Racially abused - advice please.
Discussion
IainT said:
Its also certainly not my experience of working in IT in various organisations - ethnicity and gender haven't appeared to be a blocker to good ideas being recognised. Saying that as a white male it's probably not something I'd be overly sensitive to.
My immediate team of 8 down in London had:
3 white british males
2 indian males
1 black female
1 south african indian male
1 chinese-malay male
Race or gender was never an issue, why on earth would it be? What is did add was the ability to ask people first hand about their cultures and experiences. Listening to stories about growing up under Apartheid was far more interesting and real that a documentary.
Racism must be an educational and exposure issue - I actually hear far more racist comments now I've moved back up north to a very white town. Head down to a pub to watch a game and the number of times you'll hear the colour of an opposition player mentioned is frankly embarrassing.
You wouldn't hear that in general from a better educated crowd nor one where they spend every day in a mixed environment and have friends from all ethnicities.
In my view it's right that racial abuse is tackled with priority.
Very much agree with this. I think earlier in the topic somebody mentioned the lack of diversity in Norfolk.My immediate team of 8 down in London had:
3 white british males
2 indian males
1 black female
1 south african indian male
1 chinese-malay male
Race or gender was never an issue, why on earth would it be? What is did add was the ability to ask people first hand about their cultures and experiences. Listening to stories about growing up under Apartheid was far more interesting and real that a documentary.
Racism must be an educational and exposure issue - I actually hear far more racist comments now I've moved back up north to a very white town. Head down to a pub to watch a game and the number of times you'll hear the colour of an opposition player mentioned is frankly embarrassing.
You wouldn't hear that in general from a better educated crowd nor one where they spend every day in a mixed environment and have friends from all ethnicities.
In my view it's right that racial abuse is tackled with priority.
Personally, I spent 10 years as a nurse in London, often I would be the only white person in a ward team of 20 or 30 people. In those 10 years I don't recall any problems, everyone got along and (as you mention), it was nice to learn about other cultures, their experiences, their festivals etc.
I've now been back in Norfolk a year and a half. We have one black fella in our team of 20 or 30 and that's it (apart from a few agency staff who are black African/one Mauritian).
Barely a day goes by that I don't cringe at some of the comments - in my first ever handover there was some confusion regarding two of the black agency staff and the nurse handing over commented 'well they do look a bit alike I suppose' (they don't, apart from both being black). A week or two ago I was in the city with my son and met one of my colleagues. When I saw him later at work he commented, 'I didn't realise your wife was coloured'.
As you say, education and exposure is probably the difference between somewhere like London and Norfolk, which I assume is still made up of at least 90%+ white British people.
Some interesting observations.
For those who are interested and who think that all is well in their world, take a look around at the workforce you're in, then take a look at the board room/senior managers. See if they in any way reflect the workforce.
Andy has mentioned his experience in the NHS in Norfolk. Look at the NHS nationally and see if you think white men or over or under represented at the very senior levels.
For those who are interested and who think that all is well in their world, take a look around at the workforce you're in, then take a look at the board room/senior managers. See if they in any way reflect the workforce.
Andy has mentioned his experience in the NHS in Norfolk. Look at the NHS nationally and see if you think white men or over or under represented at the very senior levels.
La Liga said:
rb5er said:
No thats where you are wrong. Ginger people used to get burnt at the stake for their hair colour. And plenty have been killed because of issues started over hair colour. Perhaps have a read up about it.
Only if you have a read-up about scale and proportion.I can't think of too many ginger genocides, wars, ginger slavery or riots.
I cant think of many proper wars or genocide raged against black people.
Or is it 1 rule for one 1 for another and 1 for another?
Insults are insults, anybody can take a comment very badly or very well, it depends on the individual.
Being insulted for haing ginger hair should be a crime just as severe as being insulted for having a certain colured skin. Its all abuse over something out of a persons control regardless of any historical factors from hundreds of years ago.
rb5er said:
So its only racist or upsetting to someone if slavery or riots have been concerned?
I cant think of many proper wars or genocide raged against black people.
Or is it 1 rule for one 1 for another and 1 for another?
Insults are insults, anybody can take a comment very badly or very well, it depends on the individual.
Being insulted for haing ginger hair should be a crime just as severe as being insulted for having a certain colured skin. Its all abuse over something out of a persons control regardless of any historical factors from hundreds of years ago.
Academically you may be correct.I cant think of many proper wars or genocide raged against black people.
Or is it 1 rule for one 1 for another and 1 for another?
Insults are insults, anybody can take a comment very badly or very well, it depends on the individual.
Being insulted for haing ginger hair should be a crime just as severe as being insulted for having a certain colured skin. Its all abuse over something out of a persons control regardless of any historical factors from hundreds of years ago.
But from a real perspective that's nonsense.
50 years ago there weren't signs banning gingers from shops.
There weren't hair colour rights.
South Africa didn't have blond apartheid.
There are lots if prejudices and hatreds around, but none have had such an impact on western culture as the intolerance some white people have shown to black people.
rb5er said:
regardless of any historical factors from hundreds of years ago.
We aren't talking hundreds of years ago. Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism are still current issues. And have been much bigger issues in very recent history.A fat Asian guy walking down the road hearing someone shout "oi P*ki" has far more reason to be afraid than hearing someone shout "oi fatty", which could even be one of his mates teasing him.
rb5er said:
So its only racist or upsetting to someone if slavery or riots have been concerned?
Where did I say that (I didn't)? It's not about someone being "upset", it's about the law recognising the serious consequences that can occur when people act on against racial and religion prejudice. Nearly all wars and conflict are based on these things / a combination of them. You tried to align people being abused for being ginger with racial abuse when they are on a completely different scale.
rb5er said:
I cant think of many proper wars or genocide raged against black people.
Don't interchange 'race' and 'black' to suit. You know full well there have been wars and genocide based on race. rb5er said:
Or is it 1 rule for one 1 for another and 1 for another?
Yes, there are no specific offences of abusing ginger people. It could be an aggravating factor. rb5er said:
Insults are insults, anybody can take a comment very badly or very well, it depends on the individual.
Of course, but ones based on race / religion are consider more serious because of the serious concurrences such attitudes and behaviours can lead to. It's not about the individual, it's about setting a standard of behaviour in society and focusing on attitudes and behaviours that are fundamental to serious consequences. rb5er said:
Being insulted for haing ginger hair should be a crime just as severe as being insulted for having a certain colured skin.
Not based on scale and proportion. rb5er said:
Its all abuse over something out of a persons control regardless of any historical factors from hundreds of years ago.
100s of years ago? There are genocides / 'ethnic cleansing' this decade. Not too many ones based on being ginger, though. andy118run said:
As you say, education and exposure is probably the difference between somewhere like London and Norfolk, which I assume is still made up of at least 90%+ white British people.
Given the stereotype that most of the inhabitants of Norfolk are cousins maybe the attitude encountered should not come as a great surprise.People tend to fear that which is totally outside their ken (or should that be kin...?)
La Liga said:
You tried to align people being abused for being ginger with racial abuse when they are on a completely different scale.
How? Just a way you are born and can do nothing about. Neither is better or worse than the other.:a Liga said:
Don't interchange 'race' and 'black' to suit. You know full well there have been wars and genocide based on race.
We are talking about a black individual here so totally relevant.La liga said:
Yes, there are no specific offences of abusing ginger people. It could be an aggravating factor.
This fact is unfair and unjust. The offence is the same.
La Liga said:
Of course, but ones based on race / religion are consider more serious because of the serious concurrences such attitudes and behaviours can lead to. It's not about the individual, it's about setting a standard of behaviour in society and focusing on attitudes and behaviours that are fundamental to serious consequences.
A case of double standards. Having a certain colour skin and being abused for it is no different to having a certain coloured hair and being abused for it.La Liga said:
Not based on scale and proportion.
So you agree the offence is the same and it would just take more ginger people being around and being abused before its an actual problem. I doubt they would be too happy with that injustice due to being in a minority.My point is that hair colour or skin colour are things people are born with and cannot control and any discrimination of either should be viewed equally even if one is in a minority.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
[
We aren't talking hundreds of years ago. Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism are still current issues. And have been much bigger issues in very recent history.
A fat Asian guy walking down the road hearing someone shout "oi P*ki" has far more reason to be afraid than hearing someone shout "oi fatty", which could even be one of his mates teasing him.
Not sure what point you think you are making. At no point have I referred to obesity. We aren't talking hundreds of years ago. Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism are still current issues. And have been much bigger issues in very recent history.
A fat Asian guy walking down the road hearing someone shout "oi P*ki" has far more reason to be afraid than hearing someone shout "oi fatty", which could even be one of his mates teasing him.
rb5er said:
My point is that hair colour or skin colour are things people are born with and cannot control and any discrimination of either should be viewed equally even if one is in a minority.
It's not complicated. I'm not talking about comparing one uncontrollable biological variable with another, I'm talking about the fundamental attitudes and prejudices and the consequences of those. Basic cause and effect. Here it is as diluted as possible: 1) Prejudice against gingers isn't at the heart of nearly every war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and riot.
2) Prejudice against race and religion is at the heart of nearly every war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and riot.
Therefore, prejudice against race and religion presents near-infinite more risk to individuals and society, and this additional risk is recognised in law. Giving it greater severity increases the probability of reducing / suppressing / removing / changing the attitudes that have lead to the greatest conflicts the world has seen / sees.
It's pretty obvious and logical stuff. You can ignore the essential context all you want and pretend that within the bigger picture they are like for like, but that doesn't change the fact they aren't.
La Liga said:
1) Prejudice against gingers isn't at the heart of nearly every war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and riot.
Nope, religion is.La Liga said:
2) Prejudice against race and religion is at the heart of nearly every war, genocide, ethnic cleansing and riot.
Therefore, prejudice against race and religion presents near-infinite more risk to individuals and society, and this additional risk is recognised in law. Giving it greater severity increases the probability of reducing / suppressing / removing / changing the attitudes that have lead to the greatest conflicts the world has seen / sees.
So only when fanatical gingers rise up and grow in numbers will abuse of them be outlawed.Therefore, prejudice against race and religion presents near-infinite more risk to individuals and society, and this additional risk is recognised in law. Giving it greater severity increases the probability of reducing / suppressing / removing / changing the attitudes that have lead to the greatest conflicts the world has seen / sees.
Ok then. So what you are saying is the numbers and amount of fanatics a race has determines whether or not they are allowed to be abused or not.
So a random woman being called black that has nothing to do with genocide or fanatical followings and has never been out of a small local town has more rights than a ginger woman abused in the same street for the colour of her hair.
A really fair way to treat people (only due to the colour of their skin), or not.
rb5er said:
Ok then. So what you are saying is the numbers and amount of fanatics a race has determines whether or not they are allowed to be abused or not.
You don't need to interpret my posts (incorrectly), they are very literal. The law specifically recognises racial and religious prejudice has much greater risk. Whether you recognise / accept that is irrelevant. That's the way it is and for good reason. La Liga said:
ou don't need to interpret my posts (incorrectly), they are very literal. The law specifically recognises racial and religious prejudice has much greater risk. Whether you recognise / accept that is irrelevant. That's the way it is and for good reason.
I think you're fighting a losing battle with this one!
rb5er said:
Ah so you concede to the obvious logic. Very good.
Mk3Spitfire said:
I think you're fighting a losing battle with this one!
La Liga said:
I think you're right. It's not that hard to see the bigger picture and rationale, is it?
Why didn't you start off and tell us you didn't understand what words like "concede" mean? It would have saved us time taking the time to try to help you understand more 'complex' things, like why the law is as it is. rb5er said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
[
We aren't talking hundreds of years ago. Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism are still current issues. And have been much bigger issues in very recent history.
A fat Asian guy walking down the road hearing someone shout "oi P*ki" has far more reason to be afraid than hearing someone shout "oi fatty", which could even be one of his mates teasing him.
Not sure what point you think you are making. At no point have I referred to obesity. We aren't talking hundreds of years ago. Racism, homophobia, anti-Semitism are still current issues. And have been much bigger issues in very recent history.
A fat Asian guy walking down the road hearing someone shout "oi P*ki" has far more reason to be afraid than hearing someone shout "oi fatty", which could even be one of his mates teasing him.
) and being mocked for being ginger, fat, wearing glasses, Welsh, bald and the like really shouldn't be allowed out without adult supervision.Interestingly enough some places have started to categorise 'fashion' and 'lifestyle' based assaults as hate crimes in the same style as racialy motivated assaults.
That is to say, if a bunch of chavs beat up a Goth just for being a Goth it gets recorded as a Hate crime and is an agrivating factor in sentencing.
As opposed to beating them up for spilling their pint.
It's developed from the Sophie Lancaster murder.
It is true that people get assaulted due to hair colour or 'looks', and it is true that this is a bad thing
From an individual point if view an assault is bed regardless of the motivation of the attackers.
But from a society perspective racial abuse is much more widespread and much worse.
Do wars get caught over race and skin colour?
Not really. Wars are fought over power and money.
They might use religion as a weapon or a recruiting tool though.
But the colour of the skin is a really easy way to define an enemy.
That is to say, if a bunch of chavs beat up a Goth just for being a Goth it gets recorded as a Hate crime and is an agrivating factor in sentencing.
As opposed to beating them up for spilling their pint.
It's developed from the Sophie Lancaster murder.
It is true that people get assaulted due to hair colour or 'looks', and it is true that this is a bad thing
From an individual point if view an assault is bed regardless of the motivation of the attackers.
But from a society perspective racial abuse is much more widespread and much worse.
Do wars get caught over race and skin colour?
Not really. Wars are fought over power and money.
They might use religion as a weapon or a recruiting tool though.
But the colour of the skin is a really easy way to define an enemy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff