It's a pretty straightforward question really, but have you ever sat on a bus in South London, or London in general and listened to the kids talking amongst themselves? Have you ever sat there and listened to a group of kids, white, black, brown or purple who are listening to tinny music on their mobile phone whilst calling each other, "nigga", "whitey", "paki" or whatever other word that has been officially sanctioned as no longer allowed?
Does anyone complain? I bet you don't. Sometimes I read out loud to get my own back about the music, but the language that they use is not something I care about because I cannot change it, we cannot change it. The language they use is that of their peer group and their comfortableness with each other.
The words they use are such that their meaning is carried by their contextualisation. This is why if you saw a BNP rally where they were chanting "niggers/pakis/jews/gypsies out" you’d realise very quickly that they're not very nice people, and, frankly, just a tad ignorant too. Yet when you see a group of kids, and one white kid says to a black mate,"shut up nigga" and the other replies in kind, you know, that actually, that is just how they talk to each other.
You know that whilst they are using words that might be offensive in one sense, the same words can and are merely labels in another. One can almost visibly see the bond of acceptance between each party that contextualises the power and meaning behind the words.
Words are just words, but it is there placement within tone, intonation and circumstance where their meaning is found. This is one of the things the Internet lacks, and is precisely the reason the dreaded "emoticon" was invented. For without the occasional ;) or the odd :( , it becomes difficult to understand what the meaning of the words on the screen are actually meant to be.
Where am I going with this? Could it be Big Brother by any chance? Now I don't know the girl that has been kicked out, I don't know what she is like outside, she could be a raving neo-Nazi for all know, but this doesn't change the argument underneath what, going by the transcript that appears in all the newspapers today was actually said.
What is interesting, when you read it, is that the argument was made about peer groups using the terms “nigger” and “wigger” between themselves. As is almost clockwork we also saw the "some of my best friends are [insert minority here]" line come out. It is a cliché to dismiss this response, yet it is rolled out so naturally so many times that perhaps there is a hidden truth in it?
Friends speak to each other in differing ways. They use words that outside their circle may make no sense or may, sometimes, be assumed to be offensive. Someone who spends their day in a multi-racial peer group (and I have no idea if the girl on Big Brother did but it is irrelevant to the point) will, often, fall foul of acting how they do with their peers when with those who are effectively strangers.
When this happens it is their misjudgement of the situation, and also a misjudgement of the familiarity with which they are permitted to speak with the stranger. Does this make them racist, sexist, bigoted, or whatever label the dominant thought police in society choose to use? I think not, I think that actually, far from being “institutional racist” as the phrase goes, we have a much bigger problem in this country, and it stems solely from the dominance of identity politics.
We have created a society that is founded upon diversity but at the same time, and in an entirely contradictory manner, encourages separation of identity. We say, bizarrely, "we cherish and embrace our difference; but we must not ever mention that difference". It’s a counter-intuitive way of thinking, and we only have to look at the young in a multi-racial society to see how wrong we are.
The young acknowledge their difference, embrace their difference, and happily use their difference in their language whilst - and this is crucial - not seeing their difference as of meaningful relevance in the wider scheme of their lives. Meanwhile, the older generation says, "oh you mustn’t use that word" and simply attempt to suppress language in a rather blunt fashion.
Until we realise and acknowledge that labels of difference - be they on matters of race, sexuality, gender or hair colour - are used in society in non-pejorative and non-negative ways, we will never break out of the contradiction inherent in our attitude towards what we currently call "diversity". Get on a bus between 3.30pm and 5pm today and listen, then tell me I am wrong.
38 comments:
But when in Golders Green or Brent Cross, you never hear "yiddo" coming from one family of Cohen's to another. Possibly because most Jews aren't ignorant as some of our South London friends?
I have Jewish friends that say that.
I guess it is the connotations of the term nigger that are a problem. It has always been a pejorative, remember the classic Conservative election slogan 'If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour'. The fact is that while 'black' is now acceptable, but in the heady days of the birth of political correctness it was not, is symbolic of the fact that the community itself does not mind that reference (however inaccurate). Maybe as the kids you refer to grow up they, influenced by musicians who have commandered the term to put two fingers up at racism (the band Niggers With Attitude being a fine example), will rehabilitate the term and claim ownership of its meaning. The problem is that currently the term is seen as being owned by bigots and racists and despite the meaning behind any specific usage that is the reading that is popularised. Hence the user would be branded as such. As you say it is difficult to assess the meaning of a term when it is used, however after the last BB debacle Channel 4 are goign to be ultra-sensitive about any accusations of racism; hence the eviction that we are all told is 'big news'.
Interesting points you make!
Clearly Channel 4 had to "do something" after the last mess. But really Big Brother was a starting point for me of a much wider question about the way language has been politicised.
Straight Outta Compton is a classic album btw. Ground-breaking in fact.
Spot on Dizzy. It was just street talk. If she had not been black no-one would have bothered.
Dizzy,
Brilliant, Brilliant, Brilliant.
For years I've held the same opinion but have never organised my thinking in a way that allowed me to express myself as elegantly as you do in your piece.
And, when I was a boy, the cliche 'Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me.' was considered an adequate defense against insult. If I were a nigger I'd feel mighty patronised by left wing whiteys thinking I was so feeble that I need protecting from insult.
What the lefties are really saying is "Shhhsh....not in front of the children/niggers".
Hmmm, wonderfulforhisage, I think your response is a good example of the point I was making about connation and intonation on the Internet coming through.
Do not mistake my piece for me saying that everyone and anyone should use these terms willy nilly though.
The point I wish to make is that words can mean different things in different situations between different people.
And, as I said specifcally about Big Brother, my point is not about it directly, rather an off-shoot of the debate that we never have in britain but one which seems to have been had in the US as a result of their differing experience, especially with matters of race.
Incidnetally, I would fully expect to be todl that I am condoning racism and discrimination by people on the Left. Having an adult, and pruely intellectual discussion on these matters is, sadly, impossible these days. Which is a shame.
I love the fact that children are doing what children do - being subversive to the current orthodoxy. Look at the use of the word " gay " in schools now, where it generally means " lame ". The current orthodoxies have of course been put in place by the po face PC brigade, so I look forward to most of their work being demolished by the next generation.
You were doing so well there Dizzy, then you have to go and spoil it by taking things down the same old tired political lines.
The whole public narrative on race and ethnicity is a mess, agreed, but if you want a genuine debate (and you are one of Tory bloggers I've come across who does show the capacity to engage is such a debate intelligently) that it has to be acknowledged both that there are faults on both sides and that we need to get away completely from the full range of obstructive tropes, which includes crude left/right designations, 'political correctness' - especially the kind that has allegedly gone mad - and the absurdity of claiming that multiculturalism and integration are polar opposites between which a choice has to be made.
'Integration' is no more than accepting that certain common standards are necessary in the public domain and 'multiculturalism' is simply the acceptance that people can believe what like like in the private domain - balance the two domains correctly and there is no conflict nor a choice to be made, merely a pluralist society.
In other words, if you want an intelligent and credible debate then you need to cut out the partisan political rhetoric and half-baked show-boating and be consistent in your arguments, as you have been here.
Your 'side' is still the one with the image problem and laudable as your own remarks are, any positives that might come from them are still far to easily undone if you let crude politicking get in the way and make yourselves look like a bunch of hypocrites.
Seriously, Dizzy, I agree with your stance, but to make real headway in this it does need to be taken outside the usual business of left/right barracking and dumbass rhetorical point-scoring.
I see it as a question of social grammar, like the vous-tu issue. A French Lieutenant knows that he can only use 'tu' with another Lieutenant...
