• You may have to login or register before you can post and view our exclusive members only forums.
    To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Racist Manchester.

Status
Not open for further replies.
There can be cases where coconut does not automatically imply there is something wrong with being white. In Asim's example there is nothing wrong with supporting England as opposed to supporting Pakistan. They are both identical activities.

What I grasp is that coconut in Anita's experience implies white people are different from asian people (different culture, history, patriotism, allegience to teams, etc.). No thought is given to whether it is a negative or postive one as all of that is irrelevant, rather all that matters to the person is that there is a difference. Then you use the word cocunut to make your victim feel like a twat for choosing to be like a white person when he is asian. You are the one who is assuming the two cultures are equal in all respects, so all you are taking the piss out of is the personality of your victim, implying he or she is too weak to stick by their own culture. This is the root of the insult and offense. And if anything you are suggesting the victim is the racist, as the only obvious explanation for their choice is that they for some reason think white culture is superior to Asian culture. The person saying coconut makes no such assumption. All they have done is used a term that refers to colour, to cause offence because they are a top class cunt.

The problem with Powar is that Singh has done nothing wrong or made not choice. He's not a coconut in the sense of the word Anita is arguing about. Singh's only crime is being intelligent enough to understand the Suarez case. So what Powar has said is that white people are morally inferior supporters of racists. The irony would be funny were it not so disgusting.
 
It doesn't matter whether there's a valuation on the difference though.


What it means is that the mere appearance of a thing determines its nature. The coconut is brown on the outside, and thus we should know what it is, essentially as a coconut, in it's interiority. It's a racist analogy regardless of how it's employment make a valuation of brown in the husk or white in the core.


As you say, although I haven't seen the full context, the implication of it's usage in this case was the most direct and simply racist one; that a certain thought, any thought, (and we should leave the suarez matter out of it) could be a betrayal of what one must be, as divined by the mere fact that they are brown. That thought isn't in the realm of possibility, it's a false consciousness, it's inauthentic.


That's a limiting and disturbing idea.
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=48569.msg1478010#msg1478010 date=1328519992]
Singlerider: the term 'coconut' much like the term 'uncle Tom' is about one betraying their own race/culture ether than being about the culture/race that one is seen to be imitating.

But if people consider that to be racist then so be it, I guess we all hae differing views on such things, the Suarez thread demonstrated that perfectly
[/quote]

I know what it means Neets, we have one for our lot as well - a banana.

Yellow on the outside, white in the middle.

It means exactly the same thing, that you're not a 'proper' Chinese because you act like a White person, because you've become assimilated into that culture.

There are two implicit assumptions bound up in that:

Firstly that to act White is somehow a negative thing and that it is inferior to their own culture and the way in which they should be behaving.

Secondly that the concept of 'White' is somehow homogenous and that someone can be said to be 'acting White' as if all White people act the same.

Let's turn this on it's head - call a White person a 'wigger' and what does it mean? Generally it's used as an insult towards little plastic wannabe gangsters who bowl round with their trousers round their knees, a stupid fucking hat on and a ridiculous swagger. They're being accused of being a 'white ni**er', somebody who is trying to be Black and is betraying their race.

Now, the assumption there is that all Black people are like that, that 'acting Black' means acting like a rudebwoy and giving it large, that having the attitude and the shit fashion sense is somehow inseparable from 'being Black' and that the White person, in acting that way is not simply 'being a twat' but are in fact 'trying to be Black'.

White folk do not have the sole rights to racism, and equally they are not immune from it. I do believe to an extent in the idea that 'offense is in the ear of the beholder' - but just because the majority of White people probably wouldn't be offended by it, it doesn't mean it's not racist.

Honky is racist, but most people don't give a shit about it.

Coconut is racist. Most people don't give a shit, but if Powar is gonna get sanctimonious about racist shit, then he can't complain when it comes back and bites him on the arse
 
[quote author=Farkmaster link=topic=48569.msg1478032#msg1478032 date=1328524440]
What it means is that the mere appearance of a thing determines its nature. The coconut is brown on the outside, and thus we should know what it is, essentially as a coconut, in it's interiority. It's a racist analogy regardless of how it's employment make a valuation of brown in the husk or white in the core.
[/quote]

I don't think coconut is seriously linked to appearance or skin colour. People (including Powar) are just using it for the sake of coconut/bounty/choc-ice being somewhat clever short and snappy insults. There's no connotation about your skin, its to do with your ethnic background. The problem is there is no food stuffs that provide a clever analogy to ethinicity, so instead people use skin colour as a substitute.

