Asking someone where they are from

[Jono8]

So you don't think that NF being dressed head to toe in African tribal clothing could have suggested to SH that perhaps NF wasn't from Britain and is the reason why the questioning started the way it did?

Yes that is an assumption on my part that SH isn't implicitly racist to start with and that there is therefore a reasonable alternative explanation for this event. But you are making an equally strong opposite assumption that she is implicitly racist to start with and that there isn't therefore a reasonable alternative explanation for the conversation. Which is more dangerous?

The facts here are that NF is British but has Caribbean and African heritage that she has chosen to embrace. That matters to the context of this. It can't be black and white (pun not intended) you should dig into things and not take at face value. You would do that in other areas before making a judgement if you're sensible so why not in this?

That is the objectivity part of this whole argument - digging in to the reasoning behind what's happened to make a better judgement, not simply taking the words and each reading into our own emphasis.

But that isn't anything to do with what SH said.

She didn't ask what her heritage was or enquire politely about it, she asked where she was "really from" after being told that she was from the UK and said "your people". The implication from these phrases as that she could not be considered British/from the UK.

Once she got the answer that she was from the UK, she should (if actually interested in her heritage) of asked what her heritage was/what culture her name originates from or something. You do not essentially say that she cannot be from the UK and that "her people" could not be British and must be from somewhere else.

 

[Craterloads]

LOL I explained quite well why I didn't completely agree with your statement and where your thinking was incorrect. I reply to every valid question or point.

You simply replied to my explanation, quite disingenuously, with something along the lines of "well that's not how my brain works" or something lame like that so apologies if I decided to not entertain you further

I can say the same to you. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make your view fact and that goes the other way too.

It's just disingenuous to claim no one can't point out this or that, when clearly it has.

 

[GGizmo]

But that isnt anything to do with what SH said.

She didnt ask what her heritage was, she asked where she was "really from" after being told that she was from the UK and said "your people". The implication from these phrases as that she could not be considered British/from the UK.

I think SH was meaning heritage. But asked in a clumsy way.

This all comes down to how NF chose to react.

She could have given SH the benefit of doubt. But chose not to.

 

[Jono8]

This all comes down to how NF chose to react.

No it doesn't. It absolutely does not. How someone reacts to racism, doesn't determine how racist it was.

It all comes down to the words and phrasing SH used.

 

[danlightbulb]

But that isnt anything to do with what SH said.

She didnt ask what her heritage was, she asked where she was "really from" after being told that she was from the UK and said "your people". The implication from these phrases as that she could not be considered British/from the UK.

I think refering to 'your people' is a reasonable use of language if someone is dressed in strong tribal clothing. It simply means your heritage or your ancestry or your group. Just because she chose words poorly does not make it an act of racism. You are reading into 'your people' in a negative way because of your own prejudices.

There was no discrimination here, there was no loss suffered by NF because she is black. NF was supposedly offended by the words, but so what, no-one has the right not to be offended. Defamatory speech is illegal, there was no defamatory speech here.

 

[Jono8]

I think refering to 'your people' is a reasonable use of language if someone is dressed in strong tribal clothing.

Not after already being told she is British and from the UK, and being asked where she was really from.

 

[Angilion]

But that isn't anything to do with what SH said.

She didn't ask what her heritage was or enquire politely about it, she asked where she was "really from" after being told that she was from the UK and said "your people". The implication from these phrases as that she could not be considered British/from the UK.

Once she got the answer that she was from the UK, she should (if actually interested in her heritage) of asked what her heritage was/what culture her name originates from or something. You do not essentially say that she cannot be from the UK and that "her people" could not be British and must be from somewhere else.

I think it's worth pointing out that "your people" and "your heritage" are synonymous.

 

[Craterloads]

No it doesn't. It absolutely does not. How someone reacts to racism, doesn't determine how racist it was.

It all comes down to the words and phrasing SH used.

Indeed and i think, from this thread of those of us who said it was racist, 99% of those agree Lady h probably isnt racist and what she did as a result of being out of touch and ancient was mildly racist.

 

[NVP]

I can say the same to you. Just because you disagree with something doesn't make your view fact and that goes the other way too.

It's just disingenuous to claim no one can't point out this or that, when clearly it has.

Haha mate, give over. Me providing a detailed breakdown of my reasoning is no where near the same as you saying "my brain can't compute".

If you disagree with me and expect me to put time into a reply then ensure you provide some substance for me to reply to, you know, like I do for you and others.

Unfortunately it appears when your weak points get exposed you turn into a child with their fingers in their ears.


Edit: and I've got no clue what you mean by your last sentence, could you provide an example of what you're trying to articulate.

 

[Jono8]

I think it's worth pointing out that "your people" and "your heritage" are synonymous.

No they are not. Other people don't get to decide who "your people" are, and when is the cut for becoming part of a "people"?

