Does this warrant this level of criticism
Comments
-
So the only person I've seen cause racial offence is you by perceiving a racial difference based wholly on people's responses.nathancom wrote:
If the offence is based upon perceived racial differences then it is racial offence.Pross wrote:nathancom wrote:It isn't surprising that the majority of you don't find this offensive, from your comments you are not black.
Who says people don't find it offensive? There's a difference between being offensive and being racist - refer to the definitions I posted above. By classing anything that could be deemed offensive as being 'racist' it undermines the true meaning of racism.0 -
Have fun being offended then. And being an arse at the same time.0
-
umm he is claiming i caused racial offence, to quote "So the only person I've seen cause racial offence is you by perceiving a racial difference based wholly on people's responses."Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?
If he wants to see racial offence there he can go ahead and be offended is what I am saying. Is that clearer?0 -
nathancom wrote:It isn't surprising that the majority of you don't find this offensive, from your comments you are not black. As the excellent post above states, centuries of dehumanised portrayals of black people leave little room for the inoffensive application of face paint.
I don't think you would find it particularly funny if you lived in a predominately African country that had a history of enslavement, disenfranchisement, vicious and prevalent racism towards white people and then saw black people dressing up as white people as a joke, laughing and getting drunk. You might even find it threatening and demeaning.
This has been going on for centuries, back to medieval carnivals and whilst it is on the surface entirely harmless, there is an insidious connotation of the black man with drunkenness and uncontrolled revelry that really should be disavowed today. Why is this any better than the Tories dressing up as Nazis at stag parties?
There has been slavery of all colours of people. Before Africans worked the plantations in America white bonded labour was used from places like Britain. 2million Russians are meant to have been sold into slavery by the Crimean Tartars. The slave trade was not and never has been purely about white people enslaving black so history only supports your point if you are fairly selective about what history you choose.
As for dressing as Nazis, when I was a kid lampooning Nazis by dressing as them was seen for what it was, comedy which if anything reinforced how pathetic they were. I never realised Dads Army was actually part of a plot to rehabilitate Nazism.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
DeVlaeminck wrote:nathancom wrote:It isn't surprising that the majority of you don't find this offensive, from your comments you are not black. As the excellent post above states, centuries of dehumanised portrayals of black people leave little room for the inoffensive application of face paint.
I don't think you would find it particularly funny if you lived in a predominately African country that had a history of enslavement, disenfranchisement, vicious and prevalent racism towards white people and then saw black people dressing up as white people as a joke, laughing and getting drunk. You might even find it threatening and demeaning.
This has been going on for centuries, back to medieval carnivals and whilst it is on the surface entirely harmless, there is an insidious connotation of the black man with drunkenness and uncontrolled revelry that really should be disavowed today. Why is this any better than the Tories dressing up as Nazis at stag parties?
There has been slavery of all colours of people. Before Africans worked the plantations in America white bonded labour was used from places like Britain. 2million Russians are meant to have been sold into slavery by the Crimean Tartars. The slave trade was not and never has been purely about white people enslaving black so history only supports your point if you are fairly selective about what history you choose.
As for dressing as Nazis, when I was a kid lampooning Nazis by dressing as them was seen for what it was, comedy which if anything reinforced how pathetic they were. I never realised Dads Army was actually part of a plot to rehabilitate Nazism.
As apparently was Freddie Starr.
0 -
I'm guessing they don't like the hypocrisy of their viewpoint being pointed out to them and so resort to personal insults,which is a shame. Good thing I'm not easily offended 8)Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?0 -
No you were just one of those telling the world that this kind of thing is fine when it really isn't and isn't up to you to decide. Have fun Alf Garnett.BillyMansell wrote:
I'm guessing they don't like the hypocrisy of their viewpoint being pointed out to them and so resort to personal insults,which is a shame. Good thing I'm not easily offended 8)Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?0 -
Oh dear, there you go again believing you know what other people think which was the silly attitude that got you into this trouble in the first place.nathancom wrote:
No you were just one of those telling the world that this kind of thing is fine when it really isn't and isn't up to you to decide. Have fun Alf Garnett.BillyMansell wrote:
I'm guessing they don't like the hypocrisy of their viewpoint being pointed out to them and so resort to personal insults,which is a shame. Good thing I'm not easily offended 8)Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?
Also, your reference to Alf Garnett yet again shows your ignorance of history as Warren Mitchell played him to mock racists.0 -
Alf Garnett and Warren Mitchell are not the same. Alf Garnett is a racist character whatever Warren Mitchell's intentions in portraying that character. That is why I referenced Alf Garnett and not Warren MitchellBillyMansell wrote:
Oh dear, there you go again believing you know what other people think which was the silly attitude that got you into this trouble in the first place.nathancom wrote:
No you were just one of those telling the world that this kind of thing is fine when it really isn't and isn't up to you to decide. Have fun Alf Garnett.BillyMansell wrote:
I'm guessing they don't like the hypocrisy of their viewpoint being pointed out to them and so resort to personal insults,which is a shame. Good thing I'm not easily offended 8)Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?
Also, your reference to Alf Garnett yet again shows your ignorance of history as Warren Mitchell played him to mock racists.
who himself is part of an ethnic minority.
You already nailed your colours to your mast when you played the 'this is pc gone mad' line on the first page of the thread. I simply don't think you are in the position to make those judgements unless you are personally affected by the portrayals, which you are clearly not as can be inferred from your original post.0 -
nathancom wrote:
Alf Garnett and Warren Mitchell are not the same. Alf Garnett is a racist character whatever Warren Mitchell's intentions in portraying that character. That is why I referenced Alf Garnett and not Warren MitchellBillyMansell wrote:
Oh dear, there you go again believing you know what other people think which was the silly attitude that got you into this trouble in the first place.nathancom wrote:
No you were just one of those telling the world that this kind of thing is fine when it really isn't and isn't up to you to decide. Have fun Alf Garnett.BillyMansell wrote:
I'm guessing they don't like the hypocrisy of their viewpoint being pointed out to them and so resort to personal insults,which is a shame. Good thing I'm not easily offended 8)Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?
Also, your reference to Alf Garnett yet again shows your ignorance of history as Warren Mitchell played him to mock racists. who himself is part of an ethnic minority.
You already nailed your colours to your mast when you played the 'this is pc gone mad' line on the first page of the thread. I simply don't think you are in the position to make those judgements unless you are personally affected by the portrayals, which you are clearly not as can be inferred from your original post.
Johnny Speight wrote 'Til death us do part with the racist main character Alf Garnett. As I recall Garnett's attitudes were always held up to ridicule by the other characters in the series.0 -
Well I didn't reference "billymansell" as Alf Garnett to suggest he was a thoroughly good egg.0
-
And once again you're prejudice is leading you to make assumptions up about people and to make up what people have said to fit your own agenda.nathancom wrote:
Alf Garnett and Warren Mitchell are not the same. Alf Garnett is a racist character whatever Warren Mitchell's intentions in portraying that character. That is why I referenced Alf Garnett and not Warren MitchellBillyMansell wrote:
Oh dear, there you go again believing you know what other people think which was the silly attitude that got you into this trouble in the first place.nathancom wrote:
No you were just one of those telling the world that this kind of thing is fine when it really isn't and isn't up to you to decide. Have fun Alf Garnett.BillyMansell wrote:
I'm guessing they don't like the hypocrisy of their viewpoint being pointed out to them and so resort to personal insults,which is a shame. Good thing I'm not easily offended 8)Ai_1 wrote:
I'm completely at a loss to understand this remark with reference to the preceding posts.nathancom wrote:Have fun being offended then. And being an ars* at the same time.
What are you talking about?
Also, your reference to Alf Garnett yet again shows your ignorance of history as Warren Mitchell played him to mock racists. who himself is part of an ethnic minority.
You already nailed your colours to your mast when you played the 'this is pc gone mad' line on the first page of the thread. I simply don't think you are in the position to make those judgements unless you are personally affected by the portrayals, which you are clearly not as can be inferred from your original post.
I could do this forever but to save time is there anything you could say which isn't strongly flavoured by your prejudice?0 -
I'm not sure if I could agree with you any less.nathancom wrote:......I simply don't think you are in the position to make those judgements unless you are personally affected by the portrayals.....
You're essentially saying all judgements must be subjective or they're invalid.
Utter nonsense.0 -
Judgements about what is or isn't offensive are entirely subjective, clearly, and your opinion as to what constitutes racial offence has little weight compared to those who might be offended. Anyway blacking up is clearly offensive when viewed from the perspective of centuries of dehumanising representations of ethnic minorities in Western culture.Ai_1 wrote:
I'm not sure if I could agree with you any less.nathancom wrote:......I simply don't think you are in the position to make those judgements unless you are personally affected by the portrayals.....
You're essentially saying all judgements must be subjective or they're invalid.
Utter nonsense.0 -
cyd190468 wrote:So does this mean that as I'm a "honky" I have to go to fancy dress parties dressed as someone who is white? That could be very limitting. What if the theme is "your favourite NBA player". I'd have to go as Bogut
Take it to extreme (which is where it appears we are heading) and the only politically correct fancy dress costume is yourself!Faster than a tent.......0 -
Yes, I think I was the one who first mentioned in this thread that it was the history of mockery by wearing face paint that made it potentially offensive. I don't need to be of the race that was mocked to understand it. The offense is most often subjective but judgement of offensiveness or intent to offend is not.nathancom wrote:
Judgements about what is or isn't offensive are entirely subjective, clearly, and your opinion as to what constitutes racial offence has little weight compared to those who might be offended. Anyway blacking up is clearly offensive when viewed from the perspective of centuries of dehumanising representations of ethnic minorities in Western culture.Ai_1 wrote:
I'm not sure if I could agree with you any less.nathancom wrote:......I simply don't think you are in the position to make those judgements unless you are personally affected by the portrayals.....