Maybe Nike's. They are a fabric made by exploited children in Asia, but contain the feet of western people on the inside. There you go. Nike. So if I call Asim a Nike... it has the exact same effect as coconut but now none of the superficial skin colour overtones. I'm such a fucking genius maybe this will catch on. Asim, don't be a Nike.
 
Singlerider, I disagree that the implicit implication is that white culture is inferior, in fact I think that's a ludacris suggestion to use with reference to a term like 'uncle Tom' given the time of origin. Intead I understand the emphasis of the origin of the word is about the betrayal of ones own culture, not the culture one is imitating.

I see you're comparison of the term 'wigger', but all due respect I think direct comparisons are simplistic as they completely disregards colonial history which is absurd, IMO.

I agree that racism applies in all directions and on an individual level each person is accountable for that, it's no more acceptable for a black person to be racist towards a white person. And individually that needs to be stamped out. But white on black racism does have a different dimension that needs to be taken into consideration; there is a consideration of historical baggage and institutional make ups to consider.
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=48569.msg1478040#msg1478040 date=1328526101]
Singlerider, I disagree that the implicit implication is that white culture is inferior, in fact I think that's a ludacris suggestion to use with reference to a term like 'uncle Tom' given the time of origin. Intead I understand the emphasis of the origin of the word is about the betrayal of ones own culture, not the culture one is imitating.

I see you're comparison of the term 'wigger', but all due respect I think direct comparisons are simplistic as they completely disregards colonial history which is absurd, IMO.

I agree that racism applies in all directions and on an individual level each person is accountable for that, it's no more acceptable for a black person to be racist towards a white person. And individually that needs to be stamped out. But white on black racism does have a different dimension that needs to be taken into consideration; there is a consideration of historical baggage and institutional make ups to consider.
[/quote]

Colonial History is a big bugbear for you Anita.

It ended 60 years ago thats 2 GERERATIONS ago, why do you insist on thinking its relevent now?
 
To be fair there is an element who do have a colonialist mentality, the average daily mail reader for example.
 
I think your placing far too much emphasis on 'colonial history' Anita; I don't think its a valid variable in this day and age.

The average racist, I would suggest, would have no idea about the 'New world' colonial activity and the Imperialism that came with it or any other historic relationship between peoples prior to WWII or something stupid.

Elements still exist in the press and politics, that's a given due to Nationalist links etc but never the less, I think you're over-egging it.
 
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=48569.msg1478042#msg1478042 date=1328526472]
To be fair there is an element who do have a colonialist mentality, the average daily mail reader for example.
[/quote]

and on this Forum?
 
I'm with Gene on this one, Anita does seem like a Racist herself with some of the guff she has come up with, and she tries to blame it on 'colonial history'
 
Back to the person in question though Powar. He's fucked up by doing this and personally I hope he's hung out to dry on this. Given he can't seem to keep his mouth shut normally, his silence on the John Terry issue has been startling as is his lack of comments on the booing of Rio Ferdinand yesterday. Let's not forget his comment on LFC fans in general when the Oldham player was allegedly racially abused by one Liverpool supporter:

“Are LFC fans going to do this at every game, support the mistakes made by their own man by abusing others? 25% of PL [Premier League] players are black.

He was also very quick to condemn LFC for supporting Suarez. Yet not a fucking murmur on Chelsea. Probably because he's on the board of the Chelsea foundation. Similar to Lord Herman Ousleys lack of comment on the Man Utd fan for similar reasons - on the board of the Man Utd foundation.

Let's not forget Piara Power though. Let's not forget that he and his FARE organisation have recently been found guilty of breaking the law either around Data Protection.

PIARA POWAR and his shadowy FARE organisation have been found guilty of breaking the law by tipping off Celtic about who was complaining about their supporters singing in praise of the IRA.

FARE committed the offence after they were asked for their views on the behaviour of Celtic fans who sang IRA anthems during a match towards the end of last season.

Those who wrote to FARE’s chief executive, Piara Powar were later both stunned and outraged when they received letters, to their homes.... from Celtic chief executive, Peter Lawwell.

They were then frightened that their home addresses could have been leaked to someone who may wish to do them and their families, harm.

This led to them demanding that an official government probe be launched into FARE. This investigation has now been completed and Piara Powar and FARE have been found…

GUILTY!

Guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act by releasing to Celtic, who were the subject of the complaints, the names and addresses of those people who complained.

No surprise either that his missus, Aasmah Mir, is a massive Celtic fan. And therein lies the problem with Piara Power. It's OK for him to be vocal on the Suarez issue - I would expect him, as the head of FARE, to be so. What's not acceptable is his lack of noise on issues when they do not suit his agenda or even actually breaking the law to allow things to suit his agenda. Comments and behaviour on racism subjects should be common regardless of personal affinities and his aren't. That, in my view, does not make him fit to be a member of FARE, never mind head of it
 
[quote author=Asbo link=topic=48569.msg1478044#msg1478044 date=1328526567]
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=48569.msg1478042#msg1478042 date=1328526472]
To be fair there is an element who do have a colonialist mentality, the average daily mail reader for example.
[/quote]

and on this Forum?
[/quote]
Well I haven't seen it on this forum. I think Anita is talking about out in the street though, not sure she is referring to anyone on this forum.

*eyes everyone up suspiciously*
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=48569.msg1478046#msg1478046 date=1328526680]
Back to the person in question though Powar. He's fucked up by doing this and personally I hope he's hung out to dry on this. Given he can't seem to keep his mouth shut normally, his silence on the John Terry issue has been startling as is his lack of comments on the booing of Rio Ferdinand yesterday. Let's not forget his comment on LFC fans in general when the Oldham player was allegedly racially abused by one Liverpool supporter:

“Are LFC fans going to do this at every game, support the mistakes made by their own man by abusing others? 25% of PL [Premier League] players are black.

He was also very quick to condemn LFC for supporting Suarez. Yet not a fucking murmur on Chelsea. Probably because he's on the board of the Chelsea foundation. Similar to Lord Herman Ousleys lack of comment on the Man Utd fan for similar reasons - on the board of the Man Utd foundation.

Let's not forget Piara Power though. Let's not forget that he and his FARE organisation have recently been found guilty of breaking the law either around Data Protection.

PIARA POWAR and his shadowy FARE organisation have been found guilty of breaking the law by tipping off Celtic about who was complaining about their supporters singing in praise of the IRA.

FARE committed the offence after they were asked for their views on the behaviour of Celtic fans who sang IRA anthems during a match towards the end of last season.

Those who wrote to FARE’s chief executive, Piara Powar were later both stunned and outraged when they received letters, to their homes.... from Celtic chief executive, Peter Lawwell.

They were then frightened that their home addresses could have been leaked to someone who may wish to do them and their families, harm.

This led to them demanding that an official government probe be launched into FARE. This investigation has now been completed and Piara Powar and FARE have been found…

GUILTY!

Guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act by releasing to Celtic, who were the subject of the complaints, the names and addresses of those people who complained.

No surprise either that his missus, Aasmah Mir, is a massive Celtic fan. And therein lies the problem with Piara Power. It's OK for him to be vocal on the Suarez issue - I would expect him, as the head of FARE, to be so. What's not acceptable is his lack of noise on issues when they do not suit his agenda or even actually breaking the law to allow things to suit his agenda. Comments and behaviour on racism subjects should be common regardless of personal affinities and his aren't. That, in my view, does not make him fit to be a member of FARE, never mind head of it
[/quote]

I'm shocked at this.
 
Asbo, I think I'd rather be aligned with Anita's view on these things than yours if Im being honest.
 
[quote author=athensruairi link=topic=48569.msg1478048#msg1478048 date=1328526929]
I'm shocked at this.
[/quote]

Ditto
 
http://www.anfieldroad.com/news/lfc/2012-02-05/5743/powar-denies-racism-after-coconut-jibe-sent-on-twitter.html/

Powar denies racism after ‘coconut’ jibe sent on Twitter
February 5, 2012 by Jim Boardman | 15 Comments
QUESTIONS are being asked about Piara Powar’s suitability as the figurehead of a European anti-racism body after he was accused of making racially abusive comments towards an Asian football supporter.
Powar heads up the Football Against Racism in Europe organisation, sometimes referred to as the FARE Network, and has been very outspoken about Luis Suárez, Liverpool FC and Liverpool supporters since the incident with Patrice Evra first came to light.
Yesterday an Asian Liverpool supporter received a message on Twitter, from @PiaraPowar, calling him “a coconut”.

