Otherwise, a lot of people would be facing prosecution for inciting racial hatred.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
A good job Margaret Thatcher was not black
(39 posts) (16 voices)
-
charlies_hat
offlineMemberShe was ginger though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberAre you saying this isn't her?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberI'm confused.
So if she was black and we disagreed with her policies and actions we'd be racist?How so?
And are you honestly saying that if it were Robert Mugabe, whose death many people would celebrate, we can't comment unless we too are black?
Utter bollocks.
None of it has anything to do with her colour, or gender for that matter, but are a legal right to express thought.Posted 1 year ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberSquudge. You have to get through a lot of marmalade.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Titus
offlineMemberWe're not considering criticism of her policies or politics - we're talking about personal vilification. We are allowed to call here is a "witch" and a "mad cow" because she is a woman but if she were black any derogatory reference to that fact would be off-limits.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberNope, still not making sense.
There's an enormous difference between what you're describing, which is still legal, and anything to do with race.
I can't say I agree with the parties in the street etc, but I'm not about to indulge in hagiography of the most divisive PM of my lifetime.
Even reading some of the comments that have been made about her, and inserting the word 'black' into them doesn't work. The comments are as a result of her policies and actions, still nothing to do with her gender.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberSorry, but I don't consider calling someone a witch or a warlock to be insulting
Posted 1 year ago # -
Squudge
offlineMemberMe neither - I just posted this on the wrong string (someone was calling for a non-lefty sub earlier, obviously in a different conversation)
I get called a witch all the time (not as an insult, I think), and have two mates who declare 'Wicca' or 'Pagan' on census
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberWasn't meaning you Squudge. I've got Wiccan friends, and would describe myself as having borderline Pagan tendencies.
The word 'witch' was used as a derogatory term when people were superstitiously afraid of the unknown, but I doubt that many people these days would be offended by its use.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ironduke
offlineMemberThis is very clear. Witch is rude, Warlock is not.
If I called my mother-in-law a witch, things would get frosty. If I called my father-in-law a warlock, things would get curious.
Its not gender equal, but then look at animal names- girls can be bitches, whilst boys are a bit of a sly old dog. Girls go on hen parties, but sometimes blokes can be a real cock.
I suspect Titus's comment is regarding a perceived over-sensitivity at any criticism laid at black people; when Rio Ferdinand was abused (quite rightly) by England fans for pulling out of representing his country, citing essentially unwillingness to travel and disrupt his club training, then travelled to commentate on that very match...the fans chanted something about burning him on a bonfire. Not very articulate or in the slightest funny, but routine run-of-the-mill terrace chanting (which borders from witty to vile), previously used (I believe) about various figures, clubs, personalities. However, on this occasion, an investigation was conducted to see if it had racial overtones because Rio is black.
So- I don't think Lady T is being abused because of her colour, I'm not sure if people would be more careful or sensitive if she was black; she certainly doesn't seem to have got any sort of easier ride because of her gender, but then equally I'm not at all sure she would have wanted one on that basis either.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberId, I'm a great believer in everyone being treated equally, and by that I mean that no-one should be treated any better or worse than any other on the basis of their race, gender, colour, religion or sexual preference.
What about we just try to treat everyone as people, not as a demographic?
I certainly would not wish to be given any beneficial treatment because I'm female, I'd rather be judged on my abilities as a person, not as a girl.
I don't think MT would have wanted that either, especially since she played the blokes at their own game.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ironduke
offlineMemberI think there is a black tory MP being talked about as a potential future party leader at the moment- a self-made millionaire from a Peckham council estate. I could be wrong, and flicked between the news and repeats of Only Fools and Horses though.
Jeni from the B, all for the old equality malarkey as true equality. When the vet profession was 80%male there was a campaign to get more ladies joining the veterinary profession, trusts created to help with funds, etc, because clearly there were girls missing out. It was jolly effective, because now graduates are 80%female...but that doesn't seem to be an issue worthy of campaign now...curiously.
One thing to hurl out for discussion though...in genetics, there are 'dominant genes'- in that of the pair of genes the presence of just one is sufficient to establish the trait- and 'recessive genes'.
It somewhat puzzles me that in description of racial demographic, 'white' is similarly recessive...someone with one white and one black parent seems inevitably still referred to as black; and somehow it even seems edgy to ask why?
Posted 1 year ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberOnly things I know about recessive genes involve blue eyes and Labrador colour.
Was there not a story in the news a few years back about a black couple who had a white kid, genetically proven to be theirs, but it turned out that one of the parents had a white ancestor?
Is that the sort of thing you mean by recessive gene Id?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ironduke
offlineMemberBlue eyes is a good example. Brown eye gene=B, blue eye gene = b.
Brown eye colour gene dominant, so one brown eye gene, one blue eye gene (Bb) = brown eyes; you only have blue eyes if both genes are blue (bb). However, both your parents could have brown eyes but be Bb, in which case a 1-in-4 chance that you'll be bb and blue eyed.My point is that people with one black parent and one white parent are termed 'black' in the press, rather than 'white' or 'mixed race'...as though the presence of one black parent means that your ethnicity remains black, and more clearly stated.
But still, somehow it feels rather uncomfortable raising the point, as though I'm treading into dangerous ethnicity ground and bracing myself for a sound telling off about my ignorance / insensitivity...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Anonymous
offlineUnregisteredIronduke, I might be talking shite here, but I don't believe there's a gene for blue eyes or brown eyes.
Everyone has the IMHO same gene for eye colour, but AFAIK the gene can IMDB be crumpled, which prevents the FWIW eye colour changing to what I like to call 'brown'.
Even babies born with WDYE brown so-called 'eyes' have blue ones in the IMHO womb. The data is just ISLASTCLARE read a little earlier.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Ironduke
offlineMemberYep, blue at birth, change over a few weeks as phenotype plays out.
A colleague of mine once played the acronym game with some first year student prior to their genetics exam. He gathered them round him, imparting the pearl of wisdom only an imperious and triumphant second year could share.
The famous experiment conducted on ice cream flavour detection found three gene loci governed the whole spectrum from vanilla through mint-choc-chip all through to Tutti Frutti: Gene O, Gene Oh, and Gene LE.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.