Is this racist?

Yeah yeah yeah.

British are brits and pakistanis are pakis and the turkish are turks.

Spot the odd one out thats classed as racist.

Just language thats all.

Like saying I love *******.....cannot be construed as racist by the word love.
 
p4radox said:
Surely racism is holding a prejudice against a certain race and acting upon it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but I'd extend the definition. From what I've read 'race' is largely a social construct, not something that exists in itself; that is, there IS a biological basis to race, but differences are so minute, especially compared with variation WITHIN a 'race' (height, weight, appearance, intelligence, etc.) that the importance which is accorded to it must come from society.
 
Nabz said:
if u ever said that around me you'd get your teeth knocked in, dont ever say that again.
Click to expand...

L....O....L

Deary me, somebody can't take a bit of light-hearted banter can they? I take it you'll be wielding your keyboard while trying to nuke him from orbit, putting mustard on him and punching his mum in the ovaries as well, huh?
 
CrazySpeaker said:
No it's not. It is an Indian name just as much as it is a Pakistani name, both countries have the same heritage. It's just because it was Ghandi's name that people seem to think it is exclusively Indian. It is just a Hindu name which can be pakistani or indian.
Click to expand...

semi-pro waster said:
I thought Mahatma was simply an epithet that was given as a term of respect and meant great leader/father (or great soul if Wikipedia is correct).

I don't think the joke is racist, it's just rubbish.
Click to expand...

I think it's fairly obvious who the joke refers to. I'd be surprised if even in D Jason's years of wisdom he'd be thinking of anybody else when he told it.

*Moangroan* said:
British are brits and pakistanis are pakis and the turkish are turks.

Spot the odd one out thats classed as racist.

Just language thats all.
Click to expand...

Don't be so stupid and naive.
 
Last edited:
strudey said:
Yeah, but I'd extend the definition. From what I've read 'race' is largely a social construct, not something that exists in itself; that is, there IS a biological basis to race, but differences are so minute, especially compared with variation WITHIN a 'race' (height, weight, appearance, intelligence, etc.) that the importance which is accorded to it must come from society.
Click to expand...

Clearly not, your talking about culture, which is a different thing. Race is purely biological.
 
White lefty loon makes a fuss about it and the pakistanis of this country feel the backlash. Methinks the white lefty loons are secretly racist lol.
 
No it isn't racist...I heard someone read this earlier today at work....It's just pathetic.

Roll on the next 'story' :p
 
ThatsRacist.gif


Seriously - no, it's not.
 
If someone as wonderfully British as David Jason isn't immune to the PC police then lord help us. Even if he was being genuinely racist someone as epic as him should be given leeway. Much like Jim Bowen.
 
strudey said:
No, this is simply not so. Race is part of culture.

http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Click to expand...

Race is part of our culture, but race is just to do with physical properties, nothing more, nothing less. Stop trying to make it so.

Definition:
1. group of humans: one of the groups into which the world's population can be divided on the basis of physical characteristics such as skin or hair color
2. fact of belonging to group: the fact of belonging to a group of humans who share the same physical features such as skin color

To try and make race anything more than that is describing culture.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom