Yes, they're quite a recent phenomenon. I think they multiplied in the camps around Greenham Common in the early 80s.
Now Enid Blyton is a racist
- Thread starter Bodgeitandleggit
- Start date
Yes, they're quite a recent phenomenon. I think they multiplied in the camps around Greenham Common in the early 80s.
Sponsored Links
Yes, they're quite a recent phenomenon. I think they multiplied in the camps around Greenham Common in the early 80s.
Yes, because we had that freedom when we were children and I want that freedom for future generations. The freedom of speach, as well as any other freedoms we used to enjoy were hard won by the blood of millions over the centuries. Freedoms that you would seem perfectly happy to lose.
We now have the lunatic situation that primary school age children are investigated by the police for using non-pc terms against other pupils..
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4886570.stm
Once you casually dispose of centuries old freedoms, then the Big Brother state is salivating to take control and dictate every detail of our lives. Are you happy to scarifice freedoms that we took for granted, on the altar of political correctness? I'm not. I can see the dangers and want the same freedoms for others that I enjoyed.
Also, lets not forget - very few ordinary, normal people in this country asked for the wholesale invasion of THEIR own country by people from other countries. No one voted for this to happen. It was enforced by stealth. We shouldn't be brow-beaten by the same fools who created this situation. They created this mess.
I am never quite sure how the word in question (in the link) can be 'racist' or should be banned and hence never used.
Obviously it is, and has been, used as an insult but it, along with its suffix which means land, IS the name of a country.
Do, or would ever, a Scot consider that an insult and to be banned?
I suspect most (all?) of them are very proud of it.
Obviously it is, and has been, used as an insult but it, along with its suffix which means land, IS the name of a country.
Do, or would ever, a Scot consider that an insult and to be banned?
I suspect most (all?) of them are very proud of it.
Sponsored Links
Same as the Yanks (is that allowed?
) and others call us Brits. Just an abbreviation at the end of the day.Same as the Yanks (is that allowed?
Might be an insult in the Southern States of the US
Well said Turps. I was very pleased to read in that link that the judge had enough common sense to throw the case out. We need more like him.
It makes me very sad when I think about how our own British do-gooders have virtually destroyed this country during my lifetime just to satisfy their own consciences. It is our young people who will suffer the consequences, of course.
Funny, isn't it? Israeli, Afghani, Iraqui all seem to be acceptable, and all from the same corner of the globe. I wonder why the one exception seems to cause so much trouble. It's not racist; it's just that it's easier to use two syllables than four.
Language evolves.
It's about context, and that word was used as a pejorative term ,often to people not from Pakistan, so the racist tone has stuck.
People who say otherwise are being wilfully disingenuous, or they are just ignorant of British history.
How hard is it to avoid using a word that is seen as racist or insulting? It's not a mythical PC brigade that dictates this, it's just good manners.
If you can't control your language to keep it appropriate,( like the man who swears in front of children) then that is a cause for concern.
D
DiscoDancer
What a ridiculous comment to make in this context!
We are not talking about loss of freedom of speech. As I said earlier Enid Blyton's books are still available, and will continue to be available in their original text. Nothing has been lost! And you are free to buy or borrow those books for your children/grandchildren if you want.
Whereas schools and other organisations have a legal responsibility to proactively influence and encourage social and racial harmony. You, on the other hand, have no such legal responsibility to proactively influence or encourage others, only in so far as your own actions are concerned, i.e promoting racial disharmony.
"We now have the ......" (sic)
What utter rubbish! That link refers to an episode (which was highly criticised at the time) that is seven years old. Life moves on, as does language and culture.! I wonder what the judge would do today and if his career would survive if he maintained his 'trivial' attitude, which, incidentally, was to punish both boys!
Furthermore his attitude seems to suggest and condone corporal punishment in school. Is that still the norm?
Incidentally, District Judge Jonathan Finestein is no stranger to controversy.
Hmm, exactly which country are you referring to?
Africa, India, America, Australia, and more, or the more recent ones e.g. Iraq, Afghanistan?
Or should we blame the immigrants for updating Enid Blyton's books? Everything else, it would appear, is their fault.
Hmm. 'Proactive influence and encourage social and racial harmony'. Sounds like something from the Stalin era. Brainwashing - or just conditioning children whilst they are young enough to accept the party line. Maybe the schools should go back to what they used to do best, ie. education and discipline. Schools should forget about left-driven social engineering and leave the children to decide if they want to mix with other races.
Wow! A whole seven years ago? So, you're saying it's not relevant now? Convenient for your extremeley weak argument, but recent enough to show the shift in overbearing state control to sell something so unpopular, that it has to have the full weight of the law behind it. It's all about forcing unpopular policies on the indigenous population and criminalising them if they object.
In case you are still missing the argument - when I was at school over 30 years ago, I had the RIGHT to say exactly the same as the boy in the link (the recipient of the remark would also have had the freedom to use a similar remark in retaliation), without the fear of prosecution. Such freedoms have been disposed of. I'm glad you mentioned the timescale of 7 years, as it happened then and could still happen now. However, it would never have happened 37 years ago.
Unfortunately a large proportion, if not all, of school teachers lean to the left. I know: I've worked with them.
You're dead right, though. Schools should be there for education and discipline. Over the past few decades, however, the powers that be have heaped so much stuff that used to be the parents' responsibility on to schools. As for discipline, if a teacher so much as looks at a pupil in the wrong way these days they're in for it.
D
Deleted member 63160
Why is it that outrage against use of the "P" word is often justified on the basis that people not from Pakistan were called it? If I was refered to as a taff, jock or frog I doubt I'd feel the need for the English language to evolve for me.
D
DiscoDancer
Isn't the decision about which books should be read, all part of education and discipline?
Why do you say that schools are practicing "left-driven social engineering", as if it's an accepted concept and fact? Before you present it as a fait accompli, perhaps we can discuss "left-driven social engineering" and then decide if it exists, and what it consists of. Then we can discuss whether any schools would be allowed to practise any kind of social engineering, other than the normal socialisation and internalisation that is all part of becoming a member of society, and is influenced by all other members of society, more so by parents, teachers and other close members of the child's social circle. But, that is a kind of social engneering that helps to glue society together.
I'm sure that schools do not take any decisions about the choice that their pupils make about which other children in that school that they mix with.
Whereas, AFAIR, parents are far more prone to such attempts of delineating the child's social circle.
That's simply not true. You are free to object, if you wish. It's called demonstrating. So, if you feel so strongly, why don't you organise a demonstration or a march, in support of the original text of Enid Blyton's novels? I'm sure you'll get at least three other supporters. But that'll be a stroll, not a march.
The argument, as I recall, was because some were indignant about the updating of Enid Blyton's books.
As is the "freedom" to do lots of other things, which have now become criminalised.
But don't forget that some things that were criminalised have now become decriminalised. So you have gained some "freedoms".
It's called evolution of culture and society.
But if we limit our concerns of the "loss of freedoms" merely in regard to discrimination law, which discrimination law(s), would you think, ought to be repealed?
Is this a serious post?
Sponsored Links
