The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The Goodes and Eddies of unconscious racism > Comments

The Goodes and Eddies of unconscious racism : Comments

By Michel Poelman, published 3/6/2013

Goodes' reaction highlights that human deficiencies, left to their own devices, create harms that cut deep.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All
< What would you do? Your options come down to ignoring what you heard, or pointing out what happened and becoming the centre of the nation's attention and risking harm to a 13 year old girl and/or being ridiculed for making a big issue out of a silly comment by her. >

< Adam Goodes, made the right call. >

Really?

If an offensive jibe had been delivered by the same girl, but which did not have any possible racial connotations, Goodes could indeed have been ridiculed. The incident would most probably have been viewed entirely the other way around.

The girl’s comments would have been passed off as just being within the normal banter amongst the spectators of a football game.

Why is racism so different?

With this issue involving Goodes and later McGuire, the whole racism thing has blown right out of all proportion.

McGuire’s comments should NOT have gained any negative publicity!

Again, if he’d made a similar sort of attempt at humour which had had no possible racial connotations, even if it had been directly offensive and demeanouring, he would have got away with it scot-free.

Why is racism deemed to be so much worse than sexism, sexualorientationism, agism, overweightism, politicianism, bureaucratism, or any other group of people that a lot of us love to hate??
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 3 June 2013 10:55:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Because 'racism' is a term that is used exclusiveley against white people of course, so of course it is a scourge that must be eliminated.
Posted by Cody, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:29:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are a brave man Ludwig. Gone are the pre-thought -police days when we were able to chant defiantly " Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me".
Posted by Leslie, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:33:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the remarks are simply a result of the idiotic evolution fantasy. They 'observe ' that some people are more evolved than others. The reality is with people being slaughtered in Syria, Muslims murdering Christians in Nigeria (try blaming Abbott on that one) and people dying of hunger throughout the world, one overpaid man who I once respected has chosen to be a victim despite enjoying nearly all benefits brought to him by his privileged position. While hate based on race is pathetic this goes even lower when one is so convinced of his victim status. No wonder so many indigenous find themselves sitting aroung believing the world owes them everything.
Posted by runner, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:52:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ludwig asks: "Why is racism deemed to be so much worse than sexism, sexualorientationism, agism, overweightism, politicianism, bureaucratism, or any other group of people that a lot of us love to hate??"

Racism has been a justification for slavery and discrimination. It has also justified mass murder. The Nazis were not unique in their slaughter of those thought inferior and/or hated. In the early years of white settlement in Australia and through the twentieth century it has produced massacres of Aborigines.

Harm has been done by all the types of things you mention, but the harm that has been by racism is worse. I appreciate Adam Goodes' action and Poelman's defense of that action. They both said what I think should have been said.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 June 2013 12:01:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There are two ways you can live our life. You can attempt to build yourself up by putting/keeping others down, or you can grow up and lift as you climb.

Eddie is not a victim: he is a mirror of the ignorance of many. We have a recently retired national cricket captain who thinks sledging is okay and it is part of the game. Guess what? It didn't used to be.

Racism sexism, heterosexism, ageism, elitism - you name it - is a snobbish consideration of superiority by virtue of characteristics of birth, or luck in life.

And it is not just white anglo saxons who need to grow up. Immature Aussies bag people for being better than them or worse than them. The tall poppy syndrome is alive and well. Not everybody gets to earn squillions on the minesites, but many who do are demeaned as cashed up bogans. Many women who benefitted from the struggles of past liberators are the first to bag feminism, and are some of the most sexist, racist, ageist and homophobic creatures in society. Many blacks are also racist, sexist, homophobic etc.

There is even a football team that proudly calls itself 'the barbarians'. What next? The Rapists or the Slayers or the Bashers?

Thanks Adam Goodes for pointing the finger, and to the young girl who showed that we mirror our life experiences. But Eddie?? If that was 'a slip of the tongue' then it showed what he was thinking - even if he didn't intend to verbalise it. And it shows that his comment was far worse than any immature and impressionable young girl.
Posted by SHORT&SHARP, Monday, 3 June 2013 12:39:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Imagine it is you walking on the field under the gaze of some 40,000 or so spectators, and you hear a young girl's voice shouting the word 'ape' at you. What would you do?", the article opens with.

God & this bloke is a consultant? I would have mumbled under my breath, "well up you too, love", & gone & made the mark of the day, just to get up her nose. I certainly wouldn't have gone crying for an umpire to protect me from the big bad wolf.

I would then have given thanks for my great hearing, to pick one little girl out of 40,000. I'd then start worrying that my coach would get up me big time, for not concentrating hard enough on what I was being paid heaps to do, on that field.

"Unconscious racism", god have you ever heard such bull manure.

Either you have conscious racism, meaning to hurt, & belittle, [or perhaps to make yourself feel bigger], or you have nothing. If it's unconscious it can't be racism, or any other ism, it's just a word. If our education system was worth anything, she could have come up with something much more hurtful.

Hell she could have called him a Julia supporter. Now that would have been much more insulting, so perhaps he'd have needed two umpires to protect him.

I am so sick to death of these people, European with just a minor trace of aboriginal blood, or any other sort of blood, using it to try to get some advantage, or publicity.

Of course I an not as sick of them as I am of the idiots who then write pages of tripe to get a bit of publicity themselves. I am damn sure I would not be hiring someone who can write this muck to advise me on anything, other than being a fool of course.

Good on you Luddy, go get them old mate. Someone has to bring a bit of sense back into all the bulls##t.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 3 June 2013 12:41:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<Why is racism so different?>>
Because a lot of careers depend on it.

I'm with Luddy & Hasbeen.

If you take The Crucible (the play) and substitute "racism" for the words witchcraft and black magic you have a pretty close portrayal of whats happening in modern day OZ (and much of the Western world for that matter).
Posted by SPQR, Monday, 3 June 2013 2:05:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are tribal and this leads us into identifying with those with whom we belong. Racism and all the other ism's are simply negative reactions to those not within the enclave we inherit and construct throughout our lives.

What's missing in that simple construct is the pain one feels at rejection and exclusion.

mn
Posted by mn, Monday, 3 June 2013 2:09:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put mn.

All the sporting codes promote this tribalism among their supporters. In Oz it appears that it is strongest in AFL, but it is nothing compared to the soccer fans in Europe, & perhaps the UK in particular.

Having promoted & fostered it to try to draw paying crowds, they then squeal, when some may go a bit far. What [something beginning with W that makes you go blind] they are.

Hell the League mob have promoted the state of origin as a war in the past. What do they expect this does to the gentleman & lady spectator. Ha!
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 3 June 2013 3:26:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In my book football is the amusement of Apes & that includes their managers & followers. So, an Ape girl & an Ape manager called an Ape player an Ape ? Where's the problem ?
Posted by individual, Monday, 3 June 2013 3:54:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a crock!

If the 13yr old child called the big hairy faced footballer "N1gger", "Black Bastard/C-word" "Abbo Bastard/etc" I'd have condemned the racist name calling. But that didn't happen.

"Ape" - often preceded with flowery adjectives like "Hairy" "Ugly" "Stupid" etc has been an insult flung at uncountable men (and no doubt the occasional woman) of every race, culture and creed in the English speaking world. Generally most commonly at those who have an abundance of facial and/or body hair, are big and burly and/or have the intelligence, wit and sensitivity of, well, an Ape.

Now Adam Goodes - who if met in the street, would probably be best described as being of middle eastern appearance, fits the bill on at least 2 of these.

This is no victory for the fight against racism. Instead it is a pathetic attention seeking excercise blown completely out of proportion by a media and sports code which both should have shown far more professionalism and responsibility.

The real victim is a 13 yr old whose 'crime' was rudeness. Her image has been plastered across millions of TV screens here and overseas and her character vilified and humiliated. I can't believe this when the identity of TRUE juvenile criminals - the killers, rapists, thugs, arsonists, thieves can't be shown - either before or after Court proceedings. Also can't believe the silence of the Civil Libertarians upholding the freedom of speech to use the word "Ape" which has no racial connection unless prefixed with with an offending adjective, to heckle or insult. Similar - Eddie McGuires comment may have been stupid but it was not racist. Poor attempt at making light of a bogus situation that fell flat.

Adam Goodes needs a teaspoon or 3 of cement. Media and 'do-gooders' who excel at making something out of nothing should find a real issue.

And it seems that "n1gger" if I use "i" is a profanity, but "bastard" isn't? Gotta love PC ...
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 3 June 2013 4:01:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those that think Adam Goodes was not insulted, then you are "Rednecks".
Hows it feel!!
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 3 June 2013 5:16:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kipp
You hit it precisely.
MN
Posted by mn, Monday, 3 June 2013 6:32:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Kipp,

Calling names lends sanction to name-calling. As someone said: Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 June 2013 6:42:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unintentionally, Kipp has ably demonstrated how the narrative of activists has been enlarged to include words, images and wrongs from other countries, in his case the US which he probably detests, to enlarge the field for complaint to preserve and enlarge the victim industry in Australia.

The victim industry is worth billions annually, almost all of it from taxpayers' money. So it is hardly surprising there are professionals feverishly beavering away to find more areas of hurt and more areas for expensive representation, advocacy and compensation.

Any wonder there is not enough money to pay nurses and ambulances are ramped outside emergency entrances because there are no beds available? In one State of Australia 90% of graduating nurses do not have jobs and look like losing their hard-won registration. In other States, 50-60% do not have jobs. The federal government has reduced money for hospitals.

Successive federal governments have preferred to steal doctors from developing countries where they are needed than train our own first class graduates. Same excuse from the feds, no money.

Plenty of money for the victim industry though. The squeaky wheels get an endless supply of grease. Educated professionals are good at manipulating a media intent on sensationalism and making profits. It is all about getting the victim narratives up blindingly fast to capture headlines.

Even where a complaint is later found to be manufactured or a storm in a teacup, it matters little because political activism is about headlines to embarrass and sledge decisionmakers. That also ensures that good people self-censor later to avoid similar rough treatment and abuse in the Kangaroo Courts of political correctness.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 3 June 2013 7:15:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David F, I was not name calling, just making my own point by my own personal life experience, of having derogatory comment directed at me; just because of whom I am. WASP but Gay!
Posted by Kipp, Monday, 3 June 2013 7:30:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Kipp. I think I might be a redneck, & if I was really sure just what it is, I think I might be quite proud of it. I doubt it still means a poor field worker, with a sun burnt neck, in the way many use it.

Having led a sheltered life, I really have no idea what a WASP is, but if you're one it is probably very good.

I was most definitely quite gay, back in the 50s, before some bunch usurped the use of it, & it became a dirty word.

Just goes to show what a pile of garbage it all is really, doesn't it?
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 3 June 2013 8:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Kipp,

You are gay, and I think there is nothing wrong with that. You should be treated with respect as should all humans. However, calling someone a 'redneck' is still name-calling.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 June 2013 8:11:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Redneck'? Anyone who disagrees with the authoritarian left.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 3 June 2013 9:30:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I suppose when you've always identified with the bullying and aggressive majority, it's a matter of course to accuse victims (usually in a minority) of creating a "victim industry" - whenever they attempt to stand up for themselves.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 June 2013 9:37:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why appeal to "PC" to justify racist behaviour? The reasoning appears to be: if you call a behaviour "PC" then, clearly, you should not conform to it. Not making racist remarks is "PC", therefore it should be ok to make racist remarks. Poor reasoning, but nonetheless it is the reasoning employed by some.

What is "PC"? Where does this concept come from? Why would anyone invoke this concept of political correctness? The "PC" argument appears nothing more than a red herring to me. Political Correctness is a meaningless concept: it means anything that anyone wants to attribute to it.

A much more authentic argument would look at the value of name-calling, certainly in situations of unequal power. How does name-calling by those in a position of power contribute to any of the people involved, let alone to the wider society?

Racism is not about race, like rape is not about sex: it is about the abuse of power.

One cannot but wonder if these apologists also would like to be called 'ape' by their boss, or if they condone their children being called 'apes' at school by the majority of children and teachers.

But rather than addressing the issue from such a, more authentic, perspective, apologists for racism invoke the ghostly demon of "political correctness" which somehow forces everyone to conform to some grey existence where nothing can be said and which therefore must be resisted. Alternatively, they simply dismiss it, which is very easy to do when you are not the one affected by racism.

It is a simple trick: if we put the label of 'political correctness' on reasoned arguments, then we have dismissed the argument and do not need to do the difficult bit, such as addressing the argument itself.

Maybe it was also political correctness that ensured the end of slavery, or is that too inconvenient an interpretation?
Posted by Mitch@T4R, Monday, 3 June 2013 9:43:58 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What is political correctness?

Below is one of the great speeches of American rhetoric and in the link can be heard as it was delivered to the graduating lawyers at Harvard. Text is also given.

http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/charltonhestonculturalwar.htm
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 3 June 2013 9:56:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mitch@T4R - When is a comment or name-calling racist? The answer is of course when that remark or slur specifically refers to the race of the person to whom it is addressed.

So if I were to address my work colleague as "dirty black bastard" - that is blatantly racist. If he were to reply calling me "ugly whitey a-hole" that would also be racist.

If I called him 'dirty pig' and he replied 'ugly a-hole' the worst either of us could be accused of is RUDENESS and insulting behaviour.

Hence my taking umbrage over the "Ape" word. If "Ape" was a race specific insult I would be on the footballers side. If he had been called "N1gger" or any other derogatory term specific to his colour (which could be described as olive or swarthy) or aboriginality - but no, a kid called him "Ape"! Not Black Ape, N1gger Ape, Abbo Ape - just Ape.

Now I've called a few and heard a lot of men called "Ape" - none because of race but their appearance or behaviour. Sometimes in derision, sometimes in the same irreverent manner one calls one's friend "bastard".

Beating up a simple generic insult from a child into a major racial vilification incident is just one way to set back the fight against racism.

And what about the treatment of that juvenile? If she suffers psychological damage over the aggravated public humiliation (bullying?) by her accusers and in the media - who is responsible?

The footballer who pointed and yelled and carried on like a 5 yr old? The media who broadcast her image and played and replayed the incident ad nauseum? Not only here but overseas ...

If she were to suicide like other young people have done in the face of such attention - what then? Remember a British nurse who killed herself over a prank call made by 2 Australian Radio jocks impersonating members of the Royal Family?

All because some big hairy faced overpaid hyper-sensitive 'sportsman' chucks a hissy fit over an everyday heckle?
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:03:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Thinking of Answers by A. C. Grayling:

To insult or discriminate – even if you do it indirectly – with respect to the race, sex, sexuality, age, and disability, if any, of other people is unacceptable. These are things over which people have no choice or control. In respect of what people can choose such as their political or religious commitments, how they dress, how they entertain themselves, it is open season: people must bear the consequences of their choices, including the disagreement, amusement, and even contempt, of others. ‘Feeling offended’ is no defence against attack on your political or religious views by those who do not share them, and it is indeed a vital feature of a healthy society that over matters of choice there should be a vigorous debate, of which satire and humour are a welcome and often revealing part.
Posted by david f, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:37:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pretty much david f - which is why a large man with a hairy face (his choice of grooming) might well attract the taunt of "Ape".
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:53:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
divine_msn

"...big hairy faced hypersensitive sportsman..."

No wonder the younger generation are taking the can for the errant guidance of their mentors.

Goodes isn't responsible for MCG or AFL protocols in dealing with minors.

Nor is he responsible for media coverage.

In fact, he's one of the few in this episode who has acted with decorum.

What would you know about the indigenous experience of playing sport in Australia?

How do you know that this girl's comment wasn't the straw that broke the camel's back, as far as Goodes' experience goes?

The people who owe this girl an apology are the ones who mentored her to hurl abuse in the first place - and judging from your attitude, divine_msn, it ain't going to stop anytime soon.
Posted by Poirot, Monday, 3 June 2013 11:58:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Am I the only person who thinks that Adam Goodes is the ugliest man alive? The reason he was called an ape may have more to do with his face than his race.
Posted by benk, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 6:21:11 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michel Poelman “Today those of white European descent are hoping that the Chinese will not make the same mistake.”

I doubt their per capita income is anything to brag about.

“[Eddy McGuire] could have made it easier on himself and made a much stronger point if he acknowledged that he was indeed a racist.”

Or indeed an absurdist post-modernist.

“After all, this fear of strangers has helped our tribes to survive throughout the eons.”

And now “enlightenment/education” is helping our tribes vanish within a few generations.

How do you hope to eradicate “racism” in sport when officials are promoting it? (Indigenous Sport Program, the Deadlys, South Australian Aboriginal Sports Training Academy, NAIDOC Awards, Indigenous Sports Queensland, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sports Awards, etc).

Team sports are sublimated warfare.
The first rule of war is to unsettle the minds of the enemy using whatever tactic will get under their skin.
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 6:59:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Moral puritans in centuries past defined the attitudes causing all human misery as "The Seven Deadly Sins." Contemporary moral puritans have divested themselves of these values and now consider "Racism" as the Only Deadly Sin.

The word "Racism" was coined to denote the attitude that the three generally recognised races of humankind could be categorised by their level of development within evolution.

But this meaning has now spread to encompass an ever growing list of attitudes. Depending upon the source, it can now mean the attribution of negative stereotypes to any race, ethnicity, or religion. Please note. It is OK to attribute POSITIVE stereotypes, you can still say that the Chinese are hardworking, or the Italians have a flair for design, but it is PC verboten to say that the Chinese are racists or that the Italians are prone to corruption.

The idea that any group of people is beyond criticism is the sort of thing the mad mullahs of Islam would come up with, and I personally think that it is intellectually unsupportable. And if it is racist to attack Jews and Muslims on the basis of their belief systems, then it must also be racist to attack Nazis over their belief system.

It is illegal to say anything racist in this country, even if it is the truth. Why is it illegal to tell the truth? Why is it illegal to point out that the different races have different physical and mental characteristics which evolution has bestowed upon them, which give them advantages in certain environments?

The contradiction is, that everyone knows that black skin has superior UV ray deflecting qualities to non pigmented skin, but it is so self evident that nobody even realises that it is a racist position.

The usual anti racist position is to blame the dysfunctions of the black race on the "oppressions" caused by the white race. That is the same racist argument that Hitler used to blame the Jews for the misfortunes of the German people. But no committed anti racist is smart enough to recognise that.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 7:06:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A couple of excellent posts there, divine_msn.

.

<< Racism is not about race, like rape is not about sex: it is about the abuse of power. >>

Eh??

Mitch / Michel, you’ve got be kidding! Yes it can be about the abuse of power, but it is always about race!

Oh, except when it is unconscious and unintended to be racist… in which case it is surely not racist!

<< One cannot but wonder if these apologists also would like to be called 'ape' by their boss, or if they condone their children being called 'apes' at school by the majority of children and teachers. >>

Yes. This is what we should be concentrating on – insults and belittlement of all sorts, and not just those that are racist or might have some possible racial connotations.

Treating racist or supposedly racist comments as being an order or two of magnitude worse is just absurd.

<< …apologists for racism… >>

Excuse me, those on the other side of the debate to yourself are not apologists for racism. I (and I’m sure the others on this thread) wish to see REAL damaging racism curtailed, along with REAL insolent behaviour of all sorts that significantly negatively affects other people.
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 7:41:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Suddenly in Poirots mind the 'majority ' becomes the 'aggressive majority '. Normally in Australia the 'aggressive ' ones are the minorities (eg gay lobby or unionist). Funny how the left always redefine meanings to support their views. The majority just happen to know that their are far bigger issues in the world than one overpaid footballer who has benefited greatly by European settlement being 'hurt ' by an evolutionist comment. You really should stop judging the 'aggressive majority'whoever they might be Poirot and look at the over represented views of the minority.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 11:02:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi runner.

"Aggressive majority" is the euphemism you use when you don't want to say "white people", because you don't want people to know you are an anti racist who is a racist.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 4 June 2013 8:26:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is strange how people who call themselves "progressives" are the least in touch with the contemporary postmodernist zeitgeist.

In an age of uncertainty, ambiguity and paradox, they seek a new Puritanism, a new dualistic Zoroastrianism, where there is always a right/wrong on/off answer for everything.
And all heretics must be hunted down and destroyed.

Even their term "politically correct" is ridiculous.
As if there are "correct", and therefore "incorrect", *political* opinions!
There are correct and incorrect answers only in mathematics and physical science.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 2:37:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Okay, folks, hands up - I'm beat.

runner's, on the job, ably assisted by LEGO and his scholarly term "anti- racist"....Shocka brings up the rear.

Sorry to impose an alternative view...you folks go right on ahead mentoring children to yell abuse at the footy.

That's what it's all about, apparently
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 8:06:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

I think you are a humane sensitive person. Boorishness and ridicule apparently are accepted by some regardless of how it can hurt.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 8:19:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Grayling:

"Political correctness has earned itself a bad name, because from legitimate and worthy origins it has mushroomed into folly. Its origins were that people unthinkingly reflexively spoke in ways that denigrated and insulted others: ‘niggur’, ‘wog’, ‘wop’, ‘Mick’, ‘Frog’, ‘Kraut’, ‘Chink’, ‘Nip’: the first denoted black people, the third Italians, the fourth Irish, the fifth French, the sixth Germans, the seventh Chinese and the last Japanese, all in negative and denigratory terms (and alas! Only consider the etymology of ‘denigration’ itself: to blacken is to represent something as bad). There is an entire vocabulary of condescending and diminishing labels applied to women, such as ‘chick’, ‘bird’, ‘dame’, accompanied by stereotypes about their behaviour. Indeed, the hostile habit of lumping anyone different into crude and simplistic categories under a variety of demeaning labels, doubtless a hangover from our tribal past, meant that no one was exempt from being treated in those terms, and therefore from suffering discrimination as a result. For those at the top of the food-chain in economic terms, the fact that others call them names is a matter of indifference; but for those who are prevented by these labels – and all the prejudices that accompany them – from fair participation in society. They are not ignoble matters."

Goodes is a well-paid footballer. However, many Aborigines aren’t and have suffered from their denigration. It hurts and has caused suffering. The denigration of him was more denigration of them.
Posted by david f, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 9:54:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We accept your surrender to our incisive logic, Poirot.

Children should not hurl abuse at anyone at a public event, Poirot. But from reading the article, she was just emulating thousands of others who were making ape noises, which is effectively the same thing.

Prohibiting the drinking of alcohol in the USA did not work, because too many people liked to drink. Prohibiting racism won't work either, because like it or not, most people prefer their own people. And racist comments in everyday life are an everyday occurrence, especially where a bit of racial tension exists because of differing proneness to welfare dependency and violent crime.

It has been going on for thousands of years. The Romans called the British "Brittanculi" (wretched little Brits), while recently in Libya, some racist jokes about Roman soldiers were found chiselled into the foundations of a Roman building.

Get over it
Posted by LEGO, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 11:46:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<< …she was just emulating thousands of others who were making ape noises… >>

Yes LEGO, apparently this was the case. There is an entrenched culture of that sort of thing at football matches and the like. Always has been.

The various authorities have allowed it to exist, unfettered. It has really been an integral part of team-sport tribalism, where you vigorously support your own team and give the other team and any member therein heaps of flack!

It can’t really have any significant downsides, or else the authorities would have clamped down on it, wouldn’t they? If it does have serious downsides and the authorities have allowed it to continue, then surely they are the parties that deserves the greatest level of criticism here.

For one person to be pulled out of the crowd of like-minded and like-acting people, who are behaving in a long-held acceptable manner, and vilified in national and indeed international media is very seriously wrong.

It is totally the wrong way to go about addressing this issue, if indeed it needs addressing at all… which it doesn’t.
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 1:18:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The following link may clarify a few things:

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3759900.htm#transcript

As the Indigenous MP, Linda Burney pointed out,
"This is a much deeper issue than a couple of
statements..." She told us that she was really sick of
hearing "It was a slip of the tongue," or "I didn't
really mean it." As she stated these things are not good
enough anymore. I don't think anyone blames that young girl.
Certainly not Adam Goodes.
She has probably learned the best lesson and as Linda
Burney tells us - perhaps the young girl has started a
conversation that we actually needed to have.

However, we as adults should by now know better. As Linda
Burney tells us - "it is not acceptable and we are saying no
to it." That's the message that should come out of all this.
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 1:48:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And so the next tiime I get off a train at Midland and a group of Aborigines scream out 'You white &^*%' Linda Burney will do what about it? Smack them on the botty?
Posted by Cody, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 2:28:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cody,

No Linda would try to tell them that their
behaviour is unacceptable.

However to lighten things up here's something
just for you:

"Of course we love you darlin
You're a bloody top-notch bloke
And when we say you're clever
We don't mean it as a joke

So you like your beer and belching
That's no big deal to us
We know you'll keep on ape-ing
Just please don't fart or cuss."
Posted by Lexi, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 4:15:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

As was pointed out to you elsewhere and you choose to forget, Linda Burney did not agree at all that the 13 yr old minor represented the face of racism. Then Ms Burney MP, went on with a long and rambling listing of past indigenous wrongs, some of which could be highly contentious.

It was the usual full bucket of alleged wrongs tipped out (so Q&A that speakers and questioners must practice in advance), but nothing to do with the girl. The politician was talking around the subject, as politicians do. It might explain to some extent why the professional footballer was predisposed to think a certain way rather than exercising choice to interpret the single word (which applies?), but that is all. However you give the impression that this politician agreed with or bolstered the allegation against the girl. That is wrong.

What about you examine what Linda Burley said that actually relates specifically to the girl minor? What actual evidence do you have? Enthusiasm for the subject and rhetoric do not substitute for facts. Otherwise the wrongs of humans since year dot could serve to convict anyone, including you.
Posted by onthebeach, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 5:11:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3759900.htm#transcript
Lexi,
What have the people in this link actually ever contributed to our society apart from hanging off the apron that funds academia with our hard-earned Dollars. Surely you can rustle up better quality references.
Posted by individual, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 7:42:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi my sweet, I'm afraid you are now doing it. Of course it is not only you, but identifying someone as "the Indigenous MP, Linda Burney" is racist in it self. The woman concerned, if she so identifies herself is also indulging in racism.

It does not matter if it is direct, or reverse racism, it is still the same thing. Either the lady concerned expects special treatment for her self, her opinion, or her race, or there is no reason to mention her heritage.

Until aboriginals stop expecting special treatment & identifying as aboriginal to gain special treatment, racism will continue.

I personally can not imagine any thing more racist than one group, even if they were the first immigrants to Oz, wanting special mention in our constitution.

Until this type of thing stops, & all are just Australian, expect racism to flourish. People can not expect to use it to their advantage, & then complain when it is used against them
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 8:36:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Reverse racism' Hasbeen? No such thing, though some seem to think racism exhibited by minority groups is somehow not racism. Of course that is not true!

Truth, however, is frequently a victim when "Racism" gets brought into the conversation.

"Indigenous sportmen and women often suffer racial abuse on and off the field." Yes of course! Terrible what goes on! It must be stamped out. There should be an inquiry ....

"Indigenous footballers have a higher incidence of behaviours bringing them into conflict with the law and/or their clubs" You can't say that - it's racist! That's vilification! You're singling out aboriginals and saying they're trouble makers ...

"It's a national shame so many Aboriginal men are incarcerated in Australia." That's awful! Why is that happening to our indigenous people? There should be better ways to deal ...

"More aboriginal men, compared to other racial groups are in jail for serious crimes like murder, manslaughter and rape." It's not right to say that - it's racism. It's wrong to identify prisoners on basis of race. It might even be an offence ...

"Race" can only be used 'positively' or to defend. If a fact is expressed which reflects negatively on a racial (or increasingly, a cultural/religious group) you may be sure the cries of racism will drown the discussion.

Police investigating ethnic gang related crime have expressed concerns about being accused of racism in the course of their work.

True racism must be stamped on when it happens - no matter who is delivering the abuse.

Bogus racism - AFL player hissy fits over a generic insult, shutting down discussion or legitimate questions by playing the race card like an indigenous politician did recently - REASONABLE PEOPLE ARE OVER IT.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 10:42:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Sorry to impose an alternative view...you folks go right on ahead mentoring children to yell abuse at the footy. '

Actually Poirot maybe with such a scientific brain you claim to have you might have the text books changed so that the idiotic notion of some people being more evolved than others might not become a point of offense. But then again that's what you believe Poirot no matter how nicely you put it.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 5 June 2013 11:35:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner,

I know you believe we were all plopped onto the earth, Mr Bean style, as we are and that evolution is a fiction....(I wonder how many of your cohorts on this thread support you in that proposition?)

And what do you reckon, runner? "....notion of some people being more evolved than others...."

That's a bit thick.

On the subject of human evolution, we're "all of us" homo sapiens.

"But then again that's what you believe Poirot no matter how nicely you put it."

Now, now, runner perhaps you might stop your naughty habit of ascribing views to people based on your own comprehensively warped view of humanity.

I've said nothing of the sort - except that if people bring up kids to hoot abuse from the sidelines, then they shouldn't be surprised and act so outraged when things turn pear-shaped.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:17:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, runner is right to point out the contradictory support/denial of evolution on "your side".

Evolution is great when it gets God out of schools.
But denied in politics, where all people are "equal" and social tiers and active self-interest are "unfair".

We are not all the same genetically.
There has been sufficient generations since leaving Africa (supposedly, see multiregional-origin theory) to see naked-eye morphological changes.
Do you think differing surface features (eyes, hair, skin) are the *only* things that have "evolved" in the last 60,000+ years?

There is evidence that post-African humans mated with Neanderthals, which led to our bigger brain.
If one were truly "scientific" you'd have to classify us Sapien-Neanderthal cross-breeds as a new species, or at least subspecies.
But that would be politically unacceptable!

With evolution, like everything else, Jekyll-Hyde Progressives want to have their cake and eat it too.
Posted by Shockadelic, Thursday, 6 June 2013 1:37:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My view is simple. Goodes is a large man, in the prime of his life, valued for his talent and skills, well paid, seen as a role model by young men. By any measure he is able to hold his head up with pride in himself and his success and I'm sure there would be few men willing to tell him they disagreed to his face. His race is incidental in all this, the same observations would apply regardless of his ethnicity.

"Goodes holds an elite place in AFL/VFL history as a dual Brownlow Medallist, dual premiership player, four-time All-Australian, member of the Indigenous Team of the Century, and has represented Australia in the International Rules Series." - from Wikipedia

He has played well over 300 games so he has presumably been exposed to all sorts of denigrations by fans of the other side hoping to put such a talented player off his game so as to give their own side some advantage and to those of his own side doing the same to opposing players, yet he claimed to have been "hurt" by a comment from a young barracker in the audience. In fact, he was so hurt that he was put off his game enough to stop and point her out to security to be removed for offensive behaviour. A 13 year old child. Because she called him a name that he felt was disrespectful of his racial origin.

His cause was taken up with enthusiasm by a few in the media and the girl was roundly condemned as representing the worst of Australia for her comment. She wrote a very nice letter of apology which was reproduced triumphantly on the front page of media websites and then Eddie McGuire made his contribution and she became yesterday's news to the media.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 June 2013 3:00:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The problem is that the protection of children from harm, including abuse, is a core societal role no matter which side of politics you belong to.

Or, it used to be. Apparently it's no longer as important as saving a high-profile aboriginal man from being "hurt" by something the child said.

I wonder how they would have coped if the child had turned out to have Aboriginal ancestry?
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 6 June 2013 5:11:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shocka,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I didn't comment on evolution until responding to runner's last post.

I didn't state anywhere on this thread that "evolution is on my side".

Runner, was merely trying to score a few points because he has no truck with evolution - while most people do.

As usual, he has no real argument, and just wishes to push his leaky barrow.

...........

Anti,

You're right about our responsibility to children.

Perhaps then, we shouldn't put on disgusting displays of abuse for them when they're with us watching the grown-ups play.

Hurling abuse at contestants isn't tolerated in school sports or in junior sports in general.

We're sending out two conflicting messages obviously
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 June 2013 9:24:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes indeed, well said Antiseptic.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 6 June 2013 9:34:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shocka,

Just one more thing on evolution.

If you're trying to make out some of us are more evolved than others, species-wise, can you explain why every language is sophisticated?

Why, some languages spoken by people you would probably classify as culturally backward have more a sophisticated language construct than we do.

We may or may not have cross-bred with Neanderthals, the jury is out on that one, although it seems likely to me...but all that is beside the point.

