Is the term ‘jungle drums’ racist?

it seems the majority would say it’s acceptable in the context given.

It doesn’t matter what a handful of people on an internet forum think, what matters is what any HR department in any company would think, which is that it’s not an appropriate expression to use.

This sounds somewhat reasonable, but how does one know beforehand what HR determines as unacceptable? I wonder how much power should a company have over our everyday speech, since our thoughts and freedom to express ourselves are clearly linked to our language.

It was never about the phrase “jungle drums” or rules for “correct” language. It was about someone taking offence and (over)reacting, and getting verbally slapped down that set things in motion. My first post on page one:

Could it be the ‘apology’ that’s the issue? In inverted commas because it’s clear you don’t think you said anything offensive and don’t think this individual should have taken offence.

acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given

Apologising “if any offence was given” is not apologising. If what you’re saying is you didn’t give any offence (but sorry if you did, but you didn’t) then it’s really not an apology.

I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.

Me neither until now for what it’s worth, but one lives and learns.

He rejected my offering and left the premises.

If you’re going to apologise for something you’ve done (whether or not you are at fault) do it like you mean it or not at all.

(Editing to say that talk of jungle this that and the other have been tropes of racist language and white guys like presumably you and certainly I don’t get to decide who should be offended.)

tempting to edit with hindsight, but hey, I’ll stand by that. Person of African descent objects to loud use of phrase “jungle drums” (OP being in a group of I’ll assume blokes and sharing good news via a mobile on speaker, it’s unlikely to have been said very quietly). And then doesn’t hang about to be set straight on why the phrase and the OP is not racist.

I’m going to guess/assume again that the OP is older and more senior in the company, not used to being challenged (perceived challenge), and certainly as we see not used to backing off or backing down. (Not that you need to frame every disagreement in this way, but lots of blokes do including probably one who’s typing this post.) It probably also says something about the culture of the place.

Outcome is the OP leaving what was at the start of the week a good job rather than own the fact that some offence was caused and swallow the perceived unfairness of having this investigated. We all have different gag reflexes I guess, but this needn’t have escalated. Hey ho. Oh yeah – main point despite the name of the thread this all had nothing to do with whether or not the term “jungle drums” is racist.

Just get the government to ban the pales from uttering the word ‘jungle’?

This way everyone is on the same page. In black and white, so to speak. This way, if anyone uses any phrase with the word ‘jungle’ in it (regardless of context) then it will be known that it was likely meant to cause offence to any non-pale, either within or out of earshot. Harmony achieved 🤪

What a dense forest we weave.

That sounds racist to me, you should take offence and lodge a complaint with HR.

But seriously, “jungle drums” referring to a method of communication is career-ending, but saying “pale, male and stale” by the adjudicator is fine?

They’re essentially saying, “you have to understand that the people complaining are racist and you have to make allowances for that.” Wow.

As I noted on I think my only comment … whitesplaining is fundamentally racist and mansplaining is fundamentally sexist.

“Jungle drums” is merely 2 words put together that someone can take offence at … and by itself isn’t racist. It could be used in a racist way in context but no more than almost any other words.

Just as an example I’d say there is no doubt that “you didn’t read the email? can you only communicate through jungle drums” is racist whereas referring to news travelling by other means isn’t.

The issue here is shutting down …. that the words “jungle drums” COULD be used in a racist way then saying “you’re white” or “pale, male and stale” is not only overtly racist but being used to say “so your intention or actual words don’t count”.

… and whilst we are on genuine apologies vs genuine sounding.
Some people are simply not equipped to do that… indeed forcing/pressing them to do it makes them feel ill and/or actually ill.

I don’t think the problem is the phrase. No one on here has said the OP is racist for using it (although some people have said that people have said he is racist for saying it which is different).

The problem is that he didn’t apologise immediately, thus defusing the situation and allow him to explain himself. He, and from the sound of it his colleagues, decided to educate a black man on what is and isn’t racist. He didn’t feel like having a group of white people explain to him why something wasn’t racist so he left and spoke to HR instead.

From the sound of it, when the OP went to the meeting, at no point did he say something along the lines of, ‘I understand that it doesn’t matter what the intention behind language is, the important thing is how it is received. I felt like I was being accused of racism and instead of apologising I panicked and tried to invalidate his experience. I feel terrible about this.’

Instead it sounds like he tried to explain to HR why what he said wasn’t racist and it didn’t go down well.

I’m still struggling to understand people’s resistance to apologising. You are not admitting liability or giving up power. You unintentionally upset someone and when you unintentionally upset someone you just apologise. For some reason people feel it’s different when it comes to potentially racist terms.

A while ago I was having a few drinks with a couple who I’ve known for years. I was talking about how nice it was to bed in the morning and started describing this Simpsons scene.

Things got awkward. They were looking at each other and she looked like she was about to burst into tears. Turns out she had been pregnant up until two days beforehand but had a miscarriage.

Should I have said, ‘I’m sorry if you took offense but none was given’ ?

You are not admitting liability if you apologise, you are just applying some societal lubrication to an awkward situation. I don’t see why people have to be ‘right’ when it comes to racism.

I’m sorry if you took offense but none was given’ ?

But you didn’t offend her, you upset her.
You do raise an interesting point though, which I will need to think over. My initial reaction from the original post was if I had offended someone by using a phrase I had not intended to be racist/sexist/whatever.. and did not agree was racist/sexist/whatever… I too would be loathe to apologise. This might be as you say, the feeling that I’d be admitting to being racist, which like others I strive not to be. I cannot really get my head around the idea that it is up to the offended to decide what is offensive, surely there must be some reasoning behind it?

I don’t see why people have to be ‘right’ when it comes to racism.

Some people just have to be ‘right’, full stop. Or rather can’t let what they see as a logical inconsistency go.

Internet arguing 101 innit.

See also the unfortunate previous thread (and horribly misjudged ‘satire’ within it) referenced above.

A cautionary tale. There but for the grace of God etc.

No one can say with any confidence that if only the apology had been more sincere, then it definitely wouldn’t have escalated.

After having read this thread and seen the consequences I definitely won’t be using the term any more, nor will I use any idiom which includes the word “jungle”. I don’t see that loss of linguistic expressiveness as a major problem.

The problem is that he didn’t apologise immediately

But he says that he did.

I acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given and I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.

‘I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase’ sounds to me like a surprised on the spot apology with an explanation as to why the surprise. To others it was a ‘nonpology’ or worse still an ‘attack apology’. I can’t really conceive of that, unless, of course, OP uttered an apology whilst also winking wryly and dogwhistle-y at his pale colleagues. So many assumptions can be made of both guilt and/or innocence for either party.

The grapevine is now bursting with fruit*

Again, one can insert (or remove) all kinds of scenarios and contextual markers in lieu of having been there when it happened, but my feeling is that it was never going to end well no matter what form the apology

Not so much because of the complainant, but because of the ‘r’ word being invoked. The power of the r word can evade any manner of apology. Is it assumed that the stale pales shall carry the sins of some of their fathers on their backs for all eternity? That their ‘on the spot’ apologies for unknowingly using ‘borderline’ words shall be impossibly impeccable, even in the heat of an unforeseen moment? Even as they are being summarily raked over someone else’s coals? I retroactively winced then when I typed ‘coals’, because it possibly maybe felt ’wrong’ and 1970s-ish in someone else’s mind.

A minefield. And what of the complainants. Are they too supposed to read minds and act impeccably when they may well have faced actual jibes laced with ‘words’ all of their life? A cluster-****, as someone rightly stated.

These are the challenging times in which we live. Self-evidently profitable (and instrumental) for the purposes of the Far*ges, B*rises and Y*xley-Len*ons of the world. A boon for the click-mongers of anti-social media content. Outrage-porn is a meme-mine. Not so good for the rest of us all.

*A future HR-meeting with some accused ‘homophobe’ who wasn’t sufficiently mindful of the LBGTQ contingent among herm colleagues in yesterday’s ‘diversity in the workforce’ meeting.

The Very Sad Thing is that everyday words and phrases once hijacked by old-time casual racists cannot now ever lose their power if they are never allowed to fall back into innocent usage.

I acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given and I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.

The term “none was given” pretty much nullifies any claim to having apologized. It’s saying that the OP doesn’t recognize that the complainant was offended because he didn’t intend to offend. The issue isn’t whether he intended to offend, it’s that he did offend but refused to acknowledge that he did, which counts as a refusal to offer a genuine apology, which set in motion a train of events leading to unemployment. A proper apology acknowledging that offence had been caused, even if inadvertently, would have put an end to it.

