OSCARS: STICKS AND STONES EH?

Sticks and stones. I'm not going to recite the old rhyme. We all know it. This, therefore, makes it all the more mystifying to me that we seem so loath to apply it to our own lives. Why, in a world full of so many tangible things that can hurt us, are we insistent upon taking offence at words?

Yes, language can hurt. I'm not denying the power of words. As someone hoping to make a living from writing and speaking words that'd be, at the very least, a stupid thing to do. I know that books and plays have moved people so powerfully that they've sent facist dictators and communist countries into panics of censorship and burning, I know that blasphemy and swearing are offensive to many people and I totally agree that it's appropriate to teach children to use words wisely. Like I say, I'm not suggesting that there shouldn't be boundaries, that words should be used willy nilly or that we relax the rules so as to attempt to diminish the potential power of words. What I'm saying is that 'taking offence' at jokes and the way in which people choose to express themselves is pointless, limiting, antisocial and downright childish. Not everybody in the world is articulate. Whether it's due to education, society, communication difficulties or a generation thing, everybody makes a verbal faux pas at some stage. It doesn't mean they don't mean well.

There are 7 billion people alive in the world. We span all ages, races, genders, religions and political ideals. We are not all going to agree. That's a given. I'm going to find something funny that Ahmed in Iran is going to find blasphemous. Ahmed is going to find something important that Oscar in Australia will write off as mere twaddle. And Oscar is going to find something sexy that Valerie in the US is going to find revolting. Some of you are going to find the fact that I used the generic name Ahmed for an Iranian man just a little bit racist. Probably. I'm sure someone will. What I don't understand is how, knowing this, we still race to debate, discuss and demand apologies after any joke or comment is made that can't be immediately identified as a non-offensive, all-inclusive statement.

I watched the Oscars. I saw Chris Rock made a speech about how easy it was to earn millions of dollars doing funny voices for animations. I laughed. And laughed. Rock took a risk, said something quirky, honest and with good humour. In doing so he lit up the stage, provoked a reaction and livened up the night. I identified. Working in the arts, though it has its challenges, doesn't exactly stack up next to the trials and tribulations of a brain surgeon. Let's remember that and not take ourselves too seriously. That doesn't diminish the skills, talent or commitment of the actors who make us smile and laugh at the animations we flock to see in our millions. But apparently some 'believe that Rock overstepped some boundaries in dissing fellow actors while presenting an award meant to honor their work'. Translated: Some people can't take a joke.

I'd actually say that I'm fairly conservative. I wouldn't say I 'rock the boat'. So when Billy Crystal glibly said “I loved that movie (The Help)…when I saw it, I wanted to hug the first black woman that I saw. Which from Beverly Hills is about a 45 minute drive", a little bit of me went all Guardian reader panicky. 'Can he say that?' 'Isn't it racist?' 'Is he undoing all the good work that's happening this moment by Hollywood paying homage to black actors?' No, no and no. You know how when you have a really close friend, you can say anything to them and they still know you love them? Yeah. That's kind of what's happening here. Why does Crystal need to tiptoe around the subject of race? He already said he loved the movie. His joke, if we're going to really investigate it, says that he feels positively towards black people. Also, if we're saying it wasn't funny, that's fine. It's fine because at least it was based in truth. Beverly Hills is not known for it's high population of black people. That's a comment my sister made recently whilst standing in Beverly Hills. That's something I, coming from a very multicultural part of London, noticed immediately when spending a week there. 45 minutes is an exaggeration of course but that's what comedy is. Taking the truth and exaggerating. Embellishing. So what's the issue? According to the twitter/blogger sphere:

@kimkane1 It bothers me that none of the writers stopped to think about the feelings of the other black actors and actresses in the room. It bothers me that some in the audience were so de-sensitized that they laughed out loud.

@thewanderingjew: Will Billy Crystal apologize for the racist joke? #oscars

@SALLevation: #BillyCrystalRacist #ThatsAll

@ch3ryl: @billycrystal shows his age in making a #racist joke about wanting to "hug a black woman" post The Help re: @OctaviaSpencer #oscars

emsmiley: So, according to #BillyCrystal, there are no black people in Beverly Hills...racist much?? #oscars" Very uncomfy moment.

'Billy Crystal controversially joked that he wanted to 'hug a black woman' after The Help' The Daily Mail

There are black people still very much considered a lower class in South Africa. There are murders and corruption of black people happening in England. There are hate crimes taking place against black people in America. There are kids suffering from race related bullying. So tell me why Billy Crystal's vaguely amusing but admittedly sub-par joke based entirely in truth, and in no way hostile, is in any way distasteful, disruptive or dangerous to our society. Please, tell me.

PS I like how Brande Victorian put it: 'Maybe I’m naive but I actually saw that joke as more of a commentary on the lack of black women in Hollywood—you know the very issue we’re screaming and kicking about every day...Overall, I think people are being a little too sensitive about Billy Crystal’s routine last night and we’re starting to find anything that touches on race to be racist. Pretty soon that double standard of black people being able to crack jokes about white people, but white people not being allowed to say anything about black folks is going to come back and bite us—hard.' **

* http://news.softpedia.com/news/Oscars-2012-Chris-Rock-Offends-with-Animation-Joke-255179.shtml
** http://madamenoire.com/141224/billy-in-blackface-racist-oscar-routine-isnt-a-big-hit/

Kelis and other questionable news items

I'm getting a little nervous about journalism. Don't get me wrong, I love newspapers and magazines, I love the fact we're not censored and we have the right to free (if slightly over politically correct) speech. No, what currently concerns me is the, apparently necessary, speedy nature of journalism. The fact that bagging a major news scoop equals big sales, a front page and journalistic glory is not an unknown fact, and therefore it's totally understandable that there is always competition to be the first to break a new story. Until recently this meant hitting the earliest deadline possible to get your story into the paper before anyone else did. Nowadays, thanks to the internet, stories can appear online on news websites or on twitter just minutes after they occur.

I complained a couple of months ago about Amy Winehouse's death being reported online allegedly before her father had been notified. The article on the Daily Mail website had been re-edited by the time I went back to take a quote from it an hour or so later, but this displays the completely unacceptable things that can be posted around the world when the need for speed outweighs proper editing and censorship.

The most recent example of this was that of the American singer Kelis tweeting about her experiences when a British man in an airport queue called her 'Kunte Kinta' and demanded she call him Sir. Without a full transcript of the conversation it's impossible to know the exact vein of the conversation but I imagine there is very little likelihood that any extra information about the incident will redeem this man's behaviour. It seems he was indeed an ignorant, nasty and, above all, racist individual and it's correct, in my eyes, that he is held up as an example of how not to behave towards others. I highly condemn racism of any kind and am saddened to hear that this sort of attitude still exists in any society regardless of whether it's the one I happen to belong to.

Kelis has 163,792 followers on twitter. She knows that anything she says a) will be read by a large number of avid fans and b) potentially utilised by the press. I see no issue with her using twitter to express her distress and raise the profile of an issue she feels passionately needs some attention, but the fact that she not only took this experience with one man and linked it to an attack on the state of British society, but also wrote this at a time she was still feeling furious and upset without waiting to calm down and reflect before editing and publishing this on the world wide web was, I feel, quite a bad move.

The story was, predictably, immediately picked up by the British press and headlines such as 'Kelis Reveals the face of casual British racism'(The Observer), 'Kelis: Racism in the UK is 'disgusting''(The Sun), 'Kelis: I was racially abused at London airport'(The Telegraph) and many more began to appear. Again, this isn't just the fault of Kelis, frankly I don't know why newspapers aren't checking their facts before copying and pasting from twitter but regardless it was the singer's posts that began this tirade of anger focused towards Britain. The reason this is totally unfair or, at the very least, pointless in the circumstances is that Kelis later had to go back and point out that the confrontation actually occurred at a Spanish airport and not a UK one. She says in the later post, 'I didn't think to make that clear at the time because I was shaken and furious. Now you know.' Although I applaud her for taking the time to make the clarification, the damage had already been done. The passport control officer who 'shook his head in agreement I guess' now appears to be Spanish and therefore quite likely had no comprehension of the exchange that had just taken place. This alters the tone of the story fairly considerably.

I'm not trying to claim that Britain is not racist. As a white person writing this blog I do, of course, have no real comprehension of what Kelis and other black people may experience during their travels around the UK. However, at the beginning of this blog I pointed out how free we are in this country to talk about the issues that affect us. Although we do have racist people and problems in our society, I feel that Kelis' suggestion that 'the racial issues in the uk are disgusting. Its racially decades behind progression because everything is swept under the rug. People don't talk about it. People don't fight about it.' is totally unsupported. We have a large number of arts groups funded by the government that are dedicated to giving a voice to people of all different colours, races and cultures, we have anti-racism groups such as Runnymede, frequent special reports in the major newspapers on the state of racism, million pound police enquiries into racially motivated attacks (e.g. the Stephen Lawrence enquiry) and many television documentaries or specials such as Racism in Multicultural Britain on Panorama.

I appreciate that Kelis was treated very badly and that social media has long been a mode in which people feel they can vent whilst simultaneously garnering sympathy and/or spreading important information. I mentioned earlier that Kelis has a huge number of followers who most likely take her pronouncements very seriously. Perhaps this was exactly what she was counting on. Perhaps she believes she was making a worthy and important point. Perhaps she was. My overiding feeling about this whole affair however is a slightly sour sensation that a combination of internet access, competitive journalism and celebrity has culminated in a single, idiotic, disgusting man being held up as the apparent blueprint for British society. And that's neither fair nor helpful.

My English Language

I love my language.

I can't say I feel terribly patriotic regarding most things about Britain these days. Apart from an unexplained passion for the monarchy -which I understand irritates many of my non-royalist friends greatly- I am firmly of the opinion that Britain is not currently occupying any pinnacle of greatness. I understand there is still plenty going on to be proud of -I'm a staunch fan of the NHS, despite it's many and varied issues, as I have seen first-hand the havoc that the American system can wreak on the lives of individuals and families. I also understand that the British do still create much more that is clearly obvious at first glance, as is proved in Evan Davis' recent book 'Made in Britain'. And I love British theatre...of course I do. All I'm saying is that I spend a lot of time looking at other countries, at their pride and dedication to so many aspects of their homeland- and I feel sad that I don't feel the same about my country. Or maybe that's not Britain's fault. Maybe it's mine, and has more to do with my needs, experiences and expectations.

Either way I'm thrilled to say that there is one thing I adore, and that is the English Language. I love it in all it's forms, I love the vast array of accents we have squished into this little Island of ours. I love that -whether it's for dodgy political reasons in the past or not- I can hear our language in countries all over the world. I adore that some of the greatest playwrights and novelists have written in English. I get excited when I hear an alliterated sentence, I'll never forget the first time I learnt about the mind blowing concept that is onomatopoeia and I still get a geeky thrill when I recognise the roots of our modern words in Latin vocabulary.

Which is why I, snobby as I'm about to sound, feel uncomfortable with the way I see language evolving. For a variety of reasons we are seeing letters being dropped from the ends of words, simple slang words being drafted in to apparently cover a whole variety of concepts, situations and expressions, grammar being neglected and emphasis being placed on all kinds of random words within sentences.

This is a surprisingly controversial issue and one that is very much class based, although it's certainly not a new concern. In Britain we used to be much stricter about how English should be spoken as a language: You had to take elocution lessons so that you could speak 'properly' before you could enter, for example, showbusiness. My Grandmother, who was in a number of high profile television and live shows during the WWII era, had her Manchester accent shaken out of her before the BBC would even consider hearing her voice. As a result she's particularly picky about language. I've grown up hearing her yelling at Eastenders 'It's ISN'T IT woman NOT INNIT...enunciate for heaven's sake!', so you'll have to forgive me if this is a topic particularly ingrained in my psyche.

I know that it seems quite middle-class to care so much about language and I've continuously landed myself in hot water for picking up on what I see as the bastardisation of the British language that I see my sister and her friends practising. At the end of the day: live and let live. It's certainly not my place to demand how anyone speaks. And I'm not saying that I want everyone to go around speaking like they have a poker up their butt. Much of my own extended family speak distinctly differently to my immediate one.

But why has it become considered 'posh' and 'hoity toity' to speak a neat, well-developed form of language? It's incomprehensible to me why young people who have grown up in affluent surroundings and speak in a way that reflects this, seem to consider it distasteful to sound as though this has been the case? Why this adoption of a dialect that, in many cases, isn't even theirs? And in my defense, or at least before anyone starts complaining that I'm behaving as though my way is the right way, I was picked up by a friend the other day for 'using good grammar'. He was shocked that, when writing on facebook, I used apostrophes and commas. His final declaration was that I was 'over educated'. Because I speak the Queen's English. That doesn't make sense. It seems like a civil war is taking place between classes in the UK- and language is the tool it's being expressed through.

I think I might need to elaborate on my point here. I don't have an issue with the evolution of language. I don't mind people adopting new ideas, accents changing as we come into contact with more and more different cultures etc. All of this is part of what makes it so exciting for linguists...what shows that words really do have an intense power to affect and be affected by the world and it's people. It never gets boring and new rhythms and ideas and opportunities just keep on coming.

What terrifies me is that we're doing it for the wrong reason. We're bastardising one of the most beautiful languages in the world because we think it epitomises what is wrong with our country. That's a terrible idea. Yes, language is used by all kinds of people in all kinds of positions to makes changes for good and for bad, but that's no reason to reject it's current form. Let it evolve by all means but don't do it out of spite. Don't make it harder and harder for people of different classes, different races, different generations to communicate. Because that is what's happening. People are disenchanted with those from backgrounds or communities other than theirs. But it's getting harder and harder to communicate this to each other. I don't advocate going back to the WWII ideal, I love hearing the sound of regional accents every day, and I love that the multiculturalism of our country is reflected in the changing vocabulary and rhythm of our discourse...but let's not ruin a language which has got this far. Which is so near perfection from years of being shaped and tested by some of the greatest linguists in the world.

Come on. Let's hang on to English.