| |
|
Whisky - I take your point. The error is in the first post in referring to the English as a 'race' - still don't buy that in the slightest, which brings me to Weevil Scientist and his wiki definition, which I think answers his own point for me - ... Conceptions of race, as well as specific racial groupings, vary by culture and over time, and are often controversial, for scientific reasons as well as because of their impact on social identity and identity politics. Some scientists regard race as a social construct while others maintain it has genetic basis - since the definition is not fixed and still arguable, permit me to do so. And I'm not applying characteristics to everyone - clearly it's a generalisation and therefore cannot apply to everyone. It is, however, a generalisation based on observed and observable cultural - not racial - phenomena, and one that, as I pointed out, is being made on a large scale in the media at present.
Ok, Ling said I don't know, I read it as something you were alluding to. I don't think it is Nina's problem Hellbunny, I think it's yours since you brought the phrase into discussion. Rather, first of all it's your problem to explain why you used it, then it is up to Nina to respond to that.
No, I posted a phrase - a well used, well worn, well known phrase. If Nina has a problem with my wording, which she clearly does, the onus is on her to explain what that problem is, rather than glibly pointing the finger. Had Nina asked me why I used it - on board or via PM - then the onus would fall on me to explain it, and failing that, she could make an assumption based on what she interprets the phrase to represent. This is the way debate works - well, civil debate, anyway. One could argue that, since Nina's effectively publically accused me of making racist remarks without requesting a clarifying post or PM, we've gone beyond that already, but hey.
And as far as ... but I don't think just because 'everyone [you] know', including [you]' uses it makes it any less of a potential signifier of class and I think you probably deliberately put it there to be exactly that then I'm sorry, but first of all I had no idea you were psychic, and secondly, you, like Nina appear to be saying that this kind of syntactical arrangement is an obvious signifier of class - effectively, that anyone using the phrase "they was asking for it" is obviously attempting to represent or parody someone working class. Am I right here? Because it's bollocks, and doesn't reflect very well on you. You're marrying an idiosyncratic variation of correct English sentence construction to a societal grouping prejudicially viewed as ignorant and poorly-educated, and I'm the one with the problem?
It's clear that you feel very comfortable saying that when I state that there's nothing in that phrase that I consider to be class-based, that I am lying and that I deliberately used the phrase in precisely that sense. That's quite sad, and I don't really have anything more to say to you.
Nina - I put the phrase in quotes when it possibly should have been in inverted commas to set it apart from the rest of the sentence. Whatever (please god don't tell me I'm being picked up on punctuation here). The fact that I continually used the first person plural when describing those characteristics I was discussing might have given you a clue, but just in case, here it is again - We're not a pleasant race, as a rule. We like slagging things off, dragging things down, deciding who is in need of a kicking and why, and rationalising whatever we do by virtue of the old stand-by, "they was asking for it." I am from a working class background, and I often slip into technically incorrect grammatical and syntactical constructions. I do it in spoken conversation all the time, so it's not surprising that when quoting myself I would too. Throughout the post I made it clear that I was referring to behaviour I recognised in myself, even saying - ...incidentally, I'm not using the first person plural to avoid sounding sanctimonious, I'm using it because I recognise that to a certain extent, sometimes quite a large extent, I myself do it too at the end. Right before the quote you've kicked up such a fuss over, I used the word 'we'. Do you see?
As for the rest of your response, it's not really worth it, is it? You insist on thinking that the English are a race (I like idperfections' quick comment on prejudice and privilege versus racism, by the way, and if I wasn't sick of the subject I'd suggest it for another thread) whereas I insist of thinking of them as a cultural community based around notions of nationality, within which there are variations of race. So in your view, you can't make any kind of comment about a 'national character', or even suggest that there is such a thing as a national character (in passing, I note of course that you yourself have never had any problem ascribing plenty of negative national characteristics to Americans, but of course you're not a racist).
We're not going to agree, and I'm incredibly fucked off with you for jumping on a comment and making accusations without checking or clarifying with me first. Your opinion is not the only valid one, and I would have thought that I was owed at least a heads-up before the inflammatory comments came rattling out. Apparently not, so I'll do you a deal. I won't contribute to this thread any more, if you'll do me the courtesy of leaving me the fuck out of any future thoughtless accusations you might care to make. |
|
|
