-
Posts
-
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@toybulldog wrote:
. . . . Could someone please explain to me why the Society of Black Lawyers AREN’T scoring a huge own goal, while creating enormous damage to the whole racism debate ? . . .
Busy weekend coming up and I don’t expect to be online, if nothing’s been said, I might have a go later. In the meantime,
Many of the societies of black lawyers etc developed prior to the 1990s. As has been acknowledged here times have changed. The fact you’re only just becoming aware of its existence shows that any ‘own goal’ is probably far less significant than the organisation’s raison d’etre.
I’m would hope there would be something on the history and purpose of the organisation on its website, which might explain more. I mean, if you really want to know what a person or organisation is about you’d have to go beyond the name, or you might think the Labour Party was all about digging holes in the ground while wearing a silly hat and UKIP was all about facilitating naps,
Words I appreciate you may not see this response for a few days but……
Peter Herbert representing black solicitors is a good thing but when he tries to move into a different area and try to make himself a representative of black footballers is a different thing. But when Clarke Carlisle who is a very erudite spokesman for footballers and someone who during his playing career was a very good player and who has also appeared on ‘Question Time’ has today questioned the position of Peter Herbert then it does become a bit difficult to understand why Peter Herbert feels he has to create a black footballers association, also as there are a great many nationalities from many different continents playing football in the UK
Does colour or where you come from really make a difference? Nahhh
@panda12 wrote:
@j_in_france wrote:
@panda12 wrote:
I think any organisation which only allows membership on the basis of race is racist.
There is a caveat though;
from the link – Membership is open to all solicitors, trainee solicitors, paralegals and students of African or Caribbean descent in England and Wales and any solicitor, trainee solicitor, paralegal or student who supports the aims and objectives of the BSN irrespective of their race, colour or creed.
so that is fine for black solicitors with African or Caribbean descent but what about the Indian and Asian descendants?
For once, I actually agree with you.
Appreciated – I really have a major problem with anything to do with prejudices in many different forms though at times it may not be expressed in a good way – for which I can only apologise but can never change how I feel
@j_in_france wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@toybulldog wrote:
. . . . Could someone please explain to me why the Society of Black Lawyers AREN’T scoring a huge own goal, while creating enormous damage to the whole racism debate ? . . .
Busy weekend coming up and I don’t expect to be online, if nothing’s been said, I might have a go later. In the meantime,
Many of the societies of black lawyers etc developed prior to the 1990s. As has been acknowledged here times have changed. The fact you’re only just becoming aware of its existence shows that any ‘own goal’ is probably far less significant than the organisation’s raison d’etre.
I’m would hope there would be something on the history and purpose of the organisation on its website, which might explain more. I mean, if you really want to know what a person or organisation is about you’d have to go beyond the name, or you might think the Labour Party was all about digging holes in the ground while wearing a silly hat and UKIP was all about facilitating naps,
Words I appreciate you may not see this response for a few days but……
Peter Herbert representing black solicitors is a good thing but when he tries to move into a different area and try to make himself a representative of black footballers is a different thing. But when Clarke Carlisle who is a very erudite spokesman for footballers and someone who during his playing career was a very good player and who has also appeared on ‘Question Time’ has today questioned the position of Peter Herbert then it does become a bit difficult to understand why Peter Herbert feels he has to create a black footballers association, also as there are a great many nationalities from many different continents playing football in the UK
Does colour or where you come from really make a difference? Nahhh
I’m being kept up by certain aches and pains tonight – botheration!
I’m not here to bury or to praise the Society of Black anybodies. No society is perfect and if a bunch of lawyers – black or otherwise – can’t present a specific case for their existence on their website then they really should stop being lawyers.
I have too little interest in professional football, I’m not in a position to speak for Peter Herbert and don’t know who Clarke Carlisle is. Great name though.
It seems the SBL does not restrict its membership on the basis of colour, but allows anyone that supports its aims and ethos, seems fair to me. It would seem churlish to draw a line on a map or colour chart beyond which membership is not allowed, so I imagine that the term ‘black’ is being used in a wide political sense as racism often lumps Asian, black and anyone else considered not ‘white enough’ together.
