| |
|
As near as I can understand the situation, and correct me if I've got this wrong... Legba, you live and study in Manchester, right? And these people are your pre-university friends, so they are around all the time whereas the other people you have met since are only around in term time?
Yeah. With the added detail of being from Manchester originally, then living in a provincial town during adolescence, which is where I picked up these people- the abusive group in question aren't really Mancunians, have never lived here before.
One of them was the son of a high up police official in Norwich, a complete bigot, who thought it was hilarious when gay people committed suicide in prisons.
Together with Haus, describes the situation almost perfectly, funnily enough. There's a fairly big police influence in this group, either through family or through close friends of their parents.
The main point everyone's picking up on is the Canal street thing. I've realised, reading people's responses, just how bloody bad that was. On my course there's a fair mix of different sexualities and races, and in conversation with gay guys I've realised just how insanely, childishly limited the abusive group's worldview is- to see Canal street as a freakshow put there for their own pleasure, like some sort of zoo.
I feel I should stress that the behaviour of the group has a background of sheer ignorance. I've heard the phrase "Not hateful, but provincial" used before, but in their case I think perhaps "hateful because provincial" would be more appropriate. I don't think this excuses it, but it is a factor in why it's so hard to change.
The town they're from, while it does have a large Asian population, could pretty much be called segregated- and because it's such a macho place, people tend to stay firmly in the closet. Resulting in the fact that the group does not know anyone unlike them socially, in any concrete way- to them, an "asian" or a "gay" is some sort of mythical creature, an other, impossible to empaphise with.
You've chosen to present a group of complex and individual human beings to us purely in terms of the qualities you don't like about them, qualities that are generalised across the group.
In that these are the problem qualities. It was meant to be taken as read that of course, in every other way they can be funny or cute or whatever- but doesn't everyone say that before complaining about someone? I mean, I could tell you about the positive qualities: there's some talented musicians in the group, for example, but it just seemed a bit redundant in this context. That, and what Petey said.
Also sounds like you do credit these dudes with enough intelligence, and foresight, to know that what they're doing and saying is wrong.
Not quite. I credit them with the knowledge that what they do is frowned upon in certain circles, that it is "not PC"- of course, like most people who hold such views, they wrongly assume that they are a minority. They know it upsets people, but they don't value the people it upsets- because, as I said earlier, they don't interact with any of their targets.
They're the sort of group where, for example, they'll put the TV on, and by chance the program will be local news and feature a Muslim community leader making some sort of statement. One of them will look bemused at the screen for a moment, and then say "Shut up, you stupid paki." The reaction of the rest of the group to this will be approving laughter and then a sarcastic "Oh, you can't say that, that's racist." In a similar veign recently: "Oh, don't say that in front of Legba, you'll offend his religion" etc. |
|
|
