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 > There’s no such thing as being just a little bit racist > Comments

There’s no such thing as being just a little bit racist : Comments

By Stephanie Lusby, published 1/5/2009

Rather than blaming the victim, we should place much greater scrutiny on changing the culture of violence in Australia.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I didn't see evidence of 'a campaign' and conclude that the single use of the word negro in a complimentary context does not prove the case for Racial vilification
Posted by maracas1, Friday, 1 May 2009 10:12:40 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 ‘offender’ could have told Dickie that she looked like Marcia Hines, without mentioning the word ‘negro’, just as Stephanie Lusby hasn’t told us whether or not Dickie is black. If she is black, why would she be offended by being compared to another black woman? If she isn’t black, surely she would be the ‘racist’ if she was offended by being compared to a black woman?

And what’s this nonsense about being “a little bit racist”? The tribunal found that there was no charge to answer, and any reasonable person would not think that the reported remark was in the slightest bit racist.

It’s amazing that Lusby took up this matter at all. She admits that she knows nothing about the ruling and, therefore, it would not be “…constructive to attempt to make a call as to whether VCAT’s ruling was right or wrong.” Why she drones on about it, then, only she knows, and how she came to the conclusion that tribunal was “shocked” by the used of the word ‘negro’, only she knows that too. She didn’t mention it before leaving the tribunal’s no case to answer ruling.

What’s wrong with the word ‘negro’ anyway? It describes a good many people in the world, just as the descriptions Caucasian, middle-eastern, Asian etc. do. No problems with those words. There should be no problem with negro.

Lusby also objects to the term ‘emotionally fragile” as apparently used by the tribunal to describe the ‘victim”. As Dickie’s case was brought before the tribunal because a comment (found to be not offensive) allegedly was “a key contributor to her suffering a nervous break and subsequently developing a chronic adjustment disorder”, the term used is very apt.

Stephanie Lusby’s article is a wishy-washy as her biography. A pointless attempt at stirring up trouble where none exists.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 1 May 2009 11:08:10 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
I agree with the premise behind this article: there IS not such thing as being "just a little bit racist" and yes, we do need to make more attempts to stamp out racism and the culture of violence.

But I think that the author did not do her cause any good by using the Dickie case to illustrate her point.

In the face of all the racial vilification and overt expression of prejudice that exist, much more hard evidence could have been used than a case which, to be objective, boils down to "she said/she said". I understand that the point was that the case was thrown out but, having read what I could find about it, it is one that was not a particularly strong one to begin with.

Both my sons were born in RSA and, three weeks after arriving here the youngest was told by another group of students - in front of many witnesses including a teacher - "We don't need you furken South African bastids in our country" and thrown through a plate glass window. He required an amergency operation and has permanently lost the use of a particular tendon in his arm. The school gave me $20. - for fares to the hospital.

I don't offer this in the spirit of one upmanship but to illustrate rather that this article could easily have made use of much more unambiguous and harmful incidents to build a more convincing case for her premise.
Posted by Romany, Friday, 1 May 2009 11:23:19 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
Romany,

If you have to offer an old example from another country then things cannot be too bad in Australia and in all fairness you should really be drawing the writer's attention to that.

From what has been reported it sounds very much like an opportunist compensation claim. Unfortunately some mud sticks and the person who was named and blamed, as well as those around her, will never be able to fully restore the reputation and credibility they had before the complaint. These are the real victims and it is fortunate that they cannot pursue the complainant likewise for damages.

Rather than encourage people to wear their belts high in the hope of advantage or reward we should be getting quite annoyed at the waste of public resources that has occurred and the unwarranted negative publicity for the school and its staff. Then there is the effect on the education of the children because long running battles like this draw resources and attention away from the school's core business.

The AAT is independent. It has rigorous procedures and its findings are based on evidence. What more do you want?

On the other hand the article presents no evidence whatsoever to challenge the AAT's ruling and further embarrassment to the real victims who are the teachers and administrators who are forced to walk a tight rope every day from fear that some litigious complainant might bring them into disrepute.

What is really needed are hard-hitting articles about the frustration, demotivation and eventual job wastage of teachers and other professionals who walk on eggshells and cannot effectively perform their duties because of the political correctness that continues to reign supreme in the West.
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 1 May 2009 12:19:54 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
Anybody who uses a term like "negro" in this day and age and doesn't know that it's offensive is obviously racist. That they're unaware of their racism merely indicates how ingrained it is.

However, I agree that this appears to be a pretty mild case of it, but I think that the sheer unthinking banality of such racism continuing to exist in Australia is the author's main point. It also worries me that a Victorian primary school teacher in 2009 thinks that using the term "negro" is okay - one can only wonder what she lets slip in the classroom.

Stephanie Lusby is right to raise the issue of the pervasiveness of 'mild' racism in Australian society, but she could have chosen a better example with which to illustrate her point.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 1 May 2009 1:24:08 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 truly can't believe that we live in such a violent, racist society that something as tragic as this can happen.
It's genocide!
Posted by KMB, Friday, 1 May 2009 2:58:11 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
KMB...
I guess you are referring to the Israeli Defence Forces actions in Gaza
Posted by maracas1, Friday, 1 May 2009 4:00:32 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
maracas1,
Off-topic. Use your gourd!
Posted by KMB, Friday, 1 May 2009 4:15:19 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
Cornflower,

This journal is an Australian one. It originates in Australia and its main readership is Australian. In the unlikely and compledtely incomprehensible event that I would have been referring to...oh I dunno...Malaysia, China, Katmandu ...I would have made that clear.

I was working on the not unreasonable assumption that Australian readers perusing an Australian publication would be able to work out where the word 'here' referred to.

Your point that the event took place seven years ago however, is taken
Posted by Romany, Friday, 1 May 2009 5:42:38 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
I agree that "there's no such thing as being just a little bit racist". But it's unfortunate that the article is written without reference to the case reports.

Dickie v Department of Education and Early Childhood Development & Anor (Anti-Discrimination) [2008] VCAT 2222 (22 October 2008)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/713.html

Dickie v State of Victoria & Ors (Anti-Discrimination) [2009] VCAT 713 (23 April 2009), http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2009/713.html

For example, on this basis, I don't think it is quite accurate to say, "The case was thrown out however, with the VCAT ruling essentially saying that Ms Dickie had misinterpreted statements made by her supervising teacher, Fran Van Laambert. Ms Dickie had found language used by Ms Van Laambert offensive, but the Tribunal ruled that as there had not been intent to offend, there was no case to answer to." As I read the reports, the Tribunal dismissed the complaint because Ms Dickie had not established that the behaviour complained of (only one part of which was the Marcia Hines remark) was done on the basis of race and she had not established that it came within the definition of unlawful discrimination. Even if the behaviour were unfair in some sense, that would not mean it was automatically discriminatory.

I don't think that this case is the best one to support an otherwise good point.

Helen
Posted by isabelberners, Friday, 1 May 2009 6:27:09 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
KMB: << maracas1,
Off-topic. Use your gourd! >>

Any guesses as to the identity of our troll sockpuppetmaster?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 1 May 2009 6:46:03 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 don't understand why Ms Dickie wasn't able to communicate her sense of discrimination,it's not clear how she indicated that she was offended,there are some important details missing from the article.Why should the Tribunal consider implications of the term "Negro" in South Africa, we are in Australia,let's keep some perspective, however, if I were told a term was offensive I wouldn't use it. The use of a sexual assault equivalence argument by the author is specious indeed. I've decided in the interests of racial harmony that if I'm called a "white devil,white ghost, convict" or shudder,"skip",or served last after Asians in a restaurant, I'll be off to the Tribunal with a school of lawyers.
Posted by mac, Friday, 1 May 2009 6:58:11 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
CJ Morgan,
You say the nicest things!
Posted by Psychophant, Friday, 1 May 2009 7:19:03 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 picture the conversation as it may have run - of course, this is only conjecture.

Van Laambert: "You look just like Marcia Hines."

Dickie: "Who?"

Van Laambert: "You know, the negro singer."

Like I said, conjecture. Why she needed to clarify race is unclear - if Dickie is a darker-skinned South African, then she could safely assume that Marcia Hines was also the bearer of a darker complexion.

Unfortunately, based on my dealings with many indigenous people, calling someone "black" is also skating on thin ice. How do we refer to race or skin colour without running the risk of causing offence? It seems that news presenters are painfully aware of this problem, too. Here in Townsville, we regularly get news reports of a servo being held up. The description of the offender is given: "male, early twenties, medium build, dark hair". A picture is also shown, with the offender clearly dark-skinned. The reluctance to mention this feature in the verbal description - most likely because of the risk of offence - could result in valuable information being missed by people who may have been able to help. What terms can be used without offending anyone?