@PiaraPowar's 'coconut' jibe to Asian Liverpool supporter
The insult came after the supporter had asked why Powar had not made any comment on news that a Manchester United supporter had been charged for alleged racial abuse at their game against Stoke City earlier in the week. Rather than respond publicly, the private message was sent and contained what can be considered to be an example of racial abuse: Don’t be a “coconut.”
Although Powar is yet to take steps to explain his intended meaning of the term, it is a term used as a way of accusing someone of betraying their own cultural roots and pandering to “white” opinion. It relates to a coconut being white on the inside and brown on the outside.
In some contexts – between friends for example – it can be seen as harmless and no offence would be taken. In other contexts it would be taken as a deeply offensive insult, and certainly that would seem to be the case where it is used when addressing a stranger.
In 2010 Shirley Brown, a Bristol politician, was found guilty of racial harassment after using the term when talking to Jay Jethwa, a fellow politician who had moved to the UK from India 24 years before. The remark was found to be “purely gratuitous” and it was ruled that “there was a potential for, albeit minor, public disorder and stimulation for racial hatred.”
The victim, Ms Jethwa, explained how upsetting the comment had been: “I was completely shocked and I was numb. I was very, very upset and distressed.
“The word is doubly insulting as it insults both me and the white population.”
The message Powar responded to was perfectly reasonable:
“@PiaraPowar Interesting how u haven’t given your opinion on the news that a #mufc fan was arrested on Wednesday for alleged racial abuse”
The response was far from it:
“Get lost Singh. Have no false consciousness. Don’t be a coconut.”
After making the comment the Powar locked the Twitter account and blocked a number of others who had asked a similar question.
For clarity, the arrest of the Manchester United fan was on Tuesday night after a Stoke City fan made a complaint that a spectator was shouting abuse at Stoke players. The Press Association reported the incident on Friday:
“Howard Hobson, 57, is accused of a racially aggravated public order offence and using threatening words or behaviour to cause harassment, alarm or distress.
“Hobson, of Weaver Walk, Openshaw, Manchester, was arrested at the Manchester United v Stoke City game on Tuesday.”
Powar had yet to make any comment whatsoever on the incident and the following morning he was asked why not. A reminder of his comments following the incident at Anfield in January, when Tom Adeyemi was the victim of alleged racial abuse, was also sent to Powar.
Those comments from Powar came on January 7th:
“Are LFC fans going to do this at every game, support the mistakes made by their own man by abusing others? 25% of PL [Premier League] players are black.”
One fan, allegedly, had shouted racial abuse. Powar was now talking like it was part of the fan culture at Anfield.
The comments – made from the same Twitter account that made the “coconut” jibe – were widely reported in the mass media. His mudslinging was once again hitting the headlines and because of his position his comments were not being questioned. Despite there being very little information available about the structure, funding or accountability of FARE his comments were taken as authoritative by the mass media. His past as the spokesman of Kick It Out perhaps plays a part in that, although it is unclear why he left Kick It Out and the organisation are still to fill the role he left vacant.

@PiaraPowar outspoken after incident at Anfield, remained silent on Old Trafford incident
Without going over the reasons many Liverpool supporters (but not all) had for being supportive of Suárez and critical of the process the comments from Powar caused a lot of offence. Fans supportive of Suárez were not supporting racism or racial abuse – they just didn’t believe he was guilty of either. Fans who commented on the Adeyemi abuse allegations agreed en masse that if the allegations were true they wouldn’t want that supporter inside Anfield again.


@PiaraPowar tells LFC fans they've "no chance" of following him on Twitter
Today, to those who aren’t yet blocked from seeing Powar’s comments on Twitter, he remains defiant in his comments. He was asked if his message was rude:
“The private messge? Yes it’s very rude. Racist? If sent 2 someone of same ethnic origin, religion, heritage? Try harder.”
Also, having blocked a number of Liverpool supporters and making the rest of his comments private to his selected audience, he said there was “no chance” he would allow Liverpool fans to see the rest of what he had to say:
“Wake up to hundreds of LFC fans who want to follow. I wonder why? #nochance”
Again, assuming all Liverpool fans are the same, he decides none of them should be allowed to hear what he has to say about them.

