Life was so much easier when we adhered to the old 'sticks and stones' maxim and just ripped the piss out of everyone. ;o)
Most of us still do, however we are being infiltrated by people who get offended on behalf of others and like to shout it from the rooftops. The people who are supposed to be offended never say anything.
What has it become when a joke (however misjudged or even innapropriate it may be) can cause such discussion and outrage.
There are a million and one things to get angry and upset about in the world and some people still need to jump on nothing events like this to prove that “I’m more disgusted about racism than you are” etc.
I’m just glad I knock around with people who have a sense of humour and can take the piss out of each other and themselves and if someone does misjudge a situation and say an inappropriate joke, others are able to just let it go and see it for what it is.
AS had no doubt employed 100’s of “people of colour” over the years? I don’t think he has a racist bone in his body. He’s getting on, he’s a bit old school in that he thinks you can still find things funny at the expense of others without meaning you dislike or are prejuduced against them.
Such a ridiculous shame that these non events are the big ticket news items these days.
If people really can’t identify the difference between actual racism and jokes then it’s actual racism that wins.
For me the real problem with the tweet isn't what the 'joke' says directly, but what it reveals about what is going on in Sugar's mind. What it suggests is that he is a man with few positive thoughts about people of colour. So few in fact, that he see's a group of black men and the one thing on his mind that shines out so powerfully he decides to tweet is, a pathetic link to beach hawkers. And the only thing the two objects of his 'joke' have in common is their skin colour - everything else, good, bad or indifferent about the Senegalese team and the workers he compared them to is relegated to that. What that 'joke' tells us is that we have a member of the House of Lords who is little more than a latter day Eddie Booth. That is the real problem.
As usual, there's a predictable number of apologists, who immediately jump on the 'everyone's so offended nowadays' bandwagon. So what? I'll be offended at what ever I like that you very much - I don't need your permission. Of course the real reason that people are so quick to use this argument is that it provides them with the perfect shield against having to say, think or do anything different. Don't bother worrying about how a slight modification of thought or deed might make the world more comfortable for others. Just carry on regardless and blame the victim. Nice touch.
There's more people on this thread getting upset at the thought of people getting offended by this "joke", than there are people on this thread actually offended (either in their own right, or on behalf of somebody else).
Life was so much easier when we adhered to the old 'sticks and stones' maxim and just ripped the piss out of everyone. ;o)
Most of us still do, however we are being infiltrated by people who get offended on behalf of others and like to shout it from the rooftops. The people who are supposed to be offended never say anything.
Are "we"?
Seems to me that the angriest people in this thread are those willing to defend the tweet. It is possible for people to point out something is wrong/racist without spewing bile and frothing at the mouth.
I work with a lot of Americans. Quite often they will mimick my British accent and say things like “Are you spending the weekend making tea and crumpets?”
Stereotypical based jokes. I don’t take offence at it. Is it drastically different from what’s happened here?
I get where you're coming from. Even I'm happy when people take the piss about me being Chinese, but here's the key - it's an established rapport we have.
Alan Sugar - I presume - has no connection to the Senegal squad, which means this is bizarre casual racism.
Moreover, the power dynamics in play in these comparisons aren't that comparable:
1) You're in a setting amongst peers. You're probably equally as likely to joke about Americans, I dunno, shooting guns and worshipping bald eagles, as they are about Brits and tea and crumpets.
2) It's less offensive because this sort of stereotyping isn't demeaning. Equating all Senegalese people to those dudes who sell tat on beaches on the European continent, however, is. It's very unhelpful, because that's the only experience a lot of people have of African migrants to Spain/wherever, and quite often that brings negative connotations (pushy sales guys etc), which increases tensions. Someone with a better handle on migration/socioeconomic dynamics might be able to articulate this better than I.
3) Ah, yes, I've finally come to it. The "race card". You'll have to excuse me, as this will be very long-winded.
Yes, it's problematic that a white person* is saying this about black people. You don't have to look far back in history to recount innumerable instances of oppression facing black people. It still happens today (in America, with voting/gerrymandering; in Russia - need I explain? and even in the UK, where the Windrush scandal is disgraceful). (Thankfully, these such instances are on the wane.)
The historical power of white peoples over black peoples in the Western world means this sort of "joke" carries more weight than it would the other way around. Put simply, the power dynamic is in full effect here. Because non-white people have been exposed to it so fucking often, and it *actually* affects what happens to us (and yes, it's affected me in various ways), white-on-PoC jibes are that bit more serious than the other way around.
I personally wouldn't go so far as to say I've been systematically oppressed, but the sense of "other" people make me feel regularly isn't nice. I cannot imagine what it would be like if I didn't have an obvious English accent. I know PoC who feel as if they have been subject to systematic oppression, and I am not going to attempt to refute that.
Anyway. The crux of this point is - racism has more significance when it comes from a position of historical and, some might argue, systemic power.
*I realise Alan Sugar is of Russian/Polish Jewish extraction. That actually makes him quite hypocritical, given how rightly vocal he is about anti-Semitism.
---------------------------
I hope those of you who aren't PoC can at least see where I'm coming from. And I don't mean to be patronising, I don't mean to be wailing "oh poor me", I'm just trying to explain why this is just as big a deal as people are making it out to be, from my perspective (and I suspect the perspective of many other PoC).
Absolutely some valid points here, and I agree that the difference between the example I cited (the Americans I work with) and what’s happened here with Alan Sugar is that rapport/familiarity which is important.
However, whilst you’re not wrong regarding the history/power dynamics piece, can we truly expect everyone to be as knowledgable and aware of such political/international history as you quite clearly are? And to be capable of seeing them in such a rational way?
The answer is no, not really. And that’s why I’m of the opinion that posts like Sugar’s are the sort of thing that require a ‘rolling of the eyes’ or cringe sort of response, rather than him being absolutely vilified as a racist scumbag like some would suggest.
I concur - we can't expect everyone to be historically informed. I also think vilification in this instance is idiotic - people fall over themselves to look disgusted, and it's not necessary. Just call it out and do so with reasoning rather than shouting everything down.
That's something I really bloody hate about the people who I generally ideologically agree with - they're equally vituperative at the wrong times, but ostensibly for the "right" reasons (as I'd probably see it), and that just leads to animosity without any actual constructive discussion.
As for the historicity thing, though - that's sort of the problem. The fact of the matter is that non-white people have been consistently marginalised in the Western world* and as such, there's a lot of resentment toward attitudes like Alan Sugar's. I didn't get taught about the nasty bits of colonialism (e.g. Churchill and India) and history seems to be written by the winners, and that manifests itself in a lot of ways as whitewashing.
It's all about constant education and learning, though. So while I agree that Sugar shouldn't be vilified, he absolutely should not be let off with a slap of the wrist, either.
For me the real problem with the tweet isn't what the 'joke' says directly, but what it reveals about what is going on in Sugar's mind. What it suggests is that he is a man with few positive thoughts about people of colour. So few in fact, that he see's a group of black men and the one thing on his mind that shines out so powerfully he decides to tweet is, a pathetic link to beach hawkers. And the only thing the two objects of his 'joke' have in common is their skin colour - everything else, good, bad or indifferent about the Senegalese team and the workers he compared them to is relegated to that. What that 'joke' tells us is that we have a member of the House of Lords who is little more than a latter day Eddie Booth. That is the real problem.
As usual, there's a predictable number of apologists, who immediately jump on the 'everyone's so offended nowadays' bandwagon. So what? I'll be offended at what ever I like that you very much - I don't need your permission. Of course the real reason that people are so quick to use this argument is that it provides them with the perfect shield against having to say, think or do anything different. Don't bother worrying about how a slight modification of thought or deed might make the world more comfortable for others. Just carry on regardless and blame the victim. Nice touch.
I haven't seen many people supporting his tweet. Having a more nuanced sense of perspective than a sanctimonious offense taker doesn't make you an apologist. Who's the victim that's being blamed?
For me the real problem with the tweet isn't what the 'joke' says directly, but what it reveals about what is going on in Sugar's mind. What it suggests is that he is a man with few positive thoughts about people of colour. So few in fact, that he see's a group of black men and the one thing on his mind that shines out so powerfully he decides to tweet is, a pathetic link to beach hawkers. And the only thing the two objects of his 'joke' have in common is their skin colour - everything else, good, bad or indifferent about the Senegalese team and the workers he compared them to is relegated to that. What that 'joke' tells us is that we have a member of the House of Lords who is little more than a latter day Eddie Booth. That is the real problem.
As usual, there's a predictable number of apologists, who immediately jump on the 'everyone's so offended nowadays' bandwagon. So what? I'll be offended at what ever I like that you very much - I don't need your permission. Of course the real reason that people are so quick to use this argument is that it provides them with the perfect shield against having to say, think or do anything different. Don't bother worrying about how a slight modification of thought or deed might make the world more comfortable for others. Just carry on regardless and blame the victim. Nice touch.
So anyone who suggests others are easily offended is now a racist apologist?
Perhaps more progress would be made if stupid assumptions like that weren't a thing.
Stupid thing to put on social media. A bit like when a certain club secretary’s wife likened protester hatred to terrorist hatred. Even if some find it funny/agree with you a lot more will react negatively and view it in a completely different way.
Life was so much easier when we adhered to the old 'sticks and stones' maxim and just ripped the piss out of everyone. ;o)
Most of us still do, however we are being infiltrated by people who get offended on behalf of others and like to shout it from the rooftops. The people who are supposed to be offended never say anything.
Are "we"?
Seems to me that the angriest people in this thread are those willing to defend the tweet. It is possible for people to point out something is wrong/racist without spewing bile and frothing at the mouth.
The old default setting - accuse people of "throwing toys out the pram" / "spitting dummy out" / "frothing at the mouth".
I've personally not noticed anyone doing that in any of the above, all see is people with all different views, having a debate and or having a laugh. But I also realise that it is practically impossible to gauge someone's state of mind when reading quickly written posts / texts etc.
My genuine opinion on the Tweet is, like the majority of the jokes shared on social media, that it just aint funny at all.
Alan Sugar's "joke" wasn't funny. But, as he's not a professional comedian, he can't really be blamed for that/ He tweeted something he thought was funny. It wasn't. Big deal. I do that every day.
But his tweet was also prompted by and suffused with racial undertones. It's undeniably racist. But on a scale, it's at the very low end. He's not suggesting people should be banned from coming to the UK because of their accident of birth. He's not singling out *all* black people (although he's singling some people out *because* they are black). He shouldn't have tweeted it, because it's racist. (And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it and wouldn't have had two goes at apologising for it).
Alan Sugar isn't a racist. I don't think many people would claim that he is. But his tweet was the product of someone lazily and casually drawing on low-level, vestigial racism. He should have thought more before sending it.
He hasn't broken the law. He isn't inciting racial hatred or violence. He's just misjudged something. It's a mistake. Private individuals are allowed to make mistakes. Business owners are allowed to make mistakes. But the burden of responsibility should be much higher for someone who sits in parliament and makes our laws. He was stupid to tweet it, but right to delete it. He was also right to apologise for it - even though he had to make two attempts. I don't think he should continue to be castigated. I think and hope he won't do something like it again.
Alan Sugar's "joke" wasn't funny. But, as he's not a professional comedian, he can't really be blamed for that/ He tweeted something he thought was funny. It wasn't. Big deal. I do that every day.
But his tweet was also prompted by and suffused with racial undertones. It's undeniably racist. But on a scale, it's at the very low end. He's not suggesting people should be banned from coming to the UK because of their accident of birth. He's not singling out *all* black people (although he's singling some people out *because* they are black). He shouldn't have tweeted it, because it's racist. (And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it and wouldn't have had two goes at apologising for it).
Alan Sugar isn't a racist. I don't think many people would claim that he is. But his tweet was the product of someone lazily and casually drawing on low-level, vestigial racism. He should have thought more before sending it.
He hasn't broken the law. He isn't inciting racial hatred or violence. He's just misjudged something. It's a mistake. Private individuals are allowed to make mistakes. Business owners are allowed to make mistakes. But the burden of responsibility should be much higher for someone who sits in parliament and makes our laws. He was stupid to tweet it, but right to delete it. He was also right to apologise for it - even though he had to make two attempts. I don't think he should continue to be castigated. I think and hope he won't do something like it again.
I preferred it when I could pigeonhole you as an unreasonable snowflake.
Alan Sugar's "joke" wasn't funny. But, as he's not a professional comedian, he can't really be blamed for that/ He tweeted something he thought was funny. It wasn't. Big deal. I do that every day.
But his tweet was also prompted by and suffused with racial undertones. It's undeniably racist. But on a scale, it's at the very low end. He's not suggesting people should be banned from coming to the UK because of their accident of birth. He's not singling out *all* black people (although he's singling some people out *because* they are black). He shouldn't have tweeted it, because it's racist. (And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it and wouldn't have had two goes at apologising for it).
Alan Sugar isn't a racist. I don't think many people would claim that he is. But his tweet was the product of someone lazily and casually drawing on low-level, vestigial racism. He should have thought more before sending it.
He hasn't broken the law. He isn't inciting racial hatred or violence. He's just misjudged something. It's a mistake. Private individuals are allowed to make mistakes. Business owners are allowed to make mistakes. But the burden of responsibility should be much higher for someone who sits in parliament and makes our laws. He was stupid to tweet it, but right to delete it. He was also right to apologise for it - even though he had to make two attempts. I don't think he should continue to be castigated. I think and hope he won't do something like it again.
I find myself agreeing with aspects of the theme of your message Chizz, yet I also still disagree with some aspects too.
The "It wasn't funny" I take issue with. What you mean is "It wasn't funny to me". Comedy is subjective (Mrs browns boys and Miranda ffs) and I find it quite arrogant that people (not just you) are saying it as though you speak for everyone/society. I saw it and I found it funny as i'm sure loads of people did. Not laugh out loud funny, but funny none-the-less. With the aforementioned I tell people that i don't find them funny.
Next - "And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it" - I don't think you can draw that conclusion at all, he deleted it because of the reaction to it and how that can quickly get out of hand in this social media driven world and destroy your rep if you don't 'take it back' or apologise quickly.
Has anyone heard the one doing the rounds about polish fans on the rampage in Russia? X number of cars polished and hoovered etc etc. Exactly the same context of joke and maybe if someone of AS's status tweeted that one it would also get the same response, but i'm not so sure, even though it is a blatant joke at the expense of a certain region of people. I have only heard laughing galore and it was shared in our office by an eastern European in my team who found it hilarious.
Alan Sugar's "joke" wasn't funny. But, as he's not a professional comedian, he can't really be blamed for that/ He tweeted something he thought was funny. It wasn't. Big deal. I do that every day.
But his tweet was also prompted by and suffused with racial undertones. It's undeniably racist. But on a scale, it's at the very low end. He's not suggesting people should be banned from coming to the UK because of their accident of birth. He's not singling out *all* black people (although he's singling some people out *because* they are black). He shouldn't have tweeted it, because it's racist. (And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it and wouldn't have had two goes at apologising for it).
Alan Sugar isn't a racist. I don't think many people would claim that he is. But his tweet was the product of someone lazily and casually drawing on low-level, vestigial racism. He should have thought more before sending it.
He hasn't broken the law. He isn't inciting racial hatred or violence. He's just misjudged something. It's a mistake. Private individuals are allowed to make mistakes. Business owners are allowed to make mistakes. But the burden of responsibility should be much higher for someone who sits in parliament and makes our laws. He was stupid to tweet it, but right to delete it. He was also right to apologise for it - even though he had to make two attempts. I don't think he should continue to be castigated. I think and hope he won't do something like it again.
I find myself agreeing with aspects of the theme of your message Chizz, yet I also still disagree with some aspects too.
The "It wasn't funny" I take issue with. What you mean is "It wasn't funny to me". Comedy is subjective (Mrs browns boys and Miranda ffs) and I find it quite arrogant that people (not just you) are saying it as though you speak for everyone/society. I saw it and I found it funny as i'm sure loads of people did. Not laugh out loud funny, but funny none-the-less. With the aforementioned I tell people that i don't find them funny.
Next - "And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it" - I don't think you can draw that conclusion at all, he deleted it because of the reaction to it and how that can quickly get out of hand in this social media driven world and destroy your rep if you don't 'take it back' or apologise quickly. Has anyone heard the one doing the rounds about polish fans on the rampage in Russia? X number of cars polished and hoovered etc etc. Exactly the same context of joke and maybe if someone of AS's status tweeted that one it would also get the same response, but i'm not so sure, even though it is a blatant joke at the expense of a certain region of people. I have only heard laughing galore and it was shared in our office by an eastern European in my team who found it hilarious.
No, but heard the one about the Poles getting deported back "home" and will be touching down at Gatwick this afternoon
Life was so much easier when we adhered to the old 'sticks and stones' maxim and just ripped the piss out of everyone. ;o)
Most of us still do, however we are being infiltrated by people who get offended on behalf of others and like to shout it from the rooftops. The people who are supposed to be offended never say anything.
I work with a lot of Americans. Quite often they will mimick my British accent and say things like “Are you spending the weekend making tea and crumpets?”
Stereotypical based jokes. I don’t take offence at it. Is it drastically different from what’s happened here?
I get where you're coming from. Even I'm happy when people take the piss about me being Chinese, but here's the key - it's an established rapport we have.
Alan Sugar - I presume - has no connection to the Senegal squad, which means this is bizarre casual racism.
Moreover, the power dynamics in play in these comparisons aren't that comparable:
1) You're in a setting amongst peers. You're probably equally as likely to joke about Americans, I dunno, shooting guns and worshipping bald eagles, as they are about Brits and tea and crumpets.
2) It's less offensive because this sort of stereotyping isn't demeaning. Equating all Senegalese people to those dudes who sell tat on beaches on the European continent, however, is. It's very unhelpful, because that's the only experience a lot of people have of African migrants to Spain/wherever, and quite often that brings negative connotations (pushy sales guys etc), which increases tensions. Someone with a better handle on migration/socioeconomic dynamics might be able to articulate this better than I.
3) Ah, yes, I've finally come to it. The "race card". You'll have to excuse me, as this will be very long-winded.
Yes, it's problematic that a white person* is saying this about black people. You don't have to look far back in history to recount innumerable instances of oppression facing black people. It still happens today (in America, with voting/gerrymandering; in Russia - need I explain? and even in the UK, where the Windrush scandal is disgraceful). (Thankfully, these such instances are on the wane.)
The historical power of white peoples over black peoples in the Western world means this sort of "joke" carries more weight than it would the other way around. Put simply, the power dynamic is in full effect here. Because non-white people have been exposed to it so fucking often, and it *actually* affects what happens to us (and yes, it's affected me in various ways), white-on-PoC jibes are that bit more serious than the other way around.
I personally wouldn't go so far as to say I've been systematically oppressed, but the sense of "other" people make me feel regularly isn't nice. I cannot imagine what it would be like if I didn't have an obvious English accent. I know PoC who feel as if they have been subject to systematic oppression, and I am not going to attempt to refute that.
Anyway. The crux of this point is - racism has more significance when it comes from a position of historical and, some might argue, systemic power.
*I realise Alan Sugar is of Russian/Polish Jewish extraction. That actually makes him quite hypocritical, given how rightly vocal he is about anti-Semitism.
---------------------------
I hope those of you who aren't PoC can at least see where I'm coming from. And I don't mean to be patronising, I don't mean to be wailing "oh poor me", I'm just trying to explain why this is just as big a deal as people are making it out to be, from my perspective (and I suspect the perspective of many other PoC).
Leaving aside "white" Americans, Brits and Russians for a minute -
What about the racism that exists between black Africans from various parts of that Continent and also the same between people from different parts of Asia? Both of which is rife and where you'll still find slavery in it's worse form in existence today, often split between races.
How does that justify white racism? Two wrongs don't make a right.
I work with a lot of Americans. Quite often they will mimick my British accent and say things like “Are you spending the weekend making tea and crumpets?”
Stereotypical based jokes. I don’t take offence at it. Is it drastically different from what’s happened here?
I get where you're coming from. Even I'm happy when people take the piss about me being Chinese, but here's the key - it's an established rapport we have.
Alan Sugar - I presume - has no connection to the Senegal squad, which means this is bizarre casual racism.
Moreover, the power dynamics in play in these comparisons aren't that comparable:
1) You're in a setting amongst peers. You're probably equally as likely to joke about Americans, I dunno, shooting guns and worshipping bald eagles, as they are about Brits and tea and crumpets.
