Of course after Boris Johnson left London, leaving it in a mess, the Tories have been going backwards there ever since - and seemingly about to produce their worst London results, ever.
I wonder what will happen to the Tories in England when BoJo leaves office.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
There are a lot of people in diversity non jobs that would be on the dole if that attitude were to take hold though and half the writers in the guardian would have no articles to write
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
I think the clue might be in "excellent mixed race London comp". Would that it were all thus.
I have been one of those who has been extremely cautious about this virus and contacting loved ones. Indeed as I mentioned to another poster the other day I have been far more cautious over the last year than the GIvernment recommendations.
But for me that is now over. I realise there is still a small but very real risk but I refuse to continue to live my life indefinitely without close contact with my loved ones.
I will still avoid pubs for now and will gladly continue to work from home. I will happily wear masks in public and take tests whenever offered. But I am now planning on contact with family - Sunday lunches, dropping round for a chat and a hug. Many hugs.
I do this as an informed and I hope sensible adult. And like others if the Government ty to stop me they can go stick their rules where the sun don't shine.
Its time to get on with life.
-1
I don’t do hugs. Maybe my wife. Otherwise it’s a firm handshake.
Hear, hear. Damned if I'm going to be forced to hug people. Annoying, irritating American habit.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
I think the clue might be in "excellent mixed race London comp". Would that it were all thus.
Of course. It is different elsewhere. My daughter is lucky
But shouldn't we aim for all state schools to be like this? Race-blind, inclusive, multicultural AND proudly British, with good results?
That's the kind of school system I'd like to see nationwide. I don't believe it is impossible. Far from it
I do believe that stoking awareness of skin colour, just as kids forget it forever, is exactly the wrong thing to do
Our case rates/deaths/hospitalisations are all super low which is great. Our vaccine programme is heading to the moon.
Meanwhile we point our fingers and laugh at the EU countries with their spiralling case rates and new lockdowns.
However. We have been locked down for three months. Nothing open. Nothing allowed. Virtually. I don't think this has been the case in most of Europe.
Vaccine efficacy is somewhere over 90%. That means that when we come out of lockdown, plenty of people will get this disease.
The two things that are giving me some degree of comfort are Israel and schools having been back without an explosion of cases.
A few points arise from this -
1. Most people of working age have continued to go to work. Leaving out the furloughed and unemployed only 30% (at the very most) of the working population work from home. 2. Schools went back 3 weeks ago. 3. Even the vaccinated will likely catch Covid at some point. Vaccination, longer term, defangs the disease, the virus won’t be eliminated. The flu virus that caused the 1918-20 pandemic and a number of other coronaviruses are still in circulation (see my earlier posts re the 1889 pandemic) all of which caused havoc when they first emerged. Vaccines are training the population’s immune systems to identify and deal with this novel threat without the pain and suffering of actually having to catch it. 4. Ireland’s lockdown is at least as harsh as ours, if not more so, but they are not having the success we are in keeping cases down without as good a vaccination drive.
I don't think Ireland has as good a Test & Trace system as ours either, People mock T&T but I do believe its having a significant impact now, the proportion of cases traced have been extremely high for months now.
That's not true. The Irish system actually tests all contacts of a case, identifying those which are themselves cases, and so might have contacts that also need to isolate.
That's at least one step better than the UK version.
Ireland's positivity rate surged out of control in January dramatically and while they've just come under 5%, they're still far, far higher than in the UK, even discounting for the UK's LFT testing of schools. There's no way Ireland are catching as high a proportion of its cases than the UK is in my humble opinion.
That difference will be due to two factors. Firstly, the effect of vaccination has helped to decrease the infection rate in the UK, and secondly the UK is doing way more tests.
I don't dispute that the UK has the spread of the virus under better control, or that it is doing numerically a much higher number of tests - but your point was more specifically about the test and trace system. You cannot trace the spread of the infection if you are not testing contacts of a confirmed case - that is a very basic point.
Ireland does test contacts - the UK tests more indiscriminately.
Sorry but Test & Trace doesn't mean just tracing. You can trace every test that comes positive but if you're not finding your positives in the first place because you're not testing then you can't trace them. And if you can't trace them, you can't test them. And if you don't test them, you can't trace their contacts etc etc - its a positive feedback loop.
The UK is tracing contacts and doing more widespread testing. It is a better T&T system.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
I think the clue might be in "excellent mixed race London comp". Would that it were all thus.
Of course. It is different elsewhere. My daughter is lucky
But shouldn't we aim for all state schools to be like this? Race-blind, inclusive, multicultural AND proudly British, with good results?
That's the kind of school system I'd like to see nationwide. I don't believe it is impossible. Far from it
I do believe that stoking awareness of skin colour, just as kids forget it forever, is exactly the wrong thing to do
And with that, goodnight, PB, goodnight
Yes we should. Blair's London Challenge was a stonking success.
BAME is yesterday's term. The Labour Party has been using BAMER for a while now.
For those thinking 'eh?', the R stands for refugee.
Good grief. So, for example, my very well spoken stockbroker (who I'm guessing is of West African descent within a couple of generations) is now lumped in with Afghan refugees - as if the most important characteristic of either of them was their not-whiteness? I'd say that's actually quite offensive.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
Presumably you can't use the term "ethnic minority" or "minority ethnic" in Leicester, where that applies to White British who are only 45%?
I have been one of those who has been extremely cautious about this virus and contacting loved ones. Indeed as I mentioned to another poster the other day I have been far more cautious over the last year than the GIvernment recommendations.
But for me that is now over. I realise there is still a small but very real risk but I refuse to continue to live my life indefinitely without close contact with my loved ones.
I will still avoid pubs for now and will gladly continue to work from home. I will happily wear masks in public and take tests whenever offered. But I am now planning on contact with family - Sunday lunches, dropping round for a chat and a hug. Many hugs.
I do this as an informed and I hope sensible adult. And like others if the Government ty to stop me they can go stick their rules where the sun don't shine.
Its time to get on with life.
-1
I don’t do hugs. Maybe my wife. Otherwise it’s a firm handshake.
Hear, hear. Damned if I'm going to be forced to hug people. Annoying, irritating American habit.
To be clear, I'd be just as peeved if the government was forcing me to hug people as I am that it's forbidding me from doing so. It's hard to envisage the circumstances that would bring ybis about. But it's been a funny 12 months.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
23 of the top 30 countries for deaths from Covid-19 are in Europe. Could there be any better indication that age is probably the biggest factor determining fatality rates? (Population density is also important).
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Alternatively, Gordon Brown's successful seeding of the institutions with mad left wingers.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Also the rise of social media allowing the extremists of all sorts to hook up with each other in their own echo chambers.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Also the rise of social media allowing the extremists of all sorts to hook up with each other in their own echo chambers.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Utter bollocks. Usually I have respect for your posts. Despite disagreeing with them. But that is very much a big boy made me create an unhappy society and ran away stuff. Despite not being the Party in power. Basically a smaller boy made me do it and ran away.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Utter bollocks. Usually I have respect for your posts. Despite disagreeing with them. But that is very much a big boy made me create an unhappy society and ran away stuff. Despite not being the Party in power. Basically a smaller boy made me do it and ran away.
There isn't an unhappy society for most people.
There's an unhappy society for a small minority and an unhappy social media echo chamber for others.
Some have gone scouring the internet looking for grievances to take on behalf of others, not because they're genuinely aggrieved, not because their family are, not because their friends are, but because they want to find something to be upset by.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Alternatively, Gordon Brown's successful seeding of the institutions with mad left wingers.
Or perhaps a decade of Tory incompetence? Or Gordon's big clunking fist echoing through the years of him, er, not being in power? Sometimes it's Occam's Razor.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Utter bollocks. Usually I have respect for your posts. Despite disagreeing with them. But that is very much a big boy made me create an unhappy society and ran away stuff. Despite not being the Party in power. Basically a smaller boy made me do it and ran away.
There isn't an unhappy society for most people.
There's an unhappy society for a small minority and an unhappy social media echo chamber for others.
Some have gone scouring the internet looking for grievances to take on behalf of others, not because they're genuinely aggrieved, not because their family are, not because their friends are, but because they want to find something to be upset by.
And that includes the extremists on both sides.
Which is true. However it is right wing posters moaning we have an unhappy society. Not me.
BAME just means non whites, I’m not surprised it is thought of as offensive, it reminds me of Apartheid
It also makes bo sense. It's part of the continuous changing of language to demonstrate that the speaker Knows The Current Words and is therefore Bettet Than You.
When and why was 'ethnic minority' deemed wrong and 'minority ethnic' correct? And surely Black AND Minority Ethnic is a tautology*.
When and why did 'coloured people' (which in my youth was for those to right-on to say 'black') become horribly offensive and the horribly clunky 'people of colour' become correct?
In the words of another postet on another subject, FUCK OFF.
*like 'Cheshire West and Chester'. Why the need for both halves? Either would have done.
"People of colour" is eerily reminiscent of "person of the Hebrew persuasion" and the slimy, antisemitic circumlocutions of ChesterBelloc and their inter-war contemporaries.
Likewise. I find "people of colour" quite detestable, probably worse than "BAME" - which is merely patronising, clumsy and unsightly
"People of colour" - to me - says you *are* your colour. Your skin colour. That is THE most important thing about you. It is just as offensive as "coloured people" which was discarded for exactly this reason: it reduced people to skin colour
We will only return to sanity when we go back to the idea of "not seeing colour at all". That should be our goal. It might never be perfect. It is probably utopian. But at least it aspires to something good and noble and better, and - more importantly - I see it happening all around me, for real. London at its best is a city which just does not see colour, young people hang out together in multi-racial groups, and it doesn't occur to them to think about the "shade of a person's skin" they are just a fellow human: a friend, a colleague, a spouse.
Eventually we will realise this, again, but the race relations industry will presumably go through multiple agonised contortions until we reach that point.
Good money to be made out of never letting the matter come to a amiable conclusion. What you say rings true; a friend of mine said his teenage daughter never knew there was any difference between her and her black friends until BLM appeared last summer
I genuinely believe my older daughter (14), and her friends, at an excellent mixed race London comp, do not see colour. Certainly not in the way I did, as a boy (growing up in very white, rural England)
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
A decade ago we seemed to be getting to a situation where colour genuinely wasn't noticed (importantly, as you say, cultural differences were - someone wearing non-western clothes would stand out even without obviously non-white skin, whereas for someone wearing western clothes their skin colour would be genuinely be unremarkable.) But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
Wonder what political change could have happened just over a decade ago? That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
The left lost power so they started calling everyone racist?
Utter bollocks. Usually I have respect for your posts. Despite disagreeing with them. But that is very much a big boy made me create an unhappy society and ran away stuff. Despite not being the Party in power. Basically a smaller boy made me do it and ran away.
There isn't an unhappy society for most people.
There's an unhappy society for a small minority and an unhappy social media echo chamber for others.
Some have gone scouring the internet looking for grievances to take on behalf of others, not because they're genuinely aggrieved, not because their family are, not because their friends are, but because they want to find something to be upset by.
And that includes the extremists on both sides.
Which is true. However it is right wing posters moaning we have an unhappy society. Not me.
Looking at international comparisons, I think our slow and steady lifting of restrictions will prove to be another good decision that will save many lives.
Looking at international comparisons, I think our slow and steady lifting of restrictions will prove to be another good decision that will save many lives.
Does anyone know why so many interesting blogs suddenly stopped being updated between about 2010 and 2015? I suppose the obvious answer is the emergence of twitter as an alternative.
For example this one. It's always a bit odd because they just suddenly end, without any warning so to speak. Quite often there isn't an entry saying something like "This blog won't be updated from now on."
Comments
I wonder what will happen to the Tories in England when BoJo leaves office.
For them it is a side-issue, if anything. Like noticing someone is a little bit taller, or a red head, or likes dogs. An aspect, but certainly not fundamental. The person is what matters. Often they don't see colour at all and they are perplexed when it is brought up.
This is brilliant. We have made great progress. This should be built on. Instead the Wokeists want to re-divide us, and get the kids worried about colour all over again. Drives me mad.
Where kids do see difference is culture, eg Muslim/non Muslim, orthodox Jewish/non Jewish (this is north London), but even there they are much more relaxed than prior generations, in my experience
Would that it were all thus.
But for the last decade, the woke left seems to have beem doing its best to make us hyper-aware of race, to make it the principle thing about an individual we should take note of amd care about, and to drive as many wedges between people of different skin colour as possible.
But shouldn't we aim for all state schools to be like this? Race-blind, inclusive, multicultural AND proudly British, with good results?
That's the kind of school system I'd like to see nationwide. I don't believe it is impossible. Far from it
I do believe that stoking awareness of skin colour, just as kids forget it forever, is exactly the wrong thing to do
And with that, goodnight, PB, goodnight
The UK is tracing contacts and doing more widespread testing. It is a better T&T system.
So, for example, my very well spoken stockbroker (who I'm guessing is of West African descent within a couple of generations) is now lumped in with Afghan refugees - as if the most important characteristic of either of them was their not-whiteness?
I'd say that's actually quite offensive.
By Michael Heath
18 March 2021, 05:28 GMT"
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-18/australia-posts-first-quarterly-decline-in-population-since-1916
It's hard to envisage the circumstances that would bring ybis about. But it's been a funny 12 months.
That led to a nation so at ease with itself heading into such a fractious, divisive decline?
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
Right thing to be done. Sooner its done here the better.
But that is very much a big boy made me create an unhappy society and ran away stuff.
Despite not being the Party in power.
Basically a smaller boy made me do it and ran away.
There's an unhappy society for a small minority and an unhappy social media echo chamber for others.
Some have gone scouring the internet looking for grievances to take on behalf of others, not because they're genuinely aggrieved, not because their family are, not because their friends are, but because they want to find something to be upset by.
And that includes the extremists on both sides.
Sometimes it's Occam's Razor.
For example this one. It's always a bit odd because they just suddenly end, without any warning so to speak. Quite often there isn't an entry saying something like "This blog won't be updated from now on."
http://grumpyoldbookman.blogspot.com