Its a minefield...

[KidKruger]

JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Is it Get the Cat Day ?

No, that?s unfair, it just ?let?s call a spade a spade? day.

[keano77]

Unfortunate turn of phrase KK.

?Spade? took on racial undertones many years ago.

So it could be argued your use of the word ?spade? means you are racist even if you don?t realise you are (subconsciously racist).

See how difficult all this is?

[pk]

What I find ridiculous is the relentless pretending people have said things that they haven?t, or have said somewhere other than on here that no one is allowed to see

[KidKruger]

keano77 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Unfortunate turn of phrase KK.

>

> ?Spade? took on racial undertones many years ago.

>

> So it could be argued your use of the word ?spade?

> means you are racist even if you don?t realise you

> are (subconsciously racist).

>

> See how difficult all this is?

As far as I?m aware keano it?s a well-known saying and means exactly what I used it for - people identifying something for what it is.

In this context (people reacting to a poster?s mode) it?s accurately used.

I guess if you want to imply other stuff that?s up to you, but certainly it?s clear what use I intended and delivered.

[keano77]

I realise your naivety KK but that is the problem with much of this debate.

I?m sure you intended to use the phrase in a well known sense.

However the word ?spade? is well known as a racist term.

The following excerpt (taken at random) might help you

Is It Racist To 'Call A Spade A Spade'?

By Lakshmi Gandhi

What happens when a perfectly innocuous phrase takes on a more sinister meaning over time?

Case in point, the expression "to call a spade a spade." For almost half a millennium, the phrase has served as a demand to "tell it like it is." It is only in the past century that the phrase began to acquire a negative, racial overtone...

https://text.npr.org/224183763

My point here is this whole issue is like walking on egg-shells. People can be accused of being racist without meaning to be racist. This might be because of unconscious racism/bias, white privilege etc

It is indeed a minefield.

[TheCat]

Since my own words are being characterised as (near) racist and fascist by those apparently calling spades bloody shovels....let's see if someone else's words are more objectively read....

The article is saying basically the same things I have said, but, helpfully, is written by a man of colour, which should apparently give the words more meaning for my critics on this forum.

There is no excuse for the hypocritical Left's appalling campaign of abuse

The ad hominem attacks directed at Tony Sewell and others have highlighted the divisive agenda of many who claim to be 'anti-racist'

CALVIN ROBINSON

2 April 2021 ? 6:00am

Calvin Robinson

The Commission on Race and Ethnic Disparities (CRED) report isn't particularly controversial. The commission has clearly spent a lot of time and effort researching the numerous disparities present in the UK, and have put together some reasonable, practical solutions.

Racial disparities don't necessarily mean racial discrimination seems to me straightforward, but that benign idea is causing quite a stir. When we look into the issues faced by disadvantaged Brits, it would be easy to assume racism is the primary cause, but when we look deeper we see there are far more socio-economic factors at play. Where one lives, what class one belongs to, how much money one earns, what culture or religion one is a member of all play a part in one's outcomes in life. There are many areas for improvement, and this report not only recognises them but offers solutions.

Advertisement

Advertisement : 3 sec

The commission sets out to promote four straight-forward suggestions: to build better trust between agents of the state and communities and to promote fairness.

The report also suggests there has to be an element of increased agency. For example, removing the term BAME gives people agency of their own. Most importantly, there's an aim to achieve inclusivity.

Unfortunately for some, taking a more evidence-based approach to addressing racial disparities does mean setting aside unhelpful rhetoric. For example, the commission found no evidence of institutional racism in the UK. That's not to say racism doesn't exist and isn't an area that needs improving, but that racism tends to occur at an individual level rather than institutional. There will always be bigoted individuals offering a warped perspective, but we have made incredible progress in the UK and provide an equal opportunities environment to people of all races. That's something to be celebrated.

This conclusion seems to have upset a small number of very vocal politicians and activists who would rather we all go along with their anecdotal "lived experiences" than the evidence backed up by data. What's upsetting is the level of hypocrisy being demonstrated by the so-called anti-racist crowd. The outright racism being directed toward members of the commission is astounding. Clive Lewis MP tweeted a picture of the KKK in response to the report being published, offensive hyperbole that ought to be beneath a parliamentarian. Cambridge professor Priyamvada Gopal drew parallels between the commission's chairman Dr Tony Sewell and Joseph Goebbels, a disgusting and entirely inappropriate response.