@PiaraPowar with another sweeping generalisation
Powar’s ‘coconut’ comment, sent privately, smacks of bullying. If the Asian fan doesn’t go along with Powar’s way of doing things he’s betraying his roots. Powar seems to be suggesting that non-white LFC fans should forget their true feelings and stick with Powar – purely because of skin colour. If Powar feels he’s done no wrong then he needs to explain; instead he carries on slagging people off through Twitter.
Some will argue that use of the phrase “coconut” is not racist. Indeed Powar has tried to do so himself. But the person he aimed it at, and others who saw it, deem it to be highly offensive. For Powar not to realise that his comment could cause offence – whether any was intended or not – suggests he is in the wrong job. If the offence was intended he certainly shouldn’t be in the job.
Not that it took this comment from the man for many people to reach this conclusion about him. Powar and FARE have shown no interest whatsoever in engaging with Liverpool FC or its supporters at any time since news first broke of Evra’s allegations about Suarez. Emails from Anfield Road to FARE remain unanswered, and have done so for some time.
Powar has restricted his opinions to himself and his 347 followers now. In the absence of some credible explanations and some long overdue apologies it’s best it stays that way. And if Lord Ouseley and Kick It Out are happy to be associated with him then that raises serious questions about their credibility too. They need to distance themselves from him or their campaign will suffer – especially when they preach so much about “zero tolerance”.
Powar has had enough airtime, but if the other anti-discrimination campaigners allow this to be swept under the carpet without explanation then they have also had enough airtime. Time someone else got the cushy jobs.
Maybe it’s time they listened to John Barnes a bit more too.
 
Honestly chat as much shit as you want but anyone calling me racist can piss off. Seriously, like piss right off.

I've not called anyone on here any such thing.
 
[quote author=Sunny link=topic=48569.msg1478046#msg1478046 date=1328526680]
Back to the person in question though Powar. He's fucked up by doing this and personally I hope he's hung out to dry on this. Given he can't seem to keep his mouth shut normally, his silence on the John Terry issue has been startling as is his lack of comments on the booing of Rio Ferdinand yesterday. Let's not forget his comment on LFC fans in general when the Oldham player was allegedly racially abused by one Liverpool supporter:

“Are LFC fans going to do this at every game, support the mistakes made by their own man by abusing others? 25% of PL [Premier League] players are black.

He was also very quick to condemn LFC for supporting Suarez. Yet not a fucking murmur on Chelsea. Probably because he's on the board of the Chelsea foundation. Similar to Lord Herman Ousleys lack of comment on the Man Utd fan for similar reasons - on the board of the Man Utd foundation.

Let's not forget Piara Power though. Let's not forget that he and his FARE organisation have recently been found guilty of breaking the law either around Data Protection.

PIARA POWAR and his shadowy FARE organisation have been found guilty of breaking the law by tipping off Celtic about who was complaining about their supporters singing in praise of the IRA.

FARE committed the offence after they were asked for their views on the behaviour of Celtic fans who sang IRA anthems during a match towards the end of last season.

Those who wrote to FARE’s chief executive, Piara Powar were later both stunned and outraged when they received letters, to their homes.... from Celtic chief executive, Peter Lawwell.

They were then frightened that their home addresses could have been leaked to someone who may wish to do them and their families, harm.

This led to them demanding that an official government probe be launched into FARE. This investigation has now been completed and Piara Powar and FARE have been found…

GUILTY!

Guilty of breaching the Data Protection Act by releasing to Celtic, who were the subject of the complaints, the names and addresses of those people who complained.

No surprise either that his missus, Aasmah Mir, is a massive Celtic fan. And therein lies the problem with Piara Power. It's OK for him to be vocal on the Suarez issue - I would expect him, as the head of FARE, to be so. What's not acceptable is his lack of noise on issues when they do not suit his agenda or even actually breaking the law to allow things to suit his agenda. Comments and behaviour on racism subjects should be common regardless of personal affinities and his aren't. That, in my view, does not make him fit to be a member of FARE, never mind head of it
[/quote]

Not forgetting that he was equally vocal in getting Rangers done for their Sectarian chants.
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=48569.msg1478061#msg1478061 date=1328528334]
Honestly chat as much shit as you want but anyone calling me racist can piss off. Seriously, like piss right off.

I've not called anyone on here any such thing.


[/quote]

I would roundly ignore such comments Anita - much as they're upsetting. I know as I was pretty much called one due to my opinion on another matter. In fact, I find such terminology quite insulting and would ask people don't do it. The whole subject is emotive enough without bringing any more emotion into it.
 
[quote author=Woland link=topic=48569.msg1478052#msg1478052 date=1328527328]
How is he given the time of day after that Celtic stunt?
[/quote]

Hmmm. I dunno. It's written by a Rangers fan. I'm trying to find an official version of it.

EDIT: I can't find any so I doubt it's credibility.
 
Did find this though:

http://www.scotsman.com/news/sectarian_row_chief_married_to_celtic_fan_1_1587410

THE head of the anti-racism watchdog that has provided evidence of sectarianism which could lead to Rangers having to shut Ibrox for European ties is married to an ardent Celtic fan, it has been revealed.

Piara Powar, the executive director of the Football Against Racism in Europe (FARE) network, is the husband of Aasmah Mir, the BBC broadcaster who has described herself as an enthusiastic Celtic supporter.

Last week, Powar was forced to defend his organisation against claims that an orchestrated campaign had been waged against Rangers, which had resulted in the charges of sectarian singing being brought against the Ibrox club.

It has now emerged that Powar's Glaswegian wife has been reported as declaring herself "passionate" about Rangers' Old Firm rivals, Celtic.

And in a past interview, Mir, a presenter on BBC Radio 5 live Drive who was brought up in Bearsden, has been quoted as saying that she could "never" support Rangers, because she remembered men in the club's shirts handing out BNP leaflets when she was at school.

Rangers were last week charged by UEFA with an offence of alleged sectarian singing by their supporters following the first leg of their Europa League tie with PSV Eindhoven last month.

The club is appealing against the decision later this month but, if unsuccessful, it faces a 100,000 fine and having its fans banned from its next two away fixtures.

The team will also have to play its next two home matches behind closed doors after reports that sectarian songs were sung at the PSV Eindhoven return leg at Ibrox.

Rangers are angry that UEFA's correspondence on the subject includes a complaint from Powar's FARE organisation. At the hearing, Rangers will argue that UEFA should not act on complaints from outside bodies, which might contradict the observations of their own match delegates.

The club's chief executive, Martin Bain, said Rangers had never denied that sectarian singing was a problem but added: "This now has all the hallmarks of a deliberate and targeted campaign against the club."

There is no suggestion that Mr Powar's wife's views have played any part in his decision-making, but the revelation is sure to add to the controversy.

Yesterday, the Rangers Supporters Trust complained that FARE had taken a "highly subjective" approach to the issue of offensive behaviour at matches.

Smith suggested Rangers had been treated unfairly compared with clubs in Spain and Russia. He also said that Spurs fans had shouted racist abuse when the London club played Real Madrid recently.

"Racism is endemic in Spanish football, and Russian football is riddled with it," Smith said. "FARE have a questionable agenda. That's our concern. We are looking to them to explain what Martin Bain has been talking about."

Smith claimed that the Trust had also written to FARE about racist treatment dished out to their Senegalese striker El Hadji Diouf, but had not had a reply.

Mir, 39, is from a Scottish/Pakistani family . After graduating in law from Bristol University, she worked in newspapers and for Scottish Television.

Her CV includes stints on BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland. She is a regular on Lorraine Kelly's ITV show Lorraine and joined BBC Five live 10 years ago.

Mir has said in interviews that she began supporting Celtic when she worked at Scottish Television. In interviews, she has described herself as a "huge" and "passionate" fan. She said she chose Celtic, because she saw the team as the underdogs.

She said: "I've always had an affection for the underdog. But it never was going to be Rangers anyway - not since my schooldays when I remember these older guys coming to the school gates wearing Rangers tops and handing out leaflets supporting the BNP."

Mir and Powar declined to comment yesterday, as did Rangers FC
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=48569.msg1478061#msg1478061 date=1328528334]
Honestly chat as much shit as you want but anyone calling me racist can piss off. Seriously, like piss right off.

I've not called anyone on here any such thing.
[/quote]

Is it because we is white?
 
No media organisations have picked up on the coconut story anyways. I guess he'd have to get nicked for anyone to pay attention.
 
[quote author=Woland link=topic=48569.msg1478072#msg1478072 date=1328530432]
No media organisations have picked up on the coconut story anyways. I guess he'd have to get nicked for anyone to pay attention.
[/quote]

he was officially reported to the Met Police.
 
