Manx Radio

[Mr Newbie]

18 minutes ago, Max Power said:

So being racist isn't definitive then? If a black person says its racist, it's racist and no defence? 

It's very unlikely that a Scotsman would be offended by a terrible Scottish accent done by anyone of any race really, that domain seems to be mainly the preserve of the terminally offended.

I see Leigh Francis has now apologized for doing black characters on Bo Selecta and says he has learned from the experience. All well and good but go back 45 years and apparently this was side splitting prime time entertainment. The world has come an awful long way. Even if you include now regretted comedy parodies of Craig David and Michael Jackson! Anyone who grew up watching this sort of shite is not going to have the exact same opinion on everything as the woke folk. But they’ve probably seen some of the worst historical cases of overt racism and white privilege. 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by Mr Newbie

[Max Power]

2 minutes ago, peter pan said:

That's a good straw man, but no, that's not what I said.  You can explain why you felt what you said wasn't racist, but arguing against someone when you've offended their protected characteristic isn't the best way to go about business, especially on a public platform.  It happening in the dark of night is no excuse.  And, in particular, referring to a person as "blacker than black" is blatantly racist, even if they were your friend in 1997.  The fact that Stu can't even use the "I'm not racist, I've got a black friend" excuse because his last black friend was back in Manchester in 1997 would suggest he needs to go and meet more people and get some diversity within his circle, something I think a lot of you on here could benefit from.  

Good good, but there's the rub, blacker than black is hardly racist, is it? (Genuine question) If so why is it racist?

Actually, I have several black friends who I see on a regular basis, both here and off the island. I never ever pay any attention to the colour of their skin, it isn't something which I even think about. I may use it to describe them if asked but that's it. Is that also racist? Because if I now have to walk on egshells everytime I meet a black person I think it may make them feel uncomfortable. 

There aren't that many black people on the island, it's difficult to meet any if you don't know them or meet up somehow.  

[peter pan]

That's the funny thing about morality and ethics: these are both shifting dynamics.  200 years ago, it was morally alright to own slaves.  150 years ago, it was morally alright to prevent women from voting.  100 years ago, it was morally alright to kill gay people.  People now think everyone's getting more sensitive, when it's just that the change that would take 10, 20 or 50 years is now happening in substantially less time.  Why?  Because people can get their opinions out there, and the more than happens, the faster change happens.  The amount of progress made in the past 2 weeks from Derek Chauvin being suspended with pay to fired, to charged with 3rd Degree Murder, to being upgraded to 2nd Degree murder, that wouldn't have been done without people sharing the information to the world, which then led to protests, of which those locations were shared to other people, and so the cycle continues.  

[peter pan]

1 minute ago, Max Power said:

Good good, but there's the rub, blacker than black is hardly racist, is it? (Genuine question) If so why is it racist?

Actually, I have several black friends who I see on a regular basis, both here and off the island. I never ever pay any attention to the colour of their skin, it isn't something which I even think about. I may use it to describe them if asked but that's it. Is that also racist? Because if I now have to walk on egshells everytime I meet a black person I think it may make them feel uncomfortable. 

There aren't that many black people on the island, it's difficult to meet any if you don't know them or meet up somehow.  

Describing someone as blacker than black is definitely racist, because why does the extent to their "blackness" matter?  It's not like you get more "points" so to speak for how black someone is.  The common argument against "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" is that the person saying that reduces their friend to tokenism, and indeed referring to someone as "blacker than black" to prove how "not racist" you (as in Stu) are certainly seems to support that argument.  

If you don't pay attention to the colour of their skin, why do you need to describe them to other people?  What does their race have to do with anything?  Understand, I'm not suggesting that their race isn't relevant in any context, but these are the types of questions I would ask myself.  If I'm describing a person, is their race relevant to the story?  If not, why does it matter? 

[P.K.]

8 minutes ago, Declan said:

How about 1:55 when Stu acknowledges he should have challenged the caller who repeatedly used the word "coloured" but didn't like to "because he was on a bit of a roll".

Don't you see the double standards - Peter's "on a roll"; Jordon's having a diatribe?

It's a taxpayer funded radio if you're going to take an aggressive line with group of people you have to take it with their opponents. Or you go for a different type of show where you facilitate people to share their experiences in a non-confrontational way.

I don't see double standards, I see someone trying to do their job. 

Which is to interest the audience by getting folks to enter into a dialogue with the program presenter.

Which was totally impossible with the first caller reading from their prepared statement.

Of course, all the folks with an agenda haven't given the slightest thought as to how to try and interact with someone who was reading from a script. It's so off the wall I know I would struggle to come back from that. Being as it was almost certainly a first for an MR phone in chat show.

Some folks are just so quick to criticise, because they think it will make them look clever, when the simple truth is they just haven't thought it through

[gettafa]

14 minutes ago, peter pan said:

Describing someone as blacker than black is definitely racist, because why does the extent to their "blackness" matter?  It's not like you get more "points" so to speak for how black someone is.

 

The use of the phrase needs to be heard in context, and besides, the caller seemed absolutely unperturbed by its use.

(But we're all so 'educated' now on the use of the phrase, including I am sure the caller himself)

Edited June 7, 2020 by gettafa

[Max Power]

1 minute ago, peter pan said:

Describing someone as blacker than black is definitely racist, because why does the extent to their "blackness" matter?  It's not like you get more "points" so to speak for how black someone is.  The common argument against "I'm not racist, I have a black friend" is that the person saying that reduces their friend to tokenism, and indeed referring to someone as "blacker than black" to prove how "not racist" you (as in Stu) are certainly seems to support that argument.  

If you don't pay attention to the colour of their skin, why do you need to describe them to other people?  What does their race have to do with anything?  Understand, I'm not suggesting that their race isn't relevant in any context, but these are the types of questions I would ask myself.  If I'm describing a person, is their race relevant to the story?  If not, why does it matter? 

Well, how would you describe a friend to someone if they have blonde hair or are tall, short, stocky, slim etc etc? You pick their most defining features and black is a defining feature. It doesn't mean that it's being used in any condescending way? If I was in the company of a lot of black people, and I have been the only white person in certain situations, it wouldn't worry me to be described as white, in fact I'd wonder why they avoided it? 

[Declan]

Just now, Max Power said:

Good good, but there's the rub, blacker than black is hardly racist, is it? (Genuine question) If so why is it racist?

It's not necessarily racist or intentionally racist. But it's a little lacking in sensitivity. It's like you're saying there's degrees of blackness and it's focusing on the superficial external characteristic - the same one that racists focus on. But, I think we can cut Stu some slack on that point - he's a product of his time and won't have realised the problematic nature of the phrase. I doubt he'd use it after a calm explanation of the impact of that expression.

[gettafa]

1 hour ago, Mr Newbie said:

Is Eddie Loweys towel head remark still on Hansard? 

Well erm, it never was on Hansard. Certainly not at first.

Hansard is a verbatim record of what goes on in Tynwald.

That said, a poster on Manx Forums predicted that the phrase would not be recorded. Oh but that can't happen, not with Hansard. It's verbatim.

But it did.

Oh it did.

The reason given was the recording machine broke down. Just at the moment the Tynwald Member spoke. And it fixed itself just at the moment he finished.

Because this is the Isle of Man.

 

 

Incidentally, I believe there were string denials that the phrase was ever used, and Hansard would not be updated. Unfortunately/fortunately a later speaker whose words had not been subject to the Hansard gremlins, referred back to the phrase. Bit of  a bugger that. 

 

Edited June 7, 2020 by gettafa

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, P.K. said:

I don't see double standards, I see someone trying to do their job. 

Which is to interest the audience by getting folks to enter into a dialogue with the program presenter.

Which was totally impossible with the first caller reading from their prepared statement.

Of course, all the folks with an agenda haven't given the slightest thought as to how to try and interact with someone who was reading from a script. It's so off the wall I know I would struggle to come back from that. Being as it was almost certainly a first for an MR phone in chat show.

Some folks are just so quick to criticise, because they think it will make them look clever, when the simple truth is they just haven't thought it through

Wait for the person to finish, discuss any points you disagree with or want to give input on, move on?
It's not Stu's first day on the job, nor his first day talking to another person. You're making him out to be simple.

[peter pan]

8 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Well, how would you describe a friend to someone if they have blonde hair or are tall, short, stocky, slim etc etc? You pick their most defining features and black is a defining feature. It doesn't mean that it's being used in any condescending way? If I was in the company of a lot of black people, and I have been the only white person in certain situations, it wouldn't worry me to be described as white, in fact I'd wonder why they avoided it? 

Again, what does it have to do with the story?  I think part of where the disconnect is that you take an egalitarian view on things when the zeitgeist has shifted to a more equitable view.  The fact is, because you are white, people would presume so anyway.  There would be no presumption that you weren't white because we live in a country that has a 96.5% white population, with the other sizeable percentage being South Asian at just over 1%.  Whereas, with non-white people, we've grown up in a culture where we are the only non-white person in any given situation. For that to be the only thing we're recognised for is frustrating and gets onto what Caller 2 or Jordan was saying about microaggressions.

 

You've said "defining feature" but the fact is, as a white person, being white isn't your "defining feature".  Black or non-white is only a defining feature because the IOM is so not used to seeing people of other ethnicities and, perhaps more importantly, not integrating with us.  

Edited June 7, 2020 by peter pan

[Declan]

4 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Well, how would you describe a friend to someone if they have blonde hair or are tall, short, stocky, slim etc etc? You pick their most defining features and black is a defining feature. It doesn't mean that it's being used in any condescending way? If I was in the company of a lot of black people, and I have been the only white person in certain situations, it wouldn't worry me to be described as white, in fact I'd wonder why they avoided it? 

It is ok to describe someone as black, but it's not that helpful really without other characteristics. And when you get to distinguishing between black people with phrases like "the blacker than black guy" rather than "the Jamaican guy with the red shirt" maybe you are only seeing the race rather than the person.

[gettafa]

Declan la, you're so right on

Edited June 7, 2020 by gettafa

[Max Power]

2 minutes ago, peter pan said:

Again, what does it have to do with the story?  I think part of where the disconnect is that you take an egalitarian view on things when the zeitgeist has shifted to a more equitable view.  The fact is, because you are white, people would presume so anyway.  There would be no presumption that you weren't white because we live in a country that has a 96.5% white population, with the other sizeable percentage being South Asian at just over 1%.  Whereas, with non-white people, we've grown up in a culture where we are the only non-white person in any given situation. For that to be the only thing we're recognised for is frustrating and gets onto what Jordan was saying about Caller 2 aggressions. 

 

You've said "defining feature" but the fact is, as a white person, being white isn't your "defining feature".  Black or non-white is only a defining feature because the IOM is so not used to seeing people of other ethnicities and, perhaps more importantly, not integrating with us.  

Good answer but I was thinking more of times that I was in Washington and in The Gambia, it would be my defining feature. I do take your point though but I don't think there's any intentional slight by describing someone as black. It actually makes me concerned that the situation may never be totally acceptable and that there will always be 'slip ups' or unintentional slights and mainly due to the fact that there are so few black people for the population to become totally 'au fait' with things?  . 

Do you really find that people on the island don't integrate? I find that disappointing, I really do. 

[peter pan]

8 minutes ago, Max Power said:

Good answer but I was thinking more of times that I was in Washington and in The Gambia, it would be my defining feature. I do take your point though but I don't think there's any intentional slight by describing someone as black. It actually makes me concerned that the situation may never be totally acceptable and that there will always be 'slip ups' or unintentional slights and mainly due to the fact that there are so few black people for the population to become totally 'au fait' with things?  . 

Do you really find that people on the island don't integrate? I find that disappointing, I really do. 

In honesty, I can't speak for how the situation will be 5, 10 or 15 years down the line.  What matters is the situation right now, and the fact is that right now, racism against non-white people still exists in almost all countries in the Western world, and in great volumes.  So, personally, I see this as an opportunity for people who aren't educated in racism to take the time to listen to those who have faced it instead of calling them snowflakes or an outrage mob as a means of deflection.  This will have one outcome: it will open a dialogue.  By having that dialogue there, both sides can better understand one another and can work together to make smaller, better changes towards progressing further into the modern world.  

 

As I said at the start, I can't speak for what the situation will be in the future but, for now, if a black person says that they would rather not be referred to as "the black one" (or, in Stu's friend's case, the "blacker than black" one), it's probably best to listen that from the context of a non-white person in 2020 as opposed to from the context of a white person who grew up in the 70s.  

 

And, addressing your last point, I have found that to generally be true.  There are obviously exceptions and I think that is changing now, but my experience has been less than pleasant.  That said, it's been wonderful to finally have an honest/open discussion with some of the MF folk, hopefully I've shed some light on why I think Stu was out of order, and why I think the arguments against BLM (that it's irrelevant to the IOM) don't have much legs.  Will definitely pop in at some other point in time.