Unity I'm not sure what you mean about partisanship. The dominance of the relativistic argument you put forward is very much steeped in Left wing intellectualism, that is matter of acdemic fact. My only mention of the Left, in my comment where I said I expected to be slated, was directed at the intellectul aspect of it, not the party political one.
My belief in the contradiciton between integration and multiculturalism is a philosophical one not a party political one because it stems from the inherent contradiction in the sophistry of relativism in general.
There are many on the Left who are riding against that tide as you know, and they should priased for it in my opinion.
BTW, I'm not point scoring. This is a website of my personal opinions, it is not a soapbox platform for office.
There was a big debate when Chris Rock - black American comedian used the N word in his stand up show - Bring the pain. A really interesting debate. A white comedian could never have done such a routine - which seems to back Dizzy's view that it depends who says what and in what context.
Dizzy, you write:
"Do not mistake my piece for me saying that everyone and anyone should use these terms willy nilly though."
Absolutely, and I'd like to think that good manners should be the yard stick for usage, rather than political correctness or, worse still, the law.
Er... I would have agreed with your analysis were it not for the fact that the Ch4 press release sent out to describe the incident was wholly misleading.
Like yourself, I was arguing the context was key in determining a response, thinking that the particular incident took place while they were dancing, perhaps even discussing urban music.
In fact, they were not. A casual conversation was punctuated by what looked to be a complete (freudian) slip of the tongue - dear christ, even emily herself looked shocked she'd said it.
As it stands, it was entirely inappropriate. Go take a look, I'm sure it'll be on youtube by now.
Also, I'm not necessarily certain that "paki" is ever used in the way in which you describe; certainly its use is vastly different to that of "nigger"/"nigga"
Sometimes I think the whole multiculturism thing is deliberately imposed in such a way to invite a backlash.
I have a couple of foreign acquaintances of different ethnic backgrounds who have mixed friends back home. Apparently they banter amongst themselves in similar language to the kids you mentioned. Except they are adults. They laugh at our political correctness.
Still we're not as bad as Americans or Canadians yet. Some of them are even shocked at using the word 'gayboy' or 'homo' to mean 'lame' (during a football match for God sake).
"Meanwhile, the older generation says, "oh you mustn’t use that word" and simply attempt to suppress language in a rather blunt fashion."
Hmm..not sure it is the 'older generation', more the 'middle-age, middle-class'.
However, my question to you, dizzy, would be how to address the situation [which came up in a court case a few years ago] in which some football hooligans called people 'paki'. When it came to court [not sure which level, I'm afraid] the judge said that it could not be found racially offensive as it was, quote, 'mere doggerel'. This seems perverse, as they were clearly being offensive. Indeed, it went to a higher court and the decision was reversed. It was found that the word was offensive - the intent behind it didn't need to be proved.
I agree, we should look at the intent and context, but the problem arises when it gives a 'get out of jail free card' to those with smart lawyers to be able to use racially inflammatory language.
However if you look at this clip of Eddie Griffin you can understand why people get a tad confused..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mc6MvtzChxo
Presumably Jeremy Jacobs has never visited White Hart Lane where his North London friends go.
A good post, and points well made. I walked down our local high street with a police woman yesterday to hear the street kids saying to each other five-oh, five-oh, straight out of the Baltimore street talk in The Wire.
However, you could upset your little mate in Prague with that sort of language, he's very sensitive you know.
Whilst I would not condone free use of the 'n' word, especially in its most negative context, I do worry where this is going. Once we start proscribing certain words, where is this leading us? Would the contestant have been thrown out if she used the words, 'Jock', or 'Paddy' or any other derogatory term? It's not that long ago that a councillor in Scotland was prosecuted for using the word 'Boyo' to a Welshman. That should have caused more of a stir than it did, but sadly it is a sign of the times that we are being subject to a codification of our behaviour by the authoritarian liberals of the establishment. That's a one-way ticket to totalitarianism. It's a question of balancing freedom of speech with the need for public order - common sense, decency and civic responsibility ought to prevail, rather than the edicts of the Thought Police in my view.
