coal face of British industry working alongside us racist working class Tommies, well half Paddy if you include me (and that brings a whole different history of British oppression and it irks) and some Taff lurking around from me Dad's side i shouldn't be surprised.
|
>> Your opinion of British workers seems to be a bit on the low side then
I think you may have have been annoyed by the phrase 'racist British workers' gb. I can only apologise for not making it clear that I didn't mean all British workers were racist. It was a reference to the racist ones (there are lots as we know). One has to try to keep it brief here, and that often leads to ambiguity or misunderstanding.
In any case what I was trotting out there - no pun intended - was something fairly close to classical Marxism. I like it myself, I find it bracing, it's a coherent frame to hang one's actual insights on, not a fuzzy bushy thing like whatever it is we British are really supposed to believe in... But history moves on as we speak, there will be a new paradigm shift one day and then everything will move to the side and this stuff will look more like History than it does at the moment.
What do I think of British workers? I know them well, for a lifetime, they are my compatriots, my countrymen. But of course they are a mixed bag. Salt of the earth to deplorable toerags. Just like other large human categories.
|
>> Salt of the earth to deplorable toerags
But not, I like to think, on an even scale. They would be heavily clustered towards the humane, respectable, fun-loving, bolshy when necessary end of the spectrum...But it's what you're used to really.
And even toerags have their revolutionary utility. Stalin in youth was a famous bank robber (for the cause of course, yeah yeah...).
|
>>
>> I think the problems of a colonial past
What I also should have said was, the colonial past had pluses and minuses. Some only seem to concentrate on the minuses.
|
Pluses? Yes many for us - WHILE we were a colonial power.
None for our colonies.
And now nowt but grief for us.
|
>> None for our colonies.
How about health care, infrastructure (such as roads, clean water), justice system, lessened corruption, religious freedom etc.
I'm no saying it was perfect, but many places saw improvements in some/many respects.
|
Corruption? we imported it! how the hell do you think the West India Company was born and operated
Justice? Yup invented so the ruling colonialists could punish the indigenous people - put them into forced labour to build the road and the water system. Religious freedom? you mean the imposition of Christianity?
As far as The lasting success of Biritsh colonial rules goes we can be proud of
Palestine, Iraq, Burma, Afghanistan, Yemen - pah too bored to go on.
At least the Aussies are proud to have convict roots. Pity about the Abos tho.
|
>> Corruption? >> Justice?
You are only concentrating on the negatives. There are positives.
|
>>There are positives.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/south_asian/2645759.stm
This Professor seems to think so.
Last edited by: R.P. on Sat 24 Dec 11 at 16:40
|
>> >>There are positives.
>>
>> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/south_asian/2645759.stm
>>
>> This Professor seems to think so.
Interesting but seems to focus in India rather than Africa.
|
>> >>There are positives.
>>
>> news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/debates/south_asian/2645759.stm
>>
>> This Professor seems to think so.
Conveniently seems to ignore the religious massacres after we withdrew, and the fact the Indians and Pakistanis have nearly nuked each other twice.
Oh sorry, yes positives you said.
I am positive all our IT jobs are going to Bangalore.
|
>> I am positive all our IT jobs are going to Bangalore.
Actually that is a sort of positive Zeddo. By 'helping' the world to industrialize and adopt capitalism with its innate tendency to take over everything, we and the other colonial and imperial western countries have made it possible for people in Bangalore to do things they didn't invent for themselves. It's an ill wind that blows no one any good... and to be quite honest I would rather Indians did that stuff than having to do it myself.
It is fashionable nowadays in some western circles to see modernity as a mixed blessing or even a bad thing. Third world people see it as highly desirable and good, and to the extent that we were a vector of modernity in their countries, we were doing them a favour as they see it.
The fact that change is ambiguous and painful, that it promotes some and crushes others, is just part of the human condition. We didn't invent imperialism or colonialism. They are ancient. Nor were we the worst practitioners of those things. It's true that some of the moral attitudes involved, and many of the acts, were fairly atrocious. But that was then and now is now. Things we now regard as all right will one day be denounced as evil or half-witted (don't ask me what they are. I don't know yet do I?). That too is part of the human condition.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 24 Dec 11 at 17:34
|
>> (don't ask me what they are. I don't know yet do I?).
Actually I'm obliged to admit that I am pretty sure I know what one of them will be.
Don't mention the automobile anyone. It'll just encourage the ghastly heralds of the future to resume their tiresome, tuneless blaring...
|
You flaming pillock, AC ( and, yes, I do know it is Christmas).
*YOU* might be happy for IT jobs to go to Bangalore, but that's MY livelihood you are talking about.
