These are 2 different questions and “where are you from” is even more broad than “where is home for you” (my answers to both would be different). I don’t see anything wrong with someone asking what my heritage or nationality is and that’s what people really mean. I get asked this, and I ask this, all the time to people I see who are white but have an accent as well as people who are not white. What makes it weird is when people persist when clearly the other person is offended or doesn’t want to say for whatever reason… that’s what makes it inappropriate but even then I don’t assume they are racist… maybe they’re just rude, or awkward, or just not from multicultural societies, etc.
Susan Hussey, Baroness Hussey of North Bradley, once Lady-inWaiting
- Thread starter Traminer
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
- Status
I don't think the issue is the first question...it is the fact that she continued to press even after being told the guest in question was British.
Btw:
And in Germany I have been taken for a Greek and a French and a Romanian etc. etc.
I was amused, but I never felt insulted.
And in Germany I have been taken for a Greek and a French and a Romanian etc. etc.
I was amused, but I never felt insulted.
I assume you understand the difference?
I can see why someone might be offended by the mere question but IMO they tend to be older and due to a time when they were treated like they don’t belong. I do not find this to be offensive for people my age, like millennials… there are so many expats, immigrants, tourists, etc among us now there is really no assumption anyone is an “us” much less an “other.” I am proudly an immigrant and have 0 problem with someone basically noticing I am not white and and asking where I am from (I am not “from” America though I am American). I get this the most from people who are of the same race.
Some perspective from an observer: Imo both women are ‘old’. One is in her 60s, the other in her 80s. Both have jobs that require them to interact with ‘the public’. They both know how these events are conducted and what the protocol is. This was not their first day on the job. Only one was a professional.
www.tatler.com
Who is Lady Susan Hussey? The late Queen’s lady-in-waiting resigns amid racism row
A trusted companion to Queen Elizabeth II for more than 60 years, Lady Susan stepped down from her role as a royal aide after she made ‘unacceptable and deeply regrettable comments’ to a charity founder at a Buckingham Palace reception
I think you and I agree on a lot of things but I must ask how she was harmed? embarassed maybe but harmed? if she was "harmed" seems she's been vindicated
I understand what you are saying...I guess my point is suddenly Lady Hussey is the victim...and now Ngozi Fulani is being accused of malevolence...despite the fact that the palace released their statement...how does that make sense?
I guess I'm not the one to answer that....I see things to sympathize with on both sides
A misunderstanding from two very different women. Although I would think I would just answer the question even if annoyed and then make my way to another group of people to schmooze with.
Still hoping for Will to somehow find a way to ease Lady Hussey's apparent distraught (from what I've read.)
Still hoping for Will to somehow find a way to ease Lady Hussey's apparent distraught (from what I've read.)
I think both could have handled this better, but I think what @OriginalBalenciaga was referring to the fact that a thread was started to defend Hussey and malign Fulani - she was literally called racist in the beginning of the thread.
I certainly find it strange that posters on TPF seem to think they have a better handle on the situation than the palace, especially since William and Charles are usually held in very high regards.
Agree… you never know what’s going on behind closed doors! It could’ve been a pattern of bad judgment on Lady Hussey’s part, or it could be she insisted on leaving to spare them the controversy! The staff have more intel than we do.
Agree. And isn’t it true that the public has only heard one side of this two person interaction? There’s data and a report from only one of the two people in the interaction. Is there any published report from the other person, from Susan’s side of the story?
I think it’s interesting that people passionately weigh in on data from the media/Internet alone as if it were fact.
We have one side of the story, plus the media are lying liars. All of them. I’m old enough to remember when the media at least pretended to be objective ha ha.
I guess my point is - what really happened? I guess the only people who will really have a good idea (as has been commented earlier) are objective people who’ve talked to both Susan and Ngozi.
I have never posted in here, nor have I read the entirety of the thread (I walked away from it a while ago when some racist remarks against some members were made- though I'm sure the mods dealt with that appropriately). I hope the active posters don't mind me sticking my head in to share some thoughts.
With regards to Lady Susan, I didn’t see the discussion that resulted in a new thread, but I imagine there was a lot of disagreement and finger pointing. I happen to think both parties are problematic.
Lady S was entirely wrong, there is no doubt about that. You ask where someone is from as an ice-breaker and then you stop. She got caught out and kept pushing the matter, and I can easily understand why Ngozi felt uncomfortable.
However, Ngozi could have made it simple and given a straight answer, such as the ones many of us give: I’m Turkish-English or I’m multiracial, for instance. She also got caught out and it led to a messy conversation.
Ngozi’s own internalized racism, as many have now said she turned them away from her charity for not being black enough, means that both people in this conversation were disappointing.
The Palace was right, imo, to act swiftly and show that they have a zero tolerance policy. Whether Lady S meant it or not, this was an inappropriate exchange and there must be a message sent that it’s unacceptable.
I don't see why people are disappointed with the existence of the thread, though. Why gatekeep which side of this story is discussed? It is always a good thing to have space for all points of view imo, so long as people are being respectful in their discussion. From what I have seen, there is nothing but a respectful tone.
Edit: I have just been on that thread and the tone has changed markedly. I'm disappointed to see it.
As for MM, that is a whole other kettle of fish. I am not a regular on that thread but tend to pop in there when there is a big bit of news- like the current documentary. I have not witnessed micro aggressions or overt racism, but then I may have been on it at the wrong time...or I may be part of the problem.
Nobody who knows my background and my path in life would call me racist, yet I'm sure some believe my dislike for M&H stems from racism. It is doubly frustrating for me.
I am: mixed-race, English, female. Meg should have been someone I immediately related to. I have experienced colourism and will always have to live with this added layer of "otherness". I have benefited from it in some countries and suffered from it in others. It’s a complex problem.
Meg could have been fighting for people like me from her position of power and privilege. Instead, she focused on herself and she plays race for her own convenience. This is where all my frustration of her comes from.
Nobody should be able to make allegations of racism without providing proof because the consequences are dire. All that H&M have done is vaguebook racism and bait heated discussion. If they want to take a stand, they should provide explicit examples. In fact, their most specific example to date, stating that the British media called her children the n-word, is blatantly false. Not only is that slur an Americanism, but we have laws here against that and if any broadcast or print media dared publish something like that, the entire organization would be shut down by our regulators. Sadly, many took what she said at face value and that story spread like fire.
It is inflammatory and unfounded accusations like this that cause deep damage. If there were actual instances where she experienced racism, then she needs to provide that evidence to the authorities and have it dealt with, rather than use it to cast herself in a sympathetic light in television interviews. By baiting with unfounded claims, they are undermining the very cause they wish to promote and advocate for.
*I am focusing on Meg since the issue of race stems from her, but I have equal frustrations with Haz, whose choices are confounding and utterly disgraceful (I have not forgotten his own racist missteps).
I always think of a comment that @OriginalBalenciaga made a while ago; that sometimes people are angry just to be angry, because anger is addictive. I see that playing out in discussions about H&M. Not so much here (again, I am not active enough to speak on the vibe on that thread), but certainly in other places on the internet. There is snark and then there is hate. She gets hate in a lot of places. People love to hate her, they channel all their vile anger towards her, and they are addicted to the validation they receive from their echo chamber of racists, so it fuels more intense hate. It's ugly.
I despise the cottage industry that has popped up to ridicule her in order to line their pockets. The misogynoir is palpable. All these body language "experts", armchair psychologists and wannabe influencers who rip her to shreds and encourage their following to make horrid comments about M (because they would be deplatformed if they said it themselves) are abhorrent.
I wish H&M would fight against that. That is a valid, provable, disgusting problem. It is a clear example of hate speech and racism, and it is going unaddressed because they'd rather make vague claims against his family. There is no misunderstanding the choice: slandering the BRF brings in money, the youtuber case will not win them any awards or pay for their extravagant lifestyle. So, H&M are using race for convenience again, not to actually address a very real problem. Sigh.
That is disgusting to me. They could make a massive impact by unravelling that cottage industry. Because, make no mistake, the small but incredibly vocal group that flocks to those online platforms to rip apart MM (and who are most certainly proud racists) will rip apart any WoC they see in real life. We have reached a stage where these people feel, for various reasons in our current environment, emboldened to act in the real world as they do in their online echo chambers.
As it stands, it is impossible for me to support H&M because they are fueling the wrong side of the problem with their race-baiting. I don't believe I'm racist for taking this stance. I don't comment on her appearance (I think she's stunning), her hair, her accent or upbringing. I do comment on her convenient use of tanner because if a white person used tanner to go 4 shades darker (heck, if I did it as a mixed person) it would be called blackface. She doesn't get a pass on that. She can't use racism as a currency for clout. It's beyond dangerous and damaging to the people she is supposed to be fighting for. Not all together different from Ngozi turning her back on the people her charity is supposed to uplift.
I'm not sure my thoughts add any value to this complex discussion, but I wanted to weigh in on the assumption that everyone upset on that thread is fueled by unconscious bias or is showing microaggressions. It simply isn't true for the majority, imo. I would hope that being an ally does not equate to labelling everyone on the other side of the discussion racist, because that only furthers division.
You're all welcome to disagree with me and show me if I'm wrong in any way. I am happy to learn. I'm working on reducing my online presence, so I may not pop in frequently to address responses, but I can assure you that I will read them when I'm around and will always reflect on opinions offered with an open mind.
Happy holidays to all.
With regards to Lady Susan, I didn’t see the discussion that resulted in a new thread, but I imagine there was a lot of disagreement and finger pointing. I happen to think both parties are problematic.
Lady S was entirely wrong, there is no doubt about that. You ask where someone is from as an ice-breaker and then you stop. She got caught out and kept pushing the matter, and I can easily understand why Ngozi felt uncomfortable.
However, Ngozi could have made it simple and given a straight answer, such as the ones many of us give: I’m Turkish-English or I’m multiracial, for instance. She also got caught out and it led to a messy conversation.