Now, as I didn't know that "negro" was so offensive, I could have fallen into the same trap. The name Van Laambert sounds suspiciously South African, though, so perhaps (again based on wild speculation) the offender should have known better. Based on what my South African rellies have told me, though, the word "kaffir" is much more offensive; referring to someone as "coloured" also implies (apparently offensively) mixed blood.
Posted by Otokonoko, Friday, 1 May 2009 10:39:00 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
Don't worry, Leigh. No-one would say you're just a little bit racist.
Posted by Sancho, Friday, 1 May 2009 11:15:41 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
Sancho,

What gave you the idea that I have the slightest interest in what you think of me or my opions?

If you allow me to get under your skin, as you so obviously do, I suggest that you refrain from reading my posts.
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 2 May 2009 9:30:51 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
PART ONE

United Nations to query Australia on possible human rights breaches
PARTS of Australia's immigration and indigenous policies have been named potential human rights violations by the United Nations. The UN also has concerns about Australia's anti-terror laws and will ask the Federal Government to explain how it is ensuring they don't contravene international law.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/united-nations-to-query-australia-on-possible-human-rights-breaches-20090312-8wid.html

Does Australia Violate Human Rights?
Yes, it does. The UN Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has found on several occasions that Australia has breached the fundamental human rights of people living in Australia.
Since 1990 the UNHRC has heard almost fifty complaints against Australia. In seventeen (17) of those cases, the UNHRC found that Australia violated ICCPR rights. While some Australians find it embarrassing or outrageous that a foreign tribunal can sit in judgment of Australia, Australia does not have a Bill of Rights so our own courts cannot hear complaints about human rights violations.

The table below summaries those violations. The table is followed by a summary of each case.

http://www.nswccl.org.au/issues/hr_violations.php

UN rights panel concerned about Rwanda, Australia
UNITED NATIONS, April 3 (Reuters) - A U.N. panel of independent human rights experts on Friday expressed concerns about reports of summary executions and poor prison conditions in Rwanda, and about Australia's anti-terrorist legislation.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N03335627.htm

A FAIR GO FOR ALL: YOU CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE
The National Human Rights Consultation is now underway
http://www.humanrightsact.com.au/2008/

Amnesty reports to UN on Australia’s human rights failures
MARCH 2009
Australia’s failure to comply with some of the country’s obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
http://bsnorrell.blogspot.com/2009/03/amnesty-reports-to-un-on-australias.html

UN gives Australia one-year deadline on human rights
Posted Apr 06 2009, 01:59 AM by Lawyers Weekly
The United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) has given the Australian Government a year to live up to its international human rights obligations
http://www.lawyersweekly.com.au/blogs/top_stories/archive/2009/04/06/un-gives-australia-one-year-deadline-on-human-rights.aspx

Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

CONTINUE
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 2 May 2009 12:33:55 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
PART2
UN Human Rights Committee releases Concluding Observations on Australia 2009
The Committee’s recommendations consider:
the lack of legal protection of human rights at the national level - the Committee recommends the enactment of comprehensive human rights and equality legislation, such as a Human Rights Act;
the incompatibility of aspects of Australian counter-terrorism law, policy and practice with fundamental human rights - the Committee recommends amendment of the Criminal Code, the Anti-Terrorism Act and ASIO legislation;
the continued suspension of the Racial Discrimination Act in relation to the Northern Territory Intervention - the Committee calls for re-design of the Intervention in direct consultation with Indigenous peoples and conformity with international human rights obligations;
the need to establish an adequately resourced national Indigenous representative body;
the need to make adequate reparations to the Stolen Generations - the Committee urges Australia to establish a national compensation scheme;
the need to take further steps to address ongoing issues of violence against women and homelessness;
the need to take ‘urgent and adequate measures, including legislative measures, to ensure that nobody is returned to a country where there are substantial grounds to believe that they are at risk of being arbitrarily deprived of their life or being tortured or subjected to other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’;
the co-operation of Australian law enforcement officials with overseas agencies, which may expose Australians to the real risk of the death penalty - the Committee urges Australia to enact legislation to ensure that no person is extradited to a country where they may face the death penalty and also to ensure that Australian law enforcement officers do not provide assistance in the investigation of crimes which may expose people to the death penalty;
the excessive use of force by police without adequate oversight, including the use of Taser guns and lethal force;
the continued policy of mandatory immigration detention and the use of Christmas Island as a remote detention facility - the Committee urges Australia to abolish mandatory immigration detention, close Christmas Island and enact new migration legislation which respects fundamental rights
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Continue
Posted by ASymeonakis, Saturday, 2 May 2009 12:38:56 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
LOL nice one Sancho
Posted by mikk, Saturday, 2 May 2009 1:27:30 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
"Anybody who uses a term like "negro" in this day and age and doesn't know that it's offensive is obviously racist."