Does colour or where you come from really make a difference? I think some of the comments in JC aimed at J and Helen because of the ‘in France’ tag show that where you come from can make a huge difference to how others see you and treat you. As can colour.
It has been said in this thread and others that context matters. Toybulldog is very right in saying that something is very wrong here: what is wrong is that even in the legal profession a context existed and seems to exist in which a society for black lawyers is felt to be justified. Perhaps you have to be there to understand what it’s like. However context alone can make it too easy to dream up excuses for poor behaviour.
It has also been said that intention matters. The SBL clearly has no intention to stir up racism or score any ‘own goals’. However intention alone is nigh on impossible to verify. “I didn’t mean it” is an easy excuse to fabricate, as any infant knows.
However Toybulldog’s reaction (and trust me this is not a criticism of TB as it’s perfectly understandable) to the existence of the SBL was not “I wonder what the context for Black Lawyers is” or “Let me see what their website says about their intention” but “something here is very wrong”. This would suggest that regardless of, or at least in addition to, context or intention, the impact of what has been done should be taken into account. However the impact alone doesn’t allow for mitigation, as results can be far beyond what was intended, the context for the affected person can be very different and impact – especially emotional – can be nigh on impossible to assess with any accuracy.
In my opinion something is very wrong here: racism itself is a proven nonsense, but even highly educated, very ethical people can perpetuate it.
Because it is nonsense, responding to racism in a consistently effective and obviously reasonable way is harder than trying to reason with a 5 year old. Some responses – whether arguments or tactics – can work well, but make no sense to outsiders. For me the SBL fits that category.
Good post Wordie.
Just a thought. Let’s judge the SBL by what it does and not its name.
There is nothing wrong with having an organisation to defend the interests of a group of people, in fact our democracy is based precisely on the existence of such groups. Their very existence does not suggest any anti-white racism. Their actions however may well.
With regard to football, there is no point in suggesting that racism doesn’t exist. I may disagree with people’s tactics in fighting that, but groups to represent black players (or any other group) are not wrong in principle.
The issue is often to do with inclusivity. The English Defence League and the Scottish National Party both seek to represent specific communities in the UK. I disagree strongly with the aims of both groups, and believe in a vibrant, diverse, united Great Britain with stronger local/regional government.
The SNP is however an inclusive party seeking to represent all people in Scotland, whether they are Scottish by birth or ethnicity, black, asian, or even, heavens forbid, English. However flawed their political agenda, they seek to represent a diverse Scotland. The EDL on the other hand are an organistion trying to defend their idea of Englishness by attacking other people for not being English enough. The SNP is inclusive, the EDL seeks to be exclusive.
From what has been posted here the SBL accepts people of all races who are behind their agenda. Sounds like any other campaigning group to me. Whether we agree with their agenda is another matter.
Seeking to represent a racial or ethnic group doesn’t make you a racist. Peddling hate and messages about whether people who are living and working in this country perfectly legally, should be allowed to remain here or influence British life, just because they are a little too black/muslim/celtic for you is racist.
We’re all sophisticated enough to work that out. I don’t think the SBL will be adversely affecting any white person’s human rights in the near future.
And if they do, we have plenty of legislation to deal with it.
I think reasonable people can deduce the aims and goals of the SBL and other similar organisations quite easily. The SBL purports to exist to address historical imbalances in the representation of black people in the British legal system. And this may in turn address the disproportional representation of black people in the penal system (this bit is a rather complex argument and if I get started I’ll go on for yonks, so I’ll wait for someone says ‘rubbish, rusty, you don’t know what you’re talking about…‘ before I get going on that).
We are all (minorities too) complicit in racism, sexism, homophobia etc whilst we struggle to live our own busy lives; despite our best intentions we don’t always have the necessary skill/ knowledge/time/courage to tackle the status quo, and we let things slide. Hence, for example, we all watch telly despite its consistent inability to reflect the society we live in. A personal peev of mine is crime fiction: watch almost any programme and, rest assured, there will be a black person who is a member of the police team but invariably is nothing more than a bit-part in the series. I have personally dubbed this type of tokenism ambient casting, because they are part of the programmes’ wallpaper, simply there to add to the ‘gritty realism’ and it also helps to tick the ‘we’re doing our bit for multi-cultural Britain box.’ But we watch, because generally speaking we are not mindful of the problem. When racism doesn’t personally impact on us, it’s harder to see. When we are the beneficiaries of societal inconsistencies, it’s easy for us to say all our gains are purely the results of our jolly good hard work.
Organisations like the SBL consist of members with a keener eye on such issues. As others have very eloquently stated on this thread, the raison d’etre of organisations like the SBL is to make society fairer. And their members are well-placed to understand and construct strategies to combat the problems of racism in a conducive environment.
Ethnic minorities are underrepresented in many positive strata of our society and overrepresented in areas that can keep them downtrodden. Any group with a mandate that allows minorities to collectively confront these things is surely a good thing.
The whole football thing has been an own goal for the SBL. The FA is no more institutionally racist than the BBC or any other organisation. I think they have been very inept in tackling racism, but I readily acknowledge that they have achieved more than similar ruling bodies in other countries – although that change has mainly been driven mainly by the terraces.
Racism is a subject that puts wordsworth in his element.
He sits on his imaginary stool in front of an imaginary log fire and looks at the clay pipe he’s taken from the mantelpiece. Putting it in his mouth, he gazes at the disciples sitting at his feet.
“Lord wordsworth..please tell us how we can be like you and achieve your righteousness”
The followers gathered there gaze up in wondrous admiration at their learned leader….
@terry wrote:
Racism is a subject that puts wordsworth in his element.
He sits on his imaginary stool in front of an imaginary log fire and looks at the clay pipe he’s taken from the mantelpiece. Putting it in his mouth, he gazes at the disciples sitting at his feet.
“Lord wordsworth..please tell us how we can be like you and achieve your righteousness”
The followers gathered there gaze up in wondrous admiration at their learned leader….
One day you might acknowledge someone elses opinion for what it is, not necessarily agree with it, but not ridicule it…..Wordsy has every right to be passionate about anything he wants, and express it on the boards as he so pleases….Feelings, thoughts and wishes cannot and should not be questioned, they are personal…I thought we were adults here?
And no, before you say you are expressing your opinion also..you are not, you are being a sarcastic ars ehole as per :roll:@terry wrote:
Racism is a subject that puts wordsworth in his element.
He sits on his imaginary stool in front of an imaginary log fire and looks at the clay pipe he’s taken from the mantelpiece. Putting it in his mouth, he gazes at the disciples sitting at his feet.
“Lord wordsworth..please tell us how we can be like you and achieve your righteousness”
The followers gathered there gaze up in wondrous admiration at their learned leader….
Terry has images in his head of me being admired by disciples while bathed in a warm, fiery glow and looking at a clay pipe . . . . . .
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@terry wrote:
Racism is a subject that puts wordsworth in his element.
He sits on his imaginary stool in front of an imaginary log fire and looks at the clay pipe he’s taken from the mantelpiece. Putting it in his mouth, he gazes at the disciples sitting at his feet.
“Lord wordsworth..please tell us how we can be like you and achieve your righteousness”
The followers gathered there gaze up in wondrous admiration at their learned leader….
Terry has images in his head of me being admired by disciples while bathed in a warm, fiery glow and looking at a clay pipe . . . . . .
Yes, but I’m not allowed to be sarcastic anymore or it will upset PC Kenty. #-o
@terry wrote:
@wordsworth60 wrote:
@terry wrote:
Racism is a subject that puts wordsworth in his element.
He sits on his imaginary stool in front of an imaginary log fire and looks at the clay pipe he’s taken from the mantelpiece. Putting it in his mouth, he gazes at the disciples sitting at his feet.
“Lord wordsworth..please tell us how we can be like you and achieve your righteousness”
The followers gathered there gaze up in wondrous admiration at their learned leader….
Terry has images in his head of me being admired by disciples while bathed in a warm, fiery glow and looking at a clay pipe . . . . . .
Yes, but I’m not allowed to be sarcastic anymore or it will upset PC Kenty. #-o
That’s only because yer not very good at it
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!