Is the phrase "whiter than white" racist?

[Teflon Lettuce]

But racial identity isn’t the same as national identity.

A Brit (who may be any race) being offered tea is itself a stereotype. It’s different to a black person (who also happens to be British) being offered a watermelon “because that’s what black people like”.

except if you're not white.... a Pakistani will not describe their "race" as "South Asian" will they? they will refer to their race as "Pakistani", Indians wouldn't describe their race as South Asian either if you asked them. Chinese and Japanese people wouldn't refer to their "race" as "oriental" either.

I am aware of the technicality that you and others are making... but with the situation in Britain "race" and "culture" have been melded into the one in common parlance and are interchangeable... and seeing as though the anti racism campaign is all about not seeing all of one race as a homogenous one I actually find it offensive that it is ok in racism arguments to make distinctions between people of different countries amongst Black, South Asian and Oriental peoples but apparently when it comes to white people then we must be considered all as one race! that is just a preposterous argument for anyone to make....

And I think at this point it might be worth mentioning... the more extreme the contortions we tie ourselves in trying not to be racist then the more likely there is to be a backlash against anti-racism... certainly there is a large minority of white British already who believe that this country has lost it's distinct identity in it's efforts to accommodate those of other races/ cultures... and history tells us that there is a tipping point where it only takes one person to come along to turn that into something REALLY ugly

 

[najaB]

To be honest, your refusal to accept that not all white people are the same suggest to me a touch of racism on your part.

I think you need to re-think that statement.

out of interest... would you have been as offended at being offered watermelon if it had been a black waiter that offered it to you?

I also think you need to re-read the thread:

I didn't take offence to being offered watermelon (not a fan of collard greens however),

 

[InterCity:125]

'Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep'

Homophobic

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I think you need to re-think that statement.
I also think you need to re-read the thread:

The first statement I don't have to re-think at all... you say that "white" race cannot be subdivided into seperate cultures when talking about racism... but you also think it wrong for white people to think of "all blacks are the same" therefore you think that the "black race" CAN be subdivided... which suggests a hint of racism on your part.

As to the second statement you said in an earlier post:

You can be racist without malice. I've been offered watermelon and collard greens in the US because "that's what black people like". Good intentions, but still racist.

so ok I'll re-phrase my second question... would you have considered it a racist remark had it been made by a black waiter?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

Homophobic

not if you're in one of those areas where they paint their sheep vivid colours to stop them from getting pinched!

 

[Bromley boy]

except if you're not white.... a Pakistani will not describe their "race" as "South Asian" will they? they will refer to their race as "Pakistani", Indians wouldn't describe their race as South Asian either if you asked them. Chinese and Japanese people wouldn't refer to their "race" as "oriental" either.

If I was asked for my nationality I’d say I’m English. If asked my race I’d say I’m white or Caucasian.

Equalities legislation has to some extent adopted an artificial interpretation of “racism”. If you ran a business which refused to recruit Somalians, or Germans, but still accepted ethnically identical candidates from other African or European countries, you’d be “racist” in an equalities sense, but not in an actual sense along ethnic minority lines.

I actually find it offensive that it is ok in racism arguments to make distinctions between people of different countries amongst Black, South Asian and Oriental peoples but apparently when it comes to white people then we must be considered all as one race! that is just a preposterous argument for anyone to make....

That is a valid point. Much of the equalities lobby seems to be unable to accept that racism can come from anyone other than white people.

And I think at this point it might be worth mentioning... the more extreme the contortions we tie ourselves in trying not to be racist then the more likely there is to be a backlash against anti-racism... certainly there is a large minority of white British already who believe that this country has lost it's distinct identity in it's efforts to accommodate those of other races/ cultures... and history tells us that there is a tipping point where it only takes one person to come along to turn that into something REALLY ugly

For me this is down to culture rather than race (having known a number of ethnic minority Brits who are more “British” in outlook than many white Brits).

I’m not bothered in the slightest about someone’s ethnic origin. I’m very bothered by their acceptance of the values this country (supposedly) lives by!

