From the 'Oh Come On' Department

Toddlers who dislike spicy food could be deemed 'racist'

Comments

[KM]

Hiya Newbie, come and join us on Us Time thread, we're writing about Caitlin's adultery. It's much more fun than this.

[Newbie]

Put a sock in it and grow up, the three of you.

[ian]

I don't like curries. Does that make me a racist? Surely not!

[Lucy]

'If Lucy bangs into me one more time, I'm not fighting back. I'm off.'

-- In that case, Sue, consider yourself most emphatically responded to, and go. I am not Sakura, and I didn't attack you. Perhaps you need to look to your own attitude to see why the womens' sites you're familiar with descend into pettiness.

FirstTimer - yep, I'm that twit, cheers. It is worth recognising that there's a gap between original statement and reported statement, and that's what the term 'implied' marks. Good good.

[First timer]

One thing I've noticed on a number of threads is the potential for 'reported comment creep' (perhaps there's a catchier phrase for it!). So, for example, (and definitely without going into the rights and wrongs of it), Sue says to Lucy 'perhaps you live in a nastier world than I do', then Lucy says "you've implied I must be 'nastier'". Sue says 'there may be a lanaguage difficulty here', and Gipsy refers to 'your statement about her English not being up to scratch'. I think it's worth recognising that there is a gap between the original statement and the reported statement, and that this can fan the flames. Not that they needed any fanning!

Oh and can I just add, 'Silence in the courtyard, silence in the street, the biggest twit in England is just about to speak, starting from now, times infinity no returners'. (Please imagine lots of smily emoticons, and do feel free to post without taking umbrage that I have inadvertently called you a 'twit', oh this does get complicated...).

[Libs]

FFS Sue, pipe down!

[Sue]

KM : sometimes you graciously concede - for the sake of the relationship

- Concession is a two way street (ie, if I concede, then Lucy does too.)Otherwise it's surrender. Is this all subjective, this idiocy that's going on here?

Lucy - I attacked BACK. Crucial point. I posted an innocuous original post, and was attacked. Viciously, nastily, who cares? It was an attack. A first strike. At no point did Sakura give me the benefit of the doubt - although I had to her. All she did was lay into me again, even more so.

But, in respect of last words, if the defendent (that' me, by the way!) doesn't get the last word, then the attacker wins. Playground, courtroom, doesn't matter.

Mayb the problem is that Lucy, too, doesn't like 'being beaten in an argument'. Nor do I. If she hadn't attacked me, I wouldn't have attacked back. It's dead simple isn't it.

It's SO stupid, this - but I don't back down and 'shut up' on principle. So, like I have been saying repeatedly, back off me, and I will do likewise. Mutual concession is fine. One-sided (mine!), is not.

Can we not get off this stupidity please. Let's just go silent on it. Is that so hard to do? I will if you will.

In other areas of acute disagreement I've walked away - Bratz dolls, depression. Because I've known I've been provocative myself. Here, in this instance, I haven't. My conscience is genuinely clean on this one. That's why I'm holding my corner.

I have SO much else going on in my life right now - and the nasty, nasty souring that is going on here just sucks.

Like some others here, I come to this site as a kind of mental respite from real life troubles. Humour, lively debate, differing opinions, trenchant observations - all good stuff, and mentally very stimulating.

As I've said, if Sakura WAS a sock puppet to sow dissent - boy, it's worked.

So, please everyone here, - back off me, OK? Unless you genuinely, genuinely think my original posting that got Sakura going was intentionally racist - and if you do, please explain why.

I think I've come to the end of my tether here. If Lucy bangs into me one more time, I'm not fighting back. I'm off. She's won, it's over. And she can go and find someone else to 'tell off'. And then this site will just have degenerated into the 'bitch-fest' that so many other women's sites become.

LM - thank you. All the best to you.

Here's to niceness and good will and good temper!

[Lazy Mummy]

BUSHRA!

(Waves across internet) How are you? How's your transition back to work going? Last time you posted was a while back; hope things are going smoothly for you (hahaha - all WMs know that's not really possible, but you know what I mean).

[Lazy Mummy]

Lucy -

Please don't be insulted by this, but from (I think) an older and slightly more battered-down-by-experience head, I think you should just walk away from this argument now. It's not worth the energy you're putting into it. Let it lie, move onto something more interesting. Maybe you can add the next installment in Caitlin's steamy affair with Jarrad Californian-Croydon VirtualSexGod?

[Lazy Mummy]

KM, as ever you are quite right. Thank you for your sanity.

Sue, please don't attack me. I've kept out of this "discussion" (being polite here) but I'd like to give you some feedback. Politely, respectfully. Not attack you; just a bit of feedback.

Like you, I've been reading/posting on AM for a long time, and I have a sense of people's AM personas. I feel like your persona is sometimes quite confrontational. Not in terms of your opinions so much as your insistence on having to be right, or having to have the last word. This has happened on previous threads too.

The way I see this is that your insistence on having the last word when you feel injured is that it escalates situations. I don't know if this is how you live your real-world life, but it does come across as antagonistic, even to someone who's not directly under fire (like me) and who really doesn't take offence easily (again, like me).

I don't know what you do for a living, or even much about you, but I do think that if you live your personal and professional relationships with this insistence on having the last word, it must be quite tiring, at least. Anyone who's worked in management or leadership or negotiation roles knows that sometimes you graciously concede - for the sake of the relationship. And soldiers & chess players alike know that sometimes you retreat from battle to win the war.

OK, that last was a crap analogy, but I hope you see what I'm saying.

I enjoy many of your posts; I sometimes agree with your opinions but I do feel that this insistence on being right & having the last word in these arguments is unhelpful at least and confrontational at worst.

Thank you for listening to my feedback and responding graciously.

[Lucy]

Sue, you've attacked. KM, I'm sorry, I know it's toddler-ish but Sue is really pushing my buttons. I made two comments which were I believe balanced and quite evidently attempts to communicate honestly and without causing offence.

I observed: 'Actually, Sue, when I read your post earlier today your glib assumption of a 'language difficulty' struck me as offensive too. In the context, it's hard not to read that an implication that Sakura's English is sub-standard!'

And following that: 'Um ... all Sakura had said at that point was that your comments were 'nasty' and that she was offensive. That's not exactly vicious! I don't think you said anything really terrible, and I think Sakura does seem to have built up quite a head of steam - but I did want to point out that I too read that particular phrase as rather offensive, even though I'm fairly sure it wasn't meant to be. It seemed worth saying, if only to demonstrate that Sakura's reading, though extreme and perhaps a little affected by the experiences she's referred to elsewhere, isn't an unique reading.'

YOU then decided to inform me that I lived in a 'nastier' world than you. That was a comment I found really quite hurtful and malicious. Re-iterating the claim that you've been attacked really does not constitute an attempt to end the issue. Apologies to everyone else for taking up time and space on the post, but I feel quite strongly that you, Sue, need to be made aware of just how offensive your bullying posts can feel.

[Gipsy]

that should have been 'hang' not 'hold'. Sorry.

[Gipsy]

TTHHHWACK <----- the sound of KM's comment hitting its mark.

Quite true KM and I hold my head in shame.

[Gipsy]

Ooooh fun. I haven't done this since primary school. So if I do reply then you are obliged to reply back to Get The Last Word. I'm feeling a heady sense of power here. And a bizarre sense of nostalgia for jacks and skipping in the playground and that mouldy orange peel smell that always pervaded the cloakroom.

[KM]

It feels vaguely appropriate that this was a thread that started talking about TODDLER behaviour.

[Sue]

Delilah: if anything we need to concentrate less on race and difference and more on what we have in common.

- Exactly.

[Sue]

Gipsy, Lucy - let's take this one as closed. But also, please understand, I'm having the last word as I was the one originally attacked. That's why I'm continuing in my ripostes to you. (That's also why these ding-dongs on sites are so pernicious - in a real life conversation they would probably never have arisen in the first place and would have been resolved in seconds.)

If neither of you respond to this, then it's closed, OK? If not, you're keeping it open, not me.

[Gipsy]

Sue: only because you mentioned it - I really am done having this conversation.

From your post:

>>spat with the likes of Sakura and Lucy

[Jo]

Hi Delilah - That was what I was trying to say about my post about the police puppy poster. It just causes greater divides between groups.

[Lucy]

'So, don't respond to this and I won't either.' So you said before, then dragged my name into your response to Gipsy. It's upsetting, Sue. I am not Sakura and don't particularly enjoy being tarred with the same brush, or coming in for unprovoked gibes.

[delilah]

Odd that no-one else seems to think that irresponsible articles like this are actually a deliberate attempt to create racist scandals which actually heighten racial tensions rather than reduce them. The suggestion that we need to improve our racial awareness is creepy - nothing is more likely to create discord. if anything we need to concentrate less on race and difference and more on what we have in common. As a child, all other families' houses smelled odd to me and had different food, even those of families whose ethnicity approximated my own (which weren't many). Some were different because the family was poorer or richer than mine, or didn't have as many pets as we did. I wasn't there to improve my racial or social awareness, but to play with a school friend. We have ethnic specialities at home but when my children have visitors I serve something designed to make them want to come back, neutral like chicken nuggets and chips. If they wanted to try something more adventurous I would let them, but only after the child was an establised and comfortable visitor. I would never feel racially insulted if a picky eater turned their nose up at my food - insulted as a cook, perhaps. If the child were mine, I would mention manners, but not racism. I think its our responsibility as parents raising our children in a mixed society to raise then not to use ethnicity as an excuse for anything.

[Sue]

Lucy: I'm not even sure who you think you're arguing with now.

- I was replying to Gypsy. Perhaps you didn't spot that. As I've said, if people keep raising this subject with me, I shall respond to them. As I am doing now. So, don't respond to this and I won't either.

[KM]

Please think about taking it further, L. I have Jewish relatives and experienced some anti-Semitic abuse at school. It is always worth challenging IMHO because if you let it go then others will get the same treatment as you did.
Not for yourself, but for othres.
I'm so sorry.

[j]

L- I have run a harrassment service before and a lot of trouble is caused by people trying to busk it.

I'd have a quiet word with HR to find out the system in use where you work. Doesnt mean you have to press the button and use it. But a very common system is for you to write a letter to her, setting out her behaviour so far, and explaining to her the effect it has on you, that you want her to stop, and that HR have been informed, but that at this stage you would prefer an informal resolution. cc HR.

[Jo]

L that is appaling. I think you should tell HR that kind of behavior can not go unchecked. It sounds like she thinks that is ok to say those kinds of things, I am just surprised no one else stepped in.

[Lucy]

Sue, I've asked you before to leave me out of your vitriolic rants. Sakura doesn't seem to be commenting any more; I deliberately changed the subject: could you consider giving it a rest, please? Whatever else you may be, you are NOT being forbearing, you are being wearing. Stop dragging me back into your silly attempts to - what? I'm not even sure who you think you're arguing with now.

[L]

Thank you for the sympathy. It was a woman. The rant started with "you jews rule the world" and went on from there. Ugh. It was more shock, as you don't expect it from supposedly educated people who you think of as friends. Not anymore. She's done it before "didn't you hear that 9/11 was a Jewish plot?". I mean, FFS.
Someone suggested next time I just start typing and say "would you like to check this over, and see if these are in fact a true reflection of your comments, before I send it to HR?"

Yes Caitlin: Pringles and Queen would be perfect!

[Jo]

Hi Sue - I agree that it can be a loud minority who ruin it for everyone else. I don't read the mail and the articles I read seemed to suggest that it was just a comment from one councillor: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards. It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities. People who have shops just won't put the postcard up.' Then when reporters went to the Muslim community representatives they just said that there was no reason why Muslims couldn't have the picture up their shops as though Muslims do not keep them as pets they do use them for work. Different emphasis for different readerships obviously:-)

[Sue]

Gipsy - I'm not sure it matters whether her upset was genuine or not. It's whether it was proportional and appropriate and justified. I don't think it was any of those things, and the result was an unwarrented aggressive posting back at me.

However, my posting back to her was actually very tolerant, giving a good, acceptable reason why she might have got hold of the wrong end of the stick - but my tolerant post was then simply used as yet another cause for her 'outrage'.

As others here have said, there are people who are detrmined to find insult and offence in everything and everyone. Partly I'm sorry for them, living in such a bleak horrible world, and partly I have no patience and think they do far more harm than good to their own cause, by most dangerously giving credence to the argument that the race card can all too often be played 'vexatiously', and fostering the cult of perpetual victimhood - however little they are actually be being 'got at' - a la, yes, LB and the Only Gay in the Village!

If she wanted me to go 'Oh, oh, oh, I've gone and offended someone with a mixed race daughter and mea culpa mea culpa what an unfeeling brute I am with my clumsy insensitive attempt at being funny, oh dear oh dear oh dear' and rush in with grovelling 'white-guilt' apologies - well, tough.

Can we stop this debate now please?

[Gipsy]

>>Basically, if someone hits me verbally, I hit back. Why not? Why let aggressors get away with it, and think themselves virtuous for their 'outrage' at a presumed insult?

I think that sums up the difference between us.

Me, I saw Sakura's upset as genuine. I guess you saw someone writing as though they were upset but sitting at their computer smiling and saying 'ha stick that in your pipe and smoke it'.

[Sue]

Seema: Very young children are not given anything remotely hot. Aisan cooking is full of herbs and spices (most add flavour not heat) and from toddlerhood most children are given milder versions of adult meals.

- When my mother in law visits her other son my sister in law gives her 'baby food' she calls it! Very mild by her standards.

[Sue]

Puppy police pic.

Jo: "No one had actually refused to put them up it was just the Police being overly sensitive which made the Muslim community looked they were non-integrating, complainers, which was not the case at all of course, but I am sure some damage has been done."

