CJ, what I am claiming is that all things considered, the races
get on extremely well.

Yes, there will always be the odd racist incident, be that whites
against blacks, or blacks against whites, it goes both ways.

The thing is it is still pleasant to see, how well, when you look
at the bigger picture, people of different races do get on, be
that socially, or in workplaces. Its simply not the big deal
that it was, 35 years, or a lifetime ago. Today people travel
more, are better informed through better communication, etc,
its generally made them more tolerant and broad minded, then
decades ago. Its certainly nowhere near the real hatred that
I experienced in the US deep south.

What there will always be to a degree, is a bit of tribalism,
which is seemingly part of our human nature. People are often
wary of those who think a bit differently then they do.

You yourself showed it on OLO, with your Ludwig case, not wanting
your family to associate with somebody who thinks a little
differently to yourself. That is hardly tolerant and very
much tribal. You are as guilty as others. In fact, you
are clearly far less tolerant then somebody like myself or
Ludwig.

So if you want to lecture about racism, I will lecture you on
your own display of tribalism

Cheers Rex, that was a thoughtful and coherent response. You’ve clarified your previously blunt statements.

You didn’t give any serious argument at all to whether or not the actions themselves were racist (other than claiming that “inherent” is a weasel word, whatever that means), and you instead focused on the international coverage and the consequences of the skit in terms of international relations. As far as I can tell, you’re effectively only arguing about my second issue.

Therefore, you haven’t so much shown that the two issues are “intertwined”- rather, your argument, it seems, tries to show that my distinction was irrelevant because the second issue should overshadow the first. This is clearly where our area of disagreement lies.

You argue that we should be more culturally aware and sensitive. But, how far do you want to take this? I’m sure there is plenty of racial history in the world that I’m not aware of, and nor should I be held responsible for being aware of it. If I do something which is somehow considered racist by someone, somewhere, because of some past events of which I am not aware or do not completely realize the severity or implications of, should I be held responsible for the reaction and thus labeled a racist for doing such a thing? Clearly not. There is a limit to how culturally aware one can be. And this is why my distinction is important in this particular scenario.

The skit itself aired 20 years ago, and presumably no one mentioned any racial issues after the last time and before it was aired again, therefore it’s completely unreasonable of you or anyone else to hold the performers or the network responsible and label them as racist for repeating the same performance. I’m sure, if they had a crystal ball and could see the ensuing outrage, they’d drop the skit in an instant

So let’s face it- it only became an issue because Connick Junior kicked up a fuss. With a different judge, this never would’ve been a problem. There’s two other things we must remember here: 1. The media just likes having things to talk about and 2. People are reactionary by nature. You’re carrying on as if the international image of Australia has dropped like a lead balloon as the rest of the world goes off like a frog in a sock. Hardly. A couple of news stories, a couple of easily offended people took offense, but they’ve already forgotten about it. The international perception of Australia has hardly taken the beating that many are making out.

I’ll grant that a little bit of foresight might be in order next time, as it might be a case of once bitten, twice shy for some of the network bosses. But in the final analysis, on the international stage we should be taking the current opportunity to foster tolerance towards each other and understand each other’s cultures rather than throw inaccurate labels at each other, which are only generated by misunderstandings. And as Australians here in this country, we should remain proud of ourselves and our sense of humour, rather than berating each other for an unfortunate event which no one could see coming

CJ writes

'I bet if I was to have a few beers in the pub at Gnowangerup it wouldn't be very long at all before I encountered racist language or acts.'

I also bet if you had a drink in numerous WA communities you would be asked for a drink and if you refused would be called a white ... I doubt whether you would escape without being thumped despite your self righteous rants.

Aaah hahaha, this IS getting entertaining - even runner is boring it up CJ!! ( :>)

.
"You yourself [CJ Morgan] showed it on OLO, with your Ludwig case, not wanting
your family to associate with somebody who thinks a little
differently to yourself. That is hardly tolerant and very
much tribal. You are as guilty as others. In fact, you
are clearly far less tolerant then somebody like myself or
Ludwig.

So if you want to lecture about racism, I will lecture you on
your own display of tribalism."

Well said Yabby!

Racism is just one of many forms of intolerance. Another common form is shown abundantly on this forum by people who can't tolerate those who express different views and who can't respond without being narky. The king of this brigade is ol' CJ, by a country mile!

I find it just absolutely incredible that Mr Morgan can rabble on about racism while he so brazenly and abundantly expresses this other form of intolerance!!

Talk about the epitome of hypocrisy!

Hello Trav,

Trav>You didn’t give any serious argument at all to whether or not the actions themselves were racist

Not in that post, but to quote another from 12/Oct (pg 5... this has been going on for a while). I try not to just repeat the same statements and assume that participants have read all preceding posts.

RxMundi>Yes the skit was not intended to be racist, but the the props and costume caused it to be in the context of one of the panel judges

Trav>Therefore, you haven’t so much shown that the two issues are “intertwined”- rather, your argument, it seems, tries to show that my distinction was irrelevant because the second issue should overshadow the first. This is clearly where our area of disagreement lies.

Yes, and the reason why this thread has gone on for so long and why I have stopped posting (well except to agree with somebody in this instance). The two camps have deeper philosophical differences that are not going to be resolved on this thread.

I would also like to say that odo's post 15/Oct was a welcome voice of reason this late in an argument. Respect.

See yawl in another thread.

Rex