Shocked at my friend.

zagfles

Alikay wrote: »

That is the poem I linked to in my earlier post.
I'm very surprised that anyone who's been in work, education, or done any volunteering over the last 20-odd years has managed to dodge any training or awareness session on diversity. I can understand people of 80+ who don't read, watch TV or mix with younger people holding archaic views on race, sexuality, gender etc but anyone else must be making a determined effort to stick in the past!

We did diversity training at work recently but there was nothing at all about what the current PC terms are. It was more useful stuff really like handling cultural differences etc and we had some really interesting discussions. We're quite a diverse workforce anyway, and I don't think I've ever offended anyone. Oh, except when I referred to a Canadian as an American!

heuchera

summerspring wrote: »

The word miracle comes from the Latin mira, meaning strange. So if you call someone a miracle, you're calling them strange :rotfl:

I will have to tell that to the lady who lives near me. Her little daughter is called Miracle :rotfl:

pollypenny wrote: »

I can't see anyone bring called a 'miracle. However, their recovery from an illness could be very much against all odds, therefore strange, therefore a 'miracle'. The same would apply to a sporting achievement.

It's something rare, strange, so a miracle.

The thread has taken a turn. :cool:

I heard this lady calling "Miri" to the little girl and thought that's a nice name, maybe short for Miranda, but then she said the whole name. I must admit I had to double-take a bit! I hope she doesn't get teased too much at school.

coolcait

summerspring wrote: »

...

The word miracle comes from the Latin mira, meaning strange. So if you call someone a miracle, you're calling them strange :rotfl:

...

It actually comes from 'miraculum' - 'object of wonder'. It carries with it a sense of awe. So, if you call someone a miracle, it's rather complimentary. You're not calling them strange at all.

Generations of girls in Spanish speaking countries have been called 'Milagros', so it's probably not too surprising that 'Miracles' has made its way into the English language name book too.

'Caste' - given its linguistic roots - has long had a connotation of 'purity' of lineage, race or breed.

In purely linguistic terms, if people believe that 'half caste' is an acceptable term, would they also make the same argument for 'half breed'?

On this thread, there have been posts about people who are a quarter this and a quarter that or three-quarters the other. There used to be specific terms for people who had specific percentages of mixed heritage.

Those terms have fallen into disuse - rightly so in my view. So I don't understand why there's resistance to allowing 'half-caste' to go the same way as those terms. After all, we no longer use the word 'mulatto', which describes the same mixture of heritages. Again, rightly so - especially when you look at the origins of that word!

Against that background, I would have no problem with someone telling me that the descriptors from the Tarry Buccaneer - or any of the other words which were acceptable when I was younger - are seen as offensive today. I would simply adapt my vocabulary.

Just as I adapted it to refer to 'accessible toilets' rather than 'disabled toilets'. Apart from anything else - as someone has already pointed out - 'disabled toilets' has another meaning. I'm hopeful that 'accessible toilets' will also be changed, as it is an equally ambiguous phrase.

All that said, going back to the original post, the issue was the OP's friend's belief that other people were getting a better service because they were different in some way (in this case, because their skin colour was different).

Many people hold that kind of belief - and they attribute it to many kinds of difference, not just colour. It's pretty much a part of the human condition: if A doesn't get a particular service, but B does, A will rarely say "Oh well, B obviously had a better case than I did".

A will say "B got that service because of colour, creed, gender, who they know, marital status, all of the above, etc"

zagfles

Is anyone watching "It was alright in the 80's" on Channel 4 at the moment?? Holy sh*t!!

Petra_70

zagfles wrote: »

Is anyone watching "It was alright in the 80's" on Channel 4 at the moment?? Holy sh*t!!

If it's anything like 'it was alright in the 70s,' I think I will give it a miss. A bunch of 20 and 30 something lefties, gasping in horror and facepalming at the things people said over 30 or 40 years ago on the telly, and the supposedly bigoted and racist things that went on.

I thought it was pathetic actually.

Yes these things were said back in the day. People need to get over it and stop ranting on about it with their faux horror and disgust. Does it REALLY matter now?!!

Political correctness does my head in to be honest.

coolcait

Petra_70 wrote: »

If it's anything like 'it was alright in the 70s,' I think I will give it a miss. A bunch of 20 and 30 something lefties, gasping in horror and facepalming at the things people said over 30 or 40 years ago on the telly, and the supposedly bigoted and racist things that went on.

I thought it was pathetic actually.

Yes these things were said back in the day. People need to get over it and stop ranting on about it with their faux horror and disgust. Does it REALLY matter now?!!

Political correctness does my head in to be honest.

Well, if we don't learn from the mistakes of the past, we'll keep making the same mistakes in the future.

Take a step back from the words we used in the past, but don't use now. Take a step away from issues of race.

I'm glad that attitudes towards gender have evolved. I'm glad that attitudes towards sexuality have evolved. I'm glad that attitudes towards child abuse have evolved.

I think that it does matter that, as a society, we got it badly wrong in a lot of areas in the past. And that we now recognise those facts.

History will judge whether or not we're getting it right now. But I would rather be part of a society which is trying to change, and not keep making the same mistakes.

AubreyMac

It has also been my observation that certain people get better service some of the time than others. Just because someone says what they have observed doesn't mean they are racist/sexist or discriminatory or whatever. I work in social services and take data of things like ethnic heritage, age, gender etc and have seen that there is an 'average' who uses our service. Same goes for my colleagues who work in the youth offending service.


There have been many social experiments where it's been proven that people are more likely to help 'their own' as they feel more sympathy and more inclined to help. 'their own' doesn't have to be same ethnicity but could even be someone wearing a footie shirt of a team that you support etc. These experiments have also shown that more attractive people get help faster than unattractive people do.


It is human instinct to quickly recognise people/things/patterns but through civilisation we have just learnt to think twice before speaking/acting.

PasturesNew

AubreyMac wrote: »

These experiments have also shown that more attractive people get help faster than unattractive people do.

Will the forms also, soon, be asking me: "How ugly are you, on a scale of 1-10?"

AubreyMac

PasturesNew wrote: »

Will the forms also, soon, be asking me: "How ugly are you, on a scale of 1-10?"

To be PC and so as to not offend, it's more likely to look on the positive side in asking "How beautiful are you?"


On the scale of, Cindy Crawford to, say, Katie Hopkins. With the other option of 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder'.

burlington6

But what is the view when things like equality meet religion.

Does one trump the other?

I know many people who, rightly, fight for womens rights yet refuse to get involved in a discussion about a certain religion in this country and it's views towards women.