Thursday, March 06, 2008

Good for the Goose but not for the Gander?

I have just been invited to join a Facebook Group called ANY BLACK QUESTIONS. It's meant to promote an internet TV programme run by Radio 5 Live's talented broadcaster Dotun Adebayo. From the information given, every guest on the programme (which looks like a copy of ANY QUESTIONS) is black. Nothing wrong with that, you may say. It's a free country. But I pose the question: what would happen if someone tried to broadcast a programme called ANY WHITE QUESTIONS, always with an exclusively white panel. It would be unthinkable. And rightly so.

I sometimes recoil from writing about racial issues because anything one writes is open to misinterpretation. But I do think that anything which has the effect of entrenching segregation or separateness needs to at least be openly discussed.

42 comments:

Anonymous said...

How right you are Ian - Why are we SO AFRAID to discuss black/white issues for fear of being branded a racist by the NuLab race police.

I wonder each time I see it mentioned but how do the Black Police Association get away with it when a White Police Association would end up in a race relations court or similar.

"Good for the Goose etc....."

I have a number of coloured friends and their colour / race dos'nt even pass my mind when I am with them. they are just friends.

Anonymous said...

RACIST !!!

Johnny Norfolk said...

Its the same as if we had a White Police Officers Association, because we have a Black only one.

Its just not right.

Bert Rustle said...

Ian Dale wrote ... But I do think that anything which has the effect of entrenching segregation or separateness needs to at least be openly discussed. ... How about a qualitative description of how Multi-ethnic societies are a failure worldwide, as given by Professor Tutu Vanhanen in Ethnic Conflicts Explained by Ethnic Nepotism An illuminating review by Johan M.G. van der Dennen, Center for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Groningen, the Netherlands can be found here . The review is well worth the time it takes to read it. A synopsis is ... Vanhanen's macroquantitative research on ethnic conflicts, a life-work spanning several decades, is an important contributing factor in this tide-turning process.
Conflicts are common in all countries of the world where people are divided into separate groups on the basis of racial, ethnic, national, linguistic, tribal, religious, caste, or other differences. ... explained by our evolved predisposition to ethnic nepotism, which is regarded as an extended form of kin nepotism. Evolutionary theories of inclusive fitness and kin selection ... explain the evolutionary origin and universality of nepotism. ... (1) significant ethnic divisions tend to lead to ethnic interest conflicts in all societies and (2) the more a society is ethnically divided, the more political and other interest conflicts tend to become canalized along ethnic lines. These two hypotheses are tested by empirical evidence covering 148 contemporary states ... the degree of ethnic conflict is indeed strongly related to the degree of ethnic divisions. ... What the cultural theorists have in common ... is a reluctance of acknowledging the existence of ethnic conflicts ... Ethnic groups can thus be perceived as extended kin groups. ... People belonging to the same ethnic group tend to support each other in conflict situations. ... Our tendency to favor kin over nonkin has extended to include large linguistic, national, racial, religious, and other ethnic groups. ... Ethnic divisions seem to have produced ethnic conflicts in practically all countries of the world. Vanhanen notes that cultural theories are hardly able to explain the universality of ethnic conflicts. ...
etc.

Anonymous said...

I have a number of coloured friends and their colour / race dos'nt even pass my mind when I am with them. they are just friends.

No you don't. If you did, they'd have told you by now that the term "coloured" is very offensive. May'be you think they're your friends but they would disagree. After all, do you call your white friends "uncoloured"?

It was only acceptable at a time when being anything other than white was considered an aberration. At best you were some sort of outsider.

Now, we live in a country where to be British does not mean to be white.

Ian, I wholeheartedly agree with your post here, but perhaps you should educate some of your visitors that referring to a group of people as "coloured" is what leads them to think they are so different and need to form separate associations of their own.

Anonymous said...

Bert how are your freinda at Commom Purpose?

Anonymous said...

HAHAHA, that lee jasper comment is absolutely classic!

Anonymous said...

"I have many coloured friends"!

That is the biggest cliche in race relations!

But seriously, i often listen to "Up all Night" and Dotun is good fun: i didnt even realise he was black until someone racially abused him on a phone in!

I still think that this type of humour comes from the fact that black people are still a numerical minority.

However, over time, with London becoming more multicultural by the day, these jokes wont really be so prevalent because they wont be so pertinent. It is also increasingly hard to state that someone is "black" or not.

This can only be a good thing.

Of course the corrolary is that the rationale for a "Black" police officers federation is diluted and becomes increasingly anachronistic.

The problem is of course that most organisations end up slightly entrenched, even if their original aims are largely fulfilled (e.g. the "Relief Fund for Romania" shop on Lambs Conduit street). Thus
the groups set up in the 70's and 80's when there were serious discrimation issues, will find their roles increasingly marginal, yet they will have influence due to their legacy.

I would imagine that the increasing difficulty of defining exactly who is "black" or a minority will make it harder to justify state funding to these groups.

Big Andy

Bert Rustle said...

Blacktory wrote ... the term "coloured" is very offensive. ... It was only acceptable at a time when being anything other than white was considered an aberration. ... referring to a group of people as "coloured" is what leads them to ... form[ing] separate associations of their own. ...

Then what is one to make of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People a massive American organisation. Does the omission of a “u” in “coloured” make it acceptable? I presume not. In my opinion, the prohibition of the use of certain words by some people but not others makes free flowing conversation difficult and leads them to form separate associations of their own.

asquith said...

I'll tell you why I think positive discrimination is a load of bollocks.

Apart from the usual stuff about the best man/woman for the job, it's the fact that it acknowledges inequality and tries to accomodate it rather than challenging it.

If only a few blacks/women/state school pupils are applying for positions, and they are badly qualified, we should be encouraging them to apply in greater numbers and improving the services available to them. I don't patronise people or think they are inferior. I know there is discrimination, and we should do all we can to get rid of it. But two wrongs don't make a right.

Man in a Shed said...

Good point Iain. Racism is alive and well in the anti-Racism and "community" industry.

Paddy Briggs said...

Iain

The Beeb has a series of programmes about just that - being white (working class) coming up. Arguably there is more coherence to the idea of whiteness rather than blackness. "Black" seems to cover everything from Arabs, through Asians to Africans to Rastafarians etc. The only common factor being that they are not white! They would “bond” a bit presumably because they may collectively feel that they are disadvantaged or discriminated against - but that is about the only common denominator and I am doubtful about that as well. A Jamaican has little in common with a Bangladeshi! All a bit daft. There is no common culture or tradition, religion or way of life about these groups – why would there be? Whereas arguably British whites are a much more coherent entity. The BBC seems to think so.

Unknown said...

"Blacktory", I am highly offended at your use of the description "white" when it is well known that we are actually a pale pink in colour.

Please keep your ridiculous and anachronistic "colourist" comments to yourself.

Mostly Ordinary said...

To be honest it's only white people that get offended by these things because they think they are being left out.

Minority groups do have specific issues to do with being a different race from the vast majority of this country and forums for them to discuss these issues are of various usefulness.

Although I don't think you are doing this, the common complaint that these organisations are somehow perpetuating racism is nonsense. Are female only groups entrenching sexism?

I wish someone would create a white only organisation to discuss the difficulties of being white in the UK - it would be interesting to see what those issues are. It's not illegal and if someone cared enough they'd do it, the fact one doesn't exist also says something doesn't it?

Anonymous said...

Big Andy, are you some kind of fool??? Listening to him it is exceptionally obvious he is Black of Nigerian decent.

Are you stupid?

JuliaM said...

"If you did, they'd have told you by now that the term "coloured" is very offensive."

Here's a thought for you, 'blacktory': maybe they don't consider it to be racist.

Imagine that! People actually making up their own minds about what offends them, instead of being told what is offensive...

I know, shocker, eh..?

"...perhaps you should educate some of your visitors that referring to a group of people as "coloured" is what leads them to think they are so different and need to form separate associations of their own."

Christ, how predictable. Everyone else needs 'educating' to your point of view, do they?

Scipio said...

You could say the same about any 'minority group', gay people, Asians, Muslim/Jewish people etc.

When I was at University, I tried to start the 'White Male Middle Class and hetrosexual society', and was not allowed to do so by the Student Union on the grounds that it was racist, classist and homophobic - despite the fact that (a) there was an LGB soc, a JewSoc, a MuslimSOc, a GreekSoc etc - every conceivable soc for every conceivable minority, and (b) my proposed WMMCSoc having a proposed 'charter' where membership was open to anyone, regardless of race, sexuality or class, and (c) that the proposed society was merely a drinking club which had no political or racial views.

I was of course trying to make a point that whilst there were groups for every concievable minority group on campus, and that these were funded by the Student Union, no-one was representing the 'majority' - people who did not fit into any of the 'minority' groupings.

And that is the point. It was argued that because they are the 'majority' they do not need promotion or protection, where as 'minorities' are vulrenable, and therefore do need protection and help.

I thought that was non-sensical and self defeating then, and I still do. The way to get majority acceptance for minority groups is not by them setting themselves up as apart from mainstream society, but by seeking to integrate with it, illustrating that they are not a threat and that majority 'fears' about minority groups are mostly unfounded. I (or anyone) am/is far more likely to be persuaded of the non-threatening nature of homosexual relationships by (for example) a well balanced gay couple moving in next door to me and being good neighbours and good freinds than I ever will be by endless marched and 'gay rights' campaigns!

