Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@kent f OBE wrote:
@terry wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
Happy Diwali to everyone and anyone who celebrates this festival
I might google it one day to find out what it is. Or I may not.
Boy am I glad I didn’t dedicate a whole new thread to Diwali……just made a little discreet post on the most celebrated fesival by my family rather than ignoring it
My youngest son (16yrs old) told me somthing that really made me feel so proud and warm inside yesterday…not just proud of him but also his friends
He told me when I picked him up at 5.30 that he and 6 of his friends at lunch time went to the Temple to look around at the Diwali decorations and have some food (food is available all day at the temple for anyone who visits) He named all his mates…there were 2 asian boys, 1 Afro Carribean boy and 3 English boys..they had been discussing Diwali amongst themselves….not in class and one of the Asian boys offered to take them to the temple….an experience enjoyed by all so I was told
I would never shove my religion or culture in someones face..but I will talk about it as I am not ashamed of it
Merry Christmas Terry…let me be the first to wish it to you
da taali, kenty
happy diwali
@tinks wrote:
rusty, as you said it’s a mine field
to quote you……….
I’m perhaps more inclined to associate Easter with chocolate, bunnies and baby chickens than anything that is religiously significant, perhaps the child’s parents made similar assumptions.
……..no they are muslim, was nothing to do with chocolate and bunniesI’m not sure it’s just religious people from the faiths you mentioned that are prone to withdraw their children from RE classes
……….that is exactly the case in the school where i work
Hi Tinks,
Although I’m often way too keen to put my oar in, I can’t claim to have the hands on experience that you have, so I’m just glad that I identified it is a complex issue. I hope the school where you work has found a way of addressing this tricky problem, it would be interesting to know the solution they employed.
Thanks for your comment.
On another thread Rusty has said “they had fears and concerns which may have arisen out of racism but doesn’t necessarily make them racist.” Sorry to pick this out Rusty and I acknowledge that it is being used out of context but it is an example of something I’ve heard several times recently, i.e. “he has concerns because of their race but he’s not racist.”
Crikey! This is a topic beset with many a potential opportunity to risk looking like a limp-wristed liberal (which, come to think of it, might be quite an apt description for me) or a strident Nazi, but I’ll give it a go. I did make the above statement and hopefully the following words will begin to give my intended meaning some context.
There’s quite a lot I want to address here but I’ll keep it short-ish, hopefully giving some insight into my way of thinking.
1. Political Correctness
Political correctness is a term that always evokes strong, contentious emotions and incites the ‘comedy’ press to make ridiculous claims that are very rarely supported by factual evidence. I’ve heard the statement ‘political correctness gone mad’ far more times than I care to remember. Usually , in my experience, it has been a caveat indicating someone is seeking licence to be downright rude about those who are not like them.
I suspect that in reality very few people want to be identified as vertically challenged or a person of colour, but I’d wager they want to be treated as equals. How we choose to identify people has impact. Language is never devoid of added meaning, explicit and in the subtext. Language always gives insight about relationship between the speaker and the listener.
In synthesis I think political correctness is about showing mutual respect and transcending the language and thought processes that can impinge opportunities to live life to its fullest potential. If at the very least political correctness makes us think twice before using homophobic, racist, sexist or other vile words, then I’m all for it.
That’s not say political correctness is always right, context and common sense are always applicable. I can think of two illustrations that might provide insight into what I’m trying to explain:
Let’s say a little old lady is mugged on her way home and she reports the crime to a policeman. She’s quite astute and she’s quite detailed when providing a description. 6’ 2”, short black hair, scar on his left cheek just below his eye. Dark blue jeans, black sports jacket, black gloves and expensive Nike trainers. It’s a vivid description and it will probably be helpful to the police. But because this dear little old lady fears being perceived as a racist, she neglects to mention that the culprit is Chinese. A very useful detail that just might be of great of assistance to the police. I know, I know, this is an unrealistic example, the police would obviously ask questions about race, but I’m sure it serves as a decent illustration.
Or consider an inept doctor who is speaking to a patient on the telephone who presents all the classic symptoms of sickle cell anemia (a disease that people of African Caribbean descent have a higher predisposition of acquiring). But he neglects to ask the patient’s ethnicity and therefore misses one the important signifiers that will assist his/her preliminary diagnosis.
Sometimes people want to hurt at all costs. A couple divorcing with palpable rancour and animosity may understandably say to hell with political correctness. They know where the bodies are buried and they know what’s going to elicit a response. Sure, they didn’t mind that their partner was only 4 foot tall when they were in love – but now he’s a midget. A fat midget! A midget with ginger hair! A drunk midget! A midget with a peg leg and a speech impediment! Sorry, I’m going on a bit, but it hurt back then and it still hurts now. Seriously speaking, this person isn’t anti small people or people with ginger hair. It’s just this particular small person that she no longer likes. Political correctness can get in the way of invectives. Context is everything.
There are some who are unwilling to accept that context and meaning is everything though. There are those who proffer black rappers as their evidence: they use the N-word so why shouldn’t I? I would suggest that they are unwilling to acknowledge the historic weight of the word and how it has been employed as a tool in the subjugation of black people. And anyway the real question should be why would you want to?
Interestingly Eminem, the singularly most successful white rapper, may have used the word in his youth, but he now wisely states that it has no place in the lexicon of a white rapper, and I’m hard pressed to find another white hip hop artist that could assert a stronger legitimate claim for wanting to say it.
2. John Terry
Which clumsily brings me to John Terry. Is he a racist? I don’t know. I know he has appeared to have made racist statements in the past. I think he should have learned his lesson. I think that even in the febrile heat of a Premiership football game he should now Know better And since he does not appear to have learned the lesson, I don’t feel too guilty when I am inclined to allege that the man’s a fool.
Incidentally, I think there is a bigger story here about how the FA, hitherto, have paid lip service to the issue of race in football and although Kick Racism Out has had great success on British terraces, financial or legislative support from the FA has been minimal. But I’m prone to digression so I’ll stop here on this.
Similarly I don’t feel comfortable claiming that Ron Atkinson, a respected former football manager and pundit, is necessarily a racist because he erroneously called Marcel Desailly, a racist name when he thought he was off-mike. This is in no small part because he gave three black players opportunities to become household names when no other managers were willing or able to give capable black players similar opportunities. And, yes, I’m aware that he often referred to them as the Three Degrees.
3. I find myself at a loss to understand how someone can use words, have fears, hold preconceptions, based on ethnicity yet not be considered a racist yet it is something I keep hearing/reading. So in all good faith I am asking:
I hope I’ve addressed my way of thinking about this in my ramble above, but I wanted to touch on preconceptions based on ethnicity. We all have preconceptions and prejudices (not necessarily negative) until we have the knowledge to know better, it’s how the human brain works, filling in gaps with supposition when necessary that enable us to choose fight or flight. A racist will attempt to discredit learned truths and deny what all reasonable, fair minded people know to be the truth: ‘we are all more alike than we are different.
There’s a lot more I’d love to say, but if i haven’t already put you to sleep I most definitely would if I continued.
@tinks wrote:
RE that is taught in primary schools does teach the children about hinduism, islam, judaism and christianity………..it’s whether or not the parents want their child to sit in, that is the issue……..christian or atheist families have no problem about their children learning about all the religions ……….it’s the muslims, hindus, jews and sikhs who withdraw their children from the lessons and pick and choose what their children will or will not join in with.
it’s actually a night mare tbh………………one year we had a girl who was withdrawn from all RE lessons yet her parents allowed her to enter the easter egg competition……….there needs to be quite clear guide lines………….when there are incidences like that it becomes apparant that there are not.
This is a healthy debate for sure. Wish i had participated in the boards earlier.
RE is a minefield because it’s not like other lessons. Religion is often inalienably linked to identity and culture and quite often the creed of one faith is an anathema to another. There are always going to be glaring contradictions like the Easter egg example, simply because we make value judgements about what we consider to be religiously offensive. I’m agnostic and I’m perhaps more inclined to associate Easter with chocolate, bunnies and baby chickens than anything that is religiously significant, perhaps the child’s parents made similar assumptions.
I don’t know how to address this except to separate religion and state. Allowing parents to opt out from RE seems appropriate even though there are many benefits to be gained from learning about other religions.
I’m not sure it’s just religious people from the faiths you mentioned that are prone to withdraw their children from RE classes. Not sure i agree that Christians are any less like to have an issue with multi-faith RE. I think when when we look at fundamentalists of all religious hues we might see a pattern emerging. Anyway, i don’t have the stats and you could be right. What do i know? However, take sex education and you can see a similar pattern where some Christians think certain elements of what is taught is a direct contradiction of what they believe and want the right to withdraw their children on grounds of faith.
Jen Jen: apologies if my statement was confusing and it shouldn’t influence the main thrust of the thread, but race/racism isn’t a black or white issue (pun intended) and sometimes things that are attributed to racism are not necessarily so. I’m in danger of sounding like an apologist for racism which couldn’t be further than the truth and you’re right, it is perhaps another topic entirely.
@mrs_teapot wrote:
The point I was making in the classroom example I gave is that when you have mixed ability children to the degree that seems common in inner city schools these days its almost impossible to meet the needs of all those children unless a teacher has back up…to consider taking that away is just desperate and Im not sure many teachers would cope for long.
Its Ok to say well kids with additional language needs should have after school classes…. the fact is they don’t. Even if classes were available you cant suddenly make them compulsory…. these are young children who have had quite enough after a full day at school. There are all sorts of logistical problems too… these things don’t happen overnight and the funds are not available either.
Its all well and good to say well it should happen like this or that…. the thing is right now we have to work with the system we have and give the best education possible to mixed ability kids in the system now.. for me the way forward is more classroom assistants and better training for them.
Religion…. inform kids on all religions… but don’t practise any.
hmmmm! i seem to find myself saying ‘you’re right’ to everyone. but you’re right, practicalities get in the way of ideals. And you’re right teaching assistants are important.
@jen_jen wrote:
I’ve only just read the article – I didn’t want to comment before I had the chance to – and from what I can see, Baroness Warsi hasn’t said it’s time for the minorities to join in Maypoles, harvest festivals, Christmas carols. What she has said is that she doesn’t see a contradiction between being a muslim and celebrating Christmas and she doesn’t see why ethnic minorities shouldn’t also, since white people celebrate Diwali and Eid. I think she makes a good point, in a multi-cultural environment, why shouldn’t we be inclusive? It’s not about forcing people to celebrate, it’s about saying it’s ok to celebrate.
As for RE at schools, personally I don’t think it goes far enough. Too much emphasis is placed on Christianity which is fine in a faith school where you know what to expect, but in a mixed school I personally believe that children should be taught about all faiths with no preferential treatment shown to any. If people knew more about the different faiths – from Wicca to Christianity and Judaeism to Islam and Sikh to Hinduism and all the others too numerous to mention – not only would they have a greater understanding of the cultural differences resulting from faith, they’d be able to see the strong parallels that run through all faiths and that there really isn’t very much difference when you get down to the bare bones. They’d also be more able to sort out what is genuinely associated with a faith and what is hysterical scare-mongering or extremist fundamentalism.
As for scrapping classroom assistants for those that help children that cannot speak English, as long as there is sufficient support to help the children learn English in extra-curricular tuition, then why not? I wouldn’t exclude them from the classroom though, the best way to learn a language is by immersion and if the parents don’t speak English at home then the classroom is the only place that the child can be immersed in the language. Yes it’s a burden on the taxpayer but it’s no different to providing extra-curricular tuition to children falling behind in reading, maths, sciences and so on.
@rusty trawler wrote:
It wasn’t so long ago when parents near where I live were being called racist because they had problems with their children having to be educated in predominantly Asian schools. I don’t think that race was the issue but more one of culture. The parents wanted their children to learn the things they need to succeed in British culture, which is primarily driven by western influences. Every parent wants the best for their kids.
I would call that racist. The assumption is that because it is a predominantly Asian school, the children wouldn’t learn the things they need to succeed in British culture…if that isn’t a racist assumption, what is? :?