For what it's worth, this is what the Daily Mail (The telegraph for slightly poorer people?!) wrote:

"The advert has upset Muslims because dogs are considered ritually unclean and has sparked such anger that some shopkeepers in Dundee have refused to display the advert.

Dundee councillor Mohammed Asif said: 'My concern was that it's not welcomed by all communities, with the dog on the cards.

'It was probably a waste of resources going to these communities.

'They (the police) should have understood. Since then, the police have explained that it was an oversight on their part, and that if they'd seen it was going to cause upset they wouldn't have done it.'

Councillor Asif, who is a member of the Tayside Joint Police Board, said that the force had a diversity adviser and was generally very aware of such issues.

He raised the matter with Mr Vine at a meeting of the board.

Tayside Police Chief Constable John Vine said the advert was not intended to cause any offence
The chief constable said he was unaware of the concerns and that the force had not sought to cause any upset but added he would look into the matter.

Councillor Asif said: 'People who have shops just won't put up the postcard. But the police have said to me that it was simply an oversight and they did not seek to offend or upset.'

*******

Perhaps the real problem in all these kinds of issues is that there's no such thing as 'Muslims' (or 'Christians' or 'Hindus' etc)(whatever?!) - there are individuals who react differently. The danger is that some can 'give a bad name' to many others by the extremity of their views and reactions. And these, of course, tend to be the ones that get journalist air time because they are so 'sensational'. It gives a very distorted picture (I hope!).

[Sue]

Gipsy: how emotional she can be,

- her problem, not mine. I actually only go by people's texts not their 'personalities' here. I have some people clearer in my mind here than others, and Sakura isn't one of them (I know you and J 'quite well', and the glorious Supermother!).

How much does anyone have to pander to anyone's excessive sensibilities, not to mention whether they are/are not excessive etc? I don't notice anyone pandering to mine - nor should they!

Basically, if someone hits me verbally, I hit back. Why not? Why let aggressors get away with it, and think themselves virtuous for their 'outrage' at a presumed insult?

And, I repeat for the zillionth time, I was actualy being very forebearing towards her in suggesting it might be a language difficulty - rather than an appalling lapse in manners on her part, and a ludicrous and irrational and utterly unfoundedly accusatory response.

Perhaps I should have been less polite straight off, and told her she was behaving like an idiot over my first post.

Now, like everyone else here, I've got better things to do with my life that spat with the likes of Sakura and Lucy, or even you. If Sakura wants to live in her private world where she assumes everyone is 'getting at her' then that is her problem, and it's a sad and wasteful one, abusive of the great gift of life that she has. If she wants to live her negative life, so be it. Not my problem. Sadly, only hers. (Of course, if she is just a sock-puppet wind up merchant, then she's achieved just what she wanted - she's sown discord and disharmony, and is presumably sitting back and enjoying the show. Shame on her for that, if so.)

Now, I will try very hard not to bother to respond any more on this issue, because I don't know what else can be said. So, if you all agree to drop it (which thankfully does seem to be the case, as the postings have finally moved on to discuss the actualy subject of the thread), so will I. If not, then, as I've said, since I consider myself the insulted party subjected to an unwarrented attack, I will continue to argue my position.

One of the pleasures of AM is the generally very high level of 'intelligent debate' and a key part of the intelligence is that, unlike several other female-dominated discussion sites I've seen, it is NOT full of bitchy little cliques and 'fembot gangs' and so on, who hunt in packs and howl down anyone who dares to differ from their 'approved views'. (Try arguing 'anti-abortion' on some sites, and watch the lynching party arrive, for example!)

Here, by contrast, opposition to any views expressed - whatever they are (including mine, even on controversial subjects such as depression) - is customarily dealt with soberly and sensibly, rather than hysterically or aggressively. I hope that continues.

Best wishes, Sue.

[j]

"There seems to be much more of a trend towards expecting children to eat bland, simple food these days "

Youre kidding Lucy, if you had grown up as I did in 60s/70s you would have had boiled eggs and soldiers and rice pudding. That was about it.

L, awful and actually weird. I cant think of any workplace where that is normal. I suppose you dont feel up to complaining about it? You could have the satisfaction of seeing the guy crawl and grovel to keep his job, just as his mortgage goes up again....

[Caitlin MOran]

*Pops head round door* Blimey. This is heated. Shall I bring out some Pringles and put some Queen, to lighten the mood a bit?

[Lucy]

Oh no, L, that's horrible. I'm so sorry you had to go through that.

[L]

Though I agree that this is definitely in the headline-creating category of reporting, I do think that children should be taught that racism, prejudice of any type, is wrong. I, personally, sat through five minutes of anti-semitic abuse being directed towards me (a Jew) at work yesterday, which shook me to the core. It was horrible.

[Lucy]

Thanks Seema!

Lol about the ginger/ raw garlic-eating. Apparently my dad fed me a slice of raw lemon when I was weaning (mean, terrible parent!) and I seemed to rather enjoy it, taking bites of of lemons and limes (peel and all) when they were in my reach. But then again, I also tried my damndest to ingest yew berries and deadly nightshade ...

I wouldn't have dreamed of saying 'yuk' about any food (the old 'if it's on your plate, eat it' philosophy), but I think my parents also made something of a virtue of enjoying a wide range of food from different cultures. There seems to be much more of a trend towards expecting children to eat bland, simple food these days - I certainly don't remember people frowning on young children in restaurants as much as they do now. Shame ...

[Gipsy]

You're right Seema, it could be simply be customary for the women in that village/area.

Strangely, I was unable to eat salmon while breastfeeding, as baby threw up copiously every time.

I have absolute faith that the key carer for my son at his nursery would be able to not only spot, but very effectively deal with, any hint of racism in a child. I don't think she would need guidelines - she is a very smart, very on-the-ball person. I would despair of having such a high expectation of many of her colleagues.

[Jo]

Thinking further about it this story is likely to make things worse for minorities, when the point of the report is to make things better. It is being made to look like a big issue in the papers, 'outrage', 'ridiculous' etc just like the recent reports about Muslims and dogs. (Paraphrase in case you haven’t spotted the stories – The police wanted to advertise a new crime number and used a puppy. Apparently people didn't want pictures of puppies in their shop windows as dogs are considered unclean and they are now making them wear booties when searching some Muslim houses.) Lots of papers included articles saying it was ridiculous and people wrote saying how silly it was that they wouldn’t even have a picture of a dog up. No one had actually refused to put them up it was just the Police being overly sensitive which made the Muslim community looked they were non-integrating, complainers, which was not the case at all of course, but I am sure some damage has been done. I think stories like this trivialise the real race issues that people suffer.

[Jo]

One of my early memories is eating onion bhajis and tandoori chicken, however, if someone gave me green food (cucumber, spinach, etc) I would probably have said 'yuk' though my mum would have told me off. I think looking to curb racism in small kids is good and I think most nursery staff would be able to spot picky eaters and those who might be prejudiced.

