racism

[erol]

Warning / disclaimer - what follows may well be a 'diatribe' of no interest to anyone, of no value or worth. Proceed with caution


Story 1

My mother voted to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. I voted to remain. We have had many discussions about our respective views and why we made the decision we did, thankfully all without rancour. Now to be clear my mother is not a racist. No one could reasonably consider her such. If anyone were to label her as such I would be angry and defend her as only a son can. So one of the common themes as to why my mother voted leave in 2016 was a 'feeling' or 'sense' that 'we' (the UK) did things 'better' than other countries that made up the EU and thus the idea of returning all decision making back to the UK alone was attractive to her. My mother never described such a 'phenomenon' as a fact or even her 'consider opinion' but in terms like 'a feeling that' of a 'sense that'. So we drilled down a bit to try and see if there was actual evidence that supported or refuted this 'feeling'. We talked about any number of examples of how the UK did things compared to say France or other EU countries and compared and considered how the UK did things before were joined the EEC and after. These 'test examples' ranged far and wide, from things like a sense that 'we' treat animals better' and countless other things besides. Having done all of this I think we came to a 'conclusion' that there really was no 'evidence' that clearly supported the idea or feeling that we do things better than others in any sort of generic way. We certainly do some thing better and had done some things better at some times and in some ways than others but it was also true the we do such worse as well. So the conclusion was that there did not seem to be conclusive clear evidence that we in some kind of generalised sense 'do things better' than others. By extension another 'conclusion' that I came to, that I think my mother could understand as well, is that whilst my mother was in no way 'a racist' could never be fairly called or labelled such, this sense that 'we do things better' , given that we could not find definitive and clear cut evidence to support it, did to some degree or other come from an essentially 'racist' place. Nor was it it difficult to understand how or why someone so clearly not racist as my mother could have such a sense or felling that appeared, on 'analysis' to have come, to some degree from a 'racist place'. My mother was, as a child and through her formative years, essentially taught at school and via other things as well that 'we do things better than others' and that was almost certainly where the 'feeling' she had came from.

Story 2

I am driving with another person in the car with me. As inevitably happens here I encounter a 'traffic jam' being caused by someone having stopped their car on one side of a two way road because that was directly outside the shop they wanted to pop in to. So as we started to approach this car, that had someone in it, as each of the lanes of traffic shuffled in turn around it, I began to lower my window , to express my 'discontent' at the parked cars behaviour, as is my way. As we got nearer it became clear that the guy in the car happened to be 'black'. At which point my passenger , who knows me well and knows what I am like in such situations, said to me 'do not have a go at him just drive on'. This in turn led to a whole discussion as to 'why' I should not have a go at him. My passengers view was that this is a black guy in Cyprus. That he probably does face prejudice on a daily basis based not on his actions but just because of his skin colour. That whilst it was beyond doubt that I was not about to have a go at him because of his skin color but purely because of his own personal actions and choices , that he would almost certainly think that I was having a go because he was black. That by having a go at him, I would in his eyes, just be adding to the daily 'burden' of prejudice that he no doubt does experience being here in Cyprus. That I had a choice as to if I would, in his eyes, add to such a burden or not. Now I could see these 'points' I did not doubt the assertions, that he almost certainly does have to live with prejudice against him based on his 'skin color' on a 'daily basis'. That me having a go at him almost certainly would be perceived by him as an example of that even though it was not. That to 'have a go' would in some sense be choosing to 'add to this burden'. I just disagreed with the 'conclusion' that therefore I should not have a go. My perspective was , I do not care what his color / race is I only care what his personal behaviour is and that I know that should I have a go this is not coming from a 'racist place' and that whilst there was a reality that my having a go would from his perspective be adding to a burden I sincerely believe he should not have to face at all, this was regrettable but not a valid reason to not have a go. What is more my position was / is that to 'not have a go', even though motivated by a desire to not add to the effects racism no doubt has on this person, such a decision to not have a go does itself come from a 'racist' place, in the sense that treating someone differently based on nothing else other than their skin color, even positively, is a form 'racism'. Having discussed all this we did not reach any kind of 'mutual agreement'.

On the remote off chance anyone has actually gotten this far, thank you but I am not 'finished' yet I am afraid. More to come in following posts. I am afraid.

[erol]

The first thing such 'stories' above indicate to me is that this whole issue of what is and who is racist or not racist is a complex one. There is much nuance, much inherent contradiction and other complexities around it all. That the idea of what is an is not racist, is both 'simple' and 'complex' and all at the same time. Thus these are difficult things to get to grips with.

Now there is a view that all this 'soul searching' all this 'worrying' about what or who is or is not racist, is itself pointless and a waste of time and energy on the basis that theses are 'battles that have already been fought and won'. Now in many ways I do not disagree with the proposition that they are battles that have already been fought and won. What I do disagree with is the 'therefore' conclusion that often comes with this, that 'therefore' we can and should just 'kick back' and not worry about such things at all any more and that to continue to worry about them is some form of 'mania'. I do not agree with this idea at all. I think the battle over if we are to be ruled over by dictators or by democratic governments is a battle that has already been fought and won. I do not however therefore think we should just 'kick back' and never consider or worry again or any more of such issues. I think there is a valid and logical view that some things you need to keep 'vigilant' about regardless.

