N***** in a Woodpile.

Drew_TNBD

Boromedic said:

 is it not that very history that has the most bearing on the present?

Why should history from 2000 years ago have bearing upon us, but history from 2001, 2002, 2003... 3000, 4000, 1000, not have any bearing? Where do you draw the line? I'll tell you where - it's completely up to you (and me), and where we draw that line of "influence/no influence" has everything to do with our preconceptions and political persuasions.

Boromedic

I did suggest that we can't keep apologising for the sins of the past, but as I stated before the most recent atrocities of empire were committed by us and other states like the US as you say. That is why the most recent history is the one that holds the majority of relevance, has it been hijacked as you say for power and political gain? Absolutely without a doubt, but things are improving and will get better over time hopefully, well as long as you don't believe the Daily Mail.....

Boromedic

You were replying as I typed, all history should of course have a bearing but would you not agree that a lot of ancient history has been compromised by being interpreted by those who may have an axe to grind or influence from a financial backer (as examples)? Also Joe Public is not going to go back more than a few hundred years in terms of outlook.

Persecution is not limited to just race and creed and there is evidence of plenty of it occurring to white people of course, but within our realm of the western world it is non white people who have bore the brunt of it. I still find it hard to read some of the apartheid stuff that went on in SA 20+ years ago, and the segregation from the southern US states was still going on less that 60 years ago!!

Fretwired

Boromedic said:

I'm not only concerned about "recent" history as you put it, but is it not that very history that has the most bearing on the present? Most peoples world view is fed by that same history, and all of what we read now about even ancient civilizations has to be read through the rose tinted glasses of who has already altered or influenced that history prior to us learning about it.

Just as one example, most people believe ancient Egyptians look very much like slightly darker skinned Europeans (mediterranean or Turk like in appearance), when in fact the majority (as you would expect) were of African origin and mostly had very African features like dark skin and afro hair. Why do we think the former? Our history has been hijacked to make us believe it and consistently promoted by Hollywood as one example.

I had very good history teachers however what they teach is affected through the prism of the material available, mostly written by white people..... 

Scratches head ... academics know what ancient Egyptians looked like ... plenty of mummified bodies have been found and DNA tests done and there are plenty of busts and statues as well as images surviving from the period. And whilst books may have been written by the 'racist, pale, stale whites' the source material was written by the ancient civilisations, or do you think they just made it all up? And don't forget that Egypt's population was displaced by the Muslim invasion that brought millions of Arabs to the region.

Your assertion that the majority of Egyptians were black with afro hair is just wrong and is merely recycling the 19th century US view of the area. The French DNA tested and examined Ramesses II - they found him to be a fair skinned man with red hair. Racism in terms of colour didn't exist in ancient Greece or the Roman period. The Romans, who wrote everything down, didn't distinguish people by the colour of their skin so you will find African's served in their army, became merchants and ruled regions of the Empire.

And throughout the 17th century Britain was attacked by the Barbary Corsairs who attacked coastal towns and ships taking white Britons and selling them into slavery. It wasn't just the evil whites who profited from the trade.

Why bring up Hollywood? It's in the entertainment business, not the education business.

Lewy

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

Drew_TNBD said:

Lewy said:

Why do people get so wound up about the concept of there being a word, or even a few words, that might be ok for a black person to use but not a white person?

Why do otherwise seemingly intelligent people become completely blindsided by this nuance, to the point where they simply must bottom out every conceivable scenario and combination of races where the word might be used etc etc. Use your common sense, and on the whole, if you're white, default to not using the N word in every day conversation...even if sometimes, some black people use it as a non-offensive term. It's really not that difficult.

What nuance?

Nuance would be accepting that sometimes between close friends, some who are white and some who are black, that that word is fine to be used.

And consistency would be also condemning the use of a ton of other words that other races use to denigrate white people.

But words that other races use to denigrate white people have way less power to hurt, because white people have most of the power.

Which is just flat out wrong. Power has nothing to do with race or skin colour. Power also has nothing to do with a persons capability (or not) to be hurt or denigrated. In different societies different types of people hold different types of power. Your view just isn't nuanced enough.

