http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7454545.stm



But wait! Everything is OK!



What a nice man. Can you imagine being so loaded with seething, racist bigotry that you are capable of destroying your entire career with one simple comment? OMG

Seething, rascist bigotry seem as bit strong for an off the cuff comment, no matter how ill-judged. At least he apologised and resigned, which puts him further up the integrity list than the majority of politicians. I notice that a former Labour cabinet minister, and member of the Equality Council appears to be taking a rather more pragmatic approach to the whole situation.

Incidentally, I'd say the Swedish probably have as much right to find the comment "Boring", as a one word condemnation of their nation, just as offensive.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean it in a racist context, IMO it sounded ilke a bit of football banter. As a politician it was an inappropriate comment and he has paid the price for it. Just not worth the hassle ever making a comment about race if you're in the public domain. Remember Ann Robinson and the Welsh?!

Well, the dictionaries construe 'wop' as a disparaging and offensive reference to an Italian. 'Greasy' doesn't really need interpreting. I find it a very offensive little package, personally.

I assume you must be Italian then? I can think of much more insulting and disparaging comments I've heard which don't offend me in the least. But then I'm not French, American, German.......

Having said that I don't consider myself to be particularly sensitive and my feelings are not easily hurt! Perhaps being a "shandy swilling southern poofdah" in a room full of "real beer drinking" Northerners hardened me up a bit!

Me - Italian? Why would you assume that?? Ah - you don't think my taking offence could have any basis otherwise. Rather a presumption on your part, I think.

Calling you a greasy wop down the pub might be allowed through, but I can't understand how a public figure in government could not cause offence by saying such a thing on air.

Possibly no more presumptive than calling him a "seething racist bigot", despite apparent evidence to the contrary from a politician of the "other" side.

Rascist Bigot? Possibly not. Unthinking, foolish and unemployed? Probably.

If you really want to hear some rascist bigotry, try listening to some of your Welsh neighbours when talking about the English. I must admit I was able to ignore them as well when we occupied Pembroke Dock one gunnery camp!

If Prince Phillip hadsaid it we'd all be laughing.

I was born and raised in Bristol, so I have it as first-hand information that the rift is mutual. What puzzles me, though, is that having lived for over twenty-eight years in Wales I have consistently found the Welsh to be friendly, so I am always puzzled when people suggest otherwise. My Welsh neighbours here are fantastic - thus continuing the trend.

I still can't imagine any state of mind much milder than "seething racist bigotry" leading any public figure in government to joke on air about the greasy wops. It seems just unthinkable to me. He must be either pretty near to how I described, and simply unable to contain himself for the duration of the interview, or incredibly stupid.

Anyway, that's it for me.

Using an offensive term does not make a person racist. Not using offensive terms does not mean a person is not be a racist. The label is, like so many other words, becoming a political tool (take Ken Livingstone's appalling recent behaviour) but inappropriate use dilutes peoples actual experiences of true racism.

I find it extraordinary and scary that someone can take a calculated step to deceive and people take that in their stride, but a malice-free errant word can destroy a career.

Within communities I have links with I get called white boy, whitey, honky etc. There is no hatred or malice underlying it. Call me whatever "offensive" term you want, I care more about what drives you to say them.

Ok - I am trying to get my head around the views you and Roadking are conveying but, I must confess, with little success. If I am making an 'assumption', I think it is that racism in Britain is rife and deeply ingrained. I don't see this as an assumption; more of a lifelong social observation, but you might see it as one. Fair enough. Based on this premise, my perspective on Mr. Cairns is that his lighthearted, throw-away racist vocabulary is more likely than not the expression of his true attitudes. I am that pessimistic about the British in this respect.

The point about dilution is interesting. I don't agree that using racist terms in a carefree and unmalicious way dilutes anyone's experiences. I think it engenders and perpetuates racism. The point for me is that a society's way of thinking and speaking over time crystallises out as deeply-set attitudes and beliefs.

I can't help remembering the time when I was summarily condemned as racist for wondering why government leaflets showed a disproportionate number of black people. That was in my opinion not even suggestive of a racist motive. On the other hand, if I had said "why are there so many thick-skulled nig-nogs in their literature?" is anyone thinking I would have had a better reception?

Sorry - I have to disagree on this one.

Enforcer, tell us what Racism is.

I will freely admit that I find some racist jokes amusing and, if they are indeed funny, I will tell them to friends.

In no way would I condone racism or consider myself a racist because of that.

How can anyone call greasy wops 'greasy wops' when afore-mentioned 'greasy wops' built our beloved COUPE. Ignore that it was penned by a 'loud yank' who left to work for a bunch of 'krauts'.

I hope I don't need to. Let me convey the meaning by demonstration. I chose my example carefully:

1. If a politician broadcasts on the radio that he thinks of the indigenous people of Nigeria as 'thick-skulled, or pug-nosed, nig-nogs' he is expressing his own racism.

2. The expressions 'Thick-skulled Nig-Nog' and 'Greasy Wop' each contain (a) an (incorrect) insult ('thick-skulled' and 'greasy') and (b) a perjorative noun ('nig-nog' and 'wop').

Therefore, unless the comparison can be shown to be unreasonable:

3. If a politician broadcasts on the radio that he thinks of the indigenous people of Italy as 'greasy wops', he is expressing his own racism.

Please feel free to challenge my reasoning, but tell me exactly where we disagree.

Don't actually disagree with you but also think you perhaps need to chill/lighten-up. I was born in Ipswich which makes me a 'Suffolk Swede' (as in vegetable). There's CockKnees (Cockneys). Scousers, Mancs (not Manx), Brummies and 'Country BumKins', not to mention 'Frogs' and 'Chinks' out there. Unlike sticks, words won't physically hurt you. People who use these terms maliciously and deliberately in ANY public forum are just ignorant (or if you too want to be homophobic ...WANKERS).

I am actually as chilled as I like to be, which is very chilled - something you couldn't gauge or judge. I just have an opinion that I want to express.

Most of the familiar nouns you cite are not really perjorative. I see the ones I am objecting to as being in a completely different category. I wouldn't expect a politician to refer to frogs or chinks, though - not even our 'slitty-eyed cousins', as Prince Phillip once did.

My point about Mr Cairns is that I can only see two believable options. Either this term rolled so irresistably off the tongue for him because it expressed his true view of Italians, or it was intended as a light-hearted quip, but he is so incredibly stupid that he couldn't anticipate the public impression it would make. I do concede that the second is a possibility, but I do mean incredibly stupid.

As the starting point for differences may be what we consider racism is, I think a better answer may be required, but it will be very difficult to tie down.

For example, do we think racism is determined by the intent of the perpetrator or the perception of the victim or a combination of the two?

What makes a term racist as opposed to merely offensive? Can two people say the same thing but only one be a racist? Can someone of one race make a comment that someone of another race can't?

My personal view would be that racism is conduct motivated by an irrational fear or hatred of a person/persons because of a factor associated with race (which could be understood as also including their national or ethnic origin or skin colour).

Therefore if someone who I knew loved me made a "racist" comment about me (as in the examples I gave above) I would not consider them to be racist, but if similar comments were made by someone else my conclusion may be different.

A racist comment can therefore be said by someone, but that that does not by itself make them a racist. In the same way that, surprising myself, I may say something intelligent on one occasion may not mean that I am not in fact iredeemably stupid.

I think that raises at least one issue on which I appear to disagree with you. My view is that people in public life are morally accountable for the way their remarks might reasonably be taken. Knowing that to describe the Italians as 'greasy wops' or the Nigerians as 'thick-skulled nig nogs' could very easily be taken with offence, the said politician can reasonably be construed as intending to cause offence. Knowingly causing offence by calling people by these names seems pretty indistinguishable from uttering racist remarks, to me.

I agree with what you're saying Enforcer. There's no way he should have said this regardless of the intent. He is in the public eye and must have known that offense might be taken by some.

As I mentioned before, in private circles I might tell close friends a racist joke I've heard (99% of the time it is a play on words rather than degredation of an intire race anyway), but I would never think of telling any joke with racial content to people I'd just met or didn't know well as the intent is judged by the person recieving.