There is also a view that when discussing racism in the UK, because the UK is compared to other countries a lot less racist than many others, we should just 'kick back' and not worry about such things. This I also disagree with. To me it is just a variant of 'two wrongs make a right' argument, that goes along the lines of 'my degree of wrong is so much lesser than others peoples degree of wrong' therefore I should just kick back and not worry about my wrong at all.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I was a keen football follower who used to go every week in the 70s when the NF thought that football grounds would be a great place to spread their poison.
I supported Tottenham who at the time hadn't had a black player within living memory. There were maybe 6-10 black players in the whole league and West Ham had 3 of them.

I remember Stoke visiting for a game and Garth Crooks was their centre-forward. I am ashamed to say he got the full range of monkey chants etc.
To show it worked he played brilliantly and scored.
Now I have no doubt a tiny proportion were giving him the racial abuse because they were bigots but the vast majority was giving him the abuse for the simple and simple minded reason that he was Stoke's best player.
As bad as the abuse he got it was not half as bad as the abuse the short ginger haired Billy Bremner would get.

A year later Tottenham signed Garth Crooks who was instantly loved because he was a great player. There was no positive support because he was black he was judged purely on his ability. That had the knock on effect that the Tottenham supporters realised the hypocrisy of racially abusing an opposition player.
So be under no illusions all the kick racism out of football and the like didn't come along until the problem was pretty much over. At the time when the problem was at it's worst the FA and the government sat on their hands. The people that solved it were the black players making a contribution and proving themselves.

From the 90s onward there was an explosion of black talent in football and occupying 15 to 20 per cent of the professional labour pool through the from perhaps 2 to 3 per cent of the population is an over achievement by anyone’s measure.


Did they do it through positive discrimination or from ability? How would positive discrimination have worked? The club would have put a player in who wasn't good enough because he was black? Would that have put their cause forward or back do you think?

You can't socially engineer these things people have to walk the hard yards on their own. Don't discriminate against them or put hurdles in their way but all black lists etc are a recipe for disaster.

Now football isn't fully there, but the abuse our black players receive when abroad maybe shows that Britain is ahead of the curve.

Football has the problem that the 20 per cent of our black players produce, at best, 4 per cent of our managers.
Now is there a bias against black managers as not being capable?
Maybe.
Could we have all black interview lists? We could but it wouldn't work. We have had too few black managers but the secondary problem is they haven't been very successful when given a chance.

Years ago there weren't any foreign managers and when one was tried he was a disaster. Then an Arsene Wenger comes along proves his ability and now you can count on one hand the amount of British managers in the premiership.

So it will take one black manager to get a chance, be successful, follwed by another and the floodgates will open.

To think they need positive action is patronising all they need is the hurdles to be kicked away, and they have. It is up to them to change people's minds.

[erol]

So following on and given that there is any point at all in worrying about such things, talking about them and the such

There is a view that the label 'racist' has been and is systematically abused by people, almost always with intent, using it to vilify others that they know are not racist, or to shut down arguments they do not like but know are not racist by calling them racist. Again I have no 'dispute' with this 'claim' or view. I think it is a reflection of reality. My problems are all with the 'therefore' conclusions that are often derived from this reality. Therefore the word racism can not be used any more which to me is one tiny step away saying we can not and should not talk about, worry about, racism any more at all. Such 'therefores' scare me. To me the only logical response to the abuse of the word racism, that does not lead to 'can not discuss racism at all', is to try and not do such things myself as much as as I possibly can. To try and get better at spotting and understanding what is and what is not racism. To not label something as racist when it not as well as not just ignore and not challenge something that is racist.

As well recognising the phenomenon above of 'abusing' the term racism I also recognise a 'reverse phenomenon' that is just as bad and problematic to my mind. Namely the attacking and vilifying and shutting down of those who are sincerely trying to identify what really is racism with the accusations like 'you are just looking for racism that does not exist'. I do not think a logical response to this phenomenon that I think is real and exists, is to 'therefor' say that such accusations have been so abused they have no meaning at all. As in the first manifestation of this phenomenon I highlight above, for me the only logical response is to try and not do this yourself as much as possible. To try and get better at spotting and understanding what is and what is not racism. To not label someone who is sincerely trying to not abuse the term racism as someone who is actively seeking to do such.

To me these two phenomenons are the just 'aspects' of the same singular thing. That there is no 'solution' or 'route to doing better' that addresses one of the aspects but not the other.

(I am getting close to 'finishing' this diatribe of mine , its nearly GP time, so will be a short break but one more post and I think I will be done)

[EnjoyingTheSun]

I think what is interesting is that those who insist race doesn’t exist insist the definition of racism is set in stone.

As a rule of thumb the best way of proving you are a racist is by doing nothing but constantly talk about race.

[mrsgee]

Well, what if we were all blind, so did not see colour or other differences...… and what if we were all deaf also, so could not pick up on languages or accents...….. hence no one could be labelled racist.. how sad the world has become.

[sophie]

A friend here in TRNC wanted a cleaner to help her. The house was a bit big and she was getting on, so thought she would employ a black student (she had heard they never had sufficient money to live on) once a week, for one 4 hours per day, one day per week at an amount per hour that she knew for certain was the going rate. Twenty minute coffee break and pick up and delivery back to the main road, so the person could use a dolmus. A few weeks later she felt she had to ask the cleaner to leave because she had broken items but not admitted it and dusted around items rather than pick them up. That's when the racist issue came up. Not nice, but my friend stuck to her guns and the person was persuaded to leave. ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with race, just the non ability of the person concerned to do an acceptable job.

[snd1966]

personally, we the world is now too multi culture therefore the word racist should be removed from the dictionary, you are just bl**dy rude!!!! or not understanding of their culture
This way nobody can accuse anyone of saying something because of their colour or culture. or even the country of origin you came from.