The reason that power has nothing to do with race or skin is because when you take in the empirical evidence from the entire world and it's history, you'll see that there are many different races and skin colours all throughout the power spectrum. The only thing that people in power have in common is their shared desire to seek power - and likewise the only thing that people who don't have power have in common is their lack of power. The arbitray factoids of their persons very rarely match.

There are commmonly two types of racism - institutional racism and interpersonal racism. They are not the same as one another. You've not even mentioned which one you're referring to, but by linking race to power you seem to be lumping all racism together into institutional - which is not the reality before us.

In China or Japan institutional racism *can* and often *does* have the same impact on white people that institutional racism in North America and Europe has on black people. This is the nuance as I see it, and it's something you seem to be blind to.

And things have been changing for a while in America and in Europe. I don't deny that there was institutional racism towards black people in America and Europe. But we've done a very good job of rooting a lot of that out. But on the flipside there is now institutional racism against white people where there wasn't before. Hiring practices are large companies for example, where they will deliberately not hire a white person on the basis of their skin colour. The Evening Standard does this, the BBC does this, and other organisations too. This is institutional racism.

On an interpersonal level we've already seen from @Robgilmo that indeed, white people ARE just as affected by racist words, insults, and jibes. I too experienced some of that when I was 17 and worked at an Indian run family business - I quit the job because of it.

I wont call you a snowflake or an SJW double, as tempting as it might be. Because I really want to demonstrate how incorrect and incomplete your worldview is on this, and it's a worldview you can see echoed across Tumblr, Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit.

The idea that racism=prejudice+power is the root of your opinions on this matter. And they originate with academics like Peggy McIntosh who in the 1980's concocted a powerful mix of racebaiting, genderbaiting, and anti-establishment anti-capitalist philosophy, and taught it to her students and lecture halls around the USA. The ideas took root and are now the fundamental basis for a lot of social justice theory.

But the core arguments are easily dispelled using classical liberal and individualist rebuttals that we have had since the early 19th century from John Locke and others.

If your view of the world boils down to "whitey has power and no-one else does" then you really need a strong cup of coffee and a stack of books. Because you're woefully misinformed.

Ok, there's a lot there and I may not get to it all in one go but here's a start....

I have been referring to white people in this discussion within a Western geopolitical context. I agree that if you look at things at a global level, then different types of people hold the balance of power. It's not something intrinsic to caucasians. But in the West - which is what I was talking about and perhaps I should have been clearer on that - it is undeniably white people....because historically, they are the power holders, not because white people are intrinsically oppressive or evil. My question for you is this - why do you think it is useful, or even makes sense, to address this issue by using a global perspective? Surely a local approach is the way to go? That way, you can really capture all the nuance to the point where you would also capture the experience of the white person living in a predominantly Pakistani community in the north of England who is experiencing discrimination trying to find employment close to home. Your global perspective sweeps that nuance away.

So just to summarise there, my world view isn't "whitey has power and no-one else does", it's "in the West, whitey has the vast majority of the power, although you'll find very local pockets where that's not the case". 

On your point around it being nothing to do with race, but about power seeking behaviour...well, if such behaviours can be attributed almost exclusively to whichever race is the dominant one in a given setting then to my mind you may as well talk about the race, otherwise you're into the clumsy semantics of saying "people who exhibit power seeking and retaining behaviours, who have been historically successful in their endeavors to seek and retain power, and all of the people like them onto whom they have sought to bestow the benefits of their historical success, evidently BECAUSE they are like them.I mean they're all *insert race here* but it's nothing to do with race because somewhere on the other side of the world, the people in this position are of a different race". Are you more comfortable with that way of expressing it? Seems like political correctness gone mad to me.....