As I said above, we're all Homo Sapiens.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 June 2013 9:38:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Poirot,

"Never argue with idiots. They'll bring you
down to their level and win from experience."
(Old saying - but very applicable here).
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:12:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi, I am unsure of the point of your sweet little dittie, but I can assure you I have been called a 'white ^&*(' by Aborigines many more times than that footballer has been called an 'Ape'. I cried a river of tears, found a forest, chopped down some wood, built a bridge and then I got over it. Why can't he?
Posted by Cody, Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:17:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Me too Cody - in the course of doing my old job ...
Most of these Racists drunk and disorderly at the time but some just idiots with a log on each shoulder and a sense of entitlement.

Maybe Poirot should spend some time ...?
Posted by divine_msn, Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:29:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We may be all homo sapiens, Poirot. And dogs may all be dogs.

But if I were you, I would not let a Pit Bull or a Japanese Akira play with your kids.

Oops, now I am a "canine racist."
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 6 June 2013 12:57:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cody,

What can I say except that education is a
progressive discovery of our own ignorance.
And education matters. The young 13 year old
did receive an education that mattered. She
learned her lesson - and it is likely that she'll
never repeat her actions.

Of course the ultimate authority must always rest
with the individual's own reason and critical
analysis. And, as shown from some of the posts here,
ignorance does not like change.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 6 June 2013 1:42:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting...now LEGO is using the analogy of puppy dogs to make his point?

Seeing as most posters seem to be vilifying Goodes for making an issue of name-calling, and consequently hammering the issue on the grounds that the person he highlighted happened to be thirteen (I'm wondering if he was supposed, in the heat of the moment, to race up to her to ascertain whether she was eighteen or not?)

It's a shame the people criticisng Goodes don't possess his kind of class.

Here's what he said regarding the girl after the event:

" I've had fantastic support over the last 24 hours....I just hope that people give the 13 year old girl the same sort of support because she needs it, her family needs it, and the people around her need it...It's not a witch hunt, I don't want people to go after this girl...We've just got to help educate society better so it doesn't happen again...It's not her fault, she's 13, she's still so innocent. I don't put any blame on her....Unfortunately, it's what she hears, in the environment she's grown up with that has made her think that it's OK to call people names...I guarantee she has no idea right now how it makes people feel to call them an ape."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-25/goodes-gutted-but-places-no-blame/4712772

That's a far cry from the majority of comments around here.

.....

divine_msn,

"Maybe Poirot should spend some time..."

Says he/she, based on precisely "no knowledge" of Poirot's life experience.

Still, that sort of ignorant blather is par for the course around here - it seems.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 6 June 2013 2:21:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic, " Goodes is a large man, in the prime of his life, valued for his talent and skills, well paid, seen as a role model by young men"

In our society, his celebrity, wealth and status advantage him above all men and that is especially so with women.

He is a professional footballer who is very fortunate to be playing in his 34th year in a game where any player approaching 30 is seen as an expensive liability to the club. His contract is to the end of 2013. Goodes has said he wants to continue.

Adam Goodes must be paid in the vicinity of $1 million annually plus benefits. Coincidentally a couple of years ago he won the Skilton footy award named after 'Chimp' Bob Skilton, who was a triple Brownlow Medal winner.

Adam Goodes moves in social circles. He has all of the social contacts and glittering prizes that wealth and celebrity can bring, including the beautiful blonde girlfriend hwo could easily be a model.

http://tinyurl.com/Goodes-girlfriend

There is a gulf of Grand Canyon proportions between the sophisticated and fortunate Adam Goodes, the man the media and the AFL have built up as a superhero (now hugely wronged) and the naive adolescent minor who did not even understand what racism was and imagined she was describing him as large and hairy (as footballers are, especially to barrackers from the opposing team).
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 6 June 2013 2:36:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear onthebeach,

If you can't cop it, and you can't take a joke,
you're humourless and politicall correct. If you
complain about it and ask that it stop, you're
guilty of perpetuating the "new racism," whatever
that is.

But it takes the person who walks around in that
skin to tell us what life is like from their
perspective, and they are not making it up and they
are not being oversensitive when, like Adam Goodes,
like Harry O'Brien, like Linda Burney, MP, they tell us
they live with discrimination every day.

As Virginia Trioli in her column pointed out, "It took
the sight of a 13-year old girl guilessly flinging an
insult around to wake many up to this. She didn't
understand what she had said - and that should horrify us."

As Trioli says, "Australian racism is rarely vicious or
spiteful or dangerous: we just aren't that angry a people.
Instead, it is casual, and joking and light-hearted. And
for those who ache to be seen as every bit a member of
Australian society as everybody else, it is not funny -
it is an unending sorrow."
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 6 June 2013 4:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi, I think you will find 'racism' in any country and in any culture, should you look just beneath the surface. Eradicating something that is apparently inherent makes about as much sense as trying to lift a bucket up when you are standing on it.I am a migrant to this country, from New Zealand. I arrived at a time of relatively high unemployment and was told on more tha one occasion: 'We don't want New Zealanders working here.' How did that make me feel? I couldn't give a #$@^ actually. It shocks me that 'racism' is a charge levelled at white people, and white people only. While studying at Murdoch University during the 1990s we had a 'Harmony' Day. All white students had to wear a badge stating: 'What am I doing about my racism?'. Non European students were, of course, exempt, because it was and is simply assumed they are always the victims and never the orchestrators of 'racism'. I refused to wear any such badge and was castigated wnen I pointed out that Asian students appeared to prefer the company of other Asian students and could even specify the race they preferred to share a house with on student noticeboards. Needless to say, this 'tolerance' was never extended to any white person. If that is not pig ignorance then I don't know what is. Chinese students openly referred to white people, in our OWN country as 'Gua Lou', or 'Foreign Devils'. The words they had for Aboriginals were far worse.
Posted by Cody, Thursday, 6 June 2013 5:19:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Cody,

Great post.

And it is still going on. A good number of leading universities now carry "whiteness studies" incorporated (read: hidden/disguised) within their English/Linguistic/Anthropological programs which seek to identify racism as a peculiar white phenomenon.

You might have noted Rainiers (who identifies himself as Aboriginal) little quip on another, earlier thread that while he might at times have been prejudice he has never racist--classic "whiteness theory" thinking--or more correcting, brainwashing.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 6 June 2013 6:31:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
he Was never racist--classic "whiteness theory" thinking--or more correctLY, brainwashing.
Posted by SPQR, Thursday, 6 June 2013 6:33:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cody,

A dominant group always tries to legitimate its
interests by means of an ideology; a set of
beliefs that explains and justifies some actual
or potential social arrangements. One such form
of ideology is racism - the belief that one racial
or ethnic group is inferior to another and that
unequal treatment is therefore justified. The
characteristic feature of racist ideologies is that
they try to make social and economic inequalities among
racial and ethnic groups seem "natural" or "right."

An excellent illustration of the relationship between
racist ideology and economic interests comes from the
European colonial period, which lasted from the fifteen
century until the middle of the twentieth century.

These attitudes became deeply embedded in Western European
culture and were transported by white settlers to North
America, where many traces remain to this day.
Racist beliefs provided a convenient justification for
slavery in the South and for the slaughter and
dispossessiohn of American Indians. Black were considered
suitable for slavery "by nature," and the destruction of
Indian societies by a "superior" white civilisation was seen
as a matter of "Manifest destiny" to which "the only good
Indian is a dead one."

Although racism is found among different people in societies
all over the world, the racism of the Western powers was
notable for its international scale (Australia and New Zealand
included) and systematic theoretical justifications by both
theologians and scientists alike.

But enough said.

I trust you get the message.
Posted by Lexi, Thursday, 6 June 2013 6:48:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The word that most tribes have for themselves translates to ‘the people’. Racism served a purpose when we lived in tribal conditions. Xenophobia or fear of strangers made us ready to do battle with and slaughter people of other tribes. The development of the monotheistic religions gave divine righteousness to the slaughter of the outsider. The person who worshipped another God could be labelled an unbeliever or atheist as our God was the real one. Ben Kiernan wrote “Blood and Soil” describing 2,400 years of genocide dating from the Spartans. Genocide was fuelled by both religion and race. The English slaughtered the ‘uncivilised’ Catholic Irish. Their savagery was fuelled by the Church of England which justified the slaughter even though the English themselves had been Catholic when Henry VIII wanted a divorce. Racism is usually not logical. The English slaughtered Aborigines also. in the eyes of many of the early settlers to Australia they were not regarded as human. The prevailing scientific thought before Darwin was that the different races of human had different origins. Some clergy regarded the Aborigines as human since they subscribed to the biblical myth of all humankind descending from Adam and Eve. They protected Aborigines from the slaughter at the price of brainwashing them with the European religious myths. After Darwin’s ‘Descent of Man’ most enlightened opinion regarded all humans including the Aborigines as one species. Even so massacres of Aborigines continued into the twentieth century. The idea of all humans having a common origin was still rejected by some scientists such as Carleton Coon, an anthropologist.

Most no longer have the primitive belief that spirits are in trees and rocks even though some believe that we are engaging in spiritual cannibalism in consuming a wafer that has been subjected to the appropriate ritual. Where people of different beliefs and cultures live together racism is longer an aid to survival but a source of senseless conflict. Calling an Aborigine an ape brings back the bloody past when Aborigines were regarded as less than human. Both racism and religion are relicts of a bloody past.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 June 2013 7:27:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi

No, I am afraid I don't get the message. What, exactly, are you saying?
Posted by Cody, Thursday, 6 June 2013 8:12:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow Lexie! So the Caucasian peoples emanating from Western European lands invented RACISM and continue to hold peoples of any other racial background under their wicked bigoted thumbs ....

I suggest travel. Try a nice predominately Muslim country for starters. Insult a local ... Better still be insulted by a local ... the result is usually about the same. See if you reckon you get equal treatment as a foreigner ...

If you are one of the wicked white majority, albeit a very apologetic one, I guess you wouldn't be at all concerned if you were racially vilified? Let's say you saw a child of obvious non-caucasian race suffer injury - fall off a bike for example. When you've gone to lend assistance a person of similar appearance as the child comes running at you yelling "Don't touch him you white #^&." You probably wouldn't consider you've suffered a racially motivated attack would you? It would be a simple case of an oppressed minority person expressing fear and anxiety over the welfare of their kinsman - Yes?

I hope you are a young person with limited life experience because then there is time yet to develop a balanced outlook.

Poirot, some of us have spoken about life experiences which have shaped our POV. If I have no knowledge of yours, as you point out - why not share?

The sweetest irony of your last post was quoting Goodes, "Unfortunately, it's what she hears, in the environment she's grown up with that has made her think that it's OK to call people names..."

If you hear the language, name calling, shouting, screaming and verbal abuse that abounds in so many Aboriginal communities - that 13yr old sounds more polite than the most polished debutante.

He should start with his own tribe.
Posted by divine_msn, Thursday, 6 June 2013 8:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi,

So now according to you I am 'humourless', along with some noxious names you call me because I object to the appalling treatment and denial of the rights of the 13yr old girl adolescent child minor.

You quote Virginia Trioli, who with her rude gestures on camera towards a federal politician, is an example of what is wrong with the ABC. Honestly, since when was Virginia Trioli an expert on the care and rights of children anyhow?

The left authoritarianism and extreme political correctness that permitted that to occur are abominations wherever they occur and a foul blight on Australian society.

It is truly disgusting that anyone would turn a blind eye to the ruthless, excessive, cruel and politically convenient treatment of this child and not be demanding redress, let along seek to defend and justify it as you do.

It is NOT RIGHT, it is Never OK to warp the rights of a child and treat her like that.
Posted by onthebeach, Thursday, 6 June 2013 8:24:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi David F

Human beings have always formed self protecting groups made up of shared kinship ties, or at least social similarity. If in our post arboreal existence human beings had not evolved to do this, then lacking teeth, claws, spines, horns, armour, or large size, our species would have gone extinct.

The forming of self protecting groups, and the defence of territory, is a psychological imperative. It is in our DNA, and no amount of moral posturing, or thinking that you are morally and intellectually superior to others, is ever going to change that. As a matter of fact, if you think that people who think like you do, who can casually discard their group identities, are superior to those who do not, then you have just delineated two opposing groups and denigrated your opponents.

Groups usually define a territory and defend it against all comers, regardless as to whether they are the four legged, or two legged variety. Competing groups on common territory normally do not like each other, and they routinely think up hurtful or amusing names for their opponents.

Defence of territory by sedentary creatures is instinctive, regardless of whether the defender is a groper fish, a stickleback lizard, or a magpie. Human beings are sedentary creatures.

Wishing away the concept of "us and them" in order to conform to a fairyland ideology that promises to Save the World, but ignores human psychology, is about as effective as telling teenagers that they can easily stop the population explosion by not having sex.
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 6 June 2013 8:42:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

You wrote: "Wishing away the concept of "us and them" in order to conform to a fairyland ideology that promises to Save the World, but ignores human psychology, is about as effective as telling teenagers that they can easily stop the population explosion by not having sex."

We humans like all other organisms have two basic drives - to survive and reproduce. The drive to reproduce fuels our sex drive which is strongest in teenagers. Your analogy is a poor one. The instinct for racism is causing conflict and can prove harmful to our survival. That means that it can be abandoned. At 87 I still find the female body attractive. I don't find racism attractive.
Posted by david f, Thursday, 6 June 2013 9:16:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear DavidF

Homosexual couples do not "reproduce" since that is a biological impossibility, but no amount of finger wagging moralising will affect their behaviour.

Sigmund Freud coined the word "neurosis" to explain the behaviour of many of his patients who were exhibiting bizarre behaviour. Many of his patients were homosexuals who had been inculcated by their culture to themselves believe that their homosexual behaviour was utterly wrong and contemptible. This they actually accepted. But the strain of constantly repressing their innermost instincts caused serious psychological problems.

I agree that human beings can repress their instincts to some degree in order to conform to societal values. But we can only go so far when it comes to our most deeply felt psychological imperatives.

In centuries past, moralists defined the repression of the "Seven Deadly Sins" as the answer to human conflict. With Karl Marx and his followers, it was "class consciousness" that was the root of all evil. Now, "racism" is the Only Deadly Sin.

Communist theology held that all humans in society were absolutely equal in every way. A Cheapside flower girl was indistinguishable from a princess, provided that she had elocution lessons and a nice dress. But their attempts to create a classless society failed miserably. Birds of a feather, just keep flocking together, regardless of what the socialist egalitarians preach.

Now we have a new egalitarian theory which will also fail. This is, that people can divest themselves of their racially based identity and create race blind societies. This concept is failing right now in multicultural societies all over the world. Multiculturalism is exactly like Socialism, because it is based upon the same egalitarian ideal. How many times does it need to fail before educated, and supposedly intelligent people realise that it is a bad idea?

An excellent definition of "insanity" is "making the same mistake, over and over again."

Nature is no egalitarian. People are born with different levels of intelligence, types of intelligences (talents), physical abilities, and natural beauty. And they form groups of like minded individuals with kinship ties because they feel safe among them.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 7 June 2013 5:00:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear LEGO,

Sure people form groups with those they have affinity with. However, forming groups by race is a fairly modern idea if we look back in history. Race had nothing to do whether one was given Roman citizenship. When the Goths were riding high and raiding Europe one could be a Goth, regardless of race, if one could wield a sword effectively. I visit the state of Virginia where my son lives. When the Supreme Court made segregation by race illegal you would see groups of blacks and whites in a restaurant with blacks gathered at their tables and whites gathered at their tables. Now as I go to Virginia I see much more mixture. Whites and blacks are at the same tables. I am blond and blue eyed. However, I now have relatives who are black. My grandchildren have ancestors who are black, Scotch, Irish, American Indian, French, Russian, Jewish and Portuguese. Race is only one of many divisions between human beings, and many human beings don't find racial differences important. In the US there used to be laws against miscegenation, blacks marrying whites. Those who wrote those laws would not have written them if people of different races didn't want to marry each other. It is instinctive for humans to get together with like-minded people. However, people of different races may be like-minded or have similar cultural backgrounds.
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 June 2013 5:25:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f "The instinct for racism is causing conflict and can prove harmful to our survival. That means that it can be abandoned."

Your unrealistic utopian ideology is responsilbe for most of that conflict, so maybe we should abandon it instead.
You are bringing people together that have never had to live together before: Swedes and Koreans, Irish and Turks, Belgians and Samoans.
You are *creating* the conflict!

You can't rewire your brain to suit this week's fashion or thought police edict.
I read somewhere we use more of our brain for face-analysis/recognition that for *any other* function!

Why? So we can recgonise who might have the same selfish genes as us and who might have competing ones that will eliminate our green eyes or red hair.

The only reason there is potential racial conflict is due to the artificial means by which different peoples have been brought together: conquest, slavery, and today's 'non-discriminatory' immigration.
You condemn the first two, while expecting us to celebrate the third.

Greed motivated all three.
Today's third mistake is no more noble.
They're coming here for money. Greed will not unite us.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 7 June 2013 6:25:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post, DavidF

My reading of history informs me that Rome fell when it became Christian, lost its social identity and social cohesion, and declared that everyone in the Roman Empire "was Roman."

The state of race relations the USA today is hardly a glowing example of racial harmony. My premise is, that white people wanted social separation from black people for valid reasons. That was, because they were convinced that black people were extremely racist themselves, extremely violent, and that most black people had low intelligence.

They still hold these views today, and while the liberal courts may be able to mix schools and restaurants, white people simply "vote with their feet" and move to areas where blacks (and hispanics) are rare In the USA, real estate agents have been known to cause housing prices to drop in "white areas" by "seeding" black families with cheap houses to begin "white flight." This phenomenon of "white flight" is happening in Australia today, where Australians are fleeing "Muslim" areas with their high rates of serious criminal behaviour.

This is creating "black" cities like Washington, which have identical problems with aboriginal settlements. In 1993, the Mayor of Washington (Sharon Kelly) begged the President to release the National Guard, because crime in Washington had became so bad the police admitted that they had lost control of the city.

Socialist egalitarians claim that it is these white racist attitudes which are the reason for black dysfunction. That just happens to be a racist argument in itself. White US people today are 54 times more likely to be the victims of race crimes committed by blacks, as blacks are of race crimes committed by whites. But only white people are considered the "racists."

Your example of inter racial marriage is an interesting one. White men marrying aboriginal women is not uncommon in Australia. But high status aboriginal women are apparently racists. They do not marry aboriginal men. Aboriginal men have traditionally visited appalling violence upon their females and so it is hardly surprising that aboriginal women "vote with their feet" too, if they can.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 7 June 2013 6:59:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

I think it is one of the great tragedies in history when the Roman Empire became Christian. However, I don’t think that there was ever a time when everyone in the empire was regarded as a citizen. It had been declining for a long time before it became Christian. The eastern Roman empire became Byzantium and lasted almost a thousand years after Christianity became the official religion.

I don’t think racial segregation in the US ever was based on valid reasons. The segregation laws in the south were enacted in the late nineteenth century. Black people were freed from slavery after the Civil War, and the segregation laws were to continue white dominance. I lived in the north and went to integrated public schools in the 1930s. There didn't seem to be any problems.

There are areas of high crime and of low crime. My son lives in a racially mixed area in Virginia. His daughter had a friend whose father was a Virginia state policeman. He told me that there had not been a break-in or robbery in the area for the last seven years. I asked him what he does. There are traffic offenses, bar room brawls, accidents, domestic conflicts but no break-ins or robberies. However, both black and white in the area are mostly employed and educated. The city of Washington has horrible problems of crime, drugs, teenage pregnancies, incest etc. Some all-white areas of Chicago have exactly the same problems. The cause is the same. Increasing mechanisation of the agriculture has forced marginal sharecroppers off the land, and they have come north. Both black and white are ignorant peasants who have come to the city and cannot cope.

Socialist egalitarianism? Marx was extremely prejudiced as was Bakhunin. Socialists have promoted egalitarianism, but it has been mainly for propaganda purposes. In the communist countries the party became the exploiting class. Racism can exist anywhere among any people. You wrote that only white people are considered racists. I think that is nonsense. Where did you get your statistics on black-white crime?
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 June 2013 10:00:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I acknowledge your point about the longevity of the Eastern Christian Roman Empire. My premise, that Rome tried to stay together by making everyone in the Empire "Roman", came from my DVD series on that topic.

I disagree with your premise that segregation was not based upon valid reasons. Human beings will always avoid individuals, or groups of people that they see as threatening, or just trouble. Where a productive majority hold legislative power, they will use their power to keep their own people safe from the strife prone minority.

Even in all white societies, class conscious layering occurs where different classes exist in separate geographic areas, which roughly equate to intelligence levels (or at least types of intelligences) that exist among the classes. The lowest class is occupied primarily with those of the lowest intelligence, and not surprisingly, this is where most of the serious social problems including high crime rates ,obesity, and endemic welfare dependency occurs.

Black run societies in every corner of the world are universally dysfunctional. There are two opposing racist explanations to explain that. The first, is that black people are always the victims of white oppression. This is a premise I reject. The other, is that black people (generally speaking) have measurably lower intelligences than whites and Asians, and low intelligence is a prime factor in criminal and dysfunctional behaviour.

The degree to which black people are very disproportionately over represented in violent crime is amazing. There are no end of sites on the internet, including official government ones, that can give you an insight into the scale of the problem. I put it to you, DavidF, that it is not unreasonable for whites and Asians to have very low (racist) opinions of black people, when their unacceptable behaviour is self evident.

You are right when you say that the Socialist egalitarians promised a utopian society free of class distinctions and they failed. I put it to you that the descendents of these socialist egalitarians dream that they can build a utopian society free of racial division, but they are going to fail also.
Posted by LEGO, Friday, 7 June 2013 2:02:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many Australians believe that now is the moment for a
decisive change of direction, that now is the time to
transcend the surviving legacy of colonialism.

