When And Why Is It Racist To Abbreviate A Background .

[harvey19 541]

Just now, Mister M said:

As an indigenous white Christian, I take my cue from the people that I know, none of whom would find it acceptable to be  known as and referred to by their background, especially in an offensive manner.

I think the cricketer in this case, who is from Pakistan has also let it be known he doesn't appreciate being called the p word.

I understand the cricketer has been awarded a financial settlement.

Why is it necessary to do this when measures are being taken against the club ?

3 minutes ago, Mister M said:

As an indigenous white Christian, I take my cue from the people that I know from BME backgrounds, none of whom would find it acceptable to be  known as and referred to by their background, especially in an offensive manner.

I think the cricketer in this case, who is from Pakistan has also let it be known he doesn't appreciate being called the p word.

I'd say both.

Why racist ?

[tinfoilhat 11]

2 hours ago, crookesey said:

Just another personal take on this debate. This thread appears to be mainly based on a majority of indigenous white Christians telling other indigenous white Christians how a minority of  Pakistanis Muslims wish, or more to the point wish not to be addressed by others.

 

I know how me and mine address them, however I have zero knowledgeable of how they wish to be addressed. Where I can help is firstly in respect of Jews, I literally know dozens and to a man or woman they class themselves as being British and wish to be addressed as such. However the Australians that I have known not only wish to be addressed as Aussies, they even address each other as Aussies.

I'd agree with the top bit. If those who can't see what the fuss is ask 10 random Asians if they mind being called a P*** we would have a better idea!

[harvey19 541]

In N. Ireland in some areas Brit B......s out was written on walls and shouted at soldiers during the troubles.

Would this be classed as racist ?

Just now, tinfoilhat said:

I'd agree with the top bit. If those who can't see what the fuss is ask 10 random Asians if they mind being called a P*** we would have a better idea!

I agree it has become offensive but what I would like clarified is why is it classed as racist.

[Mister M 1,632]

7 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

In N. Ireland in some areas Brit B......s out was written on walls and shouted at soldiers during the troubles.

Would this be classed as racist ?

I agree it has become offensive but what I would like clarified is why is it classed as racist.

I think it's classed as racist because it's an example of direct discrimination / Harassment

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination

Edited November 10, 2021 by Mister M

[harvey19 541]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

I think it's classed as racist because it's an example of direct discrimination

https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/race-discrimination

But as I see it, and maybe I am wrong,  shortening a word and. treating a person the same as others  is not racist.

I thought treating people differently because of their race was classed as racist.

[Mister M 1,632]

9 minutes ago, harvey19 said:

But as I see it, and maybe I am wrong,  shortening a word and. treating a person the same as others  is not racist.

I thought treating people differently because of their race was classed as racist.

I suppose it comes down to context. In the example you gave above of British soldiers facing abuse in N. Ireland then that would be harassment - possibly not racist, as being British isn't a race, but based on nationality. 

The P word is usually associated with hate and intended to humiliate, I guess that's why it's treated differently to 'Aussies' or 'Scots'.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that there was a grooming gang who had additional time put on their jail terms for using racist abuse to the white girls they were raping and beating.  So in law white people can be discriminated against

Edited November 10, 2021 by Mister M

[harvey19 541]

1 minute ago, Mister M said:

I suppose it comes down to context. In the example you gave above of British soldiers facing abuse in N. Ireland then that would be harassment - possibly not racist, as being British isn't a race, but based on nationality. 

The P word is usually associated with hate and intended to humiliate, I guess that's why it's treated differently to 'Aussies' or 'Scots'.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm sure that there was a grooming gang who had additional time put on their jail terms for using racist abuse to the white girls they were raping and beating.  

Thank you for a sensible reply. I think context and perception are important and harassment and offence can be caused by certain terms used in certain contexts.

Offensive or insulting behaviour, conduct liable to cause a breach of the peace etc. are covered by legislation.