c.j., it's not obvious to me. ignorant, yes? racist, definitely not obvious. and the evidence of the dickie case suggests otherwise. it's certainly not a purely logical conclusion. that is, unless you're using "racism" in a totally trivial manner, such as "notices the race of".

in any case, i think your term "banal" is right, whether you intended it with the connotations i think of or not. there's plenty of non-banal racism around: can't we focus on that?
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 2 May 2009 3:06:31 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
Maybe Ms Van Laambert believed the term "negro" was acceptable because it is routinely used by African Americans in Hollywood films.
Posted by grn, Saturday, 2 May 2009 3:11:24 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
As much as racism should be abhored, I think sometimes the term 'racist' can be bandied about a bit much which diminishes racism for those who experience it.

Over time, terms that we considered appropriate change and indeed connotations vary between cultures. Negro was once an acceptable term even if it is not much used today. Most people now say African or African-American.

The television is replaying some old skits at the moment on Bert Newton's faux pas when he stood with Muhammed Ali and said "I like the boy" to Ali's chagrin. To Australians this phrase is endearing but to an African-American would be seen as demeaning - a throwback to slave days when "boy" was a derogatory term for a grown adult male slave.

It has to be taken in context. None of us know the intentions of the accused in the case other than herself. Even the victim may have misread the intent in this case due to past experiences with racism which is quite understandable.

Or the accused intended to be insulting. Who of us can really know without knowing the people involved or having been present at the verbal exchange.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 2 May 2009 3:41:33 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
OXFORD DICTIONARY - NEGRO> MEMBER OF BLACK-SKINNED AFRICAN RACE

I can assure you that white Australians regard Marcia Hindes with the same respect and admiration that they have for Kathy Freeman, I have never heard any one of my acquaintance or in my family ever speak of these two ladies with anything but admiration and respect. In fact we have music CDs of Marcia Hindes sitting on the shelf behind me as I type this.

It really is a cultural thing I think. We Australians have never grown up hearing black Africans referred to as Black Africans except in recent times and so the name Negro is just a name that we are more familiar with. It is almost second hand in Australia as we only ever heard it in movies and usually those movies depicted the injustice to the slaves and we felt sympathy for them. The word Negro has never had the same raw emotive hostility in Australia as it had between the blacks and whites in America. Modern white Australians don't even associate the word with any meaning other than depicting black, white,etc
Posted by sharkfin, Saturday, 2 May 2009 10:37:55 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 issue has a lot to do about context. The article simply states the accusation and the tribunal result, and all the supplementary contextual information has been excluded.

A Colleague from South Africa when asked said that there were many racial epithets of which Negro was not one. He had heard it used, but more in context of Caucasian/ Negro /Asian etc.

The tribunals are made up of mostly ANC appointees who are unlikely to be tolerant to racial abuse, the fact that they have found no fault says more than the author's uninformed opinion.

The author though well meaning has used her own personal experiences to draw conclusions in a situation about which she has little to no understanding, and as the saying goes: "Garbage in, garbage out."
Posted by Democritus, Sunday, 3 May 2009 4:55:02 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've got to concur with bushbasher - ignorance doesn't mean racism. If a person is uneducated and makes a comment that is construed as racist, but the person is genuinely ignorant and meant no harm, then you can't call them racist.

When I was a child I once heard someone refer to black people as 'coloured.' I made the same reference in passing one day and my older brother informed me that it wasn't a polite term, so I stopped using the term. By the earlier definition, that would make me racist.

Look, I don't agree with any form of racism in society, but I think we need to draw the line somewhere a little further along then a comment like this one. Frankly, it seems like piffle. We don't even know if the offender in question was informed that the term was impolite.