One thing I've never understood is why it is fine to start a joke "Paddy and Murphy..." and insinuate that all Irish people are stupid; but it's not ok to start a joke "this paki walks into a bar..." and insinuate whatever you like about Asian people.

Thank you - so I think in answer to Emjay's question you might agree with me that it is not specifically the intent that defines a racist remark, since it is always possible to deny that, but the reasonably predictable response of the listener. If someone could easily imagine his remarks being taken with offence, then to utter them is an offensive thing to do. Agree?

Here are a few thoughts that ended up all over the place

Some people are simply racist. They will not tolerate other people simply because of racial differences, perceived or not... I say some are not perceived as there are differences between people of different racial descent, to say otherwise is just plain stupid.

I've read definitions of a 'racist' that define anyone who 'believes there are physical differences between races' as a racist. If you think an 18 stone white boxer is on equal terms with a black guy then you are deluded. Look at boxing over the last 100 years to see the proof. Boxers of Indian descent thrive at the lighter weights. The same dominance over others is present in lots of other physical sports, long distance running, worlds strongest man etc etc. Some of this can be attributed to culture and different countries' adopted 'national sports', but a great deal is simply down to genetics.

The real soft spot I, believe, is when it comes down to mental differences, whether it be a race's general intelligence, temperament etc. Years ago experiments where conducted and pretty much rigged to rule all non-whites as mentally inferior. Since then, it has all been abolished by the scientific community. As I recall from my missus talking about her course subject material, IQ tests were deemed to be culture specific, people from other countries couldn't know the answers to the questions they were tested on etc etc.

When it comes to jokes and and off the cuff comments it obviously gets complicated. I don't understand why everyone out there is so quick to take offence at comments made about their race even if used in jest.

I would like to know exactly why being called or hearing someone say the words wop, nig-nog, coon, paki etc is offensive? Why is it different to call someone a jock, taff, frog, kraut, shandy swilling tossers (southerners apparently ). I'd ask my friends at work but get the feeling it word get uncomfortable... what a sad state for people to be in I certainly wouldn't call someone and expect them to be happy about it but why is it offensive? I believe a lot of it has been caused by poor reactions from the government; I mean how long ago were these words adopted aggresively? Most of them seem abbreviations of country names and so must have more innocent origins.

I believe that simplybecause these words are perceived as offensive, they are often used aggressively without any real racism behind it. The more people react to them, the more power they have.

On the other hand, could a black guy, for example, say anything to a white person to offend them racially? Certainly not me. I heard a recent story about a girl being bullied by a black guy for several weeks. He called her 'white slag' repeatedly in the middle of the classroom. The teacher was apparently afraid to get involved because of the racism implications. Eventually she relented and actually attacked him when he started pushing her around after school. She called him some 'racist' name during this 'fight' (seriously, they had a fight ). Later that afternoon, the police turned up at her parents' threatening charges of racism against her. When witnesses stepped forwards, teacher included, the charges against her were dropped, but he wasn't charged.

The fact that you know he can get away with saying this when you know full well that, as a white person, you couldn't, annoys me; not because I would be under racist attack, but because it is just plain wrong.

I would suggest that most people branded racists are in fact discriminating against a culture or religion instead of the actual race of the person. when I see a group of young girls dressed from head to toe in blacks rags on a bright sunny day, I do scoff at them. I freely admit that, but it has nothing at all to do with their skin colour, it's the ridiculous restrictions that they willingly place on themselves through plain ignorance/religion that lessens my opinion of them.

I can't even remember what I set out to say now, but to sum up, I would say that in my opinion a 'racist' is a person who dislikes a person based soley on the colour of their skin. The fact that the term has been thrown about so much recently has blured the meaning of it...

p.s. I always thought an Italian was a Gecko

Well out of all that I would just like to pick out one point and respond to it. Why does racism offend?

Firstly, I think of racism as an attitude of superiority over people of another race. It is not just dislike or divisive banter, as in the case of Krauts, Paddies, Frogs and the like. It carries an implication of genuine superiority. For example, I am offended when I feel that Jews regard themselves as the chosen race, making them superior to all others.

One fairly obvious reason why black people would be offended by this coming from us can be found in our history of utterly racist behaviour towards them - black slavery and imperial domination.