Advertisement

ADVERTISING

At a time when we have the most ethnically diverse Government Cabinet in history, it is bonkers to suggest this country is institutionally racist and it's a shame that activists on the hard-Left can't seem to get past this sticking point. If they truly wanted to improve race relations they'd be better off supporting the measures in this report and ensuring the Government follows through and implements the recommended changes. Character assassinations and ad hominem attacks on individual commissioners only highlight the toxic, divisive attitudes of people stirring up racial tensions.

Will there ever be enough to satisfy those who make a living from pushing the perception that our society is divided? They've got unconscious bias training courses and white-hating books to sell, after all.

We'd be better off uniting behind this independent report, championing the progress we've made this far and working together on closing the remaining gaps.

[Sephiroth]

amazing

[Blah Blah]

Ahhh, Darling of the Tory Party Calvin Robinson, who ignores his own anecdotal experience to stand by a report he of all people knows is flawed, for fear of damaging the Tory Party political career he is aspiring to.

Let's start by asking Calvin why testimonies taken by the committee as examples of institutional racism, were not included in the final report shall we?

People who don't believe institutional racism exists concoct a report that concludes that institutional racism doesn't exist by omitting testimonies that suggest it does exist, shocker.

I will take a respected historian like David Olusoga on this report over a Tory Party mouthpiece any day of the week.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/02/historian-and-hundreds-of-academics-attack-no-10s-race-report

[TheCat]

Thanks Blah Blah. You've quite expertly illustrated my original point.

We can all wheel out figures from the right and left of all colours, shapes and sizes who will either support the report or dismiss the report depending on their pre-existing beliefs.

I started this whole convsersation, by suggesting people actually 'read' the report....for themselves...

Whether or not you agree with the conclusion. There is undoubtedly a shedload of data in there which bears discussion. But is seems some people aren't interested in that sort of thing.

Apparently it's (near) fascist to suggest people read/analyse differing views, perspectives or data....of course to people saying that, the first thing I'd suggest they should read is a dictionary...where they can brush up on the definition of the word 'fascism....

[Blah Blah]

I have read the report and so have people like David Olugosa. The silence around the omitted testimonies and evidence is rather telling don't you think?

At the end of the day, it is a government commissioned report. Those chosen to compile it were chosen for a reason. The cynicism that invites is predictable.

[Blah Blah]

And to be clear, here is a clear example of how problematic the report is. It acknowledges that black people are over represented in all areas of criminal justice. That black people are more likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to be jailed than white counterparts for similar offenses, and more likely to be given longer sentences than white counterparts at that. It also says juries are not the problem, as conviction rates are similar for all ethnic groups.

So that only leaves one explanation - judges showing racial bias in sentencing. As glaringly obvious as that should be, the report can't bring itself to say that however, because that would be an admission of institutional racism, and let's remember that key figures writing this report start from and maintain a position that institutional racism doesn't exist. It doesn't try to explain why the sentencing disparities exist, launching instead into a long section on stop and search, to no doubt make sure any reader has forgotten about the sentencing by the time they get to the end of that long section. THAT is what is wrong with this report.

[tedfudge]

I'm not a racist before anyone pipes up that I am ... but it does annoy me when people of all colours start going on about slavery and especially some black people with chips on their shoulders about it and blaming people like me a white person .... let me just say dont blame me or any other white person that is alive today as this all happened 200 or 300 years ago and Iam pretty sure there is no one alive that old today..second point is I dont understand why black people rappers etc go around saying the N word and it's ok but a white person says it and they are racist its heard so much in music and films etc when black people are talking and singing so why can a white person not say it?.

And please dont start calling me a piers Morgan for asking a question or making a point just because I either dont understand or I disagree with certain things.. people are allowed to disagree with things that they dont believe in and allowed to ask questions so somebody can give a reasonable answer / explanation..

[Blah Blah]

Ted, anyone who starts a post with 'I'm not racist but', almost invariable goes on to display racist undertones in what follows.