Your heritage is an all encompassing thing that you could go into as far back as you know/want to.

 

[Craterloads]

Haha mate, give over. Me providing a detailed breakdown of my reasoning is no where near the same as you saying "my brain can't compute".

If you disagree with me and expect me to put time into a reply then ensure you provide some substance for me to reply to, you know, like I do for you and others.

Unfortunately it appears when your weak points get exposed you turn into a child with their fingers in their ears.

actually i disagreed with the part where you spoke for "every man and their dog"

when looking at the interaction objectively any man and their dog knows what is being asked after at least the second rebutal

And i replied that isnt the case and i wouldn't see it like that. That was a genuine reply, nothing disingenuous at all.

You know it's going well when you start off sentences with "LOL" and "haha" ironic you claiming others turning into children

 

[danlightbulb]

Not after already being told she is British and from the UK, and being asked where she was really from.

So it's really all coming back to the word 'really' then, which in your mind you are reading with negativity and emphasis, hence the use of italics to highlight it. We don't know if it had verbal emphasis in the actual conversation.

I find it strange that so much weight is being placed on the conversation and not the surrounding context, which is what I and others are arguing for.

When people read conversations in text form it is easy to read them with prejudice or misread their intonations. It's the same with work emails hence the advice never to respond to an initially hostile email straight away but to wait a while.

 

[dowie]

No they are not. Other people don't get to decide who "your people" are, and when is the cut for becoming part of a "people"?

Your heritage is an all encompassing thing that you could go into as far back as you know/want to.

So this is basically all the argument amounts to, subjective interpretation of the precise meaning of the words used from a "transcript" that wasn't really a transcript but a recollection from memory of a multiline conversation by someone who we already know is a bit of a publicity-seeking grifter, dishonest and not a fan of the Royals.

Asking about someone's heritage is not racist, subjective claims around exactly how it was asked about; "your people" and "really from" is just clutching at straws (at best that's just rudeness) and we don't even know for sure the exact phrasing anyway... this was pointed out early on in the thread but it's funny to see some of the same people still trying to rely on it as an argument.

That's the extent of the claim of racism; this is why Gordy can't provide an argument and just vaguely refers back to claims that arguments have been made already; the argument basically is that asking isn't racist but she asked in a way/used phrasing that we don't like even though no one can know for sure the exact phrasing used.

 

[danlightbulb]

No they are not. Other people don't get to decide who "your people" are, and when is the cut for becoming part of a "people"?

Your heritage is an all encompassing thing that you could go into as far back as you know/want to.

Sorry Jono nothing personal but this reads to me like you have a personal issue with this use of wording.

Why are you so against it? I just don't think it's significant, it's just words.

 

[Jono8]

Asking about someone's heritage is not racist, subjective claims around exactly how it was asked about; "your people" and "really from" is just clutching at straws (at best that's just rudeness)

If it isn't racist, why is it rude?

 

[Jono8]

Sorry Jono nothing personal but this reads to me like you have a personal issue with this use of wording.

Why are you so against it? I just don't think it's significant, it's just words.

What? The entire subject of this thread is about the words used

 

[Jono8]

So it's really all coming back to the word 'really' then, which in your mind you are reading with negativity and emphasis, hence the use of italics to highlight it. We don't know if it had verbal emphasis in the actual conversation.

I find it strange that so much weight is being placed on the conversation and not the surrounding context, which is what I and others are arguing for.

When people read conversations in text form it is easy to read them with prejudice or misread their intonations. It's the same with work emails hence the advice never to respond to an initially hostile email straight away but to wait a while.

The entire argument is about the words used!

Why is everyone trying to re-frame it as something else?

 

[danlightbulb]

What? The entire subject of this thread is about the words used

I disagree, the words of the conversation are one of the pieces of evidence in the whole event amongst many other factors that we need to consider in the round to come to a fair view of racism.

If you were accused of something based only on a snippet of some words you used somewhere, but you yourself knew that wasn't what you intended, wouldn't you want wider context and evidence to be considered?

 

[Angilion]

No they are not.

Yes, they are.

Other people don't get to decide who "your people" are, and when is the cut for becoming part of a "people"?

The same goes for your heritage. Because it's the same thing.

Your heritage is an all encompassing thing that you could go into as far back as you know/want to.

As is your people, since they're the same thing. I think you're assuming some kind of quasi-biological or pseudo-biological meaning behind "people". Not everyone does.

 

[NVP]

actually i disagreed with the part where you spoke for "every man and their dog"

And i replied that isnt the case and i wouldn't see it like that. That was a genuine reply, nothing disingenuous at all.

Yes, you replied saying that even after all the repetitious questioning you wouldn't have a clue what was being asked, which is contrary to the majority consensus and either disingenuous or... no comment

You know it's going well when you start off sentences with "LOL" and "haha" ironic you claiming others turning into children

LOL because only children can find things amusing? Weak.