Discussion of the word racist

soontobe what the heck are you talking about?

It won't stop while anyone thinks that anyone who is not the same as them in their colour, religion, class, age, income, education, anything that makes them different, is somehow a threat to them and must be attacked before they do the attacking.

Whatever word is used, the attitude is the same. When one word wears out from over-use, another gets used. You don't stop racism by banning all the words that are used to describe people of other races, and you don't stop people being inaccurately accused of racism when their actions are due to other causes by not using the word "racism".

The authorities in Rotherham knew perfectly well what was going on within their community, but we're afraid to do anything about it because the perpetrators of this awful episode were from Pakistan, and the authorities were terrified of being labelled as racist if they attempted to apprehend them. It's as simple as that. Yes a lot of young people suffered because of this misguided attitude, and a lot of evil people got away with awful crimes because of it. People are people, and those that do wrong should be prosecuted whoever or whatever they are, so let's hope that this will be a salutary lesson to prevent it happening again.

I agree with the last posts of TerriBull, POGS, GillT57 and mollie65.

The word racist has been used for good.
But the fear of the label of the word has done huge damage too. Which may take years to undo.

The word is a double-edged sword. Is that a good way of describing it?

Too cryptic for me.

Everyone has had fear of the word. Which has let terrible things happen.

Let's hope it stops now.

the thinking behind being accused of being racist with regard to any ethnic community seems to be justified by the fact that these are ethnic MINORITIES and we all still bear the guilt of past behaviour by the wider white community towards minorities
good post POGS

What exactly is it that worries you about the word 'racist' soontobe? You have not been afraid to use it yourself in the past, or was that 'in a good way'? What do you think constitutes 'a bad way'?

well said POGS, since when has it been racist to describe perpetrators of crime by their ethnicity? If it is men of Pakistani origin who have been tried and found guilty of child trafficking, grooming, abuse, paedophilia etc., then that is the case. I dont see lots of music critics rushing to the press to explain that there are many other faded rock stars who are not paedophiles and so we shouldnt judge them all because of the conviction of Gary Glitter. Hope this point doesnt come across as facile because it isnt meant to be.

Racism is not a preserve of the indigenous white population "white slags" a term that the groomers would use to describe their victims pejorative and racist. It goes both ways.

I think it is perfectly understandable what soon is trying to say.

The Rotherham Inquiry explicitly uses the word and terms, racist, political correctness etc. Thank goodness for plain speaking , at last!

The severity of Rotherham makes it a little uncomfortable for those who would normally cry shouts of 'racist' to anybody who debated/spoke of incidences such as the Asian grooming problem. Every time we discuss anything that factually belongs to an ethnic group we all tread on egg shells and feel we have to provide evidence to mitigate the issue so we can't be called a racist.

Rotherham was factually an Asian grooming issue. We then talk about it by saying ' yes BUT the church, white people, the establishment do the same, it's not an Asian only problem' Agreed but why do we always have to walk on egg shells and feel it necessary to give a counter arguement , because of the fear of being called a racist, bigot .

We talk about the Halal meat slaughter house cruelty. We have to say 'yes BUT it's not only halal slaughter houses who have videos of cruelty it happens in non halal slaughter houses too' Agreed but why do we always have to walk on egg shells and feel it necessary to give a counter arguement , because of the fear of being called a racist, bigot.

When we talk about the church having paedophile priests/vicars I never hear 'yes BUT Muslim preachers have them too'. It doesn't happen because we are not in fear of being called a racist, bigot because we are 'permitted' to tell it how it is as we are not upsetting anybody from an ethnic minority. The list goes on.

So I am hoping there can be grown up debates that allow the facts to dictate the discussion without the fear of being called a racist, bigot and political correctness being used to deflect honest debate, I won't hold my breath.!

I will have a look TerriBull.

janeainsworth.
The abuse continued because some people in positions of responsibility wickedly chose to ignore information that other people had passed to them

And why did they choose to ignore?
Partly, and may be mainly, because they were afraid of being labelled with the word "racist".

jingl, no
Some of my thoughts formulate as I go along. And as others contribute to them.

Perhaps it's a better idea to sort your ideas out before you start a thread.

soontobe - you have made a justifiable point I have already posted on the "Daily Telegraph" thread which is pretty much on the same theme.

Children in Rotherham were not abused because of a word, Soon
They were abused because they fell under the influence of evil people.
The abuse continued because some people in positions of responsibility wickedly chose to ignore information that other people had passed to them.
Words do not instigate or have responsibility for evil actions.
People do.

Its plusses now are being far outweighed by its negatives now. In my opinion.
And actually have been for a couple of decades.

I suppose what I am trying to say [I am formulating my thoughts as I go along on this thread], is that the word is being used by some people to hide what they are doing, or not act etc. It is being used as a coverup by some.

On the contrary let's use the word and not pussyfoot round it because of "connotations". We should not be afraid of according the word its full meaning.

I agree that it is the attitude.

I dont know exactly what I am saying janeainsworth, hence the discussion.

The word itself is used so powerfully as to result in the Rotherham situation.
All those people abused.
And in part, because of the word racist.

The word needs to lose its power in some way.
I think it started out being used well.
But now it can be used by some people to let them get away with all sorts of things, or to not act when they should be acting.

What are you going on about soontobe?

So what do you suggest? It isn't the word per se that causes problems, surely, more the attitude it encompasses.