Would you challenge someone who referred to a corner shop as a 'Paki shop'?
That's a remarkably complex question. The short answer is "yes, in almost all cases", but not as a default reaction as such.
1) If it was said by someone I know and trust to be non-racist, I would assume it was some kind of joke I wasn't getting and respond accordingly. I suppose that's a challenge of sorts. If it turned out not to be a joke then same stuff as in section 2) below applies.
2) If it was said by someone I don't know well enough to be sure then rather than telling them off I'd try to establish in stages what was up with their choice of terminology. There could be a number of things going on here:
2a) If the shop is actually run by people from Pakistan then the speaker's doing two things: First, characterising the shop owners entirely by race. Second, using a slang racial label. I'd ask the speaker why they didn't use the shop's real name, but if their answer was "everyone calls it the Paki shop" I'd consider the matter closed.
2b) If the speaker actually has no idea which racial group the shop owners belong to and is simply assuming they're from Pakistan or doesn't give a toss whether it's accurate or not, I'd point out the likelihood of this annoying someone. If the speaker can't see why, I might go into more detail. If they seem to have been previously unaware of the issue I'd likely point out to them that this is racism.
2c) If the speaker made it clear that it had nothing to do with the race of the shop owners and was local slang then whether I pointed out the potential for offence due to the implied racial stereotyping would depend on whether I expected they'd already know. In a modern context I would expect essentially everyone to know, so would be very unlikely to comment further.
It seems to me that challenging gendered language [...] is much more like challenging racism
Well, it's more like challenging language perceived as racially sensitive. Part of the problem is that (I allege) not all gendered language relates to sexism, conscious or otherwise.
There's also the question of whether the various attacks on racially sensitive language were a good idea. I don't know enough about race issues to comment having grown up in a majority White community and later lived only in very peaceful, cooperative multi-cultural communities where equality was at least an undisputed goal if not yet actually achieved.
my point is that there are hardly any actual people saying "it means "
Wouldn't expect them to put it in those terms, though.
I can see it now: "Feminism to me is a rallying point to gather like-minded female chauvinists and mutually reinforce each other's prejudices whilst attacking anyone who doesn't agree". Uh... no. Nobody ever casts themselves in the role of villain.
As undyingking said the other day on my recent post: "in any [...] movement there'll always be people walking alongside you that you think are a bunch of idiots". And in any given movement each individual has a choice - to embrace the activities of all you strive towards the same goal or to refuse to accept that the end justifies the means. On almost every issue I fall into the latter category.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Monday, 8 October 2007 04:31 pm (UTC)That's a remarkably complex question. The short answer is "yes, in almost all cases", but not as a default reaction as such.
1) If it was said by someone I know and trust to be non-racist, I would assume it was some kind of joke I wasn't getting and respond accordingly. I suppose that's a challenge of sorts. If it turned out not to be a joke then same stuff as in section 2) below applies.
2) If it was said by someone I don't know well enough to be sure then rather than telling them off I'd try to establish in stages what was up with their choice of terminology. There could be a number of things going on here:
2a) If the shop is actually run by people from Pakistan then the speaker's doing two things: First, characterising the shop owners entirely by race. Second, using a slang racial label. I'd ask the speaker why they didn't use the shop's real name, but if their answer was "everyone calls it the Paki shop" I'd consider the matter closed.
2b) If the speaker actually has no idea which racial group the shop owners belong to and is simply assuming they're from Pakistan or doesn't give a toss whether it's accurate or not, I'd point out the likelihood of this annoying someone. If the speaker can't see why, I might go into more detail. If they seem to have been previously unaware of the issue I'd likely point out to them that this is racism.
2c) If the speaker made it clear that it had nothing to do with the race of the shop owners and was local slang then whether I pointed out the potential for offence due to the implied racial stereotyping would depend on whether I expected they'd already know. In a modern context I would expect essentially everyone to know, so would be very unlikely to comment further.
It seems to me that challenging gendered language [...] is much more like challenging racism
Well, it's more like challenging language perceived as racially sensitive. Part of the problem is that (I allege) not all gendered language relates to sexism, conscious or otherwise.
There's also the question of whether the various attacks on racially sensitive language were a good idea. I don't know enough about race issues to comment having grown up in a majority White community and later lived only in very peaceful, cooperative multi-cultural communities where equality was at least an undisputed goal if not yet actually achieved.
my point is that there are hardly any actual people saying "it means "
Wouldn't expect them to put it in those terms, though.
I can see it now: "Feminism to me is a rallying point to gather like-minded female chauvinists and mutually reinforce each other's prejudices whilst attacking anyone who doesn't agree". Uh... no. Nobody ever casts themselves in the role of villain.
As