So you are saying hols is that if you decide you are offended then you are always in the right.

A proper apology acknowledging that offence had been caused, even if inadvertently, would have put an end to it.

Mystic Meg, and I claim my fiver.

‘None was given’

‘None was offered’

‘None was intended’

Plenty of options, be sure to pick the correct one.

Not many (if any) of us are superhuman enough in the heat of a moment (imagine a moment of surprise accusation, public-scrutiny and immediate defence?) to be likely or able to construct a wonderfully-worded, universally-unambiguous, carefully-considered-yet-spontaneous multi-paragraphed profuse apology sufficient in and of itself to defuse the accusation/accuser. Comfort the complainant. Un-offend the offended. Pick one or many?

Surely you can see that? We are even reading into ‘sorry to offend but none was given’ as being somehow ‘aggressive‘ when we have no access to tone, context, facial expression etc.

This is also assuming that the OP has perfect verbatim recall of his own apology in the heat of the moment. Maybe he has. Who knows?

Anecdote. My wife repeats things I’ve said back to me in different form and structure mere seconds after I’ve said them, and vice-versa. We recently developed code-words (Like safe-words) to defuse and delay discussion when a misunderstanding is felt to be emerging. It’s taken decades to get to that point.

‘What do you mean, what do I mean?
‘I mean you know what you meant’
(rising tone)’You mean you THINK you know what I meant, which somehow magically coincides what I KNOW you want it to have meant’
‘how the **** dare you assume that…’
‘How the **** dare I? How the **** dare YOU’
‘ReeeeeeEEEEEEEEEE!
(Both): ‘Talk about it tomorrow’ (hugkiss)

Now ‘tomorrow’ comes and we invariably find that we forget not only to talk about ‘it’ but also what ‘it’ was 🤣

It’s saying that the OP doesn’t recognize that the complainant was offended because he didn’t intend to offend

No, it’s saying ‘I’m sorry, I really didn’t mean any offence’.
He apologised. Whether is was his tone or not that prevented the offended to accept we don’t know because on the number of occasions that the OP tried to diffuse the situation no explanation was given to why the offended was so upset. To escalate into a formal investigation as the first step is excessive.

@malvernrider yup.

I think too many people have read far too much into this and as a consequence have probably got inside the OPs head. Like I said to Cougar STW is not a place to have a balanced discussion, in another thread just a couple of days ago I was shot down for even suggesting someone with a workplace issue speak to a union rep for advice rather than someone else asking on here on their behalf.

People on here are not rational and by and large only see things either in very binary terms or as an opportunity for an argument. There is no objectivity or interest in seeing things from anothers perspective (ironically in this case), only the smug self satisfaction of their own woke virtue signalling or rebellious **** you to decent society (pick a side).

People on here are not rational

People full stop are not rational which is why it’s good to try to be considerate.

So you are saying hols is that if you decide you are offended then you are always in the right.

No. I’m saying that when someone says they are offended, there is no way of proving that they aren’t, so you can’t say that no offense was given. The reason we have procedures to deal with these things is that sometimes people are offended by things that aren’t really serious and we need a third party to decide what is reasonable. If the complainant says they were offended, the only thing you can do is take them at their word. The accused perpetrator may not have intended to offend, sometimes people say things without realizing what the effect on others will be (lets face it, we’ve all done this at some time).

So we have dispute procedures to decide whether the behaviour was legal/illegal/serious/trivial/etc. and how the situation can be resolved. If it’s decided that the behaviour wasn’t serious, that doesn’t mean that the complainant wasn’t offended, it means that the complainant was offended by something that they shouldn’t have been offended by (i.e. they overreacted). However, the accused party does not get to make this determination, so saying that “no offense was given” is no defense. If there is a dispute, the complainant doesn’t get to decide what a reasonable outcome is, but you still can’t say they weren’t offended even if the offensive behaviour is ruled as being acceptable. Christ, my grandma was horrified by young ladies wearing skirts that barely covered their bums. Her feeling of offence was genuine, even if the behaviour is considered unproblematic.