Lewy

On positive discrimination....I think the issue is overstated but agree pockets of unfairness exist. We agree that there is a history of institutional racism...and more specifically a pattern of discrimination based on it. At this point our opinions appear to diverge. You believe that ceasing the discrimination is the extent of the action required. I disagree. I think there needs to be some correction, and that correction requires proactivity. It's interesting that you mention hiring practices as that's something I have a reasonable amount of experience of. Cases of things like women only shortlists are exceptionally rare, and the only examples I can think of is where the hiring organisation has either a requirement or a desire to be demographically representative  in it's composition and is hopelessly adrift from that. More often than not, what companies really do -if they do anything at all in this regard - is say that there should be at least one woman (sometimes it's an ethnic group but more often this is gender based) on the shortlist, from which the best person for the job should be hired. And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job". So what's going on there? A little bit of positive discrimination (i.e. having to make the effort to attract at least one female applicant) is correcting some latent bias without in any way detracting from the meritocratic nature of the decision. I'm all for that and I struggle to see why anyone wouldn't be unless they just want to preserve the boys club and don't see why they should have to compete harder for what is "rightfully" theirs. Like I say, I see very very little of this happening on the grounds of race, rather than gender - it seems predominantly to be a US academia thing and there, the requirement to correct rather than just cease and desist from discrimination has a whole other set of arguments.....

Probably TBC...

Heartfeltdawn

Fretwired said:

And throughout the 17th century Britain was attacked by the Barbary Corsairs who attacked coastal towns and ships taking white Britons and selling them into slavery. It wasn't just the evil whites who profited from the trade.

But you look at the figures involved. 1 to 1.25 million European slaves were captured between 1530 and 1780 and taken to Africa.

Between 1525 and 1866, some 12.5 million Africans were taken to the New World alone. Between 1811 and 1867, it's estimated that over 2 million were brought here by British vessels, with over 6 million arriving between 1701 to 1800. Yes, white people were taken as slaves but you look at the percentages and compare that. White people were not targeted to anywhere near the same level. 

Fretwired

Lewy said:

Ok, there's a lot there and I may not get to it all in one go but here's a start....

I have been referring to white people in this discussion within a Western geopolitical context. I agree that if you look at things at a global level, then different types of people hold the balance of power. It's not something intrinsic to caucasians. But in the West - which is what I was talking about and perhaps I should have been clearer on that - it is undeniably white people....because historically, they are the power holders, not because white people are intrinsically oppressive or evil. My question for you is this - why do you think it is useful, or even makes sense, to address this issue by using a global perspective? Surely a local approach is the way to go? That way, you can really capture all the nuance to the point where you would also capture the experience of the white person living in a predominantly Pakistani community in the north of England who is experiencing discrimination trying to find employment close to home. Your global perspective sweeps that nuance away.

So just to summarise there, my world view isn't "whitey has power and no-one else does", it's "in the West, whitey has the vast majority of the power, although you'll find very local pockets where that's not the case". 

On your point around it being nothing to do with race, but about power seeking behaviour...well, if such behaviours can be attributed almost exclusively to whichever race is the dominant one in a given setting then to my mind you may as well talk about the race, otherwise you're into the clumsy semantics of saying "people who exhibit power seeking and retaining behaviours, who have been historically successful in their endeavors to seek and retain power, and all of the people like them onto whom they have sought to bestow the benefits of their historical success, evidently BECAUSE they are like them.I mean they're all *insert race here* but it's nothing to do with race because somewhere on the other side of the world, the people in this position are of a different race". Are you more comfortable with that way of expressing it? Seems like political correctness gone mad to me.....

Whitey? .... you're on a slippery slope here mate. Go check out the UK's wealth list .. plenty of Asians. Plenty of blacks in the arts, especially music where they have a voice. Mass immigration into Europe hasn't been going on that long and the ethnic population is still relatively small in the UK. However, you're seeing more people from ethnic minorities in positions of power from the police to the judiciary and in government. I had the pleasure of meeting the new MP for Harpenden and Hitchin last week. Now Harpenden is the last word in wealthy, white privilege yet they chose a black MP on merit. He's an impressive guy - speaks well, has a law degree and worked in the City as a corporate lawyer. He's been tipped as a future black PM.