And for the record (and what a shame I feel I have to say this), in case anyone thinks otherwise, I am not racist, classist or anti-gay. I am just trying to make a point. I accept people as individuals, and I judge them on their actions - not their race, sexuality or religion - which I regard as largely irrelevant - unless of course they make a point of making it a point, in which case I reserve the right to get annoyed.

Scipio said...

BlackTory

It is exactly your kind of comment which annoys people like me. It's just a term of phrase, it clearly wasn't meant to be offensive. Why are people so easy to offend! Not everyone lives in multi-ethnic cities where large percentages of the population are non-white.

Anonymous said...

its pretty obvious who the REAL racists are - Lee Jasper and Blacktory - nasty , vindictive, bigoted racist comments like theirs just stoke up feelings against genuine black and brown peoples - when will it dawn on them and their kind that they are the trouble makers in our society.

Newmania said...

I do not accept that people who are not English have the same right ,in England, to express their culture that I have . Tolernace , yes , equivalence no.

I condemn racism a problem we have largley imported.
In 1997 a study for the Institute for Public Policy Research showed that32% of Hindu’s , Muslims and Sikhs and 29% of Jews would be repelled if a member of their family married an Afro-Caribbean , whereas only 13% of white Britons said they would have a problem.

(From How the Liberals Lost their Way by Nick Cohen …..a lefty but its a pretty good book)
No-one is condemning these” Communities” …… why not ?


Double standards from the trivial to the serious , from "Urban " music categories to programmes to help blacks in schools where they out-perform working class whites.


...and as far as giving offence goes ,I could not give a flying f----

Chris Paul said...

Interesting Iain. Have you not noticed BBC TV doing a White Season???

Anonymous said...

People are individuals regardless of skin colour, sexuality, sex or whatever. When they are unashamedly grouped together for whatever purpose they are no longer individuals but part of a collective. This therefore dehumanises them. People should be treated and respected for who they are, not because they are pigeonholed into some arbitrary group.

Newmania said...

Chris ...the white season was kicked off in" Working men`s clubs" when the white working classes are to be found in Blue Water and Milton Keynes. Still the same old patronising BBC with its sepia tinted socialism
No-one objects to programmes about specific communities. The objection is to actual exclusion from comment on racial grounds. Incidentally I would like to know incidentally why when Q time was in Sterling there was not a single English person on the panel ? can we reciprocate and not have to listen to the Tartan Raj down here

Unsworth said...

As a Beige (yes, the tan is wearing slightly) I find much of this debate pretty superficial. There's also considerable racial disharmony between various black groups (Caribean vs African) various brown groups (Indian vs Pakistani) and various white groups (English vs Scots, Welsh, Irish, some Americans, any Europeans, and most Antipodeans).

What is worrying though is the repeated invocation of 'racial discrimination' in debates about entirely different issues such as religious tolerance, social deprivation, criminality etc. The Lee Jasper saga is just such an example. It's noticeable that those who have apparently most to hide rush to use this argument as support for their illegal or immoral action.

It's high time that the question of 'racism' is examined and seen precisely for what it is, rather than allowing this specific accusation to be casually bandied about.

Anonymous said...

I would wager that Blacktory is white!

Anonymous said...

The 'racial card' is played in such a way that you can't 'win'; you are, ipso facto, a racist. It's the equivalent of "Have you stopped beating your wife?"

Newmania: Yes, we imported the problem. (Reap the whirlwind)

Blacktory: If someone said you were a nice guy you would probably claim that you were being patronized because you were black. Have YOU stopped beating your wife?

Gege said...

I agree with Newmania. We tend to ignore the racist attitudes of ethnic minorities.

A singificant proportion of minority cultures oppose inter-racial marriages but the mainstream society doesn't seem to be bothered.

Arranged marriages are the norm in some minority cultures and the mainsteam seem to think its cute.

Britain has got to wake up and realise that if we keep ignoring these practices, our country will be finished.

Anonymous said...

As it happens... the BBC are running a whole season of "white" programmes - as seen here http://www.bbc.co.uk/white/

Anonymous said...

So called "Black Tory" is caught in a war of words, as are most minorities. They campaign for linguistic hegemony, so that homosexuals get irritated if the word "gay" is used in a context outwith their subculture. The word "Islamist" offends some Muslims for similar reasons. Apparently nobody can now be called a "terrorist". Disabled people are variously called "differently able" "physically challenged" and other such bollocks. There is a whole lexicon of political correctness and a key purpose of it is to promote exclusivity - rather ironic when you consider that minorities ostensibly crave integration. the idea behind this, as it has always been, is to serve a cadre of those "in the know" - code words that help you to identify those of like mind.

(Incidentally, use of the word "coloured" is not generally categorised as a dysphemism)

Anything that describes itself as "blacks only" is racist. A recent gathering of black journalists in South Africa purposefully exlueded their white colleagues. That is apartheid. All minority organisations re-inforce exclusivity and partisanship and inequality, as well as supposedly promulgating equality. In a country where a white straight man cannot open a club for those like himself (even the mention of it sounds abhorrent) all other forms of ghettoization must be deemed to be a travesty of a fair society, including affirmative action.

"Any Black Questions" is as offensive to me as "Any White questions" would be to blacks. It's time we dealt with our vicarious and sentimental attachment to blame apportioning about history, that is considered by some to justify their position, and moved on.

The sooner so called minorities cease tyrannising the straight white majority with specious claims of "offense" and accept that they are and always will be a minority, the better. Our part of the bargain will be to treat them, merely, as equals.

Anonymous said...

I always think that when I hear the BBC advertising 6 Music as 'the home of black music'. I note that they do not refer to Radio 1 as the home of white music...

Anonymous said...

Ian, you have not earned the right to talk about this subject. You have no idea about the black experience.

Anonymous said...

6 music IS the home of white music really (as indeed you could argue is Radio 3). 1xtra is the black music station. I don't think the BBC insists you have to be black to listen though.

Anonymous said...

How many times have I said it - the more people talk about their differences, the harder it becomes to live together. It's one of the fundamental failures in British politics and the media.

Johnny Norfolk said...

Why are people so sensative, White, black , coloured, brown , grey.yellow. red, dark black, light black, fat , thin, long hair .short hair, bald, slightly bald. young, middle aged,old, very old,disabled.

Come on people grow up and stop being so touchy. Hiding behind remarks some people make and avoiding the core problems, pathetic.

Little Black Sambo said...

I notice that Blacktory is offended on behalf of some one else. Isn't that so often the way?

Newmania said...

the more people talk about their differences, the harder it becomes to live together

A fact Mr. Livingstone is relying on. I have a lot of black friends and most would be called " coconuts " ,ie white on the inside and derided by the self serving victim brigade whose existence they would be hardly aware. Skin colour we have to get over, ethnicity we are right to value. I think where many ordinary people realised their views were not the hate filled silliness caricatured in the New Statesman was when the BNP refused to support England because we were fielding black players .

Iain Wright for example an Islington hero of yore ...( who I was delighted to meet once )..how much more English could you get ? The Conservative Party have allies in the so called , ethnic minorities as well as political enemies and we would be well to remember it .


Black Tory....so what ? Am I white Tory ..? Wrong from the outset.

Anonymous said...

I thoroughly support what Sean Bailey said on Newsnight about Hodge/Proms.
He made the point that he grew up going to the Notting Hill carnival and wouldn't want that changed, so why should anybody change the proms?

Anonymous said...

Doesn't Dotun Adebayo have the right to put any programmes he likes on the internet -- like you did on 18DS?

Sometimes you're not as libertarian as you make out, Iain

Anonymous said...

Gman said...
"Big Andy, are you some kind of fool??? Listening to him it is exceptionally obvious he is Black of Nigerian decent.

Are you stupid?"

Lee Jasper and his white mother are from Lancashire.

Anonymous said...

To no one's surprise, Paddy Briggs has bought into the British left definition of "black". In the rest of the world, black means Negroid. Negroid is a race, just as Caucasian is a race, Semite is a race, Mongoloid is a race.

In Britain, and only in Britain, for some reason, the thought fascists started calling Pakistanis "black", which they are not. I believe, in fact, that they are Aryan, like us. But such was the fear of using the word 'Pakistani' that they made up an entire new racial category which has absolutely no basis in science.

Black people in the US used to refer to themselves as 'coloured' until some group or other saw there might be major money in making an issue of it and changing the word to "black". It may have been Jesse Jackson's gang. Jackson never misses a beat when it comes to making big bucks out of race. (A bit like Lee Grasper, really, except Jackson not only has an elegant grasp of the English language, but his speeches are rivetting no matter what colour one is.)

All this self-defining his leads to the Definition of The Day and Be Who You Want to Be mental slovenliness. Barack Obama, who is 50% white - his mother was a Caucasian from Kansas, if I'm not mistaken - opportunistically presents himself as black. I'm not saying I blame him. But it's destructive of language and clarity of definition.

Anonymous said...

verity said...
"To no one's surprise, Paddy Briggs has bought into the British left definition of "black". In the rest of the world, black means Negroid. Negroid is a race, just as Caucasian is a race, Semite is a race, Mongoloid is a race."

You should read Paddy's entry more carefully. He is decrying the fact that in Britain today all non-whites (Asians, Africans, Afro-Caribbeans, etc) tend to be clumped together and classed as 'Black'.

Anonymous said...

Mostly Ordinary said...

"Are female only groups entrenching sexism?"

Yes. They encourage they vast discrination against men.