Political Correctness.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**sebster**

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Ktulhut wrote:Orkeosaurus - It's not blindness to someones faults because of race, its the attitude that anyone saying something bad about a person of a different culture is saying that bad thing for racially motivated reasons rather than normal ones.
Hmm, I can see that too. Annoying, I'll agree.

"Reverse racism" is a ridiculous euphemism. The opposite of racism is not judging others based on race, not more racism.

There's are meanings for racism which are quite different to basic xenophobia most people use the term for.

There is an idea that power structures can be racist, when they tend to place people of a certain race at the top and others at the bottom. It doesn't take a genius to note that in the US there's a lot more white people at the top and a lot more black people at the bottom. This is called racism and very explicitly refers to white folk at the top. When a system evolves or is deliberately created that reverses that and puts white folk at the bottom, it is legitimate to call it reverse racism.

This is also how you get the famous line 'black people can't be racist'. It's using a different defintion of the word, one referring to power among different ethnic groups. When your group is at the absolute bottom, you really can't be racist towards the priviledged groups. You can still, of course, be xenophobic.

**Orkeosaurus**

sebster wrote:There's are meanings for racism which are quite different to basic xenophobia most people use the term for.

There is an idea that power structures can be racist, when they tend to place people of a certain race at the top and others at the bottom. It doesn't take a genius to note that in the US there's a lot more white people at the top and a lot more black people at the bottom. This is called racism and very explicitly refers to white folk at the top. When a system evolves or is deliberately created that reverses that and puts white folk at the bottom, it is legitimate to call it reverse racism.

This is also how you get the famous line 'black people can't be racist'. It's using a different defintion of the word, one referring to power among different ethnic groups. When your group is at the absolute bottom, you really can't be racist towards the priviledged groups. You can still, of course, be xenophobic.

I don't know who uses those definitions, but I've never heard that to be the definition of racism.

Merriam-Webster dictionary defines racism as:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination

The second use is by far the most commonly used, both by minorities and the racial majority. The first definition is really only held by supremacist groups, and similar outliers. If a white person crosses to the other side of the street because a black person is walking down it, that's a racist reaction, but it's unlikely that white person has an actual conviction that being white makes him inherently superior.

Power structure has nothing to do with it, judging others based on race is the sole criteria.

You're definition of xenophobia makes even less sense. White people are not so strange and foreign to black people as to trigger xenophobia. There is still a lack of integration in some areas, but I doubt very much that animosity held by black people for whites is a "fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign".

**Valkyrie**

I have to say that although I understand Political Correctness when it comes to subjects such as offending people who are a different colour or sexuality etc, some of the reasons given for Political Correctness are truly bizzare

For example: My mum works in the special needs department of a school and she's engouraged to offer support to the students and to help them when needed, but recently she has been told that she cannot say "Good boy/girl" if they have done good work and she cannot ask if someone is someone's brother/sister. This is because apparently because if she calls them a "good boy/girl" they might be offended if they have been sexually abused and she cannot ask about being related to someone else incase they are pressured to live up to other standards.

Im sure that some people might disagree but I think that reasons such as these are going beyoid the limits of "Accectable Political Correctness"

**LuciusAR**

Valkyrie wrote:
For example: My mum works in the special needs department of a school and she's engouraged to offer support to the students and to help them when needed, but recently she has been told that she cannot say "Good boy/girl" if they have done good work and she cannot ask if someone is someone's brother/sister. This is because apparently because if she calls them a "good boy/girl" they might be offended if they have been sexually abused and she cannot ask about being related to someone else in case they are pressured to live up to other standards.

Quite frankly I object to the phrase "good boy" because it sounds condescending, its the sort of thing someone says to a dog. As for the brother sister thing well it can be quite pressuring living in the shadow of a more intelligent sibling, if you have special needs I imagine this would be magnified ten fold.

I know that to people without disabilities this may seem bizarre but you never know what kind of effect these small things can have on someone with special needs. I imagine these rules have been devised by people with far more knowledge regarding child special needs than anyone on this board. So whilst it may be easy for us to scoff, we only really do so from a position of ignorance.

