"Plastic Jamaica" news item

[toyracer]

gh,

Was the term "Plastic Jamaican" really necessary for inclusion in the news feed link to the story carried by The Jamaica Observer? The term does not appear in either the headline or within the Observer story itself so it clearly has been inserted and sanctioned for use by the team at T&FN.

Why?

It is a derogatory term and serves no useful purpose other than to attempt to vilify an individual.

Is this really necessary T&FN? Is this to become standard practice for news feed links to articles on other websites? Are Bernad Lagat and Sanya Richards-Ross forthwith to be referred to as "Plastic Americans"?

Rather than using a demeaning term to refer to the young lady it would have been better to make no mention of her at all.

[preston]

I thought the same thing when I read the article. It's stupid and offensive term coming from the British newspapers, the fact that its being copied here is way past unfortunate. gh and company, you're better than this.

[26mi235]

I took it as denigrating the term (and the corresponding entities harping on that term), not the athlete.

[Fortis4Eva]

I have to agree with all the above sentiments

[maroon]

agreed. very disappointing.

[vip]

Lighten. Up. Please.

I'm sure, given gh's hard-line stance on many issues regarding this board and the site, that it was just poking fun at the British tabloid's use of the word.

Cripes, some people need not to take things so personally.

[vip]

And while I think the British tabloids are waaaaay over the top with this subject, let's not pretend some athletes don't hook up with another country for $$$ purposes. They know who they are.

[maroon]

sorry, but even if he intended to make fun of the british tabloids (where is the evidence for that?), it was a poor choice because there are no indicators of humorous use in the headline. (are we supposed to go looking through threads to figure out the editors' views on switching national allegiance in order to determine their intent on this issue?)

btw, the idea that any athlete should be vilified because her prime motivation to switch citizenship is monetary is antiquated and harks back to the sport's amateur origins.

[toyracer]

Lighten. Up. Please.

I'm sure, given gh's hard-line stance on many issues regarding this board and the site, that it was just poking fun at the British tabloid's use of the word.

Cripes, some people need not to take things so personally.

I may be a little bit dense so please bear with me.

Kindly explain to me how a USA based website using such a term in relation to a Jamaican athlete is somehow poking fun at a British tabloid.

I don't make the connection.

[26mi235]

Since I saw it that way I will take a stab.

I think of the British subset with this opinion comes from the 'snob' subset, the snobbery being one of the problematic British characteristics, so much so that in WWII despite how bad the Japanese were, they were seen as preferable for a while to the recently defeated/humilated Brits (until the even worse racism of the Japanese became apparent). We think that it is ridiculous the way some have gone overboard with their opinions on this. Particularly since Jamaica (and the US) do not have this same 'snob' it is a 'non-insult 'insult' wherein the reference is back at the Brits voicing the opinion on their own, not the route that the particular Jamaican has taken to representing his (or her) homeland.

[maroon]

the fact that you had to write that long paragraph to explain the punchline sort of makes my point. (i still don't get it, btw). if it was a joke, it was not a good one and highly susceptible to misinterpretation.

thanks toyracer for bringing this up.

[26mi235]

It is not a joke, it is a knock on the subset of Brits and newspapers.

[Marlow]

I also saw it as T&FN's attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to satirize the Brit tabloid's usage.
I agree with the 'lighten up' sentiments. Why do so many people CHOOSE to be offended by stuff that was not meant to offend??!! (a pet peeve of mine!!)

[preston]

I also saw it as T&FN's attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to satirize the Brit tabloid's usage.
I agree with the 'lighten up' sentiments. Why do so many people CHOOSE to be offended by stuff that was not meant to offend??!! (a pet peeve of mine!!)

Then how come our canadian-born editor chose not to do the same for Rhone and call him a "plastic Canadian"?

[Marlow]

I also saw it as T&FN's attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to satirize the Brit tabloid's usage.
I agree with the 'lighten up' sentiments. Why do so many people CHOOSE to be offended by stuff that was not meant to offend??!! (a pet peeve of mine!!)

Then how come our canadian-born editor chose not to do the same for Rhone and call him a "plastic Canadian"?

He was getting to it!!

[trevorp]

I think of the British subset with this opinion comes from the 'snob' subset, the snobbery being one of the problematic British characteristics, so much so that in WWII despite how bad the Japanese were, they were seen as preferable for a while to the recently defeated/humilated Brits...

I don't claim to be a scholar of WWII (or anything else) but is this really true? Given the well-attested brutality of the Japanese military back then, this would seem an extraordinarily perverse position for anyone to hold.

Particularly since Jamaica (and the US) do not have this same 'snob' [sic] it is a 'non-insult 'insult' ...

It's not explicitly called 'snobbery' but it exists wherever there is social stratification.

Back on-topic, I'm with Marlow: let's lighten up. (Or at least try to educate yourself on the ironic use of quotation marks.)

