Skin Colour, Races and Racism

but I will retain the freedom to do so, I'm sorry if my clothing or hairstyle offends them but they will just have to deal with being offended by it.

Nobody is taking your freedom to do so. Most black people aren't offended by a white person wearing dreads. Cultural appropriation is a real issue (more so in America), but that doesn't mean that white people aren't allowed to experience black culture. It means that the origins of that culture should be recognised ad respected. A white person wearing dreads isn't cultural appropriation; but Kylie Jenner wearing dreads and the media praising her for a pioneering new hairstyle is. Dean Martin signing jazz isn't cultural appropriation, but saying the Rat Pack invented the jazz movement, and ignoring the decades of jazz and ragtime from black people is.

"Political correctness" isn't about not offended somebody. It's about understanding what offends people, and not doing so for the sole purpose of offending people.

but I will retain the freedom to do so, I'm sorry if my clothing or hairstyle offends them but they will just have to deal with being offended by it.

Nobody is taking your freedom to do so. Most black people aren't offended by a white person wearing dreads. Cultural appropriation is a real issue (more so in America), but that doesn't mean that white people aren't allowed to experience black culture. It means that the origins of that culture should be recognised ad respected. A white person wearing dreads isn't cultural appropriation; but Kylie Jenner wearing dreads and the media praising her for a pioneering new hairstyle is. Dean Martin signing jazz isn't cultural appropriation, but saying the Rat Pack invented the jazz movement, and ignoring the decades of jazz and ragtime from black people is.

"Political correctness" isn't about not offended somebody. It's about understanding what offends people, and not doing so for the sole purpose of offending people.

I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me.

 

What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism.

Most stories I hear about "political correctness gone mad" tend to be bizarre exceptions, rather than the rule (like that American-Colombian kid who was told that the Mariachi costume he chose for Halloween was offensive)

Also, I've yet to see one of those "SJW-types" everybody keeps harping on about. The people complaining about their supposed existence are far more numerous. This suggests that they, too, are a very small minority, likely smaller than open racists.

Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it.

I don't call ISIS "Islamic" because they aren't, no matter how much they say otherwise. Not when they bomb mosques during Ramadan, not when they execute people as if they were Bond villains, not when they fail to even pray correctly. Even Middle Eastern media calls them "Daesh", rather than acknowledging them as the "Islamic State" they claim to be.

And honestly, to put Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Daesh under the same umbrella ("Islamic Terrorism") is just being wilfully ignorant. There are reasons as to why those groups exist, and most of them are not religious.

In a nutshell, it's like claiming that IRA is an example of "Catholic Terrorism". The truth is way more complicated, and if the rest of the world were to call it that, we'd see people believe that Catholicism is inherently violent.

With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things.

Censorship is when the state punishes you for, or prevents you from, expressing the "incorrect" opinion.

Like King_V said, nobody's being silenced, no words or opinions are being banned: they're being challenged, disagreed with, and criticised. It's a world of difference.

And you can argue back. The examples you're giving us, with the dreadlocks and the samurai clothes, are stuff that's criticised by individuals. Their notion of what constitutes "offensive" can be challenged

you can't police people's hair

You're right, but that doesn't stop people from trying.

I think the problem is politcial correctness really has gone too far. Firstly offence is subjective, and then the scale of offence is wide usually refelcted by intent, generally the least harmful offence is usually unintended while the most harmful offence is fully intended. At some point I think some people in certain instances just have to toughen up a bit and show a little tolerance of their own. For example I think my freedom and right to wear dreadlocks if I want to is more important than a black person's feelings about it. Sorry but I'm not intending any offence and I'm only willing to restrict my personal freedom so far. Likewise if I decide to dress up as a samurai for fancy dress I'll also do as I please, if Japanese people don't like it then they can not look at me.

 

What's happened is many people have been so henpecked by the hard left and SJW-types over the slightest things that they are sick of living in a ever shrinking box of accepted terms, opinions and actions, where you're expected to be aware of every concern of every minority group, and aware of every newly forbidden term and every newly invented term. And then also sick of being labelled an insentive hate crimminal and thrown in the same category with the same scorn as the worst actual bigots, if they so much as make the mistake of saying "he" instead of "xe". Maybe ethnic minorities would fee less oppressed if we stopped worrying about non-racist white people wearing dreadlocks and concentrated more on the actual racists expressing overt racism.

Most stories I hear about "political correctness gone mad" tend to be bizarre exceptions, rather than the rule (like that American-Colombian kid who was told that the Mariachi costume he chose for Halloween was offensive)

Also, I've yet to see one of those "SJW-types" everybody keeps harping on about. The people complaining about their supposed existence are far more numerous. This suggests that they, too, are a very small minority, likely smaller than open racists.

Another instance of political correctness we've seen is the refusal by some to call Islamic extremism "Islamic extremism", which in my opinion is to deny reality, and acts as though Islam is irrelevent to the subject. At some point people's feelings and concerns can't get in the way of stating the truth, or the truth as we see it.

I don't call ISIS "Islamic" because they aren't, no matter how much they say otherwise. Not when they bomb mosques during Ramadan, not when they execute people as if they were Bond villains, not when they fail to even pray correctly. Even Middle Eastern media calls them "Daesh", rather than acknowledging them as the "Islamic State" they claim to be.

And honestly, to put Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Daesh under the same umbrella ("Islamic Terrorism") is just being wilfully ignorant. There are reasons as to why those groups exist, and most of them are not religious.

In a nutshell, it's like claiming that IRA is an example of "Catholic Terrorism". The truth is way more complicated, and if the rest of the world were to call it that, we'd see people believe that Catholicism is inherently violent.

With regard to the later I think we need to be honest about what we're doing when we want to censor people's opinions, I feel this is wear political correctness loses credability with many. "Hate speech" is a fair term to describe what is regarded a hateful expression, but when we decide to silence a person's opinion for what we consider the greater good let's just admit we're censoring their free speech. When we apply conditions to the definition of 'free speech' then it isn't free. I think saying they're two different things, free speech and hate speech, is just how people have justified silencing speech they don't like but without admitting they have infrigned a person's freedom to speak their mind, which would be an uncomfortable thing for a person professing to be liberal to admit. But saying they have censored their hate speech and not their free speech sounds better. Maybe some people should be silenced and some words should be banned, if that's the case let's not pretend we're for free speech and pose as 'liberals' as we call to ban things.

Censorship is when the state punishes you for, or prevents you from, expressing the "incorrect" opinion.

Like King_V said, nobody's being silenced, no words or opinions are being banned: they're being challenged, disagreed with, and criticised. It's a world of difference.

And you can argue back. The examples you're giving us, with the dreadlocks and the samurai clothes, are stuff that's criticised by individuals. Their notion of what constitutes "offensive" can be challenged

you can't police people's hair

You're right, but that doesn't stop people from trying.

Nobody is taking your freedom to do so.

I think there are many that want to and would if they could. For example That black woman that accosted that white college guy with dreads on that viral youtube video would probably ban white people wearing dreads and braids if she could.

There was also a case where a yoga class serving 60 disabled people was cancelled at a Canadian university because of the cultural concerns from a few students.

It's got to the point now where some people can't even decide if this article is satire or not.

Most black people aren't offended by a white person wearing dreads.

Sure, just as most white people aren't racist, as others have said it only takes a minority to make it an issue.

Cultural appropriation is a real issue (more so in America), but that doesn't mean that white people aren't allowed to experience black culture. It means that the origins of that culture should be recognised ad respected. A white person wearing dreads isn't cultural appropriation;

If dreads originated from black/african culture, then it is fair to say it's cultural appropriation, I'm saying it needn't be considered offensive.

And why must I actively acknowledge the origins of something? Will there be consequences against me if i don't? If it's as offensive as racism then shouldn't I be subject to the same punishment? How do express my acknowledgement of the origin of dreadlocks while wearing dreadlocks? Should I wear a sign around my neck so that black passers by know I am respecting their culture?

but Kylie Jenner wearing dreads and the media praising her for a pioneering new hairstyle is.

The fault there then would be with the media in my opinion, not Kylie Jenner wearing dreads.

"Political correctness" isn't about not offended somebody. It's about understanding what offends people, and not doing so for the sole purpose of offending people.

I agree, but a lot of people say intent and context is irrelevant, and if somebody claims to be offended and hurt by your actions then you are in the wrong and need to adjust your behaviour regardless of your intention. They effectively draw the conclusion that cultural appropriation for your own innocent reasons is as bad as intentionally dissrespecting and offending people, because all that matters are the feelings of those claiming to be offended and hurt.

I don't call ISIS "Islamic" because they aren't, no matter how much they say otherwise. Not when they bomb mosques during Ramadan, not when they execute people as if they were Bond villains, not when they fail to even pray correctly. Even Middle Eastern media calls them "Daesh", rather than acknowledging them as the "Islamic State" they claim to be.

 

And honestly, to put Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Daesh under the same umbrella ("Islamic Terrorism") is just being wilfully ignorant. There are reasons as to why those groups exist, and most of them are not religious.