**Frazzled**

LuciusAR wrote:
Valkyrie wrote:
For example: My mum works in the special needs department of a school and she's engouraged to offer support to the students and to help them when needed, but recently she has been told that she cannot say "Good boy/girl" if they have done good work and she cannot ask if someone is someone's brother/sister. This is because apparently because if she calls them a "good boy/girl" they might be offended if they have been sexually abused and she cannot ask about being related to someone else in case they are pressured to live up to other standards.

Quite frankly I object to the phrase "good boy" because it sounds condescending, its the sort of thing someone says to a dog. As for the brother sister thing well it can be quite pressuring living in the shadow of a more intelligent sibling, if you have special needs I imagine this would be magnified ten fold.

I know that to people without disabilities this may seem bizarre but you never know what kind of effect these small things can have on someone with special needs. I imagine these rules have been devised by people with far more knowledge regarding child special needs than anyone on this board. So whilst it may be easy for us to scoff, we only really do so from a position of ignorance.

"Good boy good good boy yes you aw oh yes you aw. " Is it something GC says to her dog or something Mrs. Frazzled says to babies and teenagers? You be the judge (answer - both)

**J.Black**

Why the devil is it called 'Political' correctness? Politicians are, in general, a pack of lying scumbags so having some sort of moral correction associated with them is a bit like having Hunter Thompson* asking people to 'go easy on the drugs'.

PC only applies in tabloid papers where the hipocrisy it generates can never be accounted for.

*Yes, i know he's dead but i couldn't think of a better example.

**halonachos**

Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.

**Frazzled**

I have a part caucasian mount dog. When I say that people look at me funny, until I show them the density of his fur where he came from the Caucusis Mountains.

**Greebynog**

halonachos wrote:Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.

Do I really have to explain this for you? Seriously? You can't see the reason for this?

**halonachos**

I understand the whole caucasian thing, but there are people who are white and did not come from anywhere near the Caucus mountains. Swiss people (following the same logic) should then be called Alpians as they are closer to the alps than the caucuses.

@Greebynog

Go ahead, try to explain this in a way that I CANNOT cancel out. Make my day.

**halonachos**

ShumaGorath wrote:
When did Iraq crash planes into us again? I'm sorry I think I missed that one. Or are you just being flippant here? I can't tell any more.

Look at american history, America invades countries and overthrows dictators. Its kind of like our thing.

**mcfly**

halonachos wrote:Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.

I totally agree with you. I absolutely, cannot STAND things like this. I have white South African friends, and one of them was joking the other day that when he goes to college he's gonna apply for a bunch of African American only scholarships and not show up in person, and when he goes to the school they'll find out he's white. But seriously, its like how some stores are closed for not having enough minorities represented. My Boy Scout Troop was fussed at for not representing any minorities once, so we got a puerto rican kid who was born in the usa and is a preppy redneck. If you want to stop racism and hate, then just don't bring it up. Can't stand this stuff...grumbledontlikeitgrrrr

**LuciusAR**

halonachos wrote:Personally I think that PC is a total waste of time.

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

What I'm trying to say is that PC does not make sense and should be anulled.

These examples either stem from ignorance on a spectacular level or are pure trolling.

**halonachos**

The news is not trolling my friend. A university did try to make a scholarship exclusively for "caucasians". It was deemed rascist by the college board and by many "african amercian" scholars. When asked why it is okay then to have "african american" only scholarships they responded by saying it was compensation for slavery.

Very few politicians use the word "caucasian", they use white. I think that white is a more accurate term as white people can come from anywhere.

The term "african american" is also total bull as you are then being rascist by saying that anyone who is black or of a darker complexion are from africa. There are black people from the caribbean as well.

@ lucius
I don't see any ignorance in my examples, they came from the news.

I also don't see the truth as trolling.

**LuciusAR**

Ok then:

halonachos wrote:

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.

halonachos wrote:Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

Caucasian is a commonly accepted term for white Americans. The term 'European American' whilst technically correct just isn't to be found in common usage. You'll find plenty of people identifying themselves as German/Irish/Italian American though. Sound like a total non point.

halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.

The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club.

halonachos wrote:Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

In a geographical sense this is correct, Russian is mostly physically in Asia. However physically most Russians have more in common with Europeans than Asians. That’s why.

halonachos wrote:Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

Are you seriously suggesting people cannot be mixed race?

**Ahtman**

LuciusAR wrote:Ok then:

halonachos wrote:

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.

I'm not sure it's really your place to tell families that have lived on the continent for generations and consider themselves that they aren't African's. It's like telling American's who's families have been in North America for several hundred years that they aren't Americans becuase they aren't Sioux or Apache. now you could say they aren't Sioux or Apache, but you can't say they aren't Americans (in the broader sense).

I don't disagree that that the person should not get the scholarship that was meant for a certain group, but the error is more in the language use in the scholarship. Its the trouble of trying to find labels to apply to something as diverse as human society. It is a necessary evil I suppose as we need something to work with, but it is always going to have flaws.

What it means to be of a certain group is really quite interesting and fluid. Groups that are considered white now where not considered white that long ago. Ask the Irish or Italians about that. I was just reading about the Sacco and Vinzette case and in the background of it talked of a miscegenation case in which a woman married a black man and the case was thrown out because the woman was of Italian descent and thus not considered white, thus not breaking the law. Even within the black community I'm sure we've heard someone complain that someone wasn't 'black enough' or some other foolishness.

**halonachos**

LuciusAR wrote:Ok then:

halonachos wrote:

There was a kid who immigrated to America from South Africa and was then nationalized. He applied for an african-american exclusive scholarship. He didn't get it because he was white.

So if African American applies ONLY to those of darker skin and not to those actually from Africa, then what is this kid? Obviously hes not African.

African American is a term which applies to American nationals who are decedents of the indigenous peoples of Africa. A white person who emigrates goes to South Africa becomomes African in an administrative sense only, He no more a native African than Mr Van Der Lann who lives down the road from him. The kid was denied the African American scholarship because he wasn’t African American by the commonly accepted meaning of the phrase. Quite right too.

As I stated above, some black people originated from the caribbean and nowhere near africa.

LuciusAR wrote:

halonachos wrote:Why are white people called caucasians? Why not European Americans. But then they said screw caucasians and everyone says white, even officials.

Caucasian is a commonly accepted term for white Americans. The term 'European American' whilst technically correct just isn't to be found in common usage. You'll find plenty of people identifying themselves as German/Irish/Italian American though. Sound like a total non point.

I consider it a point in saying that PC is ultimately a fail. If people are too lazy to be PC in all occassions then why be PC at all?

LuciusAR wrote:

halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.

I wish that this was true. If I was black I would have at least 1000+ more scholarships available to me. Whites have no exclusive scholarships and obviously cannot apply for "african american" scholarships. This is rascist as it is denying resources towards specific groups. Just because blacks are a minortiy doesn't mean that they should get special scholarships.

LuciusAR wrote:
The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club.

A definition of racism. Any catering towards anyone is racism. If you neglect the majority for the rights of the minority that is racism.

LuciusAR wrote:

halonachos wrote:Why are russians considered caucasian when they are mostly in asia.

In a geographical sense this is correct, Russian is mostly physically in Asia. However physically most Russians have more in common with Europeans than Asians. That’s why.

halonachos wrote:Why can people select more than 1 race on a census.

Are you seriously suggesting people cannot be mixed race?

But if you call whites "caucasians" then you are using geography so the word for their race should be based on geography and the should be called asians.

I'm getting at the point that being politically correct is inherently being a rascist. If all whites are caucasians then you say to them "Screw your heritage, you could be from anywhere but as long as you are white, you are caucasian."

The term african american is used too loosely, that white kid from south africa is more of an african american than most "african americans" I know. "Oh you're from Jamaica? But you're black so you're an african american now."

**reds8n**

I consider it a point in saying that PC is ultimately a fail. If people are too lazy to be PC in all occassions then why be PC at all?

That's not even an argument is it ? People aren't always polite/sober/law abiding/myriad of other things, but that doesnt mean you stop doing it at all ever.

**halonachos**

There's a slight difference here though.

PC involves changing your words so it doesn't "offend" people. Obeying the law and staying sober affect society. If no one obeys the law, then there is anarchy and decay. Getting drunk every night can kill your liver and may lead to drunk driving which is dangerous.

I do disagree with saying the n-word as much as I oppose being called a cracker. Although, it is much more acceptable for a black guy to call a white guy a cracker or a honkey.

About the whole being polite thing, most people have given up on it.

**halonachos**

By being PC in all occassions I mean being PC for each race/ heritage, not in the way of quantity or how many times you do it. I'm saying that african american is rascist and should be replaced by *insert country of origin*. Deciding whether or not someone is from a certain place solely on the color of skin is rascist.

**reds8n**

I don't think being "PC" is about changing what you say so as not to offend people, that's just the BS that rightwing bigots put out.

If you dislike being called "X" then tell/say it, just as another person has the right not be referred to or defined entirely by their skin colour/sexual orientation/whatever.*

It's about treating people with respect, that's it. Sure it gets misused and abused or even taken too far, but so does everything humans make/say/do/drink etc tc as we're totally flawed.

You talk about laws and sobriety affecting society in a positive/negative fashion but somehow seem to miss the point that society is made of the people that "PC" is trying to minimise harm too.

EDIT : aahh 2nd post ! I see what you mean now. Hmm.. to a point yes. I suspect it is largely just a matter of convenience.

*Except the French, obviously.

**halonachos**

"minimize harm"? Thats the sort of thing that the left wingers use to control every aspect of a person's life. If someone gets drunk and kills someone then I consider it worse than making fun of a stereotype.

Showing respect is relevant to society. In some countries its respectful to belch after eating a meal, in some countries it isn't. You should get respect if you earn it. No one is entitled to respect from birth.

You're whole last serious sentence makes no sense to me with the wording, please explain it. What I am getting from it is that laws protect everyone while PC only protects minorites. I mean, I don't think you were trying to say that.

**reds8n**

Everyone is a minority in society in some way or fashion.

I fail to see how minimizing harm is controlling people's lives, it just shows awareness of the way that society is a whole mesh of interconnections. NO one's denying or saying that killing someone isn't worse than making fun of someone, that's why we have different. But it all depends upon what impact this "making fun" of has, for example..

Recent research from Teeside University found that 40% of teenage gay, lesbian or bisexual people had attempted suicide because of bullying at school; 75% had been physically assaulted
at least once; and two had received serious death threats.

That has consequences and repercussions for society.

And that's what people are getting up in arms over ? Not being allowed to drive kids to suicide ? Really ?

When Laura Rhodes – a witty, loud Welsh girl – was twelve, she told her best friend she thought she might be gay. Her friend blabbed, and within a week everybody at their school knew. That’s when Laura was branded “the school dyke” – and the persecution began.

In the corridors, Laura was kicked, her books were punched out of her hands, chairs were hurled in her direction – and vicious laughter always echoed as she walked. Stressed and depressed, she began to comfort-eat, and started piling on weight. In a letter, she described a typical day at school: “There we were, outside the school, people looking at this fat lump which is myself. I did not want to leave the car, I wanted to die. I walked to the doors, down the corridor, here are boys just before the stairs, waiting to trip me up, how wonderful… Why were they doing this? Why me? I saw some boys laughing at the fact I was still fact and possibly a ‘dyke’. [I am] still a person.”

When she finally got home, Laura wrote she would go “into the box room, [and take] out scissors, I knew what I was doing. Maybe this would show them what they are doing. I dragged it over my wrists a few times, the next few times pressing harder, it felt really good. It hurt, but I pressed harder.”

Laura turned to her school for help – but they said she was the problem. Cefn Saesoon School’s education welfare officer, Helen Langford, said Laura’s “verbal indiscretion” – talking openly about her sexuality – was the cause of her bullying, and noted in writing: “Laura fully realises and appreciates she must accept the blame for the current situation.” One lunchtime she was taken into a crowded dining room and told to point out, in front of everyone, who had been bullying her. Another time she was forced to take part in a “circle exercise” with her bullies, in which she had to describe how bad she felt, traumatising her even further. In the end, the school decided the solution was expulsion – of Laura. She was packed off to a Pupil Referral Unit, where she was given just three hours of teaching a day.

But then there was a flicker of joy in Laura’s life. Online, she met another girl – a 14 year old in Birmingham – and it seems they fell in love. They talked and texted all the time, and eventually the other girl – Rachael – went on holiday to Crete with Laura and her family. The day after they got back to Wales, Laura and Rachael couldn’t stand the thought of being separated. They decided to run away together, and headed to Bath, where they were soon tracked down by the police. Rather than going back to their separate, bullied lives, they decided to be “together in the afterlife”. They both took a huge overdose of prescription pills. Rachael woke up and called for help. It was too late for Laura. She died in hospital a few days later.

At the inquest, Laura’s diary was read out. She said about her bullying: [b]“No one believed me while I got fatter and fatter and sadder and sadder. Everyone got meaner and meaner.” Her school insisted they had done nothing wrong. The headteacher, Alun Griffiths, declared, “We have searched our consciences and have to say our consciences are clear.”

Laura’s story is being played out in playgrounds across Britain every day. A study by the Schools Health Education Unit found that in Britain’s schools, 41 percent of gay people are beaten up, and 17 percent receive death-threats. A majority of Britain's gay kids feel so unsafe that they skive off school to avoid abuse. Another three-year study found that more than half consider self-harm or suicide. In every area of British life, gay people have made vast advances – except the schoolyard.

Andrew Morris is a 30 year-old gay man who has been teaching English at a mixed private school for the past three years. He says, “There has not been a single day as a teacher when I have not heard the pupils hurling homophobic insults at each other. ‘Gay’ or ‘battyboy’ is the worst insult in their repertoire. Some of it is really extreme. A fourteen year old boy – who has no idea I’m gay – told me he though gay people have a responsibility to commit suicide. The pupils were amazed if you challenged them on it.”

This homophobia wasn’t confined to the pupils, either. Morris explains: “Whenever I tried to reprimand the kids for homophobic language, they’d say, ‘Well, our P.E. teacher or our music teacher uses that word all the time.’ And it was true. In R.E. debates, one of my colleagues said he thought being gay was “a sin.” One time I was standing with the art teacher outside the school disco and he said to a boy, ‘Why are you wearing those shoes? They make you look like a poofter.’ It was considered totally normal. Whenever I raised the idea of punishing homophobia with the staff, they looked at me like I was mad.”

OFSTED – the Schools Inspectorate – says this is not unusual, with homophobia being “endemic” in our schools system, and 20 percent of pupils saying they have heard teachers make homophobic comments in the past few months. As I wrote this article, my own memories of homophobic bullying started flickering though my mind again.. I remember being shut in a classroom when I was about thirteen with three lads who were in my school’s sixth-form. “I
fething hate queers,” one of them said as he smacked me against the locker. They wouldn’t let me leave; after five minutes of trying to sound tough, I just sat down and cried. For a few years afterwards, there was a rash of name-calling. It wasn’t severe, by Laura’s standards, but it was depressing, and upsetting, and enraging. I still remember feeling sick after a teacher called me a “[see forum posting rules]” in front of the class, and chuckled.

Phillip James is a 17 year-old studying at the sixth-form of a comprehensive school in Leeds. He says homophobia is “constant” in his school. “No teacher in their right mind tries to stand up to homophobia at my school,” he says. “Where would you start?” He says the word “gay” is “an all-purpose insult. You use it to mean ‘bad’ or ‘gak’ or ‘rubbish.’ Then there’s the more extreme words – ‘[see forum posting rules]’, ‘bender’. I get that a lot. You just grow up with a sense that being gay is this terrible thing. I think I internalized it a lot. I remember when I first said the words to myself, in my room on my own, ‘I’m gay’, I burst into tears. I felt so sick with myself. It just seemed such an awful thing to be.”