Working for a firm that has a Bangalore office, which it expanding all the time, you've hit a bit of a raw nerve.
I know that you like being provocative, but just cool it, OK!
Have a nice day.
|
>> You flaming pillock
Flaming pillock yourself. Sorry if Bangalore has got your job of course, but it isn't my fault in any way. I was just pointing out, not to you, that globalization while bad for some is good for others.
And adding that I didn't want to do that work. Apart from anything else, I couldn't begin to do it. Haven't got the competence in that area.
Take it easy Londoner.
|
Don't patronize me, AC.
You right wing types are all alike. It's all very well extolling the virtues of global capitalism, but innocent people get hurt by it.
|
I wasn't patronizing you. Nor, if you bothered to read my posts, would you call me right wing or accuse me of 'extolling the virtues of global capitalism'.
I have in fact pointed out repeatedly that innocent people get hurt by it. Innocent people get hurt all the time by the ordinary things that go on in the world.
Must I make a specific case for IT workers in this country? I'm not an IT worker myself and I've never been one.
Apparently you consider my discourse heartless. It isn't, if you understand it.
|
Oh, so its a lack of understanding on my part is it? I'm willing to bet that most people interpret your remarks as I did.
Congratulations, AC - this is another user of this forum that you've hacked off.
Taking a break for a while. See you in the New Year. Maybe.
|
>> so its a lack of understanding on my part is it?
I have to say it looks very like it.
>> another user of this forum that you've hacked off.
Oh good God. Another resentful suicide note. How depressing.
|
>> Oh good God. Another resentful suicide note. How depressing.
I usually regard red gongs as a compliment, but the three I have got so far for posting the above remarks seem to express disapproval for a lofty, arrogant and under the circumstances somewhat unkind tone. On reflection I can't help agreeing.
However I haven't asked for the post to be removed because it does express my extreme irritation (and slight depression) at being - for the third time in a year - cast quite unjustly in the role of villain by someone in the grip of a temporary or permanent neurosis. It is beyond belief to me that a sane and sober person would turn on a perfectly innocent third party not even as it were talking to them to draw dramatic attention to some anxiety or trauma of theirs. Of course this behaviour is familiar, but not among one's equals. I learned in the playground to avoid people like that.
Sane and sober. Geddit? Just as my own unkind and dismissive post above can be attributed in part to the late hour on Christmas eve and a couple of drinks of this and that, so I hope Londoner was a bit one over the eight too and wishes he hadn't done it.
For what it's worth I hope he will be back and of course wish him well in his work life. I am not surprised to find other people having a hard time in this area though. I always have.
|
AC.... I am sat here trying to work out what exactly it was you said, to upset Londoner so much.
I can see that if you are worried for your job, the last thing you want is for people to make fun of that -but you didn't!
ALL you did, was point out that, there are 2 sides to every story.
I really hope that Londoner does reflect on what both of you have said, and realise that nothing you said was in malice.
|
>> I can see that if you are worried for your job, the last thing you
>> want is for people to make fun of that -but you didn't!
>> ALL you did, was point out that, there are 2 sides to every story.
>>
>> I really hope that Londoner does reflect on what both of you have said, and
>> realise that nothing you said was in malice.
>>
+1
|
>> >> I really hope that Londoner does reflect on what both of you have said,
>> and
>> >> realise that nothing you said was in malice.
>> >>
>> +1
+ another.
|
>> +1
To clarify my +1
AC's post merely stated it was a positive (for India) to have picked up an entreprenurial spirit from the Brits....and this was a positive for India out of us once ruling them ... and gave IT as an example.
It did not come from the angle that he thought it's good for British jobs to go to India.
In any post i've discussed things with AC, he's come across as left leaning, although mellowing somewhat with age. I'm hoping to convert him.
|
>> >> +1
>>
>> To clarify my +1
>>
>> AC's post merely stated it was a positive (for India) to have picked up an
>> entreprenurial spirit from the Brits....and this was a positive for India out of us once
>> ruling them ... and gave IT as an example.
>>
>> It did not come from the angle that he thought it's good for British jobs
>> to go to India.
>>
>> In any post i've discussed things with AC, he's come across as left leaning, although
>> mellowing somewhat with age. I'm hoping to convert him.
>>
That's exactly the way I read it.
IMHO it's rarely good for British jobs when work gets sent abroad, but if its the difference between a company leaving the UK totally, or just sub-contracting some work abroad... then so be it.
|
>>I haven't asked for the post to be removed because it does express my extreme irritation (and slight depression) at being - for the third time in a year - cast quite unjustly in the role of villain by someone in the grip of a temporary or permanent neurosis. It is beyond belief to me that a sane and sober person would turn on a perfectly innocent third party not even as it were talking to them to draw dramatic attention to some anxiety or trauma of theirs. Of course this behaviour is familiar, but not among one's equals. I learned in the playground to avoid people like that<<
I don't know why you bother with them Sire, honestly I don't, but at least you haven't got to live with them!
|
>> Oh, so its a lack of understanding on my part is it? I'm willing to
>> bet that most people interpret your remarks as I did.
>>
>> Congratulations, AC - this is another user of this forum that you've hacked off.
>>
>> Taking a break for a while. See you in the New Year. Maybe.
take it easy me ole cockney sparra. AC was only using big words and abstract ideas to explain what we all know.
High tech skills, become low tech skills become exported. Its happened with everything since the industrial revolution, and the only way to survive is keep jumping in at the top. IT skills have been on a dumbing down for the last 10 years.
|
>> Conveniently seems to ignore the religious massacres after we withdrew, and the fact the Indians
>> and Pakistanis have nearly nuked each other twice.
...ah, so you're saying we should have stayed there then?
|
|
Partition - one word, untold thousands have suffered and will carry on doing so. We didn't leave it in good order, we tried to impose our systems and our religion and it was a qualified success, but the question is why ? Money that's why. Afghanistan is not a new battle ground for the UK for much the same reason.
|
>> Money that's why.
>> Afghanistan is not a new battle ground for the UK for much the same reason.
>>
And there is oil under the Falklands. Why else would we (and Argentina) be so keen to keep / retrieve it?
I Have believed this since the Falklands war. "Its the residents wish", a good excuse.
|
The oil under the Falklands (if its actually there - there are some doubts) will need mainland facilities, otherwise the Islands will be turned in to a giant Oil terminal with storage for 2 - 3 million barrels, deep water anchorage with pumping facilities for supertankers. Its going to cost 2 billion dollars to develop.
Now who is going to invest in all that in an unstable geo-political area? Who is going to want to live in an oil terminal?
The sensible answer is pipelines to Argentina. Wont see any sense displayed by Buenos Aires, London or Stanley I am afraid.
|
>> the Islands will be turned in to a giant Oil terminal
>> with storage for 2 - 3 million barrels, deep water anchorage with pumping facilities for
>> supertankers. Its going to cost 2 billion dollars to develop.
>>
That bit sounds a lot like many Scottish islands (have you seen Scapa Flow?). As the price of oil increases it will become economically viable.
|
>> That bit sounds a lot like many Scottish islands (have you seen Scapa Flow?). As
>> the price of oil increases it will become economically viable.
Sullom Voe was my first though too.
|
>>Afghanistan is not a new battle ground for the UK for much the same reason<<
Yet another base for the Yankee imperialists, add that to the Yankee imperialists new Embassy in Baghdad which cost $750m to build and employs 15,000 people.
|
>> >>Afghanistan is not a new battle ground for the UK for much the same reason<<
>>
>> Yet another base for the Yankee imperialists, add that to the Yankee imperialists new Embassy
>> in Baghdad which cost $750m to build and employs 15,000 people.
Think you have been getting your news from the Pyongyang Times. NO building employs 15,000 people, not even the pentagon. Try 1200.
|
>>Think you have been getting your news from the Pyongyang Times. NO building employs 15,000 people, not even the pentagon. Try 1200<<
= = => www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_TyrEUpZ8Y
|
>> >> Conveniently seems to ignore the religious massacres after we withdrew, and the fact the
>> Indians
>> >> and Pakistanis have nearly nuked each other twice.
>>
>>
>> ...ah, so you're saying we should have stayed there then?
No - should have stayed out.
|
>> No - should have stayed out.
>>
There's a fair few people in Zimbabwe who'd willingly 'suffer' a bit of colonialism again...as well as a few other places in Africa.
|
Zimbabwe as a country, shouldn't really exist. Nor South Africa come to that. It was merely administrative boundaries created to aid governance that created them.
They now reap the effects of that. You can directly link the peril they now have with the Smith Regime of Rhodesia. They created Mugabe, and the people now suffer him. The native people got rock all under Smith, and they have rock all under Mugabe, so what's different?
|
>> so what's different?
>>
death, mayhem, hyper inflation, the garden of Africa now third world, no tourism income, not safe to walk the streets, etc, etc, etc
|
|
Well as I say, you can directly blame the colonial government of Rhodesia for this. They created Mugabe.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 25 Dec 11 at 22:24
|
>Zimbabwe as a country, shouldn't really exist. Nor South Africa come to that. It was merely
>administrative boundaries created to aid governance that created them.
