What is going to be done with the British Newspaper Archive to remove all the thousands of references to **** Brown.
Stan
What is going to be done with the British Newspaper Archive to remove all the thousands of references to **** Brown.
Stan
You've forgotten other surnames - White and Black immediately spring to mind, and I am sure there are others , perhaps Little or Large :-\ ;D
Times change, and so do our perceptions of what is acceptable and what is not; and when you know that the use of a word causes upset or offence, why would you continue to use it, when there are other alternatives? Unless of course you wanted to cause upset and offence.
In medieval times it was common for towns to name their streets to show the trades that were carried out there. Most of these names would still be acceptable today, but not so for Gropec*nt Lane, which indicated where the prostitutes plied their trade. Nowadays most of us would not use that word under any circumstances (apart from those who live in Scunthorpe, who have no choice but to live with it ;D), because it is considered offensive. So there you are, just one example of how things change. History hasn't changed, though; but it is being added to, day by day.
And for those worrying about the name of the dog in the Dambusters film, he's called Trigger. I shouldn't think he'd be upset.
And for those worrying about the name of the dog in the Dambusters film, he's called Trigger. I shouldn't think he'd be upset.
Are you sure? Trigger was the name of Roy Rogers' horse - not the Dambusters' dog :-\
The dog in question was called what it was - we cannot change that. However, we don't need to perpetuate the use of words that cause pain, suffering and offence. The words that my grandparents used are not the words that I would use, and language will evolve again ad infinitum. I think that it is right (and overdue) that we have a full and frank conversation about how we as a nation have historically treated other people - and that goes for all nations and about all people, the UK are not the only nation guilty of violating others.
As Greensleeves alluded to - history doesn't stop, we make it everyday! We have to embrace change and move forward to ensure true equality happens for all humans.
... they were aware they could not use the name when the film was shown in the USA
..... it's hard for me to believe that, even in the 1940s, the name was not chosen because it was considered amusing, and not in a nice way.
Assuming that I have correctly guessed the name of this dog, it's hard for me to believe that, even in the 1940s, the name was not chosen because it was considered amusing, and not in a nice way. I was born not that long after WWII and, I can assure you that that specific pejorative was not ever permitted in our home nor, indeed, any similar epithet referring to any ethnic or religious group. Period. That doesn't mean history should be erased, necessarily, but it is wrong to brush it off as simply a relic of a more 'innocent' time.
What is going to be done with the British Newspaper Archive to remove all the thousands of references to **** Brown.
Stan
I still have no idea how changing things is "erasing the past".
If you change your surname when you get married, are you erasing your past?!
Seems more like some people would just prefer to stubbornly hold onto things whatever the cost.
"Niger was called Niger"
Uh huh, right. His name was Niger but for some reason they spelled and pronounced it differently.
I still have no idea how changing things is "erasing the past".
If you change your surname when you get married, are you erasing your past?!
Seems more like some people would just prefer to stubbornly hold onto things whatever the cost.
I'm not a Latin expert but I expect it followed the same rules as its Romance descendants - soft G's and C's after i or e, hard G's and C's after anything else.
"'g' was always hard (as in 'gate')"
Uh huh, right. How do you pronounce Geranium? Genus?
In French it's determined by the vowel following the 'g' or 'c', not the one before. I don't know about other Romance languages.
Uh huh, right. How do you pronounce Geranium? Genus?
So - is it only the English version that is perceived to be "offensive"? What about the similar word in other languages? And just when did all this start?
When did it start? I assume that is a rhetorical question but if not, it started on the slave plantations of America when that term was used as a deliberately de-humanising racial epithet.
When I was a little lad, 80+ years ago in Lancashire, I had a cast-iron bank for saving odd coins. It was the head and shoulders of a black man with a very cheery smile. When you put a penny into his outstretched palm, then pushed a little lever, his hand went up to his mouth and he swallowed the coin. Great fun!
On the back, the name in raised letters: "Jolly N****r Bank". These banks were quite popular among kids at the time.
Did such things give us silly ideas about black people? Absolutely not.
It perpetuated a racist myth of the simple jolly slave. It was a stereotype. That seems like a silly idea about black people to me.
Stuff like that was of its time, but thankfully times have changed, as has what is deemed acceptable.
I still have no idea how changing things is "erasing the past".
If you change your surname when you get married, are you erasing your past?!
Seems more like some people would just prefer to stubbornly hold onto things whatever the cost.
Exactly. The past can not be erased. Removing a statue of a slave trader doesn't "erase the past", it just demonstrates that 21st century Britain no longer believes that people like that deserve to be on a pedestal. Renaming a dog in the remake of a film is not "political correctness", it is just that certain derogatory words have no place in modern society. Why some people (I don't mean on this forum) are so vociferous in demanding that the dog retains its original name when so many other details have to be changed in the process of making a film beats me.
Maybe Germans are offended by films where Americans call them 'krauts'. Having one's countrymen called 'cabbages' must be offensive.
Totally irrelevant really to this discussion, except that it involves erasing the original image - Isambard Kingdom Brunel's best known photograph originally showed him with a generously sized cigar in his mouth - usually, now, images of him show exactly the same picture, but sans cigar.
I don't object really to that, I'm a confirmed, lifelong NON-smoker, but - it does somehow change the image from how he would be seen in his own time, doesn't it?
... Brunel's best known photograph originally showed him with a generously sized cigar in his mouth - usually, now, images of him show exactly the same picture, but sans cigar.This seems simply stupid to me - some folk seem to be far-too-easily offended.
I don't object really to that, I'm a confirmed, lifelong NON-smoker, but - it does somehow change the image from how he would be seen in his own time, doesn't it?
This seems simply stupid to me - some folk seem to be far-too-easily offended.
And I, personally, totally DISAGREE with attempting to change the facts of the past. It was what it was - whether we, in the present, like it or not, or whether we agree with it or not - it HAPPENED.
"That is offensive.", what they are really saying is "In my opinion, that is offensive."
Really, Chas? The aforementioned American in-law went into to a prolonged rant against Blacks and foreigners. Given that my own mother was a foreigner, that we lived in a foreign country and thus were foreigners ourselves, that there are Black people in my extended family and that my father was born in and grew up in an African country, I think I was quite right to feel offended. And I let him know it, too. He slunk away but I'm sure he was unrepentant and unreformed.
The English woman and the South Americans were just as vile, although their targets were different.
Personally I am sick of the whole thing. It is not acceptable for us non-black people to use the n****r word, but it is okay for them to call each other that, and it is ok for them to call some of us white n****rs. Todays society needs to grow a pair.
This whole BLM thing going on now is, as far as I am concerned racist since it suggests the lives of people of any other colour do not matter. Yet the mainstream media push it
Personally I am sick of the whole thing. It is not acceptable for us non-black people to use the n****r word, but it is okay for them to call each other that, and it is ok for them to call some of us white n****rs. Todays society needs to grow a pair.
This whole BLM thing going on now is, as far as I am concerned racist since it suggests the lives of people of any other colour do not matter. Yet the mainstream media push it
So you won't be reading Huckleberry Finn then?
Oh well, your loss.
This whole BLM thing going on now is, as far as I am concerned racist since it suggests the lives of people of any other colour do not matter. Yet the mainstream media push it
Where to even begin with this?
And poor Bertie also feels like a victim of racism because other people are demanding equality.
Must be tough being a white man in the UK.
Due to your living in Mainland Europe, you obviously do not realise that here in the UK, companies have to fulfil certain criteria when choosing a job applicant and that criteria has nothing to do with skill or experience. For more than a decade companies have been requested by governments to increase both female and BLM employees, which as you may realise, puts the white male at a distinct advantage.
This whole BLM thing going on now is, as far as I am concerned racist since it suggests the lives of people of any other colour do not matter. Yet the mainstream media push it
Where to even begin with this?
And poor Bertie also feels like a victim of racism because other people are demanding equality.
Must be tough being a white man in the UK.
I don't like people who sneer at others who hold a different viewpoint.
Due to your living in Mainland Europe, you obviously do not realise that here in the UK, companies have to fulfil certain criteria when choosing a job applicant and that criteria has nothing to do with skill or experience. For more than a decade companies have been requested by governments to increase both female and BLM employees, which as you may realise, puts the white male at a distinct disadvantage.
Rena; Heinz 57 variety
PS: edited due to Microsoft amending one of my words.
Due to your living in Mainland Europe, you obviously do not realise that here in the UK, companies have to fulfil certain criteria when choosing a job applicant and that criteria has nothing to do with skill or experience. For more than a decade companies have been requested by governments to increase both female and BLM employees, which as you may realise, puts the white male at a distinct advantage.
Not quite right. The requirement is to make sure that organisations are not discriminating against female or ethnic minority applicants. It's hard to argue against that, isn't it?
It's about fairness for all.
"puts the white male at a distinct disadvantage"
When you're used to being privileged from birth, equality feels like disadvantage.
Five pages related to the job experience, education, etc and twelve pages requiring personal information pertained to religion; are you straight or a homosexual; what is your nationality, including which British slot do you fit into, e.g. "British"; "British Asian", etc., etc.
"puts the white male at a distinct disadvantage"
When you're used to being privileged from birth, equality feels like disadvantage.
I'm white, from a white family and my children were brought up in a council house for nine years. their father died from overwork.when the youngest was 17. How does that make us "used to privilege"? Furthermore, due to government constraints my daughter, on return from living abroad couldn't secure a permanent state teaching job. fortunately she was able to secure a part teaching job in a private school but only being paid when in contact with her pupils - for instance she was given ten minutes pay for supervising her pupils from the sports field to their next lesson under another teacher.
As an ex-forces wife I'm used to having pals of various shades and nationalities which includes visiting each others homes daily, weekly and for parties, thus I don't need any lectures thank you very much.
Five pages related to the job experience, education, etc and twelve pages requiring personal information pertained to religion; are you straight or a homosexual; what is your nationality, including which British slot do you fit into, e.g. "British"; "British Asian", etc., etc.
I've been on both sides of the the recruitment table for large organisations - as an applicant and as a recruiter. The pages you mention (and I've never seen twelve of them), go to the HR department not to the people making decisions about who to interview or recruit. They are used for monitoring purposes so that, for instance, if 60% of suitably qualified applicants were from a minority background but only 5% of appointments went to these applicants, questions could be asked about the recruitment process.
I'm a white male and I can assure you I don't feel discriminated against.
"puts the white male at a distinct disadvantage"
When you're used to being privileged from birth, equality feels like disadvantage.
I'm white, from a white family and my children were brought up in a council house for nine years. their father died from overwork.when the youngest was 17. How does that make us "used to privilege"? Furthermore, due to government constraints my daughter, on return from living abroad couldn't secure a permanent state teaching job. fortunately she was able to secure a part teaching job in a private school but only being paid when in contact with her pupils - for instance she was given ten minutes pay for supervising her pupils from the sports field to their next lesson under another teacher.
As an ex-forces wife I'm used to having pals of various shades and nationalities which includes visiting each others homes daily, weekly and for parties, thus I don't need any lectures thank you very much.
Different aspects of our lives can bring privilege with them.
Being born poor or into a working class family clearly doesn't but being white does.
So many white people are blind to the fact that being white has made many aspects of their life easier than if they'd been born as a person of colour.
Our ethnicity, biological sex, gender identity, sexuality, being disabled or able bodied, class, religion (amongst others) and how they are perceived by society at large prevent life from being a level playing field.
"Does it not enter certain people's train of thoughts that there is a reason why tribes in the north have white skin, but some white and dark skinned people of the generations born in the late 20th and early 21st century now blame white skins for wanting to stay and work on the continent nature assigned them to."
This is one of the most bizarre things I've ever read. What are you actually trying to say?
A lot of my ancestors thought nothing of settling on a continent that nature had not assigned them to.
I think it means that Europe is for white people because "nature" [meaning god] assigned them to it.
being disabled or able bodied, class, religion (amongst others) and how they are perceived by society at large prevent life from being a level playing field.[/b]
A lot of my ancestors thought nothing of settling on a continent that nature had not assigned them to.
I realise that. Some of my cousins have moved abroad due to the need of finding work which pays for food to keep them alive. I can't be sure but as we were all raised the same, I'm pretty sure they didn't whinge and whine that their host country was racist towards them being Poms and Limeys.
A lot of my ancestors thought nothing of settling on a continent that nature had not assigned them to.
I realise that. Some of my cousins have moved abroad due to the need of finding work which pays for food to keep them alive. I can't be sure but as we were all raised the same, I'm pretty sure they didn't whinge and whine that their host country was racist towards them being Poms and Limeys.
Perhaps because Australia was colonised by the British?! And government policy was for so long based on the idea of white supremacy. And in some ways still is.
A lot of my ancestors thought nothing of settling on a continent that nature had not assigned them to.
I realise that. Some of my cousins have moved abroad due to the need of finding work which pays for food to keep them alive. I can't be sure but as we were all raised the same, I'm pretty sure they didn't whinge and whine that their host country was racist towards them being Poms and Limeys.
Perhaps because Australia was colonised by the British?! And government policy was for so long based on the idea of white supremacy. And in some ways still is.
British governments weren't the only governments to colonise other countries. The Dutch discovered Australia (which they named "New Holland") in the 1600s. They could have added it to their other colonies that they had in the Americas, Asia, Africa, but they didn't because the 300 mile coastline that they chartered was a wilderness where nothing grew, thus they didn't think it was worth colonising.