When Phillip first revealed he was gay to his friends, he was 16. Lots of fellow pupils were supportive – most of them girls, but also some straight boys. “My best mate, who is straight, totally stood by me, even though some people started calling him gay too.” But others reacted with violence: “A group of lads in my year said they were going to batter me. They said they were going to cut me up, to teach me that being a ‘[see forum posting rules]’ is disgusting. I told the school, and they called us all together in a room and told us to stop ‘causing trouble.’ They acted as if I was as bad as them, and when I protested, they told me I was ‘whining.’” Philip wrote an article for his school newspaper talking about the culture of homophobia – and the headmaster refused to let it run. He was told it was “inappropriate”, and “not suitable for discussion among children.”

Eventually, the gang caught up with him. “I was walking home and they dragged me into an alley and beat the gak out of me basically. They got me on the floor and kicked me a lot.” After the humiliation of last time, he didn’t tell the school. While some members of staff smuggled softly pro-gay messages into their lessons, others actively encouraged homophobia. “If you didn’t run fast enough, the P.E. teacher would yell ‘you’re running like a poofter!’ at you. After I came out, not long before my GCSEs, I said to him, ‘Don’t say that. I’m gay and I find it offensive.’ Loads of the lads in the class laughed but I tried to stand by it and not get upset. The teacher looked at the lads who were sniggering and laughed with them. He said, ‘If you’re a poofter why don’t you like being called one?’ and these lads were just pissing themselves laughing. I walked out of the lesson. He never reported it, and I noticed after that he didn’t call anyone a poofter – not in my lessons, anyway.”

There is nothing inevitable about homophobia in Britain’s schools. How do we know?
A generation ago, racist bullying was standard practice in the playground. Today, when it happens, it is almost invariably punished. All state schools automatically discipline pupils for using racist language, and they expel pupils for racist attacks. If a teacher is openly racist, he doesn’t work again. We need now to begin the slow, steady work of making homophobia equally anathemized. Stonewall’s recent study found that while 97 percent of pupils have been told racist bullying is wrong, only 23 percent of pupils today have ever been told by teachers that homophobic bullying is unacceptable.

But there was good news in the Stonewall study too: where there is a clear policy of punishing homophobia, it works. Pupils in schools with a clear policy of punishing homophobic language and intimidation are 60 percent less likely to be bullied, and 70 percent more likely to feel safe. Teenagers might be insecure group-formers, desperate to punish difference, but there is no reason they should fixate on sexuality as the marker of that difference. There have been some excellent pilot schemes proving this. George Green's School, near where I live in East London, has a tough anti-homophobia policy in an area mostly populated by recent immigrants with uber-conservative views. Head-teacher Kenny Frederick has faced down homophobic parents and insisted on equality for all her students. If a pupil uses the word “gay” as an insult, they are automatically punished as if they had used the word “Paki” or “[see forum posting rules]”; if they bully gay kids, they are chucked out. If she can do it, any headteacher can.

But we are starting from way behind. While a whopping 82% of teachers are aware of gay name-calling at their schools and 26% are aware of anti-gay violence on school property, according to a University of London study, how many schools do you think have a policy to deal with homophobic bullying? Just a pitiful 6 percent. The solution isn’t rocket science. You have mandatory classes in which you explain everywhere in the world, throughout history, around 4-10 percent are attracted to the same sex. There’s nothing unusual about it, and it’s not “immoral” for two consenting adults to give each other sexual pleasure. You punish the pupils who use bigoted slurs. As the Stonewall slogan says: Some people are gay – get over it.

But there is one group of schools that most aggressively refuses to spread this message: faith schools. While there are a few honourable exceptions, pupils there are more than 10 percent more likely to be subjected to anti-gay bullying, and 23 percent less likely to feel they can tell anyone about their sexuality. It’s hardly surprising: they are set up to teach religious texts that demand the most barbaric punishments for gay people in plain language. After writing about anti-gay bullying for the Independent, I was e-mailed by a 17-year old gay boy at a Muslim school who was told by one of his teachers in a lesson that "sodomites should be killed". In the Stonewall study, an 18-year old boy called Matthew said: "It's a Catholic school... and we are told 'gay people will go to hell because the Bible condemns it'... It's horrid, you just want to go and cry at come of the remarks made by the teachers."

The government – backed by all three major political parties – is currently embarked on an expansion of these faith schools. There is a danger that after abolishing Section 28 by the front door, the growth of faith schools unwittingly reintroduces it by the back door. It also risks undercutting the promises by the Labour government to make schools crack down harder on homophobia. The Children's Minister, Kevin Brennan, recently told a gay equality conference: "Just as it took several years for racial equality laws to feed into real cultural change where racist language became unacceptable, we need to achieve the same with homophobic language." This will be hard enough in the normal schools system. But can it be done at all if we make our schools more and more religious?

When Laura Rhodes swallowed her final fistful of pills, the homophobic sneers and jeers of her bullies won. We let them win too many times. Laura deserved better – and so do all the other gay children of Britain. If we begin now the work of driving this bigotry out of our schools, Laura’s can be the last corpse the anti-gay bullies ever get to chuckle over.

That's the sort of harm that I mean about trying to minimise, you telling me that's not worth at least trying to do something about ? Or should we just let 14 year old girls kill themselves because it's easier for us to have derogatory names for gays/ethnic minorities/whatever.

**halonachos**

Bullying in general applies to everyone despite being a minority or what not. Being PC only affects minorities.

Stopping bullies affects everyone. Being PC helps minorities.

I see that maybe we should try to help everyone and maybe not just minoritites.

**reds8n**

halonachos wrote:. Being PC only affects minorities.

I think that's rubbish, I really don't see how you can say that.

I see that maybe we should try to help everyone and maybe not just minoritites.

Agreed, I don't think being "pc" does just help "minorities", I think it helps everyone in a society.

**halonachos**

Because in today's PC world, whitey is the target and as long as it affects whitey's or affects anything remotely christian. So by being PC you are being rascist and that helps no one. Either no one can be made fun of or everyone is fair game.

**reds8n**

I don't think "whitey" is a/the target, or any more or less than anyone else. I do think you can make fun of people of every "flavour", it's just there are limits. Only problem as such appears to be where this line is drawn. You've already said you don't use/approve of the use of the N word.... do you think it is alright to.... refer to anyone of colour as "boy" and make watermelon jokes constantly too ? The role of people in society constantly changes-- look at the way women's roles and status has changed. Or are you against women's rights too as that is more "PC bollocks". Times change and attitudes change too.

What I do note is it's generally white christians complaining, which strikes me as if it's more about them suddenly discovering that the world doesn't revolve totally around them and they're not "king of the hill" and any such position they did have was largely due to ...let's be generous here... unfair, perhaps even subconsciously,... interactions or relations with others.

Sure at the moment there's a great deal of tiptoeing around a lot of issues to do with Islam or Muslims on the global scale, but I think that might well be due to the somewhat disastrous actions of certain people making this a sore point. Dressing the whole charade up as some crusade type affair of "good" versus "evil" didn't really help matters now did it ?

I can understand the "fear" that these people feel at their changing role or place, it's quite understandable and a natural reaction to panic or bluster. But what's done more harm to the average white american : Political correctness or gakky economic and foreign policy decisions ?

**Greebynog**

halonachos wrote:

LuciusAR wrote:

halonachos wrote:A college tried to create a white only scholarship. It was called rascist and denied.

I would have thought this was obvious. Caucasians already have a virtually ' white only' scholarship. It's called The scholarship system.