Yeah but they can't have done anything because searching for him in google news gets nothing about it.

And really, this whole thing with Suarez and Terry and the way self serving fuckwads such as Powar have used the whole thing, and the whole portrayal of everyone, the generalisations about groups of fans, the sides taken by different supporters and newspapers, it's like a bad comedy, like a really shitty implausible satire, and just makes me want to hide under a rock.
 
Its true they are using the issues because they have an Agenda, Powers is to push Suarez to the forefront to keep Terry out of the Limelight.

Anyone in such a position with a conflict of interests, shouldn't really be in that position, or should have to state the conflict in any statements made.
 
422214_10150525539146689_638581688_9214613_1861234720_n.jpg
 
[quote author=LadyRed link=topic=48569.msg1478040#msg1478040 date=1328526101]
Singlerider, I disagree that the implicit implication is that white culture is inferior, in fact I think that's a ludacris suggestion to use with reference to a term like 'uncle Tom' given the time of origin. Intead I understand the emphasis of the origin of the word is about the betrayal of ones own culture, not the culture one is imitating.

I see you're comparison of the term 'wigger', but all due respect I think direct comparisons are simplistic as they completely disregards colonial history which is absurd, IMO.

I agree that racism applies in all directions and on an individual level each person is accountable for that, it's no more acceptable for a black person to be racist towards a white person. And individually that needs to be stamped out. But white on black racism does have a different dimension that needs to be taken into consideration; there is a consideration of historical baggage and institutional make ups to consider.
[/quote]

I think though the term Uncle Tom may have a similar meaning, ultimately it is not the same.

Uncle Tom suggests a slavish deference for the White Master, a 'house ni**er' who is all "Yessir! You da boss, boss" and the like. It mocks their subservience and their inability or unwillingness to take pride in who they are and their race and culture. Although it makes an issue of this, it does not contain any implicit suggestion that they are trying to act White, be White or trying to be something other than what they are - it merely says that they cannot take any pride in their race and are acting in a manner as one who has been subjugated and 'knows their place'.

Coconut, bounty bar, banana - all of these terms explicitly state that the person is 'White on the inside' - in other words they are betraying their background by trying to be White, to act White, to ingratiate themselves with White society by imitating them and acting like them.

Bound up in that idea - as I've said - is the two concepts that a) 'acting White' is bad, and b) there is a homogenous, generic 'White' way of acting.

Whether you choose to place the emphasis on the betrayal of your own culture as opposed to the insult towards another is completely irrelevant - the fact is that the insult is there.

Also, the comparison between 'wigger' and 'coconut' is entirely valid, because the colonial implications mean precisely fuck all.

Had it been a comparison between something like one of those dickheads that says 'p@ki is just a shortened down version of Pakistani, so isn't it like calling somebody a Brit?' then you'd be entirely right - that comparison is completely ridiculous, because of the cultural context and history surrounding the word 'p@ki' and the utter lack of the same surrounding Brit.

However, just because the historical situation is such that most White people have never suffered the kind of all-pervasive racism that any of us have encountered throughout our lives, that does not detract from the fact that calling somebody coconut or bounty bar or banana is racist towards White people.

Obviously the background is such that racism towards White people does not cause the same kind of difficulties, social division or offense - as I said earlier White people are in the privileged position of not really being affected by that kind of thing - but just because they don't feel the same effects it doesn't make the offense any less racist.

Honky is racist towards White people. If you called a White person a honky would they suffer the same way as a Black person would after being called a ni**er? No, of course not. Would they be offended or take umbrage in the same way? Again, of course not. Would it be considered as offensive by the vast majority of people?

However - viewed objectively can it be said that calling someone a Honky is 'less racist'? This throws up the question of whether racism can be graded into different categories - can you be 'a little bit racist' or is that like being 'a little bit pregnant'?

If you'll excuse the unavoidable pun, I think that on this level racism becomes a black and white issue - something is either racist or not. It may well be considered less offensive, but that doesn't make it any less racist - it's racist, and that's that.

As I've said, no doubt people are purely making an issue of this because of what Powar was rattling on about earlier, and not because they actually take offense by it - but can it be said that it's not racist just because people are not as offended?

No. If I'm making it simplistic, it's because it is simple - coconut, bounty bar and banana are all racist terms. End of story
 
Thanks for writing, SR, your heart felt emotions about being one caught between two worlds and cultures.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom