Racist Manchester.
- Thread starter Oncy
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Status
[quote author=singlerider link=topic=48569.msg1478087#msg1478087 date=1328533984]
[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
[/quote]
If you ever go to Belfast and if you listen hard enough in the correct parts of town you might hear the word Brit being spoken with a different context!
[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
[/quote]
If you ever go to Belfast and if you listen hard enough in the correct parts of town you might hear the word Brit being spoken with a different context!
Funny thing is when a white kid get's beaten up by a gang of Asians in Manchester it is spoken about on BBC radio 5 Live as a "hate crime" no mention of the "R" word at all.
Not a lot about it in the papers either really. Call me an old cynic if you like, but had the boot been on the other foot , metaphorically speaking of course, and seven white lads had beaten up two Asians cracking skulls and breaking eye sockets I can't help feeling it would have been more newsworthy.
I am sure everyone will tell me I am wrong.
regards
Not a lot about it in the papers either really. Call me an old cynic if you like, but had the boot been on the other foot , metaphorically speaking of course, and seven white lads had beaten up two Asians cracking skulls and breaking eye sockets I can't help feeling it would have been more newsworthy.
I am sure everyone will tell me I am wrong.
regards
Someone saying exactly that in the pub tonight Vladders.
Re: Re: Racist Manchester.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=48569.msg1#msg1 date=1328662124]
Funny thing is when a white kid get's beaten up by a gang of Asians in Manchester it is spoken about on BBC radio 5 Live as a "hate crime" no mention of the "R" word at all.
Not a lot about it in the papers either really. Call me an old cynic if you like, but had the boot been on the other foot , metaphorically speaking of course, and seven white lads had beaten up two Asians cracking skulls and breaking eye sockets I can't help feeling it would have been more newsworthy.
I am sure everyone will tell me I am wrong.
regards
[/quote]
I'll agree
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=48569.msg1#msg1 date=1328662124]
Funny thing is when a white kid get's beaten up by a gang of Asians in Manchester it is spoken about on BBC radio 5 Live as a "hate crime" no mention of the "R" word at all.
Not a lot about it in the papers either really. Call me an old cynic if you like, but had the boot been on the other foot , metaphorically speaking of course, and seven white lads had beaten up two Asians cracking skulls and breaking eye sockets I can't help feeling it would have been more newsworthy.
I am sure everyone will tell me I am wrong.
regards
[/quote]
I'll agree
So will I, and this kind of one-eyed imbalance does more than almost anything to hold back the cause of anti-racism.
Asim - why?
Btw, I'd like to say I understand what Anita was saying re: coconut. There is something similar here in Israel with Ashkenazi (German/Polish/Russian) Jewry and Mizrachi/Sefardi (Turkish/Arab/Spanish) Jewry. And it's not to belittle the other, it's about not letting go of your culture and ways. I can understnad why Gene/Fabio etc would view that as wrong though.
Btw, I'd like to say I understand what Anita was saying re: coconut. There is something similar here in Israel with Ashkenazi (German/Polish/Russian) Jewry and Mizrachi/Sefardi (Turkish/Arab/Spanish) Jewry. And it's not to belittle the other, it's about not letting go of your culture and ways. I can understnad why Gene/Fabio etc would view that as wrong though.
[quote author=Vlads Quiff link=topic=48569.msg1479005#msg1479005 date=1328662124]
Funny thing is when a white kid get's beaten up by a gang of Asians in Manchester it is spoken about on BBC radio 5 Live as a "hate crime" no mention of the "R" word at all.
Not a lot about it in the papers either really. Call me an old cynic if you like, but had the boot been on the other foot , metaphorically speaking of course, and seven white lads had beaten up two Asians cracking skulls and breaking eye sockets I can't help feeling it would have been more newsworthy.
I am sure everyone will tell me I am wrong.
regards
[/quote]
To be fair Mr VQ, most of the time if it's the other way round it's generally described as a hate crime as opposed to a racist attack as well. That's not to say that black or brown on white violence can't be racist, of course it can, but I think it's more a comment on the linguistic trends as opposed to an actual representation of divergent values regarding the issue.
