h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I wonder what the nurse would think if she was told another nurse had a habit of treating the patient and then bringing in a witch-doctor to do some weird mumbo-jumbo chanting stuff around the patient?

For me, praying is on the same level as that.

Fervent evangelists of *anything* will often overstep the boundaries of others who dont share their fervour. I dont think it's necessarily a conscious thing, however a warning is there to tell you when you're overstepping acceptable boundaries, and one should really listen, whether you're pushing a new diet, excercise regime, scientific theory, a cup of tea or religious beliefs.

And the point was that - right or wrong - someone *was* sufficiently offended or disturbed by her to complain...and yet she did it again. And again. How difficicult is it to learn what behaviour is and isn't acceptable to one's employer? How difficult was it for her to follow a simple instruction?

But note how we're all discussing a non-story. Once all the hoo-hah fades, what will remain in the public mind is 'Christians are discriminated against' - even though that doesn't seem to have happened.

There was a similar example of poor journalism in my local free sheet recently. A swan had gone missing from a local park. The story said 'One theory is that it was been killed by youths.'
On what evidence? Are many swans killed by youths? More than are killed by foxes? But what remains in the mind is:
'Kids today are a nasty lot.'

The Carol Thatcher golliwog affair is getting interesting. I only caughth the end of an interveiw on Radio 4 this morning between a white and a black interviewee.

The black guy basically inferred that had Carol T been saying Andy Murray looked like a golliwog with his hair the way it is *that* would have been alright but had she compared a black tennis player to a golliwog then that would have been racist...hmmmm.

He's right, surely? It's about the history of the word and the way it was routinely hurled as abuse at black people. As far as I'm aware, there's no comparable history of oppression of the tousle-headed.

I heard the same interview. I think the 'It was a private conversation' remark is a red herring. If I were to make a racist remark (if that is what she did) on my employer's premises, I'd expect some kind of disciplinary action. If I were a contractor as opposed to a salaried employee, I'd expect to kiss goodbye to future work.

I do have some sympathy, though. Obviously she was badly brought up.

Unless they were ginger!

Well...yes, red-headed people are routinely insulted, and I've never understood it myself. And often it goes way beyond mere teasing; I've known red-headed people to be threatened in pubs by total strangers.

Not *quite* as serious, though? Were there ever signs in boarding house windows saying 'No gingers, No Irish, No dogs?' Did Enoch Powell ever refer to streets swarming with little ginger babies?

Ha! What about all those "dumb blonde" jokes, then?

Well...I agree that sexism also has no place. But it's not an either/or, is it? A competition to see who's most oppressed?

Edward the Bonobo

Nor me either really. I have always found red-headed ladies rather attractive actually.



Because morons always fear people who are different etc and for some reason red-heads appear 'different'. Is it because red-hair is 'not considered normal' or to put it more accurately 'not that common'.

Mainly, its about inadequate people who try and find something to feel superior over...hence pick on someone 'different', get it into your ehad that they are different/strange etc then beat them up and walk away feeling less in adequate than you did before...a little like short kids at school becoming bullies because they think being short makes them inadequate and hence beating up other kids make them feel moer superior.

No not quite so serious apart from the attacking. Goes along the lines of big ears, big nose, four eyes (heck sounds like me...lucky I'm not ginger!).

Yes...But:

I think that Racism is a somewhat different phenomenon than singling out of the different*. Note that racist oppression also occurs in societies where the 'Other' race is in the majority (South Africa; The British Raj; The American South). What's happening is that a race is singled out as an underclass, conveniently colour-coded, who its allowable to exploit and oppress. Historically racism has been manufactured to reinforce this division.

So calling someone 'golliwog' is a bit different to calling someone 'four-eyes'. No?






* And there's also a myth that racism arises from the 'natural' tendency to identify own-tribe and other-tribe. This doesn't hold water in evolutionary terms. Over evolutinary timescales, prior to mass migrations, adjacent groups competing for resources would have looked identical to one another. Racism is learned, not innate!

I was talking about gin-gers and speccy four-eyed people being singled out about being 'different'.

I wouldn't say it is a myth - own-tribe/other-tribe is an example of social group theory - in groups and out groups. It is part of social theory not evo-psych. It has been demonstrated with as small a physical change as eye colour. It's not about it being an evolutionary adaptive trait, rather it is a theory to describe how human social groupings work.

The innate bit is our classifying people with us or not with us. The definitions of our social group are indeed learned and not innate.
If you like , the program exists innately, but the parameters we pass to it are those we learn. And thus we can unlearn them and pass different parameters.

<>

The best summation I've seen yet

Hmm.

I'm not entirely convinced that even in-group/out-group is an innate mechanism. Is it not more likely that it also is a learned relationship? We learn to identify those on with whom we have mutual economic relationships - those we can rely on to share food, shelter, etc. But we're not necssarily more or less trusting of others depending on their physical similarity to ourselves.

On the blue-eyed bit...are you refereing to whatshername's famous high school experiment?

Isn't it the case that simple visual clues can identify 'them' and 'us'?

Whether this is the *cause* of racism is another matter entirely and, I suspect, has something to do with power and perhaps a touch of guilt/scapegoating. If you want something that belongs to someone else (land, rights etc), then if you cheapen them or somehow lessen their claim to it then you can pick it up and feel justified somehow.

"Do you have a flag? No flag no country!"

Eddie Izzard

>If I were to make a racist remark (if that is what she did) on my employer's premises, I'd expect some kind of disciplinary action.<

Not if your name's Windsor though. Certainly not a sacking I'll wager. Mealey mouthed excuses can always be found in certain circumstances.

carol thatcher is a woman of a certain age and is using a comparison of a person with a visual icon of her formative years

look at the photos and tell me if you see the similarity

http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/sport/slideshow/tennis-bad-boys/img_5.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_pMiKXgD3nzA/RiALwNbCJMI/AAAAAAAAADU/s2lxWr8caxE/s400/gollywog%2Btruths.JPG

its all in the hair

Do know yet which player she meant?

Yes - the hair comparison has been mentioned - at that's a whole different howsyourfathers to using the term to refer to a black player.

Notwithstanding that the golliwog dolls themselves appear to modern eyes as offensive racial sterotypes (I was quite shocked to see them being sold in an 'olde fashioned' toy/gift shop recently), I can understand that it's not racist per se to refer to them.