Here’s BBC favourite Jo Brand during an interview with stand-in host Phil Williams on Radio Five Live’s Simon Mayo Show yesterday:
Jo Brand: My personal opinion is that you can’t be racist towards white people. You can be prejudiced about them but being prejudiced isn’t an illegal act whereas being racist can be.
Phil Williams: Don’t you think racism is just being derogatory about a race, regardless of the colour?
Jo Brand: No I don’t. I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority. That to me is the correct definition of racism. I think you can be prejudiced towards a group of people who are more powerful than you, but I don’t think you can be racist towards them.
Have at it.
(The guest immediately before Labour Party luvvie stalwart Jo Brand was Labour Party luvvie stalwart Patrick Stewart. Both just happened to have signed a letter condemning the Tories for their links to the Polish Law and Justice Party. Coincidence?)
It is necessary to go to a site like ‘gates of vienna’ to get a discussion of racism against white people, while the BBC is in denial on the issue:
“Caucasophobia – the Accepted Racism”
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/10/caucasophobia-accepted-racism.html
She just isn’t very bright.
That said the default liberal position is always to define words in the “correct” way regardless of their real meaning
This is a classic case.
Can for instance an oriental , a Japanese for instance, be racist towards an Afro Caribbean or vice versa?
And what if the whites are in a tiny minority and powerless. Can they then be acceptable victims of racism?
And so on.
The white liberal sees the world through a haze of imagined guilt.
The liberal, cocooned in illusion, believes that if everyone was like him or her what a lovely world we would live in.
Redefining words is part of the self deception that feeds their lives
Good, so I can call her a fat ugly wart faced smelly white barking mad old lesbian.
“Good, so I can call her a fat ugly wart faced smelly white barking mad old lesbian”
Thank goodness you said “white”.
Meanwhile in the One Show’s green room…
Abu Izzadeen: We will kill the kuffar so that Islam can rule the world!
Jo Brand: That’s fair enough. You do represent a minority, after all.
So she sees racism against whitey as somehow not racist, according to her own interpretation of the word?
It’s all about me, me, me with lefties.
Dave S: it’s not just Brand that’s not very bright – most leftoids aren’t in my experience -preferring to rant, emote and accuse, rather than doing such boring stuff as researching facts and making an argument stand up.
They always know what they don’t want – but rarely proffer anything intellectually solid enough to propose in its place.
It’s just another reason for me to cancel my TV licence direct debit.
The lefties get themselves tied up on knots when they try to redefine simple concepts to match the warped world view.
This definition means that it is impossible for a white person, no matter what their views, be be racist in……
India
Pakistan
Korea (North or South)
anywhere in Africa
actually most of the planet.
Think about it. The nanosecond the ANC took control of South Africa Eugene TerraBlanche suddenly was not racist.
Fantastic.
Stupid fat ugly “chump”
BBC comedians – a bunch of chumps 🙂
White Fat Cow Brand would do more for the third world if she went on a diet than any amount of bitching about how whitey can only be evil.
Just think if she ate like a normal person Africa would have enough to eat for a year. (Think of the children)
And I can’t be racist for saying so, as fatty say’s it isn’t so.
As a matter of interest, and somewhat tangentially, two BNP members have been castigated for saying that black people, whilst in all other senses British, are not ethnically British. Are Kevin Petersen and BW Botha ethnically African? If I say not, does that make me a racist?
So prejudiced means what, exactly? This is madness, and Phil Williams seems equally clueless. “Derogatory”? Please.
Now, I don’t expect any geniuses or educated, reasoning people to be hosting light-weight programmes, and I don’t expect the majority of on-air talent to be anything of the sort. However, if they’re going to have dopes on air doing these programmes and talk about serious issues, it’s wholly irresponsible to have ignorant fascists leading the way. The BBC has a special position in society as the official state broadcaster, the Charter and Agreement, etc. The sad thing is, that’s why they do this sort of thing in the first place: they truly believe in their duty as educators and behavorial engineers of the public.
Of course, the inherent, visceral biases of Beeboid management and the vast majority of talent prevent them from realizing what they are doing. So far as they’re concerned – and I would bet that this mentality is even spelled out somewhere in editorial and/or personell management guidelines – Jo Brand is correct in her twisted definitions. This is the kind of thing that leads to what I’ve been referring to as “intellectual fascism”.
This is an intellectual failure, and it seems to be on a molecular level at the BBC, from editorial policy to corporate vision to hiring standards and “best practicies” guidelines.
Defenders of the indefensible will naturally avoid this one like the plague, and feast on the lowest hanging fruit instead.
Kriss Donald was not available for comment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kriss_Donald
Theres more scope for analysis here than a month long cornucopia of psychotherapeutical psychoanalysing psychiatrists attending a conference on liberal self loathing middle class self harmers, all suffering from acute paranoid reflex syndrome and ego induced parental rejectionist persecution perception.
The left can feel guilty of our past as much as they want – but they have no right to transfer that guilt onto others. In the real world Jo Brand would not even be emloyed. She is the embodiment of the left, ignorant, self-rightious and ugly. Why are we are forced to pay for this horrible “woman” ?
power + predudice = racism
Pure Marxism.
She’s entitled to her simple-minded opinion, even if it is preposterous/typically left-wing. But in the mean time: Man the harpoons!
Yes but don’t forget that Brand would also regard herself as a woman. Women are also in the protected category. It’s realy only white men that are racist.
Do not critisise people just for how they look. Do we want a Parliement just of pretty people?
Sure. The way I see it, at least they’d have at least one redeeming quality then.
Well, she doesn’t have to exacerbate her bad looks. She looks like she found some month-old spaghetti under the sink wrapped in a dishcloth, and dumped the whoe lot on her head.
I was not talking about her looks – I used the word ugly in the sense of being surly a menace.
And that voice of hers could pickle onions.
Tsk, tsk. Some people here are being sexist. Of course, it’s not possible for Ms Brand to be sexist to men, because men are politically more powerful than women.
See, it’s amazing how easy it is to self-justify a contradictory position.
When she says, “I think the definition of racism also encompasses political power. So you can’t be racist towards a race that’s politically more powerful than a minority.” She’s just echoing the opinions of a black American comedienne who was on World Have Your Say a few days ago discussing whether or not an Australian talent show was racist. According to her black Americans can make the kind of jokes about whites that whites could not about blacks, because white Americans are the ones who hold power.
I’m glad that at least under that definition Mugabe’s treatment of white Zimbabweans is considered racism. Although going by the BBC’s coverage of white farmers being kicked off their land you’d never know.
See here.