It wasn't an attitude that was considered "far right".

The presenter is a bit of a tool but would this not be the same as a presenter interviewing a man running a pub with the surname Guinness? Or if it was a Korean BBQ for that matter?

I'm not sure where I really stand on this to be honest - I'm sure it wasn't intended as a racist comment and probably an ill-thought attempt at creating a rapport that many interviewers try to do. It certainly shows cultural ignorance and shouldnt have made it to air almost on a quality control point but is this actual racism?

Edit: I'm not going to argue if its offensive to a Chinese Person, A Korean Person or the Person being interviewed (possible British of Asian decent)

@Kow
I too am from a working class background so in that context, I know casual racism is considered 'normal'. As is casual 'homophobia'. Or casual anti-semitism and islamophobia. That doesn't mean that it's actually okay and certainly not on full display on national tv. Imho etc...

The discourse of the conservatives dragging the political centre ever more to the fringe right only obfuscates the issue. Shit like this shouldn't be normal.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Is a joke appropriate at all though there Dave?

Good point - given what the interview is about, I'd say no. But I think if the person being interviewed was White and had the surname Guinness and it was about the pub closing down, the reporter would have made the same gag. Maybe.

And have funny names

Roujin wrote:

It's not racist, it's just culturally insensitive. It's a bit  "they all look the same to me".

Yeah, that's fair.  But I think that's more common across the world than you may think, and to be honest it feels more cultural ignorance as opposed to insensitivity and I don't think its necessarily linked to racism in some cases. 

At peak in the restaurant we had about 16 nationalities across 45 people. if I lined up all the white people I dont think another white person could successful tell me who was Lithuanian, French, Irish, English, Croatian, Polish, Brazilian, Italian, Russian and South African just by looking at them and even when speaking to them it wouldn't be clear. 

Case in point, my Polish wife has found many Irish people surprised when she tells them where she is from as she looks way more Irish and being here over 14 years, her accent is pretty much gone.  

But people do make assumptions based on the information they have of a person - it doesn't mean they have the right idea but we do it all the same. It doesn't feel like something to get to bothered by (making a joke of any kind with someone's whose business is crumbling is the issue surely) but I am aware I'm a white guy in a mostly white culture part of the world so maybe its not so obvious to me.

Kow wrote:

There's no real ethnic difference between any Europeans, as if that made any difference to anything anyway.

Dont know I would agree with that. Isnt that taking a "they all look the same" approach? Or am I missing your point?

Kow wrote:

We all do look the same because we're genetically the same. It's probably more racist to assume there are specific looks for each country. Europeans are basically the same people.

Is that not exactly the same attitude that people think blending Vietnamize with Chinese with Japanese with Korean - ie they all look the same?

Also ethnic isn't about a shared look - its a shared culture (isn't it) In which Case, Spain's culture is different to UK, which is different to Scandinavian which is different to Russian and so on?

Kow wrote:

We all do look the same because we're genetically the same. It's probably more racist to assume there are specific looks for each country. Europeans are basically the same people.

Not necessarily. Southern Europeans are more lactose intolerant than Northern Europeans.

There are more and other nuanced differences too.

There are characteristics that are more prominent in certain areas. But that doesn't let you identify anyone really.

Phrasing something as "they all look the same to me" is obviously unacceptable. But I couldn't tell you if someone is Korean or Chinese anymore than I could tell you if they are South Korean or North Korean. I don't have the knowledge to make a distinction, if there is one, but I don't think it makes me a racist not to know it.

Southern Europe has that Greco/Latin/Middle eastern influence.
The north (including the UK) is germanic/ scandinavian.
The east is mostly Slavic which is derived from the ancient greeks.
The Russians are a mix of Slav, Turkic, Middle eastern and Asian people. Eurasian basically.
The Hungarians and Finns are from central eurasia which explains the eyes.
Icelanders seem to be Scandinavian with some Greenlandic influence? Which explains bjork. (She's pretty)

Not to mention all the admixtures possible.

For what it's worth, Australia has on occasion deported aboriginal people.

In 2020.

I'd like to see someone genuinely claim it is uninhabited and seize it.

Kow wrote:

Kimchi isn't even a fruit. He could at least equate her correctly to pickled cabbage.

I’m kinda confused on the naming convention here - discussions of racism aside.

Kim is a more common family name among Korean families, rather than Chinese, and family names usually come first. It’s possible that this family is Canton, where Kim may well be a thing, or that Kim is the anglicised given name and they’re following “western” naming conventions.

Even beyond that - Chi isn’t usually pronounced in the same way as the Chi in Kimchi. The Chi in kimchi would be Qi. Chi in mandarin is pronounced more like chrrr. Again, maybe it’s a canton thing.

So, beyond “is it racist?” lies a second question - “is it racist and incorrect?”

I need to know!

Armitage_Shankburn wrote:

I don't like kimchi.

Racist.