In this case, the OP seems to have been completely unwilling to acknowledge that he offended a co-worker and unwilling to recognize that the company had an obligation to investigate and resolve the dispute. If the OP had made a genuine acknowledgement that his co-worker was offended right at the start, then he would have had a very strong case to present showing that it was just an unfortunate mistake. Acknowledging offence doesn’t mean confessing to being a racist, just that he should have acknowledged that his co-worker was genuinely offended instead of stating that no offence was given, which is something he cannot know or prove.

just that he should have acknowledged that his co-worker was genuinely offended instead of stating that no offence was given, which is something he cannot know or prove.

No offence intended, but it sounds like you are re-interpreting statement.

What OP was said:

I acknowledged his interjection, apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given and I was not aware of any negative connotation of the phrase.

How you seem to interpret the above:

I refuse to acknowledge this, I won’t apologise, and I won’t acknowledge that any offence was taken

A case of give or take? (Again, assuming verbatim)

(Sorry for odd typos, multitasking fails)

apologised if he took offence at anything I said, but none was given

The complainant said that offence was given but the OP refused to acknowledge that.
That turned it into a non-apology, which set the OP on the journey to unemployment.

The complainant said that offence was given but the OP refused to acknowledge that.
That turned it into a non-apology, which set the OP on the journey to unemployment.

I do find it quite amazing that semantics can be so sticky.

What was claimed was said

A young man has taken offence

What you claim was said

The (young man) said that offence was given

See?

’I take offence at that term’
‘Sorry, wasn’t aware it was offensive’
‘Oh OK, sorry’

The End.

How it could have been eh?

As said, none of know exactly what the actual words or context or tone or
inflection or body-language were.

We could argue semantics forever, but at least let’s do both complainant and accused the honour of *not* substituting their (quoted) words for some other words. Other words that curiously strengthen our bias?

Ever see ‘12 Angry Men’? Great, great film.

’I take offence at that term’
‘Sorry, wasn’t aware it was offensive’
‘Oh OK, sorry’

Why would the person who was offended apologize? They haven’t done anything wrong.

What would be more convincing would be something like this:

“I take offence at that term”
“I’m sorry, I didn’t really think about it, it’s an expression I grew up with and never gave any thought to. Now that you point it out, I’ll stop using it. Sorry about that, I really didn’t mean to offend you.”
“Ok, thank you.”

Why would the person who was offended apologize? They haven’t done anything wrong.

Technically neither did the OP. I think it best that we all stop talking or making eye contact with each other. Just in case something we do might offend someone.

something like this:

“I take offence at that term”
“I’m sorry, I didn’t really think about it, it’s an expression I grew up with and never gave any thought to. Now that you point it out, I’ll stop using it. Sorry about that, I really didn’t mean to offend you, anyone, but can you explain why it is you find it offensive ? ”

Makes a lot more sense.

Why would the person who was offended apologize? They haven’t done anything wrong.

Two people accidentally bump into each other in the street. Both say sorry. It’s one of those things which makes society run more smoothly.

One mistakenly taking offence. One mistakenly accused of offering offence.*

why apologise to each other in such an event? Well, One says sorry wasn’t aware. Other says sorry for assuming malice.

This is all assuming the interaction was exactly as described in the OP. We’ll probably never know that. But at least let’s (either until or except) more is known give both actors in this drama equal benefits of doubt?

*hols2 you never answered why you thought it somehow correct to exchange ‘taken’ for ‘given’ in the OP?

Shhhh, don’t mention the “R” word. Race is social rather than a biological construct, in other words we just made it up to justify our power and prejudice. Structural racism is at the heart of our society as we have become so conditioned by it that we don’t even see it. Racism is more than just hate, it’s apathy, indifference, ignorance, power and privilege as all of these disadvantage people of colour; whether we intend to or not we have a responsibility to reduce the harm we cause.
This and other threads mentioned demonstrate white fragility, instead of accepting that POC have a different experience where micro-aggressions such as the incident the OP described occur daily, we become defensive saying that the complainant is the problem and is over sensitive to our jokes which reduce them to savages and animals. This pattern of discussion is so common it is predictable, the only way to diffuse the conversation is for the one calling racism to silence as the more they defend their position they become labeled as heretic; all debate usually does is re-enforce the racial hierarchy.
You may wonder what harm can be caused by using certain phrases, alluding to stereotypes or reclaiming words such as p*** because you used it without hate or malice but you people are colleagues, employers and friends who influence and make decisions that reflect and affect people negatively.
The comment the OP made may not have been intentionally offensive, but it may negatively influence their colleagues and may also infer indirectly that the person of colour is not competent or qualified to be in such a job.
It may seem a linguistic minefield where a misguided turn of phrase can cause offence but people of colour are used to this and admitting our ignorance opens up conversation and understanding.

but you people

Woah there, who are ’you people’? If ever there was a derogatory phrase…

Woah there, who are ’you people’?

why yes, yes I can answer this question: people whose privacy is if anything almost excessively valued, otherwise mainly bald, bearded, volvo-driving, wood burning, expensive watch-wearing, craft-ale consuming, middle aged white male IT workers, if you can call a business analyst an IT worker. Those guys wear suits.

In the words of George the Poet (sorry, omitted radio 4 or 6-listening) “I said I got too much love for these hood rats, Too much love for the mandem, I will never live life like them, But that’s the my peoples, I understand them…“

Can someone translate faerie^^^ from psychobabble into standard english?

There is a fair bit of stretching and twisting going on here and it’s probably past the stage now where there would be any point in me adding anything else.

I did start on a rebuttal to some of the posts above but in all honesty Malvern Rider has somehow managed to articulate my own thoughts better than I could myself.

Can someone translate faerie^^^ from psychobabble into standard english?

No. Except this bit, which translated means massive leap of non logic unsupported by any known facts or information.

The comment the OP made may not have been intentionally offensive, but it may negatively influence their colleagues and may also infer indirectly that the person of colour is not competent or qualified to be in such a job.

Pssst everyone are faerie and hols2 part of some weird cult? Ssshhh, I don’t want them to hear in case they come after me with their ideological mind lasers. Whisper if you reply.

But Benv, wow, I am really sad to hear how this has all gone for you. It sounds really genuinely appalling and I am not sure how, in good faith, some of the posters can twist this into anything other than wrongdoing on the part of your colleague and your employer. At best they lack objective critical thinking at worst they are malign. I wish you all the best in your search for a new job. Please keep us posted on how it goes.

POC have a different experience where micro-aggressions

Is that where MIPS comes in?

seriously, if people really can’t get the key point faerie’s making then its through choice not misunderstanding.

White fragility and micro aggression WTF? Did you actually type that or just copy/paste from somewhere? I genuinely don’t care about colour and it’s not through apathy or social conditioning. I just take people as they come regardless of creed, colour, gender or anything else for that matter. I naively think most people do the same.

Whisper if you reply.

I think you’re right dogmatix.

seriously, if people really can’t get the key point faerie’s making then its through choice not misunderstanding.

Nope, it’s through an inability to understand what was written. It’s basically nonsensical. Be so good as to enlighten us as to what the key point is as you see it?

Faerie’s post wouldn’t win an award from The Plain English Campaign.

I don’t know you benv but I’m genuinely gutted for you.
I’d have probably done the same in your shoes and simply left. I don’t have the energy to waste even in pursuit of proving my innocence, and would rather focus on more positive ventures than let someone’s stupidity and rashness eat me up.

Good for you and, sincerely, the best of luck mate!

I’m pale, male, *sniffs* a bit stale, and very glad to be self employed.
I’m offended by all this offense.

The whole thing sounds bananas bonkers.

Prior to reading this post I’d have put the strike-through the other way round. What with increased mental health awareness I do now wince when I hear things described as “mad, mental, crazy, fruit-loop bonkers” etc.

However now you mention it, “bananas” is capable of being construed as racist rather than just purely “foolish” or “misguided”.

Four very good reasons for taking this seriously and watching your toungue: 1) you’re not sending a colleague home to their family in a state of distress, 2) you’re not getting harassed out of your job as per the OP, 3) it’s very easy to chop a few words out of your lexicon which as has previously been highlighted, you only use a few times a year anyway, 4) no matter how sincere you think you think you are you cannot count on being able to apologise your way out of the situation.

“No offence was given” is not an expression I’ve ever heard. It could be a regional thing.

When he said “no offence was given” I think he meant “no offence was intended”. Edit – if using the term I’m familiar with

I could be wrong but that is how it sounds to me.