Slavery has a legacy. In fact exploitation of any group over another for any kind of gain has a legacy. Old money, that many of those wielding power at the top of our political and economic system benefit from, was born in the slave trade. When Boris Johnson used language like 'watermelon smiles', where do you think he learned such language? And it matters that the PM has that kind of record. It matters a lot.

So how does that legacy of privilege and power play out? It is the reason why there is institutional racial bias as I point out in my post above. You never see that of course because you are not black. And that is the point really. Before you start accusing anyone of 'chips on their shoulder' consider first how their experience of life may differ to yours. Consider how their interactions with police and employers, may differ to yours. Sure, a lot of this is wrapped up in class privileges too, but even there, ask yourself why black people are over represented in lower socio-economic groups and under represented exponentially the higher up you go. Upward social mobility is falling for all in lower socio-economic groups. Why is that?

As for language, when white people use the N word, it is nearly almost in a derogatory context. That does not mean to say that black people do not use that word in a derogatory context sometimes, and no, that is not ok either. Maybe you should just agree no-one should be using language in a derogatory way, whatever ethnicity they are.

For the record, I don't think you are racist, but I do think you lack understanding of why black people feel held back or prejudiced in many areas. The statistics speak for themselves on that and I wish the report had been honest about the part institution racial bias plays in some of that.

[KidKruger]

tedfudge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not a racist before anyone pipes up that I am

> ... but it does annoy me when people of all

> colours start going on about slavery and

> especially some black people with chips on their

> shoulders about it and blaming people like me a

> white person .... let me just say dont blame me or

> any other white person that is alive today as this

> all happened 200 or 300 years ago and Iam pretty

> sure there is no one alive that old today..second

> point is I dont understand why black people

> rappers etc go around saying the N word and it's

> ok but a white person says it and they are racist

> its heard so much in music and films etc when

> black people are talking and singing so why can a

> white person not say it?.

> And please dont start calling me a piers Morgan

> for asking a question or making a point just

> because I either dont understand or I disagree

> with certain things.. people are allowed to

> disagree with things that they dont believe in and

> allowed to ask questions so somebody can give a

> reasonable answer / explanation..

If it were a level playing field Tedfudge, your comments may have some validity.

But it's far from level, with a long way to go, it's a different deal in this country depending on what you look like skin-wise.

It's unfortunately not as simple as, "I never kept any slaves".

[tedfudge]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ted, anyone who starts a post with 'I'm not racist

> but', almost invariable goes on to display racist

> undertones in what follows.

>

> Slavery has a legacy. In fact exploitation of any

> group over another for any kind of gain has a

> legacy. Old money, that many of those wielding

> power at the top of our political and economic

> system benefit from, was born in the slave trade.

> When Boris Johnson used language like 'watermelon

> smiles', where do you think he learned such

> language? And it matters that the PM has that kind

> of record. It matters a lot.

>

> So how does that legacy of privilege and power

> play out? It is the reason why there is

> institutional racial bias as I point out in my

> post above. You never see that of course because

> you are not black. And that is the point really.

> Before you start accusing anyone of 'chips on

> their shoulder' consider first how their

> experience of life may differ to yours. Consider

> how their interactions with police and employers,

> may differ to yours. Sure, a lot of this is

> wrapped up in class privileges too, but even

> there, ask yourself why black people are over

> represented in lower socio-economic groups and

> under represented exponentially the higher up you

> go. Upward social mobility is falling for all in

> lower socio-economic groups. Why is that?

>

> As for language, when white people use the N word,

> it is nearly almost in a derogatory context. That

> does not mean to say that black people do not use

> that word in a derogatory context sometimes, and

> no, that is not ok either. Maybe you should just

> agree no-one should be using language in a

> derogatory way, whatever ethnicity they are.

>

> For the record, I don't think you are racist, but

> I do think you lack understanding of why black

> people feel held back or prejudiced in many areas.

> The statistics speak for themselves on that and I

> wish the report had been honest about the part

> institution racial bias plays in some of that.

@blah blah ....

Thank you for the information and the explanation on a number of things .... there are people in slavery though around the world of all colours and nationalities even in the UK today there are people being used as slaves so it is not just a black thing that's what I was trying to say in my original post.. but I do thank you for your explanation etc

[alex_b]

The attempt to ?reclaim? words by certain groups is certainly controversial within those groups and so you?re not correct to say it?s universally ?ok?. In any case using them in those contexts is necessarily limited to the group trying to change the words meaning.

I?d also add, why would you want to use a word that you know people will find offensive?

[DuncanW]

Ted,

Like you (I think) I am of White British heritage.

I don't think anyone is trying to blame me for the actions of those who came all those years before me for the slave trade. But I recognise it is a huge is part of the historical context and legacy which creates the disparities we live with today; disparities that I benefit from.

The transatlantic slave trade was horrific and resulted in c17,000,000 deaths according to the UN. The disparities that separate our communities today are really significant and start at the beginning of life's journey and continue through education, healthcare, employment opportunities and obviously, the criminal justice system.

With that in mind, we are asked not to use a few specific words, most notably the N word. Not only when used as an insult or a term of abuse, but also when quoting someone who has done so to critisise them, not singing along to your favourite 90's rap record and not quoting dialogue from films, not ever. And whilst you may not fully agree with rationale behind that, just ask yourself is it really that big a thing to ask?

I would ask the same question about the removal of staues of slave-traders.

Thank you for reading,

[TheCat]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> And to be clear, here is a clear example of how

> problematic the report is. It acknowledges that

> black people are over represented in all areas of

> criminal justice. That black people are more

> likely to be stopped and searched, more likely to

> be jailed than white counterparts for similar

> offenses, and more likely to be given longer

> sentences than white counterparts at that. It also

> says juries are not the problem, as conviction

> rates are similar for all ethnic groups.

>

> So that only leaves one explanation - judges

> showing racial bias in sentencing. As glaringly

> obvious as that should be, the report can't bring

> itself to say that however, because that would be

> an admission of institutional racism, and let's

> remember that key figures writing this report

> start from and maintain a position that

> institutional racism doesn't exist. It doesn't try

> to explain why the sentencing disparities exist,

> launching instead into a long section on stop and

> search, to no doubt make sure any reader has

> forgotten about the sentencing by the time they

> get to the end of that long section. THAT is what

> is wrong with this report.

I agree. This area, is 'problematic'. And is for me a clear area of disparity. I think everyone agrees this an area of focus. Worth coming back to page 33 and language, as to how this is defined...but semantics.....

But to be very, very clear. This is a problem.

[Blah Blah]

It is not a question of semantics though. The report concludes there is no institutional racism while pointing to the fact there clearly is. Worse than that, it deliberately omits any testimonies that identify potential institutional racism. That you seem to infer that is a question of language and semantics is pretty baffling. How about you ask instead, just why the report can't bring itself to acknowledge the obvious.

[Sephiroth]

Reasons why the report can't bring itself to acknowledge the obvious?

1) It was a report written not to address the problems but to reassure people like... well, like Cat. Job Done

2) I've already said how much the contributors have tried to distance itself from it. Even Johnson himself seems reluctant to embrace it. But then today we find out it was doctored even more than was first suspected

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/apr/11/downing-street-rewrote-independent-report-on-race-experts-claim

Why anyone would want to stand by the report in any shape or form is a mystery

[Blah Blah]

Yes, Johnson had begun the distancing the day after it was published in full. What I don't understand, is how government ever expected to get away with it. Did they really think contributors would stay silent?

[Sephiroth]

How did the government expect to get away with it?

What is is this government has done that it has ever suffered a consequence for ?

Grenfell?

Wind rush?

Worst death rate?

Cameron dodgy dealings

Lying constantly and Bigly about Brexit? Northern Ireland erupting (as forecast) and them doing nothing

On and on

There are no rules any more. There are no consequences

[Blah Blah]

I was going to write something along the same lines. We have a government and cabinet that is never accountable for its lies and failings. Of curse they feel like teflon. Who wouldn't?

[malumbu]

Just a sign that conservative middle England couldn't give a toss about the above, and save their rage for those daring to question the appropriateness of statues to slave traders, or returning stolen treasures.

Send them all back - Benin bronzes, Parthenon Marbles etc etc.

[diable rouge]

The other parties need to form some kind of alliance/electoral pact, something that should've happened between Corbyn and Swinson over Brexit had their egos not got in the way...