Big Brother 8

[Wardonkey]

People are not strung up because they are black but because the perpetrator of the crime is an ignorant thug. Hitler decided to wage war against the Jews because he was a madman not because the Jews were Jewish.

What? Are you really suggesting that Hitler was no more than a psychopathic serial killer?


170 million people were killed in 20th century wars by nation states.

70% of them were civilians.

Most of them were killed because they belonged to particular ethnic or religious groups.



 

[AndrewT]

...

You can't really have racism without an imbalance in power. ...

...

... it doesn't actually matter that he is racist - he can be ignored....

In the first instance you've stated that the you can't have racism without an imbalance in power but the second statement refers to such an imbalance of power being in place, and being racist.

These are two separate arguments;

to clarify do you think that racism not important if it can easily be ignored? (eg a black man being racist against whites in Britain)

or do you think that in this situation it is just  not possible to be racist (For Example if a Bangladeshi pupil holds racist views against whites in a predominantly white school they are not racist - but if they then get moved to a predominantly Bangladeshi school they suddenly become racist?)

You seem to link being racist or not to whether you can do anything with those views - but isn't it what is in peoples heads that is wrong with being racist, the views themselves - not how they can act upon them which is important?

Well picked up. Bear in mind I am, to a certain extent, thinking out loud here (as it's not a subject I actively think about a lot), so there will be inconsistencies. Let me see if I can try and explain what I'm getting at.

People thinking racist thoughts may be wrong, but if they are never in a position to actively negatively affect someone of another race then is there a problem for society? This is where my 'white racist in Jamaica' argument comes from.

In such a position it is not that 'in this situation it is just not possible to be racist', but that such racism is not a problem for society. Where someone is powerless to act upon their thoughts does it really matter what they think?

Essentially I need two different words to describe 'thinking racist thoughts' and 'doing racist things' - using 'racism' for both leads to these inconsistencies.

[Colchester Kev]

...

You can't really have racism without an imbalance in power. ...

...

... it doesn't actually matter that he is racist - he can be ignored....

In the first instance you've stated that the you can't have racism without an imbalance in power but the second statement refers to such an imbalance of power being in place, and being racist.

These are two separate arguments;

to clarify do you think that racism not important if it can easily be ignored? (eg a black man being racist against whites in Britain)

or do you think that in this situation it is just  not possible to be racist (For Example if a Bangladeshi pupil holds racist views against whites in a predominantly white school they are not racist - but if they then get moved to a predominantly Bangladeshi school they suddenly become racist?)

You seem to link being racist or not to whether you can do anything with those views - but isn't it what is in peoples heads that is wrong with being racist, the views themselves - not how they can act upon them which is important?

Well picked up. Bear in mind I am, to a certain extent, thinking out loud here (as it's not a subject I actively think about a lot), so there will be inconsistencies. Let me see if I can try and explain what I'm getting at.

People thinking racist thoughts may be wrong, but if they are never in a position to actively negatively affect someone of another race then is there a problem for society? This is where my 'white racist in Jamaica' argument comes from.

In such a position it is not that 'in this situation it is just not possible to be racist', but that such racism is not a problem for society. Where someone is powerless to act upon their thoughts does it really matter what they think?

Essentially I need two different words to describe 'thinking racist thoughts' and 'doing racist things' - using 'racism' for both leads to these inconsistencies.

Bring back the Bin Laden/Scandies analogies

[booder]

Essentially I need two different words to describe 'thinking racist thoughts' and 'doing racist things' -

zumbaflimflam


dashtanfastic



youre welcome

[MANTIS01]

Hitler wanted to "cleanse" Germany to produce a pure race. He tried to do this by killing millions over a period of time. His notions were psychopathic and he tried to achieve them by murdering people so yes I think that tag fits the bill.

In the BB example Emily is not guilty of racial abuse or racial discrimination. She has been punished for causing racial offence. This is the "new" agenda that we are now dealing with. My point is that to connect "offence" specifically with race and then to suggest that it is particularly a more heinous type of offence is an idea that rests on shaky foundations.

[Wardonkey]

Hitler wanted to "cleanse" Germany to produce a pure race. He tried to do this by killing millions over a period of time. His notions were psychopathic and he tried to achieve them by murdering people so yes I think that tag fits the bill.

What about the millions of people who helped him?

Or the millions of people who stood and watched?


I've only seen a short clip of the BB incident on news and it seems that the girl was not malicious in her intentions. She did however offend. Did she deserve to be chucked out? I don't know, I don't care.

Your arguments seem to come to the natural conclusion that it is ok for anyone to say anything to anyone however offensive. Do you really believe this?

Like it or not language is extremely important in forming attitudes and perceptions of different people. It's very complicated and everyone has different ideas as to what is and what is not acceptable in different contexts. Many word have become taboo not just words with racist connotations but also words used to describe disabled people, religious groups and many other minority groups. Often it is little more than fashion that decides which words are acceptable which are not, but often there are very good reasons why certain words should not be used.

[MANTIS01]

Often it is little more than fashion that decides which words are acceptable which are not

My point exactly. It is what's in your heart that should drive your behaviour, and render you worthy of punishment, not the current trends and fads of the day. If you don't mean to offend how can you be punished when offence is caused??

Fact: To move forward we need tolerance

Getting offended by each other left right and centre hardly makes this an achievable goal.

