Well done Lawrence Fox!

Yes, thank you suzie- and I have apologised and done some research this afternoon on the origin of the expression, etc- and will go to bed tonight just a bit less stupid, as a Canadian friend says.

''For some, the word handicapped evoked the idea of a beggar with cap in hand, though this was not the original source of the word. And disabled at that time was attractive for its rather cold, clinical connotation, meaning that it lacked euphemism or patronizing attitude, things that were also a problem for terms like special or differently-abled. The main problem with handicapped, though, was simply that it had not been chosen by the people it was supposed to describe.''

Although I speak, listen to, read and write English every day- it has been just over 10 years since we moved here- and I can feel that fluency is not what it used to be. As you say, in French we still very much use the word 'handicappé' - and sometimes my brain does go for direct translations. Apologies, again.

Sorry jura I missed out on a page of posts where you had explained about using the word ‘handicapped’

trisher when jura used ‘handicapped’ I assumed it was because her first language is French and disabled people translates as les gens handicappe( with an accent which I can’t do on my iPad) so I forgave her. I think widening out the debate to include anti-semitism and disability is very useful - I don’t think non-Jewish people denying tgat something was anti-Semitic would get the free pass that LF has. And as a disabled person, I would say without hesitation that my judgement as to whether something is ableist or not has much greater weight than the judgement of a non- disabled person. I wouldn’t expect for one moment that all disabled people would share all the same judgement re these issues but I would listen to and respect their views as they have skin in the game

Then P describes what happened between Rachel Boyle and Laurence Fox, quoting what each of them said. With regard to Fox saying "we're the most tolerant lovely country in Europe", P says apparently Finland is but we come second.

Is this really what was said?

Because Finland is the least tolerant of countries in Europe

We are second to Malta for being the most 'tolerant lovely country'

www.newshub.co.nz/home/world/2018/11/finland-shamed-as-the-eu-s-most-racist-country-in-new-report.html

Full article here

www.vox.com/first-person/2020/1/17/21070351/meghan-markle-prince-harry-leaving-royal-family-uk-racism?fbclid=IwAR3xuLm2lhU_RWIqpy_ys9kLcoLeZ0mEgzoB-3QS1AEMhpBhSm1o2jNxIUM

For me though, the main question remains. Why would anyone feel so threatened by the acknowledgement that racism exists, and was certainly felt by Meghan and Harry? What makes someone feel that way? Why is it some of us do, and some don't?

A young friend shared this article with me today- a white British woman who is widowed from her African born, black, husband. I'd say her experience is worth much more than mine. My OH is VERY mixed race, 3 racial groups- it just does not show, btw.

''For example, the press has talked about her “exotic DNA”; described her as “(almost) straight outta Compton”; attacked her for the very things that Kate Middleton, Prince William’s white wife, has been praised for; and compared the couple’s son to a chimpanzee. But in TV studios around the country, commentators seem to have peculiarly missed all of this. The coverage of Markle has been welcoming and warm, they say. And when confronted with the evidence that shows that certainly hasn’t always been the tone of reporting, they ask: Is it really racism, though?

Not all racism is overt. Much of it is subtle, quietly shaping the way people are seen, talked about, and treated. Some, like Piers Morgan, have argued it’s not racist to talk about Markle’s DNA as “exotic,” but this term has colonial roots, long working as a form of othering. Acknowledging this would mean really grappling with the insidious ways racism operates in the UK, undermining the notion that it is fundamentally a “tolerant” and “progressive” country.''

Thanks for your effort -

surely, idiots like Fox don't help, at all- he did not attempt to discuss or debate - but put out a rude and irritated blank statement that 'no racism' was involved.

The summary that Eloethan requested. It,s rather long but I wanted to be thorough.

I shall refer to the writer as P.

The sub-title of the article says that "blaming Meghan's flight on prejudice is absurd and simplistic in a nation that stands out for its tolerance and diversity", so that is the basis of her thesis in the article. Her premises are that the UK is a tolerant nation when compared to others and that our current online conversations about racism (e.g. on Twitter, I suppose) is terrible and neurotic. P thinks in 50 years' time this will be obvious.

