Is the term ‘jungle drums’ racist?

to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.

Its certainly a bit of a put down and invalidates the apology

I would not have been bothered about the initial statement but the non apology would infuriate me

I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation. Intent is not needed to be offensive.

The OP was not disciplined – he was investigated and the investigation showed enough to go to a disciplinary. the investigation is not where you defend yourself, Its purely a fact finding exercise. did you say those words?

the second stage is the disciplinary where a defense can be made and in this case plenty of grounds for a good defense.

Benv – btw – I think in this debate which has got heated at times you have conducted yourself well and I commend you for that, the sort of member I would be happy to represent as a union rep. I do very much doubt anything significant would have come from the disciplinary

I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation. Intent is not needed to be offensive.

If that is directed at or includes me, I do understand this situation, but had made an assumption about given/intended.

edit, and only mentioned it in an attempt to defuse the situation.

Just a general point about folk not understanding – either the context of racism – understandably given the demographic and also not understand how investigation / disciplinary works

As an ex manager and ex shop steward and having been disciplined I see nothing wrong with the process and my bet remains there would have been no or minimal sanction

I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation

I’m surprised that you are still using that ‘pale and male’ phrase that many people find offensive*. I’m sure you don’t intend it to be offensive, but intent is not needed.

*not me, but I do find it daft.

Edit: apologies, that did not come across as intended.

‘pale and male’

Hmmm…I’m rarely offended (having served an apprenticeship at 15 with a local authority & served 16 years in Her Maj’s Prison Service) but I am ‘pale and male’….
Careful what you say otherwise I’ll give you some offence & not give a shite who I offend! 😉

to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.

And therein lies the problem.

The OP hasn’t (that I recall) clarified the intent of this phrase. So it is entirely open to an individuals interpretation as to what it actually means. Personally I read it as ‘I wasn’t giving offence = I wasn’t trying to be offensive’

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

As above, ‘I’m sorry you took offence but it was not my intent to give it’.

It’s a weird way to say it for sure and I know “sorry you’re offended” isn’t really the right way to apologise but I’m finding it hard to see genuine malice or heartfelt non-apology in there. On the other hand I can also see how if you’ve already got your back up about something it wouldn’t help matters.

TBH the HR department in question sound like a bunch of roasters; there are better ways the issue could have been dealt with other than a full inquisition, they are now down an employee, have other potentially resentful employees and another employee who will probably be told no investigation because the at fault party has left.

I feel for the OP because I’ve been to a disciplinary and was thrown under the bus with no opportunity to defend myself leading to being passed over for promotion several times. Hopefully for you this has no longer impact than the time it takes to find another job, all the best.

squirrelking

Member
to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.

And therein lies the problem.

The OP hasn’t (that I recall) clarified the intent of this phrase.

Why does Benv need to? As pointed out god knows how many times now, recall of exact words and how people use common terms can differ marginally and in the context of what else was said to appease the miserable sod, it should be take as nothing more than positive..

Out of all the posts, the only overtly racist comments have come from those accusing racism..

I agree with Benv as I do with malvernriders (who oddly sounds like he’s living my home life) articulation of it all..

The overtly racist posts have been removed by moderators, and rightly so.

You started a thread to take the Micky out of a Dutch person’s use of English, Sui. You know what that makes you.

I find is astonishing how many folk – all pale and male still do not understand this situation. Intent is not needed to be offensive

I think you’re deliberately misrepresenting “folk” teej, and I don’t think it helps your argument. I doubt whether anyone on here denies that offence can be CAUSED inadvertently – the question is how

culpable

should someone be when that happens. I despise racists but I also am wary of the apparent expansion of that term. For someone to BE racist does require intent IMO and that’s different to the OPs description of events. It’s also in no way all about the words used: One of the most offensive things I’ve heard was 2 blokes discussing “brown sauce” in a chip shop and I bet there are still people alive who’d perfectly “innocently” use phrases that’d make your toes curl.

I don’t think I’ve ever used the term “jungle drums” and probably haven’t heard it spoken since I was a kid but I have never believed it to have been used in an overtly pejorative/condescending/whatever way. In my (prior) understanding it always meant the same as “rumour mill” (maybe those of vaguely pennine heritage take offence at that ?).

Sure, there’s no acceptable modern use of things like the “n” word by a white person and that sort of shit should be called out EVERY time, just like chanting at footy matches etc. What about “denigrate”? How should we feel about “being on a mission” – what if that’s perceived to be all about (religious) imperialism ? (note that the actual derivation would be unimportant here, right?)

I’ve never heard jungle drums used to describe soundz from a nasty hatchback or to refer to information from circulating any non-white community or group. If I did, I would take offence even as a “pale male” (incidentally I’ve never heard that before either; presumably more shit, lazy, derogatory-sounding memespeak bollocks intended to invalidate opinions without due consideration?. I actually do “respond” to that sort of behaviour and I suspect that “offence” is often intended by the users, too)

I think scaredypants has eloquently summed up what a few folk are trying to say.

OP started a thread; subject, as it directly impacts him, has been closed by him through his action of resigning at work.
That should be the end of the matter and result in thread being closed but….being STW, it’s taken on a life of it’s own and will be prolonged, personalised, a vehicle for noise – all while disappearing up it’s own fundament.
Benv, all the best for the future and, same as you, I’m out of this one now.

Edukator

Member
The overtly racist posts have been removed by moderators, and rightly so.

You started a thread to take the Micky out of a Dutch person’s use of English, Sui. You know what that makes you.

Eh, when, where?

You started a thread to take the Micky out of a Dutch person’s use of English, Sui. You know what that makes you.

Is it a 1970’s comedy sketch writer?

to me ” no offense was given” means – You are wrong to be offended.

Its certainly a bit of a put down and invalidates the apology

So you claim. OTOH I didn’t interpret it way. It’s a bit of an odd phrase, I find it at worse to be ambiguous here. Without access to the intonation, phrasing and facial expression it’s even more ambiguous. ie could’ve been as shirty and dismissive as ****. Could have been a poor word-choice, spoken with humility and shock, when he was trying to convey ‘none was offered/intended’.

Only the OP can tell us what he thinks it means/what he meant by it. This thread is creative, I’ll say that much. And that I shudder at the thought of ever being on trial by jury comprised of a cross-section of my supposed peers.

Likewise (and no-one seems to have picked up on this) but only the OP and those in earshot could say whether he

1. Spoke it directly to the complainant
and/or merely
2. Stated it in the OP of this thread?

This whole discussion could have been slightly yet tonally different again had OP only included speech “quotes” in the first post. And even then, could he be trusted to remember precisely (word for word) what it was that he said?

My memory banks (and those of my nearest and dearest) rarely if ever stretch to that. Not surprisingly. Especially in times of stress. See the yerkes Dodson curve:

https://www.simplypsychology.org/yerkes-dodson-curve.jpg

In his famous study ‘War of the Ghosts’, Bartlett (1932) showed that memory is not just a factual recording of what has occurred, but that we make “effort after meaning”. By this, Bartlett meant that we try to fit what we remember with what we really know and understand about the world. As a result, we quite often change our memories so they become more sensible to us.

His participants heard a story and had to tell the story to another person and so on, like a game of “Chinese Whispers”.

The story was a North American folk tale called “The War of the Ghosts”. When asked to recount the detail of the story, each person seemed to recall it in their own individual way.

With repeating telling, the passages became shorter, puzzling ideas were rationalized or omitted altogether and details changed to become more familiar or conventional.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/eyewitness-testimony.html

*my bold

I took ‘no offence given as the exact opposite of ‘no offence taken..ie I didn’t mean to cause offence

Sui^^^ you’ll get used to his/her condescending, patronising comments; best to ignore as they never add anything to any thread – regard them as piss’n’wind.
Now, I’m definitely out of this one as it’s dead.

I took ‘no offence given as the exact opposite of ‘no offence taken..ie I didn’t mean to cause offence

“No offence intended.” means that the speaker didn’t mean to offend, even if the other person was offended.

“No offence given.” means that the speakers words did not give offence (i.e. that the audience was not offended). If the audience was offended, then offence was given. It may not have been intended, but it was given. To say that “no offence was given” when someone clearly did take offence is nonsensical and the sort of thing that will lead to disciplinary hearings and a search for a new job.

To say that “no offence was given” when someone clearly did take offence is nonsensical

‘Nonsensical’. Yes. Almost as if…

semantics[ si-man-tiks ]

noun (used with a singular verb)
Linguistics.
1. the study of meaning.
2. the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.

So, “that’s just semantics”, means that “your complaint is about the meaning of the words”.

Exactly. We agree about that. The OP lost his job because he didn’t think about the meaning of the words he uttered.

@hols2 you are assuming that what you infer is what was implied.

^ He/she is assuming pretty much everything That’s a large component of what I find so chilling, IMO. That, and the robotic repetition. Reminds me for some reason of the Stasi in that film ‘The Lives Of Others’. And of Orwell’s book entitled ‘1984.’

So, “that’s just semantics”, means that “your complaint is about the meaning of the words”.

Exactly. We agree about that. The OP lost his job because he didn’t think about the meaning of the words he uttered.

Now you are putting words and meaning in my mouth also. The cartoon was merely intended as a dryly humorous interlude.

The OP decided to leave his job because of a number of reasons and I don’t claim to know them. But, ultimately, he is no longer there because he left his job.

you are assuming that what you infer is what was implied.

Quite the opposite. You are talking about the difference between the intentionality of an utterance and its illocutionary force.

The speaker of an utterance has some intended meaning, that’s the intentionality. The utterance is interpreted by the audience. That’s the illocutionary force of the utterance. These can be quite different. In cases of irony or sarcasm, the literal meaning of the utterance is the opposite of the intentionality. When irony is misunderstood, the illocutional force is the opposite of the intentionality. Skilled speakers have a very good grasp of their audience (i.e. well developed theory-of-mind), so they can accurately predict the illocutional force of what they say. Less skilled speakers don’t, so the audience may misunderstand the intentionality.

Racist dog whistles exploit this gap by using utterances that provide plausible deniability of intentionality. For example, terms such as “uppity” are commonly used as racist slurs and everyone knows what the intentionality is when white supremecists use them, but because there is a gap between the literal meaning and the illocutional force, racists can use these to signal their racism but still deny that they are actually racist. The claim that “I was just being ironic and you need to get a sense of humour” is another favourite of racists because it allows them to deny any responsibility for the illocutionary force of their utterances. Donald Trump is a master of the “I was only joking” defence.

The term “jungle drums” is the type of expression that could easily be used as a racist dog whistle. In this case, I’m sure the OP didn’t intend it that way, but his intentionality was lost and the illocutional force of his utterance was quite problematic. The sensible thing for him to do would have been to immediately clarify what his intentions were and to assure his colleague that he wouldn’t use the expression again because it is very likely to be mistaken as a racist dog whistle. That doesn’t mean he’s confessing to being a racist, just that he’s acknowledging that he was misunderstood and he accepts that it’s important to use language that won’t be misunderstood. He didn’t do this, and his subsequent behaviour indicates that he had no concern about the illocutional force of his utterance because his intentionality was not harmful.

And now he’s unemployed.

And he’s going to struggle answer truthfully in his next job interview when they ask him why he quit his last job.

Your first and third posts here, Sui:

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/we-will-reach-out-to-you-tomorrow/

Rather than being admirative of a non native speaker following language trends faster than yourself you take the Micky.

You demostrate the same refusal to move with the times on this thread, a refusal to adapt to how an expression is percieved.

The message of the thread is clear, use language appropriate to current values.

The message of the thread is clear, use language appropriate to current values.

Yet for some reason when growing and entering adulthood in the 1970s-late 1980’s, I didn’t like or care for the ‘values’ that I heard from our peers and our parents. A lot of ‘play the white man’, endless racial epithets and put-downs to just about every minority. So I didn’t use that language. And so I reject your ‘message’, however ‘clear’ you claim it to be. It’s about as clear as mud. And yes ‘mud’ has been used extensively as a racial epithet that could probably land me in very hot water were I to be working in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only reason I know that ‘mud’ is a racial epithet is because I have studied the rise of the far right and have learned of many other innocent-sounding terms and words that make me similarly sick when given a different meaning/subtext/context. I had to quit reading that stuff at some point. As of now there is a seething mass of resurgent racism bubbling up from certain key places on the internet, and it’s disseminating out into wider ‘normie’ culture. It’s hard to keep abreast of ‘memes’ and recycled, mutating conspiracy theories. It’s often better not to, IME.

One phrase I never heard or was aware of when growing up in my town of Racistville, Xenophobia – was the phrase in the OP. The term ‘Jungle Drums’. Not during those years when casual racism was rife and the order of the day in the factories, schools and pubs, not until later in life, and then only as another variation of ‘on the grapevine’.

To date I’ve no way to hand of knowing whether it is widely considered to be ‘racist’ in the context/form of it’s origins other than conducting an internet search and even then it seems to have somewhat less evidence of being a common racial epithet than does the term ‘taking the Mick’. I certainly wouldn’t stop mid-sentence and Google it before continuing and neither, I wager, would you.

@Edukator – As an example I might easily employ your (what I see as grossly biased and ill-motivated) methodology against you – I could ‘call you out‘ for just now using the racist term ‘Taking the Mick’.

You may protest that you ‘weren’t aware’. Or you may be slick and claim that it was ‘just a joke’ or an ‘ironic example‘. But we know what you meant by it. And even if you didn’t ‘mean’ it, you will now apologise unreservedly and completely for having used it. Won’t you? Remember that funny feeling in you stomach when you typed it? You should really have acted on that and then you wouldn’t be here in this mess. Etc. You see how that works?

Edukator

Member
Your first and third posts here, Sui:

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/we-will-reach-out-to-you-tomorrow/

Well that goes to show how well you read what’s in fron of you and Interprate it… Its akin to approaching trafficights and deciding that red for you today is actually going to be green.*

1. Americans are not Dutch.
2. I didn’t even say they were Dutch or even American
3. I took the pee at a phrase that’s frankly daft and not specifically linked to a race, colour, gender etc etc..

*colourist need not respond..

“no offence was given”* when someone clearly did take offence is nonsensical

Furthermore, to assume and (repeatedly) assert that the accused literally uttered (to complainant) that “no offence was given” is still (ironically) both assumptive and irresponsible of us. To then build a pious lecture and ’guilty verdict’ entirely upon same assumption is something that I find disturbing/chilling.

I don’t think it serves anyone to tar either party with our own assumptions or paraphrases. Neither expansive or narrow. Irrespective of any of us believing such a phrase to be ‘nonsense’ or ‘ambiguous’ or whatever?

*No such speech marks exist in the OP. AFAIK we have no sure way of knowing exactly what the accused or complainant actually said to each other. Neither do we have any independent evidence (or any witness) to clarify what was uttered, to describe any body-language, tone, etc, etc. Not until further clarification from both OP and other witnesses. Again, we don’t even know for certain that he uttered it or something like it. Why does no-one care to see that as possibly important?

The OP lost his job because he didn’t think about the meaning of the words he uttered.

hols2:
Well that’s a rather simplistic interpretation. Also, clearly he did think about the meaning of the words he said, as they make sense; he didn’t however consider the words to have the meaning to which they were later ascribed. I have come around to your distinction between meaning to give offence and giving offence, but few people have given these issues the consideration you appear to have and I believe they need to be given more leeway. It’s far from ideal that someone should lose their job over an offhand remark, that many people (based on this thread, I was only vaguely aware of the expression before) would not initially regard as potentially offensive.

Similar to MalverRider I lived through a time when racist language could be heard frequently every day.
Then people would shout P*** at people clearly to cause offence, and I and others would admonish them for doing so. But other people would talk of going to ‘the P*** shop’, those people did not mean offence and I would try to explain that it was not an acceptable phrase. But to my mind they were not the same thing.

Apologies if my use of P*** breaks any rules, I could not think of how to get my meaning across otherwise.

Edukator

Member

Your first and third posts here, Sui:

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/we-will-reach-out-to-you-tomorrow/

Rather than being admirative of a non native speaker following language trends faster than yourself you take the Micky.

Wow! If you find those comments offensive you must exist in a constant state of high level agitation at the world.

JP

Your first and third posts here, Sui:

That post is over 3 years old, you know that’s really creepy right? Do you have a list that you keep of every transgression, real or imagined that members make? And you’re no enlightened soul yourself, you’ve made your own off colour remarks regarding women IIRC in the past, unfortunately I don’t have my stalkers compendium to hand to reference them for you but you probably know what I’m talking about.

And x2 on “taking the m***”, I’m sure there are Irish people potentially reading your comments who could be grossly offended. That’s the kind of casual xenophobia that could get you in trouble.

I couldn’t find the topic I was thinking of but I did find this belter:

I think that the court case itself, the verdict and the media coverage is already a significant punishment, and jail sentence both expensive and pointless. A suspended sentence seems a reasonable response unless you’re into “an eye for an eye…”.

Judging people for what they did back then by today’s standards is unfair.

For context the above comments were made regarding Rolf Harris’ prosecution for historic sexual offences. Against children.

https://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/oh-rolf/page/4/

Kinda pales next to an innocent use of a common (for some) phrase doesn’t it?

I’ll let you ruminate on that.

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

To be honest it was at that stage 10 pages ago! Every page since just seems like the same posts over and over again. There seems to be a lot of people on here who have a problem with people having an opinion other than theirs, and then they will keep on going until it descends into this 😮

Just give up, nobody is ever going to say “you know what I’m wrong and you’ve totally changed my mind on the subject” it’ll never happen 😉

I don’t blame you for leaving, sounds like you had no support from your manager or employer so you’ve saved yourself all the stress of having to go through it. I reckon reading all the posts on here made you think “my fate could be decided by somebody like one of these argumentative bellends, that’s it I’m off” 😂

2. I didn’t even say they were Dutch or even American

You did,Sui:

nope dutch, which makes these even weirder..

Really creepy, or just being aware of which posters have a history of sexism and racism on this forum, Squirelking.

Judge 1950s acts by 1950 values and 2019 behaviour by 2019 values. It’s a failure to do that that’s got the OP into trouble.

I’m quite happy with what’s in my posting history. I’ll repeat it:

Edukator

Member

I post from a country where the per capita prison population is about half that of the UK. One of the main reasons is that sentencing is more based on protecting society and rehabilitation than revenge and making an example.

I think that the court case itself, the verdict and the media coverage is already a significant punishment, and jail sentence both expensive and pointless. A suspended sentence seems a reasonable response unless you’re into “an eye for an eye…”.
Posted 5 years ago

You’ll note that throughout this thread I’ve encouraged the OP to make a sincere apology and save his job – rehabilitation not revenge. I’ve also suggested people change their language use and drop the JD expression rather than get all uppity about not being able to use an expression people increasingly see as racist

Enlighten me Malvern Rider, on this forum I use “taking the Micky” rather than “taking the piss” as it seems less offensive. “Micky (mouse)” rather than Mick, I guess you’ve misquoted me for a reason. If it’s preferable I’ll start using “take the piss”.

I’ve also suggested people change their language use and drop the JD expression rather than get all uppity about not being able to use an expression people increasingly see as racist

Might I suggest using something less 1670s than the word up***ty? Since the 1870s it has had marked racist connotations. Best to be certain

The first recorded use of uppity, according to the Online Etymological Dictionary, was in an Uncle Remus story about 7 years after Reconstruction ended (1873): “uppity (adj.) 1880, from up + -ity; originally used by blacks of other blacks felt to be too self-assertive (first recorded use is in “Uncle Remus”). The parallel British variant uppish (1670s) originally meant “lavish;” the sense of “conceited, arrogant” being first recorded 1734.”

The standard collocation is “uppity [N-word]”.

Also, I’m not aware that ‘taking the Mickey’ was ever commonly or differently derived from ‘Mickey Mouse’. it may not be true that you invented that one to sidestep the offence you gave, but your intention was and is irrelevant, it’s the effect that it has on any reader that counts. You may have used it to sneakily bypass these archaic STW swear filters, and you may not have. Again, it’s unimportant how you arrived at giving offence. Just apologise and state categorically that you’ll cease using the phrase from here onwards. Don’t believe me?

Let’s use your preferred ‘look online’ method to see if modern usage is ‘problematic’ and therefore best avoid altogether? What was the source reference you used? Urban Dictionary, right?

Take the Mickey out of
This phrase is not new; the full phrase is “to take the Mickey (out of someone)”
Britons have been using this figure of speech for decades, if not centuries. A “Mickey” of course, is a “Mick”: a pejorative, racist term for an Irishman (so nicknamed because so many Irish surnames begin with Mc- or Mac-) It is a common stereotype, in both the UK and USA, that Irish men have volatile tempers, like to brawl, and make good boxers. So, To “take the Mickey (out of someone)” means to take the fight, the vigor, the gravity, the self-importance out of them, by mocking them, usually in a very subtle way.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Take%20the%20Mickey%20out%20of

Of course I’m taking the piss. Hopefully showing how your ‘rule-book’ can be used for ill, from a horse that can be every bit as low as it can be high. Regardless of how the rider may feel about their position. Ba-dum.

I don’t blame you for leaving, sounds like you had no support from your manager or employer

It is not down to the manager or employer giving support. It is treating a claim correctly with nobody taking any sides.

This

The investigative stage is simply a fact finding opportunity

The manager or employer have to be impartial. Its when you get to the disciplinary stage that you can make a defense. this case never got to that

Once again I say – join a union. It would have made a big difference here

I reckon reading all the posts on here made you think “my fate could be decided by somebody like one of these argumentative bellends, that’s it I’m off”

That.

Good luck OP.

So taking the Micky or uppity could be contentious, Malvern rider. Now you need some proof that they are and at that point I’ll stop using them. Like many others on this thread I quickly found that the JD expression was not just potentially contentious, it had already led to prolonged disputes in both the US and UK. But the UK example hadn’t ultimately cost the person their place in society as the person had apologised, made it clear they wouldn’t use it again and the expression isn’t contentious enough for the matter to have gone further – at least not yet.

That’s why TJ and I judged the OP’s situation saveable, the OP chose not to try and save it, or his situtation was worse than he let on with previous incidents or a bad atmosphere he had previously created – not impossible if you read a few previous posts, but some of you would never do that would you, eh Squirelking and JP. 😉

Does anyone on this thread still think it’s OK to use the JD expression?

Wow. Just wow.