Lewy

Fretwired said:

Lewy said:

Whitey? .... you're on a slippery slope here mate. Go check out the UK's wealth list .. plenty of Asians. Plenty of blacks in the arts, especially music where they have a voice. Mass immigration into Europe hasn't been going on that long and the ethnic population is still relatively small in the UK. However, you're seeing more people from ethnic minorities in positions of power from the police to the judiciary and in government. I had the pleasure of meeting the new MP for Harpenden and Hitchin last week. Now Harpenden is the last word in wealthy, white privilege yet they chose a black MP on merit. He's an impressive guy - speaks well, has a law degree and worked in the City as a corporate lawyer. He's been tipped as a future black PM.

All of which is awesome. Do I need to post a picture of Donald Trump's cabinet to support my original point? Or discuss how 7/10 senior execs in Fortune 500 firms are white men?

My statement that white people hold the balance of power in the West is supported by plenty of evidence.

Dominic

Fretwired said:

Boromedic said:

I'm not only concerned about "recent" history as you put it, but is it not that very history that has the most bearing on the present? Most peoples world view is fed by that same history, and all of what we read now about even ancient civilizations has to be read through the rose tinted glasses of who has already altered or influenced that history prior to us learning about it.

Just as one example, most people believe ancient Egyptians look very much like slightly darker skinned Europeans (mediterranean or Turk like in appearance), when in fact the majority (as you would expect) were of African origin and mostly had very African features like dark skin and afro hair. Why do we think the former? Our history has been hijacked to make us believe it and consistently promoted by Hollywood as one example.

I had very good history teachers however what they teach is affected through the prism of the material available, mostly written by white people..... 

Scratches head ... academics know what ancient Egyptians looked like ... plenty of mummified bodies have been found and DNA tests done and there are plenty of busts and statues as well as images surviving from the period. And whilst books may have been written by the 'racist, pale, stale whites' the source material was written by the ancient civilisations, or do you think they just made it all up? And don't forget that Egypt's population was displaced by the Muslim invasion that brought millions of Arabs to the region.

Your assertion that the majority of Egyptians were black with afro hair is just wrong and is merely recycling the 19th century US view of the area. The French DNA tested and examined Ramesses II - they found him to be a fair skinned man with red hair. Racism in terms of colour didn't exist in ancient Greece or the Roman period. The Romans, who wrote everything down, didn't distinguish people by the colour of their skin so you will find African's served in their army, became merchants and ruled regions of the Empire.

And throughout the 17th century Britain was attacked by the Barbary Corsairs who attacked coastal towns and ships taking white Britons and selling them into slavery. It wasn't just the evil whites who profited from the trade.

Why bring up Hollywood? It's in the entertainment business, not the education business.

@Fretwired is totally correct about Egyptians .........in ancient papyrus text and hieroglyphs and much later works there are defined references to troops and populus of NUBIANS  as being distinct from Egyptians
 If you travel through Egypt today it is noticeable how the physiogamy changes as you move south and once you go south of Abu Simbel the greater population is Nubian of Sudanese descent but this is not the majority of Egypt.In fact ,the Nubians were treated as second class citizens and were predominantly Janissary armies either captured,paid as mercenaries or recruited in the Lower Nile Delta.
 Barbary Corsairs were predominantly Morrocan and Algerian legacies of the Almohad dynasty expelled by the Spanish from southern Spain post 1230 ....the Barbary coast was the N Africa of modern day Morrocco ,Algeria and Libya and the name was derived from BERBER tribal roots......to the Spanish (who they raided frequently ) they were simply Los Moros.
 There is a very strong tradition throughout the summer in the Balearic Islands of re-enacting the battles where entire seaside towns dress as 50% Moros and 50% los Cristianos .Barbarossa was the most fearsome and legendary but there is an interesting clue in the name -Redbeard ! which together with blue eyes is quite a common Berber feature . In modern day upper Saharan Morroco there is a very distinct classification between Berbers of the Atlas region and people of Arabic descent and also sub -Saharan "Nigers "( because they come from Niger,Mali and Chad )Obviously there is a French connotation from the Colonisation period.
 To us they are Moroccans one and all,to the medieval Spanish they were Los Moros -they are all Muslims but yet again within their own microcosm there is a racist hierarchy ................just the way human nature and the tribal instinct works.
 Never knew they ever attacked England directly tho'.

