Duffield put out to pasture?

teagar

stagehopper wrote:

Duffield clearly isn't a racist - in fact he may be one of the only commentators I've heard who has extolled "non-traditional" races and riders to a great extent.
.

teagar wrote:

I'm saying that what he said was rascist, regardless of whether it was meant with malice intent or whatever.

C'mon! Read what I actually said!

Cycling Dave

Deejay. At risk of encouraging your off topic meandering, may I ask in what European Wars did your relatives fight for free speech?

Surely not the first or second world wars.

Free speech also comes with responsibility. The faculty which is employed to filter out that which is offensive from our speech is a noble one. The word "nigger" was used originally as a derogatory term for a black person, and should never be used again in conversation (by a white person anyhow). It's not similar to preventing someone from saying "baa baa black sheep", so calm yourself.

deejay

Cycling Dave wrote:

Deejay. At risk of encouraging your off topic meandering, may I ask in what European Wars did your relatives fight for free speech?

Surely not the first or second world wars.

Free speech also comes with responsibility. The faculty which is employed to filter out that which is offensive from our speech is a noble one. The word "nigger" was used originally as a derogatory term for a black person, and should never be used again in conversation (by a white person anyhow). It's not similar to preventing someone from saying "baa baa black sheep", so calm yourself.

Since you ask then yes
The First was a European war with the big help of the Anzac's and Canadians until the Cavalry arrived in the last 9 months. (eerrmm portuguese ran away at Loose and a brave Indian cemetery not far away) (can I still say Indian)
The Second was a european war until 42 when the Cavalry arrived half way through that one.

This is not off topic as I am trying to explain how Duffield could so easily let something slip. A thing that was a common saying with a meaning far different to when it originated and before you and your PC Police stop it then "A Needle in a Haystack" would have a similar meaning and nothing to do with race.
Certainly not the implication that you people have put on it and a slip of the tongue when he was not concentrating on the "Thought Police".
He does not condone the statement and nor do I, and I loose my cool when I see such drivel making a mountain out of a mole hill.

Why did I not hear you on your high horse, some 20, 30 or 40 years ago

sylvanus

Some of the unreflectively PC comments on this thread are a lot more upsetting that the careless remark of an elderly man. One of the marks of PC is its obsession with language and its fantical redefinition of "meaning" to suit its own end. "Nigger in the woodpile" is an archaic phrase, seldom now used referring to a hidden or unrecognised aspect of an event:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger_in_the_woodpile

The idea that using the work nigger carelessly means that Duffield is a "racist" is really quite ludicrous. What it reflects is a changing world of acceptable usage which he has not caught up with. I've heard people of both my parents and grandparents generation use it frequently. Duffield is one of the most genial and gentle men imaginable and I'm sure he has some cultural assumptions that would not be comfortable today but that certainly does not make him some sort of bigoted, nasty racist.

I suspect that much of the motivation for this sort of lynch-mob political correctness is that it allows people to indicate their belonging to the "in" group. In that sense many such opinions are not sincerely thought-through reactions but badges of conformity / belonging - rather like wearing t-shirts with slogans - they are not opinions but opinion clothing.

Onr of the most worrying aspects of human behaviour is what Orwell called "group-think' and it still worries me that millions of educated, civilised Germans could have supported Hitler or millions of intellectuals think that Sartre had anything useful to say. The truth is that most people will say what they have to to fit in with the crowd and will willingly attack or bully those that stick out and don't conform.

Try reading this very thoughtful essay - its long but worth it:

http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html

teagar

Firslty, sylvanus, (I'm assuming your post was aimed at me), I have never said Duffield is a "bigoted nasty rasicst", nor did I even imply that. I said that what he said was racist, and I stand by that.

That he has some cultural assumptions which are uncomfortable today is precisely the point. There is a good reason they are uncomfortable. Age is no excuse for ignorance. I would suggest there is no excuse for ignorance period.

I am not even suggesting that Duffield has done anything morally wrong. He may very well be a victim of a different way of thinking that allowed and tolerated discrimination and as such used such language. That does not mean that that way of thinking, and thus the language used to express it, should not be criticised.

The "lynch-mob policital correctness" is, in this case at least, an attempt to iron out these "uncomfortable" cultural assumptions. No-one wants to hear the word nigger. I'm sure you don't either. So ask yourself, why don't you want to hear it? Because it is a derrogatory word which has extremely negative and discriminatory connatations, based on race. You must remember that language frames knowledge, not the other way around. Thus if you use that language you must understand the world in that language. This is basic literary theory.

I am surprised that you consider my point of view not though out. I believe it to be well thought out, and I believe it is heavily influenced by my study of postcolonial theory.

Since we are referring each other to reading, perhaps I should point you towards Robert C. Youngs "Postcolonialism: A very short Introduction".

I believe that language is one of THE fundamental foundations on which knowledge exists. One cannot "know" anything without the language to "know" it. Thus the critical analysis of the language used is crucial to eradicating discirminatory thinking.

This is what I mean when i criticse deejay's use of "us" and "them". By understanding the world in those binary terms, the space is created for discrimination, since the "us" is an exclusive term.

I do not "fit in with the crowd" as you so carefully put it as I think this thread demonstrates.


Though I am of the opinion that those who criticise "political correctness" do so because they feel their ideas are threatened by it, which I believe is in fact the point. Discriminatory thinking and language should be rooted out. That you feel that there are circumstances where discriminatory language can be tolerated, this being a case in point, is telling indeed.

robmanic1

Jeez, you'll be having a go at poor ol' Jade next!

Cycling Dave

Sylvanus, that's a superb post. I hadn't really taken into account the age and generation of the man. My post wasn't against him per se as I do believe him to be a paragon of geneality and decency.

Deejay, where do I begin? We all have family who fought in both world wars (both comprised battles and campaigns in the middle east). The first was absolutely not about free speech. It was about empire and power (I would even dispute that, but that's only because you can't nail down one simple reason for the conflict as the whole of Europe was spoiling for a fight).

The tyranny of political correctness is something which disgusts me as well. But this aint an example of it. He used a terribly insulting word and quite rightly apologised for it. There it should end.

The reason I wasn't on my high horse 20 or 30 years ago? I'm 26, I was maybe on a rocking horse 20 years ago.

Cycling Dave

Deejay, again reading both your posts. I should never have replied. Theyr're quite breathtaking in their ignorance. :roll:

sylvanus

Firslty, sylvanus, (I'm assuming your post was aimed at me),

Not aimed at you at all. There were a number of people on this thread that had the same dramatic over-reaction and I'm sure many others on this forum would agree. The modern mob sees "anti-racism" and "anti-homophobia" as icons of political worship which brook no debate.

You must remember that language frames knowledge, not the other way around. Thus if you use that language you must understand the world in that language. This is basic literary theory.

Basic literary theory is real bilge and I speak as someone who studied it at quite a high-level. Language does not necessarily frame knowledge or the world and words can have utterly different meanings to different people. That bunch of 50s left bank philosophers have really been fully discredited now but are still used to justify the most ludicrous postions and interpretations by fanatics of every hue. Duffield, for instance had no racist intent in the words he used although you and others are happy to read in that meaning. Structuralism, deconstruction and all its associated relativistic waffle are on of the root causes of many modern problems. I'm sorry, I won't be talking up your offer to read up on "Post-Colonialism" or any other trendy "ism" for that matter. Many issues are complex and and require careful thought and analysis, Saddling your mind with the latest trendy analysis to emerge in paperback may not be the answer.

teagar

If you choose to be ignorant to new ideas and approaches to thinking then so be it, but again, that says an awful lot more about you than the ideas.

(Post-colonail theory took off in and around the late '70s with Edward Said's "Orientalism" setting the ball rolling, by the way. Not the '50s as you put).

Though I would like to see you try and explain exactly how knowledge can exist without the language to express it and define it. Then again, by doing that, you would be using language to express it? Oh the conundrum!

iainf72

I like to use Gladwell's method

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom ... _raci.html

So Duffield used a term he shouldn't have but that's about the extent of his crime there. That doesn't change the fact that, while he's nice man and all, his talking over the top of cycling ruins my experience of a race. I don't want to have to shout at the TV when they don't discuss some major part of the action. I'm all for introducing new people to cycling but constantly giving it "ladies and gentlemen these guys train for x hours in the rain" blah blah

Talk about what happening. Give some background to the riders. Talk about if someone looks ropey, what you hear via race radio etc etc.

robmanic1

iainf72 wrote:

I like to use Gladwell's method

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom ... _raci.html

So Duffield used a term he shouldn't have but that's about the extent of his crime there. That doesn't change the fact that, while he's nice man and all, his talking over the top of cycling ruins my experience of a race. I don't want to have to shout at the TV when they don't discuss some major part of the action. I'm all for introducing new people to cycling but constantly giving it "ladies and gentlemen these guys train for x hours in the rain" blah blah

Talk about what happening. Give some background to the riders. Talk about if someone looks ropey, what you hear via race radio etc etc.

Nicely steered back on thread there!

teagar

iainf72 wrote:

I like to use Gladwell's method

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom ... _raci.html
.

I asked to explain how knowledge can exist without language, but nevermind.

If you all choose to ignore certain ideas and theories that's fine, but it doesn't make for good discussion!

I feel I am not being fully understood. I havn't made a comment on Duffield. I was making a comment on the response to Duffield's language.

iainf72

teagar wrote:

I asked to explain how knowledge can exist without language, but nevermind.

If you all choose to ignore certain ideas and theories that's fine, but it doesn't make for good discussion!

I wasn't responding to your question specifically - Hence no quote. It was just a general comment.

teagar

Fair enough.

DaveyL

iainf72 wrote:

I like to use Gladwell's method

http://gladwell.typepad.com/gladwellcom ... _raci.html

That's interesting - I'd have thought, to be consistent, Gladwell's method would have been too look at the particular statement and whatever immediately pops into your head is the right answer!

Chaa006

Cycling Dave wrote:

The word "nigger" was used originally as a derogatory term for a black person

The word is just a corruption of "negro", meaning "dark skinned", and although its use is now severely frowned upon, I can assure you that when my late grandfather said "There's a lovely little nigger nurse who looks after me" when he was in hospital, he was not being in the least derogatory : he really liked the girl, appreciated everything she did for him, and used the word which -- for his generation -- best described her. I had occasion to recount this to a similarly dark-skinned lady just a couple of months ago, and she was neither offended by my use of the word (in context), nor by my grandfather's use of it.

sylvanus

I asked to explain how knowledge can exist without language, but nevermind.

Quite easily - most of our knowledge is non-verbal and based on seeing or doing rather than reading or talking. Think for example about your knowledge of how to steer a bike down a steep twisting mountain road. Most of that knowledge was gained by experience, experiment and observation, rather less by reading or discussion. I'm sure you've observed how words / thoughts can crowd into your head when your start a bike ride stressed. One of the pleasures of riding is feeling the brain relax and that chatter of words disappearing. We now know that only a relatively tiny area of the brain deals with language - the vast bulk deals in far more mysterious matters.

The "Literary Theory" you are supporting was invented by 50s left-bank philosophers like Derrida and Barthes - they're regarded as amusing reading now rather than taken seriously - read more here:

http://www.textetc.com/theory/derrida.html

The French are deeply obsessed by words and their language, imparting an almost mystical value to them. Only in the Gauloise-smoke-filled air of a cafe on the Rives Gauches could such theories be formed. We analytic, empirical anglo-saxons could never be so silly...........

Kléber

... http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ (read a bit of the text and when you give up, scroll to below the footnotes)

disquieting_museeuws

'most of our knowledge is non-verbal and based on seeing or doing rather than reading or talking'

That's how non-verbal animals learn though, (usually better than us in what they do to be fair), but humans have a further dimension & language is probably what sets us apart from animals.

teagar

sylvanus wrote:

I asked to explain how knowledge can exist without language, but nevermind.

Quite easily - most of our knowledge is non-verbal and based on seeing or doing rather than reading or talking. Think for example about your knowledge of how to steer a bike down a steep twisting mountain road. Most of that knowledge was gained by experience, experiment and observation, rather less by reading or discussion. I'm sure you've observed how words / thoughts can crowd into your head when your start a bike ride stressed. One of the pleasures of riding is feeling the brain relax and that chatter of words disappearing. We now know that only a relatively tiny area of the brain deals with language - the vast bulk deals in far more mysterious matters.

The "Literary Theory" you are supporting was invented by 50s left-bank philosophers like Derrida and Barthes - they're regarded as amusing reading now rather than taken seriously - read more here:

http://www.textetc.com/theory/derrida.html

The French are deeply obsessed by words and their language, imparting an almost mystical value to them. Only in the Gauloise-smoke-filled air of a cafe on the Rives Gauches could such theories be formed. We analytic, empirical anglo-saxons could never be so silly...........

Fair enough. I can see how you can "know" how to ride a bike. I would suggest however that this knowledge is subconscience. When I am on the bike I am not constantly thinking about how to keep it balanced etc.


How you can consciencely know anything without language i still would like you to prove. After all, anything you have just described you have through language. All those words in your head is exactly the point. You can't know a table is a table, unless someone points at that thing and says "it's a table". When you hear "table" you understand it's primary function is to have stuff put on it - sometimes to sit around it etc.

When it comes to social identities, such as race, or nationality, or anything like that, you can ONLY know it through language. This is more or less a given now, at least, certainly amongst all world renowed academics that I have come across.

That "they" (whoever "they" is? you are very unspecific in the way you write) are regarding amusing is quite frankly insulting and so far from the truth I had to read that sentance about 3 or 4 times. That you get your information from an internet source that has no academic or critical acclaim (after all, the writer clearly can't find a publisher to publish his work, hence the free internet post), also highlights a weakness in your argument. It is so widely used that it is a given in virtually all academic arts writing, particularly in history and english.

That you even attempt to attribute some horribly stereotyped argument to explain away the "waffle" that literay theory apparantly is (even though it is widely accepted in all current academic study and research) illustrates perfectly why you are so resistant to my criticisms.

They are too close for comfort to you. You do not want to see that the system of knowledge within which you operate can and should be criticised. This is why you do not want to even consider a widely used, extremely powerful literary tool.

The debate against literary theory has long been lost. Even Richard Evan's "in defence of history" (he was the head of history at Cambridge Univeristy at the time of writing) has been widely shown as flawed, not least because Evan's himself appears to use the ideas he attempts to criticise in his writing. It is too difficult not to.

I am now going to stop. I cannot stand the sheer blinded ignorance and deliberate obtusenss. If you want to keep your mind closed and not even attempt to interrogate and converse with the ideas yourself, and instead find some unpublished internet source to support your dated and ignorant views, as well as spuriously create simple lies like "literary theory is widely ridiculed" then so be it. But I cannot have a reasonable discussion with you as a result.

disquieting_museeuws

It's fashionable in certain circles to dismiss Derrida or claim him to be unfathomable, however his ideas on language have a long & well-established heritage going back to the pre-socratics. Personally I find his notions of the deferred & supplemental nature of language (especially) to be fantastically pertinent & useful in making sense of the world. He was also an excellent roadman-sprinter in his youth.*

*I made this bit up.

sylvanus

You can't know a table is a table, unless someone points at that thing and says "it's a table". When you hear "table" you understand it's primary function is to have stuff put on it - sometimes to sit around it etc.

Surely an object like a table has a self-evident use which even the dimmest child pre-langauge can understand. Imagine we all began to find the word table insulting and upsetting, old Duffers being condemned for saying things like "Well he's really put his chips down on the table". Perhaps the socially advanced among us would stop calling it a table and start calling it a "suspension platform". Even so its "tableness" would remain unchanged and its use would be just as self-evident!

Social identities are no different. My dog often embarrasses me by barking at some people when we're walking. Over time I've realised he barks at black faces much more often so plainly in that sense, he is a racist dog. That "racism" though is based upon lack of familiarity and lack of intelligence that something different is not a threat - I can promise you I didn't pass on any racism to him verbally. Language is powerful and needs to be used carefully however it does not define reality completely.

teagar

sylvanus wrote:

You can't know a table is a table, unless someone points at that thing and says "it's a table". When you hear "table" you understand it's primary function is to have stuff put on it - sometimes to sit around it etc.

Surely an object like a table has a self-evident use which even the dimmest child pre-langauge can understand. Imagine we all began to find the word table insulting and upsetting, old Duffers being condemned for saying things like "Well he's really put his chips down on the table". Perhaps the socially advanced among us would stop calling it a table and start calling it a "suspension platform". Even so its "tableness" would remain unchanged and its use would be just as self-evident!

Social identities are no different. My dog often embarrasses me by barking at some people when we're walking. Over time I've realised he barks at black faces much more often so plainly in that sense, he is a racist dog. That "racism" though is based upon lack of familiarity and lack of intelligence that something different is not a threat - I can promise you I didn't pass on any racism to him verbally. Language is powerful and needs to be used carefully however it does not define reality completely.

I would suggest that your dog observes other languages rather than just words. After all, words, sounds, body movements etc are all forms of language. Your dog probably understands "body language" on some level. Given your previous comment on the French, perhaps your dog's behaviour should tell you something.

Your "pre language" child does not exist, because that state cannot exist. Communcation of anything, however it is done, must be done through some form of language, however arbitrary. Nothing can be expressed without using some form of language. Thus, no society, can understand anything without language, since communication on whatever level must occur in order for the understanding to be shared, or else "society" could not know it, since it had not been passed on.

That's why to explain any of these ideas, yours or mine, a form of communcation, a form of language, in this case a collection of symbols ordered in a certain way.

deejay

afx237vi wrote:

It wasn't exactly racist - just an old guy using an old-fashioned phrase that is now deemed unacceptable (and rightly so). He said something about one of the teams "playing n-gger in the woodpile" and had to apologise on air the next day.

This post said it all really and I'm sorry I went OTT but there is so much rubbish being said since maggi thatcher changed the structure of the country and it seems a downhill slope now.
I was asked in a street survey some 15 years ago about the country's prospects and my reply was that, "it won't be long before the only thing left is the "English Language".. I'm done, it's all yours now.

A great Finish to a Tame race today, I thought. (not because he's a UK rider either)

sylvanus

Given your previous comment on the French, perhaps your dog's behaviour should tell you something

The French have many wonderful aspects to their society and thats why I'm married to a Franch woman, spend much of my life there, have four bilingual children and speak perfect French. There are two aspects I don't like in France which are as often is the case the converse face of good thing, a very wordy intellectual culture which often tips into self-parody without ever being aware of its own silliness and the brutish sense of social entitlement by 'les ouvriers'. Its quite possible to love a country and people despite its perceived faults - no country is perfect!

My dog barking at black faces is quite different - its fear of the unfamiliar or unknown. He'll equally bark at flapping tarpaulins or strangers in the dark, whatever their colour. I guess the point I was trying to make is that almost all prejudice or bigotry is based upon fear of the unknown, the outsider and knowledge and contact will erode it over time. I'm doubtful that langauge is as important as the PC movement believes.

Its sad that you are so determined to fit people into boxes and I find it mystifying that prophets of 'tolerance', like you spend much of your time typecasting and vilifying anyone that doesn't agree with you.

liversedge

Whoa. teagar you are in the wrong forum dude. Go over to the epistemology and language philosophy forums.

teagar

sylvanus wrote:

Given your previous comment on the French, perhaps your dog's behaviour should tell you something

The French have many wonderful aspects to their society and thats why I'm married to a Franch woman, spend much of my life there, have four bilingual children and speak perfect French. There are two aspects I don't like in France which are as often is the case the converse face of good thing, a very wordy intellectual culture which often tips into self-parody without ever being aware of its own silliness and the brutish sense of social entitlement by 'les ouvriers'. Its quite possible to love a country and people despite its perceived faults - no country is perfect!

My dog barking at black faces is quite different - its fear of the unfamiliar or unknown. He'll equally bark at flapping tarpaulins or strangers in the dark, whatever their colour. I guess the point I was trying to make is that almost all prejudice or bigotry is based upon fear of the unknown, the outsider and knowledge and contact will erode it over time. I'm doubtful that langauge is as important as the PC movement believes.

Its sad that you are so determined to fit people into boxes and I find it mystifying that prophets of 'tolerance', like you spend much of your time typecasting and vilifying anyone that doesn't agree with you.

Not quite sure who I've typecast as what?


The argument was this:

The response to Duffield's comment was indicitive of what I see as a more fundamental point.

That Duffield's mistake was considered acceptable, or at least, tolerable, given his age and that it was a comment from a different time. I argued that the reason he needed to apologise is exactly because since it has come apparent that the language and thought from that same different time is no longer acceptable. As far as I was concerned, what Duffield said (i.e. not Duffield per say) was rascist, regardless of intenet, motive, aim of the saying or whatever. I think that is something which is just a matter of perspective.

I think someone felt this was indicative of a larger issue that he objected to (DeeJay I believe), because ( i think) he emphathised with Duffield. In that response, he gave reference to "foreigners" coming off banana boats, or something similarly unsubtle. I saw this as another example of a more fundamental problem of discrimination and identity, so i tried to demonstrate the problems with that, given that my area of study at university is currently dealing with those exact issues. I put forward what I think is a post-colonial perspective on that, which was then cast out of hand by Sylvanus, on the grounds that it was "waffle".

Then it just descended into me trying to defend what I have put a good years worth of work into from Sylvanus, which is pretty difficult when the area of study is history and the basic fundamentals are a given, whereas here they arn't! Hence the hefty epistemological/philosophical arguments.


I am guitly of not responding well to nationalistic stereotypes, which i not only find innacurate but symptomatic of what my study has taught me to criticise! I genuinley believe that the identities of race, nations, and gender genuinely cause problems, for reasons I think I made somewhere in the mass of my responses. I feel, along with my fellow course-mates, that such criticism and study is vital to the reduction of intolerance on an intellectual level, and as such, the ideas should be spread.

That's why I argue forcefully and defend my study! I also feel that those who have been given the opportunity to take on new ideas that challenge the existing intellectual status quo should do so, or else are guilty of deliberate ignorance, of which there is no excuse.

I don't believe I am intolerant and I do not believe that I have attempted to type cast anyone. I took a couple swipes at Sylvanus and DeeJay, but I don't think that was typecasting? It was just a poor reaction to what I felt were slight affronts. If I have typecast, I would like to see where, because, (perhaps a mistake like Duffield?), I'm not aware that I have. If it is a mistake, then you similarly should be intolerant of it.

I do however believe, in light of my study, that any national characterisation or indeed any national stereotyping is indeed a form of racism, as well as any anti-immgration stance, and will stand firmly by that.



So I guess that's how and why I managed to hijack this thread about Duffield.... Apologies!

sylvanus

To be honest Teagar, you completely lost me with that... Perhaps if you got out on your bike more and enjoyed life a bit - it does seem as though you're taking these issues a mite too seriously and academics are always at risk of getting too caught up in life or their studies. I don't mean that to be condescending since I'm sure your a nice guy but these posts are beginning to sound a bit obsessive!

teagar

sylvanus wrote:

To be honest Teagar, you completely lost me with that... Perhaps if you got out on your bike more and enjoyed life a bit - it does seem as though you're taking these issues a mite too seriously and academics are always at risk of getting too caught up in life or their studies. I don't mean that to be condescending since I'm sure your a nice guy but these posts are beginning to sound a bit obsessive!

aw, that's no fair. You go neckdeep into an argument with me and acuse me of taking it all too seriously? Pot calling the kettle black? :?