Then, Ms Lusby later brings in the topic of violence - but frankly, this example was so far divorced from actual violence I didn't seem them to be related at all. "Stamping out violence" is all well and good, but a single instance of name calling - not even a campaign of harassment, from what I've seen thus far - seems pretty pathetic.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 3 May 2009 9:26:51 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
TurnRightThenLeft
With your theory that "ignorance doesn't mean racism." you violate a very basic principle of the justice system. IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE! Every one can said that he/she did not know what he did was illegal.
Do you remember what the member of kkk and killer of three black human rights activists in Missisipe said?
I DID NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS ILLEGAL TO KILL BLACK PEOPLE!
We can show some understanding to ignorance but not every time and in every case.
The most impotant is that IGNORANCE IS NOT AN EXCUSE!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Posted by ASymeonakis, Monday, 4 May 2009 6:49:07 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
AS,

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is essentially to counter ridiculous claims such as "I didn't know it was illegal to kill blacks" and is used where the perpetrator can under normal circumstances be expected to know or find out.

For example going the wrong way down a one way street, "I didn't see the sign" is no excuse where the sign is present, as one is expected to look.

However, in the case where vandals have stolen the sign, in most cases the case would be dismissed as a reasonable person could not be expected to know.

Where there is no clear law, and the sensitivities are entirely contextual based, misunderstandings cannot be legally punished as the tribunal ruled.

What's your excuse?
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 4 May 2009 9:27:09 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
I'm well aware of the law, Antonios.

As a general rule, it needs to be applied along with common sense.

You're not doing that.

Read my post again and tell me why I'm wrong, instead of following the 'letter' of the law.

Tell me again if you would seriously punish a child who said an insulting word because they didn't know it was insulting.

Because that seems pretty damn dumb to me.

When you kill someone, it's harder to make a case that your intentions were good. A simple word is different.

You know this, I'm sure. Words are about meanings. If a person doesn't know the correct meaning and generally means well, I refuse to treat them in that way.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 4 May 2009 9:54:34 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
As the most basic and simplest-possible definition of "racism", nothing is clearer than identifying anyone as a member of a "race" other than "the human race".

"African-American" and "Negro" are usually understood to inform middle-class concepts of "race" (therefore they pass muster by this site's automated censorship filters). The terms are therefore "racist" regardless. The term "n!gg3r" is usually understood to inform working-, peasant- and gentry-class concepts of that same artificial "race" notion. All such terms are obviously "racist" in that they perpetuate a notion of separate "races" other than the only one i.e., "the human race", with all its inevitable healthy mixture of geographic, social and class origins.

However, the middle class" terms are deemed somehow acceptable, while only the others are stigmatized as "racist".

A recent Russian movie "Brother 2" depicted this idiotic, hypocritical racism when a group of white-skinned Russians camped at a Chicago riverbank. A homeless black-skinned man arrived and angrily disrupted the group's campfire, inciting one of the Russians to protest in halting English: "No, no, n!gg3r, you go, you go away!"

One of the Russians - a long-term emigre there - chided the other: "Don't call them that. They get very upset if you call them that". The other Russian then asked, bewildered: "What should I call them then?". "African-Americans", she replied.

The other Russian then asked: "What's the difference?"

She sighed, shrugged her shoulders, then answered: "I don't know".
Posted by mil-observer, Monday, 4 May 2009 11:14:18 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
When 98% of black people voted for Obama was that:

a. "just a little bit racist"?

or

b. very racist because "There’s no such thing as being just a little bit racist"?

or

c. not racist at all because only white people are racist?

or

d. None of the above. KMB is racist because he brought it up?
Posted by KMB, Monday, 4 May 2009 12:19:07 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
KMB

It is very naughty of you to give that example when you know full well how feminists tub-thumped for women to vote for Hilary Clinton.

What about some of our home-grown examples? For instance, in Victoria positive discrimination against 'white men' is promoted as a jolly good thing by none other than the the CEO of the Equal Opportunity Commission, Dr Helen Szoke and so much so that it will be made mandatory by legislation. If you are male and white, expect to miss out on training, education, job and career, 'just because'.

But that is not racism nor sexism, no siree. Why not? Well, because the Equal (?!) Opportunity Commission says its not, that's why.
Posted by Cornflower, Monday, 4 May 2009 3:46:07 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
Are white people who vote for a white candidate racist too? KMB forgets that white candidates were counting on a strong white vote as well.

It should not be difficult to imagine that in a country like America where the history of black people was marked with slavery and racism of the highest order that black people would be inspired and encouraged by a black President.

It is also not surprising that most African-Americans vote Democrat because in general they are the Party most likely to hear their voice and deal with the exhaustive list of social issues affecting black neighbourhoods throughout America.