Great to see that Google has targeted us for Diversity Training !!!
anon said: Er... I would have agreed with your analysis were it not for the fact that the Ch4 press release sent out to describe the incident was wholly misleading.
In fainress I did say that the details behind the BB8 thing was merely a starting point of thinking about this, rather than a point of reference of what happened. Hence I cocneded that the girl might actually be a neo-Nazi loon for all I know, and that my point was meant to be much wider.
Regarding the other anon about the term "paki", I think what you say illsutrates the point about context. A tonne of C18 skinhead chanting "paki" is clearly very different to some white kid referring to his freind in the same way but within a peer group.
Bob, re: White Hart Lane, you;re spot on. I have a Jewuish friend or txt'd me "Go Yiddos!" every time they scored against Everton when we got smashed 5-1.
There was an interesting episode on The Apprentice earlier this season. Two people had fallen out, a white man and a black woman. When talking about the other to a third person the word 'monkey' was used. It seemed interesting that because it was the woman it was acceptable but if the roles had been reversed (and it was used with the same meaning intended) I am sure there would have been a different reaction.
Like you say far too much weight is applied to words out of context. Is weird though that the BB makers originally suggested they were dancing at the time giving it a slightly different context.
Good post Dizzy.
As for street talk children will be children, and if they are told by everyone older than them that they can not use some words then they are going to do exactly what children do and use them. We've had this sort of force feeding children political correctness for years now and this would seem to be a result of it.
I think that BB should have dealt with this episode by way of a private verbal warning - and they should have told Charley that she can't use the word either. But generally, I agree that a system of taboo words can be counter-productive.
Bob - you apologised for your error (once rebuked by your boss), but you still don't get it do you? Avoiding unnecessary offence is a question of good manners which is particularly encumbent on politicians. And if I hear Unity chuntering on about right-wingers being partisan one more time ...
Dizzy:
The problem with drifting towards partizanship is that positively invites contributions from the idiot tendency that invariably end up drowning out the real debate.
Its the usual signal to noise ratio problem - no matter how solid or well expressed you critique of cultural relativism might be it is of little value if the introduction of simplistic political designations like left and right into the argument result in the debate degenerating into dull-witted oppositionalism and name-calling based on pre-conceived and innaccurate notions of what left and right actually mean.
I'm not criticising you for point scoring, merely noting that your reference to likely (and idiotic) criticism from 'the left' unwitting invites the precise kind of argument you're trying to avoid.
So far as cultural relativism being rooted in left-wing intellectualism is concerned, that's broadly correct but in the context of this debate it can (and does) become problematic because it leads to arguments based assumptions that may not be valid.
The view, for example, that I expressed on the relationship between integration and multiculturalism is not relativistic but libertarian in so far as it recognises both the distinction between public and private domains, i.e. between communal responsibilities and personal liberty, which turn creates constraints on the extent and manner in which each domain might legitimately seek to influence the other.
In my view, integration and multiculturalism need not be treated, philosophically, as opposites because of the terms in which I define the two concepts, in particular multiculturalism which I define (in philosophical terms) as the right to hold and express particular cultural views and values to the full extent permissible under and consistent with the expression of personal liberty.
The parameters of the debate are therefore, for me, about how we might move from the position we are in now, in which the two do come into conflict, to that which I consider should exist and in which both concepts co-exist with the minimum possible of conflict.
This, in turn, moves the debate away from heavily loaded questions of culture and belief towards that of the construction, nature and relationship between the public and private domains - between the communal responsibilities and personal liberties necessary to produce a stable and peaceful society.
In such a construction values can be considered equal (and therefore relative) only to the extent that the conform to the common (and universal) values of the public domain or have the value of existing in the private domain and therefore constituting a component of personal liberty.
It follows, therefore, that that which conflicts with or opposes the universal common values of the public domain has no value - one cannot place a value on, say, torture, relative to common standards, is those common standards do not permit any such thing. Equally one cannot make an assessment of the relative value of simply referring to your chosen deity as 'god', 'Allah', 'Jehovah', 'Rama' etc as the name you give to such a concept is entirely personal matter - the names, themselves - have exactly the same 'value' because you are at liberty to call your deity whatever you like - any actions you choose to take as a result of the name you apply to your deity, however, are a different matter are have value only on the basis of whether those actions are public or private.
If I've expressed that well enough then I should have both clarified my position and indicated how cognitive biases associated with notions of left and right come into play. You assume - understandably and in the absence of evidence to the contrary - that my views on the subject confirm to your ideas of what my being a 'lefty' will entail.
That's not a problem in itself so long as there's scope to challenge, and correct such assumptions, which is what makes for a good debate.
Where it can (and does) become problematic is where the debate becomes clogged with people who refuse to engage with anything other than their preconceived notions of what 'left' and 'right' mean, which is why I consider the terms somewhat counterproductive in the context of a debate of this kind, as they tend (unfortuately) to obscure and even destroy the careful contextualisation necessary for constructive debate.
(Should say at this point that I've just had an email from Dizzy who's already cottoned on to what I was driving at to begin with, henceforth all this should be considered to be simply a general contribution to the discussion and not an implied or actual criticism of Dizzy).
In order to provide context for Unity's last comment this the following is the contents of my email to him:
I fell into the exact trap of contextualisation. When I was talking about "the Left" it was not so much the political Left in party terms but rather the "intellectual Left" of academia. Obviously I am not on the Left so mentioning them would appear like a partisan point, however, for me it is an intellectual and philosophical one that I am expressing. Thanks for the largely positive comments though. Appreciated even if I do think you're wrong about "integration/multiculturalism being compatiable"
OK, it appears we fundamnetally disagree on one point here, that values can be considered equal. I simply do not accept that presmise on any terms because it produces ends which lead to sophistry.
By all means, anyone is free and at liberty to hold any view. They may be a raving racist bigot, or a Stalin collectivist. They are free to hodl those values, but their values are not, as far as I am concerned, of equal value to mine.
Also, when you talk about universal values do you mean categorical imperatives?
Reminds me of something that happened many moons back in my local, a young lady was being introduced to the locals - several of which happened to have the name Chris - then she meets the last Chris (a black gent) and she says - I will never remember all of them and quick as a flash Chris say back to her "Its ok darlin, just call me Chris the coon."
Apparently 'Gay' now really means 'Lame'. I expect 'Lame' was non-PC in its time?
Like those hideous 70s fashions coming back, I even hear my kids say 'Spaz'.
And as if by magic, PT shows up to validate the points made in my last comment.
Look, PT, you're the one that's not 'getting' it here.
You presume that the image that I produced (not Bob) - so at least have the courtesy of address your comments to me - caused 'unnecessary offence'.
As I stated at the time, if the image caused any genuine offence - which excludes you, BTW - it did so for reasons I considered to be all too necessary.
As I stated in my first comment the current public narrative on race and ethnicity is a mess. It is slack, lazy, intellectual flaccid and dominated by vested interests who primary motivation rest in the preservation of a status quo that afford them a measure of unmerited personal/political advantage.
The overriding purpose of that image was to shake that narrative and spark off a measure of controversy in order to open up what I consider a very necessary debate - in fact much the same kind of debate that's taking place here at the moment, precisely as I explained when the artificial furore you set about generating died down sufficiently for me to do what I intended all along, which was to recontextualise the image and explain my thinking - something I couldn't do when posting the image without negating the possibility of spawning the reaction I was looking to provoke.
Dizzy posed the question at the time of what would have happened has a Tory blogger tried the same thing. They would have got slaughtered, of course, which was precisely the point. Such an image from a right-wing blogger would not have had the same effect precisely because it would have been written off entirely unthinkingly as just another example of a Tory playing the race card, which would negate entirely, any sense of context.
