Well done Lawrence Fox!

I see Alastair Stewart is the latest casualty to be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness and racism. Maybe we should all stop speaking or interacting at all in case we upset the permanently offended?

POGS, Chestnut and * Jaberwok*

Eloethan

' What I have said is it is not for a white man to make pronouncements as to what is racist or sexist, since it is highly unlikely that he, in any significant or material way, will have experienced either.'
--
What are you saying?

I as a white woman cannot make pronouncements as to what I consider to be racist or sexist?

There is a fine dividing line in believing racism is only a one way track which belongs to only one particular colour of a person's skin and there is no difference whether a person is male or female to understand when, where, how both misogyny and or misandry takes place.

If we as humans cannot be permitted to comment unless a particular problem is related to our own skin colour or sex then where would that argument / attitude take us?

Should white MP's not be permitted to speak out or discuss anything unless it is in relation to people of a white skin?

Should BAME MP's only be permitted to engage in debate/discussion if it is topical to their skin colour.?

I am sure you will say that is ridiculous but it does beg a question. If and when a person of a different colour or gender is told, viewed as having no right to either, comment, pronounce or give an opinion in matters because their skin colour or sex is different to anothers that is not only ridiculous but perversely akin to racism and sexism from the opposite side of the spectrum surely.



In any event, as a wife of an Asian man and amother of mixed race children, who have experienced racial prejudice at first hand, I think I probably have as much right as Laurence Fox to express an opinion.

Eloethan: I don't accept that "we call it racist" whenever black people or people from another minority ethnic group are criticised or arrested.
I never said this always happens, but sometimes it does, and when it does then that is where the problem lies.

can you really equate incidents of "nastiness" towards, for instance, the example you give of people with ginger hair, to the discriminatory treatment in employment, housing and many other areas of public life of non-white people?
No, I am simply equating nastiness or name calling towards anyone who has been singled out. I didn't mention housing, employment etc. which is another matter altogether.

I agree tickingbird!

Trisher Apologise to you?? I’ve got nothing to apologise for. You’re annoyed because I’ve questioned some of your posts. I’ve also had a post removed that quoted Rachel Johnson’s point about MM having ** DNA. I was assured by GN that they only remove posts that have been reported so I shall be looking at the other posts that mention this and have them removed as I only mentioned it after it had already been brought into the discussion by someone else. For what it’s worth, and this is to everyone, I find reporting to be pathetic. Reminds me of the school snitch.

I don't accept that "we call it racist" whenever black people or people from another minority ethnic group are criticised or arrested. For a start, I don't know who the "we" refers to - there are certainly many people on this thread who challenge the whole notion of the existence of personal and structural racism.

Quite recently on one of these threads a poster suggested that discriminatory laws only protect minority ethnic groups but not the majority white ethnic group. In my opinion, this is a form of racism because it seeks to portray white people as "victims" of an unfair system, whereas many investigations and in-depth pieces of research have revealed quite the opposite - discrimination in various areas of public life - not against white people but against minority ethnic groups.

Of course, you are right, bullying and name calling can happen anywhere and to anyone and should be challenged. But can you really equate incidents of "nastiness" towards, for instance, the example you give of people with ginger hair, to the discriminatory treatment in employment, housing and many other areas of public life of non-white people?

Good post Eloethan. I think the problem is when someone is criticised, arrested or whatever because of their behaviour, but because they are black or ethnic this is claimed to be racist. If the behaviour is wrong then it should be challenged whatever race the person is.
Name calling or nastiness can happen to anyone though, old people, ginger people, anyone different. If the person is black or ethnic we call it racism, but what about the ginger haired people who get abuse? Bullies will pick on anyone so is it actually racist or just plain nastiness?

Where exactly have I, as a white woman, set out what specific acts constitute racist behaviour? What I have said is it is not for a white man to make pronouncements as to what is racist or sexist, since it is highly unlikely that he, in any significant or material way, will have experienced either. In any event, as a wife of an Asian man and amother of mixed race children, who have experienced racial prejudice at first hand, I think I probably have as much right as Laurence Fox to express an opinion.

The comments that he and others have made about "real" racism I also question. Who decides what is "real" racism? Was it racist for Jewish men to be referred to as "Jew boys", as was a common expression in earlier times, or for them to be depicted in plays and films in a negative and stereotypical way? I feel sure most people now would regard it as unacceptable. Not because it necessarily materially affected a person but because it was demeaning and disrespectful, and intended to be so. I was suggesting that such language and attitudes, which some people in those days felt were of no particular importance, are now seen for what they were - often leading to discriminatory behaviour and aggression. If left unchecked it can be - and has been - the precursor to violent oppression and, at worst, mass murder.

The reason Schacht is relevant is because he wasn't a stupid or anti-Semitic man. Nevertheless, even he was duped by the new air of optimism, which initially surrounded the Nazis.

The Nazis had a very clever Economics Minister called Hjalmar Schacht, who was responsible for making it appear that the German economy was booming after years of gloom. He promoted public building programmes, including motorways, which reduced unemployment. He actually disagreed with "illegal activities" against Jewish minorities.

Schacht started off supporting the Nazis because he saw Hitler as a breath of fresh air, although he never became a Nazi Party member, but he ended up opposing them and was imprisoned after the 1944 attempt on Hitler's life.

I agree it was a bit of a hyperbole and, in fact, we're beginning to see the retreat of populism in some countries. Nevertheless, there is little doubt that there's a rise in xenophobia and blaming minorities, "elites", big organisations, liberalism (you name it) for problems. The Nazis exploited people's fears and that is exactly what is happening today - even in the UK.

The UK I think is seriously at risk if Brexit results in a real economic slump. A German friend whose mother was a member of the Nazi party and a Hitler supporter told me what worried her mother most was a return to the starvation after WW1. Hitler promised economic security and stability at first. Left wing socialists, Jews and others were seen as a block to this so it was OK to remove them. It's so easy to blame things on one group of people and use them as scapegoats.

I’m not sure I fully agree with your last sentence growstuff, though I think there are elements of fact in it. ‘Sweeping Europe’ is the bit I have some difficulty with, though it is true that there is evidence of some of a similar mentality in some countries.

However, you have given an excellent précis of the situation in Germany under the Nazis. I believe it was very difficult for ordinary people to voice their own opinions. But there was resistance, think about Col Claus Schenk Graf von Stauffenberg, who tried to assassinate Hitler. I came across his execution site accidentally when in Berlin with my husband a couple of years ago. There was a picture display and narrative there, it was interesting although this event was not news to me, I knew about him before.

Even Sophie Scholl, who was executed for distributing anti-war propaganda, had been a member of the Nazi League of German Girls. Her brother, who was also executed, was a member of the Hitler Youth. Initially, both organisations and the Nazi Party offered something positive to people who felt disillusioned with the German state. Anybody working in public services, including teachers, had to join the Nazi Party if they wanted to keep their job.

The Nazi Party was always much more than just a political party. It was a movement, which sought (and partially succeeded) in changing people's mindsets. By the time people realised what was going on, it was too late. The Nazis were in power and ruled by terror.

Unlike Communism, Nazism never used revolutionary means. It didn't have to have an army and defeat the German people by force. It took over internally with the indifferent consent of the people. It threw out the rule book on what was accepted as common decency and liberalism. Certain groups, such as the unemployed and socialists, were demonised, so people (das Volk) were happy to see them sent off to labour camps and prisons.

It really isn't that difficult to see parallels with 1932 Germany and the kind of mentality which is sweeping much of Europe today, including the UK.

No, it wouldn't be difficult Anniebach. People can only be prosecuted for racism which is covered by various laws. The law should prosecute (or not) by using those laws, whether or not lay people might interpret something as racist.

What Fox has said might be considered racist by some people, but AFAIK he hasn't broken any laws. If he were to target an individual with racially loaded language, he could possibly be prosecuted for inciting racial hatred. I'm not sure what the legal definition of racial hatred is, but the law should use that definition in an objective way. It shouldn't matter about the ethnicity of the prosecutors.

tickingbird perhaps when you apologise to me for your remark about double standards and the rest of the accusatory posts you continue to direct at me I would debate but insults seem to be your natural expression. I would far rather use the occassional "fuck" than use personal insults as you seem to do constantly.

A very informative post about the Nazis Eloethan although I'm not sure why it's directed at me. I am fully aware of the history and I agree with all you say. Possibly where people disagree is exactly when words or actions are in fact racist or simply interpreted by some as racist when they are not.

Be very difficult prosecuting someone for being racist, everyone involved must not be a white male.

Anniebach!

And black men are allowed opinions too, eg Trevor Phillips.

I've been wandering the exact same thing

I too question why a white man can’t decide what is and isn’t
racist but a white woman can

Trisher there you go again - I don’t agree with you so I’m a prejudiced bigot. You can’t debate with me, you’ve tried and just keep regurgitating the same old tripe that you have plagiarised from elsewhere. Surely you have realised by now I don’t take you seriously.

Eloethan LF can’t decide what is and isn’t racist as he’s a white man. Seriously?? How many white women on here are doing exactly that? Your lack of awareness is laughable.

Chestnut The Nazi genocide didn't just happen over night. It started insidiously with certain groups of people being singled out as being damaging to German prosperity and values - Jewish people, black people, gypsies, homosexual, disabled people, people with mental illnesses or chronic health conditions, etc, etc.

Auschwitz didn't just appear overnight- it was the product of the continual reinforcement of a narrative that blamed all the country's ills on these groups of people. Had the population en masse objected to and challenged these prejudices and the discriminatory practices that followed, this genocide could never have happened. It was because people initially rather favoured the toxic idea of "outsiders", whose rights and well being were of no concern to the majority population, that the whole movement flourished.

It is the dismissal of concerns about discriminatory language and behaviour and the enthusiasm for scapegoating/presenting people as lesser, or more troublesome, beings that caused the Nazi genocide (and other genocides too). No doubt, at least initially, many people thought those who expressed disquiet about discriminatory practices were trouble making "do-gooders" who were making a mountain out of a molehill.

As a white man how does he feel he is qualified to say what is and what is not racist?

He appears to be sexist and classist also: suggesting that successful working class actors should stop whingeing on behalf of people with a similar background because they've done well for themselves and are therefore "hypocrites; saying that he wouldn't date a woman under 35 because she would automatically be "woke", i.e. interested in social and political issues and willing to speak up for causes she believes in.

If he wishes to make haughty pronouncements, based merely on his own very limited and privileged experience of life, and without regard to research, statistical analyses and historical evidence, then he deserves any flak he gets. He tweeted words to the effect that he views the reaction to his remarks as "a bit of a giggle". Well, it might be a giggle for him but it isn't a giggle for the people who have experienced prejudice and discriminatory practices throughout their lives.