I don't know how many black US citizens would have voted for a Republican/Conservative black candidate if their policies worked against improvements in black communities.

Hilary Clinton had the support of many black voters too - and she is white and a woman to boot.
Posted by pelican, Monday, 4 May 2009 4:04:07 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
I suspect that not only is there such a thing as "being just a little bit racist" but that it's much more common than either full blown racism or complete freedom from racism in our society.

The type of racism that prompts the thought which pops into the head when you see someone do something which conforms a stereotype about their apparent racial group. Not the type of racism that lets you take that thought as truth, not the type of racism which demands action based on that thought. It may not be a good thing but it's a fairly obvious part of the line between racism and a genuine lack of concern about race.

The type ofr racism that thoughtful people challenge in their own heads when it happens but which still happens occasionally.

The case described in the article seemed more like one person not fully understanding anothers sensitivities and the other looking for negative meanings rather than positive. Ther may be good reasons for the latter but it's unlikely that they are the fault of the person being blamed.

I think it's pretty much impossible to treat others in the workplace with any kind of genuine warmth or seek to establish a raport without risking giving offense if the others values or perseptions differ significantly from our own. It's the risk of human interaction, it needs courage and care to do the risking and a willingness on the part of the one who could be offended to choose otherwise.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 4 May 2009 10:37:51 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
Does racism exist in Australia? If so, how do we stop it?

To start with, I feel somewhat qualified to deal with this topic since, as a teenager, a mate once tried to affront me by calling me Marcia Hines. The insult was largely founded on Marcia Hines being a girl while I’m a guy. There was some resemblance, but my large lips and curly hair were more incidental, though obvious links.

Racism is a pretty strong word. For mine, the only racists are those that believe that distinct human races exist, that members of certain races are inherently more meritorious than non members, and that the races ought to be encouraged to develop separately.

This characterised South African apartheid. Its philosophy was wrong. There is only one race. It is called the human race.

Do any Australians fall under this definition of racist? Some might, but most Australians do not. However, let’s not believe that all is squeaky clean. Though we’re mostly not outright racists, we do have cultural bias; blind spots in our thought processes; attitudes that unfairly bring insult and injury to those who are different from us. This is partly unavoidable and comes with the human condition. But we should strive to be more humane.

My cousins who are more shaded than me say that you’ll never know what it’s really like in Australia until you’ve walked a mile in their skin.

Sticks and stones can break your bones, but words can tear you to pieces. Words do count. The AFL and other sporting bodies’ recent crack down on on-field racial comments has been a revelation.

Otokonoko, in the apartheid days South Africans labelled ‘coloured’ had that word stamped onto our identity cards. We never found it more offensive than the whites whose cards were stamped ‘white’. All that is disappearing and a new mentality is starting to enter South Africa (exemplified in the cricket team that toweled up Australia this summer).

While context is important, words do count. I have doubts that VCAT is capable of dealing with the subtleties involved.
Posted by Dan S de Merengue, Tuesday, 5 May 2009 6:27:09 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
Mill-Observer> You mention the term African American. I was watching a talk show with the American actress Whoopi Goldberg, and she said I don't know why so many of my people refer to themselves as African Americans. She said I always say I am American. We are all Americans to say I am African American is racist.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 12:19:33 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
Hi Dan,

I probably jumbled my words a bit. What I was getting at with the 'coloured' reference was that many black Africans I have come across object profusely to the term 'coloured' that was bandied about as a politically correct version of 'black' a little while back. They seem to think that 'coloured' people are below them, just as many white people think that black people are below them. Naturally there should be no reason for coloured people to be offended by the term - after all, it is simply a label describing their race. My mum still has her papers declaring her to be white; I still have my Zim birth certificate declaring me and all of my ancestors to have been white. None of us are offended by that, and I would imagine that coloured people would be no more offended.

I guess what I was getting at is that there is no term for 'black' that pleases everyone. A full-blooded Matabele can get quite fired up if one calls him (ignorantly or otherwise) coloured; some people hate to be called black, negro or any other term. Make the mistake of calling a Torres Strait Islander 'Aboriginal' and you will hear all about it. Call a Scot 'English' and it's the same. Why we have to refer to ethnicity (other than in obvious identification matters) is beyond me - certainly it seems to cause more trouble than it's worth.
Posted by Otokonoko, Wednesday, 6 May 2009 12:27:52 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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