One of the things that I was absolutely banking on in posting that image was my own personal and well-establish reputation when it comes to race relations issues, one that makes it very difficult if not impossible to simply write me off as a 'racist'. That in itself, forces people to engage with the image and try to think about what it might actually mean, creating the cognitive dissonence around the image necessary to provoke the response I wanted.
If you bother to look at the posts where I did recontextualise and explain the image and the background to it, you'll find a number of Tory bloggers have posted what amounts to 'yes, now I see what you were up to' comments. Bel was certainly one, Benedict another and while Morag had some reservations about the image itself (due to aspects of her personal background, the image was rather more politically loaded for her than for most people), even she could appreciate and accept that I was doing and why, even if she was at little unsure of my methods.
Partizan is as partizan does and throughout that whole episode (and on several occasions since) you've demonstrated an inability to engage intelligently in constructive debate because you place more store by narrow decontextualised notions of left and right that you do in addressing the substance of the arguments in front of you to the extent that I've received a number of emails from right-wing bloggers expressing outright embarrassment at some of your antics.
Now you can take those remarks as being just Unity taking another shot at you for being a Tory, or you can think about the impression you actually create when you start running off at the mouth without having first engaged the brain - there is a time and place for banter and political knockabout and, equally, one for serious debate, you really do need to learn to recognise and understand the difference between the two if you're not to keep making a complete arse of yourself on a regular basis.
(BIG HINT - Dizzy's kicked off an interesting, serious and dare I say it, important discussion here and you'd be well advised to get with the programme and debate the issues)
Now getting back to the point... categorical imperatives, mmm.
unity:
Pouring from the empty into the void is what I also do to avoid getting a life.
Dizzy posed the question at the time of what would have happened has a Tory blogger tried the same thing. They would have got slaughtered, of course, which was precisely the point. Such an image from a right-wing blogger would not have had the same effect precisely because it would have been written off entirely unthinkingly as just another example of a Tory playing the race card, which would negate entirely, any sense of context.
Go me for consistency on a topic! It's a rare thing.
As a remote parallel, my sister would upbraid my mother for using the word 'girls' in reference to her own middle aged friends, on the grounds that it was patronising, diminishing of women etc etc.
Where sister was in error is that context is everything - if I refer to going for 'a drink with the boys', that is wholly different from my one time female boss referring to male employees in the office as 'boys', just as a male boss referring to grown women as 'girls' is problematic. The language we use in peer group conversation may well be wholly unsuitable if used by an outsider, with this highly obvious among groups centred on sexual identity, race, religion and so forth.
Consequently, much of what is referred to as PC speech is often nothing more than manners and tact. If I describe someone as African British rather than black in this country I run the risk of causing offence, whereas switched around I would be doing the same in the US.
Apart from the question of whether the use of that particular word is racist in the context in which she used it, wasn't the girl who used it in the BB house incredibly STUPID.
She had been told before she went into the house specifically not to use words that could be perceived as racist and yet she used a word that even a hard-nosed BNPer wouldn't have used on TV.
What a numpty.
She used the word because it was obvious that all you lot would twitter about it.
All this divesity was forced on the public by Blair etc. who wanted lebenstraum for his pending mates.
The shole thing was taken from the national socialists - right down to language restriction and employment denial for dissenters.
Alison Pearson's column in today's Mail is along the same lines.
I kinda agree and said so at LOL. But poor Emma hadn't earnt her stripes and didn't know what was acceptable in this group. I'd not have chucked her out. But the revelations from her "mates" in Bristol that she has a history of using these words in vindictive and disrespectful and denigrative (that's a good word for this discussion?!) ways.
Let's start a conspiracy. C4 paid her to do it and her mates to rat her by mentioning ir over and over again as in "shhhh, don't say that; shhhh, let's cover up that word she said" etc etc
Post a Comment