Racist women on London public transport - official thread part XIV

jawafour wrote:

Moggy wrote:...That was handled terribly by Ryanair. The gammon prick abuses the lady and she ends up moving and the racist prick stayed where he was.

For absolute clarity before I say this... there's no doubt that the guy's language is absolutely disgusting and shameful. There is no excuse for that kind of behaviour. It is unacceptable and no-one should have to face that.

But I do wonder about using the descriptive term "gammon". I believe it is a derogatory term based on the colour of a person's skin? In my view, using it detracts from the point that is being made; it is the same kind of approach that we - rightly, of course - call out when horrible terms are used in other situations.

I wondered if perhaps I misunderstood the term but I don't believe I have; this opinion piece appears to be a reasonable summary of what feels to be the common ground. I recognise, of course, that the history of the term goes further back... but it still feels to be something that mirrors unwanted language rather than goes against it.

Moggy wrote:It’s not a racist term, it describes a middle aged man who turns red in the face when he gets furiously angry over “PC gone mad”. The term isn’t a slur on white people (as “******” would be for all black people, or “paki” for all South Asian people), just the racists...

Moggy wrote:...I’ll tell you what though, we will revisit the term when videos emerge of black/Asian people on planes screaming “move this smelly gammon bastard” at white people and when “gammons go home!” is graffitied on white homes.

jawafour wrote:I had thought that the phrase "gammon" was used because it reflected the skin colour of a person?

Garth wrote:Gammon is a ranting racist old person going red from anger, it doesn't describe a race of people...

Garth wrote:...When someone says you look "white as a sheet" or "white as a ghost", is that racist against white people?

jawafour wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s not a racist term, it describes a middle aged man who turns red in the face when he gets furiously angry over “PC gone mad”. The term isn’t a slur on white people (as “******” would be for all black people, or “paki” for all South Asian people), just the racists...

I had thought that the phrase "gammon" was used because it reflected the skin colour of a person? I hadn't realised it could be used for people who have skin of a different colour? Looking into it, it generally appears to be used in reference to males who have white skin.

Moggy wrote:...I’ll tell you what though, we will revisit the term when videos emerge of black/Asian people on planes screaming “move this smelly gammon bastard” at white people and when “gammons go home!” is graffitied on white homes.

I understand your point but I feel that, in future years, use of the term will be viewed with the same - quite correct - level of disdain as other phrases based upon a person's skin colour. I guess the reason for using it is to fight fire with fire; regrettably I accept this is the only method of response that sone people understand.

Garth wrote:Would you be insulted if someone said you look white as a sheet when ill?...

Garth wrote:...How about the phrase, "turning beetroot" when embarrassed?

jawafour wrote:

Garth wrote:Would you be insulted if someone said you look white as a sheet when ill?...

No, I would not be insulted. If the word "sheet" was then used as my name or a descriptive term I would not like that, though.

Garth wrote:...How about the phrase, "turning beetroot" when embarrassed?

I agree that this is a common phrase. I would not like people who flush in that way to be referred to as "beetroot" rather than their normal naming convention, though.

Moggy wrote:It’s not a term used about white people, it’s a term used to describe a small subsection of white people. It’s not a word that abuses a race, it describes a section of a race that likes to abuse other races...

...I understand your point but I feel that, in future years, use of the term will be viewed with the same - quite correct - level of disdain as other phrases based upon a person's skin colour. I guess the reason for using it is to fight fire with fire; regrettably I accept this is the only method of response that sone people understand.

Moggy wrote:...It’s interesting that we are spending far more time on white people calling white people gammon, rather than on the racial abuse of minorities.

jawafour wrote: In my eyes, it is little different to the kind of language that is used by people who denigrate and/or label others because of their skin colour or cultural beliefs.

Lagamorph wrote:"Gammon" is about as racist as "chav"

Hexx wrote:Well it’s not up do with skin colour in the way racists etc use for reasons you’re choosing to ignore

And you’re right. It’s to do with their chosen beliefs.

Their ignorant chuffin racist beliefs.

But please feed into (endorse) the victim narrative/complex of middle aged racist conservatives.

And it distracts you from his behaviour. And that says more about you than the person disparaging the racist banana split.

Or in an OTT dramatisation for illustrative purposes

Person A; What a racist!
Person B; What a racist!
Jawa; Hey now don’t say mean things about him being racist! that’s just as bad.

it still feels to be something that mirrors unwanted language rather than goes against it.

Knoyleo wrote:

Lagamorph wrote:"Gammon" is about as racist as "chav"

Chav isn't racist, but it is classist.