[Seema]

Gipsy, I ate spicy/ garlicy food all through my pregnancy and the six months I breastfed my son. I can honestly say that I never even thought twice about it. In fact, if anything I actually craved strong flavours throughout that period.

I don't know about Nepali traditions but could avoiding spicy food in pregnancy be for women who suffer from reflux/heartburn, because I understand that does get worse in pregnancy.

I laughed about your son eating raw garlic. My son eats crystallised ginger (calls them sweeties) and one of the first few words he learnt was 'pepper' (as in the large sweet green and red varieties) because he used to love eating them raw.

[Gipsy]

I would be interested in input from Seema and Bushra on this. I was told not to eat spicy or garlicy food while breastfeeding (I had considerable trouble in this area - son was not a natural feeder). My sister was living in Nepal at one time, and told me that the women in her village abstained from spicy food while breastfeeding.

Incidentally, son (3) loves both spicy and garlicy food. Particularly garlic, and I found him once chomping on a clove of raw garlic as if it was an apple. So I don't think that the lack of that flavour while breastfeeding had any impact, for him at least.

[mumoftwo]

I hasten to add that I'm not currently a bottle-fed baby, just in my dim and distant past!

[mumoftwo]

I've also read that breastmilk tastes different depending what you eat, so by eating a wide variety of foods whilst breastfeeding, you are exposing your little one to a range of flavours. There was a study that showed if you eat broccoli when breastfeeding, your children will be more likely to eat it later on (although how they can control for the fact that mothers who eat lots of broccoli are likely to model this behaviour, or present broccoli a lot, I don't know). I guess the same may be true to some degree over spicy food, although I'm sceptial about these studies, as a bottle-fed baby who just loves all food, including spicy/hot dishes!

In our house, my two get praised for trying new food, even if they subsequently don't eat it.

I agree, Sarah, that racist talk can often focus on food (and food smells). My granny used to make remarks about this all the time 'they smell funny, their food smells funny'. I won't repeat what she used to say after that. So, taken in that context, expressing disgust for certain types of food, along with the people who eat it, certainly has the potential to be racist.

[Sarah]

"As for the original article, I think it is aimed at the Daily Telegraph readership who want to roll their eyes at such issues (just look at some of the posters on that column)."

I think you are right about this - I haven't seen the full report either, but seriously doubt that it was saying 'anyone who dislikes spicy food is a racist'. More likely it was about the ways even small children can pick up racist attitudes from their parents and peers, and how they might express this - perhaps one, just one of the examples given was expressing disgust at 'foreign' food, which they might have learned from their parents. I would guess the article was just picking on that particular example and misrepresenting it to give the Telegraph readers an easy straw-man to bash.

Of course if it is as represented, then it's ridiculous, that goes without saying. Children are picky eaters, as we all know, and everyone has likes and dislikes when it comes to foods and flavours. However I do think people can express racist attitudes in their opinions about food - my own parents do this, avowing disgust (and I mean real disgust and contempt, not just 'I don't like the taste') for dishes that they've never to my knowledge even tried! So I guess I was similar as a child, though fortunately I've become a bit more adventurous in my tastes, or I'd be missing out on a lot of delicious food.

[Seema]

Lucy, I don't often post here but being Asian I think I can answer your question. Very young children are not given anything remotely hot. Aisan cooking is full of herbs and spices (most add flavour not heat) and from toddlerhood most children are given milder versions of adult meals. I did the same with my three year old and he eats pretty much everything without any problems.

As for the original article, I think it is aimed at the Daily Telegraph readership who want to roll their eyes at such issues (just look at some of the posters on that column). The reality, however, is that if you are in the minority sometimes it does feel like racism rains down on you non-stop without the majority noticing it.

I also realise that it is a child's natural instinct to notice differences. How adults react to such inquisitiveness tempers a child's future reactions. So I (having suffered from severe racism and name calling in my early life) would prefer to teach my son by explaining to him how pointing fingers and unthoughtful remarks can really hurt people. But then I believe it actually makes us better human beings to be mindful of others' feelings.

[Gipsy]

>>To go back to the original post, I actually teach my children that to try something at the dinner table and say 'yuk' is rude in any context.

Good point. I do too. As an aside, my nursery has chicken korma on the menu, and other similar curry style dishes, and none of these are at all remotely spicy in the 'hot' sense.

[Gipsy]

Sue, you keep missing the point. I don't doubt for a second that you were just being sarcastic in your first post. But instead of accepting that sarcasm doesn't always work well, and knowing from your previous encounter with Sakura (in which, incidently, she made it quite clear she was British, so I'm surprised you forgot that) how emotional she can be, simply leaving it and moving on, you've instead called into question the intelligence of everyone who doesn't 'get' your sense of humour. THAT is what I've had a problem with.

[Lucy]

I agree, MumofTwo - it's really annoying to have toiled over a meal and have ANYONE saying 'yuk'! Just in terms of biology, though, I thought very spicy food was bad for children as young as three - certainly it is for babies - the chili heat can dehydrate them more than it does adults. Anyone know if that's true?

[Sue]

Lucy: Sue, could you knock it off, please?

- well, you first please, Lucy, since you started it. Why is it hostile for me to say: "Sakura - there may be a lanaguage difficulty here! I don't think you spotted I was being sarcastic....

Hope that clarifies."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Why should I assume everyone here is British or has English as a first language? Wouldn't that be a tad arrogant on my part? If I were participating in a foreign language forum, I might find it hard to spot whether a comment was satirical, humourous, sarcastic etc.

In all of this nonsense, I have been squeaky clean. I don't always say that - I knew, for example, that when I expressed impatience and low tolerance of depression as an illness that I was wading in, but in this instance I do, from my heart, believe that there was absolutely nothing provocative whatsoever in my original post and that no native English speaker could possibly mistake it for anything other than satirical, and no one could possibly take it as something I was actually advocating.

And since I am, I truly believe, the injured party here, I shall continue to defend myself against attack, whoever is attacking me. So, if we all want this unpleasant exchange to end now, all anyone has to do is stop replying to me.

[mumoftwo]

To go back to the original post, I actually teach my children that to try something at the dinner table and say 'yuk' is rude in any context. If I've spent ages cooking something, or they are at someone else's house, then I don't expect them to say 'yuk' and pull faces if they don't like something, but 'I don't really like that, thank you'!

As for being on the look-out for racism, of course the cooking example aged three is a bit extreme, however, I do think children should be pulled up by teachers or parents for calling names, especially offensive racist ones. Children are trying out behaviour all the time, and whilst you can't police their language and name-calling all the time, nor would you want to, it is worth stepping in and reminding them that name calling is not just 'part of childhood' but actually upsetting to others. I feel really guilty because my two have been known to call a little boy we know by a name he hates (an innocuous one, but one he hates nevertheless), and I don't let it pass because when you call people names, it upsets them (something perhaps we could all contemplate, even as adults).

[Sue]

Gypsy - well, of course she did! Why else could she have found my posts 'offensive' if not on the basis of racism?

And I'd call any reaction likes hers 'unintelligent' because, again, what else can it be (unless it's a deliberate windup!)

Am I Sakura-the-sock-puppett? Nope - she's beyond the powers of my imagination. I have simply never ever come across anyone like her -ever! A quite extraordinary person (if she's real).

[Kim]

Just gone back and read that Bratz thread - I missed most of it because I wasn't that interested. Blimey.

Personally I believe the world would be a better place if people weren't so ready to assume the worst of other people's intentions. It seems to go like this:

Person A makes a remark, which is intended innocuously.
Person B believes Person A's remark is offensive, and gets angry.
Person A gets angry back and this time genuinely insults Person B.
Person B gets outraged and believes that her initial perception of A is confirmed as correct. She is offensive back.
Person A now gets really angry and tells Person B she is an idiot.

etc etc etc. By this time, person C, D, E and F have all waded in and said their bit and everyone has got in a right old state.

So much easier if someone just took a step back and said, "Look, this is a misunderstanding, shall we all start again?" A few threads back someone said something mildly insulting to Caitlin, Caitlin made a sympathetic and jokey reply, and the person immediately backtracked. That's the way to do it.

We wouldn't normally let this kind of thing escalate into a row in real life, so why do it on the Internet?

[Gipsy]

Bushra, you are quite right, and my in ability to stay out of it is just feeding the situation. So I shall now. I too wish you would post lots more - you are one of the cool heads of reason who make this place a lot of fun and stop people like me from getting sucked into idiot discussions like this. Please comment more!

[Lucy]

Sue, could you knock it off, please? Instead of responding to my arguments, you've implied I must be 'nastier' and less 'intelligent' to make them. This blog is usually a nice place, and I think you're spoiling it.

You say that you didn't suggest that insulting someone foreign was excusable. And yet, when Sakura didn't spot your sarcasm, you responded not by writing 'oh, sorry, didn't mean to offend you ... and by the way, my intent was sarcastic', or something along those lines. No, you went straight in with the rude assumption that her English wasn't up to scratch. What that boils down to is, however little you may have intended it, that you excused yourself for offending someone on grounds of their poor English.

'I wonder what she and Lucy would make of Swift's Modest Proposal?', you ask. I don't think I've demonstrated anywhere that I don't recognise or understand satire - though I hardly think you're on a level with Swift. It was the phrase 'language difficulty' with which I took issue. That's quite clear.

I don't think I'm being like Sakura, I'm trying very hard to keep my tone reasonable, so could you please stop lumping us together as The Idiots?

[Gipsy]

Sue, Sakura never called you racist. And now you've called her hysterical, stupid and offensive. And you've also called into question the intelligence of anyone who's disagreed with you here.

With each post you say something that sounds quite reasonable and then stick in a barbed remark that is clearly going to get someone's back up. I think that is what you enjoy the most because then you get to be the indignant injured party.

Do I think that Sakura is over reacting and overly emotional in her response? Yes, absolutely. But then I feel that you are as well. And I do find it rather suspicious that twice now, Sakura has come in to a conversation, and in both cases, in response to you, and again in both cases in 'outrage' at what you've written.

I've been involved in plenty of online forums, and know that it is not at all uncommon for some posters to create 'sock puppets' (as they are called) for the sake of creating just such a situation, and then feed off the controversy that it causes. They like to have 'us and them' situations, and that can only happen when a forum becomes polarised. So they create these situations in order to do just that.

[KM]

I agree Bushra, except that I wish you commented lots!

[Sue]

Kim - I think it comes from the discussion about Bratz dolls. Anon said that historically, if I recall, children of mixed race were associated with the lower classes. Whether they were once or not I've no idea - but I doubt it's true now. It certainly isn't in my own family, as I pointed out. (Middle class to the soles of our delicate feet!)

[Sue]

Easy peasy - Sakura, and sometimes Lucy. Honestly, reread my original first post here, then read Sakura's extraordinary reaction. It's just, well, extraordinary. She's either a wind-up merchant (which her latest post makes me think!), or she's hysterical, or she's stupid or she's offensive (ie, calling people racists.)

I'm just not sure what level of intelligence is required to sport satirical humour - because she clearly didn't spot it, OR her reply would have been to the effect of 'Racism is not a suitable subject for satirical humour in my opinion and personal experience', instead of just laying into me accusing me of racism as if I actually MEANT what I'd written about punishing children for calling British food boring....

I wonder what she and Lucy would make of Swift's Modest Proposal? Would they actually think he was recommending that the starving Irish peasantry should eat their own children both to feed themselves and reduce the surplus population??????? Or would they get all outraged and assume he was advocating infantacide and cannibilism!?

It's been quite educational, this ludicrous furore, I must say, because it shows that even in places like this, idiocy can take over a thread. I really have no other rational explanation for Sakura's behaviour.

[Kim]

Who said anything about mixed race children being lower class? I've just reread this thread and I can't see any remark that remotely suggest that.

I think Sakura must be one of those people who is only happy when she is taking offence at something, and nothing anybody says is going to placate her. Most debates on here are reasonably good-natured and civilised, so best thing to do is move onto something else.

[Gipsy]

>>Shall we try for a level of intelligence here?

Well, that was a bit unnecessary. Who do you think isn't being 'intelligent' in this discussion?

[bushra]

this comment thread is turning more out of hand than the article in question. but hey, this is just my opinion and the reason why i don't comment as much on here anymore.

[Sue]

Sakura - it's no good. I'm not biting. Try harder! You can do it, I know you can. Come on, girl - get those fingers tapping!

[sakura]

Actually when I read `little Ms Shop assistant` I thought `how superior and awful. What the shop assistant did in refusing the girls entry to the nail bar was inexcusable. However, that does not justify your high and mighty tone. It is as if you have come in form above, Sue, looking down at the rest of us mere mortals.

As for the rest of it, Sue. If your own propaganda is to be believed, then you were more than capable of writing `mixed race` instead of `whatever`. Except you did not want to, did you.

Hide behind `Great British Humour` if you want to. Say you were being sarcastic in demanding `severe punishment`. Suggest it I am at fault, because perhaps we are from different backgrounds and I don`t `get` your sarcasm. I am as British as I presume you to be.

As for your personal attack on me and my English language skills, it is of no concern to me whatsoever. Clearly you wanted to hit back, I know how it came across and Ill simply walk away in disgust.

The difference is, Sue, is that some things are beyond the pale. Like suggesting little girls are slappers for playing with Bratz dolls, or looking down on shop assistants, or being rude about non white children.

We were all stunned at that stupid report. Me as much as the next `lady`. It is the reaction which I found offensive. I did not accuse you of racism. I said I was offended. I wouldnt be so rude.

Unlike you....

I will stand by my assertion, Sue, that while you think I am an idiot, I think you are a very rude woman.

I have written to the blog owners to complain. I see the comment about mixed race children being `lower class` was not removed, and this is just too much. There is a fine line between defending oneself and arguing for the sake of it.

At this point I will disappear and let the minority get on with ruining a perfectly good forum.

[Sue]

Lucy: To suggest that offending someone 'foreign' is somehow excusable appals me.

- Excuse me? Did I say this? No. I said there might be a language problem - "Sakura - there may be a lanaguage difficulty here! I don't think you spotted I was being sarcastic...." which is, as I have repeatedly said, the only possible explanation that could occur to me in the face of her extraordinary outburst. However, as I have also said, she was clearly just being an idiot. And I'll stand by that one.

Now, ladies all - shall we try and reach for some kind of agreement here? Shall we try and see if we can make some kind of 'ruling' as to whether any subjects are 'unsuitable for satirical humour'. If people prefer, we can rule out racism as being suitable, and then we won't run the risk of any more idiocy in postings? Hmm?

As I say, the only possible way for someone to object to my original posting is on that basis. NOTHING ELSE. Because otherwise why on earth should I not be 'offended' at Sakura accusing me of racism? How insulting is that thank you very much?!

By the way, I haven't spotted any of the mothers of children with disabilities assuming that I was NOT being sarcastic in my final sentence - "Gee, thanks for your sensitivity and kindness, Little Ms Shop Assistant.....)". Or does anyone believe that, hey, Sue thinks that the shop assistant was being kind and sensitive in her treatment of her 'unwanted customers'?

Shall we try for a level of intelligence here?

[Sue]

Gipsy: Sue was abrasive to start with,

- what was abrasive about my original post on this subject? Please do tell me.

[KM]

This whole debate sums up the problem with the nuances of dialogue in this area.
When a child says Yuk they may be being racist or they may not like hot food.
Ditto with sarcasm.
Ditto with comments about second-language etc etc.

You can't judge a whole person's attitude on such small things.

[Lucy]

Sue, I don't believe I live in a nastier world than you. Nor should you try to use that as an excuse for your own questionable communication, were it the case.

I thought that Sakura's initial response suggested someone hurt, emotional, and offended. It isn't 'vicious' to be offended - and whether or not someone's first language is English has nothing to do with it. As it happens, Sakura tells us that her first language is English and that she has a degree in the subject. As do I. Yet we both read your comment in the same way. Now, perhaps you also have a degree in English. Or, perhaps you wrote something a little misguided, and did not quite realise how offensive it might sound.

To suggest that offending someone 'foreign' is somehow excusable appals me. If I had suspected that someone on this forum was struggling with English, I would only advance that as a reason for misunderstanding me if they had already admitted a difficulty. Unless you yourself struggle with English, it should be quite easy to re-phrase a point in simpler terms. In this case, you could simply have apologised for offence and explained that your intent was sarcastic. Instead, you justified your wording by suggesting that Sakura's English was at fault. At the very least, that is remarkably self-satisfied (do you never make mistakes in communication?).

I thought at first that you had simply made a slight mistake that had caused disproportionate offence. Now, I'm worried that perhaps Sakura had it right when she was so upset by you.

[Gipsy]

Cat - making assumptions is what racism is all about. Not that I am suggesting you are at all! People make assumptions - eg 'hey get Claire Jones to sing' on the basis that she's Welsh therefore she must be able to sing (a gross exaggeration made to illustrate what I mean).

I've seen a lot of people post online with sub standard English even though it is their first language. It is fairly common. So perhaps you subconsciously made the assumption that English wasn't her first language based purely on her user name not being 'English'.

Sue has an abrasive posting manner, and it has pushed my buttons before. Would we be dissecting this outburst between Sue and Sakura if it was about any other subject? Or would we just ignore it on the basis that Sakura did make an emotive reply but it wasn't a personal attack, and Sue was abrasive to start with, and the two of them can sort it out between themselves? Because that seems to be pretty much what happens in all other altercations here. Except this one.

[Gipsy]

Sue, calling Sakura's post vicious is an over reaction on your part. Yes, she over reacted, but it wasn't vicious. That implies a level of nastiness that is quite extreme. Sakura was emotional in her response to you, she was not vicious.

If you do want to call her response to you vicious then you should look back at some of your responses to others in the past - they are on quite a similar level for emotional response to what someone was saying.

I do agree with Lucy - I read your statement about her English not being up to scratch in exactly the same way. And I did think that the 'whatever' grated. It has all the Catherine Tate types of connotations of dismissiveness. An 'etc' would have done the job just as well, so I do wonder why you chose the word 'whatever' knowing the way it is used in today's society.

[cat]

Ok, this is probably going to send some people into orbit but I thought Sakura's English was sub-standard. From that, rightly or wrongly, I inferred that she was likely to be a non-native English speaker and thus less likely to 'get' the nuances of the original posting.
Perhaps making assumptions is "Not a Good Thing" but it does not make you a "Bad Person" or a racist come to that.

[Sue]

Lucy: That's not exactly vicious!

- hmm, perhaps you live in a nastier world than I do! In my neck of the woods, getting an aggressive posting back like that is vicious. So much so that the only 'rational' explanation was, to me, that she was foreign, and simply hadn't realised I was being satirical, but had, instead, read it at face value. For someone who is English and (presumably?) whose first language is English, to fail to spot that I find unbelievable. And since I WAS being satirical, the only valid objection to make is whether racism can or can't be a fit subject for satirical humour.

[Lucy]

Whoops - when I wrote 'she was offensive', below, I meant to write 'she was offended'.

Clear proof that we all of us are liable to write offensivly without intention...

[Lucy]

'as I said, I was actually trying to be polite in the face of a quite extraoardinary vicious outburst!'

Um ... all Sakura had said at that point was that your comments were 'nasty' and that she was offensive. That's not exactly vicious! I don't think you said anything really terrible, and I think Sakura does seem to have built up quite a head of steam - but I did want to point out that I too read that particular phrase as rather offensive, even though I'm fairly sure it wasn't meant to be. It seemed worth saying, if only to demonstrate that Sakura's reading, though extreme and perhaps a little affected by the experiences she's referred to elsewhere, isn't an unique reading.

[Sue]

Lucy - as I said, I was actually trying to be polite in the face of a quite extraoardinary vicious outburst! "Language difficulty" was about the politest explanation I could find. I gave her the benefit of the doubt - clearly a mistake. I didn't make it twice.

[Lazy Mummy]

Actually, on this one I think Sakura's reaction was over the top and if I were looking for apologies, I'd want to see one from her to Sue for overreacting. (Sorry, Gipsy, but that's probably the opposite of what you were suggesting).

Of course if this report is correct, the notion/idea of looking at nursery-age children's eating habits to determine racist tendencies is not merely stupid, it is, actually asinine. Let's hope this is not the case as I really do think you can be too politically correct for anyone's good - as evidenced by this report.

[Lucy]

Actually, Sue, when I read your post earlier today your glib assumption of a 'language difficulty' struck me as offensive too. In the context, it's hard not to read that an implication that Sakura's English is sub-standard!

[Sue]

Thankyou!

I wonder how many 'official ethniciites' there are, and whether anyone ever ticks 'all of the above'.

I seem to remember reading that in the days of segregation in the USA, it got incredibly 'detailed' - for want of a blunter word! There was, I think 'quadroon' for 'one quarter black/African' (ie one grandparent?) and 'octoroon' for, I assume 'one eighth' (one great-grandparent). Don't know whether it had any legal implication or any other kind. All quite horrible.

[bushra]

as a british girl of pakistani origin, also degree educated, i didn't find Sue's 'Asian/Afro-Caribbean/non-white/European/whatever' line offensive at all. my take is it would take Sue absolutely forever to list all the ethnic categories recognised by the Department of Children and Families, so she kept it brief...

[Sue]

Gypsy - I think this is probably why, for good or ill, society ends up with The Rules of PC - ie, to try and establish some sort of 'objective measure' for insult/offence etc.

Establishing objectivity is probably impossible, so I suppose the best is to try for some kind of general consensus that 'most people' are happy with?

I can always remember one of the (satirical!) programmes taking issue with the Whitehousian view of the world, which managed to regard the hymn All Things Bright and Beautiful as being 'filthy' because 'purple headed mountain' was 'obviously' a reference to an erect penis, and 'rivers flowing free' was 'equally obviously' a reference to the ejaculation of semen....

Anyway, hope Sakura hasn't left for good. These spats happen, but they pass over, and we all start discussing something else.

[Gipsy]

>>can someone feel racially insulted even if the 'insulter' does not intend to insult?

I think that this discussion raises an excellent point, and I'm glad that Sakura and Sue have brought it up.

By and large, I would say that none of the regulars are racist at all, and don't have a prejudicial bone in their body. But that doesn't mean that some of what they do or say won't have a racist impact, no matter what their intentions simply because of a lack of awareness of what it is like on the other side of the fence.

Because at the end of the day, no-one truly knows what it is like to be another person.

That doesn't mean you HAVE to have that awareness. But I would suggest that you accept that it happens - and it happens to all of us - inadvertently, and when it does, just apologise and move on.

Sue's experiences in life may have allowed her to see the world as a fairly racist free place, so she's not going to interpret an ambiguous statement as prejudice. Sakura's experiences in life has brought her into contact with a lot of prejudice, so she's likely to see an ambiguous statement as racist.

Which is why I see the whole getting into the 'trying to justify your point of view' thing as pointless.

When it has happened to me, and indeed it has, I have apologised (as indeed I am genuinely sorry to hurt another person even if it wasn't intended). Eventually that person will see from my actions that I'm not racist, and indeed, by taking responsibility it shows the other person that they may have misjudged or hastily judged my intentions. In every case, I've had an apology and earned a friend.

[Sue]

Well, I do hope not! Quite sincerely. For their own sakes it just makes life harder and more miserable than it has to be, and that's such a shame and a waste. But then, it might be that she's been personally 'stung' so often that she now can't help but be genuinely 'oversensitive' - ie, oversensitised, and that can be very understandable.

But it's a shame to over-react (as I would define it subjectively) because it simply assumes a hositility, a 'nastiness' that just isn't there. I appreciate that no one should be thoughtless or careless of others' feelings when it comes to such issues, but I also think that unless someone 'intends' to wound or insult, the 'crime' is no where near as bad. Perhaps 'casual racism' is dangerous, just as 'casual sexism' is, because it implies 'norms' that are of themselves unwelcome.

But I'd rather be called 'luv' or 'darling' unthinkingly by someone who didn't really twig it was 'sexist' than to have a man really make some yukky intentional comment that he knew damn well would be offensive!

As usual, it's the moral disntinction between intent and effect - the old chestnut about whether someone who accidentally kills is 'guiltier' than someone who intentionally only wounds someone!

But I think it can be counter-productive to 'play the race card' too often. Or, indeed, the 'religious sensibility card'. Actually, I think the latter is far worse, as one can't choose one's race but one can choose one's religion, and if you choose an intolerant, self-obsessed, self-martyring, self-pitying one, then, chum, your look out!

[Kim]

I think Sakura is probably one of those people who takes offence for a living.

[Sue]

Jo: I think after your last clash

- Oh, have we clashed already? I hadn't noticed! (Or I've forgotten!) Honestly, where, when??!

[Jo]

Hi Sakura. I am really sorry but I don't think what Sue said was racist, though obviously you were hurt by it. I think after your last clash perhaps you have just decided that she is a racist and therefore aren't looking as objectively at her post. I think this issue (not liking food equals racist) can't actually be debated without a few jokes as it appear ridicculous.

[Sue]

Sakura - I do actutally agree with the general point 'are any subjects beyond satire?' - because I do think some are.

For example, there was a satirical programme on British TV years ago which took paedophilia as its subject, and it was very controversial as to whether or not child-rape can EVER be a subject for humour.

On that issue, I'd actually come down on your side of the fence, and say, no, it's just NOT FUNNY to make any kind of humour out of children being raped. However well-intentioned (ie, satirical) that humour might be. (I think, also, that particular programme - not that I saw it, I only read about the fuss - was attacking the 'hysteria' about paedophilia, which might make a difference, though personally I don't think you can be too hysterical about paedophilia??)(I'll have to think about that one!)(maybe you can - eg, the current 'ban' on adults in any capacity touching children in any way whatsover, even a teacher hugging a crying child, etc)

But with racism - hmm, well, obviously from what I wrote you can see that I DO think that can be an appropriate subject for satire, and I think satire can actually serve a very useful educational purpose. ie, by 'reversing' the 'racism' we expose it even more.

So, my point about saying that we should object to children refusing to eat 'traditional British food' such as potatoes and toast, does, I strongly feel, highlight the essential daftness of taking children to task for not liking a particular foodstuff.

And, too, I am also making the point that racism is multi-directional. One can be just as 'racist' about Britishness as about anything else. ie, it would be as 'racist' to diss toast as it is to diss curry.

You also raise, by implication, another very important and difficult point - is there such thing as 'objective' racism? Or is it always 'subjective' - ie, can someone feel racially insulted even if the 'insulter' does not intend to insult?

I used to get this a lot with feminism - was someone being a sexist pig, or was I just being 'over-sensitive' etc. If I, as a woman, feel that a term is sexist, does that make it so? Or does there have tobe some kind of 'intent' in the user of the term, or, indeed, some kind of consensus by all women as to 'yup, that's sexist all right', etc.

ie, who gets to decide, and on what basis.

Ditto for racism and any other areas, perhaps, for example, disability (if that term itself isn't regarded as 'dissing'.)

[Hebe]

Are you being a little too over sensitive Sakura? I read Sue's comment and didn't read rudeness or racism it it at all, simply sarcasm. To me the "whatever" was just to cover all the ethnic monorities that may not have been mentioned - nowdays it is broken down so many ways. I didn't read it to mean children of mixed race at all.

[sakura]

Its fine Sue, Ill let you be self congratulatory and tell yourself the way you express yourself is perfectly fine, and its me who has the problem.

You WERE very insulting and then you play innocent.

I was willing to give this blog a second chance, but really, its not worth it.

Ill disgree. Racism is NOT funny. Not in any way shape or form.
Ignorance is utterly startling.

[Sue]

Cat - thank you. I thought for a moment I was going bonkers! Maybe thirty years of watching British satire on TV has sent me nuts!

[cat]

Well I thought Sue's post was funny, sarcastic and not in the slightest bit offensive.

Since when has a (clearly) sarcastic comment referring to "severe punishments" for dissing toast, possibly been able to be perceived as "aggressive"? I mean, really...

And I disagree Sakura, some things ARE funny!

[Sue]

Sakura - I don't often get cross with people, but I am cross with you. Where on earth do I start when you post something like that? Honestly, where?

Ok, let's waste my time and take the points in order, shall we?

Language difficulty - did I say you didn't speak English as a first language? No, your assumption. A false one. It was my polite way of saying that perhaps you have a difficulty in spotting satire, or, indeed, don't approve of it as a form of humour and protest.

Ethnicities - what words would you use to define ethnicities? So far as I know, 'Asian' Afro-Caribbean' etc are perfectly PC terms, aren't they, as is non-white, European etc.

'Whatever' - why do you think that means 'mixed race'? Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said 'whatever' because it it was shorthand for 'all other varied etnicities, from Irish to Martian'.

If you want to pick a quarrel, fine - but you merely, to my mind, show yourself up to be an idiot. Do hope you realise that 'idiot' is a non-racist term. But perhaps you won't.

It's attitudes like yours that makes me realise how very hard it can be for anyone to express the slightest sympathy for anti-racism, when all that happens is that idiots like you start biting heads off. So, Sakura - cool it. And that isn't racist either. I couldn't care less if you were purple with green stripes. Or your husband or children or your neighbours or your best friend's cat or your damn sofa.

If you don't think satire is witty, fine - your privilege. If you think some subjects shouldn't be satirised, as in, this instance child-food-racism, again, your privilege.

[j]

"The guide goes on to warn that children might also "react negatively to a culinary tradition other than their own by saying 'yuk'"."

That would anything other than chips, if we believe Jamie Oliver.

I have worked in the equal opps arena for many years in the past. I despair when I see headlines like this. As Sakura says, real racism is intolerable and needs dealing with. Saying "yuck I hate fajitas" is just picky eating. And is followed, in my house anyway by, "tough. Eat them or wait till the next meal."

[sakura]

No language difficulty. How utterly vile of you to make that assumption! You seem to have made presumptions. I am white English, Eng lit degree from a top tier university, and a good career.

You were perfectly clear in your assertion that your list of non caucasian types (and the listing and manner you listed and described mixed race children as `whatever`) was offensive and not the slightest bit witty. Nor was it witty to suggest that children who didnt like bland English food who were from non ethincally caucasian backgrounds should be `severely punished`.

Its all well and good to cry sarcasm when you are pulled up, though if people had agreed with you, Im sure you would have decended further into your Little Britain rantings.

If a child said to my daughter `You eat raw octopus you Japanese are disgusting` that would be unacceptable. If they said `yuck uncooked octopus, gross!` that is perfectly acceptable. Not liking food is not racist, we are in agreement, Sue. Not liking people, a race and using differences such as food differences, as bullying, is racist. I am talking about adults who are old enough to have formed such thought processes.

Just in case YOU didnt understand me `sue` what I found offensive was the manner in which you listed `types` of non white children, and the aggressive way you suggested be dealt with.

Some things just are NOT funny.

[Sue]

Sakura - there may be a lanaguage difficulty here! I don't think you spotted I was being sarcastic....

Hope that clarifies.

Basically, of course it's daft to tell children that it's racist not to like all kinds of foods! I mean, would we say a child was being racistly Anti-Italian if they said they didn't like pasta?!

On the other hand, if a child said something along the lines of 'I'm not eating all that foreign muck that Pakis eat!' then that clearly does have racist implications, because of the reason for not wanting to eat that particular foodstuff (ie, as opposed to a child simply not liking curry/chili - or, like mine, being unable to eat them without pain, just as I can't either.)

However, I agree that the whole thing has probably been souped up (pun intended!) by the reporting.

I do think, as I said, that children who use the same unacceptable language as their parents should not have that use tolerated. However, just what exactly is the best way of 'not tolerating' is debateable. I quite agree it is never a child's fault if they simply trot out what they've heard their parents say, and unless they had reached an age and awareness and were deliberately using it to taunt a teacher or other children etc, then I'd say adopting a neutral 'that's a cruel word to use that is hurtful to those it is aimed at' is probably the best approach.

There seems to be a bit of a fuss in the press at the moment about a peer who said the phrase 'nigger in the woodpile' (not sure if I can even repeat it without censure, can I?), and I think this can be a tricky thing. For those of the old generation that particular phrase was very common - I heard both my parents use it, but it was never used in any 'aware' way at all, it was just a saying, that's all. That isn't to excuse it, more that it just didn't register with them that it was offensive. Sometimes patterns of speech can become a habit, and it can be tricky in practice to control it - though of course that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a strong effort! Perhaps a more contemporary example is school children who use 'gay' as a term of contempt - eg, 'that's so gay' etc.

[sakura]

Sue! You are back with your delightful turn of phrase. This report, if these allegations are correct, is absolutely nutty. Not liking a particular type of food is not racism.

However your phrase Asian/Afro-Caribbean/non-white/European/whatever

is somehow distasteful and antagonistic. Why fight and hit back at children, when its the adults who have got it wrong?

My `whatever` child falls into your list, and when there are people who catagorise children like you are doing, perhaps this type of report is necessary.

Please mind your nasty comments Sue, they REALLY do offend

[Gipsy]

I think I'd have to read the full report before making any judgments in this - we're not seeing this statement in context, and plus it makes good headlines doesn't it, not liking spicy food being racist. Too often the story isn't allowed to get in the way of a good headline, so I'm going to be reserved on making a judgment on this.

Keeping an eye out for racism at a young age is a good thing. My big worry is what happens if the child does say something like 'paki'. Demonising the child is wrong, as in yanking them in front of the head teacher, telling them off in a public way and so forth. The child will simply be bringing the attitudes they are exposed to at home into the school. Working with the child to get them to understand or see a different point of view is a much better approach.

[IK]

Late April's Fool...?

[Sue]

Fair enough. Let's just make sure that any Asian/Afro-Caribbean/non-white/European/whatever child is duly severely punished for calling potatoes or toast 'boring'. I mean, how racist can you get, dissing our national British food??

On the issue of children adopting their parents' verbal dissing, such as the repellent 'Paki' then yes, I agree children should be steered away from that, plus, of course, which wasn't mentioned in the article I think, any dissing style comments/descriptions of disability (anyone see the article in the Daily Mail about three teens with disabilities being thrown out of a beauty salon because they would 'scare the customers'???. Gee, thanks for your sensitivity and kindness, Little Ms Shop Assistant.....)