 

In a nutshell, it's like claiming that IRA is an example of "Catholic Terrorism". The truth is way more complicated, and if the rest of the world were to call it that, we'd see people believe that Catholicism is inherently violent.

Happy to disagree, to me it's like saying football hooligans aren't fans, when they are infact the most fanatical, it's just distancing. Just because some people can't appreciate that there are good muslims and bad muslims doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the islamic aspects of the issue, radicalisation occurs in some mosques and the terrosits find their justification, however warped, in Islam. Nor do I leave "Islamic extremism" soley at the door of terrorists, I find sharia law such as that seen in Saudi Arabia extreme, is that not an Islamic country? This is not the same as saying all Muslims are extreme, which obviously I'm not saying.

Censorship is when the state punishes you for, or prevents you from, expressing the "incorrect" opinion.

 

Like King_V said, nobody's being silenced, no words or opinions are being banned: they're being challenged, disagreed with, and criticised. It's a world of difference.

 

And you can argue back. The examples you're giving us, with the dreadlocks and the samurai clothes, are stuff that's criticised by individuals. Their notion of what constitutes "offensive" can be challenged

Yes you can challenge them back, but are you saying that being accosted over your cultural appropriation isn't a problem because it's not being done by the state? It's still bullying. What about the feelings of the white person with dreadlocks? We don't say racist accosting/bullying is less of a problem because it's not the state doing it.

And if cultural appropriation is considered as harmful as intentional racism which we do legislate against, as increasingly many claim, then it seems logical that cultural appropriation may also be legislated against. And when it comes to the reporting of an incident as a hate crime, it is the perceived victim that get's to decide if you were being hateful or not, you don't get to challenge and debate it until after it's been reported.

Nobody is taking your freedom to do so.

I think there are many that want to and would if they could. For example That black woman that accosted that white college guy with dreads on that viral youtube video would probably ban white people wearing dreads and braids if she could.

There was also a case where a yoga class serving 60 disabled people was cancelled at a Canadian university because of the cultural concerns from a few students.

It's got to the point now where some people can't even decide if this article is satire or not.

Most black people aren't offended by a white person wearing dreads.

Sure, just as most white people aren't racist, as others have said it only takes a minority to make it an issue.

Cultural appropriation is a real issue (more so in America), but that doesn't mean that white people aren't allowed to experience black culture. It means that the origins of that culture should be recognised ad respected. A white person wearing dreads isn't cultural appropriation;

If dreads originated from black/african culture, then it is fair to say it's cultural appropriation, I'm saying it needn't be considered offensive.

And why must I actively acknowledge the origins of something? Will there be consequences against me if i don't? If it's as offensive as racism then shouldn't I be subject to the same punishment? How do express my acknowledgement of the origin of dreadlocks while wearing dreadlocks? Should I wear a sign around my neck so that black passers by know I am respecting their culture?

but Kylie Jenner wearing dreads and the media praising her for a pioneering new hairstyle is.

The fault there then would be with the media in my opinion, not Kylie Jenner wearing dreads.

"Political correctness" isn't about not offended somebody. It's about understanding what offends people, and not doing so for the sole purpose of offending people.

I agree, but a lot of people say intent and context is irrelevant, and if somebody claims to be offended and hurt by your actions then you are in the wrong and need to adjust your behaviour regardless of your intention. They effectively draw the conclusion that cultural appropriation for your own innocent reasons is as bad as intentionally dissrespecting and offending people, because all that matters are the feelings of those claiming to be offended and hurt.

I don't call ISIS "Islamic" because they aren't, no matter how much they say otherwise. Not when they bomb mosques during Ramadan, not when they execute people as if they were Bond villains, not when they fail to even pray correctly. Even Middle Eastern media calls them "Daesh", rather than acknowledging them as the "Islamic State" they claim to be.

 

And honestly, to put Al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and Daesh under the same umbrella ("Islamic Terrorism") is just being wilfully ignorant. There are reasons as to why those groups exist, and most of them are not religious.

 

In a nutshell, it's like claiming that IRA is an example of "Catholic Terrorism". The truth is way more complicated, and if the rest of the world were to call it that, we'd see people believe that Catholicism is inherently violent.

Happy to disagree, to me it's like saying football hooligans aren't fans, when they are infact the most fanatical, it's just distancing. Just because some people can't appreciate that there are good muslims and bad muslims doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the islamic aspects of the issue, radicalisation occurs in some mosques and the terrosits find their justification, however warped, in Islam. Nor do I leave "Islamic extremism" soley at the door of terrorists, I find sharia law such as that seen in Saudi Arabia extreme, is that not an Islamic country? This is not the same as saying all Muslims are extreme, which obviously I'm not saying.

Censorship is when the state punishes you for, or prevents you from, expressing the "incorrect" opinion.

 

Like King_V said, nobody's being silenced, no words or opinions are being banned: they're being challenged, disagreed with, and criticised. It's a world of difference.

 

And you can argue back. The examples you're giving us, with the dreadlocks and the samurai clothes, are stuff that's criticised by individuals. Their notion of what constitutes "offensive" can be challenged

Yes you can challenge them back, but are you saying that being accosted over your cultural appropriation isn't a problem because it's not being done by the state? It's still bullying. What about the feelings of the white person with dreadlocks? We don't say racist accosting/bullying is less of a problem because it's not the state doing it.

And if cultural appropriation is considered as harmful as intentional racism which we do legislate against, as increasingly many claim, then it seems logical that cultural appropriation may also be legislated against. And when it comes to the reporting of an incident as a hate crime, it is the perceived victim that get's to decide if you were being hateful or not, you don't get to challenge and debate it until after it's been reported.

I think there are many that want to and would if they could. For example That black woman that accosted that white college guy with dreads on that viral youtube video would probably ban white people wearing dreads and braids if she could.

But she's just one person. Every black person I know (anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure it's the same for 99+%) think she was in the wrong. You claiming political correctness is an issue because one person has misunderstood it is ridiculous. It's like saying the gender equality movement is bad because one "feminist" is actually a female supremist.

There was also a case where a yoga class serving 60 disabled people was cancelled at a Canadian university because of the cultural concerns from a few students.

 

It's got to the point now where some people can't even decide if this article is satire or not.

Again, these are all isolated cases of people being misinformed (or often altogether made up). It's not what political correctness is.

Sure, just as most white people aren't racist, as others have said it only takes a minority to make it an issue.

So we deal with those individuals, rather than generalising the whole concept.

And why must I actively acknowledge the origins of something? Will there be consequences against me if i don't? If it's as offensive as racism then shouldn't I be subject to the same punishment? How do express my acknowledgement of the origin of dreadlocks while wearing dreadlocks? Should I wear a sign around my neck so that black passers by know I am respecting their culture?

No you don't have to actively acknowledge it or wear a sign around your neck. Nor are you expected to be well versed in the history and culture. But when one group of people are clearly more subjugated and disadvantaged, and have their culture taken by society, do you not think it's a good thing that there's a movement towards being more open minded, understanding and educated? Nobody is going to arrest you or get angry with you for not having detailed knowledge of the slave trade, but it's a nice thing for society to acknowledge that, and not continue to be ignorant of it.

You're looking at it from an individual perspective. Most issues of political correctness aren't focused on one person, but on the media and society propagating stereotypes and ignorance. Why is it so bad that we should have more diversity on television, so black children growing up don't feel isolated in their community? And so children who live in predominantly white areas actually have some visibility of different races, to try and remove the ignorance and the "them and us" mentality that's prevalent in much of the UK?

The fault there then would be with the media in my opinion, not Kylie Jenner wearing dreads.

Agreed, and that's where most of the anger is directed.

I agree, but a lot of people say intent and context is irrelevant, and if somebody claims to be offended and hurt by your actions then you are in the wrong and need to adjust your behaviour regardless of your intention. They effectively draw the conclusion that cultural appropriation for your own innocent reasons is as bad as intentionally dissrespecting and offending people, because all that matters are the feelings of those claiming to be offended and hurt.

Who says that? Have you ever been told to adjust your behaviour without having your say? Have you ever even been told to adjust your behaviour due to "political correctness"?

Just as @Jonnas said, all these horror stories about "political correctness" are exceptions or made up, blown out of all proportion by the media to fuel their own corporate agenda. Just like the story about "health and safety gone mad" where children were forced by the government to wear safety goggles when playing conkers was completely untrue, and just a joke made by a headteacher. Or the "fact" often spouted by people against "political correctness" that teachers aren't allowed to sing Baa Baa Black Sheep because it's considered racist, and have to sing Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep instead, despite no teacher ever having been told this and no rules or guidelines stating it.

I think there are many that want to and would if they could. For example That black woman that accosted that white college guy with dreads on that viral youtube video would probably ban white people wearing dreads and braids if she could.

But she's just one person. Every black person I know (anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure it's the same for 99+%) think she was in the wrong. You claiming political correctness is an issue because one person has misunderstood it is ridiculous. It's like saying the gender equality movement is bad because one "feminist" is actually a female supremist.

