To think that if you’re told a phrase is offensive, you don’t insist on using it?

[changehere]

Yes, a TAAT. The context is that we explained to mumsnet HQ that the phrase ‘beyond the Pale’ is found eyebrow-raising by many (but not all) Irish people.

The Pale was the name given to an area of Ireland under English rule and those outside that area were considered uncivilised aka ‘beyond the pale’. This is a phrase that is only used with raised eyebrows in Ireland and certainly feels inappropriate, if not offensive, coming from an English person.

Mumsnet use it as part of their racism guidelines as in that they only ban language that is ‘beyond the pale’. Mumsnet accept the origins of the phrase. However, they insist on using this phrase to describe whether something is or is not racist.

Given the context, AIBU in requesting that Mumsnet find another phrase in their racism guidelines?

Welsh are commonly known as sheep-shaggers FFS. It's eye rollingly boring but certainly offensive to the Welsh. We cannot stop anyone from saying it though apart from politely pointing out that it's offensive. We cannot force the change.

I'm not allowed to be offended when I ask them not to use a word or phrase because I find it to be racist, and they continue to use it I have to what? Not take notice of the type of person they are by doing that?

I’d expect you to be able to explain why it’s racist without ‘that’s what I was taught’ and cod etymology, TBH. Particularly when you’ve had it explained that your understanding of the phrase’s origins is in fact incorrect.

Some things are inherently racist/offensive, others are more about context.

Embarassing the source you cite does not list England as a country and of course i said england has no government i didnt say there was no entity that made certain laws on SOME but not all laws in the us states get to decide on some but not all laws yet they are not countries.

You seem to be misquoting from your wiki link, which lists the CIA WF list of independent countries.

Rather underlining the fact that ‘country’ is a woolly and unspecific term that generally requires qualifying.

Keep trying....

Well, I've said repeatedly that this is just one phrase in a bigger attitude And I refute that my understanding of the phrase as it is used where I live is wrong. That is reductive.

Well I’ve expended quite a few posts setting out how the phrase doesn’t have racist origins and there is no documented history of anti-Irish use of the phrase in England so... no.

Well I googled for 5 mins and found this interesting piece.

From the Encyclopedia of Britain by Bamber Gascoigne (remember him? Very definitely British author/historian who used to present University Challenge?):
'Beyond the pale' thus came to mean beyond the bounds of civilized behaviour, as in the earliest recorded reference (16c) to the Irish pale: 'Ireland is divided in two parts - one is the English pale, and the other the wild Irish'.

So it's not just we Irish posters making something up. A scion of the British establishment like Bamber Gascoigne also gives the Irish context as an example of how "the pale" was a metaphor of the dividing line between civilised vs. uncivilised, and draws upon contemporary sources as evidence.

Focusing on the exact phrase "beyond the pale" is a straw man. Examples abound from the 16th century onwards of how "the pale" was used to describe a dividing line between civilised vs. uncivilised peoples, of which the Pale in Ireland was an obvious example given the politics of the time. The fact that there have been many pales is irrelevant. What is relevant is that "the Pale" was used in the context of Ireland, by English sources, to dismiss Irish people and culture as uncivilised.

That is why the phrase is offensive to many - not all, but many - Irish people. And such baggage of racism and discrimination is why it is utterly tone-deaf of MNHQ to insist on its inclusion in their official talk guidelines on discriminatory language.

MarDhea thank you.

CIA WF list of independent countries. No its not you didnt read the link and its really embarrassing for you. it has 5 different categories independent countries
other 2 taiwan and the eu
Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty places such as macau faroe islands
Miscellaneous Antarctica Gaza Strip Paracel Islands Spratly Islands West Bank Western Sahara
and other entities Arctic Ocean
Atlantic Ocean
Indian Ocean
Pacific Ocean
Southern Ocean
World
however the cia does not define words dictionaries do and

the dictionary says a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory. england dosnt have a government.

Bamber Gascoigne saying something and repeating a myth doesn’t make it true. There seems to be scant actual evidence (you know, evidence of actual usage in contemporary documents) rather than in unreferenced rhetoric. That source doesn’t use the idiom ‘beyond the pale’, which was much later being used in English texts in a more literal sense.

Maybe I don’t have sufficient cultural understanding of the immense weight I’m supposed to give to Bamber Gascoigne as an expert etymologist?

A scion of the British establishment like Bamber Gascoigne
But when did he write that.
History does not stand still.
New references are found, old ones discredited.
and "civilised" / "uncivilsed" racist

Welsh are commonly known as sheep-shaggers FFS. It's eye rollingly boring but certainly offensive to the Welsh. We cannot stop anyone from saying it though apart from politely pointing out that it's offensive. We cannot force the change.

That would absolutely be deleted on MN.

I'm rather glad tbh.

It's difficult though - for one, now that I know how people feel about the saying "beyond the pale", and it's origin, I will not say it again. I'd rather NOT offend and I would rather be decent in my every day communication with people.

Not everyone feels like this though and it's really difficult to draw the line.

No its not you didnt read the link and its really embarrassing for you. it has 5 different categories independent countries.

You are still getting hung up on what Wiki has chosen to list about independent countries. No one is saying England or Scotland are independent countries, don’t worry. But in usage, they are countries. It’s an imprecise term, sure. I’m not disputing that. I think what you’re trying to talk about here are ‘nation states’ or ‘sovereign states’. Not ‘states’ on their own - again, the term is pretty fuzzy and is very much based in local application.

Don’t worry about me being embarrassed - I’m not, because I do quite a lot of work in international legal frameworks and I know ‘country’ means precisely fuck all. It’s one of those terms that gets it’s meanings only by how it’s applied. So, Scotland is a country and in British usage one of the four home nations. It isn’t an independent country (yet) or a sovereign state.

There is a reason we have laws and don’t rely on dictionaries to define everything.

You are still getting hung up on what Wiki has chosen to list about independent countries. No one is saying England or Scotland are independent countries, don’t worry. But in usage, they are countries. It’s an imprecise term, sure. I’m not disputing that. I think what you’re trying to talk about here are ‘nation states’ or ‘sovereign states’. Not ‘states’ on their own - again, the term is pretty fuzzy and is very much based in local application. england is not a country we dont have a first minister which Scotland and wales has and northern Ireland is meant to have.

england is not a country we dont have a first minister which Scotland and wales has and northern Ireland is meant to have.

I know I’m derailing the thread by indulging this nonsense - apologies others - but I’m interested in what legal (or dictionary!) definition you’re working to that requires this?

The political make up of the UK and its legal frameworks are unique, particularly in the way the UK Parliament operates as a de facto English Parliament on devolved issues. That’s why the West Lothian question is such a thorny one, and it feels to many like British devolution is incomplete.

Since you’re keen on wiki, try this. Particularly interesting on the ISO descriptors, and the descriptors used in primary legislation.

The moving goalposts, sealioning, and derailing from the goady fuckers on this thread have been entertaining, but less so now their wide-eyed act is wearing a little thin.

MNHQ, this is exactly the kind of shit that happens to almost every thread that mentions Irish history, or the history of any other country where the British empire didn't exactly cover itself in glory. There are a number of MNers who positively delight in minimising historical injustices perpetrated by Britain and gaslighting anyone who describes how those injustices continue to have negative repercussions to the present day.

I have children to put to bed now, but to such posters: please - do go on giving more examples of the behaviour I have described above. It will underscore my point even better.

england is not a country

Course it bloody is, lol. You won't have it though, will you?!

I would say the UK is closest to the USA in constitutional terms. None of the constituent parts is an independent country (and I hope the Scottish separatists do not ever succeed in breaking up the UK)

Each of the constituent parts has autonomy to a greater or lesser degree to legislate within its jurisdictional boundaries. Scottish, etc, etc are not legal nationalties - no one's passport has a "Scottish " marker on it. Some people get terribly exercised about being Scottish or Welsh or whatever; others don't.

CBATRTFT but ‘beyond the pale’ is not etymologically related to Ireland. See here: www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pal2.htm.

The guy who ran that site (it’s no longer active) is just about the foremost etymologist in the country. He has published widely on the scourge of folk etymology.

The difficulty with all this is that the end result is language - and therefore thought - control. Not good.

I hasten to add that the Irish have many, many justified complaints about attitudes and language among the British. This isn’t one of them though. It’s got up and, frankly, a bit try-hard.

Very grateful for @MarDhea right now. Have a good evening x

Salisbury is Beyond the Pale (actually its between several)
Or to go back to the descriptive,
The behaviour of Aaron Banks is Beyond the Pale (= uncivilised)

Re AB I would add "allegedly" to that as stuff needs to be proved first. I use beyond the pale quite often and just about all of using it in England have absolutely no idea in Irealnd/NI it has a different meaning. Ths is a UK website and people using the phrase mean no slight on the Irish and we can use the phrase.

I think it would be good for a lot of people though to learn how to cope with things that upset them when they seem them written rather than move to more censorship. I stand with the Frence and Je suis Charlie in wanting rights to offend, lampoon and to allow people do to that of me, to fight hard for them to have rights to say things that offend or upset me or make me look silly. I want to live in a UK where we have robust differnces between us and we set the line well on the side of free speech with help lines people can call if something upsets them rather than censoring words too often.

No surprise at all that you support the right to offend people tbh Xenia.

It's a UK website that has global reach and obligations under the Equality Act.

Ireland has just removed one of the obstacles to free speech - the blasphemy law - I would have thought the Charlie Hebdo reference would be very pertinent.

Well done Ireland on voting for the right to offend people.

It's a UK website that has global reach and obligations under the Equality Act.
Indeed it does
but describing Nigel Farage as Beyond the Pale is not covered by that legislation.