Are you really offended, if so why?

It is debatable whether Jews are a serperate race anyway (in fact having just looked it up, it's bloody complicated!), but really, someone who believes this is clearly deluded. I pity them, again religion the blame for so called 'racism'.

Anyone find it strange that in almost every case of racism throughout history, religion is also involved? It can be either the perpetraters or the victims that believe, but religion is always there

To be honest I don't find this surprising; people with vastly different cultures dominated by religion can be frightening. You see evidence of this in these largely ethinic dominated towns in the major cities in Britain. These immigrants don't want to mix with the 'natives' as their way of life is so different. As the teenagers of these largely independant 'societies' grow up, they follow the usual gang mentallity of kids in this country and end up in gang was with religion a strong influence. This is then branded racism by the press whenever they clash with kids from neighbouring boroughs. Another huge generilastion sure, but you get what I'm saying.

Therefore I would suggest that most 'racism' is in fact a form of Xenophobia. The fact that their skin is a different colour is beside the point. A few generations in these different races get on a lot better, usually when the native way of life is adopted. They just fit in better as they adopt western culture.

What I'm getting at, is that I don't believe racism is as prevelant as people are led to believe.

Thoughts?

Just to elaborate on what I'm saying a bit more. I remember a good example of this xenophobia as a kid. One of my best mates had an Indian father. He wasn't the most religious type but I believe he was a Muslim. His son didn't give a rats arse about it. Not once did he mention it, or prattle on about his faith etc. Then there was anothe guy, I think a Hindu. Well, every Religious education lesson, he would sit out of class. This always, always riled the other kids, normally out of jealousy rather than any religous point of view.

This kid also distanced himself from the other kids to such a degree that he had few friends. He was picked on regularly, and his parent were so worried about him, that he would call them at every public phone he walked past on the way home to tell them he was ok. On the days I would walk with him (we lived quite closely) I would get so fed up waiting, I'd just carry on on me own.

His parents would probably think he was racially abused at school because of this. Thinking back, some of the things he was called were probably racist but it wasn't the reason he was picked on.

Two people, same coloured skin, but only one was picked on because he acted so differently. That wasn't racism in my opinion, even if they called him a Paki. It's Xenophobia perpetrated by kids that no know better.

Yes, I do feel offended. I tend to feel offended whenever a group of people looks down on me as in some way inferior to its own members. Obviously my self-esteem is more fragile than yours. It gets a lot worse, though, if this assumed sense of superiority leads on to practical consequences - like the nepotism that exists in the American film industry, for example. In the case of Jews, it grates doubly with me, because of the apparent social unacceptability of my exercising any bias against them. One rule for you, one rule for me. I don't say you have to be offended too, but it is reasonable to assume that such attitudes could cause offence.

I am assuming you meant to write 'xenophobia'. My own take on the role of religion in all this is that it is quite a distance from the root cause of the manifest problem between races or ethnic groups, including 'white caucasians', as we seem to be labelled. (BTW, I am still not comfortable with your use of the word 'ethnic'. What exactly do you intend by it? Everyone belongs to an ethnic group of one sort or another). For me, the root cause of the problem is the human craving for a sense of identity. Given that basic psychological need, anyone who challenges whatever identity a person settles on is going to be seen as a major threat. The best form of defence is attack, so it is said, and the attack emerges in the form of racist (or other identifying factors) elitism. According to my model, the causal chain would be something like:

1. Need to maintain a fragile sense of racial identity.
2. Perception of other races as a threat to that identity.
3. A defensive attack on those races, in the form of devaluation, dislike, hatred, etc.
4. Possible attempt to justify the attack by reference to religious differences.

I accept that identities don't have to be defined by race, and that a similar mechanism operates for other criteria too. But, of course, I never claimed that in the first place. I don't accept that racism is less prevalent than we are told. Quite the opposite. Just as a thought experiment, imagine white families you know whose daughter declares that she is going to marry a Nigerian fellow. My own admittedly limited experience of this scenario suggests that when put to the test people's true feelings come out for all to see, and in general it is a very disappointing set of feelings.

[Added] In reply to your later post, I agree that religion can be at the root of hostilities too, but these are not racist hostilities.