2) It's less offensive because this sort of stereotyping isn't demeaning. Equating all Senegalese people to those dudes who sell tat on beaches on the European continent, however, is. It's very unhelpful, because that's the only experience a lot of people have of African migrants to Spain/wherever, and quite often that brings negative connotations (pushy sales guys etc), which increases tensions. Someone with a better handle on migration/socioeconomic dynamics might be able to articulate this better than I.
3) Ah, yes, I've finally come to it. The "race card". You'll have to excuse me, as this will be very long-winded.
Yes, it's problematic that a white person* is saying this about black people. You don't have to look far back in history to recount innumerable instances of oppression facing black people. It still happens today (in America, with voting/gerrymandering; in Russia - need I explain? and even in the UK, where the Windrush scandal is disgraceful). (Thankfully, these such instances are on the wane.)
The historical power of white peoples over black peoples in the Western world means this sort of "joke" carries more weight than it would the other way around. Put simply, the power dynamic is in full effect here. Because non-white people have been exposed to it so fucking often, and it *actually* affects what happens to us (and yes, it's affected me in various ways), white-on-PoC jibes are that bit more serious than the other way around.
I personally wouldn't go so far as to say I've been systematically oppressed, but the sense of "other" people make me feel regularly isn't nice. I cannot imagine what it would be like if I didn't have an obvious English accent. I know PoC who feel as if they have been subject to systematic oppression, and I am not going to attempt to refute that.
Anyway. The crux of this point is - racism has more significance when it comes from a position of historical and, some might argue, systemic power.
*I realise Alan Sugar is of Russian/Polish Jewish extraction. That actually makes him quite hypocritical, given how rightly vocal he is about anti-Semitism.
---------------------------
I hope those of you who aren't PoC can at least see where I'm coming from. And I don't mean to be patronising, I don't mean to be wailing "oh poor me", I'm just trying to explain why this is just as big a deal as people are making it out to be, from my perspective (and I suspect the perspective of many other PoC).
Leaving aside "white" Americans, Brits and Russians for a minute -
What about the racism that exists between black Africans from various parts of that Continent and also the same between people from different parts of Asia? Both of which is rife and where you'll still find slavery in it's worse form in existence today, often split between races.
How does that justify white racism? Two wrongs don't make a right.
It doesn't, the point is that Paddy selected white countries from around the world. I just said that racism exists in other, non white, countries an all
I doubt there is a single person on the planet who doesn't find something offensive. If you put stuff on Twitter prepare to offend.
We've all got stuff we find offensive - Sugar's humour seems stuck in the 70s with lazy racial stereotypes.
I remember as a kid watching programs like 'The Comedians' which seem horribly dated now as most people move on and a lot of the casual racism has died out.
I doubt for example many people would find Jim Davidson's 'chalky' character funny now.
I doubt there is a single person on the planet who doesn't find something offensive. If you put stuff on Twitter prepare to offend.
We've all got stuff we find offensive - Sugar's humour seems stuck in the 70s with lazy racial stereotypes.
I remember as a kid watching programs like 'The Comedians' which seem horribly dated now as most people move on and a lot of the casual racism has died out.
I doubt for example many people would find Jim Davidson's 'chalky' character funny now.
I take you to Piers Morgans life stories, saw loads of comments on twitter after he spoke about Chalky
I doubt there is a single person on the planet who doesn't find something offensive. If you put stuff on Twitter prepare to offend.
We've all got stuff we find offensive - Sugar's humour seems stuck in the 70s with lazy racial stereotypes.
I remember as a kid watching programs like 'The Comedians' which seem horribly dated now as most people move on and a lot of the casual racism has died out.
I doubt for example many people would find Jim Davidson's 'chalky' character funny now.
I take you to Piers Morgans life stories, saw loads of comments on twitter after he spoke about Chalky
Comments
There are a million and one things to get angry and upset about in the world and some people still need to jump on nothing events like this to prove that “I’m more disgusted about racism than you are” etc.
I’m just glad I knock around with people who have a sense of humour and can take the piss out of each other and themselves and if someone does misjudge a situation and say an inappropriate joke, others are able to just let it go and see it for what it is.
AS had no doubt employed 100’s of “people of colour” over the years? I don’t think he has a racist bone in his body. He’s getting on, he’s a bit old school in that he thinks you can still find things funny at the expense of others without meaning you dislike or are prejuduced against them.
Such a ridiculous shame that these non events are the big ticket news items these days.