You're essentially saying all judgements must be subjective or they're invalid.
Utter nonsense.
If what you suggest were true we'd really be screwed. People without any ability to empathise? Not a pleasant thought!
If you extend your contention the logical conclusion is that racism, sexism and every other prejudice is inevitable since we don't know that what we're doing to someone of a different social, political, racial, religious or other group is wrong.
No, I definitely couldn't disagree with you more.
I'm offended by plenty of things that don't effect me personally except by association with the species involved.
I understand why plenty things are offensive despite not beimg the subject of that offense.
I find it somewhat offensive that you would dare tell me I'm not qualified to determine what is or is not offensive because of my race. I don't think you intended to offend but I hope you'll take my comments on board and reconsider your views. Racism is not about recognising the colour of someone's skin. It's about permitting yourself to accept preconceptions based on that colour instead of judging them based on their words and actions.
By those standards you are on shaky ground I think.0 -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -hits.html
It would seem that Michael Bates wearing make up is sufficient for the BBC refusing to repeat 'It ain't half hot Mum' on the grounds of racism.
Quite an interesting article by the creator, Jimmy Perry. I never thought the show that funny, but he explains the background and the genesis of the characters in the show.
As I say, I never thought the show that good, but I don't think it should be banned because it is set in a n era, where nowadays we find the ideas and language embarrassing.0 -
Ballysmate wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583111/It-aint-half-daft-BBC-ban-racist-Dads-Army-creator-JIMMY-PERRY-BBCs-refusal-repeats-greatest-hits.html
It would seem that Michael Bates wearing make up is sufficient for the BBC refusing to repeat 'It ain't half hot Mum' on the grounds of racism.
Quite an interesting article by the creator, Jimmy Perry. I never thought the show that funny, but he explains the background and the genesis of the characters in the show.
As I say, I never thought the show that good, but I don't think it should be banned because it is set in a n era, where nowadays we find the ideas and language embarrassing.
I thought it had been on within the last ten years or so? Anyway, I'd like to see some of it again - I enjoyed it as an undemanding child and it is worth remembering that whilst there are some truly classic episodes of Dads Army, there are also loads that we have forgotten which are pretty terrible. I daresay the same applies to IAHHM.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Ballysmate wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583111/It-aint-half-daft-BBC-ban-racist-Dads-Army-creator-JIMMY-PERRY-BBCs-refusal-repeats-greatest-hits.html
It would seem that Michael Bates wearing make up is sufficient for the BBC refusing to repeat 'It ain't half hot Mum' on the grounds of racism.
Quite an interesting article by the creator, Jimmy Perry. I never thought the show that funny, but he explains the background and the genesis of the characters in the show.
As I say, I never thought the show that good, but I don't think it should be banned because it is set in a n era, where nowadays we find the ideas and language embarrassing.
Don't suppose the beeb will be in a hurry to show Till Death Us Do Part again either
"Arran, you are like the Tony Benn of smut. You have never diluted your depravity and always stand by your beliefs. You have my respect sir and your wife my pity"
seanoconn0 -
arran77 wrote:Ballysmate wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2583111/It-aint-half-daft-BBC-ban-racist-Dads-Army-creator-JIMMY-PERRY-BBCs-refusal-repeats-greatest-hits.html
It would seem that Michael Bates wearing make up is sufficient for the BBC refusing to repeat 'It ain't half hot Mum' on the grounds of racism.
Quite an interesting article by the creator, Jimmy Perry. I never thought the show that funny, but he explains the background and the genesis of the characters in the show.
As I say, I never thought the show that good, but I don't think it should be banned because it is set in a n era, where nowadays we find the ideas and language embarrassing.
Don't suppose the beeb will be in a hurry to show Till Death Us Do Part again either
Love thy neighbour.0 -
There's no mention of an actual ban, though, is there?
He's made assumptions that's why it isn't being repeated, and then blamed other people for the thing he's just made up. I'm sure we could quite easily list any number of shows not being repeated with some spurious reasoning for it, but absent evidence of an actual proactive ban, it'd just be bitter whining.
Also, if the Beeb have banned these shows, which would apparently would be wildly popular and find an audience, one wonders why none of the commercial/semi-commercial nostalgia repeat channels haven't picked them up. Could it be that rather than being racist, it's just a bit pony, and if one really wanted to see it, there's always the box set. Which the BBC, who allegedly banned the show, sell.0