[Marlow]

I think of the British subset with this opinion comes from the 'snob' subset, the snobbery being one of the problematic British characteristics, so much so that in WWII despite how bad the Japanese were, they were seen as preferable for a while to the recently defeated/humilated Brits...

I don't claim to be a scholar of WWII (or anything else) but is this really true?

In a word - no.
That's a preposterous assertion.

[JRM]

I also saw it as T&FN's attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to satirize the Brit tabloid's usage.
I agree with the 'lighten up' sentiments. Why do so many people CHOOSE to be offended by stuff that was not meant to offend??!! (a pet peeve of mine!!)

Then how come our canadian-born editor chose not to do the same for Rhone and call him a "plastic Canadian"?

As a rabidly-patriotic Canadian, I would in no way be offended if they had written this. I concur with the others: lighten up.

[preston]

I also saw it as T&FN's attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to satirize the Brit tabloid's usage.
I agree with the 'lighten up' sentiments. Why do so many people CHOOSE to be offended by stuff that was not meant to offend??!! (a pet peeve of mine!!)

Then how come our canadian-born editor chose not to do the same for Rhone and call him a "plastic Canadian"?

As a rabidly-patriotic Canadian, I would in no way be offended if they had written this. I concur with the others: lighten up.

Maybe you're right: it's "lightening up" that is the problem. You fit in too comfortably. The ENTIRE issue of "plastic brit" is an issue of endorsing second-class citizenship; something a border-traipsing, rabidly-patriotic, north American would never have to worry about.

[Marlow]

Maybe you're right: it's "lightening up" that is the problem. You fit in too comfortably. The ENTIRE issue of "plastic brit" is an issue of endorsing second-class citizenship; something a border-traipsing, rabidly-patriotic, north American would never have to worry about.

Say WHAT??!! I cannot imagine how you rationalized that sentiment. You have completely missed the point. ALL Americans, including the Native Americans, are 'plastic'! Only the Kenyans themselves are authentic to their homeland!! America is BUILT on 'plasticity'; that's why we welcomed Lagat - just another guy who saw opportunity in this country. Being 'plastic' is no insult; it's testament to 'pursuing happiness', warranted in the Declaration of Independence!!

[preston]

Maybe you're right: it's "lightening up" that is the problem. You fit in too comfortably. The ENTIRE issue of "plastic brit" is an issue of endorsing second-class citizenship; something a border-traipsing, rabidly-patriotic, north American would never have to worry about.

Say WHAT??!! I cannot imagine how you rationalized that sentiment. You have completely missed the point. ALL Americans, including the Native Americans, are 'plastic'! Only the Kenyans themselves are authentic to their homeland!! America is BUILT on 'plasticity'; that's why we welcomed Lagat - just another guy who saw opportunity in this country. Being 'plastic' is no insult; it's testament to 'pursuing happiness', warranted in the Declaration of Independence!!

Marlow, I have no idea what you're talking about...that entire rant is a complete non-sequitor to me...maybe it's time that you take your own advice and "lighten up". (btw, I've found that telling people to "calm down", "lighten up" or "relax" when in contentious moments usually has the opposite effect. Maybe you should consider never doing it again.)

[26mi235]

I think of the British subset with this opinion comes from the 'snob' subset, the snobbery being one of the problematic British characteristics, so much so that in WWII despite how bad the Japanese were, they were seen as preferable for a while to the recently defeated/humilated Brits...

I don't claim to be a scholar of WWII (or anything else) but is this really true?

In a word - no.
That's a preposterous assertion.

It is not my assertion, it is Hastings in World at War 1939-45; for more on this book look at the thread 'what are you reading, last page or so, starting from gh.

[Marlow]

that entire rant is a complete non-sequitor to me...maybe it's time that you take your own advice and "lighten up". (btw, I've found that telling people to "calm down", "lighten up" or "relax" when in contentious moments usually has the opposite effect. Maybe you should consider never doing it again.)

Et tu Brut(al)? [Insert several dozen HAHAs here]

[toyracer]

I also saw it as T&FN's attempt (apparently unsuccessful) to satirize the Brit tabloid's usage.
I agree with the 'lighten up' sentiments. Why do so many people CHOOSE to be offended by stuff that was not meant to offend??!! (a pet peeve of mine!!)

The origin of the term is to marginalize. The term is meant to be derogatory in the first place. Hence the reason for some offense taken.

The term certainly isn't meant to be complimentary. Putting any such term in quotation marks doesn't change the root meaning behind it.

If the object of usage was to satirize the British tabloid usage why wait for a Jamaican to pop up? There were a few very available opportunities from the recent World Indoors that seemed to have passed attention. Some too close to home to be used as fodder for such activity perhaps?

I'll drop this now as there isn't much need to prolong.