Removing TV Shows Because Of Racism | Page 3 | Vital Football

Removing TV Shows Because Of Racism

  • Thread starter Deleted member 13556
  • Start date
Defining racism has confounded many for a long time. As far as police definition of racism is concerned (i`m not aware of any recent changes ), they (police) are obliged to accept that something is "racist" if any person believes it to be so ie: a racist incident is any incident which is perceived to be racist by the victim or any other person’. (The origin of that "definition" is, I believe, the MacPherson Report.) Understatement to say that this definition is a tad on the ambiguous side but that`s how it`s been. Notwithstanding good intent, is it really that much of a surprise that so many throw the phrase/accusation around like confetti when the definition is so loose !
 
shotshy said:
Black people cannot be racist GBN
Click to expand...
Obviously not, black people have not set rules, such as the US constitution or much of UK statute but have been ruled by them. Instead of being re-written, the US constitution has been amended to include native and African Americans and other ethnic groups.
 
ThreeSixes said:
I don't know why people are referencing "Love thy neighbour"? I'm 49, and I've never seen it, and I don't recall it being on since I've been watching TV? The issue is regarding modern programmes that can now be considered offensive (e.g. Bo Selecta and Little Britain). Some of it is patently ridiculous (e.g Papa Lazarou in League Of Gentleman).
Click to expand...

I was actually talking about this earlier at work (from 2M away and all wearing face masks.....) and the older guys I was talking to couldn’t believe I had never seen love thy neighbour, or either Alf garnett series. I am 44. Now as I’m aware LTN was a mid/late 70s series so a bit before my time anyway. But growing up with only 3 tv channels you tended to watch what your parents watched in the lounge anyway and it must’ve been repeated throughout the 80s as most things were. So I can only conclude that either my parents didn’t find it funny, or found it offensive.

However I’m not sure bo selector should be pulled, and I wasn’t a great fan of that myself. LoG was a favourite of mine many years ago. As was series 1 and 2 of little Britain. Unfortunately I think if walliams and Lucas has recorded the whole series with no bame characters - firstly they would’ve been criticised for not having them represented and secondly - it wouldn’t be factually correct. The whole idea of LB was a snapshot of Britain, all walks of life, all cultures etc. Yet ironically if they had shunned bame characters it would be ok to show now. Fucking barmy really, ain’t it?
 
Baghdad_Rob said:
For as long as there are those arguing that only one skin colour can be racist and the other can't be, there will always be race related tension. It is only when people stop caring about skin colour and realise people can be buttholes regardless of race, gender, sexuality and treat people on the merits of their personality rather than unchangeable features they were born with will humanity move forward.
Click to expand...
I've tried to make this point.

I firmly believe that during the 80's and 90s, racism was disappearing (the worst being in the 60's and 70s).
Increasingly children had classmates who looked different.
Increasingly, people were treated as individuals.

Then, around 2000, we got Ethnic Monitoring forms. (A weird mix of race and nationality)
People started "thinking" about race again.

Then we got pigeon-holed into "communities".
Apparently every member of said "community" thinks the same .....or has had the same experiences ?

Surely it is practices like Ethnic Monitoring that allows division to continue ?
And commentators promoting such "communities" that entrench and amplify division ?

Now, activists look for "racism" everywhere .... and cheery things things like "golly hair" and "watermelon smiles" can get people sacked.
 
Tarian said:
I've tried to make this point.

I firmly believe that during the 80's and 90s, racism was disappearing (the worst being in the 60's and 70s).
Increasingly children had classmates who looked different.
Increasingly, people were treated as individuals.

.
Click to expand...

I think so much of this is down to parenting though. I was born in 1975 and went to Luton primary/junior schools. Christ, half the school were bame. My two best mates in 1982 were Sunil Kumar and Anil Bhutan, we all lived on the same estate and all played football/Star Wars figures whatever. None of us saw skin colour. We were all just friends!!!
 
GGS 1964-1971
One black boy in a class of 30.
Not his name, but everyone called him Sam. He was fine with it. Well, I think he was fine with it. Well, what was he to do if he wasn't fine with it? You take your lumps. In fairness, I don't think the rest of us thought we were putting one over on him. He was very well liked. Wished we hadn't done it though.
 
Tarian said:
Then, around 2000, we got Ethnic Monitoring forms. (A weird mix of race and nationality)
People started "thinking" about race again.
Click to expand...

Depending on where you worked I guess , but I would say the early/mid 90's it took off.

I remember being asked at least four times , to fill in the same form.
BAME people had a multitude of choices to consider , and as you refer to , based on ethnicity and religion.
I had one box to tick , White British.
Not even a mention of being English !
 
Gills 58 said:
I'm concerned that the genius that is Family Guy will be pulled. It wrecks everbody and everything.

Gutted if it goes.
Click to expand...

Hank Azaria has already stopped voicing Apu in the Simpsons and being apologetic about it after 25+ years so, as you say, there are bound to be changes. Better buy the Box set DVDs of Family Guy while we can.
 
Tarian said:
I've tried to make this point.

I firmly believe that during the 80's and 90s, racism was disappearing (the worst being in the 60's and 70s).
Increasingly children had classmates who looked different.
Increasingly, people were treated as individuals.

Then, around 2000, we got Ethnic Monitoring forms. (A weird mix of race and nationality)
People started "thinking" about race again.

Then we got pigeon-holed into "communities".
Apparently every member of said "community" thinks the same .....or has had the same experiences ?

Surely it is practices like Ethnic Monitoring that allows division to continue ?
And commentators promoting such "communities" that entrench and amplify division ?

Now, activists look for "racism" everywhere .... and cheery things things like "golly hair" and "watermelon smiles" can get people sacked.
Click to expand...

Systematic ethnic monitoring began in the 1980s. These sort of arguments have a long lineage. Some conservatives have selectively blamed any social trend, or development that they find disagreeable, a product of 60s permissiveness.

Watermelon smiles gets you elected as PM. Golly hair is such a bizarre and inappropriate thing to say and I cannot actually recall having heard the phrase used.

In the spirit of your questions: who are the activists? Are they only left wing whatever that means. Please don't answer.

Ethnic monitoring has perfectly laudable aims and is used by organisations and authorities of all colours and none. No one is obliged to supply the information
 
I rarely post in these political type threads but have one thing to say. The PC/WOKE anti anything thought police who censor anyone who doesn't agree with their agenda will eventually have gone too far. You cannot expunge history unless of course you are Stalin. I was always taught that you needed to study history to learn from the mistakes of the past, not just wipe it away.

Under Cromwell society had to conform to strict, puritanical norms and we are heading that way. I think that eventually there will be a reaction to this current rapidly developing intolerance for any alternative views rather like the freedom of expression that returned under Charles II. But I won't see this in my lifetime.

As a centre left by political persuasion I find this current form of extreme "liberalism" a complete aberration.

Nothing more to say so back to footie and other topics.
 
Bromley_GFC said:
Keith Lemon apologised a few days ago if he has offended anyone with his Craig David, Mel B characters etc.

I hope he's also going to apologise for just not being very funny.
Click to expand...
Absolute tosser (Lemon, not you Bromley). About as funny as Mrs Brown's boys. Disgrace that any of the planet's resources have been wasted on his persona.
 
shotshy said:
Exactly my point 100 posts ago TB
Bonfire of the Vanities
Destroy things some people don’t like and you end up destroying everything.
Click to expand...

It’s only racist / sexist if it causes offence. I think those examples I mention are neither racist nor are they sexist.

What about criminal profiling? Is that racist / sexist? If there is a crime that bears all the hallmarks of a white supremacy, is it racist to devote a disproportionate amount of police resources towards investigation of 20-30 year old, white males who are members of the KKK? I think not.

I would like to understand stop and search figures better. What percentage of black persons who are stopped end up with an offence? And how does that compare with the ratio for whites? Any statistical difference would be an indicator of racist bias and clearly wrong.
Gills 58 said:
I'm concerned that the genius that is Family Guy will be pulled. It wrecks everbody and everything.

Gutted if it goes.
Click to expand...

And South Park. Is it racist that Chef is a really good soul singer?
 
The pledge said:
Are the BBC admitting they were a racist organisation and this is their attempt to go down on one knee ?. They have gone from a company that is supposed to report the news without prejudice, to a totally left wing biased broadcaster.
Click to expand...

Yawn.
 
Just a bit like someone being called 'big ears'. I suppose that's being 'earist'.

Things are totally different here in the UK, I think, compared to the mid-west of the USA. I've always understood that over there that the white empowered were extremely intolerant, in general.
 
At least the movement to tick an ethnic box on a form had a reason. Either so that you could prove to the government that you were not a racist organisation or to enable the government to gather stats. Many people found it intrusive and refused to tick boxes.

Now on some sites or forms you need to fill in sex/trans info and it is more frequently now mandatory to fill something in. I usually put in the text ‘there only two biological sexes, stop asking people’.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.