Meghan and Harry. Has anyone changed their opinion post Oprah?

That's not what I said nanagee. What you are trying to do is not going to work.

OK Galaxy let's say that a middle ground exists, what would 'this side' need to give up in order to meet there? It can't be everything, just what's necessary for conciliation. I'm very happy to be made uncomfortable if you can offer anything new.

I should warn you that this is stony ground, and I am likely to come back with where this has already been conceded, so you are going to have to come up with something that isn't racism = already conceded. The right to step back= already conceded. The right to privacy = already conceded.

I saw that too Galaxy and IMO if this entire saga wasn't so distasteful it would be funny.

So, if anyone defends PM for voicing his opinions and point of view they risk offending someone of colour. I read yesterday that BJ's sister was being dragged into the mire, for an article previously written which just like the headlines on display during the 'interview' has been taken out of context so she can be accused of racism.

I'm sure there's been upset and mistakes have been made on both sides, has there ever been a relationship that hasn't experienced these things?

However there hasn't been the smallest of concessions from H&M that they are anything less than perfect.

Oh dear Smiles when will people realise you can't conquer racism with straw men.

Well if it ever happens Nell it wont be soon enough for me.

NellG I’d like to make some suggestions for middle ground?

I would like to see fewer personal comments about anyone based on what the poster feels they must be thinking; so nobody saying that they know that Meghan thought this or that; nobody saying that William or anybody else did this or that when we can’t have any true knowledge of really what happened. No conjecture about anybody’s motivations that then lead on to an attack on that person for being selfish, cold, whatever.

I would like to see less of the partisan approach of if you’re not with us, you’ve against us. I might or might not believe all of what M&H said but its my opinion that they had a troubled time. But probably they didn't pick the best time to talk about it.

Less downplaying of racism. No more pretending that being worried about a baby’s skin colour is the same as wondering about the colour of their eyes. No more putting up straw horses about “Can I say that? Does that make me a racist?” Pretending to be confused about what racism actually is.

Making out that they had nothing to worry about, why are they complaining, look at all they had.

What about the other way? What would the other side like to see?

(Gosh, choosing my pronouns carefully….)

Smileless2012

Well if it ever happens Nell it wont be soon enough for me.

Replying to the thread in the context of the above post - Makes you wonder if people want to resolve it all, or whether some people are just so consumed with appearing to be 'better than' that they forget the issue isn't what people think of them. It's frustrating that some can't see that the key to this is not finger pointing and dredging up the past - practically no one with white skin brought up in the UK can claim not to have had some racism instilled that they haven't had to tackle - but it is to accept that by right of being white we are privileged, by right of that we cannot endow equality, and in order to change we have to be the change. That isn't telling other people they are racist, it's in accepting that we probably are and need not to be.

Cue the "I'm not a racist!" posts...

If we are going to get back on that band wagon can we at least begin from the point that though talking about a babies skin colour is not intentionally racist, and in some contexts can be seen as acknowledging that racism exists and it is a problem and therefore can be seen as concern for the child's future welfare, it is in fact racist. Purely because no one ever worries about your welfare based on the colour of your skin.

It's possible to see it as a racist thought, have it as a thought but not want to cleave to it. Which makes it a tiny bit less racist.

Equally I confess that I possess racist thoughts - I grew up with a father who could quote Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' rant for a pastime. I try to be fully conscious of those thoughts, not act on them and see my own part in perpetuating the problem. It's a work in progress. I will fail but I hope I will succeed more often. It's the least I can do as a person of white privilege.

Speaking of skin colour is racism unless it ‘white and privileged’

Alegrias Crossed posts. I've offered a bit in the above. I'll come back with the rest.

But of course, I'm only speaking for myself.

But I think it's happening on this thread, so when racism is raised its immediately oh you cant say anything about people of colour. But that's just another extreme position. So Sharon Osborne I am guessing has seen reactions from 30 people on Twitter, thinks that's the whole world, and reacts accordingly. Piers Morgan then says oh my God Sharon Osbourne is being bullied into apologising, etc, it's all extremes, there is no balance from either side. So I dont think it's anything to do with M & H anymore, not really, its become woke v free speech or some such nonsense. I am guessing some people would think of me as woke and I am obsessive about free speech, so not sure where I fit in this. Yes it's all about me me me

Annie I'm not sure what you mean - but calling someone white isn't racist. If that's what you mean't?

Maybe so Galaxy, I'm trying my best not to do it, maybe more will too?

Yes NellG if a person is called ‘a white privileged Male’ it
is racist, why not ‘a privileged Male ‘ ?

in some contexts can be seen as acknowledging that racism exists and it is a problem and therefore can be seen as concern for the child's future welfare,it is in fact racist

I have been pondering on this since the interview.

If the child's potential skin colour was raised in a conversation about the potential difficulties with racism that that child might face in the future then ...is considering it as a potential problem (particularly in the public eye) :

a) recognising realistically a potential problem and saying it is something to consider
b) being racist for thinking that it would be a potential problem (not thinking it SHOULD be but knowing the reality of what could happen, from articles, the media, experience or whatever! )
c) making the speaker a blatant racist

d) ?
e) ?

I dont have any answers, although I feel that the context of the conversation is relevant and it is a pity that the context was not explained

My mum used to look at the Queen and announce "Poor old dear. It's time she gave it up." There was a couple of years between them.

trisher I'm surprised your mum said that as, like my mum, she would probably remember the Abdication, the shockwaves it sent through the country and the determination of the then Princess Elizabeth never to do the same as her uncle.
As epitomised in her speech to the country and the Commonwealth on her 21st birthday, she has remained true to her word even if this is not what she chose to do and would probably have loved a different life altogether.

It's called dedication and a fulfilment of duty.

trisher

I had to google about spades and shovels and I realised that actually the only shovel I saw was the one with a short handle that we used for coal or ashes or anything to do with the coal fire. Apparently there is another sort with a long handle, used in gardening. Who knew? Is it a Northern thing the short handled shovel and long handled spade? Anyway here's the gardener's version gardentherapy.ca/shovels-and-spades/

It's Australian, trisher.
The British call a spade a spade but the Australians call it a bloody shovel.
Excuse language.

We had one of those short handled ones for the ashes, I can still visualise and 'feel' cleaning out the grate iyswim.

Anniebach

Yes NellG if a person is called ‘a white privileged Male’ it
is racist, why not ‘a privileged Male ‘ ?

It's not Annie promise. Like I explained on the LF thread.

I definitely have not changed my mind if fact I don’t like her at all now, we have a great Royal family who work hard and are not racists. She just wants the limelight on her all the while but not as second place but of courses where she gets the most exposure. It’s appalling what she has done.

Callistemon In times of stress I have also been known to refer to a spade as "A bloody shovel" it must be my Australian coming out!!

I don’t believe the royal family are racist

Lizzie35 The RF are not great they don't work hard they hardly work at all. 75% of charities don't get a visit from them only ones they set up themselves and they are all located near where they live. They don't bring in tourists either look at Visit Britain The French Palace has far more tourists.

Well some of them will be some of them wont be. Like lots of families. Being royal doesnt stop you being all sorts of things.

Shovels have sides and spades do not.

Disclaimer:
That is my opinion only and could be open to other interpretations.

Madgran I've been pondering it too and came down on the side that it is racist. Purely because a white baby's future welfare regarding its skin colour and race would never be a cause for concern.

But...the intention was hopefully not racist in the M&H case and was intended to be an expression of concern over the child's welfare that was not received that way by being repeated and served second hand. Or at least I'd like to think that it wasn't said with malice and that's the way it happened.

But that still leaves the fact that it was racist regardless of intent. It was still wrong and should have been tackled in house and not on TV where it has become a monster that is doing more damage than good to the efforts to counteract racism per se.

Neither was it the reason Archie wouldn't be made a Prince - and that's where the wheels came off and it became a divide between Racism and Plating the Race Card, and why M has been seen as manipulative etc etc. She spun it without evidence and it looks bad. To apparently use an incident of racism to back a series of decisions by spinning that incident into something it simply cannot be - an excuse to marginalise and exclude a baby - is as bad as the racism and completely undermines the credibility of the claim. But the question was still racist.

My conclusion is that all racism is unacceptable, but the racism we need to be concerned about primarily is that which prevents BAME people from having equal and unfettered access to all of the things we as white people take for granted. Like healthcare, education, housing, jobs etc etc - this should include a point in the very near future where the colour of skin doesn't even enter into the conversation because it wouldn't even be a concern for welfare because that would be equally assured. It should not be used to justify a series of behaviours that without it would be bad by two highly privileged individuals.

As certain posters are determined to run the RF family down with talk of idleness etc I’d like to redress the balance a little.

I remember Prince Charles walking across a room to seek out and shake the hand of Martin McGuinness, an IRA commander, knowing he probably sanctioned the murder of Earl Mountbatten. His young grandson was also killed, as was a young Irish lad helping on the boat. Others were injured. Prince Charles was extremely close to Lord Mountbatten and regarded him as a second father. It must have been extremely difficult to shake that man’s hand but he did it out of duty. Duty to the peace process and this country. Contrast this with Prince Harry meeting Melania Trump. He looked decidedly unhappy and uncomfortable and quite obviously would have rather been anywhere else. No doubt his wife had briefed him beforehand.

To keep denigrating these people as being idle, racist and spongers when they have no redress sickens me and to watch the other pair bemoaning their lot is equally stomach churning. I bet she hasn’t returned those ‘borrowed’ earrings!