Ngozi’s own internalized racism, as many have now said she turned them away from her charity for not being black enough, means that both people in this conversation were disappointing.
The Palace was right, imo, to act swiftly and show that they have a zero tolerance policy. Whether Lady S meant it or not, this was an inappropriate exchange and there must be a message sent that it’s unacceptable.
I don't see why people are disappointed with the existence of the thread, though. Why gatekeep which side of this story is discussed? It is always a good thing to have space for all points of view imo, so long as people are being respectful in their discussion. From what I have seen, there is nothing but a respectful tone.
Edit: I have just been on that thread and the tone has changed markedly. I'm disappointed to see it.
As for MM, that is a whole other kettle of fish. I am not a regular on that thread but tend to pop in there when there is a big bit of news- like the current documentary. I have not witnessed micro aggressions or overt racism, but then I may have been on it at the wrong time...or I may be part of the problem.
Nobody who knows my background and my path in life would call me racist, yet I'm sure some believe my dislike for M&H stems from racism. It is doubly frustrating for me.
I am: mixed-race, English, female. Meg should have been someone I immediately related to. I have experienced colourism and will always have to live with this added layer of "otherness". I have benefited from it in some countries and suffered from it in others. It’s a complex problem.
Meg could have been fighting for people like me from her position of power and privilege. Instead, she focused on herself and she plays race for her own convenience. This is where all my frustration of her comes from.
Nobody should be able to make allegations of racism without providing proof because the consequences are dire. All that H&M have done is vaguebook racism and bait heated discussion. If they want to take a stand, they should provide explicit examples. In fact, their most specific example to date, stating that the British media called her children the n-word, is blatantly false. Not only is that slur an Americanism, but we have laws here against that and if any broadcast or print media dared publish something like that, the entire organization would be shut down by our regulators. Sadly, many took what she said at face value and that story spread like fire.
It is inflammatory and unfounded accusations like this that cause deep damage. If there were actual instances where she experienced racism, then she needs to provide that evidence to the authorities and have it dealt with, rather than use it to cast herself in a sympathetic light in television interviews. By baiting with unfounded claims, they are undermining the very cause they wish to promote and advocate for.
*I am focusing on Meg since the issue of race stems from her, but I have equal frustrations with Haz, whose choices are confounding and utterly disgraceful (I have not forgotten his own racist missteps).
I always think of a comment that @OriginalBalenciaga made a while ago; that sometimes people are angry just to be angry, because anger is addictive. I see that playing out in discussions about H&M. Not so much here (again, I am not active enough to speak on the vibe on that thread), but certainly in other places on the internet. There is snark and then there is hate. She gets hate in a lot of places. People love to hate her, they channel all their vile anger towards her, and they are addicted to the validation they receive from their echo chamber of racists, so it fuels more intense hate. It's ugly.
I despise the cottage industry that has popped up to ridicule her in order to line their pockets. The misogynoir is palpable. All these body language "experts", armchair psychologists and wannabe influencers who rip her to shreds and encourage their following to make horrid comments about M (because they would be deplatformed if they said it themselves) are abhorrent.
I wish H&M would fight against that. That is a valid, provable, disgusting problem. It is a clear example of hate speech and racism, and it is going unaddressed because they'd rather make vague claims against his family. There is no misunderstanding the choice: slandering the BRF brings in money, the youtuber case will not win them any awards or pay for their extravagant lifestyle. So, H&M are using race for convenience again, not to actually address a very real problem. Sigh.
That is disgusting to me. They could make a massive impact by unravelling that cottage industry. Because, make no mistake, the small but incredibly vocal group that flocks to those online platforms to rip apart MM (and who are most certainly proud racists) will rip apart any WoC they see in real life. We have reached a stage where these people feel, for various reasons in our current environment, emboldened to act in the real world as they do in their online echo chambers.
As it stands, it is impossible for me to support H&M because they are fueling the wrong side of the problem with their race-baiting. I don't believe I'm racist for taking this stance. I don't comment on her appearance (I think she's stunning), her hair, her accent or upbringing. I do comment on her convenient use of tanner because if a white person used tanner to go 4 shades darker (heck, if I did it as a mixed person) it would be called blackface. She doesn't get a pass on that. She can't use racism as a currency for clout. It's beyond dangerous and damaging to the people she is supposed to be fighting for. Not all together different from Ngozi turning her back on the people her charity is supposed to uplift.
I'm not sure my thoughts add any value to this complex discussion, but I wanted to weigh in on the assumption that everyone upset on that thread is fueled by unconscious bias or is showing microaggressions. It simply isn't true for the majority, imo. I would hope that being an ally does not equate to labelling everyone on the other side of the discussion racist, because that only furthers division.
You're all welcome to disagree with me and show me if I'm wrong in any way. I am happy to learn. I'm working on reducing my online presence, so I may not pop in frequently to address responses, but I can assure you that I will read them when I'm around and will always reflect on opinions offered with an open mind.
Happy holidays to all.
Last edited:
- Status