With regard to your point about the papers not picking up on it and no fuss being made - firstly I think this is very much a complete conjecture, for all we know there may well be several hate crimes against ethnic minorities that we don't hear about - by definition if they're not being reported then we don't hear about them. There's also the fact that this *is* being reported, otherwise you wouldn't have heard of it. What we do know for sure is that go back a couple of decades then this sort of thing was happening to ethnic minorities widely without it being acknowledged, because it was so prevalent. Go back another couple of decades and it was just as likely to be the police perpetrating the violence, so it was even being reported to the authorities, let alone being reported in the media.
However, if we accept that it may be deemed 'more newsworthy' if a bunch of white lads kicked the crap out of an Asian lad, then perhaps this may be an attempt to rebalance the previous antipathy. Is it right? No, not really. Do two wrongs make a right? No, obviously not. Is it understandable why things might be this way? Well yeah, perhaps. Doesn't justify it, doesn't make it right, but compared to the previous situation a little overreporting is certainly preferable to ignoring it altogether.
Now, obviously we don't want to repeat our mistakes and do the same now to racial attacks on white people, but I suspect that the actual incidence of those is probably fairly few and far between, and the likelihood of history repeating itself pretty slim.
Ultimately I guess the question is this: which is the bigger problem (in a quantitative sense, as opposed to qualitative) - hate crimes against ethnic minorities, or hate crimes against whites? On a purely numbers basis, perhaps the bigger problem draws more attention, and unsurprisingly so
Funny thing is when a white kid get's beaten up by a gang of Asians in Manchester it is spoken about on BBC radio 5 Live as a "hate crime" no mention of the "R" word at all.
Not a lot about it in the papers either really. Call me an old cynic if you like, but had the boot been on the other foot , metaphorically speaking of course, and seven white lads had beaten up two Asians cracking skulls and breaking eye sockets I can't help feeling it would have been more newsworthy.
I am sure everyone will tell me I am wrong.
regards
[/quote]
To be fair Mr VQ, most of the time if it's the other way round it's generally described as a hate crime as opposed to a racist attack as well. That's not to say that black or brown on white violence can't be racist, of course it can, but I think it's more a comment on the linguistic trends as opposed to an actual representation of divergent values regarding the issue.
With regard to your point about the papers not picking up on it and no fuss being made - firstly I think this is very much a complete conjecture, for all we know there may well be several hate crimes against ethnic minorities that we don't hear about - by definition if they're not being reported then we don't hear about them. There's also the fact that this *is* being reported, otherwise you wouldn't have heard of it. What we do know for sure is that go back a couple of decades then this sort of thing was happening to ethnic minorities widely without it being acknowledged, because it was so prevalent. Go back another couple of decades and it was just as likely to be the police perpetrating the violence, so it was even being reported to the authorities, let alone being reported in the media.
However, if we accept that it may be deemed 'more newsworthy' if a bunch of white lads kicked the crap out of an Asian lad, then perhaps this may be an attempt to rebalance the previous antipathy. Is it right? No, not really. Do two wrongs make a right? No, obviously not. Is it understandable why things might be this way? Well yeah, perhaps. Doesn't justify it, doesn't make it right, but compared to the previous situation a little overreporting is certainly preferable to ignoring it altogether.
Now, obviously we don't want to repeat our mistakes and do the same now to racial attacks on white people, but I suspect that the actual incidence of those is probably fairly few and far between, and the likelihood of history repeating itself pretty slim.
Ultimately I guess the question is this: which is the bigger problem (in a quantitative sense, as opposed to qualitative) - hate crimes against ethnic minorities, or hate crimes against whites? On a purely numbers basis, perhaps the bigger problem draws more attention, and unsurprisingly so
Manchester United fan fined £200 for racially abusing Kenwyne Jones• Howard Hobson, 57, banned from football for three years
• Defendant 'extremely embarrassed' by his behaviour
A Manchester United fan who shouted racist abuse at a black player has been fined £200 and banned from football matches for three years.