I worked with a Jamaican many years ago, the first person of darker skin than I and to add to it he liked the same sex, I did not speak to him apart from when I had to respond to work answers due to the fact some do gooder had sent us a memo around saying what we could or could not say to him. I was so terrified I would be on a charge. After a night out where my colleagues were calling him poodle and other nicknames I realised how much time had been lost by reacting badly to the do gooder's memo. From that evening he called me by my nickname and I his, as he said do gooders made his world hell. He was big enough and loud enough to tell anyone when they were out of order.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

personally, we the world is now too multi culture therefore the word racist should be removed from the dictionary, you are just bl**dy rude!!!! or not understanding of their culture
This way nobody can accuse anyone of saying something because of their colour or culture. or even the country of origin you came from.

I worked with a Jamaican many years ago, the first person of darker skin than I and to add to it he liked the same sex, I did not speak to him apart from when I had to respond to work answers due to the fact some do gooder had sent us a memo around saying what we could or could not say to him. I was so terrified I would be on a charge. After a night out where my colleagues were calling him poodle and other nicknames I realised how much time had been lost by reacting badly to the do gooder's memo. From that evening he called me by my nickname and I his, as he said do gooders made his world hell. He was big enough and loud enough to tell anyone when they were out of order.

I think more trouble is caused by people deciding what they believe someone will be upset over than died in the wall bigots which are pretty thin on the ground in my experience.
I think the arrogance that someone, who often has had no experience of interacting with the minority, believes that they know what will offend a person is amazing and patronising.
Generally black people have enough nous not to be defined by their skin or upset by perceived 'micro-aggressions.'
I've generally lived in multi cultural areas and found that black, asian, chinese etc are as perfect and imperfect as the rest of us

[erol]

So given all of the above the 'rules' I try my best to 'live by', the rules that I think if everyone were to use would give us the best chance of 'getting better' or 'getting even more better than we have managed so far' if you prefer, is to try and do my absolute best to not label something or someone or ascribe a racist motive to something or someone, when in fact that thing, those motives are not racist whilst also not just ignoring things and are racist or might be racist for fear of being accused of the former. To do my best to listen to and hear and fairly consider as best I can any argument as to why something is not racist and to do the same with arguments that something is racist. To not just rush to judgement either way. To always try and 'leave space' to hear arguments either way.

Now I may be rubbish at applying these rules or principles in practice. I certainly will be inconsistent to some degree in trying to apply them as well but this IS the place where I am coming from when I discuss racism, what might be racist and the like.

[erol]

A friend here in TRNC wanted a cleaner .....

Happens all the time Sophie. I am reminded of the Lenny Henry sketches 'its cause I am black isnt it ?'

[erol]

You can't socially engineer these things people have to walk the hard yards on their own.

I agree with you here. I do not think you can for example 'legislate' racism out of existence any more that I think you can legislate to make people more kind to each other. It is ALL about personal choices we make as individuals. I actually opposes laws like making holocaust denial illegal. I also think attempts to do so can and often do do more harm than good. I am not a fan of 'positive discrimination' in any general sense at all.

[erol]

I think what is interesting is that those who insist race doesn’t exist insist the definition of racism is set in stone.

I am not sure what you mean here but having a guess, I believe in the principle of 'gender equality' but that does not require me to therefore deny that there are two genders or that they are different ? I hope , given what I have written that you do not consider me to be someone who thinks the definition of racism is set in stone ?

As a rule of thumb the best way of proving you are a racist is by doing nothing but constantly talk about race.

Do you think I do this ?

[erol]

personally, we the world is now too multi culture

Am struggling to understand what you are saying / mean here ?

therefore the word racist should be removed from the dictionary, you are just bl**dy rude!!!! or not understanding of their culture
This way nobody can accuse anyone of saying something because of their colour or culture. or even the country of origin you came from.

If we remove the word racism from the dictionary how would be able to talk about the a phenomenon, to pick just one example, where in the 50's in the UK certain people were discriminated against in terms of finding rented accommodation to such a degree and so openly that it was not uncommon to see signs like 'no blacks, no irish and no dogs' ? (and just to be clear I chose this historical example to ask this question not because I think things have not changed in this regard and massively so, or because I think the UK is atypically racist - its just a quick and easy example that comes to mind. Nor do I pick a historical example for any reason other than it is just clearer using such)

do gooder had sent us a memo around saying what we could or could not say to him.

I suspect that such a memo may well have been less to do with someone trying to be a 'do gooder' per se and more about protecting the company from possible liability. This is going off topic to some degree but my family was in the restaurant business. Back in the day, say the 70's as someone in that business your entire focus was to not poison people by having bad practices. These days, or so it seems to me, the entire focus is on having ticked the 'right boxes' so that if you do poison someone, you are not liable for doing so.

[erol]

I think more trouble is caused by people deciding what they believe someone will be upset over than died in the wall bigots which are pretty thin on the ground in my experience.

Do you think I do this ?

Generally black people have enough nous not to be defined by their skin or upset by perceived 'micro-aggressions.'
I've generally lived in multi cultural areas and found that black, asian, chinese etc are as perfect and imperfect as the rest of us

For me I worry about racism, try my best to identify it correctly, to avoid it myself and to challenge it when I do perceive (all within the 'rules' I have sated before) not from any sense that I am doing so for the benefit of black people or any other kind of people different from me , or that they need or want me to speak on their behalf. I do so because I do want a certain kind of world. For me it is not about 'them' and what they may or may not want, it is all about 'me' and what I want.

[erol]

Some more musing on what is or is not racist and how we (society in general) discuss such things.

In another thread elsewhere there is discussion going on about patios. terraces, balconies and the like.

One comment in that thread was "As a young lad in Glasgow in the 40's that would be classed as an extra bedroom"

To which I thought of the joke reply "wow you had bedrooms of any sort in Glasgow in the 40's ? "

I see nothing wrong with such a joke at all. I recognise that it 'comes from a place of prejudice' pretty much but recognising that in no way at all leads me to therefore consider it it is wrong or bad or prejudice or racist or unacceptable. I would happily tell such a joke myself (I think I have?). I accept that there are some who may believe otherwise. My personal view is that such people are nutters, are getting offended over nothing. I think they are in fact a minuscule minority, of the country and of those 'on the left' as well.

Just because such people exist in such a tiny minority, I do not think therefore that means therefore, that any time anyone or anyone from the left, who does not believe the nonsense this tiny minority believes, tries to say or discuss anything to do with racism at all, that THEY should be 'shut down' and ridiculed just because other nutters exist with 'extreme' views exist. I think they and what they are saying about racism should be judge on its merits (or otherwise). I think it is important that we (society) allow the 'space' for this to happen.

[erol]

These things are not about where you lie on the 'spectrum' re your own personal views re racism. They are true across all of it.

I could offer a deal to ETS for example along the lines of

I will sincerely do my best to not just jump immediately to a conclusion that something is definitely racist when it may well not be or is not, if you agree to not immediately jump to a conclusion that any time I mention or try and discuss racism my motives are dubious and I am just looking for it when it is not there.

If feels like the 'deal' he is offering me is more along the lines of

You should not immediately jump to a conclusion that something is definitely racist but I reserve the right to immediately jump to a conclusion that any time you mention racism at all you are looking for racism that is not even there.

[terry2366]

Reading many social media posts the definition of a racist is anyone who voted for brexit or disagrees with the views of the grown ups who voted against it.

[erol]

Reading many social media posts the definition of a racist is anyone who voted for brexit or disagrees with the views of the grown ups who voted against it.

Can I take this opportunity to state categorically, that as someone who voted to remain in 2016, I personally have never done this ? Is it unreasonable of me to hope and expect how I am treated if I try and even mention the word racism, that I am treated in return based on what I have myself done (or not done) and not based on what these other people do and have done ?

For what it is worth I think people that do this are part of the problem of how we do talk about things like racism. I just do not think they are all of the problem.

[jofra]

For analysis and consideration -
xenophobia vs. racism...

[erol]

For analysis and consideration -
xenophobia vs. racism...

And people think I am 'wordy'.

Have read through it once and tried my best to understand what it is saying but so far it all seem to me to be very 'subtle' differences between the two things and that those differences do not matter much in any case or in the case of what I am talking about ? I have always preferred terms like 'prejudice' myself as I find them simpler and more 'universal'. I still struggle personally with the differences between race and ethnicity and that is after years (decades) of effort trying to understand them properly.

[jofra]

Purely as an example - IF an individual who voted for Brexit on the basis of their concerns on the influx of European workers, could/should accusations be not of racism but xenophobia?
Perhaps it's just that those who descend to abuse (relating to any subject) can only use smaller words....

[erol]

Not sure and I am already in enough trouble without bringing the Brexit element in to the debate

[wizardofmann]

what follows may well be a 'diatribe' of no interest to anyone, of no value or worth

Cannot argue with that as perhaps I should have 'packed my bags' after the second post.

I am already in enough trouble without bringing the Brexit element in to the debate

Yes, I cannot argue with that statement either as it's a long time since I've read such utter twaddle.

[Keithcaley]

Oh, go on!

Say what you mean!

Don't beat about the Bush!

[jackvern]

It's about time somebody did. This man is another Cato. Complete filibuster. Write a book Erol with one R(sorry about that) or come to terms with reality there is racism in everybody. The secret is trying to just live your life with respect for other without colour or creed. Now give it a break PLEASE.

[jackvern]

I wonder how many forum frequenters and perpetual posters are now busily searching the Internet to see who the hell was Cato. He was Roman and a constant thorn in the side of the great Julius Caesar.Just a bit of levity folks.

[erol]

I wonder how many forum frequenters and perpetual posters are now busily searching the Internet to see who the hell was Cato. He was Roman and a constant thorn in the side of the great Julius Caesar.Just a bit of levity folks.

Personally I see more parallels with Socrates myself. Not in terms of intellect, obviously, but in terms of approach to life, how he behaved and how that behaviour led other people to react.

Some highly edited excerpts from the most excellent book "The Consolations of Philosophy" by Alain de Botton from the section on Socrates

Every society has notions of what one should believe and how one should behave in order to avoid suspicion and unpopularity. Some of these societal conventions are given explicit formulation in a legal code, others are more intuitively held as a vast body of ethical and practical judgements described as 'common sense', ... To start questioning these conventions would seem bizarre, even aggressive

They [contemporaries of Socrates] would have been confounded and angered to be asked exactly why they sacrificed cocks to Asclepius or why men needed to kill to be virtuous.It would have appeared as obtuse as wondering why spring followed winter or why ice was cold.

But it is not only the hostility of others that may prevent us from questioning the status quo. Our will to doubt can be just as powerfully sapped by an internal sense that societal conventions must have a sound basis, even if we are not sure exactly what this may be, because they have been adhered to by a great many people for a long time. We stifle our doubts and follow the flock because we cannot conceive of ourselves as pioneers of hitherto unknown, difficult truths.