Very true and a result of the misunderstanding or ignorance of tribal boundaries. What's the alternative though? Tribal governance? Ten thousand African countries? Would that work?
I don't know.
>The native people got rock all under Smith, and they have rock all under Mugabe, so what's different?
The were expecting something better for their kids than the subservient life that had been forced upon them. They lived in a Rhodesia that was a huge exporter of food, They weren't expecting to be deliberately starved to death while Mugabe and his cronies destroyed the place.
>Well as I say, you can directly blame the colonial government of Rhodesia for this. They created Mugabe.
Only in that they could have exterminated him when they had the chance and didn't.
|
>> Only in that they could have exterminated him when they had the chance and didn't.
nah far more than that. They actually created the monster, gave birth to him, fed him, gave him the reason and cause to get where he did.
|
"Scientists usually use three races: African, Asian, and Caucasian. Africans would be what is called black, and originates in the continent of Africa. Asian is what would be the far east of Asia and Native Americans. Caucasian would be what is called white (European), along with Middle Easterns or Arabs, Indians, and Hispanics/Latinos. "
We in the West (i.e. the colonial countries of Europe) had the arrogance to presume that we were the civilised people and that the rest of the world needed to be converted to our civilisation and religion.
Europeans should have left the tribes in Africa, Asia, and the Americas (both N & S) to their own devices.
Europeans should have been content fighting within Europe to settle which was the superior European tribe or which faction of Christianity to follow.
Going back to the o.p., if we take a world view of these matters the correct description might be (based on which country you are living in or your own ethnicity) to describe the world in terms of Hispanic/non-Hispanic, Asian/non-Asian, Black/non-black, African/non-African, Muslim/non-Muslim, and so on.
anthro.palomar.edu/ethnicity/ethnic_5.htm
"There are more than 6.5 billion people in the world today. Nearly 2/3 of them are Asians living on less than 1/3 of the land. Only about 5% of the world's people live in North America. .... The most common "native" language is Mandarin Chinese. English is a distant third."
Last edited by: John H on Sun 25 Dec 11 at 23:33
|
=>Asian is what would be the far east of Asia and Native Americans<=
The bloke with the nails was an Asian, and he was from Judaea.
|
>> We in the West (i.e. the colonial countries of Europe) had the arrogance to presume
>> that we were the civilised people and that the rest of the world needed to
>> be converted to our civilisation and religion.
>>
>> Europeans should have left the tribes in Africa, Asia, and the Americas (both N &
>> S) to their own devices.
This could easily apply to American led ideals of, *democracy that suits the suits*, currently working its way through the oil producing nations of the Middle East, European politicians though being involved are only doing the bidding of their current master.
Now as then they are not doing it in the name of most of the people of Europe still capable of their own independent thoughts.
This chapter in the history of the world will need some serious spin if its not to appear just as bad as the bad old days, no shortage of experts able to rewrite to order though.
**putting the dictators in place that suit us, dangerous game though if the aggressors in the current episode haven't managed to murder every single one of those capable of uniting these nations under one banner.
Once the oil runs out none of those who are responsible will give a toss, they will have made their billions, and someone else will be in charge by then.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Mon 26 Dec 11 at 10:41
|
>> world's people live in North America. .... The most common "native" language is Mandarin Chinese.
>> English is a distant third."
the native language means nothing, there are now 2 billion people (31% of the worlds population) connected to the internet, and ALL of them will be using American in their internet use to some degree or other.
|
|
When the prejudices of our age are but distant memories they will only have been replaced by new ones as yet undefined. It's the way humans are.
Last edited by: Humph D'Bout on Sat 24 Dec 11 at 11:01
|
>> Flippin' 'eck Humph !
He's right though. Humans are a blight to to just about all life on this planet, including themselves!
Merry Christmas!
|
>> Flippin' 'eck Humph !
I think he read it somewhere else? Someone in one of the shoe forums must be a part time philosopher.
|
Someone in one of the shoe forums must be a part time philosopher.
>>
That could be an interesting forum if it has a ladies (only) in high heel subforum, do provide us a link please...;)
|
>> I think he read it somewhere else?
Sadly no, the implied cynicism is all my own.
Never mind eh? It's Christmas !
|
my washing machine has settings for coloureds and non whites...is that offensive?
|
Just don't put them in together or you'll have mixed race kecks!
Pat
|
>> my washing machine has settings for coloureds and non whites...is that offensive?
Not as long as they have the same maximum spin speed as the setting for whites.
|
Says it all really!!:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HHT_V294Co
but then ....why should we all be "coffee - coloured"?
(stirs pot `n` legs it!)
|
it`s a good job.... - Westpig
