But Where Are You Really From?

[bobzmyunkle]

Isn't Shep's point that it isn't the 'oppressed folk' who came up with BAME? It was bureaucrats or academics who felt it was an improvement on whatever went before. And now it turns out the oppressed folk aren't too keen on it (understandably) and it's falling out of favour. This isn't language changing organically by concensus, it's imposed language from above by those who think they know best.

That may have been Shep's point in one or more of his posts. However, I'm sure his point in at least some of the posts was that it's the same people inventing the terminology who are later objecting to it - so maybe 'bureaucrats or academics' in both cases. As long as 'bureaucrats or academics' is a single group.
Of course I might have misunderstood, in which case I apologise. Maybe Shep will clarify the situation.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Please don't tell me someone else other than me is 'getting it' at long last?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Isn't Shep's point that it isn't the 'oppressed folk' who came up with BAME? It was bureaucrats or academics who felt it was an improvement on whatever went before. And now it turns out the oppressed folk aren't too keen on it (understandably) and it's falling out of favour. This isn't language changing organically by concensus, it's imposed language from above by those who think they know best.

That is one of my concerns about this debate, although tbf is there any clarity about who originates these terms?

I am happy to use any term that is satisfactory to non-white groups (I am not even sure if non-white is allowed any more because of its implication there are whites, and then there are the rest) but I would be much happier if I knew those terms were not thought up and endorsed/spread by well-meaning, but sometimes patronising, whites. Where does PGM stand in acceptability/usage?

I will carry on as I have always done; using the apparently accepted term until it is no longer acceptable, and then I will change it. They are just terms and as long as the groups they are applied to, and individuals I speak to, are not offended it is no big deal to me and, let's not kid ourselves, certainly no game changer as far as eradicating racism is concerned.

I found this article, although 8 years old and, presumably, preceding the widespread use of BAME, interesting although I am not saying it is definitive by any means.

https://www.npr.org/sections/codesw...from-colored-to-minorities-to-people-of-color

 

[Deleted member 28]

Isn't Shep's point that it isn't the 'oppressed folk' who came up with BAME? It was bureaucrats or academics who felt it was an improvement on whatever went before. And now it turns out the oppressed folk aren't too keen on it (understandably) and it's falling out of favour. This isn't language changing organically by concensus, it's imposed language from above by those who think they know best.

And there we have it in a nutshell, the professionally offended creating terms for groups of people that didn't need it in the first place.
They then blame people who aren't interested of using the terms they created of offending the people who didn't want them originally.

 

[Rusty Nails]

And there we have it in a nutshell, the professionally offended creating terms for groups of people that didn't need it in the first place.
They then blame people who aren't interested of using the terms they created of offending the people who didn't want them originally.

Has anyone, who actually knows the answer, said who creates these terms? Who and where exactly are these "professionally offended" people, and how/where did they create them?

We need to be told the truth.

 

[Ian H]

And here we are, wittering on about the terminology, and seemingly ignoring the reasons why people might feel the need for it. See the C4 documentary I linked to earlier.

 

[Deleted member 28]

Has anyone, who actually knows the answer, said who creates these terms? Who and where exactly are these "professionally offended" people, and how/where did they create them?

We need to be told the truth.

We do, I use the term 'professionally offended ' to describe people who clearly can't be personally offended by terms that don't really offend them but like to make it known that someone, somewhere may be offended by a term or phrase used by others.

I used the term half caste once on this forum and was told in no uncertain terms that this was no longer acceptable, even though I have a 'mixed race ' pal who uses it himself?

 

[Ian H]

'professionally offended'

One of those made-up terms to deflect criticism. No - people who spout racist bile are offensive. I'm not offended 'on behalf of someone', I find it, and possibly the person uttering it, offensive.

 

[mudsticks]

And here we are, wittering on about the terminology, and seemingly ignoring the reasons why people might feel the need for it. See the C4 documentary I linked to earlier.

Yup classic bit of deflection..

The difficulty of finding a generally acceptable term is always going to be compounded by the way so much derogatory language has been used in the past to denigrate or to 'other' certain people.

Coupled with the fact that you're unlikely to get a 'consensus' amongst millions of people across so many parts of society and different geographies.

Most of the time in our daily lives we don't really need any catch all 'generalised terms' when we're dealing with individuals anyway.

But in academic circles, and in policy making, and in politics itself, then we do need to know who we are referring to.

If some terms end up seeming clunky, go out of date, and new ones have to to be found, then that's just how it is, and we can adapt.

New language comes and goes anyway, in so much of the rest of life, if it didn't we'd still be speaking Middle English or somesuch.

Some people can't cope with, or don't like change, and will resist efforts being made to socially progress. Particularly if it doesn't favour them specifically.

That's pretty much been a constant from the beginning of history too.

 

[Rusty Nails]

We do, I use the term 'professionally offended ' to describe people who clearly can't be personally offended by terms that don't really offend them but like to make it known that someone, somewhere may be offended by a term or phrase used by others.

I used the term half caste once on this forum and was told in no uncertain terms that this was no longer acceptable, even though I have a 'mixed race ' pal who uses it himself?

So you don't actually know, but believe they must be amongst the throng of the "professionally offended"? Who pays them, if they are professionals, because they must be the ones at fault?
I believe that many of them might just be the keen amateur offended.

 

[Deleted member 28]

So you don't actually know, but believe they must be amongst the throng of the "professionally offended"? Who pays them, if they are professionals, because they must be the ones at fault?
I believe that many of them might just be the keen amateur offended.

I may need to re phrase.

 

[mudsticks]

I may need to re phrase.

But why on earth would you do that ??

When you've been telling us all along that
re phrasing is just ridiculous, and unecessary.

Show some consistency, at least

 

[Unkraut]

If you reject 'identity politics' (and of course we might need to define that thing more clearly) , but at the same time you concede that unfair discrimination still occurs against certain groups of people, then you are effectively rejecting the idea that we need to do more and better to rid society of that discrimination.

I'm not sure your conclusion follows. I tend to reject identity politics because of its Marxist associations, and I don't think Marx's analysis and solution to ecomonic problems ever worked. I wonder if identity politics and intersectionality are being used to stir up problems rather than solve them - the proletariat has not been good at producing a revolution, but if you make enough people discontent with being 'oppressed' then you might yet get somewhere.

Someone, somewhere will always have something to moan about and expect 'the white man ' to jump through hoops in order not to offend, thought as much.

Shep here has picked up on identity politics by complaining about white men having to jump through hoops. White men are classed as the oppressor, but unfortunately not all of them are or were.

This isn't language changing organically by concensus, it's imposed language from above by those who think they know best.

This is happening here at present with 'gendered' language. Fake feminine plurals are attached to nouns so women won't feel excluded.

To render this in English take the ~ess ending to make words feminine as in steward, stewardess. What you now get constantly are expressions like the vieweresses and viewers of the match, the memberesses and members of the panel etc. Also putting asterisks in the midde of words to support transgenderism. The words viewer and member cover everybody, so this fake grammar is redundant.

Surveys show the majority of the population don't want this, but it is being pushed by I suspect the woke despite this - the Greens are heavily into this.

I wonder if what Shep is reacting to is what he perceives to be a self-appointed bunch of social justice warriors wanting to control what you can or cannot say regardless of how inconsistent this can become or your intent. It's the control-freakery that is the problem rather than wanting a right to offend.

 

[icowden]

Surveys show the majority of the population don't want this, but it is being pushed by I suspect the woke despite this - the Greens are heavily into this.

Whilst I agree with some of what you say, words do naturally change over time due to the way that they are used.

If I said I was feeling terribly gay today, you wouldn't think that I was happy unless you were living before the 1960s. If I were gay in the 19th century I wouldn't be happy but would be a prostitute (female) or promiscuous man. If I were in the 17th century I would be conceding that I was immoral or addicted to pleasure.

 

[mudsticks]

I'm not sure your conclusion follows. I tend to reject identity politics because of its Marxist associations, and I don't think Marx's analysis and solution to ecomonic problems ever worked. I wonder if identity politics and intersectionality are being used to stir up problems rather than solve them - the proletariat has not been good at producing a revolution, but if you make enough people discontent with being 'oppressed' then you might yet get somewhere.

Wow that's quite a reach - you don't like the idea of anti discrimination policies because a few (but by no means all) people who fight discrimination identify as Marxists.

Identity politics certainly do stir up 'problems' or rather difficult feelings amongst those who would rather that discrimination was allowed to continue, and don't like it being pointed out.

Once something like true equality is achieved we'll no longer have a need to fight this unjust discrimination.
Until then, there's a job to do.


You don't feel or experience this discrimination or oppression that you rather dismissively put in inverted commas because you are, I am guessing, a white man.

One of those people who, even if not actively involved in oppression, has certainly existed all their life in a world that doesn't unfairly discriminate against them because of their particular skin colour, ethnicity, or sex.

Shep here has picked up on identity politics by complaining about white men having to jump through hoops. White men are classed as the oppressor, but unfortunately not all of them are or were.

No one ever said they are or were 'all oppressors' - You just keep saying that people say that, as if to claim some sort of 'victim' status for white men.

The point is that not being white or male imposes disadvantages that need to be changed if we actually care about equality. That includes the words we use.

Like I said above you've probably not experienced that disadvantage directly, having always been white and male.

Of course a good way of signalling that you really don't care is to dismiss it all as rubbish.

But there is still plenty of discriminatory words and speech used, that come across as really not giving a toss about discrimination such as racism.

Such as the incident that sparked off this thread.