Socrates spent much time out of the house, conversing with friends in the public places of Athens [forums]. But his most curious feature was a habit of approaching Athenians of every class, age and occupation and bluntly asking them, without worrying whether they would think him eccentric or infuriating, to explain with precision why they held certain common-sense beliefs

If we refrain from questioning the status quo, it is primarily because we associate what is popular with what is right. Socrates raised a plethora of questions to determine whether what was popular happened to make any sense. Many found the questions maddening. Some teased him. A few would kill him.

(ETS am preempting the 'he was pretty dam fine midfielder as well' joke, just to save you the bother )

[erol]

what follows may well be a 'diatribe' of no interest to anyone, of no value or worth

Cannot argue with that as perhaps I should have 'packed my bags' after the second post.

Seems to me you should have 'packed your bags' after the very disclaimer you quote above. I am confused as to why you did not to be honest but as they say their is nowt as queer as folk.

as it's a long time since I've read such utter twaddle.

I have a funny 'world view' that says if you are going to, by choice , pro actively respond in a thread like this one and label something someone else has written as 'twaddle' there is actually some kind of obligation to then say 'why you think it is twaddle' but then I know that am I am strange to many other people. As they say there is nowt .....

[erol]

Now give it a break PLEASE.

Can you not just ignore it ? A solution that does not require depriving me of anything I may want at all, but still means you do not see anything I write , have to read it , have to consider it in any way at all ? Do you really have so little 'self control' ? Do you have to require a 'solution' to your 'problem' that does mean I have to be suppressed from doing what I may want ? Is the forum not big enough to contain my thoughts in some way I do not understand ?

[Keithcaley]

Erol, Strange Bod you may be, but you are OUR Strange Bod

There's also the bonus that I feel that you make ME seem very slightly less odd

[Groucho]

"Now to be clear my mother is not a racist. No one could reasonably consider her such. If anyone were to label her as such I would be angry and defend her as only a son can."

Just to throw a 'Spaniard in the works...' (to quote John Lennon). is this not a bit sexist? In what way can a daughter not defend her mother?

Erol on a serious note, can one not despise and vote to leave the EU without being un-European and by extension racist ? I don't like what the machinery of the EU has become, the path the EU is heading (federal super-state) and would prefer not to be a party to it but have no problem with the other European countries as separate entities. I think a lot of how leavers have been portrayed is simply misunderstanding the frustration with the workings of the EU and not our dislike of the peoples of the rest of Europe. I may be wrong but that my take on it.

[Ragged Robin]

"Now to be clear my mother is not a racist. No one could reasonably consider her such. If anyone were to label her as such I would be angry and defend her as only a son can."

Just to throw a 'Spaniard in the works...' (to quote John Lennon). is this not a bit sexist? In what way can a daughter not defend her mother?

Erol on a serious note, can one not despise and vote to leave the EU without being un-European and by extension racist ? I don't like what the machinery of the EU has become, the path the EU is heading (federal super-state) and would prefer not to be a party to it but have no problem with the other European countries as separate entities. I think a lot of how leavers have been portrayed is simply misunderstanding the frustration with the workings of the EU and not our dislike of the peoples of the rest of Europe. I may be wrong but that my take on it.

Hear hear

[erol]

"Now to be clear my mother is not a racist. No one could reasonably consider her such. If anyone were to label her as such I would be angry and defend her as only a son can."

Just to throw a 'Spaniard in the works...' (to quote John Lennon). is this not a bit sexist? In what way can a daughter not defend her mother?

From my perspective (nothing more)

I see why you think what I said might indicate such sexism in me the person that said the 'first thing'. That I believe ONLY sons can do this and daughters can not. I think in hindsight, and in response to your question, that I expressed myself in a sloppy way that lead you to think I also believe something I do not in fact believe. I take that on board and have 'learnt' something by your 'challenge'. That to me is a 'positive out come' of your challenge. Without it I did not even realise or notice my slopyness. I take on board that how I expressed something that I do believe does controls how it might lead others to conclude I believe something I do not believe. That had I been less sloppy, had I said ''as only one of their children can" that you would have never had the opportunity to misunderstand what I really do think. That that is all in essence 'my responsibility' and my fault because of my sloppyness in expressing what I really meant. But I was sloppy.

So given that I was sloppy and what happend, again as a result of your question. is

You think what I said that means I also think something that is sexist (that daughters can not defend their mothers). You ask if I think this second thing, that would be sexist if I was saying it. I say no, I do not think daughters can not defend their mothers and only sons can. You now understand what I really do think. Job done no problem.

The 'problem' with such exchanges, as I see it, is when there is a 'rush to judgement' about what I really think and efforts to then shut everything down once that rush to judgement has been made. So an exchange like the one above if you were, in response to what I said, to just say that is an outrageous and sexists thing to say, is where the problems start. If my ability to then explain what I really do believe, needed because of my sloppyness,is just 'shut down' and there is not space for me to explain all this , in the face of the outrage of me making a sexist comment and believing it, then I think we do have a 'problem' and I do not see how we can end up with the positive result of you understanding what it is I really do or do no think ?

Erol on a serious note, can one not despise and vote to leave the EU without being un-European and by extension racist ? I don't like what the machinery of the EU has become, the path the EU is heading (federal super-state) and would prefer not to be a party to it but have no problem with the other European countries as separate entities. I think a lot of how leavers have been portrayed is simply misunderstanding the frustration with the workings of the EU and not our dislike of the peoples of the rest of Europe. I may be wrong but that my take on it.

I absolutely think that you can want the UK to leave the EU for reasons that are nothing to do with racism at all. Absolutely and without any doubt I think that is possible. But like the above really , by you asking that question, I do have to wonder what has led you to believe I would think any thing else ? Have I done anything that would lead you to think that (like I did in the sexism example with my slopyness in expressing) is what I believe ? I f I have then I am totally unaware of what it is I have done and actually if there is such and example I want to know about so that I can 'learn' from having done so and do better in the future.

However It does feel like you think I might think that ' you can not be in favour of leaving the EU without being racist' not because of anything I have said or done but on the basis that some other people, who are not me, have expressed such a view and they also voted the same way I did in the referendum. This does feel 'unfair' to me to some degree. It seems to me to be premised on a notion of 'you can not have voted to remain in the EU without also believing that anyone who voted to leave did so for racist motives'. Which, at least as I see it, essentially the same 'problematic labelling' as believing that 'you can not have voted leave without being racist'. Does that make any sense ?

All I want at the end of the day is to properly understand what you really do think and for you to properly understand what I think. Now if having FIRST done that, I , or you, conclude what I or you really do think is sexist or racist, then I or you should 'call it out'. When we end up in a situation where it becomes impossible for you to properly understand what I really think and visa versa, because of 'rushing to judgement' and expressed outrage and indignation, that then to me seems like a 'problem' and is something we should make effort to understand and avoid.

[Chriswright03]

Having popped in and out of this thread I have come to the conclusion that much of it has gone over my simple head. I have a simple view (some would say cynical) of the World today. Many are unable to express themselves in a manner that I would consider rational. Even more are unable to form an opinion of their own and rely on whatever propaganda they read/watch/listen to so whatever tripe that comes out of their minds is in fact not their tripe but borrowed from elsewhere.

More than anything I believe much of what is spoken about in the thread is perception and we have no control over how others perceive what we say or do. Even if I stick to my maxim of say what you mean and mean what you say I have no control over what others make of it. Our World is not perfect, never has been and never will be. Despite your best efforts Erol you will not change any of it but as long as you are aware of your own conduct then you are doing your bit as we all should be.

[Groucho]

"Now to be clear my mother is not a racist. No one could reasonably consider her such. If anyone were to label her as such I would be angry and defend her as only a son can."

Just to throw a 'Spaniard in the works...' (to quote John Lennon). is this not a bit sexist? In what way can a daughter not defend her mother?

From my perspective (nothing more)

I see why you think what I said might indicate such sexism in me the person that said the 'first thing'. That I believe ONLY sons can do this and daughters can not. I think in hindsight, and in response to your question, that I expressed myself in a sloppy way that lead you to think I also believe something I do not in fact believe. I take that on board and have 'learnt' something by your 'challenge'. That to me is a 'positive out come' of your challenge. Without it I did not even realise or notice my slopyness. I take on board that how I expressed something that I do believe does controls how it might lead others to conclude I believe something I do not believe. That had I been less sloppy, had I said ''as only one of their children can" that you would have never had the opportunity to misunderstand what I really do think. That that is all in essence 'my responsibility' and my fault because of my sloppyness in expressing what I really meant. But I was sloppy.

So given that I was sloppy and what happend, again as a result of your question. is

You think what I said that means I also think something that is sexist (that daughters can not defend their mothers). You ask if I think this second thing, that would be sexist if I was saying it. I say no, I do not think daughters can not defend their mothers and only sons can. You now understand what I really do think. Job done no problem.

The 'problem' with such exchanges, as I see it, is when there is a 'rush to judgement' about what I really think and efforts to then shut everything down once that rush to judgement has been made. So an exchange like the one above if you were, in response to what I said, to just say that is an outrageous and sexists thing to say, is where the problems start. If my ability to then explain what I really do believe, needed because of my sloppyness,is just 'shut down' and there is not space for me to explain all this , in the face of the outrage of me making a sexist comment and believing it, then I think we do have a 'problem' and I do not see how we can end up with the positive result of you understanding what it is I really do or do no think ?

Erol on a serious note, can one not despise and vote to leave the EU without being un-European and by extension racist ? I don't like what the machinery of the EU has become, the path the EU is heading (federal super-state) and would prefer not to be a party to it but have no problem with the other European countries as separate entities. I think a lot of how leavers have been portrayed is simply misunderstanding the frustration with the workings of the EU and not our dislike of the peoples of the rest of Europe. I may be wrong but that my take on it.

I absolutely think that you can want the UK to leave the EU for reasons that are nothing to do with racism at all. Absolutely and without any doubt I think that is possible. But like the above really , by you asking that question, I do have to wonder what has led you to believe I would think any thing else ? Have I done anything that would lead you to think that (like I did in the sexism example with my slopyness in expressing) is what I believe ? I f I have then I am totally unaware of what it is I have done and actually if there is such and example I want to know about so that I can 'learn' from having done so and do better in the future.

However It does feel like you think I might think that ' you can not be in favour of leaving the EU without being racist' not because of anything I have said or done but on the basis that some other people, who are not me, have expressed such a view and they also voted the same way I did in the referendum. This does feel 'unfair' to me to some degree. It seems to me to be premised on a notion of 'you can not have voted to remain in the EU without also believing that anyone who voted to leave did so for racist motives'. Which, at least as I see it, essentially the same 'problematic labelling' as believing that 'you can not have voted leave without being racist'. Does that make any sense ?

All I want at the end of the day is to properly understand what you really do think and for you to properly understand what I think. Now if having FIRST done that, I , or you, conclude what I or you really do think is sexist or racist, then I or you should 'call it out'. When we end up in a situation where it becomes impossible for you to properly understand what I really think and visa versa, because of 'rushing to judgement' and expressed outrage and indignation, that then to me seems like a 'problem' and is something we should make effort to understand and avoid.