I wish that this was true. If I was black I would have at least 1000+ more scholarships available to me. Whites have no exclusive scholarships and obviously cannot apply for "african american" scholarships. This is rascist as it is denying resources towards specific groups. Just because blacks are a minortiy doesn't mean that they should get special scholarships.

Right, I'm finding it extremely difficult to abide by rule number one here, owing to a spectacular level of bullish ignorance displayed in your posts. Just why are you so angry about people from minorities getting a helping hand? I feel for you, I really do. It must be terrible being a middle-class, heterosexual, white male. All those prejudices, the whole world set up just to grind you down. Boo bloody hoo.

Lucius already spelled it out for you here:

"The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club."

White people statistically have a disproportionately high access to college, good education throughout their lives, good living standards, highly paid jobs and longer life expectancies. Fact is, if you're born black, you're starting the race of life 10 metres behind the start line. Sure positive discrimination is an extremely clumsy way of dealing with the issue, but spitting your dummy out and calling it 'racist' suggests you have very little understanding of the complex and prevailing issues at work here. Do you honestly believe that giving out scholarships to African-Americans (there, I said it) is in any way as harmful as apartide, racial abuse and institutional racism? If you do, you seriously need to re-evaluate a few things.

**Gen. Lee Losing**

Greebynog wrote:

Lucius already spelled it out for you here:

"The argument frequently comes up usually when discussing the Asian Police Federation or the Music of Black Origin Awards. When the mainstream already is catered specifically towards you, you don't need a special exception. You are already the default. It’s the same reason you won't find a niche radio station catering for the top 40 or a Ford Mondo owners club."

White people statistically have a disproportionately high access to college, good education throughout their lives, good living standards, highly paid jobs and longer life expectancies. Fact is, if you're born black, you're starting the race of life 10 metres behind the start line. Sure positive discrimination is an extremely clumsy way of dealing with the issue, but spitting your dummy out and calling it 'racist' suggests you have very little understanding of the complex and prevailing issues at work here. Do you honestly believe that giving out scholarships to African-Americans (there, I said it) is in any way as harmful as apartide, racial abuse and institutional racism? If you do, you seriously need to re-evaluate a few things.

This is a big assumption. I am a white male and I grew up in a quiet suburban area. By your argument, there should have been college scholarships knocking down my door. Nope. I had friends get Latin Study scholarships (worse GPA than me) and one with an African American Studies (Half white and half black... guess which half he claimed).
I had a better GPA, I was an assist coach for the Jr. High Wrestling team. I was an eagle scout. I did not get the scholarships. So this "default" is a load of bull, based on racist ideas that "If I am white, I must have it easy" Pure Racism.

**halonachos**

Good living standards? I don't consider living in a ghetto as "good living standards". My family is a navy family, before I lived in the ghetto I live in now, we lived in a trailer so as far as that goes, feth off Mr."Hes against PC so hes obviously a rascist, white, middle-class, heterosexual, male".

I'm catholic and we have to put up with a lot of crap in the good ol USA. All I'm trying to say is equal rights. My family worked its way up on the social ladder all on its own so why shouldn't everyone else?

You think my parents owned a hotel chain or something, please. Enlisted pay blows.

Equal Rights means that everyone(despite race) is treated equally. I'm tired of people whining about christams trees and wanting them to be called "holiday trees" if they're in a school somewhere. If this is to be, then menorahs should be called "holiday candle holders".

By creating PC we only extend racism, because all of a sudden we have to be careful about what we say about anyone and it creates racial tensions. People are AFRAID of saying anything might be remotely offensive. That is wrong. "Understand the prevailing issues" pffft, please. There are no "prevailing issues" its called white guilt. Is giving out scholarships to blacks wrong, no. But black only scholarships are a form of segregation which is also racist.

Is thisLook at Dave Chapelle and Carlos Mencia, listen to their comments on race and racism. Comedians have better inputs on society than most scholars.

By saying that I believe everyone should be equal and that PC is total BS I am called a racist. If I think it is wrong to classify people by color or race and that makes me "uninformed" then I guess I'm an idiot.