Houellie,

"...she may have been attempting to defend him as an oafish man."

Yes, I'm sure that was it.

I'm must say that it's been an education reading the myriad excuses for this particular example of racist abuse.

I think I'd have to award best prize for the most contorted rhetoric as that which bestows the onus on Goodes as the aggressor because he stood up for himself amidst the racist chants from the anonymous cowards.

Good afternoon to you CSTEELE...

Thank you for your most comprehensive explanation as to your personal position on this question of '...Is it raciest...'? Firstly, you mentioned rising very early each morning ? I hope it's only work related, and NOT that you're unwell ?

Admissions of your earlier participation in verbal racism, and thereafter, you painful moral dilemma occasioned by those iniquitous activities, I can both acknowledge, and understand.

Furthermore, I can also understand that you'd suffered greatly, of a guilt you felt, because of your unreasonable behaviour in the company of others. To such a point there was a righteous, even an ethical awakening, and as a consequence you experienced a complete moral transformation, a total reversal, against all forms of racist thinking and behaviour.

CSTEELE - old man, that particular statement, took some considerable mettle even personal fortitude, for you to make here, on this a public forum.

Do I agree with the thrust of your argument, or position as you've carefully enunciated herein ? In principle, yes I do, in fact I can't see for the life of me how such a position could be criticised.

However, you know as well as I, there are many within that particular community that bring much of the criticism levelled against them upon themselves. By their public behaviour, and many other forms of 'behaviours' that are far too numerous to enumerate herein. Still back to the topic.

I do appreciate what you've said, absolutely. Do I still maintain that Mr Goode 'should have' ignored the taunt from the girl, yes I do, but I do also appreciate that he may well have suffered a distinct 'hurt', and for that, I'm very very sorry.

Look mate you're right, no argument ! Maybe it's a case of, '...sticks n' stones may break my bones...' ? There again CSTEELE, I'm NOT in the boots of Mr Adam GOODE, am I ? Perhaps it really was the straw that broke the Camel's back eh ?

While the thread is about quite a different thing, we are getting, in my view close to the needless inference the thread was about.
Yes the girl never should have said it.
Goode how ever would have been better telling her publicly so, and left it there, she is a child.
That day, that game, same one, an adult used far more offensive words, why not climb over the benches and confront him?
Thugby league as the aerial ping pong followers call the worlds best football, as is the case for EVERY GAME, brings out the worst in many.
Ape would be flattery in relation to things I was called in 14 years of playing the game.
Cool calm collected face to face worked then it will now.
But do not put this bloke or the girl down, far worse takes place in any drinking place in the world.
Eddy? the bloke is a fool.

"I'm must say that it's been an education reading the myriad excuses for this particular example of racist abuse."

Well there need be no excuse for the behavior, that's irrelevant to me, I've said at the least it's ignorant, insensitive, whatever, it's the assigning of motive that I have an issue with. Nobody really knows that girls feelings about black people. She probably doesn't have different feelings to black people than white people. How really do you think you're in a position to make such a personal analysis on someone you don't know because she used 1 word?

I'm sick of this theme of people blindly assigning motive based on their own sensitivities or political ideology.

To some Jews, any criticism of Israel is antisemitic.
To most feminists, any individual act of violence, sexism, watching any porn, whatever is misogyny.
To a hammer everything is a nail.

Maybe so in this case, my argument is not NECESSARILY so.

People can say things against Israels right to exist and not actually hate Jews.

People can do umpteen things to a particular woman, and make sexist stereotypes without actually hating all women.

People can depict a West Indian cricketer enjoying some fried chicken without being racist.

People can call someone a monkey without actually being racist.

It's all just lazy labeling 100% in line with the calling someone an ape.

Why is it worse to call a black man a monkey than a white one? Tell me Poirot. Prove to me that a black man is by definition different to me, and needs to continue to be defined as different in how the world addresses him. What ends does this serve?

Is every black man born, every Jew, every woman, every viking descendant in the next 500 years to be tip-toed around based on something that happened 100 years ago?

Where does it end? Why isn't Witch as offensive? Why isn't Bastard?

poirot: grooming his fellow players for parasites.

Aah, City folk. You've never had lunch with a lot of snotty, runny nosed Aboriginal kids grooming each other for nits, have you? :-)

Houellebeq: calling a man an ape is not necessarily racist.

Would it be sexist then? No? No, men have power so what ever they say & do is "ist" something. Well according to feminists anyway.

The strangest things with Feminists. They hate men so much they do their best to look & dress like men. Boiler suits & hairy legs & armpits, etc. Why is that?

I have just realized that most of this racist stuff comes from the so called "Civilized" South East of Australia. Victoria & Sydney mostly & people that play AFL a lot. Why is that?

Oh Goody, an academic has decided to be the Judge on what is racist.

8. Is it racist to talk about skin colour but not in a way that's necessarily derogatory, for example, 'His skin is so black you can barely see him in the dark'.
Statements like this may not be racist, if you were making a statement that you knew to be true. Skin colour is a hot area thought. Again, context from the perspective of the person about whom you are speaking is important. Something to consider, for example, is that skin colour has been used in Australia to try and make out that lighter skinned Aboriginal people are somehow less Aboriginal than those with darker colour.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/is-it-racist-to--your-racism-questions-answered-20130531-2ngcy.html#ixzz2UqhXO5wx

So, he agrees with me on the monkey thing. I think Goodes looks a bit like a monkey, certainly more like a monkey than Kevin Hardwick who used to play for Balmain, who looked more like a Viking. So if you genuinely believe Goodes looks a bit like a monkey, it's not racist.

But he does contradict himself, basically the whole article he says anyone who is offended gets to decide. I can choose identify with my aboriginal background, and decide anyone who comments that I have such a dark tan is racist. He says if Eddie feels he identifies with any black heritage, Goodes calling Him and ape would also be racist. he doesn't mention sexist anywhere, so all feminists are off the hook. Though, indirectly, they are really a bunch of hateful racists, because there are many black athletes.

racist: a person with a prejudiced belief that one race is superior to others.

On the basis of any joke, or off hand remark about my tan, I can legitimately label that person as someone who believes that one race is superior to others.

Amazing that I get to make such a call with so little evidence, and label someone like that. Cool!