Howard Hobson, 57, shouted the abuse and made monkey noises at Stoke City's Trinidad-born player Kenwyne Jones during the first half at Old Trafford on 31 January, Trafford magistrates court heard.
The defendant was asked to explain his actions by JPs after pleading guilty to a single charge of a racially aggravated public order offence.
"I'm not racist," he told the bench. "I have coloured people in my family and most of my best mates are coloured. I don't know what came over me. I'm deeply sorry."
After the half-time interval when Hobson returned to his seat he was spoken to by stewards and taken away and then transferred to a police station in Salford.
Hobson, of Weaver Walk, Openshaw, Manchester, who is not a season-ticket holder at Old Trafford, told officers he had come to the match straight from his job as a fork lift truck driver and drank four bottles of beer but was not drunk.
He admitted making some comments about the Stoke player "in the heat of the moment" and accepted he used the words "black bastard". He said he could not remember using the words "wog" or "monkey" but accepted what the witness had reported him as saying.
Rachel Goode, mitigating, said the defendant was "extremely embarrassed" by his behaviour.
"He has serious concerns he will lose his job as a result of this," she told the bench. "He can't really explain his actions on that day. It's out of character for him. He has family and friends of mixed race and he's now branded a racist."
Hobson was fined £200 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £85 court costs. The football banning order means he is not allowed to enter a football ground in England and Wales for three years or he could be arrested and he must surrender his passport when England play internationals abroad.
• Defendant 'extremely embarrassed' by his behaviour
A Manchester United fan who shouted racist abuse at a black player has been fined £200 and banned from football matches for three years.
Howard Hobson, 57, shouted the abuse and made monkey noises at Stoke City's Trinidad-born player Kenwyne Jones during the first half at Old Trafford on 31 January, Trafford magistrates court heard.
The defendant was asked to explain his actions by JPs after pleading guilty to a single charge of a racially aggravated public order offence.
"I'm not racist," he told the bench. "I have coloured people in my family and most of my best mates are coloured. I don't know what came over me. I'm deeply sorry."
After the half-time interval when Hobson returned to his seat he was spoken to by stewards and taken away and then transferred to a police station in Salford.
Hobson, of Weaver Walk, Openshaw, Manchester, who is not a season-ticket holder at Old Trafford, told officers he had come to the match straight from his job as a fork lift truck driver and drank four bottles of beer but was not drunk.
He admitted making some comments about the Stoke player "in the heat of the moment" and accepted he used the words "black bastard". He said he could not remember using the words "wog" or "monkey" but accepted what the witness had reported him as saying.
Rachel Goode, mitigating, said the defendant was "extremely embarrassed" by his behaviour.
"He has serious concerns he will lose his job as a result of this," she told the bench. "He can't really explain his actions on that day. It's out of character for him. He has family and friends of mixed race and he's now branded a racist."
Hobson was fined £200 and ordered to pay a £15 victim surcharge and £85 court costs. The football banning order means he is not allowed to enter a football ground in England and Wales for three years or he could be arrested and he must surrender his passport when England play internationals abroad.
"The football banning order means he is not allowed to enter a football ground in England and Wales for three years or he could be arrested and he must surrender his passport when England play internationals abroad."
I wonder what'll happen to JT?!
I wonder what'll happen to JT?!
[quote author=SaintGeorge67 link=topic=48569.msg1479490#msg1479490 date=1328729165]
"The football banning order means he is not allowed to enter a football ground in England and Wales for three years or he could be arrested and he must surrender his passport when England play internationals abroad."
I wonder what'll happen to JT?!
[/quote]
On his way to Kilmarnock or something?? :laugh:
"The football banning order means he is not allowed to enter a football ground in England and Wales for three years or he could be arrested and he must surrender his passport when England play internationals abroad."
I wonder what'll happen to JT?!
[/quote]
On his way to Kilmarnock or something?? :laugh:
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48569.msg1479516#msg1479516 date=1328730472]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48569.msg1479489#msg1479489 date=1328728855]
Hahahahaha fucking love the defence he actually actually went there!
[/quote]
He would have gotten off had he brought a photo of him and a black kid smiling.
[/quote]
You just can't leave it alone can you - thats a really really cheap shot
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48569.msg1479489#msg1479489 date=1328728855]
Hahahahaha fucking love the defence he actually actually went there!
[/quote]
He would have gotten off had he brought a photo of him and a black kid smiling.
[/quote]
You just can't leave it alone can you - thats a really really cheap shot
S
Squiggles
Guest
Hahaha
The man's a poser, pure and simple. Well, simple anyway.
[quote author=tony link=topic=48569.msg1479880#msg1479880 date=1328800638]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48569.msg1479516#msg1479516 date=1328730472]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48569.msg1479489#msg1479489 date=1328728855]
Hahahahaha fucking love the defence he actually actually went there!
[/quote]
He would have gotten off had he brought a photo of him and a black kid smiling.
[/quote]
You just can't leave it alone can you - thats a really really cheap shot
[/quote]
replace the word cheap with incisive....
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48569.msg1479516#msg1479516 date=1328730472]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48569.msg1479489#msg1479489 date=1328728855]
Hahahahaha fucking love the defence he actually actually went there!
[/quote]
He would have gotten off had he brought a photo of him and a black kid smiling.
[/quote]
You just can't leave it alone can you - thats a really really cheap shot
[/quote]
replace the word cheap with incisive....
...as a marshmallow.
[quote author=Molbystwin link=topic=48569.msg1480382#msg1480382 date=1328887779]
[quote author=tony link=topic=48569.msg1479880#msg1479880 date=1328800638]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48569.msg1479516#msg1479516 date=1328730472]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48569.msg1479489#msg1479489 date=1328728855]
Hahahahaha fucking love the defence he actually actually went there!
[/quote]
He would have gotten off had he brought a photo of him and a black kid smiling.
[/quote]
You just can't leave it alone can you - thats a really really cheap shot
[/quote]
replace the word cheap with incisive....
[/quote]
But it is not incisive...
As of today, Rosco will clearly not like thinking about the real reasons Suarez should have gotten off. Simply because they will remind him of his own failure to grasp the legal case and written report. It must be embarrassing for him especially the subjective/objective issue. I don't blame him for not wanting to go there. It's like a rape victim being asked to return to the scene of the crime. So instead, what we have here is Rosco clutching on to things such as this photo with the black kid, and then pretending to himself that it is these sorts of arguments which people were using to support Suarez. He can then proceed to make fun of them in his own mind and in this way reaffirm to himself that he is not the stupid one.
[quote author=tony link=topic=48569.msg1479880#msg1479880 date=1328800638]
[quote author=Rosco link=topic=48569.msg1479516#msg1479516 date=1328730472]
[quote author=Atlas link=topic=48569.msg1479489#msg1479489 date=1328728855]
Hahahahaha fucking love the defence he actually actually went there!
[/quote]
He would have gotten off had he brought a photo of him and a black kid smiling.
[/quote]
You just can't leave it alone can you - thats a really really cheap shot
[/quote]
replace the word cheap with incisive....
[/quote]
But it is not incisive...
As of today, Rosco will clearly not like thinking about the real reasons Suarez should have gotten off. Simply because they will remind him of his own failure to grasp the legal case and written report. It must be embarrassing for him especially the subjective/objective issue. I don't blame him for not wanting to go there. It's like a rape victim being asked to return to the scene of the crime. So instead, what we have here is Rosco clutching on to things such as this photo with the black kid, and then pretending to himself that it is these sorts of arguments which people were using to support Suarez. He can then proceed to make fun of them in his own mind and in this way reaffirm to himself that he is not the stupid one.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked