First Crash folks, serious leasons learned

skinson

Actually there is only one race on this planet..........................THE HUMAN RACE!!!
Dave

Limburger

[quoteIf the guy had mentioned that he'd crashed into an Indian bloke then I don't think there would have been the reaction to the OP.

However I'll just pop in the OP's original sentence

"Bugger me, the other guy never once asked me if i was all right ( an indian btw)"

It's the inclusion of 'By the way' which carries some sort of insinuation[/quote]

Still isn't an automatic trip to the Nuremburg trial though is it.

I read: The Indian guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK.

You read: The guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK because he was Indian.

That's not what he wrote. English is a complicated language and is open to interpretation. You choose to interpret what was written as a slight against all Indian people (Or people from the Indian subcontinent).
That says more about the people reading the sentence than the person who wrote it.

The OP may very well be a goose stepping fully signed up White Wolves skull crusher. Who knows. You cant assume that from what was written.

afx237vi

But why include it in the first place? Would he have said "he had red hair, btw" or "he was wearing glasses, btw". The OP obviously thought the guy's ethnicity was an important aspect of the story, otherwise it wouldn't have entered his mind to include it.

Limburger

skinson wrote:

Actually there is only one race on this planet..........................THE HUMAN RACE!!!
Dave

OK! Yes I agree totally from a philosophical standpoint.

Scientifically you can carve it up many different ways.

Politically it seams every country, or even region within a country, has somehow gained status as an individual race. I see it as carrying a stick with which to beat your opponents.
What comeback do you have to being called a racist? It belittles your own standing if you can't win an argument though intelligence alone that you have to resort to childish name calling.

Limburger

afx237vi wrote:

But why include it in the first place? Would he have said "he had red hair, btw" or "he was wearing glasses, btw". The OP obviously thought the guy's ethnicity was an important aspect of the story, otherwise it wouldn't have entered his mind to include it.

It entered your mind. You cant second guess what the OP was thinking when typing.

Perhaps their storytelling skills are not as clear as they could be. Perhaps its Enoch Powel. Who knows?

Chip \'oyler

I read: The Indian guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK.

You read: The guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK because he was Indian.

That's not what he wrote. English is a complicated language and is open to interpretation. You choose to interpret what was written as a slight against all Indian people (Or people from the Indian subcontinent).
That says more about the people reading the sentence than the person who wrote it.

As you've mentioned, you've read it one way, a fair few other people on here have read it another way. Fair enough, I wouldn't have bothered replying - But then you've backed that up (in italics) by saying you're right.

:roll:

afx237vi

Limburger wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

But why include it in the first place? Would he have said "he had red hair, btw" or "he was wearing glasses, btw". The OP obviously thought the guy's ethnicity was an important aspect of the story, otherwise it wouldn't have entered his mind to include it.

It entered your mind. You cant second guess what the OP was thinking when typing.

Perhaps their storytelling skills are not as clear as they could be. Perhaps its Enoch Powel. Who knows?

It entered my mind because it stuck out like a sore thumb in an otherwise mundane story. Something like that is clearly going to provoke a few comments. And no, we can't second guess what the OP really means, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people asking him to clarify what he meant.

afcbian

thejesusandsedischain wrote:

well at least i now know to avoid the c2c route near my house unless i wont to be mowed down by somebody who having never ridden disk brakes didnt think to check them out before a ride and cant fit his helmet over his KKK head gear.

Class

Limburger

afx237vi wrote:

Limburger wrote:

afx237vi wrote:

But why include it in the first place? Would he have said "he had red hair, btw" or "he was wearing glasses, btw". The OP obviously thought the guy's ethnicity was an important aspect of the story, otherwise it wouldn't have entered his mind to include it.

It entered your mind. You cant second guess what the OP was thinking when typing.

Perhaps their storytelling skills are not as clear as they could be. Perhaps its Enoch Powel. Who knows?

It entered my mind because it stuck out like a sore thumb in an otherwise mundane story. Something like that is clearly going to provoke a few comments. And no, we can't second guess what the OP really means, but I don't think there's anything wrong with people asking him to clarify what he meant.

To you its stuck out like a sore thumb. I didn't even notice it until I scrolled a bit and all hell had broken loose and the guy had gone from crashing to being a shit inexperienced cyclist who is a KKK grand wizard.

Also, after being labelled a racist there is no recourse. What could anyone possibly say that would change anyones mind. You can only day 'I am not a racist' but who is going to accept that after they have already made up their mind.

Anonymous

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Interesting how everyone has picked this up as a racist statement. I have sneaking suspicion that most of those who object are from the south of England.

Be honest, if the statement had said " a Scotsman"....how many would have picked it out and complained?

I hear nouns being used as adjectives (I think that's correct, been over 35 years since I was at school) all the time. It sometimes irritates me because I call it the "WTF has that got to do with it?" syndrome and the answer usually is "well I'm trying to explain".

Maybe I'm being a bit hypersensitive to a fellow Geordie, but many of the statements leaves a bad taste of Culturism (against the way a person speaks), never mind racism.

I like forums, usenet etc. Most of the discussions are great, but every so often I see people jumping on a crusade bandwagon and being more bigoted then the offending article. One of the main things about forums is that sometimes you write the way you speak and that can look strange to anothers eyes. As the vast majority of those reading this article are south of the Leeds - Manchester line, a Geordie writing the way he speaks is going to read very different.

Also interesting to note, that the original poster might still be in shock after a bad crash, yet, nobody has mentioned that. If you've ever been in an accident you'll soon understand the systems of shock by the babbling. He was viewing the accident through his eyes and "telling the truth" as he saw it. If this is again true, then many of the previous posts were indeed bigoted reponses.


Interesting to see who shouts at me for speaking my mind.

Is ignorance catching ? I'm Scottish and live in kent, your poor generalisation about the south of England is numbingly dim and narrow minded. Was he still in shock when he posted ? Or was he still in shock when he relaxed and reflected about it and still held true to his first racist comment ? The only bad taste of culturism of the way a person speaks is what he TYPED, as far as I know typing has no accent, localised language or inflected vocal stylisation.
Shameful.

Anonymous

Dazzza wrote:

My you roadies are a cheerful bunch.

This is nothing matey, sell your iron knobbly horse and joion the dark side.

John C.

Flanker37 wrote:

Just spent 4 hours in A&E

my cousin came up for a week, and looking for things to do i suggested a bike ride. I put her on my £1000 touring bike, whilst i rode my new 2 week old Carrera Vengeance Disc Ltd. I thought i would take on a nice easy flat(ish) ride along the Tyne River. Its a proper marked cycle route. Well half way into my journey past wallsend ship yards, there is a nice long downhill stretch. I decided to freewheel down it, I got so far down when i noticed a cyclist coming up the hill.

I went left, he went right. So we were both on the same side of the path, and i was doing between 10-15mph when i locked both disk brakes up. The entire path was covered in wet leaves, and i just skidded toward him without stopping. i turned the bars to my right to try and get clear of him, but my hands were still clinging onto the brakes for dear life.

I lost the bike from then on, and smashed into this bloke with my bike almost over on its right side, i went under, him & his bike went over me, and i don't know how i managed it, but i went skull first into the muddy shoot/leaf soup on the ground.

I instantly jumped up to ask him if he was all right. And all i saw was a nice steady stream of red flowing off the end of my beak and all over my right eye.

And i said to my cousin, that cant be good, and she said, nope i can see bone.

Bugger me, the other guy never once asked me if i was all right ( an indian btw)

Ambulance had a bugger finding me too, luckily all the other guy got was a slight grazed arm, and his chain come off.

Me on the other hand, my new Oakley polarised half jackets are knackered. frames ok but lenses aren't. My left/rear brake handle is hanging off, and my front wheel is badly buckled. At least the ambulance were nice enough to let me put it in back and take it to hospital.

And i still had to ride it 7 miles home when i came out of A&E with 7 stitches above my right eye, nice cut on my arm, and 2 nice grazes top & bottom of right thigh.

And the lessons learned from this

when i am riding on the road, and going to work i ALWAYS were a cycle helmet.

today though, because i was mostly on a flat cycle path i decided to leave it at home.

Thats one mistake i will not make again

Just a thought, sounds like a simalar crash to mine with simalar visit to James Cook Hospital and the plastic surgion. So were you wearing you glasses inside or outside your helmet straps ? Mine were inside, the pros wear theirs outside so when they crash the glasses can come off. Having said that looking at the lens, they saved my eye and the dint on the helmet by the temple may have saved my life.

Anonymous

Limburger wrote:

[quoteIf the guy had mentioned that he'd crashed into an Indian bloke then I don't think there would have been the reaction to the OP.

However I'll just pop in the OP's original sentence

"Bugger me, the other guy never once asked me if i was all right ( an indian btw)"

It's the inclusion of 'By the way' which carries some sort of insinuation

Still isn't an automatic trip to the Nuremburg trial though is it.

I read: The Indian guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK.

You read: The guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK because he was Indian.

That's not what he wrote. English is a complicated language and is open to interpretation. You choose to interpret what was written as a slight against all Indian people (Or people from the Indian subcontinent).
That says more about the people reading the sentence than the person who wrote it.

The OP may very well be a goose stepping fully signed up White Wolves skull crusher. Who knows. You cant assume that from what was written.[/quote]

You should know better where this sort of institutionalisd racism gets you, go read Anne Frank you ignoramus.

shouldbeinbed

Buckled_Rims wrote:

Interesting how everyone has picked this up as a racist statement. I have sneaking suspicion that most of those who object are from the south of England.

not to flame particularly but to correct this rather random assumption.

From Newcastle and living in Manchester. I gave the guy the benefit of the doubt in my first post on this with the Indian thing but his subsequent postings do seem to be implying that the guy has stood there dopey because he's Iindian. There doesn't seem to be any recognition of the fact that he'd been taken out entirely innocently and might well have smacked his head off the ground to explain his lack of interest in interacting with the dope thats just totalled him.

feel free to take this as justification of your last patronising statement if it makes you feel happy.

cedargreen

This is why I don't like riding along cycle paths- a lethal combination of inexperienced riders behaving unpredictably (eg not passing on the left) and 'experienced' riders blasting along at high speed with no regard to conditions/ other users. And now it looks like they might be racists too.

I like the way the OP says that next time he'll wear a helmet as if that will somehow ensure that he rides according to his abilities and the prevailing conditions.

The other guy was probably in shock after seeing a cyclist flying downhill towards him, wheels locked on a collision course.

John C.

How remis I just read the article and replied about an accident that had happened. I don't look for racism .

Limburger

dmclite wrote:

Limburger wrote:

[quoteIf the guy had mentioned that he'd crashed into an Indian bloke then I don't think there would have been the reaction to the OP.

However I'll just pop in the OP's original sentence

"Bugger me, the other guy never once asked me if i was all right ( an indian btw)"

It's the inclusion of 'By the way' which carries some sort of insinuation

Still isn't an automatic trip to the Nuremburg trial though is it.

I read: The Indian guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK.

You read: The guy I crashed into never once asked me if I was OK because he was Indian.

That's not what he wrote. English is a complicated language and is open to interpretation. You choose to interpret what was written as a slight against all Indian people (Or people from the Indian subcontinent).
That says more about the people reading the sentence than the person who wrote it.

The OP may very well be a goose stepping fully signed up White Wolves skull crusher. Who knows. You cant assume that from what was written.

You should know better where this sort of institutionalisd racism gets you, go read Anne Frank you ignoramus.[/quote]

WTF how is that even relevant to what I wrote.

I assume you mean institutional racism because what you wrote is a) not a word b) not I term I have ever come across.
Institutional racism is when an INSTITUTION is racist. For example when the Met Police were accused of institutional racism after the murder of Stephen Lawrence.
Perhaps engrained racism, entrenched racism or something of that ilk.

I have read Anne Franks Diary. I have visited the house where she hid in Amsterdam as well.

I think you miss my point, or don't understand it.

Limburger

John C. wrote:

How remis I just read the article and replied about an accident that had happened. I don't look for racism .

Me neither.

Anonymous

Institutional racism is when an INSTITUTION is racist. For example when the Met Police were accused of institutional racism after the murder of Stephen Lawrence


If I may correct your misinformed understanding.

Definition: The term "institutional racism" describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Getting back to the point of the OP, I can't believe a number of people are defending his comments.Shameful.

Limburger

dmclite wrote:

Institutional racism is when an INSTITUTION is racist. For example when the Met Police were accused of institutional racism after the murder of Stephen Lawrence


If I may correct your misinformed understanding.

Definition: The term "institutional racism" describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Getting back to the point of the OP, I can't believe a number of people are defending his comments.Shameful.

You may not, because you are wrong. Just did a quick search and looked at 8 definitions - none of which matched yours.

I think the BBC site has 3 nice ones.
"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
The Macpherson report
"Institutional racism is that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions - reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn."
A. Sivanandan, Director, Institute of Race Relations

"If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or practices, that institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaning those practices have racial intentions."
The Commission for Racial Equality

Anonymous

Limburger wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Institutional racism is when an INSTITUTION is racist. For example when the Met Police were accused of institutional racism after the murder of Stephen Lawrence


If I may correct your misinformed understanding.

Definition: The term "institutional racism" describes societal patterns that have the net effect of imposing oppressive or otherwise negative conditions against identifiable groups on the basis of race or ethnicity.

Getting back to the point of the OP, I can't believe a number of people are defending his comments.Shameful.

You may not, because you are wrong. Just did a quick search and looked at 8 definitions - none of which matched yours.

I think the BBC site has 3 nice ones.
"The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people."
The Macpherson report
"Institutional racism is that which, covertly or overtly, resides in the policies, procedures, operations and culture of public or private institutions - reinforcing individual prejudices and being reinforced by them in turn."
A. Sivanandan, Director, Institute of Race Relations

"If racist consequences accrue to institutional laws, customs or practices, that institution is racist whether or not the individuals maintaning those practices have racial intentions."
The Commission for Racial Equality

Good to see you are defending racism, right wing Netherlander, nice. Can't see why you are so keen to defend a racist slur on this forum, why are you so Keen ?

zanes

Yes, we all see how racist you lot aren't. :roll:

My view on it is, although the comment wasn't particularly necessary it wasn't exactly headline news. I suspect it was a heat of the moment thing, shock and generally feeling a bit sh*te.

Anonymous

zanes wrote:

Yes, we all see how racist you lot aren't. :roll:

My view on it is, although the comment wasn't particularly necessary it wasn't exactly headline news. I suspect it was a heat of the moment thing, shock and generally feeling a bit sh*te.

Constructive :roll:

teagar

Limburger wrote:

Also an English lesson for you.
Indian is not a race, its a nationality. Therefore the worst thing you could do is be xenophobic by making derogatory remarks based on someone being Indian.
There are only 5 races of human beings on the planet.
Caucasian includes English, the rest of Europe AND the Indian subcontinent. (Classically speaking, obviously migration buggers all that up).

Get out of that one.

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

lul.

volvicspar

Wasn't there some research recent;y that proved that we are all racist from the day we are born. ? I see nothing wrong with his comments, whoever commented about if he had been a Scotsman was spot on. Certainly it would not have been racist if he had said "he was British BTW". Too sensitive these days.

zanes

volvicspar wrote:

Certainly it would not have been racist if he had said "he was British BTW". Too sensitive these days.

Yeah, but that would have been "different", wouldn't it DMC?

mask of sanity

Having been to India I can kind of understand why he points it out. People from different places react differently to certain circumstances. Maybe the way it was phrased left it open to be misinterpreted but it doesn’t make him a racist! ‘Racist’ is such an overused word!

teagar

I've said it once before.

Language defines the way in which you understand the world.

Language is more than the literal meaning, but also its implications, its social connotations etc.

It's a nice example of it. His language reveals a subconcious, probably unwilling assumption that the OP has made.

Hey Johnfinch, if you're reading this - this remind you only any literary theory arguments? I know it reminds me!

Anonymous

zanes wrote:

volvicspar wrote:

Certainly it would not have been racist if he had said "he was British BTW". Too sensitive these days.

Yeah, but that would have been "different", wouldn't it DMC?

Any racism is abhorrent to me. being Scottish and living in England gives you perspective. Have you travelled Zanes, been part of different communities, I base my views on 26 years of travelling the world, how about you ?

teagar

volvicspar wrote:

Wasn't there some research recent;y that proved that we are all racist from the day we are born. ? I see nothing wrong with his comments, whoever commented about if he had been a Scotsman was spot on. Certainly it would not have been racist if he had said "he was British BTW". Too sensitive these days.

That's because caucasian UK citizens have never been subjected to domination and descrimination on the basis of race.

They were the oppressors in the history of racism.

The balance is still not correct - inherrent and structual racism still exists, working against cultural and ethnic minorities, so you must over-correct to make it genuinely fair.