 

[crookesey 636]

If the earth were visited by inhabitants of the planet Zog and landed on the beautiful island of New Zealand I reckon that that they would be confused by the inhabitants wishing to be named after a flightless bird with hair like feathers a long beak.

[Carbuncle 0]

5 hours ago, crookesey said:

Just another personal take on this debate. This thread appears to be mainly based on a majority of indigenous white Christians telling other indigenous white Christians how a minority of  Pakistanis Muslims wish, or more to the point wish not to be addressed by others.

 

I know how me and mine address them, however I have zero knowledgeable of how they wish to be addressed. Where I can help is firstly in respect of Jews, I literally know dozens and to a man or woman they class themselves as being British and wish to be addressed as such. However the Australians that I have known not only wish to be addressed as Aussies, they even address each other as Aussies.

Oh, ffs. You do not need to have watched lots of Bollywood films, have snacked on curry for breakfast or hopped past the synagogue this morning while reciting Gunga Din to be informed on this issue. Fluency in (the dominant form of British) English is more than sufficient because this is about the meaning of English words. Most English speakers won't have formed their view on the acceptability of calling somebody a P*ki through earnest discussions with acquaintances of Pakistani heritage but through absorbing how others use the language. Maybe once in a while people look things up in a dictionary or discuss usage but it's the exception.

 

Here's an example. I am writing P-*-k-i in my posts rather than talking about the p-word because I feel circumlocution and euphemism hurts clarity. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just have a different view. You had noticed, right? Like all language users, we are aware of others' language usage and either conform or make a conscious choice, for good reasons or bad, to do something slightly different.

 

[crookesey 636]

10 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

Oh, ffs. You do not need to have watched lots of Bollywood films, have snacked on curry for breakfast or hopped past the synagogue this morning while reciting Gunga Din to be informed on this issue. Fluency in (the dominant form of British) English is more than sufficient because this is about the meaning of English words. Most English speakers won't have formed their view on the acceptability of calling somebody a P*ki through earnest discussions with acquaintances of Pakistani heritage but through absorbing how others use the language. Maybe once in a while people look things up in a dictionary or discuss usage but it's the exception.

 

Here's an example. I am writing P-*-k-i in my posts rather than talking about the p-word because I feel circumlocution and euphemism hurts clarity. I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I just have a different view. You had noticed, right? Like all language users, we are aware of others' language usage and either conform or make a conscious choice, for good reasons or bad, to do something slightly different.

 

I trust that you feel better for that. 🤔

[Mister M 1,632]

12 hours ago, crookesey said:

Just another personal take on this debate. This thread appears to be mainly based on a majority of indigenous white Christians telling other indigenous white Christians how a minority of  Pakistanis Muslims wish, or more to the point wish not to be addressed by others.

 

I know how me and mine address them, however I have zero knowledgeable of how they wish to be addressed. Where I can help is firstly in respect of Jews, I literally know dozens and to a man or woman they class themselves as being British and wish to be addressed as such. However the Australians that I have known not only wish to be addressed as Aussies, they even address each other as Aussies.

You say you have 'zero knowledge of how they wished to be addressed', but you must be aware from the news that calling people of other races derogatory names is inflammatory and offensive. 

Think about how you would want yourself or your family to be addressed....and work it out from there 

Edited November 10, 2021 by Mister M

[redruby 280]

I think we should think carefully about making references to peoples background or appearance.  Most of the time no harm is meant by it but it can cause a lot of harm and most of time it’s also completely unnecessary to mention it.

Some years ago a black, female colleague sometimes used to call me ‘Blondie’. Now it didn’t cause me any distress but I did find it very odd.  I am white but not really blonde and remember thinking that if I called a her name making reference to her hair or skin colour I would likely face disciplinary action.

I also know people who get ‘banter’ about being bald/ginger/being very tall or short etc etc and aren’t happy about it but these are still mostly socially acceptable. Comments about weight and age less so nowadays.  We ought to leave this stuff behind in the playground. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of fun and banter but not about personal appearance and background.

Edited November 11, 2021 by redruby