At the heart of this movement is the desire to face up
to our history, to embrace the past in all its aspects,
to cease to hide the violence, the dispossession, the
deprivation.

People now want to know the truth about the
past and to come to terms with it. They see this not as
finger-pointing but as an essential step along the way
towards national maturity.

Perhaps the discussion that has developed as a result of
the actions of a 13 year old - in some small way will
assist that process.

It's a discussion that goes beyond what happened - and
one we had to have.

As stated earlier, Australian racism is rarely vicious
or spiteful or dangerous. Adam Goodes did not blame the
young girl. He behaved graciously.

I understand the ignorance of those who tell us that
if you can't cop
it, or take a joke, you're humourless and politically correct.
And if you complain about it and ask that it stop,
you're guilty of perpetuating the "new racism," whatever
that is. I understand the accusations of supposedly
being apologists
for "child abusers," (sic),
and I understand being told - how others are much worse in their "racism,"
(usually Muslims are given as an example), as if that should
excuse our behaviour.

Invariably the way we colour the world will be from our own
agendas, our own unique view. But if contemporary Australians
are to live at ease with ourselves, we need more education,
and at least greater honesty about the
culture of racism that is so damaging to us all.

"Prejudices, it is well known, are most difficult to
eradicate from the heart whose soil has never been loosened
or fertilised by education; they grow there, firm as weeds
among stones."
(Charlotte Bronte, Jane Eyre).
Posted by Lexi, Friday, 7 June 2013 2:10:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lego,

After the Civil War the US Constitution was amended. Part of the amendment follows:

AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

The above amendment forbids making laws that abridge the rights of any group of citizens. Segregating citizens on the basis of their race is in violation of section 1 of Amendment XIV. I think it was a great step forward to enforce the Constitution and negate the laws mandating segregation that existed in the southern states. Laws that violate the US Constitution have no validity in the US.

Black people who are citizens of the United States should be treated with all the respect due to any citizen. They should not be denied service or segregated at any place of public accommodation.

I do not agree that black run societies are universally dysfunctional. South Africa is a black run society. Though it has problems it is functional.

I also do not believe that it is legitimate to discriminate against a group of people because their average intelligence is lower according to IQ tests. IQ tests are all to some degree culture dependent. In the United States as a group Jews and Chinese score higher than the average. I do not think it valid to discriminate against gentiles or other non-Chinese.

We have different and incompatible worldviews.
Posted by david f, Friday, 7 June 2013 9:06:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi - Let's set a scene:

You're at a large charity dinner - five hundred guests and media galore.

Conversation at your table turns to topic of overseas conflict. You, innocently, express a strong opinion. In your eyes any Australian troop involved in the war in Afghanistan has blood on his hands.

Woman opposite stands, starts yelling - at you. Her partner was killed there only a month ago. She is wailing and pointing. By now every one present is facing your direction as have the TV cameras. Security bustles in, speaks briefly with the angry distressed woman then demands you accompany them off the premises.

Hours later on National TV you're watching your eviction and hearing how you'd denigrated a war hero. People are making statements about 'disgraceful behaviour'. Woman who made the fuss appears, says "She should've known better. She's not a CHILD! Needs education about what our troops are fighting for." Story and TV coverage goes international.

You've done nothing ILLEGAL. It was INSENSITIVE. No malice was intended.

Do you feel fairly treated?

Rather, maybe a more reasonable reaction to this faux pas would've been if the victim had hissed across the table, "Shut your filthy mouth! I've just buried my husband who died protecting the people of that country. How dare you!"?

Others at your table would most likely have looked away. You probably would've cringed, apologised, felt uncomfortable the rest of the evening and hoped never to meet again but the incident would've been finished in a manner appropriate.

Instead - you're famous! Millions know your face, have witnessed your humiliation. All because of something that was construed in a manner not intended. AND YOU'RE AN ADULT!

Get the picture?

In the time spent pointing and shouting Goodes could've confronted his child tormentor with a few terse words.

Gracious? Mmmmm ... Sure!
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 7 June 2013 9:47:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States"

Being served in a restaurant is not an automatic "priviledge" or right of citizenship.
It is, or should be, the prerogative of the business owner (it's their "property") to decide who they serve.

Anyway, Blacks were not denied a bus seat, a meal, a hotel room or anything else.
There were simply *separate* services.
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 8 June 2013 1:50:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Greetings DavidF

The Northern US attitudes to segregation (with few negroes)) were so different to the South (where negroes were plentiful) that the US violated its own constitution to prevent the South from leaving the Union. President Lincoln violated the US Constitution by suspending habeas corpus, and when his own Attorney-General objected, he threaten to jail him.

The US Constitution was enforced through force of arms on the South, so it might be understandable if the South still resents that. The segregationist South violated the US Constitution because it was imposed upon it by the North, who violated it themselves in order to make war on them.

Could I point out that many of the negroes in the South then went North to give the benefits of multiculturalism to the finger wagging North? The result of this migration is that in the US Capitol, Washington, the police admitted that they had lost control of the streets, Chicago became "the murder capitol of the US", and Detroit has the distinction of being the only First World city rumoured to have become part of the African Third World?

The question remains, is it not Racism reasonable? Is it not reasonable for a group of people to look down upon another group of people who are renowned for their exceptionally violent and criminal behaviour, their creation of intractable social problems, and their endemic welfare dependency? Is it not reasonable for a productive majority to discriminate against a dysfunctional minority?

South Africa is a case in point. AIDS is wiping out the blacks because black men simply refuse to wear condoms. How smart is that? Soweto is still one of the most violent and dysfunctional societies on the planet, and white people live in gated communities, and drive around in bullet proof cars while trying to figure out how to immigrate to Australia.

Thank you for confirming that it is a fact that different races have different IQ's. The socialist egalitarians here would never admit to that, even if you tortured them on the rack to get it out of them.
Posted by LEGO, Saturday, 8 June 2013 4:59:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear divine_msn,

Thank you for your hypothetical scenario.
But you miss the point. What you describe is
something totally different to what is under
discussion here. Ethnic slurs are in a category
all by themselves - and education is the key to
this problem.

See you on another thread.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 8 June 2013 10:52:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi, before you go, would you explain why you think ethnicity is a specially protected characteristic?

I understand the historical context, but why is ethnicity any more deserving of protection from insult than any other class membership identifier?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 8 June 2013 11:10:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Exactly Antiseptic, though that isn't the point Ive been trying to make. I'd add to your question: When does a slur or insult like 'Ape' 'Dog/Bitch' 'A-hole' 'Bastard' 'D1ckhead' and so on become race specific without adding a adjective or two?

Lexie - the way you dodge and weave, are you a Politician or in training? You refuse to recognise there is another issue. The bigger victim in the Goodes fiasco is the CHILD. So - straight out - yes or no. Was the harm done to this child far greater than any harm done to the footballer?

If she were your child (and if you are a parent you know that from time to time kids will do or say something inappropriate despite your best efforts) how would you feel about what happened to her?

Her 'crime' was rudeness, not racial vilification. His was attention seeking over-reaction. Some might say bullying. After all she was clearly a pre-pubescent girl, not a 13 yr old who looked 20.

The ABC and other media outlets that made a huge song and dance about the incident plus the AFL figures who then got in on the act then blew the incident completely out of control. The media is definately most responsible for the damage all round.

I'm thinking Goodes and several Media companies are fortunate this was a 13 yr old from a working class background. Family probably loves the footy (or did) and probably prefer this matter go away. A more sophisticated victim would likely have lawyers working on a compensation case as I type.
Posted by divine_msn, Saturday, 8 June 2013 12:54:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
divine_msn,

Clearly this was not a clear-cut incident.

What has amazed me is the number of commenters who have attempted to reverse the issue and suggest that the person being abused was the "bully'....because he pointed in the direction of an abusive member of the crowd.

So highlighting culturally ingrained and regularly delivered vilification aimed a people playing on a sports field turns out to be an over-reaction or bullying act....according to some.

Strangely enough, I don't hear the same posters offering any critique of the adults who have mentored children and adolescent's to broadcast abuse at sporting grounds. Nobody will explain to me why such behaviour would not be tolerated at junior level, yet, according to some, is accepted and should be beyond criticism at senior level.

I'll say it again, that Goodes is not responsible for the policies of the MCG or the AFL in dealing with minors. Nor is he responsible for the pack-feeding habits of the media or the general public in commenting on his actions.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 June 2013 1:06:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, it's the double standard that interests me. I am potentially liable to be labelled as "violent" and handed an order to stay away from my children if their mother or anybody else decides that I have been abusive by chastising them for some wrong-doing and complains about it to the police. At the very least I will face a court hearing to decide the matter and the magistrate will be sure to tell me to watch myself in future, even if he doesn't find I deserve a DVO.

The people who were effusively supportive of Goodes would be the very ones who have been most active in promoting the broadening of definitions of violence to include what Goodes did.

If I was to give my child a smack on the bottom or a clip over the ear or even grab their arm to point out their error in making a silly comment that others might object to I would certainly be arrested if seen by police and a whole Department would swing into action to "protect" my child.

If a 13 year old attacked me physically, I would be expected to exercise restraint in my response, or once again face action. If a black kid spat at me, ditto, racism be buggered.

Why is Goodes not expected to be able to exercise that restraint?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 8 June 2013 1:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hiya Anti,

Goodes pointed to a person who was abusing him.

Protocol at the ground resulted in the person being removed.

How could that be construed to meet a broadened definition of violence?

Whether it was meant as racism or meant just as general abuse, isn't really the point. Goodes himself highlighted the fact that this sort of behaviour is endemic at football fixtures.

Why shouldn't the person who is throwing the abuse around be the one to exercise restraint?

Why shouldn't those who teach kids to hurl abuse exercise restraint -

Why should it be the target of the abuse who is expected to exercise restraint and not point it out?
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 June 2013 2:12:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi

I must say you must talk to an awful lot of Australians to be able to say that many
'believe that now is the moment for a
decisive change of direction, that now is the time to
transcend the surviving legacy of colonialism' and 'People now want to know the truth about the
past and to come to terms with it. They see this not as
finger-pointing but as an essential step along the way
towards national maturity.'
Where do you meet all of these people and do they include the enormous number of Asians arriving every week, and who are, at least when I was at University, totally excluded from the possibility of being 'racist'?
You sound very much like a concentric (and eccentric) academic yourself. I have no doubt you would comfortably sit in a room surrounded by books discussing heatedly the merits of 'post-structural functionalism being a simple or a complex abstraction of dialectical materialism.'
Tell me something, if you were onboard an international or a domestic flight and all of a sudden an Arab Muslim stood up and beneath his gowns displayed a bomb and started screaming 'God is Great!, would you seek to (A) deconstruct his justifiable anger at the westernised patriarchally imposed but distinctly non lesbian context that has been imposed on him or (B) pick up a blunt object and beat him senseless?
Posted by Cody, Saturday, 8 June 2013 2:52:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Shockadelic,

You wrote: “Anyway, Blacks were not denied a bus seat, a meal, a hotel room or anything else. There were simply *separate* services.”

