charlie charged

[Zappa 0]

Let's be honest Zappa, if it wasn't for your overall opinion of him you wouldn't be so fussy about the timing of the apology.

 

The club's under more spotlight and microscope peering than ever before, so I beg to differ. Every single thing done (or not done when it should be) by our CEO is under scrutiny and yes, even more so because his word and integrity is questionable.

[simplythebest 0]

The club's under more spotlight and microscope peering than ever before, so I beg to differ. Every single thing done (or not done when it should be) by our CEO is under scrutiny and yes, even more so because his word and integrity is questionable.

This may be true, but on this particular issue an apology has been made and a fine will likely be given out. I see no real reason why we can't leave it behind, not like there isn't enough else to deal with.

[ian1964 10,724]

Rangers Chief Executive Charles Green tonight released the following statement:

 

He commented: “I apologise unreservedly if any offence has been taken by my remark. I was actually trying to make the point, albeit clumsily, that I am not a racist.

 

"Imran Ahmad is a close friend and business associate and I would certainly have no cause or wish to offend him.”

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/3723-notice-of-complaint-statement

[Darthter 542]

Rangers Chief Executive Charles Green tonight released the following statement:

 

He commented: “I apologise unreservedly if any offence has been taken by my remark. I was actually trying to make the point, albeit clumsily, that I am not a racist.

 

"Imran Ahmad is a close friend and business associate and I would certainly have no cause or wish to offend him.”

 

http://rangers.co.uk/news/headlines/item/3723-notice-of-complaint-statement

 

Gotta be the shortest statement ever from CG....

[calscot 0]

To be honest I still can't see the problem except for those perpetually offended at absolutely any innocuous remark that refers to race.

 

His first remark was recounting facts from the past and in a way to show that names do not always have racist intentions.

 

I could recount that Jews in the past were sometimes labelled as "Yids" but Tottenham supporters diffused the offence of that moniker by adopting it themselves and called themselves "Yid Armay".

 

So now by printing this the logic of the reaction to Green's faux pas is that I'm guilty of a racist and/or sectarian remark.

 

I could also recount that my brother went to work in the building industry in London and was named, "Smelly sock" by his workmates. That could be offensive but he didn't mind. Damn! I'm guilty of racism again and encouraging youngsters to call Scottish people, "Smelly sock".

 

Then we have the weird situation that you can be racist enough to completely avoid friendship and business with asians but as long as you speak in a PC way in public, you are considered not racist. However, if you have close friends and business associates who are asian and affectionately label them by a shortening of the name of their country then you are racist.

 

I don't see where the racism is in the word "Paki" (I must be even more racist here for saying that).

 

"Pak" means "pure" and "stan" means "land" - the "i" is just there to aid pronunciation. "Paki" to me does not seem much different to "Scot" for a Scotsman (and I've been called a lot worse by English people without damning them).

 

It could even be logically argued that the name of their country is racist to the rest of the world in saying they are the pure race akin to Nazi Germany. But I'm sure even saying that will have loads up in uproar.

 

But I don't see how calling someone "pure" is an insult. As I say I have no problem in being called a Scot and don't take offence at "Jock", "Hamish" or even "Scots Git". I don't like being called "Scotch" but won't report anyone to the police for it.

 

People may say that there is a history of the word "Paki" being used derogatorily but then so has the word "Scot" in England and people here say things all the time mostly in jest like "bloody Scots at it again".

 

It's even more normal a name when you consider that "Pakistani" is a bit of a mouthful. Is an "Afghanistani" [sic] bothered about being called an "Afghani"? Actually they are usual called "Afghans" even though that conjures up a breed of dog.

 

I think the Pakistanis need to take a leaf out of Tottenham's book and own the word, "Paki".

 

As for Green, his only stupidity is underestimating the massive offence created by any allusion to racial names, no matter how innocuous.

Edited April 11, 2013 by calscot

[Thinker 887]

To be honest I still can't see the problem except for those perpetually offended at absolutely any innocuous remark that refers to race.

 

His first remark was recounting facts from the past and in a way to show that names do not always have racist intentions.

 

I could recount that Jews in the past were sometimes labelled as "Yids" but Tottenham supporters diffused the offence of that moniker by adopting it themselves and called themselves "Yid Armay".

 

So now by printing this the logic of the reaction to Green's faux pas is that I'm guilty of a racist and/or sectarian remark.

 

I could also recount that my brother went to work in the building industry in London and was named, "Smelly sock" by his workmates. That could be offensive but he didn't mind. Damn! I'm guilty of racism again and encouraging youngsters to call Scottish people, "Smelly sock".

 

Then we have the weird situation that you can be racist enough to completely avoid friendship and business with asians but as long as you speak in a PC way in public, you are considered not racist. However, if you have close friends and business associates who are asian and affectionately label them by a shortening of the name of their country then you are racist.

 

I don't see where the racism is in the word "Paki" (I must be even more racist here for saying that).

 

"Pak" means "pure" and "stan" means "land" - the "i" is just there to aid pronunciation. "Paki" to me does not seem much different to "Scot" for a Scotsman (and I've been called a lot worse by English people without damning them).

 

It could even be logically argued that the name of their country is racist to the rest of the world in saying they are the pure race akin to Nazi Germany. But I'm sure even saying that will have loads up in uproar.

 

But I don't see how calling someone "pure" is an insult. As I say I have no problem in being called a Scot and don't take offence at "Jock", "Hamish" or even "Scots Git". I don't like being called "Scotch" but won't report anyone to the police for it.

 

People may say that there is a history of the word "Paki" being used derogatorily but then so has the word "Scot" in England and people here say things all the time mostly in jest like "bloody Scots at it again".

 

It's even more normal a name when you consider that "Pakistani" is a bit of a mouthful. Is an "Afghanistani" [sic] bothered about being called an "Afghani"? Actually they are usual called "Afghans" even though that conjures up a breed of dog.

 

I think the Pakistanis need to take a leaf out of Tottenham's book and own the word, "Paki".

 

As for Green, his only stupidity is underestimating the massive offence created by any allusion to racial names, no matter how innocuous.

 

Well, I know what you're saying here, but the reality of it isn't so logical - In fact, Spurs fans attempted to diffuse the anti-Semitism directed at their club by adopting the nickname yid army, but they've been criticised by more than a few people for perpetuating the use of the word (probably because most of the supporters chanting it aren't actually Jewish). You can cause offense even though you aren't deliberately trying to offend.

 

I guess the offence caused to most Asians by the term "Paki", is the context it's usually used in. Despite the roots of the word being fairly innocuous, I know well enough not to use it because it's generally regarded to be offensive. I'd expect the spokesman for an international organisation to understand that too.

[calscot 0]

Maybe I need someone to explain to me the nature of the offensiveness of the word.

 

It seems to me that the whole derogatory aspect was not he word itself but instead was all about seeing the actual race as somehow inferior and scornful. This attitude does not change no matter how you derive a name for the race as the race itself does not change.

 

You'd really expect derogatory words use allusions to something undesirable for it to really work. Again, "Yid" does not really seam derogatory as I suspect it is short for "Yiddish". I still can't see much difference from "Scot".

 

To me it seems incredibly sensitive to be offended by such non derogatory and derived names. It seems the words become taboo by imaginary offence, when the real offence would not change if the likes of "Pakistani" were used with venom and disgust by an actual racist.

 

There seems little difference in this mock offence than the "Mopery" of a certain section of society and perhaps it's something to educate the country about which would diffuse a lot of racism that is contrived by the schisms in society created by those who demonise others for use of language that has no offence intended.

 

I once had a girlfriend who had Pakistani origin although she was born and brought up here. We had the same discussion and she couldn't see the offence either. It's from this I learned the etymology of the word. I actually lived with her for three years without her parents knowing.

 

Ironically we were thinking about marriage but it wasn't so straight forward because if we went ahead, she believed her family would disown her for marrying a white man and a non-Muslim.

 

Now that is the REAL racism and sectarianism in our country but which is swept under the carpet in favour of causing a furore every time someone doesn't sound PC enough for modern tastes. My assertion that I'm a victim of racism for this is usually met with the word "nonsense" by those people highly offended by the innocuous use of certain words, as I couldn't possibly be white and a victim of racism. It's just a cultural difference...

Edited April 11, 2013 by calscot

[Darthter 542]

What really gets me with all this PC sh*te is that the person that the original comment was directed at doesn't appear to the the one that is offended - it's all the other people that have heard about it 2nd/3rd/4th hand that are up in arms.

 

Has anyone thought to get Imran Ahmed's thoughts on the matter???

 

Saying that CG should be knowledgeable enough to know that this is how things work, and should have been more careful with his comment.

[Thinker 887]

The point isn't whether or not anyone should be offended.

 

I don't think we even need to understand the cause of the offensiveness of the word. Those on the receiving end don't like it; it's no skin off my nose not to say it.

 

Like I said, the spokesman for our club should understand how PR works these days. If he doesn't, that doesn't necessarily make him a bad person, it just makes him a bad spokesman.

[the gunslinger 3,366]

this is actually a storm in a teacup.