Then P describes what happened between Rachel Boyle and Laurence Fox, quoting what each of them said. With regard to Fox saying "we're the most tolerant lovely country in Europe", P says apparently Finland is but we come second.

P says Fox deplored 'real' racism on QT and said that anxiety about it means "things like the Manchester grooming scandal get ignored". [I understand that this means police didn't deal properly with the abuse white girls were getting because they didn't want to cause "community tensions". This has been acknowledged elsewhere].

The article then says Fox was being a prat mocking woke culture but the Twitter pile-on culminating in him being called a disgrace and calls were made for his work to dry up was over the top.

P calls this nonsense that needs unpicking, that our dialogue about racism has become absurd and counterproductive (see the paragraph above) — a bigotry about bigotry. P says two 'racist' examples are cited among the coverage on Meghan which was mainly "fawning and fascinated" or "routinely snarky". [I think Kate Middleton had to put up with similar amounts of snark].

The two 'racist' examples most cited are: (1) a reference to M's mother's slave ancestry, yet M "proudly mentioned her mother's freed great-great grandfather". P mentions also at this point Michelle Obama's description of her black daughters playing on the lawn of the White House built by slaves.
(2) Rachel Johnson's piece (P calls it a "moderate-to-bitchy" piece) mentioning "exotic DNA". P says this was actually RJ's only positive point: strong new blood for an inbred royal family. [In biology this is referred to as "hybrid vigour", i.e. something good].

Moving on, I quote P's words: "That the newest duchess is of mixed race is merely interesting, like Diana's Elizabethan Spencer ancestry. If you assume that mentioning it is an insult you admit your own covert assumption that non-Caucasian blood is somehow shameful, and that really is racist".
P then talks about some more about the sickness in perception and determination to be offended that are causing serious problems in our society and says we should be ashamed that conversations about racism have become "more quarrelsome and emptier even while legal protections have increased.

P admits we are not perfect and refers to the identical CV study that Eloethan mentioned above. She talks of young black men in prison in too high a proportion and of deaths in childbirth disproportionately affecting black women.

Final paragraph talks of "self-promoting activists [endlessly] repeating that Britain is racist. That anyone with white skin carries, in the US metaphor, 'a knapsack of invisible privilege' and despises you" and how this is not helpful to black people. P admits we have bigots, vandalisers of mosques and temples, "national embarassing uncle in Piers Morgan" but that "murderers and burglars do not make us a criminal nation, nor do thugs and rude boys."

She says "most people are disgusted by racism" and "millions adore Stormzy, Sheku, Lenny Henry, Mo Farah, jazz, grime, rap."

There is work still to be done legally and culturally but we are not smug, P says, and "self-flagellating doesn't help".

ladymuck my friends working in disability rights sometimes ask to be called impaired. They use the term disabled to describe the restrictions society puts on them. Some use disabled because they choose to.
Many disabled people have felt empowered by the ideas and language of the Disability Rights movement. This language, endorsed by disabled people, focuses on respect and self representation.
For many the term ‘disabled’ has become positive and empowering, as it denotes the recognition of oppression and affiliation to a movement. Used as a verb - I am disabled by attitudes; he is disabled by systems, he faces disabling structures - it recognises disability as a social oppression - something external to the person. Significantly, it also acknowledges something that can be changed.
The word handicapped has been unacceptable for quite some time.

pinkquartz you quoted some of my post in yours. As stated in my post it was addressed specifically to jura who mentioned handicapped people in her post which was I used the same word. I apologise if I offended you in any way.
I was trying to suggest that we shouldn’t have fixed ideas about which people were more able to have empathy with others just because of the way they look or the colour of their skin. A wheelchair user or a blind person is more likely to be identified as incapacitated (sorry searching for a better word) than say someone who is deaf or has an non visual problem like some forms of autism which brings them abuse from some unkind and unthinking people.