The above is not true. Separate usually meant inferior or non-existent. All hotels in a town might be for whites only with no accommodation for blacks. Black schools received less funds per pupil than white schools. In declaring school segregation illegal the Supreme Court wrote that segregation is ‘inherently unequal’.

Dear Lego,

As I said IQs are culturally dependent. IQ is only an approximate measure of intelligence. We do know that different races overlap in distribution of intelligence so we cannot determine that a particular person is more or less intelligent than another person based on their race. I think an Australian is entitled to as much consideration as a Chinese even though their intelligence as measured by IQ tests is probably not as high.

In the past various cultures and civilisations have risen and fallen. Black Timbuktu was a great centre of learning when Europe was in the grip of the Dark Ages. Britons were painting themselves blue and worshipping trees when Rome was the centre of a great civilisation. Later the British Empire spread over a quarter of the earth’s land surface. Now they are a second-rate power remembering the glory of the past.

To get its independence the US compromised with a great evil. To get the South to go along they accepted human slavery. People of conscience recognised the evil. George Mason refused to sign the Constitution since it accepted slavery. It took the bloodiest war in terms of US casualties the United States has ever been in to eliminate the evil. Later the South enacted segregation laws to continue the evil.

Racism condemns people because they belong to a group rather than treat them as individuals. Possibly the most violent and cruel individual to ever rule a country is Adolf Hitler. However, that is no reason to treat any German badly or unfairly. It is no reason to treat white Australians badly because Australians have massacred Aborigines.
Posted by david f, Saturday, 8 June 2013 3:52:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Cody,

No I'm not qualified enough to be an academic,
sorry to say. But Thank You for the compliment.

As for what would I do if I was on a plane and
someone screamed out that they have a bomb?
I suspect I would need to change my underwear
rather quickly :-):-);-).

Dear Antiseptic,

David F gave an excellent answer to your question
at the beginning of this thread as to why racial
slurs are worse than any others. Racism provided
a convenient justification for slavery and for
murder. And in the case of Adam Goodes - who lives
with discrimination every day - his reaction is
understandable.

Dear divine_msn,

As I've stated previously - if contemporary
Australians are to live at ease with ourselves,
we need more education, especially of the young,
and at least greater honesty about the culture
of racism that is so damaging to us all.

Anyway folks, I've had my say -
I shall leave you to continue
with yours.
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 8 June 2013 3:55:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Lexi

As an aside to one of your previous posts, perhaps you could explain the genocide of the Mori Ori, the original inhabitants of New Zealand, by the later arriving Maori? Hardly the influence of European 'superiority' there. It surprises me that you are not an academic though; you give replies rather than answers. I think you would enjoy reading: 'The Triumph of the Airheads, and the Retreat of Common Sense.' Do you work in HR or senior management for a very large company?
Posted by Cody, Saturday, 8 June 2013 4:05:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lexi, I live with discrimination every day based on my gender and on my race. I have a subscription to a job advisory service and I am excluded from applying for many jobs, regardless of qualification because either the ad says "females welcome to apply", "family friendly hours", "Indigenous job" or some other set of code words that mean, don't bother unless your female or black as the case may be.

That discrimination is legal, because I do not share a single characteristic that in no way defines my capacity to do the task. If I was to get upset about it and try to complain, nobody would be prepared to hear my complaint. Not the anti-discrimination commission, not the Ombudsman, not even my local MP would be bothered. If I fronted the advertiser and carried on like a pork chop about it they'd call the cops and if a woman on the premises said I'd scared her, I'd be charged with offensive behaviour or even assault.

In Goodes's case, he is a man who is privileged because of things that have nothing to do with his race, although he may have been given the opportunity because of one of the Aboriginal development programs that the football codes run. If so, it makes the point even stronger and that is that despite this privilege, it is deemed acceptable for him to be so sensitive about a perceived slight (no one has claimed she even knew what it meant) based on his racial heritage he cannot be expected to control his reaction, even if it means a little girl has to deal with it.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 8 June 2013 5:04:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I say that's rubbish. We have to be able to ignore such silly insults, whatever they arise from. The European New Australians showed the way, as did homosexuals - take the intended insult as a badge of pride. Instead of taking offence, make it a joke. "Oh, you noticed?", "Yeah mate, wog and proud", etc. The Goodes response was intended to inflame. It was attention seeking. Presumably he was lauded within middle-class Aboriginal advocacy circles and he was certainly a darling of the foaming-mouthed progressive media.

Did it do anything at all to address the real racism that causes Aborigines to choose to remain in squalour rather than mix in white society? The racism I'm referring to is that of the Aborigines, since black Africans seem to manage to do it without any problems, Maoris are happily accepted, islanders too, so for the rest of us skin colour isn't an issue. Goodes seems to have done OK too, despite his high horse climbing display.

It is only because there are entrenched cultural attitudes like those of Goodes that Aboriginal people are kept in the dirt and parasites rake in millions exploiting their situation.

Ask yourself who gains from a population of poverty-stricken Aborigines. Then you'll have your answer as to who has an interest in making racism seem to be a huge barrier to Aboriginal participation in the wider society.

Goodes may have been genuine, his response was somewhat embarrased, but he is primed with the attitudes of the community he grew up in and they are that white fellas hate black fellas so don't take any sh!t.

It's dysfunctional, not admirable.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 8 June 2013 5:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic,

So Goodes has enough intestinal fortitude to stand up to ingrained and habitual abuse shouted from the stands week in and week out by those who would be too cowardly to enact it sans the anonymity of the venue - and you state:

"It is only because of entrenched cultural issues like those of Goodes that Aboriginal people are kept in the dirt and parasites rake in millions exploiting their situation."

How so?

Here's a comment I made on this issue a couple of days ago - I don't think it's too far from the truth.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5804&page=0#163715
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 June 2013 5:43:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot - you write:

"So highlighting culturally ingrained and regularly delivered vilification aimed a people playing on a sports field turns out to be an over-reaction or bullying act....according to some."

People at sports events heckle the opposition? Well *bleep* my old blue dog! That must end! Terrible thing .... Don't know how countless athletes haven't flung themselves off tall buildings in despair ... Except those with intellect who accept the package deal and laugh all the way to the bank. What to do? Maybe soundproof barriers in every venue to protect players from those nasty fans!. Really Poirot ... you're pulling our leg aren't you?

What really inspired Goodes disproportional hissy fit over a kid calling him 'Ape"? No particular racial overtone to it. I'll wager 'Dipper' DiPierdomenico, true sport and big hairy ape of a man has been called that more times than I've had hot dinners.

When Goodes realised the offender was a mere child, and no way he could have mistaken, why didn't he drop the big carry-on and make a statement after the game about hurt or offence he took from his interpretation of the insult? All he had to do was drop the finger. He stood on the sideline pointing and mouthing until Security turned up. Wasn't like he "couldn't pull out of the tackle" ...

Then again perhaps it's cultural? I observed an heightened propensity for casual violence - physical and verbal, particularly in the male, among my Aboriginal clientele back in the public health days .... I'll wager you'll take offence at this and accuse me of - wait for it - racism!

As for "Adults mentoring children & adolescents to broadcast abuse at sports events" There'd be plenty of youngsters aping (can I say that?) the behaviour of elders but few adults actively coaching the loudmouths of tomorrow. Sport is entertainment! Is the audience expected to sit and politely applaud occasionally?

I'd prescribe a teaspoon of cement but you might start building a highrise ...
Posted by divine_msn, Saturday, 8 June 2013 9:32:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No chance of me taking anything you'd prescribe, divine_msn...

I told you once before that I'm glad you're not my doctor.

(Seen nothing on this thread to alter that opinion)
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 8 June 2013 9:44:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
david f "Separate usually meant inferior or non-existent."

You get what you pay for. Most Blacks were poor.
Poor white people probably got 1-star budget offers too.

If certain businesses refused Blacks altogether, it was probably the result of lessons learned (unpaid bills, troublemakers, property damage, etc.)

"Black schools received less funds per pupil than white schools."

And? Does that violate anyone's "privileges" as a citizen?
Maybe funding is based on more than bums on seats, eh?
Test scores? Attendance? Hmmm.

Oddly, we still see Black-only colleges in America today.
The usual hypocrisy of progressives and minorities (Minority Motto #1: What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too).

"In declaring school segregation illegal the Supreme Court wrote that segregation is ‘inherently unequal’."

The only mention of "equal" in that amendment relates to "protection of laws".
What does separate schools have to do with legal protections?

What about the same amendment's defence of "liberty" and "property"?

Progressives at all levels of government violate those ALL THE TIME!
A million and one rules and regulations that stick their nose into citizens' private lives.
But it's for our own good, so &%#$ the constitution!
You will *not* be drinking a Large Coke in New York City, buddy!
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 9 June 2013 5:35:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The concept that intelligence can not be accurately measured is one rejected by the mental metrician's themselves, and by the government departments, universities (SAT scores) and corporations who routinely use their results. Intelligence is obviously related to civilisation. The longer that humans are put in the position where they need to use abstract thought and reasoning to make their complex society function, the more the less intelligent will be weeded out through natural selection, and the more that intelligent people will become the successful breeders.

'The Bell Curve" claimed that African-Americans have a measured mean IQ of 85, Hispanics 95, Whites a mean IQ of 103, and "Asian-Americans" a mean IQ of 106.

That does not mean that there are no whites with low IQ's, or that there are no smart blacks. But the clear difference of mean IQ levels conforms quite well with the comparative economic success of the four races. We know that even within racially homogenous populations, societal layering occurs according to class, and class is generally linked to intelligence. Generally speaking, high status people are considered to be very intelligent, while intergenerational disadvantaged class people most definitely are not.

Despite the declarations of the socialist egalitarians, no advanced society has ever succeeded in creating a class blind society. People higher on the status scale prefer to keep their distance from people who are not as intelligent as they are. It is quite routine, even for working class people, to look down on intergenerational disadvantaged class people, and regard them as unworthy. This is a fact of life, and it is hardly illegal for anyone of high status to make a negative assumption about people who inhabit lower classes.

But it is obvious that social stratification is generally related to race, because social status is generally related to intelligence, and racial intelligences are not equal. So you can prejudge, label and negatively stereotype people by their class, but not legally by their race, even though the there is a strong connection between the two. I find such a concept to be intellectually unsupportable.
Posted by LEGO, Sunday, 9 June 2013 5:40:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot - have you ever ANSWERED A QUESTION put to you seeking to challenge or validate your views or statements?

Please provide a link as I don't believe I've come across it ...
Posted by divine_msn, Sunday, 9 June 2013 9:10:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Poirot - have you ever ANSWERED A QUESTION put to you seeking to challenge or validate your views or statements?"

(Ho hum...another poster who feels the need to "shout")

What do you reckon, divine_msn?....Obviously my copious store of posts on this forum was me just dropping by to swap recipes.

Frankly, my dear, if I'm going to offer up my views for "validation" I'd be more inclined to present them to a poster with whom ,though we may disagree, I at least respect.

I hope that explains things....

Here's the post to which I alluded:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13871&page=0#239832

Sorry, divine_msn, I may be naive, but I prefer the Fred Hollows of this world in preference to those who would refer to a proportion of their "clientele" as "Dropkicks" in need of "...treatment for paranoia or to remove a chip off their shoulder."

(A purely personal preference, you understand)

I appear to have a apologised a little further down that thread (because I'm a reasonable person)...but upon further consideration, I'm happy - as you've noted in my previous post on this thread - to revert to my original stance.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 June 2013 1:20:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well Poirot, I read carefully the link and posts before and after but the evidence of you supplying one of those ANSWERS is sadly missing ....

Please try responding to the questions posed in one of my latest posts largely in response to one of your previous:

"When Goodes realised the offender was a mere child, and no way he could have mistaken, why didn't he drop the big carry-on and make a statement after the game about hurt or offence he took from his interpretation of the insult? All he had to do was drop the finger. He stood on the sideline pointing and mouthing until Security turned up. Wasn't like he "couldn't pull out of the tackle" ... "

It's quite simple really. Give a factual convincing answer as to why Adam Goodes failed to act like a mature and reasonable man in his response and dealing with a pre-pubescent child.
(If you wish to reiterate that Goodes had 'no control' over process & security at the match, first revisit footage to see how long he had to point out his heckler for officials to arrive.)

You may also like to share what you believe is so especially "Racist" about the taunt of "APE" in light of it's commonality in being used to taunt males of all racial backgrounds - particulaly those of hairy and/or bulky countenance?
Example of an ANSWER - You could possibly believe when the term is directed at persons of indigenous heritage the inference is they are sub-human, when directed at Europeans/others the inference is they look indigenous?

Show me you can ...
Posted by divine_msn, Sunday, 9 June 2013 2:16:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Nice try, divine_msn.

However, I'm not obliged to "answer" every question or provide a rebuttal for every instance of conveniently contorted logic tossed in my direction.

I've posted enough on this subject recently on this forum.

If you're that interested - look it up.
Posted by Poirot, Sunday, 9 June 2013 2:50:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot:"How so?"

As I explained in my post. When someone like Goodes makes a public display, it is disseminated widely within the Aboriginal community. The effect of that is to entrench the cultural prejudice within that community toward the wider community and therefore reinforce the insularity and disadvantage.

It also entrenches the role of those who intermediate between Aboriginal communities and the wider one.

You can see the same effect in the interactions of some parts of the Muslim community which are culturally isolated from the rest of us. The intermediaries get more powerful every time an "insult to Islam" is reported and the communities get more convinced they must stand together at all costs.

If someone like Goodes was to laugh it off conspicuously, it would show it for what it is, silly.

Offence can only be taken, never given. If you refuse to be offended, I can't make you.

Racism implies a power imbalance between the two parties, with the one with the advantage being defined as the offender. If an Aboriginal person uses a racial insult toward me, I am expected to ignore it, because I am a white person, who is in the dominant cultural group and they are not. In the Goodes matter, they one using the "racist" term was a child, while he is a man and a well-respected part of the shared culture of Aborigines and whites. In other words, he is definitively more powerful, making a racist insult something he should not respond to.

I am offended that you have tried to imply some racist motive on my part. I'm simply interested in the way that ill-defined offence is used to manipulate outcomes that are actually not in the interests of the group that is supposedly being offended.

Feminism is another example of intermediaries benefitting be creating offence to reinforce resentment and drive outcomes that are bad for the supposed victim, but good for the ones who claim to speak for them.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 9 June 2013 2:51:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can see you are an intelligent man, Antiseptic. You think the same way that I do.

_Poirot-"conveniently contorted logic". Great expression, Poirot. That one goes into my "metaphor book."
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 10 June 2013 4:25:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If racial segregation is "inherently unequal" why not sex segregation?
Why are there still girls' and boy's schools?
Why are there mens and womens toilets?
Aren't someone's "rights" being violated?

Brown v Board was started after a girl couldn't attend her closest school and had to take a bus a mile away from home.

The irony of the outcome is that forced busing of children outside their local neighbourhoods become commonplace afterwards, to get "balance".
ROFL!

Segregation, de jure and de facto, enabled Blacks to gestate their own culture.
Without that genuine community, there'd be no jazz, no gospel choirs, no breakdancing.

This is why multiculturalism is unlikely to ever produce any great art or achievements.
There's no real community, no shared experience or identity.

And "racism" cuts both ways.
Imagine how welcome a white person would have been in a Black establishment back then.
If looks could kill.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 10 June 2013 4:27:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO, my talent, or burden, is in recognising contradictions and discontinuities. Once recognised, they stimulate me to try to fit them into a pattern or matrix, which I can compare with other patterns to look for similarities and eventually come to some explanation for them.

I think that a lot of people are understandably interested in the detail of their lives and the things that they hold to be important, but they don't have the tools or interest to see larger patterns.
When they are pointed out, a common response is to ignore them and to focus on a specific detail, or either embrace or dismiss the existence of the pattern depending on their personal prejudices.

I am not immune, because my interest in any contradiction is stimulated by my prejudices and how the contradictory data fits them. We all hold certain things to be accepted truth, it's how we deal with observations that don't fit which is important.

I'm a logical empiricist - everything is knowable and understandable with the right data. Being wrong is just as valuable as being right, because it defines the right data more precisely. I have a strong positivist streak as might be observed.

In my experience such an epistemiological approach is rare. Most people have a framework of beliefs that they have never tested, but which they use to define themselves. Any contradiction between their belief and empirical observation is an assault on them, personally.

It makes communicating ideas hard.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 10 June 2013 9:24:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here is a contradiction for you, antiseptic.

STREET LANGUAGE RULED TO BE NO RACIAL SLUR Kalgoorlie WA.
By Paige Taylor
September 15, 2006 01:00am

An Aboriginal girl who kicked a woman and called her a "white slut" did not engage in racial vilification because the slur was common street language.

A magistrate from the West Australian goldfields threw out a landmark race-hate charge yesterday against the 16-year-old, saying the slur against Kalgoorlie woman Melissa Blackney was "the patois of the street".

Dr Auty found that the girl's one-off slur in a heated confrontation did not constitute "serious, substantial or severe" racial harassment as legally defined.

Magistrate Kate Auty sentenced the girl to four months of intensive supervision, including 60 hours of community service, for kicking Ms Blackney during the April attack.

The court heard that Ms Blackney confronted the girl and three others after she was awoken in her car by the sound of a rock denting the paintwork.

Auty also did not accept the evidence of prosecution witness Ruben Brockman, who the prosecution did not charge with assault even though he was implicated in the attack.

A resident claimed to have seen Mr Brockman kicking Ms Blackney while she lay on the ground.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It is a good thing Ms Blackley did not call the aboriginal offender a "coon" or one suspects the magistrate would not have considered that "street Patois." And somebody would now be writing an article on OLO over Ms. Brockley's "unconscious racism."
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 10 June 2013 10:54:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LEGO, no contradiction at all. The actual harm was the rock, the name-calling was easily ignored as something that is commonly heard on the streets of Kalgoorlie. I've experienced it there myself and I shrugged it off.

The fact is that Aboriginal people do genuinely loathe whites. That's no surprise. What should be thought about is how to address that, especially how to remove the intermediaries who reinforce it as a source of their own power.

One of the things about societies is that they are composed of a completely new population over time. Every single person alive today will be dead in around 100 years and there is nobody alive today who was alive much beyond 100 years ago. for the Aboriginal community tht would be more like 70 years in each case. That means that it is possible to take a long view, rather than trying to change the attitudes of everyone all at once. We can only hope.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 10 June 2013 11:30:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What's the bet our 'racially sensitive' media like ABC and like minded, especially 'Indigenous', politicians will ignore this story?

Shame on that magistrate. The offender calling the victim "White" slut can only be defined as a racist remark.

If 'white slut' is the patois of the streets then so would be 'n1gger slut' or 'black cxxt' or any number of derogatory terms.

Wrong on all levels ...
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 10 June 2013 6:42:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Decided to google that story. Neglected to notice the date on LEGO's post. This occurred in 2006 so is rather historical. My bad.

Thinking however that such a decision by a magistrate would constitute a legal precedent.

So 'common street language' was the benchmark for that magistrate to dismiss the remark, "white slut" delivered in the process of a aggravated assault and find the aggressor's one-off slur in a heated confrontation did not constitute "serious, substantial or severe" racial harassment as legally defined.

I'm wondering how as a comparision, the football park heckle "ape" against a large hairy faced AFL player measures up?
Posted by divine_msn, Monday, 10 June 2013 8:20:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The difference is that we really don't care if someone uses our race as a perjorative, because we don't see being "white" as defining us, it's just a skin pigmentation. Besides, most white people regard their personal success as due to their personal qualities rather than any shared one.

Aborigines do often take their skin colour as defining them. I wonder how much the arrival of black Africans has affected Aboriginal identity? I can see how resentment at perceived better treatment could be driven. They are also strongly defensive, because they know their society is not doing well.

That leads to a successful Aboriginal man taking offence at a silly gibe from a child because he interprets it as racially based. Let's be fair though, so did the woman in Kal. I doubt the child in Goodes's case would have been found guilty in a court either.

The problem is the kneejerking from the media. They need to be given a refresher on journalistic ethics.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 10 June 2013 8:43:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The fundamental problem with the anti racist position, is that it basically saying that there should be no human hostility at all. Everybody must be nice to everybody else. Having a poor opinion about other people is wrong, and expressing that poor opinion is illegal.

The term "racism" once meant a specific ideology, that which assumed that white people were more evolutionary advanced than other races. The ideology was used by the Nazis to justify their extermination of "the Jewish race". But whereas Jews are primarily of the semitic race, there are blond and red haired Jews, so the word "racism" can be used to include contempt of a religion. And such a definition is in everyday use.

How realistic can it be for people of one religion to not have contempt for the people of another, when it is very common for their own God's to express contempt for the people of other religions? The common God of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims is a racist who has declared to his different faiths that he will practice post mortem segregation in heaven, and commit unspeakable tortures for an unspecified length of time on any person who did not guess which religion was the correct one.

If it is a psychological imperative that human beings must form self protecting groups, then it is unrealistic to think that those groups will not compete with each other for resources and become mutually hostile to each other. You may be able to convince groups that they should not be violent to each other and to be tolerant of each other, but tolerance does not equate to acceptance.

It is a cultural universal that people within groups are more accepting of people in other groups who's values, attitudes and behaviours most closely match their own. They will never accept people from an outgroup as being a part of their ingroup if the outgroups members have values, attitudes and behaviours diametrically opposed to their own. Group behaviour is a factor of group culture, and culture is most commonly associated with race and religion.
Posted by LEGO, Tuesday, 11 June 2013 5:51:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 17
  7. 18
  8. 19
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy