=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Carol Thatch
Log In to post a reply
110 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
Merrick
Merrick
2148 posts

Re: Carol Thatch
Feb 10, 2009, 16:09
suave harv wrote:
Which is saying "no-one should say anything bad about anybody if it isn't true".


No, it's not saying that.

It's saying nobody should be criticised for something they didn't choose to do. Nobody should be attacked with a generalisation about whole groups of people that isn't true.

suave harv wrote:
The difference is 'intent', and that's been discussed here loads anyway.


Yes it has, and yes, I agree that there are broadly two different kinds of use of discriminatory language.

But, as I said, the non-intent makes for a more fertile ground for the other kind.

Also, it normalises the language of discrimination, it reinforces the idea that we can just generalise about whole groups like that. It takes us further away from a society of equality.

It's notable that these things are deviations from white, english, able-bodied, maleness.

suave harv wrote:
We (the carpenter & I) used to rib them, we were always shouting "there's too many Indians here and not enough cowboys". The Indians ribbed the Jamacians, no-one gave a shit.


But what happens between friends who know each other talking about one another is very different to what gets said about people who aren't there and/or people we don't know.

suave harv wrote:
From what I've seen all the up-tightness about 'words' comes from 'white lefties' anyway


That may be what you've seen, but it is not the whole story by a long way. I have seen, innumberable times, non-whites attacking racist behaviour, as well as women and disabled people attacking behaviour that discriminates against them.

Yes, white people speak out against racism. And so they should. It's an issue for anyone interested in advancing a fair and just society. As people in the discriminated-against groups have, by definition, been disempowered, those in the dominator groups have more confidence and get listened to more.

suave harv wrote:
Should I have berated him about his racist coment?


Yes, I think you should. As a friend you have his ear and he's not going to take it as a personal attack. As someone who's not a hate-filled bigot, I'm thinking it likely that he'd just not thought it through. I had the same thing with my brother using 'gay' to mean pathetic (he'd picked it up off his school-age kids).

I'd regard it as being like a driver who parks up on the pavement. They don't hate people with pushchairs or in wheelchairs, but they've just not thought it through. A word from someone and they don't do it any more, and they pass the idea on. The parking of pavements becomes less normalised and people in wheelchairs are not discriminated against like that as much.

suave harv wrote:
He's 62, I'm 42, and I'd hope most people 22 wouldn't even know it used to be used in that way.


But they do. As well as being able to come up with new ones based on a paradigm that accepts such bigoted language. Again, I think of the modern usage of 'gay' to mean pathetic.

Because the beliefs based on supremacy are so pervasive, we are all carrying around attitudes and language we've picked up that perpetuate them, even if it's not what we feel in our hearts.

It's only by having such things challenged that we leave them behind. It doesn't take much thought and it makes for a more progressive environment for everyone.
In reply to:
Re: Carol Thatch (suave harv)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index