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

If I was asked for my nationality I’d say I’m English. If asked my race I’d say I’m white or Caucasian.

Equalities legislation has to some extent adopted an artificial interpretation of “racism”. If you ran a business which refused to recruit Somalians, or Germans, but still accepted ethnically identical candidates from other African or European countries, you’d be “racist” in an equalities sense, but not in an actual sense.

I understand what you are saying, but I'm sure that you also understand that I am deliberately arguing from the point of the man in the street that doesn't understand {nor probably care} about the subtlety of the distinction between "race" and "culture"

I’m not bothered in the slightest about someone’s ethnic origin. I’m very bothered by their acceptance of the values this country (supposedly) lives by!

Nor am I, all I care about is are you a nice person to know or not...

I suppose the reason why I am arguing the points I am is because history teaches that if you take the anti-racist argument/ fight to the nth degree then there will always be an ugly backlash... and now it is getting to the point where, in this country, we are taking it to the nth degree and beyond... we started this thread with the question "is the phrase 'whiter than white' racist?" what if some quango decided it was racist and the phrase became "unacceptable".... what then? not being allowed to describe a dark night as "blacker than black" because that's racist as well? it's almost as though there is some kind of Orwellian Newspeak creeping up on us... all the time having to 2nd guess what we say in case it might offend someone... which is why I will always stand by my earlier statement that to deem something said as being racist there MUST be a malice of intent or forethought....

and, most importantly there must be tolerance from all races whether they be white, black, yellow, brown or red with blue stripes!

 

[najaB]

The first statement I don't have to re-think at all... you say that "white" race cannot be subdivided into seperate cultures when talking about racism.

A) I never said that. B) Race and culture are two different things. I am very much British, I'm also Black. C) You do need to re-think it since you wrote that not thinking all white people are the same is racist.

would you have considered it a racist remark had it been made by a black waiter?

Yes. Though it is less likely that someone who is subject to that stereotype would perpetuate it. (As an aside, it wasn't a waiter who made the remark, but a work colleague).

Edit: Ignore point C, I misread your post.

 

[najaB]

I understand what you are saying, but I'm sure that you also understand that I am deliberately arguing from the point of the man in the street that doesn't understand {nor probably care} about the subtlety of the distinction between "race" and "culture"

I think you considerably misunderestimate the 'man on the street'. Nine out of ten people would answer "White"/"Black"/"Asian" if you asked them what race they are, and "British"/"Scottish"/"Pakistani"/etc. if you asked what culture they come from.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

A) I never said that

.
ok.. I must have mis-attributed the comment to you, I apologise

B) Race and culture are two different things. I am very much British, I'm also Black.

.

I never doubted your Britishness for one minute... please see my above post for a fuller explanation of why I am using race/ culture interchangeably

Yes. Though it is less likely that someone who is subject to that stereotype would perpetuate it. (As an aside, it wasn't a waiter who made the remark, but a work colleague).

.

well with it being a work colleague certainly puts a new slant on the incident. I, and I'm sure many others on here, naturally assumed that with you mentioning foodstuffs that it was an incident when being served in a cafe/ restaurant.. I apologise... I now fully agree that it could be construed as racist... though I again would caution that it's so minor a thing that it shouldn't be dwelt upon... it could've just been a colleague's poor/ misguided attempt at humour for all I know... of course then again he might be in the habit of making inappropriate comments to people... I don't know I wasn't there so it's not for me to judge.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I think you considerably misunderestimate the 'man on the street'. Nine out of ten people would answer "White"/"Black"/"Asian" if you asked them what race they are, and "British"/"Scottish"/"Pakistani"/etc. if you asked what culture they come from.

again I'll re-phrase "the older man on the street... certainly those of my parent's generation would more likely say "British" if asked their race...it certainly is a word that has changed it's meaning since the end of the British Empire and post Nazi-Germany

and I'll point out at this point that if we want to be really technical there is only one race- the Human Race

 

[Bromley boy]

I suppose the reason why I am arguing the points I am is because history teaches that if you take the anti-racist argument/ fight to the nth degree then there will always be an ugly backlash... and now it is getting to the point where, in this country, we are taking it to the nth degree and beyond... we started this thread with the question "is the phrase 'whiter than white' racist?" what if some quango decided it was racist and the phrase became "unacceptable".... what then? not being allowed to describe a dark night as "blacker than black" because that's racist as well? it's almost as though there is some kind of Orwellian Newspeak creeping up on us... all the time having to 2nd guess what we say in case it might offend someone... which is why I will always stand by my earlier statement that to deem something said as being racist there MUST be a malice of intent or forethought....

Agree on the PC brigade. I think we probably all agree that the original subject matter of this thread is complete nonsense.

However there does have to be an objective element. Society changes over time, and what is considered acceptable also changes.

Using my example above (the eny meny rhyme). I’m sure we would all also agree that that would be grossly offensive for anyone to use it now, even if they didn’t mean to be racist, although in the 1950s and 60s if might have been quite acceptable.

again I'll re-phrase "the older man on the street... certainly those of my parent's generation would more likely say "British" if asked their race...it certainly is a word that has changed it's meaning since the end of the British Empire and post Nazi-Germany

Has it?

Certainly the Nazis considered the aryan race as something which transcended national identity. German Jews shared a nationality with German Aryans, but were obviously treated very differently in the 30s and 40s, solely down to racial differences.

I think ethnic origin/race can be considered to mean the same things for the purposes of this discussion. But national identity is clearly different.

 

[EM2]

Equalities legislation has to some extent adopted an artificial interpretation of “racism”. If you ran a business which refused to recruit Somalians, or Germans, but still accepted ethnically identical candidates from other African or European countries, you’d be “racist” in an equalities sense, but not in an actual sense along ethnic minority lines.

I think there has been some conflation generally (in society as a whole, I mean) between xenophobia, which is what this example would be, and racism.

 

[Bromley boy]

I think there has been some conflation generally (in society as a whole, I mean) between xenophobia, which is what this example would be, and racism.

Perhaps.

But the definition of “race” for equalities act purposes is drawn artificially broadly to include both nationality and ethnic origin (and other characteristics). The reasons for that are obvious - if it was more narrowly defined it would be possible to discriminate against people of a particular ethnic origin while not discriminating on the basis of nationality (or vice versa).

But that definition isn’t an accurate reflection of how most of us view ourselves as individuals. My nationality is British, I’m also white. @najaB’s nationality is British, but he (or she) is also black.

Nationality and ethnic origin/race are seperate and distinct concepts for most people.

 

[CMRail]

deleted

 

[CMRail]

Moving on...

 

[Bromley boy]

If a black person says it, it is a term in which intends to criticise the other race: racism.

If a white person says blacker than black, or associates a black persons with the 1950s stereotype, then that is a term which intends to criticise the their race: racism.

Moving on...

I for one can’t make head nor tail of these posts. What on Earth are you wittering on about?!

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Seems like the word "racist" is becoming a default position when some people are offended rather than it's intended use

I agree and it makes me even a bit angry because actual racism is a terrible thing and people shouldn’t just chuck the accusation of it around because they can because racism is a serious accusation to make.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

I for one can’t make head nor tail of these posts. What on Earth are you wittering on about?!

I think they're referencing my post where I ask what next if "whiter than white" is deemed racist... I asked if that happens then would we next get banned from saying "blacker than black" to describe a dark night...

but agreed they're not making any sense

 

[Geezertronic]

Both phrases - "whiter than white" & "blacker than black" - are perfectly acceptable phrases in the right context, just like any English word. I don't see why anyone should change their language just because some idiot thinks it's racist or unacceptable. Maybe they should understand context

Anything can be said to be racist, sexist, homophobic etc... if used out of context

 

[Darandio]

Homophobic

Erm, what?

I must apologise for re-igniting the thread but I have been quoted here and i've been on 'holiday' for the week.

 

[Warwick]

but on the other hand you're not complaining about it not being white because you know it isn't inferior to a white one?

Incidently it was a white person that took offence!

It usually is a white person that takes vicarious offence.

 

[Butts]

Reading all the hokum on this thread has made me go "white as a sheet".....

No theres an interesting example.....could a black person be described as being the above !!!

 

[LOL The Irony]

I wouldn't worry about it.

I bloody would! We're at the stage now where Grannies are arrested for saying "have a gay day" to people. To them, gay means happy & not homosexual. But the pc brigade are set on their own way so...

 

[AlterEgo]

I bloody would! We're at the stage now where Grannies are arrested for saying "have a gay day" to people.

Source?

 

[LOL The Irony]

Source?

Not the best but it'll do

You can find out more by googleing it.

 

[LOL The Irony]

There's also the recent case of the girl who was arrested, charged, convicted and made to wear an ASBO ankle bracelet for hate crimes. This hate crime was......




Posting rap lyrics that were racist to black people that were written by a black person, to her social media.
Imagine thinking you've made an excellent tribute to your dead friend, only to be arrested & branded a racist.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43816921

A teenager who posted rap lyrics which included racist language on Instagram has been found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message.

Chelsea Russell, 19, from Liverpool posted the lyric from Snap Dogg's I'm Trippin' to pay tribute to a boy who died in a road crash, a court heard.

Russell argued it was not offensive, but was handed a community order.

Prosecutors said her sentence was increased from a fine to a community order "as it was a hate crime".

She was charged after Merseyside Police were anonymously sent a screenshot of her update.

'Grossly offensive'
Liverpool Justice Centre, sitting at Sefton Magistrates' Court, heard Russell posted the lyrics to her account after the death of a 13-year-old in a road accident in 2017, the Crown Prosecution Service said.

The words Russell used on her account contained a racial label which some people find extremely offensive.

The screenshot was passed to hate crime unit PC Dominique Walker, who told the court the term was "grossly offensive" to her as a black woman and to the general community.

The Liverpool Echo reported that Russell's defence had argued the usage of the word had changed over time and it had been used by superstar rapper Jay-Z "in front of thousands of people at the Glastonbury Festival".

Prosecutor Angela Conlan said Russell's defence also argued her profile "wasn't public", but it had been proved in court that anyone could access it and "see the offensive language".

She said prosecutors also "sourced case law that showed that posting the profile on her account constituted sending it and making it public".

Russell was found guilty of sending a grossly offensive message by a public communication.

She was given an eight-week community order, placed on an eight-week curfew and told to pay costs of £500 and an £85 victim surcharge.

And what the hell? An £85 victim surcgarge. There was no victim in this crime except for the hate crime officer, who's job it is anyways to look at racist things. So where is this £85 going then?

 

[AlterEgo]

Not the best but it'll do

You can find out more by googleing it.

The police officer there says she was being arrested for perverting the course of justice. I can’t find any actual details by Googling. Just a load of unsubstantiated discussion she was “arrested for saying have a gay day”.

 

[gazr]

Having travelled around quite a few multicultural areas of England this week, I am inclined to think that wearing a Poppy is a sign of racism! It's actually a sad thing. I'm proud to be English first, then British and if you want to call me Whitey or Ghost (which I have been called behind my back!), that just makes me more proud of my heritage. Back on topic somewhat... Words are just that, words. Freedom of speech should be #1 right in a democratic country.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Having travelled around quite a few multicultural areas of England this week, I am inclined to think that wearing a Poppy is a sign of racism! It's actually a sad thing. I'm proud to be English first, then British and if you want to call me Whitey or Ghost (which I have been called behind my back!), that just makes me more proud of my heritage. Back on topic somewhat... Words are just that, words. Freedom of speech should be #1 right in a democratic country.

Care to explain what makes you think that "wearing a Poppy is a sign of racism"?
And as for words - they are only "just words" until someone takes action on those words. For example - either attacking someone (after all, physical attacks on minority groups tends to escalate directly from verbal abuse) or the victim committing suicide because of those words. Words can and do hurt. We have never had freedom of speech in this country, and neither should we. Unless you think that extremists who preach hate against our country and encourage violence or terrorism should be allowed to do so?