In their efforts to promote PC policies, white class and race warriors of the creed, can actually cause as much offence, as they claimed to prevent ...
... especially in the field of race.
The problem is that one mans (oops, or woman's) offensive term, is another's proud battle cry.
Take for example the 'N' word. White people can't use the term, even in a non provocative academic discussion piece such as this. Whereas black people, or is that 'coloured people' ... no wait 'people of colour' ... err, hang on Black and Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME ~ BME), can.
You see what I mean .... the people being referred to have a number of ways of seeing themselves, and these have altered over time and place. So that no one, least of all the groups covered by the terms, have one specific term that they can agree on. I know that many older black people of Caribbean recent descent, prefer the term 'Afro-Caribbean' and not Coloured or BAME (aka BME). On the other hand, their descendants prefer some other term(s).
South Asian descent politicians such as Priti Patel apparently detests the term BME stating that "I don't like the term BME. I'm British first and foremost, because I was born in Britain." ... So once again there is a debate on what to call themselves as a group ... some favour the using simple term 'ethnic minorities', although that can also be confusing, and truthfully many minorities don't want to be lumped together with other minority groups that they don't actually like much, or want to be associated with. So they favour the terms 'British Asian', or 'British Indian', 'Black British', or even religious terms such as 'British Muslims' ... but aren't they all just as divisive in one way or another?
The director of the Runnymede Trust, which is a race equality think tank (which apparently sees white racists on the streets wherever they look), favours some sort of generic term, and some sort of movement to 'challenge racism in Britain today'. Its actually quite hard to keep up with this constantly evolving terminology.
Apparently back in the 1800's, some clerks in Australia took it upon themselves to add notes about ethnicity, to some birth certificates. This meant that when people of aboriginal descent obtained copies of their birth certificates, they often carried their ethnicity on them ... this may even have applied to other immigrant groups such as Italians for all I know. However when aboriginal people now ask for copies of these older birth and death certificates, they now find that some PC orientated clerk has now tippexed out the term 'aboriginal', if it appeared on them, and this removal upsets them, rather than the original entry.
For example, when one aboriginal descent man asked for the copy of the 19th Century birth certificate of his great-grandmother, he noticed that the term "Aboriginal" had been covered over. He asked authorities what had happened, and was told the word had been erased due to its "offensive connotations". Except that he wasn't offended by the term, but he was angered by this erasure, as it seemed to him that it was an attempt to deny him his heritage. Its removal in today's society, suggested that it was offensive to use the term Aboriginal (or is that Indigenous Native, or Original Settlers?).
No doubt the officials or clerks who have started doing this, did so under some PC initiative from a white government, and was well meant. However with the lack of agreement amongst the ethnic groups themselves about what term they prefer, and what's offensive or inoffensive, then as usual, it was badly thought out, and in this case it really was whitewashing history.
 |
| NWA ~ Careful How You Say It ..... |
... especially in the field of race.
The problem is that one mans (oops, or woman's) offensive term, is another's proud battle cry.
Take for example the 'N' word. White people can't use the term, even in a non provocative academic discussion piece such as this. Whereas black people, or is that 'coloured people' ... no wait 'people of colour' ... err, hang on Black and Asian Minority Ethnic (BAME ~ BME), can.
You see what I mean .... the people being referred to have a number of ways of seeing themselves, and these have altered over time and place. So that no one, least of all the groups covered by the terms, have one specific term that they can agree on. I know that many older black people of Caribbean recent descent, prefer the term 'Afro-Caribbean' and not Coloured or BAME (aka BME). On the other hand, their descendants prefer some other term(s).
South Asian descent politicians such as Priti Patel apparently detests the term BME stating that "I don't like the term BME. I'm British first and foremost, because I was born in Britain." ... So once again there is a debate on what to call themselves as a group ... some favour the using simple term 'ethnic minorities', although that can also be confusing, and truthfully many minorities don't want to be lumped together with other minority groups that they don't actually like much, or want to be associated with. So they favour the terms 'British Asian', or 'British Indian', 'Black British', or even religious terms such as 'British Muslims' ... but aren't they all just as divisive in one way or another?
The director of the Runnymede Trust, which is a race equality think tank (which apparently sees white racists on the streets wherever they look), favours some sort of generic term, and some sort of movement to 'challenge racism in Britain today'. Its actually quite hard to keep up with this constantly evolving terminology.
 |
| Humanity Has A Multitude Of Racial Definitions .... |
Apparently back in the 1800's, some clerks in Australia took it upon themselves to add notes about ethnicity, to some birth certificates. This meant that when people of aboriginal descent obtained copies of their birth certificates, they often carried their ethnicity on them ... this may even have applied to other immigrant groups such as Italians for all I know. However when aboriginal people now ask for copies of these older birth and death certificates, they now find that some PC orientated clerk has now tippexed out the term 'aboriginal', if it appeared on them, and this removal upsets them, rather than the original entry.
For example, when one aboriginal descent man asked for the copy of the 19th Century birth certificate of his great-grandmother, he noticed that the term "Aboriginal" had been covered over. He asked authorities what had happened, and was told the word had been erased due to its "offensive connotations". Except that he wasn't offended by the term, but he was angered by this erasure, as it seemed to him that it was an attempt to deny him his heritage. Its removal in today's society, suggested that it was offensive to use the term Aboriginal (or is that Indigenous Native, or Original Settlers?).
No doubt the officials or clerks who have started doing this, did so under some PC initiative from a white government, and was well meant. However with the lack of agreement amongst the ethnic groups themselves about what term they prefer, and what's offensive or inoffensive, then as usual, it was badly thought out, and in this case it really was whitewashing history.
Good article. Encapsulated the whole issue very well. Pity some organisations don't make it compulsory reading for staff before they start race awareness courses.
ReplyDeleteThey don't seem capable of self-doubt on this subject. Thanks for the comment.
Delete