BBC interview crashed by cute children sparks racism

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think the woman looks significantly younger than the man. I immediately thought "mother" because the children seem to have a mix between Asian and Causasian features, and because the woman's reaction reminds me of how my own mother reacted when I did something similar to my dad.

Lots of western people are used to associating Asian women with nannies, so I'm not very surprised.

Well thank goodness that didn't happen

It was harder to see the wife and kids in the first video because they were slightly out of focus being in the background.

It seems some people love to start PC a bandwagon any chance they get, no matter how much of a stretch it is.

I had actually just used this incident as an example of non-hateful subconscious racism in a previous thread.

I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill.

Only a mother could slide into the room like that and drag them out. She was clearly ducking down trying to get out of the shot.

Weirdly alot of people who were calling her a nanny were actually sympathising with her. Maybe they made an assumption about a rich white guy not looking after his own kids? As well as the asian stereotype.

Only a mother? What's your reasoning for this bold claim?

I was joking because of the brilliant slide she did and how she dragged the kids calm down. But sinced you asked only a famity member would handle the kids like that because a stranger or nanny would get in trouble for it. The dad's face at his wife was also amusing because it said "well this is embarassing but I love my crazy family".

You're offering your subjective perception as the only possible interpretation, despite evidence to the contrary. Why would a nanny or nurse get into trouble for it? Are you suggesting nannies never hold a position of trust and affection? I might find that odd coming from a fellow Brit, except I allow for the fact that a multitude of factors affect the thought processes by which we assess such things - for example, it might be that you have a specific preconception of the role a nurse might play in an American household, or you might have experience of an aloof nanny of your own.

What's made clear by this thread is that there are a wide range of possible interpretations of events as they unfolded on screen, regardless of our after-the-fact knowledge. It's fascinating how many people insist theirs is the only valid one a posteriori.

I don't know what being a fellow brit has to do with it. I never had a nanny but my cousin works as one for young children and if she grabbed then by the arms she would be fired, also my mother works with kids which she is not allowed to man handle because she would be fired. Not to mention my aunt who works with disabled kids who is not allowed to hold them down even when theu are being violent.

So as a brit you should know that in a perfessional position there have been rules put in place (whether they are right or wrong).

I get the feeling that anything I say to you will be wrong because you will twist my words or find an issue

Also at no point did I insist that my view was the only valid one.

As the totally biased referee I declare Alliekit the winner of this argument based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever

I was just making a joke I didn't even want to get into an argument about it. No one is without prejudice.

I know.I know that too.

So, as I suggested, you have a very specific perception of the role of nanny based on your own experiences. It matches the epochal, cultural, geographical and familial experience that's familiar to you.



And you should know that not everyone shares your age (or mine for that matter) or environment. The question is whether there are reasonable grounds for someone to see other than what was there, not whether or not they are correct, and certainly not whether or not their understanding of professional nannying in Britain today passes muster.



Even were that the case, why would it be relevant? I'm not seeking to find fault, I'm offering perspective which is not your own. That's much of the point of discourse on boards such as these. If either of us find something positive in such an exchange, I would consider it worthwhile.

Which of your words do you believe have I twisted? I'm quite certain I've responded to what you've said directly, without removing anything from context but, if you believe otherwise, by all means explain why.



You asserted that "only a family member would handle the kids like that". The point was not directly aimed at yourself, yet that phrase certainly qualifies as only holding to only a single valid interpretation. You aren't alone in this and, as I stated, I find it fascinating.



Then I must move to have you cast out of your role as referee based on the equally strong evidence in support of your obvious corruption! Which arbitration service are you registered with?

I was confused why I should know about nanny's as a brit. It's not as if nanny's are common here (I am assuming we are referring to live in full time nanny's). I am also confused about the fact you seem to think that I am saying everyone who thought she was a nanny was wrong. On the contrary I am not suprised as we all hold subconscious prejuice and the papers reported her as a nanny.

My original point/joke was on the steretype of mum's being stressed and rushing around. I was not dismissing people who had thought she wasn't the mum nor was I saying it was obvious.

In my experience a person other than a family member would get into trouble so it was not an unreasonabe view point. However when it was reported that she was a nanny I didn't go "no way is she just a nanny" I just took it as it was reported so my single viewpoint was more flexible then you assume.

You also suggested that I suggested nannys could be close and loving which I didn't even mention or suggest at all. I was just referring to laws put in place for professionals who deal with children.

Feels like an overreaction, it's weird the things that get picked up on. I wouldn't of thought about this twice.