I fear you have misunderstood what intended to say. you’re right it is an assumption and not particularly informed. But they wanted the best for their children and given their assumptions it’s understandable they had fears and concerns which may have arisen out of racism but doesn’t necessarily make them racist. As I said ‘the parents wanted their children to learn the things they need to succeed in British culture… ‘ rightly or wrongly their perception of a predominantly Asian school didn’t conflate too well with this.
I’m not saying a school where the majority of kids are Asian would actually create problems but we all know how much misinformation there is out there about other cultures and we all know people can be gullible.
I’m not keen on labeling people as racist when they don’t necessarily understand all the intracacies and when they are misinformed by people who should and do know better. And I’m aware that this may know sound a tad patronizing, which again isn’t my intent. But I’m an optimist about these things in someways I don’t believe that people are inherently racist and I’m sure that if many of the supporters of racist parties are aware of the all the facts they would be less inclined to vote the way they do.
I made my point very badly and in retrospect I would have had an issue with it. But if you read my other statements you will note that i’m for children from minorities having access to English lessons and i think – dare i use the word multiculturalism? – the mixed communities / schools are a good thing. Apologies for not being clear.
@momentaryloss wrote:
Simplest and best.
- 1. Teach classes in English.
2. Teach English to kids who can’t speak it well enough, then return to the above.
Kids learn languages incredibly quickly if they are taught intensively enough (e.g. for at least half the school day). That way they don’t get held back too much.
Best outcome for everybody.
By Jove! I think this could work. simple and effective.
ML for chief bottle washer, prime minister and king. Can i get a second for this motion? Yes? Motion carried. Right, time for a revolution. Down with the King! Chop his royal head off.
@panda12 wrote:
I’m with kenty on this. I wouldn’t be happy if a child of mine was held back because political correctness dictates that non English speaking pupils must be educated in the same class.
They should be taught to read, write and speak English before they join their peers in the classroom.
How else is any child going to learn?
I gave up teacher training for secondary school kids because I didn’t believe in the system of teaching all abilities in one class. Kids need to be streamed depending on their ability as I personally think it is more beneficial to all.
You make a very good point here Panda.
It wasn’t so long ago when parents near where I live were being called racist because they had problems with their children having to be educated in predominantly Asian schools. I don’t think that race was the issue but more one of culture. The parents wanted their children to learn the things they need to succeed in British culture, which is primarily driven by western influences. Every parent wants the best for their kids.
It’s a complex problem. Kids acquire language skills most efficiently from their peers and a classroom environment is ideally suited to this. But if other kids are held back…. I’m sceptical though, not sure very young kids are held back in their development, so I would want this to be proven to me. I think we put too much emphasis on academic attainment on the very young anyway. If you look at other countries like Finland – where kids don’t start school until they are 6/7 and learning is more informal than our system and yet they continually outscore us in educational attainment – then we might be doing something wrong.
Great topic!
I think Baroness Warsi is wide off the mark with this one. Religion should always be an extremely personal thing and it always seem dodgy when it is exploited to make a political point. Implying Muslims should sing Christmas carols, for example, is just as bad as suggesting we should all visit Mecca at least once in our lives. Besides, we live in an increasingly secular society and old traditions are often neglected, and it seems a bit rich to demand that minorities participate in things the indigenous society often ignore.
I’m not much of a union jack waver, but one of the things that makes me proud of being ‘one of us’ is how we have co-opted things that are important to other cultures and made them idiosyncratically British. And I think this largely because we allow people to contribute to what it is to be British today. This would more difficult if we didn’t assist those who need help with the English language at the point of need.
@kent f OBE wrote:
@momentaryloss wrote:
@kent f OBE wrote:
Well it’s officially looming when the Coke Advert is on the tele…I saw it yesterday :lol:
Hooray.
Coka Cola Christmas.
And here’s me thinking it was about peace and goodwill.
Hope Coka Cola make plenty of money.
:?
Rant directed at the commercialisation of Christmas greed, not at fellow posters
*slaps Momes with a wet kipper*
Ha Ha Kenty,
So true. It ain’t Christmas until coca cola say so.
Looks like you’re going to have an extra special Xmas, Madame Teapot with the arrival of your first grand kid. Enjoy!