There was also a case where a yoga class serving 60 disabled people was cancelled at a Canadian university because of the cultural concerns from a few students.

 

It's got to the point now where some people can't even decide if this article is satire or not.

Again, these are all isolated cases of people being misinformed (or often altogether made up). It's not what political correctness is.

Sure, just as most white people aren't racist, as others have said it only takes a minority to make it an issue.

So we deal with those individuals, rather than generalising the whole concept.

And why must I actively acknowledge the origins of something? Will there be consequences against me if i don't? If it's as offensive as racism then shouldn't I be subject to the same punishment? How do express my acknowledgement of the origin of dreadlocks while wearing dreadlocks? Should I wear a sign around my neck so that black passers by know I am respecting their culture?

No you don't have to actively acknowledge it or wear a sign around your neck. Nor are you expected to be well versed in the history and culture. But when one group of people are clearly more subjugated and disadvantaged, and have their culture taken by society, do you not think it's a good thing that there's a movement towards being more open minded, understanding and educated? Nobody is going to arrest you or get angry with you for not having detailed knowledge of the slave trade, but it's a nice thing for society to acknowledge that, and not continue to be ignorant of it.

You're looking at it from an individual perspective. Most issues of political correctness aren't focused on one person, but on the media and society propagating stereotypes and ignorance. Why is it so bad that we should have more diversity on television, so black children growing up don't feel isolated in their community? And so children who live in predominantly white areas actually have some visibility of different races, to try and remove the ignorance and the "them and us" mentality that's prevalent in much of the UK?

The fault there then would be with the media in my opinion, not Kylie Jenner wearing dreads.

Agreed, and that's where most of the anger is directed.

I agree, but a lot of people say intent and context is irrelevant, and if somebody claims to be offended and hurt by your actions then you are in the wrong and need to adjust your behaviour regardless of your intention. They effectively draw the conclusion that cultural appropriation for your own innocent reasons is as bad as intentionally dissrespecting and offending people, because all that matters are the feelings of those claiming to be offended and hurt.

Who says that? Have you ever been told to adjust your behaviour without having your say? Have you ever even been told to adjust your behaviour due to "political correctness"?

Just as @Jonnas said, all these horror stories about "political correctness" are exceptions or made up, blown out of all proportion by the media to fuel their own corporate agenda. Just like the story about "health and safety gone mad" where children were forced by the government to wear safety goggles when playing conkers was completely untrue, and just a joke made by a headteacher. Or the "fact" often spouted by people against "political correctness" that teachers aren't allowed to sing Baa Baa Black Sheep because it's considered racist, and have to sing Baa Baa Rainbow Sheep instead, despite no teacher ever having been told this and no rules or guidelines stating it.

If dreads originated from black/african culture, then it is fair to say it's cultural appropriation, I'm saying it needn't be considered offensive.

(...)

And if cultural appropriation is considered as harmful as intentional racism which we do legislate against, as increasingly many claim, then it seems logical that cultural appropriation may also be legislated against. And when it comes to the reporting of an incident as a hate crime, it is the perceived victim that get's to decide if you were being hateful or not, you don't get to challenge and debate it until after it's been reported.

For the record, cultural appropriation is a murky area, and simply adopting customs from a foreign culture isn't necessarily full-blown "appropriation".

Just making that clear, I myself don't have a general opinion on the subject, as it heavily depends on the situation. I would be against a general law against cultural appropriation for this very reason, because identifying it in the first place is a nightmare.

Also, I wouldn't worry about any such laws being passed until we see a politician campaigning for such a thing. There's a huge leap between "some isolated people around the world invoked cultural appropriation" and a government acknowledging its existence, let alone passing legislation on it.

Happy to disagree, to me it's like saying football hooligans aren't fans, when they are infact the most fanatical, it's just distancing. Just because some people can't appreciate that there are good muslims and bad muslims doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the islamic aspects of the issue, radicalisation occurs in some mosques and the terrosits find their justification, however warped, in Islam. Nor do I leave "Islamic extremism" soley at the door of terrorists, I find sharia law such as that seen in Saudi Arabia extreme, is that not an Islamic country? This is not the same as saying all Muslims are extreme, which obviously I'm not saying.

The analogy with hooligans is apt. Al-Qaeda are longtime violent fans, and Daesh are the guys who don't care about football and just want an excuse to start shit. And we should also acknowledge that hooligans aren't being supported by their team nor by the other fans.

Anyway, not to deviate much from the topic, but...

If dreads originated from black/african culture, then it is fair to say it's cultural appropriation, I'm saying it needn't be considered offensive.

(...)

And if cultural appropriation is considered as harmful as intentional racism which we do legislate against, as increasingly many claim, then it seems logical that cultural appropriation may also be legislated against. And when it comes to the reporting of an incident as a hate crime, it is the perceived victim that get's to decide if you were being hateful or not, you don't get to challenge and debate it until after it's been reported.

For the record, cultural appropriation is a murky area, and simply adopting customs from a foreign culture isn't necessarily full-blown "appropriation".

Just making that clear, I myself don't have a general opinion on the subject, as it heavily depends on the situation. I would be against a general law against cultural appropriation for this very reason, because identifying it in the first place is a nightmare.

Also, I wouldn't worry about any such laws being passed until we see a politician campaigning for such a thing. There's a huge leap between "some isolated people around the world invoked cultural appropriation" and a government acknowledging its existence, let alone passing legislation on it.

Happy to disagree, to me it's like saying football hooligans aren't fans, when they are infact the most fanatical, it's just distancing. Just because some people can't appreciate that there are good muslims and bad muslims doesn't mean I'm going to ignore the islamic aspects of the issue, radicalisation occurs in some mosques and the terrosits find their justification, however warped, in Islam. Nor do I leave "Islamic extremism" soley at the door of terrorists, I find sharia law such as that seen in Saudi Arabia extreme, is that not an Islamic country? This is not the same as saying all Muslims are extreme, which obviously I'm not saying.

The analogy with hooligans is apt. Al-Qaeda are longtime violent fans, and Daesh are the guys who don't care about football and just want an excuse to start shit. And we should also acknowledge that hooligans aren't being supported by their team nor by the other fans.

Anyway, not to deviate much from the topic, but...

But she's just one person. Every black person I know (anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure it's the same for 99+%) think she was in the wrong. You claiming political correctness is an issue because one person has misunderstood it is ridiculous. It's like saying the gender equality movement is bad because one "feminist" is actually a female supremist.

 

Again, these are all isolated cases of people being misinformed (or often altogether made up). It's not what political correctness is.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting.

No you don't have to actively acknowledge it or wear a sign around your neck. Nor are you expected to be well versed in the history and culture. But when one group of people are clearly more subjugated and disadvantaged, and have their culture taken by society, do you not think it's a good thing that there's a movement towards being more open minded, understanding and educated? Nobody is going to arrest you or get angry with you for not having detailed knowledge of the slave trade, but it's a nice thing for society to acknowledge that, and not continue to be ignorant of it.

It would be nice if that's all the anti-cultural appropriation movement was. Even without those that would stop people doing things it isn't just about encouraging people to be more interested in the history of a culture, they also say that not being interested or mindful is a bad thing and by extension makes you a bad a person. For example going back to yoga, it has been said that it's bad to ignore the spiritual side of yoga and just do it for the physical benefits because "doing so relies on racist thinking – legitimatizing what white and Western people like about yoga, and invalidating its original meaning." Really? All I wanted to do was cure my back pain and now I'm a racist?

Even if the person who said that observed me doing yoga there is no tangible way for them to determine whether I was incoprating the spiritual side or to gauge my understanding and respect for the culture it came from. Surely then the simpliest thing to do is just leave people to it. If they do respect and learn about that culture then great, if they don't maybe mind your own business instead of making judgements about people you don't know.

You're looking at it from an individual perspective. Most issues of political correctness aren't focused on one person, but on the media and society propagating stereotypes and ignorance. Why is it so bad that we should have more diversity on television, so black children growing up don't feel isolated in their community? And so children who live in predominantly white areas actually have some visibility of different races, to try and remove the ignorance and the "them and us" mentality that's prevalent in much of the UK?

I never said there was anything wrong with that. I did say I'm PC up to a point. I do think 'positive discrimination' in employment is wrong though.

Who says that? Have you ever been told to adjust your behaviour without having your say? Have you ever even been told to adjust your behaviour due to "political correctness"?

Not personally, but as you say the media has told me, and I have read about instances of other people being told that who I would assume would tell me the same thing. Fair to say the media can't always be trusted though.

But she's just one person. Every black person I know (anecdotal evidence, but I'm sure it's the same for 99+%) think she was in the wrong. You claiming political correctness is an issue because one person has misunderstood it is ridiculous. It's like saying the gender equality movement is bad because one "feminist" is actually a female supremist.

 

Again, these are all isolated cases of people being misinformed (or often altogether made up). It's not what political correctness is.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting.

No you don't have to actively acknowledge it or wear a sign around your neck. Nor are you expected to be well versed in the history and culture. But when one group of people are clearly more subjugated and disadvantaged, and have their culture taken by society, do you not think it's a good thing that there's a movement towards being more open minded, understanding and educated? Nobody is going to arrest you or get angry with you for not having detailed knowledge of the slave trade, but it's a nice thing for society to acknowledge that, and not continue to be ignorant of it.

It would be nice if that's all the anti-cultural appropriation movement was. Even without those that would stop people doing things it isn't just about encouraging people to be more interested in the history of a culture, they also say that not being interested or mindful is a bad thing and by extension makes you a bad a person. For example going back to yoga, it has been said that it's bad to ignore the spiritual side of yoga and just do it for the physical benefits because "doing so relies on racist thinking – legitimatizing what white and Western people like about yoga, and invalidating its original meaning." Really? All I wanted to do was cure my back pain and now I'm a racist?

Even if the person who said that observed me doing yoga there is no tangible way for them to determine whether I was incoprating the spiritual side or to gauge my understanding and respect for the culture it came from. Surely then the simpliest thing to do is just leave people to it. If they do respect and learn about that culture then great, if they don't maybe mind your own business instead of making judgements about people you don't know.

You're looking at it from an individual perspective. Most issues of political correctness aren't focused on one person, but on the media and society propagating stereotypes and ignorance. Why is it so bad that we should have more diversity on television, so black children growing up don't feel isolated in their community? And so children who live in predominantly white areas actually have some visibility of different races, to try and remove the ignorance and the "them and us" mentality that's prevalent in much of the UK?

I never said there was anything wrong with that. I did say I'm PC up to a point. I do think 'positive discrimination' in employment is wrong though.

Who says that? Have you ever been told to adjust your behaviour without having your say? Have you ever even been told to adjust your behaviour due to "political correctness"?

Not personally, but as you say the media has told me, and I have read about instances of other people being told that who I would assume would tell me the same thing. Fair to say the media can't always be trusted though.

(or call a disabled person "handicapped", or a person suffering from mental disorders "retard", or a gay person "faggot")

Wait, "handicapped" is a bad term on the level of "retard" and "faggot"? I thought that was one of the respectable terms to use. But there may also be a difference in nuance between English and Danish there.

Anyway, I generally feel everyone is making good points in here, and I kind of also feel that most of the disagreement is simply a case of talking past each other; nobody's striking me as massively disagreeing, it's just a matter of having different perspectives on a complex issue.

(or call a disabled person "handicapped", or a person suffering from mental disorders "retard", or a gay person "faggot")

Wait, "handicapped" is a bad term on the level of "retard" and "faggot"? I thought that was one of the respectable terms to use. But there may also be a difference in nuance between English and Danish there.

Anyway, I generally feel everyone is making good points in here, and I kind of also feel that most of the disagreement is simply a case of talking past each other; nobody's striking me as massively disagreeing, it's just a matter of having different perspectives on a complex issue.

I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) "handicapped" indicates/suggests begging ("hand in cap" - which a lot of disabled people used to have to do) and that's why it's less favourable to use.

I believe (but correct me if I'm wrong) "handicapped" indicates/suggests begging ("hand in cap" - which a lot of disabled people used to have to do) and that's why it's less favourable to use.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting.

 

 

I just think you're 'falling for the bait' of internet click bait with your examples, and as such makes your argument seem weak. Clear examples of these things happening in your day-to-day environment would be better received.

Me and my family could care less if a white person wants to braid their hair - My African mum gives my Norwegian partner traditional clothing with pride. Don't take social media comments at face value, especially when it seems to be manipulating your beliefs.

What might piss black people off is as @MoogleViper perfectly stated is when mainstream society re-brand black or other ethnic minority norms as something else just because a white person does it... But even then, the black women I know aren't so much pissed off as they are rolling their eyes with laughter.

Also, these issues are much more pronounced and controversial in the US.

You wont simply take my word for it that it's a thing, I give examples but you reject them as they are too few. How many would suffice given the impracticallity of listing every single one in a forum post? What about the fancy dress parties that get cancelled, what about a themed restaurant having it's cultural iconography banned? Kylie Jenner took a ton of criticism on social media for her cornrows, that wasn't just one person objecting.

 

 

I just think you're 'falling for the bait' of internet click bait with your examples, and as such makes your argument seem weak. Clear examples of these things happening in your day-to-day environment would be better received.

Me and my family could care less if a white person wants to braid their hair - My African mum gives my Norwegian partner traditional clothing with pride. Don't take social media comments at face value, especially when it seems to be manipulating your beliefs.

What might piss black people off is as @MoogleViper perfectly stated is when mainstream society re-brand black or other ethnic minority norms as something else just because a white person does it... But even then, the black women I know aren't so much pissed off as they are rolling their eyes with laughter.

Also, these issues are much more pronounced and controversial in the US.

^ I never knew that.

I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

^ I never knew that.

I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

^ I never knew that.

 

I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

Similar to how you're not supposed to use "wheelchair bound".

^ I never knew that.

 

I've never liked the word invalid, it's basically in-valid, harsh to imply a person isn't a valid person if they have a disability.

Similar to how you're not supposed to use "wheelchair bound".

I haven't weighed in on this topic, and I missed the boat a bit, but it felt weird after the referendum seeing stories of increased hate-crimes/incidents being reported. Being brown in SE london(an area I recently read is like 3/4s white british) I experienced racism growing up. The picture's changed a lot here though I think, and we aren't the only brown family in the street anymore from what I personally see. I go to pubs quite often(admittedly avoiding weekends usually) - I haven't had any beef on my colour for very many years, and it was almost surreal seeing the news of all these incidents. It threw me back, despite the fact I had't experienced any myself, but I went back to a waryness I haven't had for so long. I don't think I've had anything notably racist(small shouts from a distance not counted, more direct confrontation of sorts) for the last 5-6 years. Maybe there's a few I forget in there but they've not been enough to stick out in my mind.

Yet seeing all the news - I got back to the worried state of waryness again. It's horrible. I went to a pub I don't go to often 2 weeks ago - and it's the first time in a while I've walked in thinking if I should be worried or on my guard. I understand it could/would be argued this is all on me and in my head - but it's still surreal a feeling to go back to(and it's dissipated a bit more since). Tbh my issue isn't really with people taking issue with me, but it's more the people around me/who are with me. I'm used to it, in a sense, but I don't like my friends having to see it.

Aaaanyway - moving on from that a bit. I posted this on facebook a while back. I don't know Akala much but this video got shared by a friend post-EU referendum and I found it very interesting(it's from post 2015 election). Recommend it to lots of people. He somewhat essentially highlights the difference between individuals and systems causing racism, which is a point often lost on some who don't understand it fully due to not having to see it personally. It's a difficult point to get across to someone who hasn't had to worry or see it too much, I think. I also found it enlightening for myself, too.

I haven't weighed in on this topic, and I missed the boat a bit, but it felt weird after the referendum seeing stories of increased hate-crimes/incidents being reported. Being brown in SE london(an area I recently read is like 3/4s white british) I experienced racism growing up. The picture's changed a lot here though I think, and we aren't the only brown family in the street anymore from what I personally see. I go to pubs quite often(admittedly avoiding weekends usually) - I haven't had any beef on my colour for very many years, and it was almost surreal seeing the news of all these incidents. It threw me back, despite the fact I had't experienced any myself, but I went back to a waryness I haven't had for so long. I don't think I've had anything notably racist(small shouts from a distance not counted, more direct confrontation of sorts) for the last 5-6 years. Maybe there's a few I forget in there but they've not been enough to stick out in my mind.

Yet seeing all the news - I got back to the worried state of waryness again. It's horrible. I went to a pub I don't go to often 2 weeks ago - and it's the first time in a while I've walked in thinking if I should be worried or on my guard. I understand it could/would be argued this is all on me and in my head - but it's still surreal a feeling to go back to(and it's dissipated a bit more since). Tbh my issue isn't really with people taking issue with me, but it's more the people around me/who are with me. I'm used to it, in a sense, but I don't like my friends having to see it.

Aaaanyway - moving on from that a bit. I posted this on facebook a while back. I don't know Akala much but this video got shared by a friend post-EU referendum and I found it very interesting(it's from post 2015 election). Recommend it to lots of people. He somewhat essentially highlights the difference between individuals and systems causing racism, which is a point often lost on some who don't understand it fully due to not having to see it personally. It's a difficult point to get across to someone who hasn't had to worry or see it too much, I think. I also found it enlightening for myself, too.

@Rummy, I'm sorry you're feeling that way .

Sadly, I've always felt the standard pub to contain a fair few ignorants, so I've generally avoided them. And I know what you mean about involving friends - for example, when my partner's dad comes over from Norway he loves the whole English pub culture and football, but its not always easy to take him around to pubs when I can acknowledge some tensions... Though its not as big as an issue as it might sound ie no confrontations etc (but I feel that's just because I'm a big man and people can see the 'fighter' on my face lol - which goes in line with my personal mantra that racists equal cowards).