Hmm, you've failed to pick on the opening line of my second point, which was 'on a serious note' which ought to have indicated that my first point was not serious and therefore should be taken lightly.... Still now that you've learned your lesson

What I really do think is... the EU is a failed project that went off-kilter when it changed from a trading bloc into a political leviathan that supplants the wishes of member states with the aspirations of a largely un-mandated non-elected executive with European normalisation as a goal. The UK tried to reason with the EU and tried to stop Juncker who was seen as an arch-federalist from getting into a position which he has proven totally beyond his level of skill and got nowhere only underlines my belief that the UK is better off outside the EU.

[kibsolar1999]

again...
from WW2 and later and finally the EU never was meant as a "trade bloc" only. it always was a political project.
simplified trade and finally the Euro are logical consequences and a political tool as well, of course.

and yes, if the Uk does not want to be part of europe.. ( i mean.. whats left of europe outside of the EU ? the kosovo and serbia? ) ... leave.

and , to be correct.. juncker and his commisison were elected by the european parliament.... which was elected by the people of europe...
not like many PMs in britain who never stood vote in a parliament. see Boris.
or the house of lords...

[tomsteel]

again...
from WW2 and later and finally the EU never was meant as a "trade bloc" only. it always was a political project.
simplified trade and finally the Euro are logical consequences and a political tool as well, of course.

and yes, if the Uk does not want to be part of europe.. ( i mean.. whats left of europe outside of the EU ? the kosovo and serbia? ) ... leave.

and , to be correct.. juncker and his commisison were elected by the european parliament.... which was elected by the people of europe...
not like many PMs in britain who never stood vote in a parliament. see Boris.
or the house of lords...

Whilst bowing to your obviously superior knowledge on the EU, are countries like Norway and Switzerland (non-EU members), not classified as being geographically within Europe also? These two countries are financially and politically very sound too! Further, UK PMs are not elected by the people. The ruling party MPs select him/her, not the 'pond-life.'

[erol]

Hmm, you've failed to pick on the opening line of my second point, which was 'on a serious note' which ought to have indicated that my first point was not serious and therefore should be taken lightly.... Still now that you've learned your lesson

Again I think there is just misunderstanding going on here. I did see the 'on a serious note'. I did know that your first comment was not serious. I did know that you or any normal person would not think my actual belief was 'as only a son can and a daughter can not'. I got all of that.

I just chose to use it as an example to try and get some other points across, serious ones, because using 'extreme' cases can be a useful 'tool' to understanding / explaining. I assumed that would all be clear to anyone reading my reply. That I was taking a non serious joke, that I understood as such, and using it as a means of making serious points. It seems that assumption needs revisiting ?

[erol]

are countries like Norway and Switzerland (non-EU members),

Are these countries not just 'non-eu members' in name only ?

That question may seem facetious but it is not intended to be. I do struggle with the apparent inconsistency I see in some (and you may not be such tom), who seem to use one definition of if a country is 'in or out of the EU' in some cases and a different one in others. Am I imagining this ?

[EnjoyingTheSun]

the EU is a failed project that went off-kilter when it changed from a trading bloc into a political leviathan

I think the 'Project's' plan was always to be a political union rather than a trading bloc but they couldn't reveal their hand too early because it might not have been too popular. One credit I would give the project is they are nothing if not patient.
I don't think as a trading bloc it has been pulling trees up either.

[erol]

the EU is a failed project that went off-kilter when it changed from a trading bloc into a political leviathan

I think the 'Project's' plan was always to be a political union rather than a trading bloc but they couldn't reveal their hand too early because it might not have been too popular. One credit I would give the project is they are nothing if not patient.
I don't think as a trading bloc it has been pulling trees up either.

I think the fear that there are 'dark forces' seeking to trick people into allowing themselves to become part of a 'united states of Europe' when that is not what they want, by hiding their true intent and presenting their intent as being 'lets make a trading block' is a valid 'fear' to have. However for me this 'fear' is addressed by the question 'does a member state have the unilateral power to stop such progression towards a 'united states of europe' that it does not want'? The simple answer for me on this is yes it does.

The more complex answer would involve asking the question 'do governments sometimes agree to things that they want or is convenient for them that are not what the people want'. To this I would have to answer yes they do and they do it a lot imo.

I think every EU member should have laws like Ireland has. That say in effect, if I understand them, the Irish government can not consent to such further progression towards a 'untied states of europe' without a referendum. That if there was such a law in the UK from the point we joined the EEC then things would not have ended up where we are now.

[erol]

I would not normally 'revisit' a post in a forum discussion and one I had already replied to previously as a general 'rule of thumb' on the basis that could be or could be seen to be 'hectoring'. I am going to make an exception here however, given the nature of the post I am going to do it with or my perception of it at least. I think that grants me a bit of 'leeway'.

It's about time somebody did. This man is another Cato. Complete filibuster. Write a book Erol with one R(sorry about that) or come to terms with reality there is racism in everybody. The secret is trying to just live your life with respect for other without colour or creed. Now give it a break PLEASE.

When I see posts like this what goes on in my head is to ask "why would someone go out of there way to read (see) something that they know will upset, annoy of frustrate them and then complain that it does so and call for such things to be stopped ?" followed by "who would do that?" followed by the answer "Mary Whitehouse".

I am still struggling to understand if the comparison to Cato the younger was intended as a 'compliment' or an 'insult'? It feels like it was supposed to be an insult. Yet when I read the two line wikipedia entry for Cato the younger it reads as follows

Cato the Younger was a statesman in the late Roman Republic, and a follower of the Stoic philosophy. A noted orator, he is remembered for his stubbornness and tenacity (especially in his lengthy conflict with Julius Caesar), as well as his immunity to bribes, his moral integrity, and his famous distaste for the ubiquitous corruption of the period.

moral integrity, immunity to bribes, distaste for corruption, stubborn tenacity in challenging power. All pretty flattering I would say ?

Maybe the intent was to both insult and compliment ? On the off chance it was just to compliment I say thanks for you kind words.

[kibsolar1999]

norway and switzerland do not count.. as they have adhesion contracts with the EU.
i mean the free world.. the ones who can go for war at any time.... like kosovo and serbia.. reliable partners the UK can sign a deal in 2 month with.

there was no "plan" (in the late 40ties 50ties.. ) for a "political union"... always this paranoia...

the plan was to come closer together and get a better uderstanding of each other... to avoid the next war. at least in europe..
for germany the war was over.. for many of the others the war(s) went on... or came up again... or have been caused by WW2...
(south east asia, india, korea.. vietnam.. and so on)

when you want to build up a (political) relationship.. then, eg, you invite somebody (for dinner) and so on. you "sweeten" a relationship with something the other party can see, enjoi. and if it is only "good will".
and there was a necessity of eg, the steel and coal industry in germany and france, not to stand on each others feet... and get a better position together reg world trade as a whole.. that was the beginning. (ECSC)
since a couple of years it is going a bit straighter to the nitty gritty.. end of tax havens, introduction of financial transaction taxes, digital taxes, minimum taxing of companies, EU minimum wage, a higher EU budget... this sort...

but still and maybe because of that... i believe the path to a political union is long... very long...
but how many trees the "trading bloc" pulled to date, we may will see after 31.10.

[erol]

norway and switzerland do not count.. as they have adhesion contracts with the EU.

Does that mean in your view if the the UK were to have left the EU but stayed in a customs union, they would have have left in name only. ?

[sophie]

I've lost track of where this thread stopped being "racism" Can someone explain please? A Mod or otherwise, I'm not fussy.

[Groucho]

I've lost track of where this thread stopped being "racism" Can someone explain please? A Mod or otherwise, I'm not fussy.

As conversations do, the subject matter has branched out. If you can't learn to live with this feature of discussion on Kibkom it won't end well.

[kibsolar1999]

Does that mean in your view if the the UK were to have left the EU but stayed in a customs union, they would have have left in name only. ?

tbh, i do not really care.. but i know that many would agree.
i guess that both signed contracts with the EU as they thought it is to their advantage, or?
and i would like to add... just to make sure.. i also do not believe that kosovo and serbia are representatives of the free world.

anyway, this here is about rasicm...
as everybody knows.. we do not have "races" on this planet and what you try to explain is that several "objections", like racism, sexism, nationalism, make up a stirring pot in which all the history, guilt, shame and denials, are mixing.
not only in america this discussion is big.. we have the gender giult, white guilt, money guilt, history guilt, religious guilt, collective guilt, eco guilt.. and so on.
the "socialist and communists" want to discuss all that...
the "fascists and deniers" do not want. refuse any giult, and, if neccesary, fake facts to suit the(ir) status quo and ego, and same time often show an unbelievable "inhumanity" on top,
eg,
effects of slavery until today to the advantage of "the white" ? bullshit. the "blacks" (this term needs discussion!) now can take a seat in a bus and corruption in africa is the main problem. subject finished.

[erol]

Does that mean in your view if the the UK were to have left the EU but stayed in a customs union, they would have have left in name only. ?

tbh, i do not really care..

Understood. For me the 'process' or 'act' of asking that question of you and trying to answer it, has and is leading to me reevaluating some prior held 'beliefs', some prior held 'understanding' with a swiftness and extremeness of degree, that is very rare for me. Which in turn is pointing me towards a new or revised 'understanding' that is much wider, more generic. I think this wider understanding is what you are 'talking about' with the stuff you wrote after the above. I have not got to 'grips' with this 'wider understanding' yet but I feel I am more on the path to doing so than I was before.

Anyway even if the above is 'gibberish', which it may be, I would like to thank you for the part you have played in me arriving. being able to arrive, at a place where all this 'new' understanding is happening in my head.

[EnjoyingTheSun]

there was no "plan" (in the late 40ties 50ties.. ) for a "political union"... always this paranoia...

The fusion (of economic functions) would compel nations to fuse their sovereignty into that of a single European State.

There is no real peace in Europe, if the states are reconstituted on a basis of national sovereignty. (…) They must have larger markets. Their prosperity is impossible, unless the States of Europe form themselves in a European Federation.

Europe’s nations should be guided towards the superstate without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps, each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation.

Three quotes from Jean Monnet, 'the father of Europe', that lead to my irrational paranoia.

... i believe the path to a political union is long... very long...

The path from London to Scotland is very long but when you are in Northumbria you’re nigh on there.

If you think of a tick lists of things that makes you a nation/union of states;

A flag
An anthem
A constitution
The ability to make laws
A parliament
A central bank
Have your own currency
The ability to raise taxes
An army
Rights at the United Nations such as the right to speak in debates, to submit proposals and amendments, the right of reply, to raise points of order and to circulate documents. These are independent of the rights of the EU’s members.

A common language will take a while to organise but that apart I’m trying to think of any of the big ticket items the EU is missing.
A tourist board? A national treasure such as Barbara Windsor?