Two items on the internet caught my attention this evening; one a report from Gates of Vienna and the other from the Metro. The former contains an unsubstantiated report of an attack by 'coloured' youths on Tommy Robinson who is a prominent member of the English Defense League (EDL). The second is about Alan Hansen's 'unreserved apology' for having used the word 'coloured' when describing the ethnicity of some players in English football.
The report of the attack on Tommy Robinson makes some statements that are 'questionable'; it refers to 'Asians' and 'Pakistanis' yet there is no proof that this is so. That this 'attack' seems not have made it into the media (nowt on Google) does not mean that it did not take place - yet it seems odd that Tommy Robinson only has to give a statement about 'race' or 'Islamism' and the media are swarming round him like bees round the proverbial honeypot. Whether the 'story' is true can easily be proved by a picture of this man showing his 'injuries'. That is not to say I do not believe that this 'attack' took place - purely that I am 'reserving judgement' on the truth of what occurred.
The second article deals with another aspect of the 'race' problem and Hansen's use of the word 'coloured' - which begs the question of why the 'uproar' over Hansen's use of the word - is 'black' not a colour? Would it have caused the same 'uproar' had Hansen used the word 'black' because do we not have a registered charity in this country that uses that same word? Does not the word 'black' appear on various forms asking for one's ethnicity as in the classification of 'Black Afro-Carribean'? Do we not discuss the question of 'Black and Ethnic Minorities' (BME)? Do we not refer to differences in numerous matters as being one of 'black and white'? And the difference is?
It is a well-known fact that amongst our black immigrants they refer to the indigenous white inhabitants of the UK as 'Whitey' or 'Honky' - these are but generic terms, or 'slang'. Where is the difference in the use of those terms compared to the French referring to we English as 'Les Rosbifs'? From Wikipedia we learn that it is an insult to the English because of their association with the dish. At the same time do we English not refer to the French people as 'Frogs'? I may well be mistaken, but I know of no 'charity' in existence fighting for either we English, or the French, in order to change public perception.
That our society has now reached a state in which an 'uncontroversial' comment, or term, has been seized upon by those with a 'special interest', forcing a 'grovelling apology' from the person making the remark, does not say a lot for said society nor for the individual concerned.
Whilst it is, I believe, generally accepted that it is impossible to 'force integrate' different cultures - which is exactly what our political elite have done - without tensions arising, it is also arguable that this 'problem' has been exacerbated by, dare one say, the 'Human Rights' and 'PC' brigades - but hey, everyone has to make a living................
Just saying............
Change of URL
13 years ago
15 comments:
Kermits, dear boy, Kermits. "Frogs" is sooooo 20th Century.
Richard: I almost, but not quite, caused a laundry problems laughing so much at your comment!
'Kermits' it is then.......
In the 70s I seem to remember Afro-Caribbean spokespersons objecting to the term "black" and preferring "coloured". Now it's the other way round. I too was dismayed that Hanson felt it necessary to apologise.
Regarding the Suarez case I just wish Patrice Evra had waited until after the match and then taught Suarez a lesson in the old fashioned way, man to man. I think Suarez would have preferred it too.
Just googled Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. He referred to America's "citizens of colour". I don't recall the BBC making him apologise.
But we are all citizens of colour. Ok I'm a pasty off white pink colour rather than a well cooked colour but everyone has a colour! (except maybe the invisible man)
Freedom of speech should be exactly that - say what you want, when you want.
All we have to do is leave it up to the listener/reader to make their own judgement on what regard to hold the perpetrator under.
We shouldn't need to be policed this by media or the courts - any reasonable person would classify truely racist commentators for the cr@p/bigots they are without being informed that this 'should' the case.
We do know right from wrong - don't we?
Just fed into google: 'Tommy Robinson attacked by Asians' - 1,840,000 results.
Have a look at Ed West in the DT blogs - a good post that one:http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100125645/why-we-need-to-start-discriminating-again/
This is the third instance of footballers coming unstuck over accusations of 'racism'. The other two being the subject of both the front page and an editorial in Thursdays Times.
Something of a concerted campaign to raise the subject once again but cloak it under those so common footballers and their ghastly WAGs so middle England can sit back smugly because "they don't mean us".
btw, the black population call the natives a good deal worse than honkey and whitey, one of their favorites compares us to menstrual blood.
Perhaps the PC brigade of the UK would care to issue a bulletin once a month to let us know what the fashionably accepted terms are for that period.
My mum always used to say that 'sticks and stones would break my bones, but names would never hurt me'…
She was full of c*ap like that.
The reality is that it is not too far from the truth, an implied/real threat to accompany the gybe can be very unpleasant.
However, the sexist/racist joke can also be a pressure relief valve… Sometimes even funny.
One thing is for sure, it ain't a valid area for legislation, particularly when it is applied in only one direction.
We are all being taken for a ride by the Frankfurt school Marxists. The people behind this PC nonsense dont give a stuff about race, gender or anything else for that matter. They are merely deliberately stirring the pot. They wish to set everybody against each other so as to make society totally dysfunctional. Sadly they have a vast number of " useful idiots" who are unwittingly implementing their plan.
Sensible people have simply just got to tell these people to Fu** Off. There can be no compromise with them!!
The most bigoted bastards on earth are the chatterati, the BBC and the Nu scum/old scum party.
I'll take no lectures from those bleedin hearts t*****s, they are trashing my country, it's time to trash them.
First up, out of the EU 'eugenics in reverse project'.
Reminds me of the time Nick Griffen was on Question Time. Jack Straw said something about 'Afro Caribbean' and some fat, black, idiot woman shouts out 'it's Afro Ca-RIBB-ean!', offended to the max by Straws clearly racist and offensive pronounciation. I don't recall Dimblebore demanding that Straw apologise though.
Sue,
If they defined these terms, everyone would know where they stood and that would be the end of it. They work their mischief and ply their trade by being able to redefine these terms as they go along, so the rest of the world is permanently wrong-footed.
Wos, that post generated a good response then!
You all make good points and forgive me if I do not reply individually.
This entire subject comes down to the basis that we are being conditioned to speech and thought - Big Brother?
The unfortunate aspect of which is that we are allowing it to happen and it begs the question why? Are we that disinterested in the society in which we live? And how to awaken the robotic sheep before it is too late?
I hope to further the debate with my post twixt now and the New Year on the subject of 'Constitution', together with the launch of the new website "Talk Constitution (dot) net.
Post a Comment