Emp_Fab

Evil is done by every race.  The only yardstick is who has been disproportionately evil.  When it comes to race, blacks have been the victims of evil perpetrated by whites to a degree that makes all other forms of racist persecution pale into insignificance.  When it comes to gender, women have been the victims of male persecution to a degree that makes any comparison with the inverse comical.  When it comes to sexual orientation, homosexuals have been the victims of attacks by heterosexuals etc.

Therefore those that belong to the three main persecutor groups, white, heterosexual males, are the ones with the most power and statistically and logically responsible for more prejudice crime than any other group, and, logically, black lesbian women are at the other end of the scale.  Though once you're in the black and female group, I doubt whether being homosexual makes much of a difference.

Now, I'm quite sure someone will be along in a minute to explain how because there are recorded incidences of black-on-white persecution, women beating up men and gays going out 'straight bashing' that this somehow renders all of history irrelevant and that white, heterosexual men are now the victims and how unfair it all is.  This, however, betrays IMO either a guilt for being white, hetero and male and an inability to rationalise that guilt, and/or complete denial about historical facts and statistics.

Boromedic

Fretwired said:

Scratches head ... academics know what ancient Egyptians looked like ... plenty of mummified bodies have been found and DNA tests done and there are plenty of busts and statues as well as images surviving from the period. And whilst books may have been written by the 'racist, pale, stale whites' the source material was written by the ancient civilisations, or do you think they just made it all up? And don't forget that Egypt's population was displaced by the Muslim invasion that brought millions of Arabs to the region.

Your assertion that the majority of Egyptians were black with afro hair is just wrong and is merely recycling the 19th century US view of the area. The French DNA tested and examined Ramesses II - they found him to be a fair skinned man with red hair. Racism in terms of colour didn't exist in ancient Greece or the Roman period. The Romans, who wrote everything down, didn't distinguish people by the colour of their skin so you will find African's served in their army, became merchants and ruled regions of the Empire.

And throughout the 17th century Britain was attacked by the Barbary Corsairs who attacked coastal towns and ships taking white Britons and selling them into slavery. It wasn't just the evil whites who profited from the trade.

Why bring up Hollywood? It's in the entertainment business, not the education business.

There are arguments on both sides and I was probably wrong to use the term majority so apologies, but all we're gonna do is sit on different sides of the debate. I agree wholeheartedly that skin colour and race held little distinction in ancient times, for example like the Africans you mentioned in Roman times. Egypt as one of the largest empires of the time would have attracted many differing people there for whatever reason including the muslim invasion you mention. However there are plenty of scholars who agree with the notion that some of it's origins lie with peoples from sub saharan Africa and this was what I was on about, it's origins. Some Egyptians such as Ramesses II as you mention was fair skinned and had red hair much like people I've met from Jordan and Syria who look very distinct from many of their compatriots, who knows where his origins lie maybe he had Celtic ancestors! The point I was making was that Joe Public would never put African people in a position of such high power and influence historically because that's not what you're shown growing up. No one talks about the ancient empires of Africa except Egypt and they nearly always show them as Mediterranean looking.

As for the statues some are in disrepair and the stuff they wrote down in hieroglyphs etc, is open to interpretation. Some argue that the colours and terms used in the source material varies in its meaning or interpretation. That's where the problems lie, just one quote from a British historian shows some of the issues:

"Whether the Ancient Egyptians were as black or as brown in skin color as other Africans may remain an issue of emotive dispute; probably, they were both. Their own artistic conventions painted them as pink, but pictures on their tombs show they often married queens shown as entirely black, being from the south : while the Greek writers reported that they were much like all the other Africans whom the Greeks knew."

We are still getting away from the main focus here anyway, no one is saying that only white people propagate evil and racism, just that the most recent atrocities in our sphere were ours and ours alone. History can be biased and used for both sides of the argument as it is open to interpretation, historical fact is often only as good as the most recent evidence suggests.

The reason I mentioned Hollywood is its things like that that affect Joe Publics interpretation of things. Like some Americans believing they recovered the enigma machine for example....................

Fretwired

Lewy said:

Fretwired said:

Lewy said:

Whitey? .... you're on a slippery slope here mate. Go check out the UK's wealth list .. plenty of Asians. Plenty of blacks in the arts, especially music where they have a voice. Mass immigration into Europe hasn't been going on that long and the ethnic population is still relatively small in the UK. However, you're seeing more people from ethnic minorities in positions of power from the police to the judiciary and in government. I had the pleasure of meeting the new MP for Harpenden and Hitchin last week. Now Harpenden is the last word in wealthy, white privilege yet they chose a black MP on merit. He's an impressive guy - speaks well, has a law degree and worked in the City as a corporate lawyer. He's been tipped as a future black PM.

All of which is awesome. Do I need to post a picture of Donald Trump's cabinet to support my original point? Or discuss how 7/10 senior execs in Fortune 500 firms are white men?

My statement that white people hold the balance of power in the West is supported by plenty of evidence.

You use the US and then talk about the west .. which is it? Black immigration into Europe is a relatively new occurrence and numbers are low. I take it you think Europe is part of the west.

The US has had a black President, many black politicians have held high office, a black general was head of the US military,  black police chiefs and state governors ... when you get into the arts African-Americans outdo their white counterparts in music, there are powerful voices on TV, there's sport and there are hundreds of black CEOs .... all you point to is Trump and some big companies. Your definition of power needs to be revised.

boogieman

Lewy said:

On positive discrimination....I think the issue is overstated but agree pockets of unfairness exist. We agree that there is a history of institutional racism...and more specifically a pattern of discrimination based on it. At this point our opinions appear to diverge. You believe that ceasing the discrimination is the extent of the action required. I disagree. I think there needs to be some correction, and that correction requires proactivity. It's interesting that you mention hiring practices as that's something I have a reasonable amount of experience of. Cases of things like women only shortlists are exceptionally rare, and the only examples I can think of is where the hiring organisation has either a requirement or a desire to be demographically representative  in it's composition and is hopelessly adrift from that. More often than not, what companies really do -if they do anything at all in this regard - is say that there should be at least one woman (sometimes it's an ethnic group but more often this is gender based) on the shortlist, from which the best person for the job should be hired. And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job". So what's going on there? A little bit of positive discrimination (i.e. having to make the effort to attract at least one female applicant) is correcting some latent bias without in any way detracting from the meritocratic nature of the decision. I'm all for that and I struggle to see why anyone wouldn't be unless they just want to preserve the boys club and don't see why they should have to compete harder for what is "rightfully" theirs. Like I say, I see very very little of this happening on the grounds of race, rather than gender - it seems predominantly to be a US academia thing and there, the requirement to correct rather than just cease and desist from discrimination has a whole other set of arguments.....

Probably TBC...

I've no idea if it's common nowadays but  in the 90s there was a LOT of positive discrimination going on. My ex worked for a local authority in social services and it was common practice across lots of boroughs. I can see the reasoning behind it, but I'm not entirely comfortable  with the best person for the job not getting the post, just because they don't fit a certain demographic. 

Lewy

Fretwired said:

Lewy said:

Fretwired said:

Lewy said:

Whitey? .... you're on a slippery slope here mate. Go check out the UK's wealth list .. plenty of Asians. Plenty of blacks in the arts, especially music where they have a voice. Mass immigration into Europe hasn't been going on that long and the ethnic population is still relatively small in the UK. However, you're seeing more people from ethnic minorities in positions of power from the police to the judiciary and in government. I had the pleasure of meeting the new MP for Harpenden and Hitchin last week. Now Harpenden is the last word in wealthy, white privilege yet they chose a black MP on merit. He's an impressive guy - speaks well, has a law degree and worked in the City as a corporate lawyer. He's been tipped as a future black PM.

All of which is awesome. Do I need to post a picture of Donald Trump's cabinet to support my original point? Or discuss how 7/10 senior execs in Fortune 500 firms are white men?

My statement that white people hold the balance of power in the West is supported by plenty of evidence.

You use the US and then talk about the west .. which is it? Black immigration into Europe is a relatively new occurrence and numbers are low. I take it you think Europe is part of the west.

The US has had a black President, many black politicians have held high office, a black general was head of the US military,  black police chiefs and state governors ... when you get into the arts African-Americans outdo their white counterparts in music, there are powerful voices on TV, there's sport and there are hundreds of black CEOs .... all you point to is Trump and some big companies. Your definition of power needs to be revised.

You were responding to my use of the term "whitey". I used that term in this sentence:

"in the West, whitey has the vast majority of the power, although you'll find very local pockets where that's not the case". 

I use the term "the West" in the same way that just about anybody discussing anything geopolitical has since the cold war - to refer to North America and Western Europe.

If we're talking about revising definitions, you may need to look at your definition of "majority" because you seem to be equating it with "some". Saying there are some - or I think without going back and reading your post you also used "plenty (bit subjective that) - of minorities in key positions doesn't mean that the majority of power doesn't sit elsewhere.

Fretwired

Boromedic said:

The reason I mentioned Hollywood is its things like that that affect Joe Publics interpretation of things. Like some Americans believing they recovered the enigma machine for example....................

Hollywood has always played fast and loose with history - check Patriot for a total load of old balls .. so bad that American academics demanded in carried a warning that none of it was true.

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/jul/22/the-patriot-mel-gibson-reel-history

Boromedic

Hahaha, yeah I remember the Patriot coming out and they used SS atrocities as set pieces perpetrated by us didn't they? Gibson clearly hates the British as much as he hates Jews I think.

Drew_TNBD

Lewy said:

why do you think it is useful, or even makes sense, to address this issue by using a global perspective? Surely a local approach is the way to go? That way, you can really capture all the nuance to the point where you would also capture the experience of the white person living in a predominantly Pakistani community in the north of England who is experiencing discrimination trying to find employment close to home. Your global perspective sweeps that nuance away.

In short: Because we live in a globalised world. It makes no sense to ignore swathes of empirical evidence. The only reason to do so is to maintain a dogma.

It used to be that empirical evidence was only obtainable through localised research. If you wanted to expand your field of research you had to change your localisation. That used to be the entire principle behind anthropology.

Most of the research underpinning modern social justice theory was done pre-internet and pre-globalisation. So it's largely already localised research. Until intersectionality came along, you couldn't really do too much with all of these disparate fields.

The internet was a game changer. Because it really does allow us to see an unfiltered view of other cultures where our pre-established conceptions can be shattered. And you don't need to be an expert to be able to witness these things anymore either, nor do you need to be a position of power to do so. It's democratized sociology, basically.

Lewy said:

And the evidence - which I know you like - overwhelmingly shows an increase in the number of women hired as a result, even though the only hiring criteria is "best person for the job".

This was something I came across recently:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-30/bilnd-recruitment-trial-to-improve-gender-equality-failing-study/8664888

In short: It completely disproves your claim above. When you focus purely on qualifications and ability, women actually suffer more when it comes to hiring. Of course that's for public sector jobs in one area of Australia. Would be good to see a similar study done for the UK.

impmann

So... to summise 8 pages of stuff, the general consensus is that you all feel its OK for someone in a position of power to use a phrase that is deemed unacceptable in our society, is that correct? I'm not fussed about people's opinions on whether or not that word or phrase should be unacceptable.

So are you saying that everyone is comfortable with this woman using this terminology?

Boromedic

impmann said:

So... to summise 8 pages of stuff, the general consensus is that you all feel its OK for someone in a position of power to use a phrase that is deemed unacceptable in our society, is that correct? I'm not fussed about people's opinions on whether or not that word or phrase should be unacceptable.

So are you saying that everyone is comfortable with this woman using this terminology?

Jeez not at all, I completely disagree and she should be fired. In all the public sector jobs I've held I would've been.....