Actually...."behinderten" means "disabled" not really "retarded"

What word would you prefer Trisher? You must find something that will be accepted by all, remembering that some of us may not agree with your choice of word.

So what term do we use, trisher? Are we to pretend we are all the same, just as there is (supposedly) no longer any gender difference? We all look the same in the dark I suppose!

If ever one day I would have to be in a wheelchair again- I would certainly move back to the UK. The facilities re public transport and public access, Mobility, etc- are an example for the whole world. Which does not mean there are still real difficulties. When I was disabled in the early 70s- it was impossible for me to get out of the house or go anywhere.

As you know, English is not my MT- we always use the word 'handicap' in French. Does it really come from 'cup in hand' - if so, I had NO idea, and apologise sincerely and will never us it again.

I am so sorry to hear. Actually, both for racism and handicap, the UK is still one of the best countries to live in.

Which word would you like me to use that encompasses all forms of handicap? A word will be liked by some, and resented by others. In German they still use 'Behinderten' - which means 'retarded' and it really upsets me- but I'd say actions are so much more important than words.

I didn't think anyone still used handicapped even the term disabled is disliked by some people. It just shows how ut of touch some on GN are.

"Do you assume that all handicapped people feel the same and would be able to feel equal empathy with people of other disabilities just because they too are disabled? Is a person in a wheelchair more entitled to give an opinion on how disabled people are treated than a deaf person who can walk purely because the person in a wheelchair is more visibly disabled?"

I am not sure why disability is in this thread as an example but I will say that on the whole people most certainly do discriminate against visible disability ie a wheelchair.

Also unlike racial inequality nothing is done about disability inequality.

I have had enough abuse and disrespect to feel the how vile some people are for no good reason....
But I still think racism is worse because you cannot hide your skin colour. It is with you all the time.

But what makes me the most angry is that we -the disabled-are ignored. The limits put on my life because I use a wheelchair are massive. Nothing changes.
So while it is illegal to be racist you can abuse me as much as you want. Nothing will be done about it.

It reads a bit weird to disallow a black MP's views because her life is too posh and entitled.
I hate all these divisions.

Also I hate the word handicapped yes I know I should be "cap in hand".... it is very discriminatory to use that word.

Thanks Baggs.

eloethan, yes, that's the arricle. I'll attempt a summary of Libby Purves's points.

Actually, as a quick aside, thinking about it- in my 40 years in UK, I have never ever experienced racism.

The only racism I have ever experienced, and I took it on the chin with a smile - was right here on GN. No worries.

1000s of factors come into consideration. Also the time a person grew up, or the country, and so many others too.

But I'd say a person who experiences the prejudice and difficulties related to being handicapped, will understand the issues better, and hopefully be more empathetic. But yes, I was talking here about a specific form of racism, aimed at a sepcific group. They will understand those specificities better than others- and will also be more empathetic, or at least understanding, of racism in general or aimed at other specific groups.

Personally, being handicapped for a few years will have given me an insight of what it feels like- and I've never forgotten. And because close friends and direct family have experienced racism very directly- and in our family, the darker the mixed race, the more virulent the racism and barriers put across in front of them - I am perhaps more aware and empathetic. NO virtue signalling here, for sure, just personal experience. And for sure, those friends and relatives' experiences- obvioulsy carry tons more weight than mine.

tickingbird

Sorry eglantine I too spent so long typing I didn’t see yours when I posted my comment also to jura

But jura doesn’t it depend more on whether the person has suffered racism rather than the colour of their skin? Does the opinion of a black or coloured person who has never suffered racism carry more weight than that of a white person who has suffered racism just because of the colour of their skin?
Do you assume that all handicapped people feel the same and would be able to feel equal empathy with people of other disabilities just because they too are disabled? Is a person in a wheelchair more entitled to give an opinion on how disabled people are treated than a deaf person who can walk purely because the person in a wheelchair is more visibly disabled?