If people really can’t identify the difference between actual racism and jokes then it’s actual racism that wins.
As usual, there's a predictable number of apologists, who immediately jump on the 'everyone's so offended nowadays' bandwagon. So what? I'll be offended at what ever I like that you very much - I don't need your permission. Of course the real reason that people are so quick to use this argument is that it provides them with the perfect shield against having to say, think or do anything different. Don't bother worrying about how a slight modification of thought or deed might make the world more comfortable for others. Just carry on regardless and blame the victim. Nice touch.
I think that tells you a lot.
Seems to me that the angriest people in this thread are those willing to defend the tweet. It is possible for people to point out something is wrong/racist without spewing bile and frothing at the mouth.
That's something I really bloody hate about the people who I generally ideologically agree with - they're equally vituperative at the wrong times, but ostensibly for the "right" reasons (as I'd probably see it), and that just leads to animosity without any actual constructive discussion.
As for the historicity thing, though - that's sort of the problem. The fact of the matter is that non-white people have been consistently marginalised in the Western world* and as such, there's a lot of resentment toward attitudes like Alan Sugar's. I didn't get taught about the nasty bits of colonialism (e.g. Churchill and India) and history seems to be written by the winners, and that manifests itself in a lot of ways as whitewashing.
It's all about constant education and learning, though. So while I agree that Sugar shouldn't be vilified, he absolutely should not be let off with a slap of the wrist, either.
Having a more nuanced sense of perspective than a sanctimonious offense taker doesn't make you an apologist.
Who's the victim that's being blamed?
Perhaps more progress would be made if stupid assumptions like that weren't a thing.
I've personally not noticed anyone doing that in any of the above, all see is people with all different views, having a debate and or having a laugh. But I also realise that it is practically impossible to gauge someone's state of mind when reading quickly written posts / texts etc.
My genuine opinion on the Tweet is, like the majority of the jokes shared on social media, that it just aint funny at all.
But his tweet was also prompted by and suffused with racial undertones. It's undeniably racist. But on a scale, it's at the very low end. He's not suggesting people should be banned from coming to the UK because of their accident of birth. He's not singling out *all* black people (although he's singling some people out *because* they are black). He shouldn't have tweeted it, because it's racist. (And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it and wouldn't have had two goes at apologising for it).
Alan Sugar isn't a racist. I don't think many people would claim that he is. But his tweet was the product of someone lazily and casually drawing on low-level, vestigial racism. He should have thought more before sending it.
He hasn't broken the law. He isn't inciting racial hatred or violence. He's just misjudged something. It's a mistake. Private individuals are allowed to make mistakes. Business owners are allowed to make mistakes. But the burden of responsibility should be much higher for someone who sits in parliament and makes our laws. He was stupid to tweet it, but right to delete it. He was also right to apologise for it - even though he had to make two attempts. I don't think he should continue to be castigated. I think and hope he won't do something like it again.
The "It wasn't funny" I take issue with. What you mean is "It wasn't funny to me". Comedy is subjective (Mrs browns boys and Miranda ffs) and I find it quite arrogant that people (not just you) are saying it as though you speak for everyone/society. I saw it and I found it funny as i'm sure loads of people did. Not laugh out loud funny, but funny none-the-less. With the aforementioned I tell people that i don't find them funny.
Next - "And it obviously *is* racist, otherwise he wouldn't have deleted it" - I don't think you can draw that conclusion at all, he deleted it because of the reaction to it and how that can quickly get out of hand in this social media driven world and destroy your rep if you don't 'take it back' or apologise quickly.
Has anyone heard the one doing the rounds about polish fans on the rampage in Russia? X number of cars polished and hoovered etc etc. Exactly the same context of joke and maybe if someone of AS's status tweeted that one it would also get the same response, but i'm not so sure, even though it is a blatant joke at the expense of a certain region of people. I have only heard laughing galore and it was shared in our office by an eastern European in my team who found it hilarious.
We've all got stuff we find offensive - Sugar's humour seems stuck in the 70s with lazy racial stereotypes.
I remember as a kid watching programs like 'The Comedians' which seem horribly dated now as most people move on and a lot of the casual racism has died out.
I doubt for example many people would find Jim Davidson's 'chalky' character funny now.