Dartford Ox wrote:
OK - l'll try one last time.
"Joey Barton is a white obnoxious bastard with a habit putting his cigar out in peoples eyes'. That contains both colour and abuse but it is not racist. It is a criticism of the individual - not his ethnicity. The colour white is merely an adjective to assist you in identifying, and avoiding him at Christmas social gatherings.
"Craig Bellamy is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to wrap his 5 iron around his team mates" . That also contains colour and abuse but it is also a criticism of the individual. Not his ethnicity. It is to help you avoid him on the golf course.
"Lee Bowyer is a white obnoxious bastard with a tendency to be - well Lee Bowyer." Knowing that you can avoid him totally. But it is not racist comment.
"El Hadj Diouf is black obnoxious bastard who likes to spit in people's faces". Exactly the same reasoning applies. Black is there to help you identify and avoid him. Once again it is about the individual - not his ethnicity. It is not a racial slur.
In my opinion they are all obnoxious bastards regardless of race.
Please take your blinkers off.
And a last word which should not really be part of this thread but I feel compelled to say it. The last couple of days I have been watching veterans mourning colleagues (both black and white) who lost their lives on the beaches of Normandy. Those lives will have been given in vain if tyranny is allowed to return and Freedom of Speech lost. Loss of freedom of speech means and end to democracy. I believe the consequences of political correctness will be cataclysmic and the most dangerous road of all to follow. I would rather be pushing up daisies than live in a society where freedom of speech is denied for the sake of political correctness.
I have nothing further to say on the matter.
Sir; I politely respect your right to write with such passion on this matter and cite 'freedom of speech' as your defence; but the matter afoot I understand is 'belief' not 'speech', and I wish to make some observations as I think your argument is flawed.
Firstly I don't accept the need to use a skin colour as an identifier 'to avoid someone at a party'; that's just not realistic. In face, you've already included the ultimate identifier in the person's name. If I wanted to avoid said Joey Barton at a party yet didn't know him; I'd simply ask his name. Thus, the skin colour in your statement is pretty redundant. Unless, of course, you intend to use it to make an implication on the strength of it; whatever that may be. I don't know your line of work; but I certainly wouldn't get too far in mine, if I didn't know who my next patient to call in from the waiting room was - to ask the receptionist - "is it the black one or the white one?" I think I'd probably just call their name.
Secondly, you don't (and cannot) know anyone's heritage simply by looking at them. Genetics are a curious thing and you might be surprised to know how many folk identify themselves as either black or white when that may not be the immediate assumption. There was an extremely interesting National Geographic piece about it recently. My point being; you are pigeon-holing and assuming based on a lack of knowledge, and those are dangerous precedents.
There was a hugely topical and polarising case out here in the last year involving a massive media personality, the head of Melbourne's Channel 9 who is somewhat of a narcissist and cannot keep his head out of the spotlight; he hosts radio shows and TV quizzes, not to mention being the president of the biggest club in the parochial and frankly odd AFL. On his radio show one morning, Eddie McGuire was discussing the opening of the King Kong stage musical in the city, and suggested to his co-host that they might invite Adam Goodes, probably the greatest indigenous Australian footballer of modern times, to promote it. Whether or not he realised his gaffe before his co-host (who was aghast) is not recorded; and he certainly apologised. What was clear was that it was supposed to be a witticism, albeit an exceedingly poor one.
But my contention is, that it must bely an inherent racism. It simply must. Because whilst I am not a national media personality as Eddie McGuire is here, I am quite, quite confident that in my heart, if I was hosting a radio show and clutching at straws for a joke on the spur of the moment, I would never, EVER resort to one that relies on the segregation and discrimation of people according to their ethnicity.
I do agree that there is nothing wrong with the use of 'black' as an adjective (and nothing bugs me more than the sloppy, over-PC and often ignorant conception of the phrase 'African American') but also agree with GY that in these examples, you are associating the word 'black' with abuse, and thus on some level you imply it to be derogatory; hence it is utterly unacceptable. I hope I am right in saying that almost all good people would concur.