[AdamM]

My thought process is not governed by the literal definition of a word.

all having the same definitions for words makes it much easier to discuss it and understand each other. we're doing very well keeping this civil and discussing it calmly but it's been teetering on the edge a while and one misplaced 'definition' could send it over.

Racial discrimination is connected to race...not colour, and racial abuse is no different than any other kind of abuse/bullying.

People are not strung up because they are black but because the perpetrator of the crime is an ignorant thug. Hitler decided to wage war against the Jews because he was a madman not because the Jews were Jewish.

sorry, I think you're wrong on both counts. We're ALL mixed race. Charlie is English / British. what makes hre different to Emily is her skin pigmentation. Who do you think suffers most from racism in this country. A black Englishman or a white Australian? Or how about a 5th generation Indian family compared with a visiting White American family? It's most definitely connected to skin colour.

Bringing Hitler into it really doesn't help the debate but as well as being a lunatic he was also a world class Uber-racist.

All around the world different races struggle to co-exist. Just look at the endless problems in Israel as an example.

again, not a direction I think we ought to be going down here.

Britain needs to stop apologising for things that happened hundreds of years ago and move forward as the multi-cultural modern day country that it truely is.

You are either living in a box or are very lucky not to see active racism around you on a daily basis. Racists aren't the silent minority some people seem to be suggesting. In the absense of people from an ethnic group other than White European, White Brits can still thow some pretty unpleasant words.

I think this debate underlines how vastly complicated and emotive the subject of racism is and also makes it pretty obvious why Emily had to go.

[Wardonkey]

Do you want to address the rest of my post are you just going to use one sentence to try and suggest that I agree with you?

Tolerance includes use of acceptable language towards each other.

If I run someone over in a car by accident, through negligence and inattention, should I be punished? Or should I be tolerated because I didn't mean it?

[AndrewT]

I think this debate underlines how vastly complicated and emotive the subject of racism is

Agreed.

and also makes it pretty obvious why Emily had to go.

No, that doesn't follow on from the first part of your sentence at all.

The reason why there is debate as to whether Emily should have been kicked out or not is precisely because the issue is so complicated.

[AdamM]

perhaps it doesn't directly follow that Emily should go BECAUSE the subject is complicated and emotive, I still think it's a straight red. You said earlier there was an eliment of "I believe this and I think you should too" that's not quite right in my case but I'll admit to "this is how I feel  and I'm suprised the support for the counter argument is being so strongly aired

Unless my ears were playing tricks on me the conversation went
Charlie, "I hope I'm not pregnant. My stomach is bloated."
Emily, "You're pushing it out you N*****." (everyone else seems to be starring it. should I?)

I'm failing to see the grey area in that. That's not acceptable to alot of people. after being hauled over the coals for not acting against the bullying in Celeb BB and editing out a great deal of Racist language, this time they've acted decisivey and shown the viewer the offending event. Seems they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Personally I'm happy with C4s decision.

[ACE2M]

lets get to the real issues.

Mrs Ace2m just put it to me, if you had to, would you rather do Ziggy or Carol? obviously a question for the fellas.

[ariston]

Cant see what all the fuss is about. She is a dizzy up her own arse rich bitch type who thought it was fine to use the word. She wasn't being offensive in my eyes and there was no malice in it- she is just too dumb to know any better. I have plenty rap music on my ipod and why is it ok for black people to sing about niggers and whores yet the moment a white person says it (in a non offensive even bantor type way) they are the devil incarnate. Mountain and molehill and /Endomol trying to make up for the shipla/jade afair thats all.

 Nothing was said about the women chasing the bloke round trying to rip his shorts off was it? Imagine if 8 blokes had chased a lone female round trying to remove her bikini bottoms- the gallows would already be out.

[AndrewT]

The problem I have with Emily's eviciton is the manner of it and the reasons behind it. I certainly think she should have received punishment (even eviction)  but dragging her out of bed at 3.30am and throwing her out there and then seemed to be excessive action by Endemol done mostly to cover their own backs. There didn't seem to be a lot of time taken to properly think things through.

You can imagine the phone conversation between the producer on duty and the series producer at home in bed.

*ring ring*

'Hello'

'Hi, it's Nathan at the studio. We have a situation. Emily called Charley a nigger'

'Throw her out, throw her out now. Are you throwing her out, do it now quick. Wash our hands of her immediately. I'll phone the sponsors now and tell them we've kicked her out.'

[Jon MW]

The problem I have with Emily's eviciton is the manner of it and the reasons behind it. I certainly think she should have received punishment (even eviction)  but dragging her out of bed at 3.30am and throwing her out there and then seemed to be excessive action by Endemol done mostly to cover their own backs. There didn't seem to be a lot of time taken to properly think things through.

You can imagine the phone conversation between the producer on duty and the series producer at home in bed.

*ring ring*

'Hello'

'Hi, it's Nathan at the studio. We have a situation. Emily called Charley a nigger'

'Throw her out, throw her out now. Are you throwing her out, do it now quick. Wash our hands of her immediately. I'll phone the sponsors now and tell them we've kicked her out.'

This is true - but - they're a commercial organisation, they have to act in a commercial manner.

It just highlights Emily's stupidity and naivity, she should have known that even anything borderline racist would be stamped down on hard. If that was too hard, it was in the Big Brother rules that they couldn't say anything that could be construed as offensive by the other housemates or by the viewing public. They might have been a bit melodramatic in their eviction but, hey, thats showbiz.