NICHOLAS WADE IS GOOD ON THIS, BUT HARDLY THE LAST WORD.
DAVID REICH DANCES ALL AROUND THE ISSUE, DOES NOT EVEN LIKE THE TERM RACE.
HE CAN'T EVEN SAY SOMETHING IS OR IS NOT RACIST, CANNOT EVEN LEGITIMATELY CALL OUT SOMETHING AS RACIST, BECAUSE HE THINKS THE TERM ITSELF IS SENSELESS.
HE IS RATHER LIKE SOME BRITISH PHILOSOPHERS OF LANGUAGE I USED TO READ, CALLING OUT WHAT TO THEM WAS NONSENSE.
HIS TEXT IS SPRINKLED THROUGHOUT WITH REFERENCES TO IT, BUT THE TERM IS REPACKAGED BY OTHER POPULATION DESCRIPTIVE TERMS, LIKE 'CLINE'.
HE CANNOT EVEN TALK INTELLIGENTLY ABOUT MUCH GOING ON AROUND HIM.
HANNAH ARENDT'S DISCUSSIONS OF RACE, YOU CAN SINK YOUR TEETH INTO.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH RACIAL SLURS AT ALL
BRISTOL IS FILLED WITH NEGRO SLURS
I PERSONALLY FAVOR TERMS WHERE YOU HAVE A RANGE OF QUALITIES, LIKE MULATTO OR SAND, THIS GIVES A FLAVOR FOR RACIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RACIAL AND RELIGIOUS GROUPS.
THERE ARE MANY DIFFERENT ASIAN TYPES AND DARK AND LIGHT HINDUS AND MUSLIMS, BLACK MUSLIMS IN SUB SAHARAN AFRICA FOR EXAMPLE OR THE US
BBC apologises over racial slur used in news report
The N-word was used in full in a report about a racially aggravated attack in Bristol, broadcast by Points West and the BBC News Channel on 29 July.
No comments:
Post a Comment