Damn it; start again!

User if I have to pick a side but it is not that simple. eg -
1) My dad used to say the most racist statements contained in day to day flippant sayings. They were in no way acceptable, and yet he was in no way a racist, he was a humanist but had not caught up with current thinking.
2) There is a possibility when discussing things on-line on a blog or worst by text for eg, that things are missunderstood very easily. we get so much more information when talking face to face than from the written word (in a poem which is what we are about on here). We all need to take this into account.

Good point by Winston. It's all about context. I've just finished an essay on Martin Amis's 1984 novel, Money. It is a work of satire (the novel, not my essay) whose central character is a homophobic, sexist, woman-beating porn-addict. Without fully exploring the world of this character (which can only be done by using the language employed by such people) Amis would not have been able to deconstruct and critique this particularly unpleasant mode of masculine attitude. This rather obvious point has been completely missed by those who wish to paint Amis as a sexist writer. And if anybody actually bothers to read the full quote of Amis's statement (regarding Muslims), which the press jumped on last year, they would see that his words were completely decontextualised. This is very dangerous. Anybody who hasn't looked into it properly just assumes Amis is racist.

But my answer to the thread's question is: we should never be frightened, we should understand fully and challenge where appropriate.

Allo, allo, allo, what 'ave we got 'ere then?
On reflection, I should have worded my question thus;
'Ought we to be afraid of, a word, or its user, or the 'Thought Police' ?
I have come to the conclusion that we ought to be more afraid of the thought police -why?

I have been taken to task for using the phrases
'...foreign tongue...', and '...dark skin...'
in my poem 'Paranoia', not on the on the grounds that those words did not rhyme, or scan, or that they were spelled incorrectly, but on the grounds that my poem was reinforcing negative stereotypes, and that it ought to be be promoting debate.

Being accused of reinforcing negative stereotypes is, in my opinion, akin to being accused of racism.

All that despite the fact that my poem ends with the line '...Brothers sisters, love is our horizon'.

Yet when I tried to enter into a debate -as suggested by my critic -my postings were removed. I have been criticised in public, yet I have not even been allowed the courtesy of defending myself in public !

I have not explicitly claimed in my poem that I am in favour of 'free speech' -is my critic acting in the interests of free speech ?

I have not claimed to be in favour of 'academic rigour'
-is my critic in favour of academic rigour ?

We poets ought to be encouraging debate and defending free speech, not preventing them -they are our raison d'etre.
yours sincerely,
Thought Criminal.

Hi Bill
Just to be clear, are you saying that your poem

1) Falls into a similar category as the work of Amis as described in Sirens last post. i.e. it contains words which could be deemed racist if viewed on their own but that a broader non-racist message appears if you view the whole piece.

2) That the poem falls into category 2) of my post. i.e. maybe the message has been lost and there is simply a missunderstanding.

Bill,

This thread started with a general question which I am happy to discuss. It now seems that there is a specific poem and case. To be fair I am not sure that it is right for me to comment on the specifics as I wasn't involved and don't know the details of your dissagreement (Thats all happened already). However I do feel like one of those opt out interviewees who wont answer the questions on the TV.

Foreign - I also used this word in a post. It was not in a poem (just in general comment). In my case this was an example of lazy speech and I meant no offence. In hindsight I felt I could have done better and so I appologised.

Winston

Thanks for your interest, Winston.

The words 'foreign' and 'dark skin' have no negative connotations for me whatsoever. I deliberately used them, to take them out of the mouths of those who are bigots and to put them into the mouths of those who are not.

I started the topic as a reaction to comments made about 'Paranoia', and my subsequent inability to defend myself from (what appears to be) an assumption that just because I am an 'old-fashioned' white person of the sixty something age group, that I am using the words 'foreign' and 'dark skin' in a negative, racist or 'Colonialist' manner.

A word can't be racist, it can't be black or white, or rich or poor; words is words an' nowt else.

It is the intention with which we use words which can, and should be called into question as appropriate, either on aesthetic grounds, or academic grounds, or moral grounds.

I would have thought that the last line of my poem makes my intentions perfectly clear, and that the title 'Paranoia' makes my point even more so ?
I just love a debate, it would appear that some of us do not.
Yours truly
Thought Criminal.

If I objected to the use of the phrase 'foreign tongue' in a poem it would be on the grounds of cliche, not racism. People who come from different countries are foreign, and 'tongue' is a word which is sometimes used to denote language. What's the problem?
As for 'dark skin', that's a simple physiological fact, are we supposed to pretend that we are all of the same hue? My skin is slightly darker than the average 'white' person because of my Jewish heritage, that's just the way it is. There have been some really interesting studies lately that expose the idea of 'race' as a mostly cultural construct. Within a very few generations, all 'racial' characteristics can be bred in or out of a family. This is because the races only became distinct from each other about 40,000 years ago, not 400,000 as was once thought.
If a thousand men (or women) sat at a dinner table to eat and each were sat next to his father, each would be able converse in their own language with the man on their left (or right). But the man on one end of the table could be a premiership footballer while the man on the other end would be a Cro-Magnon. We're all a lot closer to each other than we think.

Language is a very powerful thing and we ought to think about it quite carefully in discussions like this. I am not in favour of free speech for a person to whip up a lynch mob or to allow someone to shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre. The malicious use of language can cause terrible harm and sometimes negative consequences flow from simply careless or thoughtless words.

It makes no sense to try to prohibit the use of specific words. Even the most offensive words are often taken by those who have been their victims and turned to become instruments of overcoming the oppression which has been suffered. Apart from this, words do not have strict and exclusive meanings as well as being capable of being used ironically or in many contexts in which the message being conveyed is at variance, or even opposite, to common usage.

I might have a foreign body in my eye preventing me from seeing clearly the areas of light and dark skin on my arms which are the product of advancing age. It would also be ludicrously easy to be racist or xenophobic in a piece of writing without ever using obvious words relating to place of origin or skin colour of the people to whom I was directing my negative feelings.

Racism is stupid and despicable. Fear of racism or other sorts of inadequacy should not be an excuse for suppressing the fullest possible artistic expression. Anybody who wants to prohibit the use of certain words, expressions, etc. irrespective of context does a disservice to their cause. It is like the half wits on anti discrimination courses who tell their students that they must not ask for black coffee, but only coffee without milk.

Language used for the specific purpose of attacking others is not acceptable where it represents a threat to safety or well being. Short of that we should develop a robust approach to saying what we like and don't like, but not try to control the expression of others.

This really makes me furious....

Racist is as Racist does!


To example the few words thus far demonstrated...

Black, White, Foreign, Dark, Darker.....Yellow, Red, Scottish...therefore can I assume Tartan is a bit pushy. Good grief life is too short to stuff a mushroom!

.We, poets that is, are right!

i.e. Bill.. Yu use what damn words you like without fear of wrongful discrimination!

Thats why I write, I have what I believe to be the courage of my convictions, I know what I am,.and I am not racist, a bit of twat sometimes but never Racist! I love my fellowman and am not sexist An attractive member of the either sex can give me a buzz but I am not homosexual or homophobic,and I'm old enough to know better and yet I am not ageist. These eggshells will all be used and ridden over by me in my writings and future perfrmances,.but I feel confident in the knowledge that what I write and say is from the honest heart of me and not from any premeditated wickedness.

Still smoking